New Dingy design . Want some inputs

With a ply-bottomed garvey bending the ply around the bow is almost impossible as plywood - other than the bendy stuff used for round-fronted furniture - starts to lose internal integrity when the radius is less than around 200x thickness, depending on the wood type and quality.

Metal does better in that regard. Most wood garvey builders change from ply to crosswise strips where to bottom rises at the bow, then glass it for cross-grain strength. Ply/wood are easier materials to work in than metal IMHO.

Why not simply stretch the design of the PD Racer http://www.pdracer.com/ ... ?

3/8 ply will bend to the shapes shown. Maybe increase the height a little and continue the bottom bend at the bow up a for few more inches before it meets the bow transom. That would mostly stretching the center flat-bottomed section to get the length you want. That would give you a flat bottom over the center 8' or so that could be made using ½ ply for a less noisy ride and to avoid the need for reinforcing frames that you might trip over. I would reinforce the curved 3/8 bottom parts with a few cross-battens, and a thicker transom than shown would be appropriate for an outboard. For/aft/side decks would add rigidity and could be enclosed to provide emergency bouyancy. The skids shown for the PDR would add directional control as well as stiffening the bottom.

 

Ancient,
I spent some time looking at the PDR link. There is an attraction about building ultra simple boats that I can't understand but it pulls me in. I enjoyed looking at many of the PDR pics but they are all ugly. mydauphin's boat (the early ones)
were almost beautiful. And I think some variation of it would work well too. The skids/strakes of the PDR would be good. With modest flare it would build easily but the fwd chine would be difficult.

Easy

 

I was tempted to build a PDR last year but eventually I decided I wanted something that looked like a real boat! I have to admit that the PDR has done some amazing things, though.

 

I have a few buddy's that are actively racing PDR's and I continuously tease them, about their encumbering a concrete mixing tub with a sail. I'm glad you prefer boats that look like boats Terry.

There's two sides to this, the "Bolgerish" and the pointy enders. I don't care how you paint up a Brick or other Neolithic looking monstrosity, nor how their sailing abilities seem to surprise their owners (how can you not be surprised when a box actually gets to windward). They're still children only a mother could love, which makes me wonder why bother.

Some will argue form follows function. I'm arguing that form follows function, only when you don't have talent or as in Bolger's case, you are intentionally skipping this element of the equation. He skipped it because he had proven he had the talent, and was melting everything down to it's simplest form, including his own styling impressions. Pasaco was a fruit loop with his work in my opinion of his later stuff, but he had the right with the dues he paid in his early years, which clearly showed his skills.

While others attempt to make a career from these simplistic, butt ugly boxes, for no other reason then to ride a previously started wave. I have great difficulty accepting a slew of box boat designs without an example of nautical elegance in a few. It's a bit like an artist attempting carve new "Modern Art" territory without the many careful still lifes, to back up their assumptions in artistic direction. In other words, you're not an artist if you can throw paint balloons at a canvas, unless first you've proven you have a grasp of the fundamentals. I've met these people all my life, "Hi, am an artist, but I can't draw faces . . . hands . . . fur . . . folds in fabric . . . etc." My usual reply is you're not an artist.

I'm not trying to start something, but I have strong feelings about folks that peddle their efforts as a refined skill, yet can't muster the fundamentals. When I was in collage, I did portraits on the beach, 15 bucks for 15 minutes. It was sucker money and though I struggled with eyes sometimes, I practiced on my family for a month before each summer break, to "hone" 15 minute portrait skills. It was more about personality and convincing the customer's husband or wife that trimming their ears back a tad or leaving the scar on their cheek off the drawing was a good choice, while they watched a quick rendering of their loved one unfold. The goal was the 15 bucks and some conversation with the "sucker" was mostly what it took, though having a grasp on the fundamentals help you not eat a lot of big eared, middle aged women portraits.

This is my point, Terry's Dace isn't much more then a PDR, but it surly looks a sight better and everyone is more comfortable with things, if they can stand looking at it, without having to squint.

BTW, if you log onto Michael Storer's (www.storerboatplans.com) site (Oz PDR designer) he has a 12' version of the Duck, called the Puddle Goose (yep, PG). If he catches wind of my form and function rant here, he might jump in and get me wound up again as we've been down this path before, though will still like each other in spite of it.

 

Those PDR look like camper top but website is nice and I can get a few ideas. Thanks. I think we can better that design both performance and looks. Been a little busy lately but still gathering ideas. Anyone know of or have access to some software that can to do some simulation on a hull shape were a three or four similar designs with minor design difference can be run. Or may be I will just build models.