Can classic boats have bow-thrusters?

[Greenheart]

I couldn't object to an instance of something that was ahead of its time, being called classic. Most iconic items in every field, are somewhat different from what dominated previously - the originality makes them remarkable.

I'm only questioning whether putting a thoroughly newfangled device on a vessel which could never until now have used such a thing, is compromising its classic purity...

...and I reckon it's a bit difficult to argue that it doesn't.

 

[Sandy Bottom]

I couldn't object to an instance of something that was ahead of its time, being called classic. Most iconic items in every field, are somewhat different from what dominated previously - the originality makes them remarkable.

I'm only questioning whether putting a thoroughly newfangled device on a vessel which could never until now have used such a thing, is compromising its classic purity...

...and I reckon it's a bit difficult to argue that it doesn't.

Would you say that a boat with twin lifting keels, that could go not only up / down but also inboard / outboard all on hydraulically operated motors / rams could not be a classic Dan?

 

[Greenheart]

Whatever it is, and whyever it does what it does, it sounds monstrous! But...if it's a success, and a recent development, I don't doubt that in retrospect it will be seen as brilliant...

...and perhaps that'll be called 'classic'. If, on the other hand, the curiosity of which you speak was born many decades ago, I suspect it has remained obscure for a reason.

Once again, I'm not disapproving of sophistication or alternatives to toil and technique. I'm too lazy not to approve of labour-saving clever new stuff. But, regarding what I admire and respect in the frame of tradition, I reckon anachronisms like bow-thrusters just devalue the splendidly pure, dauntingly demanding traditional yacht.

 

[Greenheart]

Ooops, accidental repeat.

 

[guernseyman]

My second son was a bow-thruster on a classic boat.
One of his duties on Velsheda, when docking, was to launch the dinghy and use it to push the bow as required.

 

[Aardee]

If it's your boat and your money you can do whatever you want with it, to hell with what some other old fart thinks of it

 

[rosewood]

Different things entirely.

Pretty well any boat built after 1918 is going to have been built with an engine, and keeping a petrol engine is an act of folly, so yes to the diesel engine. You don't have to use it.

The reason for using a swinging mooring for a wooden boat is to expose both sides to the sun and to promote ventilation.

You can't buy lead based paint or copal varnish.

GPS and radio are common sense but you don't have to use them.

I could go on but..

my point is that nobody needs a bowthruster; you should be able to handle your boat.[/QUOTE

I dont have one but sometimes it would be nice to have one just to make life a bit easier

 

[Greenheart]

If it's your boat and your money you can do whatever you want with it, to hell with what some other old fart thinks of it

That's very true. God forbid there should be any obligation to keep to era-specific kit. Imagine if boats were listed, like buildings!

 

[Aardee]

That's very true. God forbid there should be any obligation to keep to era-specific kit. Imagine if boats were listed, like buildings!

Absolutely, and if fitting a bow-thruster makes the difference between using the boat and not using it, it should be an easy decision.

 

[Greenheart]

Indeed. I've thought for years, St Paul's Cathedral ought to have that silly dome covered in solar panels. Heritage - Ha! What nonsense...it ought to be relevant!

Okay, I may have overcooked that argument a bit...

 

[Wooden Boat Fittings]

If it's your boat and your money you can do whatever you want with it, to hell with what some other old fart thinks of it

Well, this "old fart" agrees you can certainly add a bow thruster to a 'classic boat' if you want to. It's entirely your business. But if you do, then it's no longer a classic boat -- it just used to be one.

(But if it's fibreglass, then of course it doesn't matter anyway. There are no classic boats built from fibreglass.... )

Mike

 

[rosewood]

Well, this "old fart" agrees you can certainly add a bow thruster to a 'classic boat' if you want to. It's entirely your business. But if you do, then it's no longer a classic boat -- it just used to be one.

(But if it's fibreglass, then of course it doesn't matter anyway. There are no classic boats built from fibreglass.... )

Mike

I think this concept of authenticity can go too far. Unless its a museum piece

 

[Aardee]

it just used to be one.

In your opinion...

 

[Greenheart]

I've always liked GRP boats whose design echoes earlier, wooden ones. I s'pose I'm young enough (and superficial enough) to be charmed by the feel of a reproduction-classic, and very glad not to suffer the labour which a woodie requires.

I guess long winter weeks scraping, painting, sanding and varnishing are aspects of "classic" that don't appeal because they're arduous rather than challenging; meanwhile learning the business of manoeuvering a long keeler without a bow-thruster, sounds like a mental problem, the solution to which would be a reason to feel proud.

So, a woodie with a bow thruster seems to me a very odd combination...the owner clearly accepts the irksome necessity for ongoing maintenance on a wooden hull, but chooses not to learn the equally traditional process by which such a hull is moved at close quarters.

 

[Buck Turgidson]

I'm prepared to forgive some just because!

 

[Wooden Boat Fittings]

In your opinion...

Oh yes, of course in my opinion. That goes without saying.

Seriously though, someone who wants to put a bow-thruster into anything other than perhaps a car ferry shouldn't be trusted with anything other than a car ferry. (In my opinion... And a chain ferry at that.) With the proliferation of marinas everywhere with their tiny waterways, I can see the need for a motor for forward propulsion where sailing-room just doesn't allow sufficient manoeuvrability. But really, if you want a sailing boat you should learn how to sail it.

And if the 'classic boat' in question is a motorboat, a similar argument still applies. Look at all the classic motorboats on the Broads back in pre-war days -- and none with bow-thrusters.

Picking up on Dan's point in Post #34 about GRP designs echoing wooden ones, I continually find it interesting to see how many fibreglass dinghies (and even aluminium ones) try to emulate the clinker look of older wooden designs. It's unnecessary for any reason except aesthetics, but there's clearly something about the 'classic look' that attracts many people. I guess this is partly my reason for thinking that no real classic boat should be desecrated by the addition of a bow-thruster, and that if such a desecration is indeed perpetrated, then that the vessel thereby becomes no longer a 'classic',

Mike

 

[chinita]

I don't know what all the fuss is about.

People can do what they jolly well want; if they want to fit a bowthruster it is, perhaps, a basic human right that they be able so to do.

Personally I would prefer burning my boat, swallowing a gallon of hydrochloric acid, eating my own liver and then retiring to a dark room with a loaded revolver before fitting one of those infernal toys.

Just my opinion.

 

[rosewood]

I don't know what all the fuss is about.

People can do what they jolly well want; if they want to fit a bowthruster it is, perhaps, a basic human right that they be able so to do.

Personally I would prefer burning my boat, swallowing a gallon of hydrochloric acid, eating my own liver and then retiring to a dark room with a loaded revolver before fitting one of those infernal toys.

Just my opinion.

I bet you wouldn't really though would you

 

[rosewood]

Oh yes, of course in my opinion. That goes without saying.

Seriously though, someone who wants to put a bow-thruster into anything other than perhaps a car ferry shouldn't be trusted with anything other than a car ferry. (In my opinion... And a chain ferry at that.) With the proliferation of marinas everywhere with their tiny waterways, I can see the need for a motor for forward propulsion where sailing-room just doesn't allow sufficient manoeuvrability. But really, if you want a sailing boat you should learn how to sail it.

And if the 'classic boat' in question is a motorboat, a similar argument still applies. Look at all the classic motorboats on the Broads back in pre-war days -- and none with bow-thrusters.

Picking up on Dan's point in Post #34 about GRP designs echoing wooden ones, I continually find it interesting to see how many fibreglass dinghies (and even aluminium ones) try to emulate the clinker look of older wooden designs. It's unnecessary for any reason except aesthetics, but there's clearly something about the 'classic look' that attracts many people. I guess this is partly my reason for thinking that no real classic boat should be desecrated by the addition of a bow-thruster, and that if such a desecration is indeed perpetrated, then that the vessel thereby becomes no longer a 'classic',

Mike

I got stuck in cowes last year in the old gaffers festival. Lots of gaffers but very very many weren't old. Plastic gaffers that looked old. I like the look of them but are they classics? Does it matter? Dunno

 

[Greenheart]

I didn't mean to suggest anyone was overstepping their rights, by doing whatever they see fit on their own boat.

But, putting an electric labour-saver on a boat which is inherently all about learning & exercising laborious processes of maintenance & use, makes no sense to me.

What kind of person embraces all the care which wooden boat-ownership necessitates - the inevitable scraping, searching, analysis of damage or ingress of water, and the slow sourcing and securing of replacement timbers or whatever long-learned traditional cure can be incorporated - and accepts that each year will always mean more of the same...

...but, when it comes to actually going sailing and shifting the boat from her berth, he suddenly becomes impatient with the awkward requirements of this old lady, as if he's the type who wouldn't put up with such inconvenience? Wouldn't bow-thruster-man also have chosen a boat which didn't need any traditional time and effort expended on her?

Easy to visualise the thinking of a man who embraces all the ease which modernity allows; and equally, of the man who refuses to adopt any such plastic-age convenience. But who would pick and choose to do all those tiring winter jobs, then forego learning basic close-quarters handling?