Fast unique assembly method !

Well, it is at least unusual for a fibreglass/epoxy coated hull, and in many minds, very bad practice for a ply hull. Carvel is rarely epoxied both sides - and you have to be very careful to maintain the waterproofing between planks and other members to avoid rotting problems. (We have an old 21ft yacht in for restoration at the moment that has to have the stem and part of the keel replaced for this very reason.) The problem for partly encapsulated hulls is that the inside non or partially coated surface, allows water into the wood, but restricts a lot of it from evaporating naturally. This is especially a problem for plywood, which doesnt have as much natural resilience as solid planks. There is no way that this particular design doesnt rely on reliable interior coating, and at the same time, makes it really difficult to get 100% reliable coverage.

This is a big assumption. I couldnt see any duplicate keel pieces laid out on the concrete. Even so, because of the difficulty of taping the inside joins, there is a real risk of water entering the keel from inside, and the rest would be history.

Yes it would - even better, maybe someone who has bought the kit, and is currently building.

Yes, your design description makes sense - but it doesnt look like this is the way it works for this kit. Actually, it would be bad design if it did - going to all that trouble to make life easy for the builder on most of the hull, and having advanced carpentry for the keel.

Just for the record, I didnt link to the PT Skiff originally, but I did refer to it. Personally, I regard any finger joints as an improvement over scarf as regards labour, and for thin plywood, more strength, It also a lot less trouble than a butt join, where you either have to reinforce it with fg (often after rebating a section), or have an inconvenient ridge where the backing piece sits up.

At this point, it really seems that this kit design seems to have made the builders life a little easier, but by sacrificing long term longevity.

I await more information to clarify the situation.

 

I don't get all these methods when it is so simple to built a real wooden boat.
It is like if the people refuse to learn, and don't want to waste time doing a proper job.
Around here we have countless of ply epoxy craft abandoned.

 

I am not sure I can agree with you Lister. I dont think its easy to build a 'real' wooden boat (whatever that is), and not everyone is capable of learning either. Dont forget, as well as the ability to use woodworking tools well (years of experience alone), you then have the vagaries of measuring, bending, shaping,fitting ,fastening waterproofing and a million other things that experienced builders take for granted, but that took them and you a long time and lots of thought to learn.

Of all those 'countless' abandoned epoxy boats ( are they abandoned halfway through building, or along the shore ? ) - how many of their owners would have even attempted a 'proper' wooden boat in the first place ? How many went on and learned to build 'proper' boats after the epoxy ones ? In either case it was a worthwhile learning experience ( they either learned how, or learned that they couldnt do it), and it was their money (hopefully)

In either case, we can both agree it was good job they didnt waste good timber in the process

I would also argue against your insinuation that ply and epoxy arn't proper boats. Out there in the pacific islands there are no doubt competant sailors who argue that if it isnt dugout, its no good, and they dont trust these newfangled nails and screw and rove things. Then there are heaps of boatbuilders who would say that if it relies on epoxy to hold it together, its 'no good'.

In both cases, they ignore the whole point of building boats - which is ...... ummm, errrr ..... wasting time in a creative way, and you can do that just as easily with plywood and epoxy as with an adze and plane ,but a lot quicker.

And sometimes, you might even get out on the water with the thing. and blow me down - they all float !

 

Thank you Rwatson, I completely agree.

The simple facts are startling, when it comes to home built boats. Most never see a launch day, regardless of build method or hull material. Of a 100 plans sold, only a handful will actually have major materials purchases made. Of these, less then half will actually get used in the boat building project. Then comes the many natural "building plateaus", which is the usual killer of boat building projects.

Simply put, there are several natural stopping points during the building process of any boat building project. I call these "plateaus", where you stroke and stroke, then come to a specific point, be it the roll over, painting the LWL, fairing, sealing her up, completing the interior, fitting out, etc. Each plateau causes you to stop, admire your handy work and contemplate the next phases of the build and usually what this will do to your budget, marriage, retirement plan, physical strains, etc. A very common thing to see is a boat that has been just turned over and stopped or is all but ready to roll over and the project stalled. What the builder realizes is though they've busted hump and got a handsome exterior started, they're only 20% finished and the remaining 80% is hard to look at, when it's staring back at your wallet, your sore back and your wife's recent interest in other "more rational men".

The sad truth is, a completed back yard boat building project is a pretty rare thing.

 

Watson I agree with you.
Perhaps also the problem come also from the designer too eager to sell plans and showing on paper that it looks very easy to built.
If a designer make the plans with all the details, the designer himself will never finish the plans
PAR I agree with you about the "building plateaus". It is very well put
Lister

 

It's not the designer's fault, regardless of plan detail and a pretty arrogant thing to suggest. Look, I can't be expected to show people how to put on their paints, let alone build a boat. What people do is purely up to them, not a designer's interest in selling plans. No one ever sold boat plans in an effort to get rich or conversely to better the world.

 

It was not meant to insult the designer, I am myself a boat designer, not a naval architect, so at 71 y/o I know a little about the business. Even the late Bolger was saying, make it look easy to built when you design a plan.
And yes a lot of plans on the market looks easy, and are not, since they don't show the necessary hidden pitfall.
It's not arrogant, just a factual state of the business right now.
Look at the web the number of plans for sales, its insane. Do you think they are all ready to be built?
And a lot of these push mouse didn't even built a boat.
Lister

 

You are so right about all that. Its like some designers want the plan buyers to fail.

Some of the building manuals are so badly laid out, few illustrations etc.

The only way to prepare proper instructions is to follow an actual build, and itemise all the steps .....
... and then give the instructions to another builder and see where they get confused.

 

It sounds like you all want plans to be wet nurses, to hold your hand through the project. Plans are plans, some more detailed then others, some better presented then others, but this is so subjective as to not merit debate. For the most part novice builders are the ones that have difficulty, as they should. They don't own or know how to use tools, don't have proper techniques, lousy building environments, miniscule budget considerations, then whine and complain about the plans not wiping there noses when they screw up, refuse to follow the plans they're complaining about or fail to read the plans properly.

Since when did building plans come with step by step building instructions. Is that how your self built house or car was setup? Slip tab "A" into slot "A" then fold . . . Oh pleeeease, where's Richard when you need him . . . If you have a reasonable set of plans, from a reasonable designer, then the only person at fault if the project isn't completed, is the person who purchased the plans. I know of not a single designer, that wants their clients to fail and I challenge anyone to name one that does. I'm talking a noted designer, not a guy with some FreeShip skills and a hacked together web site, with a disclaimer about how he doesn't really know much about yacht design, etc.

 

I don't have a problem with making boat building easier but it seems to be going a bit far to try and adopt an Ikea approach. Building a small plywood boat from scratch is not a big deal if you can get by the "plateaus" that Par identifies. Plywood and epoxy make things so much easier and will ensure a usable boat with the skills that moderately handy people bring with them.

However trying to make a boat buildable by someone so lacking as to be unable to hammer a nail, drive a screw, make a measurement or cut a piece of wood to shape is probably going to put the kit price out of reach and it won't guarantee that the boat will get finished. Boatbuilding needs a certain degree of persistence and willingness to try; someone who has never made enough of an effort with wood and tools to achieve some simple product likely does not possess tho necessary character attributes.

 

Yes, very subjective ... I bet I could find a post from you Par, that says to not buy cheap plans, as they lack detail and havnt been properly researched. I guess the big question is - to what degree does 'reasonable standards' end and 'wet-nursing' kick in ? And why wouldnt you wet-nurse the client if you could afford to ? Why would you not refine, improve and support a design if you could economically do so ?

Lets not get into the 'custard mentality' (story below) because we are tough, rugged know-it-all professionals.

A very recent thread springs to mind,

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/boat-building/help-hull-sagging-i-dont-know-what-do-37265.html

..... where a major process in building was left up to the ingenuity of the builder. He surely got to one of those 'plateaus' you mentioned. Now he has gone public with that (and other previous problems), how is that going to affect the image of the designer.

Take one of the big online small-craft plan purveyors - www.bateau.com, you would have seen their builder forums - miles and miles of questions and answers for the budding builders. Is that 'wet-nursing', or clever marketing ?

I recently bought $75 worth of small craft plans - the last 11 of 30 pages were about the optional accessories you could buy - the building process occupied 12 pages. The building notes read like shorthand. Would another 20 pages of explanation, more detailed drawings, page numbers and chapter headings that would take 2 or 3 hours be 'wet nursing' ? Would they increase that very small percentage of started projects, would they result in a smaller percentage of uncompleted boats ? Would the completed boats inspire even more people to try the design?

So, maybe the big question is - would they increase the designers sales by a useful margin ? Sure, a lot of designers may not be 'into' boat design to get rich, but would it hurt to try?





Custard mentality story :

"Shortly after the end of WWII, a visiting American lecturer on industrial productivity, ( at the request of the British Government to help with the recovery effort) went to lunch at a British cafe.

The only dessert on the menu was custard on apple crumble, but he was lactose intolerant, so he asked the waitress for just the apple crumble, no custard.

She said - "Oh dear, i dont know if we can do that sir".

He said - "Surely it cant be that hard to refrain from pouring the custard onto the apple ?"

So the waitress went of to the kitchen, and returned shortly.

"I am sorry sir " she said " the cook says we cant just go around doing what the customers ask for, where would it all end ?"

 

I don't think this affects the image of the designer at all. The designer has supplied plans for a specific boat. If built to those specifications, the builder can expect it to perform as outlined. No set of plans or how-to instructions will impart a lifetime of boatbuilding experience. The conditions, crew, workspace, and experience between each custom one-off build will not be the same. If they were, money could be saved by buying it as a production boat.

I'm not against anyone trying to provide a step-by-step foolproof kit by eliminating variables (risks), but what are the additional costs and drawbacks? Can resources be better spent learning the skills that the kit tries to make unnecessary? Does such a kit and trying to standardize to a point where every variable can be foreseen in advance not impose the 'custard mentality'?

 

I think this covers "that thread" well, but I'll add many bite off way too big a hunk, that they just can't chew, which also goes a long way toward "that project" where literally everything I've mentioned in the above paragraph, has come home to roost on the builder's head.

Yes, it's often difficult to tell what is a good set of plans from a bad set. And yes, you could quote me countless times mentioning incomplete or other wise lacking plans sets. Ultimately it boils down with two things: the research you preform about everything, including the plans and the honest answers you must provide from really difficult questions. These questions (again) might include; can I roll over my partly completed project in the shop space I've selected, how might I do this without resorting to cutting the hull in half, do I have the skills necessary to preform the expected tasks, do I have the tools necessary, do I have the budget flexibility to absorb the inevitable "bubbles" that will arise, am I physically capable of doing this, do I have the personal fortitude to follow this project down the launch ramp, can I afford a 100% cost over run, etc., etc., etc. The list of questions can be huge, particularly on ocean going cruisers. Absolutely none of these things are the designer's responsibility.

I'm usually the first person to warn folks interested in buying a set of plans for an Atkin's 50' motor yacht, for $50. Having several plans from Atkins, including the set for my personal 40' Atkins, I can assure you they are about as weak a plan set as you can imagine, for the novice builder, though a pro will have no issue with them.

In this vain, developing a plan set for the back yard builder is very difficult. You could write a small book for each plan, nurse maiding them through the whole process or maybe just well detailing things. Big difference between the two and I wouldn't want to have to write a small book for each plan set. I do offer tips and tricks, so you can get along with epoxy, select lumber, make fillets, etc. properly. On some of the small designs an overview as if I was building it, but not a hand holding guide. That's what mothers are for.

It's just too much work for very little return, because back yard builders generally don't spend $300 for a set of plans, but much prefer to spend less the $100, preferably less then $50. At $50, it's tough to fire up the printer and run of a dozen 36" long sheets and still feel good about it. The plan houses can do it, as they've made the investment in pre-printing up dozens of plans for each model they offer. This is the Wal-Mart of boat plans and frankly not worth much. It may take 20 years for them to amortize the printing costs of a particular model! They're selling volume sets of plans with absolutely no customization or modification. This is great if your hope is to sell hundreds of the same thing, but I've found most designers prefer to sell new work or modifications to previous work.

I guess the point I'm making is you have to draw the line some place and the rest falls on the builder's ability to select a building site, that will permit him to not only roll over his baby, but has the internal height to let the equipment in there, that might be necessary to preform the lift! This is the research I mentioned previously. It takes considerable planning to build more then a 14' Jon boat in your garage. Common sense, building experience that's comparable to the project you're about to tackle, a budget that's also appropriate for the project, etc., etc., etc.

Lastly, on every single successful build (more then a 2 man sailing puppy), the selection of the design took a long time, often years. Then the project was portioned up into appropriate "phases" and material procurements begun. As one phase took off, the next phase was being readied. As the natural "plateaus" were reached, each was celebrated, anticipated, a breath taken, maybe some pictures and then onto the next phase of the build. Sure, there's going to be surprises and the wise builder has planned for it. You can't anticipate everything, but you can be ready when it craps on your head. These are the folks that do launch their 40' ocean cruisers and sail off into the sunset. Then again, they already know which sunset they'll be sailing into, when it will actually set, what the water temperature will be, the wind speed, if the ice box has beer in it, if there's enough water under their keel to float their boat and the chart will already have a marked course, including hiding spots if the weather decides to piss on their well laid plans . . .

 

The responsibility of the designer is to provide a design, not an education in boatbuilding. The design set must be "suitable for the purpose" of course, so a first-time design should have a great deal more information than designs for professional builders.

How many designs are there for boats over 20 feet which are claimed to be for first-time builders? "That thread" is about a 45 foot boat at least.

 

I am the owner/distributor of the i550 plans and kits. We have been reviewing hundreds of our builders' comments about new ways to approach any number of issues or parts placement. I think that the basic concept being discussed about slot and tension tabs is good. I also think that a serious epoxy pre-coating session for each part needs be discussed with amateur builders. All surfaces should be sealed, especially those where dry assembly can hide raw end grain.
Our kit builders have been an incredible resource to us and often suggest really smart advances.