stinky

DC Designs

Recommended Posts

One suprising thing was how a couple of thin strands of weed on the bow will slow the boat noticably - sailing next to a nearly identical boat really highlighted this. I wish I didn't know about this as it is not easy to get weed off the stem - it's not as if you can reach up there.

Chris! An opportunity to build a kelp cutter into the stem!

Imagine that with little stectra contro lines that swipe everytime the seat tacks?

Could bring bonus points for cutting off fingers when putting the boat on the dolly.

SHC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I hear that right--that the NA's next year will be either Richmond or the Gorge?

 

I wouldn't miss either of those. However, I am not sure my boat can compete. What's the outlook like on borrowing/chartering something a bit more competitive than my 1981 Nethercott? I recognize there's steals to be had everywhere on the old hulls but if I'm going to spend money on an IC I think I might as well get a nice narrow light one....and I don't think there's any of those on the market in the four-figure range...are there? Bill, need a testbed for a stich-and-glue hardchined DC I can build before then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did I hear that right--that the NA's next year will be either Richmond or the Gorge?

 

I wouldn't miss either of those. However, I am not sure my boat can compete. What's the outlook like on borrowing/chartering something a bit more competitive than my 1981 Nethercott? I recognize there's steals to be had everywhere on the old hulls but if I'm going to spend money on an IC I think I might as well get a nice narrow light one....and I don't think there's any of those on the market in the four-figure range...are there? Bill, need a testbed for a stich-and-glue hardchined DC I can build before then?

 

The Canoes will be on the west coast for NAs next year. As far as chartering or borrowing a new rules boat, that is tricky. Most of the new rules boats are new enough that their owners are still in love with them and thus there are not many new loaner boats available. But, there may be new rules boats available depending on who is able to attend the event.

 

The predominant American builder at this point is Chris Maas and I believe the price a new Maas boat is not in the four figure range. However, if you were to buy just the bare hull and finish it yourself the price drops considerably. The other inexpensive option is the Australian flatpack technique.

 

boats can be made available to people who want them.

 

best,

 

Willy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The other inexpensive option is the Australian flatpack technique.

 

The Flatpack is a good option, which (if I stop crashing into Fireballs) should start getting some good results under it's belt. It's definitely worth looking at especially if you have a rig you can drop onto it (saves some cash and helps you dial it in sooner).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have the ability to build there are plenty of designs available from various people posting on this thread which allows some personal tweaking and will save you many $$$. Also I saved a heap with my new boat by taking all the rigging, foils, plank etc from my Nethercott all I needed to build was a hull and new carriage, so far it feels competitive.

 

Did I hear that right--that the NA's next year will be either Richmond or the Gorge?

 

I wouldn't miss either of those. However, I am not sure my boat can compete. What's the outlook like on borrowing/chartering something a bit more competitive than my 1981 Nethercott? I recognize there's steals to be had everywhere on the old hulls but if I'm going to spend money on an IC I think I might as well get a nice narrow light one....and I don't think there's any of those on the market in the four-figure range...are there? Bill, need a testbed for a stich-and-glue hardchined DC I can build before then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few photos from yesterday. you can see me cheating in light winds with the centered seat( middle photo, sorry about the plumbers crack :D) . Later in the day I was actually climbing out on the seat with it extended, YeeHaa. First race today...

post-26260-1252796970_thumb.jpg

post-26260-1252796992_thumb.jpg

post-26260-1252797017_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A few photos from yesterday. you can see me cheating in light winds with the centered seat( middle photo, sorry about the plumbers crack :D) . Later in the day I was actually climbing out on the seat with it extended, YeeHaa. First race today...

 

Looking good, keep us posted on how the first race goes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Website is back up and Tommy should be posting some pictures and video to it shortly. We got some awfully cool video/stills at Sugar Island and it is long overdue for the website.

 

best,

 

Willy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May seem an ignorant question, but with a focus on the measurements that apply at the BMS station - between 1300mm and 2600mm forward of the stern - the widest beam of the hull and the relationship of thevertical measurements of 100mm and 275mm/750mm min width - what or where is the BMS location considered to be when from a shroud/sidestay attachment point aft the beam could be constant to accomodate a carriage track.

Would the 750mm min. width apply back aftwards to the 1300mm mark? <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
May seem an ignorant question, but with a focus on the measurements that apply at the BMS station - between 1300mm and 2600mm forward of the stern - the widest beam of the hull and the relationship of thevertical measurements of 100mm and 275mm/750mm min width - what or where is the BMS location considered to be when from a shroud/sidestay attachment point aft the beam could be constant to accomodate a carriage track.

Would the 750mm min. width apply back aftwards to the 1300mm mark? <_<

 

The maximum beam does not need to be at the Beam Measurement Station. The hull can be wider at another location. The rule dictates that at the at the Beam Measurement Station that the hull meets minimum width & depth.

 

The trade off is that the farther back the BMS, the finer the hull can be forward, but to do this, you must accept a taller free board aft.

 

I hope that this helps.

 

John K

IC

USA-244

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My boat is basically parallel from the shoud base back to about 500mm from the stern to give me a nice long area to mount the carriage track but now I think that it's a bit too extreme. When I do another hull I probably won't run the track as far back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
May seem an ignorant question, but with a focus on the measurements that apply at the BMS station - between 1300mm and 2600mm forward of the stern - the widest beam of the hull and the relationship of thevertical measurements of 100mm and 275mm/750mm min width - what or where is the BMS location considered to be when from a shroud/sidestay attachment point aft the beam could be constant to accomodate a carriage track.

Would the 750mm min. width apply back aftwards to the 1300mm mark? <_<

 

As I understand it the BMS is any ONE place between 1300mm and 2600mm where the hull complies with those three (100mm/275mm/750mm) measurements. The hull can be wider or narrower fore and aft of the BMS as long as it complies with the hollows rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My boat is basically parallel from the shoud base back to about 500mm from the stern to give me a nice long area to mount the carriage track but now I think that it's a bit too extreme. When I do another hull I probably won't run the track as far back.

 

Thanks MCR.

 

I have watched with interest your posts and the "god's eye view" shows your parallel gunwhale/track situation well. I note your comment regarding the next hull and not extending your hull width so far aft.

 

Tell me more about your North sail. Yes it is a una rig and thus would be the

full10 sq. metres. Do you feel that the main only enables the boat to go about as well as a jib and main? How do you deal with the lowering requirement when on water? Which North outlet did you go to?

 

Thanks JT HI

 

 

 

 

Thanks JT HI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

G'day JT

 

The mainsail is more like 11SqM as you get an allowance for the fullness of the sail and an extra allowance for the luff sock. I can't remember the actual numbers but they are spelled out in the rules. I have a zipper running down the side of my luff sleve so I can remove the mainsail from along side without de-rigging the mast.

 

Now that I'm a six times veteran of sailing my boat :lol: I feel that I have a 100% handle on how these boats work (not!). I find that I have plenty on just tacking the boat without worrying about tacking the jib but I miss being able to back the jib to help the bow around in more breeze. In the moderate stuff it's nor so much of an issue. I'll have more info in a few weeks when I go up against the current world champion and a few other guys in our first regatta of the year.

 

The mainsail was build by me when I was a sail designer for North Sails Sydney and is basically a development of some of my previous Moth sails melded with some overseas Moth sails and our 18' skiff stuff, definitely a one off.

 

As I said, more info in a few weeks....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good stuff, any more for us to enjoy?

 

Just sorting through some other Sugar Island vids. Willy, is this you?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Peeps

 

After blowing the dust off the winter project (to many home improvements being done) I have lost some

where in my head if the new "V" seats that have been built over the last year have any strengthening on the lower face f the seat at its outer edge and if so what sort of size has been used and I presume it to be hardwood

 

Adrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys

I have been contacted by a woman looking for any info about her dad, Adolf Morse, who used to sail ICs out of Sugar Island and City Island in the 40s 50s and 60s. Anyone got anything? I think I vaguely recall seeing those names on some of the Sugar trophies. Chris Maas, could you take a look?

Tommy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good stuff, any more for us to enjoy?

 

Just sorting through some other Sugar Island vids. Willy, is this you?

 

 

Oh Karl, thats downright mean!

 

I thought you guys might know who it was; I don't recognize them but it looks like it might be someone at Sugar? Anyway sorry if I hurt Willy's feelings; I thought he was secure enough to take some ribbing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caption contest! Have at it folks.

 

 

Willys head over heals or is that arse over tit about Canoes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey guys

I have been contacted by a woman looking for any info about her dad, Adolf Morse, who used to sail ICs out of Sugar Island and City Island in the 40s 50s and 60s. Anyone got anything? I think I vaguely recall seeing those names on some of the Sugar trophies. Chris Maas, could you take a look?

Tommy

 

Adolf Morse won the Crane Trophy in 1955, '56, '59 and '60 sailing Nymph III.

 

He won the Challenge Cup in 1949 sailing Nymph II and in '57 in Nymph III.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is more than one Sugar Island.

The one we care about is in the St Lawrence River off Gananoque Ontario.

Adolf Morse was ona of the better american IC sailors of his era. He and Lou Whitman trasveled to England to challenge for the NY cup in 1946 or 1947 and didn't win. Lou came back in 1948 with MananaII and won. Adolf may have been on the defending team in 1956 and 1958, I'm not sure.

His name came up a lot in conversation with the old guys in the mid 70s. Always with respect and affection. This was not all that common. Those guys often had more bad to say than good about many people.

SHC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey guys

I have been contacted by a woman looking for any info about her dad, Adolf Morse, who used to sail ICs out of Sugar Island and City Island in the 40s 50s and 60s. Anyone got anything? I think I vaguely recall seeing those names on some of the Sugar trophies. Chris Maas, could you take a look?

Tommy

 

 

I have a few photos, might be of interest. Adolf Morse was part of the 1955 team in the NYCC cup against the Brits. Two left hand photos are sailing during the event. The top right is the US team, Adolf Morse, Lou Whitman, Frank Jordeans and Joey Ferrugia. Bottom right the British team, Ron Head, John Stothert, Graham Goodson and Bill Kempner. I included these photos in the history (of British Canoe sailing) which I wrote some years ago. This info came from Ron Head who has a gret photo archive for the 1950s. Can see more pictures on Flickr, or if you want the history see my website, http://andrew-eastwood.com.

post-36003-1253802057_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And another one.

 

"Daves Parking on the startline technique still needs some refinement"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey Cats,

should we attempt to be included in the Columbia Gorge One Design Regatta, which last summer was on July 24th?

or did some of you want to just blast around there before or after the proposed Nationals at Richmond?

 

here's the sailing association's link : http://www.cgra.org/

 

cheers, Kenny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hey Cats,

should we attempt to be included in the Columbia Gorge One Design Regatta, which last summer was on July 24th?

or did some of you want to just blast around there before or after the proposed Nationals at Richmond?

 

here's the sailing association's link : http://www.cgra.org/

 

cheers, Kenny

 

Kenny,

I would highly recommend that you west coast guys add this event to your calendar. I see no reason to not jump at the chance to sail in the gorge.

 

However, right now the intention is to have NAs in late June. Class consensus was that was best time for the most people. As a result the east coasters will probably be back east by then. However, I would highly recommend you west coasters add it to your racing schedule. It sounds like a blast! I'm sure that any right coasters that are still left on the 24th will jump at the chance.

 

best,

 

Willy

 

PS there is also the question of whether we qualify as a one design class any more? However, I sincerely hope no one answers that as it may lead to us no longer getting invited to one design regattas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PS there is also the question of whether we qualify as a one design class any more?

As far as I can see in the US the definition of one design includes any boat under twenty five feet long without lead: I14s and the like are regularly described as such. Bizarre...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PS there is also the question of whether we qualify as a one design class any more?

As far as I can see in the US the definition of one design includes any boat under twenty five feet long without lead: I14s and the like are regularly described as such. Bizarre...

 

 

hmm, at the moment the real issue might be lack of #'s to make a fleet ! might be able to get enough. mebbe I'll contact the Gorge folks and see what shakes.

cheers, K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So as the uk season is drawing to a close is there any new builds going to happen

out there this year. my IC is still in the garage un finshed :angry: so I must get on with

it this winter along with the other work in the house

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PS there is also the question of whether we qualify as a one design class any more?

As far as I can see in the US the definition of one design includes any boat under twenty five feet long without lead: I14s and the like are regularly described as such. Bizarre...

 

 

Its not that they're One Design, it's just that they race scratch against other class boats. No handicaps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mast simplicity. No doubt it has been done before but I'm thinking....... a deck stepped rotating mast, sail within a track, with a boom at the base located between two mast mounted sideplates, a bolt through holding the boom. Compression strut 'vang'

The mast stayed with side and forestays attaching at the front face of the mast to allow rotation.

Obviously spreaders would be out as rotation of mast would affect spreader length so mast control could be by diamonds.

What pros and cons are out there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mast simplicity. No doubt it has been done before but I'm thinking....... a deck stepped rotating mast, sail within a track, with a boom at the base located between two mast mounted sideplates, a bolt through holding the boom. Compression strut 'vang'

The mast stayed with side and forestays attaching at the front face of the mast to allow rotation.

Obviously spreaders would be out as rotation of mast would affect spreader length so mast control could be by diamonds.

What pros and cons are out there?

 

What you suggest is all quite doable. Moths have used similar rigs for many years. They also have spreaders, which are fixed to the front of the mast at a single hinge point. So off you go and build one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mast simplicity. No doubt it has been done before but I'm thinking....... a deck stepped rotating mast, sail within a track, with a boom at the base located between two mast mounted sideplates, a bolt through holding the boom. Compression strut 'vang'

The mast stayed with side and forestays attaching at the front face of the mast to allow rotation.

Obviously spreaders would be out as rotation of mast would affect spreader length so mast control could be by diamonds.

What pros and cons are out there?

 

If you dig back through this thread you will find pictures of Andy P's IC 'Tin Teardrop'. He uses the rig you describe. So does MCR33. There are some recent pictures here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JT

The rig Chris is thinking about rules out having a jib, or at least makes it difficult. The diamonds would have to be very short to allow the mast to rotate and rig tension is harder to achieve, but do you need it anyway? this must have been done at some time, I know that over rotating masts have been tried, I think with diamonds like you are describing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JT HI, Do you want a jib? That does make it harder to do doesn't it? I put a modified Taser mast on my first IC. It over rotated and was a pain to control. Fortunately it got stuck in the mud of San Francisco Bay and never sailed again. Diamonds worked ok but the shroud base on the old IC is wider.

 

It sounds like you are thinking of a mast that rotates with the boom like a Moth. Probably no aerodynamic advantage there upwind as the boom is on center line. Maybe a little better offwind. There has been a fair bit of research into rotating masts, wingmasts, separation bubbles etc. Check out Boat Design. net.

 

It might be tricky to control mast bend if you use a gnav.

 

Might be worth a try though. It may just be that no one has done it right yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There has been a fair bit of research into rotating masts, wingmasts, separation bubbles etc. Check out Boat Design. net.

I am *very* unconvinced about the quality of information there on this sort of topic... very hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Non over rotating masts don't really seem to over much of an advantage at all in practice... On the overrotating thing I am sort of a fan of the idea: I've sailed with them a fair bit, and I own an original (ex Nicola) Bethwaite wooden wing mast, the precursor to the Tasar rig. They are absolute sonofabitches to get right, whereas pole masts are fairly straightforward. It seems pretty clear that no-one has really ever managed to gain anything like the performance advantages from "short" (say under 6 inch chord) wing masts that simplistic analysis would seem to suggest are available, and I've seen, although I can't remember the source, some recent CFD analysis which suggests that pole masts don't perform nearly as badly aerodynamically as you would think they ought to. All in all my feeling is that its not at the moment a very fruitful area for experimentation unless you want to devote an awful lot of time and resources, and in that case an IC may not be the perfect platform. I've thought about it lots, especially now that NS14 carbon sections are available, but all actual work I've done recently has been on a pole mast... If you do have the time and resources and interest to spend a lot of time in developing something that may well not work then I think it could be a very interesting area, but with the passing of the years I have become less convinced rather than more that its worth me doing one on my main boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi JT (HI?)

 

I'll be sailing this weekend and I'll take some closer photo's of what I did with my rig. There are some more on the blog. Bye for now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mast simplicity/ also rule confusion.

 

Thanks to the respondants regarding 'mast simplicity' Your input has been of value.

 

Confusion. I note that -

 

A. Appendix IV Development and Measurement Rules of the International Ten Square Metre Sailing Canoe (January 2008)

 

Section 5 Hull (B) Lines of greatest beam.......indicates references to convex and concave curves, also straight lines.

 

B. Appendix IV Development and Measurement Rules of the Internatonal Ten Square Metre Sailing Canoe. (No reference date is indicated in the text)

Section 5 Hull (B) Lines of greatest beam.......makes no reference to concave, convex or straight lines.

 

Which set of rules may be regarded as the correct and current version ...... A or B?

 

Wading through all this stuff must be harder than the building and sailing part!

 

Thanks all,

 

JT. HI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mast simplicity/ also rule confusion.

 

Thanks to the respondants regarding 'mast simplicity' Your input has been of value.

 

Confusion. I note that -

 

A. Appendix IV Development and Measurement Rules of the International Ten Square Metre Sailing Canoe (January 2008)

 

Section 5 Hull (B) Lines of greatest beam.......indicates references to convex and concave curves, also straight lines.

 

B. Appendix IV Development and Measurement Rules of the Internatonal Ten Square Metre Sailing Canoe. (No reference date is indicated in the text)

Section 5 Hull (B) Lines of greatest beam.......makes no reference to concave, convex or straight lines.

 

Which set of rules may be regarded as the correct and current version ...... A or B?

 

Wading through all this stuff must be harder than the building and sailing part!

 

Thanks all,

 

JT. HI.

 

Where have you found these copies of the rules (it will help in clearing up issues by removing old versions)? The ICF approved and current rules, can be found on the IC Website (www.intcanoe.org) - which is infortunately down at the moment thanks to some severe hacking! However, thanks to the UK IC sailors here is a copy of the current rules: http://www.intcanoe.org.uk/images/pdf/Form...009%20rules.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks ICAUS

 

The differing rules both came from the same source www.intcanoe.org/library.

 

Google in as I have titled 'A' that includes the (2008) and it will bring up the references to convex, concave and straight.

 

Google in as I have titled 'B' which does not include (2008) and there is no reference to convex,concave and straight.

 

I checked with the UK IC site as you suggested and it is 'A' that appears.

 

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Certainley the less than correct material needs to be removed as it is misleading.

 

Turning attention now to an imaginary hull, the rules would require that a transition from a side gunwhale edge to a 45 degree (or thereabouts) transom, at deck plan level would require a radius of at least 60mm.

 

What's the situation below at the chine. Does that require a simular radius? ......or may it be a hard angular junction .........suggesting that the tranistion point, from gunwhale or sheer to chine, is a section of an inverted cone?

 

Thanks.

 

JT HI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks ICAUS

 

The differing rules both came from the same source www.intcanoe.org/library.

 

Google in as I have titled 'A' that includes the (2008) and it will bring up the references to convex, concave and straight.

 

Google in as I have titled 'B' which does not include (2008) and there is no reference to convex,concave and straight.

 

I checked with the UK IC site as you suggested and it is 'A' that appears.

 

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Certainley the less than correct material needs to be removed as it is misleading.

 

Turning attention now to an imaginary hull, the rules would require that a transition from a side gunwhale edge to a 45 degree (or thereabouts) transom, at deck plan level would require a radius of at least 60mm.

 

What's the situation below at the chine. Does that require a simular radius? ......or may it be a hard angular junction .........suggesting that the tranistion point, from gunwhale or sheer to chine, is a section of an inverted cone?

 

Thanks.

 

JT HI

 

I'll have a hunt around and see if I can get the old versions removed, as to your other questions; there is a heck of a lot of info if you trawl this thread - and I'm sure smarter guys than me can answer your tech questions pretty quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Turning attention now to an imaginary hull, the rules would require that a transition from a side gunwhale edge to a 45 degree (or thereabouts) transom, at deck plan level would require a radius of at least 60mm.

 

What's the situation below at the chine. Does that require a simular radius? ......or may it be a hard angular junction .........suggesting that the tranistion point, from gunwhale or sheer to chine, is a section of an inverted cone?

 

Thanks.

 

JT HI

 

If my interpretation is correct, the curvature rule applies to the shearline in plan view. I'm pretty sure that Chris Mass's boats have a hard point at the chine. Given the intent of the rule, I would think that as long as the hard point in the chine did not project outboard of the sheerline, then the hard point is ok. I'm not sure what the official position is, but I think that if the hard point did project outboard of the shearline, that is, if it could be seen in plan view, due to tumblehome, then it may be illegal. I'm not quite sure how Chris's boats get around the issue. In any case, a 60mm radius is not actually very big, so it is probably easy. enough to round off any offending bumps with a bit of sandpaper and filller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You will note that the rule says "Line of greatest beam" not gunwale or chine.

What happens on Chris's boat and others with "pointy transoms" is that the line of maximum bean ceases to be the gunwales and starts to become the chine at the transom. So it actually runs down the topsides/transom transition. It is very easy to make this a 60mm radius. Just a little forward rake to the transom is just about all you need.

The rule is there to make sure that blips ( like where he hull is flared in the area of chain plates) are rounded off enough so people don't put an eye out when they fall on the boat.....

On your other point, follow the boom rotation was very common 30 years ago. It was common for masts to have large enough cross sections to not require spreaders or diamonds. That and the height of the hounds was pretty critical. Lou Whitman and others were very aggressive in making wood masts that they tuned with planes such that the matched the luff curves of their mainsails beautifully and were also tuned to their weight such that the gust response was perfect.

This was in the early 70s.....

I had a mast that rotated with the boom that I added swing spreaders to because it wasn't stiff enough, and I also built a version of the moth proder that had a jumper stay instead of hooking up to the fore stay. There was nothing particularly wrong with those rigs, but there was also nothing particularly brilliant about them either.

People have a hard time understanding ICs in general, so I tend to limit the number of back flips their minds have to do just to keep them attached to the conversation.

SHC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks SHC for the explanation re 'Line of greatest beam'. Funny how one can get hooked into a fixed vision and not see something else. :rolleyes: Mast info from you and others appreciated.

An older and wiser JT HI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, Ive been really lax on the website lately but I was going to try to get a little blurb about the HPDO over columbus day weekend. Who actually went, tho? John, did you?

Tommy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On measurement; I have a slight problem of my bow joining with a slight concave (about 5mm deep measured in a straight line back from the bow) will this measure or not? - curious.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On measurement; I have a slight problem of my bow joining with a slight concave (about 5mm deep measured in a straight line back from the bow) will this measure or not? - curious.

 

Cheers

 

How many concaves do you have? You can have 1 concavity per side over a length of 1000mm max 100mm deep on plan view that is. Does that help?

 

Good to hear of some more progress, do you have some more pics to share?

 

c) A 1000mm straight edge set to span such a concavity fore and aft, with 0mm at the outboard tangent, shall nowhere be more than 100mm from the hull skin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The anti concavity rules only apply to two situations.

One is to limit the size and abruptness of shroud wings, and thus is applied to the line of greatest beam.

The other is to prevent "bumping" at the beam measurement station (BMS).

So there can be hollows in topsides, chines or bottom panel as long as they are 1 meter forward or 1 meter aft of the BMS.

I doubt you have any hollows worth mentioning in the line of greatest beam.

Get er done!

SHC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers guys

 

The build is stumbling along from a combination of factors: preparing for OK worlds in Feb, keeping work afloat and wife is pregnant...again. I have got someone interested in NZL2 (nethercott) so once I'm done we should have a couple of boats to play together. Have also got a set of (nethercott) plans down to a prospect in Christchurch (tried to get him to build to new rules but he wants a kite) - we may triple the fleet in the next 12 months!

 

Pardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The anti concavity rules only apply to two situations.

One is to limit the size and abruptness of shroud wings, and thus is applied to the line of greatest beam.

The other is to prevent "bumping" at the beam measurement station (BMS).

So there can be hollows in topsides, chines or bottom panel as long as they are 1 meter forward or 1 meter aft of the BMS.

I doubt you have any hollows worth mentioning in the line of greatest beam.

Get er done!

SHC

 

 

Aaaaaaghhhh, you mean I didn't have to rebuild my carriage rail supports??? Ah well, job done now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cheers guys

 

The build is stumbling along from a combination of factors: preparing for OK worlds in Feb, keeping work afloat and wife is pregnant...again. I have got someone interested in NZL2 (nethercott) so once I'm done we should have a couple of boats to play together. Have also got a set of (nethercott) plans down to a prospect in Christchurch (tried to get him to build to new rules but he wants a kite) - we may triple the fleet in the next 12 months!

 

Pardo

 

Cool, plus we need to nut out some details on an NZ IC Worlds. I reckon we have the club sorted, so if I get some spare time I'll sketch out a proposal for you to go over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The anti concavity rules only apply to two situations.

One is to limit the size and abruptness of shroud wings, and thus is applied to the line of greatest beam.

The other is to prevent "bumping" at the beam measurement station (BMS).

So there can be hollows in topsides, chines or bottom panel as long as they are 1 meter forward or 1 meter aft of the BMS.

I doubt you have any hollows worth mentioning in the line of greatest beam.

Get er done!

SHC

 

 

Aaaaaaghhhh, you mean I didn't have to rebuild my carriage rail supports??? Ah well, job done now

 

From memory you also have a concavity at the front of the carraige rails near the chainplates cant remember exactly what? your only allowed one per side thats why you needed to do the mods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cheers guys

 

The build is stumbling along from a combination of factors: preparing for OK worlds in Feb, keeping work afloat and wife is pregnant...again. I have got someone interested in NZL2 (nethercott) so once I'm done we should have a couple of boats to play together. Have also got a set of (nethercott) plans down to a prospect in Christchurch (tried to get him to build to new rules but he wants a kite) - we may triple the fleet in the next 12 months!

 

Pardo

 

Cool, plus we need to nut out some details on an NZ IC Worlds. I reckon we have the club sorted, so if I get some spare time I'll sketch out a proposal for you to go over.

 

Oh Boy !

an NZ Worlds sounds good to me in the great white north!

cheers, Kenny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shroud location - DC canoe. What sort of measurement seems to be 'the go' for the location of shroud anchorage points aft of the mast. I'm sure it varies and realise that people have shrouds that are adjustable but as a 'peg in the ground' figure what sort of distances are out there. Be interesting to compare main/foresail rigs against main only.

 

JT HI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shroud location - DC canoe. What sort of measurement seems to be 'the go' for the location of shroud anchorage points aft of the mast. I'm sure it varies and realise that people have shrouds that are adjustable but as a 'peg in the ground' figure what sort of distances are out there. Be interesting to compare main/foresail rigs against main only.

 

JT HI

 

JT HI,

 

When planning the deck & rig in my IC (DC's don't exist anymore :P ) I was more concerned with the chainplates matching the angle back from the center of the mast on the deck. I matched the angle that was on my Nethercott, and the boat is not slow.

 

The distance back will vary with the beam, with the chainplates beeing farther back on wider boats.

 

FWIW, the chainplates are 34 degrees aft of the mast on Mayhem USA-244.

 

Regards

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shroud location - DC canoe. What sort of measurement seems to be 'the go' for the location of shroud anchorage points aft of the mast. I'm sure it varies and realise that people have shrouds that are adjustable but as a 'peg in the ground' figure what sort of distances are out there. Be interesting to compare main/foresail rigs against main only.

 

JT HI

 

For an IC, 12 inches aft of the mast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey guys

I have been contacted by a woman looking for any info about her dad, Adolf Morse, who used to sail ICs out of Sugar Island and City Island in the 40s 50s and 60s. Anyone got anything? I think I vaguely recall seeing those names on some of the Sugar trophies. Chris Maas, could you take a look?

Tommy

 

 

As a teen-ager, I used to sail out of Grant's Boat Club on City Island and knew the canoe sailors--Adolph Morse, Lou Whitman, Frank Jordaens--but only casually. For detailed memories, she should contact Fay Jordaens, Frank's wife, co-owner of Grant's, canoe sailor, and City Island historian, at FayJ1@aol.com.

Peter Belenky

 

PS: If anyone hasn't looked at Andrew Eastwood's photostream on Flickr, he should.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/24499444@N05/sets/

 

2328692167_263c8de30d_o.jpg

 

The American Team, Adolf Morse, Lou Whitman, Frank Jordaens and Joey Ferrugia, 1955

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

Well , it's almost upon us - Christmas that is - so here's the opportunity to share Seasons Greetings with everybody and wish them the joy of Christmas in what ever way they celebrate it.

 

My thanks to those of you have have responded to my requests for information regarding an IC build -your comments are appreciated and my knowledge bank is expanding - the build is not too far away.

 

Happy sailing - whether it be in the snow or the sun!

 

Cheers

 

JT HI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's all that white stuff. I went sailing yesterday on the IC and had to come in because I thought I had heat exhaustion. It's bloody steaming over here.

 

Best wished to all IC guys and also to anyone who hasn't seen the light. See ya in '10

 

Jethrow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scene from the front door yesterday morning. Linlithgow, Scotland

 

Even if I wanted to I couldn't get into the workshop- snow 18cm deep , temperature in workshop -3 degree C ( epoxy is snug and warm in the house) :rolleyes:

 

The developed ply job might get finished by next autumn at this rate.

 

Pics of the on-going build here - http://www.flickr.com/photos/phydaux2000/s...57622726090462/ - click on the slideshow icon top right hand side of the screen.

 

Best wishes, and seasons greetings,

 

Ian McP

 

IC gbr 253 and new build "bird on a wire"

post-15958-1261652359_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pics of the on-going build here - http://www.flickr.com/photos/phydaux2000/s...57622726090462/ - click on the slideshow icon top right hand side of the screen.

 

Wow, Ian that is excellent. The shape looks really good. It's amazing that you can do that with plywood.

 

Is that Steve Clark's design? What is the ply thickness if you don't mind?

 

Did it take a lot of goofing around with models to figure out what shape to push it into at each stage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wee- are you using a sandable filler to fair in the shape at the bottom of keel at the point where the hull goes from the plywood all the way across the bottom of the hull vs. the aft end of the plywood keel gap towards the bow? Do the chine's effect on the bottom athwartships curve help alleviate the pressure at that joint that in my model making, at least, always makes a little external bump in the plywood curve flow aft of that point?

 

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ian,

 

Keep the post's coming, and good luck with the build. The hull shape sure does look a little familiar (GER-78)! What are your plans for the rig? One sail or two?

 

I'm a little surprised that 18 cm of snow can cause so much trouble it takes about 18" in to do the same here:)

 

Happy Holidays and wishing all a great new year!

 

Best

 

John

USA-244

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice pics mcp. It's amazing that the ply will take that shape with such little framing. I don't know much about canoes but the reverse sheer at the mast step looks a little unusual to me.

 

Btw jethrow - I saw you launch the other day at byra. How did the boat go? Got any pics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Munter

 

Yeah, it's a steep learning curve. I've been neglecting the blog a bit but the sailing is a hoot so far. Feel free to come up and say G'day if you're around...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wee- are you using a sandable filler to fair in the shape at the bottom of keel at the point where the hull goes from the plywood all the way across the bottom of the hull vs. the aft end of the plywood keel gap towards the bow? Do the chine's effect on the bottom athwartships curve help alleviate the pressure at that joint that in my model making, at least, always makes a little external bump in the plywood curve flow aft of that point?

 

Paul

The bump in the keel is avoidable if you are careful and do two important things:

1. End the keel dart with a knife cut, then a saw cut then the curved edges coing in tangentially. I find it very important to make the transition from curve to curved V as subtle as possible. (I see that Ian has ended his dart with a round hole which will minimise splitting, but from my experience it could potentially agravate the bump problem.)

2. Spread the topsides in this area as wide as possible before doing the carbon seams so that the aft end of the seam is effectively flat, and transitions into any V as smoothly as possible. To get the sides wide enough you may need to tie a rope from bow to stern and pull the ends together. Makes it difficult to do the chine seams at the same time as the keel but its worth saving them for another night f it gets the bottom fair.

 

The chine seams do affect the bottom section shape depending on how wide the topsides are spread when the chines are seamed. If they are spread wide then pulled in the section shape will take more curvature out near the chines and be flatter near the centre. If the chines are seamed at design beam then they will not change the bottom section and consequently there will be less prestress in the skin and it will be consequently slightly softer. I do not see the chine affecting the shape at the aft end of the keel seam as thew two areas are independant.

 

Model making is good for overall design but the subtleties of the seam details are too hard to emulate in small scale when the material properties are not scaled well.

 

Its great to see the stressed ply method being used again for new ICs. By my count about 1/4 to 1/3 of the new rules ICs so far built or under construction. The original Hollow Log is still solid and seaworthy after about 4 years and will get a new sail shortly to help find that missing windward ability. If achieved it might make it to Germany 2011.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Phil.

 

I've been using .8mm 3 ply Finnish Birch aircraft plywood for my 1" = 1' models, based on the Gougeon Bros, experience.

 

Which scales up to something thicker than you use. Like 4mm, I think.

 

After reading your post, I realized that one of my strategies that worked arrived at your solution, although by another route- using 100 grit sandpaper, I sculpted the area to a smooth shape with the bow panels pinched together, which achieved approximately the same shape to the resulting contour of the 'cuts' with the panels spread out that you describe.

Before the uncut wood failed. Twice.

 

Although I wonder if (but have not tried) putting the centerboard case at this point might render the bump moot. From model making at any rate, the point of the intersection of the cut/no cut can be moved quite a bit longitudinally before what I would call large differences to the general hull shape show up. Like Wee, apparently, I have noticed that making the cuts farther apart seems to help the situation, but then you have to fill the resulting gap, which kind of negates the simplicity of the general approach.

 

I know xps drives people to distraction, but I wondered if using one xps sheet (or laminations of xps) for the chines and floor might work- granted the chines wouldn't be at right angles to the water, but chines smaller than 90 degrees (inside) to the water plane are common in the windsurfing world. They would have to be above the water at rest. Anyway, it might be easier than plywood seams? It would stiffen the plywood, add flotation. Surfboards are being made this way that are tough enough to stand on. The thinner sheets seem to have enough bend in them without crinkling or breaking. And I can stand and jump on the stuff I have out in the garage without leaving heel prints. Roughen it up before glassing so the cloth will stick.

 

I know I haven't been posting much on this thread lately, basically because I'm not in a position to do anything until this economic b.s. resolves, and theorizing without action seems like bad form, don't you know, old chaps? But I never thought that my business doing well in this kind of situation would lead to so little free time. So I continue to hack designs and build models, hoping this doesn't leave me in the position of being a crank. :( At least as long as I don't post too much. That's my theory, and I'm sticking to it.

 

Good Yule y'all,

 

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks, Phil.

1. I've been using .8mm 3 ply Finnish Birch aircraft plywood for my 1" = 1' models, based on the Gougeon Bros, experience..............

2. Although I wonder if (but have not tried) putting the centerboard case at this point might render the bump moot. ......................

3. I know xps drives people to distraction, but I wondered if using one xps sheet (or laminations of xps) for the chines and floor ..............

 

Paul.

1. 1:12 sacle seems too small. All my ply models are 0.8mm (1/32in) ply but are more like 1:4 or 1:5 scale making them up to 1.3m long.

2. getting rid of the bump all together is important because any bump in the keep in profile will spread around the hull athwartships and cause a bump in the bottom shape. The centreboard case can also cause its own bump when the hole in the bottom is cut if the area each side is not stiff enough. You can get dimples either side of the case if you do not add extra srength inside in the form of extra carbon skin and a bulkhead before the CB slot is cut in the bottom.

3. If xps is expanded polystyrene, I personally only use it for stiffenning bulkheads and try to avoid skinning them and also try to keep them out of any bilge water areas (with big limber holes) It helps greatly if the boat does not leak.

This stuff soaks up water. If it is skinned and the skins crack you end up with a soft, soggy, heavy mess which is unrepairable. By the time you get it dense enough to be dint resistant its pretty heavy and PVC foam or WR cedar does a better job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil- I've tried larger sized models based on the .8mm ply, and found what you were talking about, but figured that I wasn't scaling the .8mm ply right (unquestioning reading of TGBOBC, it would seem) and that was why I was having problems with THE BUMPS. So thanks!

 

I will consider your advice a Christmas Present. :)

 

I meant Extruded Polystyrene. The pink stuff. My bad. :unsure: As long as we're discussing eps (? FWIW: at least that's what the surfboard types here on the left coast shorten it to: expanded polystyrene = eps, extruded polystyrene = xps. ), there are supposed to be expanded polystyrene products out there that do not gleefully soak up water that have been developed for the post ClarkFoam surfboard industry. Any word on that stuff?

 

So now many more big models will adorn our garage walls. My wife thinks they're kind of cute.

 

In search of an easy way to insert a strongback up front, I put a piece of .8mm ply in the entire cut, vertically, and then pinched the bows in on it, hoping to use a pencil to outline the rocker at that point on the vertical piece, then cut it, put it back and glue it in place. One of the pieces of ply I was using was the same width as the cut. To my eye it seemed to cure the bump, but that was on the 1"-1' scale. Is there a reason I'm fooling myself here?

 

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul,

None of the stressed ply boats I have built since 1970 have ever had a strongback, cats, 12s, moths or IC. The forward topsides are vertical and provide all needed longitudinal strength.

My interpretation of your assemby seems to miss the point of stressed ply construction. When you bond the seams the hull is spread wider than final shape so that when its drawn back to design beam the skin is stresed to a curved sectional shape. When it is pushed out wide the keel spring line is bent to a much greater curvature than final spring, so any line you are marking on your springback will be the wrong shape once the boat is pulled in and stressed.

Reiterating my previous post, the bump can be eliminated by keeping the keel seam as flat as possible, even as far forward as possible to make the bow sections as U shaped as possible. Low down volume in boats make them float higher and with box rules like the IC that usually means narrower WL = fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I must admit, I think of it as Bizzarro World stressed ply. At least the rear end is stressed. Some. This idea started when I was staring at an upside down 49er, and wondering if you could get the bottom shape, without the sides, with one long piece of ply, 3 straight cuts, and one fairly short join (the cut from the bow to the longitudinal midpoint, plus or minus, of the hull) to tape and glue plus glueing the bow. And the shape would be rigid enough at that point to easily finish out For those of us (like me) with limited or no shop space that sounds kind of good. That led to this, which models out to a max beam, max ass (as in a 45 degree stern planform stern) extremely assymetrical hull (longitudinally) IC with a trimodalish hull.

 

I have built fully stressed ply low wind Windsurfers with U shaped bow sections that were essentially monocoque structures, but with this, I was looking for a much simpler, but still elegant way to get on the water.

 

Perhaps this type of ply construction isn't stressed enough to qualify as stressed, but it does get pretty rigid, although not in as hard skin tension as a typically fully stressed hull. But it still has many of the issues that a more developed hull has, which is why I am very interested in your comments, Phil. I may have to go with a thicker ply, but I'm still going to mess with the .8mm ply larger models to see what I can come up with. Like you say, bigger exposes more faults. And it'll probably need internal support- strongback, foam, stringers etc.

 

The other reason I have pursued this approach is that U shaped bows tend to rise on chop upwind until they crash, while V shaped tend tend to cut more, which seems to me to more amenable to a wave piercing approach. But you really have to be able to move your weight around longitudinally. With a max beam IC hull, and my leg length, I can sit at least near the end of a legal length plank, and still have my feet touching the gunwale, and therefore footstraps. But I wouldn't be able to droop hike at the end of the plank.

 

Think of it as a really skinny hull with a big formula board glued to the back. It seems like it might have enough displacement, like 310 lbs, but getting the fore and aft balance right will be tricky, judging by my computer modelling. The resistance hump is somewhat alarming, but not that different from a 49er type hull. And the wetted surface without foils is in the low 30's, at rest, which is a bit high. But all that planing surface........

 

One idea of many.

 

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And……. we’re back!

 

Sorry about the lack of response to the queries and comments…we’ve been entertaining aged “rellies” over Christmas.

So…

The design owes everything to Steve Clark and Phil S. Steve was kind enough to fire a DXF file of Second String (Ger78) in my direction and suggested a couple of mods. to consider.

The hull is essentially the same as Ger78 but a little wider (about 8mm) in the bottom panel at the BMS to avoid the problem that Steve had with Ger78 – as detailed way back in this forum.

The panels were cut in 3mm ply by Jordanboats.co.uk. Alec Jordan uses a CNC machine rather than Laser cutter and the rig doesn’t like going to the edge of the ply for some technical reason so the front panel is about 20mm each side (in the flat) narrower than GER78, the aft side panels are thus also slightly modified. I may be very near to having to build up a bit of height at the gunwale to get things street legal at the BMS, I’ll keep my fingers crossed on that one.

The bow profile is different from GER 78 being taller and plumb and more traditional IC-like, but as Munter noted still with some reverse sheer. Other small changes made such as stiching hole placement etc.

 

I built a few 1:5 scale models and would recommend this approach to anyone attempting a project such as this. Models any smaller than this caused problems as I couldn’t scale down fillets and tapes and kept getting false or wrong results but perhaps I’ll go into that side of things in another post.

 

The dreaded bump in the keel line. If you’ve looked at my flickr slideshow you’ll notice that there’s a pic of the bottom panel where the CNC cut stops short of the stress relief hole (the pic with the pencil) we stopped the cut short there because we were using a 3mm(?) router bit. The final 200mm was hand cut with a mitre or bevel so that when bent in to shape the ply fitted without any pressure causing bumps. As an added precaution there’s a small (60x60mm) carbon patch placed on the outside before the final pulling up. – Result no bump.

 

Phil, It might be worth noting that spreading the panels as wide as possible before taping caused me a number of problems.

In the chined area I found the epoxy/carbon held the chine angle so tightly with absolutely no give that when I pulled the sides in to the intended beam the rise of floor was way out. And when I brought in the front half to wire up the bow the ply started to protest very loudly.

To save the project drastic action was called for. You can see the results of about a weeks work with my trusty Dremel grinding carbon out, cracking the seams and the filleting things back to where they should have been in the first place. Any thoughts on what went wrong Phil?

The front seam will now need some angle-grinder rhinoplasty.

 

Thanks for all the comments and encouragement, keep ‘em coming.

 

“It’s boat building Jim. But not as we (wee) know it.” :lol:

 

Ian McP

IC GBR 253 Stingray and DC IC Bird on a wire

 

BTW : Chris, 2 sails with hopefully the same sized dagger and rudder boxes as used on Robs’s Razorbacks so that kit can be interchangeable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil, It might be worth noting that spreading the panels as wide as possible before taping caused me a number of problems.

In the chined area I found the epoxy/carbon held the chine angle so tightly with absolutely no give that when I pulled the sides in to the intended beam the rise of floor was way out. And when I brought in the front half to wire up the bow the ply started to protest very loudly.

To save the project drastic action was called for. You can see the results of about a weeks work with my trusty Dremel grinding carbon out, cracking the seams and the filleting things back to where they should have been in the first place. Any thoughts on what went wrong Phil?

 

Ian,

The Hollow log was my first and only canoe build so it progressed in stages with design mods on the way. It was a lot different to my previous moths etc.

I did the bow seam both inside and outside with the ply fully spread. I always do the bow seam only up to maybe 400mm from the bow so that the bow and stem can be pulled in. I normallly have the bow wired up but there of photos of the log with the bow unwired.

I can not remember details but the chines might have been done after the boat was partially pulled in. Or at least I am sure the aft sections were delayed. I too had two goes at it. I have a vague recollection of drawing the measurment station section full size and making some templates of the chine angle, which I used when spreading the ply so that the chines were seamed at the right angle.

My ply was 3mm Okume which is sold here by Brunzeel as Gaboon (with apologies to anyone who remembered the very fine gaboon they sold 30 years ago.) Okume seemed plenty flexible for me and I think Steve used the same stuff on GER78.

I always prefer to tape outside before pulling the hull in. I have in the past ruined some moth hulls by pulling them in before the resin was hard enough, so doing the outside gives the inside another day to cure and just adds so much extra stiffness that the joint can not move. If it moves you get a big bump.

 

My photos are on http://www.flickr.com/photos/72192268@N00/...57601502156525/ Nos 3, 4, 5 show what I did.

I think I has the bow open because my chine seam went all the way to the bow and I had to have the bow straight to get that seam flat up forward. Maybe I did the forward keel and chines with it open and then pulled it in like photo 4 before attacking the midship chines. I know the aft chine was left until it was at design beam because I wanted to plot the bottom curvature against the side panel as I was not confident of my calculated S bend in the topside. The V transom design leaves this step to later anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the above post Phil - "I too had two goes at it. "- It's reassuring to know that. I guess it's all part of the fun of doing things like this in public.

 

Ian McP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is good to hear of things being built and people sharing ideas. I will add a few if I might.

Models. I typically build 1:4, which is most convenient if you are trained and stick to oldie english measurement units.

1/4= 1 inch 3" = 1" for example. Further benefit is that the pieces are big enough to be made in a shop big enough to build boats and not on the kitchen table. For me, being able to use my regular tools is a help. Also the scale is large enough such that a certain amount of accuracy or lack of it effects how the model turns out, and you actually can practice how you are going to build the hull in real life.

One thing I learned with the models is how hard it is to keep things straight and symmetrical. So I started adding a keel stringer to the hull. This allows me to repeatedly triangulate off of a known centerline as the hull is spread and then pinched.

Sticks that are the same length are wedged between the keel stringer and the underside of the gunwales. By this means I know both sides are spread the same amount and that the included angle at the chines are the same.

I haven't won the end of the darts war. I redrafted the keel seam as per Phils recommendations and got a bulge forward of the absolute end. It clearly is a knack. The bulge at the absolute I have (in the past) solved by putting a backing of plywood and or glop and carbon there and sanding until it went away. It is important to stabilize the shape where you think it is correct, and then grind the bump down. If you don't do this, the bump grows as you grind because the stress continues to relieve itself.

I haven't had much luck with the stitch part of stitch and glue. I find the wiring of seams to be a pretty foolish way to do things. It seems easier to bond little blocks in place with 5 minute epoxy or polyester filler I even screw blocks onto the skins so I can use conventional spring clamps to hold things in place. It just seems easier and more reliable to me than all that wire which gets in the way of doing a nice job of the fillets and taping.

Finally on the reverse sheer... ICs typically have high crowned foredecks, as such there is an inherent reverse in their outboard profiles. So it is kind of sensible to have the sheerline to some extent reflect this. Personally, I never thought of myself as a big proponent of reverse sheers, and spent a reasonable amount of time studying the art of matching the flare and spring of a sheerline that is traditionally most attractive. However, probably half the boats I have designed have had some form of reverse sheer because the logic of the design somehow ended up leading in that direction. Racing boats in particular seem to almost demand reverse sheers.

SHC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not use much wire. I like think cord, fishing line and lots of gaffa tape. The tape also stops the resin leaking through to the outside and making a mess.

I do not get a symetry problem. The #5 photo on the flikr reference shows the hull stretched out ready for the inside seam. #6 shows it pulled in a few days later after outside seams. Both have minimal bracing. But Steve's CL stringer has value for his reasons and to keep the aft keel line straight.

For those who spot the difference, the free board at was trimmed in next few days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites