Fusion 40 or Spirited 380?

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by freetime

Xtra Chilli 44c....
Looks good, anyone know any pages(except)oram´s with more info and pics...

This photo is a good illustration f the point I made earlier about the chines - they are pretty much hidden below the waterline, and have no aesthetic impact.

It's hard to find pics of Bob's boats. They mostly seem to be out cruising all the time.

I have some photo's of my build process in the gallery here: http://www.cruisersforum.com/gallery...00&userid=3477

BTW, in the top photo that's an Oram 62C in the background.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by Whimsical

I did look at Orams boats but there are a number of aspects that don't fit with my logic so I ruled it out very early.

I think the smallest boat possible that meets the mission profile is the best option but anticipated payload mainly drives the decission. This is further complicated by the sailing ability, especially light air, in relation to engine size and fuel carried. I spent quite a lot of time thinking and adding up numbers before I came up with 2 ton and a more sailing oriented design.


Mike

I'm curious about this - what was it that went against your logic? I ask because I looked hard at the Wilderness 1230, but there were aspects about that I wasn't keen on, as with all designs, but there was also an unwillingness on the part of the designers to negotiate changes to suit my requiremnets.

[freetime]

44 Cruisingcat:
It's very interesting to hear what they have to say about their dealings with Craig Schionning
And what did they say?

I´am 1,86m so can´t go with a 39C (1,80m) what about the 44C?

This photo is a good illustration f the point I made earlier about the chines - they are pretty much hidden below the waterline, and have no aesthetic impact.
I did not see it before you say it...

Do you planning for 2 steeringwheel?

[44'cruisingcat]

I'm 2 metres tall or 6'8". The 44C standard has around 6'6" of headroom, but in consultation with Bob I raised the sheer panel by 100mm, which increased headroom throughout the boat.

We also agreed to widen the beam by 300mm. These are the kinds of modifications most other designers either wouldn't consider, or wanted to charge extra for a new design. Bob did the work for these mods for free.

The owner of "Tribute" the 38 footer in previous photo's is building a 44C too. He liked the raised sheer and increased beam so specified it in his kit, so now there is now a kit available with the raised sheer and extra beam, and some other mods.

I'm having twin helm positions, and possibly a third at the nav table.

[sctpc]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

I'm having twin helm positions, and possibly a third at the nav table.

Magic so when your in an arctic wind just sit in a nice worm boat or if your a Queenslander any ware below coffs harbor

[Whimsical]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

I'm curious about this - what was it that went against your logic? I ask because I looked hard at the Wilderness 1230, but there were aspects about that I wasn't keen on, as with all designs, but there was also an unwillingness on the part of the designers to negotiate changes to suit my requiremnets.

Such a simple question but a simple answer is impossible. I think this type of question and response wouild make a good seperate thread so others can explore peoples reasoning in selecting what they did.

When I do something new I tend to spend an inordinate amount of time researching it untill I get to the point where I feel I have a reasonable understanding of all the variables. Without this I find I can not actually make a decision. During my research I have made no effort to keep track of where I obtained my information or which designer claimed what so I am unable to cite them as references to my current understanding- sorry but I only did it for my own use and not with the thought of engaging in the "supply proof or it isn't believable" type of responses that seem so prevalent on the internet.

Not having done any sailing on large boats I researched the various basic types of cat and by this I mean they seemed to be of a huge and luxurious or far more spartan types. This prompted me to consider what I did actually want and this of course leads to where I would like to go with it and the conditions likely to be encountered. I have always liked performance to varying degrees and I knew I would be dissapointed with a fat hull type. There were many examples of boats that didn't seem to live up to the numerical expectations and I tried to find out why. This obviously gets one involved with the subtle nuances of design and is why I started to shy away from production boats. All the compromises such as protrusions near the waterline for steps into the hulls or flat panels close to the waterline to house the aft double, transomes that end up below water, bulges for outboards etc etc are floating arround in the abiss that I call my mind.

The points that I place importance on come from my perception of what will prevent problems down the road or make construction easier. I have not always gone for the easiest option as I am happy to spend the extra time on construction if I see a benefit, either aesthetic or fuctional.

I read a lot on slapping under the bridge and how to overcome it. One designer had done testing on curved, angled flat and multistepped panels to make the transition from the hull to bridgedeck. His conclusion was that angled flat was far superior to curved and the the multistep was better again. My thought is that the multistep and curved would be more difficult to build. So in this regard both the Schionning Cosmos and Oram designs lost out. The Cosmos being entirely strip planked was ruled out pretty early due to the extra work, I might be crazy but I am not a masochist.

Windage seemed to contribute a large amout to lower sailing performance and I researched a lot on this. The round side decks have their negative aspects but overall I felt they would contribute far more than they would detract both in performance and looks. So the Schionning won out again.

From what I read the most significant danger to a cat going turtle is the pitchpole, usually from being stuffed into the back of a wave when going too fast. Many designs have a fairly narrow stem and flat decks. My logic suggests that if the bow thickens as it rises it will have a greater reserve boyancy and in the case of the Wilderness the inner side panel is also forced to flare inwards quite rapidly. This combines to give a huge reserve and combined with the rounded decks one that I feel is most unlikely to play submarines. Schionning won again. I understand that the finer hull shape will most likely be somewhat smoother in rough seas as it doesn't rise as rapidly as the fatter version would but I am happy to put up with that for the extra safety.

The floor that forms a series of watertight compartments is to me preferable to a single skin. It maybe harder to repair if there is some serious damage but I would prefer to keep the water out in the first place IF that happens. So again Schionning.

There are a myriad of other minor details that contibute to my logic as well, such as I love the curved aerofoil front beam even given the extra construction time. Overall I tend to think the aesthetics of the Schionning wins out for me so it seemed to be Schionning on most counts.

Ask me again in ten years and I may have altered my position but then I may not, time will tell.
Sorry for being so long winded

Mike

[freetime]

Mike:
Interesting reading....For me it was good information...

[44'cruisingcat]

Thanks Mike, it's interesting that a very similar set of priorities led me in virtually the opposite direction.

ie. under hull slapping - the Oram has the favoured multistepped angle chamfer panels. Construction was very simple, in fact, because the chamfer panels run the full length of the boat, terminating at the top of the bow, they are actually easier to bend into shape than the Wilderness ones, which can be a bit of a bugger.

It's easy enough to incorporate as much curvature as one wants into the hull/deck join. I've done a 100mm radius, but bigger could easily be done. The bigger the curvature the greater the impact on deck width though, and can make line handling on wet days more dangerous.

Pitchpoling - the 44C is 3 feet longer, and has a smaller rig/sail area. IMHO the risk of pitchpoling is considerably lower than with the 1230. The fact that the chamfer panels carry all the way to the bows also create rapidly increasing bouyancy as the bow is depressed. And again, my decks have rounded edges.

We've aleady discussed having sealed floors. IMHO there is a far greater likelyhood of recieving minor bumps, the investigation f which could be a major hassle with sealed floors. In the event of a major breach, without floors access to carry out quick repairs is much easier.

Probably one of the biggest decision makers for me was the build method. Schionning uses what is basically the same method as strip planking, but with bigger panels, which need to be held in place with rachet straps etc. Bob's boats are built right-side-up, with gravity holding the panels in place, also making internal coving and taping a breeze. I also like the idea of having continuous tapes on the insides of the hull joins, not interrupted by the bulkheads.

It's strange how fairly similar priorities can lead to different choices.

[Whimsical]

I probably should have expanded on some of the disadvantages of my decision that I am prepared to live with and if anyone can point out any that i missed unless I can fix them during the build I suppose I will have to adjust.

Going with a more performance oriented boat there is the obvious lack of payload. Quite a biggie and one that I am trying to overcome a little by being very wieght concious. This costs money and possible long term consequences. For example I chose 20 Hp Lombardinis as they are considerably lighter than the rest and 60 Kg a piece lighter than the 30 Hp Nanni's spec'd by the designer so here I save 120 Kg. The lighter wieght and shorter length allowed me to move them aft and out of the accomodation space, extra cost 3,000. I will opt for Lion Phosphate, Valence, house batts. These will cost me probably 3,000 more but will save about 120 Kg also so I am up to 240 Kg under wieght. Running a watermaker I will carry less water so probably save over 100 Kg here. Every laminating job I go to a fair bit of effort to ensure I have as little epoxy as possible, commensurate with proper fabrication. How much this saves I wouldn't have a clue but I seem to have used significantly less resin that others to the same stage. Setting up the bulkheads to be as fair as possible saves a lot of filler and hence resin also. Best guestimate is that I am about 50 Kg ahead at the moment, costs nothing but time and sweat for me but would be expensive if paying wages. Selection of equipment is first on servicability then wieght then cost. For example I went with Andersen winches that have a SS drum these are lighter than the rest I looked at, sometimes quite a bit. Composite rudder tubes rather than solid SS save a lot but costs more, probably more servicable without crevis corrosion. Probably going with carbon fibre toiltes to save about 30 Kg over porcelain. The bi-rig uses far less hardware and no rigging but I havn't worked out wether it will save wieght or not but I think it will given the lack of rigging and multiple sails. At some point It will get wieghed so I will find out then just how successful I was.
This obviously is not terribly applicable to my choice over the Oram, in fact the Oram would probably be longer, lighter and a better payload for the same amount of material. One for Bob and quite a biggie I suppose.

Schionnings have very sloped windows to improve aerodynamics but will cause some grief with heating. I will build in some mountings for Sunbrella shades. The Oram doesn't seem to be a lot different in this respect.

Dagger boards sail better and have a shallower draught when up, mini keels offer better protection so toss the coin on this one. No difference for the Oram.

Saildrives become mandatory in my case as I want them out of the accomodation. I would prefer shafts but the intrusion makes my prefered accomodation layout impossible. Then there is the smell

Mike

[Whimsical]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

Thanks Mike, it's interesting that a very similar set of priorities led me in virtually the opposite direction.

ie. under hull slapping - the Oram has the favoured multistepped angle chamfer panels. Construction was very simple, in fact, because the chamfer panels run the full length of the boat, terminating at the top of the bow, they are actually easier to bend into shape than the Wilderness ones, which can be a bit of a bugger.

It's easy enough to incorporate as much curvature as one wants into the hull/deck join. I've done a 100mm radius, but bigger could easily be done. The bigger the curvature the greater the impact on deck width though, and can make line handling on wet days more dangerous.

Pitchpoling - the 44C is 3 feet longer, and has a smaller rig/sail area. IMHO the risk of pitchpoling is considerably lower than with the 1230. The fact that the chamfer panels carry all the way to the bows also create rapidly increasing bouyancy as the bow is depressed. And again, my decks have rounded edges.

We've aleady discussed having sealed floors. IMHO there is a far greater likelyhood of recieving minor bumps, the investigation f which could be a major hassle with sealed floors. In the event of a major breach, without floors access to carry out quick repairs is much easier.

Probably one of the biggest decision makers for me was the build method. Schionning uses what is basically the same method as strip planking, but with bigger panels, which need to be held in place with rachet straps etc. Bob's boats are built right-side-up, with gravity holding the panels in place, also making internal coving and taping a breeze. I also like the idea of having continuous tapes on the insides of the hull joins, not interrupted by the bulkheads.

It's strange how fairly similar priorities can lead to different choices.

The drawings and photos I have seen of the Oram have a concave curve made up of several narrow strips. The multi stepped panel that I refer to has a short 45 degree piece then a short verticle piece then both repeated about 5 times. The idea was to get the water moving horizontally as soon as possible, th emultiple sprays break up the flow better. A concave curve allows the water to rise nearly to the bridgedeck before it tries to turn it, too late according to what I read.

To get the compound curve of the Schionning realy requires narrow strips. I had to put in a lot of tapered pieces to achieve it even with strips only 35mm wide. I still have 600mm wide flat decks and the safety lines will be right beside them rather than outboard as far as possible.

3 feet longer does help but then a Schionning 3 feet longer would be greater again. The volume of the flared chamfer panel is truley huge. Have to decide on a length sometime and for me 40 foot was the limit.

Yes it is funny how the same feature takes us in different directions. The right way up seemed appealing at first but then I didn't like to turn the hulls twice. Schionning has changed to build and fair the very hull bottoms upside down then turning them and progressing along the lines that Oram does but then there is a fair bit more overhead fairing or double turning like Orams need. I prefer the way I have done it by far.
When putting the filler in the logitudinal joins it is very easy with the hull upside down as the gap is greatest on the outside, I would think if the hull is rightway up the bottom ones would be difficult or they need to be turned with only the internal tapeing done then filled later. I find it far more difficult to ensure thorough penetration of the filler if the bottom is sealed as it would be in that method. The hulls still needs to be upside down to glass and fair them and I don't see the small gaps in the internal tapes as being significant given the amount of tapes near the bulkheads

All is good if you get to sail somewhere

Mike

[bayview]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

Thanks Mike, it's interesting that a very similar set of priorities led me in virtually the opposite direction.

. Bob's boats are built right-side-up, with gravity holding the panels in place, also making internal coving and taping a breeze. I also like the idea of having continuous tapes on the insides of the hull joins, not interrupted by the bulkheads.

It's strange how fairly similar priorities can lead to different choices.

44c, Forgive my ignorance but it appears from the scumble 44c build site logs that the downside of starting the build the right way up, leads to more handling as the hulls must be rolled upside-down for the plywood flat bottoms to be attached and glassed, and then rolled again to right way up to continue. How does this make the builders life easier with such a large awkward shape to roll twice, as shown in the pictures?.

[Robertcateran]

I f you are going for a cat, I like what they are doing with the Pacific Cat. Myself I am going for a harryproa

[Nicolas]

Hi,
I’ve been looking at the different kits available for the home builder. I wanted a pre-cut kit which can be easily put together. Initially I was looking at the Schionnings but when the Spirited came out I was very impressed with it’s assembly system, and I though Craig has done a great job with the design. I looked at the Fusion a couple of times but dismissed it as too expensive, until I worked out the difference in build effort / time vs difference in cost. From what I could find, I believe the effort required to get the kit to a complete faired and painted shell stage is always under estimated and I’m better off financially working then spending the time building the shell. The money earnt will cover the extra cost for the Fusion.
For me the differences between the 2 are:
Spirited 380 is a faster boat, better performance, greater control over build quality, cheaper. It’s also a smaller boat, less carrying capacity, more restrictive (there is the Spirited480) takes longer to build.
Fusion 40: larger boat with more carrying capacity, easier to beach, faster to build. It’s also slower, build quality is not guaranteed (more investigation is required)
At the end of the day every boat is a compromise and it’s a matter of what is more relevant or important to the individual.
Cheers

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by bayview

44c, Forgive my ignorance but it appears from the scumble 44c build site logs that the downside of starting the build the right way up, leads to more handling as the hulls must be rolled upside-down for the plywood flat bottoms to be attached and glassed, and then rolled again to right way up to continue. How does this make the builders life easier with such a large awkward shape to roll twice, as shown in the pictures?.

People make a big deal about rolling the hulls, but it's easy, honestly. You invite a few friends over for a barbecue and hull rolling. The process takes about 10 minutes. You find your neighbours are keen to check out what you've got going on, and your friends are all more than willing to help.The hulls are large, but amazingly light. We always had way more people than we needed.

The advantage is that you get to do all the internal gluing, filletting and taping right side up, with gravity holding the glue and glass in place. You dont have to lift and hold the panels in place with ratchet straps - gravity works for you, not against you. You don't have to work overhead, in the dark, standing on 44 gallon drums with epoxy dripping down on you.

Working overhead really sucks. I doubt it can ever be completely eliminated, but minimising it is a good idea IMHO.

Also, the internal hull tapes are continuous for the full length, not broken at every bulkhead.

Another advantage with Bob's method is that you can fair the bridgedeck to hull join downhand, instead of overhead. Sanding overhead is something that would be banned by the Geneva convention if they ever found out about it.

Initial tapes are done standing on the ground.


Then you can walk inside the hull.


Initial gluing is done overhead, standing on drums. To move between bulkheads requires climbing down and back up again.

[44'cruisingcat]

I should have mentioned that starting right way up actually only creates one additional hull turning "event" - one to invert each hull, then one more at which both are returned to right side up.