• 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.  
IStream

Origami Boat Thread

13,755 posts in this topic

I have heard that some companies seek innovations from totally unqualified people, because those who are highly qualified , given a problem, will have plenty of reasons why it can't be done, whereas those who have no qualifications, not knowing it can't be done, will find a way to get it done.

 

That bow would work out fine in origami . A conic bow would eliminate the distortion you get when you twist a plate, twisting giving you less length on the edges than you need to keep it fair. The only thing which doesn't work is a hollow, clipper bow. Those require a lot more length on the edges.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2015/02/the-dunning-kruger-effect-are-the-stupid-too-stupid-to-realize-theyre-stupid/

 

Original study[edit]

 

The phenomenon was first tested in a series of experiments during 1999 by David Dunning and Justin Kruger of the department of psychology at Cornell University.[1][2] The study was inspired by the case of McArthur Wheeler, a man who robbed two banks after covering his face with lemon juice in the mistaken belief that, because lemon juice is usable as invisible ink, it would prevent his face from being recorded on surveillance cameras.[3] The authors noted that earlier studies suggested that ignorance of standards of performance lies behind a great deal of incorrect self-assessment of competence. This pattern was seen in studies of skills as diverse as reading comprehension, operating a motor vehicle, and playing games such as chess or tennis.

 

Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:[4]

fail to recognize their own lack of skill

fail to recognize the extent of their inadequacy

fail to recognize genuine skill in others

recognize and acknowledge their own lack of skill, after they are exposed to training for that skill

 

Dunning has since drawn an analogy – "the anosognosia of everyday life"[5][6] – with a condition in which a person who experiences a physical disability because of brain injury seems unaware of, or denies the existence of, the disability, even for dramatic impairments such as blindness or paralysis: "If you're incompetent, you can’t know you’re incompetent.… [T]he skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is."[5]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read an article in which it was claimed that the mold for the Shields Class is assymetrical.

 

I bet the accuracy of production hulls is much better now with CAD systems drawing the shapes than back in the days of hand lofting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Semi:

Maybe but I'm not sure how hand lofting would effect symmetry. You draw only one half the boat and make both sides from the same pattern.

 

Deck goes on Carbon cutter No. 1 tomorrow. I was hoping today. But In have been busy working on my new 43'er for the New Zealand couple, a challenging design. I just did something I never do. I pulled out Bill Garden's book, Vol 2, to look for an example how he would have handled the problem. I could not do that while he was alive. But now, I need some inspiration and Bill was a wizz at difficult styling challenges.

"Help me Bill!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the "Failure to recognize genuine skill in others" had me nodding - "yep, all those other guys are hacks..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn't watch over every builder's should BS. That's silly. At one time I had 16 different boats under construction in Taiwan. That's more boats than you have ever designed in your life. But I always inspected the plugs and often spent time in each yard helping them while they were finishing the plugs. I believe in my book there are several photos of this. I loved it. It was a blast to crawl around the plug making little fine tuning adjustments to shapes and features. Or, correcting the mistakes the yard had made. Spending time with the workers, who usually spoke no English, was a great way to learn Mandarin. Great times.

 

My world is a little bigger than Comox, BC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brent, the plural of anecdote is not "data".

 

Your fixation with all things Perry is a little disturbing.

 

What you fail to appreciate is the confidence that builders have placed in successful designers to provide a product successful in the marketplace - that unforgiving real-world of capitalism - where they will sell or perish.

 

People vote with their wallets. When you find yourself outside the fence, wailing and gnashing your teeth at EVERYONE ELSE on a regular basis, well - that just smacks of fanaticism. Give it a rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try doing it with a skillsaw. Much easier. Field or shop, makes no difference. It's how you hold the torch, not where you are when you do it. Steel doesn't have eyes to know where you are, nor the snobbery to care. Not everyone is clumsy with a torch. Those who are, are just as clumsy in a shop.

 

Origami boat building is far more forgiving of lack of skill than outdated, old fashioned methods

Wood is a very different material from steel, and it doesn't shrink along the edges when you join it together. It doesn't come in 8 ft by 36 ft sheets, with the same strength in all directions. You can't get 100 % strength joining it together, and your glue doesn't set instantly .

No comparison.

 

 

 

I've cut steel

 

I've welded steel

 

I've built boats of wood(strip and ply) and foam/glass

 

I "KNOW" i can get better results on wood in my home shop, because I can.

I DONT have the skill to wield a torch to the accuracy that I, ME, PERSONALLY can do with wood.

 

YMMV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BS has this seriously weird "man crush" on me. I find it very creepy. Very creepy. He's kind of like the poor, ignored groupie banging on the stage back door, "Let me in. I know you will like me!"

 

No I won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"Apologies to S&S, but this is common on production boats. "

 

This is not true. Back it up with facts or it's just BS from BS. Just shows how BS cares little about facts. In some circles they would have bought that for fact.

 

I would say that there is a far greater chance of asymetry in a deck with a one off steel boat than a production boat out of a mold. Not saying it can't happen with a production boat but most molds are built for very carefully built plugs. Lots of money at stake to get it right. Typical steel boat home builder is more likely to get it wrong. But I do not have any specific examples.

 

I did have a consultation client who owned a Caliber who claimed the deck was on asymetrically, i.e. he had 4" more side deck on one side than he had on the other. I told him that was not good and he should ask the builder about it. Caliber told him that their boats are "hand built" and that's what you get, asymetry, with a hand built boat. That was their defense. Poor guy loved his boat but it had slowly been driving him crazy that everything was off on one side. Never found out what happened.

When we use the panels from one side deck as the pattern for the other , how is it possible for them to be different from one another? If one were paranoid enough,one could even clamp them together, then grind the edges flush. And you still say they could still be different from one another?

Now that is an example of someone with no hands on experience, who lives in a fantasy world of theory! Someone like that could drastically multiply the time it takes to build his fantasy based products .

You need to do more than draw pictures Bob. Time you checked out the real world!

 

Dude! Given that the two sides are identical surfaces, mirror images of each other, one side can easily take a different shape than the other by small variations in deadrise, flare and/or areas of flatness relative to the center line. [EDIT: How many ways can you bend a ruler?]

 

This is much more likely without frames or a mold, as is common in videos I've watched of origami steel construction.

 

There are different, perfectly valid perspectives on "the real world". Please make your case without attacking others (or STFU).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My dad built production fiberglass boats to S&S designs. They were very precise side to side as well as boat to boat. He developed a simple method where the hulls were dropped into splashed cradles that held the entire hull in its intended shape until all the bulkheads, interior joinery and deck were in place. IOR required each hull's dimensions be measured. After they measured a few hulls and found them virtually identical, his boats were given a waiver on the dimension measurements. This was the technology 45 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shu:

I remember those days well. Your Dad's 38 was my favorite production boat when it came out. I drooled over that boat. There were two in Seattle that actively raced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"From more than 30 feet away, teak is indistinguishable from brown paint,"

 

Boy, I can't agree with that statement at all. 30'? I think it's time for new eye glasses BS. Maybe 80' you can get away with brown paint. But who wants to stand 80' away from their boat all the time?

I saw a Norseman 447 in the BVI's where the owner had painted all the teak dark brown. It looked awful from any distance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"You can never predict how much junk any one full time liveaboard cruiser will put aboard, thus nor can you predict where she will float"


No, BS you can't. But I can and do make three versions of the weighty study, light ship or "as launched" then one where I estimate the weight as you might find the boat at the dock on any given day in thwe summer. Then I do a full load weight study where I fill all the tanks and add personal affects and cruising gear. A skilled man with experience can come very close. And yes I can tell exactly where the boat will float because I have a set of lines. Weight studies are not easy. They are not fun. They require patience. But they are necessary. We are doing the weight study on Dave Cooper's 44'er right now. I need it so we can design the keel and figure out where the keel/ballast goes. I have a pretty good idea but I need some numbers to reassure me. I could guess and come really close. But my clients expect more.


On FRANCIS LEE I did a weight study when we started the design. Initially I was worried we could not hit our weight target with strip planking the hull. The weight study said we could. This weight study was adjusted and amended as the project progressed so we always knew where we stood on our weight target. As you can plainly see Frankie sits nicely on its lines.

She is well short of fitted out in this photo but you can get a good feel for the trim. We are well above the DWL yet. In fact, the guys at the yard were skeptical and we had dropped the boat in the water about a month prior to this just to be sure. Sop on tghe real launch day I was not as concerned as I am usually.

Canal1_zps75c6f38c.jpg


For a yacht designer there are few feeling more satisfying that seeing a new designed launched and sitting right on its designed lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with you there Bob. The first little 14' dinghy we built was gorgeous with just the epoxy coated plywood. We painted it for various reasons. It was such a shame to cover up that beautiful wood, that for the second boat, I went out of my way to make sure we could leave the hull bright. It is such a pleasure to look at that gorgeous wood. I also get lots of nice complements in the dinghy park when we are rigging. I will probably paint the third boat, but there is no substitute for beautifully finished wood for pure viewing pleasure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine if a battleship was designed without a weight study. "It floats down by the bow by 5 feet, but that's ok, we'll just remove the forward 16" gun turret."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shu:

I have had a couple that did not float where I wanted them. The Islander Freeport 36 was really bow high when we launched No 1. In the old days designers spec'd X number of lbs. as
trimming ballast. Sometimes it was as much as 10% of the actual ballast. They would write it in the specs or on the drawings. No one does that anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brent,

If I recall correctly, Skene's includes a discussion of the proper way to do a weight study. I know you can't predict everything, but you can sure come out close. It is then the owner's responsibility to then properly load the boat so it sinks to it's lines, assuming you've given him storage areas and tankage in appropriate places. Sure, the owner can load a pile of crap on the stern and screw it up, but that's his prerogative. With a good weight study, you at least started him in the right direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I told you before BS, now read slowly, if you go through the Phil Rhodes book or The Olin Stephens bio or K. Aage's book you will find more off center companionways than on center. Just basic naval architecture. Now I suspect you think yopu are a better designer than those three men but I assure you that you are not.

 

The Valiant 40's ans 42's have off center companionways. Can't recall one sinking from a knockdown. I know a few have been knocked down. It's just reality BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only experience with a detailed weight study was for the 38' racer/cruiser my Dad and I never built. I tried to count everything. I played with tankage locations and a bunch of stuff to get the boat to trim right. Refusing to make the aft buttocks too full, I ended up replacing the L-bulb with a T-bulb on the keel to keep the stern out of the water. Or, I could have guessed and hoped, then been disappointed at the stern-down trim. As it is, we'll never know for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brent,

I think you responded to the wrong post. There is no Bull**** about wood being pretty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"There is no more accurate way to determine where boat floats, than where dozens of them actually float"

 

Gee whizz BS, calm down. A good designer can't wait to see where the boat floats. The good designer has to know going into the project where the boat will float. You have Skene's. READ IT! There is a whole chapter teaching how to do a weight study.

 

This is really a BS classic. "Sorry client, I can't tell you what the boat weighs until we launch it."

 

Check out the Little Palm Island Express commuter pb I designed. This photo was taken minutes after the launch. Look at the trim. It's perfect. I had a speed target. I had to know what the boat would weigh before it was launched. If there is bullshit here it's you BS.

pb_zpsr4nsosr6.jpgpb%202_zps5sxhzz9q.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brent,

I think I know where you are going with this. I agree there is no substitute for experience. But what if you wanted to design something really different from you typical design? Say a semi-planning hull or a high-form stability, low-draft boat, or heavens, even a multihull? Being able to closely predict what these radical changes to form will do to the weight distribution would be useful, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the feeling BS years for the day before computers, calculators and who knows, maybe even slide rules.

 

Its just Maths BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm hearing is that every boat BS has been involved with in the past 35 years are all identical. His evidence is that they all float ok, so the design must be good.

 

Hey it worked for the Dutch, the Vikings, The Romans and Phoenicians; after a hundred years of building nearly identical boats, they come out ok. But we have more knowledge and tools available now, it seems silly to limit yourself to stone knives and bear skins.

 

I submit that in order to call yourself a designer, you have to come up with something from nothing, figure out how it is going to behave, and have it work pretty close to that. Then do it again, with new requirements.

 

I'm still waiting to see any evidence of a BS design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no more accurate way to determine where boat floats, than where dozens of them actually float, and have been floating over 35 years. You say your calculations are more accurate and reliable than 35 years of reality?

 

BULLSHIT!

With all due respect Mr. Swain your statement makes no sense. Are you claiming that all boats are EXACTLY the same? Even one design or class boats have small differences in exactly where their weight, buoyancy and displacement are located. And then there is the differences of what items the various owners place aboard and where those items get stowed. All will change exactly where and how a vessel floats.

 

I personally participated in the weight study of FRANCIS LEE. As it happened we had the opportunity to individually weigh just about EVERY piece of the boat as she was built. As the infused bulkheads arrived we weighed them, the individual pieces of fir, the test panel of the hull, the off cuts of the one piece deck/cabin/cockpit converted to full unit weight with the area from the computer model, etc, etc. We were able to get an extremely accurate weight study. (Not really necessary but because we could and were interested we did.)

 

Where did she float when we first dropped her in the water? Virtually EXACTLY where Bob's drawings and calculations said she would float. And his calculated weight for one inch immersion was spot on.

 

So yes, it is possible for calculations to predict where a boat will float before the boat goes in the water, I know this to be true because I saw it done. Any fool can go see where a boat floats after the fact. But how do you take that after the fact observation and project it to a future boat with any accuracy given all of the differences between one design and class boats never mind boats of a different design.

 

Just because you have no idea how to do the calculations that professional yacht designers use as they engage in their profession doesn't mean it can't be done. Maybe they are not important to you for your level of vessel quality, I understand that fact. But that does not mean they are unimportant to other people who appreciate good design and engineering accuracy.

 

I am OK with what you do with your boats. I understand cheap and dirty, and that it is fine with some people. More power to you and your clients. What I don't understand is why you are unable to understand and accept the other end of the design/quality spectrum.

 

To each his own (which you stated back earlier in this thread, time for you to start living that statement.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn Red, you just beat me to it....

 

That's not the first time Dunning - Kruger has been brought up in this particular context.

 

Loved the lemon juice story. :D Like the cops say - "thank God they're stupid or the prisons would be empty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My dad built production fiberglass boats to S&S designs. They were very precise side to side as well as boat to boat. He developed a simple method where the hulls were dropped into splashed cradles that held the entire hull in its intended shape until all the bulkheads, interior joinery and deck were in place. IOR required each hull's dimensions be measured. After they measured a few hulls and found them virtually identical, his boats were given a waiver on the dimension measurements. This was the best technology 45 years ago.

 

Fixed. ;)

 

The rumour at the time was that Yankee folded because the quality of the boats was too high to be profitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hobs:

I have the book. It's SHAKESPEARE - THE BARD'S GUIDE to ABUSES and AFFRONTS. It's a fun read.

 

" Earth gapes, hell. burns, fiends pray to have him suddenly covey'd away"

 

Oh yeah, the dreaded myth of the off center companionway. Olin Stephens and Phil Rhodes did not believe in it either. I went through my S&S book a couple years ago and found more designs with off center companionways than on center companionways. Olin Stephens? What a hack!

I too have been on NR when we were on our beam's end and not a drop got below. Yes the Windex did get wet. But you would have to understand naval architecture to understand why that works.

 

Actually my normal office rate is $150 for good work. If you want me to "fuck things up" I charge $200 an hour.

I have a photo of a boat in your neighbourhood Bob , taking a spinaker knockdown with the hatch wide open, and only 3 inches above the water. It is a centreline hatch. If it had been offset, the entire open hatch would be under water. I like to show it to people who are considering an offset hatch.

So tell us Bob, if it had been off set, and gone under, what are the odds of anyone getting the slider closed and the drop boards in, before too much water came in, thru a completely submerged 2 ft by 6 ft opening?

Why doesn't it sink boats more often?

Luck!

I believe good seamanship and good design is relying on common sense and logic to keep one safe, rather than luck.

Logic says that hatch would have been open and under water completely, had it been offset. Only fantasy could tell one otherwise.

if God ,Buddah, Jesus, Mohamed , Allah, Rastifarius, Hairy Krishna ,Olin Stephens and Bob Perry all said it wouldn't be, they would all still be wrong

 

 

If a boat is in conditions severe enough to submerge an offset companionway, only an idiot would still have the hatches open.

 

Think about how far over that would have to be - approaching the AVS of a hell of a lot of boats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"pb%202_zps5sxhzz9q.jpg

 

That boat just looks SO wrong planing like that. :D

 

It should be puttering along a quiet river laden with women in summer frocks, holding parasols and sipping drinks from stemmed glasses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the ENCYCLOPEDIA OF YACHT DESIGNERS a book with so many obscure designers I can't count, people I have never heard of, makes no mention of BS. Not even foot note. Sorry BS but you are a legend only in your own mind. You missed the train. It's a really fun ride.

Ibold%20b_zpswsv0si2a.jpg

 

Still waiting for drawings.

 

And Brent, you are no Nat Herreshoff. Please. You made me blow root beer through my nose.

 

"Think about how far over that would have to be - approaching the AVS of a hell of a lot of boats."
Which according to BS could be as much as 182 degrees. Just think about it. It's a design brake though. 182 degrees!
Whooo Hooooo! Who needs calculations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you, 90 degs is not good. Never. Ever.

 

But 182 degs is impossible, IMPOSSIBLE. You claimed it was. Your words.

 

Don't you get it?

It's just math and geometry. Nothing to do with cold fronts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No BS you in fact gave a range of possible LPS and the top,of that range was 182 degs. I can't remember the bottom number but it was equally absurd, It was no "typo" but nice try. You simply have no grasp of stability. End of discussion.

 

Now go take some rest. I have some cooking to do.

Nighty night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my favorite boats, the Moore 24, is shockingly asymmetric.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_24

 

There's a bunch of smart people building stressed ply, and stressed composite panel International Canoes over in Dinghy Anarchy. I think they share the same geometric challenges as these steel things, however, they seem to have figured out the maths.

 

For some reason, they haven't come around to the benefits of steel construction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my favorite boats, the Moore 24, is shockingly asymmetric.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_24

 

There's a bunch of smart people building stressed ply, and stressed composite panel International Canoes over in Dinghy Anarchy. I think they share the same geometric challenges as these steel things, however, they seem to have figured out the maths.

 

For some reason, they haven't come around to the benefits of steel construction.

 

Well, if they are going to take on the Northwest Passage, they should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine goes to 11 :P

I agree with you, 90 degs is not good. Never. Ever.

 

But 182 degs is impossible, IMPOSSIBLE. You claimed it was. Your words.

 

Don't you get it?

It's just math and geometry. Nothing to do with cold fronts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Hobs:

I have the book. It's SHAKESPEARE - THE BARD'S GUIDE to ABUSES and AFFRONTS. It's a fun read.

 

" Earth gapes, hell. burns, fiends pray to have him suddenly covey'd away"

 

Oh yeah, the dreaded myth of the off center companionway. Olin Stephens and Phil Rhodes did not believe in it either. I went through my S&S book a couple years ago and found more designs with off center companionways than on center companionways. Olin Stephens? What a hack!

I too have been on NR when we were on our beam's end and not a drop got below. Yes the Windex did get wet. But you would have to understand naval architecture to understand why that works.

 

Actually my normal office rate is $150 for good work. If you want me to "fuck things up" I charge $200 an hour.

I have a photo of a boat in your neighbourhood Bob , taking a spinaker knockdown with the hatch wide open, and only 3 inches above the water. It is a centreline hatch. If it had been offset, the entire open hatch would be under water. I like to show it to people who are considering an offset hatch.

So tell us Bob, if it had been off set, and gone under, what are the odds of anyone getting the slider closed and the drop boards in, before too much water came in, thru a completely submerged 2 ft by 6 ft opening?

Why doesn't it sink boats more often?

Luck!

I believe good seamanship and good design is relying on common sense and logic to keep one safe, rather than luck.

Logic says that hatch would have been open and under water completely, had it been offset. Only fantasy could tell one otherwise.

if God ,Buddah, Jesus, Mohamed , Allah, Rastifarius, Hairy Krishna ,Olin Stephens and Bob Perry all said it wouldn't be, they would all still be wrong

 

 

If a boat is in conditions severe enough to submerge an offset companionway, only an idiot would still have the hatches open.

 

Think about how far over that would have to be - approaching the AVS of a hell of a lot of boats.

 

Cold fronts and katabatics catch you by surprise, on otherwise calm days. I hope to post a photo of one such incident, as soon as I get a scanner running

90 degrees is a hell of a piss poor AVS.

 

 

90 degrees wouldn't put a main hatch in the water - I've seen spreaders in the water and only the side decks were getting wet - not enough to get to even an offset companionway - which is the whole point.

 

Since you seem unaware of it, the offset companionway thing here on Anarchy is a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

One of my favorite boats, the Moore 24, is shockingly asymmetric.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_24

 

There's a bunch of smart people building stressed ply, and stressed composite panel International Canoes over in Dinghy Anarchy. I think they share the same geometric challenges as these steel things, however, they seem to have figured out the maths.

 

For some reason, they haven't come around to the benefits of steel construction.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No worries about hitting floating things, etc, far less stress underway, the safest boats to go to sea in, no deck leaks, everything welded down,( the best bedding compound ever,) far less expensive than other materials, far quicker to build, no need to build inside ,the easiest material for an amateur to build out of, the most forgiving material for the back yard builder, most likely to survive on a coral reef , or in a collision with a ship, or a fire onboard, etc etc. If I do type inside the grey box, I change the text color so people can differentiate my response from your original text.

If I type right here, in the grey box, it looks like this is something you wrote.

If I type under the grey box, people know that I am the one speaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hell Sloop,

 

I fondly remember doing that stretch of road with my Dad in a Borg-Ward Kombi stationwagon in 1960. Remember it to this day.

 

DSC_5646-Borgward-Kombi.jpg

 

Rasper - couldn't he at least have gotten an Isabella for a road like that? :P:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that was the Kombi Isabella and we even had Michelin radials which were unheard of in the States at the time. It could have been a Ducati or a Lambo but it was sheer bliss to be sceeching around those curves on that road. Then we went and bought some virgin redwood planks to build a picnic table. Little did I realize at the time just what those redwood planks really were worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hell Sloop,

 

I fondly remember doing that stretch of road with my Dad in a Borg-Ward Kombi stationwagon in 1960. Remember it to this day.

 

DSC_5646-Borgward-Kombi.jpg

 

Rasper - couldn't he at least have gotten an Isabella for a road like that? :P:D

 

 

Ha! We had one of those when I was a wee bairn and my dad was stationed in Taiwan. Great car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Jon. You put that well. I suggest SailNet if you find CA/SA too rough and tumble. I like it like that.

SN is serving cucumber sammys 24/7.

I'll stick my Vegemite and cheese.

 

Yuck...... Even good scotch can't kill the film that crap leaves behind...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" Even good scotch can't kill the film that crap leaves behind... "

 

That is a protective film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shu:

I have had a couple that did not float where I wanted them. The Islander Freeport 36 was really bow high when we launched No 1. In the old days designers spec'd X number of lbs. as

trimming ballast. Sometimes it was as much as 10% of the actual ballast. They would write it in the specs or on the drawings. No one does that anymore.

Oyster is still using that technique. The sunk Polina Star III had a big wodge of concrete in the bow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leggs:

I had heard that. It's tough for the builder to avoid that when they try and make one base model available in a variety of custom configurations. Moving the keel is out of the question cost wise. I had a problem on some smaller boats that were offered with or without a dink in davits. That was a lot of weight all the way aft. One ballast config could not work for both options. I have always opted for bow down trim I I had to pick. I have found that cruising boats gain weight aft and there is more volume aft for some trim ballast if needed to compensate for the lack of davits and dink.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an observation here. The boat Brent mentioned with the centerline companionway in a knockdown, where the hatch was only a few inches above the water. What would have happened if it had an offset companionway? Obviously, it may have sunk, if it stayed over long enough and downflooded fast enough. But, a competent designer would have evaluated the boat's trim at 90 degrees of heel, because knockdowns happen. He would have seen that a centerline companionway was necessary. I'm willing to bet money that every good designer that has designed an off-centerline hatch has made certain that it will not downflood in a knockdown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shu:
If you go through the Phil Rhodes book it's hard to find a boat with an on center companionway. CARINA's companionway is on center. HOTHER and THUNDERHEAD, two of my all time favs both have well offset companionways.

Seems to me that we have gone through this before. Brent is late to the party, again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting tidbit I learned in structural engineering school:

Timber structures (heavy timber, not 2x4 framed houses) are more fire resistant than steel structures. Why? The timber will char on the outside but maintain it's structural qualities in a fire. The heat from the fire won't burn the steel, but it will cause it to lose significant strength and stiffness. That is the ultimate mechanism that led to the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, by the way.

 

Other than large replica sailing ships, these days most wood boats would not fall into the category of heavy timber construction. So I'm not saying wood boats would survive a fire.

 

However, just because steel doesn't burn, doesn't mean it can't fail in a fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

IMG_2151_zpsgyc4j0bq.jpg

 

 

The chine or closed dart looks like it creates a parallel body for about a third of the LWL. If you look at the bottom paint where it meets the topsides it seems to confirm this straightness. The crane operator is looking right at it wondering how much freakin' drag that must create.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shu:

If you go through the Phil Rhodes book it's hard to find a boat with an on center companionway. CARINA's companionway is on center. HOTHER and THUNDERHEAD, two of my all time favs both have well offset companionways.

Seems to me that we have gone through this before. Brent is late to the party, again.

Having sailed on Thunderhead in big breeze, and gone tippy a couple of times, there was never a moments concern about water down the companionway. Of course, we trimmers were cozily protected by the hard dodger...which had a nice pass-thru down to the gimbaled, ballasted 6 person dining table below. The companionway was ahead of the dodger.

 

The electric organ under the chart table was a nice touch.

 

Awesome boat. Light air rocket, heavy air train. Always at the head of the fleet.

 

Could never make that boat in steel without a dozen barrels of bondo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

IMG_2151_zpsgyc4j0bq.jpg

 

 

The chine or closed dart looks like it creates a parallel body for about a third of the LWL. If you look at the bottom paint where it meets the topsides it seems to confirm this straightness. The crane operator is looking right at it wondering how much freakin' drag that must create.

 

Thanks for posting this photo. This boat was built by a guy with zero steel boat building experience, and has absolutely zero filler. He used to charter Hunters a lot, and said this boat goes to windward far better than any Hunter he has ever chartered over the years.

The chine is slightly curved, the centreline far more so, between; the combination of the two. The chine edge of the bottom plate is curved enough to make the chine anything but straight or paralell.

What makes the centreline alongside the keel look straight ,is the keel sides curve outward, up the deadrise, in an airfoil shape. The centreline there has plenty of rocker, which would show more in a twin keeler.

 

I'm sure it sails fine, but the chine is very straight and therefore parallel to the centerline in plan. In profile the centerline doesn't look straight along the keel, it looks to take a fair curve, but when you point that out I see the deadrise is flat up to the chine and along the length of the chine, which would make sense because the chine is straight. That's a whole lot of parallel surface and a whole bunch of drag.

 

Forward, the the bow has a lot of deadwood since the centerline must be the intersection of the plates and can't be flattened out which creates drag sailing to windward.

 

These compromises may not be a big deal, I'm just looking and comparing to other hulls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using a Hunter charter boat as a reference for upwind ability. That's a new one to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using a Hunter charter boat as a reference for upwind ability. That's a new one to me.

I wonder how the interiors compare? The Hunter might take that category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have ti go with Lasal.

That chine is anything but fair. Even flat latex paint can't hide that.

 

Ad that's fine , IF,,,,you are willing to pit up with that level of "fairness".

If you are then bully for you. But don;t tell me that is fair.

It's Ok. I want better than Ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If somebody wants to build his own cruising sailboat for the building your own boat part of it and cost is the top concern, then this origami thing is something for him to consider I think.

 

These boats look cheap and according to BS they are very cheap in time and materials, and that's a good combination.

 

Don't oversell it BS, you'll do better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of throwing more fuel on the fire, here are a couple more shots of 'Prairie Maid':

 

IMG_1747_zpscnsuxxpx.jpg

 

IMG_1751_zpsd2lqjxzw.jpg

 

 

And lastly, something to make those of you with 'the eye' reaching for the bleach:

 

n_ax6_zpsymtydzu7.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of throwing more fuel on the fire, here are a couple more shots of 'Prairie Maid':

 

IMG_1747_zpscnsuxxpx.jpg

 

IMG_1751_zpsd2lqjxzw.jpg

 

 

And lastly, something to make those of you with 'the eye' reaching for the bleach:

 

n_ax6_zpsymtydzu7.jpg

BS is right, the bilge keels do help hide the deep V flat deadrise aspect. The spray strakes on the other hand are quite visible. Still, I get the roll your own allure and all in all these boats aren't too bad. And, they are brick shit houses--even heavier probably. Seriously, cheers to the craftsmanship on Prairie Maid, that boat turned out nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boy, I look at that chine transition and I see a shape that is anything but fair. I guess you guys don't see it. That's fine. But I will not accept that as fair. You go your way and I'll go mine.

My clients would shit if I gave them a shape like that.

 

But hell, knock yourself out.

Is it "good enough"? Not for me. And I am comfortable with what I consider fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boy, I look at that chine transition and I see a shape that is anything but fair. I guess you guys don't see it. That's fine. But I will not accept that as fair. You go your way and I'll go mine.

My clients would shit if I gave them a shape like that.

 

But hell, knock yourself out.

Is it "good enough"? Not for me. And I am comfortable with what I consider fair.

I was calling the chine a spray strake. Nautical joke. The hull looks like a deep V sport fisher.

 

The craftsmanship on Prairie Maid is worth noting I think. Whoever saw that through ultimately did a good job. BS was probably complaining about spending too much time and money if he was involved.

 

Is the shape or design good enough? Not for me either, but for the gotta build my own boat for x dollars guy who wants to bang into anything that might get in the way, could be just the thing. And if two origami steel boats collide, for instance at the no hassle anchorage, all is good. Noisy, but good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those charter hunters must be old, arthritic, 3 legged dogs upwind if something like that red bilge keeler is better upwind.

I was going to ask about the end treatment for the cut and fold, looking at that shot I see there is nothing. Prairie maid looks like they took some care there, builder improvements over the design?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah Bob, as our old shop foreman Fred used to say, "That's wrong, just wrong". Fred had a great eye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Yves-Marie can show us how he does it. I'm dead certain he has some hull lines for his origami boats. I could be wrong.

I start with Rhino and with basic lines I use the unfold command until I get result. Checking all along with the hydrostatic function

In its most basic origami form, you create a chine fore and aft of the midship section to conically develop bow and stern. See renderings.

post-32003-0-67146500-1458875667_thumb.jpg

post-32003-0-04549600-1458875813_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are all those holes in the transom of Prairie Maid for? Engine, heater exhaust, 2x cockpit drains, propane locker, what else?

 

I just want to break out the Bondo and fill in that gap between the skeg and rudder. That thing is striking a resonant frequency with my OCD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, Prarie Maid look pretty good above the water line. There's a certain charm to the boat. I'm having a hard time with the chine. It seems that it's forcing the Cp in the wrong direction. As for the gap between her rudder and skeg, that looks like an opportunity to extend at least a portion of the rudder's leading edge forward to get some balance for a lighter helm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, Prarie Maid look pretty good above the water line. There's a certain charm to the boat. I'm having a hard time with the chine. It seems that it's forcing the Cp in the wrong direction. As for the gap between her rudder and skeg, that looks like an opportunity to extend at least a portion of the rudder's leading edge forward to get some balance for a lighter helm.

 

its like an IOR bustle when you don't need one.

 

Wait, this isn't one of those designs that looks at old IOR boats and says "those classics had it right" is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shu, that's why the gap drives me nuts. It can't be more than about 20 minutes of extra fab time to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Maybe Yves-Marie can show us how he does it. I'm dead certain he has some hull lines for his origami boats. I could be wrong.

I start with Rhino and with basic lines I use the unfold command until I get result. Checking all along with the hydrostatic function

In its most basic origami form, you create a chine fore and aft of the midship section to conically develop bow and stern. See renderings.

attachicon.gif229SBC-pic1-MH25-16.jpg

attachicon.gif229SBC-pic2-MH25-16.jpg

 

 

Thank you Yves-Marie. Do you think that Origami boats are much harder to design than a normal chine boat?

 

Regarding chine boats and drag, I wonder how many of you have sailed a well designed one bigger than an optimist or a sunfish. The flow might be a bit too turbulent but you get extra stiffness from the chine once you heel a bit and well designed ones are good boats IME. They wouldn't add chines to IMOCAs if it was inherently slow. Tabarly wouldn't have arrived more than 2 days ahead of Chichester in 1964 if chines were such a bad feature ; he was the anarchist, the one that proved the sailing establishment wrong.

 

I certainly wouldn't want to race Prairie maid, she is certainly on the heavy side for my personal tastes in boats but I am sure that ultimately she made her owner happy and assuming that she is well prepared I would sail her in a gale without fear. Regarding the lack of fairness of her hull, I can't see it on the photos even if I've already faired a hull myself. I doubt that many people would see it unless they use a batten. It is hard to say from a photo but I think that we are talking millimiters or fraction of mm. IMHO if you build a boat on frames it is more likely to lack fairness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent hard-chined sailboat: The "Grumete" designed by German Frers sr. in the late 1930s (GF sr. father of GF jr. and grandfather of German "Mani" Frers)

 

Photo 2 recent photo of of German Frers in his Grumete. Usually wins in Grumete one design regatas here.

 

70-year class still strong.

 

PD: Frers designed the boat while travelling to compete in the 1938 Olimpics (Berlin !!) aboard the Hinderburg airship. Fascinating story told in his book "Regatas y Diseños

post-109469-0-02310100-1458901102.jpeg

post-109469-0-02543300-1458901123_thumb.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For some contrast, look at how the chine terminates forward on Yves-Marie's model and then compare that to how it terminates on that red hull green bottom paint boat. It is a fair transition as Yves-Marie has done it. Not fair on the red boat.

That does not work for my eye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am reading this on a 10" tablet and I can see Prairie Maid's chine unfairness.

 

The front view of the bilge keeler shows that funny bulge where chine transitions forward, especially on port side. It looks bad. It looks like all the hull volume is amidships. I wonder what the sectioal area curve looks like? I wonder if Brent knows what one is?

 

The rudder/skeg gap drives me nuts. Is this part of Brent's design? It has to be bad for the flow around the rudder nose.

 

The chines on Open 60s and Volvo boats are entirely different. Those boats are fast enough that they are planing like a powerboat. Chines carry beam wider for stability and give a sharp edge so water is shed at speed. Chines are a liability when going slow.

 

Other than saving 100' of weld seam I don't understand Brent's methods. Multi chine hulls give far more variety and controlability of hull shape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a local naval architect get some steel cut to shape for me via computer file that fit right the first time.

If you don't just *have to* to this origami thing, it isn't that hard to get the steel cut the way you want for at least a Bruce Roberts multi-chine design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a local naval architect get some steel cut to shape for me via computer file that fit right the first time.

If you don't just *have to* to this origami thing, it isn't that hard to get the steel cut the way you want for at least a Bruce Roberts multi-chine design.

I agree, but Brent boats aren't geared towards anyone who'd have a naval architect do anything for them. My impression is that they're redneck designs (in the best sense of the word) for guys who have some land, a welding rig, a come-along, and a lot of gumption. Their owners aren't too concerned with sailing performance, just that the thing floats, generally goes where they want it to, and isn't easily damaged. If you're not inclined towards maintaining your hull, just add a couple extra millimeters thickness and don't sweat the paint, inside or out. It may look like hell but if you can't or don't want to spend any money on it it'll still be there long after you're gone.

 

Needless to say, this is the polar opposite of Bob's philosophy. Mix in a couple strong egos, some personal insults, and an interested audience and you've got the makings of an epic shitfight. However, I do think Brent's boats have their place. Just as long as they're not moored next to mine for too long...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My deal with BS isn't his designs. If he figured out how to fold up steel into a boat - then good on him B)

His endless obvious bullcrap along the lines of spending two hours a year maintaining a steel boat and making complete boats for far less than the cost of raw materials annoys me. I have wired new construction 40 foot boats and BS likely thinks it can be done in a day for $43.95 or so. Maybe he mines his own lead for batteries and copper for wires. He has a rubber plant he can make insulation out of too :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

However, just because steel doesn't burn, doesn't mean it can't fail in a fire.

If you seal a boat on fire airtight, the fire cant get enough oxygen to go very far. My brother, a lifetime fireman said he has seen this in lafge department stores. It also works on wood and plastic boats.

 

 

I bet Bruce Farr doesn't have to deal with non sequiturs like this... aren't you glad you 'participate', Bob ? Hows that for insight ? - works for TARGET stores, must be just the thing onboard....sigh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

However, just because steel doesn't burn, doesn't mean it can't fail in a fire.

If you seal a boat on fire airtight, the fire cant get enough oxygen to go very far. My brother, a lifetime fireman said he has seen this in lafge department stores. It also works on wood and plastic boats.

 

 

I bet Bruce Farr doesn't have to deal with non sequiturs like this... aren't you glad you 'participate', Bob ? Hows that for insight ? - works for TARGET stores, must be just the thing onboard....sigh

 

close her up airtight. Badda bing, badda boom.

 

might not even have to recoat the interior, as the rust won't burn. Or something

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For some contrast, look at how the chine terminates forward on Yves-Marie's model and then compare that to how it terminates on that red hull green bottom paint boat. It is a fair transition as Yves-Marie has done it. Not fair on the red boat.

That does not work for my eye.

 

I agree with you that there is something weird on the red hull forward of the chine, but the blue hull I see it OK. Look at the reflections in the hull. If the hull wasn't fair, these would be all over the place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent hard-chined sailboat: The "Grumete" designed by German Frers sr. in the late 1930s (GF sr. father of GF jr. and grandfather of German "Mani" Frers)

 

Photo 2 recent photo of of German Frers in his Grumete. Usually wins in Grumete one design regatas here.

 

70-year class still strong.

 

PD: Frers designed the boat while travelling to compete in the 1938 Olimpics (Berlin !!) aboard the Hinderburg airship. Fascinating story told in his book "Regatas y Diseños

 

A classic chined boat is the 26' Thunderbird. IIRC it was designed around 1960 as a promotional thing for a plywood company but under PHRF it rates the same as my custom, full race Kirby 1/4 pounder from 1975.

 

Chines may be ugly but they don't have to be slow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must have left the windows open or something:

tumblr_lc42llth8e1qd7ygho1_1280.jpg

 

 

 

However, just because steel doesn't burn, doesn't mean it can't fail in a fire.

If you seal a boat on fire airtight, the fire cant get enough oxygen to go very far. My brother, a lifetime fireman said he has seen this in lafge department stores. It also works on wood and plastic boats.

 

 

I bet Bruce Farr doesn't have to deal with non sequiturs like this... aren't you glad you 'participate', Bob ? Hows that for insight ? - works for TARGET stores, must be just the thing onboard....sigh

 

close her up airtight. Badda bing, badda boom.

 

might not even have to recoat the interior, as the rust won't burn. Or something

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think chines can be beautiful.

 

Jon: As I recall, under the IOR the T-Bird rated about half ton. It was only competitive at that rating when it really blew.

 

Bad, poorly designed chines are ugly. Well designed chines can accentuate the lines of the boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of throwing more fuel on the fire, here are a couple more shots of 'Prairie Maid':

 

 

 

 

 

 

And lastly, something to make those of you with 'the eye' reaching for the bleach:

 

n_ax6_zpsymtydzu7.jpg

 

 

Are those speed brakes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad, poorly designed chines are ugly. Well designed chines can accentuate the lines of the boat.

 

I don't think anyone complained about what this boat looked like:

 

Alt_Ragtime.JPG

 

Black Soo was one of YMT's favorties:

 

86422d1384221383-historical-monohulls-bl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Semi, I assume you know that the picture is RAGTIME (INFIDEL) not BLACK SOO............

 

Both vessels are very nice! (I came very close to buying RAGS once many years ago. Wonderful boat! Originally had a tiller!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Speed brakes"?

Very funny Punter. Why brag about a fair hull when the water has to fight it way around those lumps?

 

Kim:

RAGTIME is just maybe the very best example you could post pf very beautiful chines. I remember racing up Colvos Passage years ago on my half tonner. RAGTIME slid up from behind and went by us to leeward. As it went by it just "hissed" it's way through the water. I was in awe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem with bilge keels. They sure work for Dylan. I just don't like those crude ones. The French have been doing some refined twin keel shapes lately that address some of the performance problems of the crude type while offering the same advantages. If I lives where my boat was going to regularly sit in the mud I'd for sure have modern high aspect ratio twin keels. It's the same science, just twice as much.

 

"Private ownership of anything below the extreme high tide line is not allowed, the opposite of laws in the US."

As usual from BS this is factually incorrect. I know, I live on the beach. I am well aware of the US laws. It's not quite that simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Semi, I assume you know that the picture is RAGTIME (INFIDEL) not BLACK SOO............

 

Both vessels are very nice! (I came very close to buying RAGS once many years ago. Wonderful boat! Originally had a tiller!)

 

Yeah, RAGTIME:

 

3.jpg

 

29711d1235786541-ragtime-ragtime-715360.

 

More found here: http://www.sail-world.com/Iconic-yachts-in-rematch-for--Queen-of-the-Harbour/46983

 

med_DSC00727.JPG

 

This RAGTIME? Doing ~20 knots!?! WOW!!!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Semi, I assume you know that the picture is RAGTIME (INFIDEL) not BLACK SOO............

Both vessels are very nice! (I came very close to buying RAGS once many years ago. Wonderful boat! Originally had a tiller!)

Um, yeah. Two boats. A big one, and a smaller one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those videos show Rags to be remarkably dry considering she's doing 20 Knots in 30 of breeze.

 

I wonder how many times she has crossed the Pacific?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here in Canada, all water below the high tide mark is public. Private ownership of anything below the extreme high tide line is not allowed, the opposite of laws in the US.

 

Brent, while that is generally true in Canada, there are many exceptions to that rule, especially around harbours. While they are no longer easy to get, there is such a thing as a water lot in Canada. There are many of them in and around the harbour I live on. Historically, like upland properties, submerged lands within navigable waters are under the jurisdiction of respective provincial crown agencies or, in some instances, a federal crown agency. A water lot is established when a patent describing the land is created by the provincial or federal Crown usually through the issuance of an Order-in-Council. The appropriate land title or land registry office will then create an abstract of title for the water lot area. The abstract of title is a chronological statement of the instruments and events under which a person is entitled to property. As water lots can have an impact on the rights of other private and public interests (e.g., upland owners' riparian rights and public water navigation), they are subject to numerous acts and regulations. In addition, crown agencies have preferred to lease water lot areas rather than sell the fee simple interests, although there are instances where the fee simple interests of water lots are held privately, such as those water lots in Sydney Harbour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sal:

Exactly. I could ad my own experiences with this. And I may. But I think you nailed it.

On my beach we assume "mean high tide line" is what we "own". W e are not greedy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Here in Canada, all water below the high tide mark is public. Private ownership of anything below the extreme high tide line is not allowed, the opposite of laws in the US.

 

Brent, while that is generally true in Canada, there are many exceptions to that rule, especially around harbours. While they are no longer easy to get, there is such a thing as a water lot in Canada. There are many of them in and around the harbour I live on. Historically, like upland properties, submerged lands within navigable waters are under the jurisdiction of respective provincial crown agencies or, in some instances, a federal crown agency. A water lot is established when a patent describing the land is created by the provincial or federal Crown usually through the issuance of an Order-in-Council. The appropriate land title or land registry office will then create an abstract of title for the water lot area. The abstract of title is a chronological statement of the instruments and events under which a person is entitled to property. As water lots can have an impact on the rights of other private and public interests (e.g., upland owners' riparian rights and public water navigation), they are subject to numerous acts and regulations. In addition, crown agencies have preferred to lease water lot areas rather than sell the fee simple interests, although there are instances where the fee simple interests of water lots are held privately, such as those water lots in Sydney Harbour.

 

Around Halifax there are several instances of pre-confederation lots, where the "land" includes 100 ft or so out into the water. This has caused some issues where people have done totally legal things that are viewed by their neighbors as unacceptable - infilling, docks and other construction that block the shoreline, etc. Probably not a big issue in BC...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sal:

Exactly. I could ad my own experiences with this. And I may. But I think you nailed it.

On my beach we assume "mean high tide line" is what we "own". W e are not greedy.

Much of the tidal area of Puget Sound (but not all) is privately owned, the state sold some of its Second Class Tidelands more than a hundred years ago. However in the United States this is rare as most of the tidelands in the United States are public property below the high tide line. Just not in Puget Sound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone have the design specs on RAGTIME? Always been one of my favorites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

24" of freeboard on the i.O.R. stern Think about that .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Here in Canada, all water below the high tide mark is public. Private ownership of anything below the extreme high tide line is not allowed, the opposite of laws in the US.

 

Brent, while that is generally true in Canada, there are many exceptions to that rule, especially around harbours. While they are no longer easy to get, there is such a thing as a water lot in Canada. There are many of them in and around the harbour I live on. Historically, like upland properties, submerged lands within navigable waters are under the jurisdiction of respective provincial crown agencies or, in some instances, a federal crown agency. A water lot is established when a patent describing the land is created by the provincial or federal Crown usually through the issuance of an Order-in-Council. The appropriate land title or land registry office will then create an abstract of title for the water lot area. The abstract of title is a chronological statement of the instruments and events under which a person is entitled to property. As water lots can have an impact on the rights of other private and public interests (e.g., upland owners' riparian rights and public water navigation), they are subject to numerous acts and regulations. In addition, crown agencies have preferred to lease water lot areas rather than sell the fee simple interests, although there are instances where the fee simple interests of water lots are held privately, such as those water lots in Sydney Harbour.

 

Around Halifax there are several instances of pre-confederation lots, where the "land" includes 100 ft or so out into the water. This has caused some issues where people have done totally legal things that are viewed by their neighbors as unacceptable - infilling, docks and other construction that block the shoreline, etc. Probably not a big issue in BC...

 

 

Similar things happen though. Alvin Narod, a local big time construction magnate (built the Deas tunnel & B.C. Place) wanted to build a waterfront house on a super skinny piece of high bank frontage near RVYC Jericho. He found a survey from about 100 years before when the land was many feet further out into English Bay - before it had eroded. He got plans accepted and had his crews in over the weekend to pour massive foundations that doubled as a seawall - right to the high tide line or maybe a bit over. By the time anyone checked it was a done deal. The actual land only went about 10 feet past the front door.

 

Really nice house but a bitch to walk past on the beach. :D

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