What Nicol do I Own?

On Damage etc.

Damage is in the foreward-most bulkhead of the port ama. It is cracked in 3 places and may have been the result of a crew member carelessly trying drag stuff out of there. Will post photos and a new thread about it in the "projects" section within the next 4-5 hours (I hope).

Thanks for your input; will check the sources suggested.

G2L

 

Great to Hear all the Controversy : )

Great that you guys are putting all this effort into finding an answer to this puzzle. Will get down into the amas again and supply more detailed photos of them. Also, please see my damage thread when posted. Will need some advice on that as well.

There definitely have been modifications of the original boat. For starters, the port was shortened in order to add a big ice box. Also, the typical design with a settee bunk port and starboard and crew bunks above has been changed around. The "bunks" were shortened and cabinets were built into each end, the rest left as an open storage area.

The crew bunk/storage spaces, have outer bulkheads running foreward and aft under the wind, and there are large, oval shaped inspection holes in the bulkheads, allowing access into storage bins built into the wings. The outer bulkheads of the bins also have inspection holes (round) allowing a look further into the wings, through another set or two of bulkheads, almost to the amas.

Problem is, we only have the wife's tablet to use for a camera, and it has no flash setting, so we have been taking photos using an AC auto inspection light. Not easy or fun, especially in the amas and other cramped quarters. Will try our best, however, to get some usable structural and photos to you guys.

Furthermore, where typical Nicols were boxy and seemed to have widows above the forward crossbeam, my boat has storage bins above the cross beam with the head on the forward side of the beam. The head has 5' 8" head room. More pics within the next 24 hrs or so.

Thanks again to all,

G2L

 

Will try to provide the profile shot soon, as well as the interior, wing and ama shots.

Thanks again

G2L

 

On your photos

Judging from the photos, we seem to have the long amas. Although I hHate to complicate the issue further, the scuttlebutt was that the amas were actually extended. Personally, I don't believe that.

In fact, there was a serious repair to the starboard ama years ago when a typhoon pulled off the fore-ward mooring bollard.

Problem with this boat has always been that we bought it in Asia, and I never got to meet the previous owner. His wife was a Swedish diplomat and was sent to Cuba when relations warmed up between the two countries a couple of years back. The broker was a friend of the owner, who said he did not receive a commission for the sale, and, perhaps as no coincidence, was not much help when asked numerous technical questions about the boat

All the info that I do have was researched on my own or received from ex-crew, some of whom spoke not-so-good English: so you can imagine how reliable it might be. The price was right, and she seemed fit, so I took the plunge : )

Thanks for your help,

G2L

 

Great Stuff

Wow, very interesting. Had no idea about the Bruce Roberts connection. There is a boat builder (Englishman from Oz) out in the Philippines named Nigel Roberts who builds wood/epoxy cats. Probably just a coincidence, but it makes one wonder.

More to the point, I am sure that the interior modifications were done after the fact, and, as you note, Nicol designs pretty much them left open. Will post photos, so we can figure the origin of the structural mods as well.

Fascinating stuff.

Really appreciate your interest and assistance.

Thanks again,

G2L

 

On Harris, Kelsall

Sailboat data.com showed the Robert Harris who was best known for his work at S&S. The designs shown in the LOA range of my boat were all monohulls.

Kelsall's website showed only cats in the same LOA range.

Just what I have found so far.

G2L

 

On the 36' Stretch

Good idea to use this thread only. Consider my most recent post in the classic designs thread to be my last post regarding our discussion here.

Regarding the 36' stretch that you mention due to the reverse transom, I think you hit the nail on the head. I recently discovered that the boat was, at one time, registered with the USCG, and they show the overall length as THIRTY SIX feet. I found that very interesting because, as measured by me, the boat is just about 40 feet from stem to stern.

Also, "yes" it my boat is epoxy over double diagonal ply.

Consequently, much of what we have discovered so far seems to strengthen your perception that the boat is a modified CAV. More when I post the additional pics.

Thanks again,

G2L

 

PS - All of this brings up other anomalies because there seems to be other contradictions in records that I have found on the boat. For instance, the first "owner" (perhaps not the actual, California builder) registered her with the state of California. If you are familiar with state boat registrations (at least in CA) you know that they are run my the DMV and are essentially geared toward automobile specs.

In the CA registration, dated 1994, the state asked for a "year" and "model" and the original owner entered "1980" and "AUS". The USCG registration, applied for by the next owner, in 2003, showed the "year built" to be 1980, when, in fact, it may have actually been 1994, if the year built entry was simply lifted from the original, California registration, as perhaps was required by the USCG as evidence of any previous registration.

If I remember correctly, Hedley "disappeared" in the mid '70s, though one Aussie I have met swears to have known him and that Hedley faked his death and is still alive in South America. In any case, does the 1980s date on the build tell us anything about whether the design is a modified Cav or a later design, by someone else? What year did the Cav designs come out?

Any and all reactions to the above would be appreciated. That said, I understand that the actual answer as to the design of the boat lies in the actual structural elements of the boat itself.

Thanks again,

G2L

 

Lots to respond to here. The Nicols are 60s designs, Hedley disappeared around 1966. As boats can take years to build many were launched in the late 60s through the 70s. It wouldn't be unknown for a slow project to be launched in 1980. I'll guess the rebuild date to be from 94- 2003. The year of build is actually the year of completion be it 2 or 20 years in the gestation.

Your beams sound like the stock units with a covering board on the bottoms. In the amas one will tie into a frame and the other(s) will connect into a added timber.

The interior sounds like it was a stock build, I'll dig up some photos. For instance the wing bunk bins have partitions, with the stock wing those extend to the amas as beams and attach to the top of the ama frames, I'm guessing you'll find remnants there from the open wing conversion.

Yes the stock Nicol cabins are boxy for sheet ply construction and room, they are also great for cruising. I've seen one Buccaneer with a rounded cold molded cabin for a sleek shape to go with the hulls.

The centerboards I mentioned were all in the main hull. Removing the float fins and adding to the main keel was often done. Norm Cross did a lot of keel drawings for old tris like Pivers making them deeper and foil shaped for better performance and to carry more weight. A multihull never has ballast, on a trimaran the amas keep you shiny side up and you must remember to sail flat, if you heel to 15 degrees it is past time to reef. The hollow or foam filled keel contributes to load carrying as well as leeway prevention. The stock keel was a straight plank like the amas. To sail these shallow keels you should never pinch as they work better with speed. I've added a daggerboard trunk to my boat.

Interesting on the ama extension, that was common for MK1 Wanderers and they are about the same size as a Cavalier. They are also a slightly heavier build. If it is a Cav or Bucc it is possible they were stretched a bit to go with the new main hull stern though they look stock to me. The exact model on a customized boat is hard to figure out on a Nicol as they all used the same basic shape. Vagabond MK2 is lower and lighter. Cavaliers have more height at the sheer and a little wider hull beams with a heavier build. Buccaneers were like a Cavalier but a bit longer with wider hulls. Stock set up for a Buccaneer was for a inboard under the cockpit, the head in the cabin and a stern bunk while the others had a quarter cabin under the cockpit and the head in the stern and used a outboard. Some of these have had inboards put in the quarter cabin area.

I can't make sense of your keelson description. The boats were built with a plank keel aroun 4"x2" but if you have a raised floor there would be framing for it, there is a possibilty someone added foam flotation there.

The easiest frame repair would be to sister one into it overlapping the break areas by at least 6 inches. Make a pattern with cardboard and trim with scissors with big gaps for the stringers then make the wood version trimming until it fits. Loose is fine as you will fit it using epoxy glue and fillets for the gaps. actually beefed up my outboard ama frames because the stock 1/4" were reported to break under extreme conditions though mine were in one piece. My notes say 1/4" was used in early Cavaliers too with 3/8" frames going into the Buccaneers and later Cavaliers as well as the Wanderers.

Welcome to the forum it is always interesting to sort these boats out, because of their long lives there are always lots of variables, I've cataloged dozens and maybe seen 2 of them that were stock.

 

Some Harris tris. Robert Harris designed many tris and cats. He wrote lots of multi books too. At home on the shelf. I can send pics later.

http://www.sailboatlistings.com/photographs/52413

Kelsall doesn't sell tri plans anymore. Therefore not on his website.

http://www.2hulls.com/usedtrimaran-99/volantis.html

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/sailboats/derek-kelsall-40-mast-42640.html

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...ved=0ahUKEwin48_Yj8rRAhWFGJQKHXRrAjAQ_AUIBigB

The problem is that these designs are not on the internet.

I have built a few multis so can help you with the aspects of the build you need. I will need to know - what construction the boat is made from, the damage, and include lots of pictures - use your phone - it has a flash.

cheers

Phil

 

Glad you abridged that post Phil, they do come through on email first though, always better to err on the side of caution when going for a ID. Hedley did use conventional beams on the big 45'- 48" Voyager and the others did fine when properly glued and installed. A smart modern upgrade would be to use glass bi ax tape and epoxy on the beam to hull joints to spread the loads.

Just how did you confuse a hard chine Piver with a Nicol anyway? Nicol's do have a nice point at the bow, the main hulls have a lot of the destroyer/fast patrol lines to them which is why light Vagabonds clocked the highest speeds of the day. The flat runs and high prismatic coefficient made them much faster at top speed than the heavily rockered Pivers. Loaded down or built heavy they are still a boat with a nice motion at sea.

The Wanderer and Vagabond 1 were his first generation, the Cavalier, Vagabond MK2 and Buccaneer were his 2nd. Even the funny ama bows served a purpose keeping the boat from stalling when surfing into the backs of waves. I spent quite a while on the phone with Alan Nicol, Hedley's son talking about the extensive development and testing procedures. Why don't you look him up? Lex is a very friendly and helpful guy too and you are on the same land mass.

Modern misconceptions are great when cruising. It is always fun to watch people when they are passed by the old boat with the box on top of it. Hopefully the OP will post some better pictures so you can see the bow profiles and the interior construction, what he described is a Nicol build.

Cheers (I know you don't like beer but you might consider a pint)

 

Remember all Dereck's tris were foam sandwich. I've got the Harris book too and his construction is different. You'll also notice that the Kelsalls used a wide ama stern and full section aft starting with # 1 Toria.

 

Thanks again for the response and great photos. Will take me a while to sort through all of them.

As noted in another post, the boat is epoxy over wood. See other posts, and some to come, for additional detail.

Regards,

G2L

 

It's low tide and 9:50 am, where we are, so we would not get a good angle on a profile photo of the amas. Will take the ama photos in 4 hours or so. Will post some inside and damage photos in the next 2 hours or so. Take a look if you are up late.

Thanks to all for hanging in there,

G2L

 

More Specs and Photos

OK folks,

Did some crucial measurements and took more photos, so here is some of the info that posters have requested. (Note again that the boat is epoxy over crossed ply.)

Firstly, both of the ama cross beams seem to be 8 1/4" wide and 1 3/4" thick. It is hard to tell exactly the width of the beams as it is somewhat difficult to tell whether or not the attached bulkheads sit squarely on top of the beams or are fitted to their sides. Both beams however, are 1 3/4" thick.

Secondly, as the attached photos will show, the cross beams traverse the width of the amas, cconnecting the amas to the cross beams overhead. There are two large bolts (1" round heads) per beam, used for this purpose.
Thirdly, there are 11 frames in the amas. The forward-most frame (damaged in the starboard ama) is actually only 1/4 inch thick (not 3/8ths as originally eyeballed). The next frame aft is also only 1/4 inch.

The next frame aft is the forward frame where the forward cross beam connects to the ama. It is made of 1/2" plywood. Eight or so inches aft is the next frame connecting the cross beam to the ama, and it is made of 3/8" ply, reinforced by two, 5/8" panels, making the frame a full 1" in thickness.

There are two additional 1/4" frames aft of the forward cross beam frames. Each is about 40" apart.

At that point, we find the aft cross beam with a 1/2" frame forward and a 1" reinforced frame, 8 inches aft (same configuration as the forward beam frames).

Aft of the cross beam frames are two more 1/4" frames and the final frame making up the transom of the ama. Not sure of it's thickness, for obvious reasons.

The photos provided will show the structural characteristics above as well as a profile of the amas. The ama profile is a set of photos since, due to the docks and boats in the way, we cannot get far enough away from our boat to get one meaningful shot of an entire ama.

There is also a side shot of the narrow cabin with a cabin storage hatch remaining open and the starboard ama hatch left open, in order to give one a sense of the relative position of these design elements, in regard to the position of the wing and cross beams.

Also included are cabin photos showing major structural beams and stringers as well as the storage bins (v. windows in cruisers) sitting on top of the cross beams that are fore and aft of the galley/saloon.

Note further the storage bins (v. crew bunks) over the saloon settee and the relative position of the main hull porthole (almost exactly half way between the aft and forward ends of the bin/bunk). Though the photo is a bit skewered due to the angle, my measurements show 32 inches on one side of the porthole and 31 inches on the other. This may also be a key to the design.

I Have not included looks into the wings themselves as, at this point, I doubt that they might be necessary to confirm the origin of the design. Can include them later if needed, and sorry if the photos attached do not conform to the order of my comments above.

Hope all of this helps, and thanks to all for your efforts on my behalf.

G2L PS - PHOTOS WOULD NOT LOAD. WILL SEND THEM IN A FOLLOWING POST.