Canoa de Rancho by JacquesCousteau - Scale 1:32 - Lake Chapala Fishing and Cabotage Vessel

[JacquesCousteau]

BE ADVISED: It will be several posts until I get to the actual build. Very sorry about that, but I want to be thorough about documenting all the research that’s going into this.

 

Introduction

 

Hi all, I had a lot of fun with the Model Shipways Lowell Grand Banks Dory kit, as well as scratch-building the Trajinera. I’m looking forward to my next kit, the Model Shipways Muscongus Bay Lobster Smack, which will undoubtedly teach me a lot about planking and rigging. But, it’s still in the mail. Given how much I enjoyed the trajinera, I thought I would try my hand with another scratch build of a classic Mexican vessel—this time something a bit more complicated, but still relatively simple in construction. Originally, following a visit to the port of Veracruz, I tried to find plans for a Veracruz coastal fishing boat, but I had no luck and decided that the vessels I could find in photos—small sloops and schooners—were a bit too complicated at my current skill level to try to scratch build, especially without plans.

 

Instead, after randomly coming across some interesting photos, I’ve chosen something with a hull that is similar in some respects to the dory, and something with extremely simple rigging, but something that will still stretch my skills: a Canoa de Rancho from Lake Chapala in the late-nineteenth to the mid-twentieth century, used for fishing and cabotage on Mexico’s largest lake. Before I go further, here are a few representative photos of the type of boat in question that hopefully give some visual sense of why I was first struck by them.

 

Source: https://mediateca.inah.gob.mx/islandora_74/islandora/object/fotografia%3A139790

 

Source: http://ri.uacj.mx/vufind/Record/96906

 

Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nullboy/6386212027/in/album-72157628104176801/

 

Source: https://mediateca.inah.gob.mx/islandora_74/islandora/object/fotografia%3A139791

 

Source: https://mediateca.inah.gob.mx/islandora_74/islandora/object/fotografia%3A141742

 

As you can see, these are very distinctive vessels, with a wide variety in sizes united by similar hull forms (upturned sharp bow, generally boxy stern, a cabin of sorts) and a similar sail plan (a single mast with an odd sort of cross between a square, a lug, and a settee rig—I’ll be discussing the rigging’s peculiarities in a future post).

 

Before getting too far into things, I should note: despite my best efforts, I have not found any hull plans. These vessels would not have been built according to plans, but rather based on the builder’s long experience and traditions (although I have found some evidence of traditions changing—tradition can be quite flexible!). Moreover, they fell out of use by the mid-twentieth century and apparently no examples survive, although some smaller fishing boats with similar hull construction do survive. Unless it turns out that Howard Chapelle took a vacation to Lake Chapala and recorded the canoa's lines or something--in which case I'd love to hear about it!--my build is therefore speculative, based as well as I can on photographic evidence, of which there is thankfully quite a bit. Fortunately I am building a model of a generic rather than a specific vessel, and as can be seen above, there was a great deal of variation in practice between vessels, so I think I should be able to make a decent representation of a generic vessel. (That said, I should really try making something that has plans for my next scratch-build!)

 

I should also note that figuring out how to build these and how they were used required substantial research, given the limited sources available about them, so it’s going to take a few posts before I get into the actual build.

 

So, here I’ll be talking a bit about sources and then the broader context and history of these vessels. In future posts, I’ll be discussing what I can tell of hull design and construction and the rigging/sail plan—all of which have some oddities compared to usual practice. But first, a note about the name, types of vessels on Lake Chapala, and the specific type of vessel I’m modeling.

 

 

What’s In A Name? The Chapala Canoa (de Rancho)

 

While some image captions label these vessels with generic words meaning “boat” or “sailboat” (lancha, embarcación, velero, etc.), most sources just call them “canoas.” Canoa is usually translated as “canoe,” but in Mexico, the word is often used as a generic term for a wide variety of small vessels. The trajineras of the central basin, for instance, are also termed canoas, despite being flat-bottomed barges. Given this variety, I have chosen to leave the word “canoa” untranslated, as “canoe” wouldn’t be quite accurate. On Lake Chapala, small dugouts seem to have been called either canoas or cayucos (according to information from the National Institute of Anthropology and History: https://lugares.inah.gob.mx/es/museos-inah/museo/museo-piezas/10858-10858-canoa-la-brisa.html?lugar_id=480 ) while larger vessels of a wide variety of sizes were often simply called canoas. José María Angulo Sepulveda generally calls them “sailing canoas” (canoas veleras).

 

However, in his novel La canoa perdida (more about which below), Ramón Rubín distinguishes between the simple canoa, which he says is technically a type of chalupa (yet another word for a small vessel), and the canoa de rancho, which he says is technically a lanchón (a curious word: lancha means small boat, the -ón suffix means large, so a lanchón is a big small boat). Although both the canoa and the canoa de rancho share a number of construction and design characteristics, the canoa was smaller, used mostly for fishing, and could be propelled by sail, oar, and pole, while the canoa de rancho was larger—Angulo Sepulveda says up to 20 meters long and 30 tons displacement—used more often for cabotage rather than fishing, propelled only by sail or pole, and was distinguished by having a “rancho,” the term used for the thatched or wooden cabin structure at the stern. The rancho was used to protect passengers and cargo from the elements. Other sources confirm that the cabin was in fact called a rancho, and it’s a very distinctive part, so I have decided to follow Rubín’s terminology in order to title my build log. Below we can see, first, several smaller fishing canoas, and second, a large (~60 foot long) canoa de rancho. The similarities are evident, as are some differences in proportions. Notably, the fishing canoas survived much longer than the canoas de rancho did, so there are more color photos of them than of their larger cousins.

 

Small fishing canoas. Source: https://www.museocjv.com/chapalapostaless.html

Large canoa de rancho from a postcard. Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nullboy/6386211855/in/album-72157628104176801/

 

 

I should note, though, that other evidence suggests that Rubín was wrong to draw such a sharp distinction between the fishing-oriented, row-able canoa and the cargo-hauling, non-row-able canoa de rancho. As I’ll discuss more later, it seems that small canoas de rancho (maybe around the 27-35 foot long range) were actually row-able and used for fishing as well. In fact, the photo at the beginning with the man standing at the bow, nearly silhouetted against the lake, very clearly shows a small canoa de rancho with thole pins for rowing.

 

These mixed-use vessels may have been the exception, but I have chosen to model one of them. I am very interested in trying to model a thatched rancho (and if I mess up on the thatching, I can always just make it a simpler wooden one), but I am also interested in modeling some of the fishing gear, which requires modeling a vessel that both had a rancho and was used for fishing. This excludes the larger and smaller vessels. I did not want to model all the cargo they would haul—making dozens of scale watermelons or sacks or crates did not seem like my idea of a good time! I considered building it at 1:24 scale to be consistent with the dory, but this would require a model around 15 inches long, which would be a little large given my space limits, so I decided to go for 1:32 scale, at which the model will be around 12 inches or a little less.

 

Sources

 

As mentioned above, photos are the most useful sources I have. Lake Chapala and its surrounding towns became an important tourist destination in the late 1800s. Postcards with photos of these vessels were apparently popular, given how many survive, and a number of photographers took large numbers of photographs of the lake’s vessels. These photos are available online via a number of sources. Many are available through the digital Mediateca of the National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH). Unfortunately, many of the Mediateca photos are rather grainy and low-res (at least in their digitized versions). Other photos are available from the website México en Fotos, often in higher-resolution versions (although the latter are heavily watermarked). Other sources include the online postcard collections of the Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez, the virtual Museo Claudia Jiménez Vizcarra, a flickr album of postcards from the lake, and a number of videos about local history uploaded to youtube. I will make sure to clearly source all of the photos that I show, and I should note that in many cases, I am showing relatively low-res screenshots that are zoomed in on specific parts of the photo.

 

Written sources are rather more limited. La navegación de antaño en el Lago de Chapala, written by local chronicler José María Angulo Sepulveda (originally published in 1987, reprinted in 2004) is the most detailed and focused work. It includes a number of details on lake vessels and their history on the lake and appears to mostly be based on interviews with locals. Unfortunately, the book is currently out of print, and I was unable to find it for purchase online or after visiting a lot of used bookstores. Through my institutional library, I was able to get a scan of a 20-page section that I believed would be useful based on the tiny samples available on google books, but nothing more. The section includes useful information on the construction of the canoas, as well as a couple hand-drawn depictions of them, one with all the parts labeled which is quite helpful even if it’s not quite what one would need to make a scale model.

 

Other secondary sources include a number of academic works about the fishing industry on Lake Chapala and the lake’s environmental history, which are useful for understanding fishing techniques and the social-environmental history of the lake and its sailors. However, they have few if any details on the vessels themselves.

 

Published primary sources are more variable. Unsurprisingly, my search in major newspapers (which, prior to the Revolution, are readily available in digital form) turned up almost nothing—small fishing communities attracted little journalistic attention except in the case of notable accidents.

 

Travel writing was somewhat more useful. As noted, Lake Chapala became a popular tourist destination, and a useful introduction to many of the lake’s prominent visitors can be found (in English) at the site: https://lakechapalaartists.com/ The lake’s distinctive canoas attracted a degree of attention. However, few discussed them in much detail. Thomas Philip Terry’s popular foreign guidebook Terry’s Mexico: Handbook for Travelers (Revised Second Edition, 1911) contains a surprising amount of detail on fishing in the lake, but mentions the canoas (which he calls “fishing-smacks”) in passing only as a picturesque backdrop: “Each tiny port has its stretch of white beach in lieu of a harbor and a main street; and each its fleet of time- and water-stained fishing-smacks, resting placidly on the sand” (157-158). William Carson English’s Mexico: The Wonderland of the South (Revised Edition, 1914) similarly emphasizes the picturesque aspects of the vessels, which he inaccurately calls “small fishing schooners” (352). In contrast, Eduardo A. Gibbon, a Mexican journalist, poet, and diplomat, discussed the lake and its canoas in some detail in his book Guadalajara (La Florencia Mexicana): vagancias y recuerdos (1893). Especially useful are his writings on the storm-shortened voyage he took on a decent-sized (he said it was 10 tons) canoa de rancho. Gibbon waxed rhapsodic about the lake’s great natural beauty and its proud history, evidently promoting it as a matter of natural pride. However, after riding aboard both a canoa and a modern steamboat, he ultimately seemed fine with committing the canoas to the past, writing that, “if the lancha-canoas with their lateen sails represented the past, and imperfect and dangerous navigation, the steamer, marvel of our century, represented the present with all its potent vitality and its conquests of progress” (352). I’ll be continuing to search through travel writings about Chapala to see if I can find much about the vessels in question.

 

Perhaps the most useful work for understanding these vessels and their context (outside of Angulo Sepulveda’s book) is actually a novel, Ramón Rubín Rivas’s La canoa perdida: una novela mestiza (1951; my version is the 1996 reprint by the Fondo de Cultura Económica). Rubín (1912-1999) is an interesting figure. Many of his novels deal with indigenista themes (that is, they’re explicitly or implicitly about the question of the role of indigenous people and culture in the modern nation), but he also was himself an experienced sailor, apparently having worked aboard merchant ships for some time, and several of his works deal with life at sea. This experience makes his discussion of the canoa particularly convincing, although he also is a bit disparaging of how Chapala sailors took up maritime terminology in what he views as an extremely haphazard fashion. La canoa perdida follows the story of a poor fisherman, the ironically-named Ramiro Fortuna, who eventually attains a particularly nice canoa that is quickly stolen, sending him on a journey around the lake in search of his vessel (I mean, there’s more to it than that). The book is out of print, but I was eventually (through luck on Facebook marketplace) able to get a copy. I haven’t finished it yet, but the early chapters are extremely detailed on the lives and livelihoods of poor fishermen—Rubín clearly had a strong interest in social realism and his characters’ economic grounding (after all, he was a Marxist). His introduction also strikes a very elegiac tone about the fast-disappearing canoas de rancho, writing of “the high Phoenecian sails of their great lanchones or canoas de rancho” (12). La canoa perdida’s strong environmental themes critiqued Lake Chapala’s over-exploitation and desiccation, and made Rubín political enemies. It’s an interesting work, and I’ll continue to post useful details from it as I come across them.

 

Finally, the Guadalajara Regional Museum (Museo Regional de Guadalajara) and the Anthropology and History Museum of Ocotlán (Museo de Antropología e Historia de Ocotlán) both have large models of canoas de rancho, seen below, that were built in the 1980s. Interestingly, they were built by one of the people Angulo Sepulveda interviewed for his own drawings of the canoa de rancho. A few images are available of them online. They’re useful for a few details, but they don’t seem to be quite to scale and have some details that seem either inaccurate, as I haven’t seen them in any photo of actual vessels, or atypical, as I’ve only seen them in a small portion of the vessels photographed. The museums also don’t seem to have necessarily rigged them correctly—in the image below of the Guadalajara model, the halyard seems to have been tied to the anchor chain.

 

 

Source: https://lugares.inah.gob.mx/es/museos-inah/museo/museo-piezas/10858-10858-canoa-la-brisa.html?lugar_id=480

 

Anyway, this post is already huge, so I’m going to end it here. Next: a bit about Lake Chapala and the history of the canoa de rancho.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 26, 2023 by JacquesCousteau
Adjusted photo size

[JacquesCousteau]

Sorry for all the massive posts, I promise I will eventually get around to the actual build…

 

Lake Chapala: The Canoa and its Context

 

Located at the border of Jalisco and Michoacán, at an altitude of about 5,000 feet, Lake Chapala is the largest lake in Mexico. In fact, its size is such that some occasionally called it, with all the exaggeration of local pride, the Mar Chapálico (“the Chapalic Sea”). It is fed by the Lerma River from the east and drains to the sea via the Santiago River; the combined Lerma-Santiago river system is the longest in Mexico, although waterfalls limit its navigability. As a comparison, the lake’s surface area today is a bit smaller than that of Lake Champlain (Chapala: 420 square miles; Champlain: 514 square miles), but prior to the early twentieth century, it was substantially larger as the lake’s southeastern shore extended out into a vast swampy zone (on the map below, Pajacuarán in the bottom-right corner was originally on the edge of the swamp). When the marshland was fully flooded, the lake’s surface area surpassed 600 square miles. The lake is bordered by a number of towns, including Jocotepic to the west, Ajijic and Chapala to the north, Ocotlán to the northeast a bit inland along the Santiago River, Jamay to the east, La Barca several miles inland on the Lerma River, and Cojumatlán and Tizapán on the southern shore. The major city of Guadalajara is only 30 miles or so north, but poor roads made terrestrial transport in the area extremely slow until well into the twentieth century.

 

Source: Google Maps, accessed 24 July 2023.

 

The region was populated long before the Spanish arrived, and plenty of sources from the colonial era testify to the lake’s good fishing. Traditional indigenous vessels were generally dugout canoes, so it seems likely that the plank-built canoa de rancho had its origins in the interchanges of the colonial era.

 

It’s worth noting, although this is only tangentially related to the build, that Lake Chapala was the site of a lengthy naval campaign during the Mexican War of Independence. In December of 1812, insurgents from towns around the lake seized Mezcala Island, a small island that had been the site of a minor colonial military outpost. They built a foundry there and fortified the island with new walls, about a dozen cannon (most of them locally-produced), and underwater obstacles. Mezcala Island became a major insurgent base, with a garrison of around 600-1,000 soldiers (it varied over time) and a fleet of about 100 boats, invariably described only as canoas (which, as noted earlier, can cover a wide range of vessels). Royalists built their own force of canoas and, after a disastrous premature attack on Mezcala, also brought disassembled vessels overland from the seaport of San Blas, many of them armed with cannon. They also constructed a small floating battery that suffered from severe design flaws and seems to have been quickly abandoned. Over the next several years, insurgents and royalists clashed in a series of battles as royalists repeatedly tried and failed to storm the island fortress or to blockade it into surrender. Despite the insurgents’ lack of many firearms—especially in the early years, their armies and fleets were armed mostly with slings and lances—Mezcala’s strong defenses blocked all efforts to take the island by force, and the blockade proved ineffective as light insurgent canoas regularly ran the blockade at night. Finally, in 1816, royalists simply destroyed everything around the lake that they couldn’t directly control, completely cutting the insurgents off from supplies. They surrendered soon after, negotiating generous terms to allow them to return home to rebuild, exempting them from tribute payments, and naming some leaders as political authorities. I bring this up only because I have to wonder if any of the insurgent vessels, in particular, would have been similar to the later canoas de rancho. Much of their fleet seems to have been made up of small fishing vessels, many of them probably dugouts, but at least a few were large enough to eventually mount a single small cannon (which seems improbable for a dugout), and Christon Archer reports that around twenty-five were large enough to carry up to twenty-five men. That they were able to bring together so many vessels also suggests the large number of boats used for fishing (and cargo hauling) on the lake by that time.

 

(On the naval campaign, see: https://2006-2012.semar.gob.mx/unidad-de-historia-y-cultura-naval/independencia/mezcala.html , and Christon I Archer, “The Indian Insurgents of Mezcala Island on the Lake Chapala Front, 1812-1816,” pp. 84-128 in Susan Schoeder, Ed., Native Resistance and the Pax Colonial in New Spain (1998). William B. Taylor’s “Banditry and Insurrection: Rural Unrest in Central Jalisco, 1790-1816,” pp. 205-246 in Friedrich Katz’s edited volume Riot, Rebellion, and Revolution in Rural Mexico (1988) also is very interesting on the social context of the Mezcala Island insurgency, arguing that it largely stemmed from declining relations between villagers and priests, growing pressures on local resources due to population growth, and tensions provoked by the militarization of local authorities.)

 

There’s actually a fascinating, if stylized, image drawn up by the royalists in 1817 detailing their fleet (or at least part of it) and the island fortress, a part of which is reproduced below. Not particularly relevant, I know, but it’s so cool I can’t help myself from sharing! The small lateen- or lug-rigged vessels at left are labeled as “falúas” (feluccas, although I was under the impression that these were usually two-masted?) and their armaments are given as a single 6-lb or 2-lb cannon. The somewhat larger gaff-rigged sloops at center right are labeled as “lanchas” (launches), except the rightmost which is apparently a “bolero” (I’m not sure what this is); the lanchas carried a single 24-lb cannon each and the bolero has a 10-lb cannon. To the right is the schooner (although the rig looks more like a brigantine) Carmen, carrying two 18-lb carronades and two 6-lb cannon, and the tiny “bote” (boat) Picudo, armed with two swivel guns. Without doing more extensive research, especially into the terminology used for Napoleonic-era Spanish ship’s boats, I’m not sure at the moment how many royalist vessels were ship’s boats, how many were originally coasting vessels (as I think the Carmen must have been, given its obviously larger size and topsail). It’s also worth noting that the image does not seem to include any royalist canoas, although Christon Archer notes that the royalist fleet included a number of them, unless the bote Picudo is meant to represent this type. It’s also worth noting that Archer describes several of the vessels here depicted as single-masted as having two masts--clearly the image is heavily stylized.

 

Source: https://bibliotecavirtual.defensa.gob.es/BVMDefensa/es/consulta/registro.do?id=66377 

 

Unfortunately, the insurgent fleet is not depicted, except for the captured royalist falúa Fernando en su Trono (labeled number 2 in the image, on the island at left, and referred to by the royalists after its capture as the Teresa owing to the embarrassment of having lost a vessel named after the king). Interestingly it appears to have two masts, and is hauled up on shore, which Archer notes the insurgents did after royalists nearly recaptured it in an ultimately failed assault. Evidently, their lighter canoas were more maneuverable and less tempting targets.

 

In any case, the decades after independence were marked by the continuation of local fishing and trade. The extension of the railway to Ocotlán in 1888, however, led to major changes in the lake. Products from the lake and its surroundings could now be shipped around the country, vastly expanding markets for the lake’s producers. Fishing grew substantially, as did cabotage around the lake shore, carrying goods to and from the railway station’s terminus as haciendas on shore ramped up commercial production. A handful of steamships were built on the lake, but most traffic seems to have been carried in sail- or oar- or pole-powered vessels. The canoa de rancho, whether it existed earlier or was a new development from smaller previous vessels, became central to the lake’s economy, and numerous photos show bustling, crowded docks. As Angulo Sepulveda notes, some of the canoas de rancho could be quite large, up to 20 meters long and with a displacement of 30 tons.

 

Ocotlán in 1902. Source: Photo from DeGolyer Library, Southern Methodist University, high-res version available on their site (I definitely recommend checking it out!): https://digitalcollections.smu.edu/digital/collection/mex/id/2308/rec/26

 

Another view of the docks at Ocotlán. Source: https://mediateca.inah.gob.mx/islandora_74/islandora/object/fotografia%3A140957

 

Another view of Ocotlán highlighting the loading and unloading of cargo. https://mediateca.inah.gob.mx/islandora_74/islandora/object/fotografia%3A140967

 

As Carlos Ortiz Segura describes in his article “Todo tiempo pasado fue mejor,” (Gazeta de Antropología, 2001: http://www.gazeta-antropologia.es/?p=3291 ), the late nineteenth century marked a high point in the lake’s fishing industry. Fishermen caught several species of fish (the popular blanco, catfish, small transparent charales, etc) through a number of methods, drying and selling their catch to traders who brought it to major markets throughout the country. For the lakeshore’s residents, fishing full-time or as a supplement to agriculture was vital for their livelihoods. Foreign visitors like Thomas Philip Terry, as well as nationals like Eduardo A. Gibbon, were undoubtedly wrong to draw as strict a contrast as they did between “the cringing peon” of the haciendas and the “sturdy and self-reliant” lake fishermen (Terry, Terry’s Mexico, 156)—after all, many of the supposedly servile peons would rise in revolution shortly afterward—but I would suspect that many fishermen saw the work as a means toward economic independence and a measure of respectability.

 

Some also seem to have used their vessels for both fishing and cabotage. Eduardo A. Gibbon noted that the canoa de rancho he rode on had arrived earlier that day to discharge a cargo of watermelon, but that it also was used for fishing—according to him, it was common to hang small fish to dry on the rigging, and as a result the vessel smelled strongly of fish. However—and this is my own interpretation of contradictory evidence—the careful maneuvering to position nets necessary for fishing probably meant that only the smallest, nimblest canoas de rancho could be used for this, as lighter canoas would have been generally better-suited for the work, and cheaper for fishermen, as well.

 

However, as Ortiz Segura discusses, the fishing industry soon faced challenges. Changes in federal law in the late 1800s gave the federal government control over land surrounding rivers and lakes, which was often used to expand the holdings of large hacienda owners. Authorities also increasingly sought to implement much-resented licensing requirements. Most importantly, the vast swamps at the southeast end of the lake, a vitally important fishing site, were drained in the early 1900s to be turned into farmland, an action often given as the first significant step toward the lake’s severe desiccation problems.

 

Terrestrial transportation also improved. While the railway that was built between Chapala and Guadalajara in 1920 proved a costly failure, closing down in 1926, the expansion in truck lines along the road between the two cities pointed toward the eventual end of the canoa de rancho… although, as can be seen here, at least one enterprising canoa owner managed to haul a truck on his vessel:

 

Source: Minute 7:13 of Martín Sánchez’s youtube video, “Ferrocarril Chapala-Guadalajara, la historia de un fracaso” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8fLHmTZrN0

 

The Mexico (City)-Guadalajara highway was completed in the 1930s, passing relatively close to the lake, and a number of offshoot roads were developed along the lake’s shores. Highways opened faster terrestrial routes for transport. There were still a large number of canoas de rancho on the lake—I count at least ten sailing canoas, many of them canoas de rancho, in the photo below of 1942 Navy Day celebrations in Chapala—but they faced stiff competition from much faster land transport. Angulo Sepulveda notes that some boatbuilders modified some canoas de rancho to accept motors, but this change was too little, too late. As late as the 1950s, you can still find references in newspapers to canoas de rancho being used for cargo hauling, but they largely disappeared by that decade. The smaller fishing canoas persisted for much longer—despite serious problems with overuse of the lake’s water, which turned into an acute crisis in the 1950s when water levels dropped precipitously, as can be seen below—but by the present the old canoas have been mostly replaced by fiberglass vessels of the panga type. Only a small number of fishing canoas seem to still exist, whether still in use on the lake or having been turned into monuments.

 

Navy Day celebrations in Chapala in 1942. Source: https://www.mexicoenfotos.com/MX16520378910167 

 

Fishing canoa on the dried lake shore. Source: https://www.informador.mx/jalisco/Lluvias-en-ZMG-Cuando-Chapala-estuvo-a-punto-de-secarse--20220812-0061.html

 

The canoa de rancho I’m modeling, then, is of a disappeared type. No examples appear to have survived to the present, unless there’s an old rotting hull tucked away somewhere on the lake's drying shore.

 

Next, I’ll be taking a look at the hull design and construction of a canoa de rancho.

 

 

Sources (besides those mentioned above):

On the failure of the Chapala railway, see: Javier Medina Loera, “El ferrocarril a Chapala: historia de un fracaso” (2013): https://javiermedinaloera.com/reportajesyentrevistas/?p=95

 

On the impact of the Ocotlán railway on the lake’s haciendas: Mónica Solórzano Gil and Gabriel Michel Estrada, “Configuración del territorio de la ribera de Chapalaa partir del ferrocarril…”: https://patrimonica.wordpress.com/2018/10/23/configuracion-del-territorio-de-la-ribera-de-chapala-a-partir-del-ferrocarril-los-sistemas-de-transporte-multimodal-y-las-haciendas-a-principios-del-siglo-xx/

 

On changes in the wetlands around Chapala: Pedro Damián Loeza Lara, Rubén Darío Ramírez Sánchez, and Mario Alberto Reyes Téllez, “La Ciénaga de Chapala, Michoacán: cambios y permanencies en la construcción regional,” Relaciones. Estudios de historia y sociedad 36, 142 (June 2015): https://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?pid=S0185-39292015000200237&script=sci_arttext

 

Similarly, see: Philippus Wester, “Capturing the Waters: The Hydraulic Mission in the Lerma-Chapala Basin, Mexico (1876-1976),” Water History 1 (2009): https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12685-009-0002-7

 

On the drying of the lake, see: Karl M. Helbig, “El Lago de Chapala y su desecamiento,” Boletín del Archivo Histórico del Agua 24 (2003): https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=3217245

 

On the recollections of an old fisherman about the 1940s, see: Gabriel Chávez Rameño, “Crónicas de un Pescador”: http://semanariolaguna.com/6000/

 

[gsdpic]

Fascinating history lesson.  I'll follow along to see your canoa come to life.

[ccoyle]

I have actually crossed the River Lerma numerous times on the way in and out of Temascalcingo.

[JacquesCousteau]

Thanks, Gary! A word of warning: it's going to be a bit of a slow journey with false starts and errors driven by my inexperience (I just scrapped my second attempt at drawing plans) but I promise there will eventually be a boat!

 

Chris, that's very cool! My understanding is that the river used to be a bit higher than it currently is. Waterfalls blocked Chapala vessels from making it too far up the Lerma, but the river has its own history of barges (similar to the early, cargo-hauling trajineras) and dugouts.

 

Sorry for another post that doesn't feature any building (except a tiny paper proof-of-concept), but I'm really trying to understand as much as I can about these vessels from the start. Not just what they looked like, but also how they operated, which can be useful for figuring out things that are poorly-documented or confusing in photos.

 

Hull Design, Construction, and Sailing Qualities

 

José María Angulo Sepulveda, in La navegación de antaño en el Lago de Chapala, discusses how canoas de rancho were built by local shipwrights drawing on their own traditions. After the customer decided on dimensions and agreed on a price, the shipwright and his team—usually around 15 people, three or four of them specialist artisans—would get to work. One expert would head into the mountains to find mesquite trees, cutting the frames from curved parts of the tree, while the head builder would travel into the Tigre mountains to the south of the lake to buy pine boards for the planking an other pieces, which were brought to the lake by mule and then shipped to the shipyard by canoa. A typical canoa de rancho took about three months of work for the team to build. After constructing the hull, it would be flipped over and caulked with a mixture of tar, beef tallow, and cotton tow (pages 48-49).

 

I’m going to focus for now on major hull features that are important for coming up with the overall design, and will leave smaller details (interior decking, the helmsman’s platform, etc) to be discussed in the actual build log when they come up.

 

As you can tell from previous posts, there’s some variety in hull shape among canoas de rancho, but also similarities. All are flat-bottomed, with masts stepped at about amidships. They have flat transoms and boxy sterns, as well as sharp bows. Ramón Rubín, in La canoa perdida, describes them in the following terms: “contrasting with an elevated and elegant prow laid out with grace, they boast an oblong and unattractive stern” (123). They also usually have wide cap rails that often join at the bow to form a platform, and always have crossbeams that extend through the hull from amidships forward. Where they differ, slightly, is generally in the degree to which the prow curves up or lies relatively flat, the angle of the transom (generally close to vertical, but some are angled out a bit), the angle of the stem (some are very sharply angled, others a bit less), and to some degree the angle of the sides, although these are generally much closer to vertical than on, say, a dory.

 

The photo below is interesting in that it condenses a number of hull variations in a single image. The vessel on shore that the man is sitting on looks to be a small, deep fishing canoa that seems to follow traditional building techniques, in contrast to the more European/American-style rowboat to his left on the shore. Hauled up on the beach are a number of sailing canoas (and smaller rowing vessels), which look to largely be small or mid-size, with cloth awnings rather than the more traditional wooden or thatched ranchos. The canoa on the left is small and very boxy, with nearly vertical sides and a sharply-pointed bow. Just to its right is a rather larger canoa that looks a bit less boxy for its proportions. The sailing canoa in the middle is harder to see behind a small white vessel, but looks to be similar or perhaps slightly boxier. Finally, in the right background is what looks to be a long and low canoa with a great deal of rocker at the bow, such that the bow is lifted out of the water. The design of this boat look to me closer to some of the finer-lined fishing canoas (of which it may well be a large example).

 

Source: https://www.mexicoenfotos.com/antiguas/jalisco/chapala/lago-de-chapala-MX14271628900031/6

 

The flat bottom, and what looks to me to be a bit but not much rocker (especially toward the bow), is most visible in this photo of shipwrights caulking a rather boxy canoa. (I'm using the word "boxy" a lot, huh?) Besides providing a good look at the supports used on the stern half to support the cap rail, and at the rudder mount, the photo also makes it clear that the canoa de rancho lacked any sort of keel, skeg, or centerboard.

 

Source: https://mediateca.inah.gob.mx/islandora_74/islandora/object/fotografia%3A139636

 

This brings me to the canoa de rancho’s sailing qualities. The flat bottom was undoubtedly useful for navigating in shallow waters and for loading and offloading cargo at small ports with minimal infrastructure—as seen above, it was common to simply haul the canoas up to the beach. The flat bottom also simplified construction. Evidently, they relied on nothing more than their hard chines (and I guess their large rudders) to impede leeward drift. This perhaps worked to some extent, as there are plenty of photos of canoas de rancho sailing with a quartering or beam wind. But written sources confirm that they were generally unspectacular sailors and were often helpless in the face of an unfavorable wind. Eduardo A. Gibbon, for example, recorded being unable to make his hoped-for visit to Mezcala Island due to the wind being in the wrong direction. Moreover, his canoa then had trouble returning to harbor in the face of a storm, eventually relying on oars to advance slowly toward safety, with the crew simply jumping out to push the boat once they reached shallow enough water. Gibbon and Rubín both also describe the vessels as having heavy, hard-to-manage rudders (Rubín describes it as “monstruous” and “hunchback[ed]”, pg. 123). This was likely due to the lack of any sort of keel or skeg leaving the vessels with very limited directional stability (although of course the standard dory also lacks these features and seems to get along just fine under oar with just the lines and chines of the hull to keep it steady).

 

With such a lack of weatherliness, it’s perhaps surprising that canoas de rancho were so prevalent, yet they did in fact dominate lake trade for decades—including regularly hauling perishables across the lake. Interestingly, effectively sailing a canoa de rancho hinged not just on seamanship, but on a keen understanding of weather and wind patterns, so as to plan voyages around favorable winds. Knowing the signs that, for instance, there would be a “mexicano” wind the next day (so named because it blew from the direction of Mexico City) was crucial. Rubín at one point describes a canoa de rancho being poled around the lake shore all night in order to be ready to take advantage of the likely wind the next morning. Such scenes seem very plausible given these vessels’ limited sailing qualities.

 

There are few clear sources on dimensions besides length, but from photos, most vessels seem to have had an overall (not waterline) length-to-beam ratio of something around 4:1, some narrower and some stubbier. (If you’re reading this and think from the photos that it’s a different ratio, I’m all ears! I’m certainly not an expert at judging lines and dimensions from photos). As for the run of the hull lines aft, many vessels seem to have had a fairly wide transom—see the photo from behind near the start of the first post—although some were a bit narrower.

 

The canoa de rancho’s most interesting hull design feature is perhaps its framing. There are plenty of exterior photos, but few that show the frames, which are usually covered by the rancho. The following image shows what seems to be a fairly large canoa de rancho (I estimate its overall beam at about 12 feet or so) hauled up on its side for repairs. Another photo in the same source shows the same vessel in the same position from the bow, and it has a large, jagged hole in the port bow—clearly it’s undergoing some major work. I should note, too, that the photo also provides one of the clearest views of the top-down hull shape, although the angle shortens the boat by quite a bit.

 

Source: Minute 5:52 of youtube video by Martín Sánchez, “January 22, 2020” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHbBKiYs3QU

 

 

This is very interesting! As you can see, the frames don’t run across the vessel to both sides, but are more like staggered half-frames, with some sort of brace or cleat also running across the bottom as well. It’s actually kind of similar to the frames on the dory model I built, only on the dory, the half frames are attached to each other to make staggered full frames.

 

While there are few other photos of canoa de rancho frames, more photos exist of the interior of the smaller fishing canoas and show a very similar construction.

 

(This image is actually of a vessel from Lake Atotonilco, a smaller lake a few miles from Chapala, but it follows the same design as Chapala’s boats)

Source: https://mapio.net/pic/p-33141234/

 

There are also some that show more regular, symmetrical framing as well, using straight pieces of wood joined together at an angle instead of naturally curved pieces. (Which goes against claims by Terry and English that Lake Chapala's locals were staunchly tradition-bound.) The photo below illustrates a more traditional construction, at right, and a more modern construction, at left.

 

Source: Facebook post by Martin Sanchez Manzo, 6 July 2019 (based on the other photos in the post, I believe the above comes from one of the sections of José María Angulo Sepulveda’s La navegación de antaño that I don’t have access to.) https://www.facebook.com/martin.sanchez.942145/posts/pfbid027RvcXMTFRqk2t83hWqX3pkwkyGjYFzxjFTd44XKzx65W9LsoGR4gqgoxMrPaYTKcl

 

Many photos, whether of canoas or canoas de rancho, show widely- or irregularly-spaced frames that curve oddly along the sides or are otherwise not vertical, as seen with one frame in the photo above and in the photos below.

 

Source: https://mediateca.inah.gob.mx/islandora_74/islandora/object/fotografia%3A139127

 

Note the curved frames in the aft half of the vessel closest to the camera. Source: https://mediateca.inah.gob.mx/islandora_74/islandora/object/fotografia%3A140967

 

What this suggests to me is that, rather than planking the sides around the frame, the sides were likely bent first around a mold. The frames, at times rather roughly-cut or oddly-shaped depending on what could be found, were then attached afterward, at times having to be placed at odd angles to fit.

 

Another important thing to note is that the pronounced upward curve at the bow on so many of these vessels came less from curving the strakes upward (although they did curve up a bit following the rocker), or from cutting strakes that were wider at the bow, but from simply adding extra planks cut in a triangular shape at the bow above the uppermost full strake, as can be seen here (this is the bow-on photo of the large canoa de rancho undergoing repairs).

 

Source: Minute 0:34 of youtube video by Martín Sánchez, “January 22, 2020” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHbBKiYs3QU

 

Between the nearly vertical sides and this detail, I believe that most canoas de rancho were designed to be planked with readily-available straight boards rather than anything cut into a more complex shape. As long as there is appropriate rocker to follow the plank’s slight curve upward, a straight board can be used.

 

To test this theory—I’m not an expert at all and often need to work things out physically to make sure I understand them—I made a simple model from index cards, drawing parallel lines to represent strakes made of straight boards and bending them to follow the shape of the bottom, with scrap balsa spacers added to maintain the shape. As a model, it’s poorly-made and out of proportion, but as a proof-of-concept, it did convince me that it was possible to build a canoa with straight planks.

 

 

This should be enough to start designing the hull (although, as will be seen, I did run into a few issues with that). Next, I’ll discuss the rigging. And, if you're still with me, sorry again for the many huge contextual posts!

 

Edited July 26, 2023 by JacquesCousteau
Corrected photo issue

[Roger Pellett]

The shape of hulls built without closely spaced pre-erected frames is determined by the bending characteristics of the planking.  Without going into the math, this shape is governed  by what’s called a cubic function.  A flexible wooden strip called a spline bent around brads tacked into a sheet of plywood or held down with weights will produce this shape.  This shape shape would occur with  boats built without drawings by Mexican boat builders.

 

Roger

[JacquesCousteau]

2 hours ago, Roger Pellett said:

The shape of hulls built without closely spaced pre-erected frames is determined by the bending characteristics of the planking.  Without going into the math, this shape is governed  by what’s called a cubic function.  A flexible wooden strip called a spline bent around brads tacked into a sheet of plywood or held down with weights will produce this shape.  This shape shape would occur with  boats built without drawings by Mexican boat builders.

 

Roger

Thanks, Roger, that's very helpful! I came to the realization when trying to draft plans that french curves just don't cut it for this, I need to use a spline to get it right.

[JacquesCousteau]

Hull Design

 

So, a change of plans is in order. I'll discuss the rigging, which is fascinatingly bare-bones, in the future. Instead, I'd like to talk about my attempts to plan out the hull shape and build. Once again it's a long post--there's a lot of prep work that goes into a scratch build!--but at least this one actually involves building things and drafting. In the process of drafting plans, I've made a lot of mistakes on this, and surely will make more, but maybe including them in the log will help others avoid similar errors. 

 

Among the errors: I now have a model hull! But not the one I set out to make. Hmmmm. I'll explain the errant model and its odd paint splotch below. Clearly I have no idea what I'm doing.... but I'm learning, and that's part of the fun!

 

As mentioned earlier, I'm planning on modeling a small canoa de rancho that could be used for fishing and cargo hauling. The following vessel is in the right size range (as are some of those I posted earlier).

Source: https://mediateca.inah.gob.mx/islandora_74/islandora/object/fotografia%3A139788

 

I have no real experience with using drawing programs, so I decided to plan things out by hand. I began drafting plans for what would be a 32-ft (overall length) canoa de rancho, using grid paper, pencil, ruler, and French curves. As Roger noted, you really need a spline or a batten for this, but at the time I didn't know that, which led to some issues.

 

Drawing the plans really gave me a sense of how much larger this would be than the dory--the extra 2 inches of overall length really translates into a much larger vessel.

 

I immediately ran into the problem that I wasn't really sure what length-to-beam ratio would be best, as there appears to be some variation in the photos. My first attempt of a top-down drawing was much too beamy. Moreover, I realized that it was going to be tricky to figure out just from a top-down outline of the cap rails what size the bottom would actually be, because the rails are not evenly high--as noted earlier, the bow can be angled up substantially higher, so the distance from bottom to rail changes across the hull. (Pretty obvious in hindsight, but this was my first attempt to draft plans so I made a lot of errors like this.)

 

So I decided to start with a side view, as I can base it on existing side view photos and from there I can pretty easily extend lines and points upward to accurately plot them in the top-down view. After which the top-down view can be used to work out the cross-sections. This seemed to work much better. That said, I had some trouble accurately drawing the rocker with the french curve (I should have just used a batten), but this wasn't going to have much impact on the top-down view so I wasn't worried about it.

BUT, when it came to drawing the top-down view, I encountered a problem. As mentioned earlier, canoas seem to have had a pretty consistent angle to their sides. In other words, all cross-sections would have the same angle to the sides. This is easy enough to plot out on the top-down plans: just use the grid lines and a ruler to measure a consistent distance out from the outline of the bottom perpendicular to the center line. The only thing to remember with this is that the fore half becomes progressively higher as it reaches the bow owing to the angled extra planks placed there. But it's easy enough to deal with that: the method above of measuring out a consistent distance from the bottom shows the line of the uppermost full plank, then if you know the proportions of heights between the full side planking and the maximum (at prow) height of the additional fore planking, you can mark where the tip of the full planking at the bow and extend proportionally forwards to get the actual full length, then draw an appropriate curve back from there to the point where the fore upper planking begins. That will give you a top-down view of the top of the sides, from which you can use simple right triangles to find the height of cross-sections of the bow.

 

The problem is that, with the moderate angle for the sides that I chose--which is accurate for most canoas and necessary if it's to be planked with straight boards--the line for the top of the upper full strakes did not naturally extend nearly as far forward as I had drawn it in the side view. I could simply draw it farther forward, but this would mean the bow cross-sections would take on a progressively different angle for the sides, making things difficult to plan out.

 

Stuck, I decided to once again make a small model as a sort of proof-of-concept to work out how the bow would work. I could also use it to test out a hull shape for the bottom, something that I was also indecisive about. Unlike the paper model, I would make it from wood, using 1/16th inch basswood for the bottom, transom, and bulkheads/molds, and coffee stir sticks for the sides so that I didn't have to spend time cutting perfectly parallel planks from basswood. I didn't plan it out, as I just wanted something simple and quick. I cut out a one-piece bottom and made a transom, a bulkhead for the widest point, and a fore bulkhead (twice the height of the others as I wasn't sure how high the fore upper planking would reach). I gave the bottom some rocker with the method used for the dory (soak one side, prop up both ends, place a weight in the middle, and let dry), used angled supports to attach the transom at an appropriate angle, and used further supports to make the central and fore bulkheads vertical despite the rocker. I also decided to use this to try the method of building around bulkheads and possibly adding the framing afterward, although I only thought to do this after having already glued the bulkheads to the bottom (as I originally just wanted something quick to test out the hull shape).

Then I began with planking. The curves weren't too sharp, and I wanted to get this together quickly as a proof of concept, so I didn't bother with soaking. After the garboard plank, I realized that I needed a stem, too, in order to make sure the bow actually pointed out forward and modeled what I was trying to test out, so I retrofitted a simple one. I built it very quickly and without much care. The bow was a bit of a mess, one of the coffee stir sticks had been used for mixing paint and was discolored, two stir sticks were of a slightly different size and wood than the others, the fore upper planks were just single pieces of scrap 3/64th inch wood instead of multiple planks, there were a number of gaps between planks, and the bow got pretty stained from super glue. Without worrying about how it looked, I put it together in a single afternoon (except for one upper fore plank) and took few photos--after all, the point wasn't the model itself, but rather to use it to figure out how to build the actual model.

I'll discuss the lessons learned below, but first wanted to mention: because I built this so quickly and with so little care, I was very pleasantly surprised that I think it turned out to be a pretty credible little model! At 1:48 scale it comes out to a 24 foot-long bottom and about 28 feet long overall--maybe not quite large enough for the rancho that makes for a true canoa de rancho, but something at the larger end of the fishing canoas. The hull form is similar to some of the small, boxy canoas that can be seen in photos hauled up on beaches, above, or maybe the following:

Photo from DeGolyer Library, Southern Methodist University: https://digitalcollections.smu.edu/digital/collection/mex/id/2305/rec/4  The image is very high-res on the site, quite interesting!

There are a few issues as a model, besides those mentioned above. The wood is too thick for scale, the stem is too thick and would have to be trimmed or removed and replaced with internal braces on the sides, and the bulkheads would have to be cut out (thankfully they're only glued on the bottom), as would the angled support at the transom. The rocker somehow ended up inconsistent across the beam at the stern, which is a little twisted. Also, given that the hull shape was created with french curves rather than a batten, the curves turned out a bit off and I think the side looks like it juts out a little sharply amidships instead of taking a smooth curve. It's also on the beamy side of things.

 

Despite these issues, I think it turned out decently and with a bit of sanding, painting, and adding the frames, cap rail (which is wide enough to help with the curve issue), stern thwart, rudder, mast and rigging, etc., it could actually be a decent 1:48 model of a rather roughly-built and well-worn working vessel. My main plan is still to make a 1:32-scale canoa de rancho, but I might work on this smaller model alongside it. I'm not sure if it should get its own build log though--it would repeat a lot of what's in the larger model's log--or if it's ok to just keep dealing with it here as a sub project that occasionally pops up. Somehow I think retitling the post to include two separate models of separate vessels of the same type at different scales would go against standard title format...

 

In any case, I learned a lot from the proof of concept that will be useful for the 1:32 Canoa de Rancho. Most importantly, on the bow: ultimately, the angle of the sides did end up changing a little between the prow and the fore bulkhead, but this was pretty minimal and I thought I didn't need to do much here when it comes to building the larger model, I could just let the wood take the form it will between the foremost bulkhead and the prow as long as the bulkhead isn't right up at the prow. I did decide to go with a slightly less extreme prow rake than on my original design, which will also be a bit more typical--only a few photographs of canoas de rancho show the sharply inclined prow my original plans depicted.

 

A few other points I learned: I had felt that the bottom looked unbalanced as the widest point was too far forward. That ended up working ok as the sides extended forward and the widest point ended up being just about in the middle of the boat, but the sides did naturally curve out a little bit aft of the middle bulkhead. Clearly in the future I needed to do better at planning the hull curves. I realized that I would need a better method of holding the bulkheads in place without gluing them to the bottom--I think I can just attach them to each other with enough supports that they will stay in place with minimal or no gluing to the hull. I also realized that I would need more bulkheads for the larger model. There was a large open space between the transom and the center bulkhead, and although the curve there was extremely gentle, it ended up being a bit tricky to hold things in place without bulkhead. I would need to be better about clamping to press the planks together, as there were some gaps. Finally I'd need to be careful to make sure there's no hull twisting, as a little did occur at the stern on the small model.

So, armed with these discoveries, and a newfound appreciation for the importance of planning with a spline, I returned to the plans. I decided to start over rather than attempt to rescue the existing plans, this time using a spline for the curves from the start.

 

Once again I started with a side view, but this time I began by marking out the bottom and its rocker with the spline. Then, after deciding on the height of the sides, I marked the prow and transom lines and added the line of the uppermost strake of planking. Next I added the raised bow. Having noticed that most canoas had an overhang at the bow continuing on from the cap rails, I planned the hull itself to be a little short, then extended the overhang to the correct planned length. Then, I extended the lines for the tip of the bottom, uppermost strake, and bow upwards to plot out the top-down view. I decided I liked the look of a narrower hull, which appears in some photos of canoas de rancho. To get the hull lines, I marked a line for the maximum width of the bottom and at the top of the uppermost strake, and bent the spline from the correct points at the prow and transom to touch the width lines. I also added some details (not necessarily accurate to what I'll build) to the side view to get a sense of what it would look like when complete.

A note on using the spline (a strip of thin balsa): I didn't have any surface to push pins into, so instead I used heavy objects to hold it in place while I drew. This worked ok, although some objects slid too easily. I eventually found that plastic cups of water slid less than those made of glass. (I spent the whole time worried about spills, though.)

 

Before drawing the bulkheads/molds (if I understand correctly, the former stay in the boat and the latter are to be removed?), I did some fine tuning. I narrowed the transom a bit as I liked how it looked better that way, and because I found that I had misjudged the size of the transom in a photo I was using as a model due to shadows. Much nicer lines aft!

 

I also realized that the spline's curve was naturally pushing the widest point of the hull too far back. After careful study of photos, I determined that the mast can be stepped (and the first crossbeam placed) a little forward of the widest point, but only a little. So I moved the mast back a little bit (which required changing the rancho a little) and adjusted the spline so the widest point ended up just behind the mast, because the curve became too extreme and unnatural if it was actually amidships. I will have to be careful during planking to make sure the planks don't flex out too far aft. I also adjusted the depth a bit before going back to what I had, which looked better.

 

As can be seen, the new hull plan (right) looked much better and more natural than the old hull plan (left), and I am happy I learned how to use the spline.

 

Finally, it was time for the bulkheads/molds. Once I decided where they would be, it was easy enough in theory to figure out their dimensions. The vertical height is measured on the side view, and the top and bottom widths from the top view. Then it's just a matter of making sure it's even. But, I made a lot of errors, some due to simple carelessness (measuring the wrong bulkhead), and some due to mathematical mistakes in dividing weird fractions (simple math but I've never claimed to be good with numbers). I also realized that, while I was taking into account the width of the bottom and the cap rail, I hadn't done so with the width of the sides. I kept the bottom as it was, but subtracted 1/16th inch from each bulkhead at the top. This also made the sides slightly more vertical, which was good--they were a bit more angled out than I had wanted.

 

I should note that I'll be tracing the outlines to another sheet to cut out templates. I also will only cut out half of each bulkhead and will simply flip it around a center line to make sure they're symmetrical, as I'll also do for the bottom. (Hence why I only bothered drawing one half of the bottom.)

 

So, here's where things now stand. It took a lot of work, and a lot of erasing, but I have plans! Also a very clunky little separate model.

 

Next will be the exciting work of cutting pieces from a basswood sheet.

 

Edited July 27, 2023 by JacquesCousteau
Added missing photos

[Paul Le Wol]

Hi Jacques, this is a very interesting project that you have started. Last November OldSaltf started a topic called “Contemporary Fishing Vessels “. During the discussion links were provided to plans of boats used in different parts of the world. There may be something there that will be helpful to you. Good luck with your build 

[JacquesCousteau]

29 minutes ago, Paul Le Wol said:

Hi Jacques, this is a very interesting project that you have started. Last November OldSaltf started a topic called “Contemporary Fishing Vessels “. During the discussion links were provided to plans of boats used in different parts of the world. There may be something there that will be helpful to you. Good luck with your build 

Thanks Paul! The resources posted there are great, and I spent a while looking over the FAO plans. I had considered modeling one, an Antiguan fishing sloop (if I remember correctly), but ultimately decided I wanted to go with a Mexican boat, although the FAO plans didn't have much for Mexico. I might eventually go for the Antiguan sloop though.

[wefalck]

Learning about another piece of local nautical history - I don't mind these accounts of research at all. In fact, I think this is a very laudable undertaking 👍.

 It deserves to written up properly somehow. It could go eventually into the Journal of Nautical Archeology, I think. You should at at least make a PDF from it  (an for your other Mexican boat as well)! 

 

I would be quite curious about the design history of these boats and where possible influences came from. Flat bottomed-designs are quite frequent all over Europe, but this combination of flat, broad transom and rather more elegant bow, probably has some (forgotten) functional reason. For instance, net-fishing over the stern would require a reasonably stable platform and sufficient buoyancy. The high bows could help parting the reeds in the swampy areas ... Given that the main colonial influences would probably be Iberian, the origin of Spanish who came to the region of the lake could be interesting, as they may have brought with them local building traditions. For instance, I am currently just at the edge of a major flat-bottom boat area in Spain, the Albufera lagoon south of Valencia. However, the boats here are virtually all double-ended and have no flat transom. One may need to look around a bit in Spain, but literature on such local craft is equally scarce. 

 

One would need some more photographs (if available) on how the thatching was done, but British railway modellers may have some ideas for its representation, as they often depict thatched cottages on their layouts. Some approaches may be more approximatives, but other are more detailed. At 1:32, one could almost go for the real thing.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 30, 2023 by wefalck

[JacquesCousteau]

10 hours ago, wefalck said:

Learning about another piece of local nautical history - I don't mind these accounts of research at all. In fact, I think this is a very laudable undertaking 👍.

 It deserves to written up properly somehow. It could go eventually into the Journal of Nautical Archeology, I think. You should at at least make a PDF from it  (an for your other Mexican boat as well)! 

 

I would be quite curious about the design history of these boats and where possible influences came from. Flat bottomed-designs are quite frequent all over Europe, but this combination of flat, broad transom and rather more elegant bow, probably has some (forgotten) functional reason. For instance, net-fishing over the stern would require a reasonably stable platform and sufficient buoyancy. The high bows could help parting the reeds in the swampy areas ... Given that the main colonial influences would probably be Iberian, the origin of Spanish who came to the region of the lake could be interesting, as they may have brought with them local building traditions. For instance, I am currently just at the edge of a major flat-bottom boat area in Spain, the Albufera lagoon south of Valencia. However, the boats here are virtually all double-ended and have no flat transom. One may need to look around a bit in Spain, but literature on such local craft is equally scarce. 

 

One would need some more photographs (if available) on how the thatching was done, but British railway modellers may have some ideas for its representation, as they often depict thatched cottages on their layouts. Some approaches may be more approximatives, but other are more detailed. At 1:32, one could almost go for the real thing.

 

 

 

 

Thanks, that's very kind of you to say! I really enjoy the historical research aspect of the build, and I'm glad to hear that people find it interesting. There's still a lot more research that could be done, of course, but in my experience that's pretty much always the case and you have to start writing somewhere or else you'll never start.

 

I'd definitely be interested in figuring out more about the history of how these boats developed, especially because they seem very unique to Lake Chapala. Lake Pátzcuaro, another major (though smaller) lake in the central-west highlands about a hundred miles away, doesn't seem to have anything similar. (INAH's Mediateca site has two photos of Chapala-style canoas that it labels as being at Pátzcuaro, but absent other evidence, and given that I've seen some errors in the Mediateca's labeling, I think it's just a mistaken label). Instead Pátzcuaro's fishing industry seems to have traditionally used dugouts, often with so-called "butterfly-wing" nets, as in the following image fron 1962 (source: https://mediateca.inah.gob.mx/islandora_74/islandora/object/fotografia%3A481560)

 

Interesting, but quite different from Lake Chapala's canoas!

 

I'd have to do more research to figure out possible routes for the transmission of boatbuilding techniques, as it's clear that the plank-building method is European in origin but adapted to local conditions. I think the matter is also a bit confused in many early accounts. Eduardo Gibbon claims that the inhabitants were indigenous, connecting their fierce defense of Mezcala Island during the independence war with their ancestors' own resistance against the Spanish. In contrast, I read somewhere that the early American anthropologist Fredrick Starr believed, on the basis of festival dances/performances, that the lakeshore population was entirely Spanish in origin. More recent scholarship, such as works mentioned above on the Mezcala Island campaign, highlight that many of the insurgents and towns around the lake were identified as Indian, but this was a legal category that doesn't say much about place of origin. The population undoubtedly had a mix of ancestries and cultural traditions. I'd have to do more research to figure out where Spanish colonizers in the region came from. Also, I'd have to check how widespread African slavery was in that region, at least early in the colonial period, as that could be another source of influence. Not to mention North African/Arabic maritime design traditions, which shaped Spanish designs to some extent and knowledge of and skills from which may have also been brought across the Atlantic early on. Really, I need to just do more research on local boat-building in the colonial era--what little I've seen has focused more on 18th century shipbuilding that followed European designs.

 

And of course, this is all made more difficult by the uncertainty around when they started building canoas de rancho. At the moment, my main evidence that they existed in the colonial era is a rather tenuous supposition that the larger, cannon-armed insurgent vessels in the Mezcala campaign must have been something larger and more stable than a dugout canoe. But the clearest evidence I have for their existence dates to the 1880s and onward.

 

In any case, I'm not an expert in historical Spanish vessels, but off the top of my head I don't know of any vessels in Spain that look quite the same. You're right that the Valencian vessels sound different. I think Galicia also has some flat-bottomed fishing boats, like the gamela, but they also are quite distinct. Not to mention that any Spanish ancestor would probably be quite old itself, and may well have developed into something quite different by the 1800s-present. The rigging, which I still need to post about, seems very different to me from typical European practice, suggesting some pretty serious changes along the line that may well apply to the hull form as well.

 

Given that they were called canoas, like the trajinera and its ancestors, I wonder of they started out as very similar vessels. Flat-bottomed with vertical sides. Sails would have been a useful addition on the lake, unlike on the canals around Mexico City. When they added sails, maybe the boats gained a sharp bow to improve sailing qualities and a more vertical transom for the rudder? At the moment that's my best guess, but it's only a guess. In my admittedly limited research, I haven't seen anything detailing the lake's boats in the colonial era, just various mentions that the locals fished extensively from canoas. The wide transom would definitely be useful for net-handling, especially as the rudder and sails wouldn't be in use during fishing (they would row or pole instead), based on photos I've seen of fishing.

 

That's a great idea on the thatching! I'll definitely check out train model resources on that. I'll also need to check the photos I have to see what I can find.

 

I'm traveling, so no work on the canoa this week. But I'll try to do a couple posts, one on the rigging and sail, and a brief one on the work I did before traveling (building the bottom).

Edited July 30, 2023 by JacquesCousteau
Added/clarified a bit

[JacquesCousteau]

Like I mentioned at the end of my previous post, I've started work on the hull! Just a little, but it's something, and I thought I'd make a short post while I'm traveling.

First, though, some bad news. It looks like the Model Shipways Muscongus Bay Lobster Smack that I ordered on ebay isn't going to arrive. Thankfully I should be able get a refund, but I'll have to try again to order it when I'm back in the US, as I really think it would be a very useful model for learning planking and rigging skills. (It looks great, too, and isn't too large.) This means the canoa de rancho will be receiving my undivided attention (besides work, errands, life, etc).

Back to the canoa de rancho: I traced the half profile of the bottom from the top-down plan onto 1/16th inch thick basswood, flipped it over to trace the full bottom, and carefully cut it out. I should note that the paper was very thin and trying to directly trace it didn't work very well because it was too flimsy, so I ended up marking it with little hash marks starting on the paper and extending onto the wood--this way the paper profile didn't bend in. I made sure to cut it a little overssize to sand it down to the line, and repeatedly checked fit against the plans. I also used a square to mark the lines that the molds will follow.

 

Then, following the method in the dory build of moistening the bottom side and setting the ends on scrap supports, I bent the rocker into the bottom.

 

After doing this, I realized I had made a mistake in my haste. The real bottom was made of planks. What was I doing with a one-piece bottom? On one hand, there will be decking inside the hull, and the hull will be painted, so the only way the bottom will be visible is really if someone picks it up. On the other hand, I'll know that it's wrong, which will bug me a bit. I considered making a brand new bottom, as I had already put rocker on it, but decided to try to cut what I had into planking strips.

I traced the bottom onto basswood so I could make a new one of I really screwed up, then marked the plank locations. In hindsight, I should have drawn these on paper ahead of time, because my first attempt looked much too wide. After some trial and error--thank goodness the bottom will be covered!--I settled on what would be 8 inch wide planks as looking about right.

Cutting the botton into planks was trickier than I expected. I think that, because the rocker was pushing up a bit on my ruler, my straightedge seemed much more slippery than usual. A couple cuts slipped a little near the ends. If it were anywhere other than on the bottom of the hull, I would redo it, but as it won't really be visible, I decided I could live with it. It's funny what we can consider acceptable and not: having a well-shaped one piece bottom was unacceptable to me because it was inaccurate, but I had no compunction with accepting a multi-piece bottom with a couple wavy planks, because it isn't really visible anyway.

I first glued the left three, middle three, and right three planks together, let them set a bit, then glued those three larger pieces together. I was worried that the rocker would make things difficult, but they came together well. I didn't really have any clamps that could push the pieces together sideways, so I settled for using scrap wood clamped across the width and using my fingers to push the planks together, leaving the clamp pressure to hold things in position.

 

 

After leaving it to cure a bit more, I decided to re-do the rocker, as it had lost a lot of it in all the cutting and gluing. I made sure to add extra smaller spaces under the ends of the planks at the sides that don't run the full length, so that they wouldn't be tempted to pop down and not follow the rocker. I am hoping that, as the glue technically still had time to cure when I set it, the glue fully cures in the curved shape and helps the bottom keep its rocker. I'm also leaving it clamped for the week while I travel, which should also help a bit.

 

Next up in the build, stem and transom, the molds/bulkheads, preparing a strongback, and planning out the frame locations. But while I'm traveling and unable to build, I will try to post my long-promised explanation of the rigging.

[JacquesCousteau]

Sail, Mast, and Rigging

 

Finally, the explanation of the sail, mast, and rigging that I keep saying I’ll post.

 

Both the canoa de rancho and the smaller fishing canoa shared a basic design for the sail and rigging. Although the sail looks like a square sail in some photos, it’s closer to a variation on a dipping lug, as far as I can tell. The sail is always asymmetrical, never fully square, and even in photos where it looks close to a square sail and seems to be being used as one, careful attention shows that the yard almost always isn’t centered but is longer on one side than the other.

 

Source: https://mediateca.inah.gob.mx/islandora_74/islandora/object/fotografia%3A140962

 

The mast is stepped amidship. I’m not sure what the mast step itself looked like, as I haven’t found any photos of that, but it was almost always braced against the aft side of the amidship crossbeam and held in place with a firm lashing, as is most clearly shown in the photo of a canoa hauling a truck in my second post, above. Other photos are less clear, but in many taken from the side it’s clear that the mast would have to be aft of the crossbeam. Interestingly, this were where the models in the Guadalajara and Ocotlán museums, and the drawings in José María Angulo Sepulveda’s La navegación de antaño, appear to be off. They instead show the mast as being ahead of the crossbeam. My only other evidence for this way of stepping it is a blurry, indistinct photo that may show the mast stepped ahead of a crossbeam, but also might simply show an ordinary thwart aft of the mast.

 

It's worth noting that some masts and yards have a rough-hewn look to them--note the yards (held vertically) below. I’m considering whittling (and sanding) them out of sticks, if I can find any that will work.

 

Source: https://mediateca.inah.gob.mx/islandora_74/islandora/object/fotografia%3A431254

 

As for the rigging, the following photo is one of the most useful that I’ve found for details (a high-res version is viewable at the link, albeit with extensive watermarking).

 

 

Source: https://www.mexicoenfotos.com/antiguas/jalisco/chapala/un-velero-panorama-MX14561525002424

 

As can be seen, the standing rigging is extremely limited, consisting of two backstays tied off, port and starboard, at a pair of belaying pins that pass through the outer edge of the cap rail near the stern on each side of the helmsman’s platform. At times, canoas seem to have gotten by with just one of these backstays. The lack of other standing rigging is made clear in this photo (the rope near the mast is the halyard).

 

Source: http://ri.uacj.mx/vufind/Record/94942

 

Only the photo below seems to show forestays, perhaps suggesting an unusual rigging plan or perhaps suggesting a late development. In any case, my model will not have forestays as the vast majority of vessels don’t seem to have had them.

 

Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nullboy/6386212027/in/album-72157628104176801/

 

Some photos show that there are a series of loops—perhaps metal rings?—at the points where the sail is lashed to the yard. I’m not really sure what to make of this. They might just be knots? I don’t think that they’re points to attach the halyard, which would allow the yard to be shifted around, as the halyard seems to be just tied directly to the yard. Feel free to share your thoughts! I have very little sailing experience or model building experience, so there’s a lot I don’t know.

 

Source: https://www.mexicoenfotos.com/antiguas/jalisco/chapala/un-velero-panorama-MX14561525002424

 

The running rigging is also quite simple, consisting in its entirety of two sheets and a halyard. No braces, no lifts.

 

First, the halyard. The diagram in Angulo Sepulveda’s La navegación de antaño shows the halyard running through a single block that’s tied around the top of the mast. However, many photos clearly show the halyard running through a hole at the top of the mast. This is very clearly shown in the detail in the photo below (which also shows that the stays were tied around the mast itself at a sort of notch). It’s unclear to me if the hole in the mast actually contains a pulley wheel, or if the halyard simply slides across the wood itself.

 

Source: The DeGolyer Library, Southern Methodist University: https://digitalcollections.smu.edu/digital/collection/mex/id/2308/rec/26

 

I have not been able to figure out where the halyard was tied off. All I can really say is that it doesn’t seem to have been a consistent location, and it was usually somewhere near the mast itself (but does not seem to have been a cleat on the mast). On some photos it seems to be tied off around the supports for the rancho, although I don’t know how load-bearing these would actually be and it might just be a tie-down location near the rancho. I suppose they could have just tied it off around the crossbeam. Any suggestions would be very much appreciated! The halyard is visible in the photo below as a light-colored rope alongside the mast; here it seems like it might be tied around the crossbeam.

 

Source: https://www.ceajalisco.gob.mx/contenido/chapala/

 

Whereas here (detail from the third photo in this post), it seems like it might be tied off somewhere different. I also don’t really know what to make of the curves in the rope, so if anyone has any idea, I’d love to hear their thoughts.

 

Source: https://www.mexicoenfotos.com/antiguas/jalisco/chapala/un-velero-panorama-MX14561525002424

 

After the sail is raised, it is entirely controlled by the sheets. In order to hold the asymmetrical yard/sail in place, the sheet on the luff (short, usually forward end of the sail—I’m adopting terms used for lugsails although this doesn’t seem to be quite a typical lug) was usually tied down tightly at the desired location, while the sheet for the leech (longer edge of the sail) was run somewhere further back. The angle depended on where the wind was coming from. This can be seen clearly in many of the previous photos, or the images below.

 

Source: https://mediateca.inah.gob.mx/islandora_74/islandora/object/fotografia%3A139792

 

Source: http://chapala.mex.tl/frameset.php?url=/99531_Capitulo-X-Turismo-y-promotores.html

 

I haven’t found any photos of a canoa tacking. As far as I can tell, to change tack, you’d have to reverse the sail/yard, either by using the sheets to pivot it around while it’s raised (which seems difficult in wind) or by lowering it to the deck and flipping it there. I don’t think these were used as standing lugs, as no photos show the sail used at an angle where the wind presses it into the mast. Tacking must have been a pain in the neck, and I have to wonder why they wouldn’t just use an ordinary square sail, even if it wasn’t as weatherly. Between the lack of a keel/centerboard and the complexity of tacking, I suspect that canoas did relatively little sailing to windward. Being able to read the weather and understand wind patterns becomes even more important in effective navigation.

 

I’m a bit uncertain as to where the sheets were tied off, although unlike the halyard, I have more evidence. The canoa de rancho models in the Guadalajara and Ocotlán museums show a series of rings on the cap rails that would serve as tie-down points. However, most photos don’t seem to show such rings, or only have a couple located forward, as in the photo below (near the foot of the guy in the bow).

 

Source: https://www.mexicoenfotos.com/antiguas/jalisco/chapala/cargamento-de-entre-MX14652247742300/5

 

The photo also seems to show a hole in the cap rail aft of the ring, where I suppose the sheet could be tied off. Another photo, below (the middle vessel), seems to show a number of such holes… although they might actually be dowels inserted to hold the cap rails against the cross beams. If you have any thoughts, let me know!

 

Source: https://www.museocjv.com/chapalapostaless.html

 

Another photo, details of which below, seems to show small loops of rope tied through holes in the cap rail, one towards the bow and one amidships. The bow loop (right) may be actually connected to the sail, but the amidships one (left) doesn’t look like it is (actually, the amidship loop might just be a stain on the hull or the photo, hard for me to tell).

 

Source: https://www.mexicoenfotos.com/antiguas/jalisco/chapala/vista-de-chapala-MX16520378910172/1

 

Finally, some photos show the sheets simply held by the crew! This would be exhausting, I imagine, and I’ll have the sheets on my model tied off so it’s neater.

 

Source: https://www.mexicoenfotos.com/antiguas/jalisco/ocotlan/canoa-a-la-deriva-MX14406139835638/1

 

I’ll have to decide exactly how I’m going to tie off the running rigging later. At the moment, I’m thinking of a mix of options for tie-down locations, as I want to model more than I use—maybe a pair of rings forward, a couple holes in the cap rail, and a loop of rope run through one of the holes? But I also have to see if my limited metalworking skills are enough to make an appropriately-colored ring (though in any case I’ll need to make an anchor). It’ll stretch my abilities, but I think it’s worth a shot! I might just tie off the halyard around a crossbeam, although I worry it will look a bit messy.

 

If anybody has any ideas about where to tie off the halyard and sheets, I’d love to hear them! Any advice would be really useful.

Edited August 12, 2023 by JacquesCousteau
Fixed aspect ratio on photo

[wefalck]

On lateen-rigged boats the halyard usually serves also as a back-stay, sometimes the only one. Given the moderate performance expectation of these 'canoas'

 

By the same token, on lateen-rigs the sails are still fixed to the yard using short lashings, not continuous ones as on more 'modern' rigs.

 

On such 'artisanal' boats, belaying points where typical chosen wherever convient at the moment.

[JacquesCousteau]

1 hour ago, wefalck said:

On lateen-rigged boats the halyard usually serves also as a back-stay, sometimes the only one.

Thanks! Interestingly a lot of photos of these do show separate backstays and halyards.

 

1 hour ago, wefalck said:

By the same token, on lateen-rigs the sails are still fixed to the yard using short lashings, not continuous ones as on more 'modern' rigs.

That's good to know, it sounds like this part of the build at least will be good practice for the Catalonian fishing boat I eventually want to build.

 

1 hour ago, wefalck said:

On such 'artisanal' boats, belaying points where typical chosen wherever convient at the moment.

Thanks! Yeah the more I look at it the more I think some lines were just tied off around the crossbeams.

[Roger Pellett]

Many years ago, I built a model of a “Bateau.”  While bateau in French simply means boat, in colonial North America a Bateau was a rowing boat with very specific characteristics; flat bottom, usually no keel, and double ended. Their construction was similar to the craft that you are building.  These boats were essential for hauling things in the roadless areas on the North American Colonies.  The British Army built them in the 1000’s in the 2nd half of the Eighteenth Century.

 

During the 1760’s a number of large Bateaux were used on Lake Erie to supply the settlement at Detroit.  These Bateaux were fitted to sail; probably with a single square sail, like your Canoa de Rancho.  I have long felt that the rigging on my model was too elaborate; especially as these flat bottom keeless boats are not intended to sail upwind.  Your photos are, therefore, interesting as they show boats with square sails controlled only by their sheets.  No braces are shown.

 

Roger

Edited August 4, 2023 by Roger Pellett

[JacquesCousteau]

2 hours ago, Roger Pellett said:

Many years ago, I built a model of a “Bateau.”  While bateau in French simply means boat, in colonial North America a Bateau was a rowing boat with very specific characteristics; flat bottom, usually no keel, and double ended. Their construction was similar to the craft that you are building.  These boats were essential for hauling things in the roadless areas on the North American Colonies.  The British Army built them in the 1000’s in the 2nd half of the Eighteenth Century.

 

During the 1760’s a number of large Bateaux were used on Lake Erie to supply the settlement at Detroit.  These Bateaux were fitted to sail; probably with a single square sail, like your Canoa de Rancho.  I have long felt that the rigging on my model was too elaborate; especially as these flat bottom keeless boats are not intended to sail upwind.  Your photos are, therefore, interesting as they show boats with square sails controlled only by their sheets.  No braces are shown.

 

Roger

Thanks, that is interesting. The American gunboats on Lake Champlain in the War of Independence, like the Philadelphia, were basically upscaled bateaux, right? I have to wonder if the Spanish used similar vessels in their own colonies, and if something like that may have been the origin of the canoa de rancho, which later developed other features like the notably flat transom (which maybe was more useful for fishing?). It's definitely unusual for a sail to be controlled only by sheets, and I checked a lot of photos to make sure I wasn't misinterpreting, but the photos are pretty clear--except all the really blurry ones, that is.

 

It's also odd to me that they seem to almost invariably have something that superficially looks like a lug or lateen sail, but they usually use it like a square sail. I don't know why they wouldn't just use a square sail, which seems like it would be easier to handle at least. Perhaps a legacy from lateen-rigged vessels in the colonial era, but simplified over time.

[Roger Pellett]

Yes, you are exactly right.  Philadelphia and her sisters were large Bateaux.  The Lake Champlain Maritime Museum has built a replica of Philadelphia.  This is an exact duplicate of the original vessel preserved in the Smithsonian Institution, not one modified to haul passengers in accordance with USCG regulations.  The boat was found to be a fast sailer downwind but unmanageable under sail when attempting to point higher.

 

The Spanish Government did build and sail a fleet of boats on the Mississippi River.  I no longer have the book about it, but my recollection is that these were Galleys built to be rowed, with auxiliary square sails used when wind was favorable.  My personal experience though is that people with little or no formal technical education are remarkably good at inventing solutions to everyday problems.  IMHO, our current electronics, or if you prefer “tech” culture has done much to stifle this sort of innovation.  I, therefore, believe that the people who lived along these lakes were quite capable of “designing” and building these craft to meet local conditions.

 

Square vs Lug rig-  Do you think that square sales and lug sails were used on the same boat, or were some boats always square sailed and some always  lug rigged?  If the former is the case, then that is an interesting innovation; different rigs for different conditions.  If the latter, did hull forms for square rigs differ from those for lug rigged?

 

You are really sailing into unknown waters!

 

Roger

[JacquesCousteau]

Thanks Roger, I'll have to check out the Museum if I'm ever around Lake Champlain, and that's interesting to hear about the Mississippi galleys! You're right that these vessels would have been designed by locals in response to local conditions. They seem to have been very successful in their context, no matter what issues with weatherliness we may see looking back from the present.

 

What I was trying to get at is the question of how they originated, because they're very unique to Lake Chapala. Mexican inland vessels elsewhere seem to have invariably been dugouts (traditional) or flat bottomed, rectangular barges (originating in the colonial era). Information about labor drafts (part of tribute requirements for indigenous towns under the colonial system) from Chapala could used to see if any were sent to a Pacific port, where they may have picked up skills in plank-construction shipbuilding, and some undoubtedly made their way to Mexico City and would have seen plank-built vessels in the canals. But, that's all pretty speculative.

 

As far as the rig goes, they all seem to have bern pretty similar, sometimes they just positioned the yard more horizontally and sometimes at more of an angle. Even in the few photos where it looks like more of a square sail, close attention shows that the sail isn't cut square at all. As for hull form, it's hard to tell if variations correspond to any differences in use or rig, I have to wonder if they're simply different build styles between different towns and shipwrights.

 

You're definitely right about sailing into unknown waters! The Acapulco Naval Museum very kindly responded to my email, but said that no plans exist that they know of. I might try emailing a local museum, but I really think photos are going to be the best source available for now.

Edited August 5, 2023 by JacquesCousteau

[Roger Pellett]

You may discover that when you finish this model, that you are the expert!  Although there are some very well financed prestigious institutions scattered around the World at the local level most museums run on a shoestring and can’t attract knowledgeable staff.  It’s also amazing how many locally built boats have been researched by amateurs. The expert on birch bark canoes was an amateur. Howard Chapelle published his research in book form.

 

Roger 

[JacquesCousteau]

Thanks! We'll see how things turn out.

 

Although I haven't worked on the hull this week, as I'm visiting my in-laws, I did take advantage of their yard and mango trees to see if I could find sticks that could be whittled down to make a mast and yard (as mentioned above, a lot of them look a bit rough-hewn in the photos). After a lot of work and a couple blisters, I have succeeded in turning a large stick into... several smaller sticks. Progress!

 

First I found a likely-looking twig for a yard, slightly curved as yards often were. Lacking many tools, I used some old scissors to scrape off the bark. Then I realized that it wasn't hard wood all the way through--it had a spongy center. Clearly, it wouldn't work for my purposes.

 

So, I looked again. I noticed that all the sticks seemed to also have this spongy center. I know next to nothing about trees, but I read online that they generally use mango trees for wood only after the tree already stopped giving fruit, because before then a lot of the tree's energy is going into fruit production instead of making strong wood. My in-laws' trees still produce fruit, so the wood is not ideal, although the sticks that have fallen are dead wood so I think they're already pretty dry.

 

I decided to still go ahead and try. Worst case scenario, I'll just need to make new masts and yards from other material. By splitting a thick stick, I would be able to scoop out the spongy center and cut the remaining wood into thinner masts and yards.

 

Lacking many woodworking tools, I used an old machete and a flat-head screwdriver to split a straight, thick branch into several chunks.

 

 

Then I began scraping off the bark and whittling down jagged edges, which the machete worked surprisingly well for despite its ungainly size.  I still used the scissors to scrape out the center, though, as the machete was too big to really use for this.

 

It took a while, but I ended up with a decent quantity of oblong pieces of wood that I think I'll be able to better shape back home with more precise tools. It should be more than enough for masts and yards for the large and small canoa models, and maybe a few other small parts as well (tiller, belaying pins, etc).

 

 

Maybe it will turn out to still need significant drying and will split or warp on me, or maybe it will be somehow harder than I imagine to do the final shaping. But I'm looking forward to at least trying to make a few pieces with wood I shaped myself!

Edited August 6, 2023 by JacquesCousteau

[wefalck]

Interesting precision tool 😀

[JacquesCousteau]

I was honestly surprised, the machete worked pretty well for whittling. The sharpest part of the blade was close to the handle, otherwise it would have been unmanageable, but it was pretty easy to handle. That said, a small knife would have been a lot more precise and I probably would have been able to better shape things. My in-laws offered one, but I didn't want to ruin their kitchen knife!

 

The scissors, on the other hand, barely worked even for removing the spongy material at the center. I only used them because trying to use the tip of the machete didn't work at all.

[JacquesCousteau]

I got some work done on both models. Hopefully going through both builds at once isn't too confusing, but I'm not sure how much sense it would make to split them up.

One quick bit of research first, though. Earlier, I said that the smaller model (the slapdash one I made to figure out some hull form stuff but decided to keep working on) would work for a 28 foot canoa at 1:48 scale. I've rethought that, because the proportions just looked off to me for that sort of vessel. It looked too wall-sided and wide. Instead, a number of photos (many of them in posts above, but also the photo below) show small, high-sided canoas, around 20 feet long or so, carrying passengers or cargo.

Source: https://mediateca.inah.gob.mx/islandora_74/islandora/object/fotografia%3A194360

These vessels are much boxier than the lower, narrower fishing canoas (many of which are around the same length), and I think the proportions look closer to the small model. At 1:32 scale, the smaller model comes in around 19 feet long, which is close enough for me. I've decided to instead build it as one of these small cabotage vessels. So, both models are now at the same scale.

To keep things straight for now, let's call the smaller one the Cargo Canoa, and the larger one the Canoa de Rancho.

Cargo Canoa

I sanded the sides of the Cargo Canoa and straightened up the bow. Already it looks a lot better than earlier, although the starboard side is a bit rougher. The interior was sanded as well.

As you can see, I also removed the molds, although I ended up temporarily putting the center one back in as the sides tended to move in a bit. I mentioned earlier that I had stupidly glued them to the bottom, and removing them left some damage. But I'm not worried about it, as the view will be blocked by internal decking.

The stem had ended up a bit off-center, as it was a late addition. I used an x-acto knife to trim it a bit so that it looks more vertical. I should note that, in real canoas, the stem appears to have been very narrow, this one is still a bit bulky. But I can't really cut it out know, so I'm going to have to live with it. On the Canoa de Rancho, the bow will be covered by a deck/platform, but for these smaller vessels this seems to have been smaller so more will be visible. Oh well, nobody will know but me (and everyone who reads this).

I scribed the bottom as well to simulate the planking.

I decided to add the center crossbeam now. The others will have to be added later so I can add the decking, but the center 

beam will help strengthen the hull.

Finally, I added a false stem (very thin), and the rudder post/support that many canoas had on the transom.

 

I'm still hoping to use the Cargo Canoa to test things and figure stuff out for the Canoa de Rancho. Hopefully, despite its problems, it still turns out to be a decent model.

Canoa de Rancho

Things are moving slower on the Canoa de Rancho. I started making the molds and the transom, beginning with the latter. I traced a half-form, cut it out, and used that to make the transom, but I found it more complicated than I expected. The thin paper, necessary for tracing from one sheet to another, is flimsy and it's difficult to use it to outline the form, and it was tricky to get the angle of the sides right. So for the molds, I decided to build them from 1/4 inch wide strips of basswood (which also saves a bit of wood, compared to making each a single piece). This was also tricky at the start, but I found that taping the sides in place on the plans first and then gluing the horizontal pieces worked better. I've checked and they more or less fit where they should, and fairing them should fix up anything. 

As can be seen, I also added the bottom support to the transom, with a small piece which will be removed later to make sure the angle is correct. (It can also be seen that the top side of the bottom is a mess from my multiple attempts to get a plank width I liked. It will be painted and decked over, though.)

Finally, I cut the stem, making it overly long so it can better provide a clamping location. It will be cut down later.

Next up, I'll be making a strongback to hold the molds and bottom in place for planking.

Edited August 8, 2023 by JacquesCousteau
Added missing photo

[JacquesCousteau]

Work continues on the strongback, and I'll post about it soon. But first, I wanted to ask for advice.

 

The cargo canoa is twisted along its length, not just at the stern, as I noticed earlier, but also at the bow.

 

Undoubtedly this is because of how I planked it quickly, carelessly, and with minimal molds to guide the planking, and so I'm working slowly on the strongback to prevent this issue on the canoa de rancho.

 

My question is, does anyone have any suggestions about correcting the twisting on the cargo canoa? Even just a partial reduction in the twist would be an improvement. I can twist it into a better shape by hand, but of course it springs back immediately. I still have to add the frames, decking, and crossbeams. Is it possible that those can be used to reduce the twisting? And, if so, how?

 

Thanks in advance for any help you can offer!

[JacquesCousteau]

While I figure out what to do about the Cargo Canoa, I've been making progress on the Canoa de Rancho.

I was concerned about getting a strong connection between the stem and the bottom, and about keeping the stem straight, so I added a couple small support pieces. This way the stem fits into a groove. They will be covered by decking later.

I glued on the stem using a square to make sure it was vertical and straight.

The transom also went on. Note that the triangular support piece will be removed later, so I didn't bother to perfectly center it. 

With the widest mold placed (not glued) in position, and the stem and transom in place, the hull form is more apparent.

Next, the strongback or building board (not sure exactly what the right term is, the lengthwise piece that will hold the molds, transom, and stem in place). I still have the building board from the dory build, which is usefully thick and won't bend lengthwise, but it's slightly too short for the canoa. So, I added a small piece of scrap at the bow end to hold the stem in place. The building board is also slightly warped across its width on one side, so I placed the canoa strongback on the flat side. I ended up cutting the board in half lengthwise, as having it off-center would impede using rubber bands to hold the planks in place. I also marked a center line and the locations for the molds. The aftmost mold, which was the first I made, turned out slightly too narrow, but it works if it's moved back by 1/8th of an inch. The molds are only temporary, so it's fine if they're not perfectly evenly spaced, as long as they are squared to the center line and will work for planking.

After the twisting issue on the cargo canoa, I'm trying to make sure that everything stays where it should on this one. To hold the transom in place, I used two pieces of 3/32 inch scrap balsa wood around a 1/16th inch bit of basswood to make a slot. It's been marked so it can be centered, but hasn't been attached yet. I also cut a slot in the strongback where the stem will be held.

The molds were made only to the size of the hull cross-section, so I attached extra pieces to their tops to hold them on the building board to the correct height for the rocker. I was concerned about getting them vertical and about breakage during fairing, so I added some supports first that will help hold them in place.

The supports are made so the molds can be moved side-to-side. In theory I could measure everything perfectly and just center them on the board, but I think it might be useful to have a little wiggle room, so I can match them up perfectly with the bottom before gluing them in to the strongback. I added supports on both sides so the molds will be held in place firmly and will have a greater surface area glued.

I then added the pieces that will hold the molds up to the correct height. Once I made sure they were themselves square, I glued them to the molds, using the carpenter's square to make sure they were on right. Once the glue dried, I placed them on the building board to get a sense of how it's coming together.

While test-fitting the bottom, I noticed that the 3 and 4 molds were slightly high, so I sanded them down slightly. The 5 mold was also low--whether I cut it to the wrong length or sanded too much while squaring it, it was 1/32 inch too short. So I added a small shim below. Once the glue cures, I'll sand it square.

Finally, I marked the location of the half-frames frames on the bottom. I decided to space them completely evenly, half an inch apart (so eight half-frame pairs, which seems to follow photographic evidence), although it's not totally clear to me that they actually did that. The photos in the earlier post about hull construction are not super clear, but the half-frame pairs may have been placed somewhat closer together (but not touching) with wider spaces in between the pairs. BUT, at least on larger canoas, the frames seem to have been more or less evenly spaced on each side. So if I later decide on closer spacing within each pair, I'll still have markings for a consistent distance between each pair, if that makes sense.

As soon as I get the molds set, I'll make sure the molds are properly aligned and glue them in place, then add some supports between them higher off the building board to better keep them in place for the next step: fairing.

 

I'm glad to see it all coming together!

[Paul Le Wol]

Hi Jacques, that’s a nice bit of engineering.

[JacquesCousteau]

1 hour ago, Paul Le Wol said:

Hi Jacques, that’s a nice bit of engineering.

Thanks, that's very kind of you to say! We'll see if it all breaks as soon as I start fairing...

 

But first, I realized that the transom is slightly off from square, so I'll be removing it with alcohol and re-attaching it.

[JacquesCousteau]

Brief update: I've started fairing!

As mentioned earlier, the transom was a little off, so I detached it with alcohol, added a very thin shim to one side, and reattached it. Next, after making sure the heights of the molds were correct, which required adding another thin shim to the bottom of the #2 mold, I dry-fit the bottom assembly in place and lined up the molds to be even with the edges. Then I removed the bottle assembly to glue the molds to the board. As I couldn't remove them to place the glue correctly--a flaw in my build plan, though I later realized I could have just marked the location--I ended up just slopping glue around all the edges. I was concerned about this being a weak joint, so I added extra supports out of scrap 3/32 balsa. I further added small supports between the molds further up.

While fairing the bottom, I realized that it was still a little more fragile than I wanted, so I added extra supports, made of a coffee stir stick, between the frames. I also attached the transom holder and some supports of its own. My strongback/building board is far from pretty, with a lot of ad-hoc parts, but as long as it does the job, I'll be thrilled. I did a bit of fairing on the sides after finishing the bottom, then went to affix the bottom assembly.

I couldn't figure out how best to hold the bottom assembly to the right rocker, as the stem is too fragile to itself hold the bow down, so I ended up using a single drop of glue to attach the bottom to the foremost and aftmost frames. It should hold things in place but be easy enough to remove after planking--I should have enough space to even brush on some alcohol there. I held the bottom in place with rubber bands, themselves held in place with numerous clips. I also used scrap to ensure the stem is in the correct location. At this point, it was actually quite sturdy and I was able to fair the middle 4 frames. Despite my best efforts, I realized when I re-placed the bottom assembly that the #5 mold was slightly off by something between 1/64 and 1/32 inch. Maybe it moved during gluing? In any case, I added a thin shim to the short side, which will be cut to size after it fully dries.

Looking forward to finishing fairing and getting started on planking! And also to figuring out how to fix the cargo canoa's twist, somehow...