FOr the ww hull, do you go out as you go up from the floor to give you a bit more width inside? or is a shelf still best like Sol pics.

Doug

--- In harryproa@yahoogroups.com.au, Rob Denney <harryproa@...> wrote:
>
> For regular beaching, added glass at the forefoot is a good idea.
> Flat and round are pretty similar as they are both long and skinny. Flat
> may pound more, but has the advantages you say. Round is harder to build,
> as we can confirm after spending a day putting floor bulkheads in
> Flasharry.
> On the flat hulls, the hull stops before the rounded edge becomes a
> problem, and is then tapered off in the foam bow. Should be pictures of it
> on the Flasharry blog in a month or so.
>
> rob
>
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Doug Haines <doha720@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > 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.
> > > >> ....
> > > >> ................
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>