Should this Forum have a dedicated Wooden Working Craft category ?

[outofthenorm]

That's a sickening response from a supposedly adult person. Self-congratulatory, judgmental, and condescending all at the same time. 'Termites" indeed. How childish.

- Norm

[Dave Gray]

Wow, I haven't seen a thread like this since Oyster and Joe went at it hammer and tongs.

I have to admit, after reading this thread and the one in the building section, I still don't understand what is being proposed except a new sub forum. The why of it escapes me. The explanation is an example of convoluted sentence construction. Perhaps the original poster can, in simple terms and without a lot of offhanded remarks, explain just what is being proposed and why?

[john welsford]

Back to the beginning.

Yes I would like to see a thread dedicated to wooden working boats. I'd like it to include historical examples including those older boats still working , current wooden boats, and possible future developments.
I would like the thread to have a world focus not just North America as there are many niche fisheries where wooden boats are appropriate as well as ferry and general freight useage.
Huge areas of the South and West Pacific, Eastern Indian ocean, and South East Asia have high populations living on the coast or on islands, are relatively undeveloped economically and are experiencing much change including deforestation which is affecting the materials supply for boatbuilding.
There is some expertese on this forum that could constructively work up possible solutions to the problem of keeping the village fisheries, the local ferries and the marine pickup truck classes of boats available to the local people.

John Welsford

[andrewe]

John, you really understand what this is about. Queue for the rest to follow.
A
I still dont think that another forum is needed, working boats have a space here.They are not often discussed in their working capacity, more as recreation boats.
A

[outofthenorm]

Back to the beginning.

Yes I would like to see a thread dedicated to wooden working boats. I'd like it to include historical examples including those older boats still working , current wooden boats, and possible future developments.
I would like the thread to have a world focus ...

John Welsford

John, it's simple really. If you want a thread like that, start a thread like that. If it's of interest (and it will be, I bet), people will join in. In not, they won't. No votes, no polls, no separate categories, no permission required, no need to bother the moderator, no need to change the status quo.

Just do it.

[Mike Vogdes]

I thought we were finally done beating this horse.

[Nauvoo]

Good ideas are hard to kill.

[john welsford]

Ah, my mistake, I should have said "Forum" rather than thread. Try again.
I'd like to see a dedicated area for this subject as I think its one deserving of its own space.

John Welsford

[kenjamin]

Call me old fashioned but hasn't any thread with a title already craved out its own space? What I wonder is: why can't richer, more developed countries share more sophisticated boat building methods with poorer, less developed ones? It seems like rounder, more efficient, lighter, stronger, ply lapstrake hulls could someday replace the simpler slab-sided boats of poor countries' boats if the templates for plank shapes and molds etc. were provided along with a good set of instructions and some glue. In other words, is glue lapstrake just too expensive for use in third world countries? Maybe an instruction booket could be developed that used pictures instead of words for building a good, efficient, strong, lightweight, glued lapstrake fishing boat.

As for whether or not wooden working craft should have its own category? Sure, why not? But it's pretty much up to our host to make such decisions for us. The best we can do is pray to God.....er, I mean Scott, to grant us a sticky.

[Susanne@PB&F]

I am glad this Thread continues in a productive vein.

The Wooden Working-Craft Forum would become a dedicated permanent go-to resource with a growing amount of substance and reputation. A Thread that can eventually disappear in the sands of time.

Nobody keeps 'advanced shapes' out of the hands of anyone. In fact, many developing nations have their own rich/deep history of indigenous shapes and adaptations of various construction-methods. Quite a few don't have to wait for us folks to bless them with 'advanced' wisdom.

Re-Elevation by design, construction and operation of modern wooden working craft re-emphasizes these local assets and thus revalues their own wood-resources as more than 'trash-wood' or obstacles to a fine palm-oil plantation. Some folks earlier in this Thread can't even talk about this approach...

It is 'western sage realism' that has reduced in too many minds - here and 'there' - the reputation of the utility of this material; just re-read the flamboyant wood-denegrating nonsense some folks were compelled to put into the permanent memory of this WoodenBoat website on the occasion of these two Threads.

Local/regional opportunities and needs will define the relevance of wooden working craft in such locales - as it always has. What is necessary - at least in this Forum - is to overcome the self-important - as in 'we are very advanced since we know how to spell 'Klegecell-core' or 'autoclaved carbon-fiber matrix' - prejudice against re-considering the merits of the material and its rich body of myriads of well-evolved skills and tricks to utilize the stuff to best purpose.

There is no 'one-material-fits-all-needs' gospel pushed here; we'll leave that to the warring factions in the purely-synthetic-materials universe; 'carbon-footprint' and 'sustainability' - never mind 'renewability' - are missing from their Thesaurus altogether, ergo not exactly leading-edge thinking in this day and age...

We know enough about various wooden boat construction-methods to focus in this particular on-line/in-print community on an increasingly sophisticated approach - or just re-discovery (!!) - to maximize the material's virtues in the context of 21st century concerns and outright demands - both economical and ecological ones.

Anybody who now goes apoplectic because 'this is political after all' should reconsider the domestic or any other place's economic politics of wood-growing, -cutting, -replanting etc. Clear-cutting, diminution of tropical forests, the effects of climate change on domestic or foreign wood-species health and -survival etc. are all very 'political' indeed. A perfectly executed Honduras Mahagony yacht may not be based on forestry-practices that you can sleep on.

The more we value the virtues of the stuff - I am wearing oxygen mask to breath as I ascend to highest heights - the more we have a chance to retain and extend the relevance of using it across a broad spectrum of applications and locations between eternal ice and tropical swamps.

Part of this opportunity is the sober reconsideration of overcoming certain disadvantages of the material by design, construction and operation. And there is a broad range of such approaches available, ready for detailed attention and experimentation - nothing new really - to extend utility and economic performance of the stuff. No particular choices about hull-shapes, construction-approach, and operating practices can be 'off-limits'. The broader the scope, the broader and 'sustainable' the relevance of the discussion and execution along these lines.

Some folks will eschew any and all 'modern materials'. Others will pursue their ideas of what they put up as their 'defensible' mix of 'renewable' and (likely) fossil-based materials to enhance each other in order to extend the utilty of the craft. And that body of extant and emerging knowledge must be captured in a Forum that allows its accumulation and ready access to it for the uninitiated and 'old hands' alike.

Check out the sister-Thread under Construction-...

[Jim Ledger]

food for thought, certainly.


hmmm

[Susanne@PB&F]

That's all I can ask.

[Jim Ledger]

What do you have against scarf joints for plywood construction?

[Susanne@PB&F]

Labor-cost, added to by loss of sheet-length. Cost of gadgets to do 'the perfect scarf(ph?)'.

[Jim Ledger]

The butt blocks get in the way of the framing. It takes more time to build around them. They get in the way of drainage. The panels won't bend fair. They're a source of weakness as well as being a stress riser.

What you gain in time not making scarfs, you lose later on, trying to build around around the bump on the inside of your smooth skin.


IMHO, but these are reasonable conclusions shared by many who have built in plywood and shouldn't be dismissed lightly.

[Jim Ledger]

Cost of gadgets to do 'the perfect scarf(ph?)'.

We like to refer those gadgets as tools Might as well spring for them in the beginning because you'll be needing them anyway, in order to finish the boat.

If you can't make a suitable scarf in plywood with epoxy, you really have no business building a boat. It's not that hard to learn to make a scarf and the knowledge enables the builder to think in a much more sophisticated manner about the job he's doing. Scarfing is the essential tool needed for optimal utilization of plywood.

[erster]

Gadgets...........Sheet plywood, 49 buck angle grinder, add a palm sander to clean up the seam, five minutes at the most includes a cigarette break and pop the top on a beer to let the dust settle, and glue up. Oh well,,, have fun Jim.. The imperfect scarf kid over and out.

[Jim Ledger]

I count on McMullen and his ship-wright's steady hand to keep 'the kids' at bay.

Suzanne, be so kind as to allow me, in the absence of Mr. McMullen, to deflect the juvenile witticisms of these two Bilge ruffians and send them packing, while we continue our most illuminating conversation..

"Peter, I'm so disappointed in you. I expect this kind of thing from Erster, but you? For shame. You both realize that this little outburst will end up on your Permanent Forum Record, don't you. Now, hand over those grinders and go wait in the car."

[mmd]

From my contact with the commercial fisheries world (so far I've been a fisherman, a boatbuilder, and a boat designer), the three biggest concerns in my area (Nova Scotia & Newfoundland) regarding hull material in the boat sizes that have been discussed in this thread are:

1.) Initial cost of the hull
2.) Repairability of the hull (ease & cost)
3.) Resistance to damage (impact and chafe)

Initial cost of the hull encompasses both the cost of materials and labour to construct, including such sticky bits as local strengthening to accept winches and other deck hardware. One must also pay attention to the wage differential between a boatbuilder in, say, FRP or steel as opposed to the higher-priced wooden boatbuilder.

Repairability should address both tools required and complexity of the repair process, as well as labour rates for qualified repairers and availability and cost of materials.

Damage resistance is very important around here due to both the type of fishing gear used (impact and chafe on the hull from ropes, chains, traps, etc.) and the presence of ice (both "bergy bits" at sea and skim ice in harbour). In our more northerly fisheries such as along the shores of Cape Breton and Newfoundland, there often exists sea ice (pan ice, slob ice, and growlers) that must be shouldered aside for the vessel to depart or enter port. This is terribly hard on hull surfaces and requires constant attention for the hull to remain seaworthy.

There is also the question of the source of training for construction in the boatbuilding method that is being proposed - how would the dissemination of technology to workers be addressed?

As I am yet to be convinced by Suzanne's arguments so far that these issues can be overcome with foam-cored plywood hulls (if I am correct in that this is basically the method that she is advocating), would she be so kind as to offer her thoughts on these subjects?

Please do not the questions above as being overtly negative; I am curious to hear her thoughts on these questions and am willing to learn new things. I also believe that if a new idea can stand up to rigourous questioning it may well truly be a good new idea...

[Paul Pless]

Gadgets...........Sheet plywood, 49 buck angle grinder, add a palm sander to clean up the seam, five minutes at the most includes a cigarette break and pop the top on a beer to let the dust settle, and glue up. Oh well,,, have fun Jim.. The imperfect scarf kid over and out.

Hey! That's my favorite boatbuilding tool too,if you exclude my block plane and my nifty bambino dividers which I'll learn how to use properly one day The grinder is also a veritable speed demon when it come to laying down some hollow(dishing out) on bits to be epoxied together. Best gadget I ever met!

Cheers!


Peter

Peter, have you ever seen pics of oyster carving and shaping a builtup deadrise v-bottom with that grinder. He's an artist, kinda like those guys that do chainsaw art.

I didn't know you smoked Mike?

sorry for the thread drift

[outofthenorm]

... would she be so kind as to offer her thoughts on these subjects?

Please do not (dismiss) the questions above as being overtly negative; I am curious to hear her thoughts on these questions and am willing to learn new things. I also believe that if a new idea can stand up to rigourous questioning it may well truly be a good new idea...

Seconded with enthusiasm.

- Norm

[aldebaran]

These are being used a lot in the North sea (Denmark). But they are not being build anymore. Its solid oak all the way through and its expensive to work and difficult to find.

I find it very hard to imagine these guys accepting a plywood hull for goind fishing in the crude north sea. They´ll prefer steel boats then. But they´ll stay with their oak wonders for long time.

[Susanne@PB&F]

This Thread is live and kicking - arm-wrestling included. Today we'll get deeper into the heart of one approach to the subject. Hold on for this major contribution to the Canon, i.e. 'state-of-the-art' that is...

However annoying to some folks, this is based on work out of this office of well over 50 years, with Phil's 1960 plywood/polyester-resin/glass cat-rigged leeboard sharpie 33'x7' POINTER still alive after rebuild - not bad for a 2-3 season pleasureboat even.


1.) Ply/lumber/epoxy/glass/foam builder Peter Lenihan can do no wrong in my book - he's actually doing this kind of work. Much of the construction-methodology on his project WINDEMERE has been done before and is a predecessor of what the approach for 4-season commercial craft would be now.


2.) (Mr. Ledger) Plywood & Butt-Blocks: There is no place on the plans for any butt-blocks on anything we've proposed between 31'x3000lbs (#679) Monitor/'Robin Jean' or the concept study for 70'x30,000lbs offshore fisherman.

Whether the 70 or so 1/4"- 1/2" ply-sheets on the 31-footer or 1000+ on the 70-footer, grinding that fine edge will be a manhours 'black-hole' - and 'cruel and unusual punishment' and thus 'unconstitutional'...

The underlying structural-assembly principles were laid out in M.A.I.B. over 2 years ago on the 31-footer:
- a. It has Payson-Joints on hull topsides and raised-deck.
- b. Foredeck and Rooftop are ply-foam-ply sandwich with occasional Payson-Joint under final glass.
- c. Hull-bottom features a 50:50 overlap of 2x 1/2" sheets, beginning with a Payson-Joint on the outside before ginger turning - with bracing to keep that joint from hinging - plus 2" foam-core between chinelogs and central keel/keelson spine with another 1/2" of ply, plus glass, epoxy, optionally rubber tiles for dropping that anvil (?) ...

So there are 3 sub-approaches even on this entry-level light inshore working-craft built by 2 non-boat-builders and worked this year in the Commercial Fisheries.


3.) No Butt-Blocks and no 'Framing' on these hulls:
- Beyond clamp, chinelogs, cleats, full- and partial bulkheads there are no 'frames'.
- Between hull-skin thickness of at least 2+" on the 70-footer backed by foam and ply you will have laminations readily reaching 6-9"...
- plus rubrails, additional outside-skin reinforcements/wearable surfaces for hard wear hauling traps and during icing.


4.) Bending long plywood hull-panels ?!:
- The single-layer Payson-jointed top- and raised-deck sides on #679 bends well-enough for fairness; then backed up by foam.
- Even on her, the outside-skin 2x1/2" bottom-panel gets laminated 50:50 over a set of matching-curve 'saw-horses'.
- On the 70-footer's topsides-panel, four+ 1/2" layers at 50:50 get laminated to pre-bend the known curvature right into the panel; there will be just enough 'give' for minor adjustments.
- Multiply at will for bottom-panels and larger types.


5.) Rot with 'hohum' domestically/farm-grown marine-grade fir with 'footballs' and other warts:
With this thick and stiff lamination-schedule, the 'built-in' rot will be confined to one sheet at a time, surrounded by butt-joints and lamination-gluelines full of uncooperative epoxy.


6.) Plywood Butt-Blocks on conventional plank-on-frame hulls: Phil Bolger's liveaboard 48'x11'x2'8x31000lbs "Resolution" of '78-vintage was built of
- steam-bent RED OAK (!) framing,
- over a square 8000lbs lead structural back-bone scarfed vertically on both ends into 100+year old yellow pine for keel structure towards both ends,
- with a mix of oak and mahagony planking butt-blocked with bronze-bolted plywood-cum-cuprinol butts overlapping also above and below, and always landing between the bent frames. Brad Story of 7-generation Essex, Massachusetts ship-builder fame thought of it, agreed, executed it, and there she sits visible from GOOGLE-Earth in our front-yard.


7.) Wage-Differentials:
Once you approach this type boat-building as
a.) the fairly unsophisticated exercise that we designed it to be,
and then you see it as
b.) a commercial proposition - vs. a philosophical expression of a 'life-style', as some insist - to a commercial wish-list, it is reasonable to expect that, beyond materials-cost and associated labor-quantity differences, the hourly-rate might begin to level as local/regional competition evolves under the mix of dictates of economy, sustainability (incl. renewability), thermal performance (yes, Victoria!), 'sinking-resistance' - with not all these attributes applying to all projects of course.

Again two non-boatbuilders put 31' "Robin Jean" together in a barn. In a fully set-up shop w/ reasonable climate control much more can be done per time-unit.


8.) Localized reinforcements against wear:
On these ply-based hull-structures a variety of lamination-schedules are conceivable that can include sacrificial layers that get worn out and replaced periodically, so common for centuries now in conventional sawn-/bent-frame-cum-planking wooden construction.
These removable/replaceable layers can be ply, pressure-treated or plain lumber, UHMW and other plastics, metal, all depending on where, why, and for what cost in material and labor over time. And much of that depends on the given theater of operation.


9.) Utility of any given approach for whom, when, where and why ?
As Welsford patiently points out so correctly in the sister-Thread under Construction..., it all depends on where you design for whose application where - as our biases and experiences will be attractive/competitive or self-limiting as the case may be.

10.) Aldebaran's note:
This should be under 9.) really.
Those fully-evolved-under-regulation older wooden types out of "100% oak" may actually show that between the (arbitrary) regulation-rooted proportions, insistence on one hull-material without much apparenty forethought as to replantings for wooden-boat-building industrial sustainability, and deep roots and thus dead-end limitations based on the conventions of just that material, don't make for a sustainable mindset to guide the family-enterprise or industrial policy. Phil and I have learned that fishermen will use for fishing what they choose under given constraints and pressures to stay in business and to stay alive - if at all possible. The variety of hull-materials and hull-shapes plus sizes in their given material here in Gloucester, Mass. USA alone speaks volumes as to the flexibility and adaptability of fishers. If you show them and it works, they'll consider. They won't wait for 'outside' counsel to decree by 'Blue Ribbon' panel as to what they think will work or not. Studying pictures of fishing-ports is instructive that way. If one type prevails almost exclusively, you might want to look at some regulatory dictate now, or generations ago, that distorts what is perceived as desirable, even just plain 'conceivable' - as some in this Thread demonstrate. While it may be a well-expressed peak of desirable working-craft characteristics here and there, it is quite likely that a samey-looking fleet in a fishing-port is a sign of regulatory and other forms of decadence and thus reduced viability as an industry under changing economic and ecological demands.

I hope this answers some of those criticisms and objections. And I do see them in the spirit of proposing this new Forum on the basis of sober consideration of options, opportunities, and challenges.

As for Erster: "Keep on grindin', Bud... Just stay away from them incisers."

[Jim Ledger]

Far from being a "black hole" I think that I could cut scarfs on seventy panels in a matter of days. If you were anticipating that volume of material it would be a fairly straightforward matter to jig up and worthwhile to tool up for dealing with a quantity of scarfs. Even on a doubled bottom, the scarf would be a better choice as it seals the end grain to the ply.




BTW, the gratuitous jab at Oyster at the end of your post is unfortunate, and is one of the reasons that you're having difficulty getting a conversation going here. The proper format is to discuss valid points, whether you agree or not, and ignore posts you feel beneath you. Taunting is poor form above the bilge and likely to get you the same in return.

[Susanne@PB&F]

Nahh, I think Erster/Oyster/Bill (?) has earned his stripes over many 'characteristic' entries at everyone and anthing. No need to demote now. I reckon I should think of him every once in a while to encourage him so we'll eventually benefit from his richest of palates of constructive offerings.

So you feel the need to scarf from dozens to hundreds of sheets in order to "... seal the end grain of the ply..." ? Assuming you expect to get paid for adding to the bill your time as counted by " a matter of days", when will you have added another 4-digit cost line-item ? For what ? This is not going to be a commercial proposition after all ??

[Paul Pless]

Nahh, I think Erster/Oyster/Bill (?) has earned his stripes over many 'characteristic' entries at everyone and anthing. No need to demote now. I reckon I should think of him every once in a while to encourage him so we'll eventually benefit from his richest of palates of constructive offerings.

Mike is only one of the best and most knowledgeable of the wooden boat builders and restorers that posts here. His experience covers a very broad range of size and types of boats over a long career. That's not something that should be dismissed so casually.

[Susanne@PB&F]

Re MMD's point on 'Training'.
Sorry about breezily going right past that serious issue.

Starting out with the smallest items for least-loss risk, both of the two guys who built "Robin Jean" self-acquired the growing body of skills necessary to complete this project, using our instruction-manual, epoxy-manuals, peer-counsel etc. One is a fisher with mild repair-skills and thus reasonable familiarity with epoxy, whiole the other is a contractor/home-builder, familiar with reading plans and cutting by hard numbers. There is one less efficient model - but apparently viable.

The process of observing&doing training starts by partaking first in minor projects like skiffs to get basics down. Then partaking in larger projects, preferably inboard types to reduce any associated 'contact-anxiety' with that type hardware. Depending upon mindset and talent, some will go off on their own to grow 'by themselves' or specialize in one line of hull-size/applications. Others will 'stick around' to be part of the progressively larger hull constructions for maximum experience and value to the boat-building venture. The underlying principles are limited, reasonably straight-forward, shared knowledge, not expensive to acquire. But you'll be an 'expert' only in this approach, not that unusual really in this universe of hull-construction.

[Jim Ledger]

So you feel the need to scarf from dozens to hundreds of sheets in order to "... seal the end grain of the ply..." ? Assuming you expect to get paid for adding to the bill your time as counted by " a matter of days", when will you have added another 4-digit cost line-item ? For what ? This is not going to be a commercial proposition after all ??

I'd be making my own boat, remember. Don't expect me to build it like some newbie just because that's what the instructions say to do. It took years of misguided effort to fill my head with these foolish notions, and I'm not about to chuck them all just yet.

I build things for money, day in and day out, and very often build far beyond the "easiest and cheapest" method without a thought to the bottom line.

A doubled plywood panel with fifty percent overlap has a built-in stress riser at every joint. Bend the panel to a certain point and it will break right on the joint. The same panel, made with scarfed joints will take a much more pronounced bend and the point of failure will be unpredictable. The conclusion to be understood is that you must build the butted panel much heavier to obtain the same strength. Therefore, with the scarfed panel, a lighter scantling can be used to achieve the same strength, with a resultant saving in material cost and boat weight.

[Susanne@PB&F]

Now it is 'Mike' ?! Difficult to follow that name-business. Should he have an agent for this...

I've always sought the counsel of experts in a field of relevance to our work. If 'Erster' has this background - I can have no knowledge who does what behind 3+ names - I am surprised as to the various statements he volunteered over these weeks. What was contributed to the viability of the Thread ?

Not having Phil around 24/7 is one of the intellectually most impoverishing consequences of his departure. But over 18+ years we had cultivated an approach to sharing perspectives that rested on due consideration of the posted proposition, with additional inquiries as necessary for full comprehension. Then we'd chew on it carefully. We did not argue 'from the hip' because something itched us 'real quick' - there were a few exceptions... Over these years much got done conceptually to move things forward in our heads and thus our designs - for good and for possibly bad... (now there's an 'opening' to drag .... through).

I doubt that much of the 'under-constructive' shenanigans - including my own specially-formulated reactions - would have ever occurred if Phil were still around and I had signed every posting out of this office with his name.

[erster]

I need no agent at all. Click on my most recent thread and you will find diverse building technigues of one off construction that has stood the tests of time, not just some garage built box that many new comers seek out. Each and every hull has an intended purpose. Each method along the way is methods that naval engineers promote and large sea going vessels subscribe to as making a hull sea worthy.

In your multiple threads of late you have insulted more than enough when questions dealing with some of the most basic woodworking methods has come up. If your replies in these threads represent how you respond to the most amateur builder when asking the most basic questions such as the scarfing issues, I for one would send a set of plans back in the mail. You have requested a specific forum to discuss boats and boat building, yet you have continued to only lecture to each and every respondant here and called basic woodworking tools gadgets. If you wish to talk "neandethal"[sp] you only need to look at your own responses.
Jim, great reply!

[Jim Ledger]

One of the characteristics of an internet forum is the ever-present fact that people might be other than they first seem. You've jumped into a pond filled with real people, many of whom have known each other for years, so it should come as no surprise that some of us know Erster by his first name.

The best approach for a newcomer is one of politeness and observation to get a feel for who the various characters might be. After being here for a few years, I find the place filled with worthwhile people and only one whom I truly dislike.

Alienating people early on is easy to do and might be a cause for regret later. I did it myself, so I ought to know.

[Susanne@PB&F]

Mr. Ledger, I thought you did indeed. That why I am (again) somewhat surprised as to the priorities that guide the response.

I would argue against pursuing bending-sessions in the name of material-scientific definitions of 'stress-risers'. I'd rather get on with the panel. 1/2" - or less - layers following the easy gentle curves of a 5 - 6:1 hull-geometry over say 40 feet of length sounds rather unambitious 'bending'; it is actually more akin to letting gravity just do a helpful part of the job.

As to the point about 'science' of 'stronger' vs commercial applications, it is again about priorities defining de facto hull-strength under harsh commercial treatment, durability under neglect, repairability/replaceability without serious affect on the structural basics, etc. There will always be more benefit from another inch of 'meat' than the assumed return from many billable weeks of scarf-grinding. In that environment, there are times when you can't be 'overbuilt' enough - for a ply/epoxy/foam/glass boat that is. And getting this 'fast&dirty' (as in no scarf) for such stout meat sounds preferable over finding out weak-points because of minimal margin for reality-impact.

What happened to your concerns about ice, consequences of neglect, unforeseeable structural insults ... now that we'll go for high-manhours/minimal'meat' structural approaches ?

Someone just called this to my attention:
When you look really closely at it, you'll find tiny eensy-weensy scarfs between veneer-strips in every sheet of plywood, LVL beam etc. You just have to look really closely.

[Susanne@PB&F]

Now it is 'Neanderthals'. Easy there my good man. I grew up none to far from there... (Another 'opening'...)

So we go from 'Da condemnable Bilge" into caves. This is getting intriguing. Let's not forget 'inflatables' in case it rains.

Who says that in the context of the initial proposition of this Thread we are not getting the best from this rich palate of offerings ?

[Jim Ledger]

Mr. Ledger, I thought you did indeed. That why I am (again) somewhat surprised as to the priorities that guide the response.

Make that two

[Susanne@PB&F]

And again, no reasonable response on the 10-point 'Seminar' from these 'usual' suspects... We've been there before. Some folks seem to have habits that are hard to break.

But I rest assured that others will offer their input to further the discussion on just this one approach - or any other for that matter.

Overall it is quite interesting to see preferences/'prejudices' reflected in various responses; many of mine are on the table as a proposition based on a reasonable amount of consideration in this office. The underlying assumption of the initial proposition is of course to expand our 'tolerances' as to how we now in 2009 see and use wooden craft as commercially-viable, and how we might choose to respond responsibly to the economic and ecological challenges now and ahead.

[J. Dillon]

There's a personality in this thread that could make a convincing speech writer for any current politician.

JD

[mmd]

Re: training...

While I fully understand and approve (with reservations & conditions) of "progressive peer training", I think that that method has shortcomings when viewed from the standpoint of a commercial yard building seventy-five-foot commercial ships. In my position as a project manager for multi-million-dollar commercial builds, I'd want a bit more and varied technical knowledge than offered by a fellow who has built a couple of smaller boats. I also suspect that insurers and classification societies will want a bit more background, too. So, the building method will need to be a bit more comprehensively engineered and documented than what you have suggested here to be attractive to commercial builders. I'd also like to be able to send a few of my key staff for training someplace rather than relying on time-consuming and risk-intensive trial-and-error.

It seems that your proposal is aimed at smaller boats built by their owner-operator. Am I mistaken?

Also, do you forsee the proposed construction method applicable to commercial production at a rate and price comparable to current technology (FRP, metal)?

[Spokaloo]

Alright, here's a tack from a young builder who doesn't do it for a living.

I build on my days off from my real job, and am lucky enough to work generally 2 days a week doing 24 hour shiftwork. I count my hours carefully so that I can accomplish as much as possible in my days off, and can typically produce craft in relatively short order for a part timer because I use production techniques and have 8 hr work days to accomplish it.

I've built boats using butt blocks, they were effective but left immense flats in the hull, very ugly and not impressive as strength went.

I've built boats using the Payson-joint (as Susanne calls it). I think all of us would agree its probably just as effective to call it a glassed joint, since Dynamite would probably agree with that name. Very effective joint. One of mine failed during the assembly process because it wasn't scantlinged heavily enough with glass (my fault).

I've built boats using proper scarf joints cut with a plane, a sander, and a grinder. They always turn out reliably pretty, and are unidentifiable once assembled during the shaping process. Strength is undeniable.

So here's the rub:

For a young guy like me, a true garage builder, I can't agree with the bulk time savings commented above. To sand, prep the gluing space, and capture the panels takes the same time in both instances, no time difference.

To get out my tools, fill a can partway with acetone, drop my glass roller in it, get out my laminating board, saturate the glass tape, transfer it to the panel, lay it down, roll out the bubbles, and pull the epoxy excess off the fabric takes me around 30-45 minutes. I have also generated waste in the form of disposable cups, expended thermoplastics (kicked off epoxy waste removed from the glass), and fiberglass trimmings, not to mention the acetone.

For the same amount of time, I can cleanly cut several scarf joints producing less waste and using a miserly number of tools. My epoxy usage will be significantly lower because I can do scarfs with thickened epoxy and be much more miserly because I'm not trying to get my resin to glass ratio low.

I like the approach Phil put into that working craft. I think it deserves several threads to talk about it. The threads never die, thanks to the search function. They remain available anytime, any place. As for permanence, I'd love for Susanne to get together a site for Phil's work ,something that puts out a vast number of plans and information like that completed for Pat Atkin showcasing W.M. and John's work.

Don't take this post as an affront. I am your target customer for this type of construction. I sportfish in places right alongside commercial vessels, often using similar tactics and gear (actually using commercial crabbing pots as well). If some of Phil's designs for commercial craft had more working deck space, I would be very interested in building one.

E

[Susanne@PB&F]

MMD, thanks for the considered response.

I fully agree that you would not want to 'jump into' the process beginning with a sizable project. While this latest iteration of the approach is based on ample precedent, any yard will need to assure or/and grow its own knowledge-base. Starting with prerequisites such as familiarity with basics of plywood and epoxy construction, progressively larger projects will add to the project-management's depth; this would seem typical with any 'new to the yard' method of construction.

One key issue is of course actual man-hours per pound (or whatever matrix seems appropriate after some experience). The focus on scarfing or butt-jointing is obviously one example of cost-benefit weighing between drawing-board and doing the work on the shop-floor. Maximizing using gravity as an aide is another crucial one. Recycling of jigs, gantries etc within each project is another one.

And as in all construction-approaches much 'manhours black-hole'-potential can be designed in or out, before the shop-floor management gets to do its level best. What ever the worth of decades of feedback from distant and near projects plus personal experience - always limited - our focus has been to reduce said man-hours necessary to produce reasonably appropriate hull-shapes within the advantages and limitations of the chosen material. Actual projects with hands-on experience will further add to the sensibility 'by design'.

What this boils down to - apart from exploring just in one's mind the opportunities, implications, and of course 'pot-holes' of this approach - is for any yard to explore 'in-house' via smallish projects the potential of it. Any hull built will show potential clients more of what could be next tp match their wish-list and budget. The same and thensome applies to designers as it takes and will take 'kneading that conceptual dough' enough to boil matters down to the essentials matching commercial needs. As a designer yourself you know the feeling of sometimes knowing 'better' after the detail has been done in 1:1 3-D. So this is 'early days' for this angle on commercial wooden working-craft design and construction. After seeing that 70' x 30,000lbs (empty) proposal completed and running, I'd feel satisfied with the direction of the approach. But at this point in time, small steps are indicated to grow towards that size project.

To preliminarily 'round out' this note on 'man-hours'/credible skill-sets, you already know - as a project-manager likely better than I - that beyond building up that hull-construction management-experience, all other skill-sets such as drive-train installation, electrics, electronics, hydraulics etc. are typically portable/importable to the given project from any other project if not yard.

For purposes of this Thread and the initial Forum Proposal just taking this general train of thought seriously - not just 'our proposals' - should add to the re-assertion of industrial 'relevance' of wood in working craft, right next to and building upon the remaining cadre of builders, yards, and commercial client-base that continues making the most of wood.

'Authorities' will learn with us and fine-tune their perspective while studying the approach enough to gain comprehensive understanding of the underlying principles well ahead of the launch of (eventually) sizeable hulls.

[aldebaran]

Quote"10.) Aldebaran's note:
This should be under 9.) really.
Those fully-evolved-under-regulation older wooden types out of "100% oak" may actually show that between the (arbitrary) regulation-rooted proportions, insistence on one hull-material without much apparenty forethought as to replantings for wooden-boat-building industrial sustainability, and deep roots and thus dead-end limitations based on the conventions of just that material, don't make for a sustainable mindset to guide the family-enterprise or industrial policy. Phil and I have learned that fishermen will use for fishing what they choose under given constraints and pressures to stay in business and to stay alive - if at all possible. The variety of hull-materials and hull-shapes plus sizes in their given material here in Gloucester, Mass. USA alone speaks volumes as to the flexibility and adaptability of fishers. If you show them and it works, they'll consider. They won't wait for 'outside' counsel to decree by 'Blue Ribbon' panel as to what they think will work or not. Studying pictures of fishing-ports is instructive that way. If one type prevails almost exclusively, you might want to look at some regulatory dictate now, or generations ago, that distorts what is perceived as desirable, even just plain 'conceivable' - as some in this Thread demonstrate. While it may be a well-expressed peak of desirable working-craft characteristics here and there, it is quite likely that a samey-looking fleet in a fishing-port is a sign of regulatory and other forms of decadence and thus reduced viability as an industry under changing economic and ecological demands. "

If you, instead of turning directly in oposition and writing an enourmoeus amout of "words", could read a little better, then you would see that your reply is not relevant.
These fishermen are changing their boats, to steelboats, mostly because wooden ones are not available anymore.

[Susanne@PB&F]

Thanks for the input, Spookaloo.
Much welcomed, as based on direct personal experience - just right for this Thread indeed.

It illustrates an omission on my part:
- Only the first 'inside' or 'outside' i.e. first joint on inside of hull-bottom or first on its bottom outside is to be half(!) or fully Payson-Jointed.
- After this you'd just 'have at it' 'stacking' 50:50 gemetries of butting plywood - no butt-blocks anywhere ! Between your gear-pump jockey, and the two of you handling, cutting, and wetting out each sheet, you'd work yourselves into a multiples per hour rythm.

I'd see that as the antidote for man-hours black-holes. But keep using epoxy throughout with full saturation per bond i.e. no void 'baked' into the sandwich.

Only selected regions of single-ply structures would still require the full Payson-Joint approach per 'butt'.

And, I am still too greedy to not want loose 12:1+/thickness on each end of each 8' sheet (times width...), as that adds up as well, such as 2x6" on a 1/2" sheet or 12" per 8-foot sheet of 1/2". I have not scarfed enough to claim perfection in my reasoning on this but it seems a significant material loss and a man-hour problem across dozens and hundreds of sheets per boat. And a lot of grinder-mileage and dust...

[aldebaran]

I have a good idea,

Instead of making a new wooden working boat category, maybe it would be better just to make a category for Susanne@PB&F. There she could discuss whatever she finds interesting. It seems to me that she is more interested in discussing than anything else.

[Susanne@PB&F]

aldebaran.
Opposition ? Commentary on a fat target of unsustainability of that type of wooden commercial craft construction, noticeable also in Germany, France, Great Britain etc. here in this WOODENBOAT FORUM.

Indeed, these types, built of oak seemingly only grown now in DK to older age on royal preserves, or at best importable from far away, are not sustainable, by policy of ommission, indifference or whatever. Why would there be no suitable oak today? Or could be there in the next generations ? No policies for reforestation ?? If anything, atmospheric chemical changes seem to favor growth of wood...

Their steel follow-ons will be even less sustainable by construction - and if we were to extrapolate from past experience - by proportion also less viable under high unsubsidized fuel-costs. Much of that misdevelopment (word?) comes from claiming that length equals size - rather than weight = size. Thus short 'fat' craft, now of inherently inferior shapes due to the limitations of steel (and would be also if built in plywood!) will take the place of the more shapely and still 'rotund' shapes of just post Age-of-Sail provenance.

Can't blame the fishers. They've got enough on their plate. But I'd blame their leaders. And regulators insisting on archaic design-assumptions. And designers and builders who know better but apolitically submit anyway. And a whole pile of 'Termites' bugging everyone how silly 'vegetable matter' is to go to work at sea on anyway...

[john welsford]

Some of the debate above is generated by a perception that plywood is limited to 1200 x 2400 or 4 x 8 sheets. Not so, a couple of points.
10 ft x 4ft is common, 12 ft not unavailable.
Dont judge the lumber quality or species of wood in plantation forests by what you have seen in the USA, we get 20 ft x 18in perfect clear boards in vast quantities or perfect veneers in any size you want from what was not so long ago touted as the worlds largest man made forest, the northern edge of which is about half an hour from where I sit. Every tree is hand planted, fertilised, and pruned. The forest undergoes two thinnings, two more prunings and between 27 and 35 years depending upon chosen useage is clear felled, left fallow for a couple of years then replanted. The species is bred for house lumber but there are cultivars for plywood and some of that out performs most marine grade plywoods.
If setting up a new factory to pull from a forest of this nature one would of course use the latest technology and run automatic clipper/splicers on both axes,
this enables veneers of endless length to be produced and automatic layup machines to feed endless belt presses for a flying saw at the other end to cut panels to whatever length is required.
2.4 x 6 Meter sheets? No sweat.

John Welsford, a real fan of sustainable plantation forestry.

[mmd]

Just to toss a different bone into the feeding frenzy...

Suzanne made passing reference to "short, fat craft". These boats have been widely accepted in the commercial fishing industry due to the law of unintended consequences - goverment agencies thought they could apply various needed regulations (lifesaving, fire prevention, safe manning, etc.) that were required to vary according to size by classing vessels by LOA rather than displacement or gross tonnage. A noble effort, but the "rule-beaters" merely circumvented the rules by making the boats fatter. More boat within the proscribed length, albeit requiring greater power to propel. As long as fuel was cheap, that didn't matter. Once in, it became very difficult to change the rules of engagement, so now we have a whole fleet of vessels that are within regulations but horribly fat and hydrodynamically inefficient. I believe that Suzanne & I are on the same wavelength in believing that long and lean is better than short and fat, but the process of changing fifty or more years of national and international marine regulations is a daunting task.

IMHO, I think that we could do more good for the ambitions to reduce carbon footprint and increase fuel efficiency by finding a way of changing the way governments rate commercial fishing boats from LOA to displacement than to try to get fishermen to change to long & lean boats that conform to existing measurement regulations and accept a new construction method . The former will encourage them to find the most efficient vessel form within their size class at the cost of a reduction in deck space and cargo capacity to remain within their size class; the latter will try to convince them to accept a non-familiar construction method. As fishermen (in my experience) are wonderfully resistant to change - especially for some ephemeral concept of "for the greater good" and change that will reduce their income (smaller deck space equals smaller gear and less catch) - I doubt that they will warm to the idea of narrower, lighter boats of their presently-allowable LOA.

But that's just my take on the deal...

[Spokaloo]

I can see how you are burying the joints (sort of a large scale cold molding), but I think another factor in this is your premise on builder/owner relationships with assistants. While that would be an immense luxury, I think it would be best to consider these boats being built by a single person. There is no better way in the grand scheme of the world to save money than to eliminate labor costs. On my current project, I am the mixing pump operator AND the filleter (actually filleting and glassing joints today). Yes, production speed would be much faster with two people, but I certainly can't afford the cost of anyone helping me, and in your sustainable fisheries utopia, I wouldn't expect your sustainable practice fisherman to have the cash to pay anyone either.

I will have to say that I'd still lean towards a scarf for that outside layer on both sides of the laminate. The fiberglass splice joint is nice, but the only barrier between a lasting hull and a failure is one healthy shot to the seam, rendering the glass too weak to hold the joint. Whereas you have a nearly identical amount of labor in a scarf (including your edge to edge gluing as the core of the laminate), and you may or may not be dealing with any waste of sheet goods. The loss of an 8:1 scarf is minimal in 1/2" ply, and would be far and away strong enough given you are adhering other sheets inside it. It would also be considerably more resistant to damage, an important factor in the sportfishing and commercial fishing worlds.

Do remember that the "grinder mileage" and ensuing sawdust are recyclable items which can be later used in the process as fillers. The glass splice doesn't have this most sustainable feature, and is actually the antithesis of 'green'. If time is given as equal (on which I think we agree) wouldn't the option that creates a reusable product in the laminate be the better choice?

E

[2MeterTroll]

hardly short and fat. heavy yes. able to do all the functions of a fishing boat.

[mmd]

2MT, what is your point is showing a sixty-year-old boat built to a desgn that is probably closer to seventy years old? The current problem is that modern fishing boats of that size are quite probably twice the volume on the same LWL, and very few fishermen are going to give up that volume and go back to the "olde ways" voluntarily.

Dear Mr. Fisher; We would like to encourage you, when you replace your current 70-foot fishing boat that has a 4500 cu. ft. hold, to build a new 70-foot boat with an 1850 cu. ft hold. Although the price of your new boat will be about 25% less, and your fuel consumption will be about 50% less, your per-trip cargo capacity will be about 60% less. Also, the fishing gear arrangement on deck will change completely due to the boat being 50% narrower than your present one, meaning that you cannot use a lot of the gear you currently have on your present boat. I know that you will happily give up all of this capacity and earning potential, though, because you will be helping the rest of the world reduce its carbon output and will be contributing to conserving the world's resources. Have a nice day...

Sorry for the rampant cynicysm, but even though I do support efforts and ideas to reduce, reuse, and recycle, I am also a pragmatist and look, as best I can, at all sides of an argument. If you are hoping to change the tools a person uses to make his living, you have to make sure that his living will not be adversely affected by the new tool.

[Susanne@PB&F]

2MT was banned a month or two ago for several weeks after too much under-diplomatic 'drive-by' stuff with a head of steam easily rivalling 'Erster/Oyster/Mike/Bill (?). The discussion was about the NATIONAL FISHERMAN 11/09 article on the "Robin Jean" as a recent addition to the wooden working inshore fleet. Perhaps they are the same guy... Where's that agent ?

[Susanne@PB&F]

mmd,
good points about the consequences of reflexive regulatory destructiveness and very persistent mindsets. Several responses:
- We first raised this perspective before the New England Fisheries Management Council in Spring of '03 just ahead of the draconian Amendment 13 affecting particularly the Groundfish Fleet. We stated then - and later in print during the public comment period - that if there is less fish to be taken, then operating cost have to be reduced.

One way to do so is to allow certified travel-lifts to assess weight (99+% of all vessels can be weighed that way here in the N.E.) to be observed and entered into fisheries-permits in lieu of 'Length' - if Fishers so desired; with zero impact on the resource. Fishers could then read their own business-plan, tea-leaves and OPEC/Economist mag forecasts then of $40 in 2003, then $65/barrel in 2005. Last summer (2008) we saw a 'roided' US $148/barrel. Around 2003 oil was $20-25/barrel.

NATIONAL FISHERMAN of 09/'04 ran an article that was 90+% correct on details - good enough for a hard-core industry-friendly mag. And several veteran fishers came forward to talk to us, here in Gloucester, ME and B.C. By 12/'04 our Regional NMFS Administrator even offered an R&D Special Fishing Permit (multi-species., two years for at least one full set of 4-season usage, plus debugging time and reconfiguration time).

But Fishing Industry Leaders - nor our regional Council - did not 'get it'; in many ways, now 5 years later, they are still preoccupied with counting fish/resource rather than also fortifying the industry against the inevitability of energy-cost - and thus all energy-based hardware - increases beyond any historic reference points and buiness-economic viability. Lot's of familiy-ventures dropping dead for years now without prospects of any 'way out'. And current Pew and EDF schemes are making things worse, as they have not done their homework on fleet-sustainability either - not surprising really.

This is the only industry of transportation and resource-extraction which by 2009 is by federal code still prohibited from evolving naturally towards vessel-operational economies in keeping with the unambiguous challenges. And yet the industry leadership, councils, and super-large ENGOs still focus exclusively on counting fish and who gets it. I belioeve this holds true for both the US and Canada.

Locally 40 fishers do 'get it' and did sign on to our proposal to prototype 'advanced vessels' to establish a new baseline for discussion, investment and working waterfront viability. Regional Conservation Law did formulate a clear Letter of Support, as did our Mayor... More bits and pieces are falling into place as we speak. Hope springs eternal.

Financing for prototypes and at least early (first come first served) stages of fleet restructuring would come in part out of Federal coffers as is has been federal regs that have produced these economically unsustainable hull- and drive-train geometries. Plus there is/was a Fleet Capitalization Program active for ages since the late 70s that offered great incentives to fishers to go big and burley...; now that fleet-structure is part of a very serious problem. But that program's legislative language can be rewritten for lower threshold anxiety in Congress, now emphasizing 'greening'/'low-carbon' advances to make this industrial fleet match the non-denominational demands of the 21st century.

Recently we advocated a 33% fisher/ 33% gov'tal/33% mega-ENGO (pew/EDF) mix of budgeting respective transition programs for the first few hundreds at least. The fisher's share amounts essentially to fishing-gear, nav-&comm&safety-gear, ground-tackle - all very transferable anyway. That makes the transitional drama much less serious for the fishers - once prototypes have shown appropriate performance and safety-gains.

There is nobody left alive and in power in any federal or state agency who would today defend these (and other) high-carbon bits of regulation. They are simply too embarassing in this day and age. In this country, President Obama would appear to likely resonate with the fundamental concept of a low-to-least carbon fleet structure for such a most public and yet rather small industry - ergo not too expensive to stimulate into a show-case of responsible 'sustainable' industrial policy.

One of the many good reasons to emphasize renewable wood as the primary structural material.

Would fishers go for this ? Enough would, reflecting, as those always have, the spirit of both innovation and fiscal cunning to maximize any advantage - once they see these craft work fine for their given fisheries. WOODENBOAT mag would cover these prototyping efforts, as would NATIONAL FISHERMAN. And that just gets the ball rolling...

Finally, there is no reason to assume across-the-board vessel-hold 'capacity-reduction' by vessel-design, once you are thinking 'same' weights. But you can likely reduce the power per weight-tonnage.
But many will actually rethink the bigger-is-better approach as they will see that resource-sustainability dictates won't allow mad-capacities 'derby'-fishing anyway, typically a sure-fire way to depress the ship-to-pier market as well. No, they might even consider down-sizing to 'future-proof' both the craft itself and their many closest-to-the-resource-fishing-port holes-in-the-wall, which might not be able to physically accommodate a corporate behemoth.

Shortest steaming-distances to the resource from a myriad of little ports and many smallish family-run ventures will redefine any discussion about operational economics, and perhaps sideline the mantra about corporate 'economies-of-scale' as the sole point of analysis; once local waters are fished out nearest the larger 'corporate' ports, increasing steaming-distances under increasing energy&hardware-costs all under a rigid ceiling of annual sustainability-defined fishing maxima will not bring joy to those 'consolidated' corporate ventures.