It fits my theory about how a properly stayed vessel is a
much stronger system then say a Nonsuch with an unstayed
mast.

How many rig failures can you prove for the Nonsuch?
Some theory!

RB

One more point - on a Prout the mast is stepped aft, supported by the same bulkhead that the door is
in. In fact, the latch is about 2 feet below where the butt of the mast was. This is why we
concluded the flexing was caused by the rig.

As to your claim that the rig adds strength, this may be so, but it doesn't mean that a Nonsuch is
flimsy for lack of a rig. Perhaps they are overbuilt to compensate, but they are very strong, solid
boats.

--
-jeff


"Simple Simon" wrote in message ...
Then it sounds like the Prout might be designed to incorporate
the rigging into the total package to stiffen things up. That's
a problem with catamarans - the downward force of mast and
rigging places maximum loading on the center of the bridge deck
as there is no hull there into which to step the mast and loading.

So one can easily picture the hulls being pulled up by the rigging
while the center of the bridge deck is being pushed down. When
their mast and rigging forces are removed the bridge deck can
then assume a more upward position causing the house to warp
somewhat. This might cause the doors to jam, etc.

It fits my theory about how a properly stayed vessel is a
much stronger system then say a Nonsuch with an unstayed
mast.

S.Simon


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Your theory might have merit except for a few details:

First of all, the pictures are of my boat, while the problem was different boat, a Prout
37. The Prout has a third, central hull, called a "nacelle," and it is impractical to
support like mine. It is sitting on its keels. At first, I wondered if the center of the
Prout had sagged and should be supported, but we concluded that in fact the center had
risen when the weight and stress of the mast had been removed.

My boat is supported according to the factory specs. Although the keels can support the
hull for a limited period, they are not intended to support the hull for extended periods.
Since the three timbers are directly un the three bulkheads, the hull is support with no
flexing.



"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
I see the problem. Those jack stands blocking up the
bridge deck are doing just the opposite of what that
area of the boat is supposed to do. If the stands are
taking too much weight the hulls are sort of hanging
from the bridge deck. In the water the hulls support
the bridge deck.

In the water viewed from the front the bridge deck
would have a tendency to be curved down a little in
the center portions. Jacked up as it shows the bridge
deck would be curved the opposite way. This would
warp the house in an abnormal manner.

S.Simon


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
news
Its a catamaran - it can rest on its two keels. Prouts can be stashed like that
because
the keels are solid.

My keels, however, are "sacrificial" so its best to jack under the bridge, supporting
most
of the weight under the bulkheads:

http://www.sv-loki.com/Along_the_Way/UnderBelly.jpg



"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Check the jack stands. Some fool probably has the ones in the
middle way too tight and doing most of the work and bending
the boat in the process.

S.Simon


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
I had a odd experience yesterday. I went to the boat to finish winterizing, and
saw
my
neighbor trying to get into his boat, a Prout 37 (which, BTW, has done 3
trans-Atlantic
crossings). The companionway door was latched and locked - he was baffled
because
the
door had never latched in his experience (he's had the boat a year and always
locked
with
an external padlock). After a while we were able to pry it open and figure out
what
had
happened.

On Thursday the mast had been pulled. This seems to have relaxed the hull enough
that
the
latch, which had not recently engaged, now caught the latch plate. We estimate
maybe
1/16
inch of flexing.

Before you jump on the fact that a catamaran hull had a bit of flex, here's what
the
owner
said "I surprised there would be any flex at all - but my old C&C 37 flexed so
much
when
we unrigged her that it opened a deck leak."

As to your claim that the rig adds strength, this may be so, but it doesn't
mean that a Nonsuch is
flimsy for lack of a rig. Perhaps they are overbuilt to compensate, but they
are very strong, solid
boats.

No way! Let's wait to see Neal's links to rig failures for Freedom and Nonsuch.
I'm sure he knows what he's talking about!

RB

Another theory pulled from the ass of Simp. Over 2 thousand Nonsuches
and Freedoms produced and still in service, 20 plus years after their
introduction. You should be able to find the data to prove your
"theory". Step up, man or shut up.

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 00:10:49 -0500, "Simple Simon"
wrote:

Then it sounds like the Prout might be designed to incorporate
the rigging into the total package to stiffen things up. That's
a problem with catamarans - the downward force of mast and
rigging places maximum loading on the center of the bridge deck
as there is no hull there into which to step the mast and loading.

So one can easily picture the hulls being pulled up by the rigging
while the center of the bridge deck is being pushed down. When
their mast and rigging forces are removed the bridge deck can
then assume a more upward position causing the house to warp
somewhat. This might cause the doors to jam, etc.

It fits my theory about how a properly stayed vessel is a
much stronger system then say a Nonsuch with an unstayed
mast.

S.Simon


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...
Your theory might have merit except for a few details:

First of all, the pictures are of my boat, while the problem was different boat, a Prout
37. The Prout has a third, central hull, called a "nacelle," and it is impractical to
support like mine. It is sitting on its keels. At first, I wondered if the center of the
Prout had sagged and should be supported, but we concluded that in fact the center had
risen when the weight and stress of the mast had been removed.

My boat is supported according to the factory specs. Although the keels can support the
hull for a limited period, they are not intended to support the hull for extended periods.
Since the three timbers are directly un the three bulkheads, the hull is support with no
flexing.



"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
I see the problem. Those jack stands blocking up the
bridge deck are doing just the opposite of what that
area of the boat is supposed to do. If the stands are
taking too much weight the hulls are sort of hanging
from the bridge deck. In the water the hulls support
the bridge deck.

In the water viewed from the front the bridge deck
would have a tendency to be curved down a little in
the center portions. Jacked up as it shows the bridge
deck would be curved the opposite way. This would
warp the house in an abnormal manner.

S.Simon


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
news
Its a catamaran - it can rest on its two keels. Prouts can be stashed like that
because
the keels are solid.

My keels, however, are "sacrificial" so its best to jack under the bridge, supporting
most
of the weight under the bulkheads:

http://www.sv-loki.com/Along_the_Way/UnderBelly.jpg



"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Check the jack stands. Some fool probably has the ones in the
middle way too tight and doing most of the work and bending
the boat in the process.

S.Simon


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
I had a odd experience yesterday. I went to the boat to finish winterizing, and
saw
my
neighbor trying to get into his boat, a Prout 37 (which, BTW, has done 3
trans-Atlantic
crossings). The companionway door was latched and locked - he was baffled
because
the
door had never latched in his experience (he's had the boat a year and always
locked
with
an external padlock). After a while we were able to pry it open and figure out
what
had
happened.

On Thursday the mast had been pulled. This seems to have relaxed the hull enough
that
the
latch, which had not recently engaged, now caught the latch plate. We estimate
maybe
1/16
inch of flexing.

Before you jump on the fact that a catamaran hull had a bit of flex, here's what
the
owner
said "I surprised there would be any flex at all - but my old C&C 37 flexed so
much
when
we unrigged her that it opened a deck leak."

Another theory pulled from the ass of Simp. Over 2 thousand Nonsuches
and Freedoms produced and still in service, 20 plus years after their
introduction. You should be able to find the data to prove your
"theory". Step up, man or shut up.

I spoke to a Freedom rep at a show and he said the only rig failures of
Freedom's was ONE during a test prior to final production of the unstayed
system. As fas as he knew, no rig failures among the production boats. I
remember a friend telling me that a Nonsuch lost it's mast when it struck a
bridge. Does that count?

RB

Simp is talking about hull flex. I can't speak for Nonsuch, but the
Freedom is overbuilt. Cored hull with all bulkheads and structural
furniture completely tabbed to deck and hull. Falling off a wave, the
only thing rattling is my teeth.

Jeff is correct in presuming that unstayed rigs are built heavier to
compensate. I would go a little further and state that any stay
rigged boat, that requires an intact rig to insure hull ridgidity is
underbuilt.
On 10 Nov 2003 12:43:59 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote:

Another theory pulled from the ass of Simp. Over 2 thousand Nonsuches
and Freedoms produced and still in service, 20 plus years after their
introduction. You should be able to find the data to prove your
"theory". Step up, man or shut up.

I spoke to a Freedom rep at a show and he said the only rig failures of
Freedom's was ONE during a test prior to final production of the unstayed
system. As fas as he knew, no rig failures among the production boats. I
remember a friend telling me that a Nonsuch lost it's mast when it struck a
bridge. Does that count?

RB

There was a story of a Nonsuch on a single handed trans-Atlantic. He had a serious
problem - I think the boom broke or fell - and decided to abandon the boat and take a ride
on a freighter. About a year later the hull was spotted by a cruiser in South America; it
was being used by local fishermen, without mast. The owner was tracked down, and he came
and "bought" the hull, and had it refitted.

BTW, while I think the Nonsuch is superb coastal cruiser, it does have limitations as a
passagemaker. However, I still haven't found any documented stories of rig or hull
failures or capsizes - only claims of a "friend of a friend heard once in a bar ..."

jeff - member of the International Nonsuch Association for 8 years


"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
Another theory pulled from the ass of Simp. Over 2 thousand Nonsuches
and Freedoms produced and still in service, 20 plus years after their
introduction. You should be able to find the data to prove your
"theory". Step up, man or shut up.

I spoke to a Freedom rep at a show and he said the only rig failures of
Freedom's was ONE during a test prior to final production of the unstayed
system. As fas as he knew, no rig failures among the production boats. I
remember a friend telling me that a Nonsuch lost it's mast when it struck a
bridge. Does that count?

RB

passagemaker. However, I still haven't found any documented stories of rig or
hull
failures or capsizes - only claims of a "friend of a friend heard once in a bar
...."

Jeff, I can put you in touch with the skipper who was involved in multiple
capsizing on a Nonsuch. The story was covered on CBS news some years ago. The
boat was lost when the owner panicked and tossed the hatchboards over the side.
She had already rolled twice prior to this.
Contact me direct and I'll give you his number. He currently works at city
Island. He's doing a Miami delivery at the moment but will return in December.

RB

I'm not sure I want to hear this one, since I don't have a Nonsuch anymore, and wouldn't
use one for offshore purposes.

However, the "capsize issue" is that the bad stability numbers imply that a Nonsuch might
stay inverted. If your friend had multiple capsizes, this was not the case; he was doing
360's. Without hatchboards, this can be a critical situation. BTW, did they loose the
rig?

I certainly don't fault him for abandoning, but there's nothing in your brief account that
reflects poorly on the vessel.



"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
passagemaker. However, I still haven't found any documented stories of rig or
hull
failures or capsizes - only claims of a "friend of a friend heard once in a bar
..."

Jeff, I can put you in touch with the skipper who was involved in multiple
capsizing on a Nonsuch. The story was covered on CBS news some years ago. The
boat was lost when the owner panicked and tossed the hatchboards over the side.
She had already rolled twice prior to this.
Contact me direct and I'll give you his number. He currently works at city
Island. He's doing a Miami delivery at the moment but will return in December.

RB

About the only place I've seen "expansion joints", is on Navy ships
(which is not to say some passenger ships might have them).
On a tanker, the only place you'll see them will be on catwalks and in
piping (G can get downright squeaky).
Tankers, being built with longitudinal framing, tend to bend more, in
that direction.

otn

DSK wrote:
otnmbrd wrote:


Doesn't really matter what size the boat is, you will get some degree of
"flex", especially when you remove it from the water and put it on a
hard stand. BG you want to see flex, you should watch and listen to a
large tanker at sea, or watch one go from hog to sag when loading.


Sure. Why else would they build expansion joints into the upper decks of big (or even
medium-sized) ships?