Re: AS-39 being built in Canada.

The "top off" interior building is what's called for in Bolger's
building key for both the AS 29 and 39. The hull is built upside down
to the waterline, then flipped over to finish.

The steel sheathing plan was covered in detail in a recent MAIB, the
idea is to have the steel fabricating plant roll in the cirve to
match the bottom, cut in in 8 pieces and drill the mounting holes.

In the case of the Quebec AS 39 it looks like they sent the lower
hull directly to the fabricating plant where instead of a template or
drawing, they had the actual hull to match the curve to. Neat idea.
It looks like they did all the mounting there too and rolled her
after with the assistance of their lift truck. Double neat.

An annual dip in a Rust Check tank should keep her afloat for decades.

Let us spray
(sorry excuse for a rustproofer's trade joke)

Bruce Hector

This time of year they might be on the water. They've left a pretty good trail of
websites with enough to get you started though.

If you ask a very specific question you might get better answers here.
Mark

Leoandsandy@...wrote:
Now... How can I contact the previous MJ builders

> and present owners? I have followed all the recent recommendations with
> minimal response. Leo
>

"If I was starting over as a builder, I would build a Martha Jane in a
heartbeat, perfect boat for nocking about the thousand islands, or
georgian bay. Very quick to build. Peter made the point for the
boxes well. They are cheap. Most boat for the money just isn't true
in the larger sizes. Though they remain the most square for the money."

I agree. So I will. Now... How can I contact the previous MJ builders
and present owners? I have followed all the recent recommendations with
minimal response. Leo

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 7/23/02 12:56:21 AM Central Daylight Time,
announcer97624@...writes:

> fro my poor French I understand they are building it in pieces then
> transporting them to an assembly site, I think.

I believe it was just the bulkheads that were fabricated off-site. I'm
intrigued by they way they have left the topsides off to facilitate working
on the interior joinery - rather a clever idea, I think. Must save a lot of
work just on the climbing in and out for starters!

Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In bolger@y..., "timothyennuinet" <timothy@e...> wrote:

> --- In bolger@y..., "proaconstrictor" <proaconstrictor@y...> wrote:
> > > Hm. Well last time I checked, we weren't debating the
> differences
> > > between sharpies and multihulls. Sure, multis are great boats,
> but
> > > they don't carry a load well,
> >
> > Have you been on a ferry recently?
>
> Yep. And they carry their loads very poorly. But then, they are
> powered by HUGE engines, which does tend to iron out that kink. ;)
> Wave piercing catamaran ferries mostly carry people though, and for
> their footprint on the water carry much less load than the
> equivalent monohull. Its all about displacement.

If they had the same footprint, they would have the same displacement
assuming anything simmilar in hull shape. But the point is you don't
need the same footprint if the weight is half the weight of another
boat. If you want the same weight, then it could be a 45 foot cat
with a three ton load carrying capacity. On many of my trip to
europe, I was limited to 66 pounds, 6000+ sounds generous.

I am not put off by philisophical discusions, if what we are talking
about is pros and cons of boats. Its the bolger group, and he has
several multihull designs of his own. I am just throwing around
numbers from boats with which I am more familiar, not comiting
treason.

If I was starting over as a builder, I would build a Martha Jane in a
heartbeat, perfect boat for nocking about the thousand islands, or
georgian bay. Very quick to build. Peter made the point for the
boxes well. They are cheap. Most boat for the money just isn't true
in the larger sizes. Though they remain the most square for the
money.

> Multihullistas are very similar to Bolgeristas in the following
> respect: the feel obliged at every turn to tell people who have

> mainstream boats

Wrong in one other respect: There isn't any way that an AS39 is a
more mainstream boat than a cat or tri. Which, of course, is its
main appeal.

--- In bolger@y..., "proaconstrictor" <proaconstrictor@y...> wrote:

> > Hm. Well last time I checked, we weren't debating the

differences

> > between sharpies and multihulls. Sure, multis are great boats,

but

> > they don't carry a load well,
>
> Have you been on a ferry recently?

Yep. And they carry their loads very poorly. But then, they are
powered by HUGE engines, which does tend to iron out that kink. ;)
Wave piercing catamaran ferries mostly carry people though, and for
their footprint on the water carry much less load than the
equivalent monohull. Its all about displacement.

...<snip>....

You know, I think we should just let this one lie for now. This is a
philosophical question, I think, and won't get answered here.

So, IMO, if you want to build a multi, build one! I may yet do the
same.

At the moment, though, I think that a steel bottom sharpie is what
is more inline with my requisites, namely simplicity, ease/cheapness
of construction, shallow draught, etc.

--T

>
> Multihullistas are very similar to Bolgeristas in the following
> respect: the feel obliged at every turn to tell people who have

> mainstream boats how much better off they'd be if they'd only free
> their minds of preconceptions and get a box, or multihull, or giant
> folding schooner

Wrong,

I frame the argument in terms of how much better off I would be. I
would also be better off if not a single other multi were built,
otherwise there is no way there will be room for my 36' beam. I will
also be better of when I sell a 40 footer for 50k or up if nobody
else is trying to sell theirs at the same time.

Be my guest and build a box, the middle of the ocean is a good place
for it, and if in trouble be assured that a passing container ship
will know exactly how to pluck you on deck.

> Hm. Well last time I checked, we weren't debating the differences
> between sharpies and multihulls. Sure, multis are great boats, but
> they don't carry a load well,

Have you been on a ferry recently?

and have wide beam. So, you need to buy

> a whole size up from what you -think- you need in order to do full
> time cruising on a multi.

No grand pianos. I think I would be quite happy in a 39 footer, and
the point is that it is half the weight of the sharpies, so unless
the material cost is higher, sign me up.

Actually, a well built sharpie won't capsize very

> easily. The only issue is taking waves on the quarter in a following
> sea, I believe, in which case you might broach. Taking waves on the
> beam with a ballasted sharpie shouldn't be all that hard either, and
> if it gets too rough, you heave-to.

There are probably some multihull guys who have crossed the atlantic
more often than all Bolger sharpies put together (rough estimate) If
we have more than say ten crossings in these things then I am as out
to lunch as usual. How many major storms have they weathered? Aren't
we basicaly where piver was in the sixties with these things. And of
course, sailing these things is about as exciting as watching paint
dry.

>
> As far as using a steel bottom as ballast/protection on a sharpie
> hull, I think it's genius. If you want the xtra oomph, you fork out

> bit of dough and get a nice, well finished bottom that will easily
> take hits to rocks etc. If you don't like it, thats fine too. Use

lead

> ballast, or scrapiron, etc.

I would like to agree, but the fact is the MJ needs the ballast,
according to their figures, to reach the performance envelope
envisioned by them.

Even if we drop the steel, we are still in need of ballast, and I
still think you are back to the same calculus.

>
> --T

Mr. Ryan, when we want a rational discussion, we'll ask for one, thank
you very much. <G>

In my own case, I'm currently playing with a San Juan 21 (ancient f/g
weekender), which I'm using as a motorboat powered verrryyy
sslllooowwwwwlllyyyy by a 5 hp British Seagull. Now THIS is the ideal
we should all strive toward! All the smoke and fiddly bits you'd expect
from a coal-burning steam plant, but with the elegant look of chalked
gelcoat...

YIBB,

David Romasco

-----Original Message-----
From: David Ryan [mailto:david@...]
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 2:14 PM
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [bolger] Re: AS-39 being built in Canada.

>I think you are not quite getting the idea of it. I'll try to be more
>specific..

Peter, Tim, Mr Proa --

Multihullistas are very similar to Bolgeristas in the following
respect: the feel obliged at every turn to tell people who have more
mainstream boats how much better off they'd be if they'd only free
their minds of preconceptions and get a box, or multihull, or giant
folding schooner. This leads us to the absurdity of one fellow
arguing in favor of a 36' beam (!) home built multihull as the only
reasonable way to go, and another fellow offering a 40' plywood box
with a 6000# steel plate on the bottom as his ultimate boat. I'd
offer that about the only "rationally" designed boats we see anymore
are container ships and oil tankers, the rest being affectation of
one sort or another.

As for myself, I'm thinking when Sue tires of her Insolent 60 I'll
buy it from her cheap, construct some sort cross members and have a
60' x 40' catamaran! How many bathing beauties do you think I can fit
on the trampoline?

YIBB,

David

C.E.P.
415 W.46th Street
New York, New York 10036
http://www.crumblingempire.com
Mobile (646) 325-8325
Office (212) 247-0296

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=228862.2128520.3581629.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705
065791:HM/A=1155065/R=0/*http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/990-1736-1039
-302>

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 to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>I think you are not quite getting the idea of it. I'll try to be more
>specific..

> I Suppose steel does stiffen the structure, but I have no problem
> with wood in that regard.

Are you sure? The steel shoe for WDJ consists of 15 different pieces
of steel. The butts are bridged with Sikaflex. I guess that means
that the plywood bottom stiffens the steelshoe and not vice versa...

I think you are not quite getting the idea of it. I'll try to be more
specific..

> 24 square feet of steel for MJ weighs 500#.

Assuming what sheet thickness? This is very controllable.

A similar piece on AS39,

> over the whole bottom would be 8x39 (?), and weigh 6500#. That is in
> the ballpark of what the lead ballast for his 35' eco cruiser weighs,
> so it may not be that far off. That is $2000 US, and no fabrication
> has occured. I hope you will be available to help me move that slug
> around the shop, because I am a little at a loss to do it myself. Of
> course it will be dimensionaly perfect also, what a relief.

Whoa there friend.. we are NOT talking about ONE piece. We are talking
about many pieces that all fit together like a puzzle. You bolt them
on and seal up the edges. And yes, they should fit nice and snug to
the bottom. Now, $2000 as a cost.. I will completely agree that it
will cost more money to build with a steel bottom, but you dont have
to do it. Phil is doing most of his plans with steel bottom as an
option, not required.

> The issue is that as these sharpies increase in size, their weight
> increases to the square or the cube, depending on width. That makes
> them not all that economical to build compared to a multi. Notice
> all the folks who are building large Bolgers in pieces, though that
> isn't always the intended construction? Multis have to be built in
> pieces, nice light pieces. You have a valuable boat when you are
> done. You have a boat with a proven track record of unsinkability,
> and a lot less capsizeable, than an 8-10 foot wide sharpie. How
> about a beam of 36'! Once they got to the other side of the pond,
> they could pull the beam pipes and install ones that would allow
> motoring in canals if they wanted.

Hm. Well last time I checked, we weren't debating the differences
between sharpies and multihulls. Sure, multis are great boats, but
they don't carry a load well, and have wide beam. So, you need to buy
a whole size up from what you -think- you need in order to do full
time cruising on a multi.

Personally, I love multihulls. They just dont seem to fit my personal
needs at the moment (although I am still thinking about it). So, I
look at the sharpie. Actually, a well built sharpie won't capsize very
easily. The only issue is taking waves on the quarter in a following
sea, I believe, in which case you might broach. Taking waves on the
beam with a ballasted sharpie shouldn't be all that hard either, and
if it gets too rough, you heave-to.

As far as using a steel bottom as ballast/protection on a sharpie
hull, I think it's genius. If you want the xtra oomph, you fork out a
bit of dough and get a nice, well finished bottom that will easily
take hits to rocks etc. If you don't like it, thats fine too. Use lead
ballast, or scrapiron, etc.

--T

> Am I missing something here?

You may want to make a template of the curve of the bottom and have
your metal fabricator bend the plate for you.

As to the Bolger Box vs. multihull question, here are a couple of
points to consider.

1) The difference in cost between the rigs is considerable. Low-tech,
unstayed, gaff rig vs. high teck, multi-stayed bermuda rig. Homemade
wooden mast vs. storebought aluminum mast. Stays, spreaders, vangs,
travelers, furlers, etc. all add up.

2) Given a main hull of given capacity, it must surely be quicker and
cheaper to bolt steel ballast on the bottom than to construct highly
engineered amas and akas.

3) The larger Bolger boxes (Jesse Cooper, AS-29, AS-39, the power
sharpies) have been designed with liveaboard as a major part of the
spec. This requires weight-carrying power - not a multihull strength.
For liveaboards, compactness (i.e. narrow beam) is a great virtue.
The AS-39 (Loose Moose) was also designed for canal cruising.

I agree with the premise that a builder who is highly skilled will
probably be better off with a non-box boat, unless he needs one of
the box boat virtues: utter cheapness, quickness of construction,
maximum volume for length.

Peter

--- In bolger@y..., "David Romasco" <dromasco@g...> wrote:

> Last time I looked, steel cost a little over USD $.30 per pound.

Any

> steel fabricator will be able to supply the steel cut to your
> specifications, and can be ordered already shop primed with a

zinc/epoxy

> primer. Add a few drilled holes (if they didn't already do that for
> you), and you simply bolt the plates into place. Am I missing

something

> here?
>
> David Romascohave been removed]

Several things from my perspective.

As I said, I am sure this is just great for some folks who have
already been there and done that.

But if I flesh out your scenario, this is where I come out:

24 square feet of steel for MJ weighs 500#. A similar piece on AS39,
over the whole bottom would be 8x39 (?), and weigh 6500#. That is in
the ballpark of what the lead ballast for his 35' eco cruiser weighs,
so it may not be that far off. That is $2000 US, and no fabrication
has occured. I hope you will be available to help me move that slug
around the shop, because I am a little at a loss to do it myself. Of
course it will be dimensionaly perfect also, what a relief.

What I think the AS39 actually has, and I don't have study plans or
anything, is a fully formed steel scow for a bottom. Again if you
love working with steel, you are golden. What that conversation
sounds like for me is: "Hi I would like to buy a custom made 39'
steel boat". I am thinking maybe 20K would be a good price for that,
could be more. I have no idea. The fact is I don't know, but I know
one thing, and that is that if I was still working 9-5 I would be
spending all my vacation days finding out, visiting, picking it up,
etc....

The issue is that as these sharpies increase in size, their weight
increases to the square or the cube, depending on width. That makes
them not all that economical to build compared to a multi. Notice
all the folks who are building large Bolgers in pieces, though that
isn't always the intended construction? Multis have to be built in
pieces, nice light pieces. You have a valuable boat when you are
done. You have a boat with a proven track record of unsinkability,
and a lot less capsizeable, than an 8-10 foot wide sharpie. How
about a beam of 36'! Once they got to the other side of the pond,
they could pull the beam pipes and install ones that would allow
motoring in canals if they wanted.

I don't know what the current cost/pound is, but if it was $4, you
would be talking 16K for a 40' multi. Build time certainly wouldn't
be longer. A cruising rig might cost the same, a racing rig would be
very expensive, but that isn't what we are talking about. I think
Bolger is open to some of these ideas, since he has dipped a toe in
those waters.

Last time I looked, steel cost a little over USD $.30 per pound. Any
steel fabricator will be able to supply the steel cut to your
specifications, and can be ordered already shop primed with a zinc/epoxy
primer. Add a few drilled holes (if they didn't already do that for
you), and you simply bolt the plates into place. Am I missing something
here?

David Romasco

-----Original Message-----
From: proaconstrictor [mailto:proaconstrictor@...]
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 11:21 AM
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [bolger] Re: AS-39 being built in Canada.

> I really like the idea of steel bottoms for plywood boats. It makes
> them more durable, and more 'serious' boats. It stiffens up the
> structure as well. And hey, I dont have to worry quite as much

about

> bumping into that rock ledge or reef.
>

I Suppose steel does stiffen the structure, but I have no problem
with wood in that regard. I probably wouldn't build one of these
steel bottom boats because I am not competant in steel work. I think
that is a problem: Finding people who can work wood epoxy is one
thing, but also fabricate steel, it just makes it more difficult. It
would have been impossible to get permision to build that in a rented
building, welding and fiberglass (people still think in terms of
polyester resin) is a bad combo.

I am sure there are those who are not put off by these two
technologies, but I get a feeling all the sharpies are going in this
direction. Overall I could build a modern looking catamaran for less
time/money, and have a really valuable boat, not a square box when I
was done. I think I could build a 39' cat for what 9000# of ballast
would cost me. I couldn't really say that in the 24' range. A pre-
steel water ballasted Martha Jane is a much easier boat to build than
a 24' foot tri or cat. But at some point it crosses over, and smart
becomes stupid?

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=228862.2128520.3581629.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705
065791:HM/A=1155069/R=0/*http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/990-1736-1039
-302>

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 to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> I really like the idea of steel bottoms for plywood boats. It makes
> them more durable, and more 'serious' boats. It stiffens up the
> structure as well. And hey, I dont have to worry quite as much

about

> bumping into that rock ledge or reef.
>

--- In bolger@y..., "pvanderwaart" <pvanderw@o...> wrote:

>
> > He's also considering doing copper plate. And you can see the
> > potential advantages. ;)
>
> Is that an electrical joke?

Damn... you caught me. ;) Ok.. Im a geek. I asmit it. But his eye
twinkled when he said 'copper'. Resolution was copper sheathed on the
bottom, so I'll bet he likes this technique. Since nothing will grow
on it, I can see why.

>
> My interpretation of Bolger's writings about the steel bottom

plates

> is that he feels that modern technology has controlled the rust
> problem and that many/most builders prefer the economy and
> fabrication of steel to casting lead.

That's what he, in fact, said to me in person.

Also, there is the sentiment that even as the steel -does- wear away,
its easily replated if ever necessary. You just weld on some new
metal. Talk about easy. ;)

I really like the idea of steel bottoms for plywood boats. It makes
them more durable, and more 'serious' boats. It stiffens up the
structure as well. And hey, I dont have to worry quite as much about
bumping into that rock ledge or reef.

--T

> He's also considering doing copper plate. And you can see the
> potential advantages. ;)

Is that an electrical joke?

My interpretation of Bolger's writings about the steel bottom plates
is that he feels that modern technology has controlled the rust
problem and that many/most builders prefer the economy and
fabrication of steel to casting lead.

--- In bolger@y..., "proaconstrictor" <proaconstrictor@y...> wrote:

> price tag seem very inflated.
> >
> > The choice of steel over lead makes me wonder since lead oxidizes
> at
> > a much slower pace than steel and is much more dense making it
> > heavier.
> >
>
> ... making it possible to get the weight lower, except if the

weight

> needed for ballast can be carried in part or in whole in a hull
> bottom plate, then that plate will be lower than lead carried

inside

> the hull. Of course, a steel plate is also an asset as far as
> groundings are concerned, which makes sense on a shoal draft boat.
> These steel plates are showing up on a number of new or re-designed
> Bolgers.

He's also considering doing copper plate. And you can see the
potential advantages. ;)

--T

price tag seem very inflated.

>
> The choice of steel over lead makes me wonder since lead oxidizes

> a much slower pace than steel and is much more dense making it
> heavier.
>

... making it possible to get the weight lower, except if the weight
needed for ballast can be carried in part or in whole in a hull
bottom plate, then that plate will be lower than lead carried inside
the hull. Of course, a steel plate is also an asset as far as
groundings are concerned, which makes sense on a shoal draft boat.
These steel plates are showing up on a number of new or re-designed
Bolgers.

Proaconstrictor, thank you for the heads up on the Canadian boat.
How is a AS-39 normally ballasted? From looking at the pictures one
can surmise that the bottom is puncture proof at this point. Now all
they will have to do is insulate with several layers of Kevlar and
they'll have a pirate-proof yacht. Someone should get hold of the
defense department and sell this version of the AS-39 as an
undercover commando transport.

Just so everyone knows, I am not being malicious but I actually like
the boat. I have sailed in a lot of big, very expensive boats and
below decks all of the narrow, low and uncomfortable accommodations I
found made the price tag seem very inflated.

The choice of steel over lead makes me wonder since lead oxidizes at
a much slower pace than steel and is much more dense making it
heavier.

--- In bolger@y..., "proaconstrictor" <proaconstrictor@y...> wrote:
> --- In bolger@y..., "announcer97624" <announcer97624@y...> wrote:
> > I just found this AS-39 web site that I haven't seen before. Have
> any
> > of you seen this listed? It is listed as the showoff.
> >
> >http://cf.geocities.com/lecabotin/
> >
> > fro my poor French I understand they are building it in pieces
then
> > transporting them to an assembly site, I think. I don't read
French
> > that often but it has a good pictorial to go along with it.
> >
> > John
>
> It is being built in Canada. Outside Montreal, and they have
dropped
> by here to chat from time to time.

--- In bolger@y..., "announcer97624" <announcer97624@y...> wrote:

> I just found this AS-39 web site that I haven't seen before. Have

any

> of you seen this listed? It is listed as the showoff.
>
>http://cf.geocities.com/lecabotin/
>
> fro my poor French I understand they are building it in pieces then
> transporting them to an assembly site, I think. I don't read French
> that often but it has a good pictorial to go along with it.
>
> John

It is being built in Canada. Outside Montreal, and they have dropped
by here to chat from time to time.

I just found this AS-39 web site that I haven't seen before. Have any
of you seen this listed? It is listed as the showoff.

http://cf.geocities.com/lecabotin/

fro my poor French I understand they are building it in pieces then
transporting them to an assembly site, I think. I don't read French
that often but it has a good pictorial to go along with it.

John