Re: Gradually entering a new life & clip-on leeboards
Glad to hear that life is slowly but surely returning to PCB&Fs, Susanne.Be well!
Sincerely,
Peter Lenihan
Sincerely,
Peter Lenihan
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Susanne@..." <philbolger@...> wrote:
>
> Hi everybody
> Thank you for your many kind missives in every medium. I hope to attempt to respond to them individually... This loss was most certainly not just mine. So many of you shared with me how Phil entered your head and heart and to what effect. The collection of stories on this direct connection is growing. If you have any more such perspectives let me know. I should have more to say later.
>
> I am gradually getting back into 'life'... Heeded advice I just rested and grieved in various predictable and unpredictable waves and spasms. I drew/draw on much personal and phone-support from friends and family near and far, and am very slowly getting oriented in this much altered life. But I am surrounded by him, his work and our work. Much to tend to. But only very carefully dosed. Will at last attend to mail, faxes, E-mails, even cash a few cheques that have been lingering on the 'untouchable' drawing board. MAIB pieces will continue for the foreseeable future. And of course just about all of his plans will remain available from this same address. Phil had been eager and gratified to see arrive and put to early use a range of new office-equipment to accelerate progress on books, catalogue etc.
>
> For now only one quick note on 'clip-on leeboard(s)' Interesting perspectives on 'Zephyr'. Phil was all too eager to study other cultures and their contributions to the global body of knowledge on boat-design including Spanish and Far-Eastern. Last winter he drew a little isometric of his first sailboat he got around 7 years of age, a catboat, and it had a single clip-on leeboard to starboard.
>
> Again thanks for all your support.
> Susanne Altenburger, PB&F
Thanks Chris, you got me! In my mind I saw Rushton, but got Ruskin.
I meant to refer to the ACA lateen sail as used back to Rushton's day, and the striking differences between Zephyr and the sailing canoe (p14http://www.enter.net/~skimmer/cs31s.pdfetc). From my vanatge point here I had it also that the lateen rig on Z seemed an odd marketing choice for the 70's on, that it further intimated a pontona connection, and a design decision to be true to origins. However, Gary makes a good point about the North American familiarity with the Sunfish! Sunfish are ubiquitous there, yet unseen here.
Graeme
Visions of social economy contrary to PCB's cherished Smith: Ruskin (Unto This Last) - Gandhi, communes, and on; Ruskin/Morris - Edward Bellamy (Looking Backward), Lane, New Australia Paraguayan Commune, and on. Another watershed, but still not many canoes in sight!
I meant to refer to the ACA lateen sail as used back to Rushton's day, and the striking differences between Zephyr and the sailing canoe (p14http://www.enter.net/~skimmer/cs31s.pdfetc). From my vanatge point here I had it also that the lateen rig on Z seemed an odd marketing choice for the 70's on, that it further intimated a pontona connection, and a design decision to be true to origins. However, Gary makes a good point about the North American familiarity with the Sunfish! Sunfish are ubiquitous there, yet unseen here.
Graeme
Visions of social economy contrary to PCB's cherished Smith: Ruskin (Unto This Last) - Gandhi, communes, and on; Ruskin/Morris - Edward Bellamy (Looking Backward), Lane, New Australia Paraguayan Commune, and on. Another watershed, but still not many canoes in sight!
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Chris Crandall <crandall@...> wrote:
>
> I notice that you're interested in the aesthetics of Zephyr, and thus I
> find your malapropsim understandable and amusing. I don't know what a
> Ruskin canoe would be, but since Ruskin was a famous art critic, I'm
> sure that it would be aesthetically beautiful.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ruskin
>
> Ruskin is famous, for among other things, describing a particular
> Whistler painting as "throwing a pot of paint in the public's face."
> (This particular painting is worth seeing, at:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:James_Abbot_McNeill_Whistler_012.jpg
>
>
> I do not know what he said about the designs of the artist Caillebotte,
> who designed more than 20 yachts, see:
>
>http://sailing.teggin.com/2006/08/caillebotte.html
>
> I suspect you were referring to Rushton canoes, which are, indeed, quite
> visually pleasing. See
>
>http://www.slcha.org/exhibits/rushton.php
>
> Ruskin, Rushton, and Caillebotte were all contemporaneous.
>
I notice that you're interested in the aesthetics of Zephyr, and thus I
find your malapropsim understandable and amusing. I don't know what a
Ruskin canoe would be, but since Ruskin was a famous art critic, I'm
sure that it would be aesthetically beautiful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ruskin
Ruskin is famous, for among other things, describing a particular
Whistler painting as "throwing a pot of paint in the public's face."
(This particular painting is worth seeing, at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:James_Abbot_McNeill_Whistler_012.jpg
I do not know what he said about the designs of the artist Caillebotte,
who designed more than 20 yachts, see:
http://sailing.teggin.com/2006/08/caillebotte.html
I suspect you were referring to Rushton canoes, which are, indeed, quite
visually pleasing. See
http://www.slcha.org/exhibits/rushton.php
Ruskin, Rushton, and Caillebotte were all contemporaneous.
find your malapropsim understandable and amusing. I don't know what a
Ruskin canoe would be, but since Ruskin was a famous art critic, I'm
sure that it would be aesthetically beautiful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ruskin
Ruskin is famous, for among other things, describing a particular
Whistler painting as "throwing a pot of paint in the public's face."
(This particular painting is worth seeing, at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:James_Abbot_McNeill_Whistler_012.jpg
I do not know what he said about the designs of the artist Caillebotte,
who designed more than 20 yachts, see:
http://sailing.teggin.com/2006/08/caillebotte.html
I suspect you were referring to Rushton canoes, which are, indeed, quite
visually pleasing. See
http://www.slcha.org/exhibits/rushton.php
Ruskin, Rushton, and Caillebotte were all contemporaneous.
Hi everybody
Thank you for your many kind missives in every medium. I hope to attempt to respond to them individually... This loss was most certainly not just mine. So many of you shared with me how Phil entered your head and heart and to what effect. The collection of stories on this direct connection is growing. If you have any more such perspectives let me know. I should have more to say later.
I am gradually getting back into 'life'... Heeded advice I just rested and grieved in various predictable and unpredictable waves and spasms. I drew/draw on much personal and phone-support from friends and family near and far, and am very slowly getting oriented in this much altered life. But I am surrounded by him, his work and our work. Much to tend to. But only very carefully dosed. Will at last attend to mail, faxes, E-mails, even cash a few cheques that have been lingering on the 'untouchable' drawing board. MAIB pieces will continue for the foreseeable future. And of course just about all of his plans will remain available from this same address. Phil had been eager and gratified to see arrive and put to early use a range of new office-equipment to accelerate progress on books, catalogue etc.
For now only one quick note on 'clip-on leeboard(s)' Interesting perspectives on 'Zephyr'. Phil was all too eager to study other cultures and their contributions to the global body of knowledge on boat-design including Spanish and Far-Eastern. Last winter he drew a little isometric of his first sailboat he got around 7 years of age, a catboat, and it had a single clip-on leeboard to starboard.
Again thanks for all your support.
Susanne Altenburger, PB&F
Thank you for your many kind missives in every medium. I hope to attempt to respond to them individually... This loss was most certainly not just mine. So many of you shared with me how Phil entered your head and heart and to what effect. The collection of stories on this direct connection is growing. If you have any more such perspectives let me know. I should have more to say later.
I am gradually getting back into 'life'... Heeded advice I just rested and grieved in various predictable and unpredictable waves and spasms. I drew/draw on much personal and phone-support from friends and family near and far, and am very slowly getting oriented in this much altered life. But I am surrounded by him, his work and our work. Much to tend to. But only very carefully dosed. Will at last attend to mail, faxes, E-mails, even cash a few cheques that have been lingering on the 'untouchable' drawing board. MAIB pieces will continue for the foreseeable future. And of course just about all of his plans will remain available from this same address. Phil had been eager and gratified to see arrive and put to early use a range of new office-equipment to accelerate progress on books, catalogue etc.
For now only one quick note on 'clip-on leeboard(s)' Interesting perspectives on 'Zephyr'. Phil was all too eager to study other cultures and their contributions to the global body of knowledge on boat-design including Spanish and Far-Eastern. Last winter he drew a little isometric of his first sailboat he got around 7 years of age, a catboat, and it had a single clip-on leeboard to starboard.
Again thanks for all your support.
Susanne Altenburger, PB&F
----- Original Message -----From:graeme19121984Sent:Tuesday, July 07, 2009 8:52 PMSubject:[bolger] Re: Spanish Spur Linked to Zephyr #316
Hi Gary,
pardon my excitement - the possibility of gaining just a glimmer of further insight into PCB's thinking, influences, design ethic, and design evolution does that to me. I may have it wrong here - though things do seem to me to fit fairly well...
Hey, Graeme:
I should have been clear in that earlier message, where I meant too high from a windage point of view, not rowing geometry. I always found the Zephyr physically comfortable to row, just not a great performer and a problem in a beam wind. Possibly my homemade oars played a part in that; I'd like to use the pair I have now, made from a discarded double paddle, for comparison . . .
You might be right about the source of the clip-on leeboard, Bolger was adaptive about things like that and a great many other details. I actually used upper and lower slotted guards, so the depth of the board could be adjusted to match the shallow waters I usually sail in. It would, thanks to the skids on the bottom, sail somewhat to windward with no board, although it made noticeable leeway. Still, came in handy now and then.
I do think the boat is much more attractive "in the flesh" than in drawings or pictures, but I'm a sucker for long, lean boats.
The design was probably aimed at as much functionality as possible, at least it seems to me. Straight cuts in the ply made for easily assemble sides. (The artistry is getting the stem and stern rake exactly right.) 3/8 inch ply because people might think 1/4 inch was flimsy on a boat of this length. The lateen sail (81 sq. ft.) both to give a little more sail area than the standard 59 sq. ft. instant boat rig and to keep the center of effort low (and compensate for the extra weight). It also allows for easy reefing. It may have also been a marketing ploy; a lot of people were familiar with lateens because of Sunfish and hence it wouldn't seem threatening.
I've always been amused because Bolger was adamant that dories did not make good sailboats and I think this was his more dorylike design. But the bottom is wider and the flare of the sides less than a true dory.
Gary
I should have been clear in that earlier message, where I meant too high from a windage point of view, not rowing geometry. I always found the Zephyr physically comfortable to row, just not a great performer and a problem in a beam wind. Possibly my homemade oars played a part in that; I'd like to use the pair I have now, made from a discarded double paddle, for comparison . . .
You might be right about the source of the clip-on leeboard, Bolger was adaptive about things like that and a great many other details. I actually used upper and lower slotted guards, so the depth of the board could be adjusted to match the shallow waters I usually sail in. It would, thanks to the skids on the bottom, sail somewhat to windward with no board, although it made noticeable leeway. Still, came in handy now and then.
I do think the boat is much more attractive "in the flesh" than in drawings or pictures, but I'm a sucker for long, lean boats.
The design was probably aimed at as much functionality as possible, at least it seems to me. Straight cuts in the ply made for easily assemble sides. (The artistry is getting the stem and stern rake exactly right.) 3/8 inch ply because people might think 1/4 inch was flimsy on a boat of this length. The lateen sail (81 sq. ft.) both to give a little more sail area than the standard 59 sq. ft. instant boat rig and to keep the center of effort low (and compensate for the extra weight). It also allows for easy reefing. It may have also been a marketing ploy; a lot of people were familiar with lateens because of Sunfish and hence it wouldn't seem threatening.
I've always been amused because Bolger was adamant that dories did not make good sailboats and I think this was his more dorylike design. But the bottom is wider and the flare of the sides less than a true dory.
Gary
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Gary,
>
> pardon my excitement - the possibility of gaining just a glimmer of further insight into PCB's thinking, influences, design ethic, and design evolution does that to me. I may have it wrong here - though things do seem to me to fit fairly well.
>
> Mate, you're _the_ main source of info about Zephyr (it must be said also along with some valuable snippets from Dynamite, Lance, Hannes and others), so, not to be smart-assed, your comment re Zephyr "it doesn't row very well, possibly because the 16-inch sides are too high. (I had one for many years, and was very fond of it.)" at
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/message/44341
> stuck with me. This salient attribution added to what I see somewhat as the phenomenal puzzle of Zephyr, indeed to that of PCB himself. Other designs are/were prettified, were "adjusted" toward serving some function or other, but as I saw it not the Zephyr. Zephyr was just out there - a bit too boxy?... the rig? (Z aint any Ruskin canoe either)... &etc? When I saw Ben's article on the Pontona earlier this year "boat-that-split-in-two" I had some vague feeling of seeing something familiar. Last week many thoughts concerning Zephyr just gelled together - including the afterbody of, and Gavin Atkin's articles on the Trows (of similar English usage as that of the Pontonas - Ben's Onawind Blue is of Gavin's light trow design, and couldn't Zephyr microcruise similarly?). There were your comments in your PCB eulogy at duckworks - and, finally, sticking that trailer photo on my desk top!
>
> Further to Zephyr rowing qualities - and what you found, and what Ben says about the Pontonas:
>
> *Ben mentions variations existed on the Pontona theme, presumably/possibly the longer workboats had higher sides - Ben shows examples that are in the smaller range (except for the related up-river, modern, racing adapted Muleta)
>
> *They were regularly propelled by quant, so the high sides don't always inhibit muscle propulsion applied by oars.
>
> *The Pontonas have a large shelf accross the aft gunnels for work use and gear storage under. This restricts an aft facing rower's legs.
>
> *Ben mentions they were rowed facing forwards. Not the fastest orientation, but useful in a work boat - possibly rowed this way crouching/standing, so again high sides don't inhibit.
>
> *It's likely that, propelled as above, the placement of the rowers weight is over the hull centre of bouyancy of the Pontona. If the rower faced forwards in Zephyr their weight would be over the centre too - more or less. I know the ditty seat as shown on the Zephyr plans is situated forward of the oarlocks for an aft facing rower, but the seat location could be changed, could it not? Further, concerning the pleasures of boating, and rowing, PCB wrote that it was nice to have company aboard - which would be nicer if the seating positions faced each other. With such a pleasant prospect who is then particularly worried all the time about busting a gut to row fast?
>
> Now spurred on, I'd like to add some further ruminating speculations about the PCB Spanish sojourn... for now some things about the Pontona roots to some design directions taken later:
>
> *Where other did PCB develop such a strong affiliation with the clip-on leeboard as shown first I think in his later 1960's post-Spanish work? Ben tells us that Pontonas when sailed used them, rudely but singley. I know some early Nth American workboat types used a single leeboard, but as far as I know they were rope slung, or pinned... so possibly PCB was first exposed empirically to not just the brilliance of the clip-on leeboard, but also to the wider ramifications of the performance indifference of any sailboat to such assymetry?
>
> *Ben's article is entitled "boat-that-split-in-two"... Motors came along, and Pontonas were fitted to the chopped down stern. Bigger motors and drastic chopping followed. These altered Pontonas were found then to be alright power skiffs. Look again at the developments in the outboard powered examples shown by Ben. PCB was there when much more of these types were still around, and still in use. Now, look again on Bolger's "Sea Hawk Dory Skiff" #247 (Small Boats, p160,http://www.instantboats.com/downeastdories/showdory.php?dory=seahawk). "Dory"? ...Would "Spur" sell as well as "Victoria"? ...Would "pontona" sell as well as "dory"?
>
> Are these possible small Pontona/Zephyr/Spanish instances in some small way a rosetta stone?
>
> Graeme
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "gbship" <gbship@> wrote:
> >
> > Whew. You said a lot.
> > Actually, it wasn't that Zephyr's sides were too high for rowing geometry, I think the rowing position was a little too far forward for good control, but if you rowed with someone along, that's where the oars had to be. The sides were a little too high from the windage point of view; in a beam wind sometimes I had to row with one oar to go straight. I suspect this would be less of a problem on a shorter boat with the same hull height just because there would be less hull. At 20 feet, Zephyr is a pretty long boat. I think the height of the sides were established for the maximum use of 4 x 8 sheets of ply; that dictated the 16 inch height. I'd be worried about shipping water under sail if they were much lower.
> >
> > I'm no expert but I think the indifferent rowing came from too much wetted surface, which includes a 1.5 x 1.5 inch "keel" down the middle and .75 x 1.5 inch strakes on either side for further stiffening of the bottom and abrasion resistance. The rocker of the bottom may have had something to do with it, but we're getting beyond my expertise (if that's the right word for it :-))
> >
> > I think Bolger knew that Zephyr wouldn't be a sterling rower, but it was designed primarily as a sailboat, and at that she is superb. She gives good performance with a minimum investment of time and money, and can accommodate 4 adults without serious crowding.
> >
> > FWIW, we actually discussed Zephyr during my visit last October. I was opining that Zephyr would be capable of an Everglades Challenge with some minor mods: making the leeboard pivoting, making the sealed end compartments accessible with deckplates for storage and floatation, and extending the deck back to the mast partners for cockpit storage that would be protected from spray. Both Phil and Susanne thought the boat capable of such a trip, in fact Susanne said she thought a birdwatcher cabin would be appropriate!
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@> wrote:
> > >
> > > PCB went to some trouble to get the functional and attractive sheer on Surf #287 (& others). Not on Zephyr. Harold "Dynamite" Payson kinda suggests she's a longer Surf, and easier to build with her side planking cut straight edged. Gary Blankenship, who built and used a Zephyr for years, said she's indifferent under oars. As I recollect Gary mentioned a few years ago that the rowing geometry was not quite right, that the gunnels were too high.
> > >
> > > I've wondered about that - PCB rowed by choice - impossible he would not be aware of the situation, so why'd he not trim a little off the topsides to gain the better geometry? I thought it likely he had deliberately opted for the building ease over some cost to the rowing/looks. And there was Dynamite's commentary.
> > >
> > > Still, it bothered me. PCB was a rower, and the design dated from a time before his transition to unashamedly accepting logical outcomes imposd by the medium as suggested by Le Corbusier's "machine for living" concept. At the time PCB drew and said things like: for Cold-Water Sailboard #301, "I usually do use some flare and rake for the same reason I gave this one some sheer: I couldn't stand the looks of the functionally correct sheer which would be dead straight and level", or concerning Triple-Keel Sloop #328, that he was permanently cognizant of Colin Mudie's remarks about proper sheer. Surely, wouldn't there be more Zephyrs about if they functioned and 'looked' better, and couldn't that have been accomplished so easily?
> > >
> > > Well, I think it's down to a certain integrity in the complex practice of PCB's striving for simplification. I think Zephyr isn't a longer Surf. Surf, or as Payson calls her "Crab Skiff", is just that, a design drawn from the Nth American crab skiffs. I now strongly think Zephyr must be derived from the Catalan `pontona', a type PCB would have encountered during his Spanish period, perhaps even whilst out for a row on the Spur of the moment.
> > >
> > > I think this short article by Ben at "The Invisible Workshop"
> > >
> > >http://theinvisibleworkshop.blogspot.com/2009/01/boat-that-split-in-two_08.html
> > >
> > > grants quite a degree of insight into the Zephyr design origin, the designer, integrity of purpose, and much else: like, oh, why did PCB specify 3/8" plywood when he's longer, bigger boats in 1/4"? And could it go longer for speed like the "muleta"? (you beauty!)
> > >
> > > Of course PCB once or twice said that Zephyr is a cheap sort of Wisp #411. Other than being closely sized to sleep two head-to-toe I see nought of the Catalan workboat in Wisp, much more of the Nordic. What do you think?
> > >
> > > Graeme
>
Hi Gary,
pardon my excitement - the possibility of gaining just a glimmer of further insight into PCB's thinking, influences, design ethic, and design evolution does that to me. I may have it wrong here - though things do seem to me to fit fairly well.
Mate, you're _the_ main source of info about Zephyr (it must be said also along with some valuable snippets from Dynamite, Lance, Hannes and others), so, not to be smart-assed, your comment re Zephyr "it doesn't row very well, possibly because the 16-inch sides are too high. (I had one for many years, and was very fond of it.)" at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/message/44341
stuck with me. This salient attribution added to what I see somewhat as the phenomenal puzzle of Zephyr, indeed to that of PCB himself. Other designs are/were prettified, were "adjusted" toward serving some function or other, but as I saw it not the Zephyr. Zephyr was just out there - a bit too boxy?... the rig? (Z aint any Ruskin canoe either)... &etc? When I saw Ben's article on the Pontona earlier this year "boat-that-split-in-two" I had some vague feeling of seeing something familiar. Last week many thoughts concerning Zephyr just gelled together - including the afterbody of, and Gavin Atkin's articles on the Trows (of similar English usage as that of the Pontonas - Ben's Onawind Blue is of Gavin's light trow design, and couldn't Zephyr microcruise similarly?). There were your comments in your PCB eulogy at duckworks - and, finally, sticking that trailer photo on my desk top!
Further to Zephyr rowing qualities - and what you found, and what Ben says about the Pontonas:
*Ben mentions variations existed on the Pontona theme, presumably/possibly the longer workboats had higher sides - Ben shows examples that are in the smaller range (except for the related up-river, modern, racing adapted Muleta)
*They were regularly propelled by quant, so the high sides don't always inhibit muscle propulsion applied by oars.
*The Pontonas have a large shelf accross the aft gunnels for work use and gear storage under. This restricts an aft facing rower's legs.
*Ben mentions they were rowed facing forwards. Not the fastest orientation, but useful in a work boat - possibly rowed this way crouching/standing, so again high sides don't inhibit.
*It's likely that, propelled as above, the placement of the rowers weight is over the hull centre of bouyancy of the Pontona. If the rower faced forwards in Zephyr their weight would be over the centre too - more or less. I know the ditty seat as shown on the Zephyr plans is situated forward of the oarlocks for an aft facing rower, but the seat location could be changed, could it not? Further, concerning the pleasures of boating, and rowing, PCB wrote that it was nice to have company aboard - which would be nicer if the seating positions faced each other. With such a pleasant prospect who is then particularly worried all the time about busting a gut to row fast?
Now spurred on, I'd like to add some further ruminating speculations about the PCB Spanish sojourn... for now some things about the Pontona roots to some design directions taken later:
*Where other did PCB develop such a strong affiliation with the clip-on leeboard as shown first I think in his later 1960's post-Spanish work? Ben tells us that Pontonas when sailed used them, rudely but singley. I know some early Nth American workboat types used a single leeboard, but as far as I know they were rope slung, or pinned... so possibly PCB was first exposed empirically to not just the brilliance of the clip-on leeboard, but also to the wider ramifications of the performance indifference of any sailboat to such assymetry?
*Ben's article is entitled "boat-that-split-in-two"... Motors came along, and Pontonas were fitted to the chopped down stern. Bigger motors and drastic chopping followed. These altered Pontonas were found then to be alright power skiffs. Look again at the developments in the outboard powered examples shown by Ben. PCB was there when much more of these types were still around, and still in use. Now, look again on Bolger's "Sea Hawk Dory Skiff" #247 (Small Boats, p160,http://www.instantboats.com/downeastdories/showdory.php?dory=seahawk). "Dory"? ...Would "Spur" sell as well as "Victoria"? ...Would "pontona" sell as well as "dory"?
Are these possible small Pontona/Zephyr/Spanish instances in some small way a rosetta stone?
Graeme
pardon my excitement - the possibility of gaining just a glimmer of further insight into PCB's thinking, influences, design ethic, and design evolution does that to me. I may have it wrong here - though things do seem to me to fit fairly well.
Mate, you're _the_ main source of info about Zephyr (it must be said also along with some valuable snippets from Dynamite, Lance, Hannes and others), so, not to be smart-assed, your comment re Zephyr "it doesn't row very well, possibly because the 16-inch sides are too high. (I had one for many years, and was very fond of it.)" at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/message/44341
stuck with me. This salient attribution added to what I see somewhat as the phenomenal puzzle of Zephyr, indeed to that of PCB himself. Other designs are/were prettified, were "adjusted" toward serving some function or other, but as I saw it not the Zephyr. Zephyr was just out there - a bit too boxy?... the rig? (Z aint any Ruskin canoe either)... &etc? When I saw Ben's article on the Pontona earlier this year "boat-that-split-in-two" I had some vague feeling of seeing something familiar. Last week many thoughts concerning Zephyr just gelled together - including the afterbody of, and Gavin Atkin's articles on the Trows (of similar English usage as that of the Pontonas - Ben's Onawind Blue is of Gavin's light trow design, and couldn't Zephyr microcruise similarly?). There were your comments in your PCB eulogy at duckworks - and, finally, sticking that trailer photo on my desk top!
Further to Zephyr rowing qualities - and what you found, and what Ben says about the Pontonas:
*Ben mentions variations existed on the Pontona theme, presumably/possibly the longer workboats had higher sides - Ben shows examples that are in the smaller range (except for the related up-river, modern, racing adapted Muleta)
*They were regularly propelled by quant, so the high sides don't always inhibit muscle propulsion applied by oars.
*The Pontonas have a large shelf accross the aft gunnels for work use and gear storage under. This restricts an aft facing rower's legs.
*Ben mentions they were rowed facing forwards. Not the fastest orientation, but useful in a work boat - possibly rowed this way crouching/standing, so again high sides don't inhibit.
*It's likely that, propelled as above, the placement of the rowers weight is over the hull centre of bouyancy of the Pontona. If the rower faced forwards in Zephyr their weight would be over the centre too - more or less. I know the ditty seat as shown on the Zephyr plans is situated forward of the oarlocks for an aft facing rower, but the seat location could be changed, could it not? Further, concerning the pleasures of boating, and rowing, PCB wrote that it was nice to have company aboard - which would be nicer if the seating positions faced each other. With such a pleasant prospect who is then particularly worried all the time about busting a gut to row fast?
Now spurred on, I'd like to add some further ruminating speculations about the PCB Spanish sojourn... for now some things about the Pontona roots to some design directions taken later:
*Where other did PCB develop such a strong affiliation with the clip-on leeboard as shown first I think in his later 1960's post-Spanish work? Ben tells us that Pontonas when sailed used them, rudely but singley. I know some early Nth American workboat types used a single leeboard, but as far as I know they were rope slung, or pinned... so possibly PCB was first exposed empirically to not just the brilliance of the clip-on leeboard, but also to the wider ramifications of the performance indifference of any sailboat to such assymetry?
*Ben's article is entitled "boat-that-split-in-two"... Motors came along, and Pontonas were fitted to the chopped down stern. Bigger motors and drastic chopping followed. These altered Pontonas were found then to be alright power skiffs. Look again at the developments in the outboard powered examples shown by Ben. PCB was there when much more of these types were still around, and still in use. Now, look again on Bolger's "Sea Hawk Dory Skiff" #247 (Small Boats, p160,http://www.instantboats.com/downeastdories/showdory.php?dory=seahawk). "Dory"? ...Would "Spur" sell as well as "Victoria"? ...Would "pontona" sell as well as "dory"?
Are these possible small Pontona/Zephyr/Spanish instances in some small way a rosetta stone?
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "gbship" <gbship@...> wrote:
>
> Whew. You said a lot.
> Actually, it wasn't that Zephyr's sides were too high for rowing geometry, I think the rowing position was a little too far forward for good control, but if you rowed with someone along, that's where the oars had to be. The sides were a little too high from the windage point of view; in a beam wind sometimes I had to row with one oar to go straight. I suspect this would be less of a problem on a shorter boat with the same hull height just because there would be less hull. At 20 feet, Zephyr is a pretty long boat. I think the height of the sides were established for the maximum use of 4 x 8 sheets of ply; that dictated the 16 inch height. I'd be worried about shipping water under sail if they were much lower.
>
> I'm no expert but I think the indifferent rowing came from too much wetted surface, which includes a 1.5 x 1.5 inch "keel" down the middle and .75 x 1.5 inch strakes on either side for further stiffening of the bottom and abrasion resistance. The rocker of the bottom may have had something to do with it, but we're getting beyond my expertise (if that's the right word for it :-))
>
> I think Bolger knew that Zephyr wouldn't be a sterling rower, but it was designed primarily as a sailboat, and at that she is superb. She gives good performance with a minimum investment of time and money, and can accommodate 4 adults without serious crowding.
>
> FWIW, we actually discussed Zephyr during my visit last October. I was opining that Zephyr would be capable of an Everglades Challenge with some minor mods: making the leeboard pivoting, making the sealed end compartments accessible with deckplates for storage and floatation, and extending the deck back to the mast partners for cockpit storage that would be protected from spray. Both Phil and Susanne thought the boat capable of such a trip, in fact Susanne said she thought a birdwatcher cabin would be appropriate!
>
> Gary
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@> wrote:
> >
> > PCB went to some trouble to get the functional and attractive sheer on Surf #287 (& others). Not on Zephyr. Harold "Dynamite" Payson kinda suggests she's a longer Surf, and easier to build with her side planking cut straight edged. Gary Blankenship, who built and used a Zephyr for years, said she's indifferent under oars. As I recollect Gary mentioned a few years ago that the rowing geometry was not quite right, that the gunnels were too high.
> >
> > I've wondered about that - PCB rowed by choice - impossible he would not be aware of the situation, so why'd he not trim a little off the topsides to gain the better geometry? I thought it likely he had deliberately opted for the building ease over some cost to the rowing/looks. And there was Dynamite's commentary.
> >
> > Still, it bothered me. PCB was a rower, and the design dated from a time before his transition to unashamedly accepting logical outcomes imposd by the medium as suggested by Le Corbusier's "machine for living" concept. At the time PCB drew and said things like: for Cold-Water Sailboard #301, "I usually do use some flare and rake for the same reason I gave this one some sheer: I couldn't stand the looks of the functionally correct sheer which would be dead straight and level", or concerning Triple-Keel Sloop #328, that he was permanently cognizant of Colin Mudie's remarks about proper sheer. Surely, wouldn't there be more Zephyrs about if they functioned and 'looked' better, and couldn't that have been accomplished so easily?
> >
> > Well, I think it's down to a certain integrity in the complex practice of PCB's striving for simplification. I think Zephyr isn't a longer Surf. Surf, or as Payson calls her "Crab Skiff", is just that, a design drawn from the Nth American crab skiffs. I now strongly think Zephyr must be derived from the Catalan `pontona', a type PCB would have encountered during his Spanish period, perhaps even whilst out for a row on the Spur of the moment.
> >
> > I think this short article by Ben at "The Invisible Workshop"
> >
> >http://theinvisibleworkshop.blogspot.com/2009/01/boat-that-split-in-two_08.html
> >
> > grants quite a degree of insight into the Zephyr design origin, the designer, integrity of purpose, and much else: like, oh, why did PCB specify 3/8" plywood when he's longer, bigger boats in 1/4"? And could it go longer for speed like the "muleta"? (you beauty!)
> >
> > Of course PCB once or twice said that Zephyr is a cheap sort of Wisp #411. Other than being closely sized to sleep two head-to-toe I see nought of the Catalan workboat in Wisp, much more of the Nordic. What do you think?
> >
> > Graeme
Hi Gary,
pardon my excitement - the possibility of gaining just a glimmer of further insight into PCB's thinking, influences, design ethic, and design evolution does that to me. I may have it wrong here - though things do seem to me to fit fairly well.
Mate, you're _the_ main source of info about Zephyr (it must be said also along with some valuable snippets from Dynamite, Lance, Hannes and others), so, not to be smart-assed, your comment re Zephyr "it doesn't row very well, possibly because the 16-inch sides are too high. (I had one for many years, and was very fond of it.)" at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/message/44341
stuck with me. This salient attribution added to what I see somewhat as the phenomenal puzzle of Zephyr, indeed to that of PCB himself. Other designs are/were prettified, were "adjusted" toward serving some function or other, but as I saw it not the Zephyr. Zephyr was just out there - a bit too boxy?... the rig? (Z aint any Ruskin canoe either)... &etc? When I saw Ben's article on the Pontona earlier this year "boat-that-split-in-two" I had some vague feeling of seeing something familiar. Last week many thoughts concerning Zephyr just gelled together - including the afterbody of, and Gavin Atkin's articles on the Trows (of similar English usage as that of the Pontonas - Ben's Onawind Blue is of Gavin's light trow design, and couldn't Zephyr microcruise similarly?). There were your comments in your PCB eulogy at duckworks - and, finally, sticking that trailer photo on my desk top!
Further to Zephyr rowing qualities - and what you found, and what Ben says about the Pontonas:
*Ben mentions variations existed on the Pontona theme, presumably/possibly the longer workboats had higher sides - Ben shows examples that are in the smaller range (except for the related up-river, modern, racing adapted Muleta)
*They were regularly propelled by quant, so the high sides don't always inhibit muscle propulsion applied by oars.
*The Pontonas have a large shelf accross the aft gunnels for work use and gear storage under. This restricts an aft facing rower's legs.
*Ben mentions they were rowed facing forwards. Not the fastest orientation, but useful in a work boat - possibly rowed this way crouching/standing, so again high sides don't inhibit.
*It's likely that, propelled as above, the placement of the rowers weight is over the hull centre of bouyancy of the Pontona. If the rower faced forwards in Zephyr their weight would be over the centre too - more or less. I know the ditty seat as shown on the Zephyr plans is situated forward of the oarlocks for an aft facing rower, but the seat location could be changed, could it not? Further, concerning the pleasures of boating, and rowing, PCB wrote that it was nice to have company aboard - which would be nicer if the seating positions faced each other. With such a pleasant prospect who is then particularly worried all the time about busting a gut to row fast?
Now spurred on, I'd like to add some further ruminating speculations about the PCB Spanish sojourn... for now some things about the Pontona roots to some design directions taken later:
*Where other did PCB develop such a strong affiliation with the clip-on leeboard as shown first I think in his later 1960's post-Spanish work? Ben tells us that Pontonas when sailed used them, rudely but singley. I know some early Nth American workboat types used a single leeboard, but as far as I know they were rope slung, or pinned... so possibly PCB was first exposed empirically to not just the brilliance of the clip-on leeboard, but also to the wider ramifications of the performance indifference of any sailboat to such assymetry?
*Ben's article is entitled "boat-that-split-in-two"... Motors came along, and Pontonas were fitted to the chopped down stern. Bigger motors and drastic chopping followed. These altered Pontonas were found then to be alright power skiffs. Look again at the developments in the outboard powered examples shown by Ben. PCB was there when much more of these types were still around, and still in use. Now, look again on Bolger's "Sea Hawk Dory Skiff" #247 (Small Boats, p160,http://www.instantboats.com/downeastdories/showdory.php?dory=seahawk). "Dory"? ...Would "Spur" sell as well as "Victoria"? ...Would "pontona" sell as well as "dory"?
Are these possible small Pontona/Zephyr/Spanish instances in some small way a rosetta stone?
Graeme
pardon my excitement - the possibility of gaining just a glimmer of further insight into PCB's thinking, influences, design ethic, and design evolution does that to me. I may have it wrong here - though things do seem to me to fit fairly well.
Mate, you're _the_ main source of info about Zephyr (it must be said also along with some valuable snippets from Dynamite, Lance, Hannes and others), so, not to be smart-assed, your comment re Zephyr "it doesn't row very well, possibly because the 16-inch sides are too high. (I had one for many years, and was very fond of it.)" at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/message/44341
stuck with me. This salient attribution added to what I see somewhat as the phenomenal puzzle of Zephyr, indeed to that of PCB himself. Other designs are/were prettified, were "adjusted" toward serving some function or other, but as I saw it not the Zephyr. Zephyr was just out there - a bit too boxy?... the rig? (Z aint any Ruskin canoe either)... &etc? When I saw Ben's article on the Pontona earlier this year "boat-that-split-in-two" I had some vague feeling of seeing something familiar. Last week many thoughts concerning Zephyr just gelled together - including the afterbody of, and Gavin Atkin's articles on the Trows (of similar English usage as that of the Pontonas - Ben's Onawind Blue is of Gavin's light trow design, and couldn't Zephyr microcruise similarly?). There were your comments in your PCB eulogy at duckworks - and, finally, sticking that trailer photo on my desk top!
Further to Zephyr rowing qualities - and what you found, and what Ben says about the Pontonas:
*Ben mentions variations existed on the Pontona theme, presumably/possibly the longer workboats had higher sides - Ben shows examples that are in the smaller range (except for the related up-river, modern, racing adapted Muleta)
*They were regularly propelled by quant, so the high sides don't always inhibit muscle propulsion applied by oars.
*The Pontonas have a large shelf accross the aft gunnels for work use and gear storage under. This restricts an aft facing rower's legs.
*Ben mentions they were rowed facing forwards. Not the fastest orientation, but useful in a work boat - possibly rowed this way crouching/standing, so again high sides don't inhibit.
*It's likely that, propelled as above, the placement of the rowers weight is over the hull centre of bouyancy of the Pontona. If the rower faced forwards in Zephyr their weight would be over the centre too - more or less. I know the ditty seat as shown on the Zephyr plans is situated forward of the oarlocks for an aft facing rower, but the seat location could be changed, could it not? Further, concerning the pleasures of boating, and rowing, PCB wrote that it was nice to have company aboard - which would be nicer if the seating positions faced each other. With such a pleasant prospect who is then particularly worried all the time about busting a gut to row fast?
Now spurred on, I'd like to add some further ruminating speculations about the PCB Spanish sojourn... for now some things about the Pontona roots to some design directions taken later:
*Where other did PCB develop such a strong affiliation with the clip-on leeboard as shown first I think in his later 1960's post-Spanish work? Ben tells us that Pontonas when sailed used them, rudely but singley. I know some early Nth American workboat types used a single leeboard, but as far as I know they were rope slung, or pinned... so possibly PCB was first exposed empirically to not just the brilliance of the clip-on leeboard, but also to the wider ramifications of the performance indifference of any sailboat to such assymetry?
*Ben's article is entitled "boat-that-split-in-two"... Motors came along, and Pontonas were fitted to the chopped down stern. Bigger motors and drastic chopping followed. These altered Pontonas were found then to be alright power skiffs. Look again at the developments in the outboard powered examples shown by Ben. PCB was there when much more of these types were still around, and still in use. Now, look again on Bolger's "Sea Hawk Dory Skiff" #247 (Small Boats, p160,http://www.instantboats.com/downeastdories/showdory.php?dory=seahawk). "Dory"? ...Would "Spur" sell as well as "Victoria"? ...Would "pontona" sell as well as "dory"?
Are these possible small Pontona/Zephyr/Spanish instances in some small way a rosetta stone?
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "gbship" <gbship@...> wrote:
>
> Whew. You said a lot.
> Actually, it wasn't that Zephyr's sides were too high for rowing geometry, I think the rowing position was a little too far forward for good control, but if you rowed with someone along, that's where the oars had to be. The sides were a little too high from the windage point of view; in a beam wind sometimes I had to row with one oar to go straight. I suspect this would be less of a problem on a shorter boat with the same hull height just because there would be less hull. At 20 feet, Zephyr is a pretty long boat. I think the height of the sides were established for the maximum use of 4 x 8 sheets of ply; that dictated the 16 inch height. I'd be worried about shipping water under sail if they were much lower.
>
> I'm no expert but I think the indifferent rowing came from too much wetted surface, which includes a 1.5 x 1.5 inch "keel" down the middle and .75 x 1.5 inch strakes on either side for further stiffening of the bottom and abrasion resistance. The rocker of the bottom may have had something to do with it, but we're getting beyond my expertise (if that's the right word for it :-))
>
> I think Bolger knew that Zephyr wouldn't be a sterling rower, but it was designed primarily as a sailboat, and at that she is superb. She gives good performance with a minimum investment of time and money, and can accommodate 4 adults without serious crowding.
>
> FWIW, we actually discussed Zephyr during my visit last October. I was opining that Zephyr would be capable of an Everglades Challenge with some minor mods: making the leeboard pivoting, making the sealed end compartments accessible with deckplates for storage and floatation, and extending the deck back to the mast partners for cockpit storage that would be protected from spray. Both Phil and Susanne thought the boat capable of such a trip, in fact Susanne said she thought a birdwatcher cabin would be appropriate!
>
> Gary
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@> wrote:
> >
> > PCB went to some trouble to get the functional and attractive sheer on Surf #287 (& others). Not on Zephyr. Harold "Dynamite" Payson kinda suggests she's a longer Surf, and easier to build with her side planking cut straight edged. Gary Blankenship, who built and used a Zephyr for years, said she's indifferent under oars. As I recollect Gary mentioned a few years ago that the rowing geometry was not quite right, that the gunnels were too high.
> >
> > I've wondered about that - PCB rowed by choice - impossible he would not be aware of the situation, so why'd he not trim a little off the topsides to gain the better geometry? I thought it likely he had deliberately opted for the building ease over some cost to the rowing/looks. And there was Dynamite's commentary.
> >
> > Still, it bothered me. PCB was a rower, and the design dated from a time before his transition to unashamedly accepting logical outcomes imposd by the medium as suggested by Le Corbusier's "machine for living" concept. At the time PCB drew and said things like: for Cold-Water Sailboard #301, "I usually do use some flare and rake for the same reason I gave this one some sheer: I couldn't stand the looks of the functionally correct sheer which would be dead straight and level", or concerning Triple-Keel Sloop #328, that he was permanently cognizant of Colin Mudie's remarks about proper sheer. Surely, wouldn't there be more Zephyrs about if they functioned and 'looked' better, and couldn't that have been accomplished so easily?
> >
> > Well, I think it's down to a certain integrity in the complex practice of PCB's striving for simplification. I think Zephyr isn't a longer Surf. Surf, or as Payson calls her "Crab Skiff", is just that, a design drawn from the Nth American crab skiffs. I now strongly think Zephyr must be derived from the Catalan `pontona', a type PCB would have encountered during his Spanish period, perhaps even whilst out for a row on the Spur of the moment.
> >
> > I think this short article by Ben at "The Invisible Workshop"
> >
> >http://theinvisibleworkshop.blogspot.com/2009/01/boat-that-split-in-two_08.html
> >
> > grants quite a degree of insight into the Zephyr design origin, the designer, integrity of purpose, and much else: like, oh, why did PCB specify 3/8" plywood when he's longer, bigger boats in 1/4"? And could it go longer for speed like the "muleta"? (you beauty!)
> >
> > Of course PCB once or twice said that Zephyr is a cheap sort of Wisp #411. Other than being closely sized to sleep two head-to-toe I see nought of the Catalan workboat in Wisp, much more of the Nordic. What do you think?
> >
> > Graeme
Whew. You said a lot.
Actually, it wasn't that Zephyr's sides were too high for rowing geometry, I think the rowing position was a little too far forward for good control, but if you rowed with someone along, that's where the oars had to be. The sides were a little too high from the windage point of view; in a beam wind sometimes I had to row with one oar to go straight. I suspect this would be less of a problem on a shorter boat with the same hull height just because there would be less hull. At 20 feet, Zephyr is a pretty long boat. I think the height of the sides were established for the maximum use of 4 x 8 sheets of ply; that dictated the 16 inch height. I'd be worried about shipping water under sail if they were much lower.
I'm no expert but I think the indifferent rowing came from too much wetted surface, which includes a 1.5 x 1.5 inch "keel" down the middle and .75 x 1.5 inch strakes on either side for further stiffening of the bottom and abrasion resistance. The rocker of the bottom may have had something to do with it, but we're getting beyond my expertise (if that's the right word for it :-))
I think Bolger knew that Zephyr wouldn't be a sterling rower, but it was designed primarily as a sailboat, and at that she is superb. She gives good performance with a minimum investment of time and money, and can accommodate 4 adults without serious crowding.
FWIW, we actually discussed Zephyr during my visit last October. I was opining that Zephyr would be capable of an Everglades Challenge with some minor mods: making the leeboard pivoting, making the sealed end compartments accessible with deckplates for storage and floatation, and extending the deck back to the mast partners for cockpit storage that would be protected from spray. Both Phil and Susanne thought the boat capable of such a trip, in fact Susanne said she thought a birdwatcher cabin would be appropriate!
Gary
Actually, it wasn't that Zephyr's sides were too high for rowing geometry, I think the rowing position was a little too far forward for good control, but if you rowed with someone along, that's where the oars had to be. The sides were a little too high from the windage point of view; in a beam wind sometimes I had to row with one oar to go straight. I suspect this would be less of a problem on a shorter boat with the same hull height just because there would be less hull. At 20 feet, Zephyr is a pretty long boat. I think the height of the sides were established for the maximum use of 4 x 8 sheets of ply; that dictated the 16 inch height. I'd be worried about shipping water under sail if they were much lower.
I'm no expert but I think the indifferent rowing came from too much wetted surface, which includes a 1.5 x 1.5 inch "keel" down the middle and .75 x 1.5 inch strakes on either side for further stiffening of the bottom and abrasion resistance. The rocker of the bottom may have had something to do with it, but we're getting beyond my expertise (if that's the right word for it :-))
I think Bolger knew that Zephyr wouldn't be a sterling rower, but it was designed primarily as a sailboat, and at that she is superb. She gives good performance with a minimum investment of time and money, and can accommodate 4 adults without serious crowding.
FWIW, we actually discussed Zephyr during my visit last October. I was opining that Zephyr would be capable of an Everglades Challenge with some minor mods: making the leeboard pivoting, making the sealed end compartments accessible with deckplates for storage and floatation, and extending the deck back to the mast partners for cockpit storage that would be protected from spray. Both Phil and Susanne thought the boat capable of such a trip, in fact Susanne said she thought a birdwatcher cabin would be appropriate!
Gary
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...> wrote:
>
> PCB went to some trouble to get the functional and attractive sheer on Surf #287 (& others). Not on Zephyr. Harold "Dynamite" Payson kinda suggests she's a longer Surf, and easier to build with her side planking cut straight edged. Gary Blankenship, who built and used a Zephyr for years, said she's indifferent under oars. As I recollect Gary mentioned a few years ago that the rowing geometry was not quite right, that the gunnels were too high.
>
> I've wondered about that - PCB rowed by choice - impossible he would not be aware of the situation, so why'd he not trim a little off the topsides to gain the better geometry? I thought it likely he had deliberately opted for the building ease over some cost to the rowing/looks. And there was Dynamite's commentary.
>
> Still, it bothered me. PCB was a rower, and the design dated from a time before his transition to unashamedly accepting logical outcomes imposd by the medium as suggested by Le Corbusier's "machine for living" concept. At the time PCB drew and said things like: for Cold-Water Sailboard #301, "I usually do use some flare and rake for the same reason I gave this one some sheer: I couldn't stand the looks of the functionally correct sheer which would be dead straight and level", or concerning Triple-Keel Sloop #328, that he was permanently cognizant of Colin Mudie's remarks about proper sheer. Surely, wouldn't there be more Zephyrs about if they functioned and 'looked' better, and couldn't that have been accomplished so easily?
>
> Well, I think it's down to a certain integrity in the complex practice of PCB's striving for simplification. I think Zephyr isn't a longer Surf. Surf, or as Payson calls her "Crab Skiff", is just that, a design drawn from the Nth American crab skiffs. I now strongly think Zephyr must be derived from the Catalan `pontona', a type PCB would have encountered during his Spanish period, perhaps even whilst out for a row on the Spur of the moment.
>
> I think this short article by Ben at "The Invisible Workshop"
>
>http://theinvisibleworkshop.blogspot.com/2009/01/boat-that-split-in-two_08.html
>
> grants quite a degree of insight into the Zephyr design origin, the designer, integrity of purpose, and much else: like, oh, why did PCB specify 3/8" plywood when he's longer, bigger boats in 1/4"? And could it go longer for speed like the "muleta"? (you beauty!)
>
> Of course PCB once or twice said that Zephyr is a cheap sort of Wisp #411. Other than being closely sized to sleep two head-to-toe I see nought of the Catalan workboat in Wisp, much more of the Nordic. What do you think?
>
> Graeme
>
PCB went to some trouble to get the functional and attractive sheer on Surf #287 (& others). Not on Zephyr. Harold "Dynamite" Payson kinda suggests she's a longer Surf, and easier to build with her side planking cut straight edged. Gary Blankenship, who built and used a Zephyr for years, said she's indifferent under oars. As I recollect Gary mentioned a few years ago that the rowing geometry was not quite right, that the gunnels were too high.
I've wondered about that - PCB rowed by choice - impossible he would not be aware of the situation, so why'd he not trim a little off the topsides to gain the better geometry? I thought it likely he had deliberately opted for the building ease over some cost to the rowing/looks. And there was Dynamite's commentary.
Still, it bothered me. PCB was a rower, and the design dated from a time before his transition to unashamedly accepting logical outcomes imposd by the medium as suggested by Le Corbusier's "machine for living" concept. At the time PCB drew and said things like: for Cold-Water Sailboard #301, "I usually do use some flare and rake for the same reason I gave this one some sheer: I couldn't stand the looks of the functionally correct sheer which would be dead straight and level", or concerning Triple-Keel Sloop #328, that he was permanently cognizant of Colin Mudie's remarks about proper sheer. Surely, wouldn't there be more Zephyrs about if they functioned and 'looked' better, and couldn't that have been accomplished so easily?
Well, I think it's down to a certain integrity in the complex practice of PCB's striving for simplification. I think Zephyr isn't a longer Surf. Surf, or as Payson calls her "Crab Skiff", is just that, a design drawn from the Nth American crab skiffs. I now strongly think Zephyr must be derived from the Catalan `pontona', a type PCB would have encountered during his Spanish period, perhaps even whilst out for a row on the Spur of the moment.
I think this short article by Ben at "The Invisible Workshop"
http://theinvisibleworkshop.blogspot.com/2009/01/boat-that-split-in-two_08.html
grants quite a degree of insight into the Zephyr design origin, the designer, integrity of purpose, and much else: like, oh, why did PCB specify 3/8" plywood when he's longer, bigger boats in 1/4"? And could it go longer for speed like the "muleta"? (you beauty!)
Of course PCB once or twice said that Zephyr is a cheap sort of Wisp #411. Other than being closely sized to sleep two head-to-toe I see nought of the Catalan workboat in Wisp, much more of the Nordic. What do you think?
Graeme
I've wondered about that - PCB rowed by choice - impossible he would not be aware of the situation, so why'd he not trim a little off the topsides to gain the better geometry? I thought it likely he had deliberately opted for the building ease over some cost to the rowing/looks. And there was Dynamite's commentary.
Still, it bothered me. PCB was a rower, and the design dated from a time before his transition to unashamedly accepting logical outcomes imposd by the medium as suggested by Le Corbusier's "machine for living" concept. At the time PCB drew and said things like: for Cold-Water Sailboard #301, "I usually do use some flare and rake for the same reason I gave this one some sheer: I couldn't stand the looks of the functionally correct sheer which would be dead straight and level", or concerning Triple-Keel Sloop #328, that he was permanently cognizant of Colin Mudie's remarks about proper sheer. Surely, wouldn't there be more Zephyrs about if they functioned and 'looked' better, and couldn't that have been accomplished so easily?
Well, I think it's down to a certain integrity in the complex practice of PCB's striving for simplification. I think Zephyr isn't a longer Surf. Surf, or as Payson calls her "Crab Skiff", is just that, a design drawn from the Nth American crab skiffs. I now strongly think Zephyr must be derived from the Catalan `pontona', a type PCB would have encountered during his Spanish period, perhaps even whilst out for a row on the Spur of the moment.
I think this short article by Ben at "The Invisible Workshop"
http://theinvisibleworkshop.blogspot.com/2009/01/boat-that-split-in-two_08.html
grants quite a degree of insight into the Zephyr design origin, the designer, integrity of purpose, and much else: like, oh, why did PCB specify 3/8" plywood when he's longer, bigger boats in 1/4"? And could it go longer for speed like the "muleta"? (you beauty!)
Of course PCB once or twice said that Zephyr is a cheap sort of Wisp #411. Other than being closely sized to sleep two head-to-toe I see nought of the Catalan workboat in Wisp, much more of the Nordic. What do you think?
Graeme