Re: Micro Building Cost
In my opinion, there is no rule here. Costs will be all over the map, depending on how you go about things. I told myself in the beginning that cost did not matter. My goal was to achieve a long lasting boat, so I went the extra mile to try to get there and only time will tell the story. The real beauty of Phil's designs are that you can be as lean on costs and time as you choose depending on where you are with it. So, go build and have fun sailing.
Regards,
Dennis
"Old Shoe - Pearl"
Bellingham, WA
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "jcaldwell291944" <jcaldwell29@...> wrote:
>
> Susanne,
> My two cents worth (and experience) shows
> ~$2,000 @ ~250 mh - including sails & spars.
> If one uses the best quality materials, buys from
> the most expensive retail suppliers and futzes beyond
> reason I can see $3,500 and maybe 500 mh but daughter
> & I agree that if anyone is spending/taking more than
> that something drastic is amiss !!
> Jim Caldwell
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Susanne@" <philbolger@> wrote:
> >
> > What's the approximate material's and man-hours budget for one of these ?
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: c.ruzer
> > To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 9:29 PM
> > Subject: [bolger] Re: Chine Runners
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Martin. Leaving the external ballast, and salient keels aside for the moment, the issue with those two hulls is that of draft for breadth. PCB explains as related to the Blackgauntlet II and Rondo II (FS Chaps 12, 13) how this affects initial and secondary stability... In short Micro and OS are fairly shallow for their breadth whereas ML's Paradox and Enigma designs are comparitively deep for their breadth (as is BGII). IMO therefore those ML boats initially heel much, much further than Micro or OS before hardening up when their higher secondary stability is reached. This allows a better lifting body orientation that is also lee chine deeper in the water column (where those layers as likely also have less wind affected mass movement), and where the chine-runner acts as a better more perpendicular fence between high and low pressure regions of lee side and bottom (becoming somewhat of a salient keel itself).
> >
> > Triloboats could be thought of in the same way as Rondo II, as quite shallow for their breadth and so quite initially stiff (with consequently less secondary than initial stability).
> >
> > I watched Dylan's KTL video of your JR Micro again recentlyhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA4kuhuKtrgFor sale now? What's next?
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, martin roberts <martin.me.roberts@> wrote:
> > >
> > > There does seem to be a miss understanding about chine runners. They
> > > only work if you have a lifting hull. From what I have read a flat
> > > bottomed hull say for example the micro or old shoe does not give you
> > > the benefits you would like to see.
> > >
> > > If you look at Matt Laydens boats they all have some form of curved
> > > bottom. I am not an expert, but others have tried - triloboats.com for
> > > example and the results were disappointing.
> > >
> > > Martin Roberts
> > > (I have a micro in the uk for sale)
> > >
> >
>
Mine took about 6 weeks and cost about $3000 twenty some years ago including sails. IIRC about half the time was for glassing, which I had never done before (and it shows). If you want a boat with a shorter life, only taped the seams, used standard exterior ply and made your own polytarp sail you could probably still do it for about $1,500.
Myles J. Swift
voice line 541-895-3347
President, Computer Assistance Inc.
Helping independent auto and truck
repair businesses since 1978
My two cents worth (and experience) shows
~$2,000 @ ~250 mh - including sails & spars.
If one uses the best quality materials, buys from
the most expensive retail suppliers and futzes beyond
reason I can see $3,500 and maybe 500 mh but daughter
& I agree that if anyone is spending/taking more than
that something drastic is amiss !!
Jim Caldwell
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Susanne@..." <philbolger@...> wrote:
>
> What's the approximate material's and man-hours budget for one of these ?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: c.ruzer
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 9:29 PM
> Subject: [bolger] Re: Chine Runners
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Martin. Leaving the external ballast, and salient keels aside for the moment, the issue with those two hulls is that of draft for breadth. PCB explains as related to the Blackgauntlet II and Rondo II (FS Chaps 12, 13) how this affects initial and secondary stability... In short Micro and OS are fairly shallow for their breadth whereas ML's Paradox and Enigma designs are comparitively deep for their breadth (as is BGII). IMO therefore those ML boats initially heel much, much further than Micro or OS before hardening up when their higher secondary stability is reached. This allows a better lifting body orientation that is also lee chine deeper in the water column (where those layers as likely also have less wind affected mass movement), and where the chine-runner acts as a better more perpendicular fence between high and low pressure regions of lee side and bottom (becoming somewhat of a salient keel itself).
>
> Triloboats could be thought of in the same way as Rondo II, as quite shallow for their breadth and so quite initially stiff (with consequently less secondary than initial stability).
>
> I watched Dylan's KTL video of your JR Micro again recentlyhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA4kuhuKtrgFor sale now? What's next?
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, martin roberts <martin.me.roberts@> wrote:
> >
> > There does seem to be a miss understanding about chine runners. They
> > only work if you have a lifting hull. From what I have read a flat
> > bottomed hull say for example the micro or old shoe does not give you
> > the benefits you would like to see.
> >
> > If you look at Matt Laydens boats they all have some form of curved
> > bottom. I am not an expert, but others have tried - triloboats.com for
> > example and the results were disappointing.
> >
> > Martin Roberts
> > (I have a micro in the uk for sale)
> >
>
>I built my Micro in about 450 manhours, and a scrounging materials
>
>
> Let's find a builder of Micro and find out...it's a good boat.
>
cost of $1,000.
Still, every builder is different. The range of time and cost depends
SOOOO much on the style-speed of the individual builder. Easily by a
factor of 10X.
Let's find a builder of Micro and find out...it's a good boat.--- OnTue, 1/11/11, Bruce Hallman<hallman@...>wrote: |
> What's the approximate material's and man-hours budget for one of these ?Unanswerable question unless we know the builder. I would bet that
one could be built in 100 manhours under $1,000, and that many have
taken 1,000 manhours and $10,000. (And, even more have been started
and not finished.)
I imagined two paradox boats lashed together in a cat formation or one with two small outriggers as a fast tri coastal cruiser. I really believe the mono hull will be old school in the near future.--- OnTue, 1/11/11, c.ruzer<c.ruzer@...>wrote: |
>It's very much up to individual builders choice of materials and quality level of the build, within the sometimes very wide latitude allowable, and to their available construction site circumstances, blocks of available free time, and experience. Sorry to state something there you'd know much better than I, but during this all time record breaking flood I can't be more exact despite being sure I have seen one or two itemised spreadsheets somewhere on the net.
> What's the approximate material's and man-hours budget for one of
> these ?
The triloboat scows mentioned would have a very wide latitude in some ways for expenditure of time and money, but could be done comparitively very cheap and quick.http://www.triloboats.com/
There are no published plans for Layden's Enigma or the smaller still Ellusion heavy displacement sharpies, some builders are doing there own take-offs, but as a rough guide it shouldn't take much more time and money to build proportionally than a very good example of a decked, s&g June Bug, say, with a bit more to the rig, higher sided, some internal ballast solution, and cockpit shelter. There certainly seems to be a great deal of interest in these smaller micro-cruisers as expressed by many. There is a prototype building of a ~25% larger M L Enigma 460 version that remains under development. Plans of this are intended for release eventually. It'll probably amount to twice the time and expense.http://e460.blogspot.com/index.html
The Layden Paradox is a highly detailed design, a lot in a small package of lots of mostly pre-finnished specified bits. Building time can be drawn out quite a bit. Materials used would usually be the best available quality, so costs may be considered to be easily at the high end, yet consistently rated as worth far more than the cost. In the early noughties one was built for 2500UKP in 18months free time. One currently for sale:http://sailingtexas.com/201101/sparadox14100.htmlTwo-plus good articles and further links:http://bills-log.blogspot.com/2010/12/appraisal-of-faith-my-paradox-sailboat.htmlNew builder's blog:http://lezliesworld.blogspot.com/2011/01/paradox-build.htmlMicro Navigator builder Bruce reckoned ;-) that:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/paradoxbuilders/message/4247
----- Original Message -----From:c.ruzerSent:Monday, January 10, 2011 9:29 PMSubject:[bolger] Re: Chine Runners
Hi Martin. Leaving the external ballast, and salient keels aside for the moment, the issue with those two hulls is that of draft for breadth. PCB explains as related to the Blackgauntlet II and Rondo II (FS Chaps 12, 13) how this affects initial and secondary stability... In short Micro and OS are fairly shallow for their breadth whereas ML's Paradox and Enigma designs are comparitively deep for their breadth (as is BGII). IMO therefore those ML boats initially heel much, much further than Micro or OS before hardening up when their higher secondary stability is reached. This allows a better lifting body orientation that is also lee chine deeper in the water column (where those layers as likely also have less wind affected mass movement), and where the chine-runner acts as a better more perpendicular fence between high and low pressure regions of lee side and bottom (becoming somewhat of a salient keel itself).
Triloboats could be thought of in the same way as Rondo II, as quite shallow for their breadth and so quite initially stiff (with consequently less secondary than initial stability).
I watched Dylan's KTL video of your JR Micro again recentlyhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA4kuhuKtrgFor sale now? What's next?
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, martin roberts <martin.me.roberts@...> wrote:
>
> There does seem to be a miss understanding about chine runners. They
> only work if you have a lifting hull. From what I have read a flat
> bottomed hull say for example the micro or old shoe does not give you
> the benefits you would like to see.
>
> If you look at Matt Laydens boats they all have some form of curved
> bottom. I am not an expert, but others have tried - triloboats.com for
> example and the results were disappointing.
>
> Martin Roberts
> (I have a micro in the uk for sale)
>
Triloboats could be thought of in the same way as Rondo II, as quite shallow for their breadth and so quite initially stiff (with consequently less secondary than initial stability).
I watched Dylan's KTL video of your JR Micro again recentlyhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA4kuhuKtrgFor sale now? What's next?
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, martin roberts <martin.me.roberts@...> wrote:
>
> There does seem to be a miss understanding about chine runners. They
> only work if you have a lifting hull. From what I have read a flat
> bottomed hull say for example the micro or old shoe does not give you
> the benefits you would like to see.
>
> If you look at Matt Laydens boats they all have some form of curved
> bottom. I am not an expert, but others have tried - triloboats.com for
> example and the results were disappointing.
>
> Martin Roberts
> (I have a micro in the uk for sale)
>
There does seem to be a miss understanding about chine runners. They
only work if you have a lifting hull. From what I have read a flat
bottomed hull say for example the micro or old shoe does not give you
the benefits you would like to see.
If you look at Matt Laydens boats they all have some form of curved
bottom. I am not an expert, but others have tried - triloboats.com for
example and the results were disappointing.
Martin Roberts
(I have a micro in the uk for sale)
only work if you have a lifting hull. From what I have read a flat
bottomed hull say for example the micro or old shoe does not give you
the benefits you would like to see.
If you look at Matt Laydens boats they all have some form of curved
bottom. I am not an expert, but others have tried - triloboats.com for
example and the results were disappointing.
Martin Roberts
(I have a micro in the uk for sale)
Joe T
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, E Light <elaphimn@...> wrote:
>
> I think that chine runners are brilliant for sailing in shallow water,
> given a deepish, boxy hull. The one problem that I see with them is that
> the boat is not as maneuverable because it doesn't have a pivot point to
> rotate around, which a board or keel usually provides. Tacking is done
> in a slow circle, and if the rudder is put over too hard the boat can
> stall.
>
> Eric
> - - - -
Eric
- - - -
On 11-01-08 8:50 AM, prairiedog2332 wrote:The disadvantare is that they are not very effective on light
displacement hulls as they require some submersion as well as lift from
the boxy hull itself.
his experience sailing a Bolger Instant design with external chine logs
in shallow water and observed that even when the leeboard had to be
removed it still held on quite well which he felt was helped by the
external chine logs.
He eventually developed his Paradox design which was also influenced by
Mr. Bolger in that a larger than usual rudder worked to prevent leeway
and in combination with a boxy hull, with lots of rocker and enough
ballast along with refined chine runner shapes, he felt obviated the
need for any leeboards at all.
He often sailed in tandem with another of his sharpie designs that had a
regular centerboard, a bit more forward than usual and a larger rudder
area and they found they were about equal in open water but the Paradox
did far better when the centerboard had to be raised in shallow areas.
Chris Morejohn later built two quite large sharpies with chine runners
and the large rudder areas that had trans-Atlantic capabilities. He
added a centerboard as well for off-shore work for the reasons given
above. (There are photos of Hogfish Maximus at the Paradox discussion
group board.) The group moderator crossed the Atlantic on it with Chris
and reported it being far more comfortable and easy to sail than another
crossing on a round bilged hull.
http://chrismorejohn.blogspot.com/2009/06/hogfish-maximus.html
A notable advantage of the chine runners is that they are less
susceptible to damage as well as being jam proof if grounding, unlike a
centerboard, and needing no attention unlike leeboards, providing they
are built stoutly and faired properly. This can be a huge advantage if
caught off a lee shore in shallow water.
The disadvantare is that they are not very effective on light
displacement hulls as they require some submersion as well as lift from
the boxy hull itself.
The general feeling is that they do not work the same as the anti-vortex
winglets on a multi-hull, but more like an end plate on a shallow rudder
or box keel. The hull itself in this case being the "Keel"
Nels