Jump to content

My newest project


Recommended Posts

Yup, I remember Vulcan. 1987 was the first year of the Most Beautiful Award. That was my first restoration job on that boat. Restored it again in '95, '02 and 2013, when it won the 2nd time. We would have won the '02 award, but if you were at that Nationals, we won the regatta by so far that the race committee made us pull our  floorboard to check for an inboard electric motor. We barely won in '07...I just took a look at the thread from tha regatta. I never saw that whole page about us fouling 856 at the windward mark. The good old days...there was no foul 10 years later;)

That's also about the same time I first joined SA as Railmeat 710. There was so much heat thrown at us for cheating that I just had to respond. I found it very rewarding to use this forum to speak the truth without moderation.

Youwere correct about the backyard!

 

IMG_5761.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 12.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Panoramix has trouble seeing beyond his box. If there is one feature common to almost all new European production boats today it is a sprit of some dimension. Same can be said of pretty much any high

Steele: Yes, that's the flipper.. Look dejected. The cutter will be a bit heavy but not enough to worry about. Not as much as Neil anticipated. Iwill revise the ballast for no. 2. I spec'd 1

Whisper ain't that fat. Just stupid.  

Posted Images

Can't wait for the pictures Bob, though I can already imagine the stalkers comments about mast rake not matching the drawings, or only being needed to cure the obvious too much/too little helm, or to mask the imagined trim/ballast issue....

Hey, we could start a pool! My bets on "it's to correct too much weather helm"

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Crash:

I'm about to leave for the yard. I may choose not to post anything on the sailing performance. I can pick and choose who I report to on performance in PM's. I'll make sure you are on that list. Sounds a bit tacky but we shall see.

Rake will be as spec'd on the drawing but to my eye it's very close now. I think initial rake is a bit arbitrary subsequent to getting a  feel for helm balance. I look at initial rake spec as a place to start. Then we can fine tune if necessary.

 

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

Crash:

I'm about to leave for the yard. I may choose not to post anything on the sailing performance. I can pick and choose who I report to on performance in PM's. I'll make sure you are on that list. Sounds a bit tacky but we shall see.

Rake will be as spec'd on the drawing but to my eye it's very close now. I think initial rake is a bit arbitrary subsequent to getting a  feel for helm balance. I look at initial rake spec as a place to start. Then we can fine tune if necessary.

 

For those of us that just quietly follow along on these journeys (and I assume there are many of us) it is a shame that because of the behavior of a few trolls you can't share more openly. If I were in your shoes, I would do the same. It's just unfortunate.

I will continue to enjoy and learn from whatever you choose to share. Thanks for taking us on the journey!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Rasputin22 said:

Bob, maybe you guys could sail between the ferry landings. Good chance of the gang here to see the cutter in the middle camera.

https://www.skagitcounty.net/Departments/PublicWorksFerry/ferrycams.htm

Rasper, I didn't know that cam existed.  I've been looking for a way to see that area before I leave the marina and this works really well!  Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what sucks about Proa and his crying coterie. I couldn't care less about ANYTHING they have to say. The bring absolutely nothing of value. Yet they shut down the ONLY thing of value in this and other threads.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is not posting initial performance in response to Proa and his crap or a request of the client?  I would be very interested to see how the initial performance is compared to expectations and how any corrections were made.  Things like real world results versus design and how to compensate or correct are of value to all sailors.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, sailman said:

Is not posting initial performance in response to Proa and his crap or a request of the client?  I would be very interested to see how the initial performance is compared to expectations and how any corrections were made.  Things like real world results versus design and how to compensate or correct are of value to all sailors.

I've got no problem with BPerry keeping performance numbers private. He isn't obligated to share anything with us...it's pure generosity that he shares what he does. It's too bad that a handful of unhinged and jealous trolls seek to disrupt interesting and educational  discussion led by an expert. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bob Perry said:

Crash:

I'm about to leave for the yard. I may choose not to post anything on the sailing performance. I can pick and choose who I report to on performance in PM's. I'll make sure you are on that list. Sounds a bit tacky but we shall see.

 

Proa is why we cant have nice things.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, RKoch said:

I've got no problem with BPerry keeping performance numbers private. He isn't obligated to share anything with us...it's pure generosity that he shares what he does. It's too bad that a handful of unhinged and jealous trolls seek to disrupt interesting and educational  discussion led by an expert. 

Well said.

4 minutes ago, RKoch said:

It's a result of him scoring 1 percentile on human relationships.

Indeed.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pete_nj said:

For those of us that just quietly follow along on these journeys (and I assume there are many of us) it is a shame that because of the behavior of a few trolls you can't share more openly. If I were in your shoes, I would do the same. It's just unfortunate.

I will continue to enjoy and learn from whatever you choose to share. Thanks for taking us on the journey!

+1, well said. 

Thanks to Bob and Mr. Lucky for sharing as much with us as you do! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

After two and a half years of this thread, if Bob chooses not to post anything on the sailing performance at this point, it is definitely not because of a few posts from me.  Don't be naive, he's pulling your chain.  It will be for the same reason he didn't post launch photos here.  Those frame grabs from Boomer's video are still the only decent images I've seen showing the severe bow-up/stern-down waterline at launch.  After all Bob's boasting about the weight study, if this boat (and hull #2?) is indeed 2000+ lbs. over weight (5%? 8%?), that's a problem for Bob, the owner and Betts to sort out.  It's easy to understand why they may not want to be so generous anymore with sharing the details.

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

After two and a half years of this thread, if Bob chooses not to post anything on the sailing performance at this point, it is definitely not because of a few posts from me.  Don't be naive, he's pulling your chain.  It will be for the same reason he didn't post launch photos here.  Those frame grabs from Boomer's video are still the only decent images I've seen showing the severe bow-up/stern-down waterline at launch.  After all Bob's boasting about the weight study, if this boat (and hull #2?) is indeed 2000+ lbs. over weight (5%? 8%?), that's a problem for Bob, the owner and Betts to sort out.  It's easy to understand why they may not want to be so generous anymore with sharing the details.

You've never built a boat, designed a boat that was built, nor worked in any facet of the marine industry. In short, you're full of even more hot air than BS, who at least managed to build a piece of shit from plans he copied. Back to your mom's basement, troll, until you've actually accomplished something. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its funny how Proa still ignores the fact that the boat isn't done and doesn't have all the mechanical systems installed nor all the other weighty items in the boat before he comments on how the boat settles in the water.   It's like he is purposefully being ignorant. Amazing. lol.  

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2017 at 6:20 PM, Panoramix said:

 

1) The actual CG and the actual CF are aligned vertically when the boat is floating. That is purely geometric thus a certain angle in pitch off the designed trim corresponds to a certain longitudinal displacement of the CG. Pure geometry.

2) Thus whether the boat is light or heavy, you need to bring forward the CG the same distance for a certain correction in pitch.

3) To move the CG forward by one inch of something that weights 10 000 lbs takes 10 times more weight than to move the CG forward by one inch of something that weights 1 000 lbs if everything is equal elsewhere. 

4) The heavier the boat, the harder to bring the CG in the right place longitudinally, you move it by the same distance for the same change in trim but because the boat is heavier, it is harder to shift the CG

When you say "The amount of ballast to change trim is dependant on the area and shape of the waterplane and the delta. That is unrelated to displacement.", that is wrong, in reality it is "The longitudinal CG shift to change trim is dependant on the area and shape of the waterplane and the delta. That is unrelated to displacement."

If you are still not convinced, climb aboard a heavy boat by the bow then a light boat of similar length and feel which one is going to pitch more.

Oh my god between a typo by Kocher and a convoluted wrong argument by Panoramix, we have quite the Naval Architecture 101 FAIL here!

#1.   LCG and LCB (Not F) are vertically aligned in Equilibrium.
#2. the LCF has nothing to do with equilibrium trim. It could be 10% of the LWL from the LCG. (Draw a double wedge hull.......)
#3. As Kocher explains, the Trim change is around the LCF, and the moment to change trim is related to the moment inertia of the waterplane area, not the displacement. Draw a barge with a 300' x 50' waterplane. Sink it 3'. Now sink it 9'. The displacement is 3 time greater at nine than three. The amount of ballast required to change trim is identical.
#4. The amount of trim change in inches at each end is pivoting around the LCF. If you add weight to a boat in equilibrium, and you want zero trim change, then you have to put the weight at the LCF. (Technically at the weighted average of the LCF before and after the weight addition but who is quibblin).  If the waterplane is asymmetrical and the LCG is well forward of the LCF, then the weight added would have to go aft of the LCB. This is typical on sailing boats.

!

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

Its funny how Proa still ignores the fact that the boat isn't done and doesn't have all the mechanical systems installed nor all the other weighty items in the boat before he comments on how the boat settles in the water.   It's like he is purposefully being ignorant. Amazing. lol.  

What is funny and amazing is how so many people here are ignoring what Bob himself has so clearly stated.  The boat is already overweight.

On 9/15/2017 at 9:54 AM, Bob Perry said:

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

That is 12% excess ballast for hull #2  (15,150 / 13,500 = 1.12 times more than spec'd),  And it appears that hull #1 was spec'd with 700 lbs. more ballast than hull #2?

On 12/21/2016 at 6:43 PM, Bob Perry said:

The cutters displace 35,000 lbs. at half load. Lead ballast is close to 14,200 lb.s depending on the pour and the trimming. But very close to that.

As for the polar data,,,,let me think about how best to present that. We have worked with North Sails to develop a good inventory for the boat so I am comfortable with the polar data. That's all that concerns me.

I'll tell you this in 15 knots our best VMG is made at 7.48 knots boat speed heeling 22.6 degs.

Remember that the boot stripe has already been raised above the DWL (Design Waterline), which is where the boat is expected to sit when loaded to its designed capacity.  That's the faint yellow line below the boot stripe in this photo; it appears to be centered at the bottom of the transom:

36940785362_a2d98e419c_b.thumb.jpg.74b12055f445cd362922515e92f3f9b6.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Proa is so confused and he has me on ignore so he will not learn naval architecture from me!

Here is an example of the moment to trim I described. Note that the fwd trim is identical no matter what displacement you start with, if you have a slab sided boat:

 

 09/19/17 16:09:51         50 X 20 X 5 BOX BARGE                             Page 1
 GHS 15.78B                        no title

Start with a barge laded exactly level so that displ = 3000 MT:

                        WEIGHT and DISPLACEMENT STATUS
                        Baseline draft: 2.927 @ Origin
                         Trim: 0.00 deg.,  Heel: zero
 Part------------------------------Weight(MT)----LCG-----TCG-----VCG
 WEIGHT                             3,000.00  25.000a  0.000   3.000
                          SpGr------Displ(MT)----LCB-----TCB-----VCB------RefHt
 HULL                    1.025      2,999.92  25.001a  0.000   1.463     -2.927
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Righting Arms:                 0.001   0.000
 Distances in METERS.----------------------------------------------------------

                            HYDROSTATIC PROPERTIES
                     Trim: 0.00 deg., No Heel, VCG = 3.000

    LCF   Displacement   Buoyancy-Ctr.  Weight/          Moment/               
   Draft----Weight(MT)----LCB-----VCB-------cm-----LCF--Deg trim----GML-----GMT
   2.927     2,999.92  25.001a  1.463    10.25  25.000a 3646.92   69.65   9.853
  Distances in METERS.-----Specific Gravity = 1.025.-----------Moment in m.-MT.
  Draft is from Baseline.                                                     

*******************************************************
Add a 500 tonne weight at the bow:

                        WEIGHT and DISPLACEMENT STATUS
                        Baseline draft: 4.907 @ Origin
                       Trim: Fwd 3.42 deg.,  Heel: zero
 Part------------------------------Weight(MT)----LCG-----TCG-----VCG
 WEIGHT                             3,500.00  21.429a  0.000   3.000
                          SpGr------Displ(MT)----LCB-----TCB-----VCB------RefHt
 HULL                    1.025      3,499.94  21.358a  0.000   1.816     -4.898
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Righting Arms:                 0.000   0.000
 Distances in METERS.----------------------------------------------------------

                            HYDROSTATIC PROPERTIES
                   Trim: Fwd 3.42 deg., No Heel, VCG = 3.000

    LCF   Displacement   Buoyancy-Ctr.  Weight/          Moment/               
   Draft----Weight(MT)----LCB-----VCB-------cm-----LCF--Deg trim----GML-----GMT
   3.415     3,499.94  21.358a  1.816    10.27  25.000a 3674.85   60.15   8.593
  Distances in METERS.-----Specific Gravity = 1.025.-----------Moment in m.-MT.
  Draft is from Baseline.                                                     

                      

09/19/17 16:09:51                   50 X 20 X 5 BOX BARGE                  Page 2
 GHS 15.78B                        no title

 NOW, comare with a 1000 tonne barge with a 500 tonne weight at the
headlog:

                        WEIGHT and DISPLACEMENT STATUS
                        Baseline draft: 2.948 @ Origin
                       Trim: Fwd 3.40 deg.,  Heel: zero
 Part------------------------------Weight(MT)----LCG-----TCG-----VCG
 WEIGHT                             1,500.00  16.667a  0.000   3.000
                          SpGr------Displ(MT)----LCB-----TCB-----VCB------RefHt
 HULL                    1.025      1,500.04  16.547a  0.000   0.983     -2.943
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Righting Arms:                 0.000   0.000
 Distances in METERS.----------------------------------------------------------

                            HYDROSTATIC PROPERTIES
                   Trim: Fwd 3.40 deg., No Heel, VCG = 3.000

    LCF   Displacement   Buoyancy-Ctr.  Weight/          Moment/               
   Draft----Weight(MT)----LCB-----VCB-------cm-----LCF--Deg trim----GML-----GMT
   1.474     1,500.04  16.547a  0.983    10.19  24.820a 3614.01  138.03  20.633
  Distances in METERS.-----Specific Gravity = 1.025.-----------Moment in m.-MT.
  Draft is from Baseline.                                                     

 


 

BOX1.pdf

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

What is funny and amazing is how so many people here are ignoring what Bob himself has so clearly stated.  The boat is already overweight.

That is 12% excess ballast for hull #2  (15,150 / 13,500 = 1.12 times more than spec'd),  And it appears that hull #1 was spec'd with 700 lbs. more ballast than hull #2?

Remember that the boot stripe has already been raised above the DWL (Design Waterline), which is where the boat is expected to sit when loaded to its designed capacity.  That's the faint yellow line below the boot stripe in this photo; it appears to be centered at the bottom of the transom:

 

We're still waiting for you to post those perfect designs of yours.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, overlay said:

Yes its funny how the poodles are so busy licking rrrrrs that they don't notice what Bob actually posts.

The bubble has now burst with this STUFF UP. All info is going to be heavily vetted before posting so as not to EMBARRASS Betts and more importantly the OWNER any further.

 PROA did a little research that most here are incapable of, with their rose coloured glasses on . Thanks PROA . 

Jeeze you poodles can WHINE.:lol:

Yeah, but any "analysis" he did was based on zippo reliable evidence. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SemiSalt said:

Yeah, but any "analysis" he did was based on zippo reliable evidence. 

You don't trust Bob's own words?  By the way, if hull #2 is 1,650 lbs. overweight (see above from Bob), and hull #1 has 700 lbs. more ballast than hull #2(?), then hull #1 is 2,350 lbs. overweight.

Really people, it isn't hard to get the facts here:

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the boat as it sat today. We are very close to designed displ and  trim. Mast rake as eyeballed by Jim is 2 degs exactly what I spec'd. No adjustment needed.

We replicated the focsle load with trim ballast yesterday. Added some gear and removed some trim ballast today. In the ends we will be well within working tolerances for designed weight and trim at half load condition. I have tried several times to explain that with a big focsle and virtually no usable lazarette all cruising gear will go forward. But some here only see what they want to see. I can't help that. But here is some reality. Everyone is very pleased including me. Client is very happy.

A thing of beauty is a joy forever.

good

 

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

Now time for some TRADITIONAL (apparently) THREAD DRIFT.:D

Pacific-Bee-new-looks.jpg

Totally pointless distraction!  Shooting yourself in the foot again.  I didn't introduce proas to this thread and they are as irrelevant as the barrage of ad hominem attacks.

P.S.  Beautiful boat, of course:  http://pacificproa.com/brown/bolduc.html#Cimba

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

This is the boat as it sat today. We are very close to designed displ and  trim. Mast rake as eyeballed by Jim is 2 degs exactly what I spec'd. No adjustment needed.

We replicated the focsle load with trim ballast yesterday. Added some gear and removed some trim ballast today. In the ends we will be well within working tolerances for designed weight and trim at half load condition. I have tried several times to explain that with a big focsle and virtually no usable lazarette all cruising gear will go forward. But some here only see what they want to see. I can't help that. But here is some reality. Everyone is very pleased including me. Client is very happy.

A thing of beauty is a joy forever.

good

 

Beautiful!  I'm dying to see her with sails up!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sails go on tomorrow. Took freeboards today and we are spot on. When the sails go on we will remove some of the trim ballast.

I mis-spoke the other day. I said we had 14 milk cartons of gear to go in the focsle. Wrong! We have 24 milk cartons of gear.

good 3

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bob Perry said:

Sails go on tomorrow. Took freeboards today and we are spot on. When the sails go on we will remove some of the trim ballast.

I mis-spoke the other day. I said we had 14 milk cartons of gear to go in the focsle. Wrong! We have 24 milk cartons of gear.

good 3

Looks good, Bob.  Was the excess ballast issue just a head fake?  Or, at 1,750 PPI, maybe sitting ~1.4" low(?) is "well within working tolerances"?

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

Looks good, Bob.  Was the excess ballast issue just a head fake?

It was mentioned several times, and you chose to ignore, that the boat wasn't fully fitted out when it was launched. Instead of displaying patience, you leapt at the opportunity to attack BPerry, before the job was even done and sea trials conducted. I gather you prematurely ejaculate often. Life must suck being an ignorant troll.

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

This is the boat as it sat today. We are very close to designed displ and  trim. Mast rake as eyeballed by Jim is 2 degs exactly what I spec'd. No adjustment needed.

We replicated the focsle load with trim ballast yesterday. Added some gear and removed some trim ballast today. In the ends we will be well within working tolerances for designed weight and trim at half load condition. I have tried several times to explain that with a big focsle and virtually no usable lazarette all cruising gear will go forward. But some here only see what they want to see. I can't help that. But here is some reality. Everyone is very pleased including me. Client is very happy.

A thing of beauty is a joy forever.

good

 

Looks like its time for Proa to eat a bag of dicks.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a head fake but here's the thing. I am used to launching new boats bow down. I like that. With a big laz you will pick up weight aft with gear and slowly trim the bow down. Over time more and more weight will be added aft, like some ladies, so being bow down at launch is a good thing. The CF cutter was the opposite. We have only stowage space aft for two small line lockers aft in the cockpit. Normal laz space is full of machinery, like two autopilot systems. All cruising gear has to go in the focsle as I have said over and over.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MauiPunter said:
6 hours ago, Bob Perry said:

Crash:

I'm about to leave for the yard. I may choose not to post anything on the sailing performance. I can pick and choose who I report to on performance in PM's. I'll make sure you are on that list. Sounds a bit tacky but we shall see.

 

Proa is why we cant have nice things.

Trolls gotta troll. It's one of the reasons I don't share nearly as much out here as I used to. I got sick of getting shit on.

I'm now running near the end of a LiFePO4 conversion on my boat, building a 17Kw house bank. Fascinating stuff. There's no thread here on SA for a reason, though I'm sharing it in the blog.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/09/2017 at 9:13 AM, olaf hart said:

I saw Boomers video on Facebook, saw the trim, and noted there was allowance for a lot of weight in the forward compartment.

All the mechanical gear is already fitted aft, none of the stores are forward.

But then I had visited the yard, met the owner, seen the boat, talked to the design and build team, and knew the boats intended mission.

Do your homework Proa.

 

 

Don't normally quote myself, it's a bit like sailing with just the jib up...

just in case you missed it Proa.

 

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

Over time more and more weight will be added aft, like some ladies, so being bow down at launch is a good thing.

Bow down for launch is perfect with some ladies.

Edit:  It shall become protocol once the anchor is set:  "Arrrr, fetch me some rum, lass, and get bow down for launch!"

(I hope my wife isn't lurking).

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

This is the boat as it sat today. We are very close to designed displ and  trim. Mast rake as eyeballed by Jim is 2 degs exactly what I spec'd. No adjustment needed.

We replicated the focsle load with trim ballast yesterday. Added some gear and removed some trim ballast today. In the ends we will be well within working tolerances for designed weight and trim at half load condition. I have tried several times to explain that with a big focsle and virtually no usable lazarette all cruising gear will go forward. But some here only see what they want to see. I can't help that. But here is some reality. Everyone is very pleased including me. Client is very happy.

A thing of beauty is a joy forever.

good

 

Ahhhh... that's better.

Beautiful boat, Mr. Perry. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A little bit of humorous thread drift....about 4 decades ago there was a 24' MORC boat that sailed locally. Among the crew of 5 was a quite heavy woman that we nick-named Fat D****. Before the start, Fat D**** would sit on the bow pulpit watching out for other boats. Despite the remaining 4 guys (good-sized, too) sitting on the transom, the boat was many inches down at the bow, and the stern jacked way up in the air. Funny as hell...we always died laughing.

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

Thanks Paul-Romaine. I am glad the owner did not want the teak eyebrow on the cabin trunks. I fought for that feature but now, looking at the boat I was wrong.

Would look good either way, imo.  I like the 'husky' look....looks like a small ship, without being a caricature. 

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

Sails go on tomorrow. Took freeboards today and we are spot on. When the sails go on we will remove some of the trim ballast.

I mis-spoke the other day. I said we had 14 milk cartons of gear to go in the focsle. Wrong! We have 24 milk cartons of gear.

good 3

 

Wow, gorgeous boat Bob.

I really like the split cabin trunk.  It works perfectly above and below decks (thanks, Rasp for that 3-D viewer).

I think that being able to stand at the mast at DECK LEVEL is hugely important when the going gets rough.  

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ProaSailor said:

After two and a half years of this thread, if Bob chooses not to post anything on the sailing performance at this point, it is definitely not because of a few posts from me.  Don't be naive, he's pulling your chain.  It will be for the same reason he didn't post launch photos here.  Those frame grabs from Boomer's video are still the only decent images I've seen showing the severe bow-up/stern-down waterline at launch.  After all Bob's boasting about the weight study, if this boat (and hull #2?) is indeed 2000+ lbs. over weight (5%? 8%?), that's a problem for Bob, the owner and Betts to sort out.  It's easy to understand why they may not want to be so generous anymore with sharing the details.

Can you just STFU? It's all interesting and you're wrecking it because you're a selfish, small person with an agenda.

The FT-10 had some small issues. The Boeing Dreamliner had issues. The John Hancock in Chicago had issues. Hard things have issues. The Bay Bridge had massive issues. The British had issues with what became the USA yet we get along swimmingly now.

I guess we shouldn't try for anything. I wouldn't even have a job with that mentality.

Sorry dude, you've lost the plot. Thanks for wrecking the internet.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sail4beer said:

Yup, I remember Vulcan. 1987 was the first year of the Most Beautiful Award. That was my first restoration job on that boat. Restored it again in '95, '02 and 2013, when it won the 2nd time. We would have won the '02 award, but if you were at that Nationals, we won the regatta by so far that the race committee made us pull our  floorboard to check for an inboard electric motor. We barely won in '07...I just took a look at the thread from tha regatta. I never saw that whole page about us fouling 856 at the windward mark. The good old days...there was no foul 10 years later;)

That's also about the same time I first joined SA as Railmeat 710. There was so much heat thrown at us for cheating that I just had to respond. I found it very rewarding to use this forum to speak the truth without moderation.

Youwere correct about the backyard!

 

IMG_5761.JPG

I remember the backyard from the 1988 nationals, which i did with the Vulcan group on a borrowed boat "Bumps"...
That regatta was a LOT of fun...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's "smaller" looking than I expected. It's hard to explain. Just appears more sleek and lower than the drawing suggested. This is a good thing. Nobody wants a boat that looks fat when launched. Nice looking boat. 

24 milk crates! Wow - that's a lot of vinyl records. Hands up if you kept your records in milk crates :)

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

It's "smaller" looking than I expected. It's hard to explain. Just appears more sleek and lower than the drawing suggested. This is a good thing. Nobody wants a boat that looks fat when launched. Nice looking boat. 

24 milk crates! Wow - that's a lot of vinyl records. Hands up if you kept your records in milk crates :)

The bastards went and made them deliberately smaller so LP's wouldn't fit.

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

Not a head fake but here's the thing. I am used to launching new boats bow down. I like that. With a big laz you will pick up weight aft with gear and slowly trim the bow down. Over time more and more weight will be added aft, like some ladies, so being bow down at launch is a good thing. The CF cutter was the opposite. We have only stowage space aft for two small line lockers aft in the cockpit. Normal laz space is full of machinery, like two autopilot systems. All cruising gear has to go in the focsle as I have said over and over.

I'm used to the idea that putting weight in the bow (of multihulls) is a very bad idea.  I'm not used to the idea of waiting five days after a launch before a boat looks right, or that a one ton error in ballast (on a carbon boat!  on a project like this!) is no big deal.  I heard every word you said (including years now of vitriol directed at me) and I understand the real world, when people are decent and well-intentioned.  What I don't understand is the desperation (Zonker) and degree of self-deception necessary to sustain the absurd, hateful bullshit that has been directed at me, largely at your bidding, Bob.  I stand by every word I said.

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

I'm used to the idea that putting weight in the bow (of multihulls) is a very bad idea.  I'm not used to the idea of waiting five days after a launch before a boat looks right, or that a one ton error in ballast (on a carbon boat!  on a project like this!) is no big deal.  I heard every word you said (including years now of vitriol directed at me) and I understand the real world, when people are decent and well-intentioned.  What I don't understand is the desperation (Zonker) and degree of self-deception necessary to sustain the absurd, hateful bullshit that has been directed at me, largely at your bidding, Bob.  I stand by every word I said.

 

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, ProaSailor said:

I'm used to the idea that putting weight in the bow (of multihulls) is a very bad idea.  I'm not used to the idea of waiting five days after a launch before a boat looks right, or that a one ton error in ballast (on a carbon boat!  on a project like this!) is no big deal.  I heard every word you said (including years now of vitriol directed at me) and I understand the real world, when people are decent and well-intentioned.  What I don't understand is the desperation (Zonker) and degree of self-deception necessary to sustain the absurd, hateful bullshit that has been directed at me, largely at your bidding, Bob.  I stand by every word I said.

My you are an obsessed stalker. You're really sounding like a pathetic loser. And wipe the fat load of splooge off your face before you post.

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

It's "smaller" looking than I expected. It's hard to explain. Just appears more sleek and lower than the drawing suggested. This is a good thing. Nobody wants a boat that looks fat when launched. Nice looking boat. 

24 milk crates! Wow - that's a lot of vinyl records. Hands up if you kept your records in milk crates :)

My wife asked me to get rid of all the lp's I had in the garage. She told her friends they could come down  and "go through them". They came. They went and they took every fucking lp I had in the garage! Veni Vedi Vici. Then they contacted us and told us of all the treasures they had found in their haul.

It doesn't really matter. All I play these days is,,,,  Geez,,,come to think of it I do have a lot of lp's left. Some times, late at night, when no one is watching I get into my  LITTLE FEAT mood. Some nights it's MOBY GRAPE.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2017 at 6:28 AM, Panope said:

My boat has always been overweight and aft heavy (my dad used more ballast than designed for and built the interior HEAVY).

Even after this past winter of my ballast re-working, the boat is still about 1000 pounds overweight (mostly because of the pilothouse that I added).  

Similar to carbon cutter #1, I still have a focs'l to load up with a cabinet (not yet built) and supplies.  The boat now trims well when light on fuel (most common condition).  However, when I tankered up for a longer trip, I quickly tired of rowing away from (gazing at) the bow high condition. 

The solution was to row back to the boat with a load of beach stones that I placed neatly in the forward bilge.

The stones have all been jettisoned now that the fuel load is back to normal.

The point is (for me anyway) that it is not realistic to have the ballast in the "perfect" position.  The future use of the boat, stores, equipment additions, and modifications, are all completely unknown/variable.  I am certain that I will be forever shifting ballast and other heavy items.  

Steve

 

Tom was quite adamant that I not fully/finally ballast my hull until after I launched it. He said that provided I didn't move tankage about or vastly add to tankage capacity, it'd float close to its lines with the specified ballast, but as he had no control over fitout, timber mass, etc etc, no guarantees.

I'm casting my ballast ATM in triangular cross section blocks to fit into the hollow keel spaces. I'll fit maybe 70% before launch and leave the last 30% for trim and bringing the hull to its lines. Then go sailing and be ready to move some fore/aft depending on how she sails. 60m of 10mm chain is going to weigh a bit.

I won't mention that I have a metric shitload more diesel tankage than Tom specified.....

If that had been my boat that Bob designed and it floated out of trim like that at launch, I'd have shrugged and started thinking on what we needed to do to simulate the loadout for cruising. I really cannot see what Proa et al are going on about.

FKT

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

My wife asked me to get rid of all the lp's I had in the garage. She told her friends they could come down  and "go through them". They came. They went and they took every fucking lp I had in the garage! Veni Vedi Vici. Then they contacted us and told us of all the treasures they had found in their haul.

It doesn't really matter. All I play these days is,,,,  Geez,,,come to think of it I do have a lot of lp's left. Some times, late at night, when no one is watching I get into my  LITTLE FEAT mood. Some nights it's MOBY GRAPE.

 

They were an interesting band. They had a crook for a manager that fucked up several bands for years. And too bad Skip Spence went batshit crazy. They should have had more success.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RKoch said:

Now we know why Mr Lucky needs 4 boats....they're to hold his vinyl collection.

... and they are going to be named after The Beatles. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Same manager handled this band. They were about to break out, and got involved in a legal battle with manager that went on for a decade or more. They couldn't even sell records...had to pick up bootleg imports to listen to them. They were a strong band.

IIRC, before playing guitar in Moby Grape Skip Spence was the original Drummer for Jefferson Airplane. They also had the same scum bucket manager, but somehow managed to extricate themselves. Neil Young was supposedly trying to warn people about the guy, but when you're young and want fame and fortune, does anyone listen?  Speaking of Jefferson Airplane, Marty Balin lives nearby. Several of my musician friends have played with him. He popped in to a Woodstock tribute show as a unexpected guest. Impromptu performance with some locals covering the Airplane. It was nuts. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Tom was quite adamant that I not fully/finally ballast my hull until after I launched it. He said that provided I didn't move tankage about or vastly add to tankage capacity, it'd float close to its lines with the specified ballast, but as he had no control over fitout, timber mass, etc etc, no guarantees.

I'm casting my ballast ATM in triangular cross section blocks to fit into the hollow keel spaces. I'll fit maybe 70% before launch and leave the last 30% for trim and bringing the hull to its lines. Then go sailing and be ready to move some fore/aft depending on how she sails. 60m of 10mm chain is going to weigh a bit.

I won't mention that I have a metric shitload more diesel tankage than Tom specified.....

If that had been my boat that Bob designed and it floated out of trim like that at launch, I'd have shrugged and started thinking on what we needed to do to simulate the loadout for cruising. I really cannot see what Proa et al are going on about.

FKT

That 70/30% ballast install sounds like a good idea.  There was an aluminum Witch that was launched with little (or zero) ballast and she rolled right over in the slings.  Owner made a frantic dash to the lead store and got things sorted out fine (Story told as I remember hearing it, 40 years ago). 

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, austin1972 said:

I love Little Feat. If I really want to get my N.O. on, I go Buckwheat.

 

I got to see Clifton Chenier one time...quite by accident. I was visiting a couple of comely Tulane Sophmores before classes started. Helped them with painting and stuff. One rainy day we were bored and all crammed into my MG an just drove around. Got down into bayou country, completely lost. One lane road, no room to turn around. Finally came to an open spot...shrimp boat being built on the bank to left, tents and big ass party with music to the right. Pulled into party to ask directions. It quickly became obvious that A) nobody could speak English, and B ) they weren't going to let us leave until we'd been fed, had some beer, and danced a bit. It was fun. We eventually managed to find our way home. Several years later, I learned who Clifton Chenier was and recognized him as the Zydeco band we heard. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Paul-Romain said:

Ahhhh... that's better.

Beautiful boat, Mr. Perry. 

Please pardon my ignorance: what is the purpose of the boom with what I think is a nearly "triangular" cross section?  (flat on top, narrow on the bottom). Is it to save weight or make flaking the sail easier (it folds better on top of the boom)? 

Boat looks fantastic! 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/18/2017 at 7:47 PM, Zonker said:

When we bought our first boat, a Fortune 30 (Stan Huntingford design, local BC boat), it had several heavy lead pigs in the chain locker up forward. Like 300# worth.

They were only accessible through a small (like 8"x12") locker door into the V-berth. But the pigs were a lot lower than the door... You try to lift a 60 lb pig with one hand when you can't even get your shoulder fully through the opening. It sucked.

On the positive side I sold the pigs on craigslist or something for a fair bit!

In 2004 or so I specified putting over 40 tons of lead pigs into the cofferdam space under the freshwater tanks on a research ship that had been designed and built by Dwight Simpson in the early 60s...The yard guys had to move them down and under there by hand and then secure them. [Weight growth--especially up high--is the bane of all operational ships with complex missions. You have to do something to get them to meet Subchapter S (stability)....and still have some deadweight for Mission Loads....]

Only a few months later, I needed to have a keel  I designed for a yacht cast. I called up the same lead supplier and mentioned Mars but they said they could do all that too. Then when I told them who I was, well we got the most incredible price--delivered! It was under a buck a pound, including making the mold and the shipping!

I guess sometimes (for you and me both) ther eis such a thing as Alchemy after all.

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

Please pardon my ignorance: what is the purpose of the boom with what I think is a nearly "triangular" cross section?  (flat on top, narrow on the bottom). Is it to save weight or make flaking the sail easier (it folds better on top of the boom)? 

Boat looks fantastic! 

 

 

I think the main furls into the boom. Not sure what brand.

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

Yeah....I see the "Park Avenue Boom" term floating around but I dont have a clue what it means...will google it.

It's all about RANGER for us now. But predates her. The new RANGER has that boom. Also shows up on some other non J 90 footers recently built.
http://www.jclassyachts.com/history/1919-1937-
Also Duralmumin

 

Link to post
Share on other sites