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

Schorpioen watching + other (unstayed was Wish2 SketchUp was SketchUp Chebacco)

Expand Messages
  • c.ruzer
    Here ya go, Schorpioen unstayed 31ft coastal cruising trimaran http://www.flickr.com/photos/hallman/4471065503/
    Message 1 of 26 , May 4, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
    • c.ruzer
      New Newick http://talanoa.org/TDP_Development_Projects.html
      Message 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.