Was: AS29 with long keel, now making changes
This thread reminds me of a conversation I had 20 years with a New England
canoe builder who had modified a Redmond Elver. He "redesigned it" to have a
round bottom, planking the whole boat lapstrake. It had sat unfinished in his
barn for some years at the time of our conversation.
He had realized that he had produced a boat that would be tender, cranky, and
would not sail very well at all, so he didn't have the heart to go on, nor
could he bring himself to burn such an investment of time and money.
Bolger might say that he had objected to the shape that gave the boat the
very characteristics that were attractive to him (not to put words in PCB's
mouth, but he said something very similar in his June Bug article :-)
Most designs can stand a bit of enlargement or reduction without ruining
them. Indeed, that was a common way of making boats of different sizes in the
"old days". However, when we change the basic criteria of a design, we do it
at great risk, it seems. There are so many designs out there that it is
impossible to conceive of any need that can't adequately be met by an
existing design; this of course, doesn't address the desire to have something
personal and different.
Cheers/Carron
philosophical mode off
In a message dated 04/22/2001 10:<BR35:<BR27 AM
Eastern Daylight,chuck@...writes:> Peter is absolutely
right. It just does not make sense to take a popular
canoe builder who had modified a Redmond Elver. He "redesigned it" to have a
round bottom, planking the whole boat lapstrake. It had sat unfinished in his
barn for some years at the time of our conversation.
He had realized that he had produced a boat that would be tender, cranky, and
would not sail very well at all, so he didn't have the heart to go on, nor
could he bring himself to burn such an investment of time and money.
Bolger might say that he had objected to the shape that gave the boat the
very characteristics that were attractive to him (not to put words in PCB's
mouth, but he said something very similar in his June Bug article :-)
Most designs can stand a bit of enlargement or reduction without ruining
them. Indeed, that was a common way of making boats of different sizes in the
"old days". However, when we change the basic criteria of a design, we do it
at great risk, it seems. There are so many designs out there that it is
impossible to conceive of any need that can't adequately be met by an
existing design; this of course, doesn't address the desire to have something
personal and different.
Cheers/Carron
philosophical mode off
In a message dated 04/22/2001 10:<BR35:<BR27 AM
Eastern Daylight,chuck@...writes:> Peter is absolutely
right. It just does not make sense to take a popular
> design by a talented guy like Mr. Bolger, and make major changes on yourlesser
> own. One thing you might try is asking him if one of his hundreds of
> known designs might better fit your own wish list.
>
> Chuck
>
> <snip>
> > It is not so much that"you can't" but rather"you shouldn't" unless you
> > want to either 1)commission the designer to make the necessary changes
> > and thereby benefit fully from proper engineering/scantling details
> > provided by the designer and support/consultation during the building
> > process. OR 2)Assume full respondsibility for the myriad details that
> > must be considered/modified to make"your"ideas work successfully.
> <snip>
> > Peter