Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re:Modify a Windsprint?

Expand Messages
  • Matthew Lawson
    To give Windsprint more freeboard means major changes in the layout of the side panels on the sheets of plywood, turning an incredibly materials-efficient
    Message 1 of 9 , Apr 1, 2007
      To give Windsprint more freeboard means major changes in the layout of the
      side panels on the sheets of plywood, turning an incredibly
      materials-efficient design into a plywood hog (comparatively). If you are
      willing to do that, then you might think about other designs. Hiking out in
      a stiff breeze does a lot to retain freeboard, and if you have another body
      for ballast, you shouldn't have much problem. Putting the design in
      Hulls.exe with a 900 lb load, I think the model showed 8 inches of
      freeboard. That kind of load is almost inconceivable, given the space
      constraints in the boat.



      Decking bow and stern is not a bad idea, especially if you make sealable
      flotation chambers. If you are decking to have a deck, you could bring it
      along the length of the gunwales to give your keister a break when hiking.
      Also, if you did that, you would effectively gain another several inches of
      freeboard, because the gunwale would have to go well under before water
      pours over the deck. Of course, that's when you would want those big
      flotation chambers.



      --Matt Lawson

      Trenton, NJ



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Christopher Wetherill
      Matt, Here is my concern. Look at Patrick Crockkett s pictures here: http://home.nc.rr.com/pcrockett/boats.html The photo showing two adults and a child
      Message 2 of 9 , Apr 1, 2007
        Matt,

        Here is my concern. Look at Patrick Crockkett's pictures here:
        http://home.nc.rr.com/pcrockett/boats.html The photo showing two
        adults and a child aboard running close hauled doesn't show a lot of
        reserve against heeling and "burying the rail". Coupled with the
        numerous descriptions of swamping of Windsprints, I was inspired to
        contemplate the behaviors that could result in me taking an unplanned
        swim.

        The precipitating event in the descriptions I have read is the boom
        going under water. This would drag the hull across the wind.
        Knockdown would be inevitable. My thinking is that if the draft and
        heel combine to put the gunwale under then the swim would be just as
        certain.

        My options are to build as drawn, build with extra freeboard, and
        build with deck and combing. Building with deck and combing would
        result in a cockpit with reduced width. Since I am almost 50, 6'
        220#, and have troublesome knees, This is not too appealing. I
        therefore limit the decking to the ends of the hull and consider the
        freeboard.

        Decking the ends would add at least one sheet. Increasing the width
        of the sides would add another. I am trying to decide if the time and
        materials difference is worthwhile.

        V/R
        Chris


        --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Matthew Lawson" <mplawson@...> wrote:
        >
        > To give Windsprint more freeboard means major changes in the layout
        of the
        > side panels on the sheets of plywood, turning an incredibly
        > materials-efficient design into a plywood hog (comparatively).
      • Jon & Wanda(Tink)
        I would think it may raise the COG and cause more heeling. It may be better to add 4-6 in width at center of force spredding the bow a little as well as the
        Message 3 of 9 , Apr 1, 2007
          I would think it may raise the COG and cause more heeling. It may be
          better to add 4-6" in width at center of force spredding the bow a
          little as well as the stern then deck.

          Jon

          --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher Wetherill"
          <wetherillc@...> wrote:
          >
          > Matt,
          >
          > Here is my concern. Look at Patrick Crockkett's pictures here:
          > http://home.nc.rr.com/pcrockett/boats.html The photo showing two
          > adults and a child aboard running close hauled doesn't show a lot of
          > reserve against heeling and "burying the rail". Coupled with the
          > numerous descriptions of swamping of Windsprints, I was inspired to
          > contemplate the behaviors that could result in me taking an
          unplanned
          > swim.
          >
          > The precipitating event in the descriptions I have read is the boom
          > going under water. This would drag the hull across the wind.
          > Knockdown would be inevitable. My thinking is that if the draft and
          > heel combine to put the gunwale under then the swim would be just as
          > certain.
          >
          > My options are to build as drawn, build with extra freeboard, and
          > build with deck and combing. Building with deck and combing would
          > result in a cockpit with reduced width. Since I am almost 50, 6'
          > 220#, and have troublesome knees, This is not too appealing. I
          > therefore limit the decking to the ends of the hull and consider the
          > freeboard.
          >
          > Decking the ends would add at least one sheet. Increasing the width
          > of the sides would add another. I am trying to decide if the time
          and
          > materials difference is worthwhile.
          >
          > V/R
          > Chris
          >
          >
          > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Matthew Lawson" <mplawson@> wrote:
          > >
          > > To give Windsprint more freeboard means major changes in the
          layout
          > of the
          > > side panels on the sheets of plywood, turning an incredibly
          > > materials-efficient design into a plywood hog (comparatively).
        • Matthew Lawson
          Chris: I appreciate your concerns. Windsprint is really a very small boat. The pointy ends, though beautiful, make LOA deciptive, add no bouyancy, and
          Message 4 of 9 , Apr 2, 2007
            Chris:

            I appreciate your concerns. Windsprint is really a very small boat.
            The pointy ends, though beautiful, make LOA deciptive, add no bouyancy,
            and constrain interior space. Before I built I strongly considered a
            stretched punt. After being out a few times, I wished I had done that
            or scaled the design to 18'. Oh well. I'm pleased overall. And she
            IS a beautiful boat.

            I have not had a knockdown, but then I didn't go with the balance lug
            as designed, which may make a difference. I've got sketches for my
            sprit-boomed sprit sail in bolger2\files\windsprint stuff. The foot of
            the sail is angled up, so I think I would sink the gunwale before I had
            a knockdown on any point of sailing. Or maybe I'm chicken. Maybe this
            summer, with warm water, all flotation, and my bailing bucket, I'll see
            how far I can press it.

            (Patrick: nice kayak! I've thought of building one next. Wait, Chris,
            why don't you just leapfrog the Windsprint, build a CLC kayak, and get
            the CLC outrigger and sea kayak sail kit. If you want to sprint on the
            wind, I think that may be your best bet. Or a hobie cat. Or an ice
            boat.)

            --Matt

            --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher Wetherill" <wetherillc@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > Matt,
            >
            > Here is my concern. Look at Patrick Crockkett's pictures here:
            > http://home.nc.rr.com/pcrockett/boats.html The photo showing two
            > adults and a child aboard running close hauled doesn't show a lot of
            > reserve against heeling and "burying the rail". Coupled with the
            > numerous descriptions of swamping of Windsprints, I was inspired to
            > contemplate the behaviors that could result in me taking an unplanned
            > swim.
          • Patrick Crockett
            Chris: Lots of people make water-tight compartments fore and aft for flotation, and therefore deck over the bow and stern. I put a deck about 4 below the
            Message 5 of 9 , Apr 2, 2007
              Chris:

              Lots of people make water-tight compartments fore and aft for flotation,
              and therefore deck over the bow and stern. I put a deck about 4" below
              the gunwales forward (back to the mast step), making a place where I was
              comfortable letting my daughter lounge from the time she was 4. Now that
              she's 13, she kind of hangs over the edges when she lounges up there,
              but it is still where she goes when she is not steering. I made an
              after-deck from the rear thwart back, about 2" below the gunwales. I
              throw stuff back there to get it out of the way -- water bottles,
              cushions, stern painter, etc. I haven't yet bothered with the
              water-tight compartment thing, I just stacked up some closed cell foam
              and put plywood on top of that. Someday, I'll finish the boat.

              Windsprint was specifically designed to fit into 4 sheets of plywood. If
              you add freeboard, you'll have to buy another sheet. I don't think it
              will be quite as pretty. OTOH, another 2 inches might have saved me from
              a capsize last July 4th. Or not. I think that I have capsized more often
              from dragging the boom in the water (close reaching) than from excessive
              heel. Truly, the boat feels safest to me when close-hauled.

              I have needed to strengthen the rudder stock, reinforce the daggerboard
              trunk where it attaches to the side of the boat, and repair the mast
              step when the mast chewed it up -- not sure if that was during a capsize
              or when we broke the rudder and were flopping around in large waves with
              a fair bit of wind (and a ferry waiting for us to get out of the way).

              Some photos of my boat are in the photos section of the Bolger group:
              http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/photos/browse/49d7?c=
              and some others are at: http://www.patrickcrockett.com/boats/boats.html
              One photo on the latter page looks like the gunwale is perilously close
              to the water, but I'm pretty sure we didn't ship any water that trip. My
              daughter was OK with tippy-ness at that age, but would have been pretty
              worried about water coming in. Part of what makes it look perilous is
              the fact that the bow wave lifts up almost to the gunwale -- note that
              at the ends the water is not so tall.

              BTW, when you buy (or build) a sail, be _sure_ to have the second reef
              put in -- if you single-hand the boat in any breeze at all, you will be
              glad to have it. And figure out a way to reef the sail while under way.
              I also found that a 2-part sheet was very helpful (and an over-sized one
              -- I have 1/2" soft yacht braid). I tie off to the rudder stock, run the
              sheet to the end of the boom, along the boom, and back to my hand from a
              block at mid-boom. Much more comfortable when the wind pipes up than the
              designed 1-part sheet (end of the boom to the rudder to the hand).

              Patrick


              Christopher Wetherill wrote:
              > I am warming up to build a Windsprint this spring. I am considering
              > giving it about 2 extra inches of freeboard. Some of the pictures I
              > have seen look like the gunwale is perilously close to the water close
              > hauled. I would appreciate opinions of this idea and the possibility
              > of decking over the bow and stern.
              >
              > V/R
              > Chris
              >
              >
              >
              > Bolger rules!!!
              > - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!
              > - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, or flogging dead horses
              > - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
              > - Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
              > - Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
              > - Unsubscribe: bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              > - Open discussion: bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
            • graeme19121984
              ... Chris, as you would then be into a six sheet boat have you thought of other instants of around that size, eg COLD-WATER SAILBOARD, or JINNI? Freeboard not
              Message 6 of 9 , Apr 4, 2007
                --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher Wetherill" <wetherillc@...>
                wrote:
                > Decking the ends would add at least one sheet. Increasing the width
                > of the sides would add another. I am trying to decide if the time
                >and materials difference is worthwhile.

                Chris,

                as you would then be into a six sheet boat have you thought of other
                instants of around that size, eg COLD-WATER SAILBOARD, or JINNI?

                Freeboard not greatly increased, but bottom beam is, so with transom
                sterns these should stand up more to sail, and both have their own way
                for easy recovery should capsise ever [guaranteed ;-)] happen. The
                WINDSPRINT sail could be fitted to either with a little fiddling, if
                wanted

                Graeme
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.