Hello Dear Friends
I promised
@GrantTyler Grant a thesis and I hope that
@RDN1954 Johan has his notebook ready!
So let me first show you - in 17th Century context - the difference between the larger and smaller lifeboats.
The above picture of the Batavia's lifeboat in Australia would be an example of the 'boot' (made for transport of goods and other heavy duties, round bow and stern, flat bottomed with no keel, clinker sides, length equal to the beam of the ship, or 1/4 of its length, with a windlass for bringing out the anchor and the possibility to sail, mostly towed with a rope coming through one of the 'cardinals hats' near the gun ports in the stern.
Here we have the lifeboat of the replica of the Willem Barentsz. At this stage there is only one and it would appear that it matches the description of what Ab would call a chaloup: For transporting people (round stem and stern, flat counter with side boards, carvel bottom, clinker sides, length 4/5 of the 'boot', mostly stored on deck.
All the above pictures are courtesy of Thomas Wilberg
So why are the boats so important when we are taking about a winch? Simply because whether they were stored on deck, would have determined the position of the winch on the Willem Barentsz.
On Modelbouwforum , a "discussion" (sometimes more than a discussion
took place on where to place the windlass as well as the mooring bitt / main bitt / riding bitt (thanks for the terminology, Hans!) and whether or not to place a mooring bitt at all. De Weerdt does make it, but actually it is superfluous in combination with a winch (braadspil). The winch itself can very well act as a mooring bitt on small ships. Ab and Van Yk both definitively mention that there is no need for a mooring bitt on small ships.
De Weerdt sets up his winch a long way behind the mooring bitt. The question then is where the lifeboat/s was/were stored on deck. There is no longer any room for that at De Weerdt. At this stage, Hans was still battling with the question of whether the boat was towed or stored on deck (with the sloop). The sloop certainly had to be able to be stored on deck (for larger ships) while the boat was often towed behind it - that's where the expression "the boat missed" comes from.
If you fell into the water from the ship, you could still grab the boat, climb in there and get back onto the ship. If you also missed the boat that was towed behind the ship, you were doomed, because the ship did not stop. Hence, you missed the boat.
Because it is far from certain what the workplace at the bow looked like, Hans had to rely on the rather different opinions of Hoving and de Weerdt. Hoving places the braadspil all the way to the fokkenmast without using a mooring bitt. De Weerdt puts the winch much further back with an mooring bitt between the mast and the winch. A third option would be to place it in the middle of the De Weerdt and Hoving interpretations).
With the winch at the mast and behind it a belaying-pin rack, (as it is now on the
@Kolderstok model) the workspace would become very tight, but if Hans followed De Weerdt there would hardly be room left for storing the sloop and the boat.
While studying the original text of Gerrit de Veer (the author of the description of the trip to Nova Zembla, and also a member of the crew), it is mentioned twice that the schuijt was "set out" - lowered into the water - on 10 June and on 20 July. Those lines are for some reason not included in the contemporary version of the story.
10 juni: “ Den 10. Juny setten wy onsen schuijt uyt ende voeren met ons acht persoonen naer landt…”
20 juli: “Wy setten onse schuijt uyt ende royden met ons achten aen t’land”
10 June: we lowered the sloop and the eight of us rowed to land.
20 July: we lowered the sloop and the eight of us rowed to land.
Further measurements also showed that the space that between the deck and roof of the front canopy is sufficient to be able to hoist the bok and the schuijt out.
When things reached this point, Hans was already convinced that the schuijt was not towed, that was simply not possible because of the ice floes, moreover, travel journals of other sailing trips show that this boat was on the deck because of the risk that they could be lost during storms.
Thus in a nutshell - Hans was convinced that both boats were stored on deck (at least while they were negotiating the ice) and the schuit had to be partially stored underneath the front canopy.
My deduction is that with the schuyt stored onboard and half way underneath the canopy, it would have made it impossible for the winch to have been there as well. That is why I have no problem to follow Hans's layout - except that it is not easy to do!
The thesis comes tonight! The belay rack has already been reduced in thickness, so I fully agree with you on that one. Now I need to see if the foremast clears the belay rack - otherwise that may be a problem. I have tried the whole day to drill 6 holes for the belaying pins in a straight line. Do you think I can manage - all attempts look like bollocks! Ah well, I guess it's just one of those days! 
