considering a Scamp

The place to discuss SCAMP (Small Craft Advisor Magazine Project), our 11' 11" micro minicruiser.

Moderator: Moderator

bei.beckers
Regular Contributor
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:00 pm
Location: Arnstein, Germany, exactly 50N 10E

Re: considering a Scamp

Post by bei.beckers »

:lol: Jason sailing on Argo - a very ancient joke! Well done!

Thanks for this information! Having a look at your homepage I must say, you are really one of the more dedicated builders. Very nice!

In that case just one drainplug on the footwell's bottom should be enough. All water must collect down there. So on the water the drain plug is closed, on the trailer it is opened.

Why have additional holes in the transom? Any reasons?

Best,
Martin
User avatar
Jason Builder
Regular Contributor
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2016 8:05 pm
Contact:

Re: considering a Scamp

Post by Jason Builder »

Hi Martin,

I think the only reason to have the drain plugs in the stern transom is to be able to tilt the boat with the stern down, on a trailer, and to have any water easily drain out through the transom drains. I think if I open the stern transom drains and the footwell drain also, that I will be able to wash down the boat with excellent drainage.

MfG

Jason
-Jason

Builder of SCAMP#349 "Argo": Build log at http://www.argobuilder.com
Caretaker of these fine ships:
-SCAMP "Argo"
-1981 Compac 16 Pilothouse "Lillyanna"
-Old Towne 16' Canoe
bei.beckers
Regular Contributor
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:00 pm
Location: Arnstein, Germany, exactly 50N 10E

Re: considering a Scamp

Post by bei.beckers »

Hi again,

I received my palns some minutes away and must confess: I'm a little irritated.

The seat's depth is just 170mm (7"), and the footwell would only add 7cm (2.5") seating height. Am I wrong?

If not: having NO footwell offers 2 seating positions: one low with the legs a little bend, seat height approx. 25cm/10". But sitting on the cockpit's edge (wided to 2"-3" besides the rowlocks) offers a coveniant height of 52cm (20").

With a footwell there is just 7cm additional height (of wich i'd like to take 3-4cm for a grating) => only 3cm (1"- 1.5") more but a uneven bottom and it gets problematic to go up to the cockpit's border.

Did I overlook something? Are my numbers OK??

Best, Martin
User avatar
simeoniii
Recognized Old Salt
Posts: 700
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 5:55 am
Location: Port Ludlow, Washington

Re: considering a Scamp

Post by simeoniii »

Martin, I've got Noddy, SCAMP #11. Built in 2012-2013
But sitting on the cockpit's edge (wided to 2"-3" besides the rowlocks) offers a coveniant height of 52cm (20")
I'm not understanding this bit from your post about sitting on the cockpit edge. On top of the seatback coaming? Anyway, below is what I did to my previouly stock SCAMP.

I recently retrofitted a footwell. It's great in terms of seating comfort but also for standing.

My seat tops (sitting surface) are 9.5" above the doubled cockpit sole before adding the footwell.

After I cut out the footwell area, the depth below seat top level in the footwell (forward end) is 19" and at the aft end it is 18". The difference is because of the rocker profile of the hull. The footwell should extend aft from the Bulhead-4 (back side of the water ballast tank) a total distance of 18.5" That produces a volume of about 20 gallons, located in a good area for fore-aft balance.

In the footwell, to reinforce the hull, I added 2 layers of 9mm ply, leaving a 1" gutter around the perimeter. That made the reinforced hull area at 27mm.

I did not widen my seat tops when I built but in retrospect I should have.

I hope this helps your thinking.
Simeon
Voyaging with Noddy, #11
bei.beckers
Regular Contributor
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:00 pm
Location: Arnstein, Germany, exactly 50N 10E

Re: considering a Scamp

Post by bei.beckers »

Hi Simeon,

Thank you and sorry, what an online dictionary gives me is obviously not what I ment...
Not beeing a nativ speaker means that I have some problems when using naval vocabluary :cry:

Yes, I "tested" sitting on the seatback coaming, but just with some boards and books to give me the required seating height. I must check out the plan once more (I didn't have much time yesterday...), so the win of height is more than I thought first.

'Bout the footwell: was it nececcary to have 27mm thickness? The "serial version" for the cockpits bottom is 2x 9mm = 18mm. Wasn't this enough?
I ask, because when buying the kit, I don't have enough additional 9mm ply to have a 3rd. layer- and because I was convinced that on such a small area 18mm will carry lots more than is needed here.

Quote:
I did not widen my seat tops when I built but in retrospect I should have.

I can't imagine what you're talking about here. Can you attatch or send me a sketch?

Best, Martin
pocketyacht
Recognized Old Salt
Posts: 931
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 6:00 pm
Location: Micronesia and Japan
Contact:

Re: considering a Scamp

Post by pocketyacht »

Martin

Hi. I am a SCAMP owner and congratulate you for choosing a very sound small boat.

I suggest you can leave the footwell floor/sole at 9mm (thickness of the bottom) if you add fiberglass to the floor/sole in the footwell and bring it up 2" all around. You can add a grate or not, I am not sure I would as they are tough on bare feet. Not that you might sail barefoot but if you sleep aboard and wake up bare footed then..........or if you go swimming and climb back aboard. The advantage of the grate is that your feet will stay drier and another is a grate looks nice.

I added two 9mm pieces to my cockpit sole to thicken it as I know the chance of point loading the floor (dropping an anchor in a moment of anchor raising/sail away rush) is quite real. This said I built a SCAMP purposely for a voyage where anchor mishaps were the norm. I believe adding a layer of glass lapped up the sides of the footwell is more than adequate.

I am also the builder who built in the first footwell and others have interpreted my design to their own specifications, which is great. I believe the size I built is very right though.

Simeon and some others have used my dimensions. He and I collaborate on our boats and I believe his testimony to the use and appropriateness of the footwell as specified is good. Simeon thinks in engineering terms. I have had extensive use of the footwell in my boat. I wouldn't own or build a SCAMP without the footwell, it completely changes the boat.

I also am the guy who added width to the seat tops by adding an inch to the width of each seat top. This inch protrudes out along the inboard edge and although only an inch it makes a huge difference in seating comfort (ability to slouch a bit). I double this edge with a 9mm strip of ply for looks and strength. The 1" lip also serves to capture the sliding rowing thwart. I have to date had a hand in building 78 SCAMP's including several full builds and those who have asked for the extended seats like the extra seat top area. In several recent builds I have added 2" instead of 1" and this adds even more comfort and the ability to lay down for a cat nap on the seat. I hadn't thought of this when I built my boat.

Here is a shot of my footwell.
Untitled.jpg
Another item that might help you.
Here is a photo of how I do skeg builds with a single finger hold instead of two each side of each skeg. I laminate skegs from smaller pieces of hard wood making for a more cost effective and very strong skeg. The photo shows the rough rout out. I fair each end of the rout out with fillet material to make for smooth water flow.
skeg.jpg
Skeg 2.jpg
I hope this helps.




bei.beckers wrote:Hi Simeon,

Thank you and sorry, what an online dictionary gives me is obviously not what I ment...
Not beeing a nativ speaker means that I have some problems when using naval vocabluary :cry:

Yes, I "tested" sitting on the seatback coaming, but just with some boards and books to give me the required seating height. I must check out the plan once more (I didn't have much time yesterday...), so the win of height is more than I thought first.

'Bout the footwell: was it nececcary to have 27mm thickness? The "serial version" for the cockpits bottom is 2x 9mm = 18mm. Wasn't this enough?
I ask, because when buying the kit, I don't have enough additional 9mm ply to have a 3rd. layer- and because I was convinced that on such a small area 18mm will carry lots more than is needed here.

Quote:
I did not widen my seat tops when I built but in retrospect I should have.

I can't imagine what you're talking about here. Can you attatch or send me a sketch?

Best, Martin
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Post Reply