Transom vs. double ender

[gle...@erols.com]

In very heavy following seas, is a double ender less likely to get into
trouble than would a transom boat? With other things relatively equal, is a
double ender better able to cope with sever storm conditions?

Thanks,
Glen

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

[Al Gunther]

Glen <gle...@erols.com> wrote:

> In very heavy following seas, is a double ender less likely to get into
> trouble than would a transom boat? With other things relatively equal, is a
> double ender better able to cope with sever storm conditions?

In my opinion, if other things are relatively equal, then they should be
relatively equal in severe storm conditions. I own a transom boat and I'm
building a double ender which are similar in many other respects, but I
don't see any advantage one way over the other. For heavy following seas
it's desireable to have adequate bouyancy, and sufficient cockpit drainage
to insure it drains completely between boarding waves. Those
charateristics may or may not be present in either type of stern.
--
Al Gunther, Kingston, WA <---- 47° 52.7'N, 122° 30.9'W

[tc]

i read a recent article in passage maker magazine that running a double
ended hull in heavy seas can get interesting. The waves are directed around
the stern which is good... sort of.

problem is that if the waves move around the sides and are going faster than
you, it is possible that you will lose some or all steering control because
your rudders need forward motion to be effective.

They stated that you had to be careful you didn't end up broadside to a
large wave due to lack of steering.

For that reason, there may be some advantage to having a transom in your
boat, but if you're reasonably vigilant in rough weather, the canoe like
hull can be great.

Al Gunther wrote in message ...

[Bryon Kass]

If you look a ocean going vessels the stern shape is conducive for
following seas. A lifeboat shape is ideal for bad conditions.
Unfortunately a compromise is in order or you will suffer the problems
associated with the hard handling double enders. With an outboard
rudder on most designs makes for difficult handling. The boats with
high pointed sterns with inboard rudders are better. I suggest you
consult a design specialist when specifying this type boat use.
Bryon Kass
webmaster and
Custom Design
150 Mechanic St.
Foxboro, MA 02035
508-543-9068 or fax 508-543-5127, Foot yard 508-384-2415
in THE ENGINE ROOM http://home.ici.net/~cusdn

gle...@erols.com wrote:
>
> In very heavy following seas, is a double ender less likely to get into
> trouble than would a transom boat? With other things relatively equal, is a
> double ender better able to cope with sever storm conditions?
>

[gle...@erols.com]

Al, why are you changing from a transom to a double ender? Are there
advantages or just appearance?

Glen

> In my opinion, if other things are relatively equal, then they should be
> relatively equal in severe storm conditions. I own a transom boat and I'm
> building a double ender which are similar in many other respects, but I
> don't see any advantage one way over the other. For heavy following seas
> it's desireable to have adequate bouyancy, and sufficient cockpit drainage
> to insure it drains completely between boarding waves. Those
> charateristics may or may not be present in either type of stern.
> --
> Al Gunther, Kingston, WA <---- 47° 52.7'N, 122° 30.9'W
>

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----

[Al Gunther]

In article <6rvrat$pru$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, gle...@erols.com wrote:

> Al, why are you changing from a transom to a double ender? Are there
> advantages or just appearance?

Mine has an inboard rudder, and I would defy anyone to tell it was a
double ender just looking at the part of the hull that is below the
waterline. It does have a lot of sheer in the aft end, so I expect the
cockpit might stay dryer in following seas, as it might lift more to an
overtaking wave, and much of the water would be deflected. The real reason
is that my wife thinks it looks neat, even though it was a bugger to
plank.

[LBRTY4US]

In article <35E36D...@ici.net>, Bryon Kass <cu...@ici.net> writes:

>If you look a ocean going vessels the stern shape is conducive for
>following seas. A lifeboat shape is ideal for bad conditions.

IMHO these don't quite go together as statements. Ship sterns are given
counter topsides for reserve buoyancy - the same is desireable in a yacht, to
lift her in a following sea - regardless of whether she is transomed or
double-ended in shape. The lifeboat stern completely lacks this - it is built
that way because it is often necessary to make sternway in a lifeboat under
different and adverse conditions under oars. A primary goal is to keep green
water out of the cockpit if a yacht; it is not transom or double-ended shape
that helps accomplish this, but her profile (the counter) beneath. Beyond
this, the double-ender is usually a little slower when heeled due to the wave
having to follow the comparatively sharp curve profile. I, too, like
double-enders, but there should be no significant difference under heavy
following seas if counter is equivalent. There may be other related issues
concerning heavy-weather survival downwind - the double-ender may be more
cramped & awkward for storing and streaming drogues, and her rudder/rudderpost
arrangement may make a jury rudder more challenging to implement in event of
damage. Perhaps she is better when hove to on a sea anchor making sternway? I
have never been hove to in a counter/transom boat.

[gle...@erols.com]

Please say more about "counter". You speak of it related to "topsides for
reserve bouyancy" and also "her profile (the counter) beneath." Additional
info would be helpful.

Thanks,
Glen

> IMHO these don't quite go together as statements. Ship sterns are given
> counter topsides for reserve buoyancy - the same is desireable in a yacht, to
> lift her in a following sea - regardless of whether she is transomed or
> double-ended in shape. The lifeboat stern completely lacks this - it is built
> that way because it is often necessary to make sternway in a lifeboat under
> different and adverse conditions under oars. A primary goal is to keep green
> water out of the cockpit if a yacht; it is not transom or double-ended shape
> that helps accomplish this, but her profile (the counter) beneath. Beyond
> this, the double-ender is usually a little slower when heeled due to the wave
> having to follow the comparatively sharp curve profile. I, too, like
> double-enders, but there should be no significant difference under heavy
> following seas if counter is equivalent. There may be other related issues
> concerning heavy-weather survival downwind - the double-ender may be more
> cramped & awkward for storing and streaming drogues, and her rudder/rudderpost
> arrangement may make a jury rudder more challenging to implement in event of
> damage. Perhaps she is better when hove to on a sea anchor making sternway?
I
> have never been hove to in a counter/transom boat.
>
>

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----

[Joe Vlcek USG]

My 2 cents on the Transom vs double ender.

One thing not mentioned yet is loss of space in a
double ender. At the least you don't have as much
lazzeret (SP?).

Now I didn't think this up. I'm not that darn perceptive.
It just so happens I was standing in a boat building
yard in Southwest Harbor Maine this past June, just
admiring the pretty boats. When I asked one of the guys
working there why some of there boats had, not a point,
but a rounded transom. His response was that they were
only going to build them that way for custom orders
mostly because of the loss of storage space.

Just another angle on the topic.

Joe

--
Joe VLcek | vl...@zk3.dec.com |

Happiness is not in the destination;
it's in the manner of traveling.

[LBRTY4US]

In article <6s4b93$2km$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, gle...@erols.com writes:

>Please say more about "counter". You speak of it related to "topsides for
>reserve bouyancy" and also "her profile (the counter) beneath." Additional
>info would be helpful.

Yessah. :-) The part of the hull at the stern that sticks out aft above the
wattah line - that ain't in the wattah - except when heeled ovah or when the
following sea comes undah & lifts 'er up.

Some older boats had long counter - more often seen today is "sawn off counter"
(shorter) with a transom.

[gle...@erols.com]

Since asking the initial question, I've started reading Dave Gerr's Nature of
Boats. On page 58 he says "Until the last 20 years or so it was generally
agreed that, in extreem conditions, the safest and most forgiving hull form
was the double-ender. These days when seakeeping and comfort are often
neglected, the double-ender's advantages are seldom considered..... all other
things being equal - double-ender's do offer some real advantages. Their
sterns are inherently stronger.... they won't pound in a quartering sea.
They have somewhat less tendancy to yaw...." Gerr seems to think they are
advantagous in heavy seas.

> Glen <gle...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> > In very heavy following seas, is a double ender less likely to get into
> > trouble than would a transom boat? With other things relatively equal, is a
> > double ender better able to cope with sever storm conditions?
>

> In my opinion, if other things are relatively equal, then they should be
> relatively equal in severe storm conditions. I own a transom boat and I'm
> building a double ender which are similar in many other respects, but I
> don't see any advantage one way over the other. For heavy following seas
> it's desireable to have adequate bouyancy, and sufficient cockpit drainage
> to insure it drains completely between boarding waves. Those
> charateristics may or may not be present in either type of stern.

> --
> Al Gunther, Kingston, WA <---- 47° 52.7'N, 122° 30.9'W
>

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----

[Stephen Goldberg]

In article <agunther-250...@silver171-98.silverlink.net>,
agun...@silverlink.net says...

>
>Glen <gle...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>> In very heavy following seas, is a double ender less likely to get
into
>> trouble than would a transom boat? With other things relatively
equal, is a
>> double ender better able to cope with sever storm conditions?
>
>In my opinion, if other things are relatively equal, then they should
be
>relatively equal in severe storm conditions. I own a transom boat and
I'm
>building a double ender which are similar in many other respects, but
I
>don't see any advantage one way over the other. For heavy following
seas
>it's desireable to have adequate bouyancy, and sufficient cockpit
drainage
>to insure it drains completely between boarding waves. Those
>charateristics may or may not be present in either type of stern.
>--
>Al Gunther, Kingston, WA <---- 47° 52.7'N, 122° 30.9'W

I would think that, depending on the design, the double ender would
have more bouyancy in the ends.

Stephen Goldberg

[Steven H. Jackson]

I wonder if the double ender would part following seas thus creating less of a
chance of getting pooped.
I wonder if the usually smaller cockpit would have less of a tendancy to fill
and swamp the boat.
I read once that the pinkey or carryboats of Maine were prefered because of when
loading fish from a
ship, the narrow stern would have less of a tendancy to crash against the ships
hull when the boat was
pulling away.
I wonder if double ended boats might generally have a more balanced shape fore
and aft and so will handle
more predictably in confused seas.
No need to wonder that they certainly look neat.

gle...@erols.com wrote:

> In very heavy following seas, is a double ender less likely to get into
> trouble than would a transom boat? With other things relatively equal, is a
> double ender better able to cope with sever storm conditions?
>

> Thanks,
> Glen

[Denis Marier]

I have owned a reversed transom since 1982 and survived the tail end
of tropical storm Felix with a 27 footer. Based on what I went
though, to be really effective a double ender should be like a white
water canoe, both the bow and the stern should be identical in
configuration. The later is based on crossing a large lake with a 16
foot canoe taking the choppy wave at about 30 to 40 degrees for half a
day.

On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 22:06:31 -0400, Bryon Kass <cu...@ici.net> wrote:

>If you look a ocean going vessels the stern shape is conducive for
>following seas. A lifeboat shape is ideal for bad conditions.

>Unfortunately a compromise is in order or you will suffer the problems
>associated with the hard handling double enders. With an outboard
>rudder on most designs makes for difficult handling. The boats with
>high pointed sterns with inboard rudders are better. I suggest you
>consult a design specialist when specifying this type boat use.
>Bryon Kass
> webmaster and
> Custom Design
> 150 Mechanic St.
> Foxboro, MA 02035
> 508-543-9068 or fax 508-543-5127, Foot yard 508-384-2415
> in THE ENGINE ROOM http://home.ici.net/~cusdn
>