Two bits...

[Bob Cleek]

I hereby waive my "copyrights" to WB! Quote away! Keith and I are really not all that far apart, as usual. We just like debating things and we know how to "play by the rules." You won't find us devolving to name calling, although Keith does sometimes "bend the rules" by trying to put an advantageous spin on what I say. His premises seem more absolute, while I like to paint mine in a broader spectrum of "shades of grey." (That'll get a rise outa him!)

I am certainly no Luddite. I use modern materials when they seem appropriate and I'm always on the lookout for new mehtods and products, as anyone who knows of my affinity for CPES can attest, but I think there are two constants in the game that don't ever change, the "physics of wood" and the "physics of the sea." A craftsman who has a command of the traditional methods can build any "wooden" boat, be it plank on frame fastened with treenails or a "plywood box" "encapsulated in plasic resin like a fly in amber (which I concede, in the case of amber, is a "wood product" that does last a long, long time!) I appreciate that others may debate differing boatbuilding philosophies, but there can be no denying that the mechanical properties of wood and how it moves as its moisture content changes in a marine environment are inconsistent with rigid adhesives that don't move along with it. That's really the distinction between building with mechanically fastened natural timber assembled with consideration for shrinking and swelling and building with "manufactured wood products" fastened and encapsulated in adhesives and coatings that are intended to prevent the wood doing what it naturally does.. The traditional approach requires a respect for and acceptance of how wood moves and an accommodation of that, while the "modern" approach confronts those same inherent characteristics of wood and seeks to negate or overpower them with modern technology. Even though I might be considered a "Confucian," I do think there's a "yin" and a "yang" in that, in much the same way that similar differing perspectives in Eastern and Western philosophy are reflected in the differences between Asian and European sailing hull and rig design. It isn't "a matter of opinion" that laminated wood structures subjected to wetting and drying cycles, however mitigated by moisture inhibiting barriers, will inevitably tear themselves apart. That isn't to say that traditonal construction doesn't have it's own well known limitations, but when wood decays, as nature has decreed it will inevitably do, traditional construction takes that into account by factoring the anticipated need for repairs into its engineering equation, unlike "modern" methods, which reflect the "modern" economics of our "throw-away" materialistic culture. The "traditional" boatbuilding methods address the inevitable forces created by the nature of wood by vectoring them in the direction desired, while "modern" methods meet those forces head on and seek to overpower them.

That said, can we truly consider a method that of its essence seeks to overcome the very nature of wood by holding it together and covering with plastics to be "wooden boatbuiding?" Is that qualitatively any different from other modern technologies that have made it possible to turn barrels of crude oil into unquestionably fine fibreglass boats? It's all "wooden" at the end of the day, oil being, after all, merely decomposed vegetable material.

[Duncan Gibbs]

Once again Bob, I point to my own 40 year old unencapsulated, ply, stitch and glue boat that, left uncared for for many years, developed rot and required bits of it to be chopped out and replaced. Now after a few seasons hard sailing it needs a repaint. I would hardly call this the act of a "throw away" culture, although many did suggest I do just that before I restored her.

The same degree of care is required in building and maintaining a ply, stitch and glue boat as a traditional building. Endgrain needs to be sealed, voids filled, metals of differing nobility need to be separated and so on. If built and maintained properly it will last as long as any traditionally built boat, and probably longer as plastic resins will last for hundreds, if not thousands of years before breaking down. Like I said, wood is wood and it really doesn't matter if it's been processed and laminated up, or if it's used in a solid form. If left uncared for in either state it will rot.

It's worthwhile remembering that many of the traditionally built boats were working boats and designed to have a short, hard life. A life beyond 20 years of service was not generally thought of, either in the building or using of these vessels. That some of them are with us today is extraordinary.

As to the issue of traditional timber stock, the method of obtaining timber you've described is precisely the one I used in getting mine. Even if I just wanted small stock to build Billy Atkin's Krazy Kat (my next build, as Erica will consume years of time) which is batten seamed carvel, I would still have to follow this route. Whereas Atkin describes being able to pick up the timber, for such a small vessel, from a local supplier quite easily and at low cost. Now, excluding my own labour I've now accumulated quite a collection of timber suitable for boat building at a much, much lower cost than if I were to go and order such timber from the local mill. But how many people these day have either the time, work space, or inclination to man-handle big logs onto gluts, roll them into a portable mill, stack, sticker and air dry cubic metres of timber?

I also restate that if Wooden Boat doesn't cover "quick and dirty" builds, or modern processed timber/adhesive techniques it will not be a going concern (think advertisers alone) and there will be no journal where traditional techniques can be expounded upon.

[Bob Cleek]

I also restate that if Wooden Boat doesn't cover "quick and dirty" builds, or modern processed timber/adhesive techniques it will not be a going concern (think advertisers alone) and there will be no journal where traditional techniques can be expounded upon.

Yea, I know. You're right about that. And if it weren't for the dirty pictures, Playboy wouldn't be publishing all those great articles! But to bring it back to where it started, I think they can find it still profitable to cut the stuff about "12 hour boats" and use the space to address both traditional and modern sophisticated aspects of the craft.

[Keith Wilson]

. . .by trying to put an advantageous spin on what I say.

Now, now, Bob, if you don't like the words I quoted, you shouldn't have written them.

His premises seem more absolute, while I like to paint mine in a broader spectrum of "shades of grey." (That'll get a rise outa him!)

Indeed. My position is not absolute at all, but as inclusive as possible. I like traditional boats and boatbuilding, and I think WB should publish lots of excellent articles about them. I also like boats built by modern methods, and I think articles about them would be fine too.

Your arguments seem to shift around surprisingly. Is simple plywood construction really too easy, fit only for novices and those desiring an ugly boat by next Tuesday, and beneath the dignity of the august pages of WB magazine? Or is it a snare and a delusion, and in truth no easier than traditional construction? Are boats built by modern methods just fine if carefully constructed, or do they have serious inherent flaws just waiting to appear? Are you "not denigrating modern methods", or are they "boats with some wood in them", not really any different from fiberglass boats, "instant gratification " for "the dumbest kids in the class"?

A craftsman who has a command of the traditional methods can build any "wooden" boat . .

I don't think so, at least not without learning new skills. While most traditional boatbuilders are intelligent, skillful, and adaptable, knowing how to shape solid wood teaches one nothing about the techniques for using epoxy effectively. A cold-molded boat that's vacuum-bagged, for example, uses techniques very, very different from anything in traditional building; it's probably the most difficult and labor-intensive method of wooden construction known. Modern boatbuilding techniques are NOT entirely a subset of traditional skills.

. . . there can be no denying that the mechanical properties of wood and how it moves as its moisture content changes in a marine environment are inconsistent with rigid adhesives that don't move along with it. That's really the distinction between building with mechanically fastened natural timber assembled with consideration for shrinking and swelling and building with "manufactured wood products" fastened and encapsulated in adhesives and coatings that are intended to prevent the wood doing what it naturally does.

Ah, now we're talking materials science and engineering, subjects I do understand a little about. Wood changes size and shape with changes in moisture content, certainly. Glue doesn't so much, although characterizing it as rigid isn't really accurate. Epoxy is quite flexible compared to iron or bronze, for example. However, glued construction in most cases doesn't try to eliminate wood movement by abolishing changes in moisture content. It deals with the motion by keeping the size of the wood pieces small relative to the size of the glue joint. Glue joints can accommodate wood movement perfectly well as long as it's not too large. That's how plywood stays together; the veneers are thin and they don't move much, so the stresses on the glue lines stay within reasonable limits. A cold-molded hull is just a large funny-shaped piece of plywood. So is a glued-ply lapstrake hull. They can be covered with layers of reinforcing fabric and epoxy (although they aren't always) because, again, the veneers are thin and don't move more than the glued joints can tolerate. Glued construction "works with the nature of wood" just as much as traditional construction; if it didn't, the boats wouldn't stay together. Nature cannot be fooled.

They're all wooden boats. Some of them are good, some not, but goodness doesn't depend on with whether thay use treenails, metal fasteners, or glue. And the good ones all deserve coverage in Wooden Boat.

Certainly if anyone at WB wants to do anything with our conversation it's OK by me (as unlikely as that may be). And by "Confucian" I meant having perhaps excessive reverence for the ancestors.

[essaunders]

from John Bell:

[/I]Done.
-Scot

Thanks! I've been wanting that "feature" for years!!!!

[Bob Cleek]

In case anybody's still interested in this thread, I'm copying this from http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthre...ing-propaganda, a "revived" thread relevant to this one.
It contains a lot of back and forth discussion on the pros and cons of "modern" boatbuilding. When you separate the fly$hit from the pepper, good points are raised from both perspectives. If WB's editors were to keep in mind that these "new" methods are "entry level" techniques, perhaps an editorial content balance could be struck that kept things in perspective. I submit that it is fair to presume that those who are just starting out really do want to learn the traditional methods and that "quick and dirty" methods allow them to get their feet wet without being scared off by the considerable complexity of traditional methods.

"I've been following it with some interest. Frankly, I think it is a great discussion and pretty much all that can be said about the subject has been said in here.

The biggest kernel of truth is that SNG or "quick and dirty" boatbuilding does indeed provide an entry for many who otherwise would be discouraged by the steep learning curve attendant to the traditional wooden boatbuilding craft. DIY traditional wooden boatbuilding requires much more of the amateur than it ever did of the pros. Professionally, in days of old, boats were built by teams of specialists. While master boatbuilders had a working command of most all of the various separate crafts required to build a traditional wooden boat, few were masters of all of these. In the old time production environment, there were loftsmen, framers, plankers, caulkers, finish joiners, painters, riggers, sailmakers and so on, each a separate trade with its own tricks of the trade and secret handshakes. Today's amateur has to be able to do most all of them alone. How many really would tackle traditional wooden boatbuilding today from a standing start?

Stitch and glue, and indeed many of the adhesive-dependent construction systems touted today serve a justifiable purpose as the "gateway drug" to real wooden boatbuilding, but those who start off with it and never matriculate to the more challenging traditional methods are a lot like those who begrudgingly admit they "tried it," but "didn't inhale."'

[Canoeyawl]

there were loftsmen, framers, plankers, caulkers, finish joiners, painters, riggers, sailmakers and so on, each a separate trade with its own tricks of the trade and secret handshakes.

With sailmaking always being specialized, that would be the difference between a "boatbuilder" and a "shipbuilder"
A boatbuilder has to be competent in all those skills. It would be impossible for one man to complete a ship.

[Bob Cleek]

With sailmaking always being specialized, that would be the difference between a "boatbuilder" and a "shipbuilder"
A boatbuilder has to be competent in all those skills. It would be impossible for one man to complete a ship.

I think the main difference is the size of their hammers.

That said, specialization was common practice in most all of the larger yards. Herreshoff, Lawley, and the rest, had separate crews for the various specialties. Herreshoff, for example, had a separate "small boat shop" that turned out their Columbia "lifeboats," the "Buzzard's Bay Boy's Boats" and the like, but, when completed, the painting was done by the paint shop crew. Their larger boats were built "in place," with the various crews rotating through as the work progressed. It wasn't an "assembly line" operation as with automobiles, of course, but their foundry work was done by the foundry crew, rigging by the rigging gang, caulking by the caulking gang, and so forth.

[Duncan Gibbs]

A great couple of posts Bob, and I think they really explain the ultimate need to have S&G methods shown alongside traditional methods under the one publishing umbrella. I wouldn't call all S&G "quick and dirty" as some of these vessels do require considerable skill beyond that of putting a "Bolger box" together. Indeed, some "Bolger boxes" can be major builds as well, as witnessed by the epic of Peter Lennihan's Turtle Bay. There are some many shades of grey that render the subject that a simple dichotomy is really impossible to attain. As much as I dislike powerboats, the noise and fumes they make, the wash they produce that can damage delicate ecosystems, I know that Wooden Boat will always have them within its covers (and sometime on its cover!)

Interestingly finely crafted musical instruments, such as violins and pianos, are almost all produced in a 'factory' setting where different people turn out and assemble the various components in a production setting.

[Keith Wilson]

First, epoxy-glued construction is far more than stitch and glue. Second, stitch and glue is not merely "entry level" boatbuilding, although it can be. Have you ever seen one of Sam Devlin's boats? You can say many things about them, but entry level they're not. Here are four at Port Townsend.

[P.L.Lenihan]

I've a real problem and honestly hope to never remedy it. I like all sorts of boats.In fact, if it floats, I like it. I do not care if it is big or small nor the material it is made from. I am just addicted to floating things.Either I was a fish in some previous life or I am absolutely nuts in the present, I really do not know. The only reason I have a slight bias toward a boat made from wood is that this is about the cheapest and easiest material I imagine I can safely handle. I am a hobbiest , not a tradesman or professional boat person. The variety of methods and boats presented in Woodenboat magazine satisfies my addiction handsomely as it is forever reducing the paucity of my knowledge in things boat related. For that I am grateful.

Perhaps in the next life I will win the Choose-Your-Next-Life lottery and return as a tradesman or professional boat builder(shipwright). How lucky I will be to have had the chance to read Woodenboat magazine in this life!




Cheers!


Peter

[Nicholas Scheuer]

Second what Keith wrote instead of going with the "traditionalists".

I like the diversity includud under the present WB mantle. Heck, one of my favorite articles appeared several years ago, the one about the wooden PT-Boats. And it's the only place we're going to read about reasonably small, low-powered displacement motor cruisers.

[Old Dryfoot]

A very enjoyable read, thank you to all contributors.

My vote is for more of the same, I think that WB has found a pleasing balance of modern and transitional content.