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

Re: [bolger] Re: Martha Jane on Ebay

Expand Messages
  • Andres Espino
    I wondered if the dif in headroom was that from the seat to the cabin roof, or sole to the cabin roof. In the specs for my sharpie they are measured from seat
    Message 1 of 18 , Nov 4, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      I wondered if the dif in headroom was that from the seat to the cabin roof, or sole to the cabin roof. In the specs for my sharpie they are measured from seat to roof :) I found it a bit confusing...

      Andrew

      proto957 <helio6@...> wrote:
      I agree it looks like a good one. I really like these... I think they
      are beautiful.

      The bidding was higher at one point... over $4,500. But the high bid
      was retracted because the seller "changed the description". I believe
      the reasoning was the change in the headroom measurement... from 4
      1/2' to 3 1/2'. But 3 1/2' seems low to me, looking at the pics, and
      comparing them to the guy standing by the boat. Do the water ballast
      tanks take up sole height? I had assumed the tanks would be on the
      sides, and the sole would be the boat bottom. I looked through many
      Martha Jane sites on the web, but could not find an answer to this.

      I wish I had built this boat, or a Long Micro, instead of my Elver in
      '92. Rich.

      --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > US$4051.00 & just 12 hours to go.
      >
      > I think I much prefer the looks of the original, as shown here, to
      > the upgraded versions. The all white paint scheme suits too - like
      > the one in Alaska.
      >
      > It's very,very interesting to read the seller's comments that it
      > doesn't need those Bolger reserve bouyancy mods at all. I wonder if
      > he tested?
      >
      > Looks a good boat.
      >
      > Graeme
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "proto957" <helio6@> wrote:
      > >
      > > I've been watching it, too: Ebay Item number: 250180856975
      > > http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?
      > ViewItem&ih=015&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%
      > 3AIT&viewitem=&item=250180856975&rd=1
      > >
      > > It started at $3,500, and has no bids as of today,> --- In
      > bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > It looks like the Martha Jane built by William D Jochems
      >





      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      http://mail.yahoo.com

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Andres Espino
      I buy and sell a lot on ebay (not boats) and it is against sBay rules to bid on your own auctions. They will boot you out if they catch you. Many people do
      Message 2 of 18 , Nov 4, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        I buy and sell a lot on ebay (not boats) and it is against sBay rules to bid on your own auctions. They will boot you out if they catch you. Many people do it by having a wife or family member bid for them tho.. It happens a lot.

        Andrew


        Mark Balogh <mark@...> wrote:
        When I checked on the auction at the time it was over $4000 it appeared
        to me that the seller was actually bidding on his own auction to drive
        up the price. When I went to check the sellers statistics against the
        bidder who appeared to be the seller I got a message from ebay that
        they had suspended the auction. When I went back all the bids by the
        bidder that appeared to be the seller had been removed and the price
        was reduced to reflect the bids not including the ones who appeared to
        be the seller. Apparently ebay does not view it as ethical that the
        seller bid up his own auction.

        Mark

        On Nov 3, 2007, at 11:51 AM, proto957 wrote:

        > I agree it looks like a good one. I really like these... I think they
        > are beautiful.
        >
        > The bidding was higher at one point... over $4,500. But the high bid
        > was retracted because the seller "changed the description". I believe
        > the reasoning was the change in the headroom measurement... from 4
        > 1/2' to 3 1/2'. But 3 1/2' seems low to me, looking at the pics, and
        > comparing them to the guy standing by the boat. Do the water ballast
        > tanks take up sole height? I had assumed the tanks would be on the
        > sides, and the sole would be the boat bottom. I looked through many
        > Martha Jane sites on the web, but could not find an answer to this.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
        http://mail.yahoo.com

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Andres Espino
        I joined this group hoping to learn more about the cruiser and other of bolger s longer sailing craft.. there are so many different and irregular aspects to
        Message 3 of 18 , Nov 4, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          I joined this group hoping to learn more about the cruiser and other of bolger's longer sailing craft.. there are so many different and irregular aspects to the design like the Cat rig and leeboards. the Bolger page is mostly plans not much detains about how the boats look or the designs and other pros and cons.. everyone just says "buy the book" LOL

          Andrew

          martha2001au <cmoone11@...> wrote:

          If she'd been for sale in Australia at that price I would have snapped
          it up in second! I sailed once on Graham Cheers MJ Shirley Valentine
          and my lasting impression was its power and speed, not to mention the
          great cockit configuration, trailerability, etc etc...

          Col





          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
          http://mail.yahoo.com

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • graeme19121984
          Hey Col, How did you find those aft sponson upgrades looked in the actual built boat? In the pics of boats such as Shirley Valentine they seem to me not to
          Message 4 of 18 , Nov 5, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Hey Col,

            How did you find those aft sponson upgrades looked in the actual built
            boat?

            In the pics of boats such as "Shirley Valentine" they seem to me not to
            detract from the looks when in profile view (can hardly be seen), but
            can seem ungainly in other views. I was wondering if that may be just
            an artifact of the photography...

            Graeme


            --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "martha2001au" <cmoone11@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > If she'd been for sale in Australia at that price I would have
            snapped
            > it up in second! I sailed once on Graham Cheers MJ Shirley Valentine
            > and my lasting impression was its power and speed, not to mention the
            > great cockit configuration, trailerability, etc etc...
            >
            > Col
            >
          • Greg Flemming
            Yes Graeme, interesting about the mods, however, he also mentioned that he changed the masts to aluminium tube which must have a significant impact on the
            Message 5 of 18 , Nov 6, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Yes Graeme, interesting about the mods, however, he also mentioned
              that he changed the masts to aluminium tube which must have a
              significant impact on the balance
              Greg F

              --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
              wrote:
              >
              > US$4051.00 & just 12 hours to go.
              >
              > I think I much prefer the looks of the original, as shown here, to
              > the upgraded versions. The all white paint scheme suits too - like
              > the one in Alaska.
              >
              > It's very,very interesting to read the seller's comments that it
              > doesn't need those Bolger reserve bouyancy mods at all. I wonder if
              > he tested?
              >
              > Looks a good boat.
              >
              > Graeme
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "proto957" <helio6@> wrote:
              > >
              > > I've been watching it, too: Ebay Item number: 250180856975
              > > http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?
              > ViewItem&ih=015&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%
              > 3AIT&viewitem=&item=250180856975&rd=1
              > >
              > > It started at $3,500, and has no bids as of today,> --- In
              > bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > It looks like the Martha Jane built by William D Jochems
              >
            • graeme19121984
              Searching around the net for any newer info on Martha Jane(s) I again came across the Jim Michalak Newsletter page November 1, 2000
              Message 6 of 18 , Nov 6, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Searching around the net for any newer info on Martha Jane(s) I
                again came across the Jim Michalak Newsletter page November 1, 2000
                http://members.fortunecity.com/duckworks/2000/1101/

                I don't lightly differ with an opinion of Mr Michalak, but it struck
                me that a particular warning he gives for boats generally may not
                apply for the example he gives of Bob Archibald's then recently
                acquired Martha Jane.

                Take a look at the third sketch above the caption "KEEP SEATS
                WATERTIGHT!" Looking at JM's styleized sketch of Martha Jane it
                occurs to me that water tight cockpit seats just might be the factor
                that resulted in some early Martha Janes rolling over much further
                than 90degrees after a knockdown. Consider that a waterballast tank
                has a volume of about 4 cubic feet and a cockpit seat encloses a
                volume of what, say, 5 to 6 cubic feet.

                Consider that once the Martha Jane was knocked to its beam ends
                there would be 250lbs of water ballast now up in the air and waving
                about, and that there would be a significant amount of the large
                cockpit seat watertight volume pushed below the waterline. In the
                beam ends attitude the cockpit seat volume would be offset to the
                wrong side of the beam ends centre of bouyancy which would mostly be
                that of the cabin volume. This unwholsome coupling of weight up in
                the air and more or less counteracting seat bouyancy linearly in
                line with it (if not actually directly below it) could easily tip
                the boat at least so far that water would gain entry via the hatch
                and lead to the early reported flooding incidents that greatly
                concerned many.

                If the cockpit seats were not water tight the Martha Jane perhaps
                would just sit on her beam ends when knocked down... but then of
                course the motor etc. would not be supported by their flotation
                volume... Does anyone know if in the upgrade for the aft sponsons
                the seats are able to have hinged lids for under seat storage access
                because the flotation there is no longer necessary, and whether it
                may be advantageous if they actually flood?

                The added sponsons act against the boat tipping past beam ends. The
                addition of a 500lb steel plate design upgrade below the bottom
                would also serve to act in this way. The trouble there is that
                Martha Jane was designed to do away with fixed ballast to make for a
                better trailer sailer than Black Skimmer - with the added 500lbs
                steel ballast is there any advantage?

                Does anyone know if the original water ballast tanks are done away
                with and their space is freed up for storage etc. when the steel
                plate ballast option is installed?

                Graeme
              • martha2001au
                Hi Graeme, Good to hear from you again! As you can tell I m still pining after a Martha Jane, got distracted though and built a Surf, then work, family,bills,
                Message 7 of 18 , Nov 6, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Graeme,
                  Good to hear from you again! As you can tell I'm still pining after
                  a Martha Jane, got distracted though and built a Surf, then work,
                  family,bills, you know the drill. I still have all your letters on
                  building and rigging advice on hand ready to go.

                  From my reading of the upgrades, the 500lb shoe is in addition to
                  the water ballast. I liked your idea of adding extra water ballast -
                  do you know how much extra weight in water was added by your mods?
                  Also my original uprades don't mention and storage ability for the
                  cockpit seats.

                  I must admit I wasn't fond of the look of the sponsons at first, but
                  I am getting used to them. The way I'm thinking at the moment,If I
                  ever get to build I'd go with the aluminium mast, extra water
                  ballast, and sponsons. I think she's heavy enough to trailer
                  without an extra 500lb of dead weight.

                  Interesting theory on having free flooding seats - as long as theres
                  enough reserve bouyancy in the sponsons.

                  All the best,

                  Col


                  ups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Searching around the net for any newer info on Martha Jane(s) I
                  > again came across the Jim Michalak Newsletter page November 1,
                  2000
                  > http://members.fortunecity.com/duckworks/2000/1101/
                  >
                  > I don't lightly differ with an opinion of Mr Michalak, but it
                  struck
                  > me that a particular warning he gives for boats generally may not
                  > apply for the example he gives of Bob Archibald's then recently
                  > acquired Martha Jane.
                  >
                  > Take a look at the third sketch above the caption "KEEP SEATS
                  > WATERTIGHT!" Looking at JM's styleized sketch of Martha Jane it
                  > occurs to me that water tight cockpit seats just might be the
                  factor
                  > that resulted in some early Martha Janes rolling over much further
                  > than 90degrees after a knockdown. Consider that a waterballast
                  tank
                  > has a volume of about 4 cubic feet and a cockpit seat encloses a
                  > volume of what, say, 5 to 6 cubic feet.
                  >
                  > Consider that once the Martha Jane was knocked to its beam ends
                  > there would be 250lbs of water ballast now up in the air and
                  waving
                  > about, and that there would be a significant amount of the large
                  > cockpit seat watertight volume pushed below the waterline. In the
                  > beam ends attitude the cockpit seat volume would be offset to the
                  > wrong side of the beam ends centre of bouyancy which would mostly
                  be
                  > that of the cabin volume. This unwholsome coupling of weight up in
                  > the air and more or less counteracting seat bouyancy linearly in
                  > line with it (if not actually directly below it) could easily tip
                  > the boat at least so far that water would gain entry via the hatch
                  > and lead to the early reported flooding incidents that greatly
                  > concerned many.
                  >
                  > If the cockpit seats were not water tight the Martha Jane perhaps
                  > would just sit on her beam ends when knocked down... but then of
                  > course the motor etc. would not be supported by their flotation
                  > volume... Does anyone know if in the upgrade for the aft sponsons
                  > the seats are able to have hinged lids for under seat storage
                  access
                  > because the flotation there is no longer necessary, and whether it
                  > may be advantageous if they actually flood?
                  >
                  > The added sponsons act against the boat tipping past beam ends.
                  The
                  > addition of a 500lb steel plate design upgrade below the bottom
                  > would also serve to act in this way. The trouble there is that
                  > Martha Jane was designed to do away with fixed ballast to make for
                  a
                  > better trailer sailer than Black Skimmer - with the added 500lbs
                  > steel ballast is there any advantage?
                  >
                  > Does anyone know if the original water ballast tanks are done away
                  > with and their space is freed up for storage etc. when the steel
                  > plate ballast option is installed?
                  >
                  > Graeme
                  >
                • graeme19121984
                  ... after ... on ... Hi Col, good to hear from you too. Those letters would be from someone else, surely, but if you start I ll be very interested in following
                  Message 8 of 18 , Nov 7, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "martha2001au" <cmoone11@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Hi Graeme,
                    > Good to hear from you again! As you can tell I'm still pining
                    after
                    > a Martha Jane, got distracted though and built a Surf, then work,
                    > family,bills, you know the drill. I still have all your letters
                    on
                    > building and rigging advice on hand ready to go.
                    >

                    Hi Col,

                    good to hear from you too. Those letters would be from someone else,
                    surely, but if you start I'll be very interested in following your
                    progress. It wouldn't take much at all to get me down there in big
                    river country to help with turning the hull either. Good luck with
                    that, and do give a shout if extra muscle is required at any stage.


                    > From my reading of the upgrades, the 500lb shoe is in addition to
                    > the water ballast. I liked your idea of adding extra water
                    ballast -
                    > do you know how much extra weight in water was added by your
                    mods?
                    > Also my original uprades don't mention and storage ability for the
                    > cockpit seats.

                    I'm not sure that was my idea, but now you mention it, why not add
                    extra water ballast? Maybe the forward half of the cockpit seats
                    could be flooding too, and the aft half watertight to float the
                    motor?

                    Looking at the BWAOM chapter on WhaleWatcher, designed after Martha
                    Jane, where PCB mentions an earlier incident involving one of his
                    water ballasted designs capsising and flooding, I note how much
                    higher the watertight cockpit seat volumes are relative to the
                    waterballast volumes. The seats are high it is said so that the
                    helmsman may see over the cabin, but this also serves as extra
                    insurance for the WW birdwatcher hull type in a knockdown event. It
                    may arise from a lesson learned again in Martha Jane - flotation
                    high, ballast low.



                    >
                    > I must admit I wasn't fond of the look of the sponsons at first,
                    but
                    > I am getting used to them. The way I'm thinking at the moment,If
                    I
                    > ever get to build I'd go with the aluminium mast, extra water
                    > ballast, and sponsons. I think she's heavy enough to trailer
                    > without an extra 500lb of dead weight.
                    >

                    I guess it will weigh-in somewhere near the Black Skimmer, but it
                    does have a much more trailer friendly rig!

                    > Interesting theory on having free flooding seats - as long as
                    theres
                    > enough reserve bouyancy in the sponsons.

                    Yeah, it's just a theory though. I'm not sure about the entire
                    volume being free flooding???

                    Cheers
                    Graeme
                  • Col
                    Sorry Graeme, Thought you were Graham Cheers, owner of Shirley Valentine. (doh!) He wrote to Bolger and had approved his suggestion to build in extra water
                    Message 9 of 18 , Nov 8, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Sorry Graeme,
                      Thought you were Graham Cheers, owner of Shirley Valentine. (doh!)
                      He wrote to Bolger and had approved his suggestion to build in extra
                      water ballast when this stability question came up - by all reports
                      it has been very successful. His boats up for sale at the moment on
                      the Duck Flat website - I have a lottery ticket in my wallet......

                      Col


                      In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
                      wrote:
                      >
                      > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "martha2001au" <cmoone11@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > Hi Graeme,
                      > > Good to hear from you again! As you can tell I'm still pining
                      > after
                      > > a Martha Jane, got distracted though and built a Surf, then
                      work,
                      > > family,bills, you know the drill. I still have all your letters
                      > on
                      > > building and rigging advice on hand ready to go.
                      > >
                      >
                      > Hi Col,
                      >
                      > good to hear from you too. Those letters would be from someone
                      else,
                      > surely, but if you start I'll be very interested in following your
                      > progress. It wouldn't take much at all to get me down there in big
                      > river country to help with turning the hull either. Good luck with
                      > that, and do give a shout if extra muscle is required at any stage.
                      >
                      >
                      > > From my reading of the upgrades, the 500lb shoe is in addition
                      to
                      > > the water ballast. I liked your idea of adding extra water
                      > ballast -
                      > > do you know how much extra weight in water was added by your
                      > mods?
                      > > Also my original uprades don't mention and storage ability for
                      the
                      > > cockpit seats.
                      >
                      > I'm not sure that was my idea, but now you mention it, why not add
                      > extra water ballast? Maybe the forward half of the cockpit seats
                      > could be flooding too, and the aft half watertight to float the
                      > motor?
                      >
                      > Looking at the BWAOM chapter on WhaleWatcher, designed after
                      Martha
                      > Jane, where PCB mentions an earlier incident involving one of his
                      > water ballasted designs capsising and flooding, I note how much
                      > higher the watertight cockpit seat volumes are relative to the
                      > waterballast volumes. The seats are high it is said so that the
                      > helmsman may see over the cabin, but this also serves as extra
                      > insurance for the WW birdwatcher hull type in a knockdown event.
                      It
                      > may arise from a lesson learned again in Martha Jane - flotation
                      > high, ballast low.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > >
                      > > I must admit I wasn't fond of the look of the sponsons at first,
                      > but
                      > > I am getting used to them. The way I'm thinking at the
                      moment,If
                      > I
                      > > ever get to build I'd go with the aluminium mast, extra water
                      > > ballast, and sponsons. I think she's heavy enough to trailer
                      > > without an extra 500lb of dead weight.
                      > >
                      >
                      > I guess it will weigh-in somewhere near the Black Skimmer, but it
                      > does have a much more trailer friendly rig!
                      >
                      > > Interesting theory on having free flooding seats - as long as
                      > theres
                      > > enough reserve bouyancy in the sponsons.
                      >
                      > Yeah, it's just a theory though. I'm not sure about the entire
                      > volume being free flooding???
                      >
                      > Cheers
                      > Graeme
                      >
                    • Bruce Hallman
                      For those who haven t noticed, Mike Stockstill is presently selling his Martha Jane on eBay, basically for the cost of the trailer! If I didn t already own
                      Message 10 of 18 , Jan 31, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        For those who haven't noticed, Mike Stockstill is presently selling
                        his Martha Jane on eBay, basically for the cost of the trailer! If I
                        didn't already own ten boats, I am seriously tempted to bid.
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.