I agree partially with David, but not entirely.

“Think along the lines of…” is hardly a definition of what is required, and only emphasises further the deep flaw in this competition, which has already been discussed from the outset.

Performance-wise the 5-planks – and possibly some of the other entries which have not been discussed on forum, could well be the best performers (though not by a large margin). If the intention was for a dinghy to be built on a beach then the organisers should have said so clearly – but I don’t think that was the intention. I don’t think there was any clear intention - except to build the “winner” as a classroom project – in which case Slieve’s design, which was for his grandchildren to build from a cardboard cereal box, might not be challenging enough.

The best boat isn’t necessarily the most suitable boat. But suitable for whom and for what purpose?

(It is also interesting to note that the most popular tenders, by far, are without exception: pigs to row, impossible to sail, prone to theft, don’t last long, you can’t build one yourself, easily damaged and expensive to buy. You know the type. Edit. Not my cup of tea, but my point: they do what their owners want of them.)

I have been very interested in this “competition” but mainly because of what came out from it. The upside of that vague and loosely-worded set of criteria is that it produced a proliferation of very good designs – all of them very good – and with amazing diversity. To be charitable to whoever drafted the terms of the competition, perhaps that was the intention – if so it has been a raging success. We now have a near impossible situation in terms of choosing a “winner” – but a wonderful set of different designs, with something to suit everybody.

If I wanted a lengthy father-and-child winter project and a kid-safe, fully buoyant sailing dinghy for a teenager who had a passion to sail – I might choose John’s design (which he has mis-named) “General  Purpose ‘Pram’ Dinghy.

As rowing boats and casual sailing boats I doubt if there is much to choose between any of them – an 8’ dinghy might as well be just about any shape as its too small to make much difference. As tenders, the differences between the entries will be in matters such as stability, the ability to be overloaded and still do what it has to do, the weight, the ease or otherwise of construction, and the cost.

Whichever dinghy wins it won’t make any difference to which one I would choose. I’m still thinking about it, there are others yet to evaluate - but so far I have to say that much as I love the 5-planks, I am mightily impressed with the ease of construction, the looks, the style, - and what it represents - of KISS.

(Slieve – our posts crossed in the mail. Congratulations to your Grandkids (and their patient supervisor). I made another mistake too – the model is 1:5 not 1:50. Put the decimal point in the wrong place. This is why I loath the metric system. In proper terms, the model came out at 16 ½ inches – so I suppose the dinghy would work out to be about 7’. I wasn’t too fussy with the ruler – no need – that’s another thing I like about it).

(Arne: Crossed post with yours too. I agree with T-thwart. I didn't like that frame, I prefer the low bulkhead supporting the T-thwart and tied in with centreboard case and the mast. Agreed also (strongly) don't alter the beam/length proportions. Thanks for advice. My  model (1:5) is thin plywood and it will get a coat of epoxy, won't need cling wrap. I'll try some weights, as you suggest - although eyeballs and common sense tells me it will carry two adults and a few bags of groceries. That's good enough for me. Too many people drown in dinghy accidents - I don't like to see 3 adults in any small tender).

Sorry Graeme, but you made a mistake in your mail today. You said, “Good one Slieve”. That should read, “Good one Alec and Peter”.

I started them off by suggesting that they tried to use straight lines and eventually they worked out that the width of the 3 stations and the flare of the sides controlled the shape, and by trial and error, and another cereal packet found a shape they liked. It was them who rocked the basic frame on the flat panel to 'loft' the bottom panel, not me.

As for them now drawing up the rig, they are busy with tests and GCSE exams for the next two weeks, but on Sunday 30^th are coming for dinner so I'll be able to chat to them then. Alec will be spending a few days with us in the following couple of weeks so the rig could be a good project for him then. I may have guided them and asked the questions, but the design came from their answers.

Cheers, Slieve.

Over the last two evenings I have spent a couple of hours knocking up a quick model of Slieve’s dinghy design KISS. I just wanted to see how easily these simple straight-line pieces could be made into 3-dimensional curves.

First evening: loft four pieces just using a ruler and a protractor. (Actually I could not find my protractor but I found an old set of trig tables so I drew the angles on the plywood by linear measurement – more accurate anyway). Wrap the sides around the centre frame and attach to the bow and stern transoms. Apply epoxy fillet.

It just went together almost by itself, no force required, I jambed the side planks in place with a few blocks of wood and a couple of tiny screws – and introduced some thickened epoxy fillets. (Its too small for stich or tape. The scale is 1:50 so they are giant fillets and the epoxy alone will be enough for a model  edit: silly mistake. its 1:5).

Two hours.

Next evening – clean up – rock the bottomless hull on a fresh piece of plywood and draw around it, thereby lofting the bottom panel. (Good one, Slieve). Support the bottom panel on a block of wood each end and press the hull down to it. Everything fits. Apply epoxy. Two hours.

Magic. A curved hull from straight-line lofting.

Building the hull in full size won’t be much more difficult than that.

I reckon this is easier and quicker than building a box.

It’s a nice shape too. The only curved plywood cuts are the transom tops – and those two curves are what transforms this plain little punt into something special and cute – an inspired touch.

I wish all my projects would be as quick and easy, and satisfying as this.

In the real case, I doubt that stitching will be necessary. Could the glass tape be left out too? I don't know the answer to that.

Of course, a real dinghy needs thwarts, a belting, four knees and a centreboard case - maybe a skeg too? So I would say the job is only half done. Leaving out buoyancy chambers saves heaps of time, weight and surface area to finish. The cost of inflatable  buoyancy bags to stuff under the thwarts is about equal to the cost of inspection ports for plywood buoyancy tanks, so buoyancy bags is the way I would go.

Not for the first time, I take my hat off to Slieve - who I now implore to draw up a quick rig. That's all it needs. The construction details are sufficient as they are.

And I wouldn't add any extra beam - I'd leave it exactly as it is.

Referring to the portfolio of designs:

John seems to have been the only entrant who has drawn on Chinese culture in his design. He says that his entry, Boxer, is based on two similar Chinese sampans recorded by Worcester in "The Junks and Sampans of the Yangtze" and for interest sake, for those who don't have a copy, here are the two I assume John was thinking of.

(Sorry for the rough photography and distortion, didn’t have time to do a better job. I think the book can be downloaded from the JRA library).

Fangtou (方頭  or 方头 ) literally means “square head”

It is between 12’ and 18’ in length, propelled by yuloh (or sometimes a sprit sail) and (Howard will be interested to see) it features a false bow, incorporating a tiny floodable bow compartment.

The other I assume to be this one:

Yaolu Huazi (摇橹 划子  or  搖櫓划子) which Worcester somewhat puzzlingly translates as “Oar Boat”. Puzzling, because the first two characters (yaolu) mean “yuloh”, which is obviously its manner of propulsion. The second two characters chosen by Worcester (huazi) can be translated as “rowboat” since one of the meanings of "hua" is "to row" or "to paddle".

This simple vessel is 23’ x 7’ and decked over, designed for cargo not passengers.

The Chinese seem not to have bothered with boats as small as 8' - apart from the Wuhu Tub (which is small enough to meet at least that one of the JRA committee's requirements) - and which was literally a re-purposed wash tub.  Worcester has somewhat pedantically provided us with a full drawing, and a few paragraphs of information, including: that it could be anywhere between 3' and 8'6" and that its form of propulsion is hand-paddling.

Fortunately there appears to be no sailing version.

By the way, the Chinese made paper models too, but more elaborate than Slieve's and for a different purpose.

Worcester tells us that this "spirit boat" was found in a shop specialising in paper models, made to be burned at funerals - destined for the use and pleasure of its far-sighted owner after arrival in the next world.

Slieve - don't throw that model out! You might be able to continue enjoying the occasional sail and if by chance anything goes wrong during the transmigration, you might at least expect, for eternity, the benefit of cereal for breakfast.

The JRA seems to have more than its share of individual thinkers, from all parts of the world and with quite different sailing grounds. Perhaps this is the reason why this endeavour has produced such a remarkably diverse variety of results. Quite remarkable I think. Perhaps the true value is not in the "winning design" but in the diversity of ideas upon which future dinghy builders can draw. However, in order to compare and contrast, it is not an easy task by scrolling down a web page. They need to be printed out in order to savour.

Given the success of the "competition" and the wealth of ideas arising, I am wondering if a gallery of design concepts, in the form of a supplement to the magazine, might be an appropriate suggestion. It would be nice to have on a bookshelf or magazine rack, to go back to from time to time, and might possibly have some enduring value as a reference. I have no idea what it would cost, or whether or not there are surplus funds to do it - or indeed if the Editor is not already over-worked just to produce the magazine. So I am not sure if it is an appropriate suggestion, but here it is anyway, for the committee to consider.

PS and perhaps David might be prepared to also throw into the mix his mini-siblim concept - I would rather like to see the midship sections of this, alongside Arne's Halibut. Two five-planks is better than one.