Comparing KISS and Tender for Sibling, the hull forms are really quite similar, and very suitable for a workhorse tender. The chief differences are:

• construction sequence: KISS is  built topsides first around the transoms and midship frame, which determines the shape and rocker of the bottom, which is cut to suit the topsides.. Tender for Sibling is built by slotting together the tank sides and top and the partial bulkheads, which determines the rocker of the bottom and the curvature of the topsides; the ends of which are cut to suit the transoms.
• The topsides of each are straight-sided, but those for Tender for Sibling are parallel-sided, those for KISS are not.

Looking at the way Graeme's model floats, the transom is deeply immersed to keep the bow out of the water, when in fact it would be a lot easier to row if that situation were reversed, with the bow immersed so as not to pound into a chop, and the stern not so deeply immersed. So my question is: would not KISS be better with parallel-sided topsides, to make the top of the bow transom higher for rowing into a chop, with the weight carried further forward to lift the stern a bit? Was this considered and tried in the original modelmaking session? As far as I can see, it doesn't make any difference to the construction method.

Slieve wrote: If the winner is too easy for the school kids then they can make two, and have much more fun racing them.

I'd build three. And I would insist on three different junk sail types.

I was the one who suggested the plywood bulkhead - thinking in terms of my model instead of reality. I guess I was mistaken, thanks for clarifying.

My little KISS now has hardwood beltings, thwart and rowing bench.

Sea trials soon!

I am really enjoying this tiny project. First time in my life I had enough clamps, and another 20 to spare!

No sail plan. Never mind. In real life one can fit a centreboard case retrospectively -  just done it on my Golden Bay.

100% with Arne: "I therefore hope this thread will continue and new designs or details will be presented here, long after the competition is over..."

After the efforts made by the entrants and the great material they have provided, I'm disappointed almost no-one has gone to the design portfolio here, and posted comments. There ought to be a temporary link on the home page for it. Critical comments allow the designers to provide further explanation.

Thanks to the committee!

I bet the committee now realizes that the idea of having a formal design competition was not the very best. Finding the best dinghy is like finding the best car, horse or house  -  simply impossible. The members of the committee must feel they have painted themselves into a corner by now.

Still, the competition generated so many ideas and views, and since the Covid lockdown has kept many of us indoors for the last half year, it was the perfect task for shaking our slumbering brains back into creative mode. I therefore hope this thread will continue and new designs or details will be presented here, long after the competition is over.

The matter of dinghies is a never-ending subject for discussion.

Arne

PS: The ultimate goal would be to have photos and reports of finished dinghies in their right element presented to us.

Graeme wrote:

I agree partially with David, but not entirely.

“Think along the lines of…” is hardly a definition of what is required, and only emphasises further the deep flaw in this competition, which has already been discussed from the outset.

Performance-wise the 5-planks – and possibly some of the other entries which have not been discussed on forum, could well be the best performers (though not by a large margin). If the intention was for a dinghy to be built on a beach then the organisers should have said so clearly – but I don’t think that was the intention. I don’t think there was any clear intention - except to build the “winner” as a classroom project – in which case Slieve’s design, which was for his grandchildren to build from a cardboard cereal box, might not be challenging enough.

The best boat isn’t necessarily the most suitable boat. But suitable for whom and for what purpose?

I have been very interested in this “competition” but mainly because of what came out from it. The upside of that vague and loosely-worded set of criteria is that it produced a proliferation of very good designs – all of them very good – and with amazing diversity. To be charitable to whoever drafted the terms of the competition, perhaps that was the intention – if so it has been a raging success. We now have a near impossible situation in terms of choosing a “winner” – but a wonderful set of different designs, with something to suit everybody.

I'm reminded of the time when I was on Shell Beach in Guernsey with my two daughters and my niece and nephew, and offered a prize (their choice of ice cream, not £250!) for the "best" shell found. In the end, to avoid disputes and disappointments, I had to award prizes all round for the biggest, the most beautiful, the weirdest and the most interesting.

I rather think the the judges are going to have take a similar approach here. There can be no "best" design with such a loose design brief. If the brief were tightened up to "best workhorse tender" or "best sailing dinghy/tender" or "easiest to build" or "most innovative" or ... whatever, the task would be possible. As it is, I'm relieved that I developed "sloping shoulders" and left the judging job to others.

Posting modified.

That's correct Arne, increase the 7 foot length to 8 feet (1.143) and all other dimensions by the same amount would increase the load carrying by ~50%, and make a 2 up boat into a 3 up boat, but also be heavier and more awkward for one person to manhandle. It would also probably need more than 2 sheets of plywood. 

In practice the boys made the model and I copied the dimensions and scaled it to 7 feet long, as I reckoned that would carry 2 plus some stores, and be light enough to easily handle ashore. There's nothing sacred about any of the dimensions, but the beauty is the easy lofting and simple light construction of a small load carrier.

Swings and roundabouts.

Cheers, Slieve.

PS. More details on the sailing rig when I get to see the boys. Sure I could do it, but it's their design and I see it as part of their education.