Lapstrake canoe build length question

[trouts2]

Please bear with me on the following as there is a lot I’m not familiar with.

I’ve been trying to get more familiar with Rangeley boats so poking around taking pictures and getting measurements to try and ID builders. A few have been a puzzle so the reason for the post.

There is a very nice 15 foot lapstrake double ender at the Historical Society in Rangeley, Maine. The builder is unknown. I’ve found a similar boat that I think is by the same builder. Most of the build on both boats is similar but some things fuzzy.

In building a lapstrake double end canoe what would the chances be of ending up with a two inch difference over the length? What would account for that? Is it easy to modify the build a few inches provided there was some reason?

The guess is both boats are by the same builder but one boat is 175 inches and the other is 173 but I’m not sure how that happens so asking.

Both boats have similar oarlock spacing, width apart 37 aft, 35 ¾ towards the bow.

Both has an unusual oarlock. The horn has a round base which fits in a holder. I’ve never seen this type of oarlock on any Rangeley boat and both boats have them.

The seat’s have the same type of wooden supports, seat to side.

The stems are unusual in that they are tapered in the lower center. I’ve never seen that in a Rangeley boat (Barrett, Collins, Folsom, or Ellis) other than these two.

The ends of the ribs are chamfered at the gunwale in the same way. This might have been done on other boats but I’ve never seen it on the one’s I’ve seen other than these two.

The taper of the inwales at the deck sides seems the same and the tops of the ribs whittled down to fit on both boats. One has two ribs under the deck and the other one.

The rib count is 46 on one and 44 on the other. The one with 46 also has 8 strakes where the 44 has 7. The count difference may be due to planned spacing or just a fluke. ?? The extra strake may be due to not building from a pattern i.e. not having them all the same boat to boat although that seems unrealistic. The owner of the 46 rib 8 strake boat told me that the grandfarther had 8 boats made for 8 kids. The grandfarther had money and probably went to a good local builder. That was in the 30’s and I think around at that time were C. W. Barrett, Collins, Arnburg and possibly others. The extra strake may have been for safety for the kids. ? The nice oarlocks may have been an extra as he had money and the locks probably pretty expensive.

The outside stem on both boats seems to be the same. The deck and the way the stems come through seem the same along with the way the inwale meets the deck i.e. more straight into the deck rather than angled.

Given the above and a few other things I think they were built by the same person but the two inch length difference is a bother.

 

[Greg Nolan]

I know just about nothing about Rangeley boats -- but that kind of oarlock is not uncommon in Maine -- Old Town used them on its rowing boats and canoes, and other builders also used them (Dan Neal, for one). They are currently sold by Shaw and Tenney, although in the past others made them also.

 

[Dan Miller]

In building a lapstrake double end canoe what would the chances be of ending up with a two inch difference over the length? What would account for that? Is it easy to modify the build a few inches provided there was some reason?

Quite good, in fact. A group of us built and are building a pair of stretched Wee Lassies. The Burly Lassie is 12' 4" LOA - the length was chosen in order to make maximum use of full length planking stock. The Burly Laddie is 12' 6". In this case the canoe was designed to be larger for us bigger guys, knowing we would be scarfing all but the first three planks.

Because lapstrake canoes are built over station molds, it is a simple matter to change the spacing of the molds to change the length of the boat. In fact, Rushton did just this to to build three different boats that varied by as much as 2'. For example, the Iowa model was 13', 14', and 15' built on the same molds.

The only thing that changes is the shape of the keel and where the stems mount to the keel. The stem rabbet is slightly different as well, but this is fine-tuned while planking. The shape of the planks is pick up while building.

 

[trouts2]

Greg,
Thanks for the Shaw and Tenney reference. Today those oarlocks are $198 for a pair. They probably would have been expensive in the 1930’s which would be in keeping with character of these boats as they were for a wealthy family not working boats.

Dan,
Thanks, so it looks like the 2 inch difference is not a big deal.

I have a related question about the stems. The pictures are of the stems in each boat. To me they indicate the same pattern was used as it was the 30’s and no drawings floating around like today.
I have not seen an other Rangeley boat with a “tapered waist” section like these two have. I’ve convinced they were made by the same builder or someone who bought his patterns.

Anyone ever seen a stem shape like this? Is it common?

I would not think it was to help the rabbit fit but not sure. It seems like it’s a slimming of the shape of the bow somewhat low to make a sharper cut through the water. Does that make sense?

What would be the purpose of such a shape?

 

[Dan Miller]

The stems would have been roughed out from stock a consistent thickness. The bearding line (where the inner face of the plank leaves the rabbet) is inboard of the stem, so some of it was cut away so that the plank runs fair. Without doing this, there will be a bulge in the garboard plank (experience speaking here...!).

 

[trouts2]

I’m not experienced so unsure of the above. The “it” in “so some of it was cut away” part.

From Gardner Rangeley Small Craft book Stem Detail drawing p171. The inside stem starts out 1 ¾ x 2 5/8 and is beveled to 1 in the forward part. The outside stem back part is 1 5/8 so forms the 5/16 rabbit. The planks should lay somewhat fair all the way down on the outside and also on the inside where they lay against the inside stem but some beveling where the planks overlap would have to be done to get them “perfectly” smooth.
At the keel the top and bottom keel boards form a rabbit in the same way as the stem.

What I was refereeing to was tapering of the stem from top to bottom. If you were addressing that in your post it went over my head. I found a reference in Gardener to this taper on p171, at the first full paragraph.

It is:
“Instead of keeping the thickness of the stem uniform its entire length, it could be tapered somewhat from top to bottom, retaining the top siding of 1 ¾ inches but thinning it, let us say, to 1 ¼ inches at the bottom. There would still be enough landing or “back rabbet” for the planking, but to taper it thus would not lighten the boat by much, while adding considerably to the labor and difficulty of making the stem.”

He does not describe the beveling fully, that is, how far into the 2 5/8 length the bevel should go. I would assume it does not go to the front of the stem and that remains 1 inch.
If the other parts are left un-altered then the plank ends would have to be forced in a bit more with the nails.
I would think that if you beveled the stem top to bottom then you could carry that to the front 1 inch section and also adjust the 1 5/8 back section of the outside stem with a matching taper. That is to say if you tapered the back of the stem I would think you would taper the front of the stem and the back of the outside stem in the same way so they all tapered and the 5/16 rabbit is 5/16 all the way from top to bottom.

Gardner does not mention why bevel the back of stem from 1 ¾ to 1 ¼ other than to say it’s a lot more work. I’m not sure if there is any utility there but think it would be done for looks but not sure.

I said above I had not seen this taper before but actually missed it. I went out this morning to a nearby Collins boat and the vertical part of the stem is beveled top to bottom ¼ inch similar to the pictures in the prior post. The base or foot part of the stem is as large as the top or larger.
I described the taper a waist like slimming as the top and bottom of the stem are thicker than the middle lower section. It’s probably a straight taper up to the foot of the stem which is as big as the top or wider and I think wider (I’ll have to go back and measure). So the actual boat stems are different than as described by Gardner for the Ellis boat stem on p171. The stem back is 1 ¾ all the way on the vertical part and through the foot. The boats I see are not that thickness, they are wider at the foot.

 

[H.E. Pennypacker]

If I understand your question, this is just simple geometry. If the stem juts out more at one point than others, then the angle at which the planking lands on the stems must change. In a boat with a rounded stem profile (viewed from the side) that extends farther forward somewhere in the middle of its vertical extent, then at the top and bottom of the stem planking lands at a less acute angle, and at the middle it lands at a more acute angle. So there must be more of the back face of the stem removed where planking lands at the more acute angle

They didn't make a "thin waist" because it's pretty. They made it that way because that's the way it must be to give a good landing for the planking.

 

[trouts2]

Pennypacker:
The stem outside is from the same boat at stem picture above (the one on the right side).
The stem is thinist at strakes 2 and 3 counting from the bottom.
What your saying makes sense. What's weird is Gardner spec's straight and only says a taper is more work.

 

[Dan Miller]

Gardner is correct, insofar as if you have the choice. However, sometimes the design of the boat dictates you do something differently, and that may require more work.

As I tried to say perhaps not so clearly above, the stem is the shape it is in order for the planking to lay fair. The stem and keel rabbet are defined by three lines. The rabbet line is where the outer edge of the plank terminates on the stem - it is the one you can see on a completed boat. The middle line is where the inner corner of the plank end is buried in the stem. The bearding line is where the inner face of the plank exits the stem - it is what you see if you duck your head under the deck (as in your photos). These lines are determined through the lofting process. In the case of your example, the bearding line falls inboard of the stem, and hence it had to be trimmed away to make it thinner as you see. If your stem were deeper fore and aft, such that the bearding line fell on the stem, you would see it would be the same thickness throughout. If you forced the bearding line to fall on the stem to retain thickness, you would have a serious case of "humposis" (a highly technical term coined by Geoffrey Burke) in your garboard, strake 2 and strake 3.

Dan

 

[H.E. Pennypacker]

Trouts-

I don't know much about all them fancy terms (I thought a bearding line was the entryway for fancy biker-types to get their facial hair properly groomed). And even if I did know about all those lines, I don't know without pictures what is the outer edge or inner corner of a plank. But lots of people around the world build boats by eye, picking up pieces of wood and shaping them into beautiful and functional boats.

In plain English, what you want is planking that lies flat and tight in the rabbet of the stem. Because the planking hits the stem at different angles depending on (1) where the plank is coming from (different angles of approach to the stem for planks up at the sheer, from the bilge area, or near the keel, for example), and (2) the shape of the stem. The goal is to generate a flat landing place for the plank so that the plank-stem junction is solid and tight. This means shaping the stem sides and rabbet so that the planking lands flat on the surface of the rabbet for a strong junction and a junction that harbors little water (ideally none).

Look at one of these boats and you'll see (from your message above, you already see) that the planking joins the stems at different angles along the length of the stem, which means that the shape of the stem and rabbet vary along the length, which gives the inner face of those stems the "thin waist" you describe.