John Brooks on Lapstrake Planking

[Jim M]

I notice that John Brooks’ lapstrake book is now nearly two years overdue. If the book is based on his articles, I hope they take another two, because for me his explanations are worse than useless.

See WoodenBoat No.157 Nov/Dec 2000 p. 78, on “Getting Out the Garboards”.

Luckily I have plowed through other attempts to explain this process and I think I have the idea, though I have yet to seen it adequately done. Here is what I would say:

Upper means towards the sheer -- always. Piece together a spiling batten longer and narrower than the plank to be spiled. Fix it to the molds in the space between the rows (upper and lower) of plank boundary marks. At each such mark, place the point of a compass and stretch the pencil end out past the lower edge of the batten, nearly to the upper edge, and scribe the arc. Keeping the same radius on the compass do the same for each upper mark; then turn the compass around, and placing the point on each plank upper boundary mark on each mold, scribe the arc lower. This gives two rows of arcs, one each on each edge of the spiling batten. A drawing batten fixed tangent to a row of arcs will describe a plank boundary. The other row will describe the other boundary. The spiling batten is placed atop the planking stock. The tangent points are transferred to the plank by driving a nail through them into the planking stock below. Note that the plank boundaries as plotted on the spiling batten are reversed in orientation. If one is “left” and the other “right”, they will be on the respective opposite sides on the actual plank. It had to be this way to give room for the compass to swing an arc. If this is still not clear, it is the fault of me and/or my editor.

Is this correct?

Here is what Mr. Brooks says; my interpolations are in parentheses:

“Let each section (of the spiling batten) lie naturally on the molds – don’t force it up or down (how do you bring it in to the stem?), and don’t try to make the pattern (the spiling batten, that is – it’s not a pattern and never will be) exactly occupy the space that the plank will). When that pattern’s positioned correctly, immobilize each of its joints with four more screws.

“Set a compass to roughly the width of the pattern (more, or less?) and record the distance with two arcs, like parentheses, on the pattern. At each mold and the transom, stick the point of the compass on the rabbet line (there is no such line on my plans – does this mean the lower edge of the garboard?) on the keelson and draw an arc from edge to edge on the pattern (edge to edge OF the “pattern”?) Do the same for each plank edge mark on the molds shown above (there is only one picture above this text, which shows a planking scarf being screw-clamped together; the next lower picture shows the spiling batten being nailed to a mold; the final picture shows the compass point on the upper garboard plank mark, not the “rabbet line”, unless that is the “rabbet line”, which I doubt). Record the shape of the stem’s curve with several compass arcs (when and how was the spiling batten fastened to the stem? What is the origin and radius of these “several compass arcs”?). Trace the stem profile (how?), and mark the plank’s lower-edge mark (which one?) on the back (which is the back?) of the pattern (see Boatbuilding by Howard I. Chapelle).

Dude, I paid money for YOU to explain this to me.

And so on. Apart from the patronizing tone sometimes found in Howard Chapelle, and sometimes even in John Gardner, and some of the slop written by Greg Roessel, this is the worst boatbuilding instruction prose I’ve ever seen. How can the standard of precision in the nomenclature of sailing be so high, while the standard in instruction be so low? Smacks of guildism, where these high priest dudes thought they were doing you a favor to give you to time of day. Screw that noise. There’s no more excuse for sloppy language than for sloppy boatbuilding.

[Carl Simmons]

In all fairness to John Brooks, anyone would have trouble describing what is required to get the Lapstrakes to lay correctly. I haven't read the book but I have seen the technique up close. Basically, you need to bevel the edge of the preceding plank so that it is on a tangent to where it lays against the mold. This way the inside of the planks for the most part, lie against the frame with very little gap. Obviously, there will be more beveling required near the stem then a midship. I believe John, epoxies his lapstrake designs and by beveling there is a lot of surface area for a good joint.

[WRB]

sounds to me like you are after a book that will actually build the boat for you...

[Meerkat]

Iain Oughtred seems to have done a bang up job. Of course, there are a lot of pics in his book which helps a lot.

[Wild Dingo]

Originally posted by Meerkat:
Iain Oughtred seems to have done a bang up job. Of course, there are a lot of pics in his book which helps a lot.And I must agree!... An excellent full explaination of all processes and proceedures with pictures and drawings along with the written words... nothing left to chance. :cool:

If nothing else is bought from Iain its his construction book.

that one sounds like a dud mate :rolleyes: ... I actually found I enjoyed Chappelles writting style :rolleyes:

Take it easy
Shane

[Jim M]

Iain Oughtred is by considerable margin the best boatbuilding instruction writer but his book has no account of spiling because he uses patterns.


sounds to me like you are after a book that will actually build the boat for you... Sounds to me like you choose to conceal what you know about it. What if anything might that be?

[Thaddeus J. Van Gilder]

how do you hang a plank without spiling it first?

[TomRobb]

Words explaining most any action are less than useful at best. Clear writing is rare. Try writing a clear expalination of tying your shoes that doesn't either leave something out or bore you to death. :(
Pictures are third best.
Video is much better.
Being there, in person, clears up everything. :D

[Ed Neal]

You sound very frustrated and unfortunately taking it out on your teachers.

I have built John Brook's Ellen lapstrake dinghy twice. Once as a two foot model and once fullsized. I have found his three part article on its construction in WoodenBoat to be exceptionally good. Yes, exceptionally. I learned techniques from his articles not covered anywhere else. Over the past two years I have read possibly 15 books on boat construction and I have found John's technique, photos, and prose to be in the top 2% of what is out there. Iian Ougtred's Clinker construction book is also excellent and part of the 2% club. And don't badmouth Rossell's book, it too is in the 2%.

Spiling a plank IS difficult to explain. I'm not going to try to explain it here but here's an insight that made it clearer for me.

Draw a circle with a compass. Mark the center of the circle. Without changing the radius, put the point of the compass on the circumference of the drawn circle and draw a second circle. Put the point at another location on the first circumference and draw a third circle. You will see that your second and third circles meet at the very center of your first circle. Thus any circle drawn on the circumference of a circle of equal radii will pass through the center of the circle.

In spiling with a compass you are drawing arcs, the partial circumference of a circle, on the spiling batten. The point of the compass is at the mark you want to transfer (the center of the circle). When you position the batten on the planking stock, you place the point of the compass on the spiling batten arc and draw a second and third circle. the second and third circle meet to re-create what was the center of the circle, the point you wished to transfer.

Try this technique with a few scraps of wood to transfer a trapazoid shape to another piece of wood. Working this simply will make it clearer. Hopefully you'll have an Eureka! moment and the lightbulb will go on.

Myself, I can't wait for John's book to come out in December.

[Frank Wentzel]

Ed

You just gave me the "Eureka Moment" - Thanks! :D

/// Frank ///

[Meerkat]

Ed, what you describes sounds suspiciously like bisecting a line with a compass. I still don't see how it relates though.

[Steve Lansdowne]

I took John's Ellen course, part I, at the WB school a year ago and just couldn't understand how to spile from the article, but darned if it didn't all make sense once I took the course. Granted, he's perhaps a better boat builder than writer, but English has trouble making sense sometimes.

[WRB]

Like others have said, once you get started, it all becomes obvious. A lot of techniques in boatbuilding are extremely difficult to explain in writing. Having said that, I learnt everything I know from Roessel, Leather, Pardey and McIntosh, and I can succesfuly spiel and hang a plank. My suggestion is that you read everyting you vcan on the subject and then go on down to the shed and work it out.

[Paul Scheuer]

The best technical writers I have known were, above all, teachers. The practice their art was secondary to their ability to transfer it. They knew their audience and focused on penetrating the boundary of ignorance, rather than their own knowledge.

[Jim M]

None of this is new:

"There is nothing difficult or mysterious about spiling, although it may seem so at times. Quite the contrary, spiling procedures are simple and straightforward, yet few of the numerous boatbuilding books and manuals now in print treat the subject competently and adequately. More often their directions are defective and misleading."

John Gardner, Building Classic Small Craft (1977) International Marine, p. 272.

I don't know why a builder should get away with anything less than competent and adequate when writing, just because he's a builder, any more than vice versa. And in any case, what's the editor's excuse?

[WRB]

The majority of builders who have written on the subject are not writers. They have come up through an apprentice tradition that does not include a course on communication. The fact that these guys can come up with an instructional tomb at all is, I think, bloody amazing and I am most appreciative of there efforts. Fact is, if they hadn't of written it down, the art would be completely dead by now. I find your attitude quite offensive, yes, you should be effing greatful that these "high priest dudes" spent the time and effort.

[wolfietuk]

I hear a lot of frustration being voiced. Remember that some teaching/writing techniques work well withsome and some work well with others. Writers of technical material must start with an assumption of a base knoweledge. The best book on boatbuilding will not teach you anything if you cant read a tape or add and subtract. Remember when a teacher is there in person you will physically do things screw them up and try again till you get them right. If you are learning from books dont expect any more. You will have to set up a mock up and play with some scrap wood, you will have your eureka moment. Then do it a few more times to enhance your technique. There is no book that you can read that will put the skill in your hands. The link between raw knoledge and physical skill must be nurtured and developed over time by you.

Rick

[Bill Perkins]

John Gardners' explanation of spiling in The Dory Book , backed up by Sam Mannings drawings is the definitve presentation of the subject I think . Gardeners background as teacher , writer , and boatbuilder was unique , but I still needed the drawings . It 's wonderfull how a good technical drawing can show so much more than a photogragh .

[ 10-04-2002, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: Bill Perkins ]

[Thaddeus J. Van Gilder]

I won't even try to describe the method I teach in my boatbuilding classes.

well, maybe a little.

I spile using a set of spiling blocks. the blocks are sized to accomodate every plank from light pram to a heavy cruiser and are made of cocobolo.
I have tried several spiling techniques in my classes, and it seems that beginners take to the block method the quickest.

[Jim M]

Ed Neal -- your explanation is the same as John Gardner's; Mr. Brooks' is -- different? The same?

WRB:


The majority of builders who have written on the subject are not writersWhose name is on the cover?


The fact that these guys can come up with an instructional tomb at all is, I think, bloody amazing Tomb indeed.


I find your attitude quite offensive, yes, you should be effing greatful that these "high priest dudes" spent the time and effort. Does this mean I have to give them money? Touch my forelock?

If the technique can't be shown in print, then selling the book is fraudulent.

[T.KAMILA]

I think Rick has it right. Can you learn to play baseball from a book? Can you learn to be a baseball player by going to watch baseball games? You can’t become a baseball player until you step up to the plate and try to hit the ball. At that moment you become a baseball player. My point is as Rick implies by “playing with some scrap wood” that you got to practice. Waste some wood man. Get out of the easy chair and off to the shop. Practice, experiment, practice some more. It’s called a “learning curve” or “paying your dues” no short cuts.

Go easy on yourself and others you’ll get it.

Tom

[WRB]

Um.... maybe you should consider buying a kit, or taking up knitting....

[ 10-06-2002, 02:23 AM: Message edited by: WRB ]

[john welsford]

Originally posted by Jim M:
I notice that John Brooks’ lapstrake book is now nearly two years overdue. If the book is based on his articles, I hope they take another two, because for me his explanations are worse than useless.

See WoodenBoat No.157 Nov/Dec 2000 p. 78, on “Getting Out the Garboards”.

Luckily I have plowed through other attempts to explain this process and I think I have the idea, though I have yet to seen it adequately done. Here is what I would say:

Upper means towards the sheer -- always. Piece together a spiling batten longer and narrower than the plank to be spiled. Fix it to the molds in the space between the rows (upper and lower) of plank boundary marks. At each such mark, place the point of a compass and stretch the pencil end out past the lower edge of the batten, nearly to the upper edge, and scribe the arc. Keeping the same radius on the compass do the same for each upper mark; then turn the compass around, and placing the point on each plank upper boundary mark on each mold, scribe the arc lower. This gives two rows of arcs, one each on each edge of the spiling batten. A drawing batten fixed tangent to a row of arcs will describe a plank boundary. The other row will describe the other boundary. The spiling batten is placed atop the planking stock. The tangent points are transferred to the plank by driving a nail through them into the planking stock below. Note that the plank boundaries as plotted on the spiling batten are reversed in orientation. If one is “left” and the other “right”, they will be on the respective opposite sides on the actual plank. It had to be this way to give room for the compass to swing an arc. If this is still not clear, it is the fault of me and/or my editor.

Is this correct?

Here is what Mr. Brooks says; my interpolations are in parentheses:

“Let each section (of the spiling batten) lie naturally on the molds – don’t force it up or down (how do you bring it in to the stem?), and don’t try to make the pattern (the spiling batten, that is – it’s not a pattern and never will be) exactly occupy the space that the plank will). When that pattern’s positioned correctly, immobilize each of its joints with four more screws.

“Set a compass to roughly the width of the pattern (more, or less?) and record the distance with two arcs, like parentheses, on the pattern. At each mold and the transom, stick the point of the compass on the rabbet line (there is no such line on my plans – does this mean the lower edge of the garboard?) on the keelson and draw an arc from edge to edge on the pattern (edge to edge OF the “pattern”?) Do the same for each plank edge mark on the molds shown above (there is only one picture above this text, which shows a planking scarf being screw-clamped together; the next lower picture shows the spiling batten being nailed to a mold; the final picture shows the compass point on the upper garboard plank mark, not the “rabbet line”, unless that is the “rabbet line”, which I doubt). Record the shape of the stem’s curve with several compass arcs (when and how was the spiling batten fastened to the stem? What is the origin and radius of these “several compass arcs”?). Trace the stem profile (how?), and mark the plank’s lower-edge mark (which one?) on the back (which is the back?) of the pattern (see Boatbuilding by Howard I. Chapelle).

Dude, I paid money for YOU to explain this to me.

And so on. Apart from the patronizing tone sometimes found in Howard Chapelle, and sometimes even in John Gardner, and some of the slop written by Greg Roessel, this is the worst boatbuilding instruction prose I’ve ever seen. How can the standard of precision in the nomenclature of sailing be so high, while the standard in instruction be so low? Smacks of guildism, where these high priest dudes thought they were doing you a favor to give you to time of day. Screw that noise. There’s no more excuse for sloppy language than for sloppy boatbuilding.Having had to write a lot of instruction sets for my boats so that customers do not find it neccessay to phone me in the middle of the night I can tell you that it is no easy task to describe some of these things. I do suggest that many of teh descriptions actually work, but not in the abstract. It is better of you are doing the job, and follow the book step by step so that you the reader dont have to visualise a complex process right through without a reality to check it by.

Mind you, for my own lapstrake boats I either put stringers in to make it easy to determine the shape of the plank, or build one myself and take the planking shapes and convert to offsets, even that is easier than trying to describe how to spile a garboard on a boat with a hollow entry.

John W

[Bayboat]

Jim: Friendly advice from an old boatbuilder: You should wait with your criticisms until you have built as many boats and written about it as much as those you malign. It's not always the fault of the writer when a reader doesn't understand. In this case, what are called for are patience and hands-on trying.
There is something of use in all of the books you cite. Instead of this kind of arrogant nit-picking, why not just tell us what you think is useful and we'll be the judges. We're all in the same game, building boats the best we can while learning from people willing to guide us. If the compass and connect-the-tangents method frustrates you so much, go for the little blocks and try it out; don't just read about it.

[Jim M]

The link between raw knoledge and physical skill must be nurtured and developed over time by you.
True but what does that have to do with locating the center of an arc? It's a point. You put the compass point on it. Where is the point? Is what the instructions must specify. No amount of physical skill can supply that knowledge.


Um.... maybe you should consider buying a kit, or taking up knitting....Maybe you should answer the questions, if you can.


You should wait with your criticisms until you have built as many boats and written about it as much as those you malign. I'm not maligning anyone. I'm criticizing his writing. It's a product. Criticism is relevant when it is needed, not after it's superfluous.


Instead of this kind of arrogant nit-picking, why not just tell us what you think is useful and we'll be the judges. If you will carefully read my message, you will find my own attempt at an explanation of spiling, the best I can do under the circumstances, and a request for corrections. If you will carefully read the replies, you will find not a word of substantive response to it; only a lot of complaining about "attitude"; which only shows whose attitude is the hangup here. What do you all have to defend?

[Bruce Taylor]

If all you wanted was a short course in spiling you might have said so, instead of maligning Rossel, Brooks and Chapelle. Keep in mind that a lot of people have learned to build boats from these guys.

But what the hell..I'll give it a go.

Let's say we're planning to spile a garboard.

I assume you have already cut your keel rabbet, and that you know exactly what the "rabbet line," "bearding line" and "middle line" are. If you do not, we can go no further. Go back and learn these terms, and when you know what's what you may proceed.

I assume, also, that your hull is lying "upside down" with the keel in the air.

I assume, finally, that you have "lined off" your plank, marking the "lower edge" of the plank-to-be on the moulds and stem (by "lower edge" I mean the edge closest to the sheerline of your upside down hull). You have a nice series of pen and pencil marks on your moulds, showing exactly how this garboard will run. Right?

Good. It's time to spile.

Select a spiling batten. This must be narrow enough to sit between the "lining" marks on your moulds and the rabbet on your keel. Also...this batten must be able to lie flat on the moulds between the lining marks and the rabbet without being forced, or "sprung" in the vertical plane -- that is, it must not be sprung toward either the keel or sheer. It must, of course, be sprung toward the moulds themselves, and toward the stemp and transom. However, it must not be sprung "up" toward the keel, or "down" toward the sheer.

So, if your eventual plank is going to have a lot of sweep to it your spiling batten will need to have a similar amount of sweep. You can cut a batten with a lot of sweep in it from a wide 1/4" plank...or you can build a funky, roughly-curved spiling batten out of short lengths of straight batten glued and nailed together.

When you have found or assembled a batten that will do the job, clamp it to the moulds, between the lining marks and the keel, being careful not to distort it in the vertical plane.

The end of the batten must be clamped to the stem as well, between the lining mark and the rabbet.

Now, take a compass and open it wide enough so that it can span the distance from rabbet to spiling batten, and from lining marks to spiling batten.

Now, plant the sharp foot of the compass on the middle line of the rabbet at any point along the keel. Draw a half arc on the batten (the exact size of the arc is unimportant).

Select another point on the rabbet, and repeat the procedure. Make these little arcs every six or eight inches, all along the spiling batten, until the "upper" (keelward) edge of the plank has been defined.

You might find it tricky to define the shape of the hooded end of the plank, where the garboard lies in the stem. Do the best you can, but expect to have to adjust the shape of the finished plank a bit, after you've gotten it out.

Now, plant the foot of the compass on one of the lining marks on your moulds, and repeat the spiling process, marking arcs on the spiling batten above each lining mark.

When you're done, remove the batten and lay it flat on the planking stock. Clamp it down.

Assume, for the sake of visualization, that the "rabbet" edge of the plank will be drawn on the upper portion of your planking stock (the part that is furthest from where you are standing).

Select one of the little arcs you've drawn on the batten. Plant the pointy foot of your compass at any point along the perimeter of this little arc. Draw a similar arc on the planking stock. Now, plant your compass foot in another point on the same arc (the one on the batten}. And draw another arc on planking stock. Draw it in such a way that you make a little "X" on the planking stock. (The size and shape of the "X" are unimportant. The center of the "X" is what interests you.)

Repeat the process at every arc on your spiling batten, making little Xs all over your planking stock.

When you've transferred every spiling mark to the planking stock, remove the spiling batten.

To draw in the final shape of your plank, simply connect the centers of the Xs on your stock. To get a fair line, run a bendy batten between points and draw in the plank.

Cut the plank out, and hang it.

[ 10-08-2002, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: Bruce Taylor ]

[Ed Neal]

Bruce:

Great explanation. One footnote though. Once you set your compass for the first arc, you must lock it and use that radius for all marks made with the compass.

[reddog]

Bruce;
You're a better man than me to pull that off.I'm waiting for the book.
Earl,(old spiley)

[Tom Jackson]

A refinement:

Very often, it is not possible to find or make a spiling batten that clears
both the bottom and top edges of the proposed plank. In many cases,
such a spiling board would have to be very narrow and almost
perfectly shaped, and you'll likely have to make a new one for almost every
plank.

It is much more common to spile for the bottom edge of the proposed plank
and measure for the top edge.

The sequence may help visualize:

a) use a limber batten to line off for the top edge of the proposed plank,
typically in such a way that the bottom of the batten represents
the top of the proposed plank. Once you are satisfied
that the batten is fair, mark where the batten crosses
the molds and where it lands in the stem rabbet
and sternpost rabbet (or transom).

b) measure from the top edge of the lower plank to the bottom edge
of the batten at each mold and at intermediate points between molds
as you wish. Write down these measurements, and put a
numbered reference mark on the lower plank
to indicate where the measurements were taken.

c) remove the lining-off batten

d) spring in the spiling board as described above, and use the compass
to swing arcs from the same locations on the lower plank where you
measured the plank widths before.

e) remove the spiling board, place it on the plank stock, swing the arcs
as described in previous posts.

f) batten off, and do not "tweak" the batten--this
is a curve you have to live with; if there is unfairness, it was there
in the previous plank and you'll have to match it. Strike the line.
Transfer the mold and intermediate locations -- a simple tick
across the scribed line will do, with a corresponding
reference number.

g) Remove the spiling board. For each of the mold reference marks,
measure out perpendicular to the line you've scribed by the
distance you've measured from the boat. Do this
for each of the plank widths you've recorded.

h) batten off through these resulting marks. You can tweak the batten
in this instance until you are satisfied with its fairness,
and when you're happy with it, strike the line.

I won't go into detail about getting the shape at the stem and
sternpost or transom, since this is just to elaborate on what was posted in
previous parts of the thread.

[ 10-08-2002, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Tom Jackson ]

[Bruce Taylor]

So, now we've heard from a few satisfied customers and the editor! All that remains is for John Brooks and Greg "Slop" Rossel to appear at JimM's doorstep and refund the 10% of net sales, or whatever royalties the poor sods receive.

This stuff is difficult to learn from a magazine or a thirty-dollar book. There's a reason why people will pay hundreds of dollars to attend the WoodenBoat School and learn from these guys in person.

[Sailman58]

To preserve the critical compass setting, draw an arc on the spiling batten from a marked center. That way you can reset the compass if you should drop it (now who would ever do something like that).

[DougC]

I was curious about the Brooks book since it came up in a search on Amazon (keyword "lapstrake"), a year ago. I guess it's still not out. I have to take your criticisms with a grain of salt since you don't seem to value anyone's attempts at imparting technical knowledge via the printed word. I successfully learned to spile from John Gardner's Dory Book. I also learned lofting and a lot of other tricky stuff from the books (with some helpful comments from folks on this forum). A year ago I din't know how to read an offset table and now I have a nice Swampscott dory on the water. So thanks Mr. Gardner, Mr. Rossel, Mr. Chapelle and all the rest.
Of course hand's on learning is the best, but most of us don't have a seasoned craftsman at our disposal. My great grandfather built (I'm told) beautiful boats, but he died before I was born. So, short of having a seance, I'm left to the books and whomever I can hunt down.
Doug

[Jim M]

So, now we've heard from a few satisfied customers and the editor! All that remains is for John Brooks and Greg "Slop" Rossel to appear at JimM's doorstep and refund the 10% of net sales, or whatever royalties the poor sods receive.
Yeah, it's like I keep telling my boss, "The reason I do such a crummy job is that you pay me so little. It's your fault." He just doesn't get it.

Who is the editor?


This stuff is difficult to learn from a magazine or a thirty-dollar book. There's a reason why people will pay hundreds of dollars to attend the WoodenBoat School and learn from these guys in person. Yeah, it's because they sure can't write! And as long as the myth and mystery is perpetuated they can get hundreds instead of singles!

Baloney. Spiling is attaching a batten to a building frame and drawing arcs on it with a compass, having correctly located a set of points as their origins; then using the arcs to relocate the origins on the plank as the set of points through which to run a batten. If you can't write it then get someone who can or don't write the book.

[Scott Rosen]

Thanks Bruce and Tom.

I start with the presumption that there are some things you can't learn only by reading. You have to be instructed by others who know how to do it, or you have to undergo lots of trial and error.

Playing a musical instrument is a good example. You could read a thousand books by a thousand virtuosos, and then when you pick up the instrument for the first time, you still won't be able to squeak a decent sound from it. Whose fault is that?

If you're not able or willing to take the time and learn hands-on from a good teacher, then you are relegated to the trial and error method. The books can offer a starting point, but you'll have to waste a lot of wood before you get it right.

Accept your limitations. Find a teacher. And don't blame your difficulties on someone else's writing.

[Bruce Taylor]

Baloney. Spiling is attaching a batten to a building frame and drawing arcs on it with a compass, having correctly located a set of points as their origins; then using the arcs to relocate the origins on the plank as the set of points through which to run a batten.Sure. And playing the saxophone is just a matter of blowing in the pointy end of a bent tube and moving your fingers up and down on a lot of little keys.

Rossel and co. are not "mystifying" a simple process; they are struggling to describe simple procedures in a very recalcitrant medium. "Process writing" is an inherently inefficient way of teaching mechanical operations like knot-tying, needlepoint, paper-airplane-folding, or small craft construction. Rossel, does it as well as anyone I can think of; nevertheless, this method of teaching can't succeed without the collaboration of a patient and sympathetic reader.

[Jim M]

Sure. And playing the saxophone is just a matter of blowing in the pointy end of a bent tube and moving your fingers up and down on a lot of little keys.
Technically, that's true. Do you maintain that spiling requires aesthetic judgment and technique comparable to musicianship? If so then it deserves recognition as a fine art with university programs leading to bachelor's, master's, and doctorate degrees, let alone several full length books, let alone one full length book.


. Rossel, does it as well as anyone I can think of; True. At least he describes the special considerations involved at the stem and transom, as opposed to Mr. Brooks' "make a few marks" -- his only words on the topic.

My beef with Mr. Roessel is a different topic, boat wise, but the same, quality wise. And he doesn't have the high priest thing either. I wouldn't have mentioned him if the quality lapse hadn't been so egregious.

[Jim M]

Accept your limitations. Find a teacher. And don't blame your difficulties on someone else's writing.
Yeah. Let's put that in bold print on the cover of every boatbuilding book and see how many books we sell.

My limitations aren't the problem pal and you have no reason to say so. Maybe you find it easier to attack me than to answer my criticism, maybe because you can't -- I have to figure if you could have, you would have. So you're either pretending to know what you couldn't possibly know (about me), or you're concealing your knowledge (about spiling), I don't know why -- are you a high priest? A bookseller? Or you're concealing your ignorance on both counts, which is understandable, but of course you wouldn't need to conceal it if you could resist the temptation to attack me. But now that you have, let's see if you can back it up.

As for difficulties, the only difficulties I have are understanding this person's writing. Like I said. And I blame them on the writer.

[Scott Rosen]

I've built one boat from a book, with no help. I've maintained a much larger boat with a combination of book learning and help from others. I was trying to be polite, but the truth is, you seem to be having great difficulties where other people do not. That is the only thing I know about you.

You don't seem to want constructive help. You want to bash the authors of some books and get us to join in the bashing. Sorry, no takers.

[Jim M]

I've built one boat from a book, with no help. If so then why do you say


Accept your limitations. Find a teacher. And don't blame your difficulties on someone else's writing.
Your experience disproves your own argument. Of course it's possible to build a boat from a book; if it's a good book, should go without saying, however . . .


I was trying to be polite, but the truth is, you seem to be having great difficulties where other people do not. You know nothing of mine; what do you know of "other" peoples' difficulties?

You are the one who made this personal by attacking me instead of answering my criticism. I pointed out the irrelevance of that and now you want to talk about "other people". Why can't you talk about the article?

Pretty soon I'm going to give my explanation of what I think is the psychology behind this. I think there's a link between the psychology and the low standards. Oh what the heck, only a couple more lines. Boatbuilding (the first time especially) is a serious challenge to your identity, your view of yourself, i.e. what if you mess up? Especially with a pile of books saying you can do it. When you actually do it, the authors become less remote and godlike and more fraternal. Then, a perceived attack on them is perceived as an attack on you, and your hard-won but still new and fragile identity as a boatbuilder.

No offense, it's just a theory.

[WRB]

So, Jim,
Are you actually building a boat at the moment? If so, what boat and how helpful did you find the books that you have in getting you as far as the planking?
Just curious

[Bruce Taylor]

a perceived attack on them is perceived as an attack on you, and your hard-won but still new and fragile identity as a boatbuilderHe he. This is getting comical.

Jim, if my "identity" depended on my ability to make boats it would be fragile indeed!

My identity has a lot more to do with writing, actually. I'm mainly a poet, but I've published a number of "how to" articles and a rather detailed book about building puppets. I used to teach process writing to engineering students at the University of Toronto.

I've built a couple of boats -- a traditional lapstrake sailing canoe, and a tack-and-tape skiff. I've also built guitars, mandolins, fine furniture, garden sheds, marionettes, and some really good seafood soup.

I've learned to do all this stuff by reading books and magazines. I've never taken lessons in woodworking or lutherie. As odd as this might sound, I've never even watched another craftsman at work.

Sooooo....I know a bit about the difficulty of learning mechanical procedures from books.

I can't evaluate Brooks's articles, because I haven't read them carefully. However, Greg Rossel's Building Small Boats is, in my opinion, an extremely thorough and well-organized piece of work. It is also beautifully illustrated. I have nothing but admiration for it.

If you think what he has accomplished is easy, I challenge you to give it a try. Teach me to fold a paper airplane -- the design of your choice.

[ 10-15-2002, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: Bruce Taylor ]

[Ed Neal]

This is just getting strange. I don't think I've seen words like "godlike", "fraternal" or "high priest" on this forum before. High priest is not one of the more common pigeonholing categorizations one hears on the street these days.

OK. So what's your point? Is it that there are flaws in these author's works? Sure there are flaws. And for you, spiling technique is the big one. Are there any other parts of these books or articles that you found to be informative? That gave you some insight or technique you didn't have before? Any value in that?

As one of my teachers back in film school said, "you're trying to find ONE recipe for soup." If one book doesn't have the answer try another. It's that simple.

It's just a book, dude. If it is helpful, great. If not, fine. Move on.

[Doug Hamilton]

I read the previous rant about upper never being lower and knew right away that I could
offer my empathy in regard to the effect of trying to comprehend a technique from reading
written words of instruction. Of course, the strength of the authors of boat-building books lies
in skills in the design and construction not in writing. >From reading, I have learned most
about small craft from the books written by John Leather, by Walter J. Simmons and by Barry
Thomas and from the websites put up by Walter J. Simmons and by Paul Gartside.

Here let me make a small point about lapstrake planking that I encountered in building my
first boat other than a canvas-covered canoe built upon a set of steel clad stocks previously
made by others.. It's my contention that an error in spiling a plank is introduced if the spiling
batten is not propped against the land of the previous plank. The error seems not to be
apparent in any but a short boat or possibly one with a full bow. In other replies to you there
is no mention of this fact.

I have finished planking a lapstrake hull of grown wood. It is now off the moulds and upright
for the first time awaiting the imposition of ribs. The hull is that of a pram only eight feet
long and four feet wide. Planks except for the sheer-strake are 3/8 inch thick. Each plank
has to be bent longitudinally almost to the breaking point in a hull this short and this wide.

I lined off the planking using lining battens over the five moulds and two transoms. With the
lining battens in place, I was operating under the impression that I could obtain the shapes of
all the planks from the lining battens, at once, without further relating the shape of one plank
to the shape of the previous one. I thought the shape of each strake was the shape that could
be derived from the area between each adjacent pair of lining battens. I drew all the shapes
on cheap, thin plywood simply by tracing the outer edges of each pair of adjacent lining
battens. In this way I cut out templates for the central plank (two garboards in one), and
each of the seven other strakes. It was not until after the lining battens were removed and
the templates offered up that I became aware that other than the shape of the central plank,
all seven shapes obtained were wrong. The templates would not fit against each other fairly:
they were not curved enough to do so. I had to start over.

On the edge of each mould, I had marked the points where the battens had crossed the
mould. I continued by hanging the central plank. It had to be temporarily fastened to the
moulds. in order to remain centred on the centre-line. Then I cut the chamfer that forms the
land. Work on the central plank was finished. In order to derive the shape of the remaining
planks I had to treat each one individually, in sequential order and only after hanging the
previous plank and chamfering the land off it.. (The correct shape was found by swinging arcs
of a common radius on a spiling batten from each point of two sets of points on the stocks, one
set that will serve to establish the upper edge of the strake and the other set that will serve to
establish the lower edge.) On the stocks while the hull was being built, the upper set of
points consisted of the marks on the edges of the moulds derived from the positions of the
lining battens and the lower set of points consisted of points at spacings of about eight inches
along the ridge-line (arris) formed by the removal of material for the land between the gains.
For almost each strake I had to make a different spiling batten because the curvature of each
one differed so much. For each strake I cut a template to the desired shape as derived from
the spiling batten. (The desired shape was established by drawing a fair curve through each
of the two sets of points found by swinging intersecting arcs of the common radius onto the
plank stock from any two points on each of the arcs marked previously onto the spiling
batten.)

The important point of this long exposition of this amateur effort at boat-building follows. In
order to obtain the correct shape of my short hull each spiling batten had to be lain so that 1)
its upper edge was in contact with the moulds close to the marks establishing the upper set of
points and so that 2) its lower edge was in contact with the surface of the land on the previous
strake and not in contact with the moulds immediately above the previous strake. It seems
obvious now that if the spiling batten is not propped up on the land of the previous plank the
transverse inclination of the spiling batten is incorrect and the overall shape thereby obtained
lacks enough curvature to contact the land of the previous plank. That this lack of curvature
should show up in a short hull that necessarily has much greater curvature than a long hull
seems also to be obvious now. Furthermore, the planks are so short that edge set is
impossible over the length of the plank. Therefore, to rely on edge-set as a correction is not
practicable in a short boat whereas it may be practised in a larger boat unknowingly.

[Jim M]

Now we're getting somewhere. Funny there should be mention of Greg Roessel. His diagram of lapstrake spiling shows the batten edge running through the lands of the plank below it, although the text does not mention this, or why, it only says it's the same as in carvel planking, which it's not. John Brooks says nothing.


It's my contention that an error in spiling a plank is introduced if the spiling
batten is not propped against the land of the previous plank. That's what I would think, because of course when the batten overlaps the previous plank and the marks are made from the same point, they span a greater distance across the batten, depending in the case of each point on the curvature of the hull at that point, so you have a different set of points, which means you could not have the same curve, and they can't both be right.


For almost each strake I had to make a different spiling batten because the curvature of each
one differed so much. That sounds like one of those things that sounds like a lot of "extra" work until you find out how much work you can waste trying to fit a plank that ultimately won't fit so you have to start over.

Did you use your lining battens as guides for planing the bevel or chamfer on the upper edge of the previous planks?

[Doug Hamilton]

Jim M. The answer to the question as to whether I used the upper edge of the lining batten itself as a centre for any arc is no. In fact, I was using nail holes as the centres of the arcs.

Plans called for 5/16” planking but I used 3/8” thick planking just to err on the conservative side. The width of the land that is twice the thickness of the planking is normally attainable, therefore I made lands that were 3/4” wide. Not that it matters much, but I made my lining battens 3/4” wide simply to simulate the laps in the planking.

I lined off the lining battens to yield a pleasing arrangement. The lining battens were fastened in place over the bow transom, the five moulds and the stern transom - seven points of attachment for each lining batten. So as not to interfere with the ability of the lining batten to attain a fair curve I wanted there to be no holes in the battens. Accordingly, instead of using nails through the battens, I used staples to straddle the battens and so clamp them down in place. (The staples were of the kind used to hold electrical wiring to floor joists and partition studs in house building. Each staple consisted of two nails and a plastic strut). Each staple In each mould and transom produced two nails holes - one hole on either edge of the batten. After stapling the lining battens in place I made a mark with a pencil on each mould and transom along the upper edge of each batten - seven marks for each batten. Each pencil mark served to indicate the position of a nail and, after its removal, the position of a nail hole - one of seven points in a curve representing the upper edge of a strake.

After making the marks, I removed all the lining battens. They had served their purpose. The nail hole in each of the marks on the edges of the moulds and transoms provided a point from which to swing an arc onto a spiling batten.

[Doug Hamilton]

Jim M. I see, too late, that I have not answered the question asked.

The answer as to whether I used the lining battens as guides for planing the bevel on the upper edge of the previous plank is no. I followed a set procedure of three steps. First, at each mould and transom, I used a short straight edge or the side of my box plane to bridge the transverse gap along the edge of each mould between 1) a mark as obtained from a lining batten and representing a point on the upper edge of the new plank and 2) a continuous line on the previous plank as marked at a uniform distance of 3/4 inch from its upper edge by a marking gauge. Secondly, at each mould and transom, I cut a chamfer and by using the straight edge or the plane I checked almost every pass made with my plane in so doing. Thirdly, I cut the chamfer in each of the six longitudinal gaps between moulds. As the only guide to maintaining the correct slope in fashioning these longitudinal chamfers between moulds, I continually observed the thickness of the remaining edge of the plank, once with almost every pass of the plane, and tried to maintain a straight line of transition between the thickness of the edge remaining at one mould and that at the next adjacent mould to which I was heading. The hazard in cutting this chamfer lies in leaning on the plane too much thereby causing the plank to deflect under the pressure and cutting away too much material, in turn, producing a longitudinal concavity that will become apparent from inboard the hull when it is planked.

My moulds were cut to the inboard shape of the hull. The lining battens were fastened temporarily to the moulds. Although their thickness was made to be 3/8 inch, the thickness of the planking, there was no particular merit in their being so for me. I have planes but none equipped with a bar projecting from one side as are those used in Tom Hill’s method.

Since the lining battens, as is customary, were rectangular in cross section, the outboard surface of each lining batten was parallel to the surface of the moulds at the laps. As I see it, an outboard surface parallel to the moulds is not right for the method I think is called Tom Hill’s method and the method shown in Figure 5-48 of Iain Oughtred’s “Clinker Plywood Boatbuilding Manual” because the bar on the plane contacts the upper edge of a rectangular lining batten whereas to be aligned so as to obtain the correct transverse angle of inclination of the land on the plank previously hung, the bar should contact the lower edge. To that end, the lining batten needs to be chamfered so that the upper edge is narrower than the lower edge to the extent that the lower edge is contacted by the bar on the plane, not the upper edge. This wee difference would likely be significant, if at all, only in a short, wide boat with excessive curvature at the ends such as mine. Since I have no experience in this method, I expect I am being overly rigorous.

Once a lining batten is fastened in an acceptably fair position relative to the others, its upper edge represents the upper edge of the new plank. Any point on the upper edge of the lining batten represents a point on the curve of the upper edge of the new plank. On any mould, the point where the upper edge of each lining batten meets the mould is the only important point to be obtained from the lining batten. For the new plank, the point on the mould is the tangent point, the point of departure of the new plank from the mould. It is this point at each mould and at each transom that I used as one end of the transverse line simulated by my straight edge in chamfering the previous plank preparatory to the spiling of the new plank. It is coincidentally a point on the inboard surface of the new plank, one of but a few - seven in my hull - that serves to define the upper edge of the new plank, visible only from inboard the hull.

Once the previous plank has been hung, its upper edge is fixed. Its shape has to be accepted. From that upper edge, the width of the lap - 3/4” on my hull - has to be marked by a series of uniform measurements or as a continuous curved line by a marking gauge. Any one of the marks in the series or any point in the continuous curve represents a point in the line marking the top of the ridge (arris) of the land yet to be chamfered. The new plank has eventually to be fashioned so as to contact the entire surface of the land including the ridge. For the new plank, any one of the marks in the series or any point in the continuous curve is a point of contact with the land. It is such a mark at each mould and at each transom that I used as the other end of the transverse line simulated by my straight edge in chamfering the previous plank. It is coincidentally a point on the inboard surface of the new plank, one of many that serves to define the lower edge of the new plank, visible only from outboard the hull and the more important of the two edges.

It should be noted in passing that in order to obtain the correct shape for the new plank both upper and lower boundary curves of the edges have to be lain out on the same surface. All of the points through which the two curves are to be drawn have to be lain out on that same surface and all the arcs used to obtain the points have to scribed on that same surface. For only the inboard surface of the new plank are points found in the building of a boat from loftings made from offsets given to the inboard surface. As a consequence, the requirement that all points be on the same surface is met automatically and so becomes a matter of no abiding concern to a builder. I do not yet know about boats built to offsets given to the outboard surface.

I answered your question in the first statement. The three statements as to what I did are facts. Other statements as to why I did what I did are conjectures. Take them with a grain of salt. I do.

[imported_Steven Bauer]

This just in from Denice at the WBStore:

"We have not received John Brooks book yet, but are hoping to have the book in
time to ship to the WoodenBoat Show"

Will John be there this year? Be nice to have it signed.

Steven

[Scot]

Books are en-route from the printer... which means we can't be certain they will be at the show. 50/50 chance at this point.

John is teaching at the WoodenBoat School this week, so, he won't be making it to the show.

-Scot

[Tom Jackson]

If you can get to the WoodenBoat Show in Newport this weekend, you can see Ross Gannon of Gannon & Benjaming Marine Railway, Martha's Vineyard, do a spiling demonstration that will answer your questions (Friday, 2 p.m.)

I agree that the the literature on spiling is not well done. The writing really isn't easy: imagine, for example, writing instructions on how to pick up a suitcase. "Insert the fingers of the right hand, but not the thumb, through the handle until the handle rests nearly in the palm..." It's easier than it sounds, but the problem in writing is that the detail almost has to be extreme in order to totally eliminate questions or doubts.

Several things are generally not well explained.

First, the spiling board has to lie "naturally" to the molds or frames. "Flat" may be a misnomer, since everything in this exercise is curved. If you start from the middle and work out, this is easy. If you force the spiling board closer or farther away from the target plank, you are introducing "edgeset" in the spiling board, which will require edgeset of the plank to be installed, which is not a good thing.

Second, the angle of the set of the spiling plank is important. When you place the spiling plank down at the midship point and clamp it, its cross-sectional shape needs to lie in the same plane as the cross-sectional shape of the plank to be installed. If it's skewed, the curve will be in error, and the error will especially show up in the ends.

Third, all you're really doing with the compass is locating a fixed point on the curve of the plank. You could just do this with a ruler by placing it on the face of the spiling board with one end on the point you want: scribe a line, and note a measaurement: "3 inches in that direction is a known point of the plank curve." The arc method is quicker. You scribe an arc of pretty good length, say a fifth or a quarter of a circle, or as much as you can get. You leave the compass to the same setting, then put the steel point on any point of the arc, scribe an arc from there, and then do it again a second time from as far on the other end of the arc as you can get the steel point. The important principle is that these arcs intersect at the center of the circle of which your original arc is a section. In other words, you have located the exact point from which the original arc was scribed. The farther apart you can get your two arcs, the easier it is to identify the point, because the arcs intersect closer to perpendicular.

Another problem is that different builders do it differently. I only ever spile one plank edge. After the points are transferred to the plank stock, battened off, and scribed, then I transfer direct measurements of plank widths taken at known points—at molds, usually, which you must mark, along with the positions or very good estimates of stem, sternpost, transom, etc., on the spiling board while it is in place.

Seeing a clear demonstration, like the one Harry Bryan did in Rockland during the last two WoodenBoat Shows, clears up the questions very quickly.

[ 07-20-2004, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: Tom Jackson ]

[Ken Hutchins]

I have 3 books on boat building, Chapelle, McIntosh, Pardy. I read and reread till I understood. Here is the result LOD 36' all full length planks, no butt blocks. Some people understand what they read, some don't.
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid81/peb3af220b8e481aa9283e6aab5f73772/fafd4acb.jpg
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid81/pf1562c34713fdad7c309a8a6f516372d/fafd4ac1.jpg