Back to the UK for a winter refit

[benjenbav]

:ambivalence: Sorry Paul, memory fell over there for a mo. Of course you're right, the rams are on different sides, so no benefit, scratch that Jimmy. It was because I had to replace the rudder position sender cable twice in the same season that I moored with the rams hard to starboard. With the helm to starboard less **** stuck to the inner cable causing less friction. Apols guys. :ambivalence:

RR

Well, it sounded blimmin good. Another case of truth being less appealing than memory.

 

[jimmy_the_builder]

I would be having a word with the owners of those tool boxs if that was my teak

Not if you were replacing the teak you wouldn't.

 

[petem]

The two side pods need to be similarly extended, I don't have drawings for those.

I wouldn't bother extending the side pods. I'd mould the platform around the pods and square it off like on a Cranchi Zafirro 34...

 

[petem]

Or this...

 

[sarabande]

I think that extending the side pods will look as if you are attempting to disguise the platform and make it look like OEM. Also, extended pods would prevent anyone from sitting on the side and dangling feet towards the water. I can also see them getting in the way of a big fender right on the quarter, and the pod will not be as resistant to pressure as the extension.

 

[petem]

I think that extending the side pods will look as if you are attempting to disguise the platform and make it look like OEM. Also, extended pods would prevent anyone from sitting on the side and dangling feet towards the water. I can also see them getting in the way of a big fender right on the quarter, and the pod will not be as resistant to pressure as the extension.

+1. Also, a squared off platform is a lot more practical in terms of stern to mooring to a pontoon and stepping on or off a finger (although not much of a benefit in the med I suppose).

 

[Hurricane]

0

+1. Also, a squared off platform is a lot more practical in terms of stern to mooring to a pontoon and stepping on or off a finger (although not much of a benefit in the med I suppose).

+1
I know you are mostly stern berthed but getting on and off a bathing platform when you are alongside is way easier if you can step on anc off without any obstructions.
There is someone who reads these forums a lot who I believe is a great beliver in this feature.
And having stepped on and off his old P52 many times, I agree.
I would leave the pods alone and concentrate on making space to allow people to step on and off easily when you are alongside.
Thinking about it, when we are refuelling JW it is often easier to get on and off from the bathing platform rather than clamber over the sides

 

[jimmy_the_builder]

I think that extending the side pods will look as if you are attempting to disguise the platform and make it look like OEM. Also, extended pods would prevent anyone from sitting on the side and dangling feet towards the water. I can also see them getting in the way of a big fender right on the quarter, and the pod will not be as resistant to pressure as the extension.

+1. Also, a squared off platform is a lot more practical in terms of stern to mooring to a pontoon and stepping on or off a finger (although not much of a benefit in the med I suppose).

0

+1
I know you are mostly stern berthed but getting on and off a bathing platform when you are alongside is way easier if you can step on anc off without any obstructions.
There is someone who reads these forums a lot who I believe is a great beliver in this feature.
And having stepped on and off his old P52 many times, I agree.
I would leave the pods alone and concentrate on making space to allow people to step on and off easily when you are alongside.
Thinking about it, when we are refuelling JW it is often easier to get on and off from the bathing platform rather than clamber over the sides

I think you lot are misinterpreting the design. Maybe I didn't explain it clearly enough. The pods are the same height as the platform. They will (a) make the platform look nicely integrated with the boat (b) not present any kind of obstacle when getting on and off the boat when alongside (c) won't prevent anyone from sitting on the side of the platform and (d) won't stop a ball fender from being where I want it to be on the rear quarter. The only downside with remaking the pods is the cost - which I don't know yet.

 

[jimmy_the_builder]

I would leave the pods alone and concentrate on making space to allow people to step on and off easily when you are alongside.
Thinking about it, when we are refuelling JW it is often easier to get on and off from the bathing platform rather than clamber over the sides

Incidentally I think your particular situation is informed by your big freeboard; I don't have the same problem on the T40. About the only times that I berth alongside are at the fuel pontoon, which is about three feet high anyway - so I just step off the side of the boat, I don't step up from the bathing platform. So I just don't think there's an access problem to solve here.

 

[MapisM]

The pods are the same height as the platform. They will (a) make the platform look nicely integrated with the boat (b) not present any kind of obstacle when getting on and off the boat when alongside (c) won't prevent anyone from sitting on the side of the platform and (d) won't stop a ball fender from being where I want it to be on the rear quarter. The only downside with remaking the pods is the cost - which I don't know yet.

Yup, all agreed. In fact, I understood your train of thought, when I said that you might also not extend the side pods.

But I think it would still be possible to make a neat job without bothering to extend the pods.
The Cranchi posted by petem is a very good example: that boat has been in production for many years, since the early 90s IIRC, and the original version was this one:

Around the late 90s, boaters began demanding extended platforms, but the boat was still selling well, and the platform was the only "oldish" part of the boat.
The yard did not even change the moulds, and simply sticked above the integrated platform the one below:

After another few years, they changed the platform again, making it just another tad longer and square-ish in the corners - that's the one posted by petem.
As you can see, neither the first (above) nor the second version (petem) of the extended platform were made as wide as the whole hull (which wouldn't have been a big deal for the yard), but the aesthetic result was pretty good anyway.

All that said, I still agree that with those pods in place, the new platform would appear more as an OEM build if you would make them as long as the new platform...
...I'm only wondering if it's worth.
Just one bit of lateral thinking: wouldn't it be possible to simply remove the pods and throw them away?
While they make sense with the existing platform, the boat might well look sleeker without them, after the extension...

 

[vas]

The upright parts are part of the main topsides moulding, and modding those would be v tricky. Side pods:

The plan is to effectively cut'n'shut these as well, only this time we will make a mould and then make a completely new pod. The cut line is a vertical line drawn just aft of where the rubbing strake intersects with the top of the pod.

Just one bit of lateral thinking: wouldn't it be possible to simply remove the pods and throw them away?
While they make sense with the existing platform, the boat might well look sleeker without them, after the extension...

+1000

assuming that on removing the pods there are no nasties that need a lot of grp and gelcoat work to sort, I'd go for MM idea of scraping these bits and get the sloping edge of the extended platform all the way back to the hull where the pods were originally (if what I typed make sense that is...)

cheers

V

 

[RogerRat]

I think you lot are misinterpreting the design. Maybe I didn't explain it clearly enough. The pods are the same height as the platform. They will (a) make the platform look nicely integrated with the boat (b) not present any kind of obstacle when getting on and off the boat when alongside (c) won't prevent anyone from sitting on the side of the platform and (d) won't stop a ball fender from being where I want it to be on the rear quarter. The only downside with remaking the pods is the cost - which I don't know yet.

Well, I'm with you on this one Jimmy, the pods will make it look like Fairline made it that way. They are the weakest link tho as they are made more of plastic than grp and most that I've seen have had a bump and been cracked.

Side access along the pontoon would be much improved by creating this side step area if you think about DjeFabs' Squadron. I found the side step area good on the Phantoms too, possibly a good profile to keep in mind.

Btw. There's a great GRP guy in Southampton that I've used for invisibly closing a massive vacant dashboard hole from a C120 GPS display. He also rebuilt a new dash and repaired some crash damage for Elessar (not his fault). I would definitely recommend him most strongly for this job. He would also help by giving you ideas on how to achieve your goal.

If needed PM me for details.

Just a thought, have you considered the freeboard under the new platform if you were to slow down too quickly coming off the plane? The T40 sits much lower with D6s' over Kads'

RR

 

[Elessar]

Well, I'm with you on this one Jimmy, the pods will make it look like Fairline made it that way. They are the weakest link tho as they are made more of plastic than grp and most that I've seen have had a bump and been cracked.

Side access along the pontoon would be much improved by creating this side step area if you think about DjeFabs' Squadron. I found the side step area good on the Phantoms too, possibly a good profile to keep in mind.

Btw. There's a great GRP guy in Southampton that I've used for invisibly closing a massive vacant dashboard hole from a C120 GPS display. He also rebuilt a new dash and repaired some crash damage for Elessar (not his fault). I would definitely recommend him most strongly for this job. He would also help by giving you ideas on how to achieve your goal.

If needed PM me for details.

Just a thought, have you considered the freeboard under the new platform if you were to slow down too quickly coming off the plane? The T40 sits much lower with D6s' over Kads'

RR

Same guy that did the 300 or so repairs to Evenstar when I got her. He featured in MBY with a *** hanging out of his mouth. Total recommendation from me too. And he's local.

(Stupid stupid american swear filter - it was gaf backwards)

 

[petem]

Well, I'm with you on this one Jimmy, the pods will make it look like Fairline made it that way.

Or it could look like a bad attempt to make it look OEM. It's a bit like extending a house, it's difficult to disguise an extension, sometime it's better to make a feature out of it. Or it could just look **** if the lines aren't right.

 

[RogerRat]

Or it could look like a bad attempt to make it look OEM. It's a bit like extending a house, it's difficult to disguise an extension, sometime it's better to make a feature out of it. Or it could just look **** if the lines aren't right.

Extending a house with the bricks of differing colour / texture and laying them with a different bond and yes it will show. Get it right and it won't.

Your point is valid of course, but I doubt if JTB will go for a miss-match after going to this amount of trouble and potential expense.:nonchalance:

RR

 

[Richard Shead]

Extending a house with the bricks of differing colour / texture and laying them with a different bond and yes it will show. Get it right and it won't.

Your point is valid of course, but I doubt if JTB will go for a miss-match after going to this amount of trouble and potential expense.:nonchalance:

RR

And if it shows just pebble dash it......

 

[petem]

Extending a house with the bricks of differing colour / texture and laying them with a different bond and yes it will show. Get it right and it won't.

Your point is valid of course, but I doubt if JTB will go for a miss-match after going to this amount of trouble and potential expense.:nonchalance:

RR

It's more the proportions that I'm concerned about. Gelcoat matching wouldn't be a concern for me. Interestingly, I was looking at some bathing platform pics last night. The Targa 37 is podless (as per MapisM's suggestion). The Cranchi (as discussed above) has what some might regard as a non OEM'ish extension. And the Targa 38 has perhaps the extended pod look that JTB is trying to achieve. To judge what's best I think you'd have to do some decent photo shopping.

 

[Portofino]

Cosmetics / appearance is one thing and subjective -beauty is in the eye of the beholder etc etc,
But I would be more concerned about
1- cantilever forces on the attachment(s) -vertical down ward forces -( 4-5 folks sat on the back edge @ anchor or a fat person jumping down on to it )
2- wave slap @ anchor on the attachment(s) -vertical upward repetitive forces -8-9 tons of boat anterior to it bobbing about
3- exhaust -regurgitation- you will only know when its done ?
4- residuals re buyers surveyor finding an excuse to chip or more ?

 

[petem]

Cosmetics / appearance is one thing and subjective -beauty is in the eye of the beholder etc etc,
But I would be more concerned about
1- cantilever forces on the attachment(s) -vertical down ward forces -( 4-5 folks sat on the back edge @ anchor or a fat person jumping down on to it )
2- wave slap @ anchor on the attachment(s) -vertical upward repetitive forces -8-9 tons of boat anterior to it bobbing about
3- exhaust -regurgitation- you will only know when its done ?
4- residuals re buyers surveyor finding an excuse to chip or more ?

4 - Good point. If the pods are left as they are, a new platform fabricated and the old one retained then a potential buyer could revert to the original platform if desired.

 

[Nick_H]

4 - Good point. If the pods are left as they are, a new platform fabricated and the old one retained then a potential buyer could revert to the original platform if desired.

I think the residuals point is potentially valid if selling back to the UK, as some marinas charge based on a LOA measurement, so not all owners would want the extra half metre on their annual berthing costs. I think it would only put off a small percentage of buyers though, and a larger percentage would see it as a selling point, and anyway fabricating an entire new platform would be megabucks, so its not worth the trade off imho.