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

Re: [bolger] Re: Wish2 SketchUp (was SketchUp Chebacco)

Expand Messages
  • philbolger@comcast.net
    Hence the reference to design #649 B-31 Schorpioen ... With the T-50 she ought to move well under power. ... From: daschultz8275@sbcglobal.net To:
    Message 1 of 26 , May 2, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Hence the reference to design #649 "B-31 Schorpioen"...  With the T-50 she ought to move well under power.
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 11:50 AM
      Subject: [bolger] Re: Wish2 SketchUp (was SketchUp Chebacco)

       



      --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Topolski <public@...> wrote:
      >
      > I don't understand why we don't make the logical leap from these
      > criteria - go above and beyond the conclusion of a narrow hull -
      >wider square boat - trailered - own lifeboat- fun daysailer -
      >unsinkable... and you end up with a multihull.

      And if you wish to go Bolger, it is Schorpioen. Bolger's trailerable, single-hander trimaran. This design was featured in MAIB a few years ago. The hull design is one of PB&F's latest. It will build fast and prove very safe, IMO.

      The outer hulls retract cleanly. It has all inside control and virtually no cockpit. Arguably the peak of 'Birdwatcher' design family. About ~30-33 feet in length, all wood/glass plus some aluminum for the sail rig, and outrigged hulls. Bolger considered it a coastal cruiser.

      I'd follow Michalak's advice and build the sail rig including the mast, and spars first, then the outrigger hardware, outrigger hulls, then the main hull. With all that stuff ready to bolt on and go sailing, the incentive to complete the project will grow.

      Don

    • Tom Sorensen
      I ve never seen this design.  where would there be a photo or sketch? Tom ________________________________ From: philbolger@comcast.net
      Message 2 of 26 , May 2, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        I've never seen this design.  where would there be a photo or sketch?

        Tom


        From: "philbolger@..." <philbolger@...>
        To: bolger@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2012 8:54 AM
        Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Wish2 SketchUp (was SketchUp Chebacco)

         
        Hence the reference to design #649 "B-31 Schorpioen"...  With the T-50 she ought to move well under power.
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 11:50 AM
        Subject: [bolger] Re: Wish2 SketchUp (was SketchUp Chebacco)

         


        --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Topolski <public@...> wrote:
        >
        > I don't understand why we don't make the logical leap from these
        > criteria - go above and beyond the conclusion of a narrow hull -
        >wider square boat - trailered - own lifeboat- fun daysailer -
        >unsinkable... and you end up with a multihull.

        And if you wish to go Bolger, it is Schorpioen. Bolger's trailerable, single-hander trimaran. This design was featured in MAIB a few years ago. The hull design is one of PB&F's latest. It will build fast and prove very safe, IMO.

        The outer hulls retract cleanly. It has all inside control and virtually no cockpit. Arguably the peak of 'Birdwatcher' design family. About ~30-33 feet in length, all wood/glass plus some aluminum for the sail rig, and outrigged hulls. Bolger considered it a coastal cruiser.

        I'd follow Michalak's advice and build the sail rig including the mast, and spars first, then the outrigger hardware, outrigger hulls, then the main hull. With all that stuff ready to bolt on and go sailing, the incentive to complete the project will grow.

        Don



      • philbolger@comcast.net
        Across over 430 design-columns, MAIB has been the forum-of-record in which we ve shared in broad scope and much detail many of the designs, though not all.
        Message 3 of 26 , May 2, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          
          Across over 430 design-columns, MAIB has been the forum-of-record in which we've shared in broad scope and much detail many of the designs, though not all.
          Until the new books and (monster-) catalogue, that is the source.
          Susanne Altenburger, PB&F
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 1:39 PM
          Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Wish2 SketchUp (was SketchUp Chebacco)

           

          I've never seen this design.  where would there be a photo or sketch?

          Tom


          From: "philbolger@..." <philbolger@...>
          To: bolger@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2012 8:54 AM
          Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Wish2 SketchUp (was SketchUp Chebacco)

           
          Hence the reference to design #649 "B-31 Schorpioen"...  With the T-50 she ought to move well under power.
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 11:50 AM
          Subject: [bolger] Re: Wish2 SketchUp (was SketchUp Chebacco)

           


          --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Topolski <public@...> wrote:
          >
          > I don't understand why we don't make the logical leap from these
          > criteria - go above and beyond the conclusion of a narrow hull -
          >wider square boat - trailered - own lifeboat- fun daysailer -
          >unsinkable... and you end up with a multihull.

          And if you wish to go Bolger, it is Schorpioen. Bolger's trailerable, single-hander trimaran. This design was featured in MAIB a few years ago. The hull design is one of PB&F's latest. It will build fast and prove very safe, IMO.

          The outer hulls retract cleanly. It has all inside control and virtually no cockpit. Arguably the peak of 'Birdwatcher' design family. About ~30-33 feet in length, all wood/glass plus some aluminum for the sail rig, and outrigged hulls. Bolger considered it a coastal cruiser.

          I'd follow Michalak's advice and build the sail rig including the mast, and spars first, then the outrigger hardware, outrigger hulls, then the main hull. With all that stuff ready to bolt on and go sailing, the incentive to complete the project will grow.

          Don



        • c.ruzer
          Shoal, and roomy below, great workshop space, low windage height, but 6:1 slenderness? on 9ft centres? at 15deg heel? ,,, but then why not indeed? The
          Message 4 of 26 , May 2, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Shoal, and roomy below, great workshop space, low windage height, but 6:1 slenderness? on 9ft centres? at 15deg heel? ,,, but then why not indeed? The illustration:

            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BolgerCartoons/files/Cruising%20Cat%20Sailboat/

            --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "c.ruzer" <c.ruzer@...> wrote:

            > Then. ... Then there is:
            >
            > "31' Cruising Catamaran
            > 31'0"x16'0"x1'6"
            > I made this concept study as an illustration for a British book about cruising multihull design. The wide hulls with all accommodation in the hulls, and the asymmetrical layout with most of the propulsion and control in one hull and most of the accommodation in the other, are notions I've often pushed, without arousing much interest so far. The 'back staysail' is to balance the exaggerated lee helm of a reefed staysail cat"
            >
            > This is what grabs me: Quote "_often_" unquote. I know of only two, and they both share at least another really attention grabbing thing mentioned in that Derek Harvey "Cruising Multihulls" book: less "jagged" catamaran stability curve. Oh, and mono sized docking fees...
            >
            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/messages/52816
            > http://hallman.org/bolger/CruisingCat31/CruisingCat31.png
            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/messages/52747?threaded=1&m=e&var=1&tidx=1
            > ( square hull cat thread: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/message/40850 )
            >
            > "... The 'back staysail' is to balance the exaggerated lee helm of a reefed staysail cat. This rig is docile to handle though, unless sailed by a super expert, it isn't as fast as a conventional cat or sloop. For a mulithull the worthwhile virtue is that it has minimal tendency to push the bow down."
            >
            > Docile? Fine. Not as fast? Who cares, we're cruising. An unstayed pivoting tabernacled rig would be great on this boat. I feel there's a lot that could be done based on this sketched cruising cat, test what Phil was exploring and explore some further. ... Biplane rig presents itself.
          • c.ruzer
            Here ya go, Schorpioen unstayed 31ft coastal cruising trimaran http://www.flickr.com/photos/hallman/4471065503/
            Message 5 of 26 , May 4, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
            • c.ruzer
              New Newick http://talanoa.org/TDP_Development_Projects.html
              Message 6 of 26 , May 4, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                New Newick

                http://talanoa.org/TDP_Development_Projects.html

                --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "c.ruzer" <c.ruzer@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                >
                > nothin' holdin' me back n0W WHO0 H0O! PPPPrrroouwwwwpphhhtppppblath
                >
                > > Can you build a multihull without staying the rig?
                >
                > Hold on.
              • c.ruzer
                http://smalltridesign.com/masts/Two-Masts-on-Multihull.html
                Message 7 of 26 , May 11, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  http://smalltridesign.com/masts/Two-Masts-on-Multihull.html


                  > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "c.ruzer" <c.ruzer@> wrote:

                  > > nothin' holdin' me back n0W WHO0 H0O! PPPPrrroouwwwwpphhhtppppblath

                  > > > Can you build a multihull without staying the rig?

                  > > Hold on.
                • John
                  Sorry, Stefan, still can t buy your `logical leap to multihulls. First, maybe it s just me, but I don t see how logic and recreational boating go together.
                  Message 8 of 26 , May 12, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Sorry, Stefan, still can't buy your `logical leap' to multihulls.

                    First, maybe it's just me, but I don't see how logic and recreational boating go together. Not that there's no logic in it. But it's kind of like the logic of love. At which point I could `logically' rest my case, but...

                    There's the definition thing. Logic utterly depends on strictly defined definitions. You placed some emphasis on speed in your posts, so how, for example, are we to define it? Speed downwind, or upwind? Speed in a chop, or perhaps upwind in a narrow channel? Speed around the buoys or from point to point, including shoals and low bridges? Speed from side yard on the trailer to nosed up on the beach, beer in hand? Speed in relation to LWL? Or to cost? Maybe speed means fast at impressing girls! My favorite definition of speed for a sailboat: `faster than she looks.'

                    Same with `easy.' Same with `safe.' A mother's idea of `safe' is a far cry from her teenager's idea of the same thing. And my own idea of `easy to sail,' now, is a far cry from what my idea of `easy to sail' was 30 years ago.

                    For some, yea, it seems logical to make the leap to multihulls. For me, I've sailed them. I've enjoyed them. My 'logic' is to leave them for others to love.

                    Have fun!

                    John

                    --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Topolski <public@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Thank you for outlining the reasons much more clearly.
                    >
                    > Speed, ease, space, cost ... yes, yes, yes, yes. For these flatter and wider serve well.
                    >
                    > However, the earlier post and Bolger's logic also emphasized flatter, shallower, wider, higher and chined harder for sailing, seakeeping, 'unsinkablility' and ultimate safety sailing happily.
                    >
                    > In these regards multihulls are the logical conclusion because they achieve all of these in spades. Rigs can be tabernacled and unstayed, amas can swing out in minutes, launching can be from a flat bed trailer, and the time-to-launch can resemble any of our craft.
                    >
                    > Experienced sailors who can get beyond tradition, and there are many among us here, would love to carry less maybe but go three times faster in the same wind and end up on the same beach campgrounds with extra time for another beer before sundown.
                    >
                    > Not that there's any rush when one sets to sea, but dancing around larger boats and outracing storms makes for more fun any day.
                    >
                    > Proudly and happily sailing our Chebaco again this year,
                    > Stefan
                    >
                    > "One gathers peace as a feather in the palm of one's hand." -anonymous
                    >
                    >
                    > http://www.cottagemed.org
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Il giorno abr 29, 2012, alle ore 2:51 pm, John ha scritto:
                    >
                    > Stefan,
                    >
                    > I don't know about the 'logical leap.' A huge part of the promise of Wish II is simplicity and ease. Ease of build. Ease of rig. Ease of launch and sail. It's hard to set that stuff aside. And let's not forget ease of pocketbook! It was conceived as an instant boat.
                    >
                    > Certainly arcing the bottom complicates the build significantly, but three hulls? Or even two? We're getting into an order of magnitude range of increased building complexity. Can you build a multihull without staying the rig? More complexity. More cost. And trailering? Now you need to fold things. Even more complexity! More cost! Where does it end!
                    >
                    > Keep smiling!
                    >
                    > John
                    >
                    > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Topolski <public@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > I don't understand why we don't make the logical leap from these criteria - go above and beyond the conclusion of a narrow hull - wider square boat - trailered - own lifeboat- fun daysailer - unsinkable... and you end up with a multihull.
                    > >
                    > > The first and farthest ocean going vessels - shoal draft - safer - faster - much more stable - own-life-boats... setting aside hull construction time and cost [which are not mentioned strongly in the prior post] this becomes the logical conclusion of the logic Bolger has shared with us.
                    > >
                    > > http://www.seaworthysolutions.net/f/Seaclipper_24_Trimaran_Study_Plans.pdf
                    > >
                    > > Now if you are talking looks (in the eye of the beholder) or tradition (each to his own again) that's another story. But those arguments lack logic, and the poster did not wax long about aesthetics in their post.
                    > >
                    > > .... i'd still rig it Bolger Chebacco style - wide and low and sticking off both ends ...
                    > >
                    > > All the Best,
                    > > Stefan
                    > >
                    > > "One gathers peace as a feather in the palm of one's hand." -anonymous
                    > >
                    > > Stefan Topolski MD
                    > > Assist. Professor, U. of Massachusetts Medical School
                    > > Clinical Instructor, U. of New England
                    > > Founder and Director of
                    > > Caring in Community, Inc. 501(c)3
                    > > 1105 Mohawk Trail
                    > > Shelburne Falls, Ma.
                    > >
                    > > http://www.cottagemed.org
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                  • Scot McPherson
                    My opinion is that multihulls can be loads of fun on flat water. I ll stick to monohull designs in swells though, thanks. Scot Sent from my iPhone
                    Message 9 of 26 , May 12, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      My opinion is that multihulls can be loads of fun on flat water. I'll stick to monohull designs in swells though, thanks.


                      Scot

                      Sent from my iPhone

                      On May 12, 2012, at 2:55 PM, "John" <oneillparker@...> wrote:

                       



                      Sorry, Stefan, still can't buy your `logical leap' to multihulls.

                      First, maybe it's just me, but I don't see how logic and recreational boating go together. Not that there's no logic in it. But it's kind of like the logic of love. At which point I could `logically' rest my case, but...

                      There's the definition thing. Logic utterly depends on strictly defined definitions. You placed some emphasis on speed in your posts, so how, for example, are we to define it? Speed downwind, or upwind? Speed in a chop, or perhaps upwind in a narrow channel? Speed around the buoys or from point to point, including shoals and low bridges? Speed from side yard on the trailer to nosed up on the beach, beer in hand? Speed in relation to LWL? Or to cost? Maybe speed means fast at impressing girls! My favorite definition of speed for a sailboat: `faster than she looks.'

                      Same with `easy.' Same with `safe.' A mother's idea of `safe' is a far cry from her teenager's idea of the same thing. And my own idea of `easy to sail,' now, is a far cry from what my idea of `easy to sail' was 30 years ago.

                      For some, yea, it seems logical to make the leap to multihulls. For me, I've sailed them. I've enjoyed them. My 'logic' is to leave them for others to love.

                      Have fun!

                      John

                      --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Topolski <public@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Thank you for outlining the reasons much more clearly.
                      >
                      > Speed, ease, space, cost ... yes, yes, yes, yes. For these flatter and wider serve well.
                      >
                      > However, the earlier post and Bolger's logic also emphasized flatter, shallower, wider, higher and chined harder for sailing, seakeeping, 'unsinkablility' and ultimate safety sailing happily.
                      >
                      > In these regards multihulls are the logical conclusion because they achieve all of these in spades. Rigs can be tabernacled and unstayed, amas can swing out in minutes, launching can be from a flat bed trailer, and the time-to-launch can resemble any of our craft.
                      >
                      > Experienced sailors who can get beyond tradition, and there are many among us here, would love to carry less maybe but go three times faster in the same wind and end up on the same beach campgrounds with extra time for another beer before sundown.
                      >
                      > Not that there's any rush when one sets to sea, but dancing around larger boats and outracing storms makes for more fun any day.
                      >
                      > Proudly and happily sailing our Chebaco again this year,
                      > Stefan
                      >
                      > "One gathers peace as a feather in the palm of one's hand." -anonymous
                      >
                      >
                      > http://www.cottagemed.org
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Il giorno abr 29, 2012, alle ore 2:51 pm, John ha scritto:
                      >
                      > Stefan,
                      >
                      > I don't know about the 'logical leap.' A huge part of the promise of Wish II is simplicity and ease. Ease of build. Ease of rig. Ease of launch and sail. It's hard to set that stuff aside. And let's not forget ease of pocketbook! It was conceived as an instant boat.
                      >
                      > Certainly arcing the bottom complicates the build significantly, but three hulls? Or even two? We're getting into an order of magnitude range of increased building complexity. Can you build a multihull without staying the rig? More complexity. More cost. And trailering? Now you need to fold things. Even more complexity! More cost! Where does it end!
                      >
                      > Keep smiling!
                      >
                      > John
                      >
                      > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Topolski <public@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > I don't understand why we don't make the logical leap from these criteria - go above and beyond the conclusion of a narrow hull - wider square boat - trailered - own lifeboat- fun daysailer - unsinkable... and you end up with a multihull.
                      > >
                      > > The first and farthest ocean going vessels - shoal draft - safer - faster - much more stable - own-life-boats... setting aside hull construction time and cost [which are not mentioned strongly in the prior post] this becomes the logical conclusion of the logic Bolger has shared with us.
                      > >
                      > > http://www.seaworthysolutions.net/f/Seaclipper_24_Trimaran_Study_Plans.pdf
                      > >
                      > > Now if you are talking looks (in the eye of the beholder) or tradition (each to his own again) that's another story. But those arguments lack logic, and the poster did not wax long about aesthetics in their post.
                      > >
                      > > .... i'd still rig it Bolger Chebacco style - wide and low and sticking off both ends ...
                      > >
                      > > All the Best,
                      > > Stefan
                      > >
                      > > "One gathers peace as a feather in the palm of one's hand." -anonymous
                      > >
                      > > Stefan Topolski MD
                      > > Assist. Professor, U. of Massachusetts Medical School
                      > > Clinical Instructor, U. of New England
                      > > Founder and Director of
                      > > Caring in Community, Inc. 501(c)3
                      > > 1105 Mohawk Trail
                      > > Shelburne Falls, Ma.
                      > >
                      > > http://www.cottagemed.org
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      >

                    • Stefan Topolski
                      One of the logics our movement has pushed is toward wider beam and squarer cross sections to get shallower draft for greater speed, comfort, and ultimately
                      Message 10 of 26 , May 15, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        One of the logics our movement has pushed is toward wider beam and squarer cross sections to get shallower draft for greater speed, comfort, and ultimately less-sinkable safety.

                        Take Phil's sharpies and extend the beam even further to 10 or fifteen feet and what do you have?  The beam and draft of a multihull.  Cut out the hull in between the hull sides to reduce wetted surface and water pushed out of the way and what do you have?  A multihull.  A square boat of even wider beam and shallower draft minus the unneeded and speed robbing hull in between.

                        That's design logic.  Then we temper logic by personal preference for more space, faster build, simpler set up, etc.  The question becomes not one of logic but of finding joy in what we build.  We all make these compromises, but Phil really did bring monohull design as close to multihull design as possible in a way no one had before.

                        All the Best,
                        Stefan

                        "One gathers peace as a feather in the palm of one's hand."    -anonymous

                        Stefan Topolski  MD
                        Assist. Professor, U. of Massachusetts Medical School
                        Clinical Instructor, U. of New England
                        Founder and Director of
                        Caring in Community, Inc.  501(c)3
                        1105 Mohawk Trail
                        Shelburne Falls, Ma.





                        Il giorno may 12, 2012, alle ore 3:55 pm, John ha scritto:

                         



                        Sorry, Stefan, still can't buy your `logical leap' to multihulls.

                        First, maybe it's just me, but I don't see how logic and recreational boating go together. Not that there's no logic in it. But it's kind of like the logic of love. At which point I could `logically' rest my case, but...

                        There's the definition thing. Logic utterly depends on strictly defined definitions. You placed some emphasis on speed in your posts, so how, for example, are we to define it? Speed downwind, or upwind? Speed in a chop, or perhaps upwind in a narrow channel? Speed around the buoys or from point to point, including shoals and low bridges? Speed from side yard on the trailer to nosed up on the beach, beer in hand? Speed in relation to LWL? Or to cost? Maybe speed means fast at impressing girls! My favorite definition of speed for a sailboat: `faster than she looks.'

                        Same with `easy.' Same with `safe.' A mother's idea of `safe' is a far cry from her teenager's idea of the same thing. And my own idea of `easy to sail,' now, is a far cry from what my idea of `easy to sail' was 30 years ago.

                        For some, yea, it seems logical to make the leap to multihulls. For me, I've sailed them. I've enjoyed them. My 'logic' is to leave them for others to love.

                        Have fun!

                        John

                        --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Topolski <public@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Thank you for outlining the reasons much more clearly.
                        >
                        > Speed, ease, space, cost ... yes, yes, yes, yes. For these flatter and wider serve well.
                        >
                        > However, the earlier post and Bolger's logic also emphasized flatter, shallower, wider, higher and chined harder for sailing, seakeeping, 'unsinkablility' and ultimate safety sailing happily.
                        >
                        > In these regards multihulls are the logical conclusion because they achieve all of these in spades. Rigs can be tabernacled and unstayed, amas can swing out in minutes, launching can be from a flat bed trailer, and the time-to-launch can resemble any of our craft.
                        >
                        > Experienced sailors who can get beyond tradition, and there are many among us here, would love to carry less maybe but go three times faster in the same wind and end up on the same beach campgrounds with extra time for another beer before sundown.
                        >
                        > Not that there's any rush when one sets to sea, but dancing around larger boats and outracing storms makes for more fun any day.
                        >
                        > Proudly and happily sailing our Chebaco again this year,
                        > Stefan
                        >
                        > "One gathers peace as a feather in the palm of one's hand." -anonymous
                        >
                        >
                        > http://www.cottagemed.org
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Il giorno abr 29, 2012, alle ore 2:51 pm, John ha scritto:
                        >
                        > Stefan,
                        >
                        > I don't know about the 'logical leap.' A huge part of the promise of Wish II is simplicity and ease. Ease of build. Ease of rig. Ease of launch and sail. It's hard to set that stuff aside. And let's not forget ease of pocketbook! It was conceived as an instant boat.
                        >
                        > Certainly arcing the bottom complicates the build significantly, but three hulls? Or even two? We're getting into an order of magnitude range of increased building complexity. Can you build a multihull without staying the rig? More complexity. More cost. And trailering? Now you need to fold things. Even more complexity! More cost! Where does it end!
                        >
                        > Keep smiling!
                        >
                        > John
                        >
                        > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Topolski <public@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > I don't understand why we don't make the logical leap from these criteria - go above and beyond the conclusion of a narrow hull - wider square boat - trailered - own lifeboat- fun daysailer - unsinkable... and you end up with a multihull.
                        > >
                        > > The first and farthest ocean going vessels - shoal draft - safer - faster - much more stable - own-life-boats... setting aside hull construction time and cost [which are not mentioned strongly in the prior post] this becomes the logical conclusion of the logic Bolger has shared with us.
                        > >
                        > > http://www.seaworthysolutions.net/f/Seaclipper_24_Trimaran_Study_Plans.pdf
                        > >
                        > > Now if you are talking looks (in the eye of the beholder) or tradition (each to his own again) that's another story. But those arguments lack logic, and the poster did not wax long about aesthetics in their post.
                        > >
                        > > .... i'd still rig it Bolger Chebacco style - wide and low and sticking off both ends ...
                        > >
                        > > All the Best,
                        > > Stefan
                        > >
                        > > "One gathers peace as a feather in the palm of one's hand." -anonymous
                        > >
                        > > Stefan Topolski MD
                        > > Assist. Professor, U. of Massachusetts Medical School
                        > > Clinical Instructor, U. of New England
                        > > Founder and Director of
                        > > Caring in Community, Inc. 501(c)3
                        > > 1105 Mohawk Trail
                        > > Shelburne Falls, Ma.
                        > >
                        > > http://www.cottagemed.org
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        >


                      • John Kohnen
                        Bolger s sharpies are actually pretty narrow, and depend on high freeboard and buoyancy up high for secondary stability. A narrow boat, even if flat-bottomed,
                        Message 11 of 26 , May 15, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Bolger's sharpies are actually pretty narrow, and depend on high freeboard
                          and buoyancy up high for secondary stability. A narrow boat, even if
                          flat-bottomed, will "give" a bit in waves -- the waterline won't quickly
                          conform to the face of a wave, giving a more comfortable and safer ride in
                          rough weather. This is completely opposite of the behavior of a fat
                          flat-bottom boat, which will roll quickly to the angle of a wave, and will
                          be more likely to be rolled over by a large wave. Multihulls are in effect
                          very, very fat and have huge initial stability. They don't tip over
                          easily, though the ride probably gets pretty rough, until they do...
                          Multihulls have proven themselves seaworthy enough for most passages, so
                          the choice between them and monohulls is largely personal preference, but
                          Bolger's sharpies are really pretty far from multihulls and it's by no
                          means a logical progression to get to multihulls from them.

                          Modern ocean racers have gotten wider, shallower and squarer in section to
                          carry lots of sail and plane along at phenomenal speeds, but this isn't a
                          suitable trend to follow for pleasure boats, where comfort and
                          seaworthiness should be most important. Increasing the beam of one of
                          Bolger's sharpies would actually make it _less_ seaworthy. If one needs
                          more room in a Bolger sharpie they should build a longer one.

                          On Tue, 15 May 2012 09:59:43 -0700, Stefan T wrote:

                          > One of the logics our movement has pushed is toward wider beam and
                          > squarer cross sections to get shallower draft for greater speed,
                          > comfort, and ultimately less-sinkable safety.

                          > Take Phil's sharpies and extend the beam even further to 10 or fifteen
                          > feet and what do you have? The beam and draft of a multihull....

                          --
                          John (jkohnen@...)
                          A fool and his money are soon elected. (Will Rogers)
                        • Harry James
                          Well said John HJ
                          Message 12 of 26 , May 15, 2012
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Well said John

                            HJ

                            On 5/15/2012 7:58 PM, John Kohnen wrote:
                            > Bolger's sharpies are actually pretty narrow, and depend on high freeboard
                            > and buoyancy up high for secondary stability. A narrow boat, even if
                            > flat-bottomed, will "give" a bit in waves -- the waterline won't quickly
                            > conform to the face of a wave, giving a more comfortable and safer ride in
                            > rough weather. This is completely opposite of the behavior of a fat
                            > flat-bottom boat, which will roll quickly to the angle of a wave, and will
                            > be more likely to be rolled over by a large wave. Multihulls are in effect
                            > very, very fat and have huge initial stability. They don't tip over
                            > easily, though the ride probably gets pretty rough, until they do...
                            > Multihulls have proven themselves seaworthy enough for most passages, so
                            > the choice between them and monohulls is largely personal preference, but
                            > Bolger's sharpies are really pretty far from multihulls and it's by no
                            > means a logical progression to get to multihulls from them.
                            >
                            > Modern ocean racers have gotten wider, shallower and squarer in section to
                            > carry lots of sail and plane along at phenomenal speeds, but this isn't a
                            > suitable trend to follow for pleasure boats, where comfort and
                            > seaworthiness should be most important. Increasing the beam of one of
                            > Bolger's sharpies would actually make it _less_ seaworthy. If one needs
                            > more room in a Bolger sharpie they should build a longer one.
                            >
                            > On Tue, 15 May 2012 09:59:43 -0700, Stefan T wrote:
                            >
                            >> One of the logics our movement has pushed is toward wider beam and
                            >> squarer cross sections to get shallower draft for greater speed,
                            >> comfort, and ultimately less-sinkable safety.
                            >> Take Phil's sharpies and extend the beam even further to 10 or fifteen
                            >> feet and what do you have? The beam and draft of a multihull....
                          • Tom Pee
                            Good post, just want to reinforce the idea... MAKE IT LONGER if you need more room. ________________________________ From: Harry James
                            Message 13 of 26 , May 17, 2012
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Good post, just want to reinforce the idea... MAKE IT LONGER if you need more room.

                              From: Harry James <welshman@...>
                              To: bolger@yahoogroups.com
                              Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 12:13 AM
                              Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Logical leap to multihulls? (was SketchUp Chebacco)

                               
                              Well said John

                              HJ

                              On 5/15/2012 7:58 PM, John Kohnen wrote:
                              > Bolger's sharpies are actually pretty narrow, and depend on high freeboard
                              > and buoyancy up high for secondary stability. A narrow boat, even if
                              > flat-bottomed, will "give" a bit in waves -- the waterline won't quickly
                              > conform to the face of a wave, giving a more comfortable and safer ride in
                              > rough weather. This is completely opposite of the behavior of a fat
                              > flat-bottom boat, which will roll quickly to the angle of a wave, and will
                              > be more likely to be rolled over by a large wave. Multihulls are in effect
                              > very, very fat and have huge initial stability. They don't tip over
                              > easily, though the ride probably gets pretty rough, until they do...
                              > Multihulls have proven themselves seaworthy enough for most passages, so
                              > the choice between them and monohulls is largely personal preference, but
                              > Bolger's sharpies are really pretty far from multihulls and it's by no
                              > means a logical progression to get to multihulls from them.
                              >
                              > Modern ocean racers have gotten wider, shallower and squarer in section to
                              > carry lots of sail and plane along at phenomenal speeds, but this isn't a
                              > suitable trend to follow for pleasure boats, where comfort and
                              > seaworthiness should be most important. Increasing the beam of one of
                              > Bolger's sharpies would actually make it _less_ seaworthy. If one needs
                              > more room in a Bolger sharpie they should build a longer one.
                              >
                              > On Tue, 15 May 2012 09:59:43 -0700, Stefan T wrote:
                              >
                              >> One of the logics our movement has pushed is toward wider beam and
                              >> squarer cross sections to get shallower draft for greater speed,
                              >> comfort, and ultimately less-sinkable safety.
                              >> Take Phil's sharpies and extend the beam even further to 10 or fifteen
                              >> feet and what do you have? The beam and draft of a multihull....


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