Hi ROb and others,

I can remember scuffing banging the very forefoot(?) of the foam bows on Sodecar.
This was "normal" beaching cruising and no real accidents that cause the loss of some glass and a few centimetres of the poolystyrene underneath.

It may have been better to have something like I see on the pictures of Sol with the piece that strengthens or gives you a guide along the kkeel.
Or some other backing material to handle the wear of normal beaching on a small/mid cruiserthat you take in close to shore whenever possible.

Is there a decision on whether the flat bottom or rounded bottom was better in terms or building and performance.
I know you get more height/width of the ww floor acomodations.
Draft is slightly less.
How does the rounded corners taper in to the bow? just by the natural curvature of the material when you bend it I guess?

Doug
Perth

--- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, Rob Denney <harryproa@...> wrote:
>
> Angled bows should go to the top of the leeward hull in case you hit
> something while plunging through a wave. An angled bulkhead within the
> foam bow is fine, unless you hit something solid (ship, sea wall), in which
> case it may be sheered off and will certainly damage the boat further back
> as the loads are transmitted to the hull. The latest foam bows are glued
> on so replacing one, even at sea would not be a big deal. Replacing a
> bulkhead, or a buckled skin is not so easy. A combination of both would
> slope, but the front 150mm/6" or so would be foam. I personally would
> still use foam to build it up to plumb bows, a) to maximise length, b to
> minimise speed and c) because I like them.
>
> Outboards in wells have a very poor reputation. I certainly would not put
> one in the ww hull if you were living there. If you could sort out the
> ventilation and sealing the hole while motoring and sailing, then they may
> be worth a look, but there are better ways, imo.
>
> Ken is having an outboard on a vertical slide on the back of the cockpit
> seat. Easily accessible, completely clear of the water while sailing, no
> sled, cheap and light. We are still talking about the location of second
> one. Possibly leave it on the tender, tie the tender securely to the
> lowerable ramp and use it as an auxillary.
>
> rob
>
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Gardner Pomper <gardner@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Roger,
> >
> > I have been having the same discussion with Rob on my design. We keep
> > going back and forth and I still don't understand. I am with Doug on the
> > idea that a sloped bow would tend to ride up on top of a log and avoid any
> > structural damage. Why is it preferable to crush part of the bow and have
> > to haul the boat out and rebuild it? Is there some disadvantage to angling
> > the bow back a foot or so? the harrys have such a small draft and fine bow
> > that you would lose practically no buoyancy.
> > - Gardner
> > On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 6:24 AM, Roger L <rogerlov@...> wrote:
> >
> >> **
> >>
> >>
> >> **
> >> "And on another matter, I was reading in Cruising Helmsman magazine about
> >> looking out for floating submerged logs around PNG/Indo.
> >> This would be a worry on harrys. Perhaps an extra foot of bow that angles
> >> up to take the hit and ride up over the top of the log?"
> >>
> >> In the PNW (USA) and in the big channels and rivers everywhere it seems
> >> that submerged logs are a problem. You hear of boats hitting logs
> >> squarely, riding over, and losing daggerboard or rudder or prop or
> >> everything.
> >> So is an angled bow an advantage or maybe not? And how much of that
> >> depends on the angle of the log?
> >>
> >> I've hit a few logs myself and most of the time the boat moves over
> >> a little and the log also moves over and what you have is just a sudden
> >> stop and big scrapes down the sides of the hull. The sudden stop can be
> >> worse than the scrapes. The only time I had any damage other than scrapes
> >> was when I hit a log almost squarely while motoring in my small tri and it
> >> took off the prop and bent the shaft as we rode over.
> >>
> >> My own preference is for a straight bow with the forward foot or two
> >> being made to crush and easily replaced. That puts the actual structural
> >> hull a foot or two behind the crush bow.
> >> Obviously there's an advantage if pieces protruding beneath the hull are
> >> able to pivot. If that can't happen, I'd prefer things to break away
> >> cleanly in a manner of my choosing. Makes repairs easier.
> >> Roger L.
> >> ....
> >> ................
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>