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

Re: Bolger cruising trimaran?

Expand Messages
  • jhess314
    Bruce, Thanks for Flickr post. I, too, would appreciate seeing the scans of the rest of the articles. I see from Don s post that Ed Medalis probably didn t
    Message 1 of 30 , Mar 29, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Bruce,

      Thanks for Flickr post. I, too, would appreciate seeing the scans of the rest of the articles. I see from Don's post that Ed Medalis probably didn't build one.



      --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <hallman@...> wrote:
      >
      > Schopion Trimaran was described in a six page, two issue spread in May
      > of 1998, here is a scan of the first page of that article writeup. A
      > clever folding set of outriggers that nestle under a "step sharpie"
      > main hull to fit on a trailer.
      >
      > http://www.flickr.com/photos/hallman/4471065503/
      >
    • jhess314
      Proaconstrictor, What are the good trimaran designs or elements that have either not been developed to their potential, or have been abandoned prematurely?
      Message 2 of 30 , Mar 29, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Proaconstrictor,

        What are the good trimaran designs or elements that have either not been developed to their potential, or have been abandoned prematurely?

        What do you find about the Hughes and Brown designs that are compelling for sizes which are appropriate for ocean cruising? Could you elaborate further about the SeaClipper and SeaRunner designs? What is obsolete about them, or what could be improved?

        Why are trimarans now considered obsolete for ocean cruising? Is it just the whim of current fashion, or is there a more basic reason? If one were only interested in safe, long-distance cruising, not racing, could a trimaran be designed to carry a substantial load and still be weatherly?

        What did you mean when you said that "Plywood is no longer really practical under 30 feet"? Did you mean 'over' 30 feet? Either way, I'm not sure where you are coming from.

        And now to make a feeble attempt to bring this back to a Bolger topic, could a narrow, easy-to-build, Bolger square boat, but with a vee'd bow section, be used as the main hull for a trimaran? Possibly like the Schorpioen, but larger, and with no step in the hull for the amas to fit into?

        John


        --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "proaconstrictor" <proaconstrictor@...> wrote:
        >
        > I believe he did design a 35 footer...
        >
        > I would not touch any multihull he designed with a 10 foot pole. He just didn't get it, or alternatively was working in the dark zones. I mean there are things that multihulls can do that go largely unexplored. Both in terms of stuff one used to commonly see, out there, and stuff that is not commonly done. But in general I don't think he had an aptitude for it.
        >
        > If I was looking for an ocean capable catamaran that was easy to build, and possibly cheap, I would look at Oram, or Kelsall. Kelsall is a genius and while I tend not to be drawn to his stuff, I know a number of very dialed in people who went to one of his seminars on KISS and came away sold. Oram is probably the best current value guy for large cats. For trimarans. I would build anything Kurt Hughes designed, or Brown if speed and/or cost were an issue.
        >
        > Unfortunately with tris, nobody has really carried on the flame. There is an obvious need to get some decent boats in a simple format like stitch and glue, but nobody is doing it. The reason is that tris are largely considered obsolete for cruising (once you get over the folding/trilering sizes that Farrier does). Brown wise the Searunners are largely obsolete, and the beautiful constant camber boats kinda went down with the Dean Company. The Seaclippers make sense, but could also use some updating which probably won't happen under current conditions. One of the issues is that in the sizes people currently want in these boats some kind of core construction is really required. Plywood is no longer really practical under 30 feet. In NA there really isn't a solution to compare with Duflex down under.
        >
        > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" <j.hess@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Does anyone know if Bolger designed an ocean-capable cruising trimaran?
        > > Thanks, John
        > >
        >
      • Susanne@comcast.net
        John - and everyone, my mentioning of #649 was primarily to offer one option in case the global itinerary may end up pared down to somewhat less ambitious
        Message 3 of 30 , Mar 30, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          John - and everyone,
               my mentioning of #649 was primarily to offer one option in case the global itinerary may end up pared down to somewhat less ambitious plans including ready cross-continent passage behind a mid-size SUV or atop a container-carrier passage to 'faraway' - and to just remind folks of its existence once multi-hulls are in the mind.

          Having lived aboard full-time with Phil throughout 4-seasons incl. 5 winters in New England weather abord his/our RESOLUTION I do have a sense what even single-person sustainable life aboard might benefit from, whether in sweltering heat or being frozen-in solid in salt-water ice.  But we never circled the globe of course...

          Once going global is indeed firmly and doably on the table, then length-limitations should matter less and less, and real-world 3-4-season habitability should grow in relevance for de facto full-time living-aboard life-style.  A longer lean simple-to-build/fast-to-build main-hull might be a sound basis for such plans - and their successful execution all the way to Trans-Pac jaunts or peering at the North-West Passage...  Thus I'd venture investigating using a single hull of the DOUBLE EAGLE ("Great Sea") charter catamaran to develop a trimaran on.  Without "Great Sea"'s additions and alterations throughout the project, that simple lean sturdy hull-design makes a sound basis for a very different overall geometry, with or without changes to her profile.  Each hull is 40' x 4' with around 7000lbs displacement for structure, living-aboard amenities, and long-range provisions.  The 'unfashionable-for-a-multihull' profile of D.E. came from single-level big-room accommodations with tankage and storage deep in each hull, fit for 6-pak charter or just longer-autonomy 1-2-some living aboard.  The hull-design is thus suitable to start out with before adding wings & hulls to it.  With berths fore and aft, single-level 'waking-hours' living could be quite comfortable, in stark contrast to the 24/7/365 sleek-racer school of design which typically suffers from mad man-hour bills for 'sculpting', dictate quite thin skins, are typically uninsulatable for 3+ season utility, and are often very sensitive to loading true live-aboard-plus-trans-atlantic attributes and supplies.  'Fashions' do indeed confuse many 'lists of priorities' from clients over designers and builders and finally literature on 'desirable' geometries.  Since 40'x20'x6-berths and 6-person airy main cabin charter-boat DOUBLE EAGLE was built by one man in a longer narrow shop in at least three pieces (an heroic achievement if you let that sink in...), a tri should be doable in quite a bit less time, now taking advantage of lessons learned on our end.

          Plywood/cold-molding is useable from shoulder-size 5'6" SHOEBOX, over 149-pac party-boats working from New England to Key West, to (for instance) U.S. Navy's 14-vessel AVENGER-class of 1300+tons displacement on 200+ feet length, active since 1987 in all global tactical and climate challenges from their Texas base to Japan and Bahrain, expected to work for at least 30 years in (most serious) naval duty...  And unlike all petro-based/man-made materials, regrowable/domestically-sourceable wood and associated versions of it has not and might never suffer from the dramatic price-escalation that is inherent in all petro-based structural materials.  Petro-based epoxy is by weight a defensible fraction of the conventional/or exotic GRP-approaches, even though by value it might at times rival the cost of domestic marine ply by the time you add cloth, tape etc on a larger project - your experience may vary of course.  But when you embrace the comparative simplicity of one-off 'home-building' of sizeable structures such as TAHITI or DOUBLE EAGLE - without mold-building or cultivating the typically more challenging one-off all-synthetic approaches - you should be way ahead of any other construction-method.  And plywood floats in any thickness.  It may not be public information, but AVENGER-class's wood-volume might put her well on the way towards achieving 'sinking resistance' with a few more measures taken, such as via additional volumes of hard buoyancy.

          Susanne Altenburger, Phil Bolger & Friends

           
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: jhess314
          Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 6:08 PM
          Subject: [bolger] Re: Bolger cruising trimaran?

           



          Proaconstrictor,

          What are the good trimaran designs or elements that have either not been developed to their potential, or have been abandoned prematurely?

          What do you find about the Hughes and Brown designs that are compelling for sizes which are appropriate for ocean cruising? Could you elaborate further about the SeaClipper and SeaRunner designs? What is obsolete about them, or what could be improved?

          Why are trimarans now considered obsolete for ocean cruising? Is it just the whim of current fashion, or is there a more basic reason? If one were only interested in safe, long-distance cruising, not racing, could a trimaran be designed to carry a substantial load and still be weatherly?

          What did you mean when you said that "Plywood is no longer really practical under 30 feet"? Did you mean 'over' 30 feet? Either way, I'm not sure where you are coming from.

          And now to make a feeble attempt to bring this back to a Bolger topic, could a narrow, easy-to-build, Bolger square boat, but with a vee'd bow section, be used as the main hull for a trimaran? Possibly like the Schorpioen, but larger, and with no step in the hull for the amas to fit into?

          John

          --- In bolger@yahoogroups. com, "proaconstrictor" <proaconstrictor@ ...> wrote:
          >
          > I believe he did design a 35 footer...
          >
          > I would not touch any multihull he designed with a 10 foot pole. He just didn't get it, or alternatively was working in the dark zones. I mean there are things that multihulls can do that go largely unexplored. Both in terms of stuff one used to commonly see, out there, and stuff that is not commonly done. But in general I don't think he had an aptitude for it.
          >
          > If I was looking for an ocean capable catamaran that was easy to build, and possibly cheap, I would look at Oram, or Kelsall. Kelsall is a genius and while I tend not to be drawn to his stuff, I know a number of very dialed in people who went to one of his seminars on KISS and came away sold. Oram is probably the best current value guy for large cats. For trimarans. I would build anything Kurt Hughes designed, or Brown if speed and/or cost were an issue.
          >
          > Unfortunately with tris, nobody has really carried on the flame. There is an obvious need to get some decent boats in a simple format like stitch and glue, but nobody is doing it. The reason is that tris are largely considered obsolete for cruising (once you get over the folding/trilering sizes that Farrier does). Brown wise the Searunners are largely obsolete, and the beautiful constant camber boats kinda went down with the Dean Company. The Seaclippers make sense, but could also use some updating which probably won't happen under current conditions. One of the issues is that in the sizes people currently want in these boats some kind of core construction is really required. Plywood is no longer really practical under 30 feet. In NA there really isn't a solution to compare with Duflex down under.
          >
          > --- In bolger@yahoogroups. com, "jhess314" <j.hess@> wrote:
          > >
          > > Does anyone know if Bolger designed an ocean-capable cruising trimaran?
          > > Thanks, John
          > >
          >

        • proaconstrictor
          Mason, I always wanted to build a CC trimaran but it isn t as attractive with ply strips. If one goes to John Marples for the plans (as you know), he will
          Message 4 of 30 , Mar 30, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Mason, I always wanted to build a CC trimaran but it isn't as attractive with ply strips. If one goes to John Marples for the plans (as you know), he will give you a list of people who may supply the veneer. The venneer is still out there at a good price, judging by the price of plywood. I just could never find a supply for what I Wanted. Again, this could be one of those US vs Canada things, so people shouldn't rule it out in the US where there may be far more sources.

            Also, on parts like amas, small cat hulls, most pro parts, everything pretty much except trimaran main hulls (and not over 40 feet as far as I am concerned) tortured ply or CM make better hulls, faster for a lot less money. Best thing about CC in my experience was how backyardable it was. Bust out the panels in the garage, and the assembly was really realistic in one's yard, something one can't say for a lot of techniques that need a roof overhead.

            I love your CC boats, by the way.
          • proaconstrictor
            IMO PB&F definitely get what it takes for coastal cruising and ocean crossing. I would add that one could probably get a darn fine plywood skiff or sharpie
            Message 5 of 30 , Mar 30, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              "IMO PB&F definitely get what it takes for coastal
              cruising and ocean crossing."

              I would add that one could probably get a darn fine plywood skiff or sharpie out of Dick Newick.

              By the way, The Gougeons of WEST epoxy fame made some interesting fairly square trimarans with sharpie hulls in the early days, one of which was 35 feet and did the great circle route (Is that the inter-coastal/Mississippi route?). They built 2 24 footers, and for a client who was retired the 35 footer. This was near the very beginning of their careers. One of the boats was called Funky Tri, and is still in use in Florida today, last I heard.

              JR Watson did a great little article on the boat a long while back, in Multihulls international.
            • Susanne@comcast.net
              Back to soon, Susanne ?! One more note on Constant Camber-based designs. Along with several multihull-designers using CC, Mason Smith has demonstrated
              Message 6 of 30 , Mar 30, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Back to soon, Susanne ?!

                One more note on Constant Camber-based designs. 
                Along with several multihull-designers using CC, Mason Smith has demonstrated successfully and, I gather, reasonably lucratively across dozens of his ADIRONDACK GOODBOAT, CC is a technology that has its place in the design and construction of various types of craft - mono- and multi-hull. 

                On the other hand, after lengthy reflection, observation, study of for instance cruising/racing multis, Phil did not like having shape and thus every other aspect of hull- and layout-design dictated by the inherently compromize-based shape of the 'master-panel':

                - Many CC tris for instance end up quite deep and still are quite limited in 3+season live-aboard carrying capacity. 

                - Between shallower 'box'/other other ply-based hulls, hardchine, sturdy bottom, and the option to indulge in serious 'R' (or 'K') -value (to never have a condensation-drenched and eventually 'smelly' multi-season home), there is typically possible a happy confluence of various attributes from shallowest-draft per displacement, shallows board-up chine-sailing option, a serious 2nd if not 1st home (for what it might cost!) for various climates, and the option to add foam, ply, glass to nearly any level of impact-resistance for the unhappy encounters with inyielding things lurking out there. 

                - Furthermore, where lightest-weight for a pleasant shape - such as in a cartoppable GOODBOAT, or shells, etc., is not primary, the plywood-mill does a pretty good job of lamination the veneers in seconds, allowing us to focus our energies on the assembly of little pieces, bigger bulkheads ands full-length panels in likely shortest time amongs all comparable construction-methods, in part because of flat/gravity-assisted first if not final coatings (including glass on long, to-be-gently-curved panels), or same 'gravity-us-your-friend' approach but over simple flat-top sawhorses to build into the panel whatever curves you like, pre-curving and pre-finishing the piece for only modest adjustment and touch-ups once you hang the panel on the hull itself.

                - Finally, one happy (and predictable) side-effect/opportunity inherent in ply-based/box-midsection-based thinking and building is that - whether plain sharpie or Vee-Nose sharpie hulls for mono or multi projects - you can fairly-readily add displacement amidships or aft under her bottom-'plate', not to mention hardening her belly on ballasted mono-hulls with a quite massive steel-shoe (or even serious cruising multi-hull via skinny plate ), or later remove a short curved say 8-foot length section of 'box'-hull and splice in the same curve but over longer station-spacing for say 12-feet module and a 4-foot net hull-length gain to add to displacement, or get shallower draft, and either way more accommodations volume and longer hull-length and thus a bit more hull-speed for pretty much the same input. 

                All in all, none of this is in the cards with CC the way we understand it... or most other approaches to designing-, building-, and living with hulls.
                Susanne Altenburger, Phil Bolger & Friends  
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: jhess314
                Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 6:08 PM
                Subject: [bolger] Re: Bolger cruising trimaran?

                 



                Proaconstrictor,

                What are the good trimaran designs or elements that have either not been developed to their potential, or have been abandoned prematurely?

                What do you find about the Hughes and Brown designs that are compelling for sizes which are appropriate for ocean cruising? Could you elaborate further about the SeaClipper and SeaRunner designs? What is obsolete about them, or what could be improved?

                Why are trimarans now considered obsolete for ocean cruising? Is it just the whim of current fashion, or is there a more basic reason? If one were only interested in safe, long-distance cruising, not racing, could a trimaran be designed to carry a substantial load and still be weatherly?

                What did you mean when you said that "Plywood is no longer really practical under 30 feet"? Did you mean 'over' 30 feet? Either way, I'm not sure where you are coming from.

                And now to make a feeble attempt to bring this back to a Bolger topic, could a narrow, easy-to-build, Bolger square boat, but with a vee'd bow section, be used as the main hull for a trimaran? Possibly like the Schorpioen, but larger, and with no step in the hull for the amas to fit into?

                John

                --- In bolger@yahoogroups. com, "proaconstrictor" <proaconstrictor@ ...> wrote:
                >
                > I believe he did design a 35 footer...
                >
                > I would not touch any multihull he designed with a 10 foot pole. He just didn't get it, or alternatively was working in the dark zones. I mean there are things that multihulls can do that go largely unexplored. Both in terms of stuff one used to commonly see, out there, and stuff that is not commonly done. But in general I don't think he had an aptitude for it.
                >
                > If I was looking for an ocean capable catamaran that was easy to build, and possibly cheap, I would look at Oram, or Kelsall. Kelsall is a genius and while I tend not to be drawn to his stuff, I know a number of very dialed in people who went to one of his seminars on KISS and came away sold. Oram is probably the best current value guy for large cats. For trimarans. I would build anything Kurt Hughes designed, or Brown if speed and/or cost were an issue.
                >
                > Unfortunately with tris, nobody has really carried on the flame. There is an obvious need to get some decent boats in a simple format like stitch and glue, but nobody is doing it. The reason is that tris are largely considered obsolete for cruising (once you get over the folding/trilering sizes that Farrier does). Brown wise the Searunners are largely obsolete, and the beautiful constant camber boats kinda went down with the Dean Company. The Seaclippers make sense, but could also use some updating which probably won't happen under current conditions. One of the issues is that in the sizes people currently want in these boats some kind of core construction is really required. Plywood is no longer really practical under 30 feet. In NA there really isn't a solution to compare with Duflex down under.
                >
                > --- In bolger@yahoogroups. com, "jhess314" <j.hess@> wrote:
                > >
                > > Does anyone know if Bolger designed an ocean-capable cruising trimaran?
                > > Thanks, John
                > >
                >

              • Adirondack Goodboat
                Yes, veneer has been hard to get sometimes. I pretty much stopped making Goodboats after a transnational lumber company bought out the little mill in Oregon I
                Message 7 of 30 , Mar 30, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  Yes, veneer has been hard to get sometimes. I pretty much stopped making Goodboats after a transnational lumber company bought out the little mill in Oregon I was using, doubled the prices, then shut the mill down. What purpose? But now I have found a supply of 1/16 inch red cedar veneer, the Idaho Veneer Company, and have made a couple more hulls.
                   
                  I thought the CC guys had worked out virtually all the parts of the CC Searunners and some other tris from single CC molds, far easier molds than mine, with far less curvature; and I thought thin ply was great for laying the larger CC tris up. I don't know much, in truth, beyond my canoe-bodied boats, but they build faster than flat-bottomed rowboats of flat ply -- also in my limited experience.  --Mason
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 4:34 PM
                  Subject: [bolger] Re: Bolger cruising trimaran?

                   

                  Mason, I always wanted to build a CC trimaran but it isn't as attractive with ply strips. If one goes to John Marples for the plans (as you know), he will give you a list of people who may supply the veneer. The venneer is still out there at a good price, judging by the price of plywood. I just could never find a supply for what I Wanted. Again, this could be one of those US vs Canada things, so people shouldn't rule it out in the US where there may be far more sources.

                  Also, on parts like amas, small cat hulls, most pro parts, everything pretty much except trimaran main hulls (and not over 40 feet as far as I am concerned) tortured ply or CM make better hulls, faster for a lot less money. Best thing about CC in my experience was how backyardable it was. Bust out the panels in the garage, and the assembly was really realistic in one's yard, something one can't say for a lot of techniques that need a roof overhead.

                  I love your CC boats, by the way.

                • Fred Schumacher
                  On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Susanne@comcast.net
                  Message 8 of 30 , Mar 31, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Susanne@... <philbolger@...> wrote:


                    On the other hand, after lengthy reflection, observation, study of for instance cruising/racing multis, Phil did not like having shape and thus every other aspect of hull- and layout-design dictated by the inherently compromize-based shape of the 'master-panel':

                    - Many CC tris for instance end up quite deep and still are quite limited in 3+season live-aboard carrying capacity. 

                    I agree that this appears to be the heart of the issue, and it comes back to Phil's prioritization of parsimony in his design philosophy, a methodology we now see applied to nearly all modern, large cargo carriers. It takes a box to provide maximum internal usable volume, while accepting a small increase in hydrodynamic resistance. When mapped out on a logistic input/output curve,  this design philosophy provides the greatest utility and functionality at the lowest cost and effort. It's what I call the 80% solution: mapped between values of 0 and 1, the greatest return on the least input comes in at about 0.8 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalised_logistic_function for a short description).

                    I once heard Constant Camber described as the process of making your own plywood, at high expense and with the liberal use of epoxy. It does produce elegantly curved, strong, light weight hulls and certainly has its place. But I can appreciate that Phil would not be attracted to its use.

                    fred s.

                  • Fred Schumacher
                    ... There s another way to cross oceans fast and inexpensively: inside a 40 foot shipping container. $1,500 from New York to Europe in a week. I had always
                    Message 9 of 30 , Mar 31, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 12:21 PM, jhess314 <j.hess@...> wrote:
                       

                      Does anyone know if Bolger designed an ocean-capable cruising trimaran?


                      There's another way to cross oceans fast and inexpensively: inside a 40 foot shipping container. $1,500  from New York to Europe in a week.

                      I had always hoped Phil would come up with an advanced sharpie derivation to fit inside the 39' 5"L x 7' 5"W x 7' 5"H maximum usable inside dimensions of a standard container.

                      fred s.

                    • Pierce Nichols
                      There are at least two companies selling production boats that are designed to be containerable. -p
                      Message 10 of 30 , Mar 31, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        There are at least two companies selling production boats that are designed to be containerable. 

                        -p

                        On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Fred Schumacher <fredschum@...> wrote:




                        On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 12:21 PM, jhess314 <j.hess@...> wrote:
                         

                        Does anyone know if Bolger designed an ocean-capable cruising trimaran?


                        There's another way to cross oceans fast and inexpensively: inside a 40 foot shipping container. $1,500  from New York to Europe in a week.

                        I had always hoped Phil would come up with an advanced sharpie derivation to fit inside the 39' 5"L x 7' 5"W x 7' 5"H maximum usable inside dimensions of a standard container.

                        fred s.




                      • Bruce Hallman
                        ... While the AS-29 design has an overall width of 7 10 , the watertight width is only about 7 2 , with the free flooding pivoting leeboard wells (port and
                        Message 11 of 30 , Mar 31, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          > I had always hoped Phil would come up with an advanced sharpie derivation to fit inside the 39' 5"L x 7' 5"W x 7' 5"H maximum usable inside dimensions of a standard container.
                          >
                          > fred s.
                          >

                          >7' 5" width

                          While the AS-29 design has an overall width of 7'10", the watertight
                          width is only about 7'2", with the free flooding pivoting leeboard
                          wells (port and starboard) being at the widest part of the hull.

                          It seems that it could be a relatively trivial modification to the
                          design to have the outer faces of these free flooding wells be bolt
                          fastened and removable. (Stoutly bolted, of course.) That would
                          allow an AS-29 to fit inside a standard shipping container. Indeed,
                          having the outer faces of the pivoting leeboard wells removable would
                          have an additional benefit of allowing access for maintenance.

                          The dog houses would also need to be bolt on assemblies, but that too
                          could be a relatively trivial modification.
                        • loosemoosefilmworks
                          We explored shipping Loose Moose 2 via the container route and while LM2 would not fit inside a standard 40 foot container being nearly the same size as a
                          Message 12 of 30 , Mar 31, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            We explored shipping Loose Moose 2 via the container route and while LM2 would not fit inside a standard 40 foot container being nearly the same size as a container makes shipping a Loose Moose 2 a pretty simple affair as deck cargo and cheaper than shipping via container.

                            That said, shipping your boat via container or as deck cargo is a much more expensive way of getting from point A to point B when all is said and done as there are a lot of hidden costs and problems that present themselves.

                            The cost of going with one of the boat shipping specialists like Dockwise (http://www.yacht-transport.com/home) is VERY expensive,fraught with schedule problems and very hard on the boat... Most people I know who have shipped via Dockwise have had serious repairs that were required after shipping.

                            Faced with the hassle factor and expense the whole just sailing your boat to where you go seems to be the smart move...

                            Bob

                            http://boatbits.blogspot.com/
                            http://fishingundersail.blogspot.com/
                            http://islandgourmand.blogspot.com/
                          • Bruce Hallman
                            ... For more on this philosophy, see the Annie Hill book _Voyaging on a Small Income_ . She describes that after careful tracking of their budget, they
                            Message 13 of 30 , Mar 31, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              > Faced with the hassle factor and expense the whole just sailing your boat to where you go seems to be the smart move...
                              >
                              > Bob


                              For more on this philosophy, see the Annie Hill book _Voyaging on a
                              Small Income_ . She describes that after careful tracking of their
                              budget, they discovered that time spent passage making was cheaper
                              than time spent in port. So when they needed to cut back on the
                              monthly expenses they would leave port.
                            • Fred Schumacher
                              On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 9:24 AM, loosemoosefilmworks
                              Message 14 of 30 , Mar 31, 2010
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 9:24 AM, loosemoosefilmworks <loosemoosefilmworks@...> wrote:
                                 
                                 
                                We explored shipping Loose Moose 2 via the container route and while LM2 would not fit inside a standard 40 foot container being nearly the same size as a container makes shipping a Loose Moose 2 a pretty simple affair as deck cargo and cheaper than shipping via container.


                                That said, shipping your boat via container or as deck cargo is a much more expensive way of getting from point A to point B when all is said and done as there are a lot of hidden costs and problems that present themselves.

                                The cost of going with one of the boat shipping specialists like Dockwise (http://www.yacht-transport.com/home) is VERY expensive,fraught with schedule problems and very hard on the boat...

                                LM2 is the boat I would have chosen to redesign into a container boat. I was not thinking in terms of going to a boat shipping specialist, but just a regular freight forwarder, with the boat able to be rolled in and out and not requiring any dock cranes or specialized equipment.

                                As regards Annie Hill, sailing is her life, but few people have her kind of time to devote to it.

                                I'm sorry, I didn't intend to move this thread away from trimarans, but fast passages is the primary advantage of multihulls and I was just positing an alternative.

                                fred s.
                                 

                              • loosemoosefilmworks
                                The problem with the container scenario is that at best it is very problematic as container ports are not really equipped to let you launch and you would have
                                Message 15 of 30 , Mar 31, 2010
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  The problem with the container scenario is that at best it is very problematic as container ports are not really equipped to let you launch and you would have to crane out and put the boat in the container have the container trucked to the port and when your boat gets to whatever destination you have to repeat the process in reverse. Throw in the fact that most countries consider things brought in by container as imports with a monumental paper chase and you have a whole lot of fun and frolic!

                                  Cruising cats and tris are not all that much better... Cruising cats by and large cruise at just slightly over what a monohull does (and often less) and even with a best case scenario you might save a week in crossing the Atlantic. Yeah, I know there are cats and tris that go like the wind but they are the exception and not the rule where cruising is concerned.

                                  Fact is cruising just does not work very well within schedule constraints and we have yet to meet a cruiser on a tight schedule that was a happy camper... It's always a compromise of sorts! Personally we are happier that we have arranged our life around sailing and quality of life rather than if we had continued doing the workaday world thing as being dictated by others...

                                  So it goes

                                  Bob

                                  http://boatbits.blogspot.com/
                                  http://fishingundersail.blogspot.com/
                                  http://islandgourmand.blogspot.com/

                                  Bob
                                  > >
                                  > LM2 is the boat I would have chosen to redesign into a container boat. I was
                                  > not thinking in terms of going to a boat shipping specialist, but just a
                                  > regular freight forwarder, with the boat able to be rolled in and out and
                                  > not requiring any dock cranes or specialized equipment.
                                  >
                                  > As regards Annie Hill, sailing is her life, but few people have her kind of
                                  > time to devote to it.
                                  >
                                  > I'm sorry, I didn't intend to move this thread away from trimarans, but fast
                                  > passages is the primary advantage of multihulls and I was just positing an
                                  > alternative.
                                  >
                                  > fred s.
                                  >
                                • Stuart Crawford
                                  I don¹t really see how container ports are not really equipped for this. I work in a container port and don¹t see why you couldn¹t sling a boat straight
                                  Message 16 of 30 , Mar 31, 2010
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Re: [bolger] Re: Bolger cruising trimaran? I don’t really see how container ports are not really equipped for this. I work in a container port and don’t see why you couldn’t sling a boat straight into the water, or out of it for that matter, with a portainer container crane. I know we have done that at our port. In fact if the boat was shipped on a flat rack, the boat could be launched off the far side of the ship in many cases, without even going onto the wharf, as the cranes are built for the largest ships which call at a particular port. Meaning that with many ships, the boom extends beyond the ship and out over the water on the other side.

                                    If the boat was on a flat rack, the boat could be lifted off and launched in one move, and the flat rack lifted onto the wharf on the second move. I would guess  that it would be cheaper than hiring in a portable crane for any standard launching.

                                    Stuart.


                                    On 1/4/10 8:23 AM, "loosemoosefilmworks" <loosemoosefilmworks@...> wrote:


                                    The problem with the container scenario is that at best it is very problematic as container ports are not really equipped to let you launch

                                    --
                                    http://www.nomadichome.org
                                    http://www.purevolume.com/KeltwegianKiwi
                                  • daschultz8275@sbcglobal.net
                                    In addition to the Schorpioen there is Double Eagle which was built I think in Alaska, or B.C. Canada. It also is a coastal cruiser, using a yawl boat instead
                                    Message 17 of 30 , May 4, 2012
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      In addition to the Schorpioen there is Double Eagle which was built I think in Alaska, or B.C. Canada. It also is a coastal cruiser, using a yawl boat instead of its own powerplant.

                                      Schorpioen, makes a lot of sense as a coastal cruiser for two. It seems well designed for something like the Great Loop of the Eastern half of North America because the outriggers easily retract for the locks, and the mast is reasonably dropped in its tabernacle. This would seem to work well in Europe, coastal and canal cruising. But I'd put it in a container and ship it over.

                                      I'd likely tow a June Bug, or similar skiff as a dinghy/pantry/tanker for more extended runs. Though the true shoal draft limits the need for a dinghy. PB&F showed a pair of Tortise for dinghy service but they were tied off on the extended floats which seems to burden the retraction process. I wouldn't have it that way, and Ed Medalis told me in emails we exchanged he would not have placed them out there either.
                                    • daschultz8275@sbcglobal.net
                                      MY apologies. Of course Double Eagle is a catamaran, not a tri.
                                      Message 18 of 30 , May 4, 2012
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        MY apologies. Of course Double Eagle is a catamaran, not a tri.
                                      • daschultz8275@sbcglobal.net
                                        ... One more coastal, even day-sailor design. You build the main hull, the rest is Hobie Cat. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/message/63676 Don
                                        Message 19 of 30 , May 4, 2012
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" <j.hess@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > Does anyone know if Bolger designed an ocean-capable cruising trimaran?
                                          > Thanks, John
                                          >


                                          One more coastal, even day-sailor design. You build the main hull, the rest is Hobie Cat.

                                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/message/63676

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