|
Hull Flexing
It fits my theory about how a properly stayed vessel is a
much stronger system then say a Nonsuch with an unstayed mast. How many rig failures can you prove for the Nonsuch? Some theory! RB |
Hull Flexing
One more point - on a Prout the mast is stepped aft, supported by the same bulkhead that the door is
in. In fact, the latch is about 2 feet below where the butt of the mast was. This is why we concluded the flexing was caused by the rig. As to your claim that the rig adds strength, this may be so, but it doesn't mean that a Nonsuch is flimsy for lack of a rig. Perhaps they are overbuilt to compensate, but they are very strong, solid boats. -- -jeff "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Then it sounds like the Prout might be designed to incorporate the rigging into the total package to stiffen things up. That's a problem with catamarans - the downward force of mast and rigging places maximum loading on the center of the bridge deck as there is no hull there into which to step the mast and loading. So one can easily picture the hulls being pulled up by the rigging while the center of the bridge deck is being pushed down. When their mast and rigging forces are removed the bridge deck can then assume a more upward position causing the house to warp somewhat. This might cause the doors to jam, etc. It fits my theory about how a properly stayed vessel is a much stronger system then say a Nonsuch with an unstayed mast. S.Simon "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Your theory might have merit except for a few details: First of all, the pictures are of my boat, while the problem was different boat, a Prout 37. The Prout has a third, central hull, called a "nacelle," and it is impractical to support like mine. It is sitting on its keels. At first, I wondered if the center of the Prout had sagged and should be supported, but we concluded that in fact the center had risen when the weight and stress of the mast had been removed. My boat is supported according to the factory specs. Although the keels can support the hull for a limited period, they are not intended to support the hull for extended periods. Since the three timbers are directly un the three bulkheads, the hull is support with no flexing. "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... I see the problem. Those jack stands blocking up the bridge deck are doing just the opposite of what that area of the boat is supposed to do. If the stands are taking too much weight the hulls are sort of hanging from the bridge deck. In the water the hulls support the bridge deck. In the water viewed from the front the bridge deck would have a tendency to be curved down a little in the center portions. Jacked up as it shows the bridge deck would be curved the opposite way. This would warp the house in an abnormal manner. S.Simon "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Its a catamaran - it can rest on its two keels. Prouts can be stashed like that because the keels are solid. My keels, however, are "sacrificial" so its best to jack under the bridge, supporting most of the weight under the bulkheads: http://www.sv-loki.com/Along_the_Way/UnderBelly.jpg "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Check the jack stands. Some fool probably has the ones in the middle way too tight and doing most of the work and bending the boat in the process. S.Simon "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... I had a odd experience yesterday. I went to the boat to finish winterizing, and saw my neighbor trying to get into his boat, a Prout 37 (which, BTW, has done 3 trans-Atlantic crossings). The companionway door was latched and locked - he was baffled because the door had never latched in his experience (he's had the boat a year and always locked with an external padlock). After a while we were able to pry it open and figure out what had happened. On Thursday the mast had been pulled. This seems to have relaxed the hull enough that the latch, which had not recently engaged, now caught the latch plate. We estimate maybe 1/16 inch of flexing. Before you jump on the fact that a catamaran hull had a bit of flex, here's what the owner said "I surprised there would be any flex at all - but my old C&C 37 flexed so much when we unrigged her that it opened a deck leak." |
Hull Flexing
As to your claim that the rig adds strength, this may be so, but it doesn't
mean that a Nonsuch is flimsy for lack of a rig. Perhaps they are overbuilt to compensate, but they are very strong, solid boats. No way! Let's wait to see Neal's links to rig failures for Freedom and Nonsuch. I'm sure he knows what he's talking about! RB |
Hull Flexing
Another theory pulled from the ass of Simp. Over 2 thousand Nonsuches
and Freedoms produced and still in service, 20 plus years after their introduction. You should be able to find the data to prove your "theory". Step up, man or shut up. On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 00:10:49 -0500, "Simple Simon" wrote: Then it sounds like the Prout might be designed to incorporate the rigging into the total package to stiffen things up. That's a problem with catamarans - the downward force of mast and rigging places maximum loading on the center of the bridge deck as there is no hull there into which to step the mast and loading. So one can easily picture the hulls being pulled up by the rigging while the center of the bridge deck is being pushed down. When their mast and rigging forces are removed the bridge deck can then assume a more upward position causing the house to warp somewhat. This might cause the doors to jam, etc. It fits my theory about how a properly stayed vessel is a much stronger system then say a Nonsuch with an unstayed mast. S.Simon "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Your theory might have merit except for a few details: First of all, the pictures are of my boat, while the problem was different boat, a Prout 37. The Prout has a third, central hull, called a "nacelle," and it is impractical to support like mine. It is sitting on its keels. At first, I wondered if the center of the Prout had sagged and should be supported, but we concluded that in fact the center had risen when the weight and stress of the mast had been removed. My boat is supported according to the factory specs. Although the keels can support the hull for a limited period, they are not intended to support the hull for extended periods. Since the three timbers are directly un the three bulkheads, the hull is support with no flexing. "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... I see the problem. Those jack stands blocking up the bridge deck are doing just the opposite of what that area of the boat is supposed to do. If the stands are taking too much weight the hulls are sort of hanging from the bridge deck. In the water the hulls support the bridge deck. In the water viewed from the front the bridge deck would have a tendency to be curved down a little in the center portions. Jacked up as it shows the bridge deck would be curved the opposite way. This would warp the house in an abnormal manner. S.Simon "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... Its a catamaran - it can rest on its two keels. Prouts can be stashed like that because the keels are solid. My keels, however, are "sacrificial" so its best to jack under the bridge, supporting most of the weight under the bulkheads: http://www.sv-loki.com/Along_the_Way/UnderBelly.jpg "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Check the jack stands. Some fool probably has the ones in the middle way too tight and doing most of the work and bending the boat in the process. S.Simon "Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... I had a odd experience yesterday. I went to the boat to finish winterizing, and saw my neighbor trying to get into his boat, a Prout 37 (which, BTW, has done 3 trans-Atlantic crossings). The companionway door was latched and locked - he was baffled because the door had never latched in his experience (he's had the boat a year and always locked with an external padlock). After a while we were able to pry it open and figure out what had happened. On Thursday the mast had been pulled. This seems to have relaxed the hull enough that the latch, which had not recently engaged, now caught the latch plate. We estimate maybe 1/16 inch of flexing. Before you jump on the fact that a catamaran hull had a bit of flex, here's what the owner said "I surprised there would be any flex at all - but my old C&C 37 flexed so much when we unrigged her that it opened a deck leak." |
Hull Flexing
Another theory pulled from the ass of Simp. Over 2 thousand Nonsuches
and Freedoms produced and still in service, 20 plus years after their introduction. You should be able to find the data to prove your "theory". Step up, man or shut up. I spoke to a Freedom rep at a show and he said the only rig failures of Freedom's was ONE during a test prior to final production of the unstayed system. As fas as he knew, no rig failures among the production boats. I remember a friend telling me that a Nonsuch lost it's mast when it struck a bridge. Does that count? RB |
Hull Flexing
There was a story of a Nonsuch on a single handed trans-Atlantic. He had a serious
problem - I think the boom broke or fell - and decided to abandon the boat and take a ride on a freighter. About a year later the hull was spotted by a cruiser in South America; it was being used by local fishermen, without mast. The owner was tracked down, and he came and "bought" the hull, and had it refitted. BTW, while I think the Nonsuch is superb coastal cruiser, it does have limitations as a passagemaker. However, I still haven't found any documented stories of rig or hull failures or capsizes - only claims of a "friend of a friend heard once in a bar ..." jeff - member of the International Nonsuch Association for 8 years "Bobsprit" wrote in message ... Another theory pulled from the ass of Simp. Over 2 thousand Nonsuches and Freedoms produced and still in service, 20 plus years after their introduction. You should be able to find the data to prove your "theory". Step up, man or shut up. I spoke to a Freedom rep at a show and he said the only rig failures of Freedom's was ONE during a test prior to final production of the unstayed system. As fas as he knew, no rig failures among the production boats. I remember a friend telling me that a Nonsuch lost it's mast when it struck a bridge. Does that count? RB |
Hull Flexing
passagemaker. However, I still haven't found any documented stories of rig or
hull failures or capsizes - only claims of a "friend of a friend heard once in a bar ...." Jeff, I can put you in touch with the skipper who was involved in multiple capsizing on a Nonsuch. The story was covered on CBS news some years ago. The boat was lost when the owner panicked and tossed the hatchboards over the side. She had already rolled twice prior to this. Contact me direct and I'll give you his number. He currently works at city Island. He's doing a Miami delivery at the moment but will return in December. RB |
Hull Flexing
I'm not sure I want to hear this one, since I don't have a Nonsuch anymore, and wouldn't
use one for offshore purposes. However, the "capsize issue" is that the bad stability numbers imply that a Nonsuch might stay inverted. If your friend had multiple capsizes, this was not the case; he was doing 360's. Without hatchboards, this can be a critical situation. BTW, did they loose the rig? I certainly don't fault him for abandoning, but there's nothing in your brief account that reflects poorly on the vessel. "Bobsprit" wrote in message ... passagemaker. However, I still haven't found any documented stories of rig or hull failures or capsizes - only claims of a "friend of a friend heard once in a bar ..." Jeff, I can put you in touch with the skipper who was involved in multiple capsizing on a Nonsuch. The story was covered on CBS news some years ago. The boat was lost when the owner panicked and tossed the hatchboards over the side. She had already rolled twice prior to this. Contact me direct and I'll give you his number. He currently works at city Island. He's doing a Miami delivery at the moment but will return in December. RB |
Hull Flexing
About the only place I've seen "expansion joints", is on Navy ships
(which is not to say some passenger ships might have them). On a tanker, the only place you'll see them will be on catwalks and in piping (G can get downright squeaky). Tankers, being built with longitudinal framing, tend to bend more, in that direction. otn DSK wrote: otnmbrd wrote: Doesn't really matter what size the boat is, you will get some degree of "flex", especially when you remove it from the water and put it on a hard stand. BG you want to see flex, you should watch and listen to a large tanker at sea, or watch one go from hog to sag when loading. Sure. Why else would they build expansion joints into the upper decks of big (or even medium-sized) ships? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:42 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com