Re: i60
Thanks for the details, Susan. If it's any assistance, the people at
Fulton were very helpful when I had problems with my lifting winch.
Gary Blankenship
Fulton were very helpful when I had problems with my lifting winch.
Gary Blankenship
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Susan Davis" <futabachan@y...> wrote:
>
> > And 10,000 undoubtedly is too light.
>
> 10,000 is too heavy, according to the estimates in the draft that I
> received. The weight wasn't finalized, but it was estimated
as "8xxx
> pounds", up a bit from the "7000-8000" estimated for the cartoon.
>
> We're still talking a triple axle trailer, a Suburban or V8 pickup
> with 4 wheel or AWD, and I'd want to keep her on a mooring rather
than
> trying to launch every single time I went sailing.
>
> > Checked on the
> > 48-foot Breakdown Schooner in MAIB, and it's weight is listed at
> > 13,000 pounds, but it's not clear if that includes the water
> > ballast, and the working sail area is 671.
>
> That's the fully loaded displacement, including water ballast and
all
> stores. Trying to extrapolate the I60's weight or displacement by
> scaling up from the BDS isn't necessarily fruitful, as the BDS
doesn't
> have significant heavier-than-water external ballast, and the ends
of
> the I60 are empty boxes meant to be kept as light as possible.
> Remember, they have to be picked up and unfolded without a crane
handy....
>
> > Let's figure the I-60 is going to be at least 20,000 and that
keel
> > may well be 5,000 to 6,000.
>
> The keel is 3500, and the winch is meant to be a standard
> automotive-grade 12 volt truck winch. The displacement waterline is
> 13000? 14500? I'll have to check the sketches when I get home.
>
> -- Sue --
> (I60 CAN-2)
>
> --
> Susan Davis <futabachan@y...>
>
> And 10,000 undoubtedly is too light.10,000 is too heavy, according to the estimates in the draft that I
received. The weight wasn't finalized, but it was estimated as "8xxx
pounds", up a bit from the "7000-8000" estimated for the cartoon.
We're still talking a triple axle trailer, a Suburban or V8 pickup
with 4 wheel or AWD, and I'd want to keep her on a mooring rather than
trying to launch every single time I went sailing.
> Checked on theThat's the fully loaded displacement, including water ballast and all
> 48-foot Breakdown Schooner in MAIB, and it's weight is listed at
> 13,000 pounds, but it's not clear if that includes the water
> ballast, and the working sail area is 671.
stores. Trying to extrapolate the I60's weight or displacement by
scaling up from the BDS isn't necessarily fruitful, as the BDS doesn't
have significant heavier-than-water external ballast, and the ends of
the I60 are empty boxes meant to be kept as light as possible.
Remember, they have to be picked up and unfolded without a crane handy....
> Let's figure the I-60 is going to be at least 20,000 and that keelThe keel is 3500, and the winch is meant to be a standard
> may well be 5,000 to 6,000.
automotive-grade 12 volt truck winch. The displacement waterline is
13000? 14500? I'll have to check the sketches when I get home.
-- Sue --
(I60 CAN-2)
--
Susan Davis <futabachan@...>
Well, I ugess I've got it covered wheatever it comes out
weighing.;=) (I had missed the part, too, about it supposedly being
trailerable.
Can;t wait to see the finished plans, though.
Gary Blankenship
weighing.;=) (I had missed the part, too, about it supposedly being
trailerable.
Can;t wait to see the finished plans, though.
Gary Blankenship
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Ron Badley <badley@s...> wrote:
>
> Take a look at the Whalewatcher. 4700 pounds and 410sqft on a
6'6"
> beam.
>
> The other thing to consider is that the i60 is supposed to be
> trailerable. Who would be able to trailer a 20,000 pound boat? Even
> 10,000 pounds would be quite a grunt for all but the largest diesel
> pick up. So, you may be correct on the original guesstimate.
>
> RonB.
>
>
>
> On 28-Oct-05, at 5:20 PM, gbship wrote:
> >>
> > And 10,000 undoubtedly is too light. I couldn't read the sail
area on
> > my fuzzy line drawings and didn't realize it was that much. 1,100
> > square feet would be generous for a 20,000 pound boat. Checked on
the
> > 48-foot Breakdown Schooner in MAIB, and it's weight is listed at
13,000
> > pounds, but it's not clear if that includes the water ballast,
and the
> > working sail area is 671. That's 80 percent of the length of I-
60. So
> > Let's figure the I-60 is going to be at least 20,000 and that
keel may
> > well be 5,000 to 6,000. That winch to lift it is going to cost a
pretty
> > penny. Very likely that Bolger yet doesn't have a firm figure for
> > weight or final sail area until he does the final drawings and
> > calculations. . .
>
Take a look at the Whalewatcher. 4700 pounds and 410sqft on a 6'6"
beam.
The other thing to consider is that the i60 is supposed to be
trailerable. Who would be able to trailer a 20,000 pound boat? Even
10,000 pounds would be quite a grunt for all but the largest diesel
pick up. So, you may be correct on the original guesstimate.
RonB.
beam.
The other thing to consider is that the i60 is supposed to be
trailerable. Who would be able to trailer a 20,000 pound boat? Even
10,000 pounds would be quite a grunt for all but the largest diesel
pick up. So, you may be correct on the original guesstimate.
RonB.
On 28-Oct-05, at 5:20 PM, gbship wrote:
>>
> And 10,000 undoubtedly is too light. I couldn't read the sail area on
> my fuzzy line drawings and didn't realize it was that much. 1,100
> square feet would be generous for a 20,000 pound boat. Checked on the
> 48-foot Breakdown Schooner in MAIB, and it's weight is listed at 13,000
> pounds, but it's not clear if that includes the water ballast, and the
> working sail area is 671. That's 80 percent of the length of I-60. So
> Let's figure the I-60 is going to be at least 20,000 and that keel may
> well be 5,000 to 6,000. That winch to lift it is going to cost a pretty
> penny. Very likely that Bolger yet doesn't have a firm figure for
> weight or final sail area until he does the final drawings and
> calculations. . .
> 10,000 pounds seems light for a 60'er. Also, the i60 has well overAnd 10,000 undoubtedly is too light. I couldn't read the sail area on
> 1,100 sqft of sail area. That would be a pretty well powered up boat.
> With the sail area so low it's possible though. Ye-ha!
>
> RonB.
>
my fuzzy line drawings and didn't realize it was that much. 1,100
square feet would be generous for a 20,000 pound boat. Checked on the
48-foot Breakdown Schooner in MAIB, and it's weight is listed at 13,000
pounds, but it's not clear if that includes the water ballast, and the
working sail area is 671. That's 80 percent of the length of I-60. So
Let's figure the I-60 is going to be at least 20,000 and that keel may
well be 5,000 to 6,000. That winch to lift it is going to cost a pretty
penny. Very likely that Bolger yet doesn't have a firm figure for
weight or final sail area until he does the final drawings and
calculations. . .
Gary Blankenship
On 27-Oct-05, at 9:24 PM, gbship wrote:
10,000 pounds seems light for a 60'er. Also, the i60 has well over
1,100 sqft of sail area. That would be a pretty well powered up boat.
With the sail area so low it's possible though. Ye-ha!
RonB.
> Be nice to know the thickness of the ply needed. That 5/8 okoume forMy thoughts exactly.
> $23 a sheet (and which would weigh no more than 1/2 inch fir or
> meranti ply) sure would be tempting to stockpile for an I-60, if the
> ply is as good as advertised.
10,000 pounds seems light for a 60'er. Also, the i60 has well over
1,100 sqft of sail area. That would be a pretty well powered up boat.
With the sail area so low it's possible though. Ye-ha!
RonB.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Ron Badley <badley@s...> wrote:
feet, high, so it would take about 15 sheets to build the sides (not
counting the cabin). The hull looks like it is about 8 feet wide on
the bottom, so it would take 13-14 sheets per layer, and I'm
suessing there's at least two layers there, maybe three. That's at
least another 26-28 sheets. Figure another 14-15 for the deck &
hatches, cockpit seats, footwell sides, etc. Maybe 8 sheets for the
bulkheads? Another 5-6 for the raised cabin sides? Building the case
fo the lifting keel could take 4-6 sheets, depending on how thick &
study it is. Figure the berths and interior joinery take another 8-10
sheets. Probably a couple more for general miscellany.
That's coming somewhere in the 80-90 sheet area, and likely over 100
if the bottom is triple thickness.
As for scantlings, the closest design is the three-part schooner in
MAIB, which is 48 feet long, Bolger has 1/2 inch sides and a one inch
thick bottom. He comments that seems fine for each of the three
sections, but seems a little light for a 48-foot boat. Don't know if
that means it will be beefed up for the I-60. Figure half in ply
weighs around 50 pounds a sheet, and you have probably 4,500 to 5,000
pounds just for the ply, although much of that will be waste, but
that should be more than made up for by the weight of the wolid wood,
epoxy, fiberglass and other parts.
The keel is a really W.A.G. The I-60 prototype on my 30 footer was
designed to weight around 1,200 pounds; 200 pounds of steel and 1,000
pounds in the lead wings. The I-60 keel looks around two feel longaer
and a foot wider. Looks like about twice the lateral area and
probably twice the weight or more, so mayme 2,500-3000 pounds?
Now add mast, tabernacles, booms, sails, engine, fasteners, winch to
raise the keel, etc. and it might be around 10,000 pounds. Like I
said, a W.A.G.
Be nice to know the thickness of the ply needed. That 5/8 okoume for
$23 a sheet (and which would weigh no more than 1/2 inch fir or
meranti ply) sure would be tempting to stockpile for an I-60, if the
ply is as good as advertised.
Gary Blankenship
>Here's a W.A.G. The basid hull looks like it's one sheet, or four
> Does anyone know what the i60 is intended to weigh? Any idea of
> materials required?
>
> RonB.
>
feet, high, so it would take about 15 sheets to build the sides (not
counting the cabin). The hull looks like it is about 8 feet wide on
the bottom, so it would take 13-14 sheets per layer, and I'm
suessing there's at least two layers there, maybe three. That's at
least another 26-28 sheets. Figure another 14-15 for the deck &
hatches, cockpit seats, footwell sides, etc. Maybe 8 sheets for the
bulkheads? Another 5-6 for the raised cabin sides? Building the case
fo the lifting keel could take 4-6 sheets, depending on how thick &
study it is. Figure the berths and interior joinery take another 8-10
sheets. Probably a couple more for general miscellany.
That's coming somewhere in the 80-90 sheet area, and likely over 100
if the bottom is triple thickness.
As for scantlings, the closest design is the three-part schooner in
MAIB, which is 48 feet long, Bolger has 1/2 inch sides and a one inch
thick bottom. He comments that seems fine for each of the three
sections, but seems a little light for a 48-foot boat. Don't know if
that means it will be beefed up for the I-60. Figure half in ply
weighs around 50 pounds a sheet, and you have probably 4,500 to 5,000
pounds just for the ply, although much of that will be waste, but
that should be more than made up for by the weight of the wolid wood,
epoxy, fiberglass and other parts.
The keel is a really W.A.G. The I-60 prototype on my 30 footer was
designed to weight around 1,200 pounds; 200 pounds of steel and 1,000
pounds in the lead wings. The I-60 keel looks around two feel longaer
and a foot wider. Looks like about twice the lateral area and
probably twice the weight or more, so mayme 2,500-3000 pounds?
Now add mast, tabernacles, booms, sails, engine, fasteners, winch to
raise the keel, etc. and it might be around 10,000 pounds. Like I
said, a W.A.G.
Be nice to know the thickness of the ply needed. That 5/8 okoume for
$23 a sheet (and which would weigh no more than 1/2 inch fir or
meranti ply) sure would be tempting to stockpile for an I-60, if the
ply is as good as advertised.
Gary Blankenship
Does anyone know what the i60 is intended to weigh? Any idea of
materials required?
RonB.
materials required?
RonB.
Mark: I saw this boat last year at Port Townsend Wooden Boat Show.
It was for sail, built to very high standards by Sam Devlin. I just
finished a Bolger Jochems Schooner which is about the same length
and also featured in the WB artical that Bolger did on shoal draft
stability. I was not impressed with the use of space. No head room,
two bunks. There is a very large open space under the cockpit, it
is low, but you could sleep there. It is a good looking boat, but
not nearly as practical as the Jochems. It looks to be at least as
hard to build as the Jochems, probably about the same cost. All up
including motor, sails, trailer the Jochems cost 18K, and I did all
the work. Richard Stover -- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "mark"
<planzman@y...> wrote:
It was for sail, built to very high standards by Sam Devlin. I just
finished a Bolger Jochems Schooner which is about the same length
and also featured in the WB artical that Bolger did on shoal draft
stability. I was not impressed with the use of space. No head room,
two bunks. There is a very large open space under the cockpit, it
is low, but you could sleep there. It is a good looking boat, but
not nearly as practical as the Jochems. It looks to be at least as
hard to build as the Jochems, probably about the same cost. All up
including motor, sails, trailer the Jochems cost 18K, and I did all
the work. Richard Stover -- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "mark"
<planzman@y...> wrote:
>any
> is it posible to view a plan for the layout of this boat. Does
> body know how much the plans are and how much to build. This areal
> beaty.
>
>
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <bruce@h...> wrote:
> >
> >http://community.webshots.com/album/487095836ybvRmy
> >
> > for a model of Saint Valerie
> >
> > and here for two photos
> >
> >http://www.devlinboat.com/usedbolger.jpg
> >
>
Mark: I saw this boat last year at Port Townsend Wooden Boat Show.
It was for sail, built to very high standards by Sam Devlin. I just
finished a Bolger Jochems Schooner which is about the same length
and also featured in the WB artical that Bolger did on shoal draft
stability. I was not impressed with the use of space. No head room,
two bunks. There is a very large open space under the cockpit, it
is low, but you could sleep there. It is a good looking boat, but
not nearly as practical as the Jochems. It looks to be at least as
hard to build as the Jochems, probably about the same cost. All up
including motor, sails, trailer the Jochems cost 18K, and I did all
the work. Richard Stover -- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "mark"
<planzman@y...> wrote:
It was for sail, built to very high standards by Sam Devlin. I just
finished a Bolger Jochems Schooner which is about the same length
and also featured in the WB artical that Bolger did on shoal draft
stability. I was not impressed with the use of space. No head room,
two bunks. There is a very large open space under the cockpit, it
is low, but you could sleep there. It is a good looking boat, but
not nearly as practical as the Jochems. It looks to be at least as
hard to build as the Jochems, probably about the same cost. All up
including motor, sails, trailer the Jochems cost 18K, and I did all
the work. Richard Stover -- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "mark"
<planzman@y...> wrote:
>any
> is it posible to view a plan for the layout of this boat. Does
> body know how much the plans are and how much to build. This areal
> beaty.
>
>
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <bruce@h...> wrote:
> >
> >http://community.webshots.com/album/487095836ybvRmy
> >
> > for a model of Saint Valerie
> >
> > and here for two photos
> >
> >http://www.devlinboat.com/usedbolger.jpg
> >
>
HA! Move up to the 32 he says. Don't I wish I had the money for that.
Let's face it, she would be a blast to sail. Which is why I like
Bolger. There is still some fun left in him. What good doea a 32ft
Brig do any one. None, but darn she would be a blast.
Let's face it, she would be a blast to sail. Which is why I like
Bolger. There is still some fun left in him. What good doea a 32ft
Brig do any one. None, but darn she would be a blast.
> If that's your line of thinking, don't be bashful, move on up to the
> 32' Brigantine!!!!!!
>
> Hmmm,If that's your line of thinking, don't be bashful, move on up to the
> wonder what happens if you close off that well,
> beef up the structure a
> bit and put a square rig on her.
>
> This is a gorgeous craft that seems to me to have the beginings of
> something bigger.
32' Brigantine!!!!!!
> I'd be surprised if this wasn't very seaworthy, ...Bolger does caution that she does not have the ultimate stability of
Jochems.
> And finally, what is this Bruce?I pine for every Bolger boat I see.
> A plot to torture us with a new model
> of an intriguing design every day? :-)
Probably not much different than you.
If I can't own them all full size,
having a model will have to do.
I have in my hand a model of Wenda #532.
What a beauty, photo's real soon.
I'd be surprised if this wasn't very seaworthy, although perhaps with
an active motion on account of the floaty hull. In shape,it's a lot
like the slightly larger Romp from "Different Boats." Bolger recounts
that Romp went through a hurricane with "no worries."
The well, I believe, was at least initially designed to be non draining
and removable for in port easy access to the space under the cockpit.
It could also be inverted over the deck opening to give a little extra
headroom.
And finally, what is this Bruce? A plot to torture us with a new model
of an intriguing design every day? :-)
Gary Blankenship
an active motion on account of the floaty hull. In shape,it's a lot
like the slightly larger Romp from "Different Boats." Bolger recounts
that Romp went through a hurricane with "no worries."
The well, I believe, was at least initially designed to be non draining
and removable for in port easy access to the space under the cockpit.
It could also be inverted over the deck opening to give a little extra
headroom.
And finally, what is this Bruce? A plot to torture us with a new model
of an intriguing design every day? :-)
Gary Blankenship
Hmmm,
wonder what happens if you close off that well, beef up the structure a
bit and put a square rig on her.
This is a gorgeous craft that seems to me to have the beginings of
something bigger.
Chip
wonder what happens if you close off that well, beef up the structure a
bit and put a square rig on her.
This is a gorgeous craft that seems to me to have the beginings of
something bigger.
Chip
Here is a scan of the article from the excellent magazine
Messing About in Boats, every one should subscribe.
http://hallman.org/bolger/625/
I don't know the price, but PB&F sell plans of similar
scope and size in the $300 range.
I was noticing in the writeup, '...fit for unlimited offshore use',
which puts St. Valery #625 in the very small class of boats
that are both trailer sailers and ocean crossers.
Messing About in Boats, every one should subscribe.
http://hallman.org/bolger/625/
I don't know the price, but PB&F sell plans of similar
scope and size in the $300 range.
I was noticing in the writeup, '...fit for unlimited offshore use',
which puts St. Valery #625 in the very small class of boats
that are both trailer sailers and ocean crossers.
On 10/27/05, mark <planzman@...> wrote:
> is it posible to view a plan for the layout of this boat. Does any
> body know how much the plans are and how much to build.
One is for sale at Devlin Boats, it appears, price $53,900.
To my eye, it looks like 60 sheets of 1/2" plywood plus
24 gallons of epoxy, ...say $10,000 of materials
and perhaps 1,000 to 1,500 manhours, depending on
the gleam and gold plate.
> Is it posible to view a plan for the layout of this boat. Does anyThe best thing would be to dig up the issue of Woodenboat that had an
> body know how much the plans are and how much to build. This a real
> beaty.
article by the Bolgers on both St Vallerie and the Jochems schooner.
(Issue 157). It has some nice pictures of the Devlin-built boat, as
well as drawings and explanation.
(the following from memory!)
St Vallerie has a small centerboard, right up forward, and a big
rudder like the Cartopper dinghy. The centerboard case thus divides
the forepeak into two single berths, adult size. Aft of that is galley
and head. Aft under the cockpit are two berths of less than adult
size. The cockpit has a built-in OB well. I think that some space is
saved by an unconventional swinging bracket for the OB. The rudder
pivots so that it swings up without damage if it hits something.
The rig was designed with trailering in mind, and both masts are in
tabernacles, with the swing of the masts offset so they don't
interfere. You can see in the published pictures that the main boom
rests against the tablernacle and not the mast. For some reason ,this
bothers me a lot.
Still from memory, she has ply panels in the upper topsides, but the
underbody is stripped. The pretty sheer is achieved by letting it
stand as much as 10 inches above the deck as a bulwark.
Peter
is it posible to view a plan for the layout of this boat. Does any
body know how much the plans are and how much to build. This a real
beaty.
body know how much the plans are and how much to build. This a real
beaty.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <bruce@h...> wrote:
>
>http://community.webshots.com/album/487095836ybvRmy
>
> for a model of Saint Valerie
>
> and here for two photos
>
>http://www.devlinboat.com/usedbolger.jpg
>
http://community.webshots.com/album/487095836ybvRmy
for a model of Saint Valerie
and here for two photos
http://www.devlinboat.com/usedbolger.jpg
for a model of Saint Valerie
and here for two photos
http://www.devlinboat.com/usedbolger.jpg