H.I.C.'s "Southwind"

[Bear's Oil]

Recently, I came across a double ended 22' dory/sharpie, drawn by Chappelle (date unknown).
It is a flat bottomed, round sided,little boat that puts one in mind of S. Redmond's "Elver". Chappelle has even calculated a "master curve", similar to "Elver". The craft is drawn as an open sloop and a cabin version rigged as an "Ohio sharpie cat/ketch"
The main difference is that Chappelle's boat has some rocker to it while Redmond's bottom is flat. His BOAT bottom, that is...
Anyone have any idea how these boats might differ in performance? This is a rhetorical question for me, since there is an "Elver" bottom in my shop, ready to be assembled.

[ 04-26-2003, 11:24 PM: Message edited by: Larry W. LaBounty ]

[Steve Redmond]

Wow, Larry! I'd like to see that. Where did you come across it?

I could tell you what I think the performance difference was if you could point me toward the plans.

--Steve Redmond
www.SRedmond.com

[Dennis Marshall]

Steve, check out this link. Click on sailboats, then click on cruising pocket sailers under 24ft and scroll down to "Southwind."

Southwind

Dennis

[ 04-30-2003, 11:58 PM: Message edited by: Dennis Marshall ]

[Bear's Oil]

Yep... thats where I found it, Dennis. I even sprang for the five bucks for the "plans", out of curiousity.

Steve....Was going to contact you, but figured you'd eventually pick up on this [img]smile.gif[/img]

Larry

[Steve Redmond]

Thanks Larry,

I don't see anything about a master curve in the description. Do you have the plans? Where does this come from originally? Is it a reprint from some magazine? I see some of the 60's Popular Mechanix boats listed by this outfit.

Anyway, all I can tell from the small drawings is that it has a lot of sail area, so as a guess it's a ballasted boat, and not much freeboard, either. Of course there's no indication of the width of the hull, or the bottom. So I can't really say anything about performance, differences, or similarities.

I'd probably send for plans out of curiosity, but I have a reluctance to send any money to what looks from here like a reprint ripper. If they bought rights to all of those plans, then my apologies.

I don't know, something about this stuff disturbs me in general -- not just in relation to boats. Reminds me of museum shops and their millions in sales, protected by special copyrights and charitable status. Van Gogh never sold a painting and thought he had it made when he managed an onion for dinner. Well maybe I have it wrong and the Chapelle family gets a buck for every one of the old man's designs sold by this publisher. You think?

Steve

[Keith Wilson]

Y'all may already know this, but if it were my boat, I would do stability calculations (or have someone with a better computer program do them for me) before I built a Chapelle design that hadn't been built and tested before. From what I read, he wasn't always scrupulous about doing the math, and tended to design by the seat of his pants, which were better calibrated some days than others. There were several fairly large Chapelle boats that had stability problems, and Southwind seems to have a lot of sail on a pretty narrow (though lovely) hull. OTOH, without knowing what's underwater, it's hard to tell.

Here she is:





[ 05-01-2003, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[Steve Paskey]

Steve: I ran across this a few weeks ago and was sufficiently curious to order a copy, which arrived today. (It's definitely a reprint, but it doesn't say where it came from.) There's a small drawing with dimensions for the master curve, and here's what Chapelle says about it:

"In shaping this hull, a very old idea has been utilized to reduce the work in lofting. In ancient times it was usual to shape all of the frames with but three molds which could be fitted together to form each of the frames; this method was called 'whole molding.' In Southwind the same principle has been applied so that all the frames and the stem and stern knees are formed by one curve mold."

I may try to scan and post a drawing over the weekend. Until then, a few dimensions. Maximum beam looks to be 6' 11", with a bottom width of 4' 8-1/2". Deepest part of the hull is about 7-1/2 inches lower than the base of the stem. Chapelle does recommend ballast -- he suggests that 10 bags of fine sand, 12x20 inches each, should be sufficient.

[Steve Redmond]

Well that's amazing!

Does seem like it might be tender on those proportions with that sailplan and inside ballast, but I would really have to see the lines to understand it better.

On the other hand, I think Mr. Chapelle is getting some undeserved hard treatment from the dock critics, lately. I'm not one of them. I think he did an amazing job and deserves better.

If someone tries to build a boat from the lines he drew, most of which were schematic only, and intended to be, then the primary responsibility for the absolutely necessary additional type research, calculations, construction details, proper outfitting, ballasting, appropriate employment and successful execution is on the builder. The builder is in fact the designer in this case, Chapelle mainly provided some evidence of what we once had, based on remaining hulls, good or bad and what verbal evidence was available.

The dire warnings to measure every boat Chapelle ever put down lines for, using some unknown's stability calculator program is a sad state of affairs. Not that building research isn't important, but the warnings shouldn't be necessary.

In addition, every designer of worth has had boats that didn't work out, mistakes in measurements, etc. Even the Herreshoffs. Even those using MegaBoataMatic CAD 4D Version 22. Boats are experiments, not certainties.

The sea is variable, as well.

Traditionally the idea of lofting a boat was considered necessary because EVERY set of offsets was assumed to be incorrect. That is, an approximation. And the designer was present during construction for the evolution from drawing to reality, making changes along the way -- resolving problems. In fact he was often none other than the builder.

Now people take a single page of lines from some extinct workboat and think that if they make a few allowances for cabin space and ballast they've got a yacht. If it doesn't work out, it's the drawing's fault. To resolve this they believe that plugging the numbers into a downloaded program would have solved the problem for them.

I'm sorry to read some of the comments about Mr. Chapelle. I think he did more to help preserve our essential small craft knowlege than the people who now find so much fault in his name.

To condemn on the basis of imperfection is a scrutiny I wouldn't survive either. Nor anyone I've ever heard of.

--Steve Redmond

[Ken Hutchins]

Steve, I absolutely agree with you.

[Keith Wilson]

Hey, I'm second to none in my admiration for HIC's work, particularly in documenting and preserving boats that would have been forgotten otherwise - my copy of American Small Sailing Craft is very well worn, and I even paid way too much for a 1939 edition of "American Sailing Craft".

Of course every boat is an experiment - For that matter, just about everything we build is an experiment - we didn't create the pysical world, we only imperfectly understand it, and we sometimes build things that work if we're careful and lucky. Of course everyone who has tried to design anything innovative screwed up occasionally and made something that didn't work.

However, I have read of several boats designed by HIC - his own designs, not documentation of a historical design - that had the same problem; they were too tender to carry their designed amount of sail. I have read the opinions of those who at least seemed to know what they were talking about, that he sometimes designed mostly by eye and slighted the mathematics, and that this was the cause of the problems with those particular boats (I'll look up the references if you like). I have no idea if Chapelle's designs are more likely than other's to have this problem, but Southwind, upon a very cursory examination, seems to have a lot of sail area on a light, narrow and shallow hull. I don't know if stability would be a problem with this boat, but if I were going to invest thousands of dollars and thousands of hours in building this very lovely design, I would take the time (or pay someone else) to do the math to check it. If this is undeserved criticism from a dock critic, so be it.

Also, please don't think that I'm implying that calcuations done on a computer are even slightly more trustworthy than those done by hand; the opposite is often true if the person using the program doesn't understand it thoroughly. At least with hand calculations, the mistakes are right out there in the open where you can see them. The point of using a computer is to save work and time, avoid arithmetic errors, and be able to go through more iterations of a design.

[Steve Redmond]

It's interesting the number of posts I've seen about the wonderful power of stability calculations. I've performed them for boats large enough to warrant it, but I don't have an illusion that they necessarily mean anything.

I wonder if it is understood that stability calculations are based on pure estimation on the part of the person performing them. The result is not a fixture of the universe, but purely a reflection of that person's experience, judgement, and luck.

If an architect has sufficient experience and judgement and luck to preciselty estimate the displacement of a finished boat, and the distribution of masses throughout its structure, rig and outfitting, all of which are required to calculate stability, then it's fairly likely that he already has an accurate picture of its ability to carry sail. All small boats ever to float were the result of builder judgement about what works and no other power of truth.

If the designer fails in his judgement or is unlucky, stability calculations won't save the day. They will just affirm his wrong estimates.

Math is consistent in its operations, but what it operates on is flawed by our own fallibility.

In the end there is risk. We try something. It either works or it doesn't work. We accept whatever it is, acquire more experience and judgement. And move on in humility with that reward.

[Bear's Oil]

OK, Steve, let's put it this way: Why did you design Elver with a flat bottom as opposed to rocker...?

[Dave Hadfield]

Interesting boat. At first I thought it was an Egret-type, but obviously it's different.

Different too from a Huntington Sharpie, in which the sides were flat but the bottom was built arc-rounded.

To me, it looks tender, but I'm speaking without data.

I sure like the website. There's a huge amount of creativity in those old designs

[Eric Sea Frog]

Is it a canoe yawl?

[grange]

Sorry to revive a thread from the dead, but I've got too many questions after doing some archive searching. . .

First, does anyone have any new information on the sail area question? Does Chapelle's design seem like too much?

Second, does anyone else notice a similarity in Southwind to Bolger's Birdwatcher? Of course, I wouldn't consider a lexan cabin "traditional", but that's just the topside! Is this a case of everything old is new again? And of course, this brings to mind the idea of Birdwatcher as a ketch or yawl!

Third, I found the DNGoodchild website, ordered their wares, and am very happy with the product (the reason I did a Woodenboat Archive search on "Southwind" in the first place). Steve Redmond seemed to indicate that this is not a reputable/ethical source of boat information. Can anyone elaborate as to why not? I don't want to take credit from those that deserve it, and I don't want to give money to those that do. However, I just don't understand the legalities and ethics involved in this website, which claims to sell "classic" works.

[Steve Paskey]

Most of the boat plan booklets DN Goodchild sells are reprints of old mazagine articles from 50 or 60 years ago. It's widely assumed -- and probably true -- that he hasn't been authorized to do so by anyone, and isn't paying any royalties to the heirs (if any) of the designers.

Don't know about the legal issues (what happens to copyrights held by a company when the company "dies" and the rights aren't transferred to someone else?) but the ethics of doing this have been the subject of much discussion around here.

My personal take: it would be ethically wrong to sell the stuff if the designer is still alive, or if a spouse or child is still alive and hasn't sold all rights to someone else. For example, Goodchilde shouldn't be selling any work by Wm. or John Atkin, because Pat Atkin is alive and is selling plans herself.

Beyond that, I don't have a problem with it. In fact, I applaud him for making the stuff available. Without his efforts, no one would ever see it.

[leftish]

You can get Southwind plans free from Swensons; sorry can't find link right now.

[leftish]

Sorry, Google Svensons Free Boat Plans, not Swensons

[dredbob]

Here is the link to Svensons and another old plan site.

Svensons

Polysail

Bob

[grange]

Great links! I'll spend a lot of time wandering around those sites.

Grange