Re: [bolger] Re: oldshoe questions?
Is absolutely true. I didn't even think about the Smith/Umpqua/Reedsport connection. To think that I'm only 50 miles from there, too. I'm soooo embarrassed (blush).
j
jhkohnen@...wrote:
Don't forget that there are two or three Smith Rivers in Oregon too (got a
cat on my lap so I can't get up and check MacArthur...). The one that's a
tributary of the McKenzie was the subject of a very adventurous river run in
the days long ago when McKenzie River drift boats were evolving. Another
debouches into the Umpqua near Reedsport, and was named for the same Smith
as the river in California: Jedediah. So Jason coulda been a local boy!
j
jhkohnen@...wrote:
Don't forget that there are two or three Smith Rivers in Oregon too (got a
cat on my lap so I can't get up and check MacArthur...). The one that's a
tributary of the McKenzie was the subject of a very adventurous river run in
the days long ago when McKenzie River drift boats were evolving. Another
debouches into the Umpqua near Reedsport, and was named for the same Smith
as the river in California: Jedediah. So Jason coulda been a local boy!
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 05:13:26 -0000, John Dart wrote:
> ...
> Jason--Smith River--as in northern California Smith River?
>
> John in Oregon
--
John <jkohnen@...>
http://www.boat-links.com/
I cannot help thinking that the people with motor boats miss a great deal.
If they would only keep to rowboats or canoes, and use oar or paddle...
they would get infinitely more benefit than by having their work done for
them by gasoline. <Theodore Roosevelt>
Bolger rules!!!
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
- stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
- Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
- 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
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
Click Here
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Don't forget that there are two or three Smith Rivers in Oregon too (got a
cat on my lap so I can't get up and check MacArthur...). The one that's a
tributary of the McKenzie was the subject of a very adventurous river run in
the days long ago when McKenzie River drift boats were evolving. Another
debouches into the Umpqua near Reedsport, and was named for the same Smith
as the river in California: Jedediah. So Jason coulda been a local boy!
cat on my lap so I can't get up and check MacArthur...). The one that's a
tributary of the McKenzie was the subject of a very adventurous river run in
the days long ago when McKenzie River drift boats were evolving. Another
debouches into the Umpqua near Reedsport, and was named for the same Smith
as the river in California: Jedediah. So Jason coulda been a local boy!
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 05:13:26 -0000, John Dart wrote:
> ...
> Jason--Smith River--as in northern California Smith River?
>
> John in Oregon
--
John <jkohnen@...>
http://www.boat-links.com/
I cannot help thinking that the people with motor boats miss a great deal.
If they would only keep to rowboats or canoes, and use oar or paddle...
they would get infinitely more benefit than by having their work done for
them by gasoline. <Theodore Roosevelt>
Jason wrote:
The answer is no--it can hold more than 325 pounds. Try
http://www.ace.net.au/schooner/oldshoe.htm
Four adults in a Oldshoe.
Your question was: "What is the reasonable capacity of the boat
before stability and performance are affected?"
The answer is, as you figured...approximately 325 pounds...before
performance and stability are affected. "Affected" is the key word.
Affected doesn't mean "worse" however. Here's why--as the load
increases stability increases (to a point) and performance probably
decreases...so many factors enter into the mix. One thing is more
weight equals more ballast. More ballast typically means a stiffer
boat, less likely to roll, capsize--that sort of thing--possibly even
safer than at load. Of course if you don't have the freeboard you
could have real problems--but not a problem with Oldshoe. How much
weight does it take to load Oldshoe down till it becomes unseaworthy?
Probably a whole lot more than the 400 pounds extra from 2 more
adults and a dog. That deeply rockered bottom has tremendous buoyancy
built in.
As for performance being affected--the deeper the hull is in the
water, the more water it pushes--the slower it goes. In theory,
anyway. Well, in practice, too.
But, because you've now got more ballast and movable at that (stiffer
boat), you can possibly sail harder than you could (I'm not
suggesting that you do--but you could) normally, increasing the drive
of the sails, actually increasing the boat's speed--even well beyond
it's hull speed. It's been known to happen. Then again boats have
been pushed well beyond their design parameters and have come apart.
So why such an apparently low load rating? Hull speed has a lot to do
with it--it is a 12 foot boat after all. And a 12 foot displacement
hull ain't real fast to begin with. You want the hull deep enough to
do it's thing but not too deep to slow you down. Too, you're trading
off some carrying capacity for initial stability. You could leave off
the lead keel--and gain another 200 lbs load--but it might be a bit
tippy.
So again, I don't own one, but looking at the lines and specs, I can
easily believe that it can carry the "advertised" 4 adults and a dog.
Probably even a whole lot more than that--not that I'd suggest doing
it. Unless they're really cute. And bring their own beer.
John
> Thanks, for the input....are you telling me it can only hold aHi Jason
> 325ish pound load?...or am i doing fuzzy math? I've read propaganda
> about hauling "4 heavy people and a 100 lb. dog"....caca?
The answer is no--it can hold more than 325 pounds. Try
http://www.ace.net.au/schooner/oldshoe.htm
Four adults in a Oldshoe.
Your question was: "What is the reasonable capacity of the boat
before stability and performance are affected?"
The answer is, as you figured...approximately 325 pounds...before
performance and stability are affected. "Affected" is the key word.
Affected doesn't mean "worse" however. Here's why--as the load
increases stability increases (to a point) and performance probably
decreases...so many factors enter into the mix. One thing is more
weight equals more ballast. More ballast typically means a stiffer
boat, less likely to roll, capsize--that sort of thing--possibly even
safer than at load. Of course if you don't have the freeboard you
could have real problems--but not a problem with Oldshoe. How much
weight does it take to load Oldshoe down till it becomes unseaworthy?
Probably a whole lot more than the 400 pounds extra from 2 more
adults and a dog. That deeply rockered bottom has tremendous buoyancy
built in.
As for performance being affected--the deeper the hull is in the
water, the more water it pushes--the slower it goes. In theory,
anyway. Well, in practice, too.
But, because you've now got more ballast and movable at that (stiffer
boat), you can possibly sail harder than you could (I'm not
suggesting that you do--but you could) normally, increasing the drive
of the sails, actually increasing the boat's speed--even well beyond
it's hull speed. It's been known to happen. Then again boats have
been pushed well beyond their design parameters and have come apart.
So why such an apparently low load rating? Hull speed has a lot to do
with it--it is a 12 foot boat after all. And a 12 foot displacement
hull ain't real fast to begin with. You want the hull deep enough to
do it's thing but not too deep to slow you down. Too, you're trading
off some carrying capacity for initial stability. You could leave off
the lead keel--and gain another 200 lbs load--but it might be a bit
tippy.
So again, I don't own one, but looking at the lines and specs, I can
easily believe that it can carry the "advertised" 4 adults and a dog.
Probably even a whole lot more than that--not that I'd suggest doing
it. Unless they're really cute. And bring their own beer.
John
Thanks, for the input....are you telling me it can only hold a
325ish pound load?...or am i doing fuzzy math? I've read propaganda
about hauling "4 heavy people and a 100 lb. dog"....caca?
Anyone else got something to add?
Jason
Smith as the one in montana, have since moved on it's an old account.
I've kayaked the smith in CA before it's a gem. I love water, all
types.
325ish pound load?...or am i doing fuzzy math? I've read propaganda
about hauling "4 heavy people and a 100 lb. dog"....caca?
Anyone else got something to add?
Jason
Smith as the one in montana, have since moved on it's an old account.
I've kayaked the smith in CA before it's a gem. I love water, all
types.
Jason
I've never built or sailed an Oldshoe-- but I too seriously
considered building one. I'm looking at a set of plans and an older
Common Sense Design catalog (back when B. Wolford still had the
business in Portland) and can offer, according to my trusty ruler
(can't find my drafting scale) and my rusty math, this much:
aft of center with a bimini kinda' top) there is approximately 3'5"
from the seat to the foot of the sail. As the sail goes aft the
distance increases to about 3'10" at the end of the gaff. Forward is
less obviously.
Displacement is 821 lbs. Stability is the opposite of performance.
Best performance is probably when you fall overboard and it sails
away without anyone on board. Just kidding.
Bolger specs 1/4" ply--and I'd guess that it would be stiff enough--
but 3/8" or even 1/2" (either single or double ply) would stiffen it
immensely.
as planned, then experiment using poly tarp or Tyvek. I personally
think it needs a jib--but that's just me. That big 'ol mast sticking
way out up front there just seems lonely.
algebra, it looks like the thwarts are 6'4" If you sleep hanging your
feet off the end of the bed you should be just fine. You could lower
the height of the dry locker to the height of the seats and it would
give you another 2'.
The only drawback I see is that the seat is 1'6" wide--at the widest.
Covering the well with something solid then covering the whole thing
with an air mattress would make a heck of a bed, however--it's 2'
wide--total 5'.
displacement. Floatation isn't specifically shown in the plans, but
there is plenty of space for it.
talk him into it. So we can borrow it. 8D
Jason--Smith River--as in northern California Smith River?
John in Oregon
I've never built or sailed an Oldshoe-- but I too seriously
considered building one. I'm looking at a set of plans and an older
Common Sense Design catalog (back when B. Wolford still had the
business in Portland) and can offer, according to my trusty ruler
(can't find my drafting scale) and my rusty math, this much:
> 1. I'm kinda tall is there plenty of clearence from the foot of theIf you have the PB cartoon showing the seated individual (slightly
> main sail to the average person's noggin on a tack?
aft of center with a bimini kinda' top) there is approximately 3'5"
from the seat to the foot of the sail. As the sail goes aft the
distance increases to about 3'10" at the end of the gaff. Forward is
less obviously.
> 2. What is the reasonable capacity of the boat before stability andAccording to the CSD catalog the empty weight should be 450 lbs.
> performance are effected?
Displacement is 821 lbs. Stability is the opposite of performance.
Best performance is probably when you fall overboard and it sails
away without anyone on board. Just kidding.
> 3. I've heard most people build old shoe from 1/4 ply but i've seen(I would glass the hull and do the inside with epoxy).
> a 3/8 inch micros...how stiff are the sides and hull with 1/4 ply?
Bolger specs 1/4" ply--and I'd guess that it would be stiff enough--
but 3/8" or even 1/2" (either single or double ply) would stiffen it
immensely.
> 4. Is 91 sq.ft. of sail ok for such a heavy but little boat? I'veThere again, can't help you here--but as an observation, I'd build it
> read quite often that many micro owners feel she is under canvased
as planned, then experiment using poly tarp or Tyvek. I personally
think it needs a jib--but that's just me. That big 'ol mast sticking
way out up front there just seems lonely.
> 5. Are the seats/bunks long enough to sleep on camp cruiser styleAgain, according to my 29 cent ruler and my seldom used junior high
> (i'm 6' 2")
algebra, it looks like the thwarts are 6'4" If you sleep hanging your
feet off the end of the bed you should be just fine. You could lower
the height of the dry locker to the height of the seats and it would
give you another 2'.
The only drawback I see is that the seat is 1'6" wide--at the widest.
Covering the well with something solid then covering the whole thing
with an air mattress would make a heck of a bed, however--it's 2'
wide--total 5'.
> 6. In the photo's i've seen there seems to be a foot well like aNo. The bottom of the well is below the waterline at full
> micro.....is it self bailing? Is there floatation or storage under
> the seating.....as designed?
displacement. Floatation isn't specifically shown in the plans, but
there is plenty of space for it.
> That's it for now.....come on old shoe builders and owners talk meC'mon, guys--talk him into it. This is a really neat boat. Let's all
> into it.
talk him into it. So we can borrow it. 8D
Jason--Smith River--as in northern California Smith River?
John in Oregon
>
> Thanks,
> Jason
I'm getting real serious about building an oldshoe.
Can anyone who has built or sailed one answer some questions?
1. I'm kinda tall is there plenty of clearence from the foot of the
main sail to the average person's noggin on a tack?
2. What is the reasonable capacity of the boat before stability and
performance are effected?
3. I've heard most people build old shoe from 1/4 ply but i've seen
a 3/8 inch micros...how stiff are the sides and hull with 1/4 ply?(I
would glass the hull and do the inside with epoxy).
4. Is 91 sq.ft. of sail ok for such a heavy but little boat? I've
read quite often that many micro owners feel she is under canvased
5. Are the seats/bunks long enough to sleep on camp cruiser style
(i'm 6' 2")
6. In the photo's i've seen there seems to be a foot well like a
micro.....is it self bailing? Is there floatation or storage under
the seating.....as designed?
That's it for now.....come on old shoe builders and owners talk me
into it.
Thanks,
Jason
Can anyone who has built or sailed one answer some questions?
1. I'm kinda tall is there plenty of clearence from the foot of the
main sail to the average person's noggin on a tack?
2. What is the reasonable capacity of the boat before stability and
performance are effected?
3. I've heard most people build old shoe from 1/4 ply but i've seen
a 3/8 inch micros...how stiff are the sides and hull with 1/4 ply?(I
would glass the hull and do the inside with epoxy).
4. Is 91 sq.ft. of sail ok for such a heavy but little boat? I've
read quite often that many micro owners feel she is under canvased
5. Are the seats/bunks long enough to sleep on camp cruiser style
(i'm 6' 2")
6. In the photo's i've seen there seems to be a foot well like a
micro.....is it self bailing? Is there floatation or storage under
the seating.....as designed?
That's it for now.....come on old shoe builders and owners talk me
into it.
Thanks,
Jason