[bolger] Re: potter vs. Micro

Hi Carter

Carter Kennedy ha scritto:

> I wonder why the Micro is so much more popular than the Long Micro. I
> have never seen either one, but it sure seems like even Phil Bolger
> can't put more room in the inside than there is on the outside. It
> looks like the LM has more of everything, including room to stretch
> out, waterline length (speed), and the safety of size when it comes to
> heavy weather.

I tend to agree with you. However, Long Micro has extremely long spars,
a lot of sail, and I guess it would cost at least twice w.r.t. a Micro.
I've plans for both boats. At the end I went for the Micro also because
the LM won't fit into my garage. Theoretically speaking the Long Micro
should be more seaworthy than the Micro...

> Perhaps the added cost and time are out of proportion to the added size
> benefits.

Yes, that's the main point...
Best, Pippo

David, I did the same, and as a result, the cabin and the cockpit seats
are now individual water tight compartments.
Stan, Snow Goose


David Jost wrote;
(snip)

> When you build a boat yourself, you are getting a custom job. I
> plan to leave out the air vents in the forward and stern bulkheads on
> MICRO and opt for no-seeum screening over the cabin hatches

(snip)

I never said tht the Potter was better, just that the Micro isn't alone
as a nanocruiser.

I wonder why the Micro is so much more popular than the Long Micro. I
have never seen either one, but it sure seems like even Phil Bolger
can't put more room in the inside than there is on the outside. It
looks like the LM has more of everything, including room to stretch
out, waterline length (speed), and the safety of size when it comes to
heavy weather.

In other words, if some's good, more's better.

Perhaps the added cost and time are out of proportion to the added size
benefits.

Carter Kennedy

"david jost" <djos-@...> wrote:
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/bolger/?start=2565

> yes, I agree that the Potter is s-l-o-w. They ride up and over the
> waves like a duck. therefore, it must seem as if they have to go

twice

> as far to cover the same distance. i don't know, it just seems that
> way.
> If you were looking for an off the shelf Micro-cruiser, I would
> choose the Precision 16, It has a high aspect cb and pretty good
> performance figures for a 16 footer. Taylor's pretty well respected

in

> the yacht design area. But, it won't self-steer, and it could be

prone

> to capsize if driven carelessly.
> When you build a boat yourself, you are getting a custom job. I
> plan to leave out the air vents in the forward and stern bulkheads on
> MICRO and opt for no-seeum screening over the cabin hatches (it is
> amazing how those little things can bite, the green head flies are
> another matter). I can then button the boat down in a blow with the
> confidence that it is not going to swamp unless I put a hole in it.
> Hopefully it will float on its lines until help of some sort arrives.

>

yes, I agree that the Potter is s-l-o-w. They ride up and over the
waves like a duck. therefore, it must seem as if they have to go twice
as far to cover the same distance. i don't know, it just seems that
way.
If you were looking for an off the shelf Micro-cruiser, I would
choose the Precision 16, It has a high aspect cb and pretty good
performance figures for a 16 footer. Taylor's pretty well respected in
the yacht design area. But, it won't self-steer, and it could be prone
to capsize if driven carelessly.
When you build a boat yourself, you are getting a custom job. I
plan to leave out the air vents in the forward and stern bulkheads on
MICRO and opt for no-seeum screening over the cabin hatches (it is
amazing how those little things can bite, the green head flies are
another matter). I can then button the boat down in a blow with the
confidence that it is not going to swamp unless I put a hole in it.
Hopefully it will float on its lines until help of some sort arrives.