I choose to make my comments on any design here, as I think it is easier to follow the discussion here.

Now I have had a look on the entries.  Two of them appear to come from professional designers. Here are designs for every taste. Some are so complicated that they will satisfy the real boatbuilders among the members. Lovely winter projects if you have a workshop and the tools and skills. I am not there, so Slieve’s KISS design appeals most to me.
Last night I traced the panels from his sketch over to my QCAD program and printed out the panels in 1:10 scale. These were glued onto an old calendar, and this let me assemble it. I only had the main frame, the bottom and the side panels made this way. When cutting out the bottom panel, I cut a millimetre outside the line, since the topsides and transoms were to sit on top of it. The transoms were measured up on the model on the table before fitting them.

The building procedure of the model could easily be used for building the real thing. Just replace the tape and hot-glue with some sort of stitch and glue technique.
All the other pieces, rubbing strakes, thwarts, knees and so on are to be measured up on the actual boat  -  no need for detail drawings on them.

This thing, painted with some left-over house paint, may not be the poshest of tenders, but it would be very useful and could be produced with simple tools within a week. To my eye the basic design is even quite elegant.

I am very tempted.
Arne

“Personally, I think we should keep the dinghy competition, especially as it has produced entries that are not actually on the website, and because the winning design will be built and can be assessed.”  

Annie, how right you were – 100%.

So much for the doubters (me included) – what a feast of different ideas and design philosophies. What talent! I don’t envy the judges.

While David T and Arne have withdrawn from the competition, I would still like to see their concepts included in the gallery of designs. The “winner” concept still does not interest me so much, but the variety of ideas it has brought forth most certainly does, and I can’t express how impressed I am, with every one of them.

That's most of my morning gone!

My tuppence-worth of opinion? For a 8’ sailing tender I would go for the simplest, lightest and most economical use of materials.

Thank you so much to all the contributors (and the Committee).

Mark,
I didn’t bail out of the competition because I thought it was a bad idea. It was a good idea, and well timed too. I and many others were more or less locked down by Covid restrictions, so that competition was a fine opportunity to brush the dust off ‘the little grey ones’.
I had already, in February had a go on drawing a 6m daysailer for myself, and this was my first 5-plank pram version. I decided to try using the 2-D QCAD program. This program favours simple lines, but that also may result in simple building.

• ·         The rocker of the bottom was a circle sector with R=20.120m
• ·         The rocker of the bottom sides and topsides were the same as that of the bottom.

This is easy to achieve in QCAD and it also result in that the matching edges of adjacent planks have identical curves. The result (much helped by constant deadrise  -  ‘cylindrical development(?) ) is easier lofting of the planks and only straight edges on the transverse frames or bulkheads.

Such niceties are not possible with pointy end(s), so I really like the pram version.
Both ‘the 2.4m ‘Halibut’ and the 4m (later 4.46m) ‘Buddy’ have been drawn in the same way.
Halibut’s rocker radius is 3083.33mm and on Buddy it is 9708.33mm.

Arne

My scow was concept only, I do not have the skills or the software to make a proper dinghy design. However, I believe there is still value in the efforts of David and Arne.

It appears that a fleet of one-design JRA sailing tenders is unlikely. That being the case my suggestion would be to withdraw the prize and the competition aspect, and just conclude with publication of a gallery of "concept sailing tenders" from which future tender-builders could draw inspiration and ideas. This is assuming that Arne and David would agree to having their efforts put forward as concept designs.

Of course, I do not know anything about the other entries and if it is felt this would be unfair to those who have drawn up designs and made serious entries, then please ignore this suggestion.

If the suggestion is thought to be useful, then I would further add that each concept design should consist of a concept drawing (or two) and be accompanied by a brief explanation from the designer. Expressions of interest in actually building any of these could, I am sure, be the subject of further discussion with the designer.

On that basis I would be happy for the scow design to be included, just to make up the numbers.

PS I have no doubt that Arne's creation of his "Halibut rig" has been a major step forward in the development of a simple dinghy junk rig.  This rig may well be adaptable to almost any tender which is capable of carrying sail, and I think we will see more of it.

Apart from anything else, for that outcome alone, the competition has been of value, in my opinion. 

PPS an alternative suggestion: publish two sections to your web page: (1) competition entries (2) additional proposals, concept only.

Yes, I am out of the competition.
I guess the lines of 'Halibut' are about how I want them, but since it has not been built and tested, neither the boat nor the rig, I drop out.

Arne

PS: I had the first, sailtrip in Ingeborg on Saturday! Still chilly here, but nice!