Re: Chebacco hull question
Hi
I built the plywood version because that was the one I fell for, but
I also thought the lapstrake would take longer -- more pieces, more
joints. However, I used up a lot of time and money glassing the
hull, but that let me use fir marine plywood, which saved money. But
remember the hull is only about a third of the job. And so on and so
on.
WoodenBoat number 107, August 1992, test-sailed the sheet ply,
lapstrake and the original cold moulded Chebacco, and
concluded "there was little difference in performance between the two
plywood boats" (the other was slower, but had a dirtier bottom). The
sheet boat might have been a little faster accelerating in light air,
but not so much so that a better sailmaker or helmsman couldn't make
up the difference."
Personally, I think you should pick the one you like best -- worked
for me.
Jamie Orr
I built the plywood version because that was the one I fell for, but
I also thought the lapstrake would take longer -- more pieces, more
joints. However, I used up a lot of time and money glassing the
hull, but that let me use fir marine plywood, which saved money. But
remember the hull is only about a third of the job. And so on and so
on.
WoodenBoat number 107, August 1992, test-sailed the sheet ply,
lapstrake and the original cold moulded Chebacco, and
concluded "there was little difference in performance between the two
plywood boats" (the other was slower, but had a dirtier bottom). The
sheet boat might have been a little faster accelerating in light air,
but not so much so that a better sailmaker or helmsman couldn't make
up the difference."
Personally, I think you should pick the one you like best -- worked
for me.
Jamie Orr
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bill" <wmjones56@y...> wrote:
> Hello all, I'm considering building a Chebacco 20 and have a
question
> about the merits of the ply hull versus the lapstrake version. I'm
> torn between the ease of construction with the ply and the looks of
> the lapstrake. Anyone with experience with lapstake building care
to
> comment on the additional work needed? Also, any
experience/opinions
> about the sailing characteristics of the two hull forms - any
> noticible difference from the cockpit?
>
> Thanks,
> Bill
--- "pvanderwaart" <pvanderw@o...> wrote:
tolerance for goofs.
I built two similar
sized rowboats, a Roar,
plywood with taped seams,
and a Spur II which
is lapstrake.
The Spur II took me about
20% longer to build in
my estimate.
I bet lapstrakje could take
more than twice as long if
you fuss about perfection.
[I don't!]
I found that the lapstrake
was very forgiving of goofs
and sloppyness. [patched
with Bondo putty.] To my
eye, even with lots of goofs,
the lapstrake looks better.
Phil Bolger and Dynamite
Payson would probably be
horrified to see my crooked
strakes.
> I think a first timeIt depends on your
> builder would be much
> quicker with the ply,
tolerance for goofs.
I built two similar
sized rowboats, a Roar,
plywood with taped seams,
and a Spur II which
is lapstrake.
The Spur II took me about
20% longer to build in
my estimate.
I bet lapstrakje could take
more than twice as long if
you fuss about perfection.
[I don't!]
I found that the lapstrake
was very forgiving of goofs
and sloppyness. [patched
with Bondo putty.] To my
eye, even with lots of goofs,
the lapstrake looks better.
Phil Bolger and Dynamite
Payson would probably be
horrified to see my crooked
strakes.
> Hello all, I'm considering building a Chebacco 20 and have aquestion
> about the merits of the ply hull versus the lapstrake version. I'mto
> torn between the ease of construction with the ply and the looks of
> the lapstrake. Anyone with experience with lapstake building care
> comment on the additional work needed? Also, anyexperience/opinions
> about the sailing characteristics of the two hull forms - anyAccording to Bolger, when Brad Story asked for a lap version, he
> noticible difference from the cockpit?
expected the construction time to be about equal to the glass-covered
ply boat. In practice it took a little longer. That would be for very
expert boat carpenters. I think a first time builder would be much
quicker with the ply, but I don't have the experience to back up my
opinion. I have also seen it written that glued lap is suitable for
an amateur, but the caveat about my experience applies there too.
Again according to Bolger, the performance of all versions is as
close to equal as can be determined without a long series of races.
Either boat should last indefinitely if well cared for, especially
kept dry and covered on a trailer.
One final point, the difference is for hull construction time. All
the fitting out will be about the same.
Peter
In the end, I think it's purely aesthetics.
I don't think there would be any significant difference between the sailing characteristics of the two hulls.
Personaly, I think that taped seam plywood is the evolutionary decendant of lapstrake, and gives a more modern and cleaner hull.
I don't think there would be any significant difference between the sailing characteristics of the two hulls.
Personaly, I think that taped seam plywood is the evolutionary decendant of lapstrake, and gives a more modern and cleaner hull.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill" <wmjones56@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 11:44 AM
Subject: [bolger] Chebacco hull question
> Hello all, I'm considering building a Chebacco 20 and have a question
> about the merits of the ply hull versus the lapstrake version. I'm
> torn between the ease of construction with the ply and the looks of
> the lapstrake. Anyone with experience with lapstake building care to
> comment on the additional work needed? Also, any experience/opinions
> about the sailing characteristics of the two hull forms - any
> noticible difference from the cockpit?
>
> Thanks,
> Bill
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
Hello all, I'm considering building a Chebacco 20 and have a question
about the merits of the ply hull versus the lapstrake version. I'm
torn between the ease of construction with the ply and the looks of
the lapstrake. Anyone with experience with lapstake building care to
comment on the additional work needed? Also, any experience/opinions
about the sailing characteristics of the two hull forms - any
noticible difference from the cockpit?
Thanks,
Bill
about the merits of the ply hull versus the lapstrake version. I'm
torn between the ease of construction with the ply and the looks of
the lapstrake. Anyone with experience with lapstake building care to
comment on the additional work needed? Also, any experience/opinions
about the sailing characteristics of the two hull forms - any
noticible difference from the cockpit?
Thanks,
Bill