Raised panels aesthetic advice requested

[Spissgatter W-9]

So, I thought I would finish the interior cabinets and bulkheads the classic way with raised panels. I've got the hang of making them, but could use more insight as to matching panel layout to the various shapes. Some pieces seem to lend themselves to construction with narrow and long panels others with fairly square large panels.

Is there a rule of thumb on layout that would, for example, say everything has to be narrow if you start that way? I've seen pics in magazines and books but not enough to understand how this is applied throughout a boat's interior. Any do's or don'ts you could share? Thanks

[Dave Fleming]

Ayup the 1.681 to 1 ratio is hard to beat.

Other items to be kept in mind.

The grain run of the rails and stiles and the matching of the panels, one to the other alongside and vertical.

Nothing worse than sit in a close salon and be surrounded with mismatched frame and panels.

And the less 'busy' the grain the better.
Doesn't mean that bland is in but, calm is better.
If ya get my drift.

[Ross M]

There is an alternative to the "golden rectangle" (1.618:1); it is 1.414:1 (long side = short side times the square root of 2).

While the golden rectangle is celebrated artisticly, at least one text (The Elements of Dynamic Symmetry, Hambridge) contends that much of nature prefers 1.414:1.

Or at least that is what I remember.

Ross

[ 07-07-2004, 02:04 AM: Message edited by: Ross McDonough ]

[Wild Wassa]

Searches could also be done for 'golden section' or 'golden mean'.

Extending the ratio, is 1 : 1.618 : 2.4 or more accurately, 1 : 1.618 : 2.48

Warren.

ps, it could be 2.483 or whatever looks good.

[ 07-07-2004, 03:56 AM: Message edited by: Wild Wassa ]

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

This interests me, too.

I think that I understand the Golden Ratio, but I feel that there should be a formula for the relationship between area of panel and area of frame; narrow framing looks "mean" and wide framing looks "clumsy". Is there a formula for this?

I fitted out Mirelle's cabin using matchboarding for bulkheads and doors and panelling for fore and aft structures, noting that Fife used matchboarding bulkheads in his plainer boats, and feeling that too much panelling would appear "busy", but I wonder if this is approved of?

[Wild Wassa]

The shape is proportional 1 : 1.618, while the proportions within the shape require borders and depths to remain harmonious, which embraces the extended ratio.

Warren.

[ 07-07-2004, 03:21 AM: Message edited by: Wild Wassa ]

[Meerkat]

http://www.apackrat.com/books/architecture /search/christopher+alexander/ (http://www.apackrat.com/books/architecture/search/christopher+alexander/)

http://www.mediamatic.nl/Doors/Doors2/Alex ander/Alexander-Doors2-E1.html (http://www.mediamatic.nl/Doors/Doors2/Alexander/Alexander-Doors2-E1.html)

Christopher Alexander has had a huge and ongoing impact, not only in Architecture, but also in Computer Science. His notion of Pattern Languages has found wide application in both fields. His books where, I belive, first published in the 1930's.

You're likely going to have to search further on the web, or find his books at the library, but he has written on proportions, both large and small.

[ 07-07-2004, 03:31 AM: Message edited by: Meerkat ]

[Wild Wassa]

Meerkat, the guy who designed the proportions of the Acropolis, may have beat him to the punch, ... but who speaks Ancient Greek?

Warren.

[ 07-07-2004, 03:40 AM: Message edited by: Wild Wassa ]

[Meerkat]

Mmmm... maybe for classical heroic scale structures, but Alexander speaks to more intimate spaces, both public and private.

"Acropolis" mate ;)

[Wild Wassa]

Mate I have trouble spelling my own name.

[Meerkat]

Oh, is it supposed to be Willy Wanka? ;)

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Parthenon, mate. The Acropolis is the rock on which it stands, the ancient citadel of Athens.

And the bloke whose name you are thinking of was Iktinos; he did the drawings and Callicrates was the lead contractor.

Interstingly, the accounts survive. ;)

[Wild Wassa]

ACB, I'm getting old too.

Originally posted by Wild Wassa:
"... or whatever looks good."

Warren.

ps, Originally posted by Meerkat:
"Oh, is it supposed to be Willy Wanka?"
Oh well, I can see now that rather than mixing it with a few academics ... I should have just drawn pictures.

[ 07-07-2004, 04:01 AM: Message edited by: Wild Wassa ]

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Working in shipping, with an interest in the history of art, I get to spend quite a bit of time pottering around the Acropolis!

Iktinos and Callicrates, with detailing by Praxilites, and Pericles in charge of raising the finances - now, there's a team for you! ;)

[Mrleft8]

All "golden rule" stuff aside..... If you want to enhance the feeling of verticality IE: you want your cabin interior to feel taller than it is, make your panels narrower. If you want to emphisize the width or length, make the panels wider than tall. In any case, I'd tend towards more smaller panels than fewer larger ones. Solid wood moves. The more wood there is in each panel, the more movement you'll have. For a boat interior I'd try to keep each individual panel under 12" in width if possible, unless it's a really huge boat. In fact, I'd probably go with flat panels anyway, so as to minimize the "activity" in the joiner work.

[Bob Smalser]

Originally posted by Mrleft8:
All "golden rule" stuff aside..... If you want to enhance the feeling of verticality IE: you want your cabin interior to feel taller than it is, make your panels narrower. If you want to emphasize the width or length, make the panels wider than tall. In any case, I'd tend towards more smaller panels than fewer larger ones. Solid wood moves. The more wood there is in each panel, the more movement you'll have. For a boat interior I'd try to keep each individual panel under 12" in width if possible, unless it's a really huge boat. In fact, I'd probably go with flat panels anyway, so as to minimize the "activity" in the joiner work.I agree. Depends on the boat...those proportional rules apply, but are best in their literal form for stand-alone pieces, either furniture or walls.

Many boat interiors are cramped in height, dark, and the wood lives in big moisture and temperature swings. To me that means larger panel float tolerances, thinner panels (the traditional 3/4" can look clunky in a smaller, narrower panel), slightly taller and slightly narrower frame panels, narrower stiles, and a lot of white in the upper wall panels and overheads.

The smaller space of a boat interior can get both busy and dark very quickly. I'd make some painted cardboard panel mockups to see what pleased my eye best. Narrower, thinner panels allow easy bookmatching from flatsawn 5/4 stock...a good way to get subtle, pleasing figure out of cheaper, unfigured stock...the resulting flat, thinner panel has one less reveal line/shadow for less clutter, looks larger than it actually is, but remains traditional. Simple stuff with a band or TS and 12" planer...use unfigured or q-sawn rails and stiles if you bookmatch panels so as to further minimize clutter.

But in the end it's all personal taste. Personally, I think the modern full-brightwork teak and mahog interiors are awful...way too dark and so much wood figure you can really see any of it....so if your tastes are different, do it to your taste.

[ 07-07-2004, 08:53 AM: Message edited by: Bob Smalser ]

[WindHawk]

I skipped Aesthetics while I was getting a philosophy degree in college, as I always thought it was mere opinion. I was probably wrong. Think of what boat builders have always known, and what really surprised the aerodynamic engineers when they first realized it: if it looks "right" it probably is "right" in the sense of minimizing hydraulic/areo drag. Jets not only look cool, the "cool look" approaches the correct solution to the problem of drag.

Why this is true is a metaphysical problem, and much ink has been spilled on it without much progress. I suppose the Neurobiologists are going to come up with some form of reductionist argument involving physical brain structures; but I won't believe them either. :rolleyes:

[Dave Fleming]

Hmmm, time perhaps to mention David Pye?

The Nature and Art of Workmanship
The Nature and Aesthetics of Design.

[Wiley Baggins]

Originally posted by Bob Smalser:
Many boat interiors are cramped in height, dark...

The smaller space of a boat interior can get both busy and dark very quickly...

...full-brightwork teak and mahog interiors are awful...way too dark....While I excluded the "it's all personal taste" comments that certainly can't be argued with, I have to second the idea that most boats benefit from a mix of paintwork and bright finished wood so that they seem less cave-like. This is particularly true if you have to spend any amount of time below when the weather and natural light are marginal.

With respect to the "golden mean" stuff, things like tapering, curving cabin tops and breaks at the deck/cabin intersection really benefit from a good eye and some time with a sketch pad. Hopefully you can lay hands on some books (and/or magazines) with photos of a variety of interiors to stimulate the creative process.

[htom]

The interior rectangle and the exterior rectangle should both be in the same proportion, 1:1.681 or 1:1.8 or whatever. Gahh. Been too long.

Googles. Lots of hits, no concise explanation that I was lucky to find.

http://www.constructingtheuniverse.com/HeavenlyIsle.html

http://www.constructingtheuniverse.com/Herter%20Cabinet.html

http://members.fortunecity.com/petemullard/mobaing.html << maybe the best of the hits I got. There are books devoted to this topic.

[Meerkat]

In his book on yacht joinery, Bruce Bingham talks about the troubles that shore carpenters run into when trying to build for boats: in part, the joints and etc. are different aboard ship to compensate for the higher humidity and greater "working" of the wood.

One thing I recall is that a ship-lap joint is used for a door in lieu of what one uses ashore...

[WindHawk]

I did a quick perusal of David Pye, his work looks interesting, and worth further study, but it doesn't appear that he addresses the ontological question of why an object of obvious aesthetic appeal such as a boat or a jet would coincide with the correct technical solution to a problem (unless I missed that by trying to hurry). How is it that something that looks fast, is fast?

The appeal to cultural acclimation doesn't wash, since the very fastest vehicles we know of are not sleek at all; think of the Voyager satellites, 10's of miles per second, and with no air drag: no slippery shape.

Why is it that the Star Ship Enterprise had to have a sleek shape in order to be beleivable, when there is no air there? A square block of lead "flys" quite nicely in space. It seems more innate than cultural to me, and then we're back to the ratio's of wall panels and Corinthian Columns... Why do they "feel" right?

Spooky, I'm going sailing.

[Bruce Hooke]

Two basic principles of design are repitition and contrast. One way to look at these two principles is to say that if things are going to be similar they should be the same, and if they are going to be different they should be really different. Repetion sets up a rhythm that is visually satisfying. Contrast, when there is not so much of it that it just creates a visual mish-mash creates interest.

So, for example, I would do things like trying to keep the rail and stile widths the same throughout or at least, say, the same on all cabinet doors, and the same on all bulkheads, but not necessarily the same between the bulkheads and the cabinet doors. If you can get to some good alignments so that say, the panels on the bulkheads (if there are any) line up with the cabinet door panels, that would create a nice sense of consistency. IMOOP consistency (repitition) will turn out to be more important that things like the golden section, which can be hard to apply when the dimensions of the various parts are as constrained as they are in a boat interior.

As to your question about panel widths -- I'm not sure you need to do all narrow panels as long as there is an obvious reason why some panels are wide and some are narrow. To be certain whether wide panels would look OK I would need to sketch it out or mock it up. As others have noted there is a good reason to use narrow panels on a boat -- they don't move as much as wide panels would. For this reason narrow panels are probably more traditional. If you decide to go the narrow panel route one way to approach it would be to try to set a rule that no panel will be wider than half the height for vertical panels or higher than half the width for horizontal panels -- what I'm getting at here is that the proportions are at least as important visually as the numeric dimensions. Of course, if you are mixing horizontal and vertical panels then there needs to be an obvious visual reason why you use one orientation in some places and the other in other places. I would likely settle on vertical panels except in obviously horizontally spaces such as below berths.

[PeterSibley]

Good evening everyone.While everyone is here, could I ask your opinions regarding matchboard dimensions.I agree with ACB re " fussiness" but the width is a difficult thing to decide.The aesthetic is work boat, but good workboat, perhaps the kind of thing you would expect to find on a pilot cutter.The boat has 10'beam and 34 'oa....to give a scale.I'm going to use matchboard on bulkheads ,beneath bunks, in fact everywhere ....so I need to avoid the fussiness thing.Some but not all wil be painted,probably a cream satin finish.The bright sections will be Queensland red cedar.

[ 07-07-2004, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: PeterSibley ]

[Bruce Hooke]

Peter,

It may be just me, but I can't recall ever coming across the term "matchboard", so I'm wondering if we, here in my corner of the world, use another name for what your talking about...

- Bruce

[Spissgatter W-9]

Gentlemen, thank you for this wonderful discourse. Perhaps I can reframe some principles as follows:

Asthetics -- the golden rule provides guidance as to proportions of L & W that are appealing. -- However it is more a goal than an iron clad rule. -- Rails and stiles dimensions should be consistent and not vary as could be the case if slaveishy adhering to the golden rule would dictate. -- Consistency is an element of what looks good. Color and contrast are also elements to consider. White panels with accents of varnished wood either trim or drawer/door faces work well to keep a lighter interior and avoid monotony. Panel dimensions can give illusion of greater width and height which is a consideration for certain boats. Contrast such as wood grain going opposite directions from panel to panel is not attractive.

Mechanics -- Boats aren't designed according to the golden rule. So, we shouldn't expect that it will be possible to create every panel with dimensions / or X 1.618. -- A mix of wide/narrow/square may be required as a function of where the panel is to be put eg. below the berth, settee, galley or bulkhead. If it makes mechanical sense then one can deviate from the strict application of the golden rule. Panels shouldn't exceed 12" in width to avoid excessive, destructive shrinking and swelling as humidity changes.

Have I captured your thoughts? Will post some pics soon so you can let me know where I went awry.
Thanks again.

[Stiletto]

In old houses there is often seen tongue and groove boards known as matchlining. These used to be made by a pair of matched planes for the tongue and the groove. Maybe the term derives from that.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Yes, what I mean by matchboarding is vertical strakes of wood fitted together with tongued and grooved edges, with the edge of the join on the visible side relieved with a V shape. Ours, on a boat which is roughly the same size as Peter's, are 3" wide, but wider would certainly be possible and narrower would be too fussy, I think.

[Mike Field]

.
Just as a little mathematical footnote, the Golden Ratio is easily calculated if you forget it at the psychological moment --

A rectangle whose short side is A and whose long side is B is a Golden Rectangle when A : B as B : (A + B).

If B = 1, then A is the Golden Ratio, 0.618...
_______

Edited to add: Lulu has some nice boarding in her cockpit (possibly below as well.) If you chase back the stories that some kind person collected for us recently you might find a photo or two.
.

[ 07-08-2004, 06:19 AM: Message edited by: Mike Field ]

[Nicholas Carey]

Originally posted by Mike Field:
Just as a little mathematical footnote, the Golden Ratio is easily calculated if you forget it at the psychological moment --

A rectangle whose short side is A and whose long side is B is a Golden Rectangle when A : B as B : (A + B).

If B = 1, then A is the Golden Ratio, 0.618...Also&hellip;

Phi (Φ), the Golden Mean, is the only real number such that <code>1/x = 1-x</code>.

You can easily construct the golden rectangle with nought but a compass and an [non-graduated]straightedge.

1. Construct a square.
2. Bisect its base.
3. Set the compass to the height of the square.
4. Place the compass on the midpoint of the square's baseline. Swing the compass and mark its intersection with the baseline of the square. This point is the corner of the golden rectangle.
5. Repeat step 4 using the line marking the top of the square.
6. Draw a line joining the two intersections you just marked.

There you go.

Here's a diagram of the construction:

http://www.jimloy.com/geometry/golden2.gif

You can also approximate phi with any Fibonacci sequence. A Fibonacci sequence is a numeric sequence such that each element of the sequence is the sum of the two preceding elements.

It is conventional for a Fibonacci sequence to begin with two 1's: 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,&hellip; but it's not required. So start with any two convenient numbers and compute a Fibonacci sequence from them. The further out you go in the sequence, the more closely the ratio of any two elements will approximate phi. Here's an example:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: fixed;"> ( f(n) / f(n-1) )
n f(n) Phi approximation
-- ----- -----------------
1 1 n/a
2 1 1
3 2 2
4 3 1.5
5 5 1.666666667
6 8 1.6
7 13 1.625
8 21 1.615384615
9 34 1.619047619
10 55 1.617647059
11 89 1.618181818
12 144 1.617977528
13 233 1.618055556
14 377 1.618025751
15 610 1.618037135
16 987 1.618032787
17 1,597 1.618034448
18 2,584 1.618033813
19 4,181 1.618034056
20 6,765 1.618033963</pre>[/QUOTE]It's an interesting number.

[ 07-09-2004, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: Nicholas Carey ]

[Stiletto]

I remember my art teacher saying 'the smaller is to the greater as the greater is to the whole',when discussing the amount of land to sky in a painting that illustrated the golden section.

[Mike Field]

.
.
Ah well. To continue Nicholas' mathematical excursion a bit further ....

If you were to draw a rectangle with sides in the Golden Ratio and then cut off a square at one end, you'd have the diagram Nicholas posted above. But the smaller rectangle "left over" is itself a Golden Rectangle. And if you now cut a square off the top of that, you'd have an even smaller GR left. And you can continue cutting off squares like this for as long as you like.

But now, by drawing a quarter-circle in each square, you wind up with a spiral. Here's the construction --

http://www.woodenboatfittings.com.au/public/logspiral.gif

Mathematically there are many different spirals, but this one is a logarithmic spiral, and one of the interesting things about it is that it occurs regularly in nature -- in snail shells, for instance, or in the way the seeds of a pine cone or petals of flowers like asters, dahlias, daisies, sunflowers, and so on are laid out.

Here's a diagram of a sunflower head --

http://www.woodenboatfittings.com.au/public/sunflower.gif

Note how the spirals rotate both clockwise and anticlockwise.

To get back to the numbers game, if you were to count the number of spirals going clockwise and the number going anticlockwise in a flower like this, you'd find that the two numbers were not the same but were adjacent numbers in the Fibonacci series -- perhaps 13 and 21, or 34 and 55, or even (in a large head) 55 and 89.

Here's another way these numbers occur. Check out the way leaves grow on the stalks of many plants. As you move up the stalk from the bottom, each leaf is offset some numbers of degrees left or right from the one next above or below it. If you start by numbering one leaf zero, then count up (or down) the stalk till you find the first leaf directly in line vertically with Leaf Zero, the number of that leaf will probably be one of the numbers in the Fibonacci series.

And here's the last thing. If you look at the ratio between consecutive numbers in the Fibonacci series, you get these figures for the first dozen terms --

http://www.woodenboatfittings.com.au/public/fibtable.gif

Now the value of the Golden Ratio is exactly http://www.woodenboatfittings.com.au/public/fibformula.gif which is approximately 0.618034 as noted. If you look at the odd-numbered terms in the left-hand column of the table you can see that they successively approach the Golden Ratio from above, while the even-numbered terms (in the right-hand column) approach it from below. So the ratio of successive terms in the Fibonacci series gets closer and closer to the Golden Ratio as you get further and further into the series.

All of which is no doubt useless information to most people, but quite fascinating to a few.

Mike
_________

By the way, the diagrams come from Riddles in Mathematics by Eugene Northrop, EUP 1945, Pelican 1960. Marvellous reading for the mathematically-inclined.
.