Watch out for this Biggie...

[Leo No2]

 

 

 

http://www.littlecracker.co.nz/

 

Richard

 

And it is made on the 'mainland' - i.e. the South Island!

[bizzard]

If it were cast iron I could understand it being called ''A Cracker''.

[fergyguy]

Rlwp its in its early concept idea and like all good inventions development will come up with the answer...lol

[spadefoot]

Rlwp its in its early concept idea and like all good inventions development will come up with the answer...lol

There are plenty of answers. e.g. multi-stage extensions, bellows.

[furnessvale]

There are plenty of answers. e.g. multi-stage extensions, bellows.

You mean like those WWII amphibious tanks?

 

George ex nb Alton retired

Edited July 3, 2016 by furnessvale

[Guest]

My view is that driving a motorhome, or even worse, a coach based conversion is no fun at all, so the journey becomes a pain, leaving only the stays at camp sites as pleasurable.

However with a boat the journey and the overnighting is pleasurable.

That rather depends how much you enjoy driving and where you do it.

 

Once you get onto the continent driving is actually quite pleasurable.

 

We find the journey is part of the holiday once we leave the UK.

[Pluto]

 

Not quite its more of the fact that narrowboats are a stupid size that no one would ever replicate but we are left with 7 feet wide locks we have to live with. Worldwide narrowboats are the worst design imaginable which is why no one else has them but so many narrowboaters seem unaware of the facts that we have silly boats because we have to if we wish to do extensive uk cruising

 

Tim

There were other narrow canals in Europe, such as the Wienner Neustadt Canal in Austria, and the turf canal of the Friesland area were often smaller than one of our narrow canals.

 

Didn't Brindley choose the 7' gauge because of concerns about water supplies in the Midlands canals? We know he was happy with broader beams on the Bridgewater, for example.

 

It's like "why are we stuck with a 4' 8 1/2" railway gauge when wider works so much better?"

The 7 foot width was chosen purely to keep down the cost of construction of the Trent & Mersey, and then used for the other Midlands canals. It was considered for northern canals and estimated that it reduced costs by one third compared to a 14 feet wide canal. However, the benefits of a wide canal with regard to the overall size of cargo prevailed. The water argument is a red herring, as for the carriage of a set annual tonnage, the water usage would be the same - one forty ton wide boat uses virtually the same amount of water as two 20 ton narrow boats.

[MtB]

There were other narrow canals in Europe, such as the Wienner Neustadt Canal in Austria, and the turf canal of the Friesland area were often smaller than one of our narrow canals.

 

The 7 foot width was chosen purely to keep down the cost of construction of the Trent & Mersey, and then used for the other Midlands canals. It was considered for northern canals and estimated that it reduced costs by one third compared to a 14 feet wide canal. However, the benefits of a wide canal with regard to the overall size of cargo prevailed. The water argument is a red herring, as for the carriage of a set annual tonnage, the water usage would be the same - one forty ton wide boat uses virtually the same amount of water as two 20 ton narrow boats.

 

 

OMG let's not get started on that one again...

 

There are people here who still believe a loaded boat takes more (or less) water to pass through a lock than an empty one!

[Sea Dog]

We find the journey is part of the holiday once we leave the UK.

Ah yes, the joys of towing a caravan: the quiet road ahead, devoid of all other motorists save perhaps the odd motorcycle flashing past, giving rise to the happy feeling that you're the only vehicle on that peaceful stretch.

 

The people in the queue behind, however...

 

 

ETA Oops! I've just realised that's the second time today I've poked a little fun at one of your posts, Ex-Dog House - sorry, no offence intended.

Edited July 4, 2016 by Sea Dog

[Stilllearning]

I Love a good Barn conversion

 

Just think of a WB as being the "barn conversion" on the canals

 

I am probably going to regret writing this, but I have yet to see a barn conversion that I would want to live in. And believe me, there are a lot of converted barns around here!

[Bettie Boo]

I am probably going to regret writing this, but I have yet to see a barn conversion that I would want to live in. And believe me, there are a lot of converted barns around here!

 

 

Not at all, why should you?

 

One particular style/type is not to everyone's taste, hence why some of us prefer skinny and some of us prefer wide...to each their own

[fergyguy]

Well said bettie.

[matty40s]

 

 

Not at all, why should you?

 

One particular style/type is not to everyone's taste, hence why some of us prefer skinny and some of us prefer wide...to each their own

Back to start of topic, I have no real problem with widebeams if they are on the right waterways and navigated in a reasonable manner.

I love the Leeds shortboats and a proper Dutch barge/tjalk...etc

I can even put up with a normal widebeam when it is designed properly.

My post is about a widebeam utterly wrong for our canal network, the fender will not last two weeks and from then on, the front of the boat will damage locks.

It is not designed correctly and built to a very stringent budget which could lead to the owners having problems mooring or navigating, and being finished in a manner which will lead to it needing corrective work in a very short lifetime.

Edited July 4, 2016 by matty40s

[fergyguy]

Makes you wonder why was it built that way? Was they on a tight budget or did the builder convince them it was a good style to go for? And if so why? I guess only the owners will have the answers and they must have been happy to part with a good wedge of cash for it. I wish them luck and hope their wide beam is all they want it to be.

[Guest]

Ah yes, the joys of towing a caravan: the quiet road ahead, devoid of all other motorists save perhaps the odd motorcycle flashing past, giving rise to the happy feeling that you're the only vehicle on that peaceful stretch.

The people in the queue behind, however...

ETA Oops! I've just realised that's the second time today I've poked a little fun at one of your posts, Ex-Dog House - sorry, no offence intended.

None taken.

 

On the continent on the Autoroutes (where we do the bulk of our towing/driving/) there is rarely enough traffic density to cause a tailback. But where there is and if it's on a single carriageway I just pull over at the first opportunity.

 

What is interesting though is how many times people who pass discover it wasn't me holding them up but rather somebody in the obligatory flat cap unnecessarily doing 10 mph below their limit in a Nissan Micra or Honda Jazz.

[ditchcrawler]

 

 

OMG let's not get started on that one again...

 

There are people here who still believe a loaded boat takes more (or less) water to pass through a lock than an empty one!

No, is there?

[MtB]

Back to start of topic, I have no real problem with widebeams if they are on the right waterways and navigated in a reasonable manner.

I love the Leeds shortboats and a proper Dutch barge/tjalk...etc

I can even put up with a normal widebeam when it is designed properly.

My post is about a widebeam utterly wrong for our canal network, the fender will not last two weeks and from then on, the front of the boat will damage locks.

It is not designed correctly and built to a very stringent budget which could lead to the owners having problems mooring or navigating, and being finished in a manner which will lead to it needing corrective work in a very short lifetime.

 

 

Yes I'd say that bow design is far quicker and cheaper to construct than a conventional bow design with separate top plank and cants fashioned in steel.

 

Every expense spared in its design and construction, in my opinion!

Edited July 4, 2016 by Mike the Boilerman

[Bettie Boo]

Back to start of topic, I have no real problem with widebeams if they are on the right waterways and navigated in a reasonable manner.

I love the Leeds shortboats and a proper Dutch barge/tjalk...etc

I can even put up with a normal widebeam when it is designed properly.

My post is about a widebeam utterly wrong for our canal network, the fender will not last two weeks and from then on, the front of the boat will damage locks.

It is not designed correctly and built to a very stringent budget which could lead to the owners having problems mooring or navigating, and being finished in a manner which will lead to it needing corrective work in a very short lifetime.

 

Sorry Matty, I didn't mean to take away any merit from you OP, I was replying to something else, hence the quote.

 

Personally I don't like the "look" of the boat and wouldn't be interested in it. I do take on-board your comments and they all made sense to me, you are one of a few on here that I do take heed of their comments about such things. By having a loose understanding of what you do for a living, if you were to make a comment on how a certain boat handles, or what design types are more efficient or safe I would take your advice. I did actually make a post shortly after your OP, stating that I didn't like it, especially the set up for the front ropes

 

Whereas if it came from MtB in reference to a WB I would take with a large grain of salt, as I'm pretty sure most folks appreciate his feelings on WB's in general. It was in one of his many WB posts that I was first introduced to the word "fugly" (MtB I do take heed of any posts you make in regards to boilers & plumbing, just to clarify)

 

I would ask this though...How/Why would a boat builder be convinced to build something that could and more than likely will cause damage to both locks and probably the boat? It can only end up with bad publicity for them in the long run. Why would they have not talked the designer out of such a design in the first place?

[MtB]

 

I would ask this though...How/Why would a boat builder be convinced to build something that could and more than likely will cause damage to both locks and probably the boat? It can only end up with bad publicity for them in the long run. Why would they have not talked the designer out of such a design in the first place?

 

 

From a business perspective a bird in the hand is worth more than a bird in the bush, to quote the proverb.

 

If you can undercut the competition and still make a profit by finding a cheaper way to make a boat, especially the type of boat highly likely to never move (you are an exception Bettie) once settled in a resi mooring, then why not?

[Bettie Boo]

 

 

From a business perspective a bird in the hand is worth more than a bird in the bush, to quote the proverb.

 

If you can undercut the competition and still make a profit by finding a cheaper way to make a boat, especially the type of boat highly likely to never move (you are an exception Bettie) once settled in a resi mooring, then why not?

 

Yeah, I get what your saying Mike but, its one thing for a builder to use a cheaper steel, which will result in a cheaper end cost to a customer at the first purchase stage, but to the guy who buys the boat 15 years later is buying not much better than a floating tin can, or uses under rated insulation, or uses a cheap alternative engine, all will have an effect on the selling price, but none of them have a real potential to cause much damage to other boats or locks.

 

There's got to be (or I would hope there would be) some form of ethics Boat Builders follow?

[MtB]

 

Yeah, I get what your saying Mike but, its one thing for a builder to use a cheaper steel, which will result in a cheaper end cost to a customer at the first purchase stage, but to the guy who buys the boat 15 years later is buying not much better than a floating tin can, or uses under rated insulation, or uses a cheap alternative engine, all will have an effect on the selling price, but none of them have a real potential to cause much damage to other boats or locks.

 

There's got to be (or I would hope there would be) some form of ethics Boat Builders follow?

 

Was there ever any?

 

You can be touchingly naïve somethimes Bettie!

[Bettie Boo]

 

 

You can be touchingly naïve somethimes Bettie!

 

Which more often than not saddens me, forever the optimist I guess

[Tam & Di]

 

I would ask this though...How/Why would a boat builder be convinced to build something that could and more than likely will cause damage to both locks and probably the boat? It can only end up with bad publicity for them in the long run. Why would they have not talked the designer out of such a design in the first place?

 

Designer??? I don't think it was designed as such. It was built by a welder/fabricator who thought he was building a craft (well, a floating object) that was much the same as others he had seen. He just does not have the critical eyes to actually see what he is looking at, nor possibly the skills to create it even if he did. Nor the experience to understand what is functionally required of a canalboat - he just thought it was a way of making some money, and presumably suceeded in that if nothing else.

[Jess--]

from what I have seen of WB owners over the last year I have to say the majority are not interested in how well designed the boat is and appear to have bought the boat on the basis of maximum size for minimum cost.

 

I suppose the furthest this principle can be pushed is the attached pics, about the only bit they seem to have paid attention to is "pointy bit at the front"

[alan_fincher]

I suppose the furthest this principle can be pushed is the attached pics, about the only bit they seem to have paid attention to is "pointy bit at the front"

 

The worrying thing about the example you picture is that it does actually move regularly, including passages through at least one of the major Southern G U tunnels.

 

Luckily I have yet to witness it, though!