Re: Strong Back or not

-
Are we still on this thread?? Couple more thoughts in any case. My
material costs were around $60 for construction grade lumber, I had
to really sort hard for the straightest sticks. My long runners had
a slight crown, so I laid them out with crown up. The weight of the
supports and bulkheads brought the crown out.

Yes, Paul.... I'm with you, I am having the time of my life. I think
and dream this project and can hardly wait to get out into the shop
and do something. Its both rewarding and frustrating as all get
out. Taking this pile of wood and turning it into a boat of all
things. I'm like a kid again, building that pond boat that promptly
sunk when I got into it with the ducks..hahahah.. I sure hope this
does not happen on launch day!

As for the Micro that got chopped up... gads, to think that all this
toil and effort and expense will someday wind up as a pile of lumber
again is a bit shocking. I looked at those pictures and
thought...all those hours and hours of labor and effort.. I sure hope
that the owner got some good use out of the boat before that end.
And then it brings home the point that quality of materials does pay
off... or better yet, anything properly sealed and prepped and
maintained will last many, many years.

Build-on!

Dennis
Bellingham, Wa (land of the ducks)

-- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Jon & Wanda(Tink)" <windyjon@...>
wrote:

>
> As a carpenter that is on laders all the time even the ones rated

for

> industrial are not ridged with much load. As for the headers with
> reversed crown it reduces the load that the header can carry

(greater

> load agenst the crown edge) and is not a good idea. If it is grean
> and has no crown the edge that has the heart closest will be where
> the crown forms. In gluelams they glue then out of 2X layed flat

and

> stacked in that case they reverse the crowns to help keep it

strait.

> Most gluelams are crowend and marked TOP so when delivered we set

> on blocks TOP side up tp keep them strait. Sorry but that is my
> practical exspereance in 35 years.
>
> Jon
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, William Page <billybouy2@> wrote:
> >
> > On the subject of strongbacks, I have a dim recollection of an
> article somewhere ( on the internet?) about someone (in Canada?)

who

> was teaching (students?) how to build small boats. In any case, his
> outfit had to be portable and he recommended the use of aluminum
> extension ladder sections (reinforced with plywood or chip board?)

> the basis for a strongback. The virtues, if I recall (probably not
> accurate!) were 1) low cost (presumably acquired at garage sales or
> the like? or one-time purchase for multiple uses?); 2)

perpendicular,

> square and straight were pretty much established to tolerances

beyond

> what any individual's ad hoc approach was likely to achieve in any
> equivalent amount of time: 3) the ladder isn't going to warp,

swell,

> whatever in reponse to changes in humidity.
> >
> > An old carpenters' trick for getting a straight header out of
> curved boards is to nail two of them together, one "crown-up", the
> other "crown down", beginning at the middle, with the edges flush,
> and pulling the edges flush as one nails them together

progressively

> from the middle to the ends. The idea is that the "crowns" cancel
> each other out, both initially and later when joined boards respond
> to changes in response to changes in humidity.
> >
> > Ciao for Niao,
> > Bill in MN
> >
> >
> >
> > Harry James <welshman@> wrote:
> > Different ships different long splices. When we built

the

> Klondike replica
> >
> >http://209.193.28.16/Boats/Klondike/Klondike.htm
> >
> > Fritz Funk and I set the backbone up in about 2.5 hrs. We took

care

> to
> > make it level and square, 6 ft level and sheet rock square. Every
> frame
> > location had a cross piece. We built the frames on a frame table
> that
> > had accurate vertical and horizontal measurements. When we set

the

> > frames up we did not bother to check for square, we assumed they
> came
> > off the table accurate. All we did was match the centerline of

the

> cross
> > spawl with the center line on the strong back cross piece which

had

> > already been squared when it was installed, and make sure they

were

> > vertical with a level. When we installed the stem I stretched a
> line
> > from the transom center point to the stem and the frame center
> marks
> > were all exactly under it. We patted ourselves on the back and

went

> on
> > to planking.
> >
> > The point being that if your back bone is square and level and

you

> are
> > building your frames accurately, you don't have to fiddle with

the

> set
> > up. That works for me, it isn't a mandatory rule.
> >
> > HJ
> >
> > derbyrm wrote:
> > > I don't understand all this effort to make the strongback

square

> and level.
> > >
> > > The key is to make the bulkheads and molds square and level. I
> used a cheap laser level as a non-sagging "string" from bow to

stern

> and a plumb bob, tape measure, and a bubble level to true the
> bulkheads. It didn't matter if the "ladder" was true or not. It was
> just something to hold the other parts rigid.
> > >
> > > Yes, there have been places where things went wrong, but it
> wouldn't have helped to have a square and level strongback.
> > >
> > > Roger
> > > derbyrm@
> > >http://home.insightbb.com/~derbyrm
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: lancasterdennis
> > > To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 12:08 AM
> > > Subject: [bolger] Re: Strong Back or not
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The basic strongback is just a ladder in design. However, it is

> > > challenge to cut and align and achieve squareness. The process
> took
> > > me hours to accomplish, and that was only the beginning.

Raising

> the
> > > Bh's and leveling and squaring and then reinforcing with cross
> braces
> > > took many hours to complete. So, now they are up and I have a
> very
> > > rigid frame to attach some interior cleats and cockpit sides,
> then
> > > the hull sides and bottom. I can now see the beauty of the

effort

> > > expended... working alone, I don't know what I would have done.
> Yes,
> > > to smaller boats, I can maybe see where no SB is needed, but

the

> size
> > > of the Shoe is daunting for me.. I know that there are micro
> builders
> > > and maybe even AS-29 builders who did not use a SB.. how they
> kept it
> > > all square and straight and level, boggles my mind. I guess it
> all
> > > boils down to experience. And of course, the process produces
> > > experience. I would like to hear how they did it... like the
> Micro.
> > >
> > > Tks for all the responses and help to understand.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Dennis
> > > Bellingham, Wa
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative
> vehicles.
> > Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

The point of a strong back to achieve a straight and level reference points,
upon which you then build a straight and level boat.

For stitch and glue boats, a chalk line on a flat floor can accomplish
that too.

The reason for a strong back, as I see it at least, is that on
keel-less boats you need it as a place to temporarily fasten frames in
place while planking. For boats with only one or two frames, and no
planking, I don't see much benefit, other than perhaps getting the
work piece up off the floor. (And, a pair of matched sawhorses could
do that.)

As a carpenter that is on laders all the time even the ones rated for
industrial are not ridged with much load. As for the headers with
reversed crown it reduces the load that the header can carry (greater
load agenst the crown edge) and is not a good idea. If it is grean
and has no crown the edge that has the heart closest will be where
the crown forms. In gluelams they glue then out of 2X layed flat and
stacked in that case they reverse the crowns to help keep it strait.
Most gluelams are crowend and marked TOP so when delivered we set it
on blocks TOP side up tp keep them strait. Sorry but that is my
practical exspereance in 35 years.

Jon

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, William Page <billybouy2@...> wrote:
>
> On the subject of strongbacks, I have a dim recollection of an
article somewhere ( on the internet?) about someone (in Canada?) who
was teaching (students?) how to build small boats. In any case, his
outfit had to be portable and he recommended the use of aluminum
extension ladder sections (reinforced with plywood or chip board?) as
the basis for a strongback. The virtues, if I recall (probably not
accurate!) were 1) low cost (presumably acquired at garage sales or
the like? or one-time purchase for multiple uses?); 2) perpendicular,
square and straight were pretty much established to tolerances beyond
what any individual's ad hoc approach was likely to achieve in any
equivalent amount of time: 3) the ladder isn't going to warp, swell,
whatever in reponse to changes in humidity.
>
> An old carpenters' trick for getting a straight header out of
curved boards is to nail two of them together, one "crown-up", the
other "crown down", beginning at the middle, with the edges flush,
and pulling the edges flush as one nails them together progressively
from the middle to the ends. The idea is that the "crowns" cancel
each other out, both initially and later when joined boards respond
to changes in response to changes in humidity.
>
> Ciao for Niao,
> Bill in MN
>
>
>
> Harry James <welshman@...> wrote:
> Different ships different long splices. When we built the
Klondike replica
>
>http://209.193.28.16/Boats/Klondike/Klondike.htm
>
> Fritz Funk and I set the backbone up in about 2.5 hrs. We took care
to
> make it level and square, 6 ft level and sheet rock square. Every
frame
> location had a cross piece. We built the frames on a frame table
that
> had accurate vertical and horizontal measurements. When we set the
> frames up we did not bother to check for square, we assumed they
came
> off the table accurate. All we did was match the centerline of the
cross
> spawl with the center line on the strong back cross piece which had
> already been squared when it was installed, and make sure they were
> vertical with a level. When we installed the stem I stretched a
line
> from the transom center point to the stem and the frame center
marks
> were all exactly under it. We patted ourselves on the back and went
on
> to planking.
>
> The point being that if your back bone is square and level and you
are
> building your frames accurately, you don't have to fiddle with the
set
> up. That works for me, it isn't a mandatory rule.
>
> HJ
>
> derbyrm wrote:
> > I don't understand all this effort to make the strongback square
and level.
> >
> > The key is to make the bulkheads and molds square and level. I
used a cheap laser level as a non-sagging "string" from bow to stern
and a plumb bob, tape measure, and a bubble level to true the
bulkheads. It didn't matter if the "ladder" was true or not. It was
just something to hold the other parts rigid.
> >
> > Yes, there have been places where things went wrong, but it
wouldn't have helped to have a square and level strongback.
> >
> > Roger
> > derbyrm@...
> >http://home.insightbb.com/~derbyrm
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: lancasterdennis
> > To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 12:08 AM
> > Subject: [bolger] Re: Strong Back or not
> >
> >
> >
> > The basic strongback is just a ladder in design. However, it is a
> > challenge to cut and align and achieve squareness. The process
took
> > me hours to accomplish, and that was only the beginning. Raising
the
> > Bh's and leveling and squaring and then reinforcing with cross
braces
> > took many hours to complete. So, now they are up and I have a
very
> > rigid frame to attach some interior cleats and cockpit sides,
then
> > the hull sides and bottom. I can now see the beauty of the effort
> > expended... working alone, I don't know what I would have done.
Yes,
> > to smaller boats, I can maybe see where no SB is needed, but the
size
> > of the Shoe is daunting for me.. I know that there are micro
builders
> > and maybe even AS-29 builders who did not use a SB.. how they
kept it
> > all square and straight and level, boggles my mind. I guess it
all
> > boils down to experience. And of course, the process produces
> > experience. I would like to hear how they did it... like the
Micro.
> >
> > Tks for all the responses and help to understand.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Dennis
> > Bellingham, Wa
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative
vehicles.
> Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

On the subject of strongbacks, I have a dim recollection of an article somewhere ( on the internet?) about someone (in Canada?) who was teaching (students?) how to build small boats. In any case, his outfit had to be portable and he recommended the use of aluminum extension ladder sections (reinforced with plywood or chip board?) as the basis for a strongback. The virtues, if I recall (probably not accurate!) were 1) low cost (presumably acquired at garage sales or the like? or one-time purchase for multiple uses?); 2) perpendicular, square and straight were pretty much established to tolerances beyond what any individual's ad hoc approach was likely to achieve in any equivalent amount of time: 3) the ladder isn't going to warp, swell, whatever in reponse to changes in humidity.

An old carpenters' trick for getting a straight header out of curved boards is to nail two of them together, one "crown-up", the other "crown down", beginning at the middle, with the edges flush, and pulling the edges flush as one nails them together progressively from the middle to the ends. The idea is that the "crowns" cancel each other out, both initially and later when joined boards respond to changes in response to changes in humidity.

Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN

Harry James <welshman@...> wrote:
Different ships different long splices. When we built the Klondike replica

http://209.193.28.16/Boats/Klondike/Klondike.htm

Fritz Funk and I set the backbone up in about 2.5 hrs. We took care to
make it level and square, 6 ft level and sheet rock square. Every frame
location had a cross piece. We built the frames on a frame table that
had accurate vertical and horizontal measurements. When we set the
frames up we did not bother to check for square, we assumed they came
off the table accurate. All we did was match the centerline of the cross
spawl with the center line on the strong back cross piece which had
already been squared when it was installed, and make sure they were
vertical with a level. When we installed the stem I stretched a line
from the transom center point to the stem and the frame center marks
were all exactly under it. We patted ourselves on the back and went on
to planking.

The point being that if your back bone is square and level and you are
building your frames accurately, you don't have to fiddle with the set
up. That works for me, it isn't a mandatory rule.

HJ

derbyrm wrote:

> I don't understand all this effort to make the strongback square and level.
>
> The key is to make the bulkheads and molds square and level. I used a cheap laser level as a non-sagging "string" from bow to stern and a plumb bob, tape measure, and a bubble level to true the bulkheads. It didn't matter if the "ladder" was true or not. It was just something to hold the other parts rigid.
>
> Yes, there have been places where things went wrong, but it wouldn't have helped to have a square and level strongback.
>
> Roger
>derbyrm@...
>http://home.insightbb.com/~derbyrm
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: lancasterdennis
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 12:08 AM
> Subject: [bolger] Re: Strong Back or not
>
>
>
> The basic strongback is just a ladder in design. However, it is a
> challenge to cut and align and achieve squareness. The process took
> me hours to accomplish, and that was only the beginning. Raising the
> Bh's and leveling and squaring and then reinforcing with cross braces
> took many hours to complete. So, now they are up and I have a very
> rigid frame to attach some interior cleats and cockpit sides, then
> the hull sides and bottom. I can now see the beauty of the effort
> expended... working alone, I don't know what I would have done. Yes,
> to smaller boats, I can maybe see where no SB is needed, but the size
> of the Shoe is daunting for me.. I know that there are micro builders
> and maybe even AS-29 builders who did not use a SB.. how they kept it
> all square and straight and level, boggles my mind. I guess it all
> boils down to experience. And of course, the process produces
> experience. I would like to hear how they did it... like the Micro.
>
> Tks for all the responses and help to understand.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dennis
> Bellingham, Wa
>
>

---------------------------------
Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles.
Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Dennis,

I love this hobby. It is great.

Waking up at 3am thinking about your next move or how to fix that
small mistake.

Then sitting back in a deck chair after a day working in the shed,
cold beer in hand and admiring your creation from a different angle
with each beer!

Cheers,

Paul.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "lancasterdennis" <dlancast@...> wrote:
>
> -
> Well said Paul. Works for me too! I sure have appreciated the
good
> and interesting comments, as always this group is very giving of
> information. Our goals are common... build it and get the tub in
the
> water!
>
> Build on!
>
> Dennis
> Bellingham, Wa.
>
>
>
>
> -- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "mrfirkin" <thurcros@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I suppose what works for each individual is what really matters.
> >
> > It's great to hear how others go about things. You never stop
> > learning when it comes to building boats. Well I certainly
don't :)
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Paul.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Jon & Wanda(Tink)" <windyjon@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Take it to the next level build a house on floats. Through the
> > level
> > > away and build everything parallel purpandicular and square.
That
> > is
> > > the shape of everything that goes into it and how everything
will
> > > fit. With a building that can tilt with the shift of load a
level
> > > transet or laser is always changing. Parralel pupendicular and
> > square
> > > is all that matters.
> > >
> > > Jon
> > >
> > >
> > > > Thanks for the photo updates.
> > > >
> > > > This discussion reminds me way back in my younger days when I
> > worked
> > > > in construction as a carpenter's helper. There seemed to be
two
> > > > general variations of workmanship.
> > > >
> > > > 1. Keep things true and square right from the beginning -
which
> > > takes
> > > > longer.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Slap things together and "fine tune" with a sledge hammer
> > > > afterwards - which takes less time.
> > > >
> > > > When it came to helping the finishing carpenter, he
appreciated
> > #1
> > > and
> > > > could render the air blue from number two's results.
(Installing
> > > > kitchen cabinets, doors and windows.) The time saved in step
2
> was
> > > > usually more than lost in the finishing.
> > > >
> > > > Forty years later, the value of the building contractors who
> > > stressed
> > > > the first method are still mentioned by the real estate
> agencies
> > > when
> > > > re-selling the homes. "This is a Richardson built home."
> > > >
> > > > Come to think of it,I guess the same applies to boatbuilders
> too.
> > > >
> > > > Nels
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

-
Well said Paul. Works for me too! I sure have appreciated the good
and interesting comments, as always this group is very giving of
information. Our goals are common... build it and get the tub in the
water!

Build on!

Dennis
Bellingham, Wa.

-- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "mrfirkin" <thurcros@...> wrote:

>
>
> I suppose what works for each individual is what really matters.
>
> It's great to hear how others go about things. You never stop
> learning when it comes to building boats. Well I certainly don't :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Paul.
>
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Jon & Wanda(Tink)" <windyjon@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Take it to the next level build a house on floats. Through the
> level
> > away and build everything parallel purpandicular and square. That
> is
> > the shape of everything that goes into it and how everything will
> > fit. With a building that can tilt with the shift of load a level
> > transet or laser is always changing. Parralel pupendicular and
> square
> > is all that matters.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> >
> > > Thanks for the photo updates.
> > >
> > > This discussion reminds me way back in my younger days when I
> worked
> > > in construction as a carpenter's helper. There seemed to be two
> > > general variations of workmanship.
> > >
> > > 1. Keep things true and square right from the beginning - which
> > takes
> > > longer.
> > >
> > > 2. Slap things together and "fine tune" with a sledge hammer
> > > afterwards - which takes less time.
> > >
> > > When it came to helping the finishing carpenter, he appreciated
> #1
> > and
> > > could render the air blue from number two's results. (Installing
> > > kitchen cabinets, doors and windows.) The time saved in step 2

was

> > > usually more than lost in the finishing.
> > >
> > > Forty years later, the value of the building contractors who
> > stressed
> > > the first method are still mentioned by the real estate

agencies

> > when
> > > re-selling the homes. "This is a Richardson built home."
> > >
> > > Come to think of it,I guess the same applies to boatbuilders

too.

> > >
> > > Nels
> > >
> >
>

I suppose what works for each individual is what really matters.

It's great to hear how others go about things. You never stop
learning when it comes to building boats. Well I certainly don't :)

Cheers,

Paul.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Jon & Wanda(Tink)" <windyjon@...>
wrote:

>
> Take it to the next level build a house on floats. Through the

level

> away and build everything parallel purpandicular and square. That

> the shape of everything that goes into it and how everything will
> fit. With a building that can tilt with the shift of load a level
> transet or laser is always changing. Parralel pupendicular and

square

> is all that matters.
>
> Jon
>
>
> > Thanks for the photo updates.
> >
> > This discussion reminds me way back in my younger days when I

worked

> > in construction as a carpenter's helper. There seemed to be two
> > general variations of workmanship.
> >
> > 1. Keep things true and square right from the beginning - which
> takes
> > longer.
> >
> > 2. Slap things together and "fine tune" with a sledge hammer
> > afterwards - which takes less time.
> >
> > When it came to helping the finishing carpenter, he appreciated

> and
> > could render the air blue from number two's results. (Installing
> > kitchen cabinets, doors and windows.) The time saved in step 2 was
> > usually more than lost in the finishing.
> >
> > Forty years later, the value of the building contractors who
> stressed
> > the first method are still mentioned by the real estate agencies
> when
> > re-selling the homes. "This is a Richardson built home."
> >
> > Come to think of it,I guess the same applies to boatbuilders too.
> >
> > Nels
> >
>

Take it to the next level build a house on floats. Through the level
away and build everything parallel purpandicular and square. That is
the shape of everything that goes into it and how everything will
fit. With a building that can tilt with the shift of load a level
transet or laser is always changing. Parralel pupendicular and square
is all that matters.

Jon

> Thanks for the photo updates.
>
> This discussion reminds me way back in my younger days when I worked
> in construction as a carpenter's helper. There seemed to be two
> general variations of workmanship.
>
> 1. Keep things true and square right from the beginning - which

takes

> longer.
>
> 2. Slap things together and "fine tune" with a sledge hammer
> afterwards - which takes less time.
>
> When it came to helping the finishing carpenter, he appreciated #1

and

> could render the air blue from number two's results. (Installing
> kitchen cabinets, doors and windows.) The time saved in step 2 was
> usually more than lost in the finishing.
>
> Forty years later, the value of the building contractors who

stressed

> the first method are still mentioned by the real estate agencies

when

> re-selling the homes. "This is a Richardson built home."
>
> Come to think of it,I guess the same applies to boatbuilders too.
>
> Nels
>

Different ships different long splices. When we built the Klondike replica

http://209.193.28.16/Boats/Klondike/Klondike.htm

Fritz Funk and I set the backbone up in about 2.5 hrs. We took care to
make it level and square, 6 ft level and sheet rock square. Every frame
location had a cross piece. We built the frames on a frame table that
had accurate vertical and horizontal measurements. When we set the
frames up we did not bother to check for square, we assumed they came
off the table accurate. All we did was match the centerline of the cross
spawl with the center line on the strong back cross piece which had
already been squared when it was installed, and make sure they were
vertical with a level. When we installed the stem I stretched a line
from the transom center point to the stem and the frame center marks
were all exactly under it. We patted ourselves on the back and went on
to planking.

The point being that if your back bone is square and level and you are
building your frames accurately, you don't have to fiddle with the set
up. That works for me, it isn't a mandatory rule.

HJ

derbyrm wrote:

> I don't understand all this effort to make the strongback square and level.
>
> The key is to make the bulkheads and molds square and level. I used a cheap laser level as a non-sagging "string" from bow to stern and a plumb bob, tape measure, and a bubble level to true the bulkheads. It didn't matter if the "ladder" was true or not. It was just something to hold the other parts rigid.
>
> Yes, there have been places where things went wrong, but it wouldn't have helped to have a square and level strongback.
>
> Roger
>derbyrm@...
>http://home.insightbb.com/~derbyrm
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: lancasterdennis
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 12:08 AM
> Subject: [bolger] Re: Strong Back or not
>
>
>
> The basic strongback is just a ladder in design. However, it is a
> challenge to cut and align and achieve squareness. The process took
> me hours to accomplish, and that was only the beginning. Raising the
> Bh's and leveling and squaring and then reinforcing with cross braces
> took many hours to complete. So, now they are up and I have a very
> rigid frame to attach some interior cleats and cockpit sides, then
> the hull sides and bottom. I can now see the beauty of the effort
> expended... working alone, I don't know what I would have done. Yes,
> to smaller boats, I can maybe see where no SB is needed, but the size
> of the Shoe is daunting for me.. I know that there are micro builders
> and maybe even AS-29 builders who did not use a SB.. how they kept it
> all square and straight and level, boggles my mind. I guess it all
> boils down to experience. And of course, the process produces
> experience. I would like to hear how they did it... like the Micro.
>
> Tks for all the responses and help to understand.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dennis
> Bellingham, Wa
>
>

Note: At no time have I suggested not keeping the boat components straight and true. It's only the strongback/ladder that doesn't have to be kept pristine.

Roger
derbyrm@...
http://home.insightbb.com/~derbyrm

----- Original Message -----
From: derbyrm
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Strong Back or not - OLDSHOE

Only if you deliver the strongback.

Roger
derbyrm@...
http://home.insightbb.com/~derbyrm

----- Original Message -----
From: Nels
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 11:40 AM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Strong Back or not - OLDSHOE

1. Keep things true and square right from the beginning - which takes
longer.

2. Slap things together and "fine tune" with a sledge hammer
afterwards - which takes less time.

When it came to helping the finishing carpenter, he appreciated #1 and
could render the air blue from number two's results. (Installing
kitchen cabinets, doors and windows.) The time saved in step 2 was
usually more than lost in the finishing.

Forty years later, the value of the building contractors who stressed
the first method are still mentioned by the real estate agencies when
re-selling the homes. "This is a Richardson built home."

Come to think of it,I guess the same applies to boatbuilders too.

Nels
Recent Activity
a.. 6New Members
b.. 11New Photos
Visit Your Group
SPONSORED LINKS
a.. Bolger
Health Zone
Look your best!

Groups to help you

look & feel great.

Yahoo! Finance
It's Now Personal

Guides, news,

advice & more.

Yoga Groups
Find Enlightenment

& exhange insights

with other members
.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, David Ryan <david@...> wrote:

>
> I'd say this thread says more about human affection for either/or
> propositions than it does about the usefulness of a strongback.
>
> The boats I saw under construction during the filming of "Fair Winds/
> Uncertain Future" weren't built on a strongback. They seemed to work
> well enough and were pretty too look at too. There are a lot of
> "right" ways to do things.
>
> Speaking of, I put "Fair Winds" on YouTube:
>
>http://youtube.com/watch?v=HJpGZtLiq5g
>

Great work David!

Nels

Only if you deliver the strongback.

Roger
derbyrm@...
http://home.insightbb.com/~derbyrm

----- Original Message -----
From: Nels
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 11:40 AM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Strong Back or not - OLDSHOE

1. Keep things true and square right from the beginning - which takes
longer.

2. Slap things together and "fine tune" with a sledge hammer
afterwards - which takes less time.

When it came to helping the finishing carpenter, he appreciated #1 and
could render the air blue from number two's results. (Installing
kitchen cabinets, doors and windows.) The time saved in step 2 was
usually more than lost in the finishing.

Forty years later, the value of the building contractors who stressed
the first method are still mentioned by the real estate agencies when
re-selling the homes. "This is a Richardson built home."

Come to think of it,I guess the same applies to boatbuilders too.

Nels
Recent Activity
a.. 6New Members
b.. 11New Photos
Visit Your Group
SPONSORED LINKS
a.. Bolger
Health Zone
Look your best!

Groups to help you

look & feel great.

Yahoo! Finance
It's Now Personal

Guides, news,

advice & more.

Yoga Groups
Find Enlightenment

& exhange insights

with other members
.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I'd say this thread says more about human affection for either/or
propositions than it does about the usefulness of a strongback.

The boats I saw under construction during the filming of "Fair Winds/
Uncertain Future" weren't built on a strongback. They seemed to work
well enough and were pretty too look at too. There are a lot of
"right" ways to do things.

Speaking of, I put "Fair Winds" on YouTube:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=HJpGZtLiq5g

Paul, and all . . .

Several years ago I, while I was contemplating a couple of skiff
designs, I asked Phil which was *quickest* {and consequently, easiest}
to build. His answer surprised me, although it was intuitive. It was the
one WITH the 'building jig' - either secured to the floor or on a
'ladder frame' or strong back. The reason being, with the jig the
planking ' . . . just fell into place.' The caveat was that the time,
cost, and effort to build the jig was only 'cost effective' if you built
MULTIPLES. If only for a single boat the benefit would simply be just
more precision in the final product.

Almost all of the 'older' books & designers discussed 'Ladder' or
'Building' Frames - both combined with, and separate from, strong backs.
What I like about a Frame is that it can be a 'Universal Base'.
CAREFULLY made from good quality stock, 'overbuilt' and well braced, and
using Stainless screws & hardware. Once you have this 'Base' it can be
placed almost anywhere - on a cement floor, on sawhorses, or even
outside on a tarp - then easily leveled. Once the frames {or other
initial building pieces}are accurately placed, and a few other
stablingizing parts, the whole thing can be *safely* moved. This is
especially handy when you have multiple projects going in a limited
amount of 'real estate', or have to fit your 'building time' into a
family schedule.

If, for some reason, you tend to build same 2-3-or-4 small boats
{multiple children, 'One-Summer use only' quickies, etc.}- color code
the frame placement marks for even greater efficiency.

Regards & Good Luck,
Ron Magen
Backyard Boatshop

> 5a. Re: Strong Back or not
> Posted by: "paulthober"paulthober@...paulthober
> Date: Tue Jun 19, 2007 7:46 pm ((PDT))
>
> To summarize:
>
> You can build any boat perfectly well without a strongback.
>
> A strongback is very easy to make and enables you to far more easily
> build a perfectly good boat.
>
> Small boats with a single central frame don't need a strongback.
>
> Paul

Anything worth doing is worth doing right the second time you do it over!

Caloosarat

_____

From:bolger@yahoogroups.com[mailto:bolger@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Nels
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 11:40 AM
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [bolger] Re: Strong Back or not - OLDSHOE

--- In bolger@yahoogroups. <mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com> com,
"lancasterdennis" <dlancast@...> wrote:

>
> -Roger,
>
> Sounds to me like you are chasing the irregularities of your "out of
> true" strongback. Building anything from a known square base
> passes "trueness" throughout your building project. In my books,
> time spent up front will yield good results in the end with less
> hassle. I can trust my "foundation" and just proceed. I'm afraid
> I'm too inexperienced a builder to trust my "eye" for a true hull.
>
> I have uploaded a few more pictures in Dennis's Old Shoe in the
> Photos section, showing the finished strongback and supported
> bulkheads. I have started with the cockpit footwell sides before
> attaching the hull sides, etc.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dennis

Thanks for the photo updates.

This discussion reminds me way back in my younger days when I worked
in construction as a carpenter's helper. There seemed to be two
general variations of workmanship.

1. Keep things true and square right from the beginning - which takes
longer.

2. Slap things together and "fine tune" with a sledge hammer
afterwards - which takes less time.

When it came to helping the finishing carpenter, he appreciated #1 and
could render the air blue from number two's results. (Installing
kitchen cabinets, doors and windows.) The time saved in step 2 was
usually more than lost in the finishing.

Forty years later, the value of the building contractors who stressed
the first method are still mentioned by the real estate agencies when
re-selling the homes. "This is a Richardson built home."

Come to think of it,I guess the same applies to boatbuilders too.

Nels

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "lancasterdennis" <dlancast@...> wrote:

>
> -Roger,
>
> Sounds to me like you are chasing the irregularities of your "out of
> true" strongback. Building anything from a known square base
> passes "trueness" throughout your building project. In my books,
> time spent up front will yield good results in the end with less
> hassle. I can trust my "foundation" and just proceed. I'm afraid
> I'm too inexperienced a builder to trust my "eye" for a true hull.
>
> I have uploaded a few more pictures in Dennis's Old Shoe in the
> Photos section, showing the finished strongback and supported
> bulkheads. I have started with the cockpit footwell sides before
> attaching the hull sides, etc.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dennis

> Since the water doesn't care, then if the eye can't tell, what's the difference?

How true. Also, for small boats the cost and time of building and
unbuilding the strong back can exceed the time spent actually building
the boat. For stitch and glue boats, the flat floor of your shop can
serve as a fine point of reference to check for square and level. I
make an exception for lapstrake boats, where a strongback is required
to hold the frames in place.

A difference in philosophy I guess. Most strongbacks are wood and wood squirms with temperature and humidity variations. I trust my laser beam and bubble levels more than any wood structure.

Since the water doesn't care, then if the eye can't tell, what's the difference?

Winding sticks are useful tools for checking for a twisted hull, by eyeball.

Roger
derbyrm@...
http://home.insightbb.com/~derbyrm

----- Original Message -----
From: lancasterdennis
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 10:24 AM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Strong Back or not

-Roger,

Sounds to me like you are chasing the irregularities of your "out of
true" strongback. Building anything from a known square base
passes "trueness" throughout your building project. In my books,
time spent up front will yield good results in the end with less
hassle. I can trust my "foundation" and just proceed. I'm afraid
I'm too inexperienced a builder to trust my "eye" for a true hull.

I have uploaded a few more pictures in Dennis's Old Shoe in the
Photos section, showing the finished strongback and supported
bulkheads. I have started with the cockpit footwell sides before
attaching the hull sides, etc.

Regards,

Dennis

-- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "derbyrm" <derbyrm@...> wrote:
>
> I think we're talking about two different things. Yes, a strong,
rigid, well-braced strongback is vital for larger boats. All I'm
saying is that it doesn't have to be true and level if you aren't
going to measure from it.
>
> My barn's concrete floor is cracked and broken; and a true and
level ladder would rock and move too much. I built a 20+' rectangle
of 2 x 6s with plywood gussets and a couple of cross pieces, and then
I shimmed it to set solid. The ladder rungs (2x4s) were "toe-nailed"
with drywall screws at the correct spacing, parallel to each other,
and perpendicular to a center line, but they were not level. The
molds and bulkheads had legs screwed to them at no particular angle
or spacing, and these were clamped to the ladder rungs and adjusted
with wedges, a crowbar, and a hammer to make the bulkhead itself
level, centered, and square. The bulkheads and molds had centerlines
and waterlines drawn on them. Essentially, I did my lofting in 3-D
as I shimmed and trimmed where needed to make my "splines" run smooth.
>
> Admittedly, this would not work well for a 200' frigate, but for a
20' yawl it seemed to work fine.
>
> (What doesn't work, in lapstrake, is clamping both ends of a strake
and then expecting the middle to be amenable to being forced down to
the mold. Clamp progressively from bow to stern, then undo the
clamps, adjust the up/down angle so the stern is at the right height,
reclamp, moan and do it again. After the epoxy sets and your eyeball
says it's still not right, take the Sawzall, cut it loose and try
again.)
>
> Roger
> derbyrm@...
>http://home.insightbb.com/~derbyrm
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mrfirkin
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 8:55 AM
> Subject: [bolger] Re: Strong Back or not
>
>
>
> Well, admittedly, so far, I have only built a 10ft Joel White
> Nutshell dinghy.
>
> The plans called for a ladder type building jig (strongback if
you
> like to call it that).
>
> I can't see how you could slap this boat together without the jig
> (and a very well made and true jig at that) to get a nice end
result
> and hull. It was hard enough with the jig.
>
> My first attempt at the jig was a disaster as some of my selected
> (pine) timber had slight bows in it which threw the whole thing
out
> of alignment and I ended up scrapping it and buying F17 kiln
dried
> timber and even then, hand selected the very straightest pieces I
> could find in the timber yard.
>
> I then spent the best part of a working day getting it all
assembled
> and aligned with ply molds/formers and the bow & stern tramsoms,
> midship frame all square and true with each other. All those
> measurements and plumbs came off the 'accurate' jig.
>
> When I start on my Micro, I will go about it in a similar fashion.
>
> I don't want a cock'eyed boat.
>
> With something like a Joel White Nutshell dinghy, I really can't
see
> how you could build it without a jig????
>
> Paul.
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "derbyrm" <derbyrm@> wrote:
> >
> > I don't understand all this effort to make the strongback
square
> and level.
> >
> > The key is to make the bulkheads and molds square and level. I
> used a cheap laser level as a non-sagging "string" from bow to
stern
> and a plumb bob, tape measure, and a bubble level to true the
> bulkheads. It didn't matter if the "ladder" was true or not. It
was
> just something to hold the other parts rigid.
> >
> > Yes, there have been places where things went wrong, but it
> wouldn't have helped to have a square and level strongback.
> >
> > Roger
> > derbyrm@
> >http://home.insightbb.com/~derbyrm
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: lancasterdennis
> > To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 12:08 AM
> > Subject: [bolger] Re: Strong Back or not
> >
> >
> >
> > The basic strongback is just a ladder in design. However, it is
a
> > challenge to cut and align and achieve squareness. The process
> took
> > me hours to accomplish, and that was only the beginning.
Raising
> the
> > Bh's and leveling and squaring and then reinforcing with cross
> braces
> > took many hours to complete. So, now they are up and I have a
> very
> > rigid frame to attach some interior cleats and cockpit sides,
> then
> > the hull sides and bottom. I can now see the beauty of the
effort
> > expended... working alone, I don't know what I would have done.
> Yes,
> > to smaller boats, I can maybe see where no SB is needed, but
the
> size
> > of the Shoe is daunting for me.. I know that there are micro
> builders
> > and maybe even AS-29 builders who did not use a SB.. how they
> kept it
> > all square and straight and level, boggles my mind. I guess it
> all
> > boils down to experience. And of course, the process produces
> > experience. I would like to hear how they did it... like the
> Micro.
> >
> > Tks for all the responses and help to understand.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Dennis
> > Bellingham, Wa
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "paulthober" <paulthober@> wrote:
> > >
> > > To summarize:
> > >
> > > You can build any boat perfectly well without a strongback.
> > >
> > > A strongback is very easy to make and enables you to far more
> easily
> > > build a perfectly good boat.
> > >
> > > Small boats with a single central frame don't need a
strongback.
> > >
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "lancasterdennis" <dlancast@>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi folks, a friend of mine who lurks on the Wooden Boat
> Forum,
> > > > commented that they are having a raging argument about the
> > misleading
> > > > of designers of stitch and glue boats only having to "Bend"
> on
> > the
> > > > sides and bottoms over bulkheads. They claim this leads to
> > alignment
> > > > and twisting of hulls, etc. Now, personally, for my Old
Shoe,
> no
> > way
> > > > would I even attempt building that hull without a strong
> back.
> > My
> > > > plans state that I can merely bend on my sides to the
> bulkheads
> > and
> > > > assemble the hull that way. I don't see how it can be done
> that
> > way
> > > > without real problems. I'm using a SB and aligning,
squaring
> and
> > > > truing my BH's and then will fair my bevels before even
> trying to
> > > > permenantly attach my sides and bottom. My pictures on this
> > site,
> > > > show one side on.. that is just hanging there to get a look
> at
> > how
> > > > its going to go and because I just couldn't wait to see
it...
> but
> > its
> > > > back off now and I am in the process of reinforcing my BH's
> to
> > the SB.
> > > >
> > > > I sure would be curious what your experience has been and
> would
> > like
> > > > to hear from other Shoe builders as to how they did
theirs...
> > Joe,
> > > > are you lurking out there??
> > > >
> > > > Tks much.
> > > >
> > > > Dennis
> > > > Bellingham, WA
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

-Roger,

Sounds to me like you are chasing the irregularities of your "out of
true" strongback. Building anything from a known square base
passes "trueness" throughout your building project. In my books,
time spent up front will yield good results in the end with less
hassle. I can trust my "foundation" and just proceed. I'm afraid
I'm too inexperienced a builder to trust my "eye" for a true hull.

I have uploaded a few more pictures in Dennis's Old Shoe in the
Photos section, showing the finished strongback and supported
bulkheads. I have started with the cockpit footwell sides before
attaching the hull sides, etc.

Regards,

Dennis

-- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "derbyrm" <derbyrm@...> wrote:

>
> I think we're talking about two different things. Yes, a strong,

rigid, well-braced strongback is vital for larger boats. All I'm
saying is that it doesn't have to be true and level if you aren't
going to measure from it.

>
> My barn's concrete floor is cracked and broken; and a true and

level ladder would rock and move too much. I built a 20+' rectangle
of 2 x 6s with plywood gussets and a couple of cross pieces, and then
I shimmed it to set solid. The ladder rungs (2x4s) were "toe-nailed"
with drywall screws at the correct spacing, parallel to each other,
and perpendicular to a center line, but they were not level. The
molds and bulkheads had legs screwed to them at no particular angle
or spacing, and these were clamped to the ladder rungs and adjusted
with wedges, a crowbar, and a hammer to make the bulkhead itself
level, centered, and square. The bulkheads and molds had centerlines
and waterlines drawn on them. Essentially, I did my lofting in 3-D
as I shimmed and trimmed where needed to make my "splines" run smooth.

>
> Admittedly, this would not work well for a 200' frigate, but for a

20' yawl it seemed to work fine.

>
> (What doesn't work, in lapstrake, is clamping both ends of a strake

and then expecting the middle to be amenable to being forced down to
the mold. Clamp progressively from bow to stern, then undo the
clamps, adjust the up/down angle so the stern is at the right height,
reclamp, moan and do it again. After the epoxy sets and your eyeball
says it's still not right, take the Sawzall, cut it loose and try
again.)

>
> Roger
> derbyrm@...
>http://home.insightbb.com/~derbyrm
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mrfirkin
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 8:55 AM
> Subject: [bolger] Re: Strong Back or not
>
>
>
> Well, admittedly, so far, I have only built a 10ft Joel White
> Nutshell dinghy.
>
> The plans called for a ladder type building jig (strongback if

you

> like to call it that).
>
> I can't see how you could slap this boat together without the jig
> (and a very well made and true jig at that) to get a nice end

result

> and hull. It was hard enough with the jig.
>
> My first attempt at the jig was a disaster as some of my selected
> (pine) timber had slight bows in it which threw the whole thing

out

> of alignment and I ended up scrapping it and buying F17 kiln

dried

> timber and even then, hand selected the very straightest pieces I
> could find in the timber yard.
>
> I then spent the best part of a working day getting it all

assembled

> and aligned with ply molds/formers and the bow & stern tramsoms,
> midship frame all square and true with each other. All those
> measurements and plumbs came off the 'accurate' jig.
>
> When I start on my Micro, I will go about it in a similar fashion.
>
> I don't want a cock'eyed boat.
>
> With something like a Joel White Nutshell dinghy, I really can't

see

> how you could build it without a jig????
>
> Paul.
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "derbyrm" <derbyrm@> wrote:
> >
> > I don't understand all this effort to make the strongback

square

> and level.
> >
> > The key is to make the bulkheads and molds square and level. I
> used a cheap laser level as a non-sagging "string" from bow to

stern

> and a plumb bob, tape measure, and a bubble level to true the
> bulkheads. It didn't matter if the "ladder" was true or not. It

was

> just something to hold the other parts rigid.
> >
> > Yes, there have been places where things went wrong, but it
> wouldn't have helped to have a square and level strongback.
> >
> > Roger
> > derbyrm@
> >http://home.insightbb.com/~derbyrm
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: lancasterdennis
> > To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 12:08 AM
> > Subject: [bolger] Re: Strong Back or not
> >
> >
> >
> > The basic strongback is just a ladder in design. However, it is

> > challenge to cut and align and achieve squareness. The process
> took
> > me hours to accomplish, and that was only the beginning.

Raising

> the
> > Bh's and leveling and squaring and then reinforcing with cross
> braces
> > took many hours to complete. So, now they are up and I have a
> very
> > rigid frame to attach some interior cleats and cockpit sides,
> then
> > the hull sides and bottom. I can now see the beauty of the

effort

> > expended... working alone, I don't know what I would have done.
> Yes,
> > to smaller boats, I can maybe see where no SB is needed, but

the

> size
> > of the Shoe is daunting for me.. I know that there are micro
> builders
> > and maybe even AS-29 builders who did not use a SB.. how they
> kept it
> > all square and straight and level, boggles my mind. I guess it
> all
> > boils down to experience. And of course, the process produces
> > experience. I would like to hear how they did it... like the
> Micro.
> >
> > Tks for all the responses and help to understand.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Dennis
> > Bellingham, Wa
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "paulthober" <paulthober@> wrote:
> > >
> > > To summarize:
> > >
> > > You can build any boat perfectly well without a strongback.
> > >
> > > A strongback is very easy to make and enables you to far more
> easily
> > > build a perfectly good boat.
> > >
> > > Small boats with a single central frame don't need a

strongback.

> > >
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "lancasterdennis" <dlancast@>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi folks, a friend of mine who lurks on the Wooden Boat
> Forum,
> > > > commented that they are having a raging argument about the
> > misleading
> > > > of designers of stitch and glue boats only having to "Bend"
> on
> > the
> > > > sides and bottoms over bulkheads. They claim this leads to
> > alignment
> > > > and twisting of hulls, etc. Now, personally, for my Old

Shoe,

> no
> > way
> > > > would I even attempt building that hull without a strong
> back.
> > My
> > > > plans state that I can merely bend on my sides to the
> bulkheads
> > and
> > > > assemble the hull that way. I don't see how it can be done
> that
> > way
> > > > without real problems. I'm using a SB and aligning,

squaring

> and
> > > > truing my BH's and then will fair my bevels before even
> trying to
> > > > permenantly attach my sides and bottom. My pictures on this
> > site,
> > > > show one side on.. that is just hanging there to get a look
> at
> > how
> > > > its going to go and because I just couldn't wait to see

it...

> but
> > its
> > > > back off now and I am in the process of reinforcing my BH's
> to
> > the SB.
> > > >
> > > > I sure would be curious what your experience has been and
> would
> > like
> > > > to hear from other Shoe builders as to how they did

theirs...

> > Joe,
> > > > are you lurking out there??
> > > >
> > > > Tks much.
> > > >
> > > > Dennis
> > > > Bellingham, WA
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

I think we're talking about two different things. Yes, a strong, rigid, well-braced strongback is vital for larger boats. All I'm saying is that it doesn't have to be true and level if you aren't going to measure from it.

My barn's concrete floor is cracked and broken; and a true and level ladder would rock and move too much. I built a 20+' rectangle of 2 x 6s with plywood gussets and a couple of cross pieces, and then I shimmed it to set solid. The ladder rungs (2x4s) were "toe-nailed" with drywall screws at the correct spacing, parallel to each other, and perpendicular to a center line, but they were not level. The molds and bulkheads had legs screwed to them at no particular angle or spacing, and these were clamped to the ladder rungs and adjusted with wedges, a crowbar, and a hammer to make the bulkhead itself level, centered, and square. The bulkheads and molds had centerlines and waterlines drawn on them. Essentially, I did my lofting in 3-D as I shimmed and trimmed where needed to make my "splines" run smooth.

Admittedly, this would not work well for a 200' frigate, but for a 20' yawl it seemed to work fine.

(What doesn't work, in lapstrake, is clamping both ends of a strake and then expecting the middle to be amenable to being forced down to the mold. Clamp progressively from bow to stern, then undo the clamps, adjust the up/down angle so the stern is at the right height, reclamp, moan and do it again. After the epoxy sets and your eyeball says it's still not right, take the Sawzall, cut it loose and try again.)

Roger
derbyrm@...
http://home.insightbb.com/~derbyrm

----- Original Message -----
From: mrfirkin
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 8:55 AM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Strong Back or not

Well, admittedly, so far, I have only built a 10ft Joel White
Nutshell dinghy.

The plans called for a ladder type building jig (strongback if you
like to call it that).

I can't see how you could slap this boat together without the jig
(and a very well made and true jig at that) to get a nice end result
and hull. It was hard enough with the jig.

My first attempt at the jig was a disaster as some of my selected
(pine) timber had slight bows in it which threw the whole thing out
of alignment and I ended up scrapping it and buying F17 kiln dried
timber and even then, hand selected the very straightest pieces I
could find in the timber yard.

I then spent the best part of a working day getting it all assembled
and aligned with ply molds/formers and the bow & stern tramsoms,
midship frame all square and true with each other. All those
measurements and plumbs came off the 'accurate' jig.

When I start on my Micro, I will go about it in a similar fashion.

I don't want a cock'eyed boat.

With something like a Joel White Nutshell dinghy, I really can't see
how you could build it without a jig????

Paul.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "derbyrm" <derbyrm@...> wrote:
>
> I don't understand all this effort to make the strongback square
and level.
>
> The key is to make the bulkheads and molds square and level. I
used a cheap laser level as a non-sagging "string" from bow to stern
and a plumb bob, tape measure, and a bubble level to true the
bulkheads. It didn't matter if the "ladder" was true or not. It was
just something to hold the other parts rigid.
>
> Yes, there have been places where things went wrong, but it
wouldn't have helped to have a square and level strongback.
>
> Roger
> derbyrm@...
>http://home.insightbb.com/~derbyrm
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: lancasterdennis
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 12:08 AM
> Subject: [bolger] Re: Strong Back or not
>
>
>
> The basic strongback is just a ladder in design. However, it is a
> challenge to cut and align and achieve squareness. The process
took
> me hours to accomplish, and that was only the beginning. Raising
the
> Bh's and leveling and squaring and then reinforcing with cross
braces
> took many hours to complete. So, now they are up and I have a
very
> rigid frame to attach some interior cleats and cockpit sides,
then
> the hull sides and bottom. I can now see the beauty of the effort
> expended... working alone, I don't know what I would have done.
Yes,
> to smaller boats, I can maybe see where no SB is needed, but the
size
> of the Shoe is daunting for me.. I know that there are micro
builders
> and maybe even AS-29 builders who did not use a SB.. how they
kept it
> all square and straight and level, boggles my mind. I guess it
all
> boils down to experience. And of course, the process produces
> experience. I would like to hear how they did it... like the
Micro.
>
> Tks for all the responses and help to understand.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dennis
> Bellingham, Wa
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "paulthober" <paulthober@> wrote:
> >
> > To summarize:
> >
> > You can build any boat perfectly well without a strongback.
> >
> > A strongback is very easy to make and enables you to far more
easily
> > build a perfectly good boat.
> >
> > Small boats with a single central frame don't need a strongback.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "lancasterdennis" <dlancast@>
wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi folks, a friend of mine who lurks on the Wooden Boat
Forum,
> > > commented that they are having a raging argument about the
> misleading
> > > of designers of stitch and glue boats only having to "Bend"
on
> the
> > > sides and bottoms over bulkheads. They claim this leads to
> alignment
> > > and twisting of hulls, etc. Now, personally, for my Old Shoe,
no
> way
> > > would I even attempt building that hull without a strong
back.
> My
> > > plans state that I can merely bend on my sides to the
bulkheads
> and
> > > assemble the hull that way. I don't see how it can be done
that
> way
> > > without real problems. I'm using a SB and aligning, squaring
and
> > > truing my BH's and then will fair my bevels before even
trying to
> > > permenantly attach my sides and bottom. My pictures on this
> site,
> > > show one side on.. that is just hanging there to get a look
at
> how
> > > its going to go and because I just couldn't wait to see it...
but
> its
> > > back off now and I am in the process of reinforcing my BH's
to
> the SB.
> > >
> > > I sure would be curious what your experience has been and
would
> like
> > > to hear from other Shoe builders as to how they did theirs...
> Joe,
> > > are you lurking out there??
> > >
> > > Tks much.
> > >
> > > Dennis
> > > Bellingham, WA
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Well, admittedly, so far, I have only built a 10ft Joel White
Nutshell dinghy.

The plans called for a ladder type building jig (strongback if you
like to call it that).

I can't see how you could slap this boat together without the jig
(and a very well made and true jig at that) to get a nice end result
and hull. It was hard enough with the jig.

My first attempt at the jig was a disaster as some of my selected
(pine) timber had slight bows in it which threw the whole thing out
of alignment and I ended up scrapping it and buying F17 kiln dried
timber and even then, hand selected the very straightest pieces I
could find in the timber yard.

I then spent the best part of a working day getting it all assembled
and aligned with ply molds/formers and the bow & stern tramsoms,
midship frame all square and true with each other. All those
measurements and plumbs came off the 'accurate' jig.

When I start on my Micro, I will go about it in a similar fashion.

I don't want a cock'eyed boat.

With something like a Joel White Nutshell dinghy, I really can't see
how you could build it without a jig????

Paul.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "derbyrm" <derbyrm@...> wrote:
>
> I don't understand all this effort to make the strongback square
and level.
>
> The key is to make the bulkheads and molds square and level. I
used a cheap laser level as a non-sagging "string" from bow to stern
and a plumb bob, tape measure, and a bubble level to true the
bulkheads. It didn't matter if the "ladder" was true or not. It was
just something to hold the other parts rigid.
>
> Yes, there have been places where things went wrong, but it
wouldn't have helped to have a square and level strongback.
>
> Roger
> derbyrm@...
>http://home.insightbb.com/~derbyrm
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: lancasterdennis
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 12:08 AM
> Subject: [bolger] Re: Strong Back or not
>
>
>
> The basic strongback is just a ladder in design. However, it is a
> challenge to cut and align and achieve squareness. The process
took
> me hours to accomplish, and that was only the beginning. Raising
the
> Bh's and leveling and squaring and then reinforcing with cross
braces
> took many hours to complete. So, now they are up and I have a
very
> rigid frame to attach some interior cleats and cockpit sides,
then
> the hull sides and bottom. I can now see the beauty of the effort
> expended... working alone, I don't know what I would have done.
Yes,
> to smaller boats, I can maybe see where no SB is needed, but the
size
> of the Shoe is daunting for me.. I know that there are micro
builders
> and maybe even AS-29 builders who did not use a SB.. how they
kept it
> all square and straight and level, boggles my mind. I guess it
all
> boils down to experience. And of course, the process produces
> experience. I would like to hear how they did it... like the
Micro.
>
> Tks for all the responses and help to understand.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dennis
> Bellingham, Wa
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "paulthober" <paulthober@> wrote:
> >
> > To summarize:
> >
> > You can build any boat perfectly well without a strongback.
> >
> > A strongback is very easy to make and enables you to far more
easily
> > build a perfectly good boat.
> >
> > Small boats with a single central frame don't need a strongback.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "lancasterdennis" <dlancast@>
wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi folks, a friend of mine who lurks on the Wooden Boat
Forum,
> > > commented that they are having a raging argument about the
> misleading
> > > of designers of stitch and glue boats only having to "Bend"
on
> the
> > > sides and bottoms over bulkheads. They claim this leads to
> alignment
> > > and twisting of hulls, etc. Now, personally, for my Old Shoe,
no
> way
> > > would I even attempt building that hull without a strong
back.
> My
> > > plans state that I can merely bend on my sides to the
bulkheads
> and
> > > assemble the hull that way. I don't see how it can be done
that
> way
> > > without real problems. I'm using a SB and aligning, squaring
and
> > > truing my BH's and then will fair my bevels before even
trying to
> > > permenantly attach my sides and bottom. My pictures on this
> site,
> > > show one side on.. that is just hanging there to get a look
at
> how
> > > its going to go and because I just couldn't wait to see it...
but
> its
> > > back off now and I am in the process of reinforcing my BH's
to
> the SB.
> > >
> > > I sure would be curious what your experience has been and
would
> like
> > > to hear from other Shoe builders as to how they did theirs...
> Joe,
> > > are you lurking out there??
> > >
> > > Tks much.
> > >
> > > Dennis
> > > Bellingham, WA
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

I don't understand all this effort to make the strongback square and level.

The key is to make the bulkheads and molds square and level. I used a cheap laser level as a non-sagging "string" from bow to stern and a plumb bob, tape measure, and a bubble level to true the bulkheads. It didn't matter if the "ladder" was true or not. It was just something to hold the other parts rigid.

Yes, there have been places where things went wrong, but it wouldn't have helped to have a square and level strongback.

Roger
derbyrm@...
http://home.insightbb.com/~derbyrm

----- Original Message -----
From: lancasterdennis
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 12:08 AM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Strong Back or not

The basic strongback is just a ladder in design. However, it is a
challenge to cut and align and achieve squareness. The process took
me hours to accomplish, and that was only the beginning. Raising the
Bh's and leveling and squaring and then reinforcing with cross braces
took many hours to complete. So, now they are up and I have a very
rigid frame to attach some interior cleats and cockpit sides, then
the hull sides and bottom. I can now see the beauty of the effort
expended... working alone, I don't know what I would have done. Yes,
to smaller boats, I can maybe see where no SB is needed, but the size
of the Shoe is daunting for me.. I know that there are micro builders
and maybe even AS-29 builders who did not use a SB.. how they kept it
all square and straight and level, boggles my mind. I guess it all
boils down to experience. And of course, the process produces
experience. I would like to hear how they did it... like the Micro.

Tks for all the responses and help to understand.

Regards,

Dennis
Bellingham, Wa

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "paulthober" <paulthober@...> wrote:
>
> To summarize:
>
> You can build any boat perfectly well without a strongback.
>
> A strongback is very easy to make and enables you to far more easily
> build a perfectly good boat.
>
> Small boats with a single central frame don't need a strongback.
>
> Paul
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "lancasterdennis" <dlancast@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi folks, a friend of mine who lurks on the Wooden Boat Forum,
> > commented that they are having a raging argument about the
misleading
> > of designers of stitch and glue boats only having to "Bend" on
the
> > sides and bottoms over bulkheads. They claim this leads to
alignment
> > and twisting of hulls, etc. Now, personally, for my Old Shoe, no
way
> > would I even attempt building that hull without a strong back.
My
> > plans state that I can merely bend on my sides to the bulkheads
and
> > assemble the hull that way. I don't see how it can be done that
way
> > without real problems. I'm using a SB and aligning, squaring and
> > truing my BH's and then will fair my bevels before even trying to
> > permenantly attach my sides and bottom. My pictures on this
site,
> > show one side on.. that is just hanging there to get a look at
how
> > its going to go and because I just couldn't wait to see it... but
its
> > back off now and I am in the process of reinforcing my BH's to
the SB.
> >
> > I sure would be curious what your experience has been and would
like
> > to hear from other Shoe builders as to how they did theirs...
Joe,
> > are you lurking out there??
> >
> > Tks much.
> >
> > Dennis
> > Bellingham, WA
> >
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The basic strongback is just a ladder in design. However, it is a
challenge to cut and align and achieve squareness. The process took
me hours to accomplish, and that was only the beginning. Raising the
Bh's and leveling and squaring and then reinforcing with cross braces
took many hours to complete. So, now they are up and I have a very
rigid frame to attach some interior cleats and cockpit sides, then
the hull sides and bottom. I can now see the beauty of the effort
expended... working alone, I don't know what I would have done. Yes,
to smaller boats, I can maybe see where no SB is needed, but the size
of the Shoe is daunting for me.. I know that there are micro builders
and maybe even AS-29 builders who did not use a SB.. how they kept it
all square and straight and level, boggles my mind. I guess it all
boils down to experience. And of course, the process produces
experience. I would like to hear how they did it... like the Micro.

Tks for all the responses and help to understand.

Regards,

Dennis
Bellingham, Wa

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "paulthober" <paulthober@...> wrote:
>
> To summarize:
>
> You can build any boat perfectly well without a strongback.
>
> A strongback is very easy to make and enables you to far more easily
> build a perfectly good boat.
>
> Small boats with a single central frame don't need a strongback.
>
> Paul
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "lancasterdennis" <dlancast@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi folks, a friend of mine who lurks on the Wooden Boat Forum,
> > commented that they are having a raging argument about the
misleading
> > of designers of stitch and glue boats only having to "Bend" on
the
> > sides and bottoms over bulkheads. They claim this leads to
alignment
> > and twisting of hulls, etc. Now, personally, for my Old Shoe, no
way
> > would I even attempt building that hull without a strong back.
My
> > plans state that I can merely bend on my sides to the bulkheads
and
> > assemble the hull that way. I don't see how it can be done that
way
> > without real problems. I'm using a SB and aligning, squaring and
> > truing my BH's and then will fair my bevels before even trying to
> > permenantly attach my sides and bottom. My pictures on this
site,
> > show one side on.. that is just hanging there to get a look at
how
> > its going to go and because I just couldn't wait to see it... but
its
> > back off now and I am in the process of reinforcing my BH's to
the SB.
> >
> > I sure would be curious what your experience has been and would
like
> > to hear from other Shoe builders as to how they did theirs...
Joe,
> > are you lurking out there??
> >
> > Tks much.
> >
> > Dennis
> > Bellingham, WA
> >
>

To summarize:

You can build any boat perfectly well without a strongback.

A strongback is very easy to make and enables you to far more easily
build a perfectly good boat.

Small boats with a single central frame don't need a strongback.

Paul

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "lancasterdennis" <dlancast@...> wrote:
>
> Hi folks, a friend of mine who lurks on the Wooden Boat Forum,
> commented that they are having a raging argument about the misleading
> of designers of stitch and glue boats only having to "Bend" on the
> sides and bottoms over bulkheads. They claim this leads to alignment
> and twisting of hulls, etc. Now, personally, for my Old Shoe, no way
> would I even attempt building that hull without a strong back. My
> plans state that I can merely bend on my sides to the bulkheads and
> assemble the hull that way. I don't see how it can be done that way
> without real problems. I'm using a SB and aligning, squaring and
> truing my BH's and then will fair my bevels before even trying to
> permenantly attach my sides and bottom. My pictures on this site,
> show one side on.. that is just hanging there to get a look at how
> its going to go and because I just couldn't wait to see it... but its
> back off now and I am in the process of reinforcing my BH's to the SB.
>
> I sure would be curious what your experience has been and would like
> to hear from other Shoe builders as to how they did theirs... Joe,
> are you lurking out there??
>
> Tks much.
>
> Dennis
> Bellingham, WA
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, W & C White <omegacubed@...> wrote:

>
> I'm almost finished building a folding schooner. I opted to build a
> strongback, which I used for both the forward and aft hulls, with some
> minor jiggering for the uprights.

Great to hear from you Will.

If I recall the last we heard a hurricane had blown you FOLDING
SCHOONER plans away when the door to your site blew open and it also
carried away your other sail boat?

How did you make out with the replacement and also the hinging system
for the schooner?

Thanks, Nels

I'm almost finished building a folding schooner. I opted to build a
strongback, which I used for both the forward and aft hulls, with some
minor jiggering for the uprights. I didn't know about leveling and
truing, but did a lot of fit and try with a carpenter's level and steel
tape to make sure the bulkheads themselves were true horizontally and
vertically and in proper relation to each other and to the horizon. It
seems to have worked for me. Both sides are off the strongback and seem
to line up with each other correctly.

This is the second time I've mentioned this on this site. One reply,
telling me that I didn't need a strongback, but as others have said on
this thread, it sure is handy when you're working alone.

Concerning a rig that is free on one tack and dented by a spar on the
other: I've done a fair amount of experimenting with Sunfish. Often,
the "dented" tack seems faster than the "free" tack. Finally, one
season about ten years ago, I sailed the whole time with the spars on
the "opposite" side, so that the "free" tack was the port tack
(starboard tack is standard.) There didn't seem to be a bit of
difference, no matter the wind strength or wave action or anything. No
one ever noticed that I was rigged on the "wrong" side. I was Class
measurer for three years, and don't think the rules said one way or the
other. I finally convinced the board to add a paragraph to the rules
introduction that said, in effect, "unless it's specifically permitted
by the rules, it's illegal." But the Class has since deleted that
paragraph.

-- Will

My $0.02.

I built my 31 foot Bolger Topaz with a very minimal single stick stongback.

I consider that was a time and cost saver.

Personally, I believe the most important thing is to step back and
*look* at the shape of the hull to identify and fix the 'twist'
early. And, 'twist' in a boat is mostly a cosmetic problem as the
water flowing around the boat doesn't really care much about twist.

Roger:

Wacky Lasssies are paddle boats -- so far as I could tell, being out of
true didn't have much impact on paddle-ability, speed, or tracking.

My Windsprint (off-center daggerbaord, balanced lug rig) is faster and
closer-winded on the tack with the yard and boom pressing against the
mast (contrary to my expectation, since this means the mast dents the
sail), but the off-center dagger board is not noticeable. I sometimes
raise the yard on one side of the mast and sometimes on the other. It is
the side of the mast with the sail that decides which is the better
tack, not the side of the boat with the daggerboard.

Patrick

derbyrm wrote:

> Which Whacky Lassy shapes were fastest? On which tack?
>
> While I play the symmetry game, in the back of my mind is the thought that it really doesn't matter. Most boats don't sail on an even keel in dead calm water. Most have rigs that are at least slightly asymmetrical. Many very successful boats have their masts and/or their centerboard cases off center. ...
>
> Roger
>derbyrm@...
>http://home.insightbb.com/~derbyrm
>
> <snip>
>
> OTOH, my daughter's 7th grade class made Wacky Lassies and weren't quite as careful as I was about aligning the sides before putting on the bottom. They wound up with some fairly creative shapes.
>
> Patrick
>

I built Mr Bolger's "Bobcat". Dynamite Payson's book shows it being
built without a strongback etc.

I opted to use a strongback with a couple of frames fixed. I found it
was like having an extra couple of hands.

Bob Chamberland

Which Whacky Lassy shapes were fastest? On which tack?

While I play the symmetry game, in the back of my mind is the thought that it really doesn't matter. Most boats don't sail on an even keel in dead calm water. Most have rigs that are at least slightly asymmetrical. Many very successful boats have their masts and/or their centerboard cases off center. ...

Roger
derbyrm@...
http://home.insightbb.com/~derbyrm

----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick Crockett
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 11:53 PM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Strong Back or not

<snip>

OTOH, my daughter's 7th grade class made Wacky Lassies and weren't quite as careful as I was about aligning the sides before putting on the bottom. They wound up with some fairly creative shapes.

Patrick

lancasterdennis wrote:
> Hi folks, a friend of mine who lurks on the Wooden Boat Forum,
> commented that they are having a raging argument about the misleading of designers of stitch and glue boats only having to "Bend" on the sides and bottoms over bulkheads. They claim this leads to alignment and twisting of hulls, etc. Now, personally, for my Old Shoe, no way would I even attempt building that hull without a strong back. My plans state that I can merely bend on my sides to the bulkheads and assemble the hull that way. I don't see how it can be done that way without real problems.

> I'm using a SB and aligning, squaring and truing my BH's and then will fair my bevels before even trying to permenantly attach my sides and bottom. My pictures on this site, show one side on.. that is just hanging there to get a look at how its going to go and because I just couldn't wait to see it... but its back off now and I am in the process of reinforcing my BH's to the SB.
>
> I sure would be curious what your experience has been and would like to hear from other Shoe builders as to how they did theirs... Joe,
> are you lurking out there??
>
> Dennis
> Bellingham, WA
Recent Activity
a.. 8New Members
b.. 4New Photos
Visit Your Group
SPONSORED LINKS
a.. Bolger center
b.. Bolger
Health Zone
Look your best!

Groups to help you

look & feel great.

Yahoo! Finance
It's Now Personal

Guides, news,

advice & more.

Yahoo! Groups
Start a group

in 3 easy steps.

Connect with others.
.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--
There is a fairly good picture in the Photos section under "Dennis's
Old Shoe" that shows the SB I am using. I made very sure that it is
square and level and rigid. My bulkheads are mounted at each station
per the plans and are "lifted" on vertical supports, again per plan.
I have been installing angled side supports to those verticals to
keep those BH's stable. Since I am building by myself for the most
part, I have to be creative with "extra hands"... when I dry fitted
my side panel, I hoisted it with a rope over my garage rafters and
used a clamp to attach to the panel... I did that on-center for
balance and was then able to present the panel to the frames with
very little effort.

I understand about the skill level thing and believe me, I'm a rank
novice at this boat building, I'll do whatever it takes to build it
right and what I am finding is the prep work is very time consuming,
but very worth the effort. I certainly do not look at this project
as an "instant boat"... I think that PCB leaves the door wide open
for whatever you choose to do for construction methods. Its a
learning experience thats for sure.

thanks for the comments to my question.

Best to all,

Dennis
Bellingham, Wa.

- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Clyde Wisner <clydewis@...> wrote:

>
> I guess I'm wondering what your strongback is. I stood the

bulkheads for

> my Lily up on a wooden bench and braced them. The sides were

attached to

> a stem. I positioned the stem on the end of the bench, with the

side

> panels resting on the floor, at the stern end. My wife and I each
> picked up one side and wrapped them around the bulkheads. She was

able

> to hold them up while I put some drywall screws in. Next day I

could

> easily check for fairness. I think in simple sm boats like a teal,

you

> can leave the bulhheads or molds free and tweak them to get

fairness in

> the hull shape. I have seen this in Wooden Boat "Boat Building
> Competitions". Clyde
>
> lancasterdennis wrote:
>
> > Hi folks, a friend of mine who lurks on the Wooden Boat Forum,
> > commented that they are having a raging argument about the

misleading

> > of designers of stitch and glue boats only having to "Bend" on the
> > sides and bottoms over bulkheads. They claim this leads to

alignment

> > and twisting of hulls, etc. Now, personally, for my Old Shoe, no

way

> > would I even attempt building that hull without a strong back. My
> > plans state that I can merely bend on my sides to the bulkheads

and

> > assemble the hull that way. I don't see how it can be done that

way

> > without real problems. I'm using a SB and aligning, squaring and
> > truing my BH's and then will fair my bevels before even trying to
> > permenantly attach my sides and bottom. My pictures on this site,
> > show one side on.. that is just hanging there to get a look at how
> > its going to go and because I just couldn't wait to see it... but

its

> > back off now and I am in the process of reinforcing my BH's to

the SB.

> >
> > I sure would be curious what your experience has been and would

> > to hear from other Shoe builders as to how they did theirs... Joe,
> > are you lurking out there??
> >
> > Tks much.
> >
> > Dennis
> > Bellingham, WA
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Clyde Wisner <clydewis@...> wrote:

>
> I guess I'm wondering what your strongback is.

Essentially it is a rectangular frame with crosspieces at each
bulkhead station. It is perfectly leveled and squared off before any
building begins. Especially useful if building outside or over an
unlevel surface of any kind.

Peter Lenihan used his as a scarfing table for the topsides prior to
erecting the bulkheads.

Here is what he had to say re: a strongback.

"The solo boat builder's ex-scarfing table,now set up all level and
square, to be used as a strongback for setting up the bulkheads. This
particular method is most useful in allowing the builder to work at a
reasonable pace, over a period of time, without ending up with a
slightly crooked hull or being obliged to rely on too many
beer-guzzling friends to help hold, glue, screw or pull things for
you. Highly recommended!"

<http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/00/DM1999/articles/micro2/index.htm>

Some smaller boats can actually use a a table made of plywood
stabilized on two saw horses, the trick being to stabilize and level
things. STORM PETREL comes to mind.

Designs that have no internal bulkheads, like the GLOUSTER GULL and
SEA EAGLE as well as cedar strippers and lapstrake hulls all require
station molds on a strongback to get a fair hull. (Unless you are a
Norwegian:-)

I have heard stories of builders getting everything all tacked
together around temporary molds and leg exensions etc.and then have
the entire assembly spring apart again.

Nels

I guess I'm wondering what your strongback is. I stood the bulkheads for
my Lily up on a wooden bench and braced them. The sides were attached to
a stem. I positioned the stem on the end of the bench, with the side
panels resting on the floor, at the stern end. My wife and I each
picked up one side and wrapped them around the bulkheads. She was able
to hold them up while I put some drywall screws in. Next day I could
easily check for fairness. I think in simple sm boats like a teal, you
can leave the bulhheads or molds free and tweak them to get fairness in
the hull shape. I have seen this in Wooden Boat "Boat Building
Competitions". Clyde

lancasterdennis wrote:

> Hi folks, a friend of mine who lurks on the Wooden Boat Forum,
> commented that they are having a raging argument about the misleading
> of designers of stitch and glue boats only having to "Bend" on the
> sides and bottoms over bulkheads. They claim this leads to alignment
> and twisting of hulls, etc. Now, personally, for my Old Shoe, no way
> would I even attempt building that hull without a strong back. My
> plans state that I can merely bend on my sides to the bulkheads and
> assemble the hull that way. I don't see how it can be done that way
> without real problems. I'm using a SB and aligning, squaring and
> truing my BH's and then will fair my bevels before even trying to
> permenantly attach my sides and bottom. My pictures on this site,
> show one side on.. that is just hanging there to get a look at how
> its going to go and because I just couldn't wait to see it... but its
> back off now and I am in the process of reinforcing my BH's to the SB.
>
> I sure would be curious what your experience has been and would like
> to hear from other Shoe builders as to how they did theirs... Joe,
> are you lurking out there??
>
> Tks much.
>
> Dennis
> Bellingham, WA
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

But, Ken, you're "in the business" and from what I've read, the plans are just a starting point and all those little notes that we amateurs need are disregarded.

I have Jay Benford's plans for "Badger" and PCB's plans for "Chebacco." What a world of difference. Benford attached a note for almost every piece of wood on the boat since he was designing for a pair of amateurs to build. Bolger filled the Chebacco's many sheets with different options and schemes since he was designing for the "Story Boat Yard" and knew that any more detailed advice would be ignored anyway. I spent most of a year picking and choosing from the Chebacco plans before I started cutting wood.

Roger
derbyrm@...
http://home.insightbb.com/~derbyrm

----- Original Message -----
From: Kenneth Grome
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 2:44 AM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Strong Back or not

> > My plans state that I can merely bend on my sides
> > to the bulkheads and assemble the hull that way.
> > I don't see how it can be done that way without real
> > problems.

Many boats can be built using alternate methods. It all depends on the skill
of the builder and the capabilities and concepts of the designer. If Phil
Bolger says Oldshoe can be built properly without a strongback I tend to
believe him.

This does not mean that everyone should try it, or that it is even possible.
Nevertheless, most smaller stitch and glue boats which are designed properly
and built by competent people should not need a strongback. The panels
define the boat's shape, more or less ....

This is obviously an over-generalization in some boats. If the panels are too
light it would be easy to get a "twist" built into a boat, especially boats
without decks to prevent twist, then it is up to the builder to straighten it
before he glues the panels together ... and of course this once again brings
into play the skills of the builder.

I'm building a Tolman Seabright skiff at the moment, and the building
instructions require the construction of a large building jig with lots of
molds to help position the panels properly. This is the designer's idea of
how to build the boat so this is what the plans call for. But once I get the
boat programmed into my design software, I suspect that the building jig and
molds will no longer be necessary.

Even with the jig and molds, I had to employ different techniques than the
designer specified. Some of his instructions either didn't or wouldn't work,
or they were inferior to the methods I have learned to use on other boats.
In other words, you cannot blindly trust the designer's instructions. Most
of them have built very few (if any) of the boats they design, and some have
virtually no building experience at all -- which does not bode well for the
instructions they write up in their plans.

When all is said and done, it still requires a builder with the ability to
understand how to "make it straight" whether he builds on a strongback or a
jig or without them.

Sincerely,
Ken Grome
Bagacay Boatworks
www.bagacayboatworks.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> > My plans state that I can merely bend on my sides
> > to the bulkheads and assemble the hull that way.
> > I don't see how it can be done that way without real
> > problems.

Many boats can be built using alternate methods. It all depends on the skill
of the builder and the capabilities and concepts of the designer. If Phil
Bolger says Oldshoe can be built properly without a strongback I tend to
believe him.

This does not mean that everyone should try it, or that it is even possible.
Nevertheless, most smaller stitch and glue boats which are designed properly
and built by competent people should not need a strongback. The panels
define the boat's shape, more or less ....

This is obviously an over-generalization in some boats. If the panels are too
light it would be easy to get a "twist" built into a boat, especially boats
without decks to prevent twist, then it is up to the builder to straighten it
before he glues the panels together ... and of course this once again brings
into play the skills of the builder.

I'm building a Tolman Seabright skiff at the moment, and the building
instructions require the construction of a large building jig with lots of
molds to help position the panels properly. This is the designer's idea of
how to build the boat so this is what the plans call for. But once I get the
boat programmed into my design software, I suspect that the building jig and
molds will no longer be necessary.

Even with the jig and molds, I had to employ different techniques than the
designer specified. Some of his instructions either didn't or wouldn't work,
or they were inferior to the methods I have learned to use on other boats.
In other words, you cannot blindly trust the designer's instructions. Most
of them have built very few (if any) of the boats they design, and some have
virtually no building experience at all -- which does not bode well for the
instructions they write up in their plans.

When all is said and done, it still requires a builder with the ability to
understand how to "make it straight" whether he builds on a strongback or a
jig or without them.

Sincerely,
Ken Grome
Bagacay Boatworks
www.bagacayboatworks.com

Hello,
I have built several quick and dirty skiffs and two kayaks by simply
bending the sides around the midship frame and then adding other
frames as necessary. There was no serious (visible) untrueness in any
of those boats. Great care was taken to get everything true before
fastening anything. Still, far less time was spent than would have
been spent building a strongback building mold. (I have built boats
on molds as well). I,d say larger sizes would be much more difficult
unless you have several willing intelligent hands for the bigger
steps, but you could go quite large if the workforce is big enough
and skilled enough.
Viking ships were built upright with no building molds. The builders
knew how to shape the planks to get the shape they wanted for the
ship. The internal sawn frames were added after the planking was
finished, at least up to the turn of the bilge.
JG

- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "lancasterdennis" <dlancast@...> wrote:

>
> Hi folks, a friend of mine who lurks on the Wooden Boat Forum,
> commented that they are having a raging argument about the

misleading

> of designers of stitch and glue boats only having to "Bend" on the
> sides and bottoms over bulkheads. They claim this leads to

alignment

> and twisting of hulls, etc. Now, personally, for my Old Shoe, no

way

> would I even attempt building that hull without a strong back. My
> plans state that I can merely bend on my sides to the bulkheads and
> assemble the hull that way. I don't see how it can be done that

way

> without real problems. I'm using a SB and aligning, squaring and
> truing my BH's and then will fair my bevels before even trying to
> permenantly attach my sides and bottom. My pictures on this site,
> show one side on.. that is just hanging there to get a look at how
> its going to go and because I just couldn't wait to see it... but

its

> back off now and I am in the process of reinforcing my BH's to the

SB.

>
> I sure would be curious what your experience has been and would

> to hear from other Shoe builders as to how they did theirs... Joe,
> are you lurking out there??
>
> Tks much.
>
> Dennis
> Bellingham, WA
>

Dennis:

Absolutely no need for a strongback for my Windsprint. Just a matter of
lining up the sawhorses carefully before I put on the chine logs and
again before I fastened the bottom. And liberal use of shims. OTOH, my
daughter's 7th grade class made Wacky Lassies and weren't quite as
careful as I was about aligning the sides before putting on the bottom.
They wound up with some fairly creative shapes.

Patrick

lancasterdennis wrote:

> Hi folks, a friend of mine who lurks on the Wooden Boat Forum,
> commented that they are having a raging argument about the misleading
> of designers of stitch and glue boats only having to "Bend" on the
> sides and bottoms over bulkheads. They claim this leads to alignment
> and twisting of hulls, etc. Now, personally, for my Old Shoe, no way
> would I even attempt building that hull without a strong back. My
> plans state that I can merely bend on my sides to the bulkheads and
> assemble the hull that way. I don't see how it can be done that way
> without real problems. I'm using a SB and aligning, squaring and
> truing my BH's and then will fair my bevels before even trying to
> permenantly attach my sides and bottom. My pictures on this site,
> show one side on.. that is just hanging there to get a look at how
> its going to go and because I just couldn't wait to see it... but its
> back off now and I am in the process of reinforcing my BH's to the SB.
>
> I sure would be curious what your experience has been and would like
> to hear from other Shoe builders as to how they did theirs... Joe,
> are you lurking out there??
>
> Tks much.
>
> Dennis
> Bellingham, WA
>

I am in the strong back camp myself for larger boats. I have built a
Gypsy and a couple of Cartoppers with out them. It's very important that
you level the center bulkhead and the transom, if you do it comes out OK.

HJ

lancasterdennis wrote:

> Hi folks, a friend of mine who lurks on the Wooden Boat Forum,
> commented that they are having a raging argument about the misleading
> of designers of stitch and glue boats only having to "Bend" on the
> sides and bottoms over bulkheads. They claim this leads to alignment
> and twisting of hulls, etc. Now, personally, for my Old Shoe, no way
> would I even attempt building that hull without a strong back. My
> plans state that I can merely bend on my sides to the bulkheads and
> assemble the hull that way. I don't see how it can be done that way
> without real problems. I'm using a SB and aligning, squaring and
> truing my BH's and then will fair my bevels before even trying to
> permenantly attach my sides and bottom. My pictures on this site,
> show one side on.. that is just hanging there to get a look at how
> its going to go and because I just couldn't wait to see it... but its
> back off now and I am in the process of reinforcing my BH's to the SB.
>
> I sure would be curious what your experience has been and would like
> to hear from other Shoe builders as to how they did theirs... Joe,
> are you lurking out there??
>
> Tks much.
>
> Dennis
> Bellingham, WA
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi Dennis,

I'm about to start a Micro and will be definately be making up a
strongback/building jig call it what you will.

That's the only way to get a true hull and even then your hull is
only going to be as true and accurate as you have built that
strongback.

Cheers,
Paul.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "lancasterdennis" <dlancast@...> wrote:
>
> Hi folks, a friend of mine who lurks on the Wooden Boat Forum,
> commented that they are having a raging argument about the
misleading
> of designers of stitch and glue boats only having to "Bend" on the
> sides and bottoms over bulkheads. They claim this leads to
alignment
> and twisting of hulls, etc. Now, personally, for my Old Shoe, no
way
> would I even attempt building that hull without a strong back. My
> plans state that I can merely bend on my sides to the bulkheads and
> assemble the hull that way. I don't see how it can be done that
way
> without real problems. I'm using a SB and aligning, squaring and
> truing my BH's and then will fair my bevels before even trying to
> permenantly attach my sides and bottom. My pictures on this site,
> show one side on.. that is just hanging there to get a look at how
> its going to go and because I just couldn't wait to see it... but
its
> back off now and I am in the process of reinforcing my BH's to the
SB.
>
> I sure would be curious what your experience has been and would
like
> to hear from other Shoe builders as to how they did theirs... Joe,
> are you lurking out there??
>
> Tks much.
>
> Dennis
> Bellingham, WA
>

Hi folks, a friend of mine who lurks on the Wooden Boat Forum,
commented that they are having a raging argument about the misleading
of designers of stitch and glue boats only having to "Bend" on the
sides and bottoms over bulkheads. They claim this leads to alignment
and twisting of hulls, etc. Now, personally, for my Old Shoe, no way
would I even attempt building that hull without a strong back. My
plans state that I can merely bend on my sides to the bulkheads and
assemble the hull that way. I don't see how it can be done that way
without real problems. I'm using a SB and aligning, squaring and
truing my BH's and then will fair my bevels before even trying to
permenantly attach my sides and bottom. My pictures on this site,
show one side on.. that is just hanging there to get a look at how
its going to go and because I just couldn't wait to see it... but its
back off now and I am in the process of reinforcing my BH's to the SB.

I sure would be curious what your experience has been and would like
to hear from other Shoe builders as to how they did theirs... Joe,
are you lurking out there??

Tks much.

Dennis
Bellingham, WA