Best used boats under $300K for family of 4 circumnavigation?
Amatori
Like all sailors I dream, and my dream takes us around the globe with our
two young children in a safe and comfortable boat. The route, yet to be
finalised as this is still just a dream, touches mostly warm water islands
with the help of the trade winds.
The trade shows on both sides of the Atlantic are glamorous and fun, but
don't help to sort out the boats that just look like capable ocean homes
from the ones that truly are.
Jeanneaux's look like good value for the money, but are they strong enough?
Amels look well thought out, but isn't their design a bit dated?
Rassys look beautiful and solid, but are they really, with their
deck-stepped masts?
Sundeers are very practical, but the hull shape is a question mark, and
they are not too pretty to look at
What about ex charter boats like Beneteaus or Hylases?
etc., etc.
The questions are too many and the answers too vague: Magazines (with the
possible exception of Practical Sailor which does not really deal with
ocean cruisers) do not help either, since most comments are positive, and
all negative punches are pulled. Too many choices, too little unbiased
first hand information based on experience and the school of
hard-knock(-downs).
I have only five years to find the answer to my question and so I turn to
the kindness and experience of rec.boats.cruising readers (cross posted to
alt.sailing.asa and uk.rec.sailing): For a family of four (husband and
wife in their early forties, pre-teens children) planning to circumnavigate
in mostly warm waters, what are the boats that should be given strong
consideration for under US$300k?
All opinions are welcome, and thank you in advance for your advice.
"Joel"
Amatori,
For under $300K, I would look first at the Valiant 40. One of the first
ones won a BOC. Not too shabby.
Another boat you might look at is a Pacific Seacraft. Many of these
sturdy little boats have been successfully circumnavigated and they are
strong and reliable and built specifically for long distance voyaging.
If a cat is more yer likin' I hear that the Prout cats are very good but
kinda pricey. Also the new Manta 40 looks pretty good. Its the one I
want, but do your own shopping.
Find a boat you like and ask around. Cruisin World magazine has an
'another opinion' thing where you can find out about particular boats
from paople who currently or have previously owned a particular model of
boat. By talking to some former owners you can get an idea of whether or
not the boat you're looking at is beauty or a bathtub.
Err on the side of conservative, a thin light weight boat like an Olsen,
Santa Cruz or a Macgregor will probably NOT deliver a comfortable ride
in a rough seaway, a boat with some displacement (Valiant, Island Packet
or Bayfield) won't beat you up as bad.
Hey, if you want to know more, email me and I'll be glad to tell ya
more.
(remove the xxx from above)
Joel
Tim Marks
Get a copy of Practical Sailing's Practical Boat Buying book.
Very critical reviews of sailboats in 2 volumes (Volume 2
covers boats bigger than 35'). Check your local
marine book store, the armchair sailor in Seattle:
http://www.yachtworld.com/armchair/armchair.html
or direct from Practical Sailor: 1-203-661-6111 ext. 143
Christian Reimer
> I think that a Hallberg-Rassy 38-42 footer or a similar size Najad or
> even a older Swan would be good, strong choices (No, the deck stepped
> mast is not a structural problem on Rassys, they are built that way...
> ;-).
I agree that the above boats are strong, but I would personally never go for
the Najad or Hallberg-Rassy. They are great for living in a harbor, but
their sailing capabilities are another matter... I am mainly a sailer and
will gladly sacrifise some space and comfort for a boat that sails better.
Of course, this is simply _my oppinion_ and I am sure other people have
different priorities :-)
The used swan is a god idea... There is currently an old Swan 55 (Yawl) for
sale in Denmark for around $180K. I have actually sailed that very boat
myself for a few weeks in the Med and down to the Canarries. I have also
sailed it's sisterboat (identical) across the Atlantic. I am not trying to
say that this is the boat (for one thing, the one that is for sale needs a
good bit of TLC), but they are large, relatively fast and very strong.
If you have $300K to blow, then you should have _no_ problem finding a good,
strong suitable boat. Once you find it, you better start sailing, and
sailing, and sailing.... Oh yes, and be sure that the other 3 crew are with
you when you go sailing, and sailing etc. _before_ you cast of for your
great adventure.
Christian Reimer
Jeff Meeks
My family and I are in the same planning stages as you, just a year or so
ahead. Our budget was somewhat less, so we purchased a 1981 Delta 45 cc ketch,
it is essentially a Peterson 44 underbody with a passport 45 deck - you can see
it at http://www.geocities.com/yosemite/rapids/2018
When we were searching we found http://www.mahina.com/boats.html to be an
excellent resource. If I were using your budget, my bias would be toward
heavier boats than the ones you have listed (beneteau and Jenneau) I would look
at Valiant, Tayana, Mason or a Slocum. I like the Hans Christians too - but
they have a reputation for being somewhat slow. Do not overspend on the initial
boat purchase, you'll need 20% of the value of the boat for "stuff".
Have you read "desirable and undesirable characteristics of cruising sailboats"
by Rousmainiere? (I think I may have the title a little screwed up, but that's
pretty close)
Jeff Meeks
Fight unsolicited commercial E-mail!
To send me mail remove the "nospam" from my E-mail address.
Mary Merwin & Bob Cross
Get lots of on the water experience. In my opinion the best sailors are
the ones who learned to sail small craft and don't reply on gadgets and
add ons to sail. Sailing is more of an art than a race to buy equipment
and electronics. Learn by doing and many of the questions that baffle
you now will become more defined in your mind's eye. Use your five years
to be the best sailor you can be. Fair winds!
Tim Marks wrote:
--
"the adventure is in the journey not in the destination"
Brian Grant
You can get a lot of sound used boats suitable to your needs for half of
what your upper limit is. Why not spend 5-10% chartering boats of
interest for a week or two. If a picture is worth a thousand words, a
week on board is worth a million posts from the likes of us. We all
have our own biasses. If you have not spent time on a boat, start in a
simple location like the Chesapeake or perhaps, the Virgin Islands.
When you are comfortable with the normal light to medium winds normally
encountered in those locations, move your charters to areas with longer
passages and heavier seas and winds.
Start with your own knowledge and opinions of what makes a vessel
capable of circumnavigation. Then, question your own judgement. Yep, a
deck stepped mast is more likely to fall off. On the other hand, it is
more likely to leave the deck and hull intact. Perhaps, increasing
survivability of the vessel through it's loss.
There was a thread a few weeks ago in regard to Joshua Slocum and
Spray. The general conclusion was that Slocum's circumnavigation was a
triumph of seamanship, not due to the inherent seaworthy qualities of
Spray. Develop your own capabilities and especially those of your
wife. A couple of days of heavy weather will require more than one hand
at the helm.
ragman
Hinkley, Valient, Baltic, Swan, Shannon. You should have no problem
locating one of these true blue water vessels at or below your target
$$. Good luck and sounds as if we may be "out there" about the same
time down the road.
Anders Svensson
Amatori wrote:
> I have only five years to find the answer to my question and so I turn to
> the kindness and experience of rec.boats.cruising readers (cross posted to
> alt.sailing.asa and uk.rec.sailing): For a family of four (husband and
> wife in their early forties, pre-teens children) planning to circumnavigate
> in mostly warm waters, what are the boats that should be given strong
> consideration for under US$300k?
I will give you a seemingly rude answer to that question:
If you really need to ask that question, no boat will do regardless of
quality, equipment or size. If you cannot evaluate and qualify a
shortlist of suitable boats for yourself, how do you think you are going
to manage the boat?
I certainly don't know about your seagoing credentials, but I suggest
that you are starting in the wrong end of this project if you start out
like this. This is a little like the thread about equipment needed for
offshore sailing: the answers will be useful only for those with
sufficient experience and knowledge to make their own descisions anyway
- the initiated will argue the fine details and those outside will
understand nothing...
If you have the experience I am alluding to, you will not have any
problem choosing a good boat with that kind of money. If you don't have
the experience, any boat will be dangerous - quality and strength
notwithstanding.
But this question is good food for thought, and will probably result in
a lot of debate around different boats and builders, second hand value
extrapolated in five years and other fun and interesting topics.
Here's therefore my 0.16 sek (thats 2 cents):
I think that a Hallberg-Rassy 38-42 footer or a similar size Najad or
even a older Swan would be good, strong choices (No, the deck stepped
mast is not a structural problem on Rassys, they are built that way...
;-).
A new boat would not be necessary - but it need to be in very good
shape. At least 20 % of the available funding should be kept for repairs
and renovation - even if the boat is "perfect".
Anders
John Wilson
I'm not getting into the "which boat is best?" debate because my own
feelings about the ideal long-distance cruising boat tend to swing
between a medium to heavy displacement boat, and a Sundeer-style
ultralight. I've sailed longish distances in quite a few different
boats.
If money is a major concern, though, the heavyish end is the way to
go. Light boats HAVE to be very expensively built to hold together in
extreme conditions - heavy boats can generally survive anyway. The
absolute last thing you want is an overloaded light boat, that won't
have the speed advantage and will be overstressing everything.
Your comment on the Jeanneau is interesting. I thought they were
cheap light boats till I saw the result of a T-bone collision
involving one. OK - the Jeanneau was the much bigger boat, and the
one which hit bow-on, but it suffered only very minor cosmetic damage.
The other smaller boat almost sank, and was an insurance write-off.
I still don't like the designs much, but they de seem to be rather
better built than they look.
Have you made any long passages?
John Wilson.
Paul Kamen
Another approach is to buy a boat that has just returned from a major
long-distance cruise. Establish a good working relationship with a
reputable surveyor, and get the brokers working on your case (but filter
everything they say through your surveyor!).
For specific boats, I was very impressed with the Moody 425 I sailed to
Hawaii in '96. Not the most lively boat in light air, especially upwind,
but not nearly as bad as the usual heavy "blue water" boat, despite the
shallow keel. That boat is most of the way around the world right now.
Some friends of mine also just did a nearly complete circumnavigation
(trucked across North America) in a Pearson 424, I think it is, and that
boat also seemed very well suited to the task. (psst - It's for sale.)
My own strong preference would be something light enough to make unsinkable
with foam flotation. In your price range, you might be able to get a Santa
Cruz 50. A 50 seems like a handful, but effort to work a boat is more a
function of weight than length. See what the brokers in Santa Cruz
(especially Bill Lee, the SC-50 designer, of Wizard Yachts (or something
like that)) has on the block. At least it's worth getting the ultralight
faction's ideas on cruising conversions.
--
fish...@netcom.com
http://www.well.com/~pk/fishmeal.html
-"Call me Fishmeal"-
Karl Van Houdt
u might consider a najad (sweden)
they're extraordinay solid
ETAP (belgium) is another possible choice.
etap's are as far as i know the safest yachts on the market
the newest, etap 39s, looks great and is faster and cheaper than the old
38i
Amatori <ama...@tin.it> schreef in artikel
<01bd30e5$2b260d40$Loca...@tin.tin.it>...
> Like all sailors I dream, and my dream takes us around the globe with our
> two young children in a safe and comfortable boat. The route, yet to be
> finalised as this is still just a dream, touches mostly warm water
islands
> with the help of the trade winds.......
Greg Jackson
Paul Kamen wrote:
>
> Another approach is to buy a boat that has just returned from a major
> long-distance cruise. Establish a good working relationship with a
> reputable surveyor, and get the brokers working on your case (but filter
> everything they say through your surveyor!).
>
Yes, an associate of mine recently got a 42' Passport that way. Not
only was the boat well fitted for the 2 years of offshore cruising it
just completed, the skipper had also been quite extensive in his
stocking of spares. There were several full buckets of line and enough
other stuff to stock a small marine supply.
GTJ
Russ Turpin
-*--------
"Christian Reimer" <Chr...@earthlink.net>
> If you have $300K to blow, then you should have _no_ problem
> finding a good, strong suitable boat. Once you find it, you
> better start sailing, and sailing, and sailing....
Indeed.
But maybe the original poster slipped a decimal point. Suppose
the sum in question were $30K, rather than $300K. Now the
discussion becomes more ... interesting.
Remember, everyone: that suitcase of money is not for the boat,
but for after you have the boat!
Russell
--
If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to
do is stop diggin'. -- Texas Bix Bender
Thomas Ling
An area you may want to investigate is off-shore insurance for your
boat.It is important to start your portfolio on boating skills,e.g.
Coastal Guard boat safety, navigation, seminars. etc.
It is difficult to obtain insurance for two; it might be a good idea to
include the children as trained crew. I have a friend who has successfully
trained his 13 yrs. old to do night watch, his insurance company
have considered him as the 3rd. person.
Just read an article on West marine Caribbean 1500 Rally, 67 boats
weathered winds from strong to calms. The magazine Blue Water Sailing
Feb. 98, surveyed the fleet and described how the boats and gear stood up
the test of the sea.
Interesting facts:
1) In terms of mileage/day, the threshold seemed to be at 45ft.LOA.
Under 45ft. average around 119 miles. Above 45ft. average
around 150 miles/day. (These guys get in earlier and get the best
moorage.)
2) 99% have furler headsails
3) Bob Perry accounts for 15% of the boats.
4) Largest contingent was Swan, second was Beneteau.
5) In the strong wind conditions the majority of the sailors gave high
praise, "bashing to Bermuda", to their boats.
6) In light wind the heavier boats in the survey fared poor;the fact
that the average skipper used his engine 95 hr. along the 1500 journey
underscores the poorer performance of many boats in lighter air.
cheers, Thomas Ling
jktho...@earthlink.net
One of the problems not being discussed here, especially relative to
ultralights, is how and where to stow all the "stuff" that a live-aboard
cruising boat on a circumnavigation with 4 people will have, need, leave with,
and accumulate along the way. Start with hundreds of gallons of fuel, water,
hundreds of feet of chain, 4-5 anchors, extra sails, extra lines. Add hundreds
of books, extra food, 1-2 dingies (lots of families with kids find they need 2
dingies - like families with teenagers need 2-3 cars - or the parents are stuck
on the boat), outboards, scuba tanks, wet suits, 4 sets of flippers, school
books, 200-300 charts, cruising guides, spares and more spares, photo albums,
baskets from Niue, clothing for 4 people for multiple seasons (hot, warm, cool,
wet), foul weather gear, extra sheets and pillows, blankets for cool weather,
medical supplies, paint, varnish, buckets, extra propane tanks, extra dishes,
pots & pans, solar panels, and on and on. That's not counting the wind surfers,
surf boards, TV's, VCR's and hundreds of video tapes some cruisers have. One
friend left Panama with 200 dozen cans of beer on board - that was gone before
they left Bora Bora for Tonga. Why 200 dozen - because they were $2 a dozen,
not the $16 a dozen in the Marquesas, Papeete, etc. As a German, he didn't go
cruising to quit beer drinking !!
You don't have a handy dock box, a garage, a U-Store, the trunk of your car,
for additional storage - you've got everything you're going to have, unless you
pay air freight to send it out. That's one reason why so many cruising boats
have junk tied down on deck - no room left inside.
Non-cruisers don't realize how much stuff and therefore how much weight, needs
to go with a family of four. Keep in mind this is not a spartan 14 day run from
California to Hawaii. This is not a two week vacation they're on - this is
their life for 3-4 years. This is how you live, eat, entertain, sleep. You need
space for adult privacy - 4 years with your children in your back pocket will
not suit most couples. Take a 16,000 lb SC 50 and add 6,000 lbs + of people
and their stuff and what do you have - an overloaded and overstuffed ultralight
that's not untralight anymore, and is not comfortable to live in.
You don't see many cruisers on ultralights, and when you do it's a couple on a
50 footer like Heart of Gold, not a family of four.
When we first started looking for a boat, we liked and seriously considered the
Moody 42 or whatever it was in '85. We looked and learned, saw the 42 wasn't
going to do it and began to consider the Moody 47. We looked at several in use,
saw the 47 would be marginal in space (no real room for a gen set and scuba
compressor, for example) but a great boat - and moved up again. We ended up
with a 50' center cockpit boat, and wished it was 54' for 4 years of cruising.
In fact, 57' would be just right - room for twin forward cabins, heads fwd and
aft, and keep the port and stbd pilot berths for sure.
My cruising notes are at
http://home.earthlink.net/~jkthompson/cruise/mainpage.html
The boat is at
http://home.earthlink.net/~jkthompson/cruise/victoria.htm
The boat plans are at
http://home.earthlink.net/~jkthompson/cruise/boat.htm
Terry Schell
jktho...@earthlink.net writes:
<snip>
>California to Hawaii. This is not a two week vacation they're on - this is
>their life for 3-4 years. This is how you live, eat, entertain, sleep. You need
>space for adult privacy - 4 years with your children in your back pocket will
>not suit most couples. Take a 16,000 lb SC 50 and add 6,000 lbs + of people
>and their stuff and what do you have - an overloaded and overstuffed ultralight
>that's not untralight anymore, and is not comfortable to live in.
Wait a minute... if you are comparing two 50' boats, one heavy, one
light. If they have the same sail area and the same water plane area,
they will react in virtually the same way to additional weight. Both
boats will be slower than before, but the light boat will still be faster.
I cannot believe how many times I have read the same story over and
over: if you add 5000 to a heavy boat it will "float on it's lines"
more closely than if added to a lighter boat. This is bunk. How much a
boat "sinks" when loaded is *only* a function of waterplane area, *not*
existing displacement.
As for having enough space, that is a red-herring. Light boats come
in all sizes. I agree that you probably don't want to shoehorn your
family into a too-small boat, but that has absolutely nothing to do
with whether the boat you chose is light for its length.
There are some good arguements for heavier boats (many people find
them seakindly, cheaper materials, often stronger, low tech repairs, etc)
but load carrying and roominess aren't among them. In fact, most
racers have more room and waterplane area than the heavy displacement
hourglass designs of the same length (or price).
Sincerely,
Terry
Paul Kamen
jktho...@earthlink.net writes:
>One of the problems not being discussed here, especially relative to
>ultralights, is how and where to stow all the "stuff" that a
>live-aboard cruising boat on a circumnavigation with 4 people will
>have, need, leave with, and accumulate along the way...
A cruised-out and loaded Santa Cruz 50 would be heavir than the same boat
in Transpac trim, but probably lighter than the way they sail around the
buoys. Count how many bodies line the rail during Big Boat Series,
subtract four, multiply by the weight of the average deck ape, and your
cruising deadweight budget is actually pretty generous. And you *can*
"overload" these boat a bit without any ill effects, if you need even
more stuff. You won't have the movable ballast to go upwind like they do
when they're racing, but that's not the program.
This was the case with my Merit 25. Loaded for singlehanded Transpac (and
with enough food and water to go round trip non-stop), careful freeboard
measurements showed that the boat was right on its lines for bay racing
with a crew of five.
You also have lots of room for stuff in a big ultralight, although it
isn't partitioned the way it is with a "cruising interior." Personally I
think the huge open forepeak is better anyway. A place for the sailboards,
deflated dingies, SCUBA gear, etc. Of course some of that is lost to foam,
if you go the flotation route.
Jeff Meeks
Terry Schell wrote:
> Wait a minute... if you are comparing two 50' boats, one heavy, one
> light. If they have the same sail area and the same water plane area,
>
> they will react in virtually the same way to additional weight. Both
> boats will be slower than before, but the light boat will still be
> faster.
A 50' boat with a 14,000# keel (relatively heavy displacement) will have
it's stability affected significantly less than the 50' boat with an
8,000# keel (relatively light) by the addition of 6000# of crew n'
stuff. In addition, since the light boat will have less unladen
submerged area than the heavy one, it is more likely that the added
weight will be above the center of gravity in the light boat than in the
heavy one, therefore adversely affecting the boat's roll stability.
It is counter-intuitive to say that a 20,000# boat will be equally
affected by the addition of 6000# of stuff as a 40,000# boat. Adding 40%
to a boat's displacement (especially when a lot of that added weight is
above the waterline) has to affect the boat differently than adding 15%.
--
Jeff Meeks
Fight unsolicited commercial e-mail!!
remove "nospam" from my email address to reply
Val50101
Look at the HALL OF FAME Valiant 40. No other cruising design has as many
circumnavigation miles as that design.
Terry Schell
Jeff Meeks <lumberj...@geocities.com> writes:
>Terry Schell wrote:
>> Wait a minute... if you are comparing two 50' boats, one heavy, one
>> light. If they have the same sail area and the same water plane area,
>>
>> they will react in virtually the same way to additional weight. Both
>> boats will be slower than before, but the light boat will still be
>> faster.
>A 50' boat with a 14,000# keel (relatively heavy displacement) will have
>it's stability affected significantly less than the 50' boat with an
>8,000# keel (relatively light) by the addition of 6000# of crew n'
>stuff. In addition, since the light boat will have less unladen
>submerged area than the heavy one, it is more likely that the added
>weight will be above the center of gravity in the light boat than in the
>heavy one, therefore adversely affecting the boat's roll stability.
Arg! This is the whole George O. argument that was hashed out in this
newsgroup last year. Anyone remember the thread title so we can use
deja news instead of reviving it?
To make a long story short, we went through the math to show that
stability actually increases. This is true even if all of the supplies
were carried above the CG. To many people, adding weight above the CG
implies that you will lose stability... the physics don't bear that out.
The small increase in CG height is offset by the overall increase in mass.
You can actually add gear quite high (well above the deck for many yachts)
and still get an increase in stability at normal sailing angles.
BTW... the heavy supplies cruisers use are typically placed *below* the CG,
specifically water and fuel. It helps to remember that for most
sailboats, the vertical position of the CG is actually above the
waterline.
<snip>
>It is counter-intuitive to say that a 20,000# boat will be equally
>affected by the addition of 6000# of stuff as a 40,000# boat. Adding 40%
>to a boat's displacement (especially when a lot of that added weight is
>above the waterline) has to affect the boat differently than adding 15%.
I agree that the effect won't be *exactly* equal, but the 40000# boat
will still be slower asuming similar sail area and hull forms. Both
boats will be more stable than they were empty. It is counter your
intuition; that doesn't mean it is false. This persistent myth is based
in this "proportional" thinking. I urgue you to investigate your
intuition critically.
Sincerely,
Terry
Gene Gruender
Paul Kamen wrote:
> jktho...@earthlink.net writes:
>
> >One of the problems not being discussed here, especially relative to
> >ultralights, is how and where to stow all the "stuff" that a
> >live-aboard cruising boat on a circumnavigation with 4 people will
> >have, need, leave with, and accumulate along the way...
>
> A cruised-out and loaded Santa Cruz 50 would be heavir than the same boat
> in Transpac trim, but probably lighter than the way they sail around the
> buoys. Count how many bodies line the rail during Big Boat Series,
> subtract four, multiply by the weight of the average deck ape, and your
> cruising deadweight budget is actually pretty generous. And you *can*
> "overload" these boat a bit without any ill effects, if you need even
> more stuff. You won't have the movable ballast to go upwind like they do
> when they're racing, but that's not the program.
>
(Snip)
> --
> fish...@netcom.com
> http://www.well.com/~pk/fishmeal.html
>
> -"Call me Fishmeal"-
For what it's worth, our Hunter 37 has a "displacement" of 17,800 on the
books. It weighed about 23,000 and was down almost 6" on it's lines as we
left cruising. We were pleasantly surprised to find that although it was a
bit slower getting moving, it sailed just as fast for a given windspeed, and
pointed just as well as it did when it was empty. The motion was even better
(more dampened) than when empty.
Gene Gruender
Rainbow Chaser
"Joel"
Terry,
What a 'heavy' boat has over a light boat is a more comfortable motion
in a rough seaway. Yes, the weight of gear in a ULDB is of a higher
percentage that in a traditional 'blue water' cruiser, and yes, the boat
can be loaded so that the CG remains very close to the original.
BUT, a very light over powered boat like the SC50 is going to be much
more tender and rolly at sea. A big 'ol heavy cruiser (Hinckley,
Valiant, PS) is going to be calmer and more forgiving than a race boat.
If you're racing to Bermuda, the SC50 would probably be killer. On a
shorthanded run to Pitcairn, it would beat the crew to death.
There is much more to the heavy displacement arguement that how many
toys you can carry.
Joel
Anders Svensson
Paul Kamen wrote:
>
> jktho...@earthlink.net writes:
>
> >One of the problems not being discussed here, especially relative to
> >ultralights, is how and where to stow all the "stuff" that a
> >live-aboard cruising boat on a circumnavigation with 4 people will
> >have, need, leave with, and accumulate along the way...
>
> A cruised-out and loaded Santa Cruz 50 would be heavir than the same boat
> in Transpac trim, but probably lighter than the way they sail around the
> buoys. Count how many bodies line the rail during Big Boat Series,
> subtract four, multiply by the weight of the average deck ape, and your
> cruising deadweight budget is actually pretty generous.
This is clearly the words of an avid racer...
Lets assume that there are 10 extra 'apes' aboard when racing. Thats
only 1600 lbs (800 kg) - maybe 2000 (1000 kg) if they are really big.
Believe me, Paul, that is not anything near what will accumulate on a
cruising boat of the same size over some months, let alone years of
cruising.
It always amazes me what I will consider neccesary as soon as I start
living aboard again each summer. I carry and carry, and I stow and I
stow... And then comes my wife and the kids with their stuff...
I would go with a 'traditional' cruiser on this one.
Anders
Terry Schell
"\"Joel\"" <jhop...@swbellxxx.net> writes:
Was I not clear? Didn't I list this as one of the possible benefits
of a heavier boat?
Of course, Hinkley and Valiant are not exactly heavy cruisers (at
least the Hinkley's still being produced). They are firmly in the
moderate displacement camp. In fact, the Valiant is within a few lbs
of a similar sized Hunter. (there's a nice piece of flamebait)
As to what "beats a crew to death"... I think most people find that
heavier boats have a more ponderous and less jerky motion. Not
everyone finds that to be much of a problem. I would almost always
choose "longer" rather than "heavier" if I were trying to improve
seakindliness.
Sincerely,
Terry
Thomas Ling
You are right! Valiant 40 was designed in the 60's by Bob Perry.
When the design first came out on the drawing board, man oh man, the old
blue water sailors were heeled over hard. The full keelers were saying
such radical underbody cannot be sea-worthy. As we know now the boat has
exceeded beyond any doubts and earned its mark into the Hall of Fame.
No sooner have the dust settled down in Seattle, along came a bunch of new
designs from his drawing boards. They looked more radical than anything
that I have seen. They were long, narrow, very LITE weight, mostly in the
50 ft., D/L must be around 150, very well built , carbon ( including mast)
in spade rudder, modified bulb keel ( much like Farr),large main and small
jib, pilot house,roller furler jibs.
Why would Perry designed something so different from his proven Taiwanese
built boats? Is he seeing something that I am not seeing? Perhaps more and
more ex-racers are asking him to design these boats. Perhaps he believed
the passage-making should be as quickly as possible (to avoid the unkindly
elements. Most of his boats can easily make 250-300 miles per day)
Perhaps the new technologies in material and equipments allowing him to
design his boat differently. Certainly this man is skill in the art of
design and knowledge of sailing.
I would certainly welcome the day when he lends me one of his new boats or
a SC50 before making my judgement. I agreed with Terry on the effect of
weight distribution on lighter boats, thanks.
This reminded me of my friend who borrowed my SU vehicle and made a
comment which I thought reflected on boats; he said my car was
uncomfortable and too stiff. It never occurred to me that my car was
stiff, but after seeing what he was driving, its matter of preference.
cheers, Thomas Ling
Louise M &/Or Jim N
Buy a big old heavy full keeled boat, rebuild it if necessary, and put
the other money in a mutual and live off the interest. If you can't do
that get a 70's overbuilt glass boat, rebuild it, and put the rest
into a mutual--and some good schooling/education.
I don't know what the other posts say as they didn't retrieve for me
but I'm sure most if not all will recommend newer or modern boats but
think twice as racing did to boats what it did to bicycles and cars.
We spent a year researching this and bought over a hundred books and
read another hundred and talked to yet another hundred people and for
our family of 4 this was right.
cheers
jim newman
John Wilson
I agree that adding weight to ANY boat generally improves its
stability ( as long as the weight is in a sensibly fixed place - ie
not seawater sloshing around below, or attached to the top of the mast
). The problem with overloading an ultralight is two-fold. Firstly
that the extra stability puts more stress on the light rig, and
secondly that most ultralights are designed to be light and easily
driven, and hence have less sail area than a comparable length
conventional boat.
The multihull builders and owners know that you have to keep them
light. 2 years ago I met a brand new and VERY expensive 50+ foot
cruising cat that had just finished a 'shakedown' passage which
happened to be a 600 mile race with substantial damage from hitting
waves. It later turned out the boat was well over 50% over her design
weight. I sailed the same race in the lightest monohull racing, a
37-footer, weighed down from her normal racing trim with enough fuel
water and beer to cruise for a week and then do the return trip. We
had strong but not extreme winds, and all the heavy stuff was stowed
either low or way out port side, as the race has a 99% chance of being
a long port reach. The boat was stable as hell, but we damaged
rigging.
John Wilson
PS The poster who said "what if $30K?" - no question for me - it
would be an old heavyish displacement longish-keeler, like a Nicholson
32 or Rival 32. Don't know about the American equivalents.
Andrew John Wall
In article <34D7C785...@techline.com>, Jeff Meeks
<jeffm...@techline.com> wrote:
> My family and I are in the same planning stages as you, just a year or so
> ahead. Our budget was somewhat less, so we purchased a 1981 Delta 45 cc
> ketch,
> it is essentially a Peterson 44 underbody with a passport 45 deck - you
> can
> see
> it at http://www.geocities.com/yosemite/rapids/2018
> When we were searching we found http://www.mahina.com/boats.html to be an
> excellent resource. If I were using your budget, my bias would be toward
> heavier boats than the ones you have listed (beneteau and Jenneau) I would
> look
> at Valiant, Tayana, Mason or a Slocum. I like the Hans Christians too -
etc,
Sorry for being a bit of a twit, but is this not a British Newsgroup. Can we
not have prices in British Pounds?
Yours Englishly, but with quite a bit of Scotish,
Andy
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please translate e-mail: Surfing the web with an Acorn RiscPC700
andywall at argonet dot co dot uk and owning a 486Card and BBC Master
* Please change no-spam to argonet * "This blessed plot, this earth,
Visit the Wherry Trust Web Page at this England."
www.argonet.co.uk/education/andywall - William Shakespear
Paul Kamen
Joel <jhop...@swbellxxx.net> writes:
>...BUT, a very light over powered boat like the SC50 is going to be
>much more tender and rolly at sea. A big 'ol heavy cruiser (Hinckley,
>Valiant, PS) is going to be calmer and more forgiving than a race
>boat...
If we compare boats of similar weight (which is probably the most valid
basis of comparison for the optimal short-handed cruising boat), then my
experience is that the longer boat will have easier motions, upwind and
down. (But if we compare boats of similar *price*, then yes, the heavier
boat might win out, because good heavy boats are much cheaper to build
than good light ones and the size difference between the two will become
much smaller.)
And BTW there's nothing "rolly" about a Santa Cruz 50. Deep keels make
for lots of roll damping.
Not sure what you mean by "more forgiving." The ultralight will go to
windward better with smaller sails when caught in a tight spot, and if it
has foam flotation it will be "forgiving" of some pretty serious mistakes!
Paul Kamen
Anders Svensson <Anders.-.Ei...@swipnet.se> writes:
>Lets assume that there are 10 extra 'apes' aboard when racing.
>Thats only 1600 lbs (800 kg) - maybe 2000 (1000 kg) if they are
>really big. Believe me, Paul, that is not anything near what
>will accumulate on a cruising boat of the same size over some
>months, let alone years of cruising...
But have you actually added it up? 2,000 lb. is a lot of stuff.
Remember that each 200+ lb. deck ape has a gear bag down below, and the boat
isn't racing with empty tanks.
Of course, any boat can be overloaded if you pay no attenton at all to
the weight of stuff you throw on. And as Gary Mull once said, "the only
place weight is good is on a steam roller."
Paul Kamen
jwi...@asiaonline.net (John Wilson) writes:
>...The problem with overloading an ultralight is two-fold. Firstly
>that the extra stability puts more stress on the light rig...
Don't forget the rail full of deck apes that the ultralight was designed
to sail with. You'll have a really tough time matching that righting
moment with cruising stores, tankage, and toys. Even if you go way beyond
the designed racing displacement.
>secondly that most ultralights are designed to be light and easily
>driven, and hence have less sail area than a comparable length
>conventional boat.
Right. That's what makes them so easy to handle for a small crew. They
self-steer really nicely, too.
>The multihull builders and owners know that you have to keep them
>light. 2 years ago I met a brand new and VERY expensive 50+ foot
>cruising cat that had just finished a 'shakedown' passage which
>happened to be a 600 mile race with substantial damage from hitting
>waves. It later turned out the boat was well over 50% over her design
>weight...
Well, sure. It was designed for cruising, so the standards of engineering
and quality control were probably a lot lower than they need to be for a
race boat.
>I sailed the same race in the lightest monohull racing, a
>37-footer, weighed down from her normal racing trim with enough fuel
>water and beer to cruise for a week and then do the return trip. We
>had strong but not extreme winds, and all the heavy stuff was stowed
>either low or way out port side, as the race has a 99% chance of
>being a long port reach. The boat was stable as hell, but we damaged
>rigging.
In that case maybe you did exceed the designed righting moment. But the
margins usually aren't that close, so I have to suspect other contributing
causes. What kind of boat? And which race? Off-hand, I can't think of any
mostly-port-tack ocean races of that length, at least not on the west
coast of the U.S. We're used to piling it all on the starboard side for
the Transpac.
Anders Svensson
Paul Kamen wrote:
>
> Anders Svensson <Anders.-.Ei...@swipnet.se> writes:
>
> >Lets assume that there are 10 extra 'apes' aboard when racing.
> >Thats only 1600 lbs (800 kg) - maybe 2000 (1000 kg) if they are
> >really big. Believe me, Paul, that is not anything near what
> >will accumulate on a cruising boat of the same size over some
> >months, let alone years of cruising...
>
> But have you actually added it up? 2,000 lb. is a lot of stuff.
>
> Remember that each 200+ lb. deck ape has a gear bag down below, and the boat
> isn't racing with empty tanks.
>
> Of course, any boat can be overloaded if you pay no attenton at all to
> the weight of stuff you throw on. And as Gary Mull once said, "the only
> place weight is good is on a steam roller."
Well, I was merely thinking about (dreaming, rather) what I would bring
on a 300K world cruiser in the 50 foot range...
But I would like to bring food and water for 60 days (twice the longest
leg), fuel for at least 48 hours, personal recreational stuff, spare
clothing.
I would also bring decent sleeping gear and safety equipment. I would
probably want a dinghy and an engine. 200 books would not be
unreasonable...
Basically, for me, cruising the world would mean a (temporary) way of
life, not an excersise in swift transportation. Thats why I also put my
emphasis on a comfortable boat to live on, that may sail decently rather
than very fast. But thats "IMHO", ofcourse.
But maybe you are right, Fishmeal - lets do some adding up. Others are
welcome to add too - this could be interesting and educative.
Food and drink: 60 days (twice the longest leg) times 4 times 4 lbs (not
thinking anyone want to make water constantly and eat freezedried
lightweight food) = 960 lbs
Dinghy and engine - 150 lbs minimum
Fuel, 25 gallons - 100 lbs
Anchors, spare sails, spare rigging 300 lbs
Spare rudder (if you are so inclined...) 50 lbs
Personal related equipment, foul weather gear, clothing, blankets,
sheets... 400lbs
Liferaft 60 lbs
Thats 2020 lbs and I stop here - and I think it would be reasonable for
any semi ambitiuos racer to weed almost all of this off from any boat
that would get into any kind of racing shape.
Now, are these reasonable values (I think so - what do you think?)
What else would be typical to add for a world cruise?
We will probably get that floating steam roller in the end... :-)
--
Anders Svensson
Amatori
Nothing longer than two days and one night. As soon as I can get a couple
of weeks away from job and family, I am thinking of taking an offshore
course. Any good ones out there?
Or what would a good training passage be, crewing for someone else?
Amatori
Thanks for the advice, Jim. Everybody in this group has been very helpful,
and the suggestions span the horizon.
I often wonder how old is too old, how far back we should look, and whether
some newer boats might incorporate the experience learned the hard way by
ever more numerous cruising families and disastrous races.
In fact, other than Sundeers that are getting mixed reviews in this group,
are there any boats designed by ex family cruisers?
Fritz;Ree
Anyone planing on offshore sailing should forget about trends and speed and
look for low maintenance, storage, safety and Read Read Read the book ,
Desirable and Undesirable Characteristics of Offshore Yachts, ISBN
0-393-03311-2. ah...@always-online.com
Fritz
Jordan Bigel
Andrew John Wall wrote:
>
>Sorry for being a bit of a twit, but is this not a British Newsgroup. Can
>we
>not have prices in British Pounds?
>
>Yours Englishly, but with quite a bit of Scotish,
Sorry, no, its NOT a British Newsgroup - I'm reading this
in alt.sailing.asa - you may be reading it cross-posted to uk.rec.sailing.
Do check what groups a message is cross-posted to before
you assume a thread is confined to uk.rec.sailing. That said,
I for one would certainly not object to anyone posting prices
in Pounds as well as in dollars. But please, no quids<g>.
J.
Paul Kamen
anders.-.ei...@swipnet.se writes:
>Food and drink: 60 days (twice the longest leg) times 4 times 4 lbs
>(not thinking anyone want to make water constantly and eat freezedried
>lightweight food) = 960 lbs
>Dinghy and engine - 150 lbs minimum
>Fuel, 25 gallons - 100 lbs
>Anchors, spare sails, spare rigging 300 lbs
>Spare rudder (if you are so inclined...) 50 lbs
>Personal related equipment, foul weather gear, clothing, blankets,
>sheets... 400lbs
>Liferaft 60 lbs
>
>Thats 2020 lbs and I stop here...
Hey, no fair! The race boat already has some water, fuel, an anchor, and
maybe a thousand pounds of sails on board.
I know that cruising boats get heavy, and I'll concede that you could show
that the cruiser in "departure condition" could weigh more than the same
boat in fully-crewed round-the-buoys racing trim. But not by that much,
and it's not going to be "overloaded" to the point that it loses its great
performance characteristics.
Paul Kamen
Fritz;Ree"<ah...@always-online.com> writes:
>Anyone planing on offshore sailing should forget about trends and
>speed and look for low maintenance, storage, safety and Read Read
>Read...
Well, some trends are good and some are not so good. Certainly the hull
forms of the '60s, '70s, and '80s were far more distorted by racing rules
than those of the '90s. It was only in the mid '80s that the builders of
single-purpose cruising boats finally broke away from using rule-beating
racing hull shapes. And the modern IMS-derived hull forms are much nicer
to the water than anything we've seen so far. Too bad their deep draft
makes them less than ideal for cruising.
I'd put safety ahead of low maintenance and storage, which is why I like
light boats with positive flotation. I'd also add "ease of handling" high
on the list. But why ignore speed? With something as inherently slow as a
sailboat, speed becomes very important.
Russ Turpin
-*-------
Paul Kamen writes:
> Hey, no fair! The race boat already has some water, fuel,
> an anchor, and maybe a thousand pounds of sails on board.
Which raises a question that has always puzzled me: What is a boat's
displacement? In particular, when I see in some book that the OldSalt
31 displaces #18,000 while the ULDB-Max 31 displaces #6,000, do those
weights include:
o standard sail plan and running rigging?
o full tanks?
o ground tackle?
My suspicion is that the weights mean anything the manufacturer wants
them to mean. And please don't tell me that the displacement is the
boat's weight at DWL, because that just move the question to that of
when the boat actually floats at its DWL. ("Curiously, it was three
inches down before we installed the engine.") Given the tendencies of
marketing boz^B^B^B folks, I wouldn't be surprised if the same boat was
shown at different displacements when packaged for different uses!
So short of putting a particular hull on the scales, how does one find
out what a specific kind of boat a boat displaces? Are there
independent rating, insurance, or financing organizations that maintain
standardized measurements?
Russell
>>> Next week: What is a boat's length?? <<<
--
If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to
do is stop diggin'. -- Texas Bix Bender
"Joel"
Paul,
All I'm saying is that a heavier boat will have a more COMFORTABLE
motion that the ULDB. A lighter boat w/ a thin foil isn't going to track
as well as a fuller keeled boat with more displacement.
And hey! This is all kind of pointless anyway, the original post was for
boats under $300k. I believe a Santa Cruz 50 STARTS at $475,000.(yeow!)
Joel
David H Dennis
Amatori wrote:
>
> Thanks for the advice, Jim. Everybody in this group has been very helpful,
> and the suggestions span the horizon.
>
> I often wonder how old is too old, how far back we should look, and whether
> some newer boats might incorporate the experience learned the hard way by
> ever more numerous cruising families and disastrous races.
When I was researching this question, I got the impression that you
should either go very old (pre-1973) or very new. The pre-1973 boats
were well-designed and built because (i) materials were very cheap, and
(ii) the builders didn't know where to economize, so they just piled on
the material.
Between 1973 and sometime in the late 80s, a lot of dicey building
processes were used, and those boats are quite variable. The "Classic
Plastic" reviews in Cruising World should give you a good idea of what
has stood the test of time.
> In fact, other than Sundeers that are getting mixed reviews in
> this group, are there any boats designed by ex family cruisers?
I've read the Dashews' articles and was pretty impressed by their care
in design. Unfortunately, I think they're well in excess of your price
range, regardless of the merits or demerits.
I did find it odd that they built their production models out of
fiberglass. If you read their books, it seems quite clear that they
consider aluminum to be far superior. Unfortunately, I don't think
there are too many aluminum Dashew boats to be had. :-(
After reading quite extensively about this, I've come to the conclusion
that in general, small cruising boats should be heavy, because you can
jam more stuff in them that way. For larger boats, you have more
latitude because the load is a lower percentage of the total weight.
That explains a lot of the apparent contradiction between advocates of
heavy and light boats.
From all my personal reading, if I wanted an extremely high-quality
traditional design, I'd look at Hinckley - they have the best reputation
I've seen. Unfortuantely for buyers, resale value is extremely high.
Check out http://www.yachtsurvey.com for some first-rate buying advice
and information.
I like Hallberg-Rassy - a good number of highly respected people have
hammered them heavily, and I feel they're more cost-effective then Swan.
The same person designs both boats under a fairly similar design brief.
If I wanted a high-quality modern design, I'd go to them first.
D
John Wilson
Hi,
China Sea Race, Hong Kong to Philippines! Depending on whether the
finish line is at Subic or Manila, about 500 or 600 miles. Every two
years, at Easter. Odd years have the San Fernando Race, to the
northern end of the Phillipines, slightly shorter. The race usually
starts in chilly ( for Hong Kong ) winter weather, usually north to
north-east, but with luck within 24 hours or so you're in T-shirts and
shorts among the flying fish, in a nice trade wind port tack broad
reach. The wind usually dies away as you approach the Philippines,
and you end with very light airs, except for the last coastal beat
into Subic or Manila Bays, which usually get local wind..
I won't slander the Danish boat builder as I suspect the stay that
parted wasn't original and may have had a faulty terminal. But we
really did have a lot of weight piled way out port side. We had about
5 degree or more heel just sitting at the dock. Off-watch crew also
slept to port and we were driving really hard, green water over the
deck constantly close-reaching.
John Wilson
On Thu, 5 Feb 1998 07:36:07 GMT, fish...@netcom.com (Paul Kamen)
wrote:
>In that case maybe you did exceed the designed righting moment. But the
>margins usually aren't that close, so I have to suspect other contributing
>causes. What kind of boat? And which race? Off-hand, I can't think of any
>mostly-port-tack ocean races of that length, at least not on the west
>coast of the U.S. We're used to piling it all on the starboard side for
>the Transpac.
>
Thomas Ling
Joel,
I believe you are mistaken that SC50 is over $300,000. You must have
been confused with the SC52 which is the kissing cousin to SC50. SC52
comes out of a different mold and impressive in upwind performance.
For $300,000 many SC50 owners would willingly give up their pink slips.
cheers,
Thomas Ling
Terry Schell
"\"Joel\"" <jhop...@swbellxxx.net> writes:
>Paul,
>All I'm saying is that a heavier boat will have a more COMFORTABLE
>motion that the ULDB. A lighter boat w/ a thin foil isn't going to track
>as well as a fuller keeled boat with more displacement.
I don't think you will find anyone who has steered a SC50 complaining
about how it tracks. ;-)
>And hey! This is all kind of pointless anyway, the original post was for
>boats under $300k. I believe a Santa Cruz 50 STARTS at $475,000.(yeow!)
Well, most (all?) of the boats he listed have prices above 300K when
purchased new. Used SC50's are often on the market for much
less than 300K. BTW.. $475K is for a new SC52 which is more cruising
oriented than the SC50's. Do you know what a new 50ft Valiant costs?
a new 50ft Swan or Hinkley?
The big question... do you take a J/160 or a SC52? There's a tough
call.
Sincerely,
Terry "clearly-dreaming" Schell
Anders Svensson
Terry Schell wrote:
>
> "\"Joel\"" <jhop...@swbellxxx.net> writes:
>
> >... And hey! This is all kind of pointless anyway, the original post was for
> >boats under $300k. I believe a Santa Cruz 50 STARTS at $475,000.(yeow!)
>
> Well, most (all?) of the boats he listed have prices above 300K when
> purchased new. Used SC50's are often on the market for much
> less than 300K. BTW.. $475K is for a new SC52 which is more cruising
> oriented than the SC50's. Do you know what a new 50ft Valiant costs?
>
> Sincerely,
> Terry "clearly-dreaming" Schell
I find it interesting so see the distinction between SC50 and SC52
regarding wich boat is (most) cruising oriented. Shouldn't any
recommended boat be 'cruising oriented' in regard to the original
posters very specific description of intended usage?
Costwise, a new boat will depriciate the most during its first years, so
it will clearly make sense to choose a used boat. A used boat (and
especially a boat that have done some serious cruising - maybe even a
world cruise) will most probably have been uprated and come with a more
complete inventory of cruising gear. Also, it will (with any bit of
luck) be somewhat sorted out and generally 'tested'.
So it may make both sailing and economical sense to buy a used boat.
Then it is a question of how you think when you say 300K. Do you mean
you have 300K to spend on the boat alone i.e. your budgeted cost price.
The other way of budgeting is to define what the cost of *using the
boat* for say, three years would be.
In that case, the used boat would probably be even more attractive, as
you can buy it for say 300K, and most probably sell it for 200K after a
three year circumnavigation if you take reasonable care with it. With
that kind of reasoning, a 900K boat may cost you 300K to use under three
years (but I don't think the original poster meant that).
The idea is that using a nice 50 foot boat for a circumnavigation may
not be completely out of reach, if you accept the thought of selling
your boat sometime soon after you come back.
Anders
Paul Kamen
jwi...@asiaonline.net (John Wilson) writes:
>China Sea Race, Hong Kong to Philippines!...
Sounds like fun - at least 'till the rig came down.
Pacific Cup (SF to Hawaii) now has a maximum allowable out-of-trim angle
at the start. You can load things on the starboard side to produce (and
I'm not sure of this number - don't quote me) a three degree heel in calm
water, but no more.
Paul Kamen
tur...@temporarily.unavailable (Russ Turpin) writes:
>Which raises a question that has always puzzled me: What is a boat's
>displacement?
Sales literature almost invariably says "displacement" when it really
means "empty weight."
Paul Kamen
Joel <jhop...@swbellxxx.net>
>All I'm saying is that a heavier boat will have a more COMFORTABLE
>motion that the ULDB. A lighter boat w/ a thin foil isn't going to
>track as well as a fuller keeled boat with more displacement.
And I'm saying that the longer boat will have a more comfortable motion,
at equal weights. (And that if you measure with the helm locked, the fin
keelers track just fine. Arrows have their feathers in back, not in the
middle!)
Geoff Blake
Russ Turpin (tur...@temporarily.unavailable) wrote:
: -*-------
: Paul Kamen writes:
: > Hey, no fair! The race boat already has some water, fuel,
: > an anchor, and maybe a thousand pounds of sails on board.
: Which raises a question that has always puzzled me: What is a boat's
: displacement? In particular, when I see in some book that the OldSalt
: 31 displaces #18,000 while the ULDB-Max 31 displaces #6,000, do those
: weights include:
: o standard sail plan and running rigging?
: o full tanks?
: o ground tackle?
: My suspicion is that the weights mean anything the manufacturer wants
: them to mean. And please don't tell me that the displacement is the
: boat's weight at DWL, because that just move the question to that of
: when the boat actually floats at its DWL. ("Curiously, it was three
: inches down before we installed the engine.") Given the tendencies of
: marketing boz^B^B^B folks, I wouldn't be surprised if the same boat was
: shown at different displacements when packaged for different uses!
: So short of putting a particular hull on the scales, how does one find
: out what a specific kind of boat a boat displaces? Are there
: independent rating, insurance, or financing organizations that maintain
: standardized measurements?
: Russell
Didn't some Greek called Archimedes sort this a few years ago :-)
Geoff
--
--
Geoff Blake ge...@palaemon.demon.co.uk linux 2.0.31
Chelmsford g8...@g8gnz.ampr.org i586
Intel create faster processors - Microsoft create slower processes
John Milne
Isn't this the point when someone shouts 'eureka!'?
John Milne
Paul Kamen wrote:
>
> tur...@temporarily.unavailable (Russ Turpin) writes:
>
> >Which raises a question that has always puzzled me: What is a boat's
> >displacement?
>
> Sales literature almost invariably says "displacement" when it really
> means "empty weight."
Chris West
In article <34D7CC...@erols.com>, Brian Grant <bmg...@erols.com>
writes
>There was a thread a few weeks ago in regard to Joshua Slocum and
>Spray. The general conclusion was that Slocum's circumnavigation was a
>triumph of seamanship, not due to the inherent seaworthy qualities of
>Spray.
Bruce Roberts' book about his versions of Slocum's Spray would convince
you that the Spray is without doubt the best boat for ocean travel, but
may be there is a touch of bias in the book. Slocum's successful voyage
may not have been principally due to the inherent seaworthyness of the
Spray, seamanship, experience and navigational skill bringing even the
Tilikum to harbour, but the qualities of the Spray were undoubtedly a
great help vide the Pilot of the Pinta episode.
--
Chris West
Doug Covert
My advice, for what it's worth, is to immediately subtract $100,000 from your
boat budget, and use that money to take your family on crewed or bareboat
charters every 6 months for the next 5 years. Well before the end of that
time you and your family will either be heartily sick of the idea of cruising,
or you will know EXACTLY what kind of boat you're looking for. And if you
invest your other $200,000 wisely, you'll still be able to afford more boat
than you can handle at the end of that time. And no boat maintenance in the
meantime!!!
Just advice from someone who couldn't stand waiting, but still can't stop
working (for 3 more years...)
Doug Covert
Joe Kovacs
In <6b9v9b$o...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, Thomas Ling <TN4SA...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>Just read an article on West marine Caribbean 1500 Rally, 67 boats
>weathered winds from strong to calms. The magazine Blue Water Sailing
>Feb. 98, surveyed the fleet and described how the boats and gear stood up
>the test of the sea.
The article did no such thing, certainly not according to
the quote here. :)
Mileage/Day? 'In light wind the heavier boats...fared
poor; ...engine 95 hr....poorer performance...'
The article had a pure go-fast mindset, so much so that it
had little to do with setting up for a 4 year cruise with a
family
>Interesting facts:
>1) In terms of mileage/day, the threshold seemed to be at 45ft.LOA.
> Under 45ft. average around 119 miles. Above 45ft. average
> around 150 miles/day. (These guys get in earlier and get the best
> moorage.)
>2) 99% have furler headsails
>3) Bob Perry accounts for 15% of the boats.
>4) Largest contingent was Swan, second was Beneteau.
>5) In the strong wind conditions the majority of the sailors gave high
> praise, "bashing to Bermuda", to their boats.
>6) In light wind the heavier boats in the survey fared poor;the fact
> that the average skipper used his engine 95 hr. along the 1500 journey
> underscores the poorer performance of many boats in lighter air.
Joe Kovacs
Guelph Ontario Canada
Tom Baker
Paul,
A while back someone talked about a formula that was called the "Comfort
factor" formula. I believe it came from Ted Brewer. Why don't we crank
the specs for a SC50 ,Taswell 49, Hyals 49, Passport 47, Swan47, Stephens
47, Valiant 47 etc, and let's see what the formula shows about how
comfortable these boats would be offshore. I'd be glad to do it myself and
post the results back to the group but I lost the formula.
Note: I just picked some boats in the size range, your choices may or may
not match mine, no problem. I did not include Sundeer since they don't make
anything that small and I doubt if you could buy 1/2 half a used Sundeer for
the $300k.
Tom Baker
Paul Kamen wrote in message ...
> Joel <jhop...@swbellxxx.net>
>
> >All I'm saying is that a heavier boat will have a more COMFORTABLE
> >motion that the ULDB. A lighter boat w/ a thin foil isn't going to
> >track as well as a fuller keeled boat with more displacement.
>
>And I'm saying that the longer boat will have a more comfortable motion,
>at equal weights. (And that if you measure with the helm locked, the fin
>keelers track just fine. Arrows have their feathers in back, not in the
>middle!)
>
>
>
OTNMBRD
I apologize, if I'm jumping in out of context , or am missing a point here, but
if we were talking about a ship, and I am assuming a boat is the same(and here,
I could be getting into trouble), then, displacement would be the actual weight
of a vessel at any given condition of loading.
For a ship: Displacement would equal the Light ship weight, plus the
deadweight(fuel-stores-water-ballast-cargo-crew).
Lee Huddleston
>
>All opinions are welcome, and thank you in advance for your advice.
Here is an opinion I have not read in this thread yet. Consider a
well-built (perhaps professionally built hull and deck at least)
steel-hulled boat. A Bruce Roberts designed Maruitius 43 is my
choice. Ketch rigged and a raised poop. The room is enormous and the
boat sails remarkably well in light air.
When I hit a whale in the middle of the Pacific, I do not want to
worry about spending 200 days in a lift raft. I only want to worry
about a call from GreenPeace. :-) Seriously, there are a lot of
containers etc., not to mention reefs, out there waiting to send you
and your family to the bottom. Your first priority should be safety.
A steel-hulled boat will beat a Tupperware boat any day.
Those who have not actually sailed a modern steel-hulled boat will
tell you that the boat will rust out from under you. With modern
coatings and proper insulation (mine has 3" of foam insulation over
the entire insides of the hull) and other methods, you should have
virtually no rust. [BTW, older steel boats usually rusted from the
inside out due to condensation.] The insulation also make for an
unusually comfortable, quiet living space. Plus, no matter where you
are in the world, somebody will know how to weld steel.
With the amount of money you are mentioning, you really should
consider a custom built yacht. There are many excellent designers in
steel or even aluminum. My favorite just happens to be Bruce Roberts
of Australia (he has a web page). Hulls can be rounded and as fair as
any boat afloat. You could have your own boat designed to incorporate
all of the best features of the production yachts that have been
recommended here, plus all the newest features that the production
companies cannot risk including for the general public.
Granted, the yachty set does not care for steel; it's much to
utilitarian. But if you will notice in Cruising World magizine and
the Seven Seas Cruising Association Bullitin, many serious world
cruisers choose steel. This is especially true if they are going to
venture off of the beaten path (e.g., near ice). With the kind of
investment you are considering (money, time, your life, and your
family's lives), you owe it to yourself to at least consider steel and
to check out the FACTS, not just accept antidotal opinions from those
with limited or nonexistent experience.
Lee Huddleston
s/v Truelove
jktho...@earthlink.net
From p.10-11 of Brewer's book book -
Comfort Ratio =
Displacement (pounds)
------------------------------------
.65 x (.7LWL + .3LOA) x Beam (exponent 1.333)
for my boat Disp = 38000, beam 13'6", LWL = 43'0", LOA = 50'4" >>>>> CI = 40.3
He says moderate and successful ocean cruisers like Whitby 42 and Perry's
Valiant 40 will be in the low to middle 30s.
Paul Kamen
orio...@mindspring.com (Lee Huddleston) writes:
>...Seriously, there are a lot of containers etc., not to mention
>reefs, out there waiting to send you and your family to the
>bottom. Your first priority should be safety. A steel-hulled
>boat will beat a Tupperware boat any day...
But as long as we're talking custom design, a plastic boat with watertight
subdivision - a design feature that's very feasible in that size range -
can certainly hold its own in the collision survival department.
The big problem with steel, as I see it, is WORK. Heavy boats have heavier
gear, bigger sails, heavier anchors, and every sail handling or boat
handling job you can think of takes that much more effort, almost in
proportion to the vessel's weight. No problem with a big crew, but for a
single-family cruiser, I think a lighter boat that uses other strategies
for damage control is a better choice (at least for routes that avoid ice
fields).
Paul Kamen
jktho...@earthlink.net writes:
>From p.10-11 of Brewer's book book -
>
>Comfort Ratio =
>
>Displacement (pounds)
>------------------------------------
>.65 x (.7LWL + .3LOA) x Beam (exponent 1.333)
>
In Brewer's opinion.
The problem I have with this formula is that it says that if you make a
boat longer or wider or shorten the overhangs, but keep displacement the
same, it becomes less comfortable! This is very much at odds with my own
experience, but if Brewer has real data to support that formula, I'm ready
to be convinced.
B Collins
OTNMBRD wrote:
snip
> if we were talking about a ship, and I am assuming a boat is the same(and here,
> I could be getting into trouble), then, displacement would be the actual weight
> of a vessel at any given condition of loading.
> For a ship: Displacement would equal the Light ship weight, plus the
> deadweight(fuel-stores-water-ballast-cargo-crew).
Basic physics: Any floating object displaces the amount of fluid that
weighs the same as the object. This applies to a canoe on a lake, a
supertanker on the ocean, a hot-air balloon in the air, a piece of steel
floating on mercury, etc.
It has been customary for many years (maybe centuries) to use the term
"displacement" when talking about the total weight of a ship or boat.
Thomas Ling
I have problem in understanding this formula of COMFORT, none of Perry
reviews ever mention this equation. Does any navel architects use this
equation? Or just a subjective commentary.
Looking at Perry's new designs his Comfort numbers computed low. If it is
comfort you looking for; isn't better be at your destination than spend
few more days at sea?
When people mention D/L ratio, should D=cruising weight? After all nobody
cruiser with the advertised displacement. Therefore wouldn't it be more
accurate to quote your D/L ratio with added gears?
cheers, Thomas Ling
Thomas Ling
jako...@sentex.net (Joe Kovacs) wrote:
>In <6b9v9b$o...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, Thomas Ling <TN4SA...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>>Just read an article on West marine Caribbean 1500 Rally, 67 boats
>>weathered winds from strong to calms. The magazine Blue Water Sailing
>>Feb. 98, surveyed the fleet and described how the boats and gear stood up
>>the test of the sea.
>
>The article did no such thing, certainly not according to
>the quote here.
:)
>Mileage/Day? 'In light wind the heavier boats...fared
>poor; ...engine 95 hr....poorer performance...'
>
>The article had a pure go-fast mindset, so much so that it
>had little to do with setting up for a 4 year cruise with a
>family
>
"Go-fast" are we not talking about 1-2 knots difference? There is a family
( e-mail me for their web page) of 5, their cruiser made the passage
from Mexico to Marquesa in 15 days (47ft). The point is that they ggot to
their destination faster and avoided storms. I see a great advantage in
going faster ( 1-2 knots ) and sail thru light wind. I grant you we have
different preferences, personally I prefere shorter passage time and use
less engine power. Lighter boat does have an advantage, the gears are
cheaper! :)
BTW, I thought the magazine did a good job in writing up the article
and spend several papes on equipment and problems.You may be right about
the go fast mind-set, perhaps the boats represented in this event is
on the faster side; I got nothing against that. Any time I get a chance to
go sailing or an opportunity to do a passage, I gained added skill and
knowledge. Never too old to learn.
cheers, Thomas Ling
Fritz;Ree
A long boat may be faster but, but not necessarily more comfortable. The
most important is roll rate. I have the formula but don't know the boat
spects!
Fritz
Tom Baker wrote in message <6bgoev$lto$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
>Paul,
>A while back someone talked about a formula that was called the "Comfort
>factor" formula. I believe it came from Ted Brewer. Why don't we crank
>the specs for a SC50 ,Taswell 49, Hyals 49, Passport 47, Swan47, Stephens
>47, Valiant 47 etc, and let's see what the formula shows about how
>comfortable these boats would be offshore. I'd be glad to do it myself and
>post the results back to the group but I lost the formula.
>
>Note: I just picked some boats in the size range, your choices may or may
>not match mine, no problem. I did not include Sundeer since they don't
make
>anything that small and I doubt if you could buy 1/2 half a used Sundeer
for
>the $300k.
>Tom Baker
>
>Paul Kamen wrote in message ...
>> Joel <jhop...@swbellxxx.net>
>>
>> >All I'm saying is that a heavier boat will have a more COMFORTABLE
>> >motion that the ULDB. A lighter boat w/ a thin foil isn't going to
>> >track as well as a fuller keeled boat with more displacement.
>>
>>And I'm saying that the longer boat will have a more comfortable motion,
>>at equal weights. (And that if you measure with the helm locked, the fin
>>keelers track just fine. Arrows have their feathers in back, not in the
>>middle!)
>>
>>
>>
Steve
>
>To make a long story short, we went through the math to show that
>stability actually increases. This is true even if all of the supplies
>were carried above the CG. To many people, adding weight above the CG
>implies that you will lose stability... the physics don't bear that out.
>The small increase in CG height is offset by the overall increase in mass.
>You can actually add gear quite high (well above the deck for many yachts)
>and still get an increase in stability at normal sailing angles.
>
The key here is NORMAL sailing angles! What happens to the overloaded light
displacement cruiser when it is passed it's righting moment! All I can say
is good luck.
All this is somewhat frivolous when the boat is over 50' and used in
tradewind routes.
Paul Kamen
Fritz;Ree <ah...@always-online.com> writes:
>A long boat may be faster but, but not necessarily more
>comfortable. The most important is roll rate. I have the
>formula but don't know the boat specs!
Funny, I would have said "pitch acceleration" was the most important
motion parameter, especially if I wanted to make the argument against
light boats. If roll rate was really so important on a sailing yacht, we'd
all agree that the boats with the tallest rigs and the deepest keels (and
with relatively light ballast) were the most comfy.
Roll acceleration *is* a critical mumber for passenger ships, and many
ferry designs deliberately reduce transverse stability to avoid a fast or
"snappy" roll. But they don't have deep keels or tall sailplans.
Aart Koelewijn
In article <fishmealE...@netcom.com>,
I did study vehicle technics quit some years back, and if I remember
well, not acceleration in any direction itself, but the change of
acceleration over time was the most critical comfort factor when
designing cars or trains. I suppose the same will be true for boats, at
least I don't see a reason why it should not be true, humans stay the
same.
On the other hand, I suppose if you design a boat for low (pitch, roll)
acceleration the change of acceleration over time will usually be low
too. When designing the suspension for cars and trains there can be a
difference.
(in lay-terms, vibrations, which usually have a high change of
acceleration over time, will be more critical to comfort then
'swinging', where the max. acceleration can be high but the change of
acceleration over time is lower)
--
Aart Koelewijn
E-mail: aa...@mtack.xs4all.nl
http://www.xs4all.nl/~mtack
Paul Kamen
Steve <stephen...@top.monad.net> writes:
>The key here is NORMAL sailing angles! What happens to the
>overloaded light displacement cruiser when it is passed it's
>righting moment! All I can say is good luck.
Ultralights generally have high ballast ratios and moderate beam, so the
capsize problem is rarely an issue. There might be a problem, though, with
a very wide and lightly-ballasted IOR hull (or cruising design based on
same), especially in the smaller sizes. But I don't think the problem is
significantly aggravated by "overloading," especially if the extra weight
is in the form of well-placed tankage.
"Joel"
All,
I give. My personal opinion is (and we all know what opinions are worth)
is that a moderate to heavy boat like a Valiant or a Kanter(metal really
does make alot of sense for WAY out of the way voyaging) is a more
comfortable way to go than one of the lighter ULDB class vessels. I
(again, my opinion) would feel (no fact here) better cruising in a boat
that had, say, won a BOC. Or set a non-stop circumnavigation record
(Little Harbor). I only plan to go where the water is clear, the winds
are warm, and the rum is cheap. So about 80% of this thread doesn't
apply to me. A Beneteau 44cc would be great. I just want to island hop.
However, I would like to point out that good seamanship is at least
twice as important as type of vessel. A really good skipper could get a
mediocre boat through a bad situation. A bad skipper was on the Titanic,
and we all know how that one turned out.
Joel
My next boat will DEFINITLY have a blender.
C. Robert Parker
"Joel" wrote in message <34DE48...@swbellxxx.net>...
:All,
:My next boat will DEFINITLY have a blender.
AND an icemaker!
Bob
jktho...@earthlink.net
For what it's worth... this is not Thompson's Comfort Ratio. I'm the messenger.
Brewer has had more than just a few successful cruising designs - maybe there's a
grain of truth in his ratio.
Ed Monk Senior and Brewer and some other cruising yacht designers designed sailboats
for owners, not to some committee-evolved racing rule. Some of the "old time"
designers actually cruised and stayed overnight on their own designs - maybe they
evolved some good "comfortable" design rules of thumb.
From my experience, the jerky high-acceleration heave that ULDB's have is very
uncomfortable. It's enough to make you spill your sundowner, or "heave" it.
Terry Schell wrote:
> jktho...@earthlink.net writes:
>
> >From p.10-11 of Brewer's book book -
>
> >Comfort Ratio =
>
> >Displacement (pounds)
> >------------------------------------
> >.65 x (.7LWL + .3LOA) x Beam (exponent 1.333)
>
> >for my boat Disp = 38000, beam 13'6", LWL = 43'0", LOA = 50'4" >>>>> CI = 40.3
>
> >He says moderate and successful ocean cruisers like Whitby 42 and Perry's
> >Valiant 40 will be in the low to middle 30s.
>
> For what it's worth... I think this is a highly suspect measure of
> overall comfort. What this ratio measures is sensitivty to "heave". I
> think that factors like pitch and roll damping and dry decks have a
> *lot* more to do with my comfort than resistence to heave. These
> extremely important factors are not reflected at all in this ratio.
Terry Schell
David H Dennis <da...@freelink.net> writes:
<snip>
>After reading quite extensively about this, I've come to the conclusion
>that in general, small cruising boats should be heavy, because you can
>jam more stuff in them that way. For larger boats, you have more
>latitude because the load is a lower percentage of the total weight.
>That explains a lot of the apparent contradiction between advocates of
>heavy and light boats.
<snip>
Did you write this just to torment me?
Repeat after me: "A boat's ability to carry a heavy load safely and
efficiently is determined by waterplane area, not existing
displacement."
If you want to carry a lot of stuff, buy a big boat... not necessarily
a heavy boat.
Sincerely,
Terry
Terry Schell
Terry Schell
"Steve" <stephen...@top.monad.net> writes:
>>
>>To make a long story short, we went through the math to show that
>>stability actually increases. This is true even if all of the supplies
>>were carried above the CG. To many people, adding weight above the CG
>>implies that you will lose stability... the physics don't bear that out.
>>The small increase in CG height is offset by the overall increase in mass.
>>You can actually add gear quite high (well above the deck for many yachts)
>>and still get an increase in stability at normal sailing angles.
>>
>The key here is NORMAL sailing angles! What happens to the overloaded light
>displacement cruiser when it is passed it's righting moment! All I can say
>is good luck.
First of all, anything that increases stability at normal angles makes
it less likely that the boat will become inverted in the first place.
As for the effects of gear on an inverted boat...
A general rule is that gear stored and *secured* below decks will
decrease the inverted stability (a good thing) if it is stowed in the lower
half of the hull volume. This covers the vast majority of storage
locations including all of the tankage. The effects of gear stored on
deck is more complicated. If the object is less dense than water, however,
it will generally reduce inverted stability (a good thing).
>All this is somewhat frivolous when the boat is over 50' and used in
>tradewind routes.
Certainly true.
Anders Svensson
jktho...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> For what it's worth... this is not Thompson's Comfort Ratio. I'm the messenger.
> Brewer has had more than just a few successful cruising designs - maybe there's a
> grain of truth in his ratio.
On of the easiest traps to fall in, when trying to create 'simple'
measuring methods, is to use unsignificant but seemingly correlating
numbers or measurements.
I am pretty sure that there will be a high correlation between comfort
and number of toilets, diameter of mast, lenghth, width and sail area.
Even higher correlations would be found combining these numbers. Using
negative values for diameter of steering wheel, propeller blade area and
thickness of mooring lines would reinforce the validity even more...
Seagoing comfort, to me, is a state of mind. I think that comfort comes
from truly seagoing design of the boat, like decent sea berths,
handholds that are placed right, workable and efficient toilets,
navstations and galleys - things that can be achieved with some care on
many (or most) boats regardless of size.
I would alse feel more comfortable aboard a smaller, but strongly (not
just heavy) built boat, than on a 'flimsy' big boat - especially as the
size difference between 35 and 50 foot may feel irrelevant when seas
build into the 200+ foot range.
> From my experience, the jerky high-acceleration heave that ULDB's have is very
> uncomfortable. It's enough to make you spill your sundowner, or "heave" it.
Thats a new pitch...
--
Anders Svensson
mail: anders.-.ei...@swipnet.se
Paul Kamen
jktho...@earthlink.net writes:
>...Ed Monk Senior and Brewer and some other cruising yacht
>designers designed sailboats for owners, not to some
>committee-evolved racing rule...
They designed boats for money, and drew what the owners wanted. As Tom
Lerher says, "the trouble with most folk songs is that they were written
by The People."
Tim Marks
Anybody have any opinions about the newer Nauticats,
the Nauticat 39 or 42?
Bart Senior
"Amatori" <ama...@tin.it> wrote:
>Nothing longer than two days and one night. As soon as I can get a couple
>of weeks away from job and family, I am thinking of taking an offshore
>course. Any good ones out there?
>Or what would a good training passage be, crewing for someone else?
>>
>> Have you made any long passages?
>>
>> John Wilson.
Long passages are interesting but not much in learning experience.
What do you learn going 1500 miles on one tack? YOu will learn what
works for sea sickness, how to get allong with people, how to stay
awake on watch, hopefully, how to keep a good lookout, and how big the
ocean really is--all good reasons for going.
Better still would be coastal cruising with anchoring most nights, at
least one stretch of watchstanding keeping to a schedule.
For courses--Offshor Sailing offers a 6 day Liveaboard class, OCSC in
Berkeley offers a Coastal Cruising Course. Both require certification
in Basic Keelboat--and you better know that material well. OCSC also
requires Basic Cruising prior to their CN class.
I would be leary of an ocean passage unless you know the skipper well
beforehand, and the state of the vessel. bring your own safety gear
and don't go if the boats doesn't have the required gear on
board--SSB, VHF, EPIRB, liferaft, etc.
Sea Ya!
Bart Senior,
Professional Sailing Instructor
Dual Certified ASA/USS
Advanced Class Amateur Radio Operator: KC5VUO
Russ Turpin
-*--------
"Fritz;Ree" <ah...@always-online.com>
> A long boat may be faster but, but not necessarily more
> comfortable. The most important is roll rate. I have the
I would expect waterline length to play only a small role in
roll rate. In other words, if one took a boat and leaving all
else the same, merely stretched its waterline, that its roll
rate would change little if at all. Does the formula you have
say different?
I can well imagine that waterline length would have an effect
on other aspects of a boat's motion relevant to comfort.
Russell
--
If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to
do is stop diggin'. -- Texas Bix Bender
Fritz;Ree
For those who want to know!
Motion Comfort Ratio Formula:
displacement (pounds) divided by (.65 times ((.7 times lwl) plus (.3 times
lod)) times (beam to the 1.33 power))
lwl = length of water line, lod = length on deck, beam = width at water
line
Capsize Screening Formula:
Beam divided by (cube root of (displacement divided by 64.05))
This number should not be over 2
Fritz
Russ Turpin wrote in message <6bpvgv$dmr$1...@kodak.rdcs.Kodak.COM>...
Russ Turpin
-*-----------
"Fritz;Ree" <ah...@always-online.com>
> For those who want to know!
> Capsize Screening Formula:
Neither of these address your original claim, that "roll rate"
is the most important aspect to a boat's comfort, and the
question of whether waterline length affects it. Brewer's is
essentially an alternate formulation of heave, giving
preference to boats with more displacement per unit of
waterplane.
The capsize screening formula does not look at length at all.
It is merely a measure of a boat's displacement to its beam.
Higher numbers indicate a boat that is beamy relative to its
displacement.
Terry Schell
tur...@temporarily.unavailable (Russ Turpin) writes:
<snip>
>The capsize screening formula does not look at length at all.
>It is merely a measure of a boat's displacement to its beam.
>Higher numbers indicate a boat that is beamy relative to its
>displacement.
While I am bashing the Brewer measure of comfort, I might as well
through in a jab at the "capsize screening formula"...
Most tank testing has found that the *length* of the vessel is the
most important factor in determining the propensity to capsize. This
is often obscured because they investigate the effects of things like
beam or displacement by looking at how those factors moderate the
relationship between length and capsize.
For example, boat X might be capsized by a wave of height= .4*LWL.
Boat Y is heavier and narrower and it is capsized by a wave of
height=.45*LWL. Based on this you develop a "screening formula" that
shows that boats that are narrow and heavier are less likely to
capsize *given* equal length. If you are not constrained by length in
choosing a boat why not chose boat X but then make sure it is longer
than boat Y?
In other words, the capsize screening number appears to be inadequate
in comparisons across boats of diffent lenghts.
Sincerely,
Terry
Russ Turpin
Terry Schell writes:
> While I am bashing the Brewer measure of comfort, I might as well
> through in a jab at the "capsize screening formula"...
> Most tank testing has found that the *length* of the vessel is the
Waterline length? Deck length? Or some combination?
> ... This is often obscured because they investigate the effects of
> things like beam or displacement by looking at how those factors
> moderate the relationship between length and capsize.
Well ... I don't know the original intent behind the capsize
screening ratio, but some people use it as an indication of a
boat's ability to stay topsy-turvy once in that position, i.e.,
as a surrogate for range of positive stability, given that the
latter number is difficult to come by. This is somewhat
different from propensity to capsize. Beam helps prevent
initial capsize, but by the same token, it inhibits righting
once a boat is inverted.
Paul Kamen
tur...@temporarily.unavailable (Russ Turpin) writes:
>...if one took a boat and leaving all else the same, merely
>stretched its waterline, that its roll rate would change little
>if at all. Does the formula you have say different?
If only waterline length changed and displacement stayed constant
(implying a shallower hull) then roll rate becomes faster. If displacement
(and rig weight and keel weight, but not height or depth) increase in
proportion to length, then roll rate is unchanged.
But this totally ignores the effect of the keel on roll damping. In my
experience, roll is only a comfort problem on powerboats and on very
heavy "traditional" hulls with long shallow keels.
John Wilson
Bart wrote :
>Long passages are interesting but not much in learning experience.
>What do you learn going 1500 miles on one tack? YOu will learn what
>works for sea sickness, how to get allong with people, how to stay
>awake on watch, hopefully, how to keep a good lookout, and how big the
>ocean really is--all good reasons for going.
>
>Better still would be coastal cruising with anchoring most nights, at
>least one stretch of watchstanding keeping to a schedule.
>
I agree with every word. Perhaps we interpret "offshore" differently.
I thought the writer was talking about long passages - I do tend to
meet lots of people who want to voyage without learning the basics
first. A good coastal cruising course with maybe one overnight
passage is a good start..
>I would be leary of an ocean passage unless you know the skipper well
>beforehand, and the state of the vessel. bring your own safety gear
>and don't go if the boats doesn't have the required gear on
>board--SSB, VHF, EPIRB, liferaft, etc.
I agree with the first half 100% and mostly with the second. I've
turned down passages because I wasn't happy with the boat, the skipper
or the rest of the crew. On one occasion I was right. Sad story.
I'm not too worried about SSB, VHF, EPIRBs etc, because in my (
possibly unfortunate ) experience when the **** really hits the fan
ALL the electronics stop working because they've been immersed in cold
salt water. I'd rather have a strong boat with an experienced
determined crew. I'll take along the electronics but if they're there
or I can afford them ( after the rest of the boat is right ), but I
don't in my heart ever really expect them to work when needed.
It's like gas foghorns. When it's really cold and damp and thick fog,
and you haer this big diesel bonking away, and a bow wave steadily
getting louder, they freeze up when you press the button!
John Wilson
Anders Svensson
John Wilson wrote:
>
> Bart wrote :
>
> >Long passages are interesting but not much in learning experience.
> >What do you learn going 1500 miles on one tack? YOu will learn what
> >works for sea sickness, how to get allong with people, how to stay
> >awake on watch, hopefully, how to keep a good lookout, and how big the
> >ocean really is--all good reasons for going.
> >
> >Better still would be coastal cruising with anchoring most nights, at
> >least one stretch of watchstanding keeping to a schedule.
> >
> I agree with every word. Perhaps we interpret "offshore" differently.
> I thought the writer was talking about long passages - I do tend to
> meet lots of people who want to voyage without learning the basics
> first. A good coastal cruising course with maybe one overnight
> passage is a good start..
This is some good sense...
Are we talking basic sailing/cruising, or are we talking getting
experience enough to captain a world cruise?
The original poster was the guy planning for a world cruise in a 40+
foot boat - apparently without any experience of cruising/sailing
beforehand.
How come that so many people (apparently, some with experience)
encourage and offer to help someone into such a potentially dangerous
venture, without making clear that this is something that need solid
sailing experience - not only to be safe, but also to be enjoyable.
Crawl, walk and then run - thats the natural order. Anyone suggesting
running before crawling is IMO doing this guy (and many others) a
disservice.
Anders
Goodchild
You can develop the results for your own boat's capsize screening
formula a the following site:
Best regards,
David N. Goodchild
--
PART THREE of building TOAD HALL: The Rotating Building Frame
http://www.anyboat.com/toadhall.htm
For shop and building tips from TOAD HALL
http://catalog.com/bobpone/shopbuilding.htm
Anders Svensson
Russ Turpin wrote:
> Well ... I don't know the original intent behind the capsize
> screening ratio, but some people use it as an indication of a
> boat's ability to stay topsy-turvy once in that position, i.e.,
> as a surrogate for range of positive stability, given that the
> latter number is difficult to come by. This is somewhat
> different from propensity to capsize. Beam helps prevent
> initial capsize, but by the same token, it inhibits righting
> once a boat is inverted.
>
> Russell
Before everybody goes completely wild about the 'capsize screening'
formula - just consider that this, just like the 'comfort factor' are
intentional simplifications of very complex issues.
Empirically proofed rules and calculation models will not automatically
be transferable to radically different designs or even similar designs,
if they are much smaller (or bigger).
Paul Kamen
For what it's worth, I think the "capszie screening formula" actually has
a lot more validity than the "comfort factor." At least for boats of
"normal" proportions. We have a number of data points for boats of the
J-24 and Merit 25 type to bear this out.
John Matott
Are you guys referring to Brewer's "comfort ratio"?
Anders Svensson
Paul Kamen wrote:
>
> For what it's worth, I think the "capszie screening formula" actually has
> a lot more validity than the "comfort factor." At least for boats of
> "normal" proportions. We have a number of data points for boats of the
> J-24 and Merit 25 type to bear this out.
> --
I think so too. My own boat comes out at 1.7 - seems reasonable. Anyone
coming out with a 'wrong' value on a boat would probably be wise to let
a naval architect do a 'proper' calculation on both inverted and right
side up stability.
Kind of a second opinion, much like letting a real doctor have a look,
if a magazine article leads you to belive you have a dangerous disease
Surfer
In article <34e15524...@news.asiaonline.net>, John Wilson
<jwi...@asiaonline.net> writes
>Bart wrote :
>
>>Long passages are interesting but not much in learning experience.
>>What do you learn going 1500 miles on one tack? YOu will learn what
>>works for sea sickness, how to get allong with people, how to stay
>>awake on watch, hopefully, how to keep a good lookout, and how big the
>>ocean really is--all good reasons for going.
>>
>>Better still would be coastal cruising with anchoring most nights, at
>>least one stretch of watchstanding keeping to a schedule.
>>
>I agree with every word. Perhaps we interpret "offshore" differently.
>I thought the writer was talking about long passages - I do tend to
>meet lots of people who want to voyage without learning the basics
>first. A good coastal cruising course with maybe one overnight
>passage is a good start..
>
>>beforehand, and the state of the vessel. bring your own safety gear
>>and don't go if the boats doesn't have the required gear on
>>board--SSB, VHF, EPIRB, liferaft, etc.
>
>I agree with the first half 100% and mostly with the second. I've
>turned down passages because I wasn't happy with the boat, the skipper
>or the rest of the crew. On one occasion I was right. Sad story.
>
>I'm not too worried about SSB, VHF, EPIRBs etc, because in my (
>possibly unfortunate ) experience when the **** really hits the fan
>ALL the electronics stop working because they've been immersed in cold
>salt water.
I thought the whole point of EPIRBs was to emit a signal picked up by
satilite when the fan became brown so that you could be located & maybe
picked up in (almost) any part of the world, and that their construction
was waterproof etc. I think they are meant to be located in a specific
place similar to liferafts. I can't remember what sets them off.
PS I heard a good story about an EPIRB stolen from a boat in Aberdeen
harbour. It went off, beamed it's message which was picked up & sent to
the Coastguard. The realised that the location was *not* on the water
so altered the local cops, who turned up to greatly surprise the villan
who hadn't realised it was in a bag of stuff he had nicked!
> I'd rather have a strong boat with an experienced
>determined crew. I'll take along the electronics but if they're there
>or I can afford them ( after the rest of the boat is right ), but I
>don't in my heart ever really expect them to work when needed.
>
>
>It's like gas foghorns. When it's really cold and damp and thick fog,
>and you haer this big diesel bonking away, and a bow wave steadily
>getting louder, they freeze up when you press the button!
>
>John Wilson
--
Surfer!
http://www.nevis-vieww.demon.co.uk
Hopeful anti-spam: alter double 'w' to single 'w' to view site & send Email.
Terry Schell
fish...@netcom.com (Paul Kamen) writes:
>For what it's worth, I think the "capszie screening formula" actually has
>a lot more validity than the "comfort factor." At least for boats of
>"normal" proportions. We have a number of data points for boats of the
>J-24 and Merit 25 type to bear this out.
>--
Like I said before, the screening formula seems to reflect tank
testing results... except that it ignores the length of the vessel
(which tank testing shows as one of the most important factors). So
long as you are comparing boats of similar lengths (J-24 and Merit 25)
the formula should do a fair job.
Terry Schell
Anders Svensson <anders.-.ei...@swipnet.se> writes:
<snip>
>I think so too. My own boat comes out at 1.7 - seems reasonable. Anyone
>coming out with a 'wrong' value on a boat would probably be wise to let
>a naval architect do a 'proper' calculation on both inverted and right
>side up stability.
>Kind of a second opinion, much like letting a real doctor have a look,
>if a magazine article leads you to belive you have a dangerous disease
I would argue that the stability curve is only one of many factors
that determine risk of capsize. People who have tried to model all of
the factors come up with extremely complicated models in which the
stability curve is one of many factors. If you want to see a
reasonable attempt to quantify seaworthiness, check out the Moon & van
Oossanen work I mentioned a couple of days ago... or you can just
check out the resulting formulae in the Larsson and Eliasson Yacht
design primer.
As you said before, this is an extreme simplification of a complicated
issue. If you really use this formula as a screening formula, I think
you are ignoring that fact. Even if your boat "flunks" the test, you
might be less likely to capsize than another boat that "passes" with
flying colors.
Sincerely,
Terry
Brian Grant
Surfer wrote:
>
>
> I thought the whole point of EPIRBs was to emit a signal picked up by
> satilite when the fan became brown so that you could be located & maybe
> picked up in (almost) any part of the world, and that their construction
> was waterproof etc. I think they are meant to be located in a specific
> place similar to liferafts. I can't remember what sets them off.
>
True, many vessels have them mounted in such a position that they will
break loose and start transmitting automatically. These basically give
the SAR guys a position to calculate drift and start search patterns.
It is a good idea to have a second tethered to the liferaft.
>
Anders Svensson
So true...
My 'I think so too' was aimed at Pauls suggestion that the capsize
screening' was more useful than the comfort ratio'.
Anders
Myles J. Swift
I agree that this formula is not real world. I ran it for my boat and
came out at 2.3. I have a light plywood hull, 90 degree chines, and a
lead keel. This formula would come out the same for a heavily built
canoe hull of the same length with little ballast if the total weight
and beam at the deck level were the same.
Myles
>Terry Shell wrote
> Like I said before, the screening formula seems to reflect tank
> testing results... except that it ignores the length of the vessel
> (which tank testing shows as one of the most important factors). So
> long as you are comparing boats of similar lengths (J-24 and Merit 25)
> the formula should do a fair job.
--
BOB WELLS
Isn't the Capsize Formula used by the USGC when evaluating a boat for
certification as a commercial vessel?
~Bob~
bobw...@hansenengineering.com
Myles J. Swift wrote in message <34E3E6...@computerassistance.com>...
Russ Turpin
-*------
> Isn't the Capsize Formula used by the USGC when evaluating a
> boat for certification as a commercial vessel?
As a general rule? I doubt it. First, the formula is a surrogate for
more accurate measurements of a boat's ability to self-right after
being knocked over. Second, boats such as barges and catamarans do not
self-right, but are also more resistant to being knocked down than a
small sailboat. (A catamaran that passes the capsize screen lacks
nadequate stability!) I would not be surprised if the USCG used the
capsize screen as some part of an evaluation process, but if so, I
suspect there are several other steps that set the context for its
use.
Fritz;Ree
The capsize formula was derived by some of the best minds in the boating
world.
This formula was derived after much research.
For more on this read, Offshore Yachts by the Technical Committee of the
Cruising Club of America.
I would never go offshore in boat with a 2.3 rating. The problem they want
to stay upside down. That was one of the problems with boats that were lost
in Fastnet race a few years ago. They do not allow boats with high capsize
ratings to race the Fastnet any longer.
Fritz
BOB WELLS wrote in message <6bvpv1$6cg$1...@news1-alterdial.uu.net>...
>Isn't the Capsize Formula used by the USGC when evaluating a boat for
>certification as a commercial vessel?