Boat extension

I guess what we all try is to advise Albert Jr so that he can decide how to solve his problem. Therefore, we must give our opinion and justify it with arguments. I can not expect someone to do what I say just because I say so. I can argue that I have done something many times and I've always turned out well. But it is also true that what I have done with great success does not have to be the best that one can do. Fishing boats for centuries have been made ​​of wood and now there are few owners that want wood. Therefore, the experience, although it is valid, not the Bible.
So Albert Jr. discusses the reasoning that we expose (not just opinions) and decide what is best for you. My experience, in your circumstances, could be a disaster.

 

It's not so much about opinions, so much as simple math. In this case, Albert has the advantage of Tad, who could easily answer the questions he poses. He will have costs associated with both builds, from the same builder, likely using similar material purchases and the same labor. Granted this is a profession build comparison, but the cost differences will reflect the fundamental expenditure increases over the smaller version.

 

In the opinion of someone (I guess it's just an opinion and that someone has not made ​​any mathematical calculation), from 32-39 ft volume is doubled and therefore the price is double.
Is there something I have misunderstood?
In any case, is there something wrong in what I say in post # 61?

 

Actually, when you look at the figures on small, professionally used fishing boats, wood is the overwhelming hull choice material.

There's lots of reasons for this, but mostly these boats survive because, the crews are on them everyday, so maintenance issues can be routinely kept after. This routine maintenance may be slap hazard, but at least it occurs, which is a far cry from pleasure craft, where things don't get addressed in a timely manor, unless it's failed or causing a problems. Traditional wooden builds can tolerate the least amount of neglect, before an issue rises up. It's not a failing of the material choices, just a fact of life and if addressed, they survive a very long time. I personally own a 53 and 56 year old traditionally built wooden boats, both with their original planking, less the garboards on one of them. Do they have issues, of course they do, but I'll add, I'm a fair bit older than these two boats and I have issues too, mostly neglect and maintenance related as well.

 

On the shores of the Mediterranean Sea are thousands of wooden fishing boats. If they have an advantage or not, I do not know. Were built of wood and there they are. The truth is very rare for someone to build a new wooden fishing. Maybe because nobody knows what it does?. The plastic fishing boats, will last as long as the Wood ones?. Still a bit early to say.
Neither in Egypt are now built papyrus boats. They were replaced by wood and these, surely, it will be by steel or plastic. Technology fortunately forging ahead.

And that, which is true, begs the question, how is it possible that 70 or 80 years ago was chosen wood and not plastic?.

 

The reasons are numerous for the continued use of wooden boats. Why isn't as important as how. After WWII wooden boat construction started to drop off, but home built construction took off, partly because of the acceptance of plywood, which now had real water proof glues and the note of returning GI's that saw and used plywood structures during the war.

In the late 40's and early 50's 'glass construction took over for the manufactures, spelling an end to this type of wooden boat production at least for a while. By the end of the 60's and through the 70's, new building techniques started a revival of wooden building. This revival grew exponentially through the 90's, again mostly in the one off and home built markets. Even traditionally built wooden boats saw a change in the way they where constructed and designed, much of this in sheathings, but eventually in attachments and fastener replacement. History tends to stick with things it knows, so an old wooden boat builder may continue building in traditional ways, but when his son takes over the business, he may jump into newer techniques and methods.

Everything evolves, but also this change is resisted but old salts that understand what they have and don't want to learn anything new. This isn't a flaw, just a more comfortable way of looking at life as a craftsmen. This is why gondolas are still wooden, many traditional small fishing boats are still wooden, etc. This material (wood) still excels in several areas and the reason the Swift Solo that once was a pure high tech composite, is now a better boat with a cedar core instead. There are lots of boat types that are still wooden and wouldn't succeed if made from something else. It's not something to question, but to enjoy.

Would a dug out canoe have anything desirable about it, if CNC's out of a billet? Maybe a roto molded gondola or a Vietnamese basket boat as a thermoset casting? Sometimes modern materials just ruin things in very tangible ways, that might be difficult to describe, but still easily noticed.

 

Everything you say is very nice and it is true but I would not say that the wood is the material of the future for shipbuilding. As what we are discussing has nothing to do with the original question, I will not waste more time to answer platitudes.

 

You shouldn't buy a wooden boat. If you don't already obsess about them, dream about them, hang the calendars on your wall, subscribe to WB and spend your every waking moment and spare bit of cash on them.
In this day and age, you don't just decide to be a wooden boat owner, it's already been decided for you by your inner makeup, and you do it because you can't help yourself. There's many more practical options for far less total outlay in cash, time or resources. If clearly don't have the drive or commitment. Count yourself lucky.
You got to really love everything about wood boats. Everything about owning them is tougher. Some yards won't haul them. Some marinas won't take them. Most insurance companies won't cover them.

 

People who make comments like this just don't know or own wooden boats.

How many of the Concordia yawls are left, of the 103 built? Maybe we should just burn them, because they can't be hauled, can't be insured and no marina will permit them to stay. This is just blatant BS from those that haven't a clue.

Every marina with a travel lift will require you to sign off on a damage wavier, regardless of hull material, before they drop the slings, so this little tidbit of BS is well - BS. I survey dozens of wooden boats every year for one of the largest insurance companies in the USA and the hull material choice isn't what they go by to find a reason to cancel a policy. The condition of the yacht is what they place value on and you can have a poorly maintained yacht, of any hull material get axed by an insurance company. So, more BS. Yes, some insures don't cover wooden boats, but there's also insurers that don't cover houses either, so . . .

Wooden boats can be nearly as maintenance free as any other hull material choice, though typically the build method has a lot to do with it. I had the pleasure to inspect a 40 year old IOR racer some years ago. It was a molded hull, with aluminum spars and all the usual fittings, a well loved racer would have. This boat still wears the brightly finished hull she was born with, is hauled twice annually and inspected regularly in a marina (image that). She has an exceptional racing record and still finds it easy to win. Maybe we should burn this one down too, just to save the world from the embarrassment of owning such an antiquated hull material.

As I mentioned, wood tolerates neglect least of all, but a loved yacht doesn't suffer this indignity. Again, I own 2 over a half century old (each) wooden boats, one 37' and the other about half this, both with basically original everything. I guess I must have just gotten lucky, to have these boats survive this long. Or possibly, their previous owners actually cared for them. They didn't go crazy as neither are gold platters, but they are in very good condition and function as they were designed, especially being built of good materials with well established practices. One is carvel, cedar over oak and the other molded of mahogany.

Hull material choices, no matter what they are, all come with ownership responsibilities. If you let an alloy hull sit in a slip, year after year, you'll have issues, just like any other hull material. Yacht ownership has little to do with hull material choices, but is more a function of doing what needs to be done, in spite of the hull material. Let the bedding wear out on a thru hull fitting (as an example) will sink any yacht, regardless of hull material and isn't the fault of the hull material, but is the owner for neglecting it.

 

To my knowledge no marina I've visited turns away wooden boats. Could you name any big marinas which do?

 

Wood is still very much an option for the pleasure boat . Because its substantially cheaper. Modern methods involving epoxy glue, epoxy and cloth sheathing and epoxy paint is a very durable build The only examples I have at the moment are costs of hull materials for 20 metre trawlers Aluminium $350,000 Steel 170,000 wood $50,000 Aluminium has the advantage of not needing paint but be very aware it can rot very quickly from stray current. It is the preferred material. Fibreglass is on a par with steel . All boats will generally be fitted out with ply and wood So on a $2.2m build the aluminium boat would be $300,000 extra very little if you are a fisherman with no time for maintainence So for the home builder wood is still a good choice where labour is not an issue

 

I found the comments from wooden boat owners blog site.
They are wood boat owners.
http://forum.woodenboat.com/archive/index.php/t-157644.html

 

So where do these "wooden boat owners" go to get the denied haul outs, restricted marina access and imposable insurance? If these things are actually the case, how is it possible that wooden boat building, has seen the resurgence it has in the last couple o decades?

 

You made no mention of what kind of boat this is, let alone the construction method.

If it is a powerboat intended to plane, lengthening it may be a bad idea. Doing so will change the aspect ratio of the bottom and the boats fore and aft weight distribution, potentially turning it into a real dog.

If it is not intended to plane, but is a sailboat, you have to recalculate the mast placement in relation to the keel or 'board, or you may end up with a terrible lee helm.

Those caveats aside, there are two methods to do this:

1.) If the boat is built frame first, then planked or plated (this includes molding in fiberglass) , you can just divide the additional length desired by the number of frame stations, then add that product to the frame spacing (as suggested in an earlier post)

2.) If the boat is built skin first (as in stitch and glue plywood construction), you can add a straight run, of the desired increase, to the boat's widest point. This run is straight in both the top view and the side view, but is hidden in the section view. This increases displacement more than the added length might suggest, as you are taking the largest underwater section, which is usually averaged into the smaller underwater sections, and extending it. This method leaves the shapes of the critical ends unchanged, so the original panel development, at them, will still work.

Both methods have been used for centuries, in work boats and ships.

The first when a slightly longer vessel is desired before construction began, and the second, to lengthen a vessel that has already been built.