Affordable seaworthy cruiser

Box

1 beamy
2 shallow draught
3 bluff bow
4 a lot of air draught, which will decrease as time goes by
5 as indeed the draught will increase
6 Light displacement
7 easily driven
8cheap to run
9 turns on a sixpence
10 facility for upper deck verandah
11 spacious
12 open plan living
13insulated

But not seaworthy

 

Just peeked in here and tried to catch up. Not often that I spot something that causes my response to be other than my best effort at being helpful but once in a while...Quark, Masrapido, Nylex, and a couple others, now you. It's an ignoble list.
Mister "years of CG small boat SAR time" I have to say, there are a FEW CG mariners worth their salt out there, but you, especially easy to dislike, ain't one of 'em. Also, your arrogance, your condescension, and belittling of other's religious beliefs, are very unbecoming. Sorry if I cause you an F'ing anurism or something, you pretender, but "years of" whatever experience you think you have probably doesn't add up to a busy year in a professional mariner's life. Let's see a discharge letter showing some seatime as a starting point - It shud start with "In the finest traditions of the sea..." or similar. Let's see it. Maybe I have it all wrong but the way you put it forward and relate yourself, perhaps even positively, to "they who go down to the sea in ships" somehow makes me bristle.
"Not bragging, friend. I've been to sea more than you have and learned some things while there risking my life rescuing amateurs like you. My lifelong seagoing experience tells me that your boat design is not very sophisticated and could be dangerous. I do not understand why when people in a flash of brilliance re-invent the wheel they make it square and think it superior. Nothing wrong with cheap materials used with caution, but boat design is a blend of engineering and art and you are completely ignoring the latter facet and your boat is ugly. Not that ugly boats aren't seaworthy, I have yet to see a lovely Bering Sea crabber, but there are so many subtleties to design and build of wooden vessels it really makes sense to follow those who went before. To repeat, a flat-bottomed, wall-sided, pointy-ended plywood box is a poor substitute for a boat. Check out Ruell Parker's work in designing and building plywood sharpie-derived designs and you'll see all these problems have been addressed successfully before, with a combo of science and lovely art, and it doesn't have to be something a 7th grader designed and built."
Oh, and God bless the goofy guy with the ark.

 

My first day in Engineering school the professor said life is a compromise. Engineering is a compromised. A car is a compromise. You can make it fast, you could make have good gas mileage, you can make it safe, you can it luxurious or simple, you can make it economical. But you can't make be all things.

Goodwill, Lesson one.
On a boat make it safe first.
Make it stay together second.
Make it simple.
Make it repairable.
Everything else goes after these...

 

is that a bolger design?

 

he was known for thinking outside the box, & this design is here to illustrate what a farce this thread maybe

 

.

This effort barely makes it outside the box...

 

the box does have crumpled ends

 

Greetings,

Mydauphin, structural been mentioned several times, go back and reread. Agree with your top five.

Mark, keep it clean, using foul language doesnt make you smarter.

Sam, that boat is great for its intended purpose, but is not ASC. Please post at "floating home", seems ideal.

 

ASC Tilikum

 

Tilikum was a log canoe ,if memory serves, and not to comfortable.

 

TILIKUM:
LOA -38'
Length on bottom -30'
Main "breadth" - 5'6"
WL Beam - 4'6"
Bottom beam - 3'6"
3"x8" keel w/300 lbs lead
1000 lb inside ballast
4 ea. 100 pound sandbags for trim ballast
Originally a 50 year old Nootkan or Chinook dugout red cedar canoe from the Nuu-chah-nulth First Nations people on the west coast of Vancouver Island. Developed for open ocean sealing, fishing and even whaling. Eventually displaced most west coast types and became quite common at end of 19th cent. Voss bent in 1x1 frames on 24in centers, raised the sides 7", added a keelson and keel with ballast, 3 light gaff rigged masts, and sailed her 40,000 miles. McGraw-Hill has a paperback edition of "40,000 Miles in a Canoe" by John C. Voss, which is a wonderful read and fantastic education in practical seamanship.

 

I read that it rolled like a log canoe. That would not be the case with the inherent roll damping of the box sharpie.

 

We called it the old guard because all the senior petty officers were WW2 vets. Some of my experience, do you want my DD214 along with my birth certificate?- USCG 1965-69, W373 USCGC MATAGORDA, ocean station Victor winter 60 days winter north Pacific 65-66, MOTOR LIFEBOAT STATION FORT POINT, 66-69, E-3 and proud of it, boats 44347, 40463, 30547 avg 1000 SAR cases per year at the Golden Gate. Fishboats GLENDORA, NANA and SUPREME for salmon and albacore. Mystic Seaport 72 rigging apprenticeship re-rigging CHARLES W MORGAN, shipwright apprenticeship Don Arques 73-76. Schooners WANDERBIRD (shipwright/caulker), CALIFORNIAN(AB), LYNX(AB), square riggers LADY WASHINGTON, NINA(Capt 2002), JACQUELINE, ENDEAVOUR and others for all my working life and in boatyards as a repair shipwright/systems installer/hardware designer-fabricator. All practical seamanship, not theory. No, I've never been crabbing but I've been up to my waist in herring in the hold with the vacuum pipe bucking in my hands after 3 days with no sleep. Yes, I'm a jerk, but an educated one in my field.

 

It probably did. The quick recovery of the flared sides and heavy ballast would seem to make a very lively boat. Having no experience with box sharpies I can't comment on if they inherently roll-dampen. I know Bolger managed to get the proportions right so the type was very workable and he came up with many variations.
My problem with goodwilly's design is his taking a large scale unpowered barge from ancient tradition and reducing it in size, changing the required job and expecting some parallel performance.
The laws of relativity and similitude say if you double the size of something (a boat say) you increase its surface area 4 times, volume 8 times, and stability 16 times. Now if you reduce an object the same applies. What works at 300 cubits long, may act differently at 30 by a factor of ten.

 

Read the entire thread, funniest thing ever!

Anyway, back to the initial post that the #1 criteria was to use the ratios of the ark. Now, I notice that this doesn't leave a lot of beam. But I also notice that by moving the rudder outboard we are allowed more beam & depth of hull. Well, why not, by the same logic add a bowsprit?

A 10' bowsprit costs almost nothing. It would add to your sail area without making it taller. I would add something like 20% more beam & Depth and still be within the original design criteria.

-jim lee