Re: Micro with plate centerboard

I go away to Asia for a few weeks and miss out on my favorite topic (Micro/LMs)? What luck. Mason, great report on the centerboard mod. I'd love to see a comparison of GPS tracklogs.

I have been "knocked down" once in my LM, on Lake Erie. There are two ways I can see it happen. The first happens when running, with sharp and high waves coming from abeam. The flat bottom of the M/LM rides the swells easily, but also heels considerably, and if the waves are steep enough and spaced close-enough together, that long boom can dig into a passing wave. When this happens, the mainsail sheets in tighter (no matter how much you ease the main sheet), as the boom digs into the wave. The boat heels further, the boom digs deeper into the wave, and so on. I recall Phil Bolger wrote something about this in regards to a vice of cat boats with long booms? Anyway, I had it happen to me a few times on Lake Erie, but it was never serious enough to result in a knockdown, although I could see it happening.

My knockdown occurred when a sudden gust of wind blew me over (again on Lake Erie). I usually sit with my back to the wind on the windward side and I did not see the approaching gust. Before I could ease the mainsheet I was heeled at least 70 degrees- not enough to put the mast head into the water, but enough that I was standing on the gunwale, looking down into the depths of the lake. Time slowed like cold molasses. She popped up almost instantly and I reefed.

I cannot speak of the M, but my LM plans show 11 cu feet of foam total. I recall that one cubic foot will float approx. 62 lbs, so the flotation from the plans will float 682 lbs. The estimated weight of my LM (with .5 inch thick sides and top deck, and the added structure of the self bailing cockpit) without the outboard is 1870 lbs. The plywood(26 cubic feet) will float an additional 1612 lbs. In total, a stock LM should float 2,294 lbs. That's not bad. A heavily laden boat would sink, a lightly loaded one might stay awash.

I altered my LM by adding more foam (and floatation space) under the cockpit sole. I now have a little over 20 cubic feet of floatation space which gives me 1240 lbs of floatation, along with the 1612 lbs in ply. I feel more comfortable with this margin of error (2852 lbs of floatation for a ~1900 lb boat). Regardless, I don't think a Micro or LM would sink as quickly as some plastic boats (such as J24's, which seem to sink with some frequency).

Love these discussions.

Bill, in Texas
Long Micro Pugnacious

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <hallman@...> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:33 AM, John Bell <yonderman@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > A long time ago I heard a story from Texas that a Micro got knocked down, flooded, and sank. I'm not sure there is 450 lbs of positive bouyancy in the wood structure alone to keep a Micro afloat.
> >
> > I don't know if it's true, though.
> >
>
>
> (I have the Chinese Gaff Micro Navigator design rig, not the basic
> Micro rig.) But with my sail rig, the few times I have got caught in
> overpowering winds, the way the boat behaved was to lean over a bit,
> and then then quickly dump the wind out of the mainsail while rapidly
> spinning around to point directly up into the wind. That is why I say
> I cannot imagine getting knocked down, because the boat naturally
> spins and heads up into the wind automatically and seemingly idiot
> proof.
>
> The only way I could imagine turning over would be if one got caught
> in a big surf break, and even then I am not sure how she would behave.
> My guess is that she would lean over about 60 degrees, (which would
> lift the fin keel up to a point that it wouldn't have any grab on the
> water), and then she would skitter along like a cork.
>
Susanne,

rank IT amateur here, however, as I understand it: if you're posting here then you're a group member and you can add photos in the Photos section associated with the group on the web page. You've done so before now. When online on the web page, rather than via email access, go to Photos and commence a new album or add to an existing one. Similarly with files and folders in the Files section.

As for adding photos or other embellishments, such as html, to the body of a post in this messages section... it can be done, in so far as the group's owner (Gregg) selected parameters allow it, but that may also depend on your word processor, email app, isp, connection, bigbrother, etc...

Rights to posted content, including text, photos or other embellishments within Yahoo group messages are ceded to Yahoo for their possible promotional purposes until deleted by the poster. I think it may be similar with Flikr.

Rights to Yahoo Groups Photos or Files content remain that of the poster... but this is the www, so anyone other than Yahoo may act less than accordingly with such posted content.

Graeme



--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Susanne@..." <philbolger@...> wrote:
>
> I am unable to recall my YAHOO I.D. specs and how to place photos into this Group's Archive
> Susanne
>
Similar for some larger PB&F designs sailing to weather.

So, sale retraction down to board retraction? Onya, Mason!
Graeme

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "mason smith" <masonsmith@...> wrote:
> So I confess, I did it, and am satisfied that the gain is
> considerable. The boat is no longer for sale.
> What would be the group's recommendations for beefier scantlings or fiberglass and foam core for improved weight, strength, stiffness, and rot resistance?


Stiffness, the ability to stand up to sail, is reduced by heavier (one means to beefierness) scantlings in proportion to their height above the bottom. Further, any increase in weight reduces initial stability (draft increases on the same breadth). A decrease in scantling weight increases stiffness, and the sailing performance may be more desirable.

On first look, foam core would reduce weight and maintain hull panel stiffness. However, to have the strength and stiffness of the relatively large, flat, and unsupported 1/4" plywood panels the foam sandwich lay up may have to be quite thick. It maybe that in the end the cost is inordinately proportional to the weight saving. More extensively supported, thinner laid up panels may work out better, but then the cost is in complexity.

Rot? What period is the build meant to last for? Dry stored ply boats can last decades with little attention to rot. I do wonder about the Micro flooded keel space though. The Lenihan approach there, and heavily glassed, is likely the way I'd go if building a Micro keel meant to stay wet for long periods.

Graeme
> It is always tempting to imagine worst case scenarios. With
> hundreds of Micro's built, I can't say I have ever heard of anything
> dangerous actually occurring in a Micro.

PCB imagined the Libeccio, and, not sinking at sea, but piling up on a lee shore...

He also wrote of a letter received from the daughter of an actual skipper, deceased for some time at sea (heart), still at the MICRO helm after a week of severe storms, and his return to beach and family through big surf when all searches had long since ceased.

If built to plan can a Micro/LM actually sink. That is, short of being broken into a thousand small pieces?

I believe most don't have the emergency foam flotation fitted as designed...

As designed, what's the fully flooded freeboard? ...lots of bucketing, but quite possible to bail perhaps???

Graeme
We sailed a Bolger Folding Schooner in a race on East Grand Lake in Maine a few years back. The wind was strong, there were major white caps and many of the eccletic set of boats swamped or were capzised including a Cal 21 which swamped and sank to the bottom in just the way described by water coming over the low freeboard and in through the open hatch. We did fine with three adults in the Schooner which was plenty to hold it down without reefing.
 
Leander

From:Harry James <welshman@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Fri, May 28, 2010 12:25:34 PM
Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: Micro with plate centerboard

 

There have been a number of J 24 sinkings this way, not as uncommon an
event as you might think.

HJ

Bruce Hallman wrote:

>> I've often wondered if somebody makes inflatable bags for just such a purpose....the prospect of imminent sinking focuses the mind.
>>
>
> The bags found in the wine boxes could do in a pinch.
>
> It is always tempting to imagine worst case scenarios. With
> hundreds of Micro's built, I can't say I have ever heard of anything
> dangerous actually occurring in a Micro.
>
> Having just a moderate amount of sailing experience, to me at least, I
> get the feeling that the Micro design is less risky than many of the
> fiberglass sloop designs.
>
> Specifically, the tendency of the sloop designs to have the cabin
> hatches (if left open) subject to flooding from the cockpit which has
> a relatively low freeboard.
And, these hatches are commonly left open
> while sailing.
>
> It was these open hatches that caused that sloop to sink off of Fort
> Point in 2005.
>
> http://photos.sfsurvey.com/sailH/index.asp
>
> The Micro doesn't have this same flooding risk from open cabin
> hatches, and I don't think Micro would have sunk in that surf like
> that sloop.
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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:
rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:bolger-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.com">bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>


On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Harry James <welshman@...> wrote:
>
> There have been a number of J 24 sinkings this way, not as uncommon an
> event as you might think.
>
> HJ


One thing I have learned through modeling PCB's boats in Free!Ship is
a distinct "theme" where he arranges the dimension and location of the
cabin hatch (and vent) to provide effective free board intended as
protection from potential flooding of a cockpit. This, I think, was
the issue with Martha Jane, fixed with "Martha Jane revisited"
(explained in MAIB V18N02), and also discussed with the windows of
Whalewatcher.
There have been a number of J 24 sinkings this way, not as uncommon an
event as you might think.

HJ

Bruce Hallman wrote:
>> I've often wondered if somebody makes inflatable bags for just such a purpose....the prospect of imminent sinking focuses the mind.
>>
>
> The bags found in the wine boxes could do in a pinch.
>
> It is always tempting to imagine worst case scenarios. With
> hundreds of Micro's built, I can't say I have ever heard of anything
> dangerous actually occurring in a Micro.
>
> Having just a moderate amount of sailing experience, to me at least, I
> get the feeling that the Micro design is less risky than many of the
> fiberglass sloop designs.
>
> Specifically, the tendency of the sloop designs to have the cabin
> hatches (if left open) subject to flooding from the cockpit which has
> a relatively low freeboard. And, these hatches are commonly left open
> while sailing.
>
> It was these open hatches that caused that sloop to sink off of Fort
> Point in 2005.
>
>http://photos.sfsurvey.com/sailH/index.asp
>
> The Micro doesn't have this same flooding risk from open cabin
> hatches, and I don't think Micro would have sunk in that surf like
> that sloop.
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> I've often wondered if somebody makes inflatable bags for just such a purpose....the prospect of imminent sinking focuses the mind.

The bags found in the wine boxes could do in a pinch.

It is always tempting to imagine worst case scenarios. With
hundreds of Micro's built, I can't say I have ever heard of anything
dangerous actually occurring in a Micro.

Having just a moderate amount of sailing experience, to me at least, I
get the feeling that the Micro design is less risky than many of the
fiberglass sloop designs.

Specifically, the tendency of the sloop designs to have the cabin
hatches (if left open) subject to flooding from the cockpit which has
a relatively low freeboard. And, these hatches are commonly left open
while sailing.

It was these open hatches that caused that sloop to sink off of Fort
Point in 2005.

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

The Micro doesn't have this same flooding risk from open cabin
hatches, and I don't think Micro would have sunk in that surf like
that sloop.
We had float bags made for Loose Moose 2 that used a large dive bottle to fill and in theory (never put to the test) had enough volume to keep loose Moose 2 afloat in the event of a big hole the pumps could not keep up with.

Doing the same for the Micro would be pretty easy and I'd hazard a guess that a couple of stock inflatable fenders (the Hypalon sort) would be just the thing. You would need enough volume to float the ballast weight + 20%. I'd look at airtool valves and hose for the dive tank to fender fill hardware.

Bob

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


--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "adventures_in_astrophotography" <jon@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> > Even for a relatively modest cruise it might pay to carry a small
> > inflatable raft or two for blowing up in an emergency, not to row off
> > in; just to float the Micro.
>
>
> I've often wondered if somebody makes inflatable bags for just such a purpose. I know of the huge ones used by salvagers to refloat sunken vessels, and of course there are the inflatable life vests. What I have in mind is in between those two extremes. Cylindrical inflatable bags that could be mounted along the deck/side or cabin top/cabin side joint. They would take up little space and would save a lot of building time compared to a foam sandwich hull. They wouldn't do anything about condensation like the foam supposedly does, but you'd have better access to the interior structure. I've always thought of putting them on the inside, but with proper mounting they'd work on the outside, too. You'd need the composure to pull the ripcord when needed (I wouldn't trust an auto detector), but I suspect that the prospect of imminent sinking focuses the mind.
>
> Jon
>
Hi Mark,

> Even for a relatively modest cruise it might pay to carry a small
> inflatable raft or two for blowing up in an emergency, not to row off
> in; just to float the Micro.


I've often wondered if somebody makes inflatable bags for just such a purpose. I know of the huge ones used by salvagers to refloat sunken vessels, and of course there are the inflatable life vests. What I have in mind is in between those two extremes. Cylindrical inflatable bags that could be mounted along the deck/side or cabin top/cabin side joint. They would take up little space and would save a lot of building time compared to a foam sandwich hull. They wouldn't do anything about condensation like the foam supposedly does, but you'd have better access to the interior structure. I've always thought of putting them on the inside, but with proper mounting they'd work on the outside, too. You'd need the composure to pull the ripcord when needed (I wouldn't trust an auto detector), but I suspect that the prospect of imminent sinking focuses the mind.

Jon
Beefier grants what beefier does. For example, AS19 is specified for half-inch ply all round (and no more!), but in prologue to the building key Phil, the sailor, urges quarter-inch (save the thicker bottom).

I believe, for stock plans PCB often specified lighter scantlings than others more durable on both grounds: that the boat would be a better sailer if so built; and to limit the effects detrimental to performance arising from many self-builders best intentions to do a "little" beefing up here and there.

Graeme

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <hallman@...> wrote:
>
> > What would be the group's recommendations for beefier scantlings or fiberglass and foam core for improved weight, strength, stiffness, and rot resistance?


This is Philip Bolger's, "Defect of its virtue; or a virtue of it's defect."  Micro is so accessible and capable there could be a strong temptation for going places one really shouldn't be in such a flimsy thing. 

To float your boat, kit and crew takes on the order of 20 cubic feet of foam. Double hulled everything, sides, top and bottom, an inch thick does about that using just 40 pounds of foam;  yet the structural weight around it makes a distinctly heavier boat.

Even for a relatively modest cruise it might pay to carry a small inflatable raft or two for blowing up in an emergency, not to row off in; just to float the Micro.

Mark
 

 Meanwhile I am not heading for the Azores in Pelican. --Mason

My thoughts on this discussion of the Micro in a hard chance:
    It is dangerous to think one could not be knocked down and even rolled in a big enough wind and sea, and filled. I doubt that a Micro couldotherwiseturn upside down, or that it would stay upside down more than a moment. But it could happen.
     Dangerous too to assume a Micro could not be holed, or broken, in a grounding or collision, and fill that way.
    Therefore, dangerous not to be sure that the flotation is adequate to float that lead, the motor, and all other parts and stuff of a specific gravity more than 1.
    Now, I'm pretty sure that the two designed cubes of foam under my cockpit and the foam under the bow floorboards, plus the wood in the hull, wouldnot suffice to float the filled boatwith all its motor, stove, anchors and chain, fiberglass, epoxy, etc. I think that I and other Micro sailors are counting on the boat's huge safety factors of great stability and righting moment, high freeboard, sweet self-easing manners, and the fact that we are usually sailing her in relatively safe conditions, to save us from ever testing the adequacy of the flotation.
    So I think that I, for one, am sailing irresponsibly. I rather like Stefan's notion of sandwiching foam in bottom, sides, or top, and for my own part, since I think sloped backrests a little closer to the cockpit well would be comfy, I expect some day to get around to putting such backrests in, either filling with foam behind them or making them tight-sealing dual-purpose storage and flotation spaces. Meanwhile I am not heading for the Azores in Pelican. --Mason
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent:Thursday, May 27, 2010 2:02 PM
Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: Micro with plate centerboard

 

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:33 AM, John Bell <yonderman@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> A long time ago I heard a story from Texas that a Micro got knocked down, flooded, and sank. I'm not sure there is 450 lbs of positive bouyancy in the wood structure alone to keep a Micro afloat.
>
> I don't know if it's true, though.
>

(I have the Chinese Gaff Micro Navigator design rig, not the basic
Micro rig.) But with my sail rig, the few times I have got caught in
overpowering winds, the way the boat behaved was to lean over a bit,
and then then quickly dump the wind out of the mainsail while rapidly
spinning around to point directly up into the wind. That is why I say
I cannot imagine getting knocked down, because the boat naturally
spins and heads up into the wind automatically and seemingly idiot
proof.

The only way I could imagine turning over would be if one got caught
in a big surf break, and even then I am not sure how she would behave.
My guess is that she would lean over about 60 degrees, (which would
lift the fin keel up to a point that it wouldn't have any grab on the
water), and then she would skitter along like a cork.

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:33 AM, John Bell <yonderman@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> A long time ago I heard a story from Texas that a Micro got knocked down, flooded, and sank. I'm not sure there is 450 lbs of positive bouyancy in the wood structure alone to keep a Micro afloat.
>
> I don't know if it's true, though.
>


(I have the Chinese Gaff Micro Navigator design rig, not the basic
Micro rig.) But with my sail rig, the few times I have got caught in
overpowering winds, the way the boat behaved was to lean over a bit,
and then then quickly dump the wind out of the mainsail while rapidly
spinning around to point directly up into the wind. That is why I say
I cannot imagine getting knocked down, because the boat naturally
spins and heads up into the wind automatically and seemingly idiot
proof.

The only way I could imagine turning over would be if one got caught
in a big surf break, and even then I am not sure how she would behave.
My guess is that she would lean over about 60 degrees, (which would
lift the fin keel up to a point that it wouldn't have any grab on the
water), and then she would skitter along like a cork.
A long time ago I heard a story from Texas that a Micro got knocked down, flooded, and sank. I'm not sure there is 450 lbs of positive bouyancy in the wood structure alone to keep a Micro afloat.
I don't know if it's true, though.

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Myles J. Swift<mswift@...>wrote:

Bruce saysI just can't imagine a situation where a Micro could turn turtle.

I wasn’t suggesting that a Micro would turn turtle. It is more that many designs with low floatation were found to have a problem reboarding after capsize. The center of floatation wanted to keep rising to the surface for some reason. My impression is that designers added higher floatation to their list of things to be included in all designs.

I’ve been knocked down once in Micro and popped right back up.

MylesJ

Bruce says I just can't imagine a situation where a Micro could turn turtle.

I wasn’t suggesting that a Micro would turn turtle. It is more that many designs with low floatation were found to have a problem reboarding after capsize. The center of floatation wanted to keep rising to the surface for some reason. My impression is that designers added higher floatation to their list of things to be included in all designs.

 

I’ve been knocked down once in Micro and popped right back up.

 

MylesJ

Myles, I do not know the total weight of my Micro but I do know that she has the full weight of lead specified in her keel, 420 or 425 lbs is it? -- Mason
----- Original Message -----
Sent:Wednesday, May 26, 2010 1:30 PM
Subject:[bolger] Re: Micro with plate centerboard

 

Stefan,

First, Micro was designed to be built in ply. The stressed skin curvature is what makes the whole thing work.

I did a half inch bottom of doubled ¼ inch. When the hull was done I used mine (which I call Micro Three  or really mu cubed) for a while and decided that I didn’t feel comfortable with the main deck so light so I doubled that as well. I’ve never noticed any side flex so I feel the original spec is good there.

I think the comment on the extra floatation is a good one. By then there was evidence for a lot of boats needing additional floatation higher up after too many boats turning turtle or being difficult/unsafe to re-enter when swamped. I’ve been using a trolling motor so I’m not concerned with weight on the stern.

One comment/question on the drop keel. Do you know how heavy your boat is? I’ve read of people skimping on the keel weight. I’m just guessing here but putting the whole boat a couple of inches deeper in the water should cut down on side drift between more chine in the water and less windage. I’ve not added a rudder plate to mine but that is something I would like to try.

MylesJ

Thanks Fred. You said that very well.

Love ya Susanne,
David

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Fred Schumacher <fredschum@...> wrote:
>
> Susanne,
>
> Anniversaries are particularly difficult times, even when the ultimate
> decision had been talked about, planned, accepted. We all feel your pain
> very directly. This is more than a discussion group. It's a community, and
> we all lost a friend a year ago, even if we never met him personally. Our
> hearts are with you.
>
> with love,
>
> fred s.
>
>
> I think the comment on the extra floatation is a good one. By then there was evidence for a lot of boats needing additional floatation higher up after too many boats turning turtle or being difficult/unsafe to re-enter when swamped. I’ve been using a trolling motor so I’m not concerned with weight on the stern.


I just can't imagine a situation where a Micro could turn turtle.
That 400 lbs of lead on the fin keel fights fiercely to keep the hull
upright! That said, there is a small but not zero chance of taking a
hole in the hull and wanting net positive buoyancy if flooded isn't a
bad idea to keep a flooded hull from sinking. (I added some chunks of
hard styrofoam)

Stefan,

 

First, Micro was designed to be built in ply. The stressed skin curvature is what makes the whole thing work.

 

I did a half inch bottom of doubled ¼ inch. When the hull was done I used mine (which I call Micro Three  or really mu cubed) for a while and decided that I didn’t feel comfortable with the main deck so light so I doubled that as well. I’ve never noticed any side flex so I feel the original spec is good there.

 

I think the comment on the extra floatation is a good one. By then there was evidence for a lot of boats needing additional floatation higher up after too many boats turning turtle or being difficult/unsafe to re-enter when swamped. I’ve been using a trolling motor so I’m not concerned with weight on the stern.

 

One comment/question on the drop keel. Do you know how heavy your boat is? I’ve read of people skimping on the keel weight. I’m just guessing here but putting the whole boat a couple of inches deeper in the water should cut down on side drift between more chine in the water and less windage. I’ve not added a rudder plate to mine but that is something I would like to try.

 

MylesJ

Gene and Mason,
I'm hoping to procure a set of plans for Micro and Navigator sometime soon. I'm working on it. I had forgotten about tuning the helm with the mizzen. I have only limited experience in yawls, but I'm planning to rig the double-ender I'm building now as a lug yawl. Looking forward to this rig.

I'm always happy to come across new dialogue about this design. Mason, could I drop by the show in Salem to have a look at your Micro?

Thanks,
Jim Luton
http://sailingskiffs.blogspot.com/
Jim,
The updated version of Micro has the mast in tabernacle at the bow just like the Long Micro.  The plans cover both the standard and the Navigator versions.

Sincerely,
Gene T.

On 25 May, 2010, at 11:28 AM, JimL wrote:



Mason,
That is a very interesting idea, and so simple to carry out! I've often wondered myself if a small fin on a micro would improve the windward performance. It would be nice to compare vmg of both with a gps on a measured course to see real data. You said you changed the mast rake to as-designed. I have thought that the Long Micro's bow tabernacle would be a good alteration, and one that might facilitate raising and lowering on the water. Do you or others think this forward shift of the c/e would have a detrimental effect? 

I've been looking at the Micro for a couple of years now, as a boat for extended trips up the Hudson and canal to Champlain. My shop space in Brooklyn is limited to about that loa (or rather my freight elevator is), or I'd really consider a Long Micro. Micro is about as habitable a boat as I've seen for that length and displacement, and I think its got real quirky good looks. Another thing about the design that I like is that the outboard installation, fuel, and anchor storage is so well thought out. Important for river and canal use. But you all know that already!

Thanks for your contribution to the dialogue. 
Jim Luton
http://sailingskiffs.blogspot.com/



Stefan,
In the plans Phil says the bottom can be 1/4 or 2 ply, 1/2 or 3 ply 3/4.  Says they weight won't hurt her.

Gene T.

On 25 May, 2010, at 6:20 PM, reddoc000 wrote:

I am convinced. With Suzanne's perspective to come i am excited to build a Micro soon. 

With the understanding that changes to design must be eschewed at almost all cost, Phil's scantlings for the Micro seem a bit thin by report for his intention of more affordable cost and easier build.

What would be the group's recommendations for beefier scantlings or fiberglass and foam core for improved weight, strength, stiffness, and rot resistance?

Stefan

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "mason smith" <masonsmith@...> wrote:
>
> Dear gang---Last fall some of us were talking here about the notion of a device to give the Micro a boost in windward performance and I threatened to try it. Well, before launching this year I have done what I had in mind. I have hung a quarter-inch brass plate, shaped to fit in the shadow of the ballast keel, on a bolt through the keel almost vertically below the forward end of the cockpit. ...


I was thinking 3/8" sides and doubled on the bottom, with or without extra fiberglass plies epoxied on.

I hate fighting rot on these wooden boats and wouldn't mind a stressed skin foam cored construction on top of or instead of plywood.

That would also add to the flotation Phil hinted at to Mason.

Thoughts?

All the Best,
Stefan

"One gathers peace as a feather in the palm of one's hand."    -anonymous

Shelburne Falls, Ma.




On May 25, 2010, at 7:43 PM, mason smith wrote:


Mine is 3/8 on the sides. Not the greatest stuff, only 3-ply, but oukoume. Didn't Phil change the plans to call for 3/8?
When he looked over my boat at Mystic, the year he was feted at the show, he said he regretted the thinness of the scantlings on the early plans. Also said he'd like to see more flotation. Secifically, if I caught it right, he wouldnt mind more high on the sides (bulwarks) around the cockpit and sternwell, to float the motor. It's true the curves to great things but I would be happy, in bigger water, to have any oil-canning of any panels prevented. I get some, I think even from the bottom, and I don't like it.  Mason
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 6:47 PM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Micro with plate centerboard

 

> What would be the group's recommendations for beefier scantlings or fiberglass and foam core for improved weight, strength, stiffness, and rot resistance?
>
> Stefan

Mine is built with some really nice 1/4" plywood, (Meranti I think).
I know that seems thin, but it is holding up just fine. I think the
deep curves of the bending gives the plywood sufficient rigidity.
Indeed, I wouldn't want to try to bend thicker plywood to those deep
curvatures.



Mine is 3/8 on the sides. Not the greatest stuff, only 3-ply, but oukoume. Didn't Phil change the plans to call for 3/8?
When he looked over my boat at Mystic, the year he was feted at the show, he said he regretted the thinness of the scantlings on the early plans. Also said he'd like to see more flotation. Secifically, if I caught it right, he wouldnt mind more high on the sides (bulwarks) around the cockpit and sternwell, to float the motor. It's true the curves to great things but I would be happy, in bigger water, to have any oil-canning of any panels prevented. I get some, I think even from the bottom, and I don't like it.  Mason
----- Original Message -----
Sent:Tuesday, May 25, 2010 6:47 PM
Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: Micro with plate centerboard

 

> What would be the group's recommendations for beefier scantlings or fiberglass and foam core for improved weight, strength, stiffness, and rot resistance?
>
> Stefan

Mine is built with some really nice 1/4" plywood, (Meranti I think).
I know that seems thin, but it is holding up just fine. I think the
deep curves of the bending gives the plywood sufficient rigidity.
Indeed, I wouldn't want to try to bend thicker plywood to those deep
curvatures.

It seemed possible to make the comparison without another boat, by luffing up and raising the plate. I did this once, too briefly, wasn't too sure of the results. If we get several Micros together again as we did at Gloucester last fall, we'll surely try for some comparison. By the way, I think I shall be at Salem, for the Antique and Classic Boat Society's festival there August 28, living aboard the Micro and judging, if that's the word, should any other Micro be there.
Am not familiar with the Long Micro's tabernacle, but how much farther forward can it put the mast? It is an interesting question what it would to to balance. If it is correct now, it would result in less weather helm (safety factor). But given the place in all this of the mizzen, and the adjustability thereby of the balance, I think a small adjustment of the mizzen sheet would compensate: you might not know the difference. Incidentally, with my little plate cb, I had to have the mizzen set to be soft at the luff some of the time to maintain an on-the-wind heading. I thought that this perhaps suggested that I should have placed the bolt a few inches further forward, thus giving the mizzen more of a share in the balancing, so that it needed to be fuller. It might be driving a little, then. As it was, I thought it was serving almost entirely as a steering vane. I'm going to rig a lashing system for the tiller, and see what it does to have the rudder held amidships while steering via the mizzen. That might be a trifle better. But again, I was awfully pleased with the boat's speed and limited side-slip with the little plate. 
 
---- Original Message -----
From:JimL
Sent:Tuesday, May 25, 2010 11:28 AM
Subject:[bolger] Re: Micro with plate centerboard

 



Mason,
That is a very interesting idea, and so simple to carry out! I've often wondered myself if a small fin on a micro would improve the windward performance. It would be nice to compare vmg of both with a gps on a measured course to see real data. You said you changed the mast rake to as-designed. I have thought that the Long Micro's bow tabernacle would be a good alteration, and one that might facilitate raising and lowering on the water. Do you or others think this forward shift of the c/e would have a detrimental effect?

I've been looking at the Micro for a couple of years now, as a boat for extended trips up the Hudson and canal to Champlain. My shop space in Brooklyn is limited to about that loa (or rather my freight elevator is), or I'd really consider a Long Micro. Micro is about as habitable a boat as I've seen for that length and displacement, and I think its got real quirky good looks. Another thing about the design that I like is that the outboard installation, fuel, and anchor storage is so well thought out. Important for river and canal use. But you all know that already!

Thanks for your contribution to the dialogue.
Jim Luton
http://sailingskiffs.blogspot.com/


Susanne,

Anniversaries are particularly difficult times, even when the ultimate decision had been talked about, planned, accepted. We all feel your pain very directly. This is more than a discussion group. It's a community, and we all lost a friend a year ago, even if we never met him personally. Our hearts are with you.

with love,

fred s.
> What would be the group's recommendations for beefier scantlings or fiberglass and foam core for improved weight, strength, stiffness, and rot resistance?
>
> Stefan


Mine is built with some really nice 1/4" plywood, (Meranti I think).
I know that seems thin, but it is holding up just fine. I think the
deep curves of the bending gives the plywood sufficient rigidity.
Indeed, I wouldn't want to try to bend thicker plywood to those deep
curvatures.
I am convinced. With Suzanne's perspective to come i am excited to build a Micro soon.

With the understanding that changes to design must be eschewed at almost all cost, Phil's scantlings for the Micro seem a bit thin by report for his intention of more affordable cost and easier build.

What would be the group's recommendations for beefier scantlings or fiberglass and foam core for improved weight, strength, stiffness, and rot resistance?

Stefan


--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "mason smith" <masonsmith@...> wrote:
>
> Dear gang---Last fall some of us were talking here about the notion of a device to give the Micro a boost in windward performance and I threatened to try it. Well, before launching this year I have done what I had in mind. I have hung a quarter-inch brass plate, shaped to fit in the shadow of the ballast keel, on a bolt through the keel almost vertically below the forward end of the cockpit. ...
Mason,
That is a very interesting idea, and so simple to carry out! I've often wondered myself if a small fin on a micro would improve the windward performance. It would be nice to compare vmg of both with a gps on a measured course to see real data. You said you changed the mast rake to as-designed. I have thought that the Long Micro's bow tabernacle would be a good alteration, and one that might facilitate raising and lowering on the water. Do you or others think this forward shift of the c/e would have a detrimental effect?

I've been looking at the Micro for a couple of years now, as a boat for extended trips up the Hudson and canal to Champlain. My shop space in Brooklyn is limited to about that loa (or rather my freight elevator is), or I'd really consider a Long Micro. Micro is about as habitable a boat as I've seen for that length and displacement, and I think its got real quirky good looks. Another thing about the design that I like is that the outboard installation, fuel, and anchor storage is so well thought out. Important for river and canal use. But you all know that already!

Thanks for your contribution to the dialogue.
Jim Luton
http://sailingskiffs.blogspot.com/
Hello all,
     after a bad night I got up and reflected on that morning one more cycle.  With all that I know and can remember it must have been the gun-shot that awoke me at 09:13.  

After writing a lengthy piece on that dreadful morning, I have decided to not yet put it before you all until I've digested further the multiple layers of that event and what led up to it.

Today I picked a bunch of butter-cups around the house - a good reason to not mow too much - , the little golden-yellow flowers that Phil took a great bit of liking too since early childhood.  He described how with a friend or two they'd be putting the blossoms just under the tips of their noses with light reflecting golden yellow on these little noses, all quite impressed with each other's appearance.  He happily demonstrated for me the magic quite a few times.  And his gentle face reflected the wonder with sweetness and eagerness to share.

So I put them in a small clear glass of water and headed for the monument under a blue sky with just a few clouds for good effect.  A year ago we had the same weather.

I took a few .jpegs with the plan of up-loading it to the Group's photo-archive.  The YAHOO-regs seem to have frozen me out of that access until my 'new' identity is accepted...  I thought that offering to you all a higher-quality image than the inexplicably blurry MAIB reproduction would be one way of commemorating Phil's death one year ago today. 

As somebody just emphasized with some insistence, I should be mindful of the fact that I've made it through this first year reasonably intact, drawing on support of a lot of folks, gratefully taking advantage of some good fortune here and there to ease the path, and am making progress towards securing and building the legacy of Phil Bolger.

And I am mindful that you all have lost something as well with the loss of Phil's life.  But as this Group continues to reflect, his life's work will persist.

Yours
#1 Friend, apprentice, lover, wife, business-partner over the most important 15 years of my life,
Susanne Altenburger       
Nice, Mason,

sounds like a really interesting experiment. Maybe the thing to do to have a second look at it would be to find a day with a steady breeze, sail a three point course with the board and then take it off and do it again.

Cheers, Brian

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "mason smith" <masonsmith@...> wrote:
>
> Dear gang---Last fall some of us were talking here about the notion of a device to give the Micro a boost in windward performance and I threatened to try it. Well, before launching this year I have done what I had in mind. I have hung a quarter-inch brass plate, shaped to fit in the shadow of the ballast keel, on a bolt through the keel almost vertically below the forward end of the cockpit.
> I made it out of a piece of brass plate somebody gave me years ago, and was limited in length by that piece ov brass. It could not be as long as I might have wished, but, on the other hand, I thought it would do for a test, and perhaps it was as long and large as it could be in brass without bending in use. If it bent over the edge of the keel, it might not lift up, and I would be in a nasty situation come retrieval onto the trailer. And even a square foot of added lateral plane, below the keel at the right location (guessed at) should be enough to test the concept.
> So I guessed at the location, apporoximately under the cabin/cockpit bulkhead, and sawed my piece of brass to fit the keel and bottom aft of that pivot point, with as much bearing surface against the keel, when the board is down, as possible.
> I notched the trailing edge so it could come tight up to the bottom around a cheek blick screwed to the shoe keel from which the ballast keel hangs. The pendant is attached at the bottom of this cutout, by a small shackle. For trials, I simiply used a piece of nylon small-stuff tied to the shackle, shifting to 3/8" braid partway back along the bottom to the hole alongside the rudderpost where it turns up into the sternwell. It passes through a hole in the rudder yoke, over a roller, to a clam-cleat just forward.
> I'll put photos of this thing on the group site in a Micro Centerboard album.
> I put something on the trailer to hold this plate board up beside the keel when trailering, rather than have its jiggling weight on the pendant. Conveniently this support lifts the board as you load the boat onto the trailer if you forget to raise it, and then to relax the pendant.
> Well, I've just come back from testing this thing over a four-day trip to Lake Champlain. Maggie, 14, won a scholarship to a young writers conference at Champlain College. She had a championship softball game at Crown Point Thursdy PM, and so I trailered over to watch the game (lost) and pick her up and head north to Willsboro Bay. We motored over to Buirlington, VT and tied up at the Boathouse docks for $1.75 per foot. Nice showers. After hauling her duffel up to Champlain College, I skipped back down to the dock and shoved off, to beat north against a north wind of 10 to 15 mph according to NOAA atop Mt. Mansfield. The test, at last.
> Well, I think she's more boat this way but iti's pretty unscientific rreporting I am about to do. She's had two other changes since last used at Gloucester for Phil's Memorial: her repaired mast is raked more nearly to the plans rake. And she has a full-length rudder, with an end-plate. (She originally was only an outboard cruiser and had a skeg with a rudderpost and rudder about 5" shorter than plans show. When I put on her ballast keel with a full length rudderpost, I didn't right away add to the rudder.) So I would expect her to do a little better even without the plate cb.
> She certainly does beautifully now. I'm not sure she points higher but she makes much less leeway and it's my impression that she's faster, which I think goes with less leeway. With the end of her boom brought just above the bulwarks, she heads 45 degrees off the wind and almost seems to be making that heading good; but the gps track shows that she is by no means really sailing her tacks within 90 degrees. In general I find that she sails, on a tack like this, at about half the wind speed. 4 mph in an 8 mph breeze, almost 5 in 10, and a bit more at times in stronger winds, but not much. On a reach in winds of 10 she will sail at 6 and a little over (mph, not knots) steadily. With the new underwater features she tacks more surely, indeed very quickly and surely.
> Still better, she does this without my attention. I sailed upwind for 7 or 8 hours Friday in winds of around 8, and 7 hours Saturday against stronger winds, sometimes up to 15 or 18, I think, and almost all the time she steered herself. I had only to put the tiller over about a foot at the end of each tack and she quickly passed through stays and off. I let go and the rudder found its own position on the new tack without any adjustment of the mizzen. I never lashed the tiller. Don't yet have a system for holding it, but will soon, to see if she will sail herself on a reach with the rudder held amidships and so turned into more lateral plane aft. I could not make her do this on the return to Willsboro across the wind yesterday, a sweet, fast sail and very comfortable.
> Upwind, by the way, the boat was addictively comfortable in the 2' waves that had built up in the long fetch on Champlain. Once in a while she pounded and one felt the plywood bottom flexing, but mostly she notched into these waves comfortably. Better when I sat to leeward, as I did when that was the sunny side. These were hot days on land, but Champlain water is at 54 degrees, and I wore long pants and a windbreaker to stay warm.
> So, in the end, I am highly pleased with the addition. If one were to make a bit longer board, I think it could be good, but my sense is that my board is large enough for effect and any longer, in brass, it might bend. Better make any longer ones of steel.
> Hope Susanne comments, as well as vous autres. I am on record as advising caution in modifying a PCB design, the tradeoffs being likely to bite you; but this seemed a harmless experiment. What's a 3/8" hole through the keel? What's the drag of a quarter-inch plate beside it (with UHMW plastic on the bearing portion ot the plate, and a strip of the same where the pendant-shackle will run up and down the keel)? Nothing ventured, nothing gained. So I confess, I did it, and am satisfied that the gain is considerable. The boat is no longer for sale.
> Best to you all, especially the dear designer's dear friend. ---Mason
>
Thanks Bruce.
I understand the procedure but I remain frozen out in a chicken&egg loop.  I'll apprently have to establish a 'new identity' - which is both astonishing and ironic...
Susanne
----- Original Message -----
Sent:Monday, May 24, 2010 1:13 PM
Subject:Re: [bolger] Help with Yahoo-Access !

 

On the "Sign in to Yahoo" login screen there is a clickable link to "I
can't access my account " which can be used to reset lost passwords,
etc.

https://login.yahoo.com/config/login?.done=http://groups.yahoo.com%2fgroup%2fbolger%2f&.src=ygrp&.intl=us

=====

Though, I personally would discourage using the Yahoo Groups filespace
for photos.

There are a few other convenient options for placing photos. In my
opinion, the Yahoo owned website Flickr is much better...

http://www.flickr.com/groups/bolgerboats/pool/

Or the more generally...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/bolger/

The reason this is more convenient is that Flickr is search-able,
where the Yahoo Group photos archives are not.

On the "Sign in to Yahoo" login screen there is a clickable link to "I
can't access my account " which can be used to reset lost passwords,
etc.

https://login.yahoo.com/config/login?.done=http://groups.yahoo.com%2fgroup%2fbolger%2f&.src=ygrp&.intl=us

=====

Though, I personally would discourage using the Yahoo Groups filespace
for photos.

There are a few other convenient options for placing photos. In my
opinion, the Yahoo owned website Flickr is much better...

http://www.flickr.com/groups/bolgerboats/pool/

Or the more generally...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/bolger/

The reason this is more convenient is that Flickr is search-able,
where the Yahoo Group photos archives are not.
Me too!
On May 24, 2010, at 12:14 PM,Susanne@...wrote:

 

I am unable to recall my YAHOO I.D. specs and how to place photos into this Group's Archive
Susanne


I am unable to recall my YAHOO I.D. specs and how to place photos into this Group's Archive
Susanne
Dear gang---Last fall some of us were talking here about the notion of a device to give the Micro a boost in windward performance and I threatened to try it. Well, before launching this year I have done what I had in mind. I have hung a quarter-inch brass plate, shaped to fit in the shadow of the ballast keel, on a bolt through the keel almost vertically below the forward end of the cockpit.
    I made it out of a piece of brass plate somebody gave me years ago, and was limited in length by that piece ov brass. It could not be as long as I might have wished, but, on the other hand, I thought it would do for a test, and perhaps it was as long and large as it could be in brass without bending in use. If it bent over the edge of the keel, it might not lift up, and I would be in a nasty situation come retrieval onto the trailer. And even a square foot of added lateral plane, below the keel at the right location (guessed at) should be enough to test the concept.
    So I guessed at the location, apporoximately under the cabin/cockpit bulkhead, and sawed my piece of brass to fit the keel and bottom aft of that pivot point, with as much bearing surface against the keel, when the board is down, as possible.
    I notched the trailing edge so it could come tight up to the bottom around a cheek blick screwed to the shoe keel from which the ballast keel hangs. The pendant is attached at the bottom of this cutout, by a small shackle. For trials, I simiply used a piece of nylon small-stuff tied to the shackle, shifting to 3/8" braid partway back along the bottom to the hole alongside the rudderpost where it turns up into the sternwell. It passes through a hole in the rudder yoke, over a roller, to a clam-cleat just forward.
    I'll put photos of this thing on the group site in a Micro Centerboard album.
    I put something on the trailer to hold this plate board up beside the keel when trailering, rather than have its jiggling weight on the pendant. Conveniently this support lifts the board as you load the boat onto the trailer if you forget to raise it, and then to relax the pendant.
    Well, I've just come back from testing this thing over a four-day trip to Lake Champlain. Maggie, 14, won a scholarship to a young writers conference at Champlain College. She had a championship softball game at Crown Point Thursdy PM, and so I trailered over to watch the game (lost) and pick her up and head north to Willsboro Bay. We motored over to Buirlington, VT and tied up at the Boathouse docks for $1.75 per foot. Nice showers. After hauling her duffel up to Champlain College, I skipped back down to the dock and shoved off, to beat north against a north wind of 10 to 15 mph according to NOAA atop Mt. Mansfield. The test, at last.
    Well, I think she's more boat this way but iti's pretty unscientific rreporting I am about to do. She's had two other changes since last used at Gloucester for Phil's Memorial: her repaired mast is raked more nearly to the plans rake. And she has a full-length rudder, with an end-plate. (She originally was only an outboard cruiser and had a skeg with a rudderpost and rudder about 5" shorter than plans show. When I put on her ballast keel with a full length rudderpost, I didn't right away add to the rudder.) So I would expect her to do a little better even without the plate cb.
    She certainly does beautifully now. I'm not sure she points higher but she makes much less leeway and it's my impression that she's faster, which I think goes with less leeway. With the end of her boom brought just above the bulwarks, she heads 45 degrees off the wind and almostseemsto be making that heading good; but the gps track shows that she is by no means really sailing her tacks within 90 degrees. In general I find that she sails, on a tack like this, at about half the wind speed. 4 mph in an 8 mph breeze, almost 5 in 10, and a bit more at times in stronger winds, but not much. On a reach in winds of 10 she will sail at 6 and a little over (mph, not knots) steadily. With the new underwater features she tacks more surely, indeed very quickly and surely.
    Still better, she does this without my attention. I sailed upwind for 7 or 8 hours Friday in winds of around 8, and 7 hours Saturday against stronger winds, sometimes up to 15 or 18, I think, and almost all the time she steered herself. I had only to put the tiller over about a foot at the end of each tack and she quickly passed through stays and off. I let go and the rudder found its own position on the new tack without any adjustment of the mizzen. I never lashed the tiller. Don't yet have a system for holding it, but will soon, to see if she will sail herself on a reach with the rudder held amidships and so turned into more lateral plane aft. I could not make her do this on the return to Willsboro across the wind yesterday, a sweet, fast sail and very comfortable.
    Upwind, by the way, the boat was addictively comfortable in the 2' waves that had built up in the long fetch on Champlain. Once in a while she pounded and one felt the plywood bottom flexing, but mostly she notched into these waves comfortably. Better when I sat to leeward, as I did when that was the sunny side. These were hot days on land, but Champlain water is at 54 degrees, and I wore long pants and a windbreaker to stay warm.
    So, in the end, I am highly pleased with the addition. If one were to make a bit longer board, I think it could be good, but my sense is that my board is large enough for effect and any longer, in brass, it might bend. Better make any longer ones of steel.
    Hope Susanne comments, as well asvous autres. I am on record as advising caution in modifying a PCB design, the tradeoffs being likely to bite you; but this seemed a harmless experiment. What's a 3/8" hole through the keel? What's the drag of a quarter-inch plate beside it (with UHMW plastic on the bearing portion ot the plate, and a strip of the same where the pendant-shackle will run up and down the keel)? Nothing ventured, nothing gained. So I confess, I did it, and am satisfied that the gain is considerable. The boat is no longer for sale.
        Best to you all, especially the dear designer's dear friend. ---Mason