Re: [bolger] Buying Plans from PB&F

----- Original Message -----

From:Jeffery Measamer

To:bolger@yahoogroups.com

Sent:Wednesday, July 07, 2010 9:43 PM

Subject:Re: [bolger] Buying Plans from PB&F

 

Thanks Sussane, I am currently taking a week off visiting relatives but will try to get a check mailed off as soon as I get back home next week. I am glad to hear you are starting to feel better, my dad went through the same thing when my mom passed several years ago, it takes a while but hang in there.   Regards, Jeff Measamer --- OnWed, 7/7/10, Susanne@comcast. net<philbolger@comcast. net>wrote: From: Susanne@comcast. net <philbolger@comcast. net> Subject: Re: [bolger] Buying Plans from PB&F To: bolger@yahoogroups. com Date: Wednesday, July 7, 2010, 4:32 PM   Better late than never ?? Jeff, I am in the process of tending to long undone correspondence and will offer you the info you requested ages ago.  Perhaps it is still useful to you: - Plans for Design #654 "BANTAM 16/20" on 8 sheet of 17"x22" format are available for US $200.- to build one boat, mailed in a tube, sent priority mail. - Plans for Design #606 "18-foot Clamskiff" on 5 sheets of 17"x22" format are available for US$125.- to same conditions. Progress of restructuring my life without Phil continues with periodic 'potholes' unpredictable but less in numbers. Thank you for your interest in our work. Susanne Altenburger    ----- Original Message ----- From:Jeffery Measamer To:bolger@yahoogroups. com Sent:Sunday, January 24, 2010 3:44 PM Subject:Re: [bolger] Buying Plans from PB&F   Suzanne, very sorry to bother you but I saw you had posted on the forum and wanted to inquire on the price for plans for Bantam (power Trimaran) and the Cabin Clam Skiff.   Thanks, Jeff Measamer Houston, TX --- OnThu, 1/21/10,Susanne@comcast. net<philbolger@comcast. net>wrote: From:Susanne@comcast. net<philbolger@comcast. net> Subject: [bolger] Buying Plans from PB&F To: bolger@yahoogroups. com Date: Thursday, January 21, 2010, 3:19 AM   A quick note from Gloucester, I am sleeping better, am busy in and around the house tending to matters much neglected over recent years - quite therapeutic - and continue to 'acclimate' to doing business without Phil.   Progress at last on a number of serious matters including sending out plans.  I've just sent a batch yesterday, including a set to Canada.  Tomorrow others will go out, with one set to the U.K.  The point is to let you all know that things are picking up here.  Much unanswered inquiries left to tackle though.  One day at a time. Susanne Altenburger Phil Bolger & Friends

From:Jeffery Measamer

To:bolger@yahoogroups.com

Sent:Sunday, January 24, 2010 3:44 PM

Subject:Re: [bolger] Buying Plans from PB&F

 

Suzanne, very sorry to bother you but I saw you had posted on the forum and wanted to inquire on the price for plans for Bantam (power Trimaran) and the Cabin Clam Skiff.   Thanks, Jeff Measamer Houston, TX --- OnThu, 1/21/10,Susanne@comcast. net<philbolger@comcast. net>wrote: From:Susanne@comcast. net<philbolger@comcast. net> Subject: [bolger] Buying Plans from PB&F To: bolger@yahoogroups. com Date: Thursday, January 21, 2010, 3:19 AM   A quick note from Gloucester, I am sleeping better, am busy in and around the house tending to matters much neglected over recent years - quite therapeutic - and continue to 'acclimate' to doing business without Phil.   Progress at last on a number of serious matters including sending out plans.  I've just sent a batch yesterday, including a set to Canada.  Tomorrow others will go out, with one set to the U.K.  The point is to let you all know that things are picking up here.  Much unanswered inquiries left to tackle though.  One day at a time. Susanne Altenburger Phil Bolger & Friends

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> This one (CSC = Coral Sea Cat??) would be a quick build alright, and a good coral coast liveaboard cruiser. The Tama Moana might be cheaper still per foot, relatively just as easy if longer in the building, last better, and also at home on the wide ocean? Again, not a triangle. Accomodations a little like the square Bolger Class IV Ostar?
>
> Graeme
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "proaconstrictor" <proaconstrictor@> wrote:
> >
> > I like it. I follow that site but missed this side of it. Thanks for pointing it out.
> >
> > Normally the big name designers seem to carry the chines a little higher on the stem. Personally I am opposed to separating the bridgedeck from the beams, one looses space, aero, and it adds weight. Much easier to build though.
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >http://www.thecoastalpassage.com.au/cheapcat.html
> > >
> > >http://www.thecoastalpassage.com.au/catplans.html
> > >
> > > 30fter built for $21k. $120 plans from a beer carton!
> > >
> > > Plywood, liquid nails, nail gun, rot proofing(?). Glass and vinylester underwater and topsides and most deck. Inside done in Wattel Epoxy timber treatment (paint?). 2nd hand rig. Should have a good coastal cruising range. Not sure how long it'd last, nor upkeep demands, but probably rates high in the PL premium world!
> > >
> > > Graeme
> > >
> >
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "proaconstrictor" <proaconstrictor@...> wrote:
>
> I like it. I follow that site but missed this side of it. Thanks for pointing it out.
>
> Normally the big name designers seem to carry the chines a little higher on the stem. Personally I am opposed to separating the bridgedeck from the beams, one looses space, aero, and it adds weight. Much easier to build though.
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >http://www.thecoastalpassage.com.au/cheapcat.html
> >
> >http://www.thecoastalpassage.com.au/catplans.html
> >
> > 30fter built for $21k. $120 plans from a beer carton!
> >
> > Plywood, liquid nails, nail gun, rot proofing(?). Glass and vinylester underwater and topsides and most deck. Inside done in Wattel Epoxy timber treatment (paint?). 2nd hand rig. Should have a good coastal cruising range. Not sure how long it'd last, nor upkeep demands, but probably rates high in the PL premium world!
> >
> > Graeme
> >
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>http://www.thecoastalpassage.com.au/cheapcat.html
>
>http://www.thecoastalpassage.com.au/catplans.html
>
> 30fter built for $21k. $120 plans from a beer carton!
>
> Plywood, liquid nails, nail gun, rot proofing(?). Glass and vinylester underwater and topsides and most deck. Inside done in Wattel Epoxy timber treatment (paint?). 2nd hand rig. Should have a good coastal cruising range. Not sure how long it'd last, nor upkeep demands, but probably rates high in the PL premium world!
>
> Graeme
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "proaconstrictor" <proaconstrictor@...> wrote:
> <snip> As may be, but Phil is also the master (thank goodness) of the Hail Mary pass in plywood. This thread all comes from my rejection of the idea his judgment is faultless in comparison with that of his peers. Let's face it, the main reason he is well known among weekend warriors compared to others is simply a mater of his focus, not whether his judgment was better or not. There are lots of very capable designers out there, we just don't deal with them in the plywood and PL premium world.<snip>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "eric14850" <eric14850@...> wrote:
>
> That was another hurricane. The eye of a hurricane passed over Romp. Mizzen sail blew away, but otherwise no damage or anxiety for the owner. Pg 386 Boats With an Open Mind. Also, Romp was designed to be engineless. I believe that engine was installed at a later date.
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "eric14850" <eric14850@> wrote:
> > >
> > > ROMP went through a hurricane unscathed. Read what Bolger says about nothing to dig in and trip the boat when the board is raised. That the chine is square instead of rounded is insignificant.
> >
> > Not quite relevant as Romp was well tied in at the Cardwell marina by her then new owner. She sustained much damage, but was insured and repaired. IIRC some of that major damage was to the engine etc and caused by lightning strike.
> >
> > Graeme
> >
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "sirdarnell" <sirdarnell@...> wrote:
>
> If we're not restricted to sailboats. Isn't the Civilian Aircraft Carrier the largest at 150 feet long?
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "sirdarnell" <sirdarnell@...> wrote:
>
> If we're not restricted to sailboats. Isn't the Civilian Aircraft Carrier the largest at 150 feet long?
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <hallman@...> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Susanne@...
> <philbolger@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > A quick note from Gloucester,
> > I am sleeping better, am busy in and around the house tending to matters much neglected over recent years - quite therapeutic - and continue to 'acclimate' to doing business without Phil.
>
>
> I am so happy to hear that you are starting to feel better Susanne.
> Speaking for myself, (and I bet this is echoed in the thoughts of many
> others), I am rooting for you and please ask if there are things you
> need help with. Bruce Hallman
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "daschultz2000" <daschultz8275@...> wrote:
>
> Could be that a Cabin Clam Skiff would do it for you. It has the simplicity of the flat-bottomed Tenn. and Idaho, along with an 18' overall length. Stretching a Diablo is much more of a design challenge, because of all the panels and the more complex shape. But an 18' CCS woulld be very easy to stretch to, say, 22', if you even felt you needed it. The CCS design was originally as a picnic boat. Several have been built. IMO it is an easy build, and one that is easy to over build, adding to much weight. So keep that in mind.
>
> Don
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, ANDREW AIREY <andyairey@...> wrote:
>
> The ultimate "box" with square chines has to be the Thames sailing barge as developed after about 1850.Typical dimensions 85'x19',up to 5000sq ft of sail,150-200 tons of cargo,all handled with a crew of 2 or 2 + a boy.Spritsail rigged in this size but larger ones were built with Gaff fig (boomie barges).Operational area anywhere around the coasts of Western Europe but traditionally English East Coast and Thames Estuary.Some boomies were sent out to Brazil for use there so the general design is capable of deep sea work.I understand PCB used the hull lines for 'Manatee'.Displaced many other types of sailing barges and coasters but ultimately had problems getting crews prepared to work on 'shares' when working in powered craft meant a reliable wage.Generally stable but have been the odd capsize when overdriven in racing conditions.
> cheers
> Andy Airey
>
> Send instant messages to your online friendshttp://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>

> I believe that the term "Sharpie" has nothing to
> do with a 'sharp' chine, but rather has to do with the length to
> breadth ratio.. Round chine Presto boats are also considered to be
> "sharpies".

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:43 AM, David<arbordg@...>wrote:

It's good to hear that you're progressing. I hope you continue to do well. Know that there are a lot of us out here rooting for your complete recovery and the continued evolution and growth of PB&F.

Cheers,
David G
Portland, OR

********************

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <hallman@...> wrote:

>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Susanne@...
> <philbolger@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > A quick note from Gloucester,
> > I am sleeping better, am busy in and around the house tending to matters much neglected over recent years - quite therapeutic - and continue to 'acclimate' to doing business without Phil.
>
>
> I am so happy to hear that you are starting to feel better Susanne.
> Speaking for myself, (and I bet this is echoed in the thoughts of many
> others), I am rooting for you and please ask if there are things you
> need help with. Bruce Hallman
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <hallman@...> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Susanne@...
> <philbolger@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > A quick note from Gloucester,
> > I am sleeping better, am busy in and around the house tending to matters much neglected over recent years - quite therapeutic - and continue to 'acclimate' to doing business without Phil.
>
>
> I am so happy to hear that you are starting to feel better Susanne.
> Speaking for myself, (and I bet this is echoed in the thoughts of many
> others), I am rooting for you and please ask if there are things you
> need help with. Bruce Hallman
>

>
>
>
> A quick note from Gloucester,
> I am sleeping better, am busy in and around the house tending to matters much neglected over recent years - quite therapeutic - and continue to 'acclimate' to doing business without Phil.

>
>
> Thnaks for the thoughts guys. I have been seriously considering
> Sneakeasy but my wife wants something with room for a portable head
> (who can understand women). I bought Bolgers Boats with an Open Mind
> and Paysons Instant Boats just because both have them have sections on
> Sneakeasy. I may try that route first though.
>
> Jeff
>
> --- On *Thu, 1/21/10, Harry James /<welshman@...>/* wrote:
>
>
> From: Harry James <welshman@...>
> Subject: Re: [bolger] Thank you
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, January 21, 2010, 4:10 AM
>
>
> If you are just looking for a day picnic boat for a lake then I
> highly
> recommend the Sneakeasy. Fast, good looking, very efficient, no wake
> easy to build. It is hard to praise this boat enough after you
> have been
> in one.
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Jeffery Measamer <measamerj@...> wrote:
>
> I just wanted to say thank you to all you guys. I just joined a few weeks ago and have been reading the posts with great interest, particularly the recent threads about glassing and application of the epoxy. I do a lot of woodworking, primarily Arts & Crafts furniture, but have never built a boat or done any fiberglassing.
>
> We are currently thinking about what to build. We are getting closer to retirement than I like to think about, and are considering building either a Tennessee or Idaho to use as a sort of picnic boat for Lake Livingston (TX). It seems a bit daunting to start with something so long though, so I keep thinking about the stretched Diablo for a start. We used to sail years ago (70's and 80's) in Norfolk and the finger lakes in upstate NY, and did a lot of offshore fishing and bay cruising in a 21' walk around cuddy production boat in Panama City FL until we moved to Houston in 1997.
>
> You won't see me post much as I can't add much to the conversations, but thanks for the education you are giving me.
>
> Regards,
> Jeff
>
> --- On Wed, 1/20/10, John Kohnen <jhkohnen@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: John Kohnen <jhkohnen@...>
> Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Largest "Bolger Box" how about triangle? Seaworthyness
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 11:48 PM
>
>
> Nat Herreshoff and Ralph Munroe were very good friends, and Captain Nat
> spent much time with the Commodore at Munroe's Florida home in the colder
> months up north.
>
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 08:39:25 -0800, Doug P wrote:
>
> > I think this whole square boat thing began with Commodore Monroe who
> > sailed from South Florida to the North eastern US states....
> > The premiere designer around
> > 1900 was likely Hershoff here in the US. where pleasure boats are
> > concerned. He was in it for the money so he designed for the very
> > wealthy and likely cared little for working people who wanted a boat.
> > Comadore Monroe was sailing sharpies up and down the coast and across
> > coral beds and he need shallow draft boats that could do both....
>
> --
> John (jkohnen@...)
> A facility for quotation covers the absence of original thought.
> (Lord Peter Wimsey)
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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
>

IIRC, Tennessee is a scaled-up Sneakeasy (I am 300 miles from my copy of Boats w/an Open Mind).  That being the case, it would be a reasonable dry run and give some idea of what to expect on the lake at lower cost.

V/R
Chris

Patrick Crockett wrote:

Jeff:

Give some thought to a Sneakeasy as a (somewhat) smaller first boat. 
Very pretty for a motor boat.

Patrick

Jeffery Measamer wrote:

I just wanted to say thank you to all you guys. I just joined a few 
weeks ago and have been reading the posts with great interest, 
particularly the recent threads about glassing and application of the 
epoxy. I do a lot of woodworking, primarily Arts & Crafts furniture, 
but have never built a boat or done any fiberglassing.
 
We are currently thinking about what to build. We are getting closer 
to retirement than I like to think about, and are considering building 
either a Tennessee or Idaho to use as a sort of picnic boat for Lake 
Livingston (TX). It seems a bit daunting to start with something so 
long though, so I keep thinking about the stretched Diablo for a 
start. We used to sail years ago (70's and 80's) in Norfolk and the 
finger lakes in upstate NY, and did a lot of offshore fishing and bay 
cruising in a 21' walk around cuddy production boat in Panama City FL 
until we moved to Houston in 1997.
 
You won't see me post much as I can't add much to the conversations, 
but thanks for the education you are giving me.
 
Regards,
Jeff

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Jeffery Measamer <measamerj@...> wrote:
>
> I just wanted to say thank you to all you guys. I just joined a few weeks ago and have been reading the posts with great interest, particularly the recent threads about glassing and application of the epoxy. I do a lot of woodworking, primarily Arts & Crafts furniture, but have never built a boat or done any fiberglassing.
>
> We are currently thinking about what to build. We are getting closer to retirement than I like to think about, and are considering building either a Tennessee or Idaho to use as a sort of picnic boat for Lake Livingston (TX). It seems a bit daunting to start with something so long though, so I keep thinking about the stretched Diablo for a start. We used to sail years ago (70's and 80's) in Norfolk and the finger lakes in upstate NY, and did a lot of offshore fishing and bay cruising in a 21' walk around cuddy production boat in Panama City FL until we moved to Houston in 1997.
>
> You won't see me post much as I can't add much to the conversations, but thanks for the education you are giving me.
>
> Regards,
> Jeff
>
> --- On Wed, 1/20/10, John Kohnen <jhkohnen@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: John Kohnen <jhkohnen@...>
> Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Largest "Bolger Box" how about triangle? Seaworthyness
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 11:48 PM
>
>
> Nat Herreshoff and Ralph Munroe were very good friends, and Captain Nat
> spent much time with the Commodore at Munroe's Florida home in the colder
> months up north.
>
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 08:39:25 -0800, Doug P wrote:
>
> > I think this whole square boat thing began with Commodore Monroe who
> > sailed from South Florida to the North eastern US states....
> > The premiere designer around
> > 1900 was likely Hershoff here in the US. where pleasure boats are
> > concerned. He was in it for the money so he designed for the very
> > wealthy and likely cared little for working people who wanted a boat.
> > Comadore Monroe was sailing sharpies up and down the coast and across
> > coral beds and he need shallow draft boats that could do both....
>
> --
> John (jkohnen@...)
> A facility for quotation covers the absence of original thought.
> (Lord Peter Wimsey)
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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
>

> Jeff:
>
> Give some thought to a Sneakeasy as a (somewhat) smaller first boat.
> Very pretty for a motor boat.
>
> Patrick
>
> Jeffery Measamer wrote:
>
>> I just wanted to say thank you to all you guys. I just joined a few
>> weeks ago and have been reading the posts with great interest,
>> particularly the recent threads about glassing and application of the
>> epoxy. I do a lot of woodworking, primarily Arts & Crafts furniture,
>> but have never built a boat or done any fiberglassing.
>>
>> We are currently thinking about what to build. We are getting closer
>> to retirement than I like to think about, and are considering building
>> either a Tennessee or Idaho to use as a sort of picnic boat for Lake
>> Livingston (TX). It seems a bit daunting to start with something so
>> long though, so I keep thinking about the stretched Diablo for a
>> start. We used to sail years ago (70's and 80's) in Norfolk and the
>> finger lakes in upstate NY, and did a lot of offshore fishing and bay
>> cruising in a 21' walk around cuddy production boat in Panama City FL
>> until we moved to Houston in 1997.
>>
>> You won't see me post much as I can't add much to the conversations,
>> but thanks for the education you are giving me.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>

Jeff:

Give some thought to a Sneakeasy as a (somewhat) smaller first boat. 
Very pretty for a motor boat.

Patrick

Jeffery Measamer wrote:

I just wanted to say thank you to all you guys. I just joined a few 
weeks ago and have been reading the posts with great interest, 
particularly the recent threads about glassing and application of the 
epoxy. I do a lot of woodworking, primarily Arts & Crafts furniture, 
but have never built a boat or done any fiberglassing.
 
We are currently thinking about what to build. We are getting closer 
to retirement than I like to think about, and are considering building 
either a Tennessee or Idaho to use as a sort of picnic boat for Lake 
Livingston (TX). It seems a bit daunting to start with something so 
long though, so I keep thinking about the stretched Diablo for a 
start. We used to sail years ago (70's and 80's) in Norfolk and the 
finger lakes in upstate NY, and did a lot of offshore fishing and bay 
cruising in a 21' walk around cuddy production boat in Panama City FL 
until we moved to Houston in 1997.
 
You won't see me post much as I can't add much to the conversations, 
but thanks for the education you are giving me.
 
Regards,
Jeff

>
>
> I just wanted to say thank you to all you guys. I just joined a few
> weeks ago and have been reading the posts with great interest,
> particularly the recent threads about glassing and application of the
> epoxy. I do a lot of woodworking, primarily Arts & Crafts furniture,
> but have never built a boat or done any fiberglassing.
>
> We are currently thinking about what to build. We are getting closer
> to retirement than I like to think about, and are considering building
> either a Tennessee or Idaho to use as a sort of picnic boat for Lake
> Livingston (TX). It seems a bit daunting to start with something so
> long though, so I keep thinking about the stretched Diablo for a
> start. We used to sail years ago (70's and 80's) in Norfolk and the
> finger lakes in upstate NY, and did a lot of offshore fishing and bay
> cruising in a 21' walk around cuddy production boat in Panama City FL
> until we moved to Houston in 1997.
>
> You won't see me post much as I can't add much to the conversations,
> but thanks for the education you are giving me.
>
> Regards,
> Jeff
>

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Bruce Hallman<hallman@...>wrote:

One thing I noticed while modeling Egret is the
relative lack of reserve buoyancy in the after end, and the relative
surplus of reserve buoyancy in the forward end. I image that a boat
like this if run through the surf would behave nicely.

Howard Chapelle has this to say about Egret in his book American Small Sailing Craft:

"In 1876, the late R.M. Munroe took a sharpie, built by Brown of Staten Island, to Biscayne Bay, Florida, and this boat led to the introduction of the sharpie there. Munroe devised a small double-ender with narrow bottom and very flaring sides amidships, which became known as the "Egret" model, after the original boat of the type, and was very seaworthy for use along the coast. The orginal Egret was employed in carrying mail in all weathers from Palm Beach to what is now Miami."

I've been thinking about Phil Bolger's development of the sharpie, and it all makes sense. As my old Latin prof used to say, "Fellas, there's a method to my madness." Look at drawings in Chapelle of sharpies and they all have the bottom meeting the stem at the water line or only an inch or so above. Phil thought this caused turbulance. He believed that a sharpie should meet the water with its bottom, not its sides, so he gave the sharpie a lot of rocker. To reduce turbulance at the chine, he tried to keep his plan and profile curves the same. If that is carried out to a pointy bow, it results in a long forefoot out of the water, so he cut off the front at an appropriate place, and, voila, the transom bow was formed. The other alternative was to go to a point, but put a box cutwater underneath, as he saw in the yamato-gata boats of Tokyo Bay while he was stationed there after WW II. That provides a sharp entry, and extra boyancy up front, while retaining the ideal curves for the rest of the boat. His solution is what I would call "elegant."

Fred

> ...your modeling of Egret.

On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 08:39:25 -0800, Doug P wrote:

> I think this whole square boat thing began with Commodore Monroe who
> sailed from South Florida to the North eastern US states....
> The premiere designer around
> 1900 was likely Hershoff here in the US. where pleasure boats are
> concerned. He was in it for the money so he designed for the very
> wealthy and likely cared little for working people who wanted a boat.
> Comadore Monroe was sailing sharpies up and down the coast and across
> coral beds and he need shallow draft boats that could do both....

--
John (jkohnen@...)
A facility for quotation covers the absence of original thought.
(Lord Peter Wimsey)

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "eric14850" <eric14850@> wrote:
> >
> > ROMP went through a hurricane unscathed. Read what Bolger says about nothing to dig in and trip the boat when the board is raised. That the chine is square instead of rounded is insignificant.
>
> Not quite relevant as Romp was well tied in at the Cardwell marina by her then new owner. She sustained much damage, but was insured and repaired. IIRC some of that major damage was to the engine etc and caused by lightning strike.
>
> Graeme
>

----- Original Message -----

From:Bruce Hallman

To:bolger@yahoogroups.com

Sent:Wednesday, January 20, 2010 3:53 PM

Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: Largest "Bolger Box" how about triangle? Seaworthyness

 

>
> His difference with the Commodore was that Monroe used a rounded chine to reduce turbulance and Phil decided a sharp chine is just fine as long as the curves in plan and profile were the same.

Munroe also designed hard chine boats, about the same time as the
round chine Presto (1886), he designed the Egret (1885). Egret was
considered by Munroe to be a remarkable boat. I did a Free!ship
study of Egret visible here...

http://www.flickr. com/photos/ hallman/tags/ egret/

You can read about this and other Munroe sharpies in Reuel Parker's
book "The Sharpie Book".

Unless I am mistaken, I believe that the term "Sharpie" has nothing to
do with a 'sharp' chine, but rather has to do with the length to
breadth ratio.. Round chine Presto boats are also considered to be
"sharpies".

>
> His difference with the Commodore was that Monroe used a rounded chine to reduce turbulance and Phil decided a sharp chine is just fine as long as the curves in plan and profile were the same.

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Douglas Pollard<dougpol1@...>wrote:

I lean much more to Bolgers earlier designs for sailing at sea. I did
not move away from him but he moved away from me. I have not changed my
think since his earlier work. Where I him I would have gone broke
because the market moved on and I did not. Doug

I think, Doug, you are getting at the heart of Phil's life quest. In mathematics, there is a term called "elegance," which is used for a proof that is simple and tight, in other words, parsimonious. As Phil matured in his design work, he kept looking for "elegant" solutions. He was THE master of parsimony. His philosophy is best explained by himself in his chapters on  Brick and AS-29 in Boats with an Open Mind. He tried to reduce the number of curves a boat required and finally came to the conclusion only one curve was absolutely necessary.

His difference with the Commodore was that Monroe used a rounded chine to reduce turbulance and Phil decided a sharp chine is just fine as long as the curves in plan and profile were the same. It's interesting that Daimler engineers came to the same conclusion in designing their Boxfish Bionic concept car, a vehicle that is based on the boxfish (Ostraciidae spp. bony tropical rectangular fish) and resulted in a coefficient of drag of 0.19 from a rectangular car.

Modern ship designers think very much like Bolger. They're not looking for elegance but for maximum load carrying capacity at minimum external envelope and power. Just look at any modern container ship and you see those processes at work.

Fred

>
>
>
> If a Drascombe Lugger can hop around from port to port like Cookie
> did, then I bet a lug rigged 19' 6" Long Micro could too!
>
> Graeme
>
> > proaconstrictor wrote:
> > >
> > > There have been few if any examples of Wharrams being overturned.
> I am
> > > not aware of any that would fit within the size range of the OP's
> > > original question. I am also not aware of any Bolgers that have been
> > > through hurricane conditions, except the row boat that was lost at
> > > sea. I'm sure there are examples, I'm mostly ignorant of them.
> > > However, I would not be surprised if there where individual Wharram
> > > cats with more heavy seas experience in world cruising than all
> > > Bolgers. Are there any 21 foot Wharram boxes that have been around
> the
> > > world like Rory's Cookie? If it was a box it would have been probably
> > > an 18 footer.
>
>

> proaconstrictor wrote:
> >
> > There have been few if any examples of Wharrams being overturned. I am
> > not aware of any that would fit within the size range of the OP's
> > original question. I am also not aware of any Bolgers that have been
> > through hurricane conditions, except the row boat that was lost at
> > sea. I'm sure there are examples, I'm mostly ignorant of them.
> > However, I would not be surprised if there where individual Wharram
> > cats with more heavy seas experience in world cruising than all
> > Bolgers. Are there any 21 foot Wharram boxes that have been around the
> > world like Rory's Cookie? If it was a box it would have been probably
> > an 18 footer.

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

> Some of the most irritating things about Wharrams all help you out in the ultimate storm. They are built with too much material, and they have small rigs. Bingo, there goes any real chance of capsize and they can't easily be sunk since the structure has positive buoyancy. They have points on both ends, which allow far more options for para anchors and drogues. They have inefficient V shapes and full length keels on most models, which are great for taking the waves etc... Wharrams are among the most sea worthy ocean boats of any kind. They just bobbed up and down in the tsunami a few years back. One did get thrown on the shore with minimal damage.
>
> I'm not saying Wharram good, Bolger bad.... <SNIP>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Stuart Crawford <stuartcnz@...> wrote:
<SNIP>

> One boat that Bolger believed to be a seaworthy design
> ³Romp², has, I believe been through a hurricane and survived it.
> I¹m unsure which box designs he has stated as being suitable for ocean crossing, but I would trust his opinion over most.
>
> Stuart.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Fred Schumacher <fredschum@...> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 7:36 PM, John A. Little <jlittl@...> wrote:
<SNIP>

> It should be kept in mind that both Bolger and Wharram have been inspired by
> long, indigenous traditions in boat morphology, Wharram by Polynesian ocean
> voyaging multihulls and Bolger by American coastal sharpies. Both have
> designed to the opposite ends of their inspiration, Wharram to coastal
> multihulls and Bolger to ocean going craft. Bolger is the more eclectic of
> the two.
>
> The personalities of these two men can also be seen in their designs. For
> Bolger, parsimony is a driving force; for Wharram it is simply a means to a
> cheaper, quicker to build boat. Bolger is an introvert. In another time and
> place he would have been a contemplative monk. Wharram is an extrovert who
> needs to be surrounded by people. Bolger makes sure there are private places
> on his boats. Wharram creates flexispace where there is no privacy and group
> space is out in an open commons between the hulls. Bolger thinks of winter;
> Wharram would like to live in unending summer.
>
> Fred
>

>
> ROMP went through a hurricane unscathed. Read what Bolger says about nothing to dig in and trip the boat when the board is raised. That the chine is square instead of rounded is insignificant.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Stuart Crawford <stuartcnz@...> wrote:
>
> That sounds like our old boat. The only thing I did know about it, was that
> it was in Wellington.
>
> I am surprised that it was only gusting to 32 knots though. That is a mere
> puff for around there. I fail to see how that puts it in such unusual
> circumstances though. Many a times have people not exercised proper judgment
> when sailing in other boats, in much the same way and they haven¹t all
> capsized.
>
> Plenty of other boats have also survived 60 knots under bare poles. Even
> smaller ones than the 41ft Wharram mentioned, like for instance one of
> Bolger¹s designs ³Romp² at 30ft long. Which survived a hurricane.
>
> Regarding the Wahine. That accident did not happen in Wellington harbour. It
> occurred in Cook Strait, which is an entirely different animal to Wellington
> harbour. There were also serious design flaws with Wahine that were major
> contributing factors in that capsize, particularly water entering the
> vehicle deck and surging across it.
>
> People will believe whatever they like about Wharrams. I will not be adding
> any more to the debate.
>
> Stuart.
>
>
> On 18/1/10 8:00 PM, "pindimarmicro" <greg@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Stuart and others interested
> >
> > Put a post on the Wharram Forum and Don (Brazier?) from NZ responded as
> > follows:
> >
> > "Yes it is true a 35 foot Wharram Tangaroa capsized in Wellington Harbour, New
> > Zealand, some years ago. The owner of the boat had all sail set in a wind
> > gusting to 32 knots. I understand the boat was not loaded for cruising
> > therefore at minimum weight and the owner was keen to press as hard as he
> > could to windward to see how she would go.
> > The wind speed was confirmed from the adjacent airport weather data at the
> > time of the capsize. They don't call it windy Wellington for nothing. The
> > harbour is beset by steep hills and gusty unpredictable winds are
> > commonplace."
> >
> > So, these were pretty unusual circumstances. It puts a rather different
> > perspective on the capsize issue.
> >
> > Don went on:
> >
> > "I have a Narai IV and have had the unnerving experience of being caught beam
> > on under bare poles by an extremely steep cross sea in a storm gusting to 60
> > knots. To my relief we slid off side ways - no dagger boards and V shaped
> > hulls must help."
> >
> > So, Don's 41ft Wharram survived that OK!
> >
> > Some people may even remember the Wahine tragedy in Wellington Harbour - Windy
> > Wellington indeed.
> >
> > GregF
> >
>
> --
>http://www.nomadichome.org
>http://www.purevolume.com/KeltwegianKiwi
>

Stuart and others interested

Put a post on the Wharram Forum and Don (Brazier?) from NZ responded as follows:

"Yes it is true a 35 foot Wharram Tangaroa capsized in Wellington Harbour, New Zealand,  some years ago. The owner of the boat had all sail set in a wind gusting to 32 knots. I understand the boat was not loaded for cruising therefore at minimum weight and the owner was keen to press as hard as he could to windward to see how she would go.
The wind speed was confirmed from the adjacent airport weather data at the time of the capsize. They don't call it windy Wellington for nothing. The harbour is beset by steep hills and gusty unpredictable winds are commonplace."

So, these were pretty unusual circumstances.  It puts a rather different perspective on the capsize issue.  

Don went on:

"I have a Narai IV and have had the unnerving experience of being caught beam on under bare poles by an extremely steep cross sea in a storm gusting to 60 knots. To my relief we slid off side ways - no dagger boards and V shaped hulls must help."

So, Don's 41ft Wharram survived that OK!

Some people may even remember the Wahine tragedy in Wellington Harbour - Windy Wellington indeed.

GregF

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Stuart Crawford <stuartcnz@...> wrote:
>
> Not sure of the design name, but it was the 35 foot one. We were a family of
> five, so definitely big enough to live on, even if that is in warm climates.
> NO changes from design when we had it, am not aware of any made
> subsequently.
>
> We also had friends with a 46? Foot Wharram whose boat came apart near Fiji
> in about the early 80¹s. Fortunately they were in warm water and managed to
> stay on one of the hulls and were able to salvage both of them to
> re-assemble.
>
> I consider Wharrams to be the most attractive looking catamarans, but the
> level of dogmatic belief in the indestructibility that Wharram fans bestow
> upon them astounds me.
>
> No boat is immune to capsize in the right conditions.
>
> Stuart.
>
> On 9/1/10 9:10 PM, "pindimarmicro" <greg@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > I'd be very surprised if a large Wharram built to plans had actually capsised,
> > so I'm wondering what Wharram you lived on as a child? - I would be shocked
> > that a Wharram, with flexible hull connections as designed and with the as
> > designed wash-through centre decking and with the correct sail plan would
> > capsize. Anything over the size of a Tangaroa I just can't see it.
> >
> > I know that a couple of Tiki 21s have gone over, but a Wharram big enough to
> > live on, as designed???
> >
> > Please tell us what boat it was and what modifications had been made?
> >
> > GregF
>
> --
>http://www.nomadichome.org
>http://www.purevolume.com/KeltwegianKiwi
>

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 7:21 PM, proaconstrictor<proaconstrictor@...>wrote:

That's the part I didn't buy, it was completely standard. It was a pain to cacl, but something people did, like learn to type whole letters or contracts without a single typo.

Dear proaconstrictor,

Please proofread your postings. They are full of typos. By the way, "matter" is spelled with two "t"s not one.

Fred

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "proaconstrictor" <proaconstrictor@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "eric14850" <eric14850@> wrote:
> >
> > Internal vs external ballast is a different issue than water ballast vs other ballast such as lead.
>
> It's all ballast, so the blanket statement I was responding to remains false.
>
> "in a boat that can be safely taken from Florida to the Bahamas on a good weather report."
>
> Are you motoring, because this boat had surprises for the designer within the normal range of sailing dynamics.



Surprises. Surprising, but not alarming according to what I read in the postings to this group. One of the first Martha Janes launched is what inspired me to build ROGUE. That boat first inspired me to draft a letter to ask Phil Bolger to design the AS-29. A Mr. Cunningham beat me to it with a nearly identical request made in Phil's column in "Small Boat Journal" around 1984. Phil refused. I was crushed. Within a year I started building ROGUE based on Romp's offsets. Long before ROGUE was completed Phil designed the AS-29. An AS-29 can be built far faster than ROGUE and is likely more capable. Since 1984 Martha Janes have been sailing in Maine where I saw it, the Chesapeake, etc., etc., etc. including the very inclement Alaska if I am not mistaken. Martha Jane was never meant as an ocean going vessel, though Phil did suggest it would be safe to go from Florida to the Bahamas on a good weather report. My understanding is that the original design was safe, but more satisfactory when improved. A lot of water has passed under Martha Janes in this and other countries. If a Martha Jane won't right itself from upside down, neither will a Cal 22. I don't think I would be imprudent to sail an original design Martha Jane from Florida to the Bahamas.



>
>
> >
> > Until 150 year ago or so, outside ballast was unheard of. All ballast was internal: stone, brick, cargo.
>
>
> Not true, proas, or for that mater cats, or live ballast, just off the top of my head.




I meant to say nearly unheard of. However your points about multi-hulls are moot. It is still internal ballast whether live or not. External ballast is underwater.



>
> >
> > Phil Bolger had perhaps the most extensive knowledge of water craft, historical and current, of any of his peers.
>
>
> As may be, but Phil is also the master (thank goodness) of the Hail Mary pass in plywood. This thread all comes from my rejection of the idea his judgment is faultless in comparison with that of his peers. Let's face it, the main reason he is well known among weekend warriors compared to others is simply a mater of his focus, not whether his judgment was better or not. There are lots of very capable designers out there, we just don't deal with them in the plywood and PL premium world.
>




If this is your point then why didn't you make it long ago by discussing specifics of specific designs rather than broad generalizations? People who have a high regard for Phil and his designs and have pointed out specific problems with specific designs or parts of designs in earlier posts. Constructive input helps.





> "Much bigger mistakes have been made than Phil or even Pete made. (How much do you expect to pay for your building plans?)"
>
> That's reassuring... My point again was relative to whether his judgments were sound or not. Even if the only reason he fell down at times was due to a commendable lack of caution, it still counts against that part of his rep that may be attached to the idea that what he said is what you get. Being conservative helps that part of your rep, whatever it may affect elsewhere. If you want to claim he was creative, I have no argument.
>
>
> >
> > I've seen some very "cold", "dead" boat designs that were very obviously done by calculation. Uninspiried. I'll take inspired, thank-you-very-much.
>
> Seems like a bad choice. Remember this started with the mater of his judgment where seaworthiness is concerned, not judging how creative he is. It's not as though having some external reasonable standard for comparing your guesses is a new idea or all that big a deal. I have an 82% rule for my canoes, and nobody has ever heard of me, it stagers the imagination that some basic numbers weren't there.
> >
> > Doing calculations is a new thing,
>
> No it isn't. That's the whole point.n Not within his lifetime.
>
> "There is nothing wrong with doing dynamic (real world) testing of a design."
>
> Good point, but how does one know that such tests are needed vs. the time bomb ticking away for several years first. It's one thing to do the tests, and another to depend on field reports. There actually are some designers who won't sell stuff they haven't personally built, sure that means you don't get anywhere near design 600, but on the scale of who has the reliable judgment...
>
> "Not so hard that a fool couldn't do it."
>
> Which does beg the question how it was missed.
>
> The other shocking part of it is the MJ solution. If that's the solution then the question is wrong in the first place.
>




You are incredulus that Phil did not do stability calculations as a matter of course. I believe that he did do calculations as a matter of course, but will not argue the point further than remembering him hiring an engineer when he wanted more accurate calculations of a mast than his "blind stab calculations". I will point out that calculations are based upon experience with prior designs and are only accurate APPROXIMATIONS when comparing similar designs to what is known. Several America's cup would be defenders have been utter failures, results not bearing out calculations. There are other examples I am sure. A ship or two last century that capsized upon launch or when in service if I am not mistaken.

Many of Phils designs were significant departures from what the world was familiar with. Phil did pay for construction of radical design departures so that he could dynamically test them. Martha Jane was not a radical departure. Martha Jane was based upon lots of experience Phil had personally with sailing closely related designs. That is a very traditional approach to boat design. You are uncomfortable with this approach. A polite statement about why you are uncomfortable, and advice that anyone contemplating building a Bolger design pay have stability calculations done before undertaking construction (if that is what you would advise) would have been a lot easier to accept with equanimity, and to address, than the posts you have made.

Since you are capable of doing stability and performance calculations, and you are specifically critical of the Martha Jane design, why don't you do the calculations on the original Martha Jane design and post them here. Lets see how close your calculations are to the reality of the Martha Jane design. Does the revised Martha Jane meet your approval according to your calculations?

>
> Internal vs external ballast is a different issue than water ballast vs other ballast such as lead.

>
> Until 150 year ago or so, outside ballast was unheard of. All ballast was internal: stone, brick, cargo.

>
> Phil Bolger had perhaps the most extensive knowledge of water craft, historical and current, of any of his peers.

>
> I've seen some very "cold", "dead" boat designs that were very obviously done by calculation. Uninspiried. I'll take inspired, thank-you-very-much.

>
> Doing calculations is a new thing,

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark Albanese <marka97203@...> wrote:
>
> You remembered pretty well, but in detail what was actually said in
> MAIB 18,#2, Martha Jane Revised, follows.
>
> "Martha Jane was designed before it was customary, or practical with
> much accuracy to calculate the stability of small boats. With
> advances in software and hardware capability and user friendliness
> over the years, it has become decidedly easier to do, and we
> reassessed Martha Jane's characteristics across a range of structural
> weights, loads, and hull geometries."
>
> "...it looked as though the reserve stability of at least some of the
> boats of this class was less than we had estimated and had too little
> margin for inaccuracies in building and mistakes in handling."
>
> "The weakness in the design is the very low actual freeboard forward
> and abaft the raised deck/cabin structure. It is masked by the high
> bulwarks, but the effective freeboard is to the top of the sunken
> deck..."
>
> Not quite the same as not at all.
>
> Thus, the mods. "While the original version served quite a few inland
> and ICW 'roamers' well, she has become more of a cruiser yet.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 13, 2010, at 3:35 PM, proaconstrictor wrote:
> > My point is that (as best as I recall) there was essentially a mea
> > culpa printed somewhere in which the adjustments to the designs
> > were set out and the fact the design was completed without stab
> > calcs was revealed. That was a jaw dropper to me.
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "proaconstrictor" <proaconstrictor@...> wrote:
>
>
> I think enough of them have been built without the updates that I would probably go that route if I continued to be interested. My point is that (as best as I recall) there was essentially a mea culpa printed somewhere in which the adjustments to the designs were set out and the fact the design was completed without stab calcs was revealed. That was a jaw dropper to me. So would I take advice as better than most when a basic (if time consuming to calc) set of calcs was not done as an apparent mater of routine. To each their own. This was all happening at the same time as EU and Sname ramp-ups in regs were proposed/introduced.
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "eric14850" <eric14850@> wrote:
> >
> > Ballast weight is ballast whether it is in the form of water or lead. Lead is more compact per pound and therefore much more useful than water in a keel. As interior ballast in a shallow draft boat lead is only marginally more effective than water. Water is cheaper and can be discarded without expense or harm to the environment.
>
> Except the vertical center or whether the ballast can be placed external to the boat are also important.
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "eric14850" <eric14850@...> wrote:
>
> Ballast weight is ballast whether it is in the form of water or lead. Lead is more compact per pound and therefore much more useful than water in a keel. As interior ballast in a shallow draft boat lead is only marginally more effective than water. Water is cheaper and can be discarded without expense or harm to the environment.

Except the vertical center or whether the ballast can be placed external to the boat are also important.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "proaconstrictor" <proaconstrictor@...> wrote:
>
>
> I was thinking of Martha Jane principally (sorry if this has already been answered). I own plans for MJ, so I take an interest.
>
> I don't consider this the only goofed design, Probably Anhingha/Eeek!/Economy sharpie also show the sign of where some calc might have helped since it turned out to create a capsize force not add to stability. I am skeptical of just about any of the water ballasted trailerable, and high sided boats.
>
> Double Eagle, not so sure about the weight budget since build weight can also be a problem.
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" <j.hess@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "proaconstrictor" <proaconstrictor@> wrote:
> > > Bolger totally blew the stability design for several of his sharpies, and seems to have blown the weight budget on Double Eagle.
> > ...
> >
> > Which sharpies, and could you give more details of the problems? Were the problems corrected?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > John
> >
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" <j.hess@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "proaconstrictor" <proaconstrictor@> wrote:
> > Bolger totally blew the stability design for several of his sharpies, and seems to have blown the weight budget on Double Eagle.
> ...
>
> Which sharpies, and could you give more details of the problems? Were the problems corrected?
>
> Thanks,
> John
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Fred Schumacher <fredschum@...> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Bruce Hallman <hallman@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Real world hard data about capsizing is scarce. That is why I foundthat
> > photo sequence of the 2005 sailboat capsize so fascinating.
> >
> > Looking close the 'weak link' appears to be that the boat surfed down
> > the front face of the wave, then exceeded hull speed(image 4), which
> > caused the broaching(image 5) that turned her sideways(images 6,7),
> > then the keel grabbed and the flip (image 8). Had there been a
> > shallower draft 'Bolger box' I imagine the boat would have skidded
> > sideways instead of flipping.
> >
> >http://photos.sfsurvey.com/sailH/index.asp
> >
> >
> That is a fascinating sequence. A few more observations: he came in with his
> hatches open, so that as the boat kept rolling, the interior filled with
> water and she started going down; the large number of rescue efforts in such
> a public place -- from the surfboarders to the Coast Guard boats and
> helicopter -- meant that the guy survived, something that wouldn't have
> happened out in the open ocean; the combination of sharp bow and low
> displacement when on its side, meant that the boat kept turning turtle and
> couldn't stabilize until she started sinking. Old square riggers had blunt,
> lifting bows with long shallow keels, like Micro, not wave piercing sharp
> bows with deep fin keels. Also, vessels with slab sides can stabilize at 90
> degrees, without continuing over, since they have so much displacement when
> on their sides.
>
> Fred
>

> wouldn't have happened out in the open ocean;

On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Bruce Hallman<hallman@...>wrote:

Real world hard data about capsizing is scarce. That is why I foundthat photo sequence of the 2005 sailboat capsize so fascinating.

Looking close the 'weak link' appears to be that the boat surfed down
the front face of the wave, then exceeded hull speed(image 4), which
caused the broaching(image 5) that turned her sideways(images 6,7),
then the keel grabbed and the flip (image 8). Had there been a
shallower draft 'Bolger box' I imagine the boat would have skidded
sideways instead of flipping.

http://photos.sfsurvey.com/sailH/index.asp

That is a fascinating sequence. A few more observations: he came in with his hatches open, so that as the boat kept rolling, the interior filled with water and she started going down; the large number of rescue efforts in such a public place -- from the surfboarders to the Coast Guard boats and helicopter -- meant that the guy survived, something that wouldn't have happened out in the open ocean; the combination of sharp bow and low displacement when on its side, meant that the boat kept turning turtle and couldn't stabilize until she started sinking. Old square riggers had blunt, lifting bows with long shallow keels, like Micro, not wave piercing sharp bows with deep fin keels. Also, vessels with slab sides can stabilize at 90 degrees, without continuing over, since they have so much displacement when on their sides.

Fred

>
>
> Reminds me of a time I used to manage a sailboat shop in Rockport TX.
> We had a large used gear room and for years this older gentleman would
> come in every Saturday and spend a hour or so going diligently over
> every piece of gear....he usually bought something...sometimes he
> would bring it back and exchange it if it didn't quite fit. He was
> outfitting a nice older 35-38' sloop. One day he said he wouldn't be
> coming in anymore as his boat was ready and he was setting sail any
> day. He made it down the channel and headed out the jetties at Port
> Aransas. As he entered the Gulf a wave hit him from the SW and he
> broached, laying the boat over 90 degrees. The boat moved in towards
> the beach at San Jose Island. He managed to slip over the side and
> swim ashore. I heard he got a ride back with some fishermen but I
> never saw him again.

> On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 11:20 PM, pindimarmicro <greg@...> wrote:
>
>>
>> Stuart,
>>
>> Still, it would be very interesting to see what the facts were in relation to this capsize.
>>
>
> Real world hard data about capsizing is scarce. That is why I found
> that photo sequence of the 2005 sailboat capsize so fascinating.
>
> Looking close the 'weak link' appears to be that the boat surfed down
> the front face of the wave, then exceeded hull speed(image 4), which
> caused the broaching(image 5) that turned her sideways(images 6,7),
> then the keel grabbed and the flip (image 8). Had there been a
> shallower draft 'Bolger box' I imagine the boat would have skidded
> sideways instead of flipping.
>
>http://photos.sfsurvey.com/sailH/index.asp
>

>
>
>
> Stuart,
>
> Still, it would be very interesting to see what the facts were in relation to this capsize.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Stuart Crawford <stuartcnz@...> wrote:
>
> Not sure of the design name, but it was the 35 foot one. We were a family of
> five, so definitely big enough to live on, even if that is in warm climates.
> NO changes from design when we had it, am not aware of any made
> subsequently.
>
> We also had friends with a 46? Foot Wharram whose boat came apart near Fiji
> in about the early 80¹s. Fortunately they were in warm water and managed to
> stay on one of the hulls and were able to salvage both of them to
> re-assemble.
>
> I consider Wharrams to be the most attractive looking catamarans, but the
> level of dogmatic belief in the indestructibility that Wharram fans bestow
> upon them astounds me.
>
> No boat is immune to capsize in the right conditions.
>
> Stuart.
>
> On 9/1/10 9:10 PM, "pindimarmicro" <greg@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > I'd be very surprised if a large Wharram built to plans had actually capsised,
> > so I'm wondering what Wharram you lived on as a child? - I would be shocked
> > that a Wharram, with flexible hull connections as designed and with the as
> > designed wash-through centre decking and with the correct sail plan would
> > capsize. Anything over the size of a Tangaroa I just can't see it.
> >
> > I know that a couple of Tiki 21s have gone over, but a Wharram big enough to
> > live on, as designed???
> >
> > Please tell us what boat it was and what modifications had been made?
> >
> > GregF
>
> --
>http://www.nomadichome.org
>http://www.purevolume.com/KeltwegianKiwi
>

> Bolger totally blew the stability design for several of his sharpies, and seems to have blown the weight budget on Double Eagle.

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Stuart Crawford <stuartcnz@...> wrote:
>
>>
> No boat is immune to capsize in the right conditions.
>
> Stuart.
>

I'd say that should read

"No boat is immune to capsize (read maximum catastrophe) in thewrongconditions"

There are conditions where no cruising boat, mono or multi, can survive.

Stuart has it exactly right.

Cheers

Peter

I'd be very surprised if a large Wharram built to plans had actually capsised, so I'm wondering what Wharram you lived on as a child? - I would be shocked that a Wharram, with flexible hull connections as designed and with the as designed wash-through centre decking and with the correct sail plan would capsize.  Anything over the size of a Tangaroa I just can't see it.

I know that a couple of Tiki 21s have gone over, but a Wharram big enough to live on, as designed???

Please tell us what boat  it was and what modifications had been made?

GregF

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Stuart Crawford <stuartcnz@...> wrote:
>
> I know of at least two Wharrams that have capsized here in New Zealand. One
> of them was a boat that I lived on as a child, by a subsequent owner.
> Wharrams certainly can and have capsized. I have never felt unsafe, or come
> to any grief on a wharram, but it certainly would not be my choice for an
> offshore boat these days.
>
> I would be more inclined to take Bolger¹s words on what is or is not an
> ocean capable boat. One boat that Bolger believed to be a seaworthy design
> ³Romp², has, I believe been through a hurricane and survived it. I¹m unsure
> which box designs he has stated as being suitable for ocean crossing, but I
> would trust his opinion over most.
>
> Stuart.
>
>
> On 7/1/10 10:46 AM, "proaconstrictor" <proaconstrictor@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > There have been few if any examples of Wharrams being overturned. I am not
> > aware of any that would fit within the size range of the OP's original
> > question. I am also not aware of any Bolgers that have been through hurricane
> > conditions, except the row boat that was lost at sea. I'm sure there are
> > examples, I'm mostly ignorant of them. However, I would not be surprised if
> > there where individual Wharram cats with more heavy seas experience in world
> > cruising than all Bolgers. Are there any 21 foot Wharram boxes that have been
> > around the world like Rory's Cookie? If it was a box it would have been
> > probably an 18 footer.
>
>
> --
>http://www.nomadichome.org
>http://www.purevolume.com/KeltwegianKiwi
>

>
> This is from an interested listener-in on the square boats conversation and just to say thanks to Bob of loosemoose for sharing his experience. What a treasure of experience it is! My hat's off to you, Bob. And I'm not surprised that by now you're bored. Conversation over, for my part. Quod erat demonstrandum.
>

>
> I know of at least two Wharrams that have capsized here in New Zealand. One
> of them was a boat that I lived on as a child, by a subsequent owner.

> I would be more inclined to take Bolger¹s words on what is or is not an
> ocean capable boat. One boat that Bolger believed to be a seaworthy design
> ³Romp², has, I believe been through a hurricane and survived it. I¹m unsure
> which box designs he has stated as being suitable for ocean crossing, but I
> would trust his opinion over most.

>
> Stuart.
>
>

>
>
> I can see your points, though think back further. The original boats to see the world's seas were square. All "improvements" to sailing craft in the last 150 years or so were for racing performance.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Douglas Pollard <dougpol1@...> wrote:
>
> Thinking about square boats at sea gives me the shivers. I can't see my
> self on a broad reach in six foot seas with that hard chine biting in as
> she slides off a wave even reefed. I would not hesitate to sail a well
> designed keel boat in such conditions with maybe a single reef in a
> cutter or ketch or even a sloop of 29 feet. I'll bet bolger has never
> been at sea in really big seas. To be a thousand miles at sea you
> have to have absolute faith that your boat is on your side. I just
> can't Imagen rolling around in a square box in those conditions. My
> feeling is Mr. Bolger had been breaking new ground for a long time. In
> my view that makes his designs pretty much prototypes and to make it
> worse most who build them change them to some degree. Most designers
> have been designing variations on 100 year old designs and this includes
> Waram. There is a lot of precedence for his designs being good ones,
> maybe a thousand years. Who knows a thousand years from now there may
> be Bolger boxes sailing all over the world and If I live as long as I'd
> like to I will be standing and shaking my head wondering if they are any
> good. I have spent a lot of time in sharpies but the idea that they
> might be seaworthy to cross an ocean in never crossed my mind. I am old
> enough to remeber when women sat home and worried that their husbands
> sharpy might turn over and sink in a January blow and they might find
> themselves a widow. Does building a boat almost as tall as it is wide
> really make it safer?? How does high sides with 60 mile per hour winds
> blowing against them become a better boat. I just don't get it.
>
>
> Doug
>
>
>
> Douglas Pollard wrote:
> > I don't think anyone has mentioned the faster the boat is the less
> > supplies you have to carry. So a Warrem may not need the carrying
> > capacity that a box does. The more supplies you put on board the slower
> > the boat is, the more supplies you need and so on. If you don't take
> > advantage of this advantage you are just as well of with a mono hull.
> > Doug
> > proaconstrictor wrote:
> >
> >> There have been few if any examples of Wharrams being overturned. I am
> >> not aware of any that would fit within the size range of the OP's
> >> original question. I am also not aware of any Bolgers that have been
> >> through hurricane conditions, except the row boat that was lost at
> >> sea. I'm sure there are examples, I'm mostly ignorant of them.
> >> However, I would not be surprised if there where individual Wharram
> >> cats with more heavy seas experience in world cruising than all
> >> Bolgers. Are there any 21 foot Wharram boxes that have been around the
> >> world like Rory's Cookie? If it was a box it would have been probably
> >> an 18 footer.
> >>
> >> Some of the most irritating things about Wharrams all help you out in
> >> the ultimate storm. They are built with too much material, and they
> >> have small rigs. Bingo, there goes any real chance of capsize and they
> >> can't easily be sunk since the structure has positive buoyancy. They
> >> have points on both ends, which allow far more options for para
> >> anchors and drogues. They have inefficient V shapes and full length
> >> keels on most models, which are great for taking the waves etc...
> >> Wharrams are among the most sea worthy ocean boats of any kind. They
> >> just bobbed up and down in the tsunami a few years back. One did get
> >> thrown on the shore with minimal damage.
> >>
> >> I'm not saying Wharram good, Bolger bad. I own several small Bolgers
> >> and no Wharrams. If I won a medium sized lottery I would move to Oz
> >> and build an Oram, not a Wharram for a world cruise, and probably
> >> still have a Bolger EP or GLD for commuting to shore. But as far as
> >> world cruising is concerned, and the willingness to build big, one
> >> would be nuts to build a Bolger and not a Wharram.
> >>
> >> Details count. For instance how to survive the ultimate storm in a
> >> Wharram is something where you can go on the net and get the formula
> >> for para-anchoring from someone who has been cruising the oceans for
> >> decades.
> >>
> >> I'm aware of capacity differences, costs, traillering, and Flexy Space
> >> vs enclosed space:
> >>
> >> -I design small trailer sailers myself, and I don't think there is a
> >> decent trailer sailing Wharram, though admittedly the standard for
> >> multis is really high.
> >>
> >> - Capacity wise multis loose by definition, but they are increasingly
> >> the go to boat for long cruises because they take to shallow
> >> anchorages, provide nice tropical living spaces, survive storms, and
> >> are comfortable in anchorages with swells. They have gained a lot of
> >> followers recently For those of us who signed on in the 70s, the idea
> >> that they would be regularly featured on covers of traditional sailing
> >> and cruising magazines was hard to believe.
> >>
> >> - Cost of most multis is high because of the multiple parts, the good
> >> bit is that there are less compromises to plywood multis than for
> >> large boats of any other type. There are plywood multis that are
> >> beating million dollar yachts out there in races. And for the builder,
> >> all the parts are lighter to build and cheaper to build than for
> >> monos, but there are more of them. My 24 foot tri was about 3K to
> >> build add some fabrication, a Hobie rig, and a few 60 dollar winches.
> >> My pal's Tiki 46 is going to cost over 100K. at least. Way more than
> >> the cubed price. I think I could have built it for less, but maybe not.
> >>
> >> To restate. Bolger good, but not my choice for a world cruise. I don't
> >> even remember reading that proposal in his books.
> >>
> >> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com<mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com>,
> >> "loosemoosefilmworks" <loosemoosefilmworks@> wrote:
> >>
> >>> That's sort of an apples or oranges sort of question...
> >>>
> >>> They are both seaworthy and I'd rate their respective "comfort
> >>>
> >> factor" as equal.
> >>
> >>> Bob
> >>>
> >>>http://boatbits.blogspot.com/<http://boatbits.blogspot.com/>
> >>>http://fishingundersail.blogspot.com/
> >>>
> >> <http://fishingundersail.blogspot.com/>
> >>
> >>>http://islandgourmand.blogspot.com/
> >>>
> >> <http://islandgourmand.blogspot.com/>
> >>
> >>> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com<mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com>,
> >>>
> >> "Christopher C. Wetherill" <wetherillc@> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Since you have experience of both types, what is your opinion of
> >>>>
> >> which
> >>
> >>>> would be better in a rough sea? I am guessing the cat would be harder
> >>>> to knock over but less forgiving once it occurs.
> >>>>
> >>>> V/R
> >>>> Chris
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

>
> Oops...
>
> That number should have been 25,000 miles...
>
>

>
>
> > Thinking about square boats at sea gives me the shivers.
>
> Doug...
>
> I'm glad you have taken the time to show me the error of my ways (what
> was I thinking of sailing thousands of miles on Loose Moose 2?) and
> pointing out that the late and much loved Phil Bolger is nothing but a
> lubberly hack!
>
> Now I can rest easy...
>
> All the best
>
> Bob
>
>

>
> I know of at least two Wharrams that have capsized here in New
> Zealand. One of them was a boat that I lived on as a child, by a
> subsequent owner. Wharrams certainly can and have capsized. I have
> never felt unsafe, or come to any grief on a wharram, but it certainly
> would not be my choice for an offshore boat these days.
>
> I would be more inclined to take Bolger’s words on what is or is not
> an ocean capable boat. One boat that Bolger believed to be a seaworthy
> design “Romp”, has, I believe been through a hurricane and survived
> it. I’m unsure which box designs he has stated as being suitable for
> ocean crossing, but I would trust his opinion over most.
>
> Stuart.
>
>
> On 7/1/10 10:46 AM, "proaconstrictor" <proaconstrictor@...> wrote:
>
>
> There have been few if any examples of Wharrams being overturned.
> I am not aware of any that would fit within the size range of the
> OP's original question. I am also not aware of any Bolgers that
> have been through hurricane conditions, except the row boat that
> was lost at sea. I'm sure there are examples, I'm mostly ignorant
> of them. However, I would not be surprised if there where
> individual Wharram cats with more heavy seas experience in world
> cruising than all Bolgers. Are there any 21 foot Wharram boxes
> that have been around the world like Rory's Cookie? If it was a
> box it would have been probably an 18 footer.
>
>
>
> --
>http://www.nomadichome.org<http://www.nomadichome.org>
>http://www.purevolume.com/KeltwegianKiwi
> <http://www.purevolume.com/KeltwegianKiwi>
>

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 7:36 PM, John A. Little<jlittl@...>wrote:

The original boats to see the world's seas were square. All "improvements" to sailing craft in the last 150 years or so were for racing performance. No freighter captain under sail or power would accept a deep V or a round bilge at sea with all of that "sail" of freeboard from superstructure and freight. The major ocean-goers of the world that are out on it all the time instead of 5% of the time want flat bottoms and practically plumb sides.

Ocean going longliners and trawlers are also essentially square boats. They have a pointy bow, but otherwise are pretty much straight, flat and plumb. Lots of single chine dory hulls have sailed the oceans and survived. Just as AKC rules have damaged dog genetics, so sailboat racing rules and needs have done to cruising boats. Where utility is most important, fashion is unaffordable. We'll never again see hollow entries or wineglass sterns on a freighter.

It should be kept in mind that both Bolger and Wharram have been inspired by long, indigenous traditions in boat morphology, Wharram by Polynesian ocean voyaging multihulls and Bolger by American coastal sharpies. Both have designed to the opposite ends of their inspiration, Wharram to coastal multihulls and Bolger to ocean going craft. Bolger is the more eclectic of the two.

The personalities of these two men can also be seen in their designs. For Bolger, parsimony is a driving force; for Wharram it is simply a means to a cheaper, quicker to build boat. Bolger is an introvert. In another time and place he would have been a contemplative monk. Wharram is an extrovert who needs to be surrounded by people. Bolger makes sure there are private places on his boats. Wharram creates flexispace where there is no privacy and group space is out in an open commons between the hulls. Bolger thinks of winter; Wharram would like to live in unending summer.

Fred

> Thinking about square boats at sea gives me the shivers. I can't see my
> self on a broad reach in six foot seas with that hard chine biting in as
> she slides off a wave...

There have been few if any examples of Wharrams being overturned.  I am not aware of any that would fit within the size range of the OP's original question.  I am also not aware of any Bolgers that have been through hurricane conditions, except the row boat that was lost at sea.  I'm sure there are examples, I'm mostly ignorant of them.  However, I would not be surprised if there where individual Wharram cats with more heavy seas experience in world cruising than all Bolgers.  Are there any 21 foot Wharram boxes that have been around the world like Rory's Cookie?  If it was a box it would have been probably an 18 footer.

> Thinking about square boats at sea gives me the shivers.

> To: bolger@yahoogroups.com
> From: dougpol1@...
> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 18:20:10 -0500
> Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Largest "Bolger Box" how about triangle? Seaworthyness
>
> Thinking about square boats at sea gives me the shivers. I can't see my
> self on a broad reach in six foot seas with that hard chine biting in as
> she slides off a wave even reefed. I would not hesitate to sail a well
> designed keel boat in such conditions with maybe a single reef in a
> cutter or ketch or even a sloop of 29 feet. I'll bet bolger has never
> been at sea in really big seas. To be a thousand miles at sea you
> have to have absolute faith that your boat is on your side. I just
> can't Imagen rolling around in a square box in those conditions. My
> feeling is Mr. Bolger had been breaking new ground for a long time. In
> my view that makes his designs pretty much prototypes and to make it
> worse most who build them change them to some degree. Most designers
> have been designing variations on 100 year old designs and this includes
> Waram. There is a lot of precedence for his designs being good ones,
> maybe a thousand years. Who knows a thousand years from now there may
> be Bolger boxes sailing all over the world and If I live as long as I'd
> like to I will be standing and shaking my head wondering if they are any
> good. I have spent a lot of time in sharpies but the idea that they
> might be seaworthy to cross an ocean in never crossed my mind. I am old
> enough to remeber when women sat home and worried that their husbands
> sharpy might turn over and sink in a January blow and they might find
> themselves a widow. Does building a boat almost as tall as it is wide
> really make it safer?? How does high sides with 60 mile per hour winds
> blowing against them become a better boat. I just don't get it.
>
>
> Doug
>
>
>
> Douglas Pollard wrote:
> > I don't think anyone has mentioned the faster the boat is the less
> > supplies you have to carry. So a Warrem may not need the carrying
> > capacity that a box does. The more supplies you put on board the slower
> > the boat is, the more supplies you need and so on. If you don't take
> > advantage of this advantage you are just as well of with a mono hull.
> > Doug
> > proaconstrictor wrote:
> >
> >> There have been few if any examples of Wharrams being overturned. I am
> >> not aware of any that would fit within the size range of the OP's
> >> original question. I am also not aware of any Bolgers that have been
> >> through hurricane conditions, except the row boat that was lost at
> >> sea. I'm sure there are examples, I'm mostly ignorant of them.
> >> However, I would not be surprised if there where individual Wharram
> >> cats with more heavy seas experience in world cruising than all
> >> Bolgers. Are there any 21 foot Wharram boxes that have been around the
> >> world like Rory's Cookie? If it was a box it would have been probably
> >> an 18 footer.
> >>
> >> Some of the most irritating things about Wharrams all help you out in
> >> the ultimate storm. They are built with too much material, and they
> >> have small rigs. Bingo, there goes any real chance of capsize and they
> >> can't easily be sunk since the structure has positive buoyancy. They
> >> have points on both ends, which allow far more options for para
> >> anchors and drogues. They have inefficient V shapes and full length
> >> keels on most models, which are great for taking the waves etc...
> >> Wharrams are among the most sea worthy ocean boats of any kind. They
> >> just bobbed up and down in the tsunami a few years back. One did get
> >> thrown on the shore with minimal damage.
> >>
> >> I'm not saying Wharram good, Bolger bad. I own several small Bolgers
> >> and no Wharrams. If I won a medium sized lottery I would move to Oz
> >> and build an Oram, not a Wharram for a world cruise, and probably
> >> still have a Bolger EP or GLD for commuting to shore. But as far as
> >> world cruising is concerned, and the willingness to build big, one
> >> would be nuts to build a Bolger and not a Wharram.
> >>
> >> Details count. For instance how to survive the ultimate storm in a
> >> Wharram is something where you can go on the net and get the formula
> >> for para-anchoring from someone who has been cruising the oceans for
> >> decades.
> >>
> >> I'm aware of capacity differences, costs, traillering, and Flexy Space
> >> vs enclosed space:
> >>
> >> -I design small trailer sailers myself, and I don't think there is a
> >> decent trailer sailing Wharram, though admittedly the standard for
> >> multis is really high.
> >>
> >> - Capacity wise multis loose by definition, but they are increasingly
> >> the go to boat for long cruises because they take to shallow
> >> anchorages, provide nice tropical living spaces, survive storms, and
> >> are comfortable in anchorages with swells. They have gained a lot of
> >> followers recently For those of us who signed on in the 70s, the idea
> >> that they would be regularly featured on covers of traditional sailing
> >> and cruising magazines was hard to believe.
> >>
> >> - Cost of most multis is high because of the multiple parts, the good
> >> bit is that there are less compromises to plywood multis than for
> >> large boats of any other type. There are plywood multis that are
> >> beating million dollar yachts out there in races. And for the builder,
> >> all the parts are lighter to build and cheaper to build than for
> >> monos, but there are more of them. My 24 foot tri was about 3K to
> >> build add some fabrication, a Hobie rig, and a few 60 dollar winches.
> >> My pal's Tiki 46 is going to cost over 100K. at least. Way more than
> >> the cubed price. I think I could have built it for less, but maybe not.
> >>
> >> To restate. Bolger good, but not my choice for a world cruise. I don't
> >> even remember reading that proposal in his books.
> >>
> >> --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com <mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com>,
> >> "loosemoosefilmworks" <loosemoosefilmworks@...> wrote:
> >>
> >>> That's sort of an apples or oranges sort of question...
> >>>
> >>> They are both seaworthy and I'd rate their respective "comfort
> >>>
> >> factor" as equal.
> >>
> >>> Bob
> >>>
> >>> http://boatbits.blogspot.com/ <http://boatbits.blogspot.com/>
> >>> http://fishingundersail.blogspot.com/
> >>>
> >> <http://fishingundersail.blogspot.com/>
> >>
> >>> http://islandgourmand.blogspot.com/
> >>>
> >> <http://islandgourmand.blogspot.com/>
> >>
> >>> --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com <mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com>,
> >>>
> >> "Christopher C. Wetherill" <wetherillc@> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Since you have experience of both types, what is your opinion of
> >>>>
> >> which
> >>
> >>>> would be better in a rough sea? I am guessing the cat would be harder
> >>>> to knock over but less forgiving once it occurs.
> >>>>
> >>>> V/R
> >>>> Chris
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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
>
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/
>
> <*> Your email settings:
> Individual Email | Traditional
>
> <*> To change settings online go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/join
> (Yahoo! ID required)
>
> <*> To change settings via email:
> bolger-digest@yahoogroups.com
> bolger-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

> I don't think anyone has mentioned the faster the boat is the less
> supplies you have to carry. So a Warrem may not need the carrying
> capacity that a box does. The more supplies you put on board the slower
> the boat is, the more supplies you need and so on. If you don't take
> advantage of this advantage you are just as well of with a mono hull.
> Doug
> proaconstrictor wrote:
>
>> There have been few if any examples of Wharrams being overturned. I am
>> not aware of any that would fit within the size range of the OP's
>> original question. I am also not aware of any Bolgers that have been
>> through hurricane conditions, except the row boat that was lost at
>> sea. I'm sure there are examples, I'm mostly ignorant of them.
>> However, I would not be surprised if there where individual Wharram
>> cats with more heavy seas experience in world cruising than all
>> Bolgers. Are there any 21 foot Wharram boxes that have been around the
>> world like Rory's Cookie? If it was a box it would have been probably
>> an 18 footer.
>>
>> Some of the most irritating things about Wharrams all help you out in
>> the ultimate storm. They are built with too much material, and they
>> have small rigs. Bingo, there goes any real chance of capsize and they
>> can't easily be sunk since the structure has positive buoyancy. They
>> have points on both ends, which allow far more options for para
>> anchors and drogues. They have inefficient V shapes and full length
>> keels on most models, which are great for taking the waves etc...
>> Wharrams are among the most sea worthy ocean boats of any kind. They
>> just bobbed up and down in the tsunami a few years back. One did get
>> thrown on the shore with minimal damage.
>>
>> I'm not saying Wharram good, Bolger bad. I own several small Bolgers
>> and no Wharrams. If I won a medium sized lottery I would move to Oz
>> and build an Oram, not a Wharram for a world cruise, and probably
>> still have a Bolger EP or GLD for commuting to shore. But as far as
>> world cruising is concerned, and the willingness to build big, one
>> would be nuts to build a Bolger and not a Wharram.
>>
>> Details count. For instance how to survive the ultimate storm in a
>> Wharram is something where you can go on the net and get the formula
>> for para-anchoring from someone who has been cruising the oceans for
>> decades.
>>
>> I'm aware of capacity differences, costs, traillering, and Flexy Space
>> vs enclosed space:
>>
>> -I design small trailer sailers myself, and I don't think there is a
>> decent trailer sailing Wharram, though admittedly the standard for
>> multis is really high.
>>
>> - Capacity wise multis loose by definition, but they are increasingly
>> the go to boat for long cruises because they take to shallow
>> anchorages, provide nice tropical living spaces, survive storms, and
>> are comfortable in anchorages with swells. They have gained a lot of
>> followers recently For those of us who signed on in the 70s, the idea
>> that they would be regularly featured on covers of traditional sailing
>> and cruising magazines was hard to believe.
>>
>> - Cost of most multis is high because of the multiple parts, the good
>> bit is that there are less compromises to plywood multis than for
>> large boats of any other type. There are plywood multis that are
>> beating million dollar yachts out there in races. And for the builder,
>> all the parts are lighter to build and cheaper to build than for
>> monos, but there are more of them. My 24 foot tri was about 3K to
>> build add some fabrication, a Hobie rig, and a few 60 dollar winches.
>> My pal's Tiki 46 is going to cost over 100K. at least. Way more than
>> the cubed price. I think I could have built it for less, but maybe not.
>>
>> To restate. Bolger good, but not my choice for a world cruise. I don't
>> even remember reading that proposal in his books.
>>
>> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com<mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com>,
>> "loosemoosefilmworks" <loosemoosefilmworks@...> wrote:
>>
>>> That's sort of an apples or oranges sort of question...
>>>
>>> They are both seaworthy and I'd rate their respective "comfort
>>>
>> factor" as equal.
>>
>>> Bob
>>>
>>>http://boatbits.blogspot.com/<http://boatbits.blogspot.com/>
>>>http://fishingundersail.blogspot.com/
>>>
>> <http://fishingundersail.blogspot.com/>
>>
>>>http://islandgourmand.blogspot.com/
>>>
>> <http://islandgourmand.blogspot.com/>
>>
>>> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com<mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com>,
>>>
>> "Christopher C. Wetherill" <wetherillc@> wrote:
>>
>>>> Since you have experience of both types, what is your opinion of
>>>>
>> which
>>
>>>> would be better in a rough sea? I am guessing the cat would be harder
>>>> to knock over but less forgiving once it occurs.
>>>>
>>>> V/R
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>

>
> There have been few if any examples of Wharrams being overturned. I am
> not aware of any that would fit within the size range of the OP's
> original question. I am also not aware of any Bolgers that have been
> through hurricane conditions, except the row boat that was lost at
> sea. I'm sure there are examples, I'm mostly ignorant of them.
> However, I would not be surprised if there where individual Wharram
> cats with more heavy seas experience in world cruising than all
> Bolgers. Are there any 21 foot Wharram boxes that have been around the
> world like Rory's Cookie? If it was a box it would have been probably
> an 18 footer.
>
> Some of the most irritating things about Wharrams all help you out in
> the ultimate storm. They are built with too much material, and they
> have small rigs. Bingo, there goes any real chance of capsize and they
> can't easily be sunk since the structure has positive buoyancy. They
> have points on both ends, which allow far more options for para
> anchors and drogues. They have inefficient V shapes and full length
> keels on most models, which are great for taking the waves etc...
> Wharrams are among the most sea worthy ocean boats of any kind. They
> just bobbed up and down in the tsunami a few years back. One did get
> thrown on the shore with minimal damage.
>
> I'm not saying Wharram good, Bolger bad. I own several small Bolgers
> and no Wharrams. If I won a medium sized lottery I would move to Oz
> and build an Oram, not a Wharram for a world cruise, and probably
> still have a Bolger EP or GLD for commuting to shore. But as far as
> world cruising is concerned, and the willingness to build big, one
> would be nuts to build a Bolger and not a Wharram.
>
> Details count. For instance how to survive the ultimate storm in a
> Wharram is something where you can go on the net and get the formula
> for para-anchoring from someone who has been cruising the oceans for
> decades.
>
> I'm aware of capacity differences, costs, traillering, and Flexy Space
> vs enclosed space:
>
> -I design small trailer sailers myself, and I don't think there is a
> decent trailer sailing Wharram, though admittedly the standard for
> multis is really high.
>
> - Capacity wise multis loose by definition, but they are increasingly
> the go to boat for long cruises because they take to shallow
> anchorages, provide nice tropical living spaces, survive storms, and
> are comfortable in anchorages with swells. They have gained a lot of
> followers recently For those of us who signed on in the 70s, the idea
> that they would be regularly featured on covers of traditional sailing
> and cruising magazines was hard to believe.
>
> - Cost of most multis is high because of the multiple parts, the good
> bit is that there are less compromises to plywood multis than for
> large boats of any other type. There are plywood multis that are
> beating million dollar yachts out there in races. And for the builder,
> all the parts are lighter to build and cheaper to build than for
> monos, but there are more of them. My 24 foot tri was about 3K to
> build add some fabrication, a Hobie rig, and a few 60 dollar winches.
> My pal's Tiki 46 is going to cost over 100K. at least. Way more than
> the cubed price. I think I could have built it for less, but maybe not.
>
> To restate. Bolger good, but not my choice for a world cruise. I don't
> even remember reading that proposal in his books.
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com<mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "loosemoosefilmworks" <loosemoosefilmworks@...> wrote:
> >
> > That's sort of an apples or oranges sort of question...
> >
> > They are both seaworthy and I'd rate their respective "comfort
> factor" as equal.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >http://boatbits.blogspot.com/<http://boatbits.blogspot.com/>
> >http://fishingundersail.blogspot.com/
> <http://fishingundersail.blogspot.com/>
> >http://islandgourmand.blogspot.com/
> <http://islandgourmand.blogspot.com/>
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com<mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "Christopher C. Wetherill" <wetherillc@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Since you have experience of both types, what is your opinion of
> which
> > > would be better in a rough sea? I am guessing the cat would be harder
> > > to knock over but less forgiving once it occurs.
> > >
> > > V/R
> > > Chris
> > >
>
>

>
> Sorry if I was too vague. I would be more concerned in a multi-hull
> that I might get caught in a storm with waves big enough to tip the boat
> over. Once over, the hulls are stable in the inverted position.

> is less of a concern in a conventional hull with a ballasted keel
> because center of gravity is low.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "loosemoosefilmworks" <loosemoosefilmworks@...> wrote:
>
> That's sort of an apples or oranges sort of question...
>
> They are both seaworthy and I'd rate their respective "comfort factor" as equal.
>
> Bob
>
>http://boatbits.blogspot.com/
>http://fishingundersail.blogspot.com/
>http://islandgourmand.blogspot.com/
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher C. Wetherill" <wetherillc@> wrote:
> >
> > Since you have experience of both types, what is your opinion of which
> > would be better in a rough sea? I am guessing the cat would be harder
> > to knock over but less forgiving once it occurs.
> >
> > V/R
> > Chris
> >

> I think, and this is just my opinion but it is based on some experiences
> of friends who have rolled boats at sea. Their experiences seems to be
> that the mast is lost when mast is rolled completely under. MacGregor's
> 36 ft racing cat had a wing shaped flotation device on top its mast.
> Suppose you had such a wing on top a schooner ( not a catamaran) with
> equal hight masts and the wing extended between the two masts. It would
> help to prevent the masts from going under and take some of the striking
> load off the spars themselves, maybe. My question is this, If the top of
> the sail and gaff were square and fit just under the flotation wing
> would that wing increase the sail area as a wing on a keel does or a
> wing on a rudder does. Assuming this is so, would a wing shaped boom do
> the same thing??
> A v bottomed boat is very unstable in the water unless held vertical by
> ballast at it's bottom. A square boat when heeled way over takes the
> shape of a v bottom at 45 deg. heel and that shape is less stable so
> lifts the mast and sails with less force until after the mast and sail
> is out out of the water. Just a bunch of mostly unthought out thoughts.
> What do you guys think. Doug
>
>
>
> loosemoosefilmworks wrote:
>
>> An internally ballasted boat works just like a keeled boat... It is a
>> misconception that a keeled boat is more seaworthy or more resistant
>> to being knocked down or capsized.
>>
>> In fact, my experience is that a shallow keel-less boat like an
>> advanced sharpies is much less inclined to being knocked down or
>> capsized than a boat with a keel as more often than not these events
>> are caused by the keel tripping the boat.
>>
>> Another misconception is that monohulls that do capsize and right can
>> still sail as in most cases in such a situation the rig is lost. So in
>> most instances a full capsize in a multihull and a monohull results in
>> a pretty catastrophic situation.
>>
>> Having just been dismasted myself on our CAL 34 a few weeks ago I can
>> vouch for the fact that having no mast or sails seriously cramps your
>> style!
>>
>> So back to the AS VS Wharram I still say equal.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>http://boatbits.blogspot.com/<http://boatbits.blogspot.com/>
>>http://fishingundersail.blogspot.com/
>> <http://fishingundersail.blogspot.com/>
>>http://islandgourmand.blogspot.com/<http://islandgourmand.blogspot.com/>
>>
>> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com<mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com>,
>> "Christopher C. Wetherill" <wetherillc@...> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry if I was too vague. I would be more concerned in a multi-hull
>>> that I might get caught in a storm with waves big enough to tip the
>>>
>> boat
>>
>>> over. Once over, the hulls are stable in the inverted position. This
>>> is less of a concern in a conventional hull with a ballasted keel
>>> because center of gravity is low. I am curious about the behavior of
>>> the ASxx type. Can they be ballasted to give similar properties to a
>>> keeled hull?
>>>
>>> V/R
>>> Chris
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
> An internally ballasted boat works just like a keeled boat... It is a
> misconception that a keeled boat is more seaworthy or more resistant
> to being knocked down or capsized.
>
> In fact, my experience is that a shallow keel-less boat like an
> advanced sharpies is much less inclined to being knocked down or
> capsized than a boat with a keel as more often than not these events
> are caused by the keel tripping the boat.
>
> Another misconception is that monohulls that do capsize and right can
> still sail as in most cases in such a situation the rig is lost. So in
> most instances a full capsize in a multihull and a monohull results in
> a pretty catastrophic situation.
>
> Having just been dismasted myself on our CAL 34 a few weeks ago I can
> vouch for the fact that having no mast or sails seriously cramps your
> style!
>
> So back to the AS VS Wharram I still say equal.
>
> Bob
>
>http://boatbits.blogspot.com/<http://boatbits.blogspot.com/>
>http://fishingundersail.blogspot.com/
> <http://fishingundersail.blogspot.com/>
>http://islandgourmand.blogspot.com/<http://islandgourmand.blogspot.com/>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com<mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "Christopher C. Wetherill" <wetherillc@...> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry if I was too vague. I would be more concerned in a multi-hull
> > that I might get caught in a storm with waves big enough to tip the
> boat
> > over. Once over, the hulls are stable in the inverted position. This
> > is less of a concern in a conventional hull with a ballasted keel
> > because center of gravity is low. I am curious about the behavior of
> > the ASxx type. Can they be ballasted to give similar properties to a
> > keeled hull?
> >
> > V/R
> > Chris
>
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher C. Wetherill" <wetherillc@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry if I was too vague. I would be more concerned in a multi-hull
> that I might get caught in a storm with waves big enough to tip the boat
> over. Once over, the hulls are stable in the inverted position. This
> is less of a concern in a conventional hull with a ballasted keel
> because center of gravity is low. I am curious about the behavior of
> the ASxx type. Can they be ballasted to give similar properties to a
> keeled hull?
>
> V/R
> Chris

That's sort of an apples or oranges sort of question...

They are both seaworthy and I'd rate their respective "comfort factor" as equal.

 Bobhttp://boatbits.blogspot.com/http://fishingundersail.blogspot.com/http://islandgourmand.blogspot.com/--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher C. Wetherill"<wetherillc@...>wrote:

Since you have experience of both types, what is your opinion of which 
would be better in a rough sea?  I am guessing the cat would be harder 
to knock over but less forgiving once it occurs.

V/R
Chris

loosemoosefilmworks wrote:

We're big fans of James and his boats... Before we built our Jessie Cooper we built a Wharram Tiki 31 and really liked it. That said the Wharrams (or any multihull for that matter) are not great for carrying the sort of loads that cruising and living aboard put on a boat so you have to go bigger.

For example our Jessie Cooper could carry a lot more weight than our Tiki yet is was just a kiss less than 26 feet. To morr in a marina at that time with the Wharram was times 2 the LOA so almost three times the cost of mooring in a marina if we needed to. The Jessie Cooper was nearly as fast as the Tiki as well... Loaded down cats simply do not perform with those multihull speed claims that are so impressive. Down here in the Caribbean we often pass 40 foot cats with our CAL 34 as most cats that are loaded past their optimum become somewhat sluggish.

Before we had Phil design Loose Moose 2 our short list consisted of two Wharram cats and a sharpie design which did not quite work out for us (a Pahi 42 Captain Cook and a Wharram 50 footer) one of the reasons we went with Loose Moose 2 was that to have the same sort of load carrying we'd have to go with a 55 foot cat... and a 55 foot cat would have taken over five times the materials and been triple the work.

To be a happy camper in a Wharram is more of a lifestyle change than most folks are able to make. We really like the Tiki's but there is a huge gulf between a Bolger interior and a Wharram and most folks simply cannot adapt to the Wharrams. As before one of our short list boats for the next Loose Moose is a 55 foot Wharram but it s a much more costly affair than a 40 foot sharpie and with the same load carrying and accommodation ( more or less).

Bobhttp://boatbits.blogspot.com/http://fishingundersail.blogspot.com/http://islandgourmand.blogspot.com/

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher C. Wetherill" <wetherillc@...> wrote:
>
> Since you have experience of both types, what is your opinion of which
> would be better in a rough sea? I am guessing the cat would be harder
> to knock over but less forgiving once it occurs.
>
> V/R
> Chris
>
> loosemoosefilmworks wrote:
> > We're big fans of James and his boats... Before we built our Jessie Cooper we built a Wharram Tiki 31 and really liked it. That said the Wharrams (or any multihull for that matter) are not great for carrying the sort of loads that cruising and living aboard put on a boat so you have to go bigger.
> >
> > For example our Jessie Cooper could carry a lot more weight than our Tiki yet is was just a kiss less than 26 feet. To morr in a marina at that time with the Wharram was times 2 the LOA so almost three times the cost of mooring in a marina if we needed to. The Jessie Cooper was nearly as fast as the Tiki as well... Loaded down cats simply do not perform with those multihull speed claims that are so impressive. Down here in the Caribbean we often pass 40 foot cats with our CAL 34 as most cats that are loaded past their optimum become somewhat sluggish.
> >
> > Before we had Phil design Loose Moose 2 our short list consisted of two Wharram cats and a sharpie design which did not quite work out for us (a Pahi 42 Captain Cook and a Wharram 50 footer) one of the reasons we went with Loose Moose 2 was that to have the same sort of load carrying we'd have to go with a 55 foot cat... and a 55 foot cat would have taken over five times the materials and been triple the work.
> >
> > To be a happy camper in a Wharram is more of a lifestyle change than most folks are able to make. We really like the Tiki's but there is a huge gulf between a Bolger interior and a Wharram and most folks simply cannot adapt to the Wharrams. As before one of our short list boats for the next Loose Moose is a 55 foot Wharram but it s a much more costly affair than a 40 foot sharpie and with the same load carrying and accommodation ( more or less).
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >http://boatbits.blogspot.com/
> >http://fishingundersail.blogspot.com/
> >http://islandgourmand.blogspot.com/
> >
> >
> >
>

> We're big fans of James and his boats... Before we built our Jessie Cooper we built a Wharram Tiki 31 and really liked it. That said the Wharrams (or any multihull for that matter) are not great for carrying the sort of loads that cruising and living aboard put on a boat so you have to go bigger.
>
> For example our Jessie Cooper could carry a lot more weight than our Tiki yet is was just a kiss less than 26 feet. To morr in a marina at that time with the Wharram was times 2 the LOA so almost three times the cost of mooring in a marina if we needed to. The Jessie Cooper was nearly as fast as the Tiki as well... Loaded down cats simply do not perform with those multihull speed claims that are so impressive. Down here in the Caribbean we often pass 40 foot cats with our CAL 34 as most cats that are loaded past their optimum become somewhat sluggish.
>
> Before we had Phil design Loose Moose 2 our short list consisted of two Wharram cats and a sharpie design which did not quite work out for us (a Pahi 42 Captain Cook and a Wharram 50 footer) one of the reasons we went with Loose Moose 2 was that to have the same sort of load carrying we'd have to go with a 55 foot cat... and a 55 foot cat would have taken over five times the materials and been triple the work.
>
> To be a happy camper in a Wharram is more of a lifestyle change than most folks are able to make. We really like the Tiki's but there is a huge gulf between a Bolger interior and a Wharram and most folks simply cannot adapt to the Wharrams. As before one of our short list boats for the next Loose Moose is a 55 foot Wharram but it s a much more costly affair than a 40 foot sharpie and with the same load carrying and accommodation ( more or less).
>
> Bob
>
>http://boatbits.blogspot.com/
>http://fishingundersail.blogspot.com/
>http://islandgourmand.blogspot.com/
>
>
>

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 3:13 PM, proaconstrictor<proaconstrictor@...>wrote:

One shouldn't make a religion about boxiness either. Bolger had a point of view that translates rather well to dingies, and possibly sharpies, though some of those designs were questionable. He never really created a Gloucester Light Dory with massive boxy ends. Maybe because it isn't worth the effort. The box is somewhat of an exercise.

Volume is a cube function, but beyond that, useful volume is a form function.  Cost is primarily a function of displacement but is also a function of form factor. The box provides the most useful volume, with the shallowest draft,  on the shortest length and  lowest  surface area  to volume ratio. That is why all modern commercial freighters have the essential shape of a Bolger box. The Bolger Walrus that's been discussed on these pages is really an ocean crossing wind assisted trawler on a two foot draft. Those kinds of shallow draft boats are not available on the ready made commercial market. AS-39 crossed the Atlantic on a one foot draft. It would be hard to find a commercial boat to match that.

I like Wharram's designs. I think his thinking is very much like Bolger's, but Wharram's boats are primarily designed for comfortable use in warm climates. They're made for living on rather than in. Their communal space is the large open deck between the hulls. One has to get into a very long (and wide, overall) Wharram boat to equal the interior space of a Bolger box. It's hard to park one of those in the driveway.

The Gloucester Gull was designed primarily with the minimal motive power of the human body in mind. Most of us can only put out a reliable 60 to 80 watts for extended periods of time. Even so, Bolger designed a very simple form with very low resistance. It's a box with pointy ends and minimal turbulance around the chines. It's interesting that Graeme King, the dean of wooden racing rowing shells, has designed a chined kit that as almost as fast, but easier to build, than the ideal rounded form.

Fred

>
> $400k for a 62' motorsailer without a rig or finished interior is just
> not rational. A quick search on yachtworld.com <http://yachtworld.com>
> confirms that for that kind of money you can get a motorsailer of
> similar size ready to go... and you have plenty of choices.
>
>
> -p
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:05 AM, templeagogo <jlittl@...
> <mailto:jlittl@...>> wrote:
>
> LOL. $400k for a "largely uncompleted" boat is WAY out of my price
> range. It is pretty, however.
>
> Figure on $2,500/mo in materials and all the labor the family can
> offer me for free.
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com<mailto:bolger@yahoogroups.com>,
> "djdecker2002" <djdecker2002@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com<mailto:bolger@yahoogroups.com>,
> "templeagogo" <jlittl@> wrote:
> >
> > > What we really want is the super easy building process of the
> box design with a lot of family room. If the AS 39 is not large
> enough we will go with the 48. From the 29 to the 39 you have
> about (at least?) 2 times the boat so twice the cost. I know we
> could afford to build the 39. The 48 is 2x again and that may be
> more than we can do. I'd sure like to get a study plan with
> schedule of materials. Waiting to hear back from PB&F. Who wants
> to join the building party? :)
> > >
> > > - J
> >
> > If you're really in a hurry, it looks like Windward still has an
> example of Bolger's Walrus design for sale - it's apparently been
> launched. You can see pics and stuff of the 54 foot long
> "L'Tranger" athttp://www.windwardyachts.com/sb_54bolgerPH.html
> <http://www.windwardyachts.com/sb_54bolgerPH.html>
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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
> <mailto:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
> - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com> Yahoo!
> Groups Links
>
>
> (Yahoo! ID required)
>
> <mailto:bolger-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com>
>
>
>
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "djdecker2002" <djdecker2002@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "templeagogo" <jlittl@> wrote:
>
> > What we really want is the super easy building process of the box design with a lot of family room. If the AS 39 is not large enough we will go with the 48. From the 29 to the 39 you have about (at least?) 2 times the boat so twice the cost. I know we could afford to build the 39. The 48 is 2x again and that may be more than we can do. I'd sure like to get a study plan with schedule of materials. Waiting to hear back from PB&F. Who wants to join the building party? :)
> >
> > - J
>
> If you're really in a hurry, it looks like Windward still has an example of Bolger's Walrus design for sale - it's apparently been launched. You can see pics and stuff of the 54 foot long "L'Tranger" athttp://www.windwardyachts.com/sb_54bolgerPH.html
>

> What we really want is the super easy building process of the box design with a lot of family room. If the AS 39 is not large enough we will go with the 48. From the 29 to the 39 you have about (at least?) 2 times the boat so twice the cost. I know we could afford to build the 39. The 48 is 2x again and that may be more than we can do. I'd sure like to get a study plan with schedule of materials. Waiting to hear back from PB&F. Who wants to join the building party? :)
>
> - J

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "daschultz2000" <daschultz8275@...> wrote:
>
>
> PB&F are apparent fans of variations of the Junk rig. The Junk rig is a feature of some of the later designs, especially larger boats, like the aforementioned 95' Joe Banks, and an odd trailerable coastal cruising trimaran called Schorpioen. The latter's huge Junk rig had a second 'mast' for all the trimming lines (I'm not a sailor.) and a folding mast in a tabernacle. Several of their designs in the AS-xx series feature tabernacles and unstayed masts. Some have tabernacles and stays.
>
> Figi, also mentioned in other's posts, is designed for world cruising, though I don't think 'several' children were in PB&F's thinking at the time. With that caveat, I would recommend a boat like Figi becasue it is a complete system, designed to do what you want to do. IMO it makes sense to take advantage of Bolger's and Altenberger's expreience and genius by building a design for the purpose rather than adapting a lesser design.
>
> That said, I'm sure an AS-39 has made an Atlantic crossing. Seems to me that PB&F were considering a design modification or recommendation to improve the boat for such duty. I recall they were going to specify cladding the exterior of the boat with 2" to 4" of foam, the pink stuff you can buy a Home Depot, and covering that with epoxy/glass. This would insulate the boat better for extremes of temperature, and may make it unsinkable even it holed, which would be less likely.
>
> I would want to put a minimum 1/4" steel plate on the bottom of most any of these designs for the mechanical protection of the hull from flotsam and reefs. Makes much more sense than just hauling ballast around. Don't forget the zincs.
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "templeagogo" <jlittl@> wrote:
> >...Can we put the masts in tabernacles and use Junk sails?
> >
>

>
>
>
> Just to throw in my two cents...
>
> I've never felt that the redesign of Loose Moose was an upgrade. It

>
> Then again what do I know...
>
> All the best and a happy new year to all!
>
> Bob
>
>http://boatbits.blogspot.com/
>http://fishingundersail.blogspot.com/
>http://islandgourmand.blogspot.com/
>

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Bill Howard <billh39@...> wrote:
>
> See Loose Moose II in Boats with an Open Mind. 11.5 meters x 2.4 meters x .33 meter
>
> Bill Howard
>
> On Jan 3, 2010, at 4:42 PM, templeagogo wrote:
>
> > Well, the wife and I love the box boats! What can we say? We're nuts for the different and really don't care what others think of us. So, she asks, "What is the largest Box? Couldn't we see the world in one with several kids?"
> >
> > I like her thinking :). Does anyone know what the largest design is? How much are plans and how do we get them? Can we put the masts in tabernacles and use Junk sails?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> >
>

>
>
>
> PB&F are apparent fans of variations of the Junk rig. The Junk rig is a feature of some of the later designs,

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "templeagogo" <jlittl@...> wrote:
>...Can we put the masts in tabernacles and use Junk sails?
>

On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Bill Howard<billh39@...>wrote:

See also Sir Joseph Banks, 29.0 meters x 4.8 meters x 1.0 meters.  Page 402 of Boats with an Open Mind.  Susanne Altenberger can answer questions regarding availability of plans.Susanne@....

Every time I watch one of the 1,000 foot lakers, like the Walter McCarthy, come through Duluth harbor, it looks a Bolger box to me: plumb, flat, straight. When I saw pictures of the RORO  Cougar Ace listing in the Gulf of Alaska and could see its bottom, it looked just like a huge Bolger box. (For a long article, with pictures and video, on the salvage operation seehttp://www.wired.com/print/science/discoveries/magazine/16-03/ff_seacowboys). Just like a Bolger box, it's high sides gave it form stability and kept it from sinking.

This isn't to say that Bolger was involved in the design of these ships. It's that both Bolger and nautical architects designing huge freighters have come to the same conclusion, which Bolger describes most succinctly in his comment on Brick in BWAOM: "It's disconcerting that these box boats do everything better than elaborately modeled boats of the same overall dimensions, if they both have to carry the same load. Rounding or tapering takes away volume; the boat settles deeper in the water and makes deeper, steeper waves."  Bolger and supership designers have come up with a paradigm for achieving the greatest volumetric efficiency with the least effort and complexity.

So pick a box, any box, and I think you'll be happy.

Fred

On Jan 3, 2010, at 4:42 PM, templeagogo wrote:

 

Well, the wife and I love the box boats! What can we say? We're nuts for the different and really don't care what others think of us. So, she asks, "What is the largest Box? Couldn't we see the world in one with several kids?"

I like her thinking :). Does anyone know what the largest design is? How much are plans and how do we get them? Can we put the masts in tabernacles and use Junk sails?

Thanks!

On 3-Jan-10, at 1:42 PM, templeagogo wrote:

> Well, the wife and I love the box boats! What can we say? We're nuts
> for the different and really don't care what others think of us. So,
> she asks, "What is the largest Box? Couldn't we see the world in one
> with several kids?"
>
> I like her thinking :). Does anyone know what the largest design is?
> How much are plans and how do we get them? Can we put the masts in
> tabernacles and use Junk sails?
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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
>
>
>