Thread: stevenson project

Howdy,

Generally there are two ways of getting "cheap".

1/ The expensive way - is to use cheap materials - the boat ends up having poor resale and if you hold onto it the maintenance problems build up - if not structural problems.

Cheap materials can be OK if you don't expect the boat to hang around for a long time - so can be fun for something quick and dirty.

2/ The smart way - it is possible to design and build smaller boats these days with very little solid timber framing. The solid timber is just used to hold the ply together and there is little or no conventional framing.

I had a quick look on the net and Stevenson's boats do head down this route.

But the cost to build a 24ft boat is the cost to build a 24 ft boat - Clever design can get the building cost down 10 or 15% - for the hull - it won't make a boat half price over a sensible competitor!

But Stevenson's rigs (sails masts fittings) are pretty conventional - which means relatively expensive. The things that keep rigs cheap are free standing masts and no jibs/headsails.

On the other side a poorly designed boat (most free or cheap plans) can cost much more than its competitors.

Also you have to look at the quality of the plans relative to your experience. If you don't know a lot about boatbuilding yet - then detailed plans with step by step directions are worth every cent.

Also if you are new to sailing it can be worth building something smaller rather than going straight to a 24 footer if you are not sure whether you will like the boating thing. If you have sailed a bit and want to go for a 24 footer - go for it!

But it won't be just a couple of thousand dollars to get a largish boat like this on the water.

Best wishes
MIK

Just found some pics of a vacationer owned by the wonderful Andrew Linn - he picked it up really cheap - I think for a couple of hundred dollars and fixed it up.

http://andrewlinn.com/061021john/koh...otos_start.htm

The first thing that stands out is that the transom of the boat is draggng badly - and this is with only one person in the cockpit.

Having the back of the boat underwater like this causes a huge amount of drag and most designers go to great length to make sure it doesn't happen. This boat is going to be way out of trim by the time there is a second person in the cockpit.

Maybe that's why the boat isn't moving in the pictures even though the sails are full of wind. There is not enough wind to really get a boat going but there should be signs of life.

Maybe there was a problem with this particular boat.
______________________________

More added 10 minutes after -

Just found another picture attached below - the boat has little or no rocker - curve on the bottom that makes sure the bow and stern are above the water surface - fore and aft curve. Little or no rocker means the boat will have very poor performance - like I said any experienced designer knows that is the FIRST thing you design into a boat once you have worked out its approximate sailing weight.

The only exceptions would be canoes (which still need a little) some multihulls with canoe sterns (though you need some so the bot will turn ok) and planing powerboats whose bows will stick too high up in the air if there is too much rocker aft.

But all other sailboats - actually boats in general - need the correct amount of rocker to perform correctly. This boat would be sailing at double (triple) the speed in the Andrew Linn photos if it had the correct bottom rocker.

Michael

Originally Posted by windbreaker

A 24' vacationer' can apparently be built for just a few thousand dollars.

To be a little less polite than Mik: no it can't! Not in Oz anyway.

The PDRacer can be built for a thousand dollars using new materials - just, and it's an open 8' dinghy built with minimum materials. A typical 24 footer would have roughly 10 times the bult volume, and all the pieces will have to be scaled up because of the increased structural requirements.

Admittedly the 24' Vacationer is only 21' plus bow sprit, and it's a small volume 24 footer at that, which will give you some cost advantage, but it can't be built for just a few thousand dollars!

The trailer alone will cost you that! Of course if you are good at scrounging you'll get away with a lot less, but do the exercise first.

Why not get a hold of some study plans, and price the materials and fittings, then double that to allow for painting, disposables, tools and finishing.. at least you'll have a reasonable estimate of the project cost then.

I suppose it depends on whether to you a "few thousand dollars" is three or twelve, but I can't add anything else to Mik's posts above. They are both spot-on.

Cheers,

P

ahem... Im gonna stick me noggin in here as is my wont from time to time

First... the weekender may be a better first option rather than the vacationer... its similar designed and put together the same way just smaller. Check their site

Second the rocker that Mik talks about is inbuilt in the keel itself which is cut on a long taper the bottom ply is screwed and glued down onto the keel thus forcing the rocker into the bum.

third... from every report Ive read on these designs from those with them and those who have sold them they are good wee boats... not for long cruises but as the yanks call it gunkholing or coastal cruising in shallow protected waters... they have a forum at here in which all facets related to this design are discussed and debated

There are some who have actually put a lead show on the keel to similate the keel on a "normal" sailboat while originally the weekender (first designed) had a centreboard it was subsequently deleted since very few people found them necessary.

Fourth... cheep? CHEEP?? We are talking about a bloody boat here mate it IS NOT going to be cheep... well then again cheep is rather ambiguous isnt it? Anyway Mike Stevenson states that they can be built with top shelf marine ply and all the fruit or it can be and seems mostly to be built using construction ply and cheeper materials... some have been built without epoxy and glass at all just put together and silicone of one type or another used with the aid of screws... the sails can be made with blue poly tarp and the plans include drawings and measurements for just that or by buying some sailcloth and making your own... the useful bits and bobs such as the wheel the blocks and the mast hoops the plans offer drawings and measurements of... cheep if you live and build it in the states yes but here where our ply and other gear is often up to three times as expensive to get no Id not say cheep but then comparitively to say Iain Outreds Grey Seal its very cheep!!

So in light of what Mik and Midgey both say I will add this... the plans are cheep $30US add a couple more and you get a video which I believe is unnecessary... so the plans themselves are cheep... depending on what you decide to buy decides how the plans arrive

1) Weekender plans come in a book type folder A4 size that give you EVERY concievable dimension for every part of the boat it also includes your build number and a log

2) Vacationer and Pilot boat come in 5 and 4 large sheets folded and printed on both sides a rather cheeper option in my view and not as good an idea as the Weekender method.

The pilot boat I think is actually the better option since it is doable as either sail boat or power boat and both look smart... like all these sorts of boats flat bottomed skiff types there will be some pounding into waves... but for all the seeming wrongs with the design there are and continue to be many many of these built around the world... mainly as one would expect in the States but also in NZ Aus England and other places... very popular.

Now weather that is simply due to the cheep cost of the plans or other reasons I dont know... what I do know is that the plans for all three are very detailed and with the forum and email to Mike himself you are never far from contact with either the designer or others building them.

OH... and my personal opinion of Mike Stevenson is that hes a bloody good bloke when we bought the plans of all three we received them less than a week before the flood which took the plans with it... I emailed Mike and within 2 weeks he had sent me a replacement set of all three... no other desinger or company museum or other that I had bought plans from did that or even offered a discount on another set to replace them (except Woodenboat who offered me a $5 discount on replacement ones)... with Mike it was simply "sorry to hear that Shane new set on the way" and they were

Anyways... tis a small ply boat its a simple boat that goes together easily... but dont expect it to be a sailboat like a Grey Seal cause its not and doesnt attest to be... its cost will be commiserate with how much you want to spend on it... the time it takes to build will be commisserate with how much effort and time you give to it... the details depend on you.

Cheers
Shane

Oh bugger off ya bloody wombat ... yer supposed to be a mad dingo, not spreading good advice (dammit, I'm about to agree with the silly bastard again ... does that make me a silly bastard too? )

The Weekender fitted right into my own requirements for a boat and hence was closely looked at during the interminable months I spent researching this sort of thing. The question was solved by the premature purchase of Sixpence But I'm happy.

I'm not going to disagree with anything said above. None of it flies in the face of what I've read and I spent over three years on the Weekender Forum which is very active and passionate and full of good advice.

The Weekender and, I'm sure, the Vacationer, are very good boats for what they claim to be, and that is 'competent sailing vessels for amateur boat builders who want to have fun mucking about in boats'. There are far better boats out there ... but anyone who describes them as incompetent as a sailer has suffered a bad example of the class. They go together really well and those who love them are very passionate. The piratical looks help too

But, as Mik has alluded to, they are compromised as a sailing vessel, but not excessively so (according to those that love them).

The thing that turned me away from them was the size of the cabin ... or lack thereof. It's suitable for pygmies with a height problem and no fear of claustrophobia. Okay, I'm being mean, but it's intended to be a bit of shelter, NOT a cabin.

Should you build a Weekender or Vacationer?
Yes, but only if you have done a looooottttttt of research, looked at a looooottttttt of plans and just keep coming back to the damned things. They aren't the greatest, but as I said before, those that love them are passionate, which suggests to me they do some things very nicely thank you very much.

Richard

DAMN!! yer gotta love that!!

Actually after I wrote that post above I raced out through the rain to the shed where I have put all things boat so they dont get muddled up with her gear or the hoons and bought them inside to have another look at

As I said earlier have a close look at the Pilot boat... it has that chubby roomy Catboat look about it and is somewhat shorter in length but is a good looking boat either way you decide to go... as a cruiser or sailboat... and from the materials list would be the cheeper option of the three if thats a main consideration.

The plans are the same price but dont come in the folder like the Weekenders do but rather in two large double sided sheets (sorry I got the number of sheets wrong in the first post its 2 for the PB and 3 for the Vacationer) but when unfolded they come to 16 x A4 pages per sheet thus 32 pages of information pictures and diagrams of the complete boat even down to the shelf in the cabin and 48 pages for the Vacationer and an extra A4 page with the materials list the weekender ends up being 45 A4 pages

In some ways when comparing with other designs Ive bought these are far more complete for an amature home builder the only other designs Ive seen that are as full and complete are as I said earlier Iain Oughtreds Grey Seal and Al Masons Oskust design both directly aimed at the home builder one from recent years and the other from the 1930s... none of the more recent designs Ive seen have been as comprehensive and detailed some do come close but most dont... mind you this is the same for many of the old time boat designs as well so nothing unusual or exceptional about it... just as a note for Mik and Midge on the level of detail contained in the plans.

For a "cheep" set of plans they are worth somewhat more than what you pay for them and if you build one then worth a damned sight more... and given the amount of help available through the forum that I linked to above and Mike still breathing (something that really does help at times!) and accessable by email phone or mail something of real importance if you find a question or two that confounds you... hint the first one will have something to do with the keel

Now I can hear the resounding question banging and clanging its way around the collective minds of those reading this... that being "So? Why havent you built one then Shane if theyre so good?" Well to answer that question honestly I have made several attempts since I recieved the second set and have actually had the keel and stem made for some months along with the wheel and some other bits... just the same as Ive had the keel and tiller for Atkin's Valgerda for many months and 2 sets of canoe moulds and backbones ready in the seatainer and cause of that I wont mention all the bits and bobs for a 1930s houseboat ... Other things get in the flamin way!! generally but not restricted to work family other projects available finance and other factors called... life? Probably why daddleydaddles is still muckin about with his boat instead of havin it finished and having fun... life gets in the way

So... I would suggest 1) really go over the Stevensons site... 2) go to the forum and lurk for awhile read back through the posts and 3) Ask questions!!

Actually if you do REALLY go over the Stevensons site check out the free wee "Sportfoil" plans down the bottom of THIS page its something Ive been thinking of getting Midgey to make... Personally I reckon it would be an absolute hoot!!... also on that page you will find extra plans for different things for the weekender like the salty looking deadeys and the cockpit drain but theres also a sewing centre that your missus shouldnt see... mine did and it cost me an arm and a leg to alter her thoughts of me making one (I ended up having to buy her a wang dang doodle of a sewing machine that wouldnt fit the thing in a chinese fit! I gots enough on me plate without adding a sodding sewing centre to it) but the site is a wealth of information.

With the forum... you will find some people get rather anul about the "fruit" of their boats one bloke from if I remember rightly Ireland went totally spaz with his wheel and did some gaelic knots instead of the usual rings!! beautifull so theres a heck of a lot of info there.

Anyways... for the price Id say buy them even if you just get an idea or two but dont build it you could change the plans and just make a skiff from what it will give you... but whatever enjoy it.

Cheers again!
Moi the legendary dingo wombat of the west

Howdy,

So we all agree that it will be more expensive.

But the question that just keeps coming into my mind is why he didn't get the bottom rocker right.

Like it sounds like the boats have a lot going for them - good construction - detailed and accurate plans - even a nice bloke as the designer - but why compromise on the sailing performance?

It probably only means another 3 inches of rocker in the bottom and the boats will sail at three times the speed in light winds (under 5 knots) and 50% faster in 5 to 10 knots of breeze - particulary upwind.

It is so easy to get right.

Dingo, perhaps you had better send me part of the plans to have a look at as you offered - maybe I've got it wrong and Andrew Linn's boat was built wrong or something. If there is a lines plan that would be interesting to see. But it looks like such a basic mistake with huge repercussions that don't need to be there.

Like selling a car with only three wheels. Send em to me and I'll have a look and see if I'm wrong.

So you can all know for the moment that I'm not sure about what I'm saying - at least as far as this boat goes. I know that I'm right about the performance aspects of having so much of the transom and bow dragging in the water - but maybe there is more than meets the eye in the photos I've been able to find.

Best wishes
MIK

Mik... you have mail and a pm to apologize read the pm FIRST!!

Howdy Dingo,

I got the pm fine but the big email didn't arrive - I think my mailbox is too small.

you could send it to [email protected]

Don't send anything else to that email address - all other correspondence needs to go to
[email protected]

Cheers man
MIK

Yep just got the rejection slip mate... will try the yahoo one... if that doesnt work maybe scan and send a few pages at a time eh?

No probs - I really only need the body plan or lines plan - the Plan view is most useful as well as a side view. I can scale.

Probably don't need most of the instructions.

Sailplan and interior layout too will allow me to see if a centreboard is useful/responsible.

MIK

I think we have a landing Mik... well no rejection slips yet anyways so thats gotta be good right!

Im actually VERY curious as to your thoughts and views mate... as I said from my contact with Mike Stevenson they initially did design it with a centreboard but he says that a lot of builders found that it was unnecessary... as to weather or not thats a reflection on the boats abilities or the sailors abilities Id not say... but sufficed to say they revised the plans and left it out... and in their reworking of the plans for the Vacationer they left it out altogether... that being said the plans of the Pilot Boat I have show an offset bilge board so although that boat is but 15ft LOA apparently it needs one... dont know if that makes some sort of comparision difference or not but seems curious to me that they leave it off the Weekender and the Vacationer but put a bilge board on the other... just strange is all... Ive also read that some other builders have made lead keels and attached them but have yet to find a result thread or site that gives a reasoned view of if it actually improved the boats performance or not.

So if you can post or email your findings or thoughts to let me know Id appreciate it
Cheers

Howdy Dingo,

The Weekender plan got through this time and I downloaded it all via broadband at the place I am staying and drew up the bottom part of the hull on my program ...

For the transom to just touch the water the curve of the bottom of the hull will displace around 404lbs.

Ideally with boat design this should be equal to the weight of hull, rig, ballast, masts, sails, rigging, outboard and crew - plus any other payload.

So its WAAAAAY under what it needs to be for the boat to sail well and explains that deeply immersed transom in Andrew Linn's photos.

I'll work out what it needs to be if you can find a reasonably accurate all up weight for the boat.

With the revised bottom it will sail like a witch - compared to the standard version. Or at least a lot better.

Most of the improvement will be upwind and on all points in all light and medium weather sailing - ie Average conditions.

I would also suggest a centreboard or offcentreboard - that keel won't work too well when there is a chop and ground to cover upwind. I'll work out where to put it so it doesn't intrude - probably off centre. I reckon put up with the standard upwind performance when the water is a bit thin, but where it is deep whack in the board to give some real bite and performance upwind.

If you don't get three or four times the speed shown in Andrew Linn's pictures for the same windspeed (ie light winds) then I'm no boat designer.

At a heel angle of 0.000 deg
Pitch angle is 0.000 deg
Volume displaced is 6.310 cu ft
Displacement is 404.229 lb
Righting moment is 70.478 lb ft per deg.
Mass per unit immersion 2602.774 lb/ft
Moment to change trim (MCT) 13.252 lb ft per inch

The other slightly worrying thing is the centre of buoyancy is right in the centre of the boat.

X-centre of mass (LCG) 7.634 ft
- distance forward of midships -2.112e-02 ft
Centre of buoyancy (LCB) 50.196 %
- at 7.634 ft
- distance forward of midships -2.112e-02 ft
Centre of flotation (LCF) 50.906 %
- at 7.711 ft

In little boats like this the biggest concentration of weight is the crew - so the centre of buoyancy should be more towards the back of the boat. Thats why a lot of Bolgers smaller box boats have straight lines in the front third then flatten out for the second third and finally curve up to the transom with a rush at the back end of the boat - making the bum end the one with all the bottom curvature.

But yep, I can fix this too - or at least move into a more correct position - to find the absolutely correct position requires an extensive weight edit of every part in the boat.

You'll have to redraft the depths and widths of all the frames - but the depth above the water and the deck width will be unchanged - but I can work most of that out for you with a little bit of follow up measuring once the bottom is attached to the curve of the keel.

Have a bit of a check through and see what else might be changed by redrafting the rocker.

The only downside of all these changes is that you will end up with slightly more draft As the hull is deeper - the keel has to be made deeper too to keep the correct lateral plane.

Michael Storer

Howdy Dingo (again!)

BTW there is a bit of work involved in working it all out - so please don't let me do it if you change your mind! If something serious intervenes when you really think that you are going to do it - no probs - after all I love you like a brother.

But if you aren't going to do it then don't let me go ahead.

MIK
hehehehehehehehe