Re: [bolger] Re: Bolger's Defender/why on earth "quick and Dirty"!!??
> I suppose, Bruce, I meant "out of true, with particular reference toYes, of course. I was being too contrary, sorry.. I also think of
> planking overlap", which was the way I understood you to use the word
> in your earlier post.
'out of true' when I think 'error'. Though there are other ways to
view it.
Specifically, with Cartoon 5, my 'out of true' errors would have been
prevented with some additional temporary frames. Like Spur II, Bolger
has the seat supports doing double duty as frames. This leaves a long
unsupported spans between the seats. 1/4" plywood is too floppy to
keep a 'fair curve' based on the spring of the plank over that
distance. The curvature of the hull could be improved with the
addition of two temporary frames halfway between the seats. If I were
to do it over again, I would include these two temporary frames.
I suppose, Bruce, I meant "out of true, with particular reference to
planking overlap", which was the way I understood you to use the word
in your earlier post.
Not having tried lapstrake construction it seems to me, and maybe to
others in the same position, to rely a lot on a good eye and
judgement as to how the planks are shaped and overlapped. This is
where a newcomer to lapstrake planking might not feel entirely
comfortable.
Your technique of using a computer to determine plank shapes would
help a lot. Wouldn't it be nice to have a CNC machine to cut out all
the planks and mark the overlap on each of them too? Boatbuilding by
numbers...
Howard
planking overlap", which was the way I understood you to use the word
in your earlier post.
Not having tried lapstrake construction it seems to me, and maybe to
others in the same position, to rely a lot on a good eye and
judgement as to how the planks are shaped and overlapped. This is
where a newcomer to lapstrake planking might not feel entirely
comfortable.
Your technique of using a computer to determine plank shapes would
help a lot. Wouldn't it be nice to have a CNC machine to cut out all
the planks and mark the overlap on each of them too? Boatbuilding by
numbers...
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > ... and also a potential source of error, surely.
>
>
> This begs the question: define 'error'.
>
> 'Out of true' is one definition. But another might be 'taking too
> long', or 'spending too much'. Another type of error might be over
> building boat that 'weighs too much'.
>
> I don't think that flowing water cares whether a boat is 'out of
true'
> by a few inches.
>
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > ... and also a potential source of error, surely.
>
>
> This begs the question: define 'error'.
>
> 'Out of true' is one definition. But another might be 'taking too
> long', or 'spending too much'. Another type of error might be over
> building boat that 'weighs too much'.
>
> I don't think that flowing water cares whether a boat is 'out of
true'
> by a few inches.
>
>This begs the question: define 'error'.
> ... and also a potential source of error, surely.
'Out of true' is one definition. But another might be 'taking too
long', or 'spending too much'. Another type of error might be over
building boat that 'weighs too much'.
I don't think that flowing water cares whether a boat is 'out of true'
by a few inches.
... and also a potential source of error, surely.
Howard
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@...> wrote:
> Also, the lapping of the 'lap strake' easily allows variablity in
the
> extent of lap of the strakes. This adjustablity is very 'forgiving'
> of errors during construction, more so than stitch and glue boats.
>
> Cartoon #5, while having fewer planks than the original, still doesAnd, 'look good' is a subjective illusion. I just had my Cartoon #5
> look rather good.
out on the lawn in the sun this morning, and looking at its curves
with the benefit of the shadows of the sun you can see major
irregularities in the fullness of the curves, out of true by an inch
or more. Regardless without the benifit of the shadows of the sun,
there is a 'trick of the eye' that obscures these irregularities on
broad two way curved surfaces. To most peoples observation, the 'out
of true' on two way curvy surfaces is somewhat hard to see.
Also, the lapping of the 'lap strake' easily allows variablity in the
extent of lap of the strakes. This adjustablity is very 'forgiving'
of errors during construction, more so than stitch and glue boats.
I have done the same thing with a ziplock bag and cut
the corner off the bag.
Krissie
--- Bruce Hallman <bruce@...> wrote:
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
the corner off the bag.
Krissie
--- Bruce Hallman <bruce@...> wrote:
> > I'd try one myself, but from your pictures can't____________________________________________________________________________________
> tell quite how much
> > putty is required. Will you elaborate, please, on
> just how you get
> > the plank ends right.
> > Mark
> >
>
>
> I mix a putty using epoxy and microballoon powder.
> This, I squirt
> into the gaps using a paper cone, like pastry chefs.
>
>http://www.fantes.com/parchment_triangles.htm
>
> I don't fuss about the plank ends, other than
> grinding things smooth
> with my belt sander.
>
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
I have seen that. The stringers and doctored rabbet plane will have
to be the best and easiest way to bevel the lands ever devised.
The slapdash method has no gains in the ends or beveling along the
planks at all. You'd think this'd be an ugly mess, but Bruce's
Cartoon #5, while having fewer planks than the original, still does
look rather good.
If the planks are lined off in the computer, then the thing can be
more or less self jigging the way an instant boat is.
Mark
to be the best and easiest way to bevel the lands ever devised.
The slapdash method has no gains in the ends or beveling along the
planks at all. You'd think this'd be an ugly mess, but Bruce's
Cartoon #5, while having fewer planks than the original, still does
look rather good.
If the planks are lined off in the computer, then the thing can be
more or less self jigging the way an instant boat is.
Mark
On Mar 10, 2007, at 5:25 PM, gilberj55 wrote:
>
> "Ultralight Boatbuilding" by Tom
> Hill
> but several
> experienced builders I have talked to have told me they would never
> go back to building without Toms more elaborate mold.
> JG
>
>
You might want to get your hands on "Ultralight Boatbuilding" by Tom
Hill. It gives the best way to do ply lap construction. His method
requires a much more elaborate building frame, but it is almost
foolproof. You follow his instructions and a good boat will result.
If you have quite a bit of experience or are just really good at
building things, you could hang the planks without molds, but several
experienced builders I have talked to have told me they would never
go back to building without Toms more elaborate mold.
JG
Hill. It gives the best way to do ply lap construction. His method
requires a much more elaborate building frame, but it is almost
foolproof. You follow his instructions and a good boat will result.
If you have quite a bit of experience or are just really good at
building things, you could hang the planks without molds, but several
experienced builders I have talked to have told me they would never
go back to building without Toms more elaborate mold.
JG
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark Albanese <marka@...> wrote:
>
> Couldn't agree with you more, Bruce.
> I think those q&d lapstrake boats of yours are very effective.
>
> I'd try one myself, but from your pictures can't tell quite how
much
> putty is required. Will you elaborate, please, on just how you get
> the plank ends right.
> Mark
>
>
> On Mar 10, 2007, at 7:59 AM, Bruce Hallman wrote:
>
> > Why on earth quick and dirty?
> >
> > Firstly, I totally respect people who prefer to build only the
best.
> >
> > Though, doing so takes time, skill and cost.
> > Time, skill and cost which many find to be prohibitive.
> >
> > For many, the choice is:
> >
> > 1) 'quick and dirty' boat , versus
> > 2) no boat at all
> >
> > And, in my experience, the flow of water around the boat doesn't
> > really care whether the boat is quick and dirty or museum quality.
> >
> > Personally, I don't build boats with any concern for their
resale
> > value.
> >
> > Also, life is short. I don't expect my boats to last forever.
> >
> > I recall Phil Bolger explaining somewhere that the boats of our
great
> > grandparents were purchased and expected to wear out and be
replaced
> > roughly at the same pace as modern automobiles. Wanting a wooden
boat
> > to last a hundred years is like expecting a modern car to last a
> > hundred years. Possible, but not likely 99% of the time.
>
I have nothing against quick and dirty, especailly when the alternative is no boat at all. One of my current fleet of boats is a Jim Michalak design called 'Mixer" and "Mixer" is a stitch and glue, functional equivalent of 'Defender". As a friend of mine was fond of saying, "...always comes the but.." But, let me qoute PCB in the chapter on "Defender" in Small Boats:
"This boat was meant to resemble an 1890's yacht tender, the sort of thing you used to see hanging in side davits on medium size schooner yachts.
A very good boat this shape could be builtstrip-planked, but it is almost impossible to build a boat that way that inspires admiration at really close range, so it wouldn't suit the original purpose of the design."
In short, Defender was designed to replicate an extremely complicated boat with a yacht finish. There are probably better choices for a quick and dirty design. I have often thought that I would like to have a 'Defender' (painted white with a varnished interior), but not enough to take on the project.
JohnT
"This boat was meant to resemble an 1890's yacht tender, the sort of thing you used to see hanging in side davits on medium size schooner yachts.
A very good boat this shape could be builtstrip-planked, but it is almost impossible to build a boat that way that inspires admiration at really close range, so it wouldn't suit the original purpose of the design."
In short, Defender was designed to replicate an extremely complicated boat with a yacht finish. There are probably better choices for a quick and dirty design. I have often thought that I would like to have a 'Defender' (painted white with a varnished interior), but not enough to take on the project.
JohnT
----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Hallman
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Bolger's Defender/why on earth "quick and Dirty"!!??
Why on earth quick and dirty?
Firstly, I totally respect people who prefer to build only the best.
Though, doing so takes time, skill and cost.
Time, skill and cost which many find to be prohibitive.
For many, the choice is:
1) 'quick and dirty' boat , versus
2) no boat at all
And, in my experience, the flow of water around the boat doesn't
really care whether the boat is quick and dirty or museum quality.
Personally, I don't build boats with any concern for their resale value.
Also, life is short. I don't expect my boats to last forever.
I recall Phil Bolger explaining somewhere that the boats of our great
grandparents were purchased and expected to wear out and be replaced
roughly at the same pace as modern automobiles. Wanting a wooden boat
to last a hundred years is like expecting a modern car to last a
hundred years. Possible, but not likely 99% of the time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.413 / Virus Database: 268.18.8/716 - Release Date: 3/9/2007
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> I'd try one myself, but from your pictures can't tell quite how muchI mix a putty using epoxy and microballoon powder. This, I squirt
> putty is required. Will you elaborate, please, on just how you get
> the plank ends right.
> Mark
>
into the gaps using a paper cone, like pastry chefs.
http://www.fantes.com/parchment_triangles.htm
I don't fuss about the plank ends, other than grinding things smooth
with my belt sander.
Couldn't agree with you more, Bruce.
I think those q&d lapstrake boats of yours are very effective.
I'd try one myself, but from your pictures can't tell quite how much
putty is required. Will you elaborate, please, on just how you get
the plank ends right.
Mark
I think those q&d lapstrake boats of yours are very effective.
I'd try one myself, but from your pictures can't tell quite how much
putty is required. Will you elaborate, please, on just how you get
the plank ends right.
Mark
On Mar 10, 2007, at 7:59 AM, Bruce Hallman wrote:
> Why on earth quick and dirty?
>
> Firstly, I totally respect people who prefer to build only the best.
>
> Though, doing so takes time, skill and cost.
> Time, skill and cost which many find to be prohibitive.
>
> For many, the choice is:
>
> 1) 'quick and dirty' boat , versus
> 2) no boat at all
>
> And, in my experience, the flow of water around the boat doesn't
> really care whether the boat is quick and dirty or museum quality.
>
> Personally, I don't build boats with any concern for their resale
> value.
>
> Also, life is short. I don't expect my boats to last forever.
>
> I recall Phil Bolger explaining somewhere that the boats of our great
> grandparents were purchased and expected to wear out and be replaced
> roughly at the same pace as modern automobiles. Wanting a wooden boat
> to last a hundred years is like expecting a modern car to last a
> hundred years. Possible, but not likely 99% of the time.
Why on earth quick and dirty?
Firstly, I totally respect people who prefer to build only the best.
Though, doing so takes time, skill and cost.
Time, skill and cost which many find to be prohibitive.
For many, the choice is:
1) 'quick and dirty' boat , versus
2) no boat at all
And, in my experience, the flow of water around the boat doesn't
really care whether the boat is quick and dirty or museum quality.
Personally, I don't build boats with any concern for their resale value.
Also, life is short. I don't expect my boats to last forever.
I recall Phil Bolger explaining somewhere that the boats of our great
grandparents were purchased and expected to wear out and be replaced
roughly at the same pace as modern automobiles. Wanting a wooden boat
to last a hundred years is like expecting a modern car to last a
hundred years. Possible, but not likely 99% of the time.
Firstly, I totally respect people who prefer to build only the best.
Though, doing so takes time, skill and cost.
Time, skill and cost which many find to be prohibitive.
For many, the choice is:
1) 'quick and dirty' boat , versus
2) no boat at all
And, in my experience, the flow of water around the boat doesn't
really care whether the boat is quick and dirty or museum quality.
Personally, I don't build boats with any concern for their resale value.
Also, life is short. I don't expect my boats to last forever.
I recall Phil Bolger explaining somewhere that the boats of our great
grandparents were purchased and expected to wear out and be replaced
roughly at the same pace as modern automobiles. Wanting a wooden boat
to last a hundred years is like expecting a modern car to last a
hundred years. Possible, but not likely 99% of the time.
I agree with what you say.
In regard's to Bruce's comment that a "Defender" could be built cheaply "quick and dirty" I can't see the point really. A boat like "Defender" deserves to be built decently with due care to detail and finish. The clinker ply method would be fine, and is certainly quicker and more economical than traditional clenched-plank clinker construction.Fine boats can be built using this method. You get the best of both worlds, that is traditional looks, with lightweight, leak free, lower maintainence hulls. You want a boat to last!!
Using el cheapo ply of thinner thicknesses with minimal painting and fast, near enough is good enough fitting of planks with heaps of epoxy to fill the gaps results in a boat that from a distance that may look good but on closer inspection will dissapoint or may even offend a person! The boat would have reduced lifespan and probably little or no re-sale value.
If you want to build a boat quickly stick to Bolger's "boxes" or other design's of his like "Diablo" and "Gypsy" that go together reasonably quickly, still look good, don't cost too much and are relatively easy to build even by inexperienced people and still get good results!
This is only my opinion, but I feel that there's little point in building a boat unless you do it to the best of your ability using the best materials you can obtain/afford and take that extra time to enjoy the building process and eventually end up with a worthwhile result!
Hugo Tyson, Hobart, Tasmania,Australia.
John and Kathy Trussell <jtrussell2@...> wrote:
Defender is intended to be a dinghy and carry a large load on a short length. Spur was intended to be a recreational pulling boat. Recreational pulling boats tend to be spindle shaped with very narrow waterline beams and a great deal of flare. Examples which fit this description include the Light Dory, Spur II, Hereshoff's Rowboat, and Paul Gartside's Flashboat. Pulling boats tend to be tiddly and they are usually not good load carriers. However, they are usually seaworthy, have great reserve stability, and can be rowed with little effort at moderate speeds or at high speeds with greater effort.
I always thought Defender was an extremely pretty boat.
JohnT
In regard's to Bruce's comment that a "Defender" could be built cheaply "quick and dirty" I can't see the point really. A boat like "Defender" deserves to be built decently with due care to detail and finish. The clinker ply method would be fine, and is certainly quicker and more economical than traditional clenched-plank clinker construction.Fine boats can be built using this method. You get the best of both worlds, that is traditional looks, with lightweight, leak free, lower maintainence hulls. You want a boat to last!!
Using el cheapo ply of thinner thicknesses with minimal painting and fast, near enough is good enough fitting of planks with heaps of epoxy to fill the gaps results in a boat that from a distance that may look good but on closer inspection will dissapoint or may even offend a person! The boat would have reduced lifespan and probably little or no re-sale value.
If you want to build a boat quickly stick to Bolger's "boxes" or other design's of his like "Diablo" and "Gypsy" that go together reasonably quickly, still look good, don't cost too much and are relatively easy to build even by inexperienced people and still get good results!
This is only my opinion, but I feel that there's little point in building a boat unless you do it to the best of your ability using the best materials you can obtain/afford and take that extra time to enjoy the building process and eventually end up with a worthwhile result!
Hugo Tyson, Hobart, Tasmania,Australia.
John and Kathy Trussell <jtrussell2@...> wrote:
Defender is intended to be a dinghy and carry a large load on a short length. Spur was intended to be a recreational pulling boat. Recreational pulling boats tend to be spindle shaped with very narrow waterline beams and a great deal of flare. Examples which fit this description include the Light Dory, Spur II, Hereshoff's Rowboat, and Paul Gartside's Flashboat. Pulling boats tend to be tiddly and they are usually not good load carriers. However, they are usually seaworthy, have great reserve stability, and can be rowed with little effort at moderate speeds or at high speeds with greater effort.
I always thought Defender was an extremely pretty boat.
JohnT
----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Hallman
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 11:11 AM
Subject: [bolger] Bolger's Defender
http://s167.photobucket.com/albums/u135/earling2/
This was new to me, good photos of the 11 foot long Bolger Defender
(from Small Boats).
I find it interesting to compare the deep barrel shape of the 11 foot
Defender to the shallow dished shape of the 15'4" Spur II.
----------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.413 / Virus Database: 268.18.8/714 - Release Date: 3/8/2007
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Send instant messages to your online friendshttp://au.messenger.yahoo.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Defender is intended to be a dinghy and carry a large load on a short length. Spur was intended to be a recreational pulling boat. Recreational pulling boats tend to be spindle shaped with very narrow waterline beams and a great deal of flare. Examples which fit this description include the Light Dory, Spur II, Hereshoff's Rowboat, and Paul Gartside's Flashboat. Pulling boats tend to be tiddly and they are usually not good load carriers. However, they are usually seaworthy, have great reserve stability, and can be rowed with little effort at moderate speeds or at high speeds with greater effort.
I always thought Defender was an extremely pretty boat.
JohnT
I always thought Defender was an extremely pretty boat.
JohnT
----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Hallman
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 11:11 AM
Subject: [bolger] Bolger's Defender
http://s167.photobucket.com/albums/u135/earling2/
This was new to me, good photos of the 11 foot long Bolger Defender
(from Small Boats).
I find it interesting to compare the deep barrel shape of the 11 foot
Defender to the shallow dished shape of the 15'4" Spur II.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.413 / Virus Database: 268.18.8/714 - Release Date: 3/8/2007
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> A whole different level of constructionCertainly in the 'work of art' class, probably hundreds of hours.
I bet a quick and dirty one could be built in 80 manhours, perhaps less.
For the strakes, I count up four sheets of 1/4" plywood plus a sheet
1/2" ply for frames, etc.
Here is my take on a strake layout for Defender, on a 1 foot grid.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/166/415722145_56b6ce570c.jpg?v=0
Beautifully done. Thanks for the pictures.
A whole different level of construction from my $60 and 20 hr Elegant
punt. I wonder how many hours the builder spent just admiring the results.
HJ
Bruce Hallman wrote:
punt. I wonder how many hours the builder spent just admiring the results.
HJ
Bruce Hallman wrote:
>http://s167.photobucket.com/albums/u135/earling2/
>
> This was new to me, good photos of the 11 foot long Bolger Defender
> (from Small Boats).
>
> I find it interesting to compare the deep barrel shape of the 11 foot
> Defender to the shallow dished shape of the 15'4" Spur II.
>
>
>
>
And here is an isometric rendering of the Defender lines.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hallman/415647011/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hallman/415647011/
http://s167.photobucket.com/albums/u135/earling2/
This was new to me, good photos of the 11 foot long Bolger Defender
(from Small Boats).
I find it interesting to compare the deep barrel shape of the 11 foot
Defender to the shallow dished shape of the 15'4" Spur II.
This was new to me, good photos of the 11 foot long Bolger Defender
(from Small Boats).
I find it interesting to compare the deep barrel shape of the 11 foot
Defender to the shallow dished shape of the 15'4" Spur II.