• 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.  
Bob Perry

My newest project

11,420 posts in this topic

8 hours ago, Bob Perry said:

Should be a fun day with this 11 year old. The kid is amazing. Look out Will Porter!

Matt

 

dunno Bob - if snare drum sticks were photoshopped into his hands, he could easily be mistaken for a jazz drummer - oh the horror!

good onya Bob - love the way you are happy to assist those prepared to get up & get something done, & good on kiddo & Dad for making the contact with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FKT:

As far as I know I haven't had a boat lofted full size in almost 30 years. I used to give full size mylar patterns and people thought that was high tech. But no I just email a file straight to the guy with the CNC machine and there is no lifting at all. I used to enjoy lofting. Today my knees would not allow it.

Mission accomplished, a hand drawn preliminary set of hull lines.

 

mattdraw

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The deck went on No. 2 today for the final time. It wasn't too long ago that BS wanted people to get how long it would be before the client pulled the plug on the project.

Keep guessing BS.

022001

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2017 at 7:35 PM, Bob Perry said:

I keep trying to explain to you guys that there has never been a cruising boat quite like this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or 4 for that matter. 

Nice thread without the second guessers around. Get that kid lofting on the floor of the shack!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sail4beer said:

Or 4 for that matter. 

Nice thread without the second guessers around. Get that kid lofting on the floor of the shack!

Have to nail some plywood down first. I'm sure Jill won't mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She won't mind, she's used a hammer before I'm sure. Just keep Bob's fingers away from the tools!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob, is the boom slightly higher than we are accustomed to?  And  If yes, is there a specific reason for that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Omer:

I don't know what you are used to.

I tend to put my booms low, often controlled by what I need for the vang and headroom under the boom seated in the cockpit.

In this case the client wanted standing headroom under the boom on the bridgedeck. That's what I gave him. 5'11" under boom.

Looks good to me. Feels right moving around on the boat.

 

072

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My boom is about 5' 8" above the cockpit seats. Standing headroom for me, which is convenient and safe, but not for a lot of my crew. I'm forever rigging preventers and warning people about the boom.

It's easy to forget how dangerous a boom is while comfortably cruising. A bit higher and I'd worry less. To me it would be a worthwhile trade-off with performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎09‎.‎09‎.‎2017 at 1:47 AM, Bob Perry said:

Boatyard today. I thought it would be a nice way to end the week.

Hydraulics backstays on. Headstay and inner forestay on. North sails arrived today. Seachest is working, engine running.

Everyone has been asking" When will it get wet?" It rained this morning. The boat was wet. I made the crew wipe it down. Can't have my boat all wet! Really!

013

 

006

The goody wagon:

037

 

May be because the  photo is not taken from sea level. Or perhaps the boom is not horizontal in the top picture above that it looked higher than it is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob, are those two backstay hydraulic adjusters cross linked to keep equal tension on both stays? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kdh:

I agree. I don't think there is an measurable loss of performance. Anyway, not if your lying in the bottom of the cockpit with a concussion.

 

Rasper:

Yes, backstays are cross linked. One pump controls both.

Bottom paint, black, went on yesterday, two coats, another coat today.

Launch is tomorrow at 2pm. I'll wear my RYCT tie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kdh said:

My boom is about 5' 8" above the cockpit seats. Standing headroom for me, which is convenient and safe, but not for a lot of my crew. I'm forever rigging preventers and warning people about the boom.

It's easy to forget how dangerous a boom is while comfortably cruising. A bit higher and I'd worry less. To me it would be a worthwhile trade-off with performance.

Higher booms can be a PITA if you are trying to get a sail cover on it.   My boom is about 6'-2" above the cockpit sole, so putting the sail cover on while standing on the cockpit seats is fairly easy for me.  Since you have a roller furling boom it isn't a concern for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah - I needed a stepladder to get the front of the sail cover zipped on my old Col 43.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sail cover is part of the CF V boom, not roller furling. No need to climb up for anything one halyard is on.

I had to go up in a bosun's chair to put the mizz halyard on the first CT54!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Yeah - I needed a stepladder to get the front of the sail cover zipped on my old Col 43.

I have to use a step stool to attach the main halyard and also to button up the cover on FRANCIS. My 46 and 48 year old sons just climb up and do it without the step. They are show-offs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also in the picture of the boom, that's Jim and Neil near the gooseneck, neither are particularly tall. The owner is much taller. On a custom boat, you get to pick where the boom is. I wish I had picked a little lower, make it easier to reach. A 5' 8" crew on my boat isn't of much use - can't reach the main or mizzen, can't reach the wine glasses, and the overhead handholds inside are way out of reach. I even made the countertops 2" higher. And I'm only 5' 16". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boat looks stunning, BPerry. Major props to design and build teams.  Best of luck for the big splash tomorrow. I think you need someone with a snare for a big drum roll...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, DDW said:

Also in the picture of the boom, that's Jim and Neil near the gooseneck, neither are particularly tall. The owner is much taller. On a custom boat, you get to pick where the boom is. I wish I had picked a little lower, make it easier to reach. A 5' 8" crew on my boat isn't of much use - can't reach the main or mizzen, can't reach the wine glasses, and the overhead handholds inside are way out of reach. I even made the countertops 2" higher. And I'm only 5' 16"

So you are six foot four inches tall DDW?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kimbottles said:

I have to use a step stool to attach the main halyard and also to button up the cover on FRANCIS. My 46 and 48 year old sons just climb up and do it without the step. They are show-offs.

I have a couple of these, low on the mast, to attach the halyard to the head board or to zip the main sail cover up:

 

615020.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Salazar said:

I have a couple of these, low on the mast, to attach the halyard to the head board or to zip the main sail cover up:

 

615020.jpg

Yeah, I have been thinking about adding  a couple of those......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Salazar said:

I have a couple of these, low on the mast, to attach the halyard to the head board or to zip the main sail cover up:

 

615020.jpg

Depending on the design, they can rattle annoyingly. There are some with a small plastic pin to stop the noise.

(Got them all the way up my mast, v easy to go aloft....)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Set up with a continuous zipper the mainsail cover can be closed from the back of the boom rather than up by the gooseneck and the main halyard can live on the headboard.  No reason to reach the top of the main.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have six of the aluminum ones and none rattle. They've got a little nylon button countersunk into the step that keeps them quiet when folded. When open, my big foot serves the same purpose. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kim, make a couple of G10 plates a nice pretty shape to take the steps, shape the backside to fit the mast if necessary, tap it for fasteners, and bond it onto the CF mast. You'll need about 3/8" thickness to hold the fasteners. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I recall, these steps take 1/4-20 flatheads so 3/8" should do it unless you have to take away a bunch to fit the mast contour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Negative. Read Bob's post. No holes in CF. Mask off, grind, epoxy with appropriate filler, set in place with clamp. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was referring to DDW's recommendation of 3/8" thick G10 mounting pads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Sail4beer said:

Negative. Read Bob's post. No holes in CF. Mask off, grind, epoxy with appropriate filler, set in place with clamp. 

They're talking about tapping into the G10 that in turn is glued to the CF. No holes in mast itself. The main advantage there is that the G10 can be a bit oversize, with nice beveled edges, and that would permit a larger bonding surface. Also, the G10 would be a better bonding surface than the nylon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotcha. Tap the G10, not the spar. That makes sense. I don't!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Rasputin22 said:

Just velcro those steps on. That way you can pull them off for racing.

But I would use the 3M Dual Lock version then. Stronger you know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing wrong with drilling and tapping carbon fiber and nothing wrong with drilling and tapping a G10 plate then bonding it to carbon fiber.  Bonding a tapped G10 plate to our carbon fiber dodger is what we did since the carbon skins were fairly thin.  I believe the tracks for Battcars and such are simply bolted to a tapped carbon fiber spar.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I feel fine about modifying my $100K spar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Rasputin22 said:

Just velcro those steps on. That way you can pull them off for racing.

The nylon/fiberglass steps only weigh 5.7oz. each.

Just sayin...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DDW,

    Why not just have a strip of Velcro on either side of the spar and then you could wear slippers with the matching component of the Velcro and you would have steps all the way up the mast!

Remember Dwarf Tossing?

Image result for midget tossing velcro

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dwarfs don't weigh much either and they come in handy for getting tools out of the sump under the engine! 

    Just don't let them near the owners daughter though... They have a propensity for being party animals.

Image result for midget tossing velcro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure there is validity to the suggestions here but the SA OBG method is not the way I work.

I called Offshore Spars this morning and talked to Brad. He has repaired a number of these spars. He said it would be fine to drill  for the steps. Not ideal but it would work.

Now I feel some confidence in telling Kim to go ahead with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rasputin22 said:

Here you go Whisper! 

Image result for body paint bottom

You will never guess where I found this!

LOL!  Touché

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Back when dwarf throwing was banned the first people to complain were the dwarfs who were forced into a huge pay cut. Apparently it was all tax free cash into the back pocket plus a pile of free beer. After all, who wants to declare their occupation as " dwarf wrangler " ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So did it Float? ;-)

Enquiring Minds want to Know

Oh and Pics or it didn't happen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it floated. I have just walked in the door. No pics till tomorrow I need to decompress.

My big question was,,,,,will it back up under power with poise and panache.? The answer is a resounding YES!

Now we need to get the rest of the gear aboard and then I'll take some freeboards but it looks like we are very close to designed weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm...  launch at 2:00 pm, home and posting in this forum by ~4:15 pm, one hour drive plus a stop for two beers (according to FB post)...  So you stayed for ~45 minutes(?) after the launch and won't post any photos today?  Disappointing.  Anyone else have photos to post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bob Perry said:

Yes, it floated. I have just walked in the door. No pics till tomorrow I need to decompress.

My big question was,,,,,will it back up under power with poise and panache.? The answer is a resounding YES!

Now we need to get the rest of the gear aboard and then I'll take some freeboards but it looks like we are very close to designed weight.

Nicely done Bob!

looking forward to tomorrow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Loving the long tiller and I'm glad it reversed well, that's always the bitch in the full keelers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nice. Love the shape of that boom. No one competes with Offshore Spars these days, in my opinion.

Is that a Navtec vang? Any issues with sourcing the vangs for the other boats now that they're out of operation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that blue boat behind you the famous 3 story flipper? If so you might be tempting fate, although your design karma should keep you out of trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With 2 anchors and chain not aboard, I would expect the bow to float a little high. Likewise, I would expect the stern to be a little down with 4 large guys back there. I think Proa is becoming as unhinged as BS. His obsession with BPerry is a very odd psychological sickness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, RKoch said:

With 2 anchors and chain not aboard, I would expect the bow to float a little high. Likewise, I would expect the stern to be a little down with 4 large guys back there. I think Proa is becoming as unhinged as BS. Very odd psychological sickness.

That's not a ULDB. I hope that there is more than 2 anchors and their chains missing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt the tanks are filled either upon first launching. One anchor in the rollers I see. I liked Boomers admonishment to 'get the fenders in!' at the end of the video. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a sausage fest! Look at all those guys. What do you expect for floating on the lines. They really need some of these,

   Just joking, the boat looks great in the water. Did Neil Rabinowitz bring the bright sunshine just for his shoot? Funny how a pro photographer didn't mind stepping right in front of Boomer while Boomer was filming. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, RKoch said:

With 2 anchors and chain not aboard, I would expect the bow to float a little high. Likewise, I would expect the stern to be a little down with 4 large guys back there. I think Proa is becoming as unhinged as BS. Very odd psychological sickness.

Heh, heh.  What a kiss ass.  I'm not blind.  After all the build-up, the silence and lack of launch photos showing the boat in the water speaks volumes.

Emperor-Has-No-Clothes.jpg.b35e292111caa16e5c4cd3ae56d39355.jpg

P.S.  And yeah, there is an anchor:

Boomer_vid_0-58.jpg.aad8e73b82f61d3443a68259e035347c.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

That's not a ULDB. I hope that there is more than 2 anchors and their chains missing. 

Displacement is irrellevent. PPI immersion is related to the area of the waterplane and its distribution. You can double all the depth offsets, leaving the lengths and beams the same...double the displacement. Or cut them in half leaving lengths and beams the same...half the displacement. Both examples have the same waterplane area and shape as original, and will have identical PPI when we're talking small changes in weight and trim. It's basic math...something BS and his fanclub have demonstrated woeful ignorance of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RKoch said:

Displacement is irrellevent. PPI immersion is related to the area of the waterplane and its distribution.

Well it is when you need to shift the cog forward by adding weight. The extra mass quantity needed is proportional to the initial mass. If you don't  trust me on this one do the maths by calculating the lever arms around where you want the cog to be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steele:

Yes, that's the flipper.. Look dejected.

The cutter will be a bit heavy but not enough to worry about. Not as much as Neil anticipated. Iwill revise the ballast for no. 2. I spec'd 13,500 lbs but we ended up with 15,150 lbs.. I think my tolerance for the ballast slugs may have been too conservative. But for now we still have a lot of gear to go on the boat and it all goes forward including more than 500 lbs. of chain.. I expect over time we may see as much as 500 lbs + of gear stowed in the focsle. There is very little room in the lazarette. The focsle is empty now. We will replicate that with some lead for the sailing trials. We still have chain to add forward and another anchor.

The important thing right now is that the owner is very happy.

I still have Proa on ignore. I have no time for his personal problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

Well it is when you need to shift the cog forward by adding weight. The extra mass quantity needed is proportional to the initial mass. If you don't  trust me on this one do the maths by calculating the lever arms around where you want the cog to be. 

Completely incorrect. Calculate the PPI of a rectangular box, like a shipping container, at several displacements. It remains the same, no matter the displacement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Painoramix is confused.  Right not it's not about adding weight. It's all about getting the intended  weight in gear on the boat and in the right location. I'd like to see the boat lighter because as with all boats, they add weight over time. A lot of gear in systems was added during the build that was not in the weight study.  I'd like to get the ballast back to my spec.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob,
  Is there a way to remove ballast from hull #1 to get back to your optimum?  The boat looks great and I am sure once loaded it will float just fine, but removing 2k from ballast would go along way I'm sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Rasputin22 said:

What a sausage fest! Look at all those guys. What do you expect for floating on the lines. They really need some of these,

Just joking, the boat looks great in the water. Did Neil Rabinowitz bring the bright sunshine just for his shoot? Funny how a pro photographer didn't mind stepping right in front of Boomer while Boomer was filming. 

That's SOP for pros. When I was shooting pro I would generally go wherever I wanted whenever I wanted, although I would occasionally apologize. The client isn't paying for pictures from the back of the crowd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob, thread hijack. I'm visiting Helsinki and 30% of the boats were canoe stern. Power boats and sail boats. I always attributed it to one of your designs. Surprised me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, ProaSailor said:

Heh, heh.  What a kiss ass.  I'm not blind.  After all the build-up, the silence and lack of launch photos showing the boat in the water speaks volumes.

P.S.  And yeah, there is an anchor:

Boomer_vid_0-58.jpg.aad8e73b82f61d3443a68259e035347c.jpg

Being an asshole is genetic with you isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sabo:

I haven't asked. I don't think so. It would mean removing the aft tank. I think we go with what we have on no. 1. Neil was anticipating we would float at least 3" deep and we are not that heavy. A boat as complex as this one is not like FRANCIS LEE. That was a very simple weight study. Frankie is a very simple boat. This one was complex requiring a lot of guesses, call them estimates if you like. I did not estimate a 300 amp alternator or quite as extensive a bank of batteries that we ended up with, 15 batteries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Bob Perry said:

Steele:

Yes, that's the flipper.. Look dejected.

The cutter will be a bit heavy but not enough to worry about. Not as much as Neil anticipated. Iwill revise the ballast for no. 2. I spec'd 13,500 lbs but we ended up with 15,150 lbs.. I think my tolerance for the ballast slugs may have been too conservative. But for now we still have a lot of gear to go on the boat and it all goes forward including more than 500 lbs. of chain.. I expect over time we may see as much as 500 lbs + of gear stowed in the focsle. There is very little room in the lazarette. The focsle is empty now. We will replicate that with some lead for the sailing trials. We still have chain to add forward and another anchor.

The important thing right now is that the owner is very happy.

I still have Proa on ignore. I have no time for his personal problems.

Bob,

     I wondered what the final ballast arrangement was for those pre-cast ingots between the floors in the bottom of the keel. I just looked at the old 3d model and compared the weights you stated above with and without that forward chunk. Of course that was about the time all the machinery and equipment additions started taking place in the engine room. I know things were a moving target in that respect. Didn't we consider the next bay forward right under the mast step as a 'trim bay' for ballast at one time for the first boat? 

sWrCXEq.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rasper:

I don't recall that. The existing ballast arrangement is as you have it drawn. I have it drawn the same way. But, the third slug aft, the one with the sloped top now has a horizontal top in line with the second slug. That would account for much of the additional ballast weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bob Perry said:

Sabo:

I haven't asked. I don't think so. It would mean removing the aft tank. I think we go with what we have on no. 1. Neil was anticipating we would float at least 3" deep and we are not that heavy. A boat as complex as this one is not like FRANCIS LEE. That was a very simple weight study. Frankie is a very simple boat. This one was complex requiring a lot of guesses, call them estimates if you like. I did not estimate a 300 amp alternator or quite as extensive a bank of batteries that we ended up with, 15 batteries.

FRANCIS has not gained any significant weight since she was finished.

But as Bob points out, she is a very simple boat. Exactly what the client wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, RKoch said:

Completely incorrect. Calculate the PPI of a rectangular box, like a shipping container, at several displacements. It remains the same, no matter the displacement.

But it is not about ppi. The CG needs to be above the CF, at the moment it is too far aft. You can't change the CF while keeping the boat in trim as that's directly linked to the geometry of the hull so if you want to correct it with extra weight in the bow as you were suggesting the weigth in the bow is proportional to the weight (displacement) of the boat. it is so easy that you don't even need a paper to suss out the relation. If you note delta the distance by which you want to move the CG forward, L the distance from the chain locker to the new CG, D the displacement of the boat, you get chain weight = delta / L * D

Obviously it makes more sense to shift everything forward but I was replying to your claim that chain and anchor will trim the boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kimbottles said:

FRANCIS has not gained any significant weight since she was finished.

But as Bob points out, she is a very simple boat. Exactly what the client wanted.

Probably because she is owned AND sailed by a long time bicycling enthusiast... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rasputin22 said:

Probably because she is owned AND sailed by a long time bicycling enthusiast... 

Or someone who REALLY likes simple vessels.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bob Perry said:

Rasper:

I don't recall that. The existing ballast arrangement is as you have it drawn. I have it drawn the same way. But, the third slug aft, the one with the sloped top now has a horizontal top in line with the second slug. That would account for much of the additional ballast weight.

OK Bob, that makes sense now. Are your fuel and water tanks topped of yet? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ProaSailor said:

Heh, heh.  What a kiss ass.  I'm not blind.  After all the build-up, the silence and lack of launch photos showing the boat in the water speaks volumes.

 

Oh yes, you are not only blind but an idiot as well. The boat was just launched, not ready yet. And you start to crank the same old shit again and again.

Wait until the boat is ready and go sailing.

Instead of just attacing Bob Perry you can show some of your own efforts ... or maybe not.

Shame on you

 

//J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kimbottles said:

Or someone who REALLY likes simple vessels.......

I bet you leave the PPI, CG, and RM ashore just to save weight Kim... That also solves all the arguments that Bob is getting from people here!  "Ain't nobody got time for dat!"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rasper:

Fuel tanks half full, some water. Not sure how much. Water tanks were full while the boat was in the yard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That foc'sle should do the trick then when it is full. Lots of storage up there. How about backing down, has that happened yet? Inquiring minds want to know! Tested the 'Chastity Strut' yet? It sure looks right now that it is finally fastened in place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bob Perry said:

But for now we still have a lot of gear to go on the boat and it all goes forward including more than 500 lbs. of chain.. I expect over time we may see as much as 500 lbs + of gear stowed in the focsle. There is very little room in the lazarette. The focsle is empty now. We will replicate that with some lead for the sailing trials. We still have chain to add forward and another anchor.

 

58 minutes ago, Bob Perry said:

Painoramix is confused.  Right not it's not about adding weight. It's all about getting the intended  weight in gear on the boat and in the right location.

 

5 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

But it is not about ppi. The CG needs to be above the CF, at the moment it is too far aft. You can't change the CF while keeping the boat in trim as that's directly linked to the geometry of the hull so if you want to correct it with extra weight in the bow as you were suggesting the weigth in the bow is proportional to the weight (displacement) of the boat. it is so easy that you don't even need a paper to suss out the relation. If you note delta the distance by which you want to move the CG forward, L the distance from the chain locker to the new CG, D the displacement of the boat, you get chain weight = delta / L * D

Obviously it makes more sense to shift everything forward but I was replying to your claim that chain and anchor will trim the boat.

Panoramix, you are so correct and clueless RKoch is just a tool.

Did you notice what Bob did there?  He invalidated what you said and then said the very same thing himself!  That this will be corrected by adding weight forward.  Same message, different messenger.  Standard ad hominem tactic for petty, malicious Bully Bob and his lackeys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ProaSailor said:

 

 

Panoramix, you are so correct and clueless RKoch is just a tool.

Did you notice what Bob did there?  He invalidated what you said and then said the very same thing himself!  That this will be corrected by adding weight forward.  Same message, different messenger.  Standard ad hominem tactic for petty, malicious Bully Bob and his lackeys.

You have a lot of pent-up anger about something, I'm not sure what. Back on ignore you go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Panoramix said:

But it is not about ppi. The CG needs to be above the CF, at the moment it is too far aft. You can't change the CF while keeping the boat in trim as that's directly linked to the geometry of the hull so if you want to correct it with extra weight in the bow as you were suggesting the weigth in the bow is proportional to the weight (displacement) of the boat. it is so easy that you don't even need a paper to suss out the relation. If you note delta the distance by which you want to move the CG forward, L the distance from the chain locker to the new CG, D the displacement of the boat, you get chain weight = delta / L * D

Obviously it makes more sense to shift everything forward but I was replying to your claim that chain and anchor will trim the boat.

The CG and CF are always aligned vertically, for the boat to be in equilibrium. Otherwise, the boat changes trim to make it so. That is not what you were arguing. You said it takes more trim ballast to change trim of a heavy displacement boat than a light displacement. That is incorrect. The amount of ballast to change trim is dependant on the area and shape of the waterplane and the delta. That is unrelated to displacement. What is below the waterline doesn't change. What changes is the wedge that is raised or immersed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ishmael said:

You have a lot of pent-up anger about something, I'm not sure what. Back on ignore you go.

My pent-up anger toward Bully Bob Fucking "LOOK AT ME" Perry is in direct proportion to the slander and abuse he has dished out on this forum.  My respect for him has diminished greatly over the years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually you are partially correct Kocher.

The LCG and LCB are always aligned. The LCF is just the centroid of the waterplane. The boat trims around the LCF.  As you say, trim moments are taken from the LCF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ProaSailor said:

My pent-up anger toward Bully Bob Fucking "LOOK AT ME" Perry is in direct proportion to the slander and abuse he has dished out on this forum.  My respect for him has How come I see that post?diminished greatly over the years.

How come I can see that post?

My respect for you Proa is non existent. I think you are a very odd person, the constant victim. A real wuss. A cry baby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats Bob!

It's been great to follow this design and build and I'm looking forward to seeing #1 dialed-in and sailing under full canvas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

You have a lot of pent-up anger about something, I'm not sure what. Back on ignore you go.

The BS butt-sniffers are a rather unhinged couple.  Losers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Bob Perry said:

Actually you are partially correct Kocher.

The LCG and LCB are always aligned. The LCF is just the centroid of the waterplane. The boat trims around the LCF.  As you say, trim moments are taken from the LCF.

Shouldn't the LCF be the centroid of the immersed volume?

Edit: oh right, LFC vs LCB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bob Perry said:

How come I can see that post?

Because the ignore filters don't apply when you're reading a thread and are prompted to "Show [new] Replies".  I've seen some ridiculous theories about this here but it's really quite simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DDW said:

Shouldn't the LCF be the centroid of the immersed volume?

I think we're confusing terms. BPerry is correct. CG has a longitudinal and vertical location...sometimes an athwartship location if the boat has a list. Same with the centroid of the immersed volume. They must be in line for eqilibrium to exist. The centroid of the waterplane is the axis of trim. It's usually close, but not exactly aligned with the LCB and LCG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to see an idea made physical. 

Sad to see envy made personal. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, ProaSailor said:

 

 

Panoramix, you are so correct and clueless RKoch is just a tool.

Did you notice what Bob did there?  He invalidated what you said and then said the very same thing himself!  That this will be corrected by adding weight forward.  Same message, different messenger.  Standard ad hominem tactic for petty, malicious Bully Bob and his lackeys.

Proa, your greatly diminished respect for Bob is greatly diminishing your critical thinking skills. Bob did not say simply "adding weight forward", he said adding the intended gear that is not yet on the boat, and putting that gear in the right place. I will give you that trying to point out an ad hominem argument with girly name calling does have a demented kind of logic to it. I bet there's at least on thing you like about these new cutters, you spend a lot of time here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats Bob, and thanks again for allowing the rest of us to follow along, and even discuss!

Please everyone, don't quote the dude with one and a half hulls. Folks like him are only here for the attention. Ignoring them will eventually drive them even crazier than they already are, and with any luck they will go away.

I'm even more jealous than he is, but I can handle it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now