Re: [bolger] Re: Help! Pointy Skiff Blunder!
sonic,
I water tested my first boat without any finish on it which was almost
a disaster. The edge grain of the plywood is the most vulnerable. It can
wick water into it in a hurry. You could do what they do at the
community boat building events and mix up a small amount of epoxy and
paint it on all the ply edges. This seems to allow for a substantial sea
trial without dire repercussions.
Good luck.
david beede
SOME CLICKS THAT COUNT!!
Feed someone.
http://www.thehungersite.com/
Save a little rain forest.
http://rainforest.care2.com/front.html/player12296
Simplicity Boats (& mirror sites)
http://members.tripod.com/simplicityboats/index.html
http://members.xoom.com/simpleboats/index.html
Here's my latest boat:
http://members.tripod.com/simplicityboats/summerbreeze.html
http://members.xoom.com/simpleboats/summerbreeze.html
Quasi esoteric musical instruments
http://unicornstrings.com
I water tested my first boat without any finish on it which was almost
a disaster. The edge grain of the plywood is the most vulnerable. It can
wick water into it in a hurry. You could do what they do at the
community boat building events and mix up a small amount of epoxy and
paint it on all the ply edges. This seems to allow for a substantial sea
trial without dire repercussions.
Good luck.
david beede
> PS: I am tempted to go to the nearest pool and see how my modified PS--
> performs. I haven't done the taping of the seams or the painting yet
> but everything is held together good with brass screws every 6" or
> so.
> Is this a bad ides? Will water ruin the wood given that it is not
> sealed as yet?
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing
> - stay on topic
> - use punctuation
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
> - add some content: send "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
SOME CLICKS THAT COUNT!!
Feed someone.
http://www.thehungersite.com/
Save a little rain forest.
http://rainforest.care2.com/front.html/player12296
Simplicity Boats (& mirror sites)
http://members.tripod.com/simplicityboats/index.html
http://members.xoom.com/simpleboats/index.html
Here's my latest boat:
http://members.tripod.com/simplicityboats/summerbreeze.html
http://members.xoom.com/simpleboats/summerbreeze.html
Quasi esoteric musical instruments
http://unicornstrings.com
Regarding oars, the nice folks at Shaw & Tinney (the oar and paddle makers
in Maine)recommend a 7.5' oar for the PS. Suggest you go to an 8.0' one.
BTW, I'm going to take a crack at making my own. Home Depot spruce with the
fewest knots I can find.
Happy building.
Jim
in Maine)recommend a 7.5' oar for the PS. Suggest you go to an 8.0' one.
BTW, I'm going to take a crack at making my own. Home Depot spruce with the
fewest knots I can find.
Happy building.
Jim
> -----Original Message-----
> From:sonicwonder@...[mailto:sonicwonder@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 5:41 PM
> To:bolger@egroups.com
> Subject: [bolger] Re: Help! Pointy Skiff Blunder!
>
>
> --- Inbolger@egroups.com, "jim chambrelin" <jchamberlin@r...> wrote:
> >I would call Mr. Payson and get his opinion.
>
> Unfortunately, I am one poor sucker (performing artist) who is
> building a boat just as much out of necessity as out of fun. As
> such,
> I have been building using a library edition of Payson's "Build the
> New Instant Boats"; I would love to talk to him personally but feel
> skittish given that I didn't fork out the $40 for the plan (25% of
> the
> cost of the boat to date!).
>
> > Your PS will
> > probably have one heck of an increase in stability and
> displacement.
>
> Yep, according to PLYBOATS, the dispacement goes to about 440LBS with
> a rocker of 5.5 inches in at the stem, 5 inches at transom.
> Prisimatic
> coefficient goes to .487
>
> > This "design
> > modification" probably won't affect performance with an outboard.
>
> It's going to be rowed until I can catch enough fish to pay for an
> outboard (just kidding). Seriously, I am concerned about it's
> ability
> to row without "oscillating" up and down about the #2 Bulkhead axis.
> It's also going to be awkward mounting oar locks on the gunwales
> given
> their separation; I'm going to need longer oars. The boat is really
> a
> thing of beauty though, the flared sides look very much like a river
> dory/skiff. In the words of my girlfriend, "Wow! I was expecting
> to be more boxy but it looks really bendy!" The Interesting thing
> about this blunder is that the footprint of the boat is as designed,
> only the shear line and beam were, err, "modified". So with a light
> loading, it should perform very much as designed, only more loading
> should modify the performance.
>
> > Relax....the PS seems to be a very forgiving design.
>
> Sure hope so...
>
> >BTW, I had to cut my #2
> > bulkhead out and reposition it because of a measumement goof.
> > Fortunately, I hadn't attached the bottom.
>
> Small world, ain't it!
>
> > Let us know how things work. How about a picture? It probably
> looks more like a dory/skiff with the fuller sides.
> > >
>
> Unfortunately, I haven't been taking construction photos but I will
> make it a point of posting the finished product for all to ogle.
>
> PS: I am tempted to go to the nearest pool and see how my modified PS
> performs. I haven't done the taping of the seams or the painting yet
> but everything is held together good with brass screws every 6" or
> so.
> Is this a bad ides? Will water ruin the wood given that it is not
> sealed as yet?
>
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing
> - stay on topic
> - use punctuation
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
> - add some content: send "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
>
But remember, Payson is not dumb. He knows that after you have built
one of his boats and made a mistake trying to save $40. You won't do
it on your next project (he also knows that there will be a next
project) He will probably laugh and ask if he could use this as an
example of how not to save money in his next book.
The biggest difference that I can see is that your boat will not be as
easy to car top as the regular Pointy Skiff. My PS is real easy to
load on top of my Explorer with standard Thule bars. the extra width
of your boat may necessitate a longer rack, or extensions of some
kind.
The boat may be more susceptable to blowing around with the fatter
sides, and you will definately need longer oars. But, It should
still row ok. It is not a racer anyway.
David Jost "annoyed at the onset of fall, and my lack of a building
shed"
one of his boats and made a mistake trying to save $40. You won't do
it on your next project (he also knows that there will be a next
project) He will probably laugh and ask if he could use this as an
example of how not to save money in his next book.
The biggest difference that I can see is that your boat will not be as
easy to car top as the regular Pointy Skiff. My PS is real easy to
load on top of my Explorer with standard Thule bars. the extra width
of your boat may necessitate a longer rack, or extensions of some
kind.
The boat may be more susceptable to blowing around with the fatter
sides, and you will definately need longer oars. But, It should
still row ok. It is not a racer anyway.
David Jost "annoyed at the onset of fall, and my lack of a building
shed"
> I have been building using a library edition of Payson's "Build thewith
> New Instant Boats"; I would love to talk to him personally but feel
> skittish given that I didn't fork out the $40 for the plan (25% of
> the
> cost of the boat to date!).
>
> > Your PS will
> > probably have one heck of an increase in stability and
> displacement.
>
> Yep, according to PLYBOATS, the dispacement goes to about 440LBS
> a rocker of 5.5 inches in at the stem, 5 inches at transom.PS
> Prisimatic
> coefficient goes to .487
>
> > This "design
> > modification" probably won't affect performance with an outboard.
>
> It's going to be rowed until I can catch enough fish to pay for an
> outboard (just kidding). Seriously, I am concerned about it's
> ability
> to row without "oscillating" up and down about the #2 Bulkhead axis.
> It's also going to be awkward mounting oar locks on the gunwales
> given
> their separation; I'm going to need longer oars. The boat is really
> a
> thing of beauty though, the flared sides look very much like a river
> dory/skiff. In the words of my girlfriend, "Wow! I was expecting
> to be more boxy but it looks really bendy!" The Interesting thing
> about this blunder is that the footprint of the boat is as designed,
> only the shear line and beam were, err, "modified". So with a light
> loading, it should perform very much as designed, only more loading
> should modify the performance.
>
> > Relax....the PS seems to be a very forgiving design.
>
> Sure hope so...
>
> >BTW, I had to cut my #2
> > bulkhead out and reposition it because of a measumement goof.
> > Fortunately, I hadn't attached the bottom.
>
> Small world, ain't it!
>
> > Let us know how things work. How about a picture? It probably
> looks more like a dory/skiff with the fuller sides.
> > >
>
> Unfortunately, I haven't been taking construction photos but I will
> make it a point of posting the finished product for all to ogle.
>
> PS: I am tempted to go to the nearest pool and see how my modified
> performs. I haven't done the taping of the seams or the paintingyet
> but everything is held together good with brass screws every 6" or
> so.
> Is this a bad ides? Will water ruin the wood given that it is not
> sealed as yet?
--- Inbolger@egroups.com, "jim chambrelin" <jchamberlin@r...> wrote:
building a boat just as much out of necessity as out of fun. As
such,
I have been building using a library edition of Payson's "Build the
New Instant Boats"; I would love to talk to him personally but feel
skittish given that I didn't fork out the $40 for the plan (25% of
the
cost of the boat to date!).
Yep, according to PLYBOATS, the dispacement goes to about 440LBS with
a rocker of 5.5 inches in at the stem, 5 inches at transom.
Prisimatic
coefficient goes to .487
outboard (just kidding). Seriously, I am concerned about it's
ability
to row without "oscillating" up and down about the #2 Bulkhead axis.
It's also going to be awkward mounting oar locks on the gunwales
given
their separation; I'm going to need longer oars. The boat is really
a
thing of beauty though, the flared sides look very much like a river
dory/skiff. In the words of my girlfriend, "Wow! I was expecting
to be more boxy but it looks really bendy!" The Interesting thing
about this blunder is that the footprint of the boat is as designed,
only the shear line and beam were, err, "modified". So with a light
loading, it should perform very much as designed, only more loading
should modify the performance.
make it a point of posting the finished product for all to ogle.
PS: I am tempted to go to the nearest pool and see how my modified PS
performs. I haven't done the taping of the seams or the painting yet
but everything is held together good with brass screws every 6" or
so.
Is this a bad ides? Will water ruin the wood given that it is not
sealed as yet?
>I would call Mr. Payson and get his opinion.Unfortunately, I am one poor sucker (performing artist) who is
building a boat just as much out of necessity as out of fun. As
such,
I have been building using a library edition of Payson's "Build the
New Instant Boats"; I would love to talk to him personally but feel
skittish given that I didn't fork out the $40 for the plan (25% of
the
cost of the boat to date!).
> Your PS willdisplacement.
> probably have one heck of an increase in stability and
Yep, according to PLYBOATS, the dispacement goes to about 440LBS with
a rocker of 5.5 inches in at the stem, 5 inches at transom.
Prisimatic
coefficient goes to .487
> This "designIt's going to be rowed until I can catch enough fish to pay for an
> modification" probably won't affect performance with an outboard.
outboard (just kidding). Seriously, I am concerned about it's
ability
to row without "oscillating" up and down about the #2 Bulkhead axis.
It's also going to be awkward mounting oar locks on the gunwales
given
their separation; I'm going to need longer oars. The boat is really
a
thing of beauty though, the flared sides look very much like a river
dory/skiff. In the words of my girlfriend, "Wow! I was expecting
to be more boxy but it looks really bendy!" The Interesting thing
about this blunder is that the footprint of the boat is as designed,
only the shear line and beam were, err, "modified". So with a light
loading, it should perform very much as designed, only more loading
should modify the performance.
> Relax....the PS seems to be a very forgiving design.Sure hope so...
>BTW, I had to cut my #2Small world, ain't it!
> bulkhead out and reposition it because of a measumement goof.
> Fortunately, I hadn't attached the bottom.
> Let us know how things work. How about a picture? It probablylooks more like a dory/skiff with the fuller sides.
> >Unfortunately, I haven't been taking construction photos but I will
make it a point of posting the finished product for all to ogle.
PS: I am tempted to go to the nearest pool and see how my modified PS
performs. I haven't done the taping of the seams or the painting yet
but everything is held together good with brass screws every 6" or
so.
Is this a bad ides? Will water ruin the wood given that it is not
sealed as yet?
You are probably ok. I would call Mr. Payson and get his opinion. Your PS will
probably have one heck of an increase in stability and displacement. This "design
modification" probably won't affect performance with an outboard.
Relax....the PS seems to be a very forgiving design. BTW, I had to cut my #2
bulkhead out and reposition it because of a measumement goof. Fortunately,
I hadn't attached the bottom.
Let us know how things work. How about a picture? It probably looks more like
a dory/skiff with the fuller sides.
Jim
You may have some difficulty bending the gunwale strips on the sharper curve.
If you think the bend is too sharp, soak the wood; swimming pool, large hot
tub. The strips will also be longer than plan. You can also steam them prior
to bending. You can also use thinner wood and install 3 gunwale strips.
probably have one heck of an increase in stability and displacement. This "design
modification" probably won't affect performance with an outboard.
Relax....the PS seems to be a very forgiving design. BTW, I had to cut my #2
bulkhead out and reposition it because of a measumement goof. Fortunately,
I hadn't attached the bottom.
Let us know how things work. How about a picture? It probably looks more like
a dory/skiff with the fuller sides.
Jim
You may have some difficulty bending the gunwale strips on the sharper curve.
If you think the bend is too sharp, soak the wood; swimming pool, large hot
tub. The strips will also be longer than plan. You can also steam them prior
to bending. You can also use thinner wood and install 3 gunwale strips.
>I had been so ecstatically happy recently upon embarking upon the
>building of Bolger's Pointy Skiff I was wondering when the axe was
>going to fall. Well it happened this weekend.
>
>I made a silly (and I hope not fatal) error in the measurement of the
>#2 (row thwart) bulkhead. Instead of making the shear beam the
>designed 47.5", I made it 58"! I didn't notice it until the sides and
>the bottom were screwed and glued!! The boat still looks great. The
>only noticeable differences are:
>
>1) The bow end seems a little more "triangular" and not as full.
>2) The sides around bulkhead #2 take a sharper radius turn.
>3) The angle between the bottom and the side is not even from the bow
>to the stern of the boat. The angle is noticeably more in the area of
>bulkhead #2 due to the increased beam.
>
>Please tell me that my work has not been for nil! I plan on using an
>outboard with the boat. Will this boat still work or is there some way
>I can predict the deleterious effects of my error without pouring more
>$ into this project. Any help is surely appreciated!
>
>
>
>Bolger rules!!!
>- no cursing
>- stay on topic
>- use punctuation
>- add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
>- add some content: send "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
>
>
Don't give up! If it looks okay, it probably is okay. Tell anyone who
asks that you meant to do it that way.
By making it wider at the sheer, you will have increased the rocker, the
bottom curve from front to back. This might affect its speed in the water,
but I don't believe the Pointy Skiff is meant to plane anyway, so it
shouldn't be a big deal. It may turn more easily, and possibly be harder to
row in a straight line. It might look a bit like the river dories, with
their exaggerated flare and rocker. A skeg will help it go straight, if
there's not one already designed on it.
I would finish it and try it out. (At this stage you've built most of it,
and just need seats and paint.) If you aren't happy with it, you can always
sell it and start over.
Jamie Orr
-----Original Message-----
From:sonicwonder@...[mailto:sonicwonder@...]
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 12:07 PM
To:bolger@egroups.com
Subject: [bolger] Help! Pointy Skiff Blunder!
I had been so ecstatically happy recently upon embarking upon the
building of Bolger's Pointy Skiff I was wondering when the axe was
going to fall. Well it happened this weekend.
I made a silly (and I hope not fatal) error in the measurement of the
#2 (row thwart) bulkhead. Instead of making the shear beam the
designed 47.5", I made it 58"! I didn't notice it until the sides and
the bottom were screwed and glued!! The boat still looks great. The
only noticeable differences are:
1) The bow end seems a little more "triangular" and not as full.
2) The sides around bulkhead #2 take a sharper radius turn.
3) The angle between the bottom and the side is not even from the bow
to the stern of the boat. The angle is noticeably more in the area of
bulkhead #2 due to the increased beam.
Please tell me that my work has not been for nil! I plan on using an
outboard with the boat. Will this boat still work or is there some way
I can predict the deleterious effects of my error without pouring more
$ into this project. Any help is surely appreciated!
Bolger rules!!!
- no cursing
- stay on topic
- use punctuation
- add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
- add some content: send "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
asks that you meant to do it that way.
By making it wider at the sheer, you will have increased the rocker, the
bottom curve from front to back. This might affect its speed in the water,
but I don't believe the Pointy Skiff is meant to plane anyway, so it
shouldn't be a big deal. It may turn more easily, and possibly be harder to
row in a straight line. It might look a bit like the river dories, with
their exaggerated flare and rocker. A skeg will help it go straight, if
there's not one already designed on it.
I would finish it and try it out. (At this stage you've built most of it,
and just need seats and paint.) If you aren't happy with it, you can always
sell it and start over.
Jamie Orr
-----Original Message-----
From:sonicwonder@...[mailto:sonicwonder@...]
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 12:07 PM
To:bolger@egroups.com
Subject: [bolger] Help! Pointy Skiff Blunder!
I had been so ecstatically happy recently upon embarking upon the
building of Bolger's Pointy Skiff I was wondering when the axe was
going to fall. Well it happened this weekend.
I made a silly (and I hope not fatal) error in the measurement of the
#2 (row thwart) bulkhead. Instead of making the shear beam the
designed 47.5", I made it 58"! I didn't notice it until the sides and
the bottom were screwed and glued!! The boat still looks great. The
only noticeable differences are:
1) The bow end seems a little more "triangular" and not as full.
2) The sides around bulkhead #2 take a sharper radius turn.
3) The angle between the bottom and the side is not even from the bow
to the stern of the boat. The angle is noticeably more in the area of
bulkhead #2 due to the increased beam.
Please tell me that my work has not been for nil! I plan on using an
outboard with the boat. Will this boat still work or is there some way
I can predict the deleterious effects of my error without pouring more
$ into this project. Any help is surely appreciated!
Bolger rules!!!
- no cursing
- stay on topic
- use punctuation
- add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
- add some content: send "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
I had been so ecstatically happy recently upon embarking upon the
building of Bolger's Pointy Skiff I was wondering when the axe was
going to fall. Well it happened this weekend.
I made a silly (and I hope not fatal) error in the measurement of the
#2 (row thwart) bulkhead. Instead of making the shear beam the
designed 47.5", I made it 58"! I didn't notice it until the sides and
the bottom were screwed and glued!! The boat still looks great. The
only noticeable differences are:
1) The bow end seems a little more "triangular" and not as full.
2) The sides around bulkhead #2 take a sharper radius turn.
3) The angle between the bottom and the side is not even from the bow
to the stern of the boat. The angle is noticeably more in the area of
bulkhead #2 due to the increased beam.
Please tell me that my work has not been for nil! I plan on using an
outboard with the boat. Will this boat still work or is there some way
I can predict the deleterious effects of my error without pouring more
$ into this project. Any help is surely appreciated!
building of Bolger's Pointy Skiff I was wondering when the axe was
going to fall. Well it happened this weekend.
I made a silly (and I hope not fatal) error in the measurement of the
#2 (row thwart) bulkhead. Instead of making the shear beam the
designed 47.5", I made it 58"! I didn't notice it until the sides and
the bottom were screwed and glued!! The boat still looks great. The
only noticeable differences are:
1) The bow end seems a little more "triangular" and not as full.
2) The sides around bulkhead #2 take a sharper radius turn.
3) The angle between the bottom and the side is not even from the bow
to the stern of the boat. The angle is noticeably more in the area of
bulkhead #2 due to the increased beam.
Please tell me that my work has not been for nil! I plan on using an
outboard with the boat. Will this boat still work or is there some way
I can predict the deleterious effects of my error without pouring more
$ into this project. Any help is surely appreciated!