Why do plans buyers insist on changing the design?

[Mark Van]

Being in the buiseness of trying to sell boat plans, I get a lot of inquiries about the designs, and people want to know my opinion about certain changes to the design.

Sometimes it is hard to be polite, when I would like to say that their ideas are just plain UGLY. I usually try to think of some technical reason, genaraly ending with saying that I don't do custom designs, I design what I like, and then sell plans to others who like the design. (That's why they are so inexpensive) After using the boats for over a year, I can't think of any changes that I would do to either design to improve them.

My favorite one was putting a pilot house on top of the Heart of Gold II design, just where you wouldn't want any extra windage or weight.

Mark

[videoguy]

Mark I can only speak for myself on this matter but I am currently building a redwing 21 designed by Karl Stambaugh . The main reason I made most of the changes to the plan is to make the boat wheelchair friendly for my wife. I also needed to include a stand up head so that meant adding a pilot house. As a matter of fact the pilot house is going to be very similar to heart of gold ll but it will be more in the style of the 1930s . All mahogany with arched windows . I also moved the motor from a well to a transom mount to get another foot and a half cockpit space . I went with the redwing because o love the looks of the hull and 21 feet is about all the boat we can handle tailoring and docking with one of us in a wheelchair. I also wanted to let you know how much I liked your website heart of gold is a real beauty………Phil

[ken mcclure]

1) We'd all like to think of ourselves as rugged individualists.
2) Something just plain doesn't fit, but we love the design anyway.
3) We need something the design doesn't quite provide.

[casem]

I really like that Heart of Gold too but do you think it could be modified for a reverse sheer?

Seriosly though, I think it's more the do it yourself attitude that boat builders have. For some, the more you can do yourself the better. I remember when I was about to do the decks for my Whilly Boat. I had big big plans for seperate anchor lockers and rope lockers, maybe a small cooler, etc, but then realized those ideas were not practical or necessary and also kind of stupid. So I went with the original plans and I'm glad I did.

[Roger LaPrelle]

Mark,

I recently received the study plans for Heart of Gold II. My fiance and I really like the design. It seems that every person who builds a boat, or anything else for that matter, has to put something of themselves into the project. Putting a pilot house on top of the Mark V 39 is ill advised. I was thinking of a couple of cosmetic additions, though, a 'house' over the OB, and an awning over the cockpit. I certainly wouldn't change anything structural, or in the basic design. If I wanted to do that, I'd take up pencil and paper and get to it with my own design.

Thanks and keep up the good work,
Roger

[Armedmariner]

Originally posted by Mark Van:
Sometimes it is hard to be polite, when I would like to say that their ideas are just plain UGLY. I usually try to think of some technical reason, genaraly ending with saying that I don't do custom designs, I design what I like, and then sell plans to others who like the design.
MarkHi Mark,

Jeez. First let me say I love your dad's boat. My gosh that is a pretty design. I might have built it if I had known it was there.

Second, let me try to answer your question. I think the reason is that we are all unique human beings and what looks good and works for some just doesn't cut it for others. I know a home builder who refuses to let his paying customers into the house he is building for them because he hates all their late ideas and wants. Another guy though charges up the wazoo for these change orders and he makes a lot of profit on them.

I am building a good skiff design. I am modifying it. I am not building it like the builder intended simply because I've learned a lot from other people (here) and from other designs. I promise you, the LINES of the boat and the PROFILE all remain true. But my placement of seats, lazarettes and how I've built the console are all different. In fact, my console is PERFECT for me and the original design would not cut it for me. I'm also doing a lot with epoxy that the designer did not spec out. I'm also adding a trim tab and spray rail that a guy I met here online tells me are essential to the design and I believe him as he has thousands of offshore miles documented on his own skiff. So, I'm doing things that are pleasing to me for many reasons. Some are aesthetic, but mostly they are my own anal need for strength and rigidity and finally to try out some new techniques I've never done before.

Henry Ford was into mass production. So, you could get any color you wanted as long as it was black. I for one would rather buy my car from a production house that has worked all the bugs out. But I'm not buying a plastic boat from a production house because I want it MY WAY like at Burger King!

Finally, I think you should simply sell your plans cheap and when people start asking for mods to the plan offer your services to do the redesign and charge up the wazoo for it. If people really want it, they'll pay. If they are just fishing for how something will look, they'll not pay.

I do agree with you on one thing for sure. I've seen some UGLY boats in the photos of Launchings. Terrible cabin designs and lousy lines, etc. They look like a boat only an owner-builder could love.

I picked my plan because it is SIMPLE and CLEAN and looks like a traditional boat, not like an abortion of design. If my Launching's photo makes anyone laugh, I'll be suprised. But, if they do, that is their opinion and I can live with it. In the meantime, I'll be out on the water in my beauty. I know she is not going to be a work of art, but she's a good skiff and she'll do well enough for me.

If I wanted a BEAUTIFUL boat I'd have Sam Devlin do it for me!

[mmd]

An interesting question, Mark. While I have been very fortunate in my own practice over the past few years to have been doing mostly custom designs, I too have been a bit concerned by people wanting to make somewhat radical changes to designs that really shouldn't be messed with. It also must be said that wee boats can absorb major changes better than larger ones. A 10-ft dinghy in a protected bay is not subject the to stresses of a thirty-footer engaging in coastal cruising; nor does it entail the cost of the larger boat. Most importantly, it doesn't usually have the capability of taking unwitting passengers into the perils of deep water that a cruiser does. In this light, changes to a dinghy or rowboat design can be undetaken with much more impunity than with with a larger boat.

Anita Mason, a frequent poster to this forum, and well-known designer Al Mason's daughter, has mentioned that Al often told his clients that minor changes in interior layout was acceptable as long as there were no changes to structural bulkheads. Good advice from a seasoned designer. Other designers I know of have said that changes in the placement of sail tracks, fairleads, etc., was acceptable; again, a reasonable outlook. I am of similar mind with these sentiments, assuming that the builder is knowlegable around boats; if minor changes in accommodations or hardware locations makes the boat more comfortable for you, certainly do so. But there should be two questions to be asked before carrying out such alterations:

Will these changes affect the strength or safety of the vessel?,

and;

Will this affect the balance, trim, or stability of the boat?

If you do not know the answers to these questions and do not have the skills or experience to answer them, you need to talk to a designer – preferably the designer of the specific vessel. For most minor changes, the usual answer is "go ahead, it won't affect the boat". For these, it is nice to get a call from the builder because for it gives us designers a chance to get feedback from the people who like and buy our plans, and the builder gets the blessing of the designer and confidence that they will have a more personalized boat with no nasty surprises down the line.

What gets us designers really crazy is the people who want to do considerably larger changes than merely changing the layout of the galley lockers; they want to move bulkheads, raise cabins, and (my pet peeve), lengthen the boat by altering the station distances. Bear with me, dear reader, on this; I don't want to sound preachy, but I would like to explain what an uncomfortable position that this puts us designers in. In attempt to put a humourous spin on it, I’ll use the vehicle of a fictitious telephone conversation between a designer and a backyard builder:

Barney Fife buys plans for the Twiggy, a plywood coastal cruising sloop. The main features of the boat are it’s shallow draft and narrow waterline, making it fast and capable of gunkholing in thin water, but a bit tender. Barney’s dog Fi-fi is his constant companion and sleeps at his feet in bed every night. Barney’s mother-in-law comes along, knitting bag in hand, on every outing her daughter takes. Now Barney really likes the Twiggy design, but the bunks are too short for Fi-fi to sleep at his feet, and the settee needs to be longer so that M.I.L. can sleep on it. He figures that if he lengthens the boat 4 feet, he’ll be able to accommodate these changes, so he calls the designer to tell him of the plan. The conversation goes something like this:

Barney: “I want to build Twiggy exactly as your plans show, but make it four feet longer. Is this going to be OK?”
Designer: “Well, it might be, but I would have to do some re-designing to confirm it.”
B: “Can’t you tell me now?”
D: “No, I need to do some calculations.”
B: “What calculations?”
D: “I need to calculate the additional displacement and the change in centre of gravity of the new hull shape. Because it is already a long and narrow hull, there may be some issues of longitudinal strength, so I have to check those numbers. Also, the change in hull form may effect the balance between the sails centre of effort and the centre of lateral resistance, so I’ll have to check that, too. With the extra weight and wetted surface area, the sailplan might be too small to achieve the performance that is expected from Twiggy, and if a larger sailplan is indicated I will have to recalculate the spars and rigging for adequate strength.”
B: “But I’m only asking if I can make it four feet longer!”
D: “Sir, that one change will have an effect on many parts of the boat.”
B: “But it’s the same d****d boat!”
D: “No, sir, you are asking for an entirely different boat that just looks like Twiggy.”
B: “How long will it take you to do these calculations? I want to start this weekend.”
D: “It will take me three days. I am busy with a pressing job right now, but will be able to get to work on it next week. It will cost about $1300 to do the custom work.”
B: (screaming)“Thirteen hundred dollars!! You’re crazy! I already bought the plans, why should I pay more?”
D: “Because you are asking for a custom design, sir.”
B: (still screaming)“It’s not a custom design! It’s your gol-danged stock Twiggy design! I want to build it exactly like the plans except different!”
D: “I’m sorry sir, but what you are proposing to change may have some unfavourable effects on the performance and safety of the boat. For liability reasons, I cannot not give you permission to do this unless I am certain of the safety of the boat. As you are the only one to ask me for these changes, this becomes a request for a custom design modification that you must pay for.”
B: “F*** YOU !!”

So Barney goes ahead and builds the boat as he sees fit, and true to the designer’s fears, the boat is underpowered and way too tender. Barney is not very happy with his boat and the fact that he spent a lot of money on a pig of a boat, so he tells everybody who will listen in person and in print that the Twiggy design is a piece of crap and that the designer is a holier-that-thou a**hole who won’t help the little guys who support him by buying his plans for his crappy boats.

Admittedly, a Barney Fife doesn’t show up in a designer’s life very often, but it only takes a couple to make a designer become rather wary of people who start conversations with, “I’d like to make some changes to your design ….“

[skuthorp]

Because some of us cant help ourselves!
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Bruce Hooke]

Well told MMD, I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry. It does kind of make you wonder what some people have between their ears, doesn't it!

[Mark Van]

I designed the Heart of Gold II to be pretty easy to modify the interior to suit the individual builder, the cabin bulkheads could be moved around quite a bit, and it could also be built with a totaly open interior to be used as a water taxi or tour boat.

The Mark V 20 is much harder to modify, since the bulkhead locations are part of the interior. Smaller boats are much harder to design than larger ones. I personally think the Mark V 20 is a better over all design than the Mark V 39, but it hasn't gotten any publicity yet except for a photo in "Launchings".

I'm still trying to get "Boatbuilder" to publish a small article about the Mark V 20 in their Designs section, I am somewhat anoyed that it wasn't published, they are obviously hurting for material.

Mark

[ 01-20-2003, 01:01 AM: Message edited by: Mark Van ]

[Bob Ketterling]

With the boat I am building I have thought about several changes like adding a deck or maybe some internal bouyance. Then I ask myself "who knows more about boat design, Joel White or me?" and I build it as close to the plans as a I can.

[NormMessinger]

I seem to recall a letter from Bolger in WoodenBoat about a fellow that built one of his boats, took it on a trans atlantic trip and was never heard from again. Bolger's complaint was that the builder made major modifications but had never consulted him about them. So off he went in an unsafe boat with Bolger's name associated with it.

Common sense to the ignorant is a dangerous thing.

[A. Mason]

Mark, you have asked THE Question that designers have been asking themselves for over 100 years, and none have ever figured out the answer.

In the case of my father and his colleagues, when they created "stock" designs, it was always an attempt to provide the best compromise of what folks at that particular point in time wanted in a boat. It was always guesswork and gambling.

I have a trio of designs my father did in an attempt to appeal to the broadest range of tastes - a wooden 30-foot classic folkboat-appearing sailboat with a choice of sloop or ketch rig, three different stern configurations, and four "suggested" interior arrangements.

It would have seemed that he had pretty well exhausted most of the variables with the broad mix and match approach. He got even more requests for changes for that family of designs as he did for a single design, and this was dozens and dozens of letters.

As mmd's excellent post detailed, some builder changes are inconsequental to the basic design. Al knew many of them were going to happen.

However, if a builder decides on major changes "a la Barney Fife," PLEASE do not call it a "Twiggy" design by XYZ! Call it what it is, the builder's design BASED ON or INSPIRED BY the "Twiggy" design by XYZ.

It is a gross injustice to the original designer to, as Al used to say - "bastardize" a design, and then wrongly credit the questionable results with the original designer's name. If the builder has played designer, then the result is the builder's design. Don't blame the original designer for unknown, unapproved alterations! [Rant over ;)]

Anita

[Wild Dingo]

Originally posted by Mark Van:
I designed the Heart of Gold II to be pretty easy to modify the interior to suit the individual builder, the cabin bulkheads could be moved around quite a bit, and it could also be built with a totaly open interior to be used as a water taxi or tour boat.

MarkThats what I thought when I saw her Mark! {this was back when you were still building her! How I used to haunt that web site of yours!} Perfect for just such a thing as a water taxi... Im sure she would be just fine as you use her as your home but as an open water taxi near perfect!

As for changing the plans... mmm I must admit to having thought mmm maybe if I just raise that cabin line a tad higher that would give me the extra head room I want... well 4'6" inside aint much even for a 5'6" high person... but then I thought well lets see here so I traced the plans out onto clean end of a roll of newsprint paper available from any newspaper office around here... and I looked at it then I started drawing raising the cabin top to where I thought I wanted it then I had to change several other areas then the damn boom was in the flamin way so I had to raise that then the flamin sail as shown wouldnt flamin well fit then of course I had to lengthen the damn backstays and such and then and then and then... then finally I scrunched all the wasted paper up into a ball and sighed mightily and I thought to myself buggar this! this fella knew his stuff so leave em alone Shane... so I have and will...

There is a reason theres so many plans of similar types of vessels available... to stop me muckin with them! I think if I see one that appears too small in the cabin I go looking for another which has more room! theyre there! trouble is most of the ones I like and want are those that are too flamin small in the cabin area!! :rolleyes:

Unfortunately there are many designers that are not around any more having passed over the bar...

Fortunately there is this board and the designers who attend it who are willing and able to answer questions and offer advice!

[Keith Wilson]

Builders insist on changing plans for the same reason they bought plans to build a boat rather than buying a fiberglass Belchfire 23.

Some of their proposed changes are stupid for the same reason they bought plans instead of designing their own boat.

Builders change plans in stupid ways and then blame the designer because they're human beings with all the faults that we have. Some don't want to take responsibility for their mistakes, some don't even realize that the problems are due to their changes. If they knew what they were doing, they wouldn't have made stupid changes to the plans.

That said, please don't give it up and go into accounting becuse some of your customers are idiots. The world needs more good boats; I have a very persistent fantasy about building a Heart of Gold, mooring it at the St Paul Yacht Club on the Mississippi, and cruising down the river.

[ 01-20-2003, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[Randy Leo]

Mark,
After seeing the write-up about Heart Of Gold in WB, I always wondered what all those books in the drawing did to her stability.

Did you ever incline her with a full library in place?

Just wondering,
R

[cs]

Built my first boat as designed. But than after a little while and most investigation altereted the sail plan. But than again this was a little open day sailer.

The next "BIG" project I'm changing the construction from carvell to strip.

You ask why and I say I found no design that was perfect in every way, but I did find some that were real close. And besides I'm an individual and would like to interject my personality into the boat that I built. Keep in mind I'm not talking about major design changes, just something a little different.

Chad

[Tom Lathrop]

I don't think there is an easy solution to the problem. Like you, I get much the same questions about modifications and try to handle most of them with a degree of reason. The most often asked question is "Can I put a larger motor on it?" Since I work toward a boat that does its job with minimum power, I try to be diplomatic and explain this and then ask just why they want a bigger motor? Usually it's just the influence of the market place where no boat can have too much power or go too fast.

One fellow wanted to build in aluminum and I wish that I had followed up on that. I was ignorant of what that would do to the performance and did not want to give an answer. I now think that it would work fine with not very much loss in performance.

Another fellow is building with vacuum formed glass/foam/glass panels. Now, that will make a fine boat even if it does not fit our forum.

As long as the hull panels are retained as designed and the weight distribution is not changed, my boat will accept fairly large changes to the interior layout. I use a torsion box sandwich structure with the hull bottom, cabin/cockpit sole and longitudinal bulkheads forming the sandwich. When this is combined with the forward berth structure, it gives the boat adequate strength and stiffness to allow movement of interior layouts within reason. I like the layout as designed but I won't cuss anyone out who likes to make some changes to it.

Mostly the questions relate to a bigger boat, a smaller boat, a wider boat, a shower and dinette or more berths. The smaller boat I have done when it dawned on me that the 24 footer just could not be built in the average garage which is where many average Joes have to work.

When we realize that the guy on the other end is trying to relate our design to his already half formed dream, we should be more tolerant. After all, no one has to build one of our boats and they are definitely not necessities.

Mark, could I widen the cabintop of Heart o' Gold to make enough room for a Kitfox with floats and a boom to lift it into the water? :rolleyes: Better yet, could it be lengthened enough to land on and do away with the floats? :confused: Could I add a bigger motor to get it up on plane to help with landings and takeoffs? :D

[brian.cunningham]

Because we like turning an 80 hour project into a multiyear project :D

Seriously though, SPEED was the initial appeal.
I was told there would be a lot of reengineering involved to get the boat to handle the loads. But I'm a engineer, so that's part of the reason I wanted to do it.

It started off as a prototype for a much large version. I wanted to learn the technics and engineering on a smaller scale. I've mixed in various building techniques.

I've also redesigned it along to way, both to cope with things that have gone wrong, and to incorporate new ideas I picked up along the way.

It's turning out to be quite the learning experience.

But for 99% of the builders out there, it's not the way to go.

[Mark Van]

I assumed the book cases would be full of books when I did the weight calculation. The bookshelves are close to the center of bouancy, so it won't affect the trim if they are removed. I never did a stability calculation, but the 2 inch thick bottom weighs aprox. 1,400 lbs, so I assume that it will eventually end up underneath no matter how bad conditions get. There is not much weight above the shear, the cabin and framing probably doesn't weigh much over 5 or 6 hundred pounds.

Mark

[ken mcclure]

By the way, Mark - you should consider it a compliment that someone is asking you about modifications to one of your plans. It means that they are captivated enough to consider building - they like your work!

For many who work on the water, boats are tools. For the rest of us they are an extension of our personalities and sometimes the realization of a dream. We all like to put our personal stamp on them.

[Wild Dingo]

Just a question after reading the site again Mark... does the design still have the centreboard or have you done away with it as you say you were going to add twin skegs to keep the shoal draft and better tracking... if so what depth is she now?

Nice job by the way! :cool:

Take it easy
Shane

[Mark Van]

I removed the centerboard from the plans, It does help a bit manouvering in tight places in a breeze, but I think the complications of building it are not worth the advantages. The twin skegs help a lot, it goes in a streight line when you let go of the wheel now. It was pretty squirrely before the skegs, but the centerboard didn't help at all, the boat just pivoted around it. The hull draft went up from 10 inches to just over 1 foot after adding the skegs.

Mark

[Wild Dingo]

Thanks Mark :cool:

[Miss Moose]

Reading this string has got worried here but I will post this anyway. I have recently acquired a 1949 43' Custom built boat similar to a Chris Craft of the same era. The boat is in need of a complete restoration so I see myself basically gutting the interior (not that there is much to take out but LOTS of cleaning and scraping). I am looking for ideas as to how to design both the interior and exterior to incorporate modern luxuries (as it will be a live-aboard) while keeping the look of the sleek wooden boat. As I have never owned a boat before (I know...WHAT WAS I THINKING?) I do not have any idea as to where to start.

[Garrett Lowell]

Miss Moose, a good place to start would be with a digital camera, or a film camera and some pics put on a CD. Then, take some pics of your boat and post the photos here. I KNOW some folks on here can help you out. But photos will be a big help to start with.

[Bruce Hooke]

Miss Moose: I believe there are some good books out there on boat interiors. That would be one good place to start. Photos are pretty and you may get some good suggestions here on the forum but actually designing anything will of course call for paper and pencils and rulers and so on! If you can afford it, hiring an expert to design your interior would likely get you a much more functional interior than you are likely to come up with just working from books and your apparently limited knowledge of boats. There is a lot to designing a safe and efficient boat interior and it's a lot of work building interiors so you want to get it right.

By the way, you might want to start a new thread for this rather than counting on people finding your question buried at the end of this older thread.

[rbgarr]

The only perfect designer/owner relationship was that between God and Noah:

The Designer was omniscient and omnipotent, while the builder had no time to argue because of a very firm deadline for launching... and nasty consequences if he didn't make it. ;)

[Alan D. Hyde]

:D :D :D

Alan

[Ross M]

Dave Gerr's "The Nature of Boats" has a tremendous cost to benefit ratio, IMO. A pretty nice section on accomodations and a whole lot more.

The Nature of Boats (Woodenboat Store) (http://www.woodenboatstore.com/store/prodinfo.asp?number=300-346&variation=&aitem=2&mitem=4)

Ross

[mmd]

Miss Moose, the "modern luxuries" you desire will add weight to the overall weight of the boat, as they weren't present in the original interior outfit. Weight is an anethema to planing hulls, especially older types. Therefore you must make every effort to minimize weight in the new structures you are building to compensate. Be very, very fastidious about what you buld wirh & where. For example, if an internal cabinet divider is to only seperate light items such as pots and pans, it should be of 1/4" ply rather than the common shore-side 5/8" ply. Apply this fanaticism to everything.

[Alan D. Hyde]

Materials stored in commodious lockers may be organized by placing the items in mesh bags hung on hooks on the locker sides.

This makes it easy to find things, and adds negligible weight.

Small things (e.g., screws and nuts and bolts) that would fall thru such mesh may first be put into ziplock sandwich bags.

Alan

[Gary E]

Why do plans buyers insist on changing the design? Because they need a diferent version to what you made. This does not mean what you made is wrong, just not zactly to their needs.

If the boat you are talking about is the one that you own and has been seen here in photo's, I think it's a fine boat, and yes, here comes the BUT,

I am 6'6' my Sons are both taller, so, how about the headroom in your boat?.. need 6'9" min. And twere it my boat, I'd put a flybridge onit in a NY second. Just what I would do, midgets can make the headroom smaller like were done in the 50's to chopped and channeled hotrods for all I care.

Did you get the insurance problem and anchor area problems fixed?

[RonW]

Why do plans buyers insist on changing the design?

Simple .........

A-- They do not take the time required to reseach and find plans for just what they want.

B-- The plans from joe doe are $10. cheaper then they are from john doe.

C-- They can't afford what they really want.

D-- Their way- Almost forgot D- They want to do it their way, right or wrong, good or bad, and no matter how many professional have advised against it, they still want to do it THEIR WAY.

[ 02-02-2005, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: RonW ]

[ssor]

In my sloop "Bietzpadlin" I made three fully battened "hammocks" for storing bedding and cold weather clothes and sewed up dozens of small cloth bags for small stuff. The hammocks won't hurt you if you bump into them.

[JimConlin]

It's like making your mind up whether you're a composer or a musician.
In music, some musicians can delude themselves into thinking that their improvisations are every bit as beautiful as a Mozart sonata. In boatbuilding, such delusions should be even harder to reach, as the finished product stays around the be continually evaluated and as there are specific performance criteria like stability, etc. which are not that hard to measure.
In either case, why bother? At most, design is a minor part of the cost of a project and perhaps the major determinant of its success.

I'm perfectly content to fiddle some maestro's music as well as I can.

Moreover, I remember LFH's admonition to any builder who had the temerity to alter one of his designs: "...birds will no longer carol over her." Can't have that!

[ 02-02-2005, 11:49 PM: Message edited by: JimConlin ]

[Bill Childs]

This design changing nonesense on the part of inexperienced boat builders touches a nerve with me.
I was handed the reins from George Calkins for his Bartender line. It's a very specialized sea boat whose details have been worked out over a long period of time by a very competent and knowledgable designer. Yet not one week passes that I don't either learn of some horrific changes that have been made or some ridiculous change to the design is proposed. And who do you suppose are the ones making these radical changes that negatively effect both handling and safety? The least experienced builders. The professionals know better than to screw around with it so they follow the plans.
I'm sure the problem lies in knowing just enough to be dangerous. One guy will see that another has made a change to some part of the boat - say a custom interior layout. Something that is done with thought and planning so as not to disturb the balance of the boat. Another guy sees this alteration and says, " Golly, that's not how the plans show it and it works fine. I can run with this thing". He ends up moving the engine and building a two story condominium for a cabin. His fish'n buddies go for a ride with him and the damn thing doesn't plane, it's tender, they puke and say, "That Bartender is a real pile of #@!. Let's go out on Joe's Bayliner next time".

It happens over and over and I'm not sure there is anything that can be done to prevent it. Sometimes warnings are heeded but too often go unheard.

[Paulyboy]

If a person buys plans to have a new house built, and then wants to change things, they usually involve an architect and engineer to make sure the changes are possible and don't detract from the structural soundness of the house as it relates to the environment its built for. When someone with a lotto dollars wants a custom hot rod or custom bike built, they consult the designers and builders to make sure the thing won't fly apart at speed and leave them clawing air like a cartoon figure. Why is it so different for boats? I sure wouldn't want to be swimming for my life 20 miles from land!

[almeyer]

Why do plans buyers insist on changing the design? Simply put, because it's MY BOAT. I built it, and I wanted something that suited me. If I wanted a boat that looked like everyone else's, I'd have bought a chlorox bottle.

That being said, I was very careful when I made changes to the plans. A couple of thoughts governed each change:
- Don't make any changes to the dimensions, shapes, or structural assembly of the original design. I'm not a naval architect, but I am an engineer, and thus aware that something that seems relatively harmless like increasing the length a foot or two can change how the various forces act on the boat. So leave it alone, or find another design.
- Don't violate the designer's intent. For example, a flotation compartment should remain a floatation compartment, and not be converted into a storage locker.
The changes I did make were mostly cosmetic. For example, I made laminated thwart knees instead of cutting from solid stock. I think I maintained the designer's intent yet the change reflects my own personal preference. A more serious change I made was to add a storage locker, by cutting a door in forward thwart and adding bulkheads with limber holes under either side of the thwart. Here again I don't believe I violated the designer's intent, the bulkheads were thin so the extra weight added is negligible, so performance shouldn't be affected. Finally, as a courtesy, I wrote the designer afterwards and listed all the changes I made. I also have to accept the fact that if the boat doesn't perform as well as it should, the responsibility is mine for not building the boat "stock."
Al

[Bill Childs]

almeyer,
The changes you made to your boat are logical - mostly cosmetic. Individualism is very important and is expected. Bravo.
Unfortunately some folks have no idea where the fine line is between simply expressing individualism and altering the design to the point of negatively affecting the performance. Sounds like you didn't even come close to crossing over that line.
I would hope that most boat designers would welcome and expect a person to express a bit of themselves when they build a boat. It wouldn't be nearly as fun to attend a wooden boat festival otherwise.

[Mark Van]

It's interesting that this thread came up again. I just recently saw Brad Indicot's version of the Mark V 39. He made quite a bit of changes, mainly to the interior arrangement. I like it, he had some good ideas.
I have also seen a picture of a steam boat with a similar cabin, with a small pilot house on top. It was in a book called "steamboats of Lake Muskoka" or something like that. I was surprised at how good it looked, since asthetics was my main reason I objected to it.

[Wild Dingo]

Mark... simple question with regard to structural changes to the 39 would it be outside of your bounds for someone to say want to change the square stern as portrayed to a rounded one similar thought to the tug boat stern I cant remember the proper terminology just now... but would that be too much of a change in design? essentially leaving the boat as designed just changing the transom stern region

Another thought would be a small steadying sail atop the house which could then be utilized for hoistin purposes {everything suitably strengthened of course}

ahem this Im simply assuming could and therefor may want to be done by someone

I am wondering at what your structural design change issues would take in... cabin agreed no change its sweet as it is but what other? perhaps widening her say 8in or so? squaring of the stem area to say a flat barge type stem of say 3ft and adding a ramp affair ergo allowing wheelchair access?

Can you see my confusion over what changes are wrong changes as per that designed?

Mind you I would no more consider stickin a bloody great cabin on Fame but would stick to as designed but then that design is a design from the pages of history and the designer no longer available to consult and shes also stunning as is... the thought of changing anything on her is mindboggling!!

Just wanted to know is all :cool: Me Id spend days months years annoyin hell out of our mate up there in the frozen wastes before I changed a thing! :D

[RodB]

My number one reason: Because I tend to fall in love with older traditional designs but have many reasons to build with modern epoxy techniques so I want to change construction methods.

This post makes me think of when I read Atkin's "Of Yachts and Men"...I thought it so interesting to get a bit of insight as to what he was thinking as he developed each design in succession, improvements, changes dictated by past experience, etc. His comments published with many of his designs also offer great insight to his basic thinking on that specific design. I thought it would be so great to have the ability to design different boats on a continum over time, always improving the succeeding design striving for "your perfect boat".

You can't help but think that someone of Atkin's talent and experience just had to have put together all the elements in a well thought out way.... not to say that you may want to change the interior a little, etc... but he certainly knew what most folks would require in a small cruising sailboat and had put together all the necessary elements many times in many designs. How many of us have fallen so in love with one of his designs that we pondered building it, even if we knew it may be a bit off in some respect from what we had decided on...and in the back of our mind, thought, "I sure wish she was a bit larger, a bit smaller or a bit shallower in draft"?

As I have studied many many of his designs I also cannot help but wish I could have him take one of his designs as a starting point and perhaps lenghten her a bit, change the sailplan, lessen the draft....and so it goes, we try to find the design that fits the closest to our dream boat and sometimes we desire to make a few changes...and hopefully we do not change anything that would threaten the integrity of the basic design.

And don't forget, the cost of a completely custom design is not cheap... so most folks try to find an existing design that fits as closely as possible to his or her dream...with perhaps just a couple changes...

Although a design may incorporate the basics for function and use, I would bet that for as many people that you know you could come up with that many variations on just the interior of a boat, not to mention other aesthetics.

On the other hand, if you are satisfied with the appeal of a design and it meets all your functional requirements (as most designs by skilled designers would) you certainly could not go wrong by building exactly to the plans because these guys gave much much thought in finalizing a design and they certainly knew what was required in a small cruiser for the average guy. I would guess that Mr Atkin would not mind most reasonable changes (whether interior or aesthetic) because that was his business, designing the exact boat his clients wanted, it would seem to make sense he wouldn't mind...within reason.

RB

[ 02-04-2005, 03:45 AM: Message edited by: RodB ]

[Magwitch]

I changed stuff when I had Patience built.
When I had an idea for a change to maximise the accomodation and make the cockpit smaller I asked the designer what he thought and the builder what he thought. If we all agreed , then fine. If not then not.
When the builder wanted to alter a construction detail he asked me. I asked why, then ran it past the designer.
I designed a new, or at least different rig for her. I took advice from my sailmaker and the designer. I spoke to people whose opinion I respected. I did the calcuations and then added a little pretty factor.

The boat turned out just fine.

I'm reminded of a Chef I know. So convinced is he of his genius that he will have no salt on the tables in his restaurant in case ignorant customers alter the product and thus ruin his 'art'. He is a friend but I don't eat at his place. smile.gif
IanW

[Mark Van]

I do like the fantail stern idea, but not with an outboard. I do not like outboards in wells. My original sketch for Heart of Gold II was V-bottomed, and had a fantail stern, and an inboard. The one I built was a lot cheaper than the inboard one would have been. The top potential speed for the fantail one would be lower, since it would be a straight displacement boat. Brad put a 60 hp outboard on his Mark V 39, and his boat can go over 12 knots wide open.

[rbgarr]

Mark- I don't care for outboard motors in wells, either. Why don't you?

[George Roberts]

IanW ---

I don't insult my hosts by putting seasoning on food served to me. Good or bad I accept their taste.

Of course, when I cook I would never insult my guests by complaining that they are seasoning food I prepared.

But with boats ...

In the past there were copyright issues. If you want to avoid paying for the use of someone's design, you could make a small alteration and it became your design.

I suppose there are still copyright issues as well as liability issues. I figure that if someone alters my design it becomes their design along with all the liability isues. I just walk away.

How many of you have ever altered a work of art that you bought?

[Mark Van]

the main reason that I don't like outboards in wells, is that they take up too much space. Unless you have an ugly cut out on the transom, the motor has to be mounted over 3 feet forward of the transom, if you want them to be able to tilt up.

[RonW]

Mark- Since it is your thread and you mention ugly cutouts on transom(with splash wells- more space eaten up) and room eaten up by motor wells.
Have you checked into outboard brackets, and or outboard jackplates.Or combination of both.

http://www.cook-mfg.com

Check out the manual jackplate with a 10 inch setback. It is only $250.
I am starting a 24ft. glen-l eagle, a round chime hull with a big (36inch) transom with a very pretty and usefull arch in the top of it.
So if you don't want a inbord (more room eaten up in a small boat) what do you do with the outboard. Cutting the transom seems like a sin, and a well is room eaten up.
I seen some of these brackets on other small lobster boats and have been researching them pretty hard.They seem like a wonderfull answer.
All claims are you raise the outboard about a inch or two, depending on setback and the motor runs in less turbulent water, thus resulting in a slight increase in speed and performance as well as handling characterisitics. But they also claim up to about a 25% increase in fuel economy.
They do have hydraulic jack plates, but unless you are racing it is a waste of money and just complicates matters besides adding a lot of cost.
The one thing you do have to watch is clearance for the motor to tilt and not hit transom to allow the prop or prop nut to be out of the water in case you have to change a prop on the river.
A 36 inch transom with a 10 inch set back plate and a 25 inch shaft will tilt to allow prop out of water. Of course a 20inch shaft is a problem on a transom that big, so you would have to set it back about 2 feet. That puts a lot of pressure on the transom. Anyhow a lot of these glass bass boats and ski boats are beginning to come from the factory with jack plates.
I think it is a good answer for outboards.

You can keep a nice looking transom that will keep more water out, and no splash well means the water from the splash well doesn't drain through the transom, which leads to rot. It is quieter, better performance and mileage as well as more room.

I forgot to mention these outboard brackets also want to keep the boat running much more level instead of bow pointed skyward, as in picture below.

[ 02-05-2005, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: RonW ]

[RonW]

http://www.boatsofcharacter.com/original/images/de_pu/de_center.jpg

[rbgarr]

Or there's this 'aft-of-transom' installation!

http://www.jetpac.us

[Bill Childs]

I'll take the better balance and aesthetics of a properly designed motor well over an unsightly mass of mechanicals protruding from the stern of an otherwise shapely hull.

[Amos Bechtel]

Originally posted by George Roberts:

How many of you have ever altered a work of art that you bought?I can't say as I ever altered a work of art that I bought but... If I bought the paint and canvas I would be willing to bet it wouldn't be an exact copy! smile.gif

Best,
Amos

[Bill Childs]

I see more disadvantages to moving the weight of an OB farther aft of the transom than advantages.
It changes the DWL - unless the boat is designed for it to begin with.
It moves the CG aft which changes the balance of a boat. Puts the transom down making it more vulnerable in a following sea. You also loose more bouyancy in the stern which will hinder its' ability to lift in a rough sea condition.
Makes the OB much more difficult to access at sea in the event of a breakdown.
It seems like this configuration might be able to achieve a little more speed in ideal conditions but look beyond that.
I would much rather have the better balanced and safer configuration of a properly designed OB well. Not to mention the aesthetics. That mechanical protrusion suspended off the stern just kills the lines of a pretty boat.

[RonW]

Bill I am glad that you decided to voice your opinion, I hope more comments come forth as well.
Mark opened the door for this discussion on his comments about well taking up room and ugly cutouts on transom.
Boats that are specificly for outboards in a well, such as a double ender like the bartender is one thing, but for the rest of them that has the outboard mounted on the transom is another matter.As per picture from preceeding page, I fail to see the lines spoiled at all.
As for your list of problems, I dissagree with all them, except possibly making you reach to service the engine at sea, but then again you aren't going to rebuild it sea.Outboards have become extremely reliable.Outboards in a well will increase stability, but other then slim bottom designs I doubt if it is a big deal, or worth the room particularly in the size of boats in the pictures.
Your alternative is this. Compare it to the picture on the preceeding page which looks a lot better, and would keep more of the sea out from a following sea.

http://www.glen-l.com/weblettr/webletters-7/images7/wl57-doubleeagle-christian1.jpg

[Gerald]

Why do plans buyers insist on changing the design?

Because all professionals are not created equal.
I am not a navel architect nor am I an engineer.
Some months ago I bought a completed 37' sailboat hull along with the complete set of plans. The quality of the completed work was fair to good and the price was right.
If the motor is placed under the cabin steps as per plan, I must duck walk to get into the boat. I moved the motor over the keel and opened up a very important part of the boat. The bank of batteries weigh more than the motor so some will be placed under the steps instead of over the keel.
There are three of these boats being built here on the island. Each from different materials, wood, steel and fiberglass. None of us are completely following the plans. The steel version calls for a skedge to run from the hull to the bottom of the 1.55 meter high rudder. The design calls for the part of the rudder in front of the shaft to be used for a skedge. So, where the skedge is welded to the hull you have a 3" by 5.5" foot print. The very slightest bump would surly rip a hole in the hull. Not to mention how the rudder would function.
I am sure the architect could or would at least try to justify his design but I for one will sure as hell not build to it.
On the other hand ......... I have recently purchased plans for a 45' Dudley Dix design and after going over the plans with a fine tooth comb I have not found one thing that I would change.
Gerald Niffenegger

[ 02-08-2005, 02:02 AM: Message edited by: Gerald ]

[Magwitch]

The trick of course is to find a design you like, or a designer you trust.
The chap that had the first Vertue, before it was a Vertue, asked Jack Giles for a five tonner "like your four tonner but bigger, and I don't mind a transom." That's all, but he knew Giles wouldnt let him down. In those days they built boats to be boats, and the normal owner didn't ask for full standing headroom in a 20ft boat or insist on a U shaped dinette , two showers and a jaccuzzi. ;)
IanW

[maa. melee]

I seem to have experience the 2 extremes of boatbuilding attitudes. 1. Build it right and to the eighths...follow the plans exactly. on the other hand...2. its my wooden boat, why not make it suit me. But everything is within reason and of course these changes ALWAYS go through an experienced boat builder/designer or are at leat proven by previous builds. With that, Im going to raise the sheer by 4 feet, cut out some ports in the side and slide in a few 9lb cannons. :D jk of course.

[Leon Steyns]

Originally posted by Magwitch:
The trick of course is to find a design you like, or a designer you trust.My thoughts exactly: if the designer isn't a qualified NA, say "NAda"!!! :mad: :confused: :(

Not that the title alone will protect you from danger, though. You gotta trust the one who's building, too. Sooooo.... how well do we trust ourselves? :D :D :D

Greets, Leon Steyns.

[Bill Childs]

Ron, sounds like we could take this thread in a whole new direction with this OB topic - which I don't mean to do. But I honestly can't see how moving the weight of an engine farther away from the boat could possibly help it handle better. If someone has some insight that I am missing here then please help. Am I to understand that this is a "performance" enhancement. If so then maybe the problem I'm having is with the definition of performance.
In the photos you posted I can't see where the boat with the extended OB would keep a following sea out better than the one with the transom hung OB. The splash well has a false transom that is as high as the rest of the transom. Unless it has holes in it where they shouldn't be, it will actually be drier because the weight, given equal motors, is closer to the hull. The extended OB, on the other hand, will act as a lever and lower the transom farther into the water.
Am I missing something here? Anybody? I would really like to try and figure out what is attractive about this. I think I have a fairly good understanding of how CG and balance in a boat help to make it handle and survive in rough sea conditions. But this concept goes against any of those thoughts.
Heeelllllp!

[Mark Van]

Originally posted by Leon Steyns:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Magwitch:
The trick of course is to find a design you like, or a designer you trust.My thoughts exactly: if the designer isn't a qualified NA, say "NAda"!!! :mad: :confused: :(

Not that the title alone will protect you from danger, though. You gotta trust the one who's building, too. Sooooo.... how well do we trust ourselves? :D :D :D

Greets, Leon Steyns.</font>[/QUOTE]This could be a whole other discussion. Who's to decide wheather someone is a "qualified NA"? If I design a boat, two of which are built, each boat travelled over 5,000 miles, and both owners are happy with the boat, am I qualified, even if I have had very little formal training?

[ 02-08-2005, 01:25 AM: Message edited by: Mark Van ]

[RodB]

In shallow coastal areas before folks built 6" tunnel hulls with jack plates and 4 bladed props and low water pickups... running shallow in boats was achieved by mounting the outboard motor further back on a mechanical jack plate ( for every 3 inches you set the motor back, you could raise the motor's height 1 inch. ( I think this is the ratio, I can't remember for sure). So early on when wanting to run shallow with a normal 6 degree V hull the motor was set back 12 -18" and thus raised as much as possible to decrease the required draft. As the water column released from the back lower edge of the transom it angled upwards offering an elevated water column thus allowing the motor to be elevated some.

The following comments are pure speculation:

I have usually seen the low extended motor mounts on larger cruisers for offshore running...which allows for a fairly high amount of freeboard with the high transoms while the outboards (one or two or three) are mounted lower and further back allowing for proper depth of mount.

I think this is mainly to get the motors mounted properly to hulls that are quite high in freeboard.

I also think the motor being set back a couple of feet causes the stern to sit a bit lower by virtue of the lever arm but also at high speed I would think it would allow for greater max speed with less of the hull in the water while planing. Also balancing the necessary weight to offset the weight of the outboard motor would be quite simple in such cases...

Certainly someone on this forum may have some first hand knowledge on this subject.

RB

[Bill Childs]

Excellent point Mark. I'll choose a design by a designer who has proven track record regardless of his education or number of letters affixed to the end of his name.
Well after George Calkins was established as a trusted designer he decided to take correspondence courses to get his NA degree. For his first class project he submitted the Bartender design which was already in use by the USCG. The instructor regected it and told him to draw a boat that will actually work. He quickly dropped the course and decided to do without the "NA" after his name.

[RonW]

Good story bill... Think mark opened the door and I hijacked his thread. Think I will start a new thread on it, because I would defintely like to see a serious conversation on it.And we are not going to get that with this being buried under another heading. But Rod pretty much hit it on the head with his comment on mounting the outboard to boats with high freeboards.

[martin schulz]

Sorry Mark, but if you asked me to design a logo, broshure, or internetsite for you I bet you would do exactly the same thing.

- don't you think the colour should be blue.
- don't you think the logotype should be in capital letters.
- I want the logo much bigger on my stationary. Is that ok?

... ;)

[StevenBauer]

Martin, he isn't talking about a custom design. He's talking about a proven stock design. If someone approached him to build a custom design they would get to ask for exactly what they want, but they would have to pay much more than for an off the shelf design.

Steven

[Mark Van]

You are absolutely right. I designed a boat for myself, built it, and used it. I am offering a stock design for a very inexpensive price. I expect people to build it the way it is, or pay a premium price for a custom design. When people make major changes, it is no longer my design, but theirs.

[Gerald]

>>>>>>>>You are absolutely right. I designed a boat for myself, built it, and used it. I am offering a stock design for a very inexpensive price. I expect people to build it the way it is, or pay a premium price for a custom design. When people make major changes, it is no longer my design, but theirs. <<<<<<<

In my case I have moved the motor over the keel and batteries where the motor was. I would call that a major change. If in the future I decide to build and sell several boats to your design but with my modification you would not expect any payment?
Gerald

[Keith Wilson]

When people make major changes, it is no longer my design, but theirs. Precisely. People will make changes to designs for the same reason they didn't buy a stock fiberglass boat. Human beings being how they are, some changes will be reasonable, some will be stupid. However, if one makes major changes to someone else's design, it's certainly not ethical to hold the designer responsible for the outcome of the changes, nor ask him to help with the changes without getting paid for it.

An example: I recently built a little dory skiff loosely based on Phil Bolger's "Cartopper" design. I made pretty substantial changes:
- Taped-seam to glued-lapstrake construction.
- Two-panel sides changed to rounded sides with five strakes.
- Completely reworked arrangement of thwarts and centerboard.
- Completely different wood species used from that specified in the plans.

I certainly didn't call up Mr. Bolger asking for advice, nor do I identify the boat as a Bolger Cartopper. When somebody asks me what it is, I give them a tedious long explanation, giving Bolger credit where it's due.

Did it work? Yes, pretty well. There were a few problems: the original placement of the seats was awkward, although it probably would have been OK for someone younger, lighter, and more limber. I've since changed it. The hull is a little too flexible; it could use either a strong midships frame like a Shellback or heavier gunwales.

Why didn't I find a design that I liked as it was? I didn't want to - I wanted to try my hand at the modifications, and I was willing to live with the resuts.

[ 02-09-2005, 10:36 AM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[mmd]

Gerald, a comment on your challenge to Mark Van:

Yes, you made some major changes to the boat you built in shifting substantial masses about in the hull, thereby possibly altering the balance of the boat, but you didn't change the design. If you have structural or stability problems due to these changes, you have no cause to seek compensation from the designer if he has not "signed-off" on the changes you made. If, however, you try to re-sell the plans with only the engine and battery location modifications as your input, you would be liable for copyrignt infringement on the original plans because you did not alter the form, function, nor aesthetic of the original design. If you have lengthened the hull, or changed the shape of the bow, then you may be in the clear, but merely moving things about inside does not make the design yours.

[George Roberts]

mmd ---

While I do not encourage anyone to violate the spirit of the intellectual property law ...

It appears that "shifting substantial masses about in the hull, thereby possibly altering the balance of the boat" may alter the "function" of the boat.

In the extreme case replacing a designers deep wooden keel with one of lead will often make a hull stay upright rather than capsize. If this is the case, the function is certainly altered.

[mmd]

In your described instance, George, the replacement of a wood keel with one of lead, would be adding substantial weight, not merely re-arranging it. This is a structural change altering the displacement (if volume of keel is retained) or the form (if volume is altered to maintain displacement), ergo, a substantive change in form. Next? tongue.gif :D

(edit for misspelling)

[ 02-09-2005, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: mmd ]

[Gerald]

MMD
First let me say that I would never steal a design or designers work. If it is a good design I want to use the designers name when I finally sell the boat. That is basically why I pay the price for the design. I am quite capable and can easily rip off designs from the information given in a study plan package.
Your story about Barney Fife might be true for some. However, someone building a boat larger than a gunk hole boat has probably studied long and hard and has lots more knowledge than you or the others cheering you on give them credit for. Thinking that a large percentage of the builders are equal to Barney will probably not get a designer much return business.
I can e-mail Dudley Dix with a question and he will respond in less than twenty-four hours. I have no idea how silly he might think my questions are? One thing for sure, his answers have always satisfied me and he has never responds with "Now look Barney that just won't fly."
With Respect
Gerald Niffenegger

[mmd]

Gerald, I trust that you understand that "Barney Fife" is a fictitious caricature whose situation and responses are greatly exaggerated to make a point, in much the same way that you presume that we all understand that your proposition to sell the plans for your boat as your design because you moved the motor was stated to merely make your point.

[RonW]

Yea, but what I want to know is, Did Barney Fife make the changes by himself, Or was he assited by Andy Griffith.

Just can't believe that Andy would particiate in such practices.

[Gerald]

MMD
Of course I understand your story was greatly exaggerated to make a point.
Just to clear up one point. I never suggested that I would sell plans after making major changes. I suggested that I might manufacture and sell boats, while not paying for more than the first set of plans. I see a very large difference in volume of sales.
Gerald

[mmd]

Now you have stepped into the discussion over whether royalties should be paid on multiple builds from a single set of plans, which has been exhaustively discussed here, (http://www.woodenboat-ubb.com/cgi-bin/UBB/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=002163) here, (http://www.woodenboat-ubb.com/cgi-bin/UBB/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=002001) and elsewhere on this forum. I think that I stated my position quite clearly in those threads and have no need to reiterate here.

[George Roberts]

mmd ---

A bit of change in construction mathods and I can usually save 25% of the hull weight. I was going to lave the total weight the same - just move it to the keel. smile.gif

In any case, I figure that if I start with someone's plans or have them on my desk when I am working, they should be compensated when I build a boat or sell a set of plans.

[RonW]

George Roberts says-
I figure that if I start with someone's plans or have them on my desk when I am working, they should be compensated when I build a boat or sell a set of plans.

What are you doing selling someone else's Plans?
Obviously you had to take the time and exspense to have copies made.

Think MMD has a very legitimate gripe...

[paladin]

Gentlemen....This is exactly the reason i don't sell plans.....
i did the Westlawn thing back in the 60's...and also YDI when ted Brewer was running it. I am an elektrinical engineer, masters...and was working as a pilot....The boat thing was for my own enjoyment etc...
Over the years I have designed...from scratch...about a dozen boats...from 16 feet to 50 feet. All boats were built, most multiple copies, and only recently considered selling plans.....and have sorta talked myself out of it just for the reasons presented here.....and a fine discussion it has been.

[mmd]

George, if you realize the significant savings in hull mass and compensate by increasing ballast as you have mentioned above, KG will certainly become smaller and the KM correspondingly higher. The resultant roll period will subsequently be shorter, thereby increasing roll accelerations in the upper portions of the mast(s). Do you increase your rig scantlings to compensate for this, or have your calculations indicated that the increase is structurally insignificant?

[Leon Steyns]

Sounds like it's time to either wheel in the lawyers or devise a GPL for boat plans... :rolleyes:

Greets, Leon Steyns.

[Gerald]

>>>>>>>>>George, if you realize the significant savings in hull mass and compensate by increasing ballast as you have mentioned above, KG will certainly become smaller and the KM correspondingly higher. The resultant roll period will subsequently be shorter, thereby increasing roll accelerations in the upper portions of the mast(s). Do you increase your rig scantlings to compensate for this, or have your calculations indicated that the increase is structurally insignificant? <<<<<<<<<<

George
Assuming that your hull will take the extra stress. Slap a taller mast on the puppy and sail away.
Gerald

[Mark Van]

There is an advantage to people not building exactly to plans, if the boat doesn't work right, or falls apart, or something else happens, they can't sue the designer.

[George Roberts]

RonW ---

Let me rephrase. If I start with someone's plans and MODIFY them. I compensate the original designer. I think that is a more liberal than most.

Many people including our host sell plans produced by others. They compensate the designer.

mmd ---

I was only addressing your different weight issue. It is very hard to keep all things equal and still make some change.

[mmd]

"It is very hard to keep all things equal and still make some change. " How true, and a fact that became scintillatingly clear to me during the project to create that lovely boat I posted a picture of over here. (http://www.woodenboat-ubb.com/cgi-bin/UBB/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=004025) The process of shaving enough weight off a classic design from the 'thirties to allow her to float on her lines after installing a couple of tons of modern conveniences, yet retain not only the original displacement but her original weight distribution as well, is a daunting task. Anyone who knows the racing record of the modern fibreglass Bluenose Class sloops versus the older woodies will understand the importance of weight distribution in a hull. ;)

[Lucky Luke]

Why do plans buyers insist on changing the design?


Personally, I am lucky in that I have mostly worked on commercial vessels and large yachts, built by professional yards. No owner can decide alone to change this or that: classification societies and statuory rules are very strict for this kind of vessels. On top of that, much responsability is taken by engineers and architects, and they have the power to accept or refuse alterations to their design. As well, any alterations after the design has been worked out is very costy -and even more if construction has started- and for that we try first to do it right and corresponding to the owner's demand .

But I worked, occasionally, on some smaller crafts: there, changing this, altering that, seems to be the motto! Owners are very individualist, and, although the basic hull/ deck ( We were using moldings from Colvic Craft) may be standard, they still want their boat to be unique. As a designer, no big problem for me, as long as it is not something silly or that would damage the image of our Company, but for the workers, I have always felt very sorry when their beautifully done work had to be scraped and the thing re-done, due to a last "fantasy" of the owner.

When it comes to small crafts for amateur construction, it really gets silly: people with very limited -or no- knowledge of boat construction and design (and of the sea) come with crazy ideas, thinking they have invented the wheel, that all others before them were idiots, and accept to pay very little for designs that they alter at will afterwards.... They will spend thousands of hours, sometimes, and tens of thousands of dollars, but refuse to pay naval architects the necessary fee for a proper study...!

Why do (these) people insist on changing the designs: because they don't want to pay for a custom design!

....and it is not because there are good and bad designers. There are some bad ones, right, but few and they don't last long!

[ 02-13-2005, 03:26 AM: Message edited by: Lucky Luke ]

[Lucky Luke]

Originally posted by mmd:
.....the project to create that lovely boat I posted a picture of over.... That's a REALLY lovely boat, Michael! (I am quite a fan of L.F. Herreshof, too).

Do I have to understand that you re-designed her partly? How did you manage to keep original displacement ( and weight distribution, of course) of this already rather light boat while adding much "modern" equipment? Has she been built in the same materials as the original "Bounty"?

I would really like to know more. Thanks.

Luc

[ErikH]

QUOTE]Originally posted by George Roberts:

How many of you have ever altered a work of art that you bought?[/QUOTE]

That view seems to be part of the problem here IMO. Since when are all--or even most--boat designers creating "art"?

I most assuredly am NOT saying that boats aren't pretty (they are), or taht designing is simple (it's not). But boat designers aren't functionally all taht different from architects, for example. Some produce Fallingwater-quality work, if you like taht sort of thing. Most don't. And if you don't happen to be one of those lucky brilliant few, as I am not in my own field for what it's worth, the 'artiste' mentality doesn't work very well.

Why would I change a design? Plenty of reasons. maybe it's generally what i want and I think I can change it to something I like better. Maybe the designer assumed certain priorities (cabin size to cockpit size, for example) that are different for me; that happens all the time. Maybe the designer simply isn't incredibly good, as can be noted in the surpringly large number of professionally designed poorly sailing boats out there.

Can I do better when changing a design than the designer could? Sure, sometimes, and I don't imagine for a minute that I'm the best out there. I've changed many sailplans, for example, on boats I've owned: added sail area through battens, or bowsprits. It worked out fine.

So I buy plans, and I imagine. Some of them I like, while others seem to need a little tweaking. I don't generally contact the builder for help. Sometimes that's impossible (he's dead) or sometimes not.

If I (hypothetically) want to take a 24' heavily built Atkins boat and stretch each station by an inch to gain another foot of length, I can foresee many of the results without paying someone else to tell me that hogging force is increased or that the boat may be harder to tack. I'd still say "that's an Atkins" afterwards. And it really IS an atkins, just a tiny bit different.

i don't want to sound flippant, though i think it's difficult in this online setting. but of course there is an easy way to avoiid having someone change your work at all and still call it 'yours', which is not to sell plans, and only sell boats. That way you don't even worry about people who DON'T change the design, do a bad job building an asymmetrical boat, and still call it 'yours'.

Of course, you will lose out on the many boats who have been modified by their owners/builders, and which are happily reccomended to all on the water. Strangely enough, boat designers aren't nearly as eager to disassociate themselves from taht crew. But them's the breaks.

But mmd, I still find your perspective troubling. You hate people who modify your plans. you hate people with a diffferent view of copyright law. While I certainly think everyone's entitled to their opinion, and you're apparently a very good designer as per others here, you seem really frustrated and oftentimes bitter about your profession.

[Canoeyawl]

I am guilty of changing the plans and building a design that was considered a work of art. Indeed even accused of “Victorian Vandalism” to a design from the board of a famous designer. In defense, let me propose an example here; say we found an 1890 design of a home that suited everything we had dreamed of except it had no heating, no closets, and no bathrooms. If we were able to include these “modern” details, and build the home within its original profile, would this be such a travesty? And if someone wanted to know the name of the designer, could I claim it or any part of it was mine? Certainly not.
I think there are occasionally valid reasons for tampering with a design, some obvious, and some are subtle, but if the finished product suits the builder and the builder is competent and discerning, (meaning the re-engineering was qualified) the community should accept it.
http://www.canoeyawl.com/boatimages/sallybot2-600.jpg

[Gerald]

EricH
Very well written and very well put! :)
Gerald

[StevenBauer]

Wow! Nice picture! And nice boat, too! smile.gif

Steven

[StevenBauer]

Canoeyawl, that is a beautiful boat! Tell us more about her. Is she a Strange design? I've been wondering about her since your 'clamp' photo. Did you build her yourself? Would you share more pictures with us? Please. smile.gif
Wait til Wayne sees this. Or Shane! :D
Steven

[StevenBauer]

OK, I found your other pictures.

http://www.canoeyawl.com/boatimages/Sally-full-lt.jpg

She's Sally, WB magazine July 1998. And she is a Strange. smile.gif

www.canoeyawl.com (http://www.canoeyawl.com)

http://www.canoeyawl.com/boatimages/mag-pic2b-600_small.jpg

Steven

[mmd]

" (mmd)...You hate people who modify your plans. you hate people with a diffferent view of copyright law. While I certainly think everyone's entitled to their opinion, and you're apparently a very good designer as per others here, you seem really frustrated and oftentimes bitter about your profession." - ErikH My, those are pretty strong words you have put in my mouth, Erik. Can't say as I much like the flavour, either, as they are so at odds with my actual sentiments.

As you have alluded to in your statement, "i (sic) don't want to sound flippant, though i think it's difficult in this online setting...", it is sometimes difficult to make a statement of opinion in an on-line forum setting that both conveys the subtleties of inuendo that are so important to the message, and that are worded so unequivocably so as to be unable to be misconstrued by others with differing viewpoints. Given that I am labouring mightily under the weight of these restrictions, and possibly several other layers of possible distortions of perceptions, allow me to attempt to clarify my position on the altering of designs from the original intent of the designer:

1.) The builder buys a set of plans from a designer to build one boat from those plans. If he wants to build more than one boat from that set of plans, he should pay a royalty fee (usually much less that the cost of the plans) to the designer, unless the designer waives such a fee.

2.) If the builder wants to modify the plans, fine; go to it. If you want to put a cup rack wher I drew a bookshelf, you go right ahead and do that; I won't say a word. However, if you are going to do major structural changes, or change the shape of the hull, inform the designer. Firstly, so the designer is "in the loop" of what is going on with his designs (maybe he will see the change as an improvement and revise the base plans accordingly); secondly, there is the possibility that the desired change will have an adverse effect on the structural integrity or stability of the vessel and the designer will be able to advise you about such effects.

3.) If you make changes to the form and appearance of the design, please take public credit for it ("I built this boat based on MMD's "Widgit" design, but I modified the shape of the transom") so that people who see your boat know that it is an alteration of the original design.

In closing, Erik, I refute your statement of my "hating" the boating public that affords me my living; my sentiments are actually quite the obverse: I like boating folk so much that I want to do what I can to ensure their safety and enjoyment of their avocation; if I can influence a non-experienced boatbuilder to think twice about making ill-advised changes to a design so that he doesn't spend his money unwisely or possibly put his friends or himself at risk while on the water, I will have made a positive contribution to their boating experience. If you view that sentiment as perhaps a bit patronizing, so be it. Not everybody is as experienced at boatbuilding as you obviously are, and some occasionally make missteps that might have been avoided if someone a bit more knowlegable had voiced an opinion.

Bitter and frustrated about my profession? Hardly. Just that way about the seeming inability to correspond accurately in this medium. ;)

[Canoeyawl]

Yes she is an Albert Strange "Wenda" design. This is “Sally” - she was featured in WoodenBoat a few years ago. The builder is Brent Smith.

[mmd]

Lucky Luke, check your private messages, please,

[Lucky Luke]

Originally posted by mmd:
Lucky Luke, check your private messages, please,Done. Thanks.
Luc

[ErikH]

Originally posted by mmd:
My, those are pretty strong words you have put in my mouth, Erik. Can't say as I much like the flavour, either, as they are so at odds with my actual sentiments.Sorry I've misinterpreted you; what I posted was my honest read but it's good to know I was wrong. Ain't online postings on the Internet grand? :D Anyway, on to the meat of the discussion, which is thr fun and interesting part. NOTE: It's a pain to constantly type "the designer" or "you" (when i mean all designers), so I'm using a hypothetical designer conveniently named Bob, which is a nice short name ;)


Originally posted by mmd:
1.) The builder buys a set of plans from a designer to build one boat from those plans. If he wants to build more than one boat from that set of plans, he should pay a royalty fee (usually much less that the cost of the plans) to the designer, unless the designer waives such a fee. Don't think you'll get much disagreement from me, or most others, on this one!


Originally posted by mmd:
2.) If the builder wants to modify the plans, fine; go to it. If you want to put a cup rack wher I drew a bookshelf, you go right ahead and do that; I won't say a word. However, if you are going to do major structural changes, or change the shape of the hull, inform the designer. Foor the sake of intelligent discussion, let's assume we both have the same definition of "major structural" changes and changes in hull shape. Of course, our definitions have a lot of overlap but I doubt they're identical in practice, as this thread suggests. I'll address your points individually.


Originally posted by mmd:
Firstly, so the designer is "in the loop" of what is going on with his designs (maybe he will see the change as an improvement and revise the base plans accordingly); Now, as I see it, this is not a two way street. Bob draws the plans, puts them up for sale; i buy them. If Bob wants my advice on his boat plans he can 1) ask nicely; 2) give me a free set of plans; or 3) pay me for my time--I don't work for free, either, unless I want to. (note: my tendency to do 'courtesy informs' is directly related to Bob's support, discussed below)

Conversely, I support another point of yours which you don't mention in this particular posting. I might hope or expect that the price for the plans from Bob may/should include some basic support on his plans as drawn ("I'm having trouble seeing how you want the stem rabbet to work, can you explain quickly?"). But it would never seem appropriate to ask Bob to provide free support for changes of my own making. (Of course, depending on the time involved, the particular change, and the price of the plans, it may be good business for Bob to talk to me for free. "Can I put a third port in the cabinhouse sides?" might be an example). But Bob certainly doesn't HAVE to talk to me for free).

It is completely different when i'm getting a custom design from Bob, which obviously involves a lot of back and forth conversation.


Originally posted by mmd:
secondly, there is the possibility that the desired change will have an adverse effect on the structural integrity or stability of the vessel and the designer will be able to advise you about such effects. Well, that may be true, though one person's "adverse effect on stability" is another person's "more fun to sail". But of course, if I don't plan to pay Bob more than $150--which is why I bought a set of plans in the first place, instead of hiring him to design me a boat to spec--what's the point of telling him? I'm certainly not going to pay Bob to do a new stability workup, and he's not going to do one for free. If I've got any intelligence and experience, I can understand general effects on stability even without a NA degree. Scantlings for construction are widely available.

The truth is that there are sll SORTS of things which mess up a boat--bad choice of wood (often not spec'd in plans), choice of epoxy and skill in filleting seams; how good you are at caulking and planking... i mean, let's face it: Extending a 24' boat to 26' by stretching the stations while keeping the rig the same is sometimes going to have less of an effect on her strength and safety and stability than whether I use good quality plywood. If Bob is willing to accept that--which he is, since he's selling plans--why not what I propose?


Originally posted by mmd:
3.) If you make changes to the form and appearance of the design, please take public credit for it ("I built this boat based on MMD's "Widgit" design, but I modified the shape of the transom") so that people who see your boat know that it is an alteration of the original design.I don't think this is really realistic, though i'll grant you it might tweak Bob's ears to hear. People are generalists. I own a Honda. if I put a Thule roof rack on it, some fancy spoiler, custom wheels, seat covers, aftermarket thingys all over the place, I still call it a Honda. And if I buld a Shearwater but move a thwart, stratch it 6", add 8 sqare feet of sail and a flotation tank, I still call it a Shearwater.

I don't think you have as much to worry about as you think and nor does ol' hypothetical Bob. The bad news is that I am going to change my boat as I see fit, and until it is changed enough that I--not you or Bob--feel it's more "me" than "you", i'll call it yours if I'm asked.

The good news is that anyone who asks DETAILS (which is to say, anyone who really cares; your likely customers) will learn that I made changes. Anyone who knows your work otherwise will _see_ that I made changes. And, ironically, anyone who hates my modified Widgit transom won't avoid your boats because of it--they'll just buy the plans and change the transom!

Sure, there's the possibility that someone will make such extreme changes they'll destroy the boat, and you'll have a monstrosity out there "libelling" you in every cove from Maine to the Keys. Bhink how hideous one of your (properly built) boats would look in neon green with orange stripes and tinted windows, and you'll see that's unavoidable. Very few people--even cynical old me--look at a really horrible vessel and think "I bet she looks exactly as designed" unless it's a JetSki.


Originally posted by mmd:
In closing, Erik, I refute your statement of my "hating" the boating public that affords me my living; my sentiments are actually quite the obverse: I like boating folk so much that I want to do what I can to ensure their safety and enjoyment of their avocation; if I can influence a non-experienced boatbuilder to think twice about making ill-advised changes to a design so that he doesn't spend his money unwisely or possibly put his friends or himself at risk while on the water, I will have made a positive contribution to their boating experience. If you view that sentiment as perhaps a bit patronizing, so be it. Not everybody is as experienced at boatbuilding as you obviously are, and some occasionally make missteps that might have been avoided if someone a bit more knowlegable had voiced an opinion.

Bitter and frustrated about my profession? Hardly. Just that way about the seeming inability to correspond accurately in this medium. ;) TO add some humor to this, I'll point out that while I know my math and my boats, and might (only 'might', mind you) be able to change a design well, I can't build worth a damn. But thank you for the assumption smile.gif

[Charles Burgess]

Originally posted by George Roberts:
RonW ---

Let me rephrase. If I start with someone's plans and MODIFY them. I compensate the original designer. I think that is a more liberal than most.

Many people including our host sell plans produced by others. They compensate the designer.

mmd ---

I was only addressing your different weight issue. It is very hard to keep all things equal and still make some change.George:

Weight changes:
Weight, and where it is located within the design, is a vital part of design as an art. Each design is intended for particular construction methods and materials...unapproved alterations in wieght distribution is hazardous.

You cannot safely take a FRP design and build it in wood, nor a wood design and build it in steel, nor a steel design and build it in aluminum. Any such changes can unbalance the sability and safety of the resulting vessel.

No one makes such changes in an automobile and expects to be licensable on the road. You can't do it with airplanes, so what makes anyone think that they can do it with boats?

Reality check: sailboats are like an airplane with one wing in the water and the other in the air.

Changing someone else's plans, making copies, and then selling those changed plans:
I am a NA & boatbuilder, and I also occasionally sell paintings (I paint acrylic on canvas).

As for intellectual property and copyright issues: it is unethical for someone to take one of my paintings, dab some more paint on it here and there, make some copies of the result and sell them...BIG NO-NO. To do so is a hugh insult to the artist.

Boat designers are artists as well: it is just as unethical for someone to take one of my boat designs, make a few changes, make copies of the resulting plans and sell them.

If you are perhaps inspired by someone's design, but you want to make substantial changes to someone's designs, then you need to do one of three things:
#1 - find a stock design that is good enough that you don't want to change it; or
#2 - pay for the original designer to redesign to incorporate the custom modifications into the stock design; or
#3 -learn what is needed to properly design your own, and then originate your own design...and take full credit and the responsibilities that entails.

Cosmetic changes...color of hull, deck fittings, color of interior, etc. Are fine. If you can safely do something with an automobile that puts the owner's individual personality into it, then you can probably safetly do it in a boat.

There is alot you can do to personalize a boat that is fundamentally built to design, all without affecting the fine balance of factors that make a design stable and safe. That is why it is necessary to ask the designer "Can I do such-n-such?"

If the designer answers "yes", then have fun; if the designer says "only by redesigning and recomputing the sability" then either accept that as an informative "NO" or be willing to pay for the additional design work.

Finally George: if you know enough to modify someone else's design, then why in heaven's name are you not originating your own design and building those?

(Why would you go through the hassel of reading the mind of another designer and alterating their creative product? Is it not less work to originate your own designs?)

In my own paintings I am influenced by the works of the Dutch Masters and the French Impressionists, with some Thomas Benton thrown it...but my paintings all start with a blank canvas...I do not buy the other's prints and add my own brushstrokes to their's.

Regards,

Charles

[ 03-09-2005, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: Charles Burgess ]

[Charles Burgess]

Originally posted by Mark Van:
Being in the buiseness of trying to sell boat plans, I get a lot of inquiries about the designs, and people want to know my opinion about certain changes to the design.

Sometimes it is hard to be polite, when I would like to say that their ideas are just plain UGLY. I usually try to think of some technical reason, genaraly ending with saying that I don't do custom designs, I design what I like, and then sell plans to others who like the design. (That's why they are so inexpensive) After using the boats for over a year, I can't think of any changes that I would do to either design to improve them.

My favorite one was putting a pilot house on top of the Heart of Gold II design, just where you wouldn't want any extra windage or weight.

MarkMark,

Try designing a boat for a commercial fisherman...talk about UGGGLLLYYY!!! ...LOL

Such a client is more concerned with safety and function, with grace and beauty coming in dead last.

[Bob S]

I have plans for a 21' 3" launch, however I need to shorten it to about 20' to fit in my shop, even that is tight. Am I asking for trouble by moving the moulds closer together? I believe the designer is no longer living.

[rbgarr]

I had a 15' dory which someone copied and sized down to 14'. The difference in the stability and comfort of the smaller boat was amazing. The 15 footer seemed just right to me.

You might ask a student yacht designer at someplace like The Landing School of Yacht Design http://www.landingschool.org if he would run your lines through their computer as a paid project to see what the result of shortening the boat would be.

[Bob S]

Thanks rbgarr, I will do that.

[RodB]

Why one would want to change existing plans...

Take for example The following two designs..
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid161/p261af6b2b2b02a927bbb6d3b6702c474/f4c7d899.jpg
Now I think "Amos Brown" is really beautiful and she was designed by Mr Atkin for himself with no client restrictions (from "Practical Small Boat Designs" by Atkin). She was also designed to be easy to build. "Maid of Endor" it goes without saying is beautiful beyond words...and to top it off...round bilged!!!

Amos Brown's profile is a bit more appealing than "Maid of Endor" to my eye... I like the bow and sheer a bit more. .. but thats not the point. I simply love this little design but alas it is smaller than I want... If you complete your research and find no other that quite fits your bill but a smaller design seems quite right, you may want the designer to enlarge the design a reasonable percentage... you just want her bigger... simple but probably true in many cases. The reverse is also true in that I am sure many folks want a particular design a bit smaller.

Maybe larger is more impactful... Mr Atkin hit a home run here. (Maid of Endor is a triple play)

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid161/p7ca2695a28aaff220a7eb522a78afc42/f4c7e195.jpg

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid161/p522da720dabfbf970f352537d45aa622/f4c7d403.jpg

RB

[ 03-20-2005, 01:10 AM: Message edited by: RodB ]

[Norske3]

'Cause after searching thru hundreds of plans and not finding what they really want they feel the need to "tweak"....no mystery there.

[Norske3]

Mr. Burgess...what are your thoughts here.... a 34 foot LWL St. Lawrence Yawl...completely redesigned from water line down...designer: Tim Evans from Western Canada.For more info use "search"...type in "St. Lawrence Yawl" for the original "thread". smile.gif
I would like to see this scaled down to about 24 feet...and trailer it.

"Amos Brown"...reminds me of a wooden shoe.

web page (http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid14/paa49947377d4ee1ac953eb08796685b3/fdded2d4.jpg)

[ 03-19-2005, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: Norske3 ]

[RodB]

That old wooden shoe (Amos Brown) sure gives the design your asking about a run for its money... beats it by a mile...

RB

[ 03-20-2005, 01:11 AM: Message edited by: RodB ]

[Norske3]

"Beauty is all in the eyeball"... smile.gif

[Charles Burgess]

The Amos Brown and Maid of Endor ...sweet lines in such a small package. Normally it takes some length to demonstrate such visual grace.

Off the top of my head I would say yes, you can scale it up. Scaling up usually doesn't hurt the stability and seaworthiness, it is in the scaling down where you run into serious trouble.

Although scaling up, if done properly, doesn't hurt the overall stability, it will have an effect on performance and feel.

Scaling up is based on LOA, and there are several specific scaling factors.

The detail of the design images you linked...the Maid of Endor is too small to read. Post the original specs and your desired length and I'll post the scaled up specs.

[Charles Burgess]

Originally posted by Norske3:
Mr. Burgess...what are your thoughts here.... a 34 foot LWL St. Lawrence Yawl...completely redesigned from water line down...designer: Tim Evans from Western Canada.For more info use "search"...type in "St. Lawrence Yawl" for the original "thread". smile.gif
I would like to see this scaled down to about 24 feet...and trailer it.

"Amos Brown"...reminds me of a wooden shoe.

web page (http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid14/paa49947377d4ee1ac953eb08796685b3/fdded2d4.jpg)Norske3,

Sorry, but scaling down requires a total design effort. Unlike scaling up, where I can plug in the original LOA and the desired LOA into a MathCAD page and it computes the whole scaled specs in a blink of an eye, there are no legit or safe techniques to scale down a design.

If you could find a desirable design that is smaller than your target LOA, then we can plug its data into the app I mentioned.

Do you really want a yawl? It is a matter of personal tastes of course. The primary functional reason for having more than a single mast is to handle smaller sails while keeping to total sail area unchanged...a big safety factor for a sailboat with a small crew. When a squall comes on, you just lower the main and you immediately halved the sail area (achieving the effect of reefing of a larger single mast mainsail), and you can safely sail on with the foresail.

For a 2 mast design, I favor a schooner rig (gaffed of course)...in a trailerable size a schooner is easy for a single person to handle, and it kind to your sailor's soul. There was even a WB issue that featured a trailerable schooner.

[ 03-21-2005, 11:20 PM: Message edited by: Charles Burgess ]

[Norske3]

Thank you Mr Burgess.....a smaller version requires a complete new set of lines...ending up with a completely different boat.

[ 03-22-2005, 08:49 AM: Message edited by: Norske3 ]

[RodB]

Charles Burgess:

Both "Maid of Endor" and "Amos Brown" are very appealing and would be grand candidates for enlarging to about 28 - 30 feet..

I realize that this is a very large percentage... increase in size and they would both maintain more of the original design characteristics if only enlarged to about 24-25 feet...and I guess they would become a different boat...Whatever.. he sure got it right with these two.

Thanks in advance for your comments on scaling up the two designs below.

Original Specs on photos:
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid162/p52c32658a9da2b55c1ed22ff2a834a6b/f4bcea6b.jpg
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid162/pf751157c077b908603d6eb02277e6f0a/f4bcea6d.jpg
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid162/p35887279471cf6dbb1d3da22d97825b6/f4bcea6f.jpg
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid162/p4ebcf45b0f2c9229799a4cd24e059370/f4bcea70.jpg

RB

[ 03-23-2005, 02:56 AM: Message edited by: RodB ]

[Charles Burgess]

RobB,

If I am not mistaken, I think that both designs are from one of WB plans catalogs...the 40 boat catalog I think. It would be a good idea to contact the original designers to see if they have larger stock plans already available.

If you are serious about building one of these designs, you must define how much area you have for the build process and where you'll be keeping the boat after it is launched. If you want to trailer it, you have to consider the size of the area available to park it as well.

I'll obtain a copy of the WB plans catalog in order to get the study plans.

Even if you are not real serious at this time, this still would be a great opportunity for builders and potential builders to learn exactly what is involved in enlarging a design and the issues involved.

Edited to add: In going forward with this, I suggest that we create a new thread specifically for it.

[ 04-18-2005, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: Charles Burgess ]

[RodB]

Charles,

I have started another posting per your suggestion.

RB

[Steve Paskey]

Why do buyers insist on changing the design? The passage below is from Wm. Atkin's writeup on "Alone," a 13-foot lug-sailed skiff intended as a minimal camp cruiser. Published in 1953, but still an accurate account of a certain tendency in those who love boats:

------------------------------------------------
"Somehow men and women who love boats are, as a whole, the least regimented of mankind. As an example of this I might mention that the design number of Alone is 691: in other words we have produced 691 designs of one kind of boat or another and none of these are twin sisters -- all are different. And yet with all these designs to choose from, and all the other designer's work to choose from and all the books and magazines to peruse, requests continually come asking for something a little, and sometimes a lot, different from any of the numerous designs so far made. And so it is that every month two or more new designs from from pencil sketches to inked-in finished tracings -- new designs to suite the varied and intelligent tastes of good people who want something just a little different from the general run of boats: in other words a boat to exactly suit some particular requirement."
----------------------------------------------

Now I'll grant you that some folks don't have intelligent tastes, and some folks think they know enough to change things without the engaging the help of the designer or another experienced person, but that pretty much sums it up: No matter how many designs are in circulation, there's always someone who wants something just a little (or a lot) different.

Incidentally, other than Bolger, is there any other currently active designer who even comes close to Wm. and John Atkin in terms of their output?

[ 06-07-2005, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: Steve Paskey ]

[Kermit]

Raises a question in my mind: Do all those designs actually get drawn by Bolger, or does he have elves working for him who design under his logo? Inquiring minds want to know...

Seems to me there are inherent risks in selling plans--folks will modify. Same thing happens with home design. And then there are all the aftermarket products to "customize" cars and motorcycles, often resulting in unsafe situations.

I digress. When we built our current home, we hired an architect, because we didn't want something suited to resale rather than the way we live. We gladly paid his fee, and he worked out compromises as they became necessary, yelled at tradesmen who took it on themselves to change elements for whatever reason (and made them rip them out and FOLLOW THE PLANS), and generally saw to it that we got what we wanted.

Selling plans to homebuilders, whether they are building houses or boats, is shot through with risks. Houses are built under the eyes of building inspectors (let's not go there), and boats are generally not, unless headed for some commercial use.

What a frustration it must be for NAs and designers. I'd be tempted to have a stock answer: "Nope, wont work," and then hang up. If they already have bought the plans there's no problem, and if they haven't, trouble has been diverted.

But I could be wrong.

[Bob Cleek]

I just got around to looking at this thread. A passing comment: If you like Maid of Endor, but want it a bit bigger, do exactly what Atkin did. Build an Atkin Ben Bow. Ben Bow was also one of Billy Atkin's personal boats.

[Gary E]

How times change.....

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mark Van:
Being in the buiseness of trying to sell boat plans, I get a lot of inquiries about the designs, and people want to know my opinion about certain changes to the design.

Sometimes it is hard to be polite, when I would like to say that their ideas are just plain UGLY. I usually try to think of some technical reason, genaraly ending with saying that I don't do custom designs, I design what I like, and then sell plans to others who like the design. (That's why they are so inexpensive) After using the boats for over a year, I can't think of any changes that I would do to either design to improve them.

My favorite one was putting a pilot house on top of the Heart of Gold II design, just where you wouldn't want any extra windage or weight.

Mark
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now that Mark has some time and miles under the keel he is thinking of adding a bow thruster.

That seems like a "change" to me and most likely a good one.