Seagoer Plans

Thanks but I would never build one of those. For my sort of use, that hull has 2 failings. It draws a lot of water and it's impossible to service without a decent haulout facility. I suspect that, if you ran aground on a falling tide and couldn't prop that hull vertical, it would flood before its buoyancy took effect.

Performance is all very well but it's not the only thing that counts. A lot of northern Australia has 10m tide ranges. The areas close inshore are often poorly charted and in the wet season visibility can be quite poor. Running aground is likely if you go exploring. It's also nice to be able to careen your boat when the nearest haulout facility is many days sailing away.

A friend of mine has a Benford 'BADGER' 34' junk schooner. Nice boat, I am impressed with it. He chose the full keel over the fin keel. I have toyed with building its bigger sister if I decide to build another boat and choose plywood instead of steel.

PDW

 

PDW, I too have this problem, though tidal range isn't the cause. I can stand in knee deep water hundreds of yards off shore, so a shoal boat is a must. Bilge keels would seem a reasonable choice for you and those in other high tidal range areas. Of course there are other options too, typically retractable. I'm fairly sure the Benford dory series goes up to 37' - 38' as stock plans.

Brewer, Withollz as well as many others have much better suited cruisers in this range, using modern techniques, materials and offering performance abilities far in excess of a Seabird. You can have good performance, a relatively simple build, that's light (you pay for materials) and in whatever style you like. I love the look of the old racing schooners, but wouldn't want to build one, live with their quirks or desire to pay to hoist all those timbers into place. On the other hand, if I could have one with a reasonable weight, using modern techniques, materials and expectations of performance that would shame a real one, well then I'd, first in line. We've seen a lot of the "in the spirit of" designs in recent years and yep the traditionalist gets pissed, but they wouldn't when aboard, seeing what it can do against a regular one. Simply put, I can't look at a boat's lines, like that on Seabird and find much desirable about it (much like seeing Buehler's work). I appreciate the design historically, but that's about it.

 

I wana see a race between a Seagoer and a Benford dory....

 

There's a Benford 37.5' dory design that looks easily buildable. One of those would be nice.

My current choice is a Colvin design 38' steel hull. As I'm up to the fitout stage and have *some* hopes of finishing the thing, I'm pretty happy with how it's all gone. The hull went together nicely, the lines & offsets were spot-on. Problem for me is, I like building things (it's an excuse to get more tools) and may well find that I like building boats more than I like actually sailing them. Which leads to the question of what to build next.

Unless I extend my shop I'm limited to 12m LOA by 4m beam by 4m vertical to be able to get it out the doors. As you observe, there are plenty of designs in that envelope.

As for work etc, there have been a bunch of tall ships in port recently. Lovely sailing machines, I thoroughly enjoyed looking at them, admiring their rigs etc etc and have not the slightest desire to own or maintain one.

PDW

 

My wife likes me to say positive things.

Looks like the Seagoer should be easily driven under power a slow speeds.

Can't say anything nice about the name though.

I may have said something nice though depending on how it applies.

 

Pidgeon. Seagoer.

With all due respect, you can do better. In terms of time and material while keeping the character of the vessel that you like.

 

This is precisely my point. I would expect a Benford 37' 6"dory, with her .63 Cp, 201 D/L, 19.8 SA/D and well defined appendages to easily crush a Seabird in about every way you'd like to compare them.

 

Honestly I find in modern marinas far more hideous boats that the Seagoer.
Of course we can find all sort of bad things about this boat, but I went to see one in my area, and I tell you, they have something which really make them apart. They are quite touching with their quirks. I will not dismiss them just for the sake of it.
Timber construction is something very warm, very earthy, a feeling not found on epoxy plywood.
To be actual and efficient is quite a bizarre statement. Efficient for what?
We are not talking commercial vessels with return on the dollar.
Boat are about feeling, and I respect that more than every fast passed judgment on boat which anyway not much people knows about.
If just looking at the line you heart don't beat, doesn't mean it is the same for someone else.

 

I like your wife attitude

 

The great difference between the Seagoer and a Buheler design like the Juno is: the Seagoer as the dead rise changing dramatically toward the fore end, the Juno has the same bottom bevel all along, making no rolling bevel and the planking easier.
But they are completely different boats. It is not because they are hard chine that are the same boat. That will be quite unappropriated to put them on the same basket.

 

Your right Daniel, Buehler's designs, though seemingly easy to build, because of constant deadrise (not all of his designs are) and 2x6 framing, actually isn't as easy as his book makes it sound. Hoisting a deadwood assembly, like that of Juno, Olga or Seagoer, from horizontal, to vertical will require a crane, backhoe, A frame or some other contrivance, most don't have. Of course, you have to pay for the materials in such a massive bit of lumber, plus heft them into position. Nothing easy about hoisting 10"x14" by 35' long timbers into place, not to mention the huge fasteners and holes that need boring to join them.

No one will tell you a Buehler sail design, is going to preform at any level above garbage scow, if built as designed. I know you like heavy boats and understandably so (I know your reasons), but coupled with this is his typical 12 - 13 SA/D ratio, which just makes a centipede a centipede with 90 broken legs. For the same reasons this boat will roll unmercifully, Buehler's do too. Nothing like parking for the night in a less than desirable location (some times you don't have a choice), just to have the tide roll you out of the bunk on every third swell, that dumps into the cove you've selected. Neither of these types of design can expect to see 1.35 the sq. root of their LWL, with 1 times the sq. root being a good day's run. This to me is the speed that Christopher Columbus crossed the Atlantic the first time and I'd like to think, we can do better then this by a significant margin, given the 521 years since.

In short, there's nothing cheap or easy about this type of build. Yes, rewarding, even for me, but not a fast build, nor an easy one and the huge amount of materials costs a lot too. You may feel comfortable with your 2" thick carvel planking, but your bilge stinks, because it leaks all the time and the cost of that planking was 2 to 3 times that of a more modern approach to a similar style boat. A massive build requires massive amounts of materials, which takes similar piles of cash to secure and effort to install. There are much better approaches than this now and availing yourself of them is logical, even if it must retain the quaint golden age of sail charm.

The Seagoer is a better boat for a number of reasons, compared to a Buehler Olga or Juno, but still has the same restrictions in performance and cost to build.

 

Wow Paul , that post should be compulsory reading for anyone seriously contemplating a new larger boat building project.

Having said that , I like so many of Daniel`s boats.

 

I've built quite a few "massive" boats over the years and truly enjoyed the process and experience. I've also (still do have one) owned boats like this and found them likeable and comfortable, though usually while dockside. On the water, slogging along in a Tahiti ketch (or whatever), trying to keep up with modern sailboats, half your length is just, well frustrating to say the least. I used to own an old, wooden 35' CCA yawl. She was twice the weight of the Hunter and Catalina 35's I used to pal around with. They'd kill me off the wind, but I'd hammer them going up wind in a chop or good blow, even with the mizzen just along for the ride. This was as far as I was willing to go and I picked routes, to let me take advantage of my windward abilities against these wide butted friends. I've sailed aboard several Buehler designs and none impressed me in the slightest.

I guess it boils down to who you liked better, your granddad or uncle Pete. Old granddad let you play with the controls on his garden tractor, while uncle Pete let you drive it . . .

 

I guess that is the difference between the amateur and professional.

Most amateurs usually don`t get too many opportunities to play with " massive " for a host of reasons already pointed out by you.I can see the appeal of such boats , but many of us that have limited resources , not least of which being time and of course money .

We often must ask ourselves how much lifetime have I got left ......as some of these boats as you know can consume multiples of years.The backyard boys working weekends and after work hours beavering away building their boats don`t often have the choice but to use simplified methods like plywood , S&G, or whatever , and that is where the Phil Bolgers and Jay Benfords and PARs play their part.You all help us get on the water.

Buy used makes more sense than it ever has . It does not always suit the goal.

 

I see the Benford 37 as more of a sharpie than dory. The flair is the same as the NIS, but they are more dory than sharpie. I think a modern
sharpie might offer the best bang for the buck. Something like a Bolger or Hogfish type.