Greg,
Just a couple of things regarding your points.
When I say that I can strip a hull in a day, that should not be confused
with saying I can complete a hull in two weeks--I can't. Sanding the hull,
building and installing the trunk / bulkheads / transom require more than 80
hours. Fairing the hull, requires another 30 hours by itself if you want a
really
good job. I can't see any manufacturer getting the total time to make a
complete cedar cored Swift much below 250 hours.
As far as the gunwale flanges and other matters regarding bonding
manufactured hulls with wood decks, considerable time was already spent with
one of the
premier boat builders (Waterat) working out those details (and many others)
some time ago when we were considering this route. Unless a home builder
screws with the station templates, this would not be a problem.
The Swift offers a reasonably inexpensive high performance skiff to those
who want to build their own, however, the part of the market that wants to
purchase completed boats is probably necessary to the long term health of the
class. To get the class and his business going Roger has been willing to
produce boats with little or no margin. When I look at this long term, I see
a
manufactured single hander that will likely cost US $26,000 very soon if strip
building is the only accepted method for the hulls. I agree with your
assessment of pricing being "what the market will bear" as long as it factors
in the
competition from other single-handed classes. While the Musto is slower and
significantly harder to sail, it is also substantially less money than a
manufactured Swift. No matter how we decide to proceed, reeducation of the
market will be "job #1".
We can calculate, in advance, the performance characteristics of a Nomex /
balsa Swift to a high level of probability as long as we're talking about the
hull. The amount of rig elasticity caused by the hull is insignificant
compared to the elasticity caused by deck compression. The guys who came up
with
this hull / deck design (likely the 18 footers) were brilliant in their
design quest to isolate those elements of the structure. Because of our swing
test rules and minimum weight rules, our class is well protected from most of
the potential problems as long as we never allow composites other than cedar
core to be used in the decks. I hope everyone will understand and remember
the importance of having a deck on this structure that does not change in
rigidity over time. I also believe that the bulkheads should never be built
from
anything other than wood core however, plywood / s-glass would likely be just
as good but a bit heavier.
I'm not worried at all about someone "splashing" one of our complete hulls
and building Swifts from a bootleg mold. First it is completely illegal, and
second, who would provide a certificate for these boats? A Swift without the
potential of a certificate--not the financial decision of anyone with an
ounce of common sense. As owner of the design rights, there simply is no way
that I'd ever allow boats built from bootlegged molds to be certified.
Like you, I think it's too early to worry much about this, however, I would
hope that we'll all keep our minds open and have a look at this some time in
the future. It may be that the class will continue to grow rapidly without
any changes. If for no other reason than the counter culture aspect of the
current Swifts, I'd love to find that we can continue on the current path and
build successful fleets around the country. The fact that we've built a
better
mousetrap will not by itself ensure that people will beat a path to our
doorstep. Like all endeavors in life, about 70% of success has to do with
persistence and determination and the other 30% the merits of the product.
Wherever
Swift sailors are truly determined to build a fleet, a fleet will be built.
Our foundation is made up of people who are persistent and know how to work.
This is our number one strength.
Your conclusion that hulls built from a female mold would eliminate the
potential of buying manufactured strip built hulls is likely correct. If our
commercial builders are not if favor of moving in this direction, we simply
should not do so.
Thanks Greg,
Bram
|