I think the focus is now on Tenderly XP--smaller, lighter, faster, easier to build, and more fun to sail.

I respectfully disagree with "more fun to sail". They're both fun, just in different ways.

For that matter, I'm not sure about faster, either. NanoShip has 126 sq. ft. of sail on a nearly 13-ft waterline, while the Tenderlys have 62 and 91 sq.ft on a 10-ft waterline. Neither design has a planing hull, so on the face of things NanoShip should be a bit faster.

Unless you meant faster to build.

Laszlo

I love the design, myself, and think it'd be grand to see great fleets of them improving the view everywhere there's water fit to sail.  Alas, I'd probably not be one of those, so that's mostly me hoping others will want to invest the time and money so I can have the joy of watching them thunder about, spray flying and crew grinning uncontrollably.

I seem to remember that John's last remarks on the subject sometime late last year (Goodness!  Is is really mid-May already?) were to the effect that he meant to continue development work on Nanoship 3.0 as time permitted.  More on the back-burner than dead, I think was the upshot of that.  I reckon there are a lot of burners on that stove, each with a pot calling for attention.  <;-)

I think John really like$ the de$ign, per$onally, and perhap$ if enough pro$pective builder$ continue to $how $erious intere$t in $eeing plan$ and kit$ available, $he may yet come to fruition!  Let us hope so....

.....Michael

   Light, wide hulls can plane and do so more easily with a wider transom. Tenderly XP fits the bill, but Nanoship does not (partly because of its water ballast). Nanoship could still be faster around course, but not off the wind.

I'll take John's word for it when he says Tenderly XP planes -- though the pictures on the development page support that claim. I'm quite sure the NE Dory will plane, too. I've recorded planing runs where my speed exceeded "hull speed" by a wide margin. This is illustrated for a few seconds on my YouTube clip. Runs like that only last for the duration of the gust, but they are thrilling while they last!

If John says it planes, then it does. Looking at the lines drawings it seemed that the buttocks curved too much for that, but that's why I'm not a hull designer, I guess.

I stand corrected.  

Laszlo

   I have been very excited about this design and have been patiently waiting for news if it's a go or not. Woild be nice to hear from John to know for sure and move on. Pocketship was another choice but I just saw one completed for sale and it sold for $2,000.00. Wow!! That's about a $10,000.00 build I'm guessing at least, but that's another conversation.

The economics of this sort of business are complicated and difficult to predict, and I don't envy John the choices he has to make.  Even if a strongly motivated and well-funded prospective builder is willing to cover all of the one-off design and development costs to get from Nanoship 2.0 to 3.0, John still has to decide (1) whether the time commitment is even possible, given his other business and personal commitments (only so many hours in the day), and then (2) decide, if the time is available, whether there are other projects which might be a more profitable and prudent use of that time.

That last isn't because he's greedy, of course, and I don't think anybody here would even suggest that.  He does have to balance what he'd love to do (things like finish Nanoship 3.0...and then build one and go play with her!), with what makes best sense in terms of being a responsible husband, father, and employer, providing for his family and taking care of his crew, who I'll bet are much like family for him.

Even a genuinely genius boat design may not be appreciated by enough folks to make spending time on it anything but a hobby, and building such a boat may have little hope of yielding a decent resale value if the boat isn't going to be managed to extinction without any thought of selling her.  When you get into the area of what I call "little big boats" like Nanoship and Pocketship (the names are strongly suggestive of that "little big boat" quality), the cost/displacement ratios for both development and building are very high as compared to not-so-little big boats, and prospective buyers or builders may likely conclude that they'd get more boat for their money by spending a bit more money on a bigger boat.  While that may not necessarily be the best conclusion for many of those people, e.g., post-acquisition costs may argue against the bigger boat, it is natural enough for folks to think that way, making designs like this something of an uphill sell.

The current description page for Pocketship on the website states, "More than 60 are sailing or under construction on six continents."  It's taken ten years to achieve that, and I reckon John counts that a pretty good success, maybe better'n he'd hoped initially.  Pocketship has demonstrated a lot of capability for a boat of her size, cost and relatively simple build.  It's a mildly unorthodox, relatively good-looking, genius design, with enough capability vs. cost and building effort to at least attract 60 builders over ten years able to "think outside the box" and appreciated her value vs. more conventional boats.

I think Nanoship is a bit more unorthodox (though VERY good-looking!), probably a more complex build, and perhaps an even harder push against the "little big boat" envelope vs. Pocketship, especially given Nanoship's lack of a cabin.  In Nanoship's favor, however, it's hard to imagine a small sailboat configured to use a Honda BF2 outboard motor more effectively with less danger to the operator, and a small yawl rig like this hard to beat for all around handiness and good looks.  I guess time will tell whether the successful 2.0 prototype and resultant good press will create sufficient boat-lust within the breasts of prospective builders to persuade John to go further out on a limb with it, add to the considerable effort he's already put into 2.0, and bring on 3.0, hoping it'll turn out as well as Pocketship has.

Seriously, a little boat this good looking has a way of tugging on one's heartstrings to such an extent that, given a few thus-smitten, capable builders with disposable income and expendable time, it might be a case of, "Economics be hanged!  I WANT one!"  Personally, I'm smitten, but lack funds, time, and ability to store another trailer boat.

If you are well and truly smitten, but not so constrained, I'd urge to take pen in hand...okay, maybe fingerpads to keypads...and send John a letter (maybe even an actual letter) to let him know just how badly smitten you are and to what lengths you are willing to go in order to satisfy the yearning.

Tell him how you dream of using your Nanoship for all sorts of adventures great or small.  Dream the dreams in some detail, and then record the details.  Tell him how you plan to easily drive her to far flung venues for further adventures.  Tell him how you imagine her a proper little ship in which to teach your children or grandchildren the finer points of seamanship in something manageable for them, yet not threatening to tip them into the drink at the least misstep.  Tell him how it will raise the bar for what constitutes a good-looking boat in your home waters and wherever else you let her take you, near or far.  Tell him how you're almost hesitant to have such a lovely creature, for fear of a never-ending stream of curious admirers holding you up at the launch ramp.  Show him a photo of your empty shop space, begging to be filled with such lovely curves.

Heavens above!  I've almost talked myself into selling Virginia Mae, our lovely Menger 19 catboat...much beloved by our children and grandchildren, both for her own sake and as mothership to our PMD Winkle...to make way in my life for Niña, a Nanoship 3.0 to be named after Columbus' smallest little ship!  I may be losing my mind, here.... <;-)

.....Michael

My $0.02

The NanoShip 3.0 is on my short list (also Tenderly XP, Peapod & W17).  I live in the PNW and teach week long sailing lessons among the San Juan Islands.  The NanoShip, with the improvements that John has described is the perfect camp-cruiser for these waters. 

I would even organize an event if people were interested.  I take 40+ foot boats between dozens of great places to gunkhole.  Having a boat with less than 3 feet of draft, the ability to beach and pitch a tent ashore, the payload capacity for two people, plus camping gear is amazing to me.  Each location could be just a few hours sail apart, depending on your itinerary.  BTW, I can also just post some great spots and let you individually build your own float plans.

It is common to have 3+ knot currents at various times between the islands, so having a yawl would be very advantageous if the tide is inconveniently timed.  Our wind is either feast or famine, so sail plan flexibility is also important.

I might be interested in a discussion of using something other than a water ballast system, which could include weights, batteries, etc.  I would also be interested in discussing options about having a somewhat less gaping hole in the transom to accomodate the outboard motor tilt.

Regardless, I love the overall aesthetic and function of the boat and since I will soon have a working Passagemaker, hopefully I won't be under any pressure to get any subsequent boat built.  It's important to me to take my son on some sort of excursion to impress on him the natural beauty of our planet without having to do it on a $300K boat.  The ability to do that on a boat you build with you own hands just adds to the poignancy of the lesson.

Oh, I hope that Nanoship 3.0 makes it to production, or at least plans! Reading the article in Small Craft Advisor as well as John’s writing about it on the CLC website has really piqued my interest. I really enjoyed seeing the boat in action at the Chesapeake Meritime Museum a few years ago. The size and complexity of the project are just what I am looking for. The design brief was very compelling too, for a variety of reasons. Hope that we hear more about it soon! Bravo for a magnificent design.

I've waited years for NanoShip 3.0.  In the mean time, I finished my Passagemaker and have bought and sold a Tartan 37 in the USVI.  I even volunteered to become a beta builder.  As much as I have loved building the two CLC prams, my next boat will probably be a more complex build from another designer (probably Welsford's Navigator).  With that being said, if the plans for NanoShip 3.0 became available between now and when I pull the trigger on buying the next set of plans, I'd probably have to do another analysis between the two.  I'm happily building heirloom quality furniture right now in an attempt to stave off starting a multi-year boat build that'll take up the whole garage.