Subject: Re: Another layout submitted for review
From: Mike Crawford
Date: 12/16/2008, 4:30 PM
To: Gardner Pomper

Gardner,

  I emailed that last item to you personally, basically because I'd said the same things to the group before, and didn't want to repeat myself.  As a result, this response on the 14th "OK, I have uploaded...") is not on the list.  If you want this on the list for everyone, you'll have to post it on the group site.  Sorry for any confusion.

---

  I do like the two doubles, but I also hear your arguments about not forcing people to sleep together (especially if they aren't a couple), and also about being willing to sleep in the leeward hull.  Thanks for posting the new design.

  Collapsible beams should be fine on a crossing.  Why wouldn't they work?

  That said, the less complexity, the better.  Beams in two sections are better than beams in three sections, and beams in one section are better than beams in two sections.  A single carbon/epoxy beam is highly unlikely to fail, while multiple joints invite new possibilities for breaking down.

  The big question is: how often do you want to get into that container, and how much complexity and expense is that worth? 

  If you're going to put the boat in a container three times in its life, just go for demountable beams.  Pay the boatyard a few hundred dollars to help you set it up or take it down.  But if you're going to containerize it or trailer it at 8.5' wide a few times per year, then get fancy.

       - Mike
 

Gardner Pomper wrote:
Hi,

Ok, I have uploaded the top and side views for the dual - double version of Contrarry. In the process, I finally managed to get PDF uploads working, so there are better quality (and slightly modified) versions of the dual - single version posted as well.

I want to stay with the 1 double, 2 single version because we have a daughter and if she brings a friend, I don't want to force them to sleep together. If we bring another couple and there is an issue with them wanting to sleep together, then my wife and I can sleep apart for a few nights. Finally, if I end up moving the boat with crew, they tend to be all guys, and rarely want to sleep together.

If you only want to collapse to 12 feet, then you don't need to be as radical as I have been with cutting up the lw hull, although building it up will add some weight back in. The 12' width is really probably all I would need as well, to let it fit into a slip.

It looks like shipping the boat to Australia/New Zealand in a container is about $5K (I got a quote), plus I have to get it and the container to the yard. Before I make a final decision, I will have to evaluate how realistic my dream of living aboard for a year or two in Europe and the South Pacific is. 

I would like to solicit opinions of the ocean-worthiness of a harry with collapsable beams. If I restricted the collapse to 12', then I could eliminate the interior crossbeam and have the boat extend from 12' to 17' with a 3' overlap. Using the interior crossbeam, it could extend from 12 to 18' with 2 3' overlaps.

In terms of expense, a captain from the east coast of the US to England would probably cost about $6K, plus $1-2K in expenses, so it would be about double the cost of shipping it (plus wear and tear on the boat). The trip to Australia would be far more expensive, to the point where I would just have to put it on a regular boat hauling ship, for $12-$15K (guess). Anyway, the point being that if I did not do the container, I would incur shipping expenses of $40-50K for a single trip to each place, vs $20K in a container.

So, any feelings on how practical trans-oceanic voyages are in a boat that collapses? Of feedback on extra expenses I might incur for having it collapse down to 7.5' ?

- Gardner Pomper
York, PA


On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Mike Crawford <jmichael@gwi.net> wrote:

  I'd like to see the one with two doubles.  My long-term goal is to have a boat similar in size to yours.  If it fits into a container, that's perfect.  If not, I basically want it to collapse down to 12' so I can transport it over roads.  While 12' does require a wide load permit, it's the max width for trailering without an escort vehicle. 

  Since I'd only trailer it a few miles twice a year, I don't really care about the 8.5' limit for trailering without a permit.  This would be mostly to be able to avoid boatyard fees.

  Anyway, my wife and I would like to be able to take another couple with us, and wouldn't want to banish them to singles (though perhaps it's nice to have the option for two guests to *not* sleep together). 

       - Mike