On 12 Oct 2004 11:49:08 GMT, William R. Watt wrote:

Rodney Myrvaagnes ) writes:

If you are not racing, it is all the more important that you _like_
the behavior of the boat you are sailing. The only way to find out
what you like is to sail, a lot.

First time boatbuilders tend to like any boat they build regardless of
performance, and defend their ideosyncracies.

Probably true.


Dingy cruisers tend to
ignore performance while praising versatility and other such advantages,
as evidenced by the many Potter's, Comapacs, Dovekies, and such.

Yes. Definitely praising versatility and other such advantages!


I suspect
many dingy cruising sailors are campers and wanderers first, and sailors
last.

In my case, yes...

But, if making The Big effort to design and buid a dinghy I will not let it
be bad in any sense since it would be a waist of time and money.

Versatile, balanced, stable, reliable, roomy...
....wich doesn't seem to outrule a fast under waterline-body.

2 x 40kg pivoting centerboards (for low D)
water ballast
outboard well
at the weight of maximum 70Kgs (empty 17½' x 6½ hull).

....some luxeries wich naturally will slow the vesell down, but not more then
nesessary.

From the beginning I thought of some skegs wich are now outruled. Only true
foiles under WL!!!


Morgan O.

... OTOH many "cruising" oriented boats
(not just dinghies) are unnecessarily difficult to handle because the
rigs are cumbersome in an attempt to be "strong" and they have
sacrificed too much controllability.

Morgan Ohlson wrote:
Could you explain this, please. I undertand you mean that omthing in some
cruiser rigs is "to much" and contra productive.... How?

What to beware of?

Things to be wary of-

mast too heavy and/or too stiff.

stays too heavy and/or placed where they limit sail travel

Fittings not installed, or too big, and/or placed for looks (or
strength)instead of where most effective

running rigging too heavy and not allowing proper travel

For example, a mainsheet that does not run easily because the blocks &
rope are too big for the sail, and not long enough because the bigger
rope makes a cumbersome mass in the cockpit... seen this many times!

Another example is the vang & downhaul on many classic small craft...
they tend to be undersized or placed where they are unobtrusive, instead
of being rigged where they have maximum effective control... result is
that the rig goes all floppy & baggy in gusts, making the boat
frustrating to sail in anything but ideal conditions.

Many years ago I was invited to join a bunch of people racing a fleet of
beautiful small classics (in fact they were Herrshoff gaffers). After
gladly accepting, I spent about 45 minutes re-rigging the halyards &
downhaul & improvising a vang. The result was that I had a great time
sailing the boat, also won three races and their only comment was, "Look
what you've done to that poor boat!" But that's the nature of sport,
you're supposed to spend your time & effort overcoming a bunch of
artificially imposed barriers

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

William R. Watt wrote:
First time boatbuilders tend to like any boat they build regardless of
performance, and defend their ideosyncracies.

That's true. It's also why, in extreme cases, the builders are assumed
to be rather eccentric!


... Dingy cruisers tend to
ignore performance while praising versatility and other such advantages,
as evidenced by the many Potter's, Comapacs, Dovekies, and such. I suspect
many dingy cruising sailors are campers and wanderers first, and sailors
last.

Also very true. Anything is more fun if you can do it in a boat.
However, if you're going to be sailing anyway, why not make it fun?

Personally, I think sailing a boat is the most fun you can have with
your clothes on.

DSK

Morgan Ohlson wrote:

[...]

But, if making The Big effort to design and buid a dinghy I will not let
it be bad in any sense since it would be a waist of time and money.

Versatile, balanced, stable, reliable, roomy...
...wich doesn't seem to outrule a fast under waterline-body.

2 x 40kg pivoting centerboards (for low D)
water ballast
outboard well
at the weight of maximum 70Kgs (empty 17½' x 6½ hull).

...some luxeries wich naturally will slow the vesell down, but not more
then nesessary.

From the beginning I thought of some skegs wich are now outruled. Only
true foiles under WL!!!

Thos 70 kg's will not get you much boat. assuming a sg of 400 kg per m^3
those 70 kg will get you a stack of about 9 sheets of 6 mm ply. If you look
at other designs in this lengt range, you'll find that 9 sheets is pretty
low. But what are the ballasted boards and water ballast for? preventing
you to get on a plane? the ballasted boards will only do much good in a
capsized situation, but do you really want the boat to get get up again
after it has thrown you out? Sure it will lower the center of gravity
somewhat, but in the end it is only the vertical projection of the mass
that counts. moving your body around is much more effective then leting the
boat fall over.
Water ballast will make your boat more stable. At the cost of (at lot of)
space inside, it will save you from putting heavy ballast or floorboards
in. But it will probably prevent your boat from getting on a plane as it is
too heavy.

Maybe a catamaran style boat is what you are looking for? no need for water
ballast, can be built with less material (actually it is less boat anyway)
and will go faster than a dinghy, is more stable while still allowing a
narrow waterline.
Downside is that you will sit more exposed on it and that you will have much
less carrying capacity.

Some designers who's designs i like are Iain Ougthred (sp?) and John
Welshford. Youmight have a look at their designs first before designing
your own.

The Teal book is quite a good read, IMHO, but you should be able to find
some books focussed on smaller boats.

I designed and built (or better built & designed) my own folding dinghy, but
would go for plans next time. It takes too much time to think out the next
steps if you do not have a plan. and the cost is offset by the chance you
end up with a boat that is not what you thought it would be.

--
vriendelijke groeten/kind regards,

Jelle

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:41:59 +0200, Jelle wrote:

Morgan Ohlson wrote:

[...]

But, if making The Big effort to design and buid a dinghy I will not let
it be bad in any sense since it would be a waist of time and money.

Versatile, balanced, stable, reliable, roomy...
...wich doesn't seem to outrule a fast under waterline-body.

2 x 40kg pivoting centerboards (for low D)
water ballast
outboard well
at the weight of maximum 70Kgs (empty 17½' x 6½ hull).

...some luxeries wich naturally will slow the vesell down, but not more
then nesessary.

From the beginning I thought of some skegs wich are now outruled. Only
true foiles under WL!!!

Thos 70 kg's will not get you much boat.

**** off, please!

This kind of person is only around here to convinse me and you (other
builders) that we never should try to do any boat that wouldn't be
profitable for standard manufacturing.

The truth is that we can build boats far better compared to standard factory
modells. They blow their ****ing glass strands at random in a mould... and
talk about what is good and not. The fact is that the open camping cruiser
I'm on to would cost probably 10.000$ if built profesionally at my spec's.

I have met this kind of dooms day priests at some other forum before... and
they are only in it to bragg and to disincourage anyone trying to beat them
pro's. In one forum a person who claimed to be a pro stated that it was
impossible to build liter in GRP compared to plywood...

They have the idea that all hombuild always must look like a home built from
a kilometer or two.

Plywood is a good material, but everything else pro's like to keep for
themselves....

Arrrghhhh.....
Now I will take hot bath to relax from the pessimist salesman.

Greetings to all you serious home designers and builders.


Morgan O.
Former engineer in the aircraft industry.

Morgan Ohlson wrote:

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:41:59 +0200, Jelle wrote:

Morgan Ohlson wrote:

[...]

But, if making The Big effort to design and buid a dinghy I will not let
it be bad in any sense since it would be a waist of time and money.

Versatile, balanced, stable, reliable, roomy...
...wich doesn't seem to outrule a fast under waterline-body.

2 x 40kg pivoting centerboards (for low D)
water ballast
outboard well
at the weight of maximum 70Kgs (empty 17½' x 6½ hull).

...some luxeries wich naturally will slow the vesell down, but not more
then nesessary.

From the beginning I thought of some skegs wich are now outruled. Only
true foiles under WL!!!

Thos 70 kg's will not get you much boat.

**** off, please!

Usenet is not a nice place, but no need for you to make it more friendly.
You seem to forget that I spent time to answer your questions with some of
my experience, and asking nothing in return. Please accept that people on
usenet will seem/act a bit belingerent, just as we accept you acting like a
prick...

This kind of person is only around here to convinse me and you (other
builders) that we never should try to do any boat that wouldn't be
profitable for standard manufacturing.

Right. But where did i tell you to use standard manufacturing techniques? If
you have the skill to succesfully make a carbon/glass epoxy boat: fine go
ahead, and let us know of your successes. Most novice boatbuilders have
more luck with plywood, because it is relatively light and easy to work
with.

The truth is that we can build boats far better compared to standard
factory modells. They blow their ****ing glass strands at random in a
mould... and talk about what is good and not. The fact is that the open
camping cruiser I'm on to would cost probably 10.000$ if built
profesionally at my spec's.

So? Manufacturing boats is a though job? manual labour is expensive? As a
(former?) aircraft engineer, you must be used to getting a heafty hourly
wage. Now factor in normal overhead expenses and the like, what would your
boat cost?

I have met this kind of dooms day priests at some other forum before...
and they are only in it to bragg and to disincourage anyone trying to beat
them pro's. In one forum a person who claimed to be a pro stated that it
was impossible to build liter in GRP compared to plywood...

I am no pro, don't claim to be anything other an amateur. If you can make a
Glass reinforced boat that is lighter than a plywood boat of the same
strenght: go right ahead. Myself I will not try that route, not because I
don't believe your claim, but because you need to build a mould first, and
possibly need other vacuum kit as well. It is just too messy. I don't think
it is worth that much effort.

The book that you have not read by John Teal list GPR just a small rung
above building in steel, and I have a tendency to believe him more than
you.

They have the idea that all hombuild always must look like a home built
from a kilometer or two.

I can think for myself, and hopefully so can you. But you don't need to
imagine your ideas in my head, that only makes life more difficult.

Plywood is a good material, but everything else pro's like to keep for
themselves....

I would venture that more epoxy is sold to homebuilders than to professional
boatbuilders. (as pro's would go for cheaper polyester resins)

Arrrghhhh.....
Now I will take hot bath to relax from the pessimist salesman.

Greetings to all you serious home designers and builders.


Morgan O.
Former engineer in the aircraft industry.
And a lot of hands on experience with GPR in that industry I presume?

--
vriendelijke groeten/kind regards,

Jelle

begin msblaster.pif

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 21:28:12 +0200, Jelle wrote:

Morgan Ohlson wrote:

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:41:59 +0200, Jelle wrote:

Morgan Ohlson wrote:

Morgan O.
Former engineer in the aircraft industry.
And a lot of hands on experience with GPR in that industry I presume?

Yes, in the department I worked everybody, except for adminstrators worked
with some kind of composites. At that time we didn't work with for instance
Spectra, but that I did later on...

Perhaps could understand that there is basicly no difference at all in
building a graphite mast or a GRP mast...

Basicly there are no difference between vacuume or non-vacuum processes
either.... only the resulting percentage of voids.


Morgan O.

Morgan Ohlson wrote:
[...]
Yes, in the department I worked everybody, except for adminstrators worked
with some kind of composites. At that time we didn't work with for
instance Spectra, but that I did later on...

Mind if I ask what your age is? Spectra/kevlar/aramide etc have been around
for about 10 ? years and you are a former aircraft engineer (saab?)... =

Perhaps could understand that there is basicly no difference at all in
building a graphite mast or a GRP mast...
sure. but the site you mentioned was not detailing a very good grp mast was
it?

Basicly there are no difference between vacuume or non-vacuum processes
either.... only the resulting percentage of voids.
and the excess resin? and the shape and surface? I am not an expert, but I
can imagine these things will be much easier if you make a mold. And if you
have the mold, why not use a vacuum on it. after all, most carpenters clamp
their joints when they are glueing it, and this is 'just' glueing a bunch
of fibres together.



Morgan O.

--
vriendelijke groeten/kind regards,

Jelle

begin thereisnothinghere.exe

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:52:28 +0200, Jelle wrote:

Morgan Ohlson wrote:
[...]

and the excess resin?

Can easily be controlled with peel plies.


Morgan O.