Re: [bolger] Re: bolger houseboat design #481
Would the both of you get over it please.........................
----- Original Message -----
From: "lulalake_1999" <lulalake_1999@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 8:21 PM
Subject: [bolger] Re: bolger houseboat design #481
> First Foolish and unfair, now rude and defensive.
>
> Hmmmm.
>
> Some of my comments may seem a bit rude to you.
>
> I have however never called you foolish and unfair, nor have I
> called you rude and defensive, nor have I characterized your posts
> in any negative way, so lighten up.
>
> What I have said, and will say again is that, according to your
> figures, 82+ percent of Bolgers creations are NOT BLUEWATER BOATS.
>
> I don't find this to be evil, cheap, a cop out, less
> than "nautical", wasteful, silly, indulgent, nor does that fact
> demean Bolger in any way.
>
> I think that the designs are great for what they are intended for,
> if not the best for the intended purpose, then in the top 3.
>
> MOST of Bolger's designs are in this area. What's the problem with
> that? That is not a blanket statement that is FACT. Also, most of
> what Bolger sells are these designs.
>
> What is Bolger more or less famous for? Small interesting boats,
> more or less easily built, plywood, flat bottomed, wonderful lake
> and protected water, and really fun cruisers. This is great.
>
> Perhaps what you were offended by was my use of the words "very
> tiny". OK how about this:
>
> "Porky's humble opinion is that that seventy Bolger designs out of
> three hundred ninety nine or so boats represented here (17.54%) are
> blue water designs. This is not accurately represented by the
> adjectives "very tiny".
>
> I ask you again, what adjectives would you prefer I use, small,
> medium small, small medium?
>
> Cheers and fair winds Porky,
>
>
>
>
> --- In bolger@y..., "porcupinefysh" <porcupine@d...> wrote:
> > It would be difficult and rather pointless for me to respond to
> > everything in the rude and defensive post below. How can one make
> any
> > clearer what "in my humble opinion" means? How "VERY TINY" (his
> > capitalization) will be interpreted? What would it profit anyone
> to
> > point out that adding an [s] to the quote I cited was intended to
> > make the statement grammatically correct within the context of
> *my*
> > sentence, and is a commonly accepted practice in formal English
> > writing? How many semantic arguments can be raised in a single
> post
> > before the irrelevancy alarm gets sounded? I would again humbly
> > suggest to the writer that he more thoroughly review Mr. Bolger's
> > writings and designs before making broad statements about them.
> >
> > Here's the list of what are, in my opinion (whatever that
> means ;O),
> > in the opinion of others (including Bolger), or in actual use,
> > capable offshore vessels from the database. I've included design
> > numbers when available:
> >
> > AS29 #547*
> > Abbondanza #652
> > Africa #350
> > Alaskan One-Man Trawler #446
> > Alert #357
> > Antispray #642
> > Apogee #397
> > Ataraxia
> > Baltic Sea Cruiser-Racer #168
> > Barn Owl
> > Bell's Puffer
> > Big Bird
> > Bird of Dawning #361
> > Brigantine
> > Bright Thread
> > Bulk Cargo Carier
> > Caribbean Liveaboard #355
> > Colonel H.G.Hasler #635
> > Comercial Gill Fishing Boat
> > Compact Charter Schooner
> > Day Racing Schooner #541
> > Daysailer-Overnighter #176
> > Economy Seagoing Cruiser
> > Fiji
> > Hesperus #156
> > Homebuilt Yawl
> > Jack Hanna #565
> > Lion's Paw #404
> > Lobsterboat #413
> > Longship #572
> > Loose Moose II
> > Lynx #255
> > Margaret Mead
> > Moccasin #297
> > Monhegan #237
> > Motorsailing Cargo Boat #610
> > Nancy Jack #378
> > Newfoundlander
> > Nightingale
> > Nimbus #368
> > OSTAR Racer #459
> > Ocean Crossing Rowboat
> > Offshore Leeboarder
> > Palo de Aqua
> > Party Fishing Boat #260
> > Pico #383
> > Pinky Schooner #385
> > Presto Cruiser #269 & 267
> > Quest #347
> > Red Zinger #460
> > Resolution #312
> > Reiver II #621
> > Romp #372
> > Rose #225
> > Salvage #626
> > Seabird '86 #525
> > Shearwater #353
> > Solution 48 #370
> > Stone Camel #249
> > Tahiti #653
> > Titania #402
> > Tonwega #380
> > Triad #336
> > Volunteer
> > Weston Martyr #487
> > Unnamed #483
> > Vectis #309
> > Whaler
> >
> > By my count, there now seems to be seventy designs, including two
> > different Presto Cruisers. I imagine that some might find this
> list
> > too inclusive, and some (Bolger included) too limited. Arguing for
> or
> > against any specific design would be entertaining and
> enlightening, I
> > think, and may generate a little less emotional heat,
> >
> > porky
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In bolger@y..., "lulalake_1999" <lulalake_1999@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Foolish and unfair? Hmmmmm.
> > >
> > > You write, "By my count, the collection of 399 designs and
> > proposals
> > > in this mailing list's own Database contains at least 69 ocean
> > > capable
> > > bluewater vessels. That is approximately 17% of the total"
> > >
> > > Your figures may be accurate as to the amount of designs and
> > > proposals. When you say, "at least 69 are ocean capable" I'm
> afraid
> > > that you commit the same generalization that you have whacked my
> > > posts for.
> > >
> > > What do you mean by "Ocean capable", and do you mean "in my
> > opinion"
> > > that the designs in question are ocean capable? Also if 17% are
> > > ocean capable then 83%, by your count are NOT ocean capable. So
> is
> > > 17% tiny, sort of tiny, little, small, medium small, what?
> > >
> > > You write, "Most of these are not "average slab-sided, flat
> > > bottomed,
> > > narrow beamed Bolger boat[s]", but then, there is no such thing."
> > >
> > > I disagree. If you wanted to, you could take the lines off every
> > > boat Bolger has designed or proposed, get an average beam to
> length
> > > ratio, get a ratio and percentage of flat bottomed, round
> bottomed,
> > > deep Vee, shallow Vee (?), rig etc. and come up with some hard
> > > figures and accurate averages. This does appeal to my data
> analyst
> > > mind however I don't quite have the time.
> > >
> > > If one of us or did this I'm afraid however that the results
> would
> > > be subject to subjective opinion as to what describes seaworthy
> and
> > > ocean capable, and what does not, leading to, "what is the
> meaning
> > > of life and love" as was mentioned earlier.
> > >
> > > You write, "While criticism can be leveled at many of the man's
> > > specific designs, making blanket generalizations such as those
> in
> > > the citation above is foolish and unfair, imho."
> > >
> > > What would be foolish in my opinion would be to build slab-
> sided,
> > > flat-bottomed Bolger boat and to expect to sail to Bermuda in
> > > September or to Hawaii anytime (Getting there might be OK but
> > > getting back would be a problem).
> > >
> > > I have previously said several times that I feel that Bolger
> boats
> > > are excellent for their intended purpose. The greater amount,
> > > most,83% by your reckoning, are not bluewater capable.
> > >
> > >
> > > By the way, in your quote of my post you added an "[s]". This is
> > > inaccurate and grammatically incorrect, as I was referring to an
> > > average boat not an average boat[s] so if you are going to
> correct
> > > my grammar, please do so accurately.
> > >
> > > Cheers and fair winds....
>
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
> - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts and <snip> away
> - To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA,
01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject tohttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
> What is "the database?"The database is a list of the designs compiled by a few hard-working
members of the list employing the database feature of Yahoo Groups.
Go (come?) to this group on the web on Yahoo. On the left border is
the entry "Database". When you click it, you get four entries, one of
which is named "Boger Design List: and is THE DATABASE. It has basic
info about as many designs as info could be found for. There are some
duplicate entries and probably some minor errors.
Peter
Could I ask (another) stupid question? You have
listed below off-soundings vessels from "the
database." What is "the database?" Is there a way to
look at line drawings on these boats, or get other
information on them, at some database located on the
internet? Many of them I know, but many I don't, and
I would love to take a look at these designs. Thanks,
Sam>
Here's the list of what are, in my opinion (whatever
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
listed below off-soundings vessels from "the
database." What is "the database?" Is there a way to
look at line drawings on these boats, or get other
information on them, at some database located on the
internet? Many of them I know, but many I don't, and
I would love to take a look at these designs. Thanks,
Sam>
Here's the list of what are, in my opinion (whatever
> that means ;O),__________________________________________________
> in the opinion of others (including Bolger), or in
> actual use,
> capable offshore vessels from the database. I've
> included design
> numbers when available:
>
> AS29 #547*
> Abbondanza #652
> Africa #350
> Alaskan One-Man Trawler #446
> Alert #357
> Antispray #642
> Apogee #397
> Ataraxia
> Baltic Sea Cruiser-Racer #168
> Barn Owl
> Bell's Puffer
> Big Bird
> Bird of Dawning #361
> Brigantine
> Bright Thread
> Bulk Cargo Carier
> Caribbean Liveaboard #355
> Colonel H.G.Hasler #635
> Comercial Gill Fishing Boat
> Compact Charter Schooner
> Day Racing Schooner #541
> Daysailer-Overnighter #176
> Economy Seagoing Cruiser
> Fiji
> Hesperus #156
> Homebuilt Yawl
> Jack Hanna #565
> Lion's Paw #404
> Lobsterboat #413
> Longship #572
> Loose Moose II
> Lynx #255
> Margaret Mead
> Moccasin #297
> Monhegan #237
> Motorsailing Cargo Boat #610
> Nancy Jack #378
> Newfoundlander
> Nightingale
> Nimbus #368
> OSTAR Racer #459
> Ocean Crossing Rowboat
> Offshore Leeboarder
> Palo de Aqua
> Party Fishing Boat #260
> Pico #383
> Pinky Schooner #385
> Presto Cruiser #269 & 267
> Quest #347
> Red Zinger #460
> Resolution #312
> Reiver II #621
> Romp #372
> Rose #225
> Salvage #626
> Seabird '86 #525
> Shearwater #353
> Solution 48 #370
> Stone Camel #249
> Tahiti #653
> Titania #402
> Tonwega #380
> Triad #336
> Volunteer
> Weston Martyr #487
> Unnamed #483
> Vectis #309
> Whaler
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
Nels,
Tarpaper is an older form of asphalt roofing, usually a little thicker
than the roofing paper we see today. It was used as a final roof
covering, usually over a board roof (no plywood back then), and could be
used in vertical strips to cover the walls of a shack as well. The
walls behind the tarpaper would a boards, but would not need to fit
together tightly , since the tarpaper would make them wind- and
watertight.
Ford Walton
(snip)
Tarpaper is an older form of asphalt roofing, usually a little thicker
than the roofing paper we see today. It was used as a final roof
covering, usually over a board roof (no plywood back then), and could be
used in vertical strips to cover the walls of a shack as well. The
walls behind the tarpaper would a boards, but would not need to fit
together tightly , since the tarpaper would make them wind- and
watertight.
Ford Walton
(snip)
>
> In truth I have never seen a tarpaper shack. Can anyone give us a
> rundown on what defines one? What is tarpaper anyway? Is it used in
> place of plywood? What thickness' does it come in? Is it in rolls
> like asphalt roofing or in sheets? Will it accept epoxy fillets or
> just use a hot glue gun? Is it paintable? I am assuming it is
> waterproof.
>
> Would I have to do a boil test?
>
> Nels (Invisioning a tarpaper canoe covered with birchbark mac tac;-))
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
> - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts and <snip> away
> - To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject tohttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
LOL!
The Corfu Coffin
4 jiggers orange juice
1 jigger apple juice
2 jiggers Ouzo
over ice (Mineral water ice) with a few sprigs of mint on top.
Try this in the cockpit of that freshly built Tennessee while
Leisurely crusing up the Ten Tom on a sultry southern evening among
the lightning bugs and the cicada songs.
Do try this at home
Jules
The Corfu Coffin
4 jiggers orange juice
1 jigger apple juice
2 jiggers Ouzo
over ice (Mineral water ice) with a few sprigs of mint on top.
Try this in the cockpit of that freshly built Tennessee while
Leisurely crusing up the Ten Tom on a sultry southern evening among
the lightning bugs and the cicada songs.
Do try this at home
Jules
--- In bolger@y..., Chris Crandall <crandall@u...> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, lulalake_1999 wrote:
> > I disagree. If you wanted to, you could take the lines off every
> > boat Bolger has designed or proposed, get an average beam to
length
> > ratio, get a ratio and percentage of flat bottomed, round
bottomed,
> > deep Vee, shallow Vee (?), rig etc. and come up with some hard
> > figures and accurate averages.
>
> That would be GIGO. Consider the following analogy:
>
> If you wanted to, you could make a mixture of orange juice, banana
juice,
> betel juice, palm juice, coconut juice, bug juice, and prune
juice, get an
> average color, average texture, average protein content, etc., and
come up
> with some hard figure and accurate averages.
>
> But you wouldn't know anything about juice.
> Ditto point--mixing apple juice and orange juice. Both are fine,
the
> arithmetical average of the two is . . . yuck.
On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, lulalake_1999 wrote:
If you wanted to, you could make a mixture of orange juice, banana juice,
betel juice, palm juice, coconut juice, bug juice, and prune juice, get an
average color, average texture, average protein content, etc., and come up
with some hard figure and accurate averages.
But you wouldn't know anything about juice.
Ditto point--mixing apple juice and orange juice. Both are fine, the
arithmetical average of the two is . . . yuck.
> I disagree. If you wanted to, you could take the lines off everyThat would be GIGO. Consider the following analogy:
> boat Bolger has designed or proposed, get an average beam to length
> ratio, get a ratio and percentage of flat bottomed, round bottomed,
> deep Vee, shallow Vee (?), rig etc. and come up with some hard
> figures and accurate averages.
If you wanted to, you could make a mixture of orange juice, banana juice,
betel juice, palm juice, coconut juice, bug juice, and prune juice, get an
average color, average texture, average protein content, etc., and come up
with some hard figure and accurate averages.
But you wouldn't know anything about juice.
Ditto point--mixing apple juice and orange juice. Both are fine, the
arithmetical average of the two is . . . yuck.
> By my count, the collection of 399 designs and proposals in thisthe
> mailing list's own Database contains at least 69 ocean capable
> bluewater vessels. That is approximately 17% of the total, hardly
> tiny output implied above. In fact, many other designers don't have69
> vessels in their entire catalogs.It is hard to actually open ocean test a large number of your own
>
boats. I think where this category is concerned I feel a case of
the "after yous" coming on. There are a number of designers with
hugely more ocean experience in their own designs than PCB, as far as
I know. Can't hold that against him, but it means you are your own
test pilot.
> If PCB designed a tarpaper shack boat, I bet it would have arounded
> shape:-)))
>
> In truth I have never seen a tarpaper shack. Can anyone give us a
> rundown on what defines one? What is tarpaper anyway? Is it used in
> place of plywood? What thickness' does it come in? Is it in rolls
> like asphalt roofing or in sheets? Will it accept epoxy fillets or
> just use a hot glue gun? Is it paintable? I am assuming it is
> waterproof.
>
> Would I have to do a boil test?
>
> Nels (Invisioning a tarpaper canoe covered with birchbark mac tac;-
tarpaper shacks are kind of a you'll-know-it-when-you-see-it sort of
thing. People build the shack, get to the point of puting the
tarpaper up, kind of a predecsesor to housewrap, and then they don't
bother with the fancy siding, they just leave it. There are homasote
like panels that have a tar outer on them, I don't know if the
original stuff was building "felt"/paper or what.
Boat wise, there was a crazy article about an attractive pair of
horse riding circus performers, who built and designed their own
Wharram like catamaran, for the ostensible purpose of sailing to
america to get some more of the horses they used in their act. They
used tar, possibly tar paper in their hulls, that were sort of
elongated wharramesque coricals (sp?) Wooden Boat had a big spread
on them, and I have often wondered what became of them.
Foolish and unfair? Hmmmmm.
You write, "By my count, the collection of 399 designs and proposals
in this mailing list's own Database contains at least 69 ocean
capable
bluewater vessels. That is approximately 17% of the total"
Your figures may be accurate as to the amount of designs and
proposals. When you say, "at least 69 are ocean capable" I'm afraid
that you commit the same generalization that you have whacked my
posts for.
What do you mean by "Ocean capable", and do you mean "in my opinion"
that the designs in question are ocean capable? Also if 17% are
ocean capable then 83%, by your count are NOT ocean capable. So is
17% tiny, sort of tiny, little, small, medium small, what?
You write, "Most of these are not "average slab-sided, flat
bottomed,
narrow beamed Bolger boat[s]", but then, there is no such thing."
I disagree. If you wanted to, you could take the lines off every
boat Bolger has designed or proposed, get an average beam to length
ratio, get a ratio and percentage of flat bottomed, round bottomed,
deep Vee, shallow Vee (?), rig etc. and come up with some hard
figures and accurate averages. This does appeal to my data analyst
mind however I don't quite have the time.
If one of us or did this I'm afraid however that the results would
be subject to subjective opinion as to what describes seaworthy and
ocean capable, and what does not, leading to, "what is the meaning
of life and love" as was mentioned earlier.
You write, "While criticism can be leveled at many of the man's
specific designs, making blanket generalizations such as those in
the citation above is foolish and unfair, imho."
What would be foolish in my opinion would be to build slab-sided,
flat-bottomed Bolger boat and to expect to sail to Bermuda in
September or to Hawaii anytime (Getting there might be OK but
getting back would be a problem).
I have previously said several times that I feel that Bolger boats
are excellent for their intended purpose. The greater amount,
most,83% by your reckoning, are not bluewater capable.
By the way, in your quote of my post you added an "[s]". This is
inaccurate and grammatically incorrect, as I was referring to an
average boat not an average boat[s] so if you are going to correct
my grammar, please do so accurately.
Cheers and fair winds
Jules
You write, "By my count, the collection of 399 designs and proposals
in this mailing list's own Database contains at least 69 ocean
capable
bluewater vessels. That is approximately 17% of the total"
Your figures may be accurate as to the amount of designs and
proposals. When you say, "at least 69 are ocean capable" I'm afraid
that you commit the same generalization that you have whacked my
posts for.
What do you mean by "Ocean capable", and do you mean "in my opinion"
that the designs in question are ocean capable? Also if 17% are
ocean capable then 83%, by your count are NOT ocean capable. So is
17% tiny, sort of tiny, little, small, medium small, what?
You write, "Most of these are not "average slab-sided, flat
bottomed,
narrow beamed Bolger boat[s]", but then, there is no such thing."
I disagree. If you wanted to, you could take the lines off every
boat Bolger has designed or proposed, get an average beam to length
ratio, get a ratio and percentage of flat bottomed, round bottomed,
deep Vee, shallow Vee (?), rig etc. and come up with some hard
figures and accurate averages. This does appeal to my data analyst
mind however I don't quite have the time.
If one of us or did this I'm afraid however that the results would
be subject to subjective opinion as to what describes seaworthy and
ocean capable, and what does not, leading to, "what is the meaning
of life and love" as was mentioned earlier.
You write, "While criticism can be leveled at many of the man's
specific designs, making blanket generalizations such as those in
the citation above is foolish and unfair, imho."
What would be foolish in my opinion would be to build slab-sided,
flat-bottomed Bolger boat and to expect to sail to Bermuda in
September or to Hawaii anytime (Getting there might be OK but
getting back would be a problem).
I have previously said several times that I feel that Bolger boats
are excellent for their intended purpose. The greater amount,
most,83% by your reckoning, are not bluewater capable.
By the way, in your quote of my post you added an "[s]". This is
inaccurate and grammatically incorrect, as I was referring to an
average boat not an average boat[s] so if you are going to correct
my grammar, please do so accurately.
Cheers and fair winds
Jules
--- In bolger@y..., "porcupinefysh" <porcupine@d...> wrote:
> Comments below....
>
> --- In bolger@y..., "lulalake_1999" <lulalake_1999@y...> wrote:
> > ....There are a
> > few Bolger designs that will take 10' seas and 60 knot winds but
> VERY
> > FEW. Bolger's designs are *generally* not intended for these
> > conditions and that's fine. They are great family boats that do
> > wonderfully in the right conditions, rivers. lakes, the ICW,
short
> > offshore jaunts, even some island hopping. They are NOT salty
dog-
> > open water boats. To encounter really heavy weather in the
average
> > slab sided, flat bottomed, narrow beamed Bolger boat is really
> > pushing the boat and the crew to their outside edges....
>
> By my count, the collection of 399 designs and proposals in this
> mailing list's own Database contains at least 69 ocean capable
> bluewater vessels. That is approximately 17% of the total, hardly
the
> tiny output implied above. In fact, many other designers don't
have 69
> vessels in their entire catalogs.
>
> Bolger no doubt has more offshore designs among the 700+ he has
drawn
> to date. Most of these are not "average slab-sided, flat bottomed,
> narrow beamed Bolger boat[s]", but then, there is no such thing.
> Bolger's range extends from square to round and everything in
between.
> He has designed boats for lapstrake, carvel, cold-molded, strip
plank,
> traditional plywood, stitch & glue, as well as steel, aluminum,
> fiberglass and ferrocement. Size ranges from the 5'6" Shoe Box to
the
> 114' Rose. While criticism can be leveled at many of the man's
> specific designs, making blanket generalizations such as those in
> the citation above is foolish and unfair, imho.
>
> A reasoned study of Bolger's output belies the popular impression
that
> he's a one trick pony. I would hope that the members of this list,
> with the information so easily within reach, would not fall for
such
> misconceptions,
>
> porky
On Friday, June 21, 2002, at 08:13 AM, recree8 wrote:
While on vacation in Mexico I saw corrugated tar paper used
as a roofing material. I thought it was clever.
hal
> In truth I have never seen a tarpaper shack. Can anyone give us aA tar paper shack must be made of Tar Paper.
> rundown on what defines one? What is tarpaper anyway? Is it used in
> place of plywood? What thickness' does it come in? Is it in rolls
> like asphalt roofing or in sheets? Will it accept epoxy fillets or
> just use a hot glue gun? Is it paintable? I am assuming it is
> waterproof.
While on vacation in Mexico I saw corrugated tar paper used
as a roofing material. I thought it was clever.
hal
--- In bolger@y..., "mikestockstill" <mkstocks@b...> wrote:
photos and plans for tarpaper shacks showing their similarity to
Bolger boats.
If PCB designed a tarpaper shack boat, I bet it would have a rounded
shape:-)
In truth I have never seen a tarpaper shack. Can anyone give us a
rundown on what defines one? What is tarpaper anyway? Is it used in
place of plywood? What thickness' does it come in? Is it in rolls
like asphalt roofing or in sheets? Will it accept epoxy fillets or
just use a hot glue gun? Is it paintable? I am assuming it is
waterproof.
Would I have to do a boil test?
Nels (Invisioning a tarpaper canoe covered with birchbark mac tac;-))
> I propose a tarpaper houseboat.Perhaps add another group on tarpaper construction. People could post
photos and plans for tarpaper shacks showing their similarity to
Bolger boats.
If PCB designed a tarpaper shack boat, I bet it would have a rounded
shape:-)
In truth I have never seen a tarpaper shack. Can anyone give us a
rundown on what defines one? What is tarpaper anyway? Is it used in
place of plywood? What thickness' does it come in? Is it in rolls
like asphalt roofing or in sheets? Will it accept epoxy fillets or
just use a hot glue gun? Is it paintable? I am assuming it is
waterproof.
Would I have to do a boil test?
Nels (Invisioning a tarpaper canoe covered with birchbark mac tac;-))
I propose a tarpaper houseboat.
Comments below....
--- In bolger@y..., "lulalake_1999" <lulalake_1999@y...> wrote:
> ....There are a
> few Bolger designs that will take 10' seas and 60 knot winds but
VERY
> FEW. Bolger's designs are *generally* not intended for these
> conditions and that's fine. They are great family boats that do
> wonderfully in the right conditions, rivers. lakes, the ICW, short
> offshore jaunts, even some island hopping. They are NOT salty dog-
> open water boats. To encounter really heavy weather in the average
> slab sided, flat bottomed, narrow beamed Bolger boat is really
> pushing the boat and the crew to their outside edges....
By my count, the collection of 399 designs and proposals in this
mailing list's own Database contains at least 69 ocean capable
bluewater vessels. That is approximately 17% of the total, hardly the
tiny output implied above. In fact, many other designers don't have 69
vessels in their entire catalogs.
Bolger no doubt has more offshore designs among the 700+ he has drawn
to date. Most of these are not "average slab-sided, flat bottomed,
narrow beamed Bolger boat[s]", but then, there is no such thing.
Bolger's range extends from square to round and everything in between.
He has designed boats for lapstrake, carvel, cold-molded, strip plank,
traditional plywood, stitch & glue, as well as steel, aluminum,
fiberglass and ferrocement. Size ranges from the 5'6" Shoe Box to the
114' Rose. While criticism can be leveled at many of the man's
specific designs, making blanket generalizations such as those in
the citation above is foolish and unfair, imho.
A reasoned study of Bolger's output belies the popular impression that
he's a one trick pony. I would hope that the members of this list,
with the information so easily within reach, would not fall for such
misconceptions,
porky
I disagree strongly. To me, all a tar paper shack implies is that the
builder could not afford more. A tar paper shack could be a real
marvel within its genre. Not all poor folks are foolish idiots, just
as not all wealthy people are (tho I saw quite a few on the water
today). I think in this context it's not shameful to use the term for
SOME of the designs.
builder could not afford more. A tar paper shack could be a real
marvel within its genre. Not all poor folks are foolish idiots, just
as not all wealthy people are (tho I saw quite a few on the water
today). I think in this context it's not shameful to use the term for
SOME of the designs.
--- In bolger@y..., "recree8" <arvent@h...> wrote:
> I believe it is a very poor and unkind analogy for the following
> reasons:
>
> A tar paper shack implies no planning or engineering skills or
> forethought. This does not reflect PCB's genius in my view and is an
> insult to his intelligence and drafting abilities.
>
> It implies slapping together whatever materials are available
without
> regard to efficiency of purpose, or proper measuring and stablity
> concerns or effecient use of the available materials. snip
> It implies a disregard to building codes, safety issues and
> permanency against the elements.
>
> It implies something you would not want to have in your back yard or
> your neighbours.
Many people feel that way about some Bolger designs!
Hi Jules,
I've got a feeling that we really don't disagree a whole lot. We may have a little trouble agreeing,
that's all.
Truth have it, very few, maybe even none, of Bolger's designs, if well constructed according to his
plans, will ever break in heavy seas. But the skills required to safely navigate a small boat through
a North Atlantic winter gale aren't generally developed by our type of summer sailors. The boat can
almost always stand more than its crew can. If you hold to the wrong course, steam on with more
throttle than sanity, expose your ship to breaking waves, yes, you will find your voyage more
perilous (and a lot more uncomfortable) in a Bolger Box than in a North Sea Pilot Boat.
You really hadn't ought to be there in the first place, however. Carrying around all of the heft, the
heavy scantlings, the thick planking and the disproportionately heavy ballast is a burden that stays
with the vessel all of her time. And it all costs a lot of money. Fortunately we've got a mentor who
can direct us to the type of boat which will do for our real needs and still be strong enough to keep
body and soul together in a hard place. Most of his sails show reef points and most of his power
boats aren't gifted with enormous over power.
One of the neatest things about the latest boxes is that even if knocked all the way down to their
beam ends (90deg) they don't flood. That is the virtue of the high sides. And for the most part they
are all designed to be self righting.
Valid criticism of designs, and features of designs is important. It improves the state of the art.
It is even generally useful. A person can learn about features to be in or ex cluded from his next
project. Of course there are other gifted designers, some of whom do concentrate on blue water stuff.
A lot of them, however, tend to look down on Bolger & Friends, preferring to remain attractive to
those who have big money to spend.
Jim
lulalake_1999 wrote:
I've got a feeling that we really don't disagree a whole lot. We may have a little trouble agreeing,
that's all.
Truth have it, very few, maybe even none, of Bolger's designs, if well constructed according to his
plans, will ever break in heavy seas. But the skills required to safely navigate a small boat through
a North Atlantic winter gale aren't generally developed by our type of summer sailors. The boat can
almost always stand more than its crew can. If you hold to the wrong course, steam on with more
throttle than sanity, expose your ship to breaking waves, yes, you will find your voyage more
perilous (and a lot more uncomfortable) in a Bolger Box than in a North Sea Pilot Boat.
You really hadn't ought to be there in the first place, however. Carrying around all of the heft, the
heavy scantlings, the thick planking and the disproportionately heavy ballast is a burden that stays
with the vessel all of her time. And it all costs a lot of money. Fortunately we've got a mentor who
can direct us to the type of boat which will do for our real needs and still be strong enough to keep
body and soul together in a hard place. Most of his sails show reef points and most of his power
boats aren't gifted with enormous over power.
One of the neatest things about the latest boxes is that even if knocked all the way down to their
beam ends (90deg) they don't flood. That is the virtue of the high sides. And for the most part they
are all designed to be self righting.
Valid criticism of designs, and features of designs is important. It improves the state of the art.
It is even generally useful. A person can learn about features to be in or ex cluded from his next
project. Of course there are other gifted designers, some of whom do concentrate on blue water stuff.
A lot of them, however, tend to look down on Bolger & Friends, preferring to remain attractive to
those who have big money to spend.
Jim
lulalake_1999 wrote:
> Hi Jim,[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> You Write, "The simple fact is that most people use their boats along
> shore. Our current lifestyle requires 9 to 5 and more, five days a
> week. His work gives us the greatest degree of utility, honest
> seaworthiness and low cost that is available today that we can make
> use of under our style of living's limitations, imho."
>
> YES, that's the whole point of what I'm trying to say. There are a
> few Bolger designs that will take 10' seas and 60 knot winds but VERY
> FEW. Bolger's designs are *generally* not intended for these
> conditions and that's fine. They are great family boats that do
> wonderfully in the right conditions, rivers. lakes, the ICW, short
> offshore jaunts, even some island hopping. They are NOT salty dog-
> open water boats. To encounter really heavy weather in the average
> slab sided, flat bottomed, narrow beamed Bolger boat is really
> pushing the boat and the crew to their outside edges.
>
> I don't think there is real contentiousness in this thread. I hope
> that this group doesn't fall into "fan club" status. Yes, we all
> admire Bolger's designs but we absolutely must recognize the design
> limitations, at least I certainly will, and to critique the designs
> is the only way to get an honest opinion about the designs.
> Critiquing the designs is not critiquing the man.
>
> Jules
>
>
--- In bolger@y..., "Roger S" <roger99a@h...> wrote:
mean the economy is going up or down in your area? Of the three,
which is you favorite? Perhaps a Bolger Brick with a "faux brick"
finish and a tar paper shack on top would be the ideal solution in
low cost houseboats! :-)
Nels - from Saskatchewan (Where they lived in "soddies")
> You folks have evidently never lived in a tar paper shack. Some ofthem
> will last decades if properly cared for. The really nice ones havea "faux
> brick" finish. I've lived in mobile homes, too. It's much betterthan
> living in a Bolger Brick.So are you saying you are living in a Bolger Brick now??? Does that
>
> Roge rS
>
>
mean the economy is going up or down in your area? Of the three,
which is you favorite? Perhaps a Bolger Brick with a "faux brick"
finish and a tar paper shack on top would be the ideal solution in
low cost houseboats! :-)
Nels - from Saskatchewan (Where they lived in "soddies")
You folks have evidently never lived in a tar paper shack. Some of them
will last decades if properly cared for. The really nice ones have a "faux
brick" finish. I've lived in mobile homes, too. It's much better than
living in a Bolger Brick.
Roge rS
will last decades if properly cared for. The really nice ones have a "faux
brick" finish. I've lived in mobile homes, too. It's much better than
living in a Bolger Brick.
Roge rS
> > "nautical equivalent of a tar paper shack"01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
>
> I don't think this is a very good analogy. The essence of a tar paper
> shack is the use of inexpensive and available but inappropriate,
> short-lived material. A Bolger box should be built of good materials
> and last as long as any other boat if properly cared for.
>
> I offer "nautical equivalent of a double-wide trailer" as an
> alternative.
>
> PHV
>
>
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
> - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts and <snip> away
> - To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA,
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject tohttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
I would suggest that all his books and write - ups in MAIB and SBJ
and Woodenboat mention the intended use for each boat. He also
mentions in many discourses that it is the sailor that is the final
decision maker and not the designer.
Nels
and Woodenboat mention the intended use for each boat. He also
mentions in many discourses that it is the sailor that is the final
decision maker and not the designer.
Nels
--- In bolger@y..., "lulalake_1999" <lulalake_1999@y...> wrote:
> Hi Tim,
>
> You Write, "Phil does not strike me as a man who would recommend
> anything unless he was DAMN sure it would work."
>
> I've never actually seen a recommendation from Bolger as to where
to
> sail what design. It would be interesting.
>
> Jules
>
>
>
> --- In bolger@y..., "timothyennuinet" <timothy@e...> wrote:
> > --- In bolger@y..., "lulalake_1999" <lulalake_1999@y...> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > YES, that's the whole point of what I'm trying to say. There
are
> a
> > > few Bolger designs that will take 10' seas and 60 knot winds
but
> VERY
> > > FEW. Bolger's designs are *generally* not intended for these
> > > conditions and that's fine. They are great family boats that do
> > > wonderfully in the right conditions, rivers. lakes, the ICW,
> short
> > > offshore jaunts, even some island hopping. They are NOT salty
dog-
> > > open water boats. To encounter really heavy weather in the
> average
> > > slab sided, flat bottomed, narrow beamed Bolger boat is really
> > > pushing the boat and the crew to their outside edges.
> > <snip>
> >
> > Hmm.. well.. what about the loose moose? An AS-39 that had braved
> more
> > than her fair share of blue water... and thats definitely not an
> > atypical example.
> >
> > Ill agree, of course, that the martha jane couldn't take open
water.
> > But the AS-39 could, and has.
> >
> > Which brings us to the point that the issue isn't, I think, a
> generic
> > question of Bolger design, but one of Blue water worthiness. And
> THAT
> > discussion, my friends, will lead us into the same territory as
the
> > questions of 'what is love?' endless debate and little
> resolution. :)
> >
> > Phil does not strike me as a man who would recommend anything
unless
> > he was DAMN sure it would work. So, if you want to know if a
> > particular design will take heavy seas, ask him. He'll write you
> back. :)
> >
> > --T
Hi Tim,
You Write, "Phil does not strike me as a man who would recommend
anything unless he was DAMN sure it would work."
I've never actually seen a recommendation from Bolger as to where to
sail what design. It would be interesting.
Jules
You Write, "Phil does not strike me as a man who would recommend
anything unless he was DAMN sure it would work."
I've never actually seen a recommendation from Bolger as to where to
sail what design. It would be interesting.
Jules
--- In bolger@y..., "timothyennuinet" <timothy@e...> wrote:
> --- In bolger@y..., "lulalake_1999" <lulalake_1999@y...> wrote:
> <snip>
> > YES, that's the whole point of what I'm trying to say. There are
a
> > few Bolger designs that will take 10' seas and 60 knot winds but
VERY
> > FEW. Bolger's designs are *generally* not intended for these
> > conditions and that's fine. They are great family boats that do
> > wonderfully in the right conditions, rivers. lakes, the ICW,
short
> > offshore jaunts, even some island hopping. They are NOT salty dog-
> > open water boats. To encounter really heavy weather in the
average
> > slab sided, flat bottomed, narrow beamed Bolger boat is really
> > pushing the boat and the crew to their outside edges.
> <snip>
>
> Hmm.. well.. what about the loose moose? An AS-39 that had braved
more
> than her fair share of blue water... and thats definitely not an
> atypical example.
>
> Ill agree, of course, that the martha jane couldn't take open water.
> But the AS-39 could, and has.
>
> Which brings us to the point that the issue isn't, I think, a
generic
> question of Bolger design, but one of Blue water worthiness. And
THAT
> discussion, my friends, will lead us into the same territory as the
> questions of 'what is love?' endless debate and little
resolution. :)
>
> Phil does not strike me as a man who would recommend anything unless
> he was DAMN sure it would work. So, if you want to know if a
> particular design will take heavy seas, ask him. He'll write you
back. :)
>
> --T
--- In bolger@y..., "lulalake_1999" <lulalake_1999@y...> wrote:
<snip>
> YES, that's the whole point of what I'm trying to say. There are a
> few Bolger designs that will take 10' seas and 60 knot winds but VERY
> FEW. Bolger's designs are *generally* not intended for these
> conditions and that's fine. They are great family boats that do
> wonderfully in the right conditions, rivers. lakes, the ICW, short
> offshore jaunts, even some island hopping. They are NOT salty dog-
> open water boats. To encounter really heavy weather in the average
> slab sided, flat bottomed, narrow beamed Bolger boat is really
> pushing the boat and the crew to their outside edges.
<snip>
Hmm.. well.. what about the loose moose? An AS-39 that had braved more
than her fair share of blue water... and thats definitely not an
atypical example.
Ill agree, of course, that the martha jane couldn't take open water.
But the AS-39 could, and has.
Which brings us to the point that the issue isn't, I think, a generic
question of Bolger design, but one of Blue water worthiness. And THAT
discussion, my friends, will lead us into the same territory as the
questions of 'what is love?' endless debate and little resolution. :)
Phil does not strike me as a man who would recommend anything unless
he was DAMN sure it would work. So, if you want to know if a
particular design will take heavy seas, ask him. He'll write you back. :)
--T
Hi Jim,
You Write, "The simple fact is that most people use their boats along
shore. Our current lifestyle requires 9 to 5 and more, five days a
week. His work gives us the greatest degree of utility, honest
seaworthiness and low cost that is available today that we can make
use of under our style of living's limitations, imho."
YES, that's the whole point of what I'm trying to say. There are a
few Bolger designs that will take 10' seas and 60 knot winds but VERY
FEW. Bolger's designs are *generally* not intended for these
conditions and that's fine. They are great family boats that do
wonderfully in the right conditions, rivers. lakes, the ICW, short
offshore jaunts, even some island hopping. They are NOT salty dog-
open water boats. To encounter really heavy weather in the average
slab sided, flat bottomed, narrow beamed Bolger boat is really
pushing the boat and the crew to their outside edges.
I don't think there is real contentiousness in this thread. I hope
that this group doesn't fall into "fan club" status. Yes, we all
admire Bolger's designs but we absolutely must recognize the design
limitations, at least I certainly will, and to critique the designs
is the only way to get an honest opinion about the designs.
Critiquing the designs is not critiquing the man.
Jules
You Write, "The simple fact is that most people use their boats along
shore. Our current lifestyle requires 9 to 5 and more, five days a
week. His work gives us the greatest degree of utility, honest
seaworthiness and low cost that is available today that we can make
use of under our style of living's limitations, imho."
YES, that's the whole point of what I'm trying to say. There are a
few Bolger designs that will take 10' seas and 60 knot winds but VERY
FEW. Bolger's designs are *generally* not intended for these
conditions and that's fine. They are great family boats that do
wonderfully in the right conditions, rivers. lakes, the ICW, short
offshore jaunts, even some island hopping. They are NOT salty dog-
open water boats. To encounter really heavy weather in the average
slab sided, flat bottomed, narrow beamed Bolger boat is really
pushing the boat and the crew to their outside edges.
I don't think there is real contentiousness in this thread. I hope
that this group doesn't fall into "fan club" status. Yes, we all
admire Bolger's designs but we absolutely must recognize the design
limitations, at least I certainly will, and to critique the designs
is the only way to get an honest opinion about the designs.
Critiquing the designs is not critiquing the man.
Jules
--- In bolger@y..., Jim Pope <jpope@a...> wrote:
> It seems that this thread is getting a tad contentious. Phil
Bolger's designs aren't limited to
> inshore protected water nor are they focused on 'round the Horn
world cruisers. No Whitbread Racers
> but occasionally some fast sailboats.
>
> Houseboats simply aren't intended for ocean voyaging, not his nor
those of anyone else that I'm aware
> of. As to Phil's turning his back on members of the group, that
simply is not so. I know because in
> conversations at his house I've asked him about it.
> He doesn't follow the group because to do so would take up too much
time.
>
> His rowboat to cross the Atlantic was as seaworthy a design for the
purpose that I have seen, way
> better, in my opinion, than the one that was used in an Atlantic
crossing competition and was sold to
> its users in expensive kit form. If I had sufficient confidence in
the captain and crew I'd certainly
> go deepwater voyaging on the Rose, and a fair number of folks have
taken his sharpies across oceans
> and other offshore voyages.
>
> The simple fact is that most people use their boats along shore.
Our current lifestyle requires 9 to
> 5 and more, five days a week. His work gives us the greatest degree
of utility, honest seaworthiness
> and low cost that is available today that we can make use of under
our style of living's limitations,
> imho.
>
> Jim
>
>
> lulalake_1999 wrote:
>
> > Hi Nels,
> > I have a few issues with you post.
"but than what are you going to compare that full rigged
ship to?"
A tar paper castle?? :- )
ship to?"
A tar paper castle?? :- )
I believe it is a very poor and unkind analogy for the following
reasons:
A tar paper shack implies no planning or engineering skills or
forethought. This does not reflect PCB's genius in my view and is an
insult to his intelligence and drafting abilities.
It implies slapping together whatever materials are available without
regard to efficiency of purpose, or proper measuring and stablity
concerns or effecient use of the available materials. Are there hand
drawn scaled blueprints available for tar paper shacks?
It implies a disregard to building codes, safety issues and
permanency against the elements.
It implies something you would not want to have in your back yard or
your neighbours.
It implies that anyone could do the same as PCB has done and is doing
and that his designing skills are of little value in the boat
building community.
And I could go on and on. I would suggest that he is one of the last
people for whom that analogy would apply. He has probably done more
to help the boating dreamer of little means see his dreams come true,
than any other designer in history.
However there are always those amongst us who miss the entire point
of much of what he shares with us. Re-designing Eeek is an example of
this. I believe PCB used Eeek to illustrate the ridiculous reasonong
behind one of the sailboat racing rules. It was never meant to be
taken seriously. But he did make a valid point very elegantly, which
is a reflection of his philosophy.
Many others amongst don't like his designs because they "Don't look
like a real boat should." Look back in history and you will always
see those that broke with tradition, ridiculed in their time and
honored after they were gone. All breakthroughs have been "break
withs" the tradional status quo of the day.
Nels
reasons:
A tar paper shack implies no planning or engineering skills or
forethought. This does not reflect PCB's genius in my view and is an
insult to his intelligence and drafting abilities.
It implies slapping together whatever materials are available without
regard to efficiency of purpose, or proper measuring and stablity
concerns or effecient use of the available materials. Are there hand
drawn scaled blueprints available for tar paper shacks?
It implies a disregard to building codes, safety issues and
permanency against the elements.
It implies something you would not want to have in your back yard or
your neighbours.
It implies that anyone could do the same as PCB has done and is doing
and that his designing skills are of little value in the boat
building community.
And I could go on and on. I would suggest that he is one of the last
people for whom that analogy would apply. He has probably done more
to help the boating dreamer of little means see his dreams come true,
than any other designer in history.
However there are always those amongst us who miss the entire point
of much of what he shares with us. Re-designing Eeek is an example of
this. I believe PCB used Eeek to illustrate the ridiculous reasonong
behind one of the sailboat racing rules. It was never meant to be
taken seriously. But he did make a valid point very elegantly, which
is a reflection of his philosophy.
Many others amongst don't like his designs because they "Don't look
like a real boat should." Look back in history and you will always
see those that broke with tradition, ridiculed in their time and
honored after they were gone. All breakthroughs have been "break
withs" the tradional status quo of the day.
Nels
--- In bolger@y..., "pvanderwaart" <pvanderw@o...> wrote:
> > "nautical equivalent of a tar paper shack"
>
> I don't think this is a very good analogy. The essence of a tar
paper
> shack is the use of inexpensive and available but inappropriate,
> short-lived material. A Bolger box should be built of good
materials
> and last as long as any other boat if properly cared for.
>
> I offer "nautical equivalent of a double-wide trailer" as an
> alternative.
>
> PHV
Some of his designs are meant to be almost disposable, and in that
case, the tarpaper shack is probably a good analogy. If you budget
only extends to tarpaper and scrap wood, then a tarpaper shack is
appropriate! A lot better than lying in the snow muttering about
shingles. I agree that some of his other designs are more like the
double wide, but than what are you going to compare that full rigged
ship to?
case, the tarpaper shack is probably a good analogy. If you budget
only extends to tarpaper and scrap wood, then a tarpaper shack is
appropriate! A lot better than lying in the snow muttering about
shingles. I agree that some of his other designs are more like the
double wide, but than what are you going to compare that full rigged
ship to?
--- In bolger@y..., "pvanderwaart" <pvanderw@o...> wrote:
> > "nautical equivalent of a tar paper shack"
>
> I don't think this is a very good analogy. The essence of a tar
paper
> shack is the use of inexpensive and available but inappropriate,
> short-lived material. A Bolger box should be built of good
materials
> and last as long as any other boat if properly cared for.
>
> I offer "nautical equivalent of a double-wide trailer" as an
> alternative.
>
> PHV
As the result of a spectacularly lurid trial, the British military established that while an officer
was required to be properly dressed at all times, he would be considered properly dressed if dressed
appropriately for the task at hand. (further detail, while it is available, is unnecessary for this
discussion.)
However, as it relates to Tar Paper Shacks: If that kind of structure or its equivalent, flattened
tin cans, used construction site plywood, old concrete forms, etc., does the job best or fastest or
cheapest, and the end result is durable and enjoyable, the the Tar Paper Shack is the appropriate
boat. Remember, the sailor, poor fellow, never sees his own, his pride comes from within. If the rest
of the world has a problem with that, it is their problem not his.
For myself, I prefer mahogany, bronze, acres of soaring dacron and a professional crew. (sigh) but
meanwhile I do enjoy my own little TPS Bolger catamaran.
Jim
pvanderwaart wrote:
was required to be properly dressed at all times, he would be considered properly dressed if dressed
appropriately for the task at hand. (further detail, while it is available, is unnecessary for this
discussion.)
However, as it relates to Tar Paper Shacks: If that kind of structure or its equivalent, flattened
tin cans, used construction site plywood, old concrete forms, etc., does the job best or fastest or
cheapest, and the end result is durable and enjoyable, the the Tar Paper Shack is the appropriate
boat. Remember, the sailor, poor fellow, never sees his own, his pride comes from within. If the rest
of the world has a problem with that, it is their problem not his.
For myself, I prefer mahogany, bronze, acres of soaring dacron and a professional crew. (sigh) but
meanwhile I do enjoy my own little TPS Bolger catamaran.
Jim
pvanderwaart wrote:
> > "nautical equivalent of a tar paper shack"
>
> I don't think this is a very good analogy. The essence of a tar paper
> shack is the use of inexpensive and available but inappropriate,
> short-lived material. A Bolger box should be built of good materials
> and last as long as any other boat if properly cared for.
>
> I offer "nautical equivalent of a double-wide trailer" as an
> alternative.
>
> PHV
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
> - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts and <snip> away
> - To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject tohttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> "nautical equivalent of a tar paper shack"I don't think this is a very good analogy. The essence of a tar paper
shack is the use of inexpensive and available but inappropriate,
short-lived material. A Bolger box should be built of good materials
and last as long as any other boat if properly cared for.
I offer "nautical equivalent of a double-wide trailer" as an
alternative.
PHV
I didn't think it was derogatory at all, and I think Mr. Bolger might
like it. He doesn't take him self very seriously, my favorite self
depreciating comment of his was putting himself as a naval architect in
the same category as strippers and other entertainers.
I think "nautical equivalent of a tar paper shack" is exactly how some
of his designs are regarded in some circles, and I think that he rather
enjoys stirring up those who can't see through to the function that he
has ruthlessly pruned away aesthetic form to get to.
He is a great artist, yet he will not hesitate to design a truly ugly
boat to fit what he perceives the best solution is to set of
requirements. Quite frankly this has often appalled me, knowing what his
pen is capable of, I wonder "how can he do that!!!". By the same token,
reading his work and going back to the design, I find he has forced a
perception shift on my senses as I think, "well that doesn't look that
bad, matter of fact its kind of cute".
HJ
recree8 wrote:
like it. He doesn't take him self very seriously, my favorite self
depreciating comment of his was putting himself as a naval architect in
the same category as strippers and other entertainers.
I think "nautical equivalent of a tar paper shack" is exactly how some
of his designs are regarded in some circles, and I think that he rather
enjoys stirring up those who can't see through to the function that he
has ruthlessly pruned away aesthetic form to get to.
He is a great artist, yet he will not hesitate to design a truly ugly
boat to fit what he perceives the best solution is to set of
requirements. Quite frankly this has often appalled me, knowing what his
pen is capable of, I wonder "how can he do that!!!". By the same token,
reading his work and going back to the design, I find he has forced a
perception shift on my senses as I think, "well that doesn't look that
bad, matter of fact its kind of cute".
HJ
recree8 wrote:
>
> I'm sorry, I don't seem to understand what purpose it serves to refer
> to Mr.. Bolger's designs as "The nautical equivalent of a tar paper
> shack." Perhaps someone is trying to get a position with that Aussie
> magazine that was ridiculing him some time ago?
>
> Please let's not forget that there may be people in this discussion
> group that are newbie's and seriously searching for a design that is
> safe and easy to build without pretension or ego enhancing trappings.
> I believe Mr. Bolger is an honest man trying to make a living helping
> the less financially endowed to get onto the water in something that
> has challenged their own ingenuity as well as his.
>
> Making gratuitous comments and unsubstantiated half truths serves no
> one beyond perhaps the ego requirements of the commentator.
>
> Let's try to be fair and honest and balanced. If someone has a bone
> to pick with his plans why not complain to him? Not make derogatory
> comments behind his back.
>
> Nels
>
It seems that this thread is getting a tad contentious. Phil Bolger's designs aren't limited to
inshore protected water nor are they focused on 'round the Horn world cruisers. No Whitbread Racers
but occasionally some fast sailboats.
Houseboats simply aren't intended for ocean voyaging, not his nor those of anyone else that I'm aware
of. As to Phil's turning his back on members of the group, that simply is not so. I know because in
conversations at his house I've asked him about it.
He doesn't follow the group because to do so would take up too much time.
His rowboat to cross the Atlantic was as seaworthy a design for the purpose that I have seen, way
better, in my opinion, than the one that was used in an Atlantic crossing competition and was sold to
its users in expensive kit form. If I had sufficient confidence in the captain and crew I'd certainly
go deepwater voyaging on the Rose, and a fair number of folks have taken his sharpies across oceans
and other offshore voyages.
The simple fact is that most people use their boats along shore. Our current lifestyle requires 9 to
5 and more, five days a week. His work gives us the greatest degree of utility, honest seaworthiness
and low cost that is available today that we can make use of under our style of living's limitations,
imho.
Jim
lulalake_1999 wrote:
inshore protected water nor are they focused on 'round the Horn world cruisers. No Whitbread Racers
but occasionally some fast sailboats.
Houseboats simply aren't intended for ocean voyaging, not his nor those of anyone else that I'm aware
of. As to Phil's turning his back on members of the group, that simply is not so. I know because in
conversations at his house I've asked him about it.
He doesn't follow the group because to do so would take up too much time.
His rowboat to cross the Atlantic was as seaworthy a design for the purpose that I have seen, way
better, in my opinion, than the one that was used in an Atlantic crossing competition and was sold to
its users in expensive kit form. If I had sufficient confidence in the captain and crew I'd certainly
go deepwater voyaging on the Rose, and a fair number of folks have taken his sharpies across oceans
and other offshore voyages.
The simple fact is that most people use their boats along shore. Our current lifestyle requires 9 to
5 and more, five days a week. His work gives us the greatest degree of utility, honest seaworthiness
and low cost that is available today that we can make use of under our style of living's limitations,
imho.
Jim
lulalake_1999 wrote:
> Hi Nels,
> I have a few issues with you post.
Well Jules I guess i wasn't communcating very clearly. What I was
thinking was that if I - as a newbie - read here, from a seemingly
authoritive source that Mr. Bolger's boats are the nautical
equivalent to a tar paper shack, and that his instructions said "1.
Build boat" then I would quite likely go to one of the other
thousands of designs you mention. I believe this is doing a great
disservice to the designer.
I reiterate that I see no purpose as to how this helps anyone. I also
reiterate that if anyone has an issue with the plans it is only fair
and honest they should go back to him with their complaint, don't you
think?
Many of the Bolger plans have a keyed instruction set showing every
step. As well Dynamite Payson's fine books describe almost every
facet of the various construction methods. Woodenboat has published
many building articles of Bolger's boats and Don Elliot has wonderful
articles available for a very reasonable price, at the Smallboats
Yahoo group
Many people on this forum also offer wonderful helpful advice, even
to the point of coming over and turning the hull for a pint or two!
I have never heard of anyone who failed at building a boat from his
plans, have you? I am sure there have been many but is there any hard
documentation to substantiate that the plans are less than full value
for the money?
Nels
thinking was that if I - as a newbie - read here, from a seemingly
authoritive source that Mr. Bolger's boats are the nautical
equivalent to a tar paper shack, and that his instructions said "1.
Build boat" then I would quite likely go to one of the other
thousands of designs you mention. I believe this is doing a great
disservice to the designer.
I reiterate that I see no purpose as to how this helps anyone. I also
reiterate that if anyone has an issue with the plans it is only fair
and honest they should go back to him with their complaint, don't you
think?
Many of the Bolger plans have a keyed instruction set showing every
step. As well Dynamite Payson's fine books describe almost every
facet of the various construction methods. Woodenboat has published
many building articles of Bolger's boats and Don Elliot has wonderful
articles available for a very reasonable price, at the Smallboats
Yahoo group
Many people on this forum also offer wonderful helpful advice, even
to the point of coming over and turning the hull for a pint or two!
I have never heard of anyone who failed at building a boat from his
plans, have you? I am sure there have been many but is there any hard
documentation to substantiate that the plans are less than full value
for the money?
Nels
--- In bolger@y..., "lulalake_1999" <lulalake_1999@y...> wrote:
> Hi Nels,
> I have a few issues with you post.
>
> You write, "Please let's not forget that there may be people in
this
> discussion group that are newbie's and seriously searching for a
> design that is safe and easy to build without pretension or ego
> enhancing trappings."
>
>>Some of his simpler designs areI think this is a great analogy, nothing derogatory about it all.
>the nautical equivalent of a tar paper shack, in terms of their
>simplicity, if not their aesthetics.
A tar paper shack is an economical way to get shelter just as ACX, latex paint, and square chines are an ecomomical way to get on the water. Someone who builds himself a tarpaper shack has a right to be proud too.
Gary
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Hi Nels,
I have a few issues with you post.
You write, "Please let's not forget that there may be people in this
discussion group that are newbie's and seriously searching for a
design that is safe and easy to build without pretension or ego
enhancing trappings."
There are literally thousands of designs that meet your criteria.
Bolgers are certainly within that range.
All of the designs have plusses and minuses. Bolger's designs have
the same range of limitations and very positive aspects.
To not comment on the limiting aspects of Bolger's designs would be
a great disservice, don't you think?
You Write, "I believe Mr. Bolger is an honest man trying to make a
living helping the less financially endowed to get onto the water in
something that has challenged their own ingenuity as well as his."
Well, I won't comment on Bolger's honesty, as I don't know the man
in the first place and his honesty has never been challenged.
As far as the "financially challenged" (I like that phrase) I might
disagree, especially right now. From around three to eight thousand
dollars one can buy a very good used boat, at least around the South
Texas area, and to complete a twenty to twenty five foot Bolger the
costs are realistically going to be in that ball park, if not more.
You write, "Making gratuitous comments and unsubstantiated half
truths serves no one beyond perhaps the ego requirements of the
commentator."
The writer of the posts that you object to has written his opinion,
period. There are no half-truths in his opinion. As for gratuitous,
you may have a point. I don't like the "Tar paper shack" analogy
much either and I won't defend it.
You write, "Let's try to be fair and honest and balanced. If someone
has a bone to pick with his plans why not complain to him? Not make
derogatory comments behind his back."
To be fair honest and balanced is to look long and hard at Bolger's
designs and to see, and not deny the warts along with the beauty
that is there. It is not derogatory to point out the limitations of
Bolger's designs. They are fair weather, protected water boats in my
opinion, which is just fine, I have no problem with that whatsoever
and for that purpose you probably can't beat them.
There is a large and necessary niche in the boating population for
these designs and they fill that niche perfectly well. More power to
Bolger boats BUT they MUST be seen as what they are which is not
ocean going, Whitbread racers.
No ones making comments behind his back at all. This is a public
forum. Bolger is welcome to read and comment at any time. If he
turns his back on this group, it's his choice.
Sincerely
Jules
I have a few issues with you post.
You write, "Please let's not forget that there may be people in this
discussion group that are newbie's and seriously searching for a
design that is safe and easy to build without pretension or ego
enhancing trappings."
There are literally thousands of designs that meet your criteria.
Bolgers are certainly within that range.
All of the designs have plusses and minuses. Bolger's designs have
the same range of limitations and very positive aspects.
To not comment on the limiting aspects of Bolger's designs would be
a great disservice, don't you think?
You Write, "I believe Mr. Bolger is an honest man trying to make a
living helping the less financially endowed to get onto the water in
something that has challenged their own ingenuity as well as his."
Well, I won't comment on Bolger's honesty, as I don't know the man
in the first place and his honesty has never been challenged.
As far as the "financially challenged" (I like that phrase) I might
disagree, especially right now. From around three to eight thousand
dollars one can buy a very good used boat, at least around the South
Texas area, and to complete a twenty to twenty five foot Bolger the
costs are realistically going to be in that ball park, if not more.
You write, "Making gratuitous comments and unsubstantiated half
truths serves no one beyond perhaps the ego requirements of the
commentator."
The writer of the posts that you object to has written his opinion,
period. There are no half-truths in his opinion. As for gratuitous,
you may have a point. I don't like the "Tar paper shack" analogy
much either and I won't defend it.
You write, "Let's try to be fair and honest and balanced. If someone
has a bone to pick with his plans why not complain to him? Not make
derogatory comments behind his back."
To be fair honest and balanced is to look long and hard at Bolger's
designs and to see, and not deny the warts along with the beauty
that is there. It is not derogatory to point out the limitations of
Bolger's designs. They are fair weather, protected water boats in my
opinion, which is just fine, I have no problem with that whatsoever
and for that purpose you probably can't beat them.
There is a large and necessary niche in the boating population for
these designs and they fill that niche perfectly well. More power to
Bolger boats BUT they MUST be seen as what they are which is not
ocean going, Whitbread racers.
No ones making comments behind his back at all. This is a public
forum. Bolger is welcome to read and comment at any time. If he
turns his back on this group, it's his choice.
Sincerely
Jules
--- In bolger@y..., "recree8" <arvent@h...> wrote:
> I'm sorry, I don't seem to understand what purpose it serves to
refer
> to Mr.. Bolger's designs as "The nautical equivalent of a tar
paper
> shack." Perhaps someone is trying to get a position with that
Aussie
> magazine that was ridiculing him some time ago?
>
> Please let's not forget that there may be people in this
discussion
> group that are newbie's and seriously searching for a design that
is
> safe and easy to build without pretension or ego enhancing
trappings.
> I believe Mr. Bolger is an honest man trying to make a living
helping
> the less financially endowed to get onto the water in something
that
> has challenged their own ingenuity as well as his.
>
> Making gratuitous comments and unsubstantiated half truths serves
no
> one beyond perhaps the ego requirements of the commentator.
>
> Let's try to be fair and honest and balanced. If someone has a
bone
> to pick with his plans why not complain to him? Not make
derogatory
> comments behind his back.
>
> Nels
>
> --- In bolger@y..., "rnlocnil" <lincolnr@m...> wrote:
> > THat's true, but he seems to know which tar paper shacks will
work!
> I
> > would have guessed a Brick would not be worth bothering with,
but I
> > would have been wrong! Because of Bolger, people will try simple
> boats
> > that they might not have even considered before. Too bad we
don't
> see
> > more sharpies in races, and things like that.
> > --- In bolger@y..., "proaconstrictor" <proaconstrictor@y...>
wrote:
> > snip Some of his simpler designs
> > are
> > > the nautical equivalent of a tar paper shack, in terms of
their
> > > simplicity, if not their aesthetics.
--- In bolger@y..., "recree8" <arvent@h...> wrote:
sight of the fact that simplicity makes sense also. In all Bolger
designs you can see Mr. Bolger was not constrained like most
designers who believe that function is a second rate concept.
We must accept that some people in this world don't see Bolger
concepts as most of us on this forum do. What surprises me is that
they would take the time to air their comments on a forum dedicated
to Bolger designs. Any Bolger design in my opinion is a work of art,
even the lowly Brick with its tremendous load carrying capacity is
well above any of its peers.
My next boat I build will be a Bolger and the next after that. I
will take some comfort and enjoyment that I will be riding in "my"
boat while someone at sometime will ridicule my boat while they are
floating in their favorite banks boat.
John
> I'm sorry, I don't seem to understand what purpose it serves torefer
> to Mr.. Bolger's designs as "The nautical equivalent of a tar paperAussie
> shack." Perhaps someone is trying to get a position with that
> magazine that was ridiculing him some time ago? snip.In these modern days of smart bombs and techno gadgets people loose
sight of the fact that simplicity makes sense also. In all Bolger
designs you can see Mr. Bolger was not constrained like most
designers who believe that function is a second rate concept.
We must accept that some people in this world don't see Bolger
concepts as most of us on this forum do. What surprises me is that
they would take the time to air their comments on a forum dedicated
to Bolger designs. Any Bolger design in my opinion is a work of art,
even the lowly Brick with its tremendous load carrying capacity is
well above any of its peers.
My next boat I build will be a Bolger and the next after that. I
will take some comfort and enjoyment that I will be riding in "my"
boat while someone at sometime will ridicule my boat while they are
floating in their favorite banks boat.
John
--- In bolger@y..., "recree8" <arvent@h...> wrote:
sight of the fact that simplicity makes sense also. In all Bolger
designes you can see Mr. Bolger was not constrained like most
designers who believe that function is a second rate concept.
We must accept tham some people in this world don't see Bolger
concepts as most of us on this forum do. What surprises me is that
they would take the time to air their comments on a forum dedicated
to Bolger designs. Any Bolger design in my opinion is a work of art,
even the lowly Brick with its tremendouse load carrying capacity is
well above any of its peers.
My next boat I build will be a Bolger and the next after that. I
will take some comfort and enjoyment that I will be riding in "my"
boat while someone at sometime will ridicule my boat while they are
floating in their favorite banks boat.
John
> I'm sorry, I don't seem to understand what purpose it serves torefer
> to Mr.. Bolger's designs as "The nautical equivalent of a tar paperAussie
> shack." Perhaps someone is trying to get a position with that
> magazine that was ridiculing him some time ago? snip.In these modern days of smart bombs and techno gadgets people loose
sight of the fact that simplicity makes sense also. In all Bolger
designes you can see Mr. Bolger was not constrained like most
designers who believe that function is a second rate concept.
We must accept tham some people in this world don't see Bolger
concepts as most of us on this forum do. What surprises me is that
they would take the time to air their comments on a forum dedicated
to Bolger designs. Any Bolger design in my opinion is a work of art,
even the lowly Brick with its tremendouse load carrying capacity is
well above any of its peers.
My next boat I build will be a Bolger and the next after that. I
will take some comfort and enjoyment that I will be riding in "my"
boat while someone at sometime will ridicule my boat while they are
floating in their favorite banks boat.
John
I, for one, didn't mean anything derogatory. I am sick and tired of
all sorts of stuff that people do that is way overblown in order to
use up excess cash and display a pretentious front to other people. A
lot of that stuff, like huge fast boats in ignorant hands, and giant
SUV's in the hands of incompetent drivers (of course, not all skippers
and drivers of such are a hazard), threatens my health. THerefore I
find simple things like the Brick and Tortoise to be refreshing, even
though they really are, in some ways, the equivalent of the tar paper
shack.
all sorts of stuff that people do that is way overblown in order to
use up excess cash and display a pretentious front to other people. A
lot of that stuff, like huge fast boats in ignorant hands, and giant
SUV's in the hands of incompetent drivers (of course, not all skippers
and drivers of such are a hazard), threatens my health. THerefore I
find simple things like the Brick and Tortoise to be refreshing, even
though they really are, in some ways, the equivalent of the tar paper
shack.
--- In bolger@y..., "recree8" <arvent@h...> wrote:
> I'm sorry, I don't seem to understand what purpose it serves to
refer
> to Mr.. Bolger's designs as "The nautical equivalent of a tar paper
> shack." Perhaps someone is trying to get a position with that Aussie
> magazine that was ridiculing him some time ago?
>
> Please let's not forget that there may be people in this discussion
> group that are newbie's and seriously searching for a design that is
> safe and easy to build without pretension or ego enhancing
trappings.
> I believe Mr. Bolger is an honest man trying to make a living
helping
> the less financially endowed to get onto the water in something that
> has challenged their own ingenuity as well as his.
>
> Making gratuitous comments and unsubstantiated half truths serves no
> one beyond perhaps the ego requirements of the commentator.
>
> Let's try to be fair and honest and balanced. If someone has a bone
> to pick with his plans why not complain to him? Not make derogatory
> comments behind his back.
>
> Nels
>
> --- In bolger@y..., "rnlocnil" <lincolnr@m...> wrote:
> > THat's true, but he seems to know which tar paper shacks will
work!
> I
> > would have guessed a Brick would not be worth bothering with, but
I
> > would have been wrong! Because of Bolger, people will try simple
> boats
> > that they might not have even considered before. Too bad we don't
> see
> > more sharpies in races, and things like that.
> > --- In bolger@y..., "proaconstrictor" <proaconstrictor@y...>
wrote:
> > snip Some of his simpler designs
> > are
> > > the nautical equivalent of a tar paper shack, in terms of their
> > > simplicity, if not their aesthetics.
I'm sorry, I don't seem to understand what purpose it serves to refer
to Mr.. Bolger's designs as "The nautical equivalent of a tar paper
shack." Perhaps someone is trying to get a position with that Aussie
magazine that was ridiculing him some time ago?
Please let's not forget that there may be people in this discussion
group that are newbie's and seriously searching for a design that is
safe and easy to build without pretension or ego enhancing trappings.
I believe Mr. Bolger is an honest man trying to make a living helping
the less financially endowed to get onto the water in something that
has challenged their own ingenuity as well as his.
Making gratuitous comments and unsubstantiated half truths serves no
one beyond perhaps the ego requirements of the commentator.
Let's try to be fair and honest and balanced. If someone has a bone
to pick with his plans why not complain to him? Not make derogatory
comments behind his back.
Nels
to Mr.. Bolger's designs as "The nautical equivalent of a tar paper
shack." Perhaps someone is trying to get a position with that Aussie
magazine that was ridiculing him some time ago?
Please let's not forget that there may be people in this discussion
group that are newbie's and seriously searching for a design that is
safe and easy to build without pretension or ego enhancing trappings.
I believe Mr. Bolger is an honest man trying to make a living helping
the less financially endowed to get onto the water in something that
has challenged their own ingenuity as well as his.
Making gratuitous comments and unsubstantiated half truths serves no
one beyond perhaps the ego requirements of the commentator.
Let's try to be fair and honest and balanced. If someone has a bone
to pick with his plans why not complain to him? Not make derogatory
comments behind his back.
Nels
--- In bolger@y..., "rnlocnil" <lincolnr@m...> wrote:
> THat's true, but he seems to know which tar paper shacks will work!
I
> would have guessed a Brick would not be worth bothering with, but I
> would have been wrong! Because of Bolger, people will try simple
boats
> that they might not have even considered before. Too bad we don't
see
> more sharpies in races, and things like that.
> --- In bolger@y..., "proaconstrictor" <proaconstrictor@y...> wrote:
> snip Some of his simpler designs
> are
> > the nautical equivalent of a tar paper shack, in terms of their
> > simplicity, if not their aesthetics.
>THat's true, but he seems to know which tar paper shacks will work! IJust wait till Sue gets her I60 done. Hell, we're thinking the 'Round
>would have guessed a Brick would not be worth bothering with, but I
>would have been wrong! Because of Bolger, people will try simple boats
>that they might not have even considered before. Too bad we don't see
>more sharpies in races, and things like that.
Long Island Race is too good to pass up!
-D
C.E.P.
415 W.46th Street
New York, New York 10036
http://www.crumblingempire.com
(212) 247-0296
THat's true, but he seems to know which tar paper shacks will work! I
would have guessed a Brick would not be worth bothering with, but I
would have been wrong! Because of Bolger, people will try simple boats
that they might not have even considered before. Too bad we don't see
more sharpies in races, and things like that.
would have guessed a Brick would not be worth bothering with, but I
would have been wrong! Because of Bolger, people will try simple boats
that they might not have even considered before. Too bad we don't see
more sharpies in races, and things like that.
--- In bolger@y..., "proaconstrictor" <proaconstrictor@y...> wrote:
snip Some of his simpler designs
are
> the nautical equivalent of a tar paper shack, in terms of their
> simplicity, if not their aesthetics.
> > Not a criticism, just an observation.Probably right.
>
> Well, it sounds critical.
This sort of started with someone who had been caught off guard by
the contrast. I don't see it as critical, since I don't think the
plans hold out to be anything more than what the designer thinks are
necesary for the boat in question.
I came across this lunchbox letdown myself when I traded (with PCBs
knowledge) my one sheet of Tennessee plans for about 8-40 pages on a
sharpie (some of these pages were accumulated correspondence, but the
sharpies was still much more comprehensive.) It is funny, because
the plans I gave up were for a bigger boat, vs a smaller boat, and
since we both had some intention to build, it seemed like a good deal
to get the simpler boat. But I understand any disappointment that
may have been present since I thouroughly enjoyed pouring over my
novella of stuff. Also the prices are rising on these plans, and
just like when you go to a stylist who takes 15 minutes to cut your
hair, when it could be done (as for some it can) in 5 minutes. There
is a perceived value dance going on here.
The PCB pragmatic stance has one neat advantage: The plans are a
permit to build a boat. If you don't build it, you can sell the
plans. A lot of designers don't feel that way at all about it. I
call that good value.
> Ciao for Niao,
> Bill in MN
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Good comments.
--- In bolger@y..., "proaconstrictor" <proaconstrictor@y...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Pretty broad generalization I would say.
>
> That's what I was after, so thanks.
>
> I have found his plans to be
> > without exception the finest and most accurate I have ever
> purchased.
>
> I like his designs a lot. I have seen lots of plans, and see
nothing
> in particular in terms of accuracy or anything else that stands out
> with PCB. Since they are hand drawn, they are unique, but they
> aren't any better than lots of others.
>
> > And if there is an error he is the first to admit, and correct
it.
> >
> > His genius/patience ratio must be about the most evenly balanced
of
> > any naval architect in history. Yet people continue to "improve"
on
> > his designs, usually to the detriment of the design.
>
> That's cliche. What determines "improve"? All architecture is in
> terms of service. If you change his plans it isn't likely they
will
> meet PCB's service intentions any more to his satisfaction than the
> original. He is wise in such things, but even were he not,
> subjectivity trumps in this case. That's a double edged sword. If
> Eeek is objectively too small for me, then subjectively I will be
> more pleased with my Fat Eeek, than his thin unstable Eeek!
>
> Let's be realistic. He is widely experienced, and some of his more
> complex designs are at a high level. Some of his simpler designs
are
> the nautical equivalent of a tar paper shack, in terms of their
> simplicity, if not their aesthetics. There are lots of people with
> enough boat sense to modify those designs. What is more, if he
wants
> to keep people to particular designs parameters, he should write
more
> comprehensive plan sets. A lot of his boats leave the detailing up
> to the builder, which is as it should be. He makes the point in
one
> of his books that he designed an element at the drawing board, and
> went out to tell the builders, only to find it had already been put
> in place. I don't think he is as elitest about who can modify his
> plans as one might suppose. Though if you make any modification,
> don't hold the results out as being his work.
>
> >
> > From what I have heard he does not suffer fools lightly but
> embraces
> > free thinking. Something a lot of us could learn from.
>
> How does that go? We are "free" to suffer the injunctions of
> others? No thanks.
>
> >
> > Nels
>That's what I was after, so thanks.
> Pretty broad generalization I would say.
I have found his plans to be
> without exception the finest and most accurate I have everpurchased.
I like his designs a lot. I have seen lots of plans, and see nothing
in particular in terms of accuracy or anything else that stands out
with PCB. Since they are hand drawn, they are unique, but they
aren't any better than lots of others.
> And if there is an error he is the first to admit, and correct it.That's cliche. What determines "improve"? All architecture is in
>
> His genius/patience ratio must be about the most evenly balanced of
> any naval architect in history. Yet people continue to "improve" on
> his designs, usually to the detriment of the design.
terms of service. If you change his plans it isn't likely they will
meet PCB's service intentions any more to his satisfaction than the
original. He is wise in such things, but even were he not,
subjectivity trumps in this case. That's a double edged sword. If
Eeek is objectively too small for me, then subjectively I will be
more pleased with my Fat Eeek, than his thin unstable Eeek!
Let's be realistic. He is widely experienced, and some of his more
complex designs are at a high level. Some of his simpler designs are
the nautical equivalent of a tar paper shack, in terms of their
simplicity, if not their aesthetics. There are lots of people with
enough boat sense to modify those designs. What is more, if he wants
to keep people to particular designs parameters, he should write more
comprehensive plan sets. A lot of his boats leave the detailing up
to the builder, which is as it should be. He makes the point in one
of his books that he designed an element at the drawing board, and
went out to tell the builders, only to find it had already been put
in place. I don't think he is as elitest about who can modify his
plans as one might suppose. Though if you make any modification,
don't hold the results out as being his work.
>embraces
> From what I have heard he does not suffer fools lightly but
> free thinking. Something a lot of us could learn from.How does that go? We are "free" to suffer the injunctions of
others? No thanks.
>
> Nels
In a message dated 6/18/02 5:58:43 PM Central Daylight Time,
proaconstrictor@...writes:
"Dobler 16" must deserve an honorable mention in "wordy/instructions" stakes.
Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
proaconstrictor@...writes:
> It was that in PCB we have the wordiestWell, it sounds critical. In any event, Thomas Firth Jones' plans for the
> designer before the sale, and the tersest after, of whom I am aware.
> Not a criticism, just an observation.
"Dobler 16" must deserve an honorable mention in "wordy/instructions" stakes.
Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Agreed. My point wasn't that I want armchair entertainment, thoughPretty broad generalization I would say. I have found his plans to be
> that has its appeal. It was that in PCB we have the wordiest
> designer before the sale, and the tersest after, of whom I am aware.
without exception the finest and most accurate I have ever purchased.
And if there is an error he is the first to admit, and correct it.
His genius/patience ratio must be about the most evenly balanced of
any naval architect in history. Yet people continue to "improve" on
his designs, usually to the detriment of the design.
From what I have heard he does not suffer fools lightly but embraces
free thinking. Something a lot of us could learn from.
Nels
>Bolger
> Certainly if what you're seeking is armchair entertainment, a
> book is a whole lot more fun than a set of Bolger plans. MessingAgreed. My point wasn't that I want armchair entertainment, though
> About In Boats also seems a good value in that respect. Certainly
> both are cheaper than building boats.
>
> -D
>
that has its appeal. It was that in PCB we have the wordiest
designer before the sale, and the tersest after, of whom I am aware.
Not a criticism, just an observation. There are about 8 books on the
subject, numerous magazine articles, columns, even novels, and he is
an admirable correspondent. Then you get the plans, and the
instructions run Step 1) Build the Boat. That's fine by me, I
wouldn't build them according to plan anyway.
Just want you to know that I have a set of houseboat plans as well.
Mine is five sheets and not four. PB drew an extended deck
modification that you should really have as well. It increases the
length by 6 feet giving much more deck space and seaworthiness.
I believe the building sequence would be much like Illinois. The
biggest job would be to cut the 2X6 chine logs to the profile curve
shown, and support them so you can attach the plywood bottom up.
Glass the bottom and attach the skids. Then flip the bottom upright
and brace it all level and attach the sides and transoms. They could
be glassed flat as well before being attached.
The superstructure is pretty straightforward, since you are simply
building a hard shelter. Sheet number 3 is pretty self-explanatory. I
might want to double the roof thickness so I could walk on it.
That movable bed/chest thingy I was never able to figure out?;-))
Do you have your Tortoise built? Notice it is just an overgrown
tortoise!
I also have some other ideas. So send me a mail and I will keep in
contact with you as to what we might be able to share.
arvent@...
I believe it is meant to be trailered on a flatbed with maybe some
old tires for support cushioning. It was designed to serve as a
camping trailer as well. So I have been wondering about buying an old
wrecked trailer and using the undercarriage, complete with equalizer
hitch. There are lots of older camper trailers in the 30 foot range!
Nels (From chilly Saskatchewan)
Mine is five sheets and not four. PB drew an extended deck
modification that you should really have as well. It increases the
length by 6 feet giving much more deck space and seaworthiness.
I believe the building sequence would be much like Illinois. The
biggest job would be to cut the 2X6 chine logs to the profile curve
shown, and support them so you can attach the plywood bottom up.
Glass the bottom and attach the skids. Then flip the bottom upright
and brace it all level and attach the sides and transoms. They could
be glassed flat as well before being attached.
The superstructure is pretty straightforward, since you are simply
building a hard shelter. Sheet number 3 is pretty self-explanatory. I
might want to double the roof thickness so I could walk on it.
That movable bed/chest thingy I was never able to figure out?;-))
Do you have your Tortoise built? Notice it is just an overgrown
tortoise!
I also have some other ideas. So send me a mail and I will keep in
contact with you as to what we might be able to share.
arvent@...
I believe it is meant to be trailered on a flatbed with maybe some
old tires for support cushioning. It was designed to serve as a
camping trailer as well. So I have been wondering about buying an old
wrecked trailer and using the undercarriage, complete with equalizer
hitch. There are lots of older camper trailers in the 30 foot range!
Nels (From chilly Saskatchewan)
--- In bolger@y..., "bysc2002" <bysc@i...> wrote:
> After much deliberation and consultation I have purchased the plans
> for the houseboat design #481 from Mr. Bolger. I choose this
> design over the champlain and the bantam. The famed blue tube
arrived
> and I was both excited and disappointed. Only four sheets of
> drawings and no building notes whatsoever. I have built three
smaller
> boats and have the basic skills but if anyone has any knowledge and
> information to help me along on this project please do so.
> Fortunately I have enough boats to keep me waterborne this summer
and
> will do the materials scrounging and planning this fall and
winter.
> Hopefully next april I will build the hull/platform and use it as a
> pontoon boat for a few months next summer and then complete the
cabin
> in the fall. I appreciate all the wisdom and wit of the group and
> would appreciate any help. I have heard from captjbturtle that Mr.
> Vanpelt prepared an extensive set of building notes for the
champlain.
> Are these available to the group. My major concerns are having a
> good understanding of the order of construction and all the little
> tips to make it easy. Also any thoughts on the proper trailer for
the
> houseboat would be welcome. regards from a rainy eastern ontario.
>Since so much of PCBs output is literary and off on merry digresions,Certainly if what you're seeking is armchair entertainment, a Bolger
>the plans can be a bit disapointing. Also the fact that a few of the
>plan resellers bundled together good packages, may create hightened
>expectations.
book is a whole lot more fun than a set of Bolger plans. Messing
About In Boats also seems a good value in that respect. Certainly
both are cheaper than building boats.
-D
C.E.P.
415 W.46th Street
New York, New York 10036
http://www.crumblingempire.com
(212) 247-0296
Congrats on new venture. Are there any pics of #481 on the net? If
not how about posting a scan or two of the plans? Where are you in E.
Ont?
Bruce Hector in Kingston, smearing West Sys into all the cracks and
buying ice for the cooler.
not how about posting a scan or two of the plans? Where are you in E.
Ont?
Bruce Hector in Kingston, smearing West Sys into all the cracks and
buying ice for the cooler.
> and I was both excited and disappointed. Only four sheets ofI know what you mean. Tennessee plans are just one page. You don't
> drawings and no building notes whatsoever.
need more, but it certainly isn't a boat building course in a tube.
My Kurt Hughes plans were, however.
Since so much of PCBs output is literary and off on merry digresions,
the plans can be a bit disapointing. Also the fact that a few of the
plan resellers bundled together good packages, may create hightened
expectations.
I am currently working on simple modifications to a Bolger plan that
appeared in partial form in 30 Odd boats. A certain amount of
filling in the blanks is a necesity.
After much deliberation and consultation I have purchased the plans
for the houseboat design #481 from Mr. Bolger. I choose this
design over the champlain and the bantam. The famed blue tube arrived
and I was both excited and disappointed. Only four sheets of
drawings and no building notes whatsoever. I have built three smaller
boats and have the basic skills but if anyone has any knowledge and
information to help me along on this project please do so.
Fortunately I have enough boats to keep me waterborne this summer and
will do the materials scrounging and planning this fall and winter.
Hopefully next april I will build the hull/platform and use it as a
pontoon boat for a few months next summer and then complete the cabin
in the fall. I appreciate all the wisdom and wit of the group and
would appreciate any help. I have heard from captjbturtle that Mr.
Vanpelt prepared an extensive set of building notes for the champlain.
Are these available to the group. My major concerns are having a
good understanding of the order of construction and all the little
tips to make it easy. Also any thoughts on the proper trailer for the
houseboat would be welcome. regards from a rainy eastern ontario.
for the houseboat design #481 from Mr. Bolger. I choose this
design over the champlain and the bantam. The famed blue tube arrived
and I was both excited and disappointed. Only four sheets of
drawings and no building notes whatsoever. I have built three smaller
boats and have the basic skills but if anyone has any knowledge and
information to help me along on this project please do so.
Fortunately I have enough boats to keep me waterborne this summer and
will do the materials scrounging and planning this fall and winter.
Hopefully next april I will build the hull/platform and use it as a
pontoon boat for a few months next summer and then complete the cabin
in the fall. I appreciate all the wisdom and wit of the group and
would appreciate any help. I have heard from captjbturtle that Mr.
Vanpelt prepared an extensive set of building notes for the champlain.
Are these available to the group. My major concerns are having a
good understanding of the order of construction and all the little
tips to make it easy. Also any thoughts on the proper trailer for the
houseboat would be welcome. regards from a rainy eastern ontario.