Fedor,
I've climbed slightly back up the slope!
After watching Rob's presentation, with the new photos of the
Solitarry 2.0 build, I've realized that it's very close to the boat
I'd shoot for.
The flip-down stools idea is what I was originally thinking. But
with that nice overhang to windward on the windward hull, all you'd
need to do is add a decent amount of sitting headroom: then the
bunk could be the seat on one side of a central removable table and
the overhang could be the other. You'd need a seatback to flip up
in the bunk, but perhaps that could be the central cushion in a
three-cushion bunk setup.
That would obviously make the windward hull a few feet bigger, but
the cost would be incremental, and you could probably design for the
weight.
A schooner rig with 12' booms, 52' luffs, and an 80% roach would
have a Bruce number of slightly over 2.0 at a displacement of 3,500
pounds, which is over 1,000 pounds heavier than the current
Solitarry 2.0. I'm sure one could fit a few more feet of that
windward hull into 1,000 pounds.
The new rudder design also seems to resolve a number of issues.
- Mike
thanks Mike
it is a slipery slope! But it does not seem to be that hard...
and flip-up extension of the 'counters' that are there and some flip down 'stools' on the sides of the 'bunks' will probably get you quite close.
With a family of 5 .... I am not going to try... But again not looking for extended cruising - more week-ends/some weeks.
Fedor
--- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, Mike Crawford wrote:
>
> Fedor,
>
> The cockpit table would probably be easier, and also result in a
> lighter boat.
>
> It's mostly the result of the design criteria: the largest
> trailerable/transportable we can get away with, at the same time being
> the smallest long-term cruiser we're willing to tolerate.
>
> Putting the table inside is the result of sliding down a steep and
> slippery slope.
>
> To be honest, Rob's weekender, or even the woodenboat design, do
> everything we would need. Not everything we'd want, but everything we'd
> need.
>
> However, we can already camp-cruise, and basically just don't do it.
> If we make the leap to a larger boat, it will be big enough to spend a
> few months in the Caribbean. Not with a washer/dryer/living room, but
> with at least some amenities and space that make life more pleasant.
>
> If we widen the hull a bit, we could put a dinging table inside and
> get the following advantages:
>
> - An interior dining table one side of the windward hull.
>
> - A folding desk/chart table to the other side in an "owner's cabin"
> sort of design.
>
> - Cockpit stays totally free and open, with any sort of hard top or
> bimini being optional.
>
> - We could also put a table in the cockpit for nice weather, as well
> as rig up a cover system and screens/clears for a big upstairs while at
> anchor.
>
> - People can dine at the table, or just hang out, while real sailing
> is going on.
>
> - Serious weather and/or sailing requirements (sheet handling, sight
> lines) won't affect the dining/relaxing situation
>
> - There's a whole other space for people to be in, which is important
> if you're in close quarters for a long time.
>
> - That windward hull will feel bigger.
>
> - Less windage.
>
>
> I really like to be out in the sun and the wind, with a tiller in
> hand, and don't want windows, walls, a saloon, or anything else in the
> way of that fun, particularly while daysailing. If I can keep that open
> feel, while allowing for additional spaces inside, and retain the option
> for an upstairs table/room, then that's my ideal boat.
>
> The interior table is also a fixed requirement for my wife, but I
> can't really use that as an excuse because I'd probably want it anyway.
>
> As long as we're going to step up from spartan accommodations, we're
> going to take two steps up and get an interior.
>
> But the boat would definitely be smaller, lighter, and less expensive
> if the table weren't down below.
>
>
> - Mike
>
>
> fvonballuseck wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Mike
> > out of curiosity - why the table downstairs? To me it seems some of
> > the elegance to not reproduce the same feature 2times - wouldn't it be
> > easier to make the cockpit semi- protected? Open when you want it -
> > closed when you need it? Think I would be willing to sacrifice some
> > 'easy passage inside by moving cockpit slightly onto the hull)
> > (inside is for sleeping, cooking, head)
> >
> > Some other thoughts:
> > Folding - think Farrier has proven bullet-proof - but Dragonly has
> > demonstrated the wish for more 'marina'use. Personally I think I could
> > live with teh compromise 3.5-4M wide when folded -
> > demountable/additional work acceptable for incidental trailering.
> > Say you would have a LW hull of 36ft/11m - 2 ends folding to 30ft/9m.
> > Saling width of around 5-6m, marina width 3.5-4M (probably good enough
> > for 'dry sailing as well) -
> >
> > Size/Cost - Think it is currently wise to go in the direction of 'less
> > is more' given economy etc. Another thought I would be willing to
> > investigate is a 'pop-up' part - for exaple around the galley. Again -
> > 90% of tthe time you will not be cooking or 1.9M/6'4" headroom)
> > Although it is compfortable. I I want to sail 'soon' I probaby need to
> > keep the building costs down.. i.e. limited complex shapes
> >
> > Fedor
> >
>