Wow--That's a Different Look...
Nov. 7th, 2010 06:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
catsittingstillDreamwidth (all my LJ stuff is crossposted from Dreamwidth, for those of you who are reading this on LJ) has a really different look this evening. Kind of stark black and white. I think I like it but it must be imposed else-journal; I don't recall changing anything myself.
Anyway, just thought I'd mention I'm still alive.
I took Constance out for a solo spin early last week, and then cold weather socked in. It's supposed to get warmer tomorrow; I hope I can take her out a few more times before winter really begins.
I would like to see how much stuff I can safely load in her, and also how she handles in wind and waves. Of course, finding wind and waves when it's not too cold for safe canoeing may be a bit of a trick this time of year.
I am already thinking about making a third. I'm trying to decide between another Wee Lassie II (I really like the way this one handles) or a Rob Roy out of Canoecraft (another small solo boat, like the Wee Lassie II) or a Merlin from Northwest Canoes. What do these three options have in common? They're all free designs (if I can figure out how to read the offset tables in Canoecraft.) Another option might be the Freedom 15 3 solo from Bear Mountain Boats--but damn, it's seventy dollars for the design. Ow. If I had more money I'd consider it more seriously but right now I need to satisfy my boat-building habit as cheaply as I can.
Another amusing option would be to re-create the Rushton Wee Lassie (Henry Rushton was a famous canoe builder back when "canoe" meant "boat pointy at both ends, often almost completely decked over, moved by a double paddle and/or a sail." I just finished reading "Rushton And His Time In American Canoeing" by Atwood Manley published by the Adirondack Museum. Though Mac MacCarthy's Wee Lassie from "Featherweight Boatbuilding" is the best known Wee Lassie out there, there are several Wee Lassie designs, some of which are produced commercially, which have in common a 10' 6" length and a 26" beam but as far as I can tell, not much else about the hull shape.
There are measurements for several other Rushton canoes (five boats total but one is a row boat and one is I think purely for sailing) in the appendix of Manley's book. Several of the drawings are very pleasing indeed to the eye. However the Wee Lassie is decidedly too small--it was built for a writer named Sears (pen name Nessmuk) who was only 100 lbs. If I got in that boat I think there would be a loud gurgling noise followed by swimming practice. And the boats that look to have a reasonable design weight (i.e. that I'm sure could carry me) are fairly wide--30 inches, minimum. I rather like the Ugo (though I think the name is very ugly) but it looks like in addition to being 30 inches wide it was 15 inches deep at the center--three inches deeper than even my Osprey. It was intended for two people, of course.
Also the forms seem to have been 24 inches apart (or at least the person who took the measurements on the finished boat long after the forms were gone seems to have assumed this.) And folks, that puts the cross sections a lot farther apart than the modern patterns I've run into do. I'm not quite sure what that would mean for the design, but it might make it hard to sand the outside, due to the strips flexing where they are not supported by the stations. I do like the Ugo's shallow vee design and lack of tumblehome, though.
Oh, and the first chapter(s) of the Manley book make it plain that tumblehome (the boat being narrower at the gunwales than it is nearer the waterline) goes back a lot farther than I thought. It's not a modern invention at all. In 1883 Rushton wrote an article about how the boats he built in 1876 had tumblehome.
Now part of what I was thinking as I finished up Constance was that she could be a second solo for us to take to Quetico so I didn't have to either rent a solo for Kip or borrow a solo off a friend (it was very nice of my friend to loan me Gussie year before last, but let's face it, a Pack is light and stable and carries a lot but it's s l o w... ) However Quetico is a pretty challenging environment for a canoe--you may be out paddling in fifteen mile an hour winds with two foot waves, and I wasn't sure Constance was up to that. Plus you need to put yourself and about fifty (or at least thirty) pounds of gear and food into a solo boat and I didn't know if Constance was up to that either.
Anyway, it turns out that Kip is willing to go to Quetico if the rest of us (me, Jake and Dad) want, but isn't actually drawn to the trip for its own sake. So arguably I don't need to worry about building another Quetico-capable boat--at least not this year. So I'm less likely to go with the Merlin and more likely to go with the Rob Roy if I can figure out how to make it work. I do like the idea of building a third model--I know I like the Wee Lassie II but I think I would learn more from building the Rob Roy.
Also I need to build a canoe rack so as to have a place to keep Constance that isn't the boatshop. For now I think I might build a small canoe rack that would fit on the back porch--it will make it harder to see out the kitchen window, but it saves me having to build a shed when I have so little spare money for materials.
Anyway, just thought I'd mention I'm still alive.
I took Constance out for a solo spin early last week, and then cold weather socked in. It's supposed to get warmer tomorrow; I hope I can take her out a few more times before winter really begins.
I would like to see how much stuff I can safely load in her, and also how she handles in wind and waves. Of course, finding wind and waves when it's not too cold for safe canoeing may be a bit of a trick this time of year.
I am already thinking about making a third. I'm trying to decide between another Wee Lassie II (I really like the way this one handles) or a Rob Roy out of Canoecraft (another small solo boat, like the Wee Lassie II) or a Merlin from Northwest Canoes. What do these three options have in common? They're all free designs (if I can figure out how to read the offset tables in Canoecraft.) Another option might be the Freedom 15 3 solo from Bear Mountain Boats--but damn, it's seventy dollars for the design. Ow. If I had more money I'd consider it more seriously but right now I need to satisfy my boat-building habit as cheaply as I can.
Another amusing option would be to re-create the Rushton Wee Lassie (Henry Rushton was a famous canoe builder back when "canoe" meant "boat pointy at both ends, often almost completely decked over, moved by a double paddle and/or a sail." I just finished reading "Rushton And His Time In American Canoeing" by Atwood Manley published by the Adirondack Museum. Though Mac MacCarthy's Wee Lassie from "Featherweight Boatbuilding" is the best known Wee Lassie out there, there are several Wee Lassie designs, some of which are produced commercially, which have in common a 10' 6" length and a 26" beam but as far as I can tell, not much else about the hull shape.
There are measurements for several other Rushton canoes (five boats total but one is a row boat and one is I think purely for sailing) in the appendix of Manley's book. Several of the drawings are very pleasing indeed to the eye. However the Wee Lassie is decidedly too small--it was built for a writer named Sears (pen name Nessmuk) who was only 100 lbs. If I got in that boat I think there would be a loud gurgling noise followed by swimming practice. And the boats that look to have a reasonable design weight (i.e. that I'm sure could carry me) are fairly wide--30 inches, minimum. I rather like the Ugo (though I think the name is very ugly) but it looks like in addition to being 30 inches wide it was 15 inches deep at the center--three inches deeper than even my Osprey. It was intended for two people, of course.
Also the forms seem to have been 24 inches apart (or at least the person who took the measurements on the finished boat long after the forms were gone seems to have assumed this.) And folks, that puts the cross sections a lot farther apart than the modern patterns I've run into do. I'm not quite sure what that would mean for the design, but it might make it hard to sand the outside, due to the strips flexing where they are not supported by the stations. I do like the Ugo's shallow vee design and lack of tumblehome, though.
Oh, and the first chapter(s) of the Manley book make it plain that tumblehome (the boat being narrower at the gunwales than it is nearer the waterline) goes back a lot farther than I thought. It's not a modern invention at all. In 1883 Rushton wrote an article about how the boats he built in 1876 had tumblehome.
Now part of what I was thinking as I finished up Constance was that she could be a second solo for us to take to Quetico so I didn't have to either rent a solo for Kip or borrow a solo off a friend (it was very nice of my friend to loan me Gussie year before last, but let's face it, a Pack is light and stable and carries a lot but it's s l o w... ) However Quetico is a pretty challenging environment for a canoe--you may be out paddling in fifteen mile an hour winds with two foot waves, and I wasn't sure Constance was up to that. Plus you need to put yourself and about fifty (or at least thirty) pounds of gear and food into a solo boat and I didn't know if Constance was up to that either.
Anyway, it turns out that Kip is willing to go to Quetico if the rest of us (me, Jake and Dad) want, but isn't actually drawn to the trip for its own sake. So arguably I don't need to worry about building another Quetico-capable boat--at least not this year. So I'm less likely to go with the Merlin and more likely to go with the Rob Roy if I can figure out how to make it work. I do like the idea of building a third model--I know I like the Wee Lassie II but I think I would learn more from building the Rob Roy.
Also I need to build a canoe rack so as to have a place to keep Constance that isn't the boatshop. For now I think I might build a small canoe rack that would fit on the back porch--it will make it harder to see out the kitchen window, but it saves me having to build a shed when I have so little spare money for materials.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-11-08 01:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-08 01:39 am (UTC)I expect I never chose a style. And since I'm okay with this one--just a little surprised by the change--I doubt I'll do anything to change it.
Unless I get inspired :-)
no subject
Date: 2010-11-08 01:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-08 02:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-08 01:06 am (UTC):)
no subject
Date: 2010-11-08 02:04 am (UTC)I would be honored to build you a kayak.
I might take on a kayak after the next canoe, actually. There are some beautiful things that can be done with kayaks. But I'm not sure I'm quite ready to take on the challenge of building a separate hull and deck that must meet *exactly.*
no subject
Date: 2010-11-08 02:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-08 02:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-08 03:06 am (UTC)The fiberglass whitewater kayak I built was constructed in two separate molds which were then bolted together; the seam was bridged inside the mold with glass tape and resin. (Trying to work inside the mold through the cockpit was trying, literally.) The same approach might work for a stripper, but would require making exterior forms (see preceeding thought). This is starting to get complicated - must research more.
Anyway, goodonya for your beautiful boat, and I hope you get in some more wet time before winter. Looks like a mild week here in Ohio, so you should have decent weather.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-08 12:21 pm (UTC)The weather is supposed to be warmer this coming week here too. And I am hoping to get in a few more trips in Constance.
I already have a companion for Tuesday, provided the weather is decent.