Re: [bolger] Re: Question on Single Handed Schooner Rigging....
The very same. I grew up knocking around in a variety of boats. Used a
lot of shear pins over the years. My Dad's 30' Dickerson at 3.5 feet
draft (IIRC) was as deep a keel as I would want to run there for any
length of time.
Gene Tehansky wrote:
lot of shear pins over the years. My Dad's 30' Dickerson at 3.5 feet
draft (IIRC) was as deep a keel as I would want to run there for any
length of time.
Gene Tehansky wrote:
> Are you talking about the Sassafrass up north in the Chesapeake? Was[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> up there last fall after the Annapolis boat show. We had rebuilt out
> club Luders 44, an old Naval Academy boat. We showed it at the boat
> show then went up north for a week or so. Spent 2 nights on the
> Sassafrass, one at anchor and one in Georgetown I think it was. We
> enjoyed it very much. We drew 6 foot and a few inches and paid
> strict attention to all markers!
>
>
>
Susan,
I agree if the boom is used as a jib hoist or its tip is tethered to the
main mast. I was thinking of two crutches only as far apart as the
width of the C.B. trunk. Alternatively, you could use a piece of closet
rod. The crutches could be a-frames or pocketed in brackets (like
stakes in a truck bed). It would look a little like the business end of
a Guillotine.
With more pockets, the crutches could do dual duty as supports for the
boom tent shown in the book.
V/R
Chris
Susan Davis wrote:
I agree if the boom is used as a jib hoist or its tip is tethered to the
main mast. I was thinking of two crutches only as far apart as the
width of the C.B. trunk. Alternatively, you could use a piece of closet
rod. The crutches could be a-frames or pocketed in brackets (like
stakes in a truck bed). It would look a little like the business end of
a Guillotine.
With more pockets, the crutches could do dual duty as supports for the
boom tent shown in the book.
V/R
Chris
Susan Davis wrote:
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher C. Wetherill"[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> <wetherillc@...> wrote:
>
>> I did mean the foreboom. The only downside to this idea is that you
>> could not use it underway.
>>
>
> The advice from PCB (and from Tony Grove, who built the prototype) is
> to set up an A-frame with a block and tackle rather than trying to use
> the spars. The foreboom is lightweight and skinny, and is not
> stressed to take 150+ pounds of strain.
>
>
Christopher,
The boat could be sailed with the foresail down to allow raising the
keel underway but then there is the rudder which ain't no kickup
rudder. This is not a shallow water boat, its a boat with a keel!
Are you talking about the Sassafrass up north in the Chesapeake? Was
up there last fall after the Annapolis boat show. We had rebuilt out
club Luders 44, an old Naval Academy boat. We showed it at the boat
show then went up north for a week or so. Spent 2 nights on the
Sassafrass, one at anchor and one in Georgetown I think it was. We
enjoyed it very much. We drew 6 foot and a few inches and paid
strict attention to all markers!
Sincerely,
Gene T.
The boat could be sailed with the foresail down to allow raising the
keel underway but then there is the rudder which ain't no kickup
rudder. This is not a shallow water boat, its a boat with a keel!
Are you talking about the Sassafrass up north in the Chesapeake? Was
up there last fall after the Annapolis boat show. We had rebuilt out
club Luders 44, an old Naval Academy boat. We showed it at the boat
show then went up north for a week or so. Spent 2 nights on the
Sassafrass, one at anchor and one in Georgetown I think it was. We
enjoyed it very much. We drew 6 foot and a few inches and paid
strict attention to all markers!
Sincerely,
Gene T.
On 10 Jun, 2008, at 4:39 PM, Christopher C. Wetherill wrote:
> Gene,
>
> I did mean the foreboom. The only downside to this idea is that you
> could not use it underway. It might be very convenient to be able to
> reduce draft in shoal waters. For this reason, I discarded the idea of
> a SHS for the Sassafrass. I will go with Surf, Windsprint or Zephyr.
>
> V/R
> Chris
>
> Gene Tehansky wrote:
> > Christopher,
> > Now I get it. Yes, I like that. One of the best ideas I've heard so
> > far, other than having a back willing to take the strain! I assume
> > you mean to use the foresail boom.
> >
> > Gene T.
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sue,
Give me a moment and try to follow my lubber logic.
In a wind on a "regular" boat it is a bear to reef or raise the main
sail without the boat falling off the wind and jamming the sail up
against the shrouds. Now I thought this problem could be averted
with another sail aft, as with a yawl. The mizzen on a yawl can be
raised in the wind and it tends to put the boat head to wind. Head
to wind is what is desired to raise sails. Therefore...... I'd have
thought that I would work my way from stern to bow raising sails.
How can I be 180 degrees out on this logic! Me, a schooner owner!
I note that you say "at anchor" and that might be the difference. I
typically sail boats from a dock where the wind knows where you don't
want it to blow from. Worst case we paddle like crazy and then
floating free attempt to raise sails. If your fast you can get the
main up before it meets the shrouds. If not your into some other
dock before you know it. Floating free in a wind, would you then
consider the reversed order of raising sail?
Ok, I'm past that, now your first response to the sailing on foresail
alone. I glanced at BWOM and noted that Phil talks about sailing on
main alone. Noting that the powerful rudder permits this. This
would be sailing with weather helm. On the foresail alone there
would be lee helm which is a more dangerous condition where the boat
could easily sail away from a person in the water. Also, it appears
that Phil is saying that heaving to with the foresail is not
preferred. The method he suggests is with main and jib with the main
sheeted in.
Sue, thanks for all your comments. I need to stop all this
speculation until I get the boat out on the water where I can
enjoyably dine on my lunch of crow!
Gene T.
Give me a moment and try to follow my lubber logic.
In a wind on a "regular" boat it is a bear to reef or raise the main
sail without the boat falling off the wind and jamming the sail up
against the shrouds. Now I thought this problem could be averted
with another sail aft, as with a yawl. The mizzen on a yawl can be
raised in the wind and it tends to put the boat head to wind. Head
to wind is what is desired to raise sails. Therefore...... I'd have
thought that I would work my way from stern to bow raising sails.
How can I be 180 degrees out on this logic! Me, a schooner owner!
I note that you say "at anchor" and that might be the difference. I
typically sail boats from a dock where the wind knows where you don't
want it to blow from. Worst case we paddle like crazy and then
floating free attempt to raise sails. If your fast you can get the
main up before it meets the shrouds. If not your into some other
dock before you know it. Floating free in a wind, would you then
consider the reversed order of raising sail?
Ok, I'm past that, now your first response to the sailing on foresail
alone. I glanced at BWOM and noted that Phil talks about sailing on
main alone. Noting that the powerful rudder permits this. This
would be sailing with weather helm. On the foresail alone there
would be lee helm which is a more dangerous condition where the boat
could easily sail away from a person in the water. Also, it appears
that Phil is saying that heaving to with the foresail is not
preferred. The method he suggests is with main and jib with the main
sheeted in.
Sue, thanks for all your comments. I need to stop all this
speculation until I get the boat out on the water where I can
enjoyably dine on my lunch of crow!
Gene T.
On 10 Jun, 2008, at 3:19 PM, Susan Davis wrote:
> > With only a foresail up won't the boat tend to fall off from the
> > wind?
>
> That's why the rudder on this boat is so large -- it's to compensate
> for that. PCB talks about that in BWAOM.
>
> > Raising sail I'd assume the main
> > would go up first. And thus come down last.
>
> Other way around -- at anchor, hoist the jib first, then the foresail,
> then go aft to the main cockpit and get the main up.
>
> > When reefing, what would be a logical order to reduce sail? Drop
> > Jib, reef main then what's next?
>
> 1. Full sail
> 2. Take in jib, and go with full foresail and full main
> 3. Reef main, and go with full foresail and reefed main
> 4. Take in main, and go cautiously under foresail alone
> 5. Take in foresail, and heave to under backwinded jib and reefed main
> 6. Lie to a sea anchor under bare poles, cowering in forward cockpit
> 7. Pray!
>
> --
> Susan Davis <futabachan@...>
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher C. Wetherill"
<wetherillc@...> wrote:
to set up an A-frame with a block and tackle rather than trying to use
the spars. The foreboom is lightweight and skinny, and is not
stressed to take 150+ pounds of strain.
--
Susan Davis <futabachan@...>
<wetherillc@...> wrote:
>The advice from PCB (and from Tony Grove, who built the prototype) is
> I did mean the foreboom. The only downside to this idea is that you
> could not use it underway.
to set up an A-frame with a block and tackle rather than trying to use
the spars. The foreboom is lightweight and skinny, and is not
stressed to take 150+ pounds of strain.
--
Susan Davis <futabachan@...>
Gene,
I did mean the foreboom. The only downside to this idea is that you
could not use it underway. It might be very convenient to be able to
reduce draft in shoal waters. For this reason, I discarded the idea of
a SHS for the Sassafrass. I will go with Surf, Windsprint or Zephyr.
V/R
Chris
Gene Tehansky wrote:
I did mean the foreboom. The only downside to this idea is that you
could not use it underway. It might be very convenient to be able to
reduce draft in shoal waters. For this reason, I discarded the idea of
a SHS for the Sassafrass. I will go with Surf, Windsprint or Zephyr.
V/R
Chris
Gene Tehansky wrote:
> Christopher,[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Now I get it. Yes, I like that. One of the best ideas I've heard so
> far, other than having a back willing to take the strain! I assume
> you mean to use the foresail boom.
>
> Gene T.
>
>
Christopher,
Now I get it. Yes, I like that. One of the best ideas I've heard so
far, other than having a back willing to take the strain! I assume
you mean to use the foresail boom.
Gene T.
Now I get it. Yes, I like that. One of the best ideas I've heard so
far, other than having a back willing to take the strain! I assume
you mean to use the foresail boom.
Gene T.
On 10 Jun, 2008, at 3:15 PM, Christopher C. Wetherill wrote:
> Gene,
>
> I was envisioning using the boom because you could lift the board
> straight up along its centerline. Using the mast, you are pulling the
> board out of line with the edges of the trunk. This could bind.
>
> Using crutches close to the trunk reduces the bending moments to
> acceptable levels. I tested with a closet rod because I have a few in
> my stock and they are similar in section to the boom as shown in Boats
> with an Open Mind.
>
> A simple 3-fold purchase would reduce the line tension to about 60
> lbs.
> Most people could probably do this without a winch.
>
> V/R
> Chris
>
> Gene Tehansky wrote:
> > Christopher,
> > I have the world's biggest closet pole just behind the keel, my main
> > mast. Since there are no winches on the boat, I plan to attach a
> > small "come along" ratchet winch to the mast to do the pulling. I
> > have not done any experimenting yet. I didn't feel that working on
> > the boat on saw horses with the keel was a good idea. I'll just have
> > to see how I will be able to work the keel when it is time to put it
> > in the water.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Gene T.
> >
> > On 10 Jun, 2008, at 10:55 AM, Christopher Wetherill wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I think there may be a simple solution. I just did a driveway
> >> experiment. I took a closet rod, 8' long x 1.25" diameter, put
> it on
> >> two 4x4 blocks and stood on a point about 1.5 feet from one end.
> >> Under my 200lbs, it bowed about 1.5", but didn't break. I then put
> >> the blocks about 2.5 feet apart and got less than 1/4" flex.
> >>
> >> Why not use two boom crutches that mount before and after the
> >> centerboard trunk? You could then use the sheet, or a vang, clipped
> >> to a screw eye in the top of the board.
> >>
> >> V/R
> >> Chris
> >>
> >> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Susan Davis" <futabachan@...>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Crockett <pcrockett@>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> For a higher tech solution, how about a 1/4" plywood hollow board
> >>>> with two slide-in lead weights? Would require that the weights be
> >>>> faired for a snug fit, but it would solve the joining problem.
> >>>>
> >>> I'm not sure that I'd trust the plywood to hold up with heavy lead
> >>> inside. OTOH, I don't have trouble raising or lowering my
> >>> fully-leaded board, even without mechanical advantage, so it's
> just
> >>> not a problem that I've given much thought to.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Susan Davis <futabachan@...>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Bolger rules!!!
> > - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!
> > - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, or
> flogging dead horses
> > - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred'
> posts
> > - Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
> > - Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA,
> 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
> > - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> With only a foresail up won't the boat tend to fall off from theThat's why the rudder on this boat is so large -- it's to compensate
> wind?
for that. PCB talks about that in BWAOM.
> Raising sail I'd assume the mainOther way around -- at anchor, hoist the jib first, then the foresail,
> would go up first. And thus come down last.
then go aft to the main cockpit and get the main up.
> When reefing, what would be a logical order to reduce sail? Drop1. Full sail
> Jib, reef main then what's next?
2. Take in jib, and go with full foresail and full main
3. Reef main, and go with full foresail and reefed main
4. Take in main, and go cautiously under foresail alone
5. Take in foresail, and heave to under backwinded jib and reefed main
6. Lie to a sea anchor under bare poles, cowering in forward cockpit
7. Pray!
--
Susan Davis <futabachan@...>
Gene,
I was envisioning using the boom because you could lift the board
straight up along its centerline. Using the mast, you are pulling the
board out of line with the edges of the trunk. This could bind.
Using crutches close to the trunk reduces the bending moments to
acceptable levels. I tested with a closet rod because I have a few in
my stock and they are similar in section to the boom as shown in Boats
with an Open Mind.
A simple 3-fold purchase would reduce the line tension to about 60 lbs.
Most people could probably do this without a winch.
V/R
Chris
Gene Tehansky wrote:
I was envisioning using the boom because you could lift the board
straight up along its centerline. Using the mast, you are pulling the
board out of line with the edges of the trunk. This could bind.
Using crutches close to the trunk reduces the bending moments to
acceptable levels. I tested with a closet rod because I have a few in
my stock and they are similar in section to the boom as shown in Boats
with an Open Mind.
A simple 3-fold purchase would reduce the line tension to about 60 lbs.
Most people could probably do this without a winch.
V/R
Chris
Gene Tehansky wrote:
> Christopher,[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> I have the world's biggest closet pole just behind the keel, my main
> mast. Since there are no winches on the boat, I plan to attach a
> small "come along" ratchet winch to the mast to do the pulling. I
> have not done any experimenting yet. I didn't feel that working on
> the boat on saw horses with the keel was a good idea. I'll just have
> to see how I will be able to work the keel when it is time to put it
> in the water.
>
> Sincerely,
> Gene T.
>
> On 10 Jun, 2008, at 10:55 AM, Christopher Wetherill wrote:
>
>
>> I think there may be a simple solution. I just did a driveway
>> experiment. I took a closet rod, 8' long x 1.25" diameter, put it on
>> two 4x4 blocks and stood on a point about 1.5 feet from one end.
>> Under my 200lbs, it bowed about 1.5", but didn't break. I then put
>> the blocks about 2.5 feet apart and got less than 1/4" flex.
>>
>> Why not use two boom crutches that mount before and after the
>> centerboard trunk? You could then use the sheet, or a vang, clipped
>> to a screw eye in the top of the board.
>>
>> V/R
>> Chris
>>
>> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Susan Davis" <futabachan@...> wrote:
>>
>>> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Crockett <pcrockett@> wrote:
>>>
>>>> For a higher tech solution, how about a 1/4" plywood hollow board
>>>> with two slide-in lead weights? Would require that the weights be
>>>> faired for a snug fit, but it would solve the joining problem.
>>>>
>>> I'm not sure that I'd trust the plywood to hold up with heavy lead
>>> inside. OTOH, I don't have trouble raising or lowering my
>>> fully-leaded board, even without mechanical advantage, so it's just
>>> not a problem that I've given much thought to.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Susan Davis <futabachan@...>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, or flogging dead horses
> - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
> - Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
> - Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
Christopher,
I have the world's biggest closet pole just behind the keel, my main
mast. Since there are no winches on the boat, I plan to attach a
small "come along" ratchet winch to the mast to do the pulling. I
have not done any experimenting yet. I didn't feel that working on
the boat on saw horses with the keel was a good idea. I'll just have
to see how I will be able to work the keel when it is time to put it
in the water.
Sincerely,
Gene T.
I have the world's biggest closet pole just behind the keel, my main
mast. Since there are no winches on the boat, I plan to attach a
small "come along" ratchet winch to the mast to do the pulling. I
have not done any experimenting yet. I didn't feel that working on
the boat on saw horses with the keel was a good idea. I'll just have
to see how I will be able to work the keel when it is time to put it
in the water.
Sincerely,
Gene T.
On 10 Jun, 2008, at 10:55 AM, Christopher Wetherill wrote:
> I think there may be a simple solution. I just did a driveway
> experiment. I took a closet rod, 8' long x 1.25" diameter, put it on
> two 4x4 blocks and stood on a point about 1.5 feet from one end.
> Under my 200lbs, it bowed about 1.5", but didn't break. I then put
> the blocks about 2.5 feet apart and got less than 1/4" flex.
>
> Why not use two boom crutches that mount before and after the
> centerboard trunk? You could then use the sheet, or a vang, clipped
> to a screw eye in the top of the board.
>
> V/R
> Chris
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Susan Davis" <futabachan@...> wrote:
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Crockett <pcrockett@> wrote:
> > >
> > > For a higher tech solution, how about a 1/4" plywood hollow board
> > > with two slide-in lead weights? Would require that the weights be
> > > faired for a snug fit, but it would solve the joining problem.
> >
> > I'm not sure that I'd trust the plywood to hold up with heavy lead
> > inside. OTOH, I don't have trouble raising or lowering my
> > fully-leaded board, even without mechanical advantage, so it's just
> > not a problem that I've given much thought to.
> >
> > --
> > Susan Davis <futabachan@...>
> >
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I think there may be a simple solution. I just did a driveway
experiment. I took a closet rod, 8' long x 1.25" diameter, put it on
two 4x4 blocks and stood on a point about 1.5 feet from one end.
Under my 200lbs, it bowed about 1.5", but didn't break. I then put
the blocks about 2.5 feet apart and got less than 1/4" flex.
Why not use two boom crutches that mount before and after the
centerboard trunk? You could then use the sheet, or a vang, clipped
to a screw eye in the top of the board.
V/R
Chris
experiment. I took a closet rod, 8' long x 1.25" diameter, put it on
two 4x4 blocks and stood on a point about 1.5 feet from one end.
Under my 200lbs, it bowed about 1.5", but didn't break. I then put
the blocks about 2.5 feet apart and got less than 1/4" flex.
Why not use two boom crutches that mount before and after the
centerboard trunk? You could then use the sheet, or a vang, clipped
to a screw eye in the top of the board.
V/R
Chris
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Susan Davis" <futabachan@...> wrote:
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Crockett <pcrockett@> wrote:
> >
> > For a higher tech solution, how about a 1/4" plywood hollow board
> > with two slide-in lead weights? Would require that the weights be
> > faired for a snug fit, but it would solve the joining problem.
>
> I'm not sure that I'd trust the plywood to hold up with heavy lead
> inside. OTOH, I don't have trouble raising or lowering my
> fully-leaded board, even without mechanical advantage, so it's just
> not a problem that I've given much thought to.
>
> --
> Susan Davis <futabachan@...>
>
Sue,
On the Patuxent River in Maryland on the western shore of the
Chesapeake Bay. Thanks for the comments. But...
Ok, I need to do some reading before I go out. With only a foresail
up won't the boat tend to fall off from the wind? With the main only
up it would point into the wind. Raising sail I'd assume the main
would go up first. And thus come down last.
When reefing, what would be a logical order to reduce sail? Drop
Jib, reef main then what's next? I need to read BWOM again. Yea,
and I need to put those reef points on my main. Mr. Lazy didn't put
those in last week.
Excuse me if my lack of sailing experience is showing!
Sincerely,
Gene T.
On the Patuxent River in Maryland on the western shore of the
Chesapeake Bay. Thanks for the comments. But...
Ok, I need to do some reading before I go out. With only a foresail
up won't the boat tend to fall off from the wind? With the main only
up it would point into the wind. Raising sail I'd assume the main
would go up first. And thus come down last.
When reefing, what would be a logical order to reduce sail? Drop
Jib, reef main then what's next? I need to read BWOM again. Yea,
and I need to put those reef points on my main. Mr. Lazy didn't put
those in last week.
Excuse me if my lack of sailing experience is showing!
Sincerely,
Gene T.
On 10 Jun, 2008, at 12:07 AM, Susan Davis wrote:
> > One addition that has me
> > concerned it the ability to lower the forsail from the cockpit.
> > Would there be an need to run the halyard to a cleat closer to the
> > cockpit. (I guess I am asking Sue!) If one has a need to get the
> > sail down "right now" then one might not want to walk forward to do
> > the uncleating.
>
> The foresail is traditionally the last bit of canvas that you leave
> standing before heaving to -- and, as PCB mentions in the BWAOM
> writeup, many schooners even hove to under just the foresail. You'd
> be surprised at how much wind this little boat can stand up to, and
> when she starts to get in trouble, it develops very slowly, and
> there's plenty of time to react to it. Dumping the sheet and rounding
> up into the wind should keep you from getting knocked down even in an
> extremely fearsome gust. I have my foresail sheet on my foremast, and
> the farthest I've ever had to reef down so far has been to foresail
> and reefed main.
>
> > Painting the hold was a real trip. I just don't fit up there.
>
> I cheated, and painted mine before the deck went on.
>
> Congratulations on the impending launching. Where will her home
> waters be?
>
> --
> Susan Davis <futabachan@...>
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "efemiket" <efemike@...> wrote:
it can go up and down by stages as I lift. I still need to install a
fid system to retain it, as part of this year's commissioning (yes,
I'm late).
A dockside crane (such as the mast crane on the TSCC dinghy dock)
seems like it ought to do the trick very easily. The SHS is not so
useful as a casual beach cruiser; she's more like a keelboat that
breaks down for transport on a bunk trailer. When I take mine
cruising at some point, I'm planning to tow a Tortoise for getting ashore.
--
Susan Davis <futabachan@...>
>I just lift with my legs, and haven't had trouble. It's a beast, but
> I bumped up the lead content [in the daggerboard] by 50lbs from the
> 100lbs specified in the plans, like Sue did I believe. How the hell
> do raise it up or even get it into the slot when launching???
it can go up and down by stages as I lift. I still need to install a
fid system to retain it, as part of this year's commissioning (yes,
I'm late).
> Would a halyard from the mainmast be useful for raising it whenThe masts are unstayed, and the board is heavy. I wouldn't trust it.
> beaching?
A dockside crane (such as the mast crane on the TSCC dinghy dock)
seems like it ought to do the trick very easily. The SHS is not so
useful as a casual beach cruiser; she's more like a keelboat that
breaks down for transport on a bunk trailer. When I take mine
cruising at some point, I'm planning to tow a Tortoise for getting ashore.
--
Susan Davis <futabachan@...>
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Crockett <pcrockett@...> wrote:
inside. OTOH, I don't have trouble raising or lowering my
fully-leaded board, even without mechanical advantage, so it's just
not a problem that I've given much thought to.
--
Susan Davis <futabachan@...>
>I'm not sure that I'd trust the plywood to hold up with heavy lead
> For a higher tech solution, how about a 1/4" plywood hollow board
> with two slide-in lead weights? Would require that the weights be
> faired for a snug fit, but it would solve the joining problem.
inside. OTOH, I don't have trouble raising or lowering my
fully-leaded board, even without mechanical advantage, so it's just
not a problem that I've given much thought to.
--
Susan Davis <futabachan@...>
> One addition that has meThe foresail is traditionally the last bit of canvas that you leave
> concerned it the ability to lower the forsail from the cockpit.
> Would there be an need to run the halyard to a cleat closer to the
> cockpit. (I guess I am asking Sue!) If one has a need to get the
> sail down "right now" then one might not want to walk forward to do
> the uncleating.
standing before heaving to -- and, as PCB mentions in the BWAOM
writeup, many schooners even hove to under just the foresail. You'd
be surprised at how much wind this little boat can stand up to, and
when she starts to get in trouble, it develops very slowly, and
there's plenty of time to react to it. Dumping the sheet and rounding
up into the wind should keep you from getting knocked down even in an
extremely fearsome gust. I have my foresail sheet on my foremast, and
the farthest I've ever had to reef down so far has been to foresail
and reefed main.
> Painting the hold was a real trip. I just don't fit up there.I cheated, and painted mine before the deck went on.
Congratulations on the impending launching. Where will her home
waters be?
--
Susan Davis <futabachan@...>
Patrick,
On the original design, the upper portion of the keel was left hollow
and filled with water for additional ballast so something small
should be used to hold the lead in place to make room for max water.
Since the chance of inverting the boat is small, I'd be inclined to
use a stick or sticks to lock the lead in place and use a plug of
foam at the top to cushion the lead if it should slice up. A wedge
lock on the end of the stick alongside the lead might work. Back in
college I took a foundry class. I'd think the lead slugs would need
to be cast in precision sand molds to minimize the machining
required. And I thought the original was a project! I did have to
re-melt and pour a second time. My first form bulged and cutting
back the size of the lead was way to much work. It was easier to
start over. The stuff is stubborn!
Sincerely,
Gene T.
On the original design, the upper portion of the keel was left hollow
and filled with water for additional ballast so something small
should be used to hold the lead in place to make room for max water.
Since the chance of inverting the boat is small, I'd be inclined to
use a stick or sticks to lock the lead in place and use a plug of
foam at the top to cushion the lead if it should slice up. A wedge
lock on the end of the stick alongside the lead might work. Back in
college I took a foundry class. I'd think the lead slugs would need
to be cast in precision sand molds to minimize the machining
required. And I thought the original was a project! I did have to
re-melt and pour a second time. My first form bulged and cutting
back the size of the lead was way to much work. It was easier to
start over. The stuff is stubborn!
Sincerely,
Gene T.
On 9 Jun, 2008, at 1:13 AM, Patrick Crockett wrote:
> Gene:
>
> Rather than fastening the weights at the bottom, you could slide in a
> balsa (or other light wood) plug on top of the lead to secure it --
> have
> a couple grooves in the balsa for cables attached to the lead to
> pull it
> back out.
>
> There would definitely be some engineering around making the shell
> structurally sound. A fun problem for an engineer, I'd think -- create
> adequate strength while leaving room to slide in the lead. That's
> where
> the "higher tech" comes in.
>
> Patrick
>
> Gene Tehansky wrote:
> > Patrick,
> > I like the idea of sliding the weights down into the hollow keel.
> > They would need to be secured at the bottom. This would require
> > building an internally very precise keel structure. I think a bit of
> > engineering would be involved. Once it is assembled I'd want to run
> > into things with it! Well, I would! Possibly on the next one! At
> > the moment, my fingers are sore from sewing on the sails!
> >
> > Gene T.
> >
> > On 8 Jun, 2008, at 2:09 PM, Patrick Crockett wrote:
> >
> >> For a higher tech solution, how about a 1/4" plywood hollow
> board with
> >> two slide-in lead weights? Would require that the weights be faired
> >> for
> >> a snug fit, but it would solve the joining problem.
> >>
> >
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Gene:
Rather than fastening the weights at the bottom, you could slide in a
balsa (or other light wood) plug on top of the lead to secure it -- have
a couple grooves in the balsa for cables attached to the lead to pull it
back out.
There would definitely be some engineering around making the shell
structurally sound. A fun problem for an engineer, I'd think -- create
adequate strength while leaving room to slide in the lead. That's where
the "higher tech" comes in.
Patrick
Gene Tehansky wrote:
Rather than fastening the weights at the bottom, you could slide in a
balsa (or other light wood) plug on top of the lead to secure it -- have
a couple grooves in the balsa for cables attached to the lead to pull it
back out.
There would definitely be some engineering around making the shell
structurally sound. A fun problem for an engineer, I'd think -- create
adequate strength while leaving room to slide in the lead. That's where
the "higher tech" comes in.
Patrick
Gene Tehansky wrote:
> Patrick,
> I like the idea of sliding the weights down into the hollow keel.
> They would need to be secured at the bottom. This would require
> building an internally very precise keel structure. I think a bit of
> engineering would be involved. Once it is assembled I'd want to run
> into things with it! Well, I would! Possibly on the next one! At
> the moment, my fingers are sore from sewing on the sails!
>
> Gene T.
>
> On 8 Jun, 2008, at 2:09 PM, Patrick Crockett wrote:
>
>> For a higher tech solution, how about a 1/4" plywood hollow board with
>> two slide-in lead weights? Would require that the weights be faired
>> for
>> a snug fit, but it would solve the joining problem.
>>
>
Patrick,
I like the idea of sliding the weights down into the hollow keel.
They would need to be secured at the bottom. This would require
building an internally very precise keel structure. I think a bit of
engineering would be involved. Once it is assembled I'd want to run
into things with it! Well, I would! Possibly on the next one! At
the moment, my fingers are sore from sewing on the sails!
Gene T.
I like the idea of sliding the weights down into the hollow keel.
They would need to be secured at the bottom. This would require
building an internally very precise keel structure. I think a bit of
engineering would be involved. Once it is assembled I'd want to run
into things with it! Well, I would! Possibly on the next one! At
the moment, my fingers are sore from sewing on the sails!
Gene T.
On 8 Jun, 2008, at 2:09 PM, Patrick Crockett wrote:
> For a higher tech solution, how about a 1/4" plywood hollow board with
> two slide-in lead weights? Would require that the weights be faired
> for
> a snug fit, but it would solve the joining problem.
>
> Patrick
>
> Gene Tehansky wrote:
> > The board is about 2 inches thick. Some sort of snug fitting joint
> > of that type would be required to keep the segments in good
> > allignment. Half the board weight is very movable compared to the
> > single solid board. One item that would be a problem is the
> > attachment of the lead. Now it is closed in on 3 sides with large
> > bronze screws into the wood. 2 sides is much less secure. I can see
> > the jigsaw smoking right now! That stuff don't cut so easily.
> >
> > Hopefully my come along will do just fine.
> >
> > Gene T.
> >
> > On 5 Jun, 2008, at 4:06 PM, Doug Griggs wrote:
> > Maybe a gasket isn't needed- how about a cove and bead joint between
> > the board halves?
> > -Doug Griggs
> >
> > On Jun 5, 2008, at 3:30 PM, Gene Tehansky wrote:
> > Bruce,
> > That would be a good approach. Need to gasket the joint so
> > efficiency wouldn't be lost. The thoughts of a double pour... It
> > was no big deal but your thoughts of cutting might produce a more
> > accurate result. This could work.... Messy at the top of mine but
> > it could be fixed. The main bulk of the fin is hollow so the shape
> > would spring out and require work to fix.
> >
> >
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
For a higher tech solution, how about a 1/4" plywood hollow board with
two slide-in lead weights? Would require that the weights be faired for
a snug fit, but it would solve the joining problem.
Patrick
Gene Tehansky wrote:
two slide-in lead weights? Would require that the weights be faired for
a snug fit, but it would solve the joining problem.
Patrick
Gene Tehansky wrote:
> The board is about 2 inches thick. Some sort of snug fitting joint
> of that type would be required to keep the segments in good
> allignment. Half the board weight is very movable compared to the
> single solid board. One item that would be a problem is the
> attachment of the lead. Now it is closed in on 3 sides with large
> bronze screws into the wood. 2 sides is much less secure. I can see
> the jigsaw smoking right now! That stuff don't cut so easily.
>
> Hopefully my come along will do just fine.
>
> Gene T.
>
> On 5 Jun, 2008, at 4:06 PM, Doug Griggs wrote:
> Maybe a gasket isn't needed- how about a cove and bead joint between
> the board halves?
> -Doug Griggs
>
> On Jun 5, 2008, at 3:30 PM, Gene Tehansky wrote:
> Bruce,
> That would be a good approach. Need to gasket the joint so
> efficiency wouldn't be lost. The thoughts of a double pour... It
> was no big deal but your thoughts of cutting might produce a more
> accurate result. This could work.... Messy at the top of mine but
> it could be fixed. The main bulk of the fin is hollow so the shape
> would spring out and require work to fix.
>
>
> the jigsaw smoking right now! That stuff don't cut so easily.Try a Skilsaw. I cut the 1 1/2" thick ballast casting for my Micro
using a Skilsaw portable circular saw.
Bruce, what are you doing to my wooden boat?
Gene T.
Gene T.
On 5 Jun, 2008, at 4:31 PM, Bruce Hallman wrote:
> I think I would just nail on two strips of 12 gauge galvanized sheet
> metal, roughly 2 inches, by 3 feet tall to each face the forward
> piece. That way the aft piece could nestle in the 'key' or 'channel'
> created by the sheet metal strips on the forward piece.
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
The board is about 2 inches thick. Some sort of snug fitting joint
of that type would be required to keep the segments in good
allignment. Half the board weight is very movable compared to the
single solid board. One item that would be a problem is the
attachment of the lead. Now it is closed in on 3 sides with large
bronze screws into the wood. 2 sides is much less secure. I can see
the jigsaw smoking right now! That stuff don't cut so easily.
Hopefully my come along will do just fine.
Gene T.
of that type would be required to keep the segments in good
allignment. Half the board weight is very movable compared to the
single solid board. One item that would be a problem is the
attachment of the lead. Now it is closed in on 3 sides with large
bronze screws into the wood. 2 sides is much less secure. I can see
the jigsaw smoking right now! That stuff don't cut so easily.
Hopefully my come along will do just fine.
Gene T.
On 5 Jun, 2008, at 4:06 PM, Doug Griggs wrote:
> Maybe a gasket isn't needed- how about a cove and bead joint between
> the board halves?
> -Doug Griggs
>
> On Jun 5, 2008, at 3:30 PM, Gene Tehansky wrote:
>
> > Bruce,
> > That would be a good approach. Need to gasket the joint so
> > efficiency wouldn't be lost. The thoughts of a double pour... It
> > was no big deal but your thoughts of cutting might produce a more
> > accurate result. This could work.... Messy at the top of mine but
> > it could be fixed. The main bulk of the fin is hollow so the shape
> > would spring out and require work to fix.
> >
> > Thanks for the interesting idea.
> >
> > Gene T.
> > On 5 Jun, 2008, at 1:58 PM, Bruce Hallman wrote:
> >
> > > I wonder if the added weight could be accommodated by splitting
> > > ballast fin in half making it two pieces? Sawing the fin
> vertically,
> > > with the forward piece locking with the aft piece, perhaps with a
> > pin,
> > > or some other device.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > [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]
I think I would just nail on two strips of 12 gauge galvanized sheet
metal, roughly 2 inches, by 3 feet tall to each face the forward
piece. That way the aft piece could nestle in the 'key' or 'channel'
created by the sheet metal strips on the forward piece.
metal, roughly 2 inches, by 3 feet tall to each face the forward
piece. That way the aft piece could nestle in the 'key' or 'channel'
created by the sheet metal strips on the forward piece.
Maybe a gasket isn't needed- how about a cove and bead joint between
the board halves?
-Doug Griggs
the board halves?
-Doug Griggs
On Jun 5, 2008, at 3:30 PM, Gene Tehansky wrote:
> Bruce,
> That would be a good approach. Need to gasket the joint so
> efficiency wouldn't be lost. The thoughts of a double pour... It
> was no big deal but your thoughts of cutting might produce a more
> accurate result. This could work.... Messy at the top of mine but
> it could be fixed. The main bulk of the fin is hollow so the shape
> would spring out and require work to fix.
>
> Thanks for the interesting idea.
>
> Gene T.
> On 5 Jun, 2008, at 1:58 PM, Bruce Hallman wrote:
>
> > I wonder if the added weight could be accommodated by splitting
> > ballast fin in half making it two pieces? Sawing the fin vertically,
> > with the forward piece locking with the aft piece, perhaps with a
> pin,
> > or some other device.
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Bruce,
That would be a good approach. Need to gasket the joint so
efficiency wouldn't be lost. The thoughts of a double pour... It
was no big deal but your thoughts of cutting might produce a more
accurate result. This could work.... Messy at the top of mine but
it could be fixed. The main bulk of the fin is hollow so the shape
would spring out and require work to fix.
Thanks for the interesting idea.
Gene T.
That would be a good approach. Need to gasket the joint so
efficiency wouldn't be lost. The thoughts of a double pour... It
was no big deal but your thoughts of cutting might produce a more
accurate result. This could work.... Messy at the top of mine but
it could be fixed. The main bulk of the fin is hollow so the shape
would spring out and require work to fix.
Thanks for the interesting idea.
Gene T.
On 5 Jun, 2008, at 1:58 PM, Bruce Hallman wrote:
> I wonder if the added weight could be accommodated by splitting
> ballast fin in half making it two pieces? Sawing the fin vertically,
> with the forward piece locking with the aft piece, perhaps with a pin,
> or some other device.
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I wonder if the added weight could be accommodated by splitting
ballast fin in half making it two pieces? Sawing the fin vertically,
with the forward piece locking with the aft piece, perhaps with a pin,
or some other device.
ballast fin in half making it two pieces? Sawing the fin vertically,
with the forward piece locking with the aft piece, perhaps with a pin,
or some other device.
Mike,
Ok, this is all theory. Around the house I got a chain hoist I hook
into the rafters to lift it. Where I built the boat it was very
convenient. For transporting the boat, I plan to have the keel in
place at the top of its travel, using 2 fids to hold it there. That
is metal pins in holes at deck level. I'll reinforce the deck
there. Looking underneath I see that I can put a cross piece on my
trailer to support the bottom of the keel so transport will be no worry.
I found a ratcheted "come along" that uses webbing not wire rope. I
plan to attach that to the mast to lift up the keel. And to lower
it. Dropping could be bad. I have not worked out the details of
attaching to the mast. I can't interfere with easy sail dropping and
raising.
I think I added 10 or 20 pounds to mine and it is not easy to move
around. I could never lift it into the boat. It will get installed
in the garage with the chain hoist.
God luck with your boat.
Sincerely,
Gene T.
Ok, this is all theory. Around the house I got a chain hoist I hook
into the rafters to lift it. Where I built the boat it was very
convenient. For transporting the boat, I plan to have the keel in
place at the top of its travel, using 2 fids to hold it there. That
is metal pins in holes at deck level. I'll reinforce the deck
there. Looking underneath I see that I can put a cross piece on my
trailer to support the bottom of the keel so transport will be no worry.
I found a ratcheted "come along" that uses webbing not wire rope. I
plan to attach that to the mast to lift up the keel. And to lower
it. Dropping could be bad. I have not worked out the details of
attaching to the mast. I can't interfere with easy sail dropping and
raising.
I think I added 10 or 20 pounds to mine and it is not easy to move
around. I could never lift it into the boat. It will get installed
in the garage with the chain hoist.
God luck with your boat.
Sincerely,
Gene T.
On 4 Jun, 2008, at 11:38 PM, efemiket wrote:
>
> Gene,
>
> I am just behind you with my Single Handed Schooner. 2.5 years in, I
> have to paint the deck, make the spars (masts are done), and configure
> the rigging. Seems to me to make sense to run the foremast halyard
> back to the cockpit. I want to be able to do most everything without
> moving about much at all.
>
> The question I have is regarding the daggerboard. Mine weighs about
> 170 lbs all in, since I bumped up the lead content by 50lbs from the
> 100lbs specified in the plans, like Sue did I believe. How the hell do
> raise it up or even get it into the slot when launching??? I move it
> around the yard on a dolly, and it is a real pig. I've even been
> thinking of dropping some of the weight by taking some lead out. Would
> a halyard from the mainmast be useful for raising it when beaching?
>
> Mike T
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Gene Tehansky <goldranger02-boats@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > I am about to start rigging my boat and after reading some of Susan
> > Davis's comments it all makes sense. One addition that has me
> > concerned it the ability to lower the forsail from the cockpit.
> > Would there be an need to run the halyard to a cleat closer to the
> > cockpit. (I guess I am asking Sue!) If one has a need to get the
> > sail down "right now" then one might not want to walk forward to do
> > the uncleating. Other than that, painting is done and I just need to
> > adjust the partners to get the masts to go in all the way. Next
> > time I paint as I go. Painting the hold was a real trip. I just
> > don't fit up there. I also had to put a round hatch on the nose to
> > get to the back of the bow eye. After 3 years of plodding and
> > diversions I am starting to get excited about this (again).
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Gene T.
> >
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Gene,
I am just behind you with my Single Handed Schooner. 2.5 years in, I
have to paint the deck, make the spars (masts are done), and configure
the rigging. Seems to me to make sense to run the foremast halyard
back to the cockpit. I want to be able to do most everything without
moving about much at all.
The question I have is regarding the daggerboard. Mine weighs about
170 lbs all in, since I bumped up the lead content by 50lbs from the
100lbs specified in the plans, like Sue did I believe. How the hell do
raise it up or even get it into the slot when launching??? I move it
around the yard on a dolly, and it is a real pig. I've even been
thinking of dropping some of the weight by taking some lead out. Would
a halyard from the mainmast be useful for raising it when beaching?
Mike T
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Gene Tehansky <goldranger02-boats@...>
wrote:
I am just behind you with my Single Handed Schooner. 2.5 years in, I
have to paint the deck, make the spars (masts are done), and configure
the rigging. Seems to me to make sense to run the foremast halyard
back to the cockpit. I want to be able to do most everything without
moving about much at all.
The question I have is regarding the daggerboard. Mine weighs about
170 lbs all in, since I bumped up the lead content by 50lbs from the
100lbs specified in the plans, like Sue did I believe. How the hell do
raise it up or even get it into the slot when launching??? I move it
around the yard on a dolly, and it is a real pig. I've even been
thinking of dropping some of the weight by taking some lead out. Would
a halyard from the mainmast be useful for raising it when beaching?
Mike T
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Gene Tehansky <goldranger02-boats@...>
wrote:
>
> I am about to start rigging my boat and after reading some of Susan
> Davis's comments it all makes sense. One addition that has me
> concerned it the ability to lower the forsail from the cockpit.
> Would there be an need to run the halyard to a cleat closer to the
> cockpit. (I guess I am asking Sue!) If one has a need to get the
> sail down "right now" then one might not want to walk forward to do
> the uncleating. Other than that, painting is done and I just need to
> adjust the partners to get the masts to go in all the way. Next
> time I paint as I go. Painting the hold was a real trip. I just
> don't fit up there. I also had to put a round hatch on the nose to
> get to the back of the bow eye. After 3 years of plodding and
> diversions I am starting to get excited about this (again).
>
> Sincerely,
> Gene T.
>
Oneof the "books" has a pic of Dynamite rowing, standing up. Why not
check with him. I suspect he was rowing a dory though. Clyde
john_reinhagen wrote:
check with him. I suspect he was rowing a dory though. Clyde
john_reinhagen wrote:
> I am researching designs for my first build. I was researching Sweet[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Pea innitialy beacause of the seaworthiness of the design. One of the
> original requirements of the design was it must me capable of being
> rowed from a forward-facing standing position. Due to an intermittant
> back problem, rowing from a standing position is appealing. Of course,
> further research has complicated things.
> In Boats with an Open Mind, Phil Bolger wrote Spur II is just as
> dry as Sweet Pea and is faster. However, he does not write if it can be
> rowed from a standing position. Any information or input regarding this
> question will be helpful
>
>
>
I am about to start rigging my boat and after reading some of Susan
Davis's comments it all makes sense. One addition that has me
concerned it the ability to lower the forsail from the cockpit.
Would there be an need to run the halyard to a cleat closer to the
cockpit. (I guess I am asking Sue!) If one has a need to get the
sail down "right now" then one might not want to walk forward to do
the uncleating. Other than that, painting is done and I just need to
adjust the partners to get the masts to go in all the way. Next
time I paint as I go. Painting the hold was a real trip. I just
don't fit up there. I also had to put a round hatch on the nose to
get to the back of the bow eye. After 3 years of plodding and
diversions I am starting to get excited about this (again).
Sincerely,
Gene T.
Davis's comments it all makes sense. One addition that has me
concerned it the ability to lower the forsail from the cockpit.
Would there be an need to run the halyard to a cleat closer to the
cockpit. (I guess I am asking Sue!) If one has a need to get the
sail down "right now" then one might not want to walk forward to do
the uncleating. Other than that, painting is done and I just need to
adjust the partners to get the masts to go in all the way. Next
time I paint as I go. Painting the hold was a real trip. I just
don't fit up there. I also had to put a round hatch on the nose to
get to the back of the bow eye. After 3 years of plodding and
diversions I am starting to get excited about this (again).
Sincerely,
Gene T.
It's been a long time, so these are only impressions, but I did row
both boats in the early 90s. Sweet Pea seemed the more stable, it
would have never occurred to me to try standing up in Spur II. I think
the Sweat Pea sides are higher also, hence more conducive to standing
and facing forward while rowing. both are good rowers, but as a pure
rowing boat, Spur II is better. As Bolger has noted, the stem is
shaped to go through a head sea or motor boat wake without stopping
the boat, which is a weakness of Sweat Pea. I borrowed Spur II for a
Blackburn Challenge and on a moderately rough day took only a few dops
of spray on board in 20-plus miles. But Seeat Pea is no slug; it was
the first real rowing craft I had ever used and the scales dropped
from my eyes when it revealed how rewarding rowing can be and how
le\ittle effort was needed to keep up a good pace. I do recall
punching through some powerboat wakes. They slowed the boat, but it
was no problem to get it going again. If standing is the priority, I'd
go with Sweet Pea.
Gary
both boats in the early 90s. Sweet Pea seemed the more stable, it
would have never occurred to me to try standing up in Spur II. I think
the Sweat Pea sides are higher also, hence more conducive to standing
and facing forward while rowing. both are good rowers, but as a pure
rowing boat, Spur II is better. As Bolger has noted, the stem is
shaped to go through a head sea or motor boat wake without stopping
the boat, which is a weakness of Sweat Pea. I borrowed Spur II for a
Blackburn Challenge and on a moderately rough day took only a few dops
of spray on board in 20-plus miles. But Seeat Pea is no slug; it was
the first real rowing craft I had ever used and the scales dropped
from my eyes when it revealed how rewarding rowing can be and how
le\ittle effort was needed to keep up a good pace. I do recall
punching through some powerboat wakes. They slowed the boat, but it
was no problem to get it going again. If standing is the priority, I'd
go with Sweet Pea.
Gary
I don't think you would be happy rowing June Bug when standing, the sides are too low. I like rowing my June Bug, just did a bit last weekend when the wind did not come up until after 2pm. June Bug might be a good candidate for sculling. For stand up rowing you need something like the dory style where you stand farther below the water line or something like Old Shoe that has high sides. Windage might be a problem with that approach. I've never been in a Spur so I can't address that.
MylesJ
Tortoise
Micro
June Bug
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
MylesJ
Tortoise
Micro
June Bug
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I only have built and used a Spur II, not a Sweet Pea.
I think you probably could row standing up in a Spur II, but I never
did so. (And wouldn't want to try it in cold water.)
I think that any round bottom rowboat (Spur II), or five-panel (Sweet
Pea) rowboat would be tippy and tender for stand up rowing. If I
were to choose a boat for stand up rowing I would choose a flat bottom
type like the June Bug. Flat bottom (three panel) boats have the
maximum initial stability at the cost of having slightly more rowing
resistance from extra 'wetted area' as compared to the more rounded
boats.
That is not to denigrate the Spur II, which is a truly great rowboat.
I gave mine away to a friend, and built a Cartoon 5, which is similar
to Spur II, except it is double ended. Cartoon 5 is absolutely the
best rowboat I have ever found.
I think you probably could row standing up in a Spur II, but I never
did so. (And wouldn't want to try it in cold water.)
I think that any round bottom rowboat (Spur II), or five-panel (Sweet
Pea) rowboat would be tippy and tender for stand up rowing. If I
were to choose a boat for stand up rowing I would choose a flat bottom
type like the June Bug. Flat bottom (three panel) boats have the
maximum initial stability at the cost of having slightly more rowing
resistance from extra 'wetted area' as compared to the more rounded
boats.
That is not to denigrate the Spur II, which is a truly great rowboat.
I gave mine away to a friend, and built a Cartoon 5, which is similar
to Spur II, except it is double ended. Cartoon 5 is absolutely the
best rowboat I have ever found.
I have never rowed my sweet pea standing but if you are close to
indianapolis you can try it with mine before you build. I never got around to getting
the hardware to do so. I have been happy with the boat and have used for 15
years. She rows nice, i have a means to attach a motor and i love to sail her.
george
In a message dated 5/20/2008 9:15:08 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
john_reinhagen@...writes:
I am researching designs for my first build. I was researching Sweet
Pea innitialy beacause of the seaworthiness of the design. One of the
original requirements of the design was it must me capable of being
rowed from a forward-facing standing position. Due to an intermittant
back problem, rowing from a standing position is appealing. Of course,
further research has complicated things.
In Boats with an Open Mind, Phil Bolger wrote Spur II is just as
dry as Sweet Pea and is faster. However, he does not write if it can be
rowed from a standing position. Any information or input regarding this
question will be helpful
**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
indianapolis you can try it with mine before you build. I never got around to getting
the hardware to do so. I have been happy with the boat and have used for 15
years. She rows nice, i have a means to attach a motor and i love to sail her.
george
In a message dated 5/20/2008 9:15:08 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
john_reinhagen@...writes:
I am researching designs for my first build. I was researching Sweet
Pea innitialy beacause of the seaworthiness of the design. One of the
original requirements of the design was it must me capable of being
rowed from a forward-facing standing position. Due to an intermittant
back problem, rowing from a standing position is appealing. Of course,
further research has complicated things.
In Boats with an Open Mind, Phil Bolger wrote Spur II is just as
dry as Sweet Pea and is faster. However, he does not write if it can be
rowed from a standing position. Any information or input regarding this
question will be helpful
**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I am researching designs for my first build. I was researching Sweet
Pea innitialy beacause of the seaworthiness of the design. One of the
original requirements of the design was it must me capable of being
rowed from a forward-facing standing position. Due to an intermittant
back problem, rowing from a standing position is appealing. Of course,
further research has complicated things.
In Boats with an Open Mind, Phil Bolger wrote Spur II is just as
dry as Sweet Pea and is faster. However, he does not write if it can be
rowed from a standing position. Any information or input regarding this
question will be helpful
Pea innitialy beacause of the seaworthiness of the design. One of the
original requirements of the design was it must me capable of being
rowed from a forward-facing standing position. Due to an intermittant
back problem, rowing from a standing position is appealing. Of course,
further research has complicated things.
In Boats with an Open Mind, Phil Bolger wrote Spur II is just as
dry as Sweet Pea and is faster. However, he does not write if it can be
rowed from a standing position. Any information or input regarding this
question will be helpful