.

Cash prize of 250 GBP - Dinghy Design Competition

  • 21 Jul 2021 04:30
    Reply # 10764757 on 10211344
    Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Here are the two drawings from Worcester which John has just referred to as inspiring Boxer

    Junk’s sampan  (9’ x 3’6” x 1’ draft) “Her duties are to provide communication between ship and shore, and to lay out lines…”


      fāng tóu (square head) (12’ x 4’) up to (18’ x 6’6”) “stands up well to rough weather…”


    Boxer is a bit more shapely than a “box boat”. When I made the model I was pleasantly surprised: its nicely proportioned, with a delicate curve to the sides -  and its stability is such that you could step anywhere into that wide cockpit with safety, without having to reach for (commit to) the middle.


    The information John refers to may be found here.

    John is too modest to mention that an early prototype for Boxer came first equal in the Royal Cruising Club/Yachting Monthly Dinghy Design competition in 2012


    Last modified: 21 Jul 2021 05:03 | Anonymous member (Administrator)
  • 21 Jul 2021 02:21
    Reply # 10764673 on 10211344
    Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Arne, that’s a nice, decent-size dory (nice little video clip too). Such a simple form, which so elegantly matches the original needs and function of these boats. (I like the midships tiller too). You can see straight away it is slightly “tippy” for the first few degrees, then very quickly becomes stable.

    I am sorry, I didn’t understand what you meant by “the lower part of that dory's mid frame” and then “its topside flare” - as if they are two different things. Could you explain that again please?

    Swamping

    I’ve only ever been swamped once, and that was one night in a commercial fishing boat, while constrained by gear, when a huge freighter (perhaps not keeping watch) went by me so close its steep curling bow wave rose up out of the darkness, clear over the side and filled my cockpit (and my gumboots). It was a very steep wave, which I would hope never to encounter in a dinghy.

    I have been tipped out of a dinghy due to a wave – tipped over – a steep little wave right on the beach - that is probably a more likely scenario than being swamped I think, though you may correct me on that. In that case it was a narrow, light weight, 3-plank dinghy – almost like a dory - and the capsize only happened because I was in it (sitting up on the thwart), side on to the beach, could not react quickly enough and toppled over, the dinghy followed. Rather like the scenario David described some posts back. I don’t think the dinghy would have capsized if I had not been in it.

    I would expect an empty dinghy to just bob like a cork, in all but the most extreme of waves, but maybe I am wrong.

    What all this leads up to is: I think another “over the top” situation would be needed to make any of these model hulls become swamped or capsized – it would need to be an extremely steep wave and I am not sure if even a 5 metre log dropped from 10 metres (close nearby, God help us!) would do it, unless the models carried a passenger. Then they would need to have passenger weights added, and then there is the complication which has muddied all the other testing – trying to get correct weights and correct weight distribution into models that were never correct with respect to weight in the first place. The models should have been made from balsa, but I never thought about that when I started.

    I think all this “model testing" stuff has gone too far now. Originally, I only really wanted to see what the dinghies would look like, and to give appreciation to the people who put forward their designs. And I did hope (and still hope) it might provoke lots more other people to chime in and give their opinions about what sort of tender would suit them best, and perhaps which of the JRA dinghies they like best. It’s still possible for people to do that, I think.

    The link (which should have been displayed more prominently on the website) is here, and I think it is still open for people to give their feedback to the designers – or to make their comments on this thread. Most members probably don’t come on the forums, of course – I do hope lots of people we do not yet know about, have responded directly to the JRA. 

    Nobody can say which of these dinghies is best – only which dinghy would be best for their purpose or situation – but that would still be helpful, I guess.


    Last modified: 21 Jul 2021 04:55 | Anonymous member (Administrator)
  • 21 Jul 2021 01:28
    Reply # 10764623 on 10211344

    My reasons for going for a "box boat" are outlined in the information I supplied with Boxer. I have used round bilged and hard chine stemmed dinghies and hard chine pram dinghies. I currently own a round bilge stemmed dinghy but plan to build a second version of Boxer. I am heading that way because I think boarding and leaving the round bilged dinghy is the most dangerous part of our sailing trips because of its poor initial stability and the difficulty of access for my wife who has short legs. I think Boxer is the safest design available to me and I would still go that way if not constrained by deck space.

    In support of my choice I note that the  first design I copied from Worcester is called "the Junk's sampan." Not "a type of sampan I have seen sometimes!" The other design that influenced me was his "Square-head boat." He says "it stands up well to rough weather."  These comments pushed me to my first version Boxer design and my experience with her encouraged the version I have entered in the JRA Competition.

    I have made my choice and sleep soundly with it. 

  • 20 Jul 2021 20:16
    Reply # 10764045 on 10211344
    Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Graeme.
    I didn’t mean to say that a scaled-down bank dory would be a fine tender. Its fine ends would not contribute to stability at all, much unlike a pram with ‘dory mid sections’  from end to end.
    Here is a little video clip on Youtube, showing my friend Curtiss in his self-built Bank Dory. Actually the lower part of that dory's mid frame is very similar to that of Medium Boy, but I think its topside flare is around 24° from vertical while the flare of Medium Boy is only 22°. Curtiss’ dory behaves much like the 20’ big sisters of the færings (4 oars); the seksærings (6 oars)

    As for swamping test, what about just making a comparing test:

    A heavy ‘log’, 5 equivalent metres long could be dropped from ten equivalent metres’ height at a  distance of 5-10 equivalent metres. Something like that.
    Some models would then ship water while others would not.
    Just a thought....

    Cheers, Arne


  • 20 Jul 2021 11:26
    Reply # 10763056 on 10211344
    Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Arne I would agree with you that for a general purpose 3-plank dinghy, not too wide a bottom, and the right amount of flare in the topsides is good. (The box boats have their place, but more for a specific purpose). I don’t think the topsides of a 5-plank need to be flared, as there is enough flare in the middle plank. Both Halibut and baby SibLim are 5-planks with vertical topsides, and both look to me like handsome little vessels which are going to be seaworthy for their size (and, by the way, very different in other respects. Halibut is a much bigger boat – and was a bit easier to plank up than the SibLim, which is noticeably “cods head and mackerel tail”. I like them both. Very much.)

    While on the subject of “ease of build”, the box boats are not easier to build – some people might think they are, but ease of build is not a reason for building a barge-type. A flat panel of plywood is not as easy to get to lay fair, as one with a bit of curve in it. Nor is it as strong and stiff, so a bit of extra framing is needed, and the weight goes up and speed of build goes down a bit, with that.

    I think the dory shape is much over-rated. They did the job as fishing boats on the Grand Banks, they were quick and cheap to build, stacked up nicely on the deck – and in the water they got stable once they got a bit of freight. There’s nothing wrong with that – but nothing outstanding either, that warrants copying it out of context. Flaring sides is a necessity on that type. An elegant idea - but an 8’ dory is going to be too unstable to be any good as a tender in my opinion. There is an interesting dory which can be made from a single sheet of ply, which might well have been an entry in the JRA competition. Here. I just think its too small to be any good. Some things just don’t scale down so well. Medium Boy is much better – in fact, just as nice and simple, and very good in most respects, in my opinion.

    A fender sausage is something which could be worth while on something otherwise a little  bit tender – perhaps if the kids want to go sailing in it. Medium Boy is good and stable as it is, and doesn't need it. As for Simplicity 8, the sausage fender is a complete waste of time except as a workboat fender, to protect other vessels. That thing is so stable I can’t imagine the gunnel ever getting wet, except from spray when some oaf inevitably decides to put a big outboard motor on the back. If that thing ever got up on its side, a sausage fender wouldn't save it.

    A Canada canoe has tumble-home for very good reasons (try paddling one). If the dinghy has sufficient beam and freeboard, tumble-home should not be lethal, though I can’t see much point in it for an 8’ rowing dinghy. Oyster (one of the JRA dinghy entries) has tumble-home in the form of an additional strake, on an already fairly high-sided and stable hull. Its an added complication in the build, but looks very nice – and if anything the tumbled-home extra plank adds to its seaworthiness, by creating additional freeboard to the flaring topsides, without making the topsides look too high and ugly. It also stiffens the topsides a little, structurally. That’s the opinion I formed, anyway. Oyster is unconventional in other ways, I am not convinced it is any better for that – but I now believe it is certainly no worse. My main doubt about that one is a fairly minor objection to the designer specifying angle aluminium to protect the two bottoms. I doubt that he has actually done it, I can’t find a way to bend aluminium angle to the shape that would be needed – a minor objection, because there are probably other easier ways to protect the bottom against abrasion.

    Big floatation tanks is not compensation for bad design. They have their proper place, depending on the primary use of the dinghy. If I had kids that wanted to go sailing in the bay, I would be glad if the dinghy had good buoyancy tanks. Some of these dinghies are built around the buoyancy tanks, which act as a building jig – stiffening the whole thing and leaving the tanks as a bonus – excellent design. Retro-fitting tanks into a dinghy after it is built is not such a hot idea – I am doing that on a dinghy at present, and probably wouldn’t do it again. For some people (me included) buoyancy tanks are not really necessary in a decently designed tender, and for some purposes might be little bit constricting. But they don’t need to be associated with bad design, far from it.

    I’d love to do a “swamp test” – I agree that would be very relevant. In fact, although I have nearly run out of enthusiasm, I might yet be tempted to try it. But I don’t have the equipment to quantify the results properly, Arne is right about that. Comparative testing (as opposed to quantifying) would not be so difficult, but if I do any of that again, it will be for my own interest only. I accept and agree that my crude attempts at compensating for over weight are probably flawed, quantitatively at least, and I won’t be posting any more numbers on the web. 

    By the way, David - 


    I thought that was brilliant.

    Last modified: 20 Jul 2021 11:56 | Anonymous member (Administrator)
  • 20 Jul 2021 08:23
    Reply # 10762942 on 10211344
    Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Dynamic stability  -  keeping the chop out.

    There is another shape factor, which is more interesting to me than «oaf resistance», and that is resistance against being swamped by waves, either made by the wind or by motor vessels.

    The height, and even more, the flare of the topsides plays a major role here. This is why a bank dory mid-section is so good, while a Canada-canoe with tumble-home topsides is lethal. The canoe is fine on rivers, but there has been some fatal accidents up here when people use them for crossing fjords or lakes. Flaring topsides and ample freeboard at the stern is in my view essential to keep a dinghy safe. One can of course compensate with big flotation tanks and/or a fender sausage around the gunnel, but that is just a compensation for a bad design (like Simplicity 8). My Medium Boy design, with flaring topsides, was a way of trying to address this and still having an easily-driven boat.

    However, these dynamic properties of a boat are not easy to quantify without a test-tank with a wave-generator.

    Arne


  • 19 Jul 2021 10:08
    Reply # 10760851 on 10211344
    Anonymous member (Administrator)

    You are right Arne, it was way “over the top”.

    Originally I was just thinking about stepping into a dinghy and standing off-centre – which upsets some boats more than others, and is a matter to be considered. There are plenty of dinghies which I would consider too sensitive, and I think a tender should be fairly robust against clumsy handing, which is pretty commonly seen. (But I would certainly not expect anyone to jump down onto the gunnel of a dinghy, and of course that should not be a requirement).

    However, to make a crude experiment with limited equipment, I wanted a simple a procedure which discriminated between dinghies. It had to be a bit over the top.

    It wasn’t just a matter of built-in buoyancy,  You have missed something there. General Purpose Dinghy was a stand-out case of that – but Oyster, with no buoyancy, was robust. David’s box boat, with its full buoyancy tanks, flipped instantly. Simplicity8 didn’t flinch – and its buoyancy tanks never came into play.

    I think we can learn something – but I wouldn’t take any of it too seriously, as I have repeatedly stressed.

    Arne wrote: “Almost any of the shown models could be winners. It all depends on what one needs.

    Quite right. You summed it up perfectly.

    PS I thought Medium Boy's slow-mo struggle to survive against that unreasonable assault was quite heroic, don't you?

    Last modified: 19 Jul 2021 12:32 | Anonymous member (Administrator)
  • 19 Jul 2021 09:42
    Reply # 10760787 on 10211344
    Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Graeme,
    frankly, I think this test was a little over the top. Most small traditional workboats in my country, like prams and færings would fail on this test. Stepping on the rail like that is simply no-no. Most children until recent years would learn to handle a small boat from early childhood, and would from then on do it right every time, just as they today learn to handle a bicycle or skateboard. These færings, with their flaring topsides, are still much more seaworthy than vertically-sided dinghies. Just look at the dories used on the Grand Banks.  They needed to keep the sea out, and to retain stability as they were loaded, exactly as the færings.

    If tolerating lack of boat-handling skills is a requirement, then a wide-beam box boat with side tanks is the answer. I once rented a pedal-driven boat for a trip on the canals in Amsterdam. It was perfectly rectangular, more like a float than a boat  -  and its hydrodynamic qualities could be likened with Buckingham Palace...

    Most of the shown models can be built with side tanks and thus survive this test. With some of the buoyancy at the ends, these side tanks need not be so wide that they steal much space inside.

    I surely am glad I am not the judge. Almost any of the shown models could be winners. It all depends on what one needs.

    Arne


  • 18 Jul 2021 23:26
    Reply # 10760106 on 10211344
    Anonymous member (Administrator)

    One last test, a kind of dynamic stability test: A 800 gram soft weight dropping from a height of about 15cm onto the gunnel of each of the models.


    This is an attempt to simulate a 100 kg clumsy person jumping down from a height of about 0.75m onto the gunnel of the dinghy. A rather severe test.

    The models which were able to tolerate this assault, were subjected to the test again, this time with a quantity of water in the bilge. Anyone who has jumped into their tender, half full of water from over night rain, might be interested to see what happens with these models.

    null

    The tests were recorded on video here.

    I am not sure if all this "tersting" is going to help the judging committee very much.

    For the judging committee's sake, it would probably be better if more people might chime in with their opinions about what makes a good or not-so-good tender.


    Last modified: 19 Jul 2021 08:20 | Anonymous member (Administrator)
  • 17 Jul 2021 12:09
    Reply # 10757672 on 10211344
    Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Hi Arne, I was planning to write a conclusion and you stole my words!

    Yes, if you want stability in a 2.4m dinghy - you get it with beam (almost regardess of shape)

    And you pay for it, as the next tests show. I did another attempt at measuring drag, this time streaming the models in the creek, on an ebbing tide. Problem was, it was a fairly sluggish tide and hardly any tension was registered on the tow lines. I added an extension to the arm of the tension gauge, and just did the best I could. Also there was a ight breeze in the same direction as the tide. Did I measure drag or did I measure windage? Or was it both? I don't think the measuring was very accurate - but the little light ones did seem to have less drag than the big beamy ones.

    Here are the results:


    Here is the video


    I should probably do these trials all over again, with all the models carrying a weight to the same percentage, or perhaps with the same weight. But I am just about over it.

    If I can find the time, I will do one more series of tests, "oaf tolerance", simulating dropping a weight onto the gunnel or side deck from a fixed height- a sort of dynamic stability test. That will be easy enough - and in each case the result will just be "pass" or "fail". Maybe tomorrow.


    PS Another thing Arne - yes it would be very informative if Fat Boy, Medium Boy and Slim Boy could each be built, to the same specifications, and compared - this would probably be more informative than the diverse group of dinghies I have been trying to compare. I can't do any more, but if someone else could make those three, it would be very interesting. I would suggest planking them with balsa wood and trying to keep the model weight down to about 250 - 350 grams. Anyone else like to give it a go?

    Last modified: 17 Jul 2021 14:27 | Anonymous member (Administrator)
       " ...there is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing as simply messing about in junk-rigged boats" 
                                                               - the Chinese Water Rat

                                                              Site contents © the Junk Rig Association and/or individual authors

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software