Save-A-Boat - The Forum for Plastic Classic Rebuilds!

Every so often I get in a "gaff rigs and bowsprits" state of mind, and start thinking that I could really go for something like a Bristol Channel Cutter. There's just something about them.

Who wouldn't LOVE this seat?


Even without the gaff, she's so salty your eyeballs start to rust.


Just a little something brewing in that "someday I'll do some extended cruising" corner of my mind.

Figment wrote:Just a little something brewing in that "someday I'll do some extended cruising" corner of my mind.

I believe that you can buy the BCC in a few variations of kit form as well, though I recall that the builder has some pretty specific minimimum installations that they require in any hull that leaves the factory, so one can't quite do a real bare-hull construction themselves. I didn't immediately find this info on the Sam L. Morse website just now, but remember seeing it in the past.

I think the BCC would be an outstanding cruising boat for a real cruise. Her displacement makes her the equivalent of many 40-footers in terms of size and load-carrying capacity. The general design is well-proven as a very capable offshore boat, as well as a surprising performer in all wind conditions. One need only check out the Pardey's experiences with the very similar Seraffyn and Talesin for proof.

I don't think I'd want a gaff rig on a cruising boat (I'll save that for an eventual classic catboat or schooner), but I sure have bowsprit envy! I love bowsprits.

I think mandatory prison terms would be required for anyone buying one of these boats who wasn't preparing for imminent cruising departure, though. She's designed and built to go places for sure.

I sure have bowsprit envy! I love bowsprits

Hmmm... anyone want to touch that one?

Tim, let's keep things professional around here ;-)

I am totally on board with the BCC thing. Great boat all around. The bahamian rig may be more practical but looks kinda funky IMHO. The BCC is all old world tradition and the triangle sail just stands out too much.
And bow sprits are ...er.... nice, but going out there on that pole when it gets rough is quite the experience. It also bugs me to pay so much extra at the dock because of the added length. Other than that I don't think I know of a better cruising boat in that size range.

Just a little something brewing in that "someday I'll do some extended cruising" corner of my mind.

If not now, when? I don't know about you but I am getting the feeling I am never going to finish my current boat. I am going to have to race just to see some salt water under the keel this summer. I couldn't even begin to think about starting another one. As much as I would like another boat for that "extended cruise", I am thinking I can't afford to put this much into one boat and then start over with another. When my turn comes I am going to suck it up and leave in my Triton.
Of course I know we are all dreaming here and yes, the Cutter is perhaps the perfect dream.

-Britton

bcooke wrote:It also bugs me to pay so much extra at the dock because of the added length.

Coming from Maine, where moorings are the norm, the thought of even having to be at a dock sends shudders racing uncontrollably down my spine. But it would be annoying to have to pay for mostly air space because of a bowsprit, if one had to be at a dock.

That said, the BCC should not be sitting in a slip anyway, unless it's chained there in impound after the mandatory prison sentence for her owner was enforced.

bcooke wrote:Quote:
I sure have bowsprit envy! I love bowsprits


Hmmm... anyone want to touch that one?

Tim, let's keep things professional around here ;-)

You guys and your potty minds! I think the sailing season needs to come...and quickly! hehe

When I aquired my Islander Bahama, she met 6/7 requirements. The 7th was to be gaff-rigged. After working on schooners, I love the gaff rig and all the "strings" for topsails as well!! Sooooo salty.

After sailing in Maine, and then coming back to WI, paying for a slip SUCKS! $800 a year for a 24' boat in the summer. Then paying to store it in a parking lot?!?!?! Grrrrrrrrr. It makes having a boat on a shoestring tough.

Many of the english cutters had a removable sprit that could be esily retracted. I think that is a stellar idea.

If a salty boat is what you like, the gaff-rig with a topsail is a definite. If compared to a car, it would be like buying a 4 cyl Mustang with an automatic transmission. Just missing out on the good stuff that makes the driving experience what it is.

That being said, having all that weight aloft swinging and chafing while offshore would be a bit disconcerting. There is no doubt that the Marconi rig is the choice for all of its advantages -except looks.

E

Yes Bristol Channel Cutters are wonderful boats. This is one of the books that finally pushed me over the edge.



This picture, well, what can I say, when Microsoft came out with the add which ask "Where do you want to be today?" this picture is what always came to mind.

;)

There is no doubt that the Marconi rig is the choice for all of its advantages...

Well, there is in my mind :-) Gaff rigs have lots of advantages too (more sail area, lower CE, less stress on the rig, etc) but like anything else on a boat it all comes down to compromises. I would be happy with either.

... except on a BCC. In that application I would insist on a gaff rig. Aesthetics wins for me here.

I forget, what is the displacement of these boats? I think it is like 3 or four times the displacement of my Triton. Just think of the stuff I could haul around and the dance parties I could host with an interior capacity like that! Oh, be still my heart...

-Britton

Gaff rigs are beautiful. For bopping around the bay in a character boat, they're hard to beat.

But I'll take a Marconi any day on a cruising boat (including a BCC, which was designed for the taller rig and large headsails of a Marconi rig, and which, with its tall rig and super-sized bowsprit, works just fine aesthetically in my book). Windward efficiency is important, as much as we all like to go downwind. If I want romance I'll sit in my cockpit and gaze at the neighboring boat with a gaff rig.

But I'd love a catboat or schooner with gaffs, just for fun. I think the catboat is a likely addition to my fleet, someday.

I agree with Tim. I own a traditional catboat (a Beetle Cat) and a gaff-rigged sloop (a Herreshoff Eagle) and I do love the look and sailing characteristics of my gaff-rigged boats for day sails around the bay. However, if I were looking for a boat to do some serious cruising on, a Marconi rig would be my choice for all the reasons set forth above. That being said, when I do look for that cruising boat, a BCC would not be bad at all!

Windward efficiency is important, as much as we all like to go downwind

You do know that gaffs go to windward too right?... Perhaps not as well as the Bermudan but not that much worse either.

I think the Marconi's greatest asset is its ease of use. Anyone with a heartbeat can get it up and working. I think that is the main reason its use is so widespread today. Not that a gaff rig is really all that hard to hoist. If you want the gaff to go up exactly parallel and impress your neighbors you have to be quite nimble on the double halyards but hoisting one halyard at a time gets the job done too.

Yes, a Bermudan goes to windward better but most 'sailors' use the motor for upwind work anyway.

I still contend the gaff is more than just an aesthetic choice. Anyone want to break out the engineering data? Mike?...

-Britton

Just expressing my opinion, that's all!

Nah, I'm not really in a math mood this morning.

I think the most compelling argument I've seen is somewhere in the book Wooden Boats by Michael Ruhlman (sp?). The author does a pretty good job of relaying Nat Benjamin's analysis, though he is predisposed to romanticism.

Haven't read the book? It's worth a trip to the local library, if not Amazon.

bcooke wrote:Yes, a Bermudan goes to windward better but most 'sailors' use the motor for upwind work anyway.

Glad you put that 'sailor' in quotes!

Just expressing my opinion, that's all!

I knew that would scare off the dissenters :-)

It is a shame though because I was just perusing an old calculus textbook last night ( anyone feel the need to comment?) and was in the mood for some no nonsense, left brain, clear logic, straightforward answer to a question. Mike, I take rain checks.

Sad though it is, when I refer to sailors I am very often implying quotation marks around the word. I think we need to come up with a new word for these types. How arrogant sounding is that? I can almost taste the foot in my mouth now...

-Britton

bcooke wrote:I was just perusing an old calculus textbook last night ( anyone feel the need to comment?)...

You need professional help.

No argument there.

It was kinda interesting though...

-Britton

Here is a design I have had my eye on for some time. She is designed as a 42'er. I really love the look of the gaff main and the marconi mizzen.



I love the raked masts, too. Certainly different, but interesting.

Tim wrote:

bcooke wrote:I was just perusing an old calculus textbook last night ( anyone feel the need to comment?)...

You need professional help.

Step one: burn that book!!!

Calculus is evil. Calculus EVIL! CalculusEvilCalculusEvilCalculusevilcalculusevilcalculusevilcalculusevilcalculusevilcalculusevilcalculusevil
calculusevilcalculusevilcalculusevilcalculusevilcalculusevilcalculusevilcalculus

My brain doesn't do calculus. I got through school only because I was fortunate enough to find some sympathetic classmates and teachers who would spend time with me after class and teach me the regular-math way around the calculus. Bad bad memories.

Not quite an english channel cutter...but still breat looking . "Farewell" is a boat I used to race on in st michaels MD Wed nights in the 80's.



Great fun....and it is plastic!!!

Peter Van Dine also did some tancook whalers in 'glass.

Not quite an english channel cutter...but still great looking . "Farewell" is a boat I used to race on in st michaels MD Wed nights in the 80's.



Great fun....and it is plastic!!!

Peter Van Dine also did some tancook whalers in 'glass.

Calculus is evil.

Yes, well, so is everything else that sounds, tastes, and feels good.

Actually, once the admittedly difficult concept is grasped calculus becomes quite understandable.

I picked up the book because I have been toying with the idea of a return to school and was wondering if I still had the concept. It is pretty vague at the moment.

-Britton

bcooke wrote:Yes, well, so is everything else that sounds, tastes, and feels good.

Actually, once the admittedly difficult concept is grasped calculus becomes quite understandable.

I picked up the book because I have been toying with the idea of a return to school and was wondering if I still had the concept. It is pretty vague at the moment.

So I gather you actually like math! A revelation! No wonder you're always pressing for complex diagrams and theory! hehe Now it makes sense. After all, you were once going down an economics road, were you not? (Until, as you claim, I was somehow responsible for your abandonment of that dream...)

How does one, other than an astronomer or mathematician or rocket engineer or what have you, ever use calculus in life? What exactly is the point of calculus, and why might one study it?

I'm not trying to be a pain (well, maybe a little...but that's why you love me..hehe), but seriously wonder what calculus does do! Is it used in economics or acccounting? All I rememember was that funny-shaped swoopy thingie-ding at the front of some complex set of numbers. I don't even know what that was called. My apparent ignorance is showing.

Other than basic algebra (solve for the X) and, of course, geometry (and it goes without saying adding, subtracting, multiplication, and division), I can't see much use for math unless one goes into a math field. Looking back, I wish there had been an opportunity for a practical math course of study, rather than all the quadratic formula/logarithm type of stuff that most of us never find the most remote use for. Sometimes I think there's such an emphasis on the need for higher education that we as a society forget the importance of the more basic (and practical) skills required on a day-to-day basis.

This topic has gone well beyond the "Classic Sailboat" moniker, I fear.

What I really wanted to say was: what a cool-looking boat! I think topmasts and topsails are a must on any gaff rig.

Ric in Richmond wrote:Not quite an english channel cutter...but still great looking . "Farewell" is a boat I used to race on in st michaels MD Wed nights in the 80's.



Great fun....and it is plastic!!!

Peter Van Dine also did some tancook whalers in 'glass.

Tim wrote:How does one, other than an astronomer or mathematician or rocket engineer or what have you, ever use calculus in life? What exactly is the point of calculus, and why might one study it?

I technically fit into your premise (my degree is in aerospace engineering - so, yes, I am a rocket scientist) but I actually use basic calculus all the time, outside of rocketry-related activities. Most of the basic algebra you use (particularly with trigonometry and geometry) gives you an answer, a piece of "missing information", by a process of elimination - you know A, B, and C, therefore you can determine D. This is very useful, of course.

Calculus can often give you D when all you know is A or B.

For example, let's say you're trying to determine which Triton has the best acceleration - fractional rig or full rig. (I was going to use engines, but bah - we're sailors, right?) You don't have a reliable means of determining speed - strong current in area, maybe, or each boat has different instruments. How can you determine which boat is able to get more power out of her rig?

With calculus, it's not too hard. For each boat, determine how long it takes the boat to travel a short distance from a stop. Long enough to get up to hull speed at her best point of sail. Determine an equation to tell you the boat's position at any given second. (Plot it on graph paper - the distance should be short enough that you can easily measure it.)

That's the hard part. The rest is easy.

I did this recently as an exercise with some physics students. The boat was a little Blanchard Knockabout, an 18' sloop. Sailed the sloop along a dock with students calling seconds and marking the boat's position along the dock for five seconds. t = time in seconds, p = position in feet.

t=0, p=0
t=1, p=.5
t=2, p=7
t=3, p=19.5
t=4, p=38
t=5, p=62.5

The numbers climb fast, but remember we're measuring *position*, not speed. The "p" is how far down the dock I had traveled over the past "t" seconds. After 5 seconds I'd run out of dock and the boat wasn't really accelerating anymore, anyway.

Now, determining the equation for that can be tricky, but there are a couple things that help. First, for reasonably constant acceleration, the equation will always look like

At^2+Bt

In other words, some multiple of time squared, plus some multiple of time. In my case, I used a computer to determine the equation quickly, and I rounded off the numbers to make it even easier. The equation is

3t^2 - 2.5t = p

So, with basic algebra, and assuming the boat continues to accelerate indefinitely, I can use this to determine my boat's position. How many seconds since I left the dock? 3? Well, 3 x 3^2 - 2.5 x 3 is 19.5. Not quite 20 feet from the dock. I can also determine how many seconds I've been sailing from my position, of course.

But with algebra, that's *all* I can do. How fast was I going after five seconds? Any guesses? With algebra, that's all you can do - guess. "Well, between 4 and 5 seconds the boat traveled about 20 feet." How many people guess 20?

Wrong. The correct answer is 27.5 ft/sec.

You can confirm that the answer is in the right ballpark, at least, by remembering that the boat was still accelerating after the five seconds (according to our equation) so it accelerated through the final second, as well. So let's pretend we measured for six seconds - the position would have been 93 feet, a difference of over 30 feet from our position after five seconds. So a guess of 25, 26 feet per second (at 5 seconds) seems reasonable. 27.5 isn't far off from that at all.

And how fast is the boat's acceleration? 6 feet per second^2.

Now, admittedly, this is very basic calculus, called "derivation". I could derive the boat's velocity (speed) from its position, and its acceleration from its speed. And from that, I could - if I did this with a full-rig Triton and a fractional-rig in the same wind conditions - determine which rig provides more power.

(OK, so derivation is dead simple, so I claim, right? It's not hard for basic cases like this one - to derive the speed from the equation for the position, multiply the power of the variable by the multiplier and reduce the power by one for each term of the equation, and drop any constants. So for 3t^2 - 2.5t, I multiply 2 x 3 and get 6, then reduce the power by one. I multiple 2.5 by 1 and get 2.5, then decrease the power by one to get zero power, or 1. So my equation now looks like

6t - 2.5

Do the same to get the acceleration - 1 x 6 = 6, the 2.5 is a constant and goes away, leaving me with 6 as my constant acceleration.)

I like boats.

but I actually use basic calculus all the time, ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .... ... ... ... ...

Umm, yeah, what he said...

I don't know if I like math as much as I like what I can figure out with it. Plus I use it to scare others off. Sometimes I get in over my head (like in most of the time) and quoting numbers seems to give me a clear path of escape.

Calculus figures out stuff that is constantly changing (velocity in the previous example) as opposed to straight line (linear) relationships. In my study of economics it is used to predict supplies/ demands / prices, resource consumption, etcetera. Does it help grind old bottom paint?... well it does help pass the time as you inch your way down the hull -sorta like background music. If you wanted to fine tune your cost projections or sandpaper usage rates it could be useful but I am not sure you really WANT to know what your costs or disposable inventory consumptions (like sandpaper) are so...

I sound like my grandfather here but I DO wish there was more emphasis and respect given to trade skills. They are just as important and just as difficult to master as any academic skill. Nothing has saved my bacon like being able to turn a wrench or grind a bottom.

After all, you were once going down an economics road, were you not? (Until, as you claim, I was somehow responsible for your abandonment of that dream...)

Actually, the dream isn't dead, just postponed. After choking down a couple of quarts of fiberglass dust I am starting to think economics isn't so bad again. I just needed to explore Thoreau-ian economic theory for awhile.

Now, I nead to go back and read Matt's post again and see if I can remember what he is talking about. By the way Matt, that is actually one of the best examples of calculus in use I have read. You have done this a few times haven't you?

I like boats too. After reading this thread in its entirety does anyone else feel the monkey is the smartest one here?

-Britton

Determine an equation to tell you.......

Here's the part where I give up and have a beer. I'm with Tim on this one.

bcooke wrote:Now, I nead to go back and read Matt's post again and see if I can remember what he is talking about. By the way Matt, that is actually one of the best examples of calculus in use I have read. You have done this a few times haven't you?

I spend a lot of time teaching kids about science and engineering. The kids I end up teaching are usually the "gifted and talented" kids who are familiar with school and consider it a boring waste of time. If you take them to the lake and tell them you're going to measure how fast a boat can sail (or how high a rocket can go, or how much stuff you can pile on a bridge before it breaks) they get interested in a hurry.

I used that example because I just did it not too long ago and remembered the details (although I made up my numbers - couldn't remember the real ones, so I picked an equation out of my head that would give "reasonable" numbers, they weren't far from reality.) In reality, I actually do use derivatives (and integrals, the opposite process) pretty regularly; I find if you know it, you use it. People who don't know algebra don't have a use for it and don't see a need for it because they don't do things that require it (or they learn approximations and shortcuts.) This is exactly the same; I actually don't like math, but math is a tool I have to use for the things I enjoy. And because I have that tool, I use it more than someone else might see a need for it.

I remember the first time I saw Norm on "New Yankee Workshop" use a biscuit joiner. I clearly remember thinking it was the most useless tool I'd ever seen - why didn't he just drill it out and use a dowel? Well, the answer is, I would do that - because I might have a need for that type of joint once or twice a year. But someone who built cabinets for a living and has a clear need for the tool buys it - and then finds they use it for a lot more than just those projects.

Matt B. wrote:

Tim wrote:How does one, other than an astronomer or mathematician or rocket engineer or what have you, ever use calculus in life? What exactly is the point of calculus, and why might one study it?

...................Calculus can often give you D when all you know is A or B.......................................................
For example, let's say you're trying to determine which Triton has the best acceleration...............Do the same to get the acceleration - 1 x 6 = 6, the 2.5 is a constant and goes away, leaving me with 6 as my constant acceleration.)

Wow. One must be careful what one wished for! hehe

Matt, thank you very much for your explanation. While I have to admit that I couldn't follow it all, at least I understand the general concept of calculus.

Matt B wrote:I remember the first time I saw Norm on "New Yankee Workshop" use a biscuit joiner. I clearly remember thinking it was the most useless tool I'd ever seen - why didn't he just drill it out and use a dowel? Well, the answer is, I would do that - because I might have a need for that type of joint once or twice a year. But someone who built cabinets for a living and has a clear need for the tool buys it - and then finds they use it for a lot more than just those projects.

That's actually a really good analogy: the right tool for the job, and so on. While there is usually more than one way to get any job done, having the right tool at your disposal (whether mathematics knowledge or a biscuit joiner or a gear-driven West epoxy pump) makes the process more efficient, more accurate (perhaps), and certainly quicker. The more one does a certain repetitive process, the more sense it makes to obtain (whether through education or by spending money at the local store) the correct tool to make the job easier.

bcooke wrote:After choking down a couple of quarts of fiberglass dust I am starting to think economics isn't so bad again.

Of course, once you're stuck behind that desk somewhere, supposedly calculating the supply and demand for the latest round of widgets, your thoughts will actually be completely on your boat and projects, and you'll be pining for the smell and itch of polyester dust.

The grass is always greener, is it not?

Well, perhaps I retained more of my painful calculus education than I'd realized. It seems that I've been using calculus pretty regularly, but not thinking of it as calculus.

Sometimes I think this board actually could do justice to a "Boat Nerdery" category. ;)

Figment wrote:It seems that I've been using calculus pretty regularly, but not thinking of it as calculus.

Apparently you were in denial. Repressed memories, perhaps?

Of course, once you're stuck behind that desk somewhere, supposedly calculating the supply and demand for the latest round of widgets, your thoughts will actually be completely on your boat and projects, and you'll be pining for the smell and itch of polyester dust.

Oh, you know me too well my friend...

-Britton

Though I should add I have no interest in the price of widgets (those jobs pay gobs of money though...) I am more interested in the enviromental costs of timber harvesting or managing fish catches at a sustainable level. And then of course ridding the world of hunger. I will get to that right after I finish my boat.

-Britton

bcooke wrote:And then of course ridding the world of hunger.

You and Miss America can join forces. Have you been practicing your wave?

I don't think calculus will help with this in any case, though.

Its all in the supply and demand (if you are a neo-classical economist). Calculus is a big part of that equation.

Me and Miss America, I can see it now... ... ....

don't wake me up just yet.

-Britton

bcooke wrote:Me and Miss America, I can see it now... ... ....

don't wake me up just yet.

Too much information!

A BIG BCC on ebay.

the windlass alone is worth the look!

Man! I think that windlass falls under the heading of boat porn...

That is quite a windlass! Nice boat, too.

bcooke wrote: It is a shame though because I was just perusing an old calculus textbook last night ( anyone feel the need to comment?) and was in the mood for some no nonsense, left brain, clear logic, straightforward answer to a question. Mike, I take rain checks.

Just for you, Britton!

(King of the Dredge!!!!!)

Figment wrote:(King of the Dredge!!!!!)

Undisputed.

I am not worthy <bows down low>I am not worthy <bows down low>I am not worthy <bows down low>I am not worthy <bows down low>I am not worthy <bowI am not worthy <bows down low>s down low>I am not worthy <bows down low>I aI am not worthy <bows down low>m not worthy <bows down low>I am not worthy <bI am not worthy <bows down low>ows down I am not worthy <bows down low>low>I am not worthI I am not worthy <bows down low>am not worthy <bows down low>y <bows down low>I am not worthy <bI am not worthy <bows down low>ows down low>