I won’t be involved in any capacity of judge in the “competition”, for a number of reasons including that I have had far too much to say already, and am now well outside of my limited knowledge.

On the other hand, I am so impressed with the variety and quality of the designs that I cannot help wanting to comment from the sidelines, and to make my own personal judgements.

I think that each of these designs, each in their own way, is very good – and the JRA now has a rich resource available to members – thanks to those generous and talented contenders who actually "entered" and put their designs up for criticism. (This might sound platitudinous, but in fact it is from the heart). 

For those who have lost the link, it is: 

https://junkrigassociation.org/dinghy-competition

I intend to continue with these models and make all but three of them, because it is an enjoyable learning experience, and because I am changing my personal judgement of these dinghies as a result.

Making the models not only gives a better appreciation of what these things look like in reality – there have been some surprises for me. It also forces one to look closely at the drawings and instruction details and here too there is a wide variety of approaches – though regarding this matter, the quality varies considerably. I think each of these dinghies is fit for purpose (in some cases depending on the purpose) but not all of the entries are sufficiently well-developed to be fit for offering to the public as plans to build from – or for a school building project. Another thing which emerges is a sense of which builds are likely to be quick and easy, and which will be a little more difficult – and in this area also there have been some surprises, for me anyway.

Curtis: As for testing them on the water – I believe some crude comparisons can be made, of SOME of the performance aspects. A little bit of static testing, for example -  and as I have a 2-3 knot flow of water alongside where I live, maybe some crude hydrodynamic comparisons, though whether of any real value I agree with you, and have my doubts. For my own personal benefit I am merely  hoping to find the time for a little “messing about”.

[PS Slieve: in the meantime KISS has been thoroughly bath-tested by my grand daughter and found to be "cool", and I agree.

I have no idea how the judges will reach any decision, other than choosing which of the entries is the most suitable for the school building project, and I suggest that might as well be the deciding factor. It won't be my decision anyway.

Edit: I have just gone back and looked at what Slieve refers to as "characteristics" which might be the basis for an objective  judgement. Sorry Slieve, I disagree. I know a bit about "exam technique" too - and I think most of these "characteristics" are so vague as to be worthless for that purpose, having the sole valuable merit of producing a proliferation of ideas. For example: "Not too big, not too small"  - well, what size is that? and "as light as possible..." ??  "No longer than can be obtained from a sheet of plywood" - you can see the number of ways in which this has been interpreted - all of them valid according to the wording (although none could be built from a single sheet of plywood). And almost anything can be carried on a roof rack, and you can put a mast "in a variety of positions" into anything (though one position ought to be enough). "Simple and cheap to build" is a guide, though not exactly objective. "Capable of carrying 2-3 people" is helpful, though even that is a matter of judgement. On the basis of these "characteristics" it might might be possible to eliminate a couple of the entries, but that is all. Personally, I don't think it matters which one is chosen - what matters is that all are now available and worthy of consideration.

[PS Arne: Halibut is nearly complete – a handsome little dinghy which I would be proud to own. I did not find it as easy to interpret the plans as I had expected – I expect the sailing season came along before Arne had quite finished tidying up the drawings. With five planks there is of course a bit more work and complexity. However, for anyone building this dinghy the result will be well worth the effort.  (I intend to have a go at building a model of Medium Boy, starting this morning – although not an "entry" - just working from the sections drawings which I can scale up on the computer and print on A4).

PS David T– I am liking Siblim Tender very much now. It went together very easily and suddenly it was finished – seats and buoyancy tanks already done! To my surprise it is a rather dainty wee thing. Its the only one which has very moderate beam, and is "full forward and fine aft". All the others seem beamier, and to carry their weight in the aft quarters. Regarding the mast - given that when rowing with 2-up it may be necessary to shift weight and body forward, I would like to suggest that sailing it will only be practical 1-up, and in that case the mast would not be in the way, and could be unstayed, as it should be, IMHO. What's to be done about that in-your-face bow transom? If it works well, as  expect it will, then very soon it will look OK.

And as David once remarked on another matter: "If you've got it, you might as well flaunt it!

PS David W I am hoping to have a go at DD, but the construction method is giving me a headache as it does not suit the thin materials I am working with, and with my limited skills, and there are some parameters missing if building from first principles. I will do my best with it anyway.

PS The closest to a Chinese sampan is Boxer - which is not a simple box as it first appears to be. I nearly didn't bother with it, but I am glad now that I did - actually it is worth a look. Why the bottom is made in three pieces is beyond me. If it were a simple curve on a single sheet it would be far easier to build and to some people, the boat would then be far more likely a potential contender. Let down not at all by its shape, but by the building instructions and the drawings, which would be worth re-doing from scratch - after actually building the prototype. ]

David wrote:

I think you're talking yourself into the job of judging, Graeme! The only way to do that job properly is to build and test them all in the water, even if at model size as you're doing.

I think anyone should be free to air their opinion on any of the models.

I note that Graeme finds my Halibut design less easy to build.
To that I can only say that ease of building was not on the top of my list, or I had not gone for a 5-plank version. The folder name in my computer says ”Lettrodd 8-fots jolle”, or “Easily-rowed 8-foot dinghy”. With easily-rowed I even don’t mean fast. Fast rowing doesn’t exist with 8-footers. I only mean one should be able to keep the ‘8-foot speed’ with little effort. The 5-plank version was chosen to row easily when light, but still be safe and stable with three people on board.

Arne

I have been looking at the drawings and written details about each of the designs. It is going to be very hard to decide which one is the winner. Each of them appear to have unique benefits.

I have not been able to determine if any of the designs are self bailing. Are any of the boats designed to drain while floating unloaded?

I started making some more models of the various dinghies

Its rather fun, they are all quite different, its quite a learning exercise.

Youyou is dead simple, in the same category as KISS.

Oyster (the inverted V bottom) with its high topsides might be the most able of them all - I have no idea how it will perform, but it is easier to build than it looks.  There is no rocker in the centreline - it gets its rocker from its chines.

Halibut looks simple but not quite so simple to build (at least, in small size).

I am starting to like this one best, for a number of reasons, including the construction method which is self-jigging - its a first for me - I found it very easy to build (but difficult to do with thickened epoxy. I can see now why the intended method was conventional stringers). Building this way, you get a very robust dinghy - with built-in buoyancy tanks as a bonus. I discovered that the side planks are simple rectangles (you trim the ends later. The bow transom is a square.

Its proving to be a nice little indoors job.

There's a couple more I want to try, and then maybe try to find a way to test them for towing, stability etc in a rough sort of way.

Graeme, one thing that you have not considered is the angle of the bow transoms. On my Webb 8 design the bow transom is at and angle of 45%. I found that this lifted the bow when rowing and did not butt into the chop as a vertical transom does. David Tyler's Siblim T has virtually the same angle to the bow transom and this will make her much easier to row into a chop and will tend to lift the bow over waves, rather than butt into them as a vertical transom does. It will also make her easier to sail at an angle of heel as the bow will become a V shape and go through the water much easier than a vertical transom. I think this is one of the reasons that my Webb 8 sails so well. I always sailed her bow down to ensure that the stern transom was not immersed. When others sailed her they did not do this and performance suffered accordingly.