Self bailing doomed to rot?

[davef]

A note in a previous post gave me pause and I thought I'd solicit some advice. We've designed and am building a 20' day sailer (no cabin - large cockput and small storage area under the deck fwd of the mast . It's designed to be self draining (i.e. cockpit floor is above the waterline and drains out holes in the transom). This means that there is around 5 inches of bilge below the cockpit floor that will be more or less sealed. There is a crummy picture of it at: http://media18.hypernet.com/mywb/scr...ail&boatid=538

The previous post mentioned that this single most important point in preventing rot was ventilation. However, with a self bailing floor, if I ventilate the bilge area I'll be inviting water into an area where is has little or no chance of escaping. I was hoping to fill the bilge area with that expanding foam stuff and then seal the whole thing up. Now I'm wondering if that's a dumb idea. Any opinions?

[RGM]

Dave, I briefly checked out your pictures/website. I thought it was fine until I started reading all of the engineering horse ****. Loose the engineer (P.E.) mentality briefly and elevate yourself to being a shipwright/boatwright. Get some decent boat building books, and I'm definitley not talking engineering books here. The fact that you would even consider installing foam in the manner you speak of tells me that you guys have alot to learn. Tear yourself away from the God D*mn CAD programs and start thinking for yourselves, just plain thinking. How were boats built 100 years ago, 200 years ago? Your design isn't new. Your problem isn't new. How were the water/drainage problems dealt with before engineers and computers came along. You guys need to get back to basics. And yes filling the bilge area with expanding foam is dumb, unless you like sailing with a continuous supply of mushrooms on board, I can't believe it. The boat will be heeling frequently, right? The boat will be trailered or moored? The cockpit floor will be stable but removable, right? Pour marine pitch in low spots between frames, floors, etc. to allow water movement and removal. Keep the limber holes clear. Use a sponge and a bucket. Or build it out of fiberglass.

[casem]

Christ RGM, why don't you tell him how you really feel.

[mmd]

Jeez, RGM, my dictionary doesn't define "craftsman" as being synonymous with "Luddite".

Davef, put your deck in tight without any foam goop. Install a couple of those round, watertight 8" diameter plastic inspection ports (one fwd, one aft) and open them, when you are not sailing, to sponge out any water and leave them open for ventilation until you go sailing again. I assume that this boat - lovely, by the way - will be epoxy-slathered and not traditional plank-on-frame, so the wood under the cockpit sole will be sealed against moisture. Make sure that all is sealed prior to fitting the deck and you should be OK for many years if you allow air to circulate when the boat is not in use.

As for the uselessness of engineering small boats, I'd rather do five iterations on ProSurf/AutoCAD (my tools of choice)in the comfort of my office than have four expensive, half-completed, failed prototypes out behind my shop. If we had always shunned new technology when building small boats we'd all still be paddling dugout canoes.

[Mike Field]

Dave, I think that what RGM perhaps meant is that boat design is more art than science. If one doesn't realise that, or forgets it, then one's creation is likely to be less effective/good/useful/long-lived/attractive than it might otherwise have been.

As a lapsed engineer myself, I would say that science-without-art products in general tend to be serviceable but uninspiring, whereas art-without-science ones tend to be glamorous but unsound. (It's just another version of the perennial argument between engineering and architecture.)

As far as boat design is concerned, science-without-art examples abound everywhere, whereas art-without-science ones are few and far between. The first type don't normally "fail," but the second type can (and usually spectacularly and of course once the product has failed it's no longer on the surface to be counted as an example. The lacklustre, non-artistic boats, being essentially safe, are still afloat and so can be seen wherever you look. Indeed, you can't avoid them -- in number, they outweigh the good designs by a couple of scales of magnitude.

A fair amount of art, with a judicious sprinkling of science, seems to be both the historic as well as the proper mix.

As Kipling said of the scientific approach --
...the Devil whoops, as he whoopped of old: 'It's clever, but is it Art?'

But at least your boat will probably float safely enough until the bottom rots out.......

[Scott Rosen]

Way to go RGM! It's refreshing to see some plain talk from someone who cares more about doing it right than stepping on some toes.

I'm not an engineer, but then again building a small wooden boat isn't rocket science, either. The idea that you can keep moisture out of a wooden hull be displacing all airspace with foam, or any other material for that matter, is a loser. The closest thing you'll find is some boats with pitch or concrete in the bilge, which is appropriate for a working boat maybe . . . . First thing you gotta do is spend some time on some small boats until you appreciate the difference between an engineer and shipright. After you've seen enough rotten results of hairbrained schemes, you appreciate the wisdom of those who've been there and done that. Solutions that may, in theory, work for materials like metal and plastic, won't necessarily work with wood.

[casem]

Hold on a minute Scott. The problem with with RGM's post is that he is implying that Dave is an idiot because he's an engineer, and because he used ProEngineer to design his hull, which is a perfectly appropriate tool for the job (although I would rather **** a ****** **** than use ProEngineer for anything). Somehow I think his response would have been a different if he had designed the exact same boat with paper and pencil and some battens. Maybe RGM can clear it up. Regardless, I think that the only person who should be able to condescend to anyone like that on this forum is Cleek.

[Keith Wilson]

Ah, the attack of the Luddites!

Geez, guys, he asks a reasonable question, demonstrating that he IS thinking for himself, and he gets blasted because he drew the boat on Pro-E! What an egregious load of crap!

CAD programs are a useful tool, no more. They will NOT think for you, as anyone who has used one for five minutes knows. You can design a good boat by eye (if you're good enough), by whittling a model, by drawing on paper, or on CAD. There are advantages and disadvantages to each method. The main disadvatages of Pro-E are that it's expensive and takes a while to learn. The great advantage is that you can change things very easily, and do many more iterations of a design than would be possible on paper. These folks obviously had the hardware and software, and know how to use it, so why not?

I would think that the boat itself would be sufficient to refute any objections to their methods. Art and science are NOT opposites, and are no more incompatible than bagels and cream cheese. Anyone who designs his own boat by any method, particularly one that looks as handsome as that, deserves hearty congratulations and support.

(End of Rant)

IMHO, the best way to keep the area under the cockpit floor from rotting is still ventilation. Foam will just make sure that any water that gets in will stay there. Make sure it's open fore and aft as much as possible, and that any water that gets in can drain toward the lowest point of the bilge. Epoxy-coating everything down there will help a lot as long as water doesn't get trapped. I presume the hull will be cold-molded or other non-traditional construction.

MMD's suggestion of access plates is excellent, and will probably be sufficient if the boat is trailered or kept covered. If it will be on a mooring, you need to find some way to get ventilation without letting in rainwater. Vents in the cockpit floor can't be kept open when the boat is out in the weather; perhaps there would be some way to have protected vertical openings fore and aft? Perhaps vents in the bulkheads at the ends of the cockpit that wouldn't collect rainwater? A deck vent with a solar-powered fan (standard commercial item) might also be good.

I'd also suggest tht you look at Phil Bolger's Chebacco design, (in "Boats With An open Mind", and there's a small picture at http://www.instantboats.com/chebacco.html ) which is of similar size and has a self-bailing cockpit. He paid a lot of attention to the ventilation under the seats and cockpit in that boat.

I just noticed you're in Wisconsin, so a further point, which our friends on the coasts may have missed: If the boat is going to be sailed like a C-scow (lots of sail, no reef points, hike way out, go like stink, and getting knocked down is just part of the game), then you'll need to close everything up really tight while sailing so she can float on her side without water getting in. Those screw-in access plates are looking better and better.

[This message has been edited by Keith Wilson (edited 08-11-2001).]

[TomRobb]

The foam sandwich thing seems to work ok for plastic boats like Boston Whaler. Your picture bespeaks an impressive attention to detail, but I think everyone here supposes that, real-world, getting the foam to stick everywhere with no voids where water vapor can condense to nurture the ever present rot spores, will be unlikely - a low probability event
I'd bet you two can design a nice appropriately simple vent system for the enclosed spaces
And I think Art v Engineering is a bogus debate. Both need the other

[htom]

Living in Wisconsin (where the weather isn't much different than Minnesota's), you're going to have condensation inside the boat no matter where or how you store it. Foam may prevent air circulation, but not condensation (yes, it insulates, but there's that pesky layer of wood in contact with the foam that's not insulated, where the condensation would occur.)

The removable large inspection/ventilation ports are a much better plan. You want to put them near or on the centerline so that the boat doesn't fill with water when you heel over with them accidentally unlatched.

[Frank Wentzel]

I think your boat is a good example of what can be done with CAD programs in skilled hands. What is missing is the experience of boatbuilding and the vagarities of boatbuilding materials. Something we all learned the hard way but may have forgotten that we didn't know from the start.

Foam comprises a multitude of materials, from soapsuds to glass foam. The most often used foam used for flotation is foam-in-place urethane. The main problem with this material is that it eventually absorbs water and does not release it. My father-in-law had an aluminum powerboat that had foam under the decks. He left it out in the weather with no rain-cover. After the deck rotted out we took out the waterlogged foam blocks to dry them. Even after six weeks in the sun they still weighed a ton. Never place foam where it can stay wet for any length of time or you risk the same experience.

The best bet to seal the wood is probably CPES and then a top coat of regular epoxy or paint for all wood surfaces (especially end-grain) before assembly. If the wood is kept dry it can't rot. Of course this means sealing all screw holes, etc. Inspection hatches for ventilation are good where feasible. If hatches can't be left open due to weather you might try using the flexible pipe used when installing clothes dryers to route air from weather protected areas to where you need it. A 4 inch, 12 volt muffin fan connected to a 150 milliamp solar panel could supply forced draft.

Your design looks beautiful - all it needs is a few bits of unconventional engineering (not Politically Correct to use the common term for this). Do you have your project on a website or have more pictures - if so please share them with us!

[This message has been edited by Frank Wentzel (edited 08-11-2001).]

[ishmael]

I'll chime in on the side of some healthy inspection plates to be removed whenever the boat is undercover, or on a nice dry day at the mooring. DON'T foam. Seal the dickens out of all ply surfaces, with cpes, then epoxy, then wherever there's UV exposure, paint. Your technique with glass tape will be perfect by the time you go to seal the floor to the hull. I think it will work just fine.

Looks like a screaming bunch of fun your boat.

Best,
Jack

[Frank Hagan]

Being neither engineer nor real boatbuilder (does one plywood-box type boat count?), I nevertheless feel compelled to offer a couple of suggestions.

Could you design large hatches into the flooring rather than 8" ports? Ports are hard to get into (you have to consider just how far you can reach down and around through an 8" opening to clean out that area.) With the kind of attention to detail you have already displayed, I think you would have the ability to design two or three waterproof hatches forming the cockpit floor that would give you complete access to the area.

If the idea of the foam was to provide flotation, you may have enough if you use styrofoam board on the underside of the deck (ceiling of the bilge.) Use 2" thick styrofoam, held suspended 1/4" below the top deck with stringers for plenty of air circulation. More removable flotation can be placed in the rest of the space. Kayakers use air bags, so that's another alternative.

Anyway, I love the lines in the picture. Having built someone else's design, I now have an itch to design my own, but that will have to wait. What did Ted Brewer say about the boat?

[George Roberts]

I think that Frank has the best solution.

Make the area as accessible as possible.

Put your drain troughs around the cockpit and make a hatch that fits over them.

Remove the hatch when off the water.

If you use epoxy for waterproofing, remember that epoxy needs to be .010" thick to be "waterproof". It is hard to brush it on uniformly that thick.

[Dale Harvey]

Foam in any of its many forms, has two good uses on a boat. It makes good cooler boxes, and if placed high in the hull it may provide some temporary flotation in the event the hull is ruptured in a collision. Never use it below the waterline, and never allow it to come in contact with wood that is not thoughly sealed with epoxy. I helped a friend cut up the old foam cover off her spa the other day. That sucker must have weighed two hundred pounds, all from absorption of water vapor. Not even epoxy is a complete vapor barrier, but it can come close enough if done properly and immersion is not constant. One breach though, and the trouble starts. Once the water gets into the foam it is all but impossible to get it back out, ventilation or no.

[RGM]

I sincerely appoloize for my initial response to davef's post. It was a bit too direct, a bit too harsh. That certainly isn't my style. I've had some recent experiences lately that have given me a hair trigger response when it comes to engineers/engineering. Davef you've got some great input from the rest of the troops. It seems to me that perhaps the method by which you handle water/de-watering may ultimately evolve by that wonderful age old practice of trial and error. Trial and error can be fun in a twisted sort of way, and rewarding. Good luck. Take pictures and post them.

[Mike Field]

What were those comments earlier on about art and science being opposites? RGM didn't say that, and I certainly didn't. No-one did except the two who jumped in with the assumption that that was what was said.

As far as boats are concerned, art and science, if used complementarily, produce the best designs. Which is what I said in my post.

Art without science can produce a boat that works, but like Mary Rose, or Pete Culler's last (?) attempt, it can also produce spectacular failures.

Science without art seems to produce boats that work, but that can look pretty unattractive one way or another. Any marina has lots of examples.

The best designers know that a certain amount of science is absolutely necessary, and they use it. But they don't use it to the exclusion of using their eyes or their hearts to design a boat that looks lovely as well.

The reason that we love the lines of boats designed by Stephens, Alden, Buchanan, Archer, and all the other great designers is that they knew how to marry the two things successfully.

It's not a case of Art versus Science at all. It never was and it never will be. The fact is that Art plus Science produces the best boats.

[TomRobb]

Exactly

Now, I've known artists and I've known engineers. These admittedly small samples were about as opposite as people can get. And both groups seemed to think the others fools who just don't get it.

And, Mike, you did respond to what you thought RGM ment to say.

BTW, does anyone know how to do italics here??


[This message has been edited by TomRobb (edited 08-12-2001).]

[This message has been edited by TomRobb (edited 08-12-2001).]

[This message has been edited by TomRobb (edited 08-12-2001).]

[Mike Field]

Tom --

1. There are exceptions of course. But I will admit we're few and far between....

2. That's true. He didn't refute it, though.

3. Yes, I know how to do italics. Nyah, nyah!

4. Gotcha.

5. Put [ i ] before the text you want italicised, and [ / i ] after it (but without the spaces.) Similarly with b for bold and img for a picture whose URL you're giving. (If you open this post for editing you'll be able to see what I've done.)



Cheers, Mike.

[TomRobb]

Thanks Mike!

[Ed Harrow]

DaveF, if you are still around after these several people beat you up (Fan from me the witless chaf of such writers! ), you might, if you can, find literature on the Mirror 16, which featured a self-bailing cockpit, and large access ports, but not really great, or any for that matter, ventilation thru the structure between the cockpit sole and hull.

These boats were built of ply, and the innards were sealed with something, tho I don't remember what. They did not feature foam anywhere but within the mast.

Good luck with you're project.

[John B]

Perhaps i missed it. Did anyone mention bungs.
they are there for a reason. And this situation is one of them.(As well as the inspection ports)

[davef]

OK,

I’ve stood by watching myself keel hauled in this forum for posing a simple, honest, naive question and it’s finally time to weigh in.

Yes, I am an engineer and I wont apologize for it. I’m proud of my training and expertise and of more than 20 years of practical, real world design experience. I’ve worked hard on my craft and take enormous pride in my profession.

You are, however, making a terrible mistake if you assume that just because I’m an engineer, I’m buried lost in calculations and theory.

I’m always amazed at the perception of engineering as a wholly theoretical discipline. Engineering by its very nature the PRACTICAL application of science. Engineering will always be the blending of experience, theory and common sense. That’s what differentiates us from Physicists.

More than anything else, being an engineer has taught me to balance my background and education with a combination of analytical and experiential work. The best engineers… almost all good engineers, are enormously respectful to the point of being reverential about learning from the past (…“If I see further than other’s it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants”)

Towards that end RGM:

I did read many books, about boat design. Books on construction. Books on aesthetics. Books on nautical design, and buoyancy. I was heavily influenced by “Principles of Yacht Design” by Mr. Lars Larsson and Mr. Rolf Eliasson, a book I read cover to cover.

I did try to use my training to understand not just the rules of thumb, but the principles that go into a boat design.

Yes, I did attempt to use the wisdom of the past to influence my design. We charted the scantlings of 6 similarly sized boats, ranging from Melgas to Joel White and tried to balance design tradeoffs as the related to our objectives.

Yes I did spend a LOT of time on the CAD and the analysis. My hull is fully lofted and I used the power of these programs to ensure that it was fair throughout. I ran prismatic and block coefficients. Studied metecenters, ran, buoyancy at angles of heel. I accurately estimated weights and material requirements. I like to believe that my tools and training made this a more efficient and accurate exercise. Our design went through roughly 4 major iterations, something that, with a day job, would not have been possible without the use of the tools.

Finally, because I do have so much respect for those who practice this as a profession as opposed to a hobby, I contacted Mr. Ted Brewer, a noted nautical designer, who was kind enough to spend several hours reviewing our plans and offered a number of very useful suggestions.

Ted, unlike many here on this forum, was kind and open with his advice, ironic considering that he was certainly qualified to ridicule me.

Like many people on this forum who choose to design their own boats as opposed to building a previous design, our approach is intensely personal with our own design objectives. Just because you didn’t see them, don’t assume that they aren’t there. I would venture to say that we spent a fair more time than most discussing the philosophy of our approach. In my own humble and personal belief, a sailboat represents a unique blend of art, science, aesthetics and performance. There is no RIGHT answer. My design, however, is right for me.

It seems to me as if there is a whole camp of people on this forum waiting in the proverbial wings to ride high on their sanctimonious horse. If my approach does not conform to your pre-conceived notions of what is proper or correct, then so be it.

Notice RGM, that I’m not going to make any ill-informed guesses about your technical competency, or intelligence the way you did of me. You probably are a very fine designer. No doubt far better than I could ever hope to be. You certainly are not, however a very kind person.

More than anything I guess I’m just disappointed at being bludgeoned for using this forum for what I thought it’s real purpose was.

Look, I’m not trying to re-invent the world or invent a better mousetrap. This isn’t my job or my life. I’m just trying to have some fun with my dad and wile some time away by building a boat. Neither of us is getting any younger and the time has been precious. It may very well be a crummy boat when I’m done but that’s ok if I learned a few things and spent some time with my dad along the way. That, RGM was the whole point.

That’s all I guess. I’m sorry if this letter wasn’t as articulate or organized as I would have liked.

[John B]

The fact is, it won't be a crummy boat.
It'll be fast, yet wholesome. I think it looks good.You are going to have even more fun sailing it than the conception/building of it.
Just forget the foam because it's a trap for moisture. How do fully sealed hulls end up getting wet inside? I dunno. they just do. condensation? osmosis?
Make it so that the hull can be ventilated and drained.
Aside... I'm always amazed at just how much that expanding foam stuff seems to weigh too. Do without it.

Congratulations on your project.

[dasboat]

davef,Get down bro!
weapon borrowed from the dod abm defense program
Das



[This message has been edited by dasboat (edited 08-15-2001).]

[Ed Harrow]

Davef, should you wander back, I didn't count, but I think the score is in your favor, maybe eleventeen to two, or something like that. Funny how this place can be quite accomodating with respect to politics, philosophy, religion, wives (no, just kidding on that one), but I do think, as Dave stated (I think he did, anyway) that some do sit whetting their blades for the more adventurous.

Dave, make use of your knowledge, talent, and gumption, most here will assist you.

[ishmael]

davef,

Difficult when something you've put so much work into comes under seemingly gratuitous attack. It is natural to see those attacks lit up like Christmas trees and to pass over the opinions of those who like what they see. All in all I think Ed is right, and you've come out way ahead. Don't mind the curmudgeons and the Luddites(as someone aptly called them). And the philosophical banter over engineers and ahrteests is just that, banter. We do a bunch of that around here. Nothing personal.

I think, as I said above, that your boat looks fine and a lot of fun to boot. I also think there has been some sound advice as to the issue of foam and your self-bailing cockpit. Take the wheat, and let the chaff fly away. Isn't it like that in any forum where people gather to give vent to opinion?

Happy building and sailing. I wish I had the chance to undertake such a project with my father.

Jack

P.S. Do note, also, that RGM offered a sincere apology for his fugue state.



[This message has been edited by ishmael (edited 08-16-2001).]

[Mike Field]

Nicely put, Jack. I was indeed waxing a bit philosophical over the matter of art vs science. (Actually, I thought I was being serious about it, but I'm really quite pleased to hear I was only bantering.)

As the man said, Dave, pan it for the gold and let the dross wash away.

Good luck with it. And please post some photos for us in due course, so you can rub our collective noses in it.

[ishmael]

Mike,

Is serious banter an oxymoron?

In anycase, my point was that that particular conversation was a digression having to do neither with davef's skill as an engineer nor his eye as a designer. Interesting digression mind you, but...

Jack

[Mike Field]

Jack
No
Yes
But
Mike

[Stephen Hutchins]

David,
Your hull shape looks quite fast to my eyes. Who knows - maybee you've just created the next one design racing fleet. Good luck, and happy boatbuilding.
-Steve

[davef]

Thanks all for your words of wisdom. Sorry RGM... I need to lighten up! I’ll try to take my valium and get a life. At this point we need all the encouragement we can get. We’re fairing the hull right now that is about the most tedious think I’ve ever done in my life. In fact I was considering a post asking for advice on making the fairing job more bearable, but so far I’ve found malt liquor to be pretty effective.

Thanks as well for the nice comments on the boat. I'm proud of her (and defensive apparently!).

Steve, she should be pretty light and fast I hope, but we intentionally didn't want her to be unwieldy. My father is in his late 60's and I wanted to avoid having to fight hard to keep her upright. 1310 lbs w/o crew and a 450lb bulb keel with 48 inches of draft. We kept the Sail area / displacement at an intentionally reasonable 32.5, staying far shy of the mid-40’s you’re seeing on Ultimates and Melgas’s. Still, versus the mid ‘20s you see on most conventional ’22 foot boats, she ought to get up and go. We really stretched the waterline (LOA/LWL of 1.17) hence the pretty rapid drop on the bow. I don’t like that aesthetic quite as much – looks a bit too modern for my tastes - but it’s hard to argue the performance and handling advantages so we went that route. She has a nice broad flat stern and I’m hoping she can get up on a plane, and Ted Brewer encouraged us to increase the prismatic coefficient and fill out the bow a bit which he claims will make her more manageable in our Midwest slop.

Although the hull and ratios tend towards the fast side, we would like her to be as clean and simple as possible to rig and run. There is no back stay. We tried for an enormous cockpit, as the mast is actually supported on a peninsula out from the deck. She should have a perfectly flat floor in the cockpit (with a raisable keel for trailering – here I hope my strength calculations work!). In addition, we are currently planning on a club footed jib for the utmost in lazy sailing although we’re 5 months from having to finalize that approach.

It has been a lot of fun and I’m looking forward to trying her out some day…

I’ve been taking digital pictures throughout so some day I’ll lob them up on a web site. In addition, the solid models of design look cool so I’ll probably create some VRML file of them.

[TomRobb]

Pictures! We need pictures, man!

[Art Read]

Nothing like being halfway into a project like this to give one a case of the "Oh my God, tell me I'm doing this right..." syndrome. My hat's off to you for building a boat that is truely your own creation, from idea through design to completion... What a litteral leap of faith! I know that with my own project, a design from 1915, I still find myself up nights questioning my technique and execution of the designer's intent. What I wouldn't give to spend just one day in the yard where the originals were built all those years ago... That being said, this forum has been the next best thing for finding that "real world" experience to help me muddle through. We may wax a bit too philosophical at times, but at the end of the day, the folks here will bend over backwards to help a fellow sufferer through the rocks and shoals. (And having met RGM, I can tell you that he'll be at the front of the line!) Looking forward to hearing of your continuing progress... Enjoy.

[mmd]

Gee, Davef, I like the view from your soapbox. You go, bro! When it comes to yacht design, an engineer who doesn't recognize the aesthetic is crippled, but the artist who fails to appreciate the underlying engineering is flirting with disaster. The individual who is adept at the balancing act of mastering the engineering beneath the aesthetically-pleasing surface becomes an L. F. Herreshoff or a Bill Garden. More power to those who thinly veil their engineering prowess behind an artistic facade!!

BTW, I'd love to see more discussions on the engineering facets of the trade, such as stability analysis, longitudinal strength evaluations, inertial moments, etc. In fact, I believe that when boat rags publish "boat data" on a new design, I think that they should put initial stability graphs and polar velocity diagrams in the info so we can get a REAL indication of the boat's abilities.

[davef]

Ok... Don't know if this will work. Someone can let me know if you can see any of these.

(ps... the power spiler (aka the whirling harbinger of death) can be borrowed by anyone willing to indemnify me!

Dave)

http://www.proagile.com/boat/forum0.jpg
http://www.proagile.com/boat/forum1.jpg
http://www.proagile.com/boat/forum2.jpg
http://www.proagile.com/boat/forum3.jpg
http://www.proagile.com/boat/forum4.jpg
http://www.proagile.com/boat/forum5.jpg
http://www.proagile.com/boat/forum6.jpg
http://www.proagile.com/boat/forum7.jpg
http://www.proagile.com/boat/forum8.jpg
http://www.proagile.com/boat/forum9.jpg
http://www.proagile.com/boat/forum10.jpg
http://www.proagile.com/boat/forum11.jpg

[dasboat]

Dave,that is a tour worth taking.
I am facinated by the process of bringing a boat to life.
All of you folks who build are worthy of high praise.
I buy em,maintain em, and float em,and offer praise to all who do the same.
There is just something spiritual about creating such things of beauty.
Das

[Alan D. Hyde]

Dave-------

They look good.

Alan

[ishmael]

Lookin' good Dave. When does it come off the mold?

[John B]

3 skins AND glass in between and glass to finish. You could do the Whitbread in that ( What's it called now?... "Volvo" round the world).
Your boat will be bullet proof. Have you a weight for it ?

[htom]

Very nice, Dave.

Why did you use aluminum to line the board slot?

The whirling spliner of death ... I'll pass, but it does look efficient.

So don't paint it! The wood will look fantastic.

(And considerate of you post the links rather than the graphics so that everyone loads them everytime they come to this topic, too.)

[lumberdude]

So far, I have been reading and posting on this forum for about 2 weeks. Up until I started reading this thread I was so very impressed with how polite, friendly and helpful everyone has been. I still feel that way, especially since it seems like around here it is a rare occasion to find the kind heartedness that I have witnessed here. (As sad as that is)

As for building a boat, from your own design especially, I sit here in awe just praying that someday I may be able to come close to the attention to detail not to mention the craftsmanship of the vessels I've laid my eyes on. I look at some of these pictures absolutely speechless.

Before 2 weeks ago, I knew absolutely nothing about wooden boats. Now, only a few weeks later, I feel like I am well on my way to understanding at least the basics of making these things beautiful and functional. I can attribute 95 percent of my interest and knowledge to the people of this forum. I feel so lucky to have stumbled on an interest that is so fasinating, so nastalgic, so difficult, and so challenging. I applaud all of you that teach the newbies such as myself, and to all of you that risk looking silly to ask questions.

I'm not sure exactly what my point is, except to say thank-you to those that give of themselves to help the future boat designers.
I think another point may be to offer a different perspective from those that don't know what they are doing, but really appreciate those that do.

Okay, I'll quit now.....

lumberdude