Modern sailing canoe Sara is for sale

[ad name=”intheboatshed-post”]

sara-for-sale

Sailing canoe Sara is for sale

I’d like to draw attention to a crop of interesting posts over at the Albert Strange Association website.

The first is a rather sad announcement but represents a great opportunity for someone. Due to poor health, ASA technical secretary Rick Powell has reluctantly decided to sell his 15ft, 4ft 6in beam sailing canoe Sara, which he designed and built a few years ago. She’s said to be a modern take on George Holmes’ Ethel concept; her construction involves ply-epoxy planking with strip-planked curved bilges, oak trim, hollow mast and boom, and built-in buoyancy. She has lots of stainless steel fittings Ronstan fittings, and comes complete with cover and road trailer.

ASA site editor Dick Wynne says she has been sailed just four times, and that her performance matches her good looks. She’s on the market at what seems to me to be a very reasonable price.  See more here.

The ASA site is always well worth a visit, but at the moment there are some corking stories about some legendary boats, including EelBetty (the Strange boat that won the 1927 Fastnet Race), and Sea Harmony.

PS Dick tells me he’s very concerned about the loss of mud from the River Thames, which has led him to moor his boat away from its usual spot at the Greenwich Yacht Club’s moorings. There’s an interesting Wikipedia entry on the subject.

Do you have an interesting boat for sale? Please tell us about her: gmatkin@gmail.com .

Don’t miss something good. Subscribe for the free weekly intheboatshed email newsletter!

Why use wood to build boats?

[ad name=”intheboatshed-post”]

528397904_65ab1263e7_b2

Rowing boat built from wood in the traditional way – and isn’t
it so much more attractive than plastic? Photo from Flickr
Creative Commons, taken by Rick Rowland

Several times now I’ve been promised short articles that answer this question, but as yet no-one has sent me any clear answers – not even those who really should have the information at the top of their heads and have an obvious interest in making the case.

So I was intrigued to find some answers to this question about wooden boatbuilding laid out in a recent post at Tiernan Roe’s weblog Roeboats.  Here are his key points (some are slightly paraphrased):

Where light weight and strength are needed wood is the best material to use.

Pound for pound, wood is stronger than than steel, most fiberglass and aluminium.

On the same basis, wood is stiffer than fiberglass, kevlar or steel.

Wood absorbs vibrations and this includes sound, so wooden boats are quieter.

Wood does not fatigue with repeated loading.

Wood is a renewable resource and the growing of wood removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Wood is eco friendly in that it can be recycled, fiberglass cannot.

Wood looks good.

Wood allows economical, in both materials and cost, custom production of boats.

Wooden boats require similar maintenance to fiberglass boats. Gel coat is not the wonder material it was thought to be.

Tiernan adds that the reason most boats for sale today are made of fiberglass is that they can be made by semiskilled and unskilled workers who are cheaper to hire than the skilled craftspeople needed to build a wooden boat.

I’d add a couple of points to Tiernan’s list. One is that traditional wooden boats bring so much to the landscape – there are many precious places in the UK that would be utterly changed without their characteristic wooden boats – including The Broads, the River Thames, the creeks of the East Coast, and the beaches at Cromer and Hastings.

Another is that when we build in wood or commission others to do so, we are helping to maintain an important tradition. Boatbuilders teach each other, and the skills have long been conveyed by oral transmission. To my mind, this makes boatbuilding a culturally important tradition.

But although I’m obviously an enthusiast for wooden boats and boatbuilding, I’m sure the cause of the wooden boat is best served by a realistic view of the issues, and that many readers of this weblog will have different perspectives based on their own exeriences.

For example, I’m not sure the maintenance argument is entirely justified. I’ve learned that anything in the open air that is covered with gelcoat or a epoxy and a two-part paint requires far less maintenance than anything wooden that’s covered with alkyd paints, varnish or even teak oils. With our busy working and family lives I have no hesitation in saying that we own and use at least one boat that we wouldn’t be able to keep up it on a DIY basis if it was made from wood.

I wonder also whether the argument that building from wood is environmentally friendly has really been made. I’m inclined to believe in global warming and the trouble it is bringing, but I feel also that the arithmetic we presume when we’re making judgements about environmental issues is often overly simplistic. For example, when wood eventually rots its breakdown must release carbon dioxide and the much worse global warming gas methane. So what is the lifetime cost of a wooden boat to the environment compared with a plastic one? I haven’t a clue, but I don’t think the answer should be taken as obvious until someone clever works it through and provides us with the result of their calculations. Just to add a factor that seems relevant, what is the contribution to global warming made by the drying of spirit-based paints and varnish?

These are just a few thoughts of mine.What do you think? Are there any points here you’d argue with? Are there any arguments to add? Comments via the comment link below and at Tiernan’s weblog please!

PS Fans of the US designer John Atkin will be interested to know that Tiernan is currently weblogging the build of a clinker-built Atkin Ninigret.

PPS I’d draw your attention to some of the comments below, particularly those of West Country boat designer, occasional building and general sailing man John Hesp.

National Register of Historic Vessels to include foreign builds and 33ft vessels

[ad name=”intheboatshed-post”]

e-news

Inclusion criteria for the National Register of Historic Vessels change from the 1st April this year to include vessels built abroad but with strong UK associations.

The size requirement is also reduced from 40 to 33ft overall.

The latest National Historic Ships e-News explains the changes, which stem from concerns that important vessels have been excluded including the Bombay-built HMS Trincomalee and more recently HMS Stalker.

The rule on length has been changed to fill a gap that existed between the National Register of Historic Vessels and the National Maritime Museum’s National Small Boat Register.

If you’re wondering whether your boat may qualify, length overall is defined as the length between the forward and aft extremities of the hull: spars and projections are not included.

Other criteria for including a vessel remain unchanged: the craft must have been launched more than 50 years ago, it should be currently lying in British waters and must be substantially intact.

PS I’ve just heard from NMMC trustee George Hogg that all the 33ft and over currently on the NSBR will be retained on it until the NRHV site is up and running again.