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

Scaling designs - Re: [bolger] Scaled-down Single-handed Schooner

Expand Messages
  • lboatman@ymail.com
    Lots of good stuff and very valid points here. Definitely the best solution is to go with stock plans if they meet your needs. Everything else will cost more
    Message 1 of 22 , Jan 10, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Lots of good stuff and very valid points here. Definitely the best solution is to go with stock plans if they meet your needs. Everything else will cost more time and money.

      As Susanne mentions, in my case I had decided that designing the modifications was part of the fun. I also wanted to experiment with materials and techniques. It was extremely educational. I consider the extra time (which wasn't so bad) and the extra money (which was considerable) over building per the stock plans as a combination vacation and tuition. Many builders, especially those building commercially, do not have the time and money to spare.

      Both were reasonable in my case because I was scaling the boat down. Going up (even if my garage had been big enough) would have been unacceptable, mostly because of the amount of wasted plywood. Another thing that helped was the choice of the boat. The SHS' shape is elegant and simple and easy to scale. Other boats, even by Bolger, would have been a lot more work.

      Even with all this extra work, my boat is still a science fair project. I'm extremely confident that it will work out for me, but until its maiden voyage I won't know that for a fact. Whereas if I'd gone with stock plans for a boat that has been around for years, the only question would be my workmanship.

      The process of modifying an established design needs to be approached with great respect. You need to get into the designer's mind to understand their intentions. Only when you understand what they're trying to say can you attempt a translation. I read every Bolger book I could get my hands on, every blog and article about a Bolger boat that I could find. It's not enough to just look at the set of plans you want to modify. For a complete design philosophy you need to study the complete canon.

      Once you've done that, you need to seriously study the existing plans and reverse-engineer every assumption and trade-off that was designed into the original. In a truly elegant design, no component does only one thing. How does changing something affect ALL its uses?

      So I'm definitely not recommending that folks grab any design and start scaling it. The process works and is worth it only for some designs. If you don't know what you are doing, stick to stock plans.

      As for the innovative suggestions for building large boats in small spaces, here's a lady that hasn't met my homeowners' association . Seriously, though, those are interesting options. Unfortunately, in my case, the boat has to live in the garage. Outdoor storage is not an option and I can't afford the marina charges in this area. That actually was one of my trade-offs. The money saved in slip rental would pay for the entire boat (not just the extra costs of modifying the design) in only 8 months.

      In summary, listen to the designer and insofar as is possible, do what they say. Otherwise you're taking your chances.

      Laszlo

      --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Susanne@..." <philbolger@...> wrote:
      >
      > A few notes on Lazlo's project.
      >
      > Making things fit your needs is often a driving force behind design-modifications.
      > If you embark on the effort to build a boat - small or large - it better match your circumstances.
      > Phil would of course counsel caution as to unintended consequences - which can indeed be surprising.
      > Here, in this example, there seems little reason for grand concerns.
      >
      > But Lazlo's case offers both inspiration to get on with realizing your ambitions in good detail, while suggesting several comments to  add to the picture on such modifications by others:
      >
      > 1.)  In many cases, whether doing a smaller or a larger project, time is typically at a premium in the endeavor of building your own boat, from how much you can spent of the project per week or month, to how much overall you will find yourself investing before you get to enjoy the launching.  Lazlo is lucky to have the garage and thus a very short 'commute' to the job, being able to 'steal' a few minutes here and there, in addition to scheduling dedicated hours to great effectiveness.
      >     Modifying the plans has clearly taken its own share of time, here apparently part of the fun Lazlo (and we all) should have planning and building the project.  But this is time invested in not building her.
      >
      > 2.)  Modifications such as the 94%-scale example is less prone to this, but, say, scaling to 107% can indeed cascade to affect both the materials' budget along with the likely man-hours to possibly astonishing/aggravating extends.  Proportional scaling - in all dimensions - will throw off the often intentional maximization of efficient (US-standard!) ply-sheet use, with 4'1" dimensions becoming 'heart-breakers'.  Even if ply-sheet-numbers are less relevant per cost-item than man-hours, doing additional work per assembly-step does add up as well.
      >
      > 3.) The CLC ply-sheet joining gadget is clearly a time-saver over scarfing, but it inherently does throw off any ply-sheet layout-based design by the loss in sheet-length/width per joint, the same way the much more labor-intensive scarfing does.  After having done a bunch of modified 'Payson-Joints' in 1/4", 3/8" and 1/2" during my on-going project, the Payson-Joint will require more care to arrive at a uniform surface-topography, but will use all of each sheet's length and width, with the losses measured in power-planing shavings and dust, not surface-are in inches or centimeters.
      >
      > 4.) Phil has had his fair share of thinking about and designing boats that can by design be built in smaller spaces than their final size suggests is possible.  Beyond his various 'modular' types, together, we did for instance #646 DOUBLE EAGLE, a 40'x20' catamaran, which was built one hull at a time, plus the connecting structure/cabin in a much narrower and lower 48' long shop.  (She is also known as 'Great Sea' out of Alaska).
      >     In some designs not explicitly drawn for modular construction, working around a bulkhead and working with additional (massive ?) butt-joints a 'tail' or 'bow' could be added after the mass of the structure was completed 'inside'.  Cosmetics can be addressed quite 'ruthlessly' to good results, as you learn the ins and outs of doing good finish on smaller and larger areas on the emerging craft.
      >
      > 5.) Finally, building all the smaller bits and pieces, incl. spars, boards and rudders etc. in a modest space to highest plausible degree of finish, this might allow having to plan on the 'full-size' foot-print of the project only for a limited period of time. 
      >      For starters, this would suggest using a nearby industrial space that offers climate-control and security for a cost acceptable for a few weeks/months. 
      >      If that is not doable, and she has to be done at home - do check your local laws on any of these (!) - , based on what we've heard from people who've done any of these options ( and more !), you could then do the 'mad' assembly
      > - outside alongside of the house under light temporary cover with tools and epoxy in/on a rolling chest over-nighting 'inside',
      > - in the back-yard under more solid but temporary cover, after pricing the hourly-rate of a crane to help her 'jump' over the house (install the ballast later...),
      > - bump out the garage-door opening, by opening the unit itself (stored overhead or unhinged) and then inserting a perfectly-fitted 'plug'/'bump-out' in just 1" plywood that adds a few more feet in length to match the un-modified design, but does so without requiring building-permits or quickly raising grief with unsympathetic neighbors.  Add insulation as necessary match your season.     
      >    
      > Folks have done boats in rather improbable places, whether in a motel-room, or a 4-story walk-up Manhattan loft (big window + crane !) 
      >
      > Now back to my project...
      >
      > Susanne Altenburger, PB&F

    • Harry James
      I use Xnole a lot on bottoms, I need the abrasion resistance because where I live we have shorelines not beaches. It is a real pain to finish, I am trying out
      Message 2 of 22 , Jan 10, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        I use Xnole a lot on bottoms, I need the abrasion resistance because
        where I live we have shorelines not beaches. It is a real pain to
        finish, I am trying out that rolling plastic over it method that was in
        Duckworks 7-8 years ago.

        http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/03/r/articles/glass/bottom.htm

        I am using powdered copper in the mix, seems to work, still working on
        the details. You can get a real high copper ratio and still get a smooth
        finish.

        I sure wouldn't use Xynole on the sides, way too much work, and quite a
        bit more epoxy.

        HJ

        On 1/10/2012 2:30 AM, lboatman@... wrote:
        > Mike,
        >
        > Thanks for the heads-up on the sailing characteristics. That will be
        > very reassuring to have in the back of my mind when it starts to heel on
        > the maiden voyage. It's interesting that in all the photos I've found on
        > the web and in print that Susan's boat is always vertical and Tony's is
        > always heeled. He's also mostly hiked out. I'm really looking forward to
        > trying it out on the water now. BTW, what kind of speeds have you you
        > gotten?
        >
        > Xynole - you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din. Now that you've had
        > it a while, was the Xynole worth it? My thought was since it can't be
        > launched off a beach that the bottom would be pretty safe. I expect that
        > the keel and rudder would take all the impacts long before the bottom.
        > I'm actually more worried about the bow, stern and sides smashing into
        > pilings and other boats.
        >
        > One day when you have the time and inclination, it'd be fun if you added
        > a post-launch section to your blog. Maybe some pictures under sail,
        > observations about the sailing characteristics and lessons learned.
        > You'd definitely have an audience.
        >
        > Have fun,
        >
        > Laszlo
        >
        > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "efemiket"<mthompson0900@...> wrote:
        >> A couple of notes from my experience of building SHS which might be of
        > general interest (already emailed you offline):
        >> I share your horror of metal fasteners in wooden boats. The only metal
        > fasteners used on my SHS are the bronze screws in the daggerboard which
        > give the lead something to cling to, and some bronze screws reinforcing
        > the cockpit and hold coamings. Everything else is just thickened epoxy
        > glue, reinforced on the exterior of the hull with Xynole cloth
        > (Kevlar-like, very tough and a lot more work to get filled nicely with
        > resin - probably takes twice as much resin to get a smooth filled
        > surface). The interior lumber and bulkheads were all just glued to the
        > planks and bottom. I used 1 inch drywall screws to hold things in place
        > until the glue cured, then removed them afterward. Everything is holding
        > up well so far.
        >> Like Susan Davis I upped the 100 lbs of lead to about 150, so that the
        > daggerboard probably weighs about 180 lbs all in. This makes it a real
        > pig to manhandle when launching and hauling out. Unless you're built
        > like Tarzan it's a two-person operation to raise or lower this thing.
        > Bolger says it sails 'on its ear' as designed. It is certainly more
        > stable with the extra weight, but it is still sails on its ear in any
        > kind of breeze - it stiffens up a lot after heeling well over, but you
        > have to get used to it. I get concerned looks from my passengers in the
        > hold sometimes, hehe. Having a smaller boat with a lighter daggerboard
        > will make everything that much easier getting in and out of the water.
        >> Mike
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > 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
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • efemiket
        Hi Laszlo & all, I clocked a little over 6 mph on the gps on one of my first sails with the SHS, in about 12 knots of wind, reaching. I had a 220 lb friend in
        Message 3 of 22 , Jan 17, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Laszlo & all,

          I clocked a little over 6 mph on the gps on one of my first sails with the SHS, in about 12 knots of wind, reaching. I had a 220 lb friend in the hold at the time, so it should do better with a lighter load :^) I haven't bothered with the gps recently though.

          I have never hiked out. I also haven't been out in strong wind but I would reef or drop the jib before resorting to hiking out. SHS was designed with the idea that you sit on the bottom of the boat thereby providing human ballast as low in the hull as possible. Seems to work pretty well, particularly for really lazy sailors like me.

          You get used to the heeling and it does stiffen up a lot once it is heeled over a certain amount. It would take a lot I think to knock it down.

          You are right I should get busy and update the blog with some sailing pictures and stuff. I did mention the lazy gene earlier though...

          Cheers,
          Mike

          --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "lboatman@..." <lboatman@...> wrote:
          >
          > Mike,
          >
          > Thanks for the heads-up on the sailing characteristics. That will be
          > very reassuring to have in the back of my mind when it starts to heel on
          > the maiden voyage. It's interesting that in all the photos I've found on
          > the web and in print that Susan's boat is always vertical and Tony's is
          > always heeled. He's also mostly hiked out. I'm really looking forward to
          > trying it out on the water now. BTW, what kind of speeds have you you
          > gotten?
          >
          > Xynole - you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din. Now that you've had
          > it a while, was the Xynole worth it? My thought was since it can't be
          > launched off a beach that the bottom would be pretty safe. I expect that
          > the keel and rudder would take all the impacts long before the bottom.
          > I'm actually more worried about the bow, stern and sides smashing into
          > pilings and other boats.
          >
          > One day when you have the time and inclination, it'd be fun if you added
          > a post-launch section to your blog. Maybe some pictures under sail,
          > observations about the sailing characteristics and lessons learned.
          > You'd definitely have an audience.
          >
          > Have fun,
          >
          > Laszlo
          >
          > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "efemiket" <mthompson0900@> wrote:
          > >
          > > A couple of notes from my experience of building SHS which might be of
          > general interest (already emailed you offline):
          > >
          > > I share your horror of metal fasteners in wooden boats. The only metal
          > fasteners used on my SHS are the bronze screws in the daggerboard which
          > give the lead something to cling to, and some bronze screws reinforcing
          > the cockpit and hold coamings. Everything else is just thickened epoxy
          > glue, reinforced on the exterior of the hull with Xynole cloth
          > (Kevlar-like, very tough and a lot more work to get filled nicely with
          > resin - probably takes twice as much resin to get a smooth filled
          > surface). The interior lumber and bulkheads were all just glued to the
          > planks and bottom. I used 1 inch drywall screws to hold things in place
          > until the glue cured, then removed them afterward. Everything is holding
          > up well so far.
          > >
          > > Like Susan Davis I upped the 100 lbs of lead to about 150, so that the
          > daggerboard probably weighs about 180 lbs all in. This makes it a real
          > pig to manhandle when launching and hauling out. Unless you're built
          > like Tarzan it's a two-person operation to raise or lower this thing.
          > Bolger says it sails 'on its ear' as designed. It is certainly more
          > stable with the extra weight, but it is still sails on its ear in any
          > kind of breeze - it stiffens up a lot after heeling well over, but you
          > have to get used to it. I get concerned looks from my passengers in the
          > hold sometimes, hehe. Having a smaller boat with a lighter daggerboard
          > will make everything that much easier getting in and out of the water.
          > >
          > > Mike
          >
        • lboatman@ymail.com
          Message 4 of 22 , Jan 26, 2014
          • 0 Attachment

            <img src=3D"http://www.morocz.com/BoatBuilding/images/schooner/110_st_mike_03a.jpg" align=3D"left" border=3D="0" hspace=3D"1">

          • Mark Albanese
            Nice looking. Why did you scale it 94%?
            Message 5 of 22 , Jan 26, 2014
            • 0 Attachment

              Nice looking.
              Why did you scale it 94%?

              On Jan 26, 2014 4:56 PM, <lboatman@...> wrote:
               

              <img src=3D"http://www.morocz.com/BoatBuilding/images/schooner/110_st_mike_03a.jpg" align=3D"left" border=3D="0" hspace=3D"1">

            • L Boatman
              Thanks. Because 100% wouldn t fit into my garage. Details at http://www.morocz.com/BoatBuilding/SchoonerBuild.htm, with sailing pictures starting on page 17.
              Message 6 of 22 , Jan 27, 2014
              • 0 Attachment
                Thanks. Because 100% wouldn't fit into my garage. Details at http://www.morocz.com/BoatBuilding/SchoonerBuild.htm, with sailing pictures starting on page 17.

                Laszlo



                On Sunday, January 26, 2014 9:38 PM, Mark Albanese <marka97203@...> wrote:
                 
                Nice looking.
                Why did you scale it 94%?
                On Jan 26, 2014 4:56 PM, <lboatman@...> wrote:
                 
                <img src=3D"http://www.morocz.com/BoatBuilding/images/schooner/110_st_mike_03a.jpg" align=3D"left" border=3D="0" hspace=3D"1">


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