Yuku free message boards

William Taylor, good day to you as well,
Yes, you have the logistics down in principle. We'd just have to have respective filling-stations in all the fishing-ports to match the at time itinerant nature of fishing, plus the need to be able to trade these hulls within the fleet without discarding conversions. But since these ports are not large in numbers, the logistics should not be a serious obstacle - as you pointed out. But first low-carbon hulls to burn that much less of this good and finite domestic stuff; as more consumers shift to natural gas, burning less will be more affordable/sustainable long term.

(We should not ask 'cractor-man' though, as his idea of 'gas' sends him dashing off to his manure-pile stirring for psych-muck and inhaling way too much...)

As to the simplification approach - apart from my inherent limitations as a non-nativer speaker - in these 7 years we've learned to not 'talk down' to anyone involved in the subject matter; that would be a certain prescription for alienation within the fleet. We've talked to a lot of folks on the waterfront and (again) 40 fishers plus key shore-side stake-holders expressed support in writing. Ditto for cultivating reasonably productive relationships with fishers elsewhere who approached us and continue to stay in contact as realities here and there evolve. Those are the folks who are most likely to understand the language and the concepts conveyed by it. And those are the folks who are the 'audience'. Not GoO et.al.

Amongst those fishers 'far away' are several who wonder why we've not had hulls running out of Gloucester years ago. Once something is running, like Robin Jean', even NATIONAL FISHERMAN 'comes to town' - because this is interesting stuff. They'd be even more interested in a diesel-powered hull or two that addresses directly many of the immediate needs of the core of the inshore fleet for instance, such as that 6,500lbs capacity 40' or a 15,000lbs capacity 50' craft, both of which would lobster just fine as well, or make live-aboard yachts, etc. We could be building and selling these out of this port. Quite a few more jobs created, plus jump in tax-base, ergo better City-budget-health and less morose/defeatist feelings around the harbor a la Capt. Joe and friends.

This greying widow with miles on her face will keep pushing.

On Dun's Multihull preference, let me add to Damon's thoughts:
- 15-20:1 (length-to-beam) 'needle'-lean multihull hulls are typically not designed to carry more than themselves, some crew, some supplies. The more you want to carry the wider and/or deeper the hulls will have to be getting closer to 10:1 perhaps.

- Structural weight of any multi always suffers from the need to connect these two/three hulls with meaty structures fit to have each of these hulls on 'different waves', not to mention the weight of cargo in or across these hulls.

- Building multiple hulls plus the connecting structures is a lot more work than doing a monohull of equal carrying capacity.

- A lot more work equals a lot more construction-cost and time.

- Those swoopy multis, such as those hypnotic go-very-fast sculptures from our old friend Dick Newick, are dramatic wind-powered sporting-devices for very high performance plus stunning visuals - and thus are amongst the most costly and manhour-intensive boats per lbs of structure, never mind $/lbs of potential cargo-carrying capacity.

- Our modest body of work on Proas, Catamarans, and Trimarans only range up to 40-feet and are usually designed for 'small-crew' people-carrying.

For these reasons (and others) we obviously prefer 5-6+:1 length-to-beam ratio monohulls, power, motorsailer, or sail-powered.

A few more thoughts on Dun's multi-hull proposal.

Once you are at a 10:1 length-to-beam ratio on two hulls - as in a catamaran - and you were to lash them directly them side-by-side, then from the pier look down on her at low tide, you'd see a de facto 5:1 hull geometry - ergo you are in the middle of our mono-hull proposals ('Robin Jean' is a pinch 'fatter' at about 4.75 at waterline). When you then add the connecting-structure to align these hulls apart at between 50 and 100% of their length, that structural weight comes directly off what the hulls could carry in cargo/fish. So between unfavorable weight-issues, the added manpower necessary to build 2 hulls and all connecting pieces, plus the unavoidably resulting increased cost, multihulls are often not good for the purpose.
Michael Leary's 'Laurie B.'/ the 'Bat-boat' catamaran in good part ailed under the weight of these penalties. If he had taken us seriously - being a New England Fisheries Management Council Member and all - he'd have instead spend about half his budget on one of our solutions and would not have been forced to sell it after just a few years of progressively uneconomical operation fishing. He could have led by successful example. Instead we found ourselves shaking our heads as to the reasonably predictable economics of his Cat once she arrived. There are several such loocal projects with serious money invested that just could not 'future-proof' the fishing-operation. Quite tragic. Major opportunities lost. People did not think Phil Bolger had anything to say...

The 'daily' exposure to catamarans is typically in the passenger-ferrying trade, where the 'cargo' is relatively light-weight and requires square-footage of 'walking-around' area, keeping both the overall cargo-weight low while maximizing the people-needs using the decked-over wide connecting-structure. The dramatic increase in perceived stability with these hulls this far apart is for many passengers amongst the most convincing arguments here.

Finally, many of the jet-powered cats are also based on cheap fuel-cost assumptions as jets don't begin to come into their own until high speeds are achieved. They should be smoother and offer distinct shallow-watwer capability but the latter is typically irrelevant in standard ferrying duty. But we may see re-configurations to prop-drive - if geometrically possible - as energy-cost escalates and speed-expectations are moderated since high-speed will cost way more than medium-speed. The easier motion will remain a key asset for passenger-ferrying cats.


On the paint issue, we'll have to wait. There are no patent medicines as yet that are convincing in thr commercial environment for the initial investment. As we learn from Damon's perspective, that element of drag in minor compared to basic hull- and drive-train geometry choices. Once those priorities are 'rationalized', then minor percentage points of advantage might lurk in the paints universe.

Ergo - no 'patent-medicine', pixie-dust etc. for this and any commercial fleet. Only sober prioritizing toward 'least-carbon' ambitions. Remember that the WW-I era US Navy class of 300 submarine-chasers measured 110-feet by 16-feet, and successfully steamed to Europe on their own bottom in Navy-duty, and were - post-USN-service - used for decades later for Seining etc. by for instance the Gloucester fleet. Length-to-beam ratio of 6.8:1 ! Today quite a few Fishers would claim that geometry to be 'obviously' unworkable... Lot's old knowledge left to remember and new things to learn.