Re: Advanced Sharpie design explanation in a nutshell
"Aside from Herreshoff's experiments in
the early 1900's, multihulls didn't really begin to develop until after
WW II"
I know what you mean though there is a tendency to overlook thousands
of years of development in the rest of the world. There were other
westerners pre-Herreshoff and on a much larger scale. There have also
been many important experimenters from below the yachting radar between
Amaryllis and the post war
"and for much of the last century were sort of a counter culture boat.
It may
take a few more years for multihulls to become mainstream."
Never owned one, but from what I understand the Hobbie was the largest
category of sailboat in it's day. Sailing multihulls are now
frequently on the covers of yachting magazine, particularly those that
emphasize cruising. In Europe multihull yacht racing has some
considerable prominence with financial institutions using the coverage
of boat ownership to snake their way onto public television, the whole
fast ferry industry has gained momentum, there are catamaran cruise
ships, there is the big day charter cattlemaran phenon. Dennis Connor
owned a bunch of those sailboats. There are little niches like
coaching boats for watersports and pontoon boats. Do we get to claim
houseboats on two pontoons? Sailing yachts are my main interest and I
don't see a time soon when multihulls will replace monos since they are
expensive to dock. They are a far better bet for those who actually
use their boats. They may be reaching a point where they have a
mainstream level of mindshare. People don't care about them one way or
the other, but if faced with a trip on one they don't pull out a dog-
eared copy of Herreshoff's biography and start sputtering indignantly.
"Our combative correspondant thinks it has
because they are good investments. I doubt that because I never met a
boat that
was a good investment, because pleasure in non-tangible."
Right, then neither drugs nor gambling will ever amount to anything.
Good tip. I did not say they were a good investment I said there were
a lot of them being bought as an investment. In Canada during the same
period there was a government program designed to promote boat building
(in the absence of a nuclear navy etc...) that gave government
subsidies to people buying boats. People would buy these boats and
rent them out. In the extreme, three college students created a huge
business building houseboats that popped up everywhere. In the French
case, the charter business led to the creation of several powerhouse
cat companies like Privilege. Insurance was available to secure the
loans, both relative to the crossings from France, and subsequent
operations.
"Your tone remains insulting,"
Get over it. I don't know you, and you don't know me. I sincerely bear
you no ill will. I think you fired the first arrow against the
multihull, I'm firing back with equal force. If some imaginary actuary
gets caught in the crossfire, why should anyone care? Bolger is a
designer of multihulls among other things, and the author of Boats With
an Open Mind. That's all this is about, certain choices made by the
great one, and open minds.
"Multihulls are small in number and have (compared to monohulls) a
relatively
short history. They have often been built by inexperienced amateurs who
used
less than ideal materials and sometimes suspect design/construction
materials.
As a result, there have been many boats which have either failed
spectacularly
or simply gone missing."
Right you are, though adjusted for scale, this sounds like a summary of
Bolger boats also.
"Insurers and actuaries are not comfortable with these
exposures and either refuse to insure them or charge higher premiums."
This is where it gets tricky. Do we know this for a fact? Is it world
wide, or a one country, one state, one office thing? Does the
insurance industry really keep these kinds of stats?. I have been on a
bunch of the multihull boards, and also done survey work, and even got
quotes for insurance that would have been a rider on my household or
car policy, and was cheap, though I decided to self insure for the
reason that I boat in a large lake in NB where there are virtually no
other boats. I don't remember a problem about this ever. In southern
Ontario we have at least 5 multihull factories (none of which I have or
have ever been connected to) business seems OK. We have a strong club,
not a member there either, but the people there seem very normal I
don't know what they pay for insurance, never came up. The only
problems I have had related to the boats being wood. There is a bias
against wooden boats. People will tell you that one can't get those
insured either.
I have learned one interesting "fact" in all this. In the multihull
world Amaryllis is fondly remembered as a triumph that was only held
back by the conservatism of the day. I did not know that there was an
alternative spin. I wonder which was the revisionist interpretation.
Speaking of prejudice or conservatism in yachting. I think that is a
far more likely lens through which to see this kind of thing today and
for the last century or so.
the early 1900's, multihulls didn't really begin to develop until after
WW II"
I know what you mean though there is a tendency to overlook thousands
of years of development in the rest of the world. There were other
westerners pre-Herreshoff and on a much larger scale. There have also
been many important experimenters from below the yachting radar between
Amaryllis and the post war
"and for much of the last century were sort of a counter culture boat.
It may
take a few more years for multihulls to become mainstream."
Never owned one, but from what I understand the Hobbie was the largest
category of sailboat in it's day. Sailing multihulls are now
frequently on the covers of yachting magazine, particularly those that
emphasize cruising. In Europe multihull yacht racing has some
considerable prominence with financial institutions using the coverage
of boat ownership to snake their way onto public television, the whole
fast ferry industry has gained momentum, there are catamaran cruise
ships, there is the big day charter cattlemaran phenon. Dennis Connor
owned a bunch of those sailboats. There are little niches like
coaching boats for watersports and pontoon boats. Do we get to claim
houseboats on two pontoons? Sailing yachts are my main interest and I
don't see a time soon when multihulls will replace monos since they are
expensive to dock. They are a far better bet for those who actually
use their boats. They may be reaching a point where they have a
mainstream level of mindshare. People don't care about them one way or
the other, but if faced with a trip on one they don't pull out a dog-
eared copy of Herreshoff's biography and start sputtering indignantly.
"Our combative correspondant thinks it has
because they are good investments. I doubt that because I never met a
boat that
was a good investment, because pleasure in non-tangible."
Right, then neither drugs nor gambling will ever amount to anything.
Good tip. I did not say they were a good investment I said there were
a lot of them being bought as an investment. In Canada during the same
period there was a government program designed to promote boat building
(in the absence of a nuclear navy etc...) that gave government
subsidies to people buying boats. People would buy these boats and
rent them out. In the extreme, three college students created a huge
business building houseboats that popped up everywhere. In the French
case, the charter business led to the creation of several powerhouse
cat companies like Privilege. Insurance was available to secure the
loans, both relative to the crossings from France, and subsequent
operations.
"Your tone remains insulting,"
Get over it. I don't know you, and you don't know me. I sincerely bear
you no ill will. I think you fired the first arrow against the
multihull, I'm firing back with equal force. If some imaginary actuary
gets caught in the crossfire, why should anyone care? Bolger is a
designer of multihulls among other things, and the author of Boats With
an Open Mind. That's all this is about, certain choices made by the
great one, and open minds.
"Multihulls are small in number and have (compared to monohulls) a
relatively
short history. They have often been built by inexperienced amateurs who
used
less than ideal materials and sometimes suspect design/construction
materials.
As a result, there have been many boats which have either failed
spectacularly
or simply gone missing."
Right you are, though adjusted for scale, this sounds like a summary of
Bolger boats also.
"Insurers and actuaries are not comfortable with these
exposures and either refuse to insure them or charge higher premiums."
This is where it gets tricky. Do we know this for a fact? Is it world
wide, or a one country, one state, one office thing? Does the
insurance industry really keep these kinds of stats?. I have been on a
bunch of the multihull boards, and also done survey work, and even got
quotes for insurance that would have been a rider on my household or
car policy, and was cheap, though I decided to self insure for the
reason that I boat in a large lake in NB where there are virtually no
other boats. I don't remember a problem about this ever. In southern
Ontario we have at least 5 multihull factories (none of which I have or
have ever been connected to) business seems OK. We have a strong club,
not a member there either, but the people there seem very normal I
don't know what they pay for insurance, never came up. The only
problems I have had related to the boats being wood. There is a bias
against wooden boats. People will tell you that one can't get those
insured either.
I have learned one interesting "fact" in all this. In the multihull
world Amaryllis is fondly remembered as a triumph that was only held
back by the conservatism of the day. I did not know that there was an
alternative spin. I wonder which was the revisionist interpretation.
Speaking of prejudice or conservatism in yachting. I think that is a
far more likely lens through which to see this kind of thing today and
for the last century or so.
I can claim some expertise in insurance; quite a bit less about multihulls.
My guess is that modern mutihulls have improved in structural design and construction and, that in time, will be considered more desirable risks from the perspective of insurers. Underwriters are generally conservative and are like Mark Twain's cat who once walked on a hot stove and never went near it again.
The Hunley is a pretty good analogy. It sank three times with the loss of all hands before it mounted a successful attack and sank a Union warship (when it sank again). It was nearly 50 years before technology made submarines useable (though still risky) and about 100 years before submarines attained a degree of reliability comparable to surface ships. Aside from Herreshoff's experiments in the early 1900's, multihulls didn't really begin to develop until after WW II and for much of the last century were sort of a counter culture boat. It may take a few more years for multihulls to become mainstream.
John T
My guess is that modern mutihulls have improved in structural design and construction and, that in time, will be considered more desirable risks from the perspective of insurers. Underwriters are generally conservative and are like Mark Twain's cat who once walked on a hot stove and never went near it again.
The Hunley is a pretty good analogy. It sank three times with the loss of all hands before it mounted a successful attack and sank a Union warship (when it sank again). It was nearly 50 years before technology made submarines useable (though still risky) and about 100 years before submarines attained a degree of reliability comparable to surface ships. Aside from Herreshoff's experiments in the early 1900's, multihulls didn't really begin to develop until after WW II and for much of the last century were sort of a counter culture boat. It may take a few more years for multihulls to become mainstream.
John T
----- Original Message -----
From: Carl
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Advanced Sharpie design explanation in a nutshell
I understand the law of large numbers and also that there are hypothesis testing procedures that can help with non-normality. I also understand the situation concerning multis that you stated. My question is; Does the situation still exist re multis or has it changed? Our combative correspondant thinks it has because they are good investments. I doubt that because I never met a boat that was a good investment, because pleasure in non-tangible. I'm really serious here, has the multi environment changed from what you described or are the factors you mentioned still predominant
Kudos for insuring the Hunley no doubt a factor in it's retrieval. Don't insure it operationally, I hear it has some bad history....
----- Original Message -----
From: John and Kathy Trussell
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 4:56 AM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Advanced Sharpie design explanation in a nutshell
Insurance and actuarial work is based, in large part, on the law of large numbers which states, the larger the number of samples in a group, the more nearly the actual results of the grroup will approach the expected results for the group. (Flip a coin 10 times and you probably will not get a 50/50 split between heads and tails; flip it 100,000 times and you will get very close to 50/50.) If there are a large enough number of samples, the predictions are said to be 100% credible. As the number of samples gets smaller, the predicted results are less credible. Insurers like 100% credibility and when they are faced with novel boats, they tend to hedge their bets by charging additional premium for the uncertainty resulting from less than 100% credibility.
Multihulls are small in number and have (compared to monohulls) a relatively short history. They have often been built by inexperienced amateurs who used less than ideal materials and sometimes suspect design/construction materials. As a result, there have been many boats which have either failed spectacularly or simply gone missing. Insurers and actuaries are not comfortable with these exposures and either refuse to insure them or charge higher premiums.
I insured the CSS Hunley while she was still on the bottom. My staff and I kicked the risks around and finally pulled a number out of the air for a premium. Of course, the Hunley was one of a kind, had already sunk and was, quite literally, "pig iron under water"....
John T
----- Original Message -----
From: Carl
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Advanced Sharpie design explanation in a nutshell
Actually I wondered if that was still true, noting the reasons you articulated. I still don't know the answer. Insurance rates are set by actuaries who work in cold, hard numbers. I'm curious if the numbers have led to a change in policy. I really didn't want to get into a PC vs Apple argument, but I'm weak. My only updated info is the anecdotal references to axes and doors. That info is about 20 years old however. There must be someone within earshot with some facts.
----- Original Message -----
From: Christopher Wetherill
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Advanced Sharpie design explanation in a nutshell
Somewhere back in the beginning of this thread, the question was posted
as to why insurance rates were traditionally higher for multi-hulls. I
think the answer is in history, not opinions based on current art.
Over one hundred years ago, there was a fad for multi-hull boats. N. G.
Herreshoff , among others I'm sure, built a few and found two things.
First, the hulls were subject to enormous stresses due to twisting the
cross beams, particularly in a quartering sea, and tended to come
apart. Second, a knockdown meant a capsize. Captain Nat, and probably
many other influential colleagues, became quite militant in his
opposition to multi-hulls. The insurance companies probably adopted
this opposition. Since Insurance companies are inherently risk averse,
they would exhibit considerable inertia against easing restrictive
policies in the advent of new technologies.
V/R
Chris
Carl wrote:
> Just to be clear, the numbers were answered by someone else in the group. Bon voyage...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: proaconstrictor
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 10:32 AM
> Subject: [bolger] Re: Advanced Sharpie design explanation in a nutshell
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Carl" <shnarg@...> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, and a fellow went to Hawaii in a Cal 20, numerous folks have
> crossed the atlantic in tiny monos, and many of the monos abandoned in
> the Fastnet were still afloat and viable the next day. One could
> cherry pick all day with meaningless examples, it comes down to
> numbers.
> >
> >
>
> Which explains why you cherry picked the "meaningless" example from my
> post and ignored the numbers?
>
> Anyway, I can see where this thread is going and I'm laying out the
> parachute and waiting for it to blow by.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.21/509 - Release Date: 10/31/2006
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, 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 Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.21/509 - Release Date: 10/31/2006
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
----------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.21/509 - Release Date: 10/31/2006
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
----------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.21/509 - Release Date: 10/31/2006
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.21/509 - Release Date: 10/31/2006
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I understand the law of large numbers and also that there are hypothesis testing procedures that can help with non-normality. I also understand the situation concerning multis that you stated. My question is; Does the situation still exist re multis or has it changed? Our combative correspondant thinks it has because they are good investments. I doubt that because I never met a boat that was a good investment, because pleasure in non-tangible. I'm really serious here, has the multi environment changed from what you described or are the factors you mentioned still predominant
Kudos for insuring the Hunley no doubt a factor in it's retrieval. Don't insure it operationally, I hear it has some bad history....
Kudos for insuring the Hunley no doubt a factor in it's retrieval. Don't insure it operationally, I hear it has some bad history....
----- Original Message -----
From: John and Kathy Trussell
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 4:56 AM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Advanced Sharpie design explanation in a nutshell
Insurance and actuarial work is based, in large part, on the law of large numbers which states, the larger the number of samples in a group, the more nearly the actual results of the grroup will approach the expected results for the group. (Flip a coin 10 times and you probably will not get a 50/50 split between heads and tails; flip it 100,000 times and you will get very close to 50/50.) If there are a large enough number of samples, the predictions are said to be 100% credible. As the number of samples gets smaller, the predicted results are less credible. Insurers like 100% credibility and when they are faced with novel boats, they tend to hedge their bets by charging additional premium for the uncertainty resulting from less than 100% credibility.
Multihulls are small in number and have (compared to monohulls) a relatively short history. They have often been built by inexperienced amateurs who used less than ideal materials and sometimes suspect design/construction materials. As a result, there have been many boats which have either failed spectacularly or simply gone missing. Insurers and actuaries are not comfortable with these exposures and either refuse to insure them or charge higher premiums.
I insured the CSS Hunley while she was still on the bottom. My staff and I kicked the risks around and finally pulled a number out of the air for a premium. Of course, the Hunley was one of a kind, had already sunk and was, quite literally, "pig iron under water"....
John T
----- Original Message -----
From: Carl
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Advanced Sharpie design explanation in a nutshell
Actually I wondered if that was still true, noting the reasons you articulated. I still don't know the answer. Insurance rates are set by actuaries who work in cold, hard numbers. I'm curious if the numbers have led to a change in policy. I really didn't want to get into a PC vs Apple argument, but I'm weak. My only updated info is the anecdotal references to axes and doors. That info is about 20 years old however. There must be someone within earshot with some facts.
----- Original Message -----
From: Christopher Wetherill
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Advanced Sharpie design explanation in a nutshell
Somewhere back in the beginning of this thread, the question was posted
as to why insurance rates were traditionally higher for multi-hulls. I
think the answer is in history, not opinions based on current art.
Over one hundred years ago, there was a fad for multi-hull boats. N. G.
Herreshoff , among others I'm sure, built a few and found two things.
First, the hulls were subject to enormous stresses due to twisting the
cross beams, particularly in a quartering sea, and tended to come
apart. Second, a knockdown meant a capsize. Captain Nat, and probably
many other influential colleagues, became quite militant in his
opposition to multi-hulls. The insurance companies probably adopted
this opposition. Since Insurance companies are inherently risk averse,
they would exhibit considerable inertia against easing restrictive
policies in the advent of new technologies.
V/R
Chris
Carl wrote:
> Just to be clear, the numbers were answered by someone else in the group. Bon voyage...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: proaconstrictor
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 10:32 AM
> Subject: [bolger] Re: Advanced Sharpie design explanation in a nutshell
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Carl" <shnarg@...> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, and a fellow went to Hawaii in a Cal 20, numerous folks have
> crossed the atlantic in tiny monos, and many of the monos abandoned in
> the Fastnet were still afloat and viable the next day. One could
> cherry pick all day with meaningless examples, it comes down to
> numbers.
> >
> >
>
> Which explains why you cherry picked the "meaningless" example from my
> post and ignored the numbers?
>
> Anyway, I can see where this thread is going and I'm laying out the
> parachute and waiting for it to blow by.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.21/509 - Release Date: 10/31/2006
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, 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 Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.21/509 - Release Date: 10/31/2006
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
----------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.21/509 - Release Date: 10/31/2006
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.21/509 - Release Date: 10/31/2006
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Your tone remains insulting, buying a boat for investment indeed...
----- Original Message -----
From: proaconstrictor
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 8:52 PM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Advanced Sharpie design explanation in a nutshell
You have a reference point there Chris, that quite remarkably passes
over the 20th century.
I'm sorry Carl, I thought you were refering to the lack of numbers
relative to yacht design not actuarial science. I'm glad to hear that
at best you are talking about numbers, that if ever relevant to your
argument, are 20 years out of date also. That is somewhat like talking
about computers pre-Mid-80s. A huge amount of the take-up on
multihulls has been in the last 20 years. For instance the huge market
in people buying them as investments that developed in that period
would not be possible without insurance to secure bank loans. Much of
this business was done out of France and the boats started their
service being delivered across the Atlantic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.21/509 - Release Date: 10/31/2006
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Doc
Thanks for sharing your insight on the genesis of the issue....
Carl
Thanks for sharing your insight on the genesis of the issue....
Carl
----- Original Message -----
From: Christopher Wetherill
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 3:48 PM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Advanced Sharpie design explanation in a nutshell
I must admit, I do not know the current state. My supposition
regarding the history is based on L.F. Herreshoff's biography of his
father and upon my Grandfather's often repeated stories about growing
up with L.F.H. in Bristol.
V/R
Chris
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Carl" <shnarg@...> wrote:
>
> Actually I wondered if that was still true, noting the reasons you
articulated. I still don't know the answer. Insurance rates are set
by actuaries who work in cold, hard numbers. I'm curious if the
numbers have led to a change in policy. I really didn't want to get
into a PC vs Apple argument, but I'm weak. My only updated info is
the anecdotal references to axes and doors. That info is about 20
years old however. There must be someone within earshot with some facts.
>
>
snip
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.21/509 - Release Date: 10/31/2006
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Insurance and actuarial work is based, in large part,I suspect that outside of life insurance, car insurance, home
> on the law of large numbers ....
> I insured the CSS Hunley while she was still on the bottom.
> My staff and I kicked the risks around and finally pulled a
> number out of the air for a premium.
insurance and other very high-volume lines of business, the judgement
and wisdom components of insurance pricing are at least as large as
the actuarial components. There aren't large numbers of Hunleys, and
for statistical purposes, not large numbers of multihulls either.
Political pollsters like a couple thousand responses to get a 3%
margin of error on a simple yes/no question. For boats, the it's not
just how many claims, but how big they are, and there won't be many
claims for the maximum value of the policy. Certainly not a couple
thousand.
And there won't be a couple of thousand hurricanes either.
I hope.
Peter
> Peter Lenihan, recovering nicely after three blessed days enjoyingHello Peter,
> the
> company of PCB&F's ..."
Seems you've been quiet for a while. I was hoping the silence was a
prelude to many new photos and news of great progress on your
beautiful Windemere.
However, the news of your visit, dinners and sail with PCB&Fs leaves
me wanting to hear more about that! How did Anemone sail? Did anyone
shoot video or pics? Nice to read your comments, as always.
Cheers, David
Insurance and actuarial work is based, in large part, on the law of large numbers which states, the larger the number of samples in a group, the more nearly the actual results of the grroup will approach the expected results for the group. (Flip a coin 10 times and you probably will not get a 50/50 split between heads and tails; flip it 100,000 times and you will get very close to 50/50.) If there are a large enough number of samples, the predictions are said to be 100% credible. As the number of samples gets smaller, the predicted results are less credible. Insurers like 100% credibility and when they are faced with novel boats, they tend to hedge their bets by charging additional premium for the uncertainty resulting from less than 100% credibility.
Multihulls are small in number and have (compared to monohulls) a relatively short history. They have often been built by inexperienced amateurs who used less than ideal materials and sometimes suspect design/construction materials. As a result, there have been many boats which have either failed spectacularly or simply gone missing. Insurers and actuaries are not comfortable with these exposures and either refuse to insure them or charge higher premiums.
I insured the CSS Hunley while she was still on the bottom. My staff and I kicked the risks around and finally pulled a number out of the air for a premium. Of course, the Hunley was one of a kind, had already sunk and was, quite literally, "pig iron under water"....
John T
Multihulls are small in number and have (compared to monohulls) a relatively short history. They have often been built by inexperienced amateurs who used less than ideal materials and sometimes suspect design/construction materials. As a result, there have been many boats which have either failed spectacularly or simply gone missing. Insurers and actuaries are not comfortable with these exposures and either refuse to insure them or charge higher premiums.
I insured the CSS Hunley while she was still on the bottom. My staff and I kicked the risks around and finally pulled a number out of the air for a premium. Of course, the Hunley was one of a kind, had already sunk and was, quite literally, "pig iron under water"....
John T
----- Original Message -----
From: Carl
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Advanced Sharpie design explanation in a nutshell
Actually I wondered if that was still true, noting the reasons you articulated. I still don't know the answer. Insurance rates are set by actuaries who work in cold, hard numbers. I'm curious if the numbers have led to a change in policy. I really didn't want to get into a PC vs Apple argument, but I'm weak. My only updated info is the anecdotal references to axes and doors. That info is about 20 years old however. There must be someone within earshot with some facts.
----- Original Message -----
From: Christopher Wetherill
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Advanced Sharpie design explanation in a nutshell
Somewhere back in the beginning of this thread, the question was posted
as to why insurance rates were traditionally higher for multi-hulls. I
think the answer is in history, not opinions based on current art.
Over one hundred years ago, there was a fad for multi-hull boats. N. G.
Herreshoff , among others I'm sure, built a few and found two things.
First, the hulls were subject to enormous stresses due to twisting the
cross beams, particularly in a quartering sea, and tended to come
apart. Second, a knockdown meant a capsize. Captain Nat, and probably
many other influential colleagues, became quite militant in his
opposition to multi-hulls. The insurance companies probably adopted
this opposition. Since Insurance companies are inherently risk averse,
they would exhibit considerable inertia against easing restrictive
policies in the advent of new technologies.
V/R
Chris
Carl wrote:
> Just to be clear, the numbers were answered by someone else in the group. Bon voyage...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: proaconstrictor
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 10:32 AM
> Subject: [bolger] Re: Advanced Sharpie design explanation in a nutshell
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Carl" <shnarg@...> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, and a fellow went to Hawaii in a Cal 20, numerous folks have
> crossed the atlantic in tiny monos, and many of the monos abandoned in
> the Fastnet were still afloat and viable the next day. One could
> cherry pick all day with meaningless examples, it comes down to
> numbers.
> >
> >
>
> Which explains why you cherry picked the "meaningless" example from my
> post and ignored the numbers?
>
> Anyway, I can see where this thread is going and I'm laying out the
> parachute and waiting for it to blow by.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.21/509 - Release Date: 10/31/2006
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, 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 Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.21/509 - Release Date: 10/31/2006
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.21/509 - Release Date: 10/31/2006
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
You have a reference point there Chris, that quite remarkably passes
over the 20th century.
I'm sorry Carl, I thought you were refering to the lack of numbers
relative to yacht design not actuarial science. I'm glad to hear that
at best you are talking about numbers, that if ever relevant to your
argument, are 20 years out of date also. That is somewhat like talking
about computers pre-Mid-80s. A huge amount of the take-up on
multihulls has been in the last 20 years. For instance the huge market
in people buying them as investments that developed in that period
would not be possible without insurance to secure bank loans. Much of
this business was done out of France and the boats started their
service being delivered across the Atlantic.
over the 20th century.
I'm sorry Carl, I thought you were refering to the lack of numbers
relative to yacht design not actuarial science. I'm glad to hear that
at best you are talking about numbers, that if ever relevant to your
argument, are 20 years out of date also. That is somewhat like talking
about computers pre-Mid-80s. A huge amount of the take-up on
multihulls has been in the last 20 years. For instance the huge market
in people buying them as investments that developed in that period
would not be possible without insurance to secure bank loans. Much of
this business was done out of France and the boats started their
service being delivered across the Atlantic.
I must admit, I do not know the current state. My supposition
regarding the history is based on L.F. Herreshoff's biography of his
father and upon my Grandfather's often repeated stories about growing
up with L.F.H. in Bristol.
V/R
Chris
regarding the history is based on L.F. Herreshoff's biography of his
father and upon my Grandfather's often repeated stories about growing
up with L.F.H. in Bristol.
V/R
Chris
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Carl" <shnarg@...> wrote:
>
> Actually I wondered if that was still true, noting the reasons you
articulated. I still don't know the answer. Insurance rates are set
by actuaries who work in cold, hard numbers. I'm curious if the
numbers have led to a change in policy. I really didn't want to get
into a PC vs Apple argument, but I'm weak. My only updated info is
the anecdotal references to axes and doors. That info is about 20
years old however. There must be someone within earshot with some facts.
>
>
snip
Actually I wondered if that was still true, noting the reasons you articulated. I still don't know the answer. Insurance rates are set by actuaries who work in cold, hard numbers. I'm curious if the numbers have led to a change in policy. I really didn't want to get into a PC vs Apple argument, but I'm weak. My only updated info is the anecdotal references to axes and doors. That info is about 20 years old however. There must be someone within earshot with some facts.
----- Original Message -----
From: Christopher Wetherill
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Advanced Sharpie design explanation in a nutshell
Somewhere back in the beginning of this thread, the question was posted
as to why insurance rates were traditionally higher for multi-hulls. I
think the answer is in history, not opinions based on current art.
Over one hundred years ago, there was a fad for multi-hull boats. N. G.
Herreshoff , among others I'm sure, built a few and found two things.
First, the hulls were subject to enormous stresses due to twisting the
cross beams, particularly in a quartering sea, and tended to come
apart. Second, a knockdown meant a capsize. Captain Nat, and probably
many other influential colleagues, became quite militant in his
opposition to multi-hulls. The insurance companies probably adopted
this opposition. Since Insurance companies are inherently risk averse,
they would exhibit considerable inertia against easing restrictive
policies in the advent of new technologies.
V/R
Chris
Carl wrote:
> Just to be clear, the numbers were answered by someone else in the group. Bon voyage...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: proaconstrictor
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 10:32 AM
> Subject: [bolger] Re: Advanced Sharpie design explanation in a nutshell
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Carl" <shnarg@...> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, and a fellow went to Hawaii in a Cal 20, numerous folks have
> crossed the atlantic in tiny monos, and many of the monos abandoned in
> the Fastnet were still afloat and viable the next day. One could
> cherry pick all day with meaningless examples, it comes down to
> numbers.
> >
> >
>
> Which explains why you cherry picked the "meaningless" example from my
> post and ignored the numbers?
>
> Anyway, I can see where this thread is going and I'm laying out the
> parachute and waiting for it to blow by.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.21/509 - Release Date: 10/31/2006
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, 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 Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.21/509 - Release Date: 10/31/2006
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Somewhere back in the beginning of this thread, the question was posted
as to why insurance rates were traditionally higher for multi-hulls. I
think the answer is in history, not opinions based on current art.
Over one hundred years ago, there was a fad for multi-hull boats. N. G.
Herreshoff , among others I'm sure, built a few and found two things.
First, the hulls were subject to enormous stresses due to twisting the
cross beams, particularly in a quartering sea, and tended to come
apart. Second, a knockdown meant a capsize. Captain Nat, and probably
many other influential colleagues, became quite militant in his
opposition to multi-hulls. The insurance companies probably adopted
this opposition. Since Insurance companies are inherently risk averse,
they would exhibit considerable inertia against easing restrictive
policies in the advent of new technologies.
V/R
Chris
Carl wrote:
as to why insurance rates were traditionally higher for multi-hulls. I
think the answer is in history, not opinions based on current art.
Over one hundred years ago, there was a fad for multi-hull boats. N. G.
Herreshoff , among others I'm sure, built a few and found two things.
First, the hulls were subject to enormous stresses due to twisting the
cross beams, particularly in a quartering sea, and tended to come
apart. Second, a knockdown meant a capsize. Captain Nat, and probably
many other influential colleagues, became quite militant in his
opposition to multi-hulls. The insurance companies probably adopted
this opposition. Since Insurance companies are inherently risk averse,
they would exhibit considerable inertia against easing restrictive
policies in the advent of new technologies.
V/R
Chris
Carl wrote:
> Just to be clear, the numbers were answered by someone else in the group. Bon voyage...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: proaconstrictor
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 10:32 AM
> Subject: [bolger] Re: Advanced Sharpie design explanation in a nutshell
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Carl" <shnarg@...> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, and a fellow went to Hawaii in a Cal 20, numerous folks have
> crossed the atlantic in tiny monos, and many of the monos abandoned in
> the Fastnet were still afloat and viable the next day. One could
> cherry pick all day with meaningless examples, it comes down to
> numbers.
> >
> >
>
> Which explains why you cherry picked the "meaningless" example from my
> post and ignored the numbers?
>
> Anyway, I can see where this thread is going and I'm laying out the
> parachute and waiting for it to blow by.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.21/509 - Release Date: 10/31/2006
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, 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 Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Just to be clear, the numbers were answered by someone else in the group. Bon voyage...
----- Original Message -----
From: proaconstrictor
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 10:32 AM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Advanced Sharpie design explanation in a nutshell
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Carl" <shnarg@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, and a fellow went to Hawaii in a Cal 20, numerous folks have
crossed the atlantic in tiny monos, and many of the monos abandoned in
the Fastnet were still afloat and viable the next day. One could
cherry pick all day with meaningless examples, it comes down to
numbers.
>
>
Which explains why you cherry picked the "meaningless" example from my
post and ignored the numbers?
Anyway, I can see where this thread is going and I'm laying out the
parachute and waiting for it to blow by.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.21/509 - Release Date: 10/31/2006
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Carl" <shnarg@...> wrote:
the Fastnet were still afloat and viable the next day. One could
cherry pick all day with meaningless examples, it comes down to
numbers.
post and ignored the numbers?
Anyway, I can see where this thread is going and I'm laying out the
parachute and waiting for it to blow by.
>crossed the atlantic in tiny monos, and many of the monos abandoned in
> Yes, and a fellow went to Hawaii in a Cal 20, numerous folks have
the Fastnet were still afloat and viable the next day. One could
cherry pick all day with meaningless examples, it comes down to
numbers.
>Which explains why you cherry picked the "meaningless" example from my
>
post and ignored the numbers?
Anyway, I can see where this thread is going and I'm laying out the
parachute and waiting for it to blow by.
> of been one neat ride,especially once you hit New Brunswick withI only had time for one way, but you are dead on about the hills in
> its' hills.
NB, and the dogs that skulk in them. A land of many welcomes, most
of which that start WOOF WOOF WOOF!
The ride back must of been a treat also with the wind
> mostly coming right smack at you.I had a headwind all the way through Quebec, at one point I couldn't
turn my wheels over standing in the granny gear.
Had we better contact,you most
> certainly could have dropped by the"shop",cool off with someThanks maybe we can catch up some time. I'm back and forth to NB
> brewskis' and spent the evening with a nice home-cooked meal and a
> comfy bed.
regularly. Though when I'm in the car I have 4 backseat drivers so I
may have to prevail on you to erect a sign that says something
like "Santas Village".
Yes, and a fellow went to Hawaii in a Cal 20, numerous folks have crossed the atlantic in tiny monos, and many of the monos abandoned in the Fastnet were still afloat and viable the next day. One could cherry pick all day with meaningless examples, it comes down to numbers.
----- Original Message -----
From: proaconstrictor
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 9:38 PM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Advanced Sharpie design explanation in a nutshell
>
> > True, with an axe in every compartment as has been
> > required of multi's in some blue water events.
I can't say I have heard of that rule, but then I like axes, and
regard that as progress, at least on the aesthetic front.
I
> > even saw one with a door below decks to make egress
> > easier once turtled.
Those are great, the kids like to wave to each other from hull to
hull.
So the inverted stability is a
> > safety factor?
Yes in a sense. If you read what happens to the crew of rolled and
dismasted monos, those that survive that is.
More generally, the safety referred to comes from the fact that once
rolled they don't/can't sink. The rolling by itself isn't so
wonderful but it needs to be put in perspective. A Bolger ESC 32 has
a displacement of 8300 pounds and carries 210 sq ft of sail, and
about 1-2000 pounds of lead. I have a pal who is building a 50x28
foot multi that will weigh 1100 pounds. It's designed for bluewater
offshore racing like the OSTAR kind of thing, though downwind courses
mostly. This isn't a lee-boarder for a shallow creek. Too light for
my taste, but with a 1/5 the weight of the ESC, and let's give it
ESC's sail area, but with a 50x28 foot footprint, vs. 32x6, which
boat is really designed to turtle? 200 square feet is not much
different than a Hobbie 18 beach sailor, I would be hard put to see
either being easily capsized/
More typically an 8000 pound multi might be in the forty foot range,
depending on type. Lets call it 40 foot x 24. I still fail to see
any tendency in the type turtling. It all comes down to sail area.
If you use sail areas traditional for similar weight workboats, as
the Wharrams do, it becomes nearly impossible for them to capsize.
And thousands have been built, many making remarkable voyages, and in
some instances surviving hurricanes that destroyed much larger
ships. Bolger friend Jones rode out a severe hurricane, right
through the eye of the storm in a 23 footer.
>> that would make the tendancy to
> > turtle a good thing...
> > Carl <shnarg@...> wrote: Faith is a
> > wonderful thing. There is the issue of the
> > transverse structural members, whose stresses are
> > akin to an aircraft wing.
And the problem is what? Even fifty years ago we had aircraft
engineering talent like Cross designing in the field. There is even
a European standard for beam strength, it's not a mystery.
Admittedly the whole European open sixty fleet was pretty much
destroyed in bad weather a few years back, but it was designed for
fair weather sailing inshore, mostly. It's racing, sometimes the
boats break up. Same in whatever they call the Cup races these days,
I saw a bow come off one of those a few years back. Or like when the
lead torpedo comes off some high perforce carbon foil in some mono
race boat. They find the boat off Ireland minus the skipper.
Multihulls have an outstanding reputation for safety, but whatever
type one choose it behooves the owner to match up the
safety/performance equation to their personal needs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.17/505 - Release Date: 10/27/2006
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Peter --
If it's not too much trouble, could you maybe, oh . . . transcribe
every single word of dialogue from your weekend with PCB? Tell us
every single thing he did and said? You know, just a little 30-page
recap of the weekend . . .
All best,
Garth
If it's not too much trouble, could you maybe, oh . . . transcribe
every single word of dialogue from your weekend with PCB? Tell us
every single thing he did and said? You know, just a little 30-page
recap of the weekend . . .
All best,
Garth
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Lenihan" <peterlenihan@...> wrote:
> Peter Lenihan, recovering nicely after three blessed days enjoying
> the
> company of PCB&F's which included a delicious supper on board the AS-
> 39-Anemone(ex Le Cabotin),the following day spent sailing her with
> the
> master on board, another long,well watered and fed evening at a
> friends home with our Hero(God) sitting right at the head of the
> table
> and Susanne(The Prophet) at his side and culminating the next day
> with
> a wonderfully enlightening afternoon visit to my humble boat shop
> for a
> full-no-holds-barred tour of Windermere......I'm still
> giddy.....from
> along the darkening shores of the mighty St.Lawrence..........
>
Non related to Peter's post but more progress on the Lobster Boat, hull planking complete and laminated ribs being glued and screwed in place. We (Dominic&Hugo + Bruce(Dad) are hoping for finished project early to mid 2007, I think there will be some more pics posted soon. For Peters info we have just had snow in Tasmania in some areas to about the 400m level! Good luck to all Boat owners with an open mind!
Peter Lenihan <peterlenihan@...> wrote: --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "proaconstrictor"
<proaconstrictor@...> wrote:
of been one neat ride,especially once you hit New Brunswick with
its' hills.The ride back must of been a treat also with the wind
mostly coming right smack at you. Had we better contact,you most
certainly could have dropped by the"shop",cool off with some
brewskis' and spent the evening with a nice home-cooked meal and a
comfy bed.
This Fall has been the pits regarding weather with nothing better
then a peep hole of hope,never mind a "window" :-)
The canal you refer to may well have been the Chambly canal and the
town called Chambly?.Went through it a few times with my Micro and
was captivated by the scenery and enchanting towns along the way.
My wafer thin wallet could never afford such luxuries as canal side
property thus I must settle for the industrial setting afforded by a
commercial boat yard just a few hundred metres up-stream from the
St.Catherne locks of the St.Lawrence Seaway.Surrounded by all sorts
of boats in various states of repair inspires me.....or at least
this is how I console myself :-)
Let me know,come next year, if you pass this way again and I'll
gladly show you a "large Bolger boat" maybe even afloat !
Sincerely,
Peter lenihan,recalling many a fine bike ride throughout the New
England states and southern Quebec when there appeared to be fewer
crazies on the roads but the riding suits have become a whoooole lot
better on the fairer sex...... ya man!!!
---------------------------------
Get your email and see which of your friends are online - Right on the new Yahoo.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Peter Lenihan <peterlenihan@...> wrote: --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "proaconstrictor"
<proaconstrictor@...> wrote:
>change
>
> >
> > Sail area is about the only thing the sailor can control once at
> sea
> > regarding dealing with strong winds(yes he may also wish to
> > heading etc...).However,and perhaps more importantly, it will beboat)
> the
> > action of breaking storm waves which will throw the boat(any
> > over if caught wrongright
> > and this is where the multi hulls may be"turtled". A proper
> > ballast/displacement ratio on the mono hull will see it right
> > itself.For the multi-hull,perhaps another breaking wave will
> > her.........?should
>
> That is really bad weather there, and any well prepared boat
> have the series drogue out by then, or a paranchor.my
>
> Peter, I rode my bike from Toronto to Fredericton last fall, and I
> came right along the lake and the Saint Lawrence. I was keeping
> eyes peeled for a large Bolger boat, but none revealed itself. Iwas
> planing on the same trip this fall, but I never saw an appealingHoly aching thigh mucsles(not to mention gluteus maximus)! That must
> window in the weather.
>
> I came to one town, called Cardinal, I think, it has a wonderful
> canal segment and landscape that looked very appealing for a cozy
> boatshop.
of been one neat ride,especially once you hit New Brunswick with
its' hills.The ride back must of been a treat also with the wind
mostly coming right smack at you. Had we better contact,you most
certainly could have dropped by the"shop",cool off with some
brewskis' and spent the evening with a nice home-cooked meal and a
comfy bed.
This Fall has been the pits regarding weather with nothing better
then a peep hole of hope,never mind a "window" :-)
The canal you refer to may well have been the Chambly canal and the
town called Chambly?.Went through it a few times with my Micro and
was captivated by the scenery and enchanting towns along the way.
My wafer thin wallet could never afford such luxuries as canal side
property thus I must settle for the industrial setting afforded by a
commercial boat yard just a few hundred metres up-stream from the
St.Catherne locks of the St.Lawrence Seaway.Surrounded by all sorts
of boats in various states of repair inspires me.....or at least
this is how I console myself :-)
Let me know,come next year, if you pass this way again and I'll
gladly show you a "large Bolger boat" maybe even afloat !
Sincerely,
Peter lenihan,recalling many a fine bike ride throughout the New
England states and southern Quebec when there appeared to be fewer
crazies on the roads but the riding suits have become a whoooole lot
better on the fairer sex...... ya man!!!
---------------------------------
Get your email and see which of your friends are online - Right on the new Yahoo.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "proaconstrictor"
<proaconstrictor@...> wrote:
of been one neat ride,especially once you hit New Brunswick with
its' hills.The ride back must of been a treat also with the wind
mostly coming right smack at you. Had we better contact,you most
certainly could have dropped by the"shop",cool off with some
brewskis' and spent the evening with a nice home-cooked meal and a
comfy bed.
This Fall has been the pits regarding weather with nothing better
then a peep hole of hope,never mind a "window" :-)
The canal you refer to may well have been the Chambly canal and the
town called Chambly?.Went through it a few times with my Micro and
was captivated by the scenery and enchanting towns along the way.
My wafer thin wallet could never afford such luxuries as canal side
property thus I must settle for the industrial setting afforded by a
commercial boat yard just a few hundred metres up-stream from the
St.Catherne locks of the St.Lawrence Seaway.Surrounded by all sorts
of boats in various states of repair inspires me.....or at least
this is how I console myself :-)
Let me know,come next year, if you pass this way again and I'll
gladly show you a "large Bolger boat" maybe even afloat !
Sincerely,
Peter lenihan,recalling many a fine bike ride throughout the New
England states and southern Quebec when there appeared to be fewer
crazies on the roads but the riding suits have become a whoooole lot
better on the fairer sex...... ya man!!!
<proaconstrictor@...> wrote:
>change
>
> >
> > Sail area is about the only thing the sailor can control once at
> sea
> > regarding dealing with strong winds(yes he may also wish to
> > heading etc...).However,and perhaps more importantly, it will beboat)
> the
> > action of breaking storm waves which will throw the boat(any
> > over if caught wrongright
> > and this is where the multi hulls may be"turtled". A proper
> > ballast/displacement ratio on the mono hull will see it right
> > itself.For the multi-hull,perhaps another breaking wave will
> > her.........?should
>
> That is really bad weather there, and any well prepared boat
> have the series drogue out by then, or a paranchor.my
>
> Peter, I rode my bike from Toronto to Fredericton last fall, and I
> came right along the lake and the Saint Lawrence. I was keeping
> eyes peeled for a large Bolger boat, but none revealed itself. Iwas
> planing on the same trip this fall, but I never saw an appealingHoly aching thigh mucsles(not to mention gluteus maximus)! That must
> window in the weather.
>
> I came to one town, called Cardinal, I think, it has a wonderful
> canal segment and landscape that looked very appealing for a cozy
> boatshop.
of been one neat ride,especially once you hit New Brunswick with
its' hills.The ride back must of been a treat also with the wind
mostly coming right smack at you. Had we better contact,you most
certainly could have dropped by the"shop",cool off with some
brewskis' and spent the evening with a nice home-cooked meal and a
comfy bed.
This Fall has been the pits regarding weather with nothing better
then a peep hole of hope,never mind a "window" :-)
The canal you refer to may well have been the Chambly canal and the
town called Chambly?.Went through it a few times with my Micro and
was captivated by the scenery and enchanting towns along the way.
My wafer thin wallet could never afford such luxuries as canal side
property thus I must settle for the industrial setting afforded by a
commercial boat yard just a few hundred metres up-stream from the
St.Catherne locks of the St.Lawrence Seaway.Surrounded by all sorts
of boats in various states of repair inspires me.....or at least
this is how I console myself :-)
Let me know,come next year, if you pass this way again and I'll
gladly show you a "large Bolger boat" maybe even afloat !
Sincerely,
Peter lenihan,recalling many a fine bike ride throughout the New
England states and southern Quebec when there appeared to be fewer
crazies on the roads but the riding suits have become a whoooole lot
better on the fairer sex...... ya man!!!
>sea
> Sail area is about the only thing the sailor can control once at
> regarding dealing with strong winds(yes he may also wish to changethe
> heading etc...).However,and perhaps more importantly, it will be
> action of breaking storm waves which will throw the boat(any boat)That is really bad weather there, and any well prepared boat should
> over if caught wrong
> and this is where the multi hulls may be"turtled". A proper
> ballast/displacement ratio on the mono hull will see it right
> itself.For the multi-hull,perhaps another breaking wave will right
> her.........?
have the series drogue out by then, or a paranchor.
Peter, I rode my bike from Toronto to Fredericton last fall, and I
came right along the lake and the Saint Lawrence. I was keeping my
eyes peeled for a large Bolger boat, but none revealed itself. I was
planing on the same trip this fall, but I never saw an appealing
window in the weather.
I came to one town, called Cardinal, I think, it has a wonderful
canal segment and landscape that looked very appealing for a cozy
boatshop.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "proaconstrictor"
<proaconstrictor@...>
wrote:
Sail area is about the only thing the sailor can control once at sea
regarding dealing with strong winds(yes he may also wish to change
heading etc...).However,and perhaps more importantly, it will be the
action of breaking storm waves which will throw the boat(any boat)
over if caught wrong
and this is where the multi hulls may be"turtled". A proper
ballast/displacement ratio on the mono hull will see it right
itself.For the multi-hull,perhaps another breaking wave will right
her.........?
In the larger Bolger AS series(29' and up),ballast is now shown as a
substantial
steel plate bolted right on to the hull bottom.No appendages to
break
away under extreme forces.The amusingly high freeboard ensures there
will be enough distance between the inclined hull CB and the ballast
to create a powerful lever arm to right both hull and rigging
without the need of appendages.
Proaconstrictor,nice to see you back!Long Live Multi's :-)
Sincerely,
Peter Lenihan, recovering nicely after three blessed days enjoying
the
company of PCB&F's which included a delicious supper on board the AS-
39-Anemone(ex Le Cabotin),the following day spent sailing her with
the
master on board, another long,well watered and fed evening at a
friends home with our Hero(God) sitting right at the head of the
table
and Susanne(The Prophet) at his side and culminating the next day
with
a wonderfully enlightening afternoon visit to my humble boat shop
for a
full-no-holds-barred tour of Windermere......I'm still
giddy.....from
along the darkening shores of the mighty St.Lawrence..........
<proaconstrictor@...>
wrote:
> I still fail to seearea.
> any tendency in the type turtling. It all comes down to sail
Sail area is about the only thing the sailor can control once at sea
regarding dealing with strong winds(yes he may also wish to change
heading etc...).However,and perhaps more importantly, it will be the
action of breaking storm waves which will throw the boat(any boat)
over if caught wrong
and this is where the multi hulls may be"turtled". A proper
ballast/displacement ratio on the mono hull will see it right
itself.For the multi-hull,perhaps another breaking wave will right
her.........?
In the larger Bolger AS series(29' and up),ballast is now shown as a
substantial
steel plate bolted right on to the hull bottom.No appendages to
break
away under extreme forces.The amusingly high freeboard ensures there
will be enough distance between the inclined hull CB and the ballast
to create a powerful lever arm to right both hull and rigging
without the need of appendages.
Proaconstrictor,nice to see you back!Long Live Multi's :-)
Sincerely,
Peter Lenihan, recovering nicely after three blessed days enjoying
the
company of PCB&F's which included a delicious supper on board the AS-
39-Anemone(ex Le Cabotin),the following day spent sailing her with
the
master on board, another long,well watered and fed evening at a
friends home with our Hero(God) sitting right at the head of the
table
and Susanne(The Prophet) at his side and culminating the next day
with
a wonderfully enlightening afternoon visit to my humble boat shop
for a
full-no-holds-barred tour of Windermere......I'm still
giddy.....from
along the darkening shores of the mighty St.Lawrence..........
>I can't say I have heard of that rule, but then I like axes, and
> > True, with an axe in every compartment as has been
> > required of multi's in some blue water events.
regard that as progress, at least on the aesthetic front.
I
> > even saw one with a door below decks to make egressThose are great, the kids like to wave to each other from hull to
> > easier once turtled.
hull.
So the inverted stability is a
> > safety factor?Yes in a sense. If you read what happens to the crew of rolled and
dismasted monos, those that survive that is.
More generally, the safety referred to comes from the fact that once
rolled they don't/can't sink. The rolling by itself isn't so
wonderful but it needs to be put in perspective. A Bolger ESC 32 has
a displacement of 8300 pounds and carries 210 sq ft of sail, and
about 1-2000 pounds of lead. I have a pal who is building a 50x28
foot multi that will weigh 1100 pounds. It's designed for bluewater
offshore racing like the OSTAR kind of thing, though downwind courses
mostly. This isn't a lee-boarder for a shallow creek. Too light for
my taste, but with a 1/5 the weight of the ESC, and let's give it
ESC's sail area, but with a 50x28 foot footprint, vs. 32x6, which
boat is really designed to turtle? 200 square feet is not much
different than a Hobbie 18 beach sailor, I would be hard put to see
either being easily capsized/
More typically an 8000 pound multi might be in the forty foot range,
depending on type. Lets call it 40 foot x 24. I still fail to see
any tendency in the type turtling. It all comes down to sail area.
If you use sail areas traditional for similar weight workboats, as
the Wharrams do, it becomes nearly impossible for them to capsize.
And thousands have been built, many making remarkable voyages, and in
some instances surviving hurricanes that destroyed much larger
ships. Bolger friend Jones rode out a severe hurricane, right
through the eye of the storm in a 23 footer.
>> that would make the tendancy toAnd the problem is what? Even fifty years ago we had aircraft
> > turtle a good thing...
> > Carl <shnarg@...> wrote: Faith is a
> > wonderful thing. There is the issue of the
> > transverse structural members, whose stresses are
> > akin to an aircraft wing.
engineering talent like Cross designing in the field. There is even
a European standard for beam strength, it's not a mystery.
Admittedly the whole European open sixty fleet was pretty much
destroyed in bad weather a few years back, but it was designed for
fair weather sailing inshore, mostly. It's racing, sometimes the
boats break up. Same in whatever they call the Cup races these days,
I saw a bow come off one of those a few years back. Or like when the
lead torpedo comes off some high perforce carbon foil in some mono
race boat. They find the boat off Ireland minus the skipper.
Multihulls have an outstanding reputation for safety, but whatever
type one choose it behooves the owner to match up the
safety/performance equation to their personal needs.
I have been sitting in the wings reading all the stuff
on what sail rig is better then others. The whole
thing comes down to four things.
Do you like the sail rig that you are useing on a
given boat? Yes or No.
Does the sail rig do what it should do for the boat?
Yes or No.
Is it worth changing to sail rig to something else?
Yes or No.
Are you having fun with the boat as it is or would it
be more enjoiable with something else? Yes or No.
I post this more for humor then anything seeing how I
don't sail and would not know one sail style from the
other. So you use some sheets or tarps to move the
boat around the water! And if you manage this with out
flopping the boat on it's side and getting yourself
soked you have had a good day!
But over the years I've also hear the same kind of
things said over power boats and prop size and pitch
for more speed.... You want a fast power boat clean
the crap out of it and keep it light! But what would I
know.....
Then the thing about hull forms and srability. Face it
you push anything to far and you are going to loose
your srability. Be is a car, boat, or aircraft.
What you get out of anything all comes down the skill
of the one in control of it, and how hard they are
willing to push it.
I like to think we build a boat for the fun of doing
it and we mess around in boats for the fun of it. And
last of all you we bicker and talk about boat for the
FUN of it and to enjoy talking to people that enjoy
boat as much as we do! And the fact is there is no
real right or wrong when it comes to boats and how to
rig them. It's all about learning new things.
Goddess Bless you all!
Krissie
--- Carl <shnarg@...> wrote:
____________________________________________________________________________________
Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Yahoo! Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone call rates
(http://voice.yahoo.com)
on what sail rig is better then others. The whole
thing comes down to four things.
Do you like the sail rig that you are useing on a
given boat? Yes or No.
Does the sail rig do what it should do for the boat?
Yes or No.
Is it worth changing to sail rig to something else?
Yes or No.
Are you having fun with the boat as it is or would it
be more enjoiable with something else? Yes or No.
I post this more for humor then anything seeing how I
don't sail and would not know one sail style from the
other. So you use some sheets or tarps to move the
boat around the water! And if you manage this with out
flopping the boat on it's side and getting yourself
soked you have had a good day!
But over the years I've also hear the same kind of
things said over power boats and prop size and pitch
for more speed.... You want a fast power boat clean
the crap out of it and keep it light! But what would I
know.....
Then the thing about hull forms and srability. Face it
you push anything to far and you are going to loose
your srability. Be is a car, boat, or aircraft.
What you get out of anything all comes down the skill
of the one in control of it, and how hard they are
willing to push it.
I like to think we build a boat for the fun of doing
it and we mess around in boats for the fun of it. And
last of all you we bicker and talk about boat for the
FUN of it and to enjoy talking to people that enjoy
boat as much as we do! And the fact is there is no
real right or wrong when it comes to boats and how to
rig them. It's all about learning new things.
Goddess Bless you all!
Krissie
--- Carl <shnarg@...> wrote:
> True, with an axe in every compartment as has been----------------------------------------------------------
> required of multi's in some blue water events. I
> even saw one with a door below decks to make egress
> easier once turtled. So the inverted stability is a
> safety factor? That would make the tendancy to
> turtle a good thing...
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: greg marston
> To: bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 11:31 AM
> Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Advanced Sharpie design
> explanation in a nutshell
>
>
> It is better than sinking upright.
>
> Carl <shnarg@...> wrote: Faith is a
> wonderful thing. There is the issue of the
> transverse structural members, whose stresses are
> akin to an aircraft wing. And the comfortable way a
> multihull floats inverted.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: proaconstrictor
> To: bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 9:33 PM
> Subject: [bolger] Re: Advanced Sharpie design
> explanation in a nutshell
>
> --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Carl" <shnarg@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Used to be, offshore insurance for multihulls
> (if you could get it)
> was much higher than monohulls. Wonder if that's
> still true, and why.
> >
>
> If the inplication is that it reflects actual risk
> of a multihull
> crossing, then I doubt that is true. The worst
> risk in insurance is
> the unknown. As long as the number of people
> choosing multis was low,
> the insurance would be high because there isn't
> much of a base to
> calculate rates on.
>
> I think a surveyor could reasonably refer to an AS
> 29 as a 'fiberglass
> composite yacht of modern design". If the insurer
> had a bolger cartoon
> to go with it, the cost of insurance might end up
> fairly high also.
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Yahoo! Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone call rates
(http://voice.yahoo.com)
Thanks Howard,
has been a very interesting read indeed! I ordered BWAOM via amazon a
few days ago but it's still on backorder. Seems I've got to get into
things. Normaly modern race cruisers get maligned for reasons like 'we
prefer long keels' and overkill hull thickness. Boat design isn't that
much about innovation really.
Even though the Bolger Boxes weren't love at first sight (more of an
aquired taste) I'm starting to get more and more interested. Perhaps
because they seem to contradict everything conventional wisdom
postulated concerning design principles.
Patric
has been a very interesting read indeed! I ordered BWAOM via amazon a
few days ago but it's still on backorder. Seems I've got to get into
things. Normaly modern race cruisers get maligned for reasons like 'we
prefer long keels' and overkill hull thickness. Boat design isn't that
much about innovation really.
Even though the Bolger Boxes weren't love at first sight (more of an
aquired taste) I'm starting to get more and more interested. Perhaps
because they seem to contradict everything conventional wisdom
postulated concerning design principles.
Patric
> Hi Patric,
>
> Most seagoing boats are long, narrow and flat-bottomed without a
> ballast keel i.e. just about all cargo ships.
>
> Google will find you plenty of information on hull stability e.g. at
>http://www.johnsboatstuff.com/Articles/estimati.htm
>
> You can see from the picture there that while there is a positive
> righting arm ("ra") there remains some static stability. Depending
> on where the cg lies and where the cb moves to as the boat heels,
> even a flat-bottomed design could be stable beyond 90 degrees. The
> idea is to have weights down low, short light masts and buoyancy up
> high. It's important that the watertight volume remains watertight.
>
> Some people say a boat without a salient keel is safer in extreme
> conditions than one with a deep keel because the shallow hull will
> be pushed along the surface like a cork whereas the deep hull will
> have waves breaking over it like a "half-tide rock", as they say.
> Breaking waves can breach the hull sides allowing water in and
> sinking the vessel.
>
> Howard
True, with an axe in every compartment as has been required of multi's in some blue water events. I even saw one with a door below decks to make egress easier once turtled. So the inverted stability is a safety factor? That would make the tendancy to turtle a good thing...
----- Original Message -----
From: greg marston
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 11:31 AM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Advanced Sharpie design explanation in a nutshell
It is better than sinking upright.
Carl <shnarg@...> wrote: Faith is a wonderful thing. There is the issue of the transverse structural members, whose stresses are akin to an aircraft wing. And the comfortable way a multihull floats inverted.
----- Original Message -----
From: proaconstrictor
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 9:33 PM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Advanced Sharpie design explanation in a nutshell
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Carl" <shnarg@...> wrote:
>
> Used to be, offshore insurance for multihulls (if you could get it)
was much higher than monohulls. Wonder if that's still true, and why.
>
If the inplication is that it reflects actual risk of a multihull
crossing, then I doubt that is true. The worst risk in insurance is
the unknown. As long as the number of people choosing multis was low,
the insurance would be high because there isn't much of a base to
calculate rates on.
I think a surveyor could reasonably refer to an AS 29 as a 'fiberglass
composite yacht of modern design". If the insurer had a bolger cartoon
to go with it, the cost of insurance might end up fairly high also.
----------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.17/505 - Release Date: 10/27/2006
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
---------------------------------
Check out the New Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.17/505 - Release Date: 10/27/2006
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Hi Patric,
Most seagoing boats are long, narrow and flat-bottomed without a
ballast keel i.e. just about all cargo ships.
Google will find you plenty of information on hull stability e.g. at
http://www.johnsboatstuff.com/Articles/estimati.htm
You can see from the picture there that while there is a positive
righting arm ("ra") there remains some static stability. Depending
on where the cg lies and where the cb moves to as the boat heels,
even a flat-bottomed design could be stable beyond 90 degrees. The
idea is to have weights down low, short light masts and buoyancy up
high. It's important that the watertight volume remains watertight.
Some people say a boat without a salient keel is safer in extreme
conditions than one with a deep keel because the shallow hull will
be pushed along the surface like a cork whereas the deep hull will
have waves breaking over it like a "half-tide rock", as they say.
Breaking waves can breach the hull sides allowing water in and
sinking the vessel.
Howard
Most seagoing boats are long, narrow and flat-bottomed without a
ballast keel i.e. just about all cargo ships.
Google will find you plenty of information on hull stability e.g. at
http://www.johnsboatstuff.com/Articles/estimati.htm
You can see from the picture there that while there is a positive
righting arm ("ra") there remains some static stability. Depending
on where the cg lies and where the cb moves to as the boat heels,
even a flat-bottomed design could be stable beyond 90 degrees. The
idea is to have weights down low, short light masts and buoyancy up
high. It's important that the watertight volume remains watertight.
Some people say a boat without a salient keel is safer in extreme
conditions than one with a deep keel because the shallow hull will
be pushed along the surface like a cork whereas the deep hull will
have waves breaking over it like a "half-tide rock", as they say.
Breaking waves can breach the hull sides allowing water in and
sinking the vessel.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Patric Albutat" <albutat@...> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> this is my first post on the group. If all of this has been
discussed
> over and over I apologize but I'm not quite sure I got it right.
> Obviously Bolger requires some out of the box thinking! At the
moment
> however I feel like it might be slightly beyond me.
> From where do you get the required righting torque when heeled
over on
> a boat with no keel? They don't get their stability from beam
either
> (like multihulls), quite the contrary. The righting arm curve
reaches
> it's maximum at somewhere around 30° which doesn't sound terribly
> seaworthy to me. Hardly any righting moment to stop the boat from
> capsizing after that? The internal ballast won't work beyond 90° as
> opposed to deep keels (Hmm the same could be said for bilge keels
so
> I've got to be making a mistake somewere). I forgot how much
> foot-pound of righting force you ought to have at 90° but I think
self
> righting from 120° was considered a minimum requirement for
oceangoing
> vessles.
> I guess this is where the high freeboard/buoyancy comes in?
> They won't stay upside down like a cat or tri though, that's
> definitely a good point.
> Also read that stability will increase by x^4 with waterline lenght
> whilst the drag coefficient raises at x^2. Frankly I don't
understand
> why a long narrow boat will have any advantage there.
>
> If somebody please could shed some light on this?
>
> thanks!
> Patric
>
It is better than sinking upright.
Carl <shnarg@...> wrote: Faith is a wonderful thing. There is the issue of the transverse structural members, whose stresses are akin to an aircraft wing. And the comfortable way a multihull floats inverted.
Carl <shnarg@...> wrote: Faith is a wonderful thing. There is the issue of the transverse structural members, whose stresses are akin to an aircraft wing. And the comfortable way a multihull floats inverted.
----- Original Message -----
From: proaconstrictor
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 9:33 PM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Advanced Sharpie design explanation in a nutshell
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Carl" <shnarg@...> wrote:
>
> Used to be, offshore insurance for multihulls (if you could get it)
was much higher than monohulls. Wonder if that's still true, and why.
>
If the inplication is that it reflects actual risk of a multihull
crossing, then I doubt that is true. The worst risk in insurance is
the unknown. As long as the number of people choosing multis was low,
the insurance would be high because there isn't much of a base to
calculate rates on.
I think a surveyor could reasonably refer to an AS 29 as a 'fiberglass
composite yacht of modern design". If the insurer had a bolger cartoon
to go with it, the cost of insurance might end up fairly high also.
----------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.17/505 - Release Date: 10/27/2006
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
---------------------------------
Check out the New Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Faith is a wonderful thing. There is the issue of the transverse structural members, whose stresses are akin to an aircraft wing. And the comfortable way a multihull floats inverted.
----- Original Message -----
From: proaconstrictor
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 9:33 PM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Advanced Sharpie design explanation in a nutshell
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Carl" <shnarg@...> wrote:
>
> Used to be, offshore insurance for multihulls (if you could get it)
was much higher than monohulls. Wonder if that's still true, and why.
>
If the inplication is that it reflects actual risk of a multihull
crossing, then I doubt that is true. The worst risk in insurance is
the unknown. As long as the number of people choosing multis was low,
the insurance would be high because there isn't much of a base to
calculate rates on.
I think a surveyor could reasonably refer to an AS 29 as a 'fiberglass
composite yacht of modern design". If the insurer had a bolger cartoon
to go with it, the cost of insurance might end up fairly high also.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.17/505 - Release Date: 10/27/2006
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Carl" <shnarg@...> wrote:
crossing, then I doubt that is true. The worst risk in insurance is
the unknown. As long as the number of people choosing multis was low,
the insurance would be high because there isn't much of a base to
calculate rates on.
I think a surveyor could reasonably refer to an AS 29 as a 'fiberglass
composite yacht of modern design". If the insurer had a bolger cartoon
to go with it, the cost of insurance might end up fairly high also.
>was much higher than monohulls. Wonder if that's still true, and why.
> Used to be, offshore insurance for multihulls (if you could get it)
>If the inplication is that it reflects actual risk of a multihull
crossing, then I doubt that is true. The worst risk in insurance is
the unknown. As long as the number of people choosing multis was low,
the insurance would be high because there isn't much of a base to
calculate rates on.
I think a surveyor could reasonably refer to an AS 29 as a 'fiberglass
composite yacht of modern design". If the insurer had a bolger cartoon
to go with it, the cost of insurance might end up fairly high also.
Used to be, offshore insurance for multihulls (if you could get it) was much higher than monohulls. Wonder if that's still true, and why.
----- Original Message -----
From: proaconstrictor
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 11:54 AM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Advanced Sharpie design explanation in a nutshell
These sharpies are "advanced" relative to earlier designs of PCB, and
the type more generally. That doesn't necesarilly make them comparable
to more proven offshore designs. I would far prefer to be offshore in
a catamaran or trimaran than any sharpie and most monohulls, regardless
of what the stability curves say.
The Ostar sharpie should show what is necesarry to get to where your
questions are leading, in boats of this type. On arrival one still has
to contend with "booming pounding at anchor". My kingdom for a Tiki 30.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.17/505 - Release Date: 10/27/2006
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
These sharpies are "advanced" relative to earlier designs of PCB, and
the type more generally. That doesn't necesarilly make them comparable
to more proven offshore designs. I would far prefer to be offshore in
a catamaran or trimaran than any sharpie and most monohulls, regardless
of what the stability curves say.
The Ostar sharpie should show what is necesarry to get to where your
questions are leading, in boats of this type. On arrival one still has
to contend with "booming pounding at anchor". My kingdom for a Tiki 30.
the type more generally. That doesn't necesarilly make them comparable
to more proven offshore designs. I would far prefer to be offshore in
a catamaran or trimaran than any sharpie and most monohulls, regardless
of what the stability curves say.
The Ostar sharpie should show what is necesarry to get to where your
questions are leading, in boats of this type. On arrival one still has
to contend with "booming pounding at anchor". My kingdom for a Tiki 30.
Hi all,
this is my first post on the group. If all of this has been discussed
over and over I apologize but I'm not quite sure I got it right.
Obviously Bolger requires some out of the box thinking! At the moment
however I feel like it might be slightly beyond me.
From where do you get the required righting torque when heeled over on
a boat with no keel? They don't get their stability from beam either
(like multihulls), quite the contrary. The righting arm curve reaches
it's maximum at somewhere around 30° which doesn't sound terribly
seaworthy to me. Hardly any righting moment to stop the boat from
capsizing after that? The internal ballast won't work beyond 90° as
opposed to deep keels (Hmm the same could be said for bilge keels so
I've got to be making a mistake somewere). I forgot how much
foot-pound of righting force you ought to have at 90° but I think self
righting from 120° was considered a minimum requirement for oceangoing
vessles.
I guess this is where the high freeboard/buoyancy comes in?
They won't stay upside down like a cat or tri though, that's
definitely a good point.
Also read that stability will increase by x^4 with waterline lenght
whilst the drag coefficient raises at x^2. Frankly I don't understand
why a long narrow boat will have any advantage there.
If somebody please could shed some light on this?
thanks!
Patric
this is my first post on the group. If all of this has been discussed
over and over I apologize but I'm not quite sure I got it right.
Obviously Bolger requires some out of the box thinking! At the moment
however I feel like it might be slightly beyond me.
From where do you get the required righting torque when heeled over on
a boat with no keel? They don't get their stability from beam either
(like multihulls), quite the contrary. The righting arm curve reaches
it's maximum at somewhere around 30° which doesn't sound terribly
seaworthy to me. Hardly any righting moment to stop the boat from
capsizing after that? The internal ballast won't work beyond 90° as
opposed to deep keels (Hmm the same could be said for bilge keels so
I've got to be making a mistake somewere). I forgot how much
foot-pound of righting force you ought to have at 90° but I think self
righting from 120° was considered a minimum requirement for oceangoing
vessles.
I guess this is where the high freeboard/buoyancy comes in?
They won't stay upside down like a cat or tri though, that's
definitely a good point.
Also read that stability will increase by x^4 with waterline lenght
whilst the drag coefficient raises at x^2. Frankly I don't understand
why a long narrow boat will have any advantage there.
If somebody please could shed some light on this?
thanks!
Patric