| > I think, the group no longer accepts posts.

|   It's working -- just very slowly.  It took almost a full day for my last post to make it through the system.

So it seems. Took so long I wondered if it was finally done.

| > But that tender between the beams tho...

| I know!  It's an extremely elegant design.

| Maybe there's an easy solution that I don't see.  If so, that would be awesome.  If not, a permanent motor sled with an inflatable dinghy works for me.

I know nothing, but it seems to me there are solutions to these issues. I'll brainstorm them and you knock them down till we are happy. It's fun!

But, your right. Even if we can't get it figured, there are decent back up ideas that will work.

| > Looking at the Ex40 renderings, a 5' wide hull fits fine under the ww hull, lee of the step, but easily inside the imaginary 10' line we discussed.

|   It might.  In which case the motor could be tilted up out of the water.  Though I'd be worried about the tender getting bashed against the main boat if chop blows in on a windy day, either colliding with the underside of the cockpit and steps, or with the windward hull.

Before we address banging in chop, lets get the configuration figured out, so we can all see the same problem.

Questions for Rob.
1) Is the ww cabin floor, between the beams, from the lee edge of the ww deck to ww, flat and even, between the beams, at the bottom of the beams? Or, is the bottom curved down, like the step is, for wave riding and what not?

2) Is that (assumed flat) area wide enough to fit the tender under it?

3) Assuming beam on beam, what is the size of those beams?

For the purpose of discussion, lets assume 12" (30cm), and we will change it when Rob gives a better guess.

4) You have said before to put the lee beam under the ww beam. If so the tender would need to be at the top of the lee beam to be even with the ww deck, correct?

But that means when extended the deck would be flush with the top of the beam. That seems a bit unsafe as you always have the beams above the deck height in all the renderings. The beam et. al. is a kind of railing.

So, does not the tender NEED to be at the ~bottom of the beam?

I think Mike, this means the tender may be able to stay in place on the lee beams as the boat collapses. And be fully tipable to motor in that configuration, as really nothing changed.

Now, back to the banging. Repeating mikes above question...

| Though I'd be worried about the tender getting bashed against the main boat if chop blows in on a windy day, either colliding with the underside of the cockpit and steps, or with the windward hull.

Lets start with motoring while expanded in choppy seas. Do we worry about the tender banging on the beams? Perhaps. If so, then do we need a bumper or other idea to mitigate the banging?

But, whatever we choose, if the above lee beam mount is doable, it no worse than motoring colapsed in chop, I think.

5) Do we need to worry about motoring in chop?

|   My hope was to leave the bow attached to a main beam, while collapsed, with the beefy drive attachment that it uses to propel the main boat..

With the new render of the Ex40, vs the EX40F picture, it seems, perhaps, it should not be hard to have this hope met.

The 12' width makes it possible. Wouldn't be on the 8'.

|   Plus, if there's a long line of people waiting at the ramp, or there's no dock to which to tie off, this lets you get the boat with just two people -- one in the truck and one in the boat.

That's a good point. I think with a little work, you could make it a one man operation, or at least try. Drive the boat between the rear and front hull positioning things we put on the trailer, and onto the trailer you parked on the ramp, secure the front beam to the appropriate things, perhaps pull a string on the trailer that positively locates the hulls, climb down and drive away to the staging area.

Doable?

| Being able to raise the motor completely out of the water, either by hauling up on the stern of the tender (between the beams), or by hauling up a sled, also makes beaching a bit safer as well.  Get in really close, get some momentum, then lift-and-drift.

Sure. Rob has scared me off beaching. That's why we got a tender. But ya.

But I want to go back to beam clearance for a min.

Rob...

6) What does a HP (Ex40) need in beam clearance?

Searching the forum (hope we don't lose that) Rick W suggests 900mm a few times. I do not see a Rob number.

If we go with 900mm, and the T60 is ~.6m high? (~2’) Perhaps a T40 would be shorter?
Then the lee beams bottoms are ~1.5m above the water line.

|   Again, these are fine points that most might not care about. But the more points of past pain, or risk, that I can eliminate with good design, the better off I'll be.

I would rather learn from your pain. So, thanks for engaging.

|   Plus some day I'll be in my 80's and will still want to sail. Anything that helps with making that safe and fun is a bonus.

That really should be a design goal. Everything should be aimed at being able to do all of this when we are 80.

| > Thanks for engaging.
|
|   It's my pleasure.  Thanks for continuing the conversation.  You have shaken me out of complacency and forced a bit more clarity in unresolved areas that I'd been sweeping under the rug.

Flattery will get you everywhere.

|   Between all these discussions, and Rob's and Steinar's continuously-improving designs, a strangely ideal boat is taking shape. 
| I say strange because it's  unexpected -- at one time I would have considered all the conflicting criteria to be irreconcilable, but it turns out I would have been wrong.

I think it is Rob's ability to throw out ALL the conventions, even ones he fought and bled for, to seek better, cheaper solutions, combined with Steiner's severe minimalism.

The more and faster we can get these guys to iterate through designs the better off the design becomes.

I am joyful just watching it happen. Wonder if/when it will plateau...

|   That said, I'm still using Corecell or Divinylcell instead of XPS.   ;-)

Meh, you say that now...

|   I've made my peace with saying goodbye to it.  And if someone solves the un-solvable, that's good too.

HAHAHAHA. See above.