[Rhodes22-list] BR New Design

[Arthur H. Czerwonky]

Bill,
What is the assembly problem you refer to?  I can't imagine why BRs cannot be ready for Spring sailing and on the budget.  But, also, like you mentioned to me, you have other fish to fry.  
Art

-----Original Message-----
>From: Bill Effros <bill at effros.com>
>Sent: Feb 7, 2006 8:56 AM
>To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>Subject: [Rhodes22-list] BR New Design
>
>Slim,
>
>It appears that your PTE cannot be installed at the same time as your 
>BR.  As I understand the new design, it will be possible to install the 
>BR over the PTE, and still pass the "Drunk Chick Dark Test" (DCDT).  The 
>new design will be something between your BR and the one featured on the 
>R-22 site, which I have attached.  The PTE is mounted under the boom, 
>the BR will be mounted over the boom.
>
>I still see many times when I would prefer the speed and simplicity of 
>the PTE, set at the last minute, to the more complex BR; and other times 
>when I would want to set the BR, or Sun Shade, without the PTE, and 
>still other times when I might want the PTE and BR at the same time 
>(When one person is awake and another is asleep.)
>
>When I set up my PTE early, I generally don't attach all the front 
>snaps, or zip it up.  This allows me to continue using my hatches for 
>ventilation until I go to sleep.  Some variation of this should be 
>possible for the BR to allow re-entry to the cabin from the bow.
>
>I have seen turnbuckles that open like a jackknife to release the 
>tension without resetting the turnbuckle.  Sort of a quick release 
>mechanism that  might be useful for this purpose.  Since turnbuckles 
>just screw on and off the rigging, this might answer some of your 
>concerns about set-up--they could easily be added to any rigging.
>
>In any case, I would continue to carry both my PTE and my new design BR, 
>and I would deploy both at different times.  If I didn't have either 
>one, I don't know which I would buy first, but I think both should be 
>designed so that neither requires the purchase of the other.  As we gain 
>experience with them, we will better understand which device is used 
>more often.
>
>Um...about Roger's design...have you looked at it lately?  I have 
>attached it, too.  When Stan said said "ugly is OK" I don't think he was 
>picturing this in his mind.   Also, note the distance between the boom 
>and the room.  This is a short person's boom room.  It seems to have bow 
>entry problems of its own.  I don't think we have much to take from this 
>design beyond the fact that the enclosure is useful and this design is 
>not the way to go.
>
>I'd love to see Art's design.  It sounds like a foundation for the 
>direction we are heading.  I am trying to understand it better, and will 
>take all the help I can get.
>
>Integrating the PTE dodger design with your awning design looks like a 
>natural, but apparently doesn't work.  The MacGregor version has only a 
>fraction of the utility and coverage at 5 times Stan's projected cost.  
>(Picture also attached.)
>
>I agree that we still have assembly problems to address, but my 
>inclination is to go in the direction recommended by Stan.  If I could 
>buy a boom room like yours for $1000, I would do so in a heartbeat. 
>
>Bill Effros
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>Slim wrote:
>
>>OK, look, there's one thing that all agree upon--the pop top enclosure is
>>too good to be true.  I could go on and on about how easy it is to set up
>>and take down; doesn't require any frame; you can motor and/or sail with it
>>up; provides standing head room under cover; has roll-up storm flaps/screen
>>windows; easily stowable; is the first defense against the weather; already
>>beautifully engineered and available for about a grand.  What could be
>>better?
>>
>>Then comes the cockpit extension.  The cockpit room extension of the PTE.
>>In my opinion, everyone who is interested in expanding the use of their boat
>>should have the PTE first.  Period.  Then why should the boom room make the
>>already-perfect PTE obsolete?  Why not integrate?
>>
>>My guess would be that Stan wants to offer an either/or type of option so
>>you could either spend a grand on the PTE or spend a grand on the Boom
>>Room--your choice--but you won't have to spend two grand to enclose the
>>cockpit.  You could spend one grand for a stand-alone BR like mine.  But
>>since nobody DOESN'T want the PTE, or already has one, why not go from
>>there?  Sort of a step one and step two enclosure system.
>>
>>The two inherent problems with my boom room are the issue with the shrouds
>>and access to the bow.  Stan seems to be sticking to that design.   Art's
>>design lacks those flaws.  So does Roger's.  Let's put the best feature of
>>each of them together and get rid of the problems.
>>
>>It wouldn't take more than a couple zippers and some velcro to integrate a
>>boom tent to the PTE and make it splendid.  OK, so you have to spend two
>>grand for the whole thing.  Anybody complaining?  In theory, I wouldn't
>>hesitate to sell my stand-alone BR for what I've got in it ($500) and turn
>>around and spend a G on something else that's new and perfect.  Something
>>that can be set up by two drunk chicks in the dark!
>>
>>Slim
>>
>>__________________________________________________
>>Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>>
>>  
>>