|   The offer is still open for next summer. 

I'll plan to take you up on it.

|   That said, I'm almost ready design-wise with the newest Ex40 as long as it folds like the first Ex40.  The more I look at those boats, the more they grow on me.

Hilarious! Talk me into a bit bigger boat, when I thought 40 was too big, and now we have switched sides. Such is life.

Even if there are variations, I still think the more common parts would/could be very similar. It's not like a few feet of length is gonna change much.

Or maybe I just like talking about boats.

|   Which probably makes me a less-than-deal dance partner -- there's just not much I'd change at this point.  The only major piece left to fall into place is the motor.

Meh, a dance partner has to be pretty bad to lose to dancing alone.

I am not sure the Ex40F is a good fit.
AFAIK it does not have a tender solution for trailering and marinas.
It's not set for 12' trailering.
It does not have a 12' layout.
Missing anchor box?

I think it is a great design, and a great base to mod from.

For example, if the tender can go under when trailered/marinaed, I think that's a smart change. Don't you?

|   Though it's possible I could be persuaded to use tub-in-tube inner/outer telescoping beams instead of the harry-scissors in the first Ex40. 
| That might make for easier trampoline lacing (just loosen a bit before collapsing, tighten after expanding), and could potentially allow a dingy to stay attached if the outer tubes are on the leeward hull. 
| Maybe.

Are those not flip up tramps and decking in the Ex40F pic?

| > Tube on tube for everything except looks.
|
|   I wish I could like the tube-on-tube top/bottom design because it's so simple, but I can't get behind it aesthetically.  IMHO, it's just not pretty enough for such a good-looking  boat.

I don't really see a big difference between the aesthetics of the different tube orientations, but that blindness is common for me. I see a big difference in the physics/structures.

|   The tube-in-tube also allows for greater overlap/bury than a top/bottom because the inner tubes get to extend that extra 3' in the leeward hull when collapsed.

The tube ON tube is at ~22' of beam expanded, buries just as much, and is 12' collapsed. I don't see how tube in tube beats that. Also, 22' beam is more than whats needed for a 40' HP, right?

As I have thought more and more about it tube on tube seems rather optimal, especially with the cheap, light, strong ratchet clamps.

But I know nothing.

| > But demountable is quicker, cheaper and lighter to build and gives more storage/trailer options.  Easy enough to have both.
| > Mike would be better with one piece demountable beams.

|   Definitely simpler and less expensive.  But that said, all my strong friends have either died, lost limbs, or moved away, so in any given year I might only have my wife to help me haul the boat. Plus we don't really have beaches in Maine, just lots of rocks for most of the coast, with trees beyond the rocks, so I'd have to haul and launch from an asphalt boat ramp with no flat or soft assembly area.
|
|   In order to stick with a standard non-expanding trailer, I'd have to go with the scissors or telescopic beams so that I'd know two people could handle the job.

Probably need an expanding trailer type thing to haul 12'. I think. Or 12' floor of some sort.

I would like to focus, or plan, to have one person to do the job. For example we had talked about hanging water weight off the boom to unload the beams, making it easer/one man to transform. I think a bit of planning would make the whole transform One person doable. Or, perhaps I should ask...

What are the parts of transforming the boat that definitely will need 2 people?

| > I may have had a brain pause on the tender-mounted outboard motor. 

| > It's a brilliant design, but I'm not sure how it would work when the boat is collapsed/folded on the water. If it is on the bottom beam of a sliding pair, it stays in place, but will not be usable when telescoped unless the controls are remote.

I think remote controls have to be assumed, because the tilted tender needs them, right?

I also do not think the tipping tender can stay in place on a folding boat. The ww cabin floor almost touches water at the ww hull lee side, and, collapsed, that cabin floor is only 6' wide in total.

| The tender/motor is my favorite design by far, particularly if it could stay connected while the boat collapses and then be used to drive into a slip or onto a trailer while still connected.  That would be a dream.

The tender under the ww cabin boat does that, right?

|   It takes care of everything -- weight is centralized, the motor doesn't ventilate because it's on a transom that moves with the water, yet it's still protected from being submerged when the odd bit of chop or wake comes by, there's a substantial tender right on the boat, gasoline and the motor are both outside so there's no problem with fumes, and there's a very nice boarding and loading/unloading system.

The costs of the tender under the cabin floor is raise the cabin floor, which changes the interior a bit and adds a bit of windage perhaps, and requires a bit of fiddle on the transform.

In return we get a marina and a trailering solution, and can keep the tilting tender when expanded.

Objectively that seems the best option. Your thoughts?

| > hang tender off aft beam when marina/trailering. Can motor with tender.

|   That would certainly skip the problem of not having enough room under the boat.  Though if there's 14' between the beams on a 40' harry, the tender would extend a bit past the end of the leeward hull.  Unless one were to stretch that leeward hull to a 44' length.

Ya. So the disadvantage is added length while marinaing/trailering. And probably a bit more fiddle to the transform vs under the ww cabin. One detail, 25% and 75% of 40' is 20' between the beams? Or am I confused?

|   That works for everything but driving the whole system onto a single trailer when it's time to haul the boat.

Is not the whole boaty thing generally pulled onto the trailer by the trailer winch, not driven? How would one drive it on?

|   Which brings me back to a permanent motor on the big boat.

| > I would mount it on the beam or bridgedeck.

I hate to keep pestering, but, when collapsed, there really is no bridgedeck, right?

| > Would a simple box on a pivot, one cat hull-ish?, be simpler and lighter to deploy/lift the motor?
|
|   Which brings me to Eric's suggestion, along the lines of outboard mounts on wharrams that raise and lower:

<snip>

I wanna think about this motor mount a bit before I reply. So let's continue...

| > Some high profile ocean racers are choosing Oceanvolt now.
|
|   Electric is something I want to do for many reasons, but the weight and price math don't work out for me if I want to be able to motor at full 10 Kw throttle for two hours, perhaps if trying to get through an anchorage in a storm, or re-set a dragging anchor in a big blow.

I think I am in the same boat. ;}
But I'll look again when I got an actual hull appearing. Perhaps It will be different then.

|   It looks like I'm talking myself into a permanent outboard motor on the main boat on a sled under the cockpit.  That's a very attractive tender to leave unattended, even if it "only" has a $4,000 Honda on it.

Needs a lojack.
But seriously, I guess there must be lots of ways to secure the tender.

| > It seems the anchor box needs strength. What if the ww cabin seat was the anchor box/toy box?

|   Anchor/toy box in the left cockpit seat, to top/fore end of the motor sled mounted underneath, with the motor underneath the right cockpit seat.

Right and left, from when sitting on the ww hull, looking at the lee hull, right?

Robs anchor box seemed to need length. Does it not?

Where is the anchorbox and winches on the Ex40F when it is folded?

|   Now everything is nicely self-contained.  Though I'm not sure it collapses to 12 feet any longer.  Sounds more like 14 feet, which is actually okay for most marinas that handle 40'+ monhulls, but a bit of a nuisance when trailering.

If the Ex40F is 8' wide collapsed, our 12' wide version has 4 extra feet, plus whatever we can get away with over the lee hull (3')?

I don't think we need 14'.

| > 2 piece masts are simple to build, handle, assemble and take apart.
|
|   Good point.  I was thinking about how to get the tallest air draft out of a mast that fits in a 40' or 48' shipping container, but the two-parter might be a more elegant solution than stub masts.
|
|   When the booms were at a right angle to the masts, my plan was to have fixed masts and rotating booms, with laced-on sails just following the boom.  That would eliminate the bearings in the hull, with the stubs just pinned into sockets, so there would never be a need to access or repair the bearings should they decide not to work.
|
|   But rotating booms might be tough with wishbone booms,

Why is it hard for the wishbone, or half wishbone to rotate around a fixed mast?

| plus the two-part mast could just as easily be a fixed mast as a one-part mast with a stub (which is also a two-part mast by definition, but the joint is in a location with greater bending moment).

|   Given that I'd only handle the masts twice a year, the extra step for assembly of a two-part mast probably means an extra ten minutes when launching and hauling.

And also a trailerable mast, with less tree scraping.

This is way too long, but here goes...