• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Soñadora

Drool

Recommended Posts

Gate:

I think the answer to that question is pretty much the same for all good boats, beam reacing in 18 knots TWS.

When I look at VPP's I look for best VMG to weather, best VMG downwind and the top boat speed for any wind speed.

The VPP's shw the boat to be very close winded but I am a bit dubious of the figures so I have to be a cautious in evaualing upwind VMG for a boat like this. I'm not usre the boat will delver what ther VPP program says it will.

Somehow I can't see a ketc like this pointing with an AWA of 28 degrees. It would be nice though. I'd be very happy with AWA of 30 degrees.

 

Sons:

Nice pics of KIALOA. The point I was makoijg in the GOB article on rigs was that thr yawl rig was the favorite rig under the CCA. But ketches hade the same advantage. I think putting more area into the main and fore triangle while carrying a smaller mizzen was the best combo for speed under that rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can hear Bob..."You big dummy!"

 

:P

 

Good job, both of you.

I have always liked a pilothouse treatment such a shown on the rendering

This photo does not show it well but the raised roof aft, even in small way gives a 360 deg. vision.post-32003-077841300 1284823926_thumb.jpgpost-32003-077841300 1284823926_thumb.jpg Without having to go on deck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sons:

 

See the winch pod? The bulge? We have a slight problem there as the rolled of house top does not continue in the area of the bulge. The way you have it now the eyebrow trim piece is standing proud of the house top surface at the bulge. That does not look right to my eye. Could you look at this and see if there is a graceful way to resolve that transition. We may need to continue the radius all around the bulge. Thanks.

 

Will do Bob. Working on that eyebrow. I think you'll like the results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kudos to Mr and Mrs Lucky Owner for developing such a highly personalised interior plan, that meets their needs without regards to resale or anything else.

 

Not what I would have, but that is the point. I'll just print it out and find my red pencil, sit down with a tall glass of Milo, some Vegimite on toast and have have a perfectly enjoyable Sunday morning.

 

Still a gorgeous boat Bob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

some pics of Kialoa

 

retro-kialoa.jpg

 

retro-kialoa2.jpg

 

Very cool Sons.

 

Back in the 70's Kialoa and Windward Passage were doing the Hobart race. They were off the NSW coast flying everything they could find with Kialoa about a mile ahead. Without any warning at all the wind shifted almost 180 and everything on K was inside out! The had to turn around to get everything filled again so they could start getting it down. For a few crazy minutes the two boats were sailing directly at each other under full sail!!!!

 

An ABC chopper got the whole scene on film it was incredible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paps

 

cool info. There's no denying the awe at seeing a boat like that with every sail up. Definitely enough there to keep a large crew busy.

 

 

An unrendered view of the transom showing the baby stays for the aft stay.

 

This boat is taxing my computer. I'm unable to use the high end illumination settings as it completely obliterates my 4GB of RAM.

 

Time for an upgrade! ;)

post-4721-067597400 1284862494_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ad:

No. I won't publish the specs. Too much work too much information to just give those away.

I'll post a drawing of the interior tomorrow.

If by "specs" you mean primary dimensions try these:

LOA 57.18'

DWL 47.93'

Beam 15.00'

Draft 7.00'

Displ 45,000 lbs half load

 

 

Ha HA ! ( Snidley Whiplash voice)

 

Now I shall simply build my own, for pennies...you fool !

 

 

 

Seriously though guys, nice work - looks very balanced for such a big boat, I like how the PH works with the traditional design, and the light color is better in warm temps to keep it cool - looking at the details like the hatch hinges I get a feeling for the level of resolution you are working at, but my inner deck-ape just obsesses about the sheets, travelers, leads,etc. so when I see the booms floating in space devoid of controls I just get fidgety.

 

Thank you for the glimpse on the project, I hope it goes forward to everyone's satisfaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, I can see that - versus the other end of the race-boat design loop, -- where you know how you want it to work and then design the deck to fit THAT - thinking of stuff like those odd 'trimmer's trenches' on the Elliot 'Peacemaker' and all manner of race-optimization ( German mainsheets, multiple daggerboards, etc) -- has got to far more nuanced. I look forward to seeing how you make it work and not look like an either a Wally or and erector set.

 

Thanks again, the 'movie' is cool, and gives a different impression with it's dynamic perspective. Like many real cruisers, the cockpit is surprisingly 'snug'. Not so sure about those PH-top winches, either - more like a powered winch at the house level, inside the PH - would be my first thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This boat is taxing my computer. I'm unable to use the high end illumination settings as it completely obliterates my 4GB of RAM.

 

Time for an upgrade! ;)

Memory is cheap, especially compared to maintaining brightwork.

 

Do we need to pitch in to buy more RAM? These renderings are well worth it to some of us. Give me a paypal # and I'll pitch in. It's like internet porn, only the wife approves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I watched the movie, mine will lose the hull ports, have SS rails over the dorades, and have a molded (instead of bright) seahood over the CC companionway. I'll drop the varnished cabin trunk and have bright handrails instead. In nice weather I'll be steering from the CC with the autopilot remote in my pocket, popping down to the galley from time to time to see how the bride is coming along with the warm crab quesadillas and honeydew melon with fresh lime, iced tea with bruised mint leaves. Shit, nice work Sons, really nice work. That's cool as hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe down the road a render farm is in order if SW can do distributed fendering. It really speeds up the process. You can build one from inexpensive dual or quad core boxes, since in rendering it's the CPU that does all the work. Now that there are some good GPU rendering engines coming out, that may change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wanted no bowsprit. Lost that one too. But I do see it's advantages.

...

So we began with a shape that had some overhangs and that's how the general look came about.

I was going to mention this above too but thought it must have been your own intent.

 

Why the enclosed bowsprit for the anchor(s)? (Neither Rick's renders nor your drawing shows any stay attachments so I'm assuming it's just for the anchors). You have an enclosed quasi-platform which is a real PITA in general, can't remove the anchor without dropping it out - real nuisance stowing the anchor for a passage when you're not at a dock. Then you won't easily fit any modern efficient anchor, will have problems either with the roll-bar striking on the bars or there's not enough room for an adequately sized anchor to sort itself out if it comes up upside-down etc. Lastly the support bar in the place of the bob-stay will foul the chain when deployed as the boat veers. Retrieval will be horrible. We really hate this type of set-up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lucky you. Me and Jack had a discussion.

 

RAM isn't the problem. I need to switch to a 64bit system. It's in the works...

 

Render Farm.... Check this puppy out:

 

24-core render farm made from IKEA furniture

 

For animations, a render farm is the only way to go. For stills, the desktop box has to have some major balls.

 

now, to answer the 'differences in plans vs. the rendering'

 

I was whining about that earlier. I grew up drawing 3-view mechanical stuff on a board with a pencil. Well, I haven't grown up yet, but that's besides the point. Projecting a 2D drawing into a 3D model often gives some unexpected results. BUT. That's to be expected. Talk about your oxymorons! I use the plans EXPLICITLY to project into 3D. Literally...I take the profile and plan views and using some really cool commands, intersect those two in 3D space. I'm projecting what is drawn into that space. I do not alter anything from the plans.

 

BUT

 

With that said, the 2D plans do not show everything. For example, it's difficult to show what the actual draft (cabin slope) will look like in 2D. It's difficult to show projected portlites in 2D. And on and on. So I work with the designer when there's discrepencies to figure out what we really are looking for. That may result in the 3D model not looking exactly like the 2D model. Adjustments have to be made. But that's the advantage of working in 3D. You encounter a lot of 'A HA!' moments when you realize something drawn in 2D will look a particular way in 3D.

 

These models are meant to give a very, very close representation of what the finished product will be like. It's a much more faithful approach than 2D drawings. However, it's not the last word. When the boat is built, mockups are made and the whole design is worked out in REAL 3D. It would be great if the 3D model would be the last word, but the truth is that even 3D computer models miss some things.

 

I do believe that will change. For some boats, it already has. Highly accurate models start life as 3D (not 2D) and go directly to a mill where a plug is turned out in a matter of hours. I will admit to not being as savvy or having the kinds of tools (Catia, Maxsurf, etc) that could take it to that level, but my models give the client a very good sense of what the boat will be like when it's done.

 

It's an iterative process. While this particular model looks terrific (IMNSHO), it's not complete. Please keep that in mind. When it is complete, you'll see it here ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The timber bits are incredibly realistic. It's like the breakthrough when cartoon animators figured out how to put hair on animals. That overhead angle of the aft cockpit is a beauty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lucky you. Me and Jack had a discussion.

 

RAM isn't the problem. I need to switch to a 64bit system. It's in the works...

 

Render Farm.... Check this puppy out:

 

24-core render farm made from IKEA furniture

 

For animations, a render farm is the only way to go. For stills, the desktop box has to have some major balls.

 

now, to answer the 'differences in plans vs. the rendering'

 

I was whining about that earlier. I grew up drawing 3-view mechanical stuff on a board with a pencil. Well, I haven't grown up yet, but that's besides the point. Projecting a 2D drawing into a 3D model often gives some unexpected results. BUT. That's to be expected. Talk about your oxymorons! I use the plans EXPLICITLY to project into 3D. Literally...I take the profile and plan views and using some really cool commands, intersect those two in 3D space. I'm projecting what is drawn into that space. I do not alter anything from the plans.

 

BUT

 

With that said, the 2D plans do not show everything. For example, it's difficult to show what the actual draft (cabin slope) will look like in 2D. It's difficult to show projected portlites in 2D. And on and on. So I work with the designer when there's discrepencies to figure out what we really are looking for. That may result in the 3D model not looking exactly like the 2D model. Adjustments have to be made. But that's the advantage of working in 3D. You encounter a lot of 'A HA!' moments when you realize something drawn in 2D will look a particular way in 3D.

 

These models are meant to give a very, very close representation of what the finished product will be like. It's a much more faithful approach than 2D drawings. However, it's not the last word. When the boat is built, mockups are made and the whole design is worked out in REAL 3D. It would be great if the 3D model would be the last word, but the truth is that even 3D computer models miss some things.

 

I do believe that will change. For some boats, it already has. Highly accurate models start life as 3D (not 2D) and go directly to a mill where a plug is turned out in a matter of hours. I will admit to not being as savvy or having the kinds of tools (Catia, Maxsurf, etc) that could take it to that level, but my models give the client a very good sense of what the boat will be like when it's done.

 

It's an iterative process. While this particular model looks terrific (IMNSHO), it's not complete. Please keep that in mind. When it is complete, you'll see it here ;)

Sons, don't sweat it, I was just trying to get a spot the difference competition going! :P

 

Renderings are sweet mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

An unrendered view of the transom showing the baby stays for the aft stay.

 

 

Has it been decided what is going to hang there?

 

Looks like any dinghy cranked all the way up will hit those baby stays. Or are the davits long enough to keep the dinghy outside them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAM isn't the problem. I need to switch to a 64bit system. It's in the works...

 

Render Farm.... Check this puppy out:

 

24-core render farm made from IKEA furniture

 

For animations, a render farm is the only way to go. For stills, the desktop box has to have some major balls.

 

64 bit will definitely help. Yeah I saw that render farm before. It's pretty cool and not hard to do. While render farms are widespread in the film CG industry they definitely do help for stills if you are using rendering software which supports distributed rendering. The software we use (Maxwell) does it, and using 2 machines on our network we can cut the rendering time down considerably.

 

When the boat is built, mockups are made and the whole design is worked out in REAL 3D. It would be great if the 3D model would be the last word, but the truth is that even 3D computer models miss some things.

 

Yes, this is so true. Sometimes there's nothing like the ol' Mk 1 Mod 0 eyeball on a mockup to help sort things out. Customers don't always ahve the ability to decipher 2D drawings or even 3D renderings. Sometimes they need to walk through a mockup to truly "see" what the design is like.

 

Highly accurate models start life as 3D (not 2D) and go directly to a mill where a plug is turned out in a matter of hours. I will admit to not being as savvy or having the kinds of tools (Catia, Maxsurf, etc) that could take it to that level, but my models give the client a very good sense of what the boat will be like when it's done.

 

Actually Sons, you do have those tools. You can export IGES or STEP files from SW or Rhino and send them to a 3D tooling firm and have them cut. We do this all the time with very complicated parts using only Rhino.

 

And yes the model looks terrific. Keep it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

omg----as much as i love my old garden--yeah-i have one--LOL-- i like perry designs, also--my 2 favorite designers---i thought this was a sweet boat--i was dead wrong---

it is f*****g sweet. another notch for perry's belt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hag:

I don't see you here often. Thanks for the kind words.

I'd like to know who the other designer is.

 

OK, I get it. It's Bill Garden. I am humbled by the company. I'm no Bill Garden. My boats sail better. (cheap ass swipe).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I get it. It's Bill Garden. I am humbled by the company. I'm no Bill Garden. My boats sail better. (cheap ass swipe).

 

And for the whole story you'll have to buy Bob's book...wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAM isn't the problem. I need to switch to a 64bit system. It's in the works...

 

Render Farm.... Check this puppy out:

 

24-core render farm made from IKEA furniture

 

For animations, a render farm is the only way to go. For stills, the desktop box has to have some major balls.

 

64 bit will definitely help. Yeah I saw that render farm before. It's pretty cool and not hard to do. While render farms are widespread in the film CG industry they definitely do help for stills if you are using rendering software which supports distributed rendering. The software we use (Maxwell) does it, and using 2 machines on our network we can cut the rendering time down considerably.

 

When the boat is built, mockups are made and the whole design is worked out in REAL 3D. It would be great if the 3D model would be the last word, but the truth is that even 3D computer models miss some things.

 

Yes, this is so true. Sometimes there's nothing like the ol' Mk 1 Mod 0 eyeball on a mockup to help sort things out. Customers don't always ahve the ability to decipher 2D drawings or even 3D renderings. Sometimes they need to walk through a mockup to truly "see" what the design is like.

 

Highly accurate models start life as 3D (not 2D) and go directly to a mill where a plug is turned out in a matter of hours. I will admit to not being as savvy or having the kinds of tools (Catia, Maxsurf, etc) that could take it to that level, but my models give the client a very good sense of what the boat will be like when it's done.

 

Actually Sons, you do have those tools. You can export IGES or STEP files from SW or Rhino and send them to a 3D tooling firm and have them cut. We do this all the time with very complicated parts using only Rhino.

 

And yes the model looks terrific. Keep it up.

 

I guess what I was thinking is that I don't have the tools to do it right. After many, many, many tries, I do not have confidence with SolidWorks's ability to build a fair hull from scratch. Yes, I could do it in Rhino, but in that case I don't have confidence in MY ability yet (guys like you and Bob are a big help ;) ).

 

Glad you like the model. I was a bit pasted back there with my rant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the limitation on 64-bit? I'd be shocked if your modeling software doesn't support it.

 

A render farm is not complicated to build, but it's a bit of a bitch to maintain and keep in top condition. It might be easier and cheaper to lease time on an existing farm, but that requires some management skill. I don't have the skills to do more than admire Bob's designs or Sons' models, but a server farm and its management is something I can do in my sleep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I'm not sure about the rig, Is it a Ketch, a Cutter-Ketch or a Cutter-ketch that will be sailed as a Ketch?(choice of headsails)

 

I'm still not sold on that centre cotpit, I can't visualise what happens with the space below, Is the cabin top a false one?

 

Dam fine looking yacht, I can see the hours gone in getting it right! That aft cotpit is pure genius :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob, you are the Bill Garden (equivalent) of our generation, and I mean that in a nice way, holding aloft the required teaspoon. Take a (small) bow my friend, you have influenced yacht design in our era more than most, and in the cruising category, stand above the rest.

 

Not only that but you have, via forums interacted with the collective "us" on many levels. Speaking personally it has been a pleasure and an experience. Wassail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I've been quite on this particular subject since Bob and Sons dropped this beauty on the desk, but quiet I can be no longer.

 

I must say at this junction, that I am most disappointed with some of the regulars here. Such a critical and palpable detail has been missed and not commented on, and I find that unpardonable, given the respect I have for the assembled on these pages.

 

Shame, shame, shame.

 

Well done Bob on slipping this little nugget through to the keeper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As drawn...the backstay configuration for the mizzen mast interfers with the davits??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I've been quite on this particular subject since Bob and Sons dropped this beauty on the desk, but quiet I can be no longer.

 

I must say at this junction, that I am most disappointed with some of the regulars here. Such a critical and palpable detail has been missed and not commented on, and I find that unpardonable, given the respect I have for the assembled on these pages.

 

Shame, shame, shame.

 

Well done Bob on slipping this little nugget through to the keeper.

 

What ? Did Bob forget the drinks locker ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I've been quite on this particular subject since Bob and Sons dropped this beauty on the desk, but quiet I can be no longer.

 

I must say at this junction, that I am most disappointed with some of the regulars here. Such a critical and palpable detail has been missed and not commented on, and I find that unpardonable, given the respect I have for the assembled on these pages.

 

Shame, shame, shame.

 

Well done Bob on slipping this little nugget through to the keeper.

 

What ? Did Bob forget the drinks locker ?

Go wash you mouth out.

 

As if Maestro would forget that. Chances are that was the first thing on the page, then the other necessary details used to keep it afloat were drawn around it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the limitation on 64-bit? I'd be shocked if your modeling software doesn't support it.

 

A render farm is not complicated to build, but it's a bit of a bitch to maintain and keep in top condition. It might be easier and cheaper to lease time on an existing farm, but that requires some management skill. I don't have the skills to do more than admire Bob's designs or Sons' models, but a server farm and its management is something I can do in my sleep.

 

 

 

 

the limitation is that I'm not currently running a 64 bit OS ;). That will change this week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is my hope that the shape of the dinghy ( I don't know what dinghy it is yet so I have been using the custom dink I did for JAKATAN on the drawings) will snug up under the davits and just miss hitting the mizzen "bobstays?" we need anorher word for these wires. The actual chainplate location is flexible and we can verify this with either 3D modelling (think Sons) or an actual mockup. Davit length may needto be adjusted but in the end I will make it work.

 

Ad:

You have me puzzled.

 

Paps:

Thanks. I live in a fairly remote area. I spend each day with the dog and the cat and seldom have vistors. CA has become my social life. I've made some good friends here. It's a bit odd but it works for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is my hope that the shape of the dinghy ( I don't know what dinghy it is yet so I have been using the custom dink I did for JAKATAN on the drawings) will snug up under the davits and just miss hitting the mizzen "bobstays?" we need anorher word for these wires. The actual chainplate location is flexible and we can verify this with either 3D modelling (think Sons) or an actual mockup. Davit length may needto be adjusted but in the end I will make it work.

 

 

Bob

 

I've been intrigued by the dinghy issue...if the two "bob stays" where properly padded could the dinghy be drawn up with and against them. It would probably rest on about a 35-45 degree angle...securing the motor might take some thought, but I'm sure it's doable.

 

The dinghy would be better secured and the modifications less involved.

 

Just my 2 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gate:

I've been thinking the same thing. Could work out fine. The bow end is no problem as the ataper of the hull shape should provide the clearance. In the stern end it will be a matter of fractions of an inch.

 

Note that if you look closely at the renderings and drawings the dink will also stow on the forward cabin trunk. I belive Sons has drawn the chocks in. The dink will sit over the butterfly hatch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gate:

I've been thinking the same thing. Could work out fine. The bow end is no problem as the ataper of the hull shape should provide the clearance. In the stern end it will be a matter of fractions of an inch.

 

Bob

 

Andrew always brings me his old British yacht mags, and they show a owner built system of lifting and securing a dinghy our size (WB 8) crossways on the transom...after considering the boat in question here, I may consider reconfiguring my (crappy) davits for this task.

 

I hate threads like this...I get great ideas, which result in more work, and more $$

 

Damn you Sons!!

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I've been quite on this particular subject since Bob and Sons dropped this beauty on the desk, but quiet I can be no longer.

 

I must say at this junction, that I am most disappointed with some of the regulars here. Such a critical and palpable detail has been missed and not commented on, and I find that unpardonable, given the respect I have for the assembled on these pages.

 

Shame, shame, shame.

 

Well done Bob on slipping this little nugget through to the keeper.

 

Did we forget to ask what it rates or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I've been quite on this particular subject since Bob and Sons dropped this beauty on the desk, but quiet I can be no longer.

 

I must say at this junction, that I am most disappointed with some of the regulars here. Such a critical and palpable detail has been missed and not commented on, and I find that unpardonable, given the respect I have for the assembled on these pages.

 

Shame, shame, shame.

 

Well done Bob on slipping this little nugget through to the keeper.

 

 

Hah! No stripper pole!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna say that a dinghy snugged up and angled to match the stays would be too much 'C-O-D-B'-ish (crap-on-de-back). The W/L of the dink needs to be dead on parallel with the W/L of the mother ship. I'm going to go out on a limb and what I know about this client in the short period that I've worked with him, I'm pretty sure he'd agree with that.<br /><br />

We'll figure out a way to make it work. It might involve creating a really shiny polished custom fitting attached to the davit. We want as much vertical force as we can get on those ass-baby stays so my preference would be to keep them as close to the W/L as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gate:

I've been thinking the same thing. Could work out fine. The bow end is no problem as the ataper of the hull shape should provide the clearance. In the stern end it will be a matter of fractions of an inch.

 

Note that if you look closely at the renderings and drawings the dink will also stow on the forward cabin trunk. I belive Sons has drawn the chocks in. The dink will sit over the butterfly hatch.

Bob...make the dinghy a double-ender...problem solved. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob,

 

How about moving the davit crossbar a little further fwd, creating a backstay bridle which attaches to the davit arms in way of the crossbar and running some short stays from each arm to the transom. Also bury the davit arms deeply and buld them out of carbon. The short stays will have a better angle, the crossbar will take up the compression load and access to the dinghy through the stern gate is improved. can you do this and not impact the mizzen boom?

 

post-25831-051853200 1285009952_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob,

 

How about moving the davit crossbar a little further fwd, creating a backstay bridle which attaches to the davit arms in way of the crossbar and running some short stays from each arm to the transom. Also bury the davit arms deeply and buld them out of carbon. The short stays will have a better angle, the crossbar will take up the compression load and access to the dinghy through the stern gate is improved. can you do this and not impact the mizzen boom?

 

post-25831-051853200 1285009952_thumb.jpg

Jose,

 

I don't see why you would have the stays go through the davit arms, they should have room to just go straight to the transom. Splitting it is a great idea to open up the stern for boarding or swim ladder access.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob,

 

How about moving the davit crossbar a little further fwd, creating a backstay bridle which attaches to the davit arms in way of the crossbar and running some short stays from each arm to the transom. Also bury the davit arms deeply and buld them out of carbon. The short stays will have a better angle, the crossbar will take up the compression load and access to the dinghy through the stern gate is improved. can you do this and not impact the mizzen boom?

 

post-25831-051853200 1285009952_thumb.jpg

Jose,

 

I don't see why you would have the stays go through the davit arms, they should have room to just go straight to the transom. Splitting it is a great idea to open up the stern for boarding or swim ladder access.

 

I think the backstay needs to be aft in order to not interfere with the mizzen which is why it was positioned that way to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob,

 

How about moving the davit crossbar a little further fwd, creating a backstay bridle which attaches to the davit arms in way of the crossbar and running some short stays from each arm to the transom. Also bury the davit arms deeply and buld them out of carbon. The short stays will have a better angle, the crossbar will take up the compression load and access to the dinghy through the stern gate is improved. can you do this and not impact the mizzen boom?

 

post-25831-051853200 1285009952_thumb.jpg

Jose,

 

I don't see why you would have the stays go through the davit arms, they should have room to just go straight to the transom. Splitting it is a great idea to open up the stern for boarding or swim ladder access.

 

I think the backstay needs to be aft in order to not interfere with the mizzen which is why it was positioned that way to begin with.

In that case, run the backstay to just behind the mizzen mast. It might limit roach on the main but if you've got a mizzen I don't think you're too concerned about getting that last 2% out of the main.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a drop-down transom on this baby.

 

Yes but If you can move the 2 stays under the davit crossarm to the side you improve access and provide a better attachment for the backstay (Edit: and provide a little more room for the dinghy)., IMO..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jose:

OK, I see your sketch now. I can see that working with a spilit mizzen backstay. It's worth considering. Thanks.

Looking at Rick's rendering I think those chainplates need to go lower on the transom.

We'l;l fix that later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob,

 

How about moving the davit crossbar a little further fwd, creating a backstay bridle which attaches to the davit arms in way of the crossbar and running some short stays from each arm to the transom.  Also bury the davit arms deeply and buld them out of carbon.  The short stays will have a better angle, the crossbar will take up the compression load and access to the dinghy through the stern gate is improved.  can you do this and not impact the mizzen boom?

 

post-25831-051853200 1285009952_thumb.jpg

 

 

that's a great idea Jose. I asked about that early on and the decision was to use a single stay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rick:

Just leave it as is for now but we may come back to this later. I'm not convinced I have a problem yet.

We can't move the cross beam forward much as it will impede the use of the flop down steps. But I don't think Jose's rig depend upon that anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob, just a thought, if the Davits are hard mounted why the need for a crossbeam in the first place?

 

Pal

 

 

Pal

 

I think the compression load would be more than we would want to trust to the davits without a crossbar....peace of mind if nothing else.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is my hope that the shape of the dinghy ( I don't know what dinghy it is yet so I have been using the custom dink I did for JAKATAN on the drawings) will snug up under the davits and just miss hitting the mizzen "bobstays?" we need anorher word for these wires. The actual chainplate location is flexible and we can verify this with either 3D modelling (think Sons) or an actual mockup. Davit length may needto be adjusted but in the end I will make it work.

 

Ad:

You have me puzzled.

 

Paps:

Thanks. I live in a fairly remote area. I spend each day with the dog and the cat and seldom have vistors. CA has become my social life. I've made some good friends here. It's a bit odd but it works for me.

No, not the dinghy shape. Am sure that will change as the project progresses anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I've been quite on this particular subject since Bob and Sons dropped this beauty on the desk, but quiet I can be no longer.

 

I must say at this junction, that I am most disappointed with some of the regulars here. Such a critical and palpable detail has been missed and not commented on, and I find that unpardonable, given the respect I have for the assembled on these pages.

 

Shame, shame, shame.

 

Well done Bob on slipping this little nugget through to the keeper.

 

 

Hah! No stripper pole!

Good (very funny) point, but no. Perhaps the mizzen compression post could be moved a little.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a drop-down transom on this baby.

Ladies and Gentleman, we have a winner.

 

Unfortunately this breaches the terms and conditions laid out in a separate document which I forgot to post, and thus voids the prize of something from my desk.

 

Bob, I hope it is hydraulically operated!

 

For what it is worth, I would like to see it go closer to the water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the crossbar on the davits. It's a good place for the stern light.

 

Ad:

It's not that simple. It's a complex geometry problem and it has to work in the space available. It will essentially be the same arrangement that I out on JAKATAN. That works well. If I had started with the stern door in place I would have had some options but this feature was added when the design was well along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the compression load would be more than we would want to trust to the davits without a crossbar....peace of mind if nothing else.

 

I've been wondering about the compression on the curved arms of the davits. Also the bending moments on the crossbar. Is this a case of "carbon cures all"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Semi:

With carbon it is easy to overbuild and the davits will be plenty strong. The mizzen may in fact not even need that backstay so the load won't be great. But we'll design the davits plenty strong and carbon is perfect for the job.

JAKATAN's davits weighed 7 lbs each.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ad:

Have you looked at the deck plan?. It is under the sail plan I posted.

How would you access the transom door if the dinghy were resting on the deck? Ok, assume the dinghy will always be deployed when the transom door is used. That's reasonable but my way you can acces the door with the dinghy in the davits. I think aethetically the boat will look better with the dinghy in davits in the traditional manner. If you take the time to look at the deck layout aft you will see it is very "tight". The area is pretty mnuch driven buy the transom door. Outbaord of the transom door there is very little room. I do not have area to play with and devote to dinghy stowage on deck. I already have optional dinghy stowage on the cabin trunk and I think that is more than enough.

 

When you offer suggestions please keep in mind the domino effect of the change you are proposing. "If I change this I'll have to change that and if I change that I'll have to changes those things and on and on". As you wind your way down the design spiral and prioritize features towards a final design you will inevitably find your options are reduced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob,

 

I have read the domino theory as prescribed and always try to keep that in mind.

 

As you suggest, the times the door is down, the dinghy will probably be down anyway.

 

I understand that the lucky owner has had a fair bit of input and is no doubt happy with the beauty you have penned on his behalf.

 

Please take my comments to be "If it were mine I'd...."

 

My partner is disabled on one side, and when I get around to having a boat like this, I must keep in mind her needs first and foremost. Hence the need for the steps to be closer to the water, and here is the domino, this means that there would not be enough space to open them with the dinghy there, so it would have to be down when we use the steps.

 

For us.

 

Hence the domino was considered.

 

Our issues are why I love your boats and interiors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P.S;

 

I just blew up the plans and had a play.

 

You are correct, it is not feasible.

 

I should have known better, consider me self chastised.

 

Now if it were my boat, I might consider extending the aft section a little....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ad:

Ok, now go to your room.

 

In fact, my own rule for steps off a transom is that they should go down two step levels BELOW the dwl. This way you can climb the steps without any acrobatic ( and at my age impossible) contortions.

In the case of this design that will have to mean a removable ladder of some type. But my rule of thumb for a swim platform (and this is kind of a mini-swim step)is 18" to 20" above the DWL. I find this dimensions puts the steps at the height of the avareage dock. so that you can board the boat from the stern easily. The design here has the lower step at 18" above the DWL.

 

As for extending the "aft section a little bit" we have already pushed LOA from the original 50' to 57' and that's where I drew the line. We do have a budget and you can't expect to make the boat longer and longer wirthout stressing the budget. It's my job to keep the clent informed of cost adding changes. The funny thing is, that if you add 24" to LOA in oder to help with the swim platform, most clients would say "Hey, now I have another 24" can I have built in benson rack and a finigan table with those little poncy chairs?" It just never stops.

 

Let's say I was designing this boat for you and your partner. I would START the design wih the stern boarding arrangement. It would be a priority. When that feature was defined and refined I would move on to see what could be done with the adjacent features.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob, maybe you have already considered this but to add clearance for the transom door, would it be possible to have the transom door itself hinge twice. Once at the normal attachment point and once athwartship so that the stair folds / cantilevers, back on itself to reduce clearance required to raise and lower it and then extends again to close . It would also give an option of changing pitch of the last section so it is either deeper in the water or just to the water as required for swimming or diving.

 

If my explanation makes any sense at all.

 

Pal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pal:

I think I'd have to see a sketch of that. Sounds like it coud be rickety. Like to see a sketch though.

Once again, I have done this before. I did it on JAKATAN and it worked well. It is simple. It is robust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pal:

I think I'd have to see a sketch of that. Sounds like it coud be rickety. Like to see a sketch though.

Once again, I have done this before. I did it on JAKATAN and it worked well. It is simple. It is robust.

 

Something to be said for simple, I will try and draw it, but think of the bifolding airstair on 737 for example. The main attachment point is the hinge that lowers the door from its normal mount, a second hinge at roughly the mid point allows it to fold closed (think of a clamshell) and then extend open to the boarding position or open into locking pins in the transom up configuration.

 

Easier said than described LOL

 

Pal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 thoughts

 

1.) I'm with Bob. I don't think we really have a problem.

 

2.) If we did have a problem and we split the backstay, we could simplify it by having the split occur well above deck and the resulting 'split' stays simply going to chainplates without passing through the davit at all. If you dig around and find a rendering of Bob's 50 MotorSailer (Dobroson 50), you'll see what I mean.

 

I could easily model in a dink here and see how it looks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as I have it modeled, the dingy fits just fine. We can move those ass-stays forward a bit, but you can see that we can keep the dink fairly close in. (note: this is just a generic 10' dinghy previously modeled. It is not the dinghy the client will want).

post-4721-059961800 1285039655_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob,

 

How about moving the davit crossbar a little further fwd, creating a backstay bridle which attaches to the davit arms in way of the crossbar and running some short stays from each arm to the transom. Also bury the davit arms deeply and build them out of carbon. The short stays will have a better angle, the crossbar will take up the compression load and access to the dinghy through the stern gate is improved. can you do this and not impact the mizzen boom?

 

post-25831-051853200 1285009952_thumb.jpg

 

 

Yes!

The other configuration offended my inner "structural engineer".......... Didn't want to offend anyone, so I didn't weigh in. Probably would have required a couple of pages to say what Jose C. said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is my hope that the shape of the dinghy ( I don't know what dinghy it is yet so I have been using the custom dink I did for JAKATAN on the drawings) will snug up under the davits and just miss hitting the mizzen "bobstays?" we need anorher word for these wires. The actual chainplate location is flexible and we can verify this with either 3D modelling (think Sons) or an actual mockup. Davit length may needto be adjusted but in the end I will make it work.

 

 

Bob

 

I've been intrigued by the dinghy issue...if the two "bob stays" where properly padded could the dinghy be drawn up with and against them. It would probably rest on about a 35-45 degree angle...securing the motor might take some thought, but I'm sure it's doable.

 

The dinghy would be better secured and the modifications less involved.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

That was my thought on the subject. Let the dinghy ride at a funny angle, as long as that funny angle involves the aft side of the dinghy riding higher than the tips of the davits. Sometimes there's a big wave back there, and if you don't want a dinghy full of water, keeping the side that is facing that wave as high as possible could be good. It might look funny, but in calmer conditions you could lower the dinghy to ride level if you care how things look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the crossbar on the davits. It's a good place for the stern light.

...

 

If I had started with the stern door in place I would have had some options but this feature was added when the design was well along.

 

The crossbar would probably be a good place for the rodholders too. You could put 4 rocket launchers on there and a couple of outrigger mounts on the davit tips and troll a 4 spread.

 

Surprising how different people have different priorities. How could a major feature like that come along late? If you were working for me, the whole yacht would be designed as a fancy way to carry the dink around and fish while doing it. Oh, and in keeping with my policy, I would have to make you clean the whole thing inside and out and leave it completely dry before I would take possession of it. Lucky for you, there's no way I'll have enough money to hire you before you retire. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Hidden by Dan33, September 21, 2010 - duplicate error
Hidden by Dan33, September 21, 2010 - duplicate error

 

2.) If we did have a problem and we split the backstay, we could simplify it by having the split occur well above deck and the resulting 'split' stays simply going to chainplates without passing through the davit at all. If you dig around and find a rendering of Bob's 50 MotorSailer (Dobroson 50), you'll see what I mean.

 

Why not split the backstay at the masthead and have it continue through the davits then return to the transom....this would make a large, unobstructed access, while still keeping the backstay from interfering with the sail.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

as I have it modeled, the dingy fits just fine. We can move those ass-stays forward a bit, but you can see that we can keep the dink fairly close in. (note: this is just a generic 10' dinghy previously modeled. It is not the dinghy the client will want).

Why not move the bob stays to the END of the davids, Bring the dingy level with the deck, remove any cargo, the lift all the way up, dingy tilts and now cannot hold any water and is maybe a bit protected from a following sea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Hidden by Dan33, September 21, 2010 - messed up
Hidden by Dan33, September 21, 2010 - messed up

as I have it modeled, the dingy fits just fine. We can move those ass-stays forward a bit, but you can see that we can keep the dink fairly close in. (note: this is just a generic 10' dinghy previously modeled. It is not the dinghy the client will want).

 

 

Why not split the backstay at the masthead and have it continue through the davits then return to the transom....this would make a large, unobstructed access, while still keeping the backstay from interfering with the sail.

 

If done like this the cross bar could be eliminated, but the davits would need to be designed strong enough to handle any lateral movement....it would look like your drawing but picture 2 backstays and the bar removed

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted · Hidden by Dan33, September 21, 2010 - it's been suggested
Hidden by Dan33, September 21, 2010 - it's been suggested

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

Bob, Sons

 

Could we go with 2 backstays from the masthead...they would attach to either davit...the the two bob stays would take the load to the transom.

 

The crosser could be removed, (or further aft), and the space would open up.

 

Even lifting and securing the dinghy should be easier.

 

 

  • post-4721-059961800%201285039655_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

[Why not move the bob stays to the END of the davids, Bring the dingy level with the deck, remove any cargo, the lift all the way up, dingy tilts and now cannot hold any water and is maybe a bit protected from a following sea?

 

Maybe at the same time split the backstay at the masthead and remove the cross bar all together...now that space is wide open for the fold down transom, and headroom is clear also

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites