Hobie 33 (or?) for Bluewater Cruising?
Jim King
What is your sailing experience? The question that you posted tells me that
more sailing experience would be the next step, not buying a boat for
something that you're not yet prepared.
--
Jim King
http://home.att.net/~sailking
doug a blaisdell wrote in message ...
>...Hobie 33 ... world cruising ?.....something safe, that's low/cheap
maintenance, too.
doug a blaisdell
Hi Everbuddy!
Very newbie looking around for a boat in the Hobie 33 price range (ie cheap)
to do world cruising (eg. carribean, polynesia, se asia, etc). I'd like
something safe, that's low/cheap maintenance, too. (All this preesuming
I'll be a competent bluewater sailor when the time comes.) I don't mind
roughing it, for the right price (I may graduate to something more comfortable
eventually).
I understood that the Hobie was up to this task, though rather cramped.
thanks,
doug
kpk...@acpub.duke.edu
A Hobie 33 would be a fun boat to learn to sail on; and it would be
possible to use as a "bluewater" (ie making offshore passages) cruiser.
By the time you got it equipped, it might not be the most economical
choice.
Cramped? That all depends. Lin and Larry Pardey sailed around for years,
living aboard a 24-foot cutter. Weight is really the key factor. You are
committed to carrying supplies. Clothing and dunnage takes up a lot of
room, but don't weigh much (when dry, anyway). Food, water, fuel, and
tools/spare parts are very heavy. Too much weight and you don't sail,
you wallow. A Hobie 33 is a light-displacement flyer.
So you have to keep it simple and spartan, or else look for a different
boat entirely, one that will carry all your precious "stuff," one that
was designed to wallow instead of sail in the first place.
BTW, I would avoid using the words "bluewater cruiser." It's a marketing
term.
Fresh Breezes- Doug King
N8PR -Pete
kpk...@acpub.duke.edu wrote:
>
> A Hobie 33 would be a fun boat to learn to sail on; and it would be
> possible to use as a "bluewater" (ie making offshore passages) cruiser.
I would not even think about making a Hobie 33 into an offshore cruising
boat. It was designed as a light displacement planing raceing sloop.By
the time you fill it with all the goodies, food and supplies for
cruising, it will be too heavy to plane and sail much below its lines.
You don't really want a planing boat for cruising.... it might take off
just when you don't want it to, and it is not the best boat to keep
under control.
I know first hand having raced against a fleet of them in southern
Florida. When the wind piped up, and we were to race to the Bahamas in
20 kts from the S.E., most if not all chose to stay home. One further
incident which might persuade you... One sailed back with us from
Freeport to Ft. L. and sailed through a small squall. It was hit by
lightning, and the lightning blew a 1/2" hole in the bottom! We had to
give them a portable bilge pump, hand held radio and the promise to
shepherd them back to Fla. After that, the same dummies sailed away
from us and (fortunately) made it back safely.
Do you get the idea that the hull might not be heavy enough to withstand
the rigors of cruising while overloaded?
YUP!
Look for a boat which is designed for your purpose.
Many can get by with less boat than the designed purpose, but not
always. over the past twenty years int he business, I would suspect,
from the stories I have heard, more people get into trouble with
inappropriately designed boats, than properly designed ones. Remember,
there are ;many boats which keep the water out which were originally
designed for lakes and coastal sailing, that, like your thinking, people
thought that they could go further,cheaper. Well, you GET WHAT YOU PAY
FOR!
Good luck and smoothe sailing in what ever boat you finally choose
Paul Kamen
k8...@shadow.net writes:
>I would not even think about making a Hobie 33 into an offshore
>cruising boat... By the time you fill it with all the
>goodies, food and supplies for cruising, it will be too heavy
>to plane and sail much below its lines.
That all depends on how many "goodies" you think you need, how many people
you want to cruise with, and how often you need to make really long
crossings. Remember, it was designed to sail with a crew of five or six
and all their gear, so a singlehander or a cruising couple have a bit of
slack in the weight budget before it gets below its lines. And even then
it will still be fast and safe.
>You don't really want a planing boat for cruising.... it might
>take off just when you don't want it to, and it is not the best
>boat to keep under control.
Explain please. Is this like saying "I don't want to own a fast car,
because I might drive it too fast?"
>I know first hand having raced against a fleet of them in
>southern Florida. When the wind piped up, and we were to race
>to the Bahamas in 20 kts from the S.E., most if not all chose
>to stay home.
Here on the Northern California coast, where 30 knots is routine and the
waves come from Alaska or Japan, the Hobie 33 has an excellent reputation
as a strong and seaworthy ocean racer.
>...One sailed back with us from Freeport to Ft. L. and sailed
>through a small squall. It was hit by lightning, and the
>lightning blew a 1/2" hole in the bottom! ...
Do you have any idea what the same lightning strike would have done to
any other boat in the fleet?
Besides, a boat like a Hobie 33 is very easy to make unsinkable with a
very modest amount of added foam flotation. Safety against sinking due to
a sudden leak is one area where flotated ultralights have an undisputed
advantage. Even without the flotation, look at the ratio of reserve
buoyancy to displacement, and the pressure head at the hull bottom.
>Do you get the idea that the hull might not be heavy enough to
>withstand the rigors of cruising while overloaded?
>
>YUP!
Nope. You don't believe you have presented any evidence to support that
conclusion.
>
>Look for a boat which is designed for your purpose.
A boat designed for ocean racing generally means a higher standard of
design and quality control than most cruisers on the market today. Some
racing designs are unsuitable for cruising, but some are superb. If you
can tell the difference, it's the most economical way to get a high
quality cruiser.
>...over the past twenty years in the business, I would suspect,
>from the stories I have heard, more people get into trouble
>with inappropriately designed boats, than properly designed
>ones...
Actually I see very little correlation between boat design and getting
into trouble, if we're talking "normal" cruising routes and seasons. It's
usually the auxilliary systems and structural details that cause the
problems.
--
fish...@netcom.com
http://www.well.com/~pk/fishmeal.html
-"Call me Fishmeal"-
Anders Svensson
Paul Kamen <fish...@netcom.com> skrev i inlägg
<fishmealE...@netcom.com>...
> k8...@shadow.net writes:
>
> >You don't really want a planing boat for cruising.... it might
> >take off just when you don't want it to, and it is not the best
> >boat to keep under control.
>
> Explain please. Is this like saying "I don't want to own a fast car,
> because I might drive it too fast?"
Maybe the "I dont want to own a fast car, because I don't know what happens
if if I really push the pedal..." is a even more appropriate allegory...
Many, many people have learned to sail in big, slow boats, and will not
think they are able to handle fast (and therefore relatively light) boats.
The idea that big, sedate and underpowered boats are the best for ocean
sailing is almost universal among people without proper sailing skills.
This is an area where racing experience is really worth something, as it is
a very good way of getting experience of what happens when overpowered, in
close quarters with other boats and a 'proper' reason for trying tight
manouvering.
Speed and manouverability IS real safety factors, just like they are in
cars.
The current thinking in (car) safety is to create safety systems that will
allow you to make "stupid mistakes" - like air bags (life rafts and EPIRB's
?) and safety cages (unsinkability?).
To take the car analogy further, would therefore ABS brakes, horse power
reserve and excellent manouverability be wasted on the "common driver" ?
Therefore, would superior boat performance be wasted on people cruising ?
Why ?
Anders Svensson
kpk...@acpub.duke.edu
I don't think that N8PR-Pete read my whole post. The Hobie 33 is
certainly NOT appropriate for a cruiser who wants to bring along a
15-year supply of canned Dinty Moore, along with nine anchors on
all-chain rodes and a microwave.
I believe I said "spartan" would be the way to go. And a light,
responsive boat is certainly much better to learn to sail on. That way
you can tell when you're doing it wrong!
>
> kpk...@acpub.duke.edu wrote:
> >
> > A Hobie 33 would be a fun boat to learn to sail on; and it would be
> > possible to use as a "bluewater" (ie making offshore passages) cruiser.
> N8PR -Pete wrote:
> I would not even think about making a Hobie 33 into an offshore cruising
> boat. It was designed as a light displacement planing raceing sloop.By
> the time you fill it with all the goodies, food and supplies for
> cruising, it will be too heavy to plane and sail much below its lines.
> You don't really want a planing boat for cruising.... it might take off
> just when you don't want it to, and it is not the best boat to keep
> under control.
Total BS. A fast responsive boat is... well, RESPONSIVE! That means she
RESPONDS to the actions of the crew and skipper. If you know how,
they're great. If you're just another klutz with a Mastercard Gold and a
sailboat, you get banged around a lot.
> (snip)...Look for a boat which is designed for your purpose.
And if you want a boat that actually SAILS, as opposed to sort of
wallowing along, then the Hobie 33 IS designed for your purpose.
>
> Many can get by with less boat than the designed purpose, but not
> always. over the past twenty years int he business, I would suspect,
> from the stories I have heard, more people get into trouble with
> inappropriately designed boats, than properly designed ones. Remember,
> there are ;many boats which keep the water out which were originally
> designed for lakes and coastal sailing, that, like your thinking, people
> thought that they could go further,cheaper. Well, you GET WHAT YOU PAY
> FOR!
While it's true that you get what you pay for, a KNOWLEDGEABLE and
SKILLED person can make a great bargain out of something that would be
wholly useless to another person. For example, an expert at restoring
old sports cars could find a great deal in a car that others would
consider an ugly, unreliable, rattle-trap.
The real key here is to know what you want to do, and choose a boat
appropriate for that function, and learn her characteristics. Anyone can
make a boat sail poorly. Some boats cannot be made to sail well by
anybody. Some sailors cannot make any boat sail well. Some can do well
in certain conditions. There is a huge variation in types of boats for
just this reason!
A lot of the "true cruisers" on this NG seem to feel that sailing is
inappropriate to cruising. If they simply view the boat as the means to
travel, that's fine. But they should not criticize those who enjoy the
journey as well.
Fresh Breezes- Doug King
Jim Manzari
Paul Kamen wrote:
>
> Explain please. Is this like saying "I don't want to own a fast car,
> because I might drive it too fast?"
I think it might be a bit like saying "I would like a fast car, but
one without defective steering, capable of being lived in comfortably
for many years, and which will pass the Swedish elk test (not roll
over when swerving to avoid an animal on the road ahead)".
> Here on the Northern California coast, where 30 knots is routine and the
> waves come from Alaska or Japan, the Hobie 33 has an excellent reputation
> as a strong and seaworthy ocean racer.
An excellent reputation determined by whom? Racing skippers or
cruising skippers? What may be perfectly suited to downwind sledding
between San Francisco and LA, within a few minutes or hours from the
closest US Coast Guard rescue center, from marina to marina, in the
zero gale months of the year will probably not be very good for
long-term bluewater cruising all over the world.
Just curious, where did you get that statistic about 30 knots being
"routine". If my memory of 10 years of sailing out of SF Bay serves,
aside from the local afternoon summer winds that blow for a limited
number of hours each day in SF Bay and in front of the Golden Gate,
the winds along the coast of N. California from Pt. Conception to
Blunts Reef are never "routinely" 30 knots. One could easily check
the WX data archives to debunk this piece of nonsense.
You really should put a little more thinking into your "recreational
typing".
> >Do you get the idea that the hull might not be heavy enough to
> >withstand the rigors of cruising while overloaded?
> >
> >YUP!
>
> Nope. You don't believe you have presented any evidence to support that
> conclusion.
Paul, once again, if you had any experience with long-term bluewater
cruising you would know that almost every boat out there is
overloaded, some to a remarkable degree. This is a natural part of
cruising where 2 months of water and fuel, 2 or more bottles of
cooking fuel, 6 months of food, 3 or more anchors and rodes, dinghy
and motor, heavy weather sails, 100s of charts, tools, engine spares,
solar panels, wind generators, and the hundreds of other things needed
to live for years in remote locations.
> >...over the past twenty years in the business, I would suspect,
> >from the stories I have heard, more people get into trouble
> >with inappropriately designed boats, than properly designed
> >ones...
>
> Actually I see very little correlation between boat design and getting
> into trouble, if we're talking "normal" cruising routes and seasons.
What's a "normal" cruising route and season? Not too long ago you
were telling us about the 1980 Cabo storm that drove a number of boats
ashore. Was this disaster in an ab-"normal" cruising route and season?
Jim Manzari
Jim Manzari
Anders Svensson wrote:
<snip>
> Speed and manouverability IS real safety factors, just like they are in
> cars.
Ah, speed and maneuverability! The only two words in a true racing
sailor's vocabulary!
> The current thinking in (car) safety is to create safety systems
> that will allow you to make "stupid mistakes" - like air bags (life
> rafts and EPIRB's ?) and safety cages (unsinkability?).
Interesting concept this! We should go to sea in marginally
un-seaworthy boats so that in the middle of the Indian Ocean or South
Pacific we are allowed to make a "stupid mistake" and then we get to
use our life raft and EPIRB. Hmmm....no thanks!
> To take the car analogy further, would therefore ABS brakes, horse power
> reserve and excellent maneuverability be wasted on the "common driver"?
A recent insurance study indicates that ABS has caused more accidents
than it has prevented, due to lulling the driver into a false sense of
security. Could all this propaganda about the virtues of racing boats
from a few racing enthusiasts in the cruising newsgroup do the same
harm?
> Therefore, would superior boat performance be wasted on people cruising?
Is the only measure of "performance" speed and maneuverability? How
about the ability to hove-to, or the ability to carry a heavy payload,
or the ability to take care of itself while the crew rests, or an easy
non-fatiguing motion in a seaway, or strong enough to survive the
anchor loads during a surprise gale in a remote anchorage, etc,
etc....? Without doubt, these are important "performance" criteria
among the blue-water cruisers.
Jim Manzari
Jerry Finsen
Not to disagree, but to shed a slightly different light on the subject...
IMHO - We should not think of Life Rafts and EPIRBs, MOMs as safety
equipment: They should be thought of as disaster management equipment.
Safety equipment is the stuff used to prevent the disaster from happening:
Jack Lines, Sea Anchors, WEFAX, and speed and maneuverability too.
--
Jerry Finsen
s/v Arcturus
KG2JM
gfi...@usa.net
**************************************************************
Jim Manzari wrote in message <3545D9A9...@bluewin.ch>...
Jean Somerhausen
personnally would put them in a different order with the easy motion
first, the ability to heave to second, the self steering ease (for crew
rest) third, the ability to anchor in exposed locations fourth (you just
have to chose better anchorages) and the payload carrying capacity fifth
(you take less stuff on board).
John
t.r.mcloughlin
Team Manzari wrote:
> A recent insurance study indicates that ABS has caused more accidents
> than it has prevented, due to lulling the driver into a false sense of
> security.
If this is the cause and effect conclusion reached, it sounds
like a really shoddy study. How did they quantify the
drivers' senses of security, the degree of lulling, and
the relationship between the lulling and the falseness
of the drivers' security senses?
Perhaps the study indicates that a) driving dangerously, and
2) failure to properly use installed equipment are factors
that lead to a greater probability of accident?
Did the study control for the difference between
ABS *properly* used and ABS *improperly* used?
It's like comparing a poorly set Bruce to a well set Fortress
and then making a generality about Bruces.
And remember, basing *any* arguement on the product of the
insurance industry is basing your arguement on the use
of probability, the mire into which falls the weak mind
when its grip on logic fails.
trm
jktho...@earthlink.net
I see you're preaching to the UN-convertable again. Even when Lowell North
went cruising in 1992 - you think he went cruising in a Hobie 33 (or a Santa
Cruz 50, or a Santa Cruz 52, or a Santa Cruz 70 or an Andrews 70). No - he
went in a plain fat sluggy old Tayana 52. I wonder what the reason was. And
no, he didn't just happen to already own it - he specifically went out and
bought this boat to go cruising. Why would North go cruising in a slow fat
Tayana 52 when he could have had an exhilarating sport car ride with speed and
manouverability on a "GoFast Rocketship 57" - for 3-4 years of exhilarating
pure pleasure. Maybe because his lady told him to get stuffed if he though she
was going to live in a Formula 1 racing beer car for 3-4 years. Maybe because
he also doesn't believe this BS dogma about cruising in a racing boat. Maybe
he wanted some comfort. Who knows ? Let's see - who votes that North went
cruising in a school-bus with 4 flat tires ??
Jim Manzari wrote:
> Anders Svensson wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Speed and manouverability IS real safety factors, just like they are in
> > cars.
>
> Ah, speed and maneuverability! The only two words in a true racing
> sailor's vocabulary!
>
> > The current thinking in (car) safety is to create safety systems
> > that will allow you to make "stupid mistakes" - like air bags (life
> > rafts and EPIRB's ?) and safety cages (unsinkability?).
>
> Interesting concept this! We should go to sea in marginally
> un-seaworthy boats so that in the middle of the Indian Ocean or South
> Pacific we are allowed to make a "stupid mistake" and then we get to
> use our life raft and EPIRB. Hmmm....no thanks!
>
> > To take the car analogy further, would therefore ABS brakes, horse power
> > reserve and excellent maneuverability be wasted on the "common driver"?
>
> A recent insurance study indicates that ABS has caused more accidents
> than it has prevented, due to lulling the driver into a false sense of
Paul Kamen
Jim Manzari <man...@bluewin.ch> writes:
>An excellent reputation determined by whom? Racing skippers or
>cruising skippers?...
Virtually anyone wiht direct experience with the boat. (I know very few
racers that don't also cruise.)
>What may be perfectly suited to downwind sledding
>between San Francisco and LA, within a few minutes or
>hours from the closest US Coast Guard rescue center,
>from marina to marina, in the zero gale months of the year will
>probably not be very good for long-term bluewater cruising all
>over the world.
Most of our ocean races finish at the same place they start, and the
season begins in late March. We have downwind races to Southern California
and Hawaii, too. Ever been around Point Reyes in typical Spring weather?
No sledding on the uphill leg...
>Just curious, where did you get that statistic about 30 knots
>being "routine"...
I didn't say that 30 knots was "avarege," but I'll stand by "routine" for
in the Bay or outside. Meaning that it happens often enough so that it's
not considered unusually stressful or hazardous.
>...This is a natural part of cruising where 2 months of water
>and fuel, 2 or more bottles of cooking fuel, 6 months of food...
Not all offshore cruising involves such long periods of self-sufficiency.
As I noted in my previous post, the suitability of a boat as small and
light at a Hobie 33 depends to some extent on the frequency of long
crossings, among other things.
>What's a "normal" cruising route and season? Not too long
>ago you were telling us about the 1980 Cabo storm that drove a
>number of boats ashore. Was this disaster in an ab-"normal"
>cruising route and season?
It was extremely abnormal, and boats of all types were caught unprepared
and destroyed. As noted, the ultralight Olson 40 seemed to suffer the least
damage of all the boats that were driven ashore. But if you need a
working definition, by "normal routes and seasons" I mean routes ans
seasons that avoid hurricans.
rado...@ibm.net
jktho...@earthlink.net wrote in message
<35464671...@earthlink.net>...
>I see you're preaching to the UN-convertable again. Even when Lowell North
>went cruising in 1992 - you think he went cruising in a Hobie 33 (or a
Santa
>Cruz 50, or a Santa Cruz 52, or a Santa Cruz 70 or an Andrews 70). No - he
>went in a plain fat sluggy old Tayana 52. I wonder what the reason was. And
>no, he didn't just happen to already own it - he specifically went out and
>bought this boat to go cruising. Why would North go cruising in a slow fat
>Tayana 52 when he could have had an exhilarating sport car ride with speed
and
>manouverability on a "GoFast Rocketship 57" - for 3-4 years of exhilarating
>pure pleasure.
When I last talked to Lowel North in Venezuela after 90% of his
circumnavigation, he was ready to trade Wannago in on a big catamaran. He
said based on the conditions he had seen the cat would have been a much
better boat than the slow fat Tayana 52.
Don Radcliffe
s/v Klondike
jktho...@earthlink.net
Terry Schell wrote:
> <snip>
>
> The "if I had to do it over it would have been in a cat" comment was
> also quoted in an interview in one of the sailing rags... cruising world,
> I think.
Sorry - I gave up reading "Chartering" World when I went cruising so I missed it.
Though I did read on p. 2 of Vol 1 of "The Common Sense of Yacht Design" by LF
Herreshoff where he says that "on all vessels and particularly racing sailboats
at low speed in light weather the surface resistance is nearly the whole
resistance. This is the reason why the fin keeler and the catamaran with their
large surface are hopeless in light weather." So if cats are slow in light
weather and could have the ultimate in a large range of instability (upside-down
transverse stability) - wonder why he'd want one ? Probably he was just annoyed
that he couldn't make it go as fast as it's previous owner ?? (who was Craig
Breedlove).
Thomas Ling
Jim Manzari <man...@bluewin.ch> wrote
".
>between San Francisco and LA, within a few minutes or hours from the
>closest US Coast Guard rescue center, from marina to marina, in the
>zero gale months of the year will probably not be very good for
>long-term bluewater cruising all over the world.
>
Have you been on a Hobie 33 and examine the construction?
We owned one for 14 yrs and never had a bit of structural problem. We have
put this boat thru many high winds and rough seas over the years and saw
little wear.
BTW talking about structural strength, did you happen to see the movie by
Warren Miller 15 yrs ago on the Hobie 33? They dropped the boat 10 ft from
the water and suffered NO damage. And if that was not enough the boat ran
deliberately into a bed of rocks at 6 knots several times, sustained
scratches on the bulb, no structural damage. The boat was named CRASH and
it is still sailing today.
Maybe Hobie 33 may not meet your standard of a strongly made boat, but
please don't condemn it simply because it does not fit your accounting
figures. There is lot more than the eye sees.
cheers, Thomas Ling
Terry Schell
Lauri Tarkkonen
In <fishmealE...@netcom.com> fish...@netcom.com (Paul Kamen) writes:
> Jim Manzari <man...@bluewin.ch> writes:
> >An excellent reputation determined by whom? Racing skippers or
> >cruising skippers?...
>Virtually anyone wiht direct experience with the boat. (I know very few
>racers that don't also cruise.)
Sorry, you missed the point, as soon as you participate in a race,
you loose any credibility as a cruiser. You are not even supposed
to think of passing another sailing boat going to the same general
direction than you. You see cruising is a state of mind that the
race infected can never achieve.
> >Just curious, where did you get that statistic about 30 knots
> >being "routine"...
>I didn't say that 30 knots was "avarege," but I'll stand by "routine" for
>in the Bay or outside. Meaning that it happens often enough so that it's
>not considered unusually stressful or hazardous.
> >...This is a natural part of cruising where 2 months of water
> >and fuel, 2 or more bottles of cooking fuel, 6 months of food...
>Not all offshore cruising involves such long periods of self-sufficiency.
>As I noted in my previous post, the suitability of a boat as small and
>light at a Hobie 33 depends to some extent on the frequency of long
>crossings, among other things.
If you had any real bluewater cruising experience, a couple of trips
from San Francisco to Waikiki does not count as you have still half
the ocean to go, you would know that the true cruiser sail continiously
for two months in 30 knots of wind. (The secret is that they thell
you the wind was continiously over 40 knots.)
> >What's a "normal" cruising route and season? Not too long
> >ago you were telling us about the 1980 Cabo storm that drove a
> >number of boats ashore. Was this disaster in an ab-"normal"
> >cruising route and season?
>It was extremely abnormal, and boats of all types were caught unprepared
>and destroyed. As noted, the ultralight Olson 40 seemed to suffer the least
>damage of all the boats that were driven ashore. But if you need a
>working definition, by "normal routes and seasons" I mean routes ans
>seasons that avoid hurricans.
But if you are not prepared to face a hurricane or two on your trip,
you are really badly restricted in your choice of route and destination
or your timing. That again invalidates your classification as a true
blue water cruiser.
- Lauri Tarkkonen
Terry Schell
jktho...@earthlink.net writes:
<snip>
>Though I did read on p. 2 of Vol 1 of "The Common Sense of Yacht Design" by LF
>Herreshoff where he says that "on all vessels and particularly racing sailboats
>at low speed in light weather the surface resistance is nearly the whole
>resistance. This is the reason why the fin keeler and the catamaran with their
>large surface are hopeless in light weather." So if cats are slow in light
>weather and could have the ultimate in a large range of instability (upside-down
>transverse stability) - wonder why he'd want one ? Probably he was just annoyed
>that he couldn't make it go as fast as it's previous owner ?? (who was Craig
>Breedlove).
You crack me up. First you say that speed doesn't matter for the
cruising sailor, then you say that heavier boats are faster. First
you hold up North as an example of a good sailor who makes intelligent
choices, then (when you find out he disagrees with you) you insult his
sailing ability.
As far as heavier boats being faster in light air, this is certainly
true if you scale maximum SA down as you decrease displacement to keep
a constant SA/D ratio. There isn't anything in the physics that forces
you to do this, however. You could scale down SA to keep a constant
SA/wetted surface ratio. You could even leave max SA constant as you
reduce D.
I think you will find that the vast proportion of variability
in time-to-finish in races is directly proportional to SA/D^.33. You
will see that displacement figures in the *denominator* of this
relationship. This is true over a large sample of boats of various
designs and vintages (over 1000 types in the sample) and over the
widest possible range of conditions. (Note that this is not the
conventional "SA/D ratio", SA/D^.33 "penalizes" boats much less for
being heavy. It does, however, still penalize them.)
As far as "why he would want" a large cat. How about larger, dryer, and
more usable living area? How about much harder to capsize than a
comparably sized mono? How about vastly reduced draft? How about
significantly faster in the normal tradewind circumnavigation routes?
While a cat does have some disadvantages for some types of cruising, you
are crazy if you think there are no advantages.
Sincerely,
Terry "your-friendly-neighborhood-statistician" Schell
Anders Svensson
Jim Manzari <man...@bluewin.ch> wrote
Anders Svensson wrote:
<snip>
>> Speed and manouverability IS real safety factors, just like they are in
>> cars.
> Ah, speed and maneuverability! The only two words in a true racing
> sailor's vocabulary!
I do not remember saying that they were the only ones. Visiting extremely
far away places and sail in hurricanes is not the only cruising either.
>> The current thinking in (car) safety is to create safety systems
>> that will allow you to make "stupid mistakes" - like air bags (life
>> rafts and EPIRB's ?) and safety cages (unsinkability?).
> Interesting concept this! We should go to sea in marginally
> un-seaworthy boats so that in the middle of the Indian Ocean or South
> Pacific we are allowed to make a "stupid mistake" and then we get to
> use our life raft and EPIRB. Hmmm....no thanks!
The number one reason for boat (cruising) accidents are "user mistakes".
Come to think of it, that's the major reason for all accidents. Comparably
few accidents depends on the design.
May I humbly point out that in our quest for the 'perfect cruiser' some of
us have
have made it quite clear that knowledge and experience is much more
important for
a successful and enjoyable cruise, than the boat itself.
>> To take the car analogy further, would therefore ABS brakes, horse power
>> reserve and excellent maneuverability be wasted on the "common driver"?
> A recent insurance study indicates that ABS has caused more accidents
> than it has prevented, due to lulling the driver into a false sense of
> security. Could all this propaganda about the virtues of racing boats
> from a few racing enthusiasts in the cruising newsgroup do the same
> harm?
"A recent insurance study indicates that *insert your favourite hate item
here* has caused more accidents than it has prevented, due to lulling the
sailor into a false sense of security".
Hmmm...
This argument (with variations) have historically been used to negate the
virtues of auxillary engines, lifelines, PFD's, life rafts, VHF radios, GPS
- the list can probably be made much longer.
> > Therefore, would superior boat performance be wasted on people
cruising?
> Is the only measure of "performance" speed and maneuverability? How
> about the ability to hove-to, or the ability to carry a heavy payload,
> or the ability to take care of itself while the crew rests, or an easy
> non-fatiguing motion in a seaway, or strong enough to survive the
> anchor loads during a surprise gale in a remote anchorage, etc,
> etc....? Without doubt, these are important "performance" criteria
> among the blue-water cruisers.
But, Jim:
None of your whishes are impossible to fulfill in a light weight
performance sailing
boat. Almost any 'big* boat (40+ feet) would fulfill many of your
performance criteria - they are almost all of them of the "bigger is
better" kind of virtues. Anchoring is the exception - the mechanics are
working against all big/heavy boats there.
I take some objection to your dismay of racing experience, however. From my
viewpoint, racers are usually better sailors, and sailing is still a most
important element of sailboat cruising - but I give you that it is not the
only one.
Speed and manouverability under sail are, likewise, not the only requisites
for a cruising yacht (as I and all other so called "racers" have invariably
said) but a sailboat would not be much without them either.
Historically, this debate have been covered over and over since the dugout
canoe. I am old enough to have heard the last rumble of the debate if
plastic boats really could be as seaworthy as wooden ones. Even further
back, the Bermuda rig was considerd a racers rig and a gaff rig was the way
to go for a proper cruiser.
We all know that all things evolve, and that new methods and materials
allow new solutions to old problems. A good example is heaving-to, wich
really is a questionable survival storm strategy today. What!!!, I hear
you all say (scream?)...
Because heaving to was something that was necessary with the comparably
weaker boats with less strong rigs and sails that was common many years
ago. Sailing against the wind above 30 knots true was unheard of, and
virtually no boats did that before the advent of dacron sails - strong
enough to function in high wind together with hulls that did not break up
easily.
The modern cruiser, with efficient sail plane, strong build and *good
performance* will carry its sails until it no longer is possible to heave
to in safety due to really heavy sea, freak wawes and generally nasty
conditions - modern boats *are* able to sail in surprisingly high winds. We
all know that in hurricane wind forces, strange things will happen, and
that no boat is immune from accidents. The bullet proof boat does not
exist. Stronger is better, bigger is better - thats statistically true, but
still, no guarantee is given... When you no longer can sail, you are at the
mercy of the sea itself.
The good thing with modern boats is that the survival strategys can be
adapted to much stronger boat material and will survive much nastier blows
today than 50 years ago. The sea and the wind is the same, our boats aren't
- thankfully.
I would like to suggest that racers *are* leading the way for cruisers
here, because they constantly is pushing the envelope and experiment with
ways of keeping on sailing in adverse conditions in a way that cruisers are
not.
I am not advocating that all racing ideas are safe and sound for cruisers
to emulate. I am, however, certain that a properly built racer is plenty
strong used for the much more sedate strains put on it when cruising.
Strengthwise, I think I have reason to believe that a Withbread 60 have far
more survivability than any production cruiser in the same size - given
that they are sailed in the same way, in the same conditions...
Frankly, the most boats I see sailing in winds above 30 knots are "racers"
- but not always racing...
> Jim Manzari
----------
Anders Svensson
t.r.mcloughlin
jktho...@earthlink.net wrote:
> Though I did read on p. 2 of Vol 1 of "The Common Sense of Yacht Design" by LF
> Herreshoff where he says that "on all vessels and particularly racing sailboats
> at low speed in light weather the surface resistance is nearly the whole
> resistance. This is the reason why the fin keeler and the catamaran with their
> large surface are hopeless in light weather."
Would someone who can explain what an author writes, rather than just
quoting it, explain this conclusion to me? Which other parameters have to
change in order for the fin keeler or catamaran to be comparatively
hopeless
in light air?
Is the comparison against a full keeler of the same lenght, displacement,
SA, beam, draft, etc?
trm
Mark Armstrong
jktho...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> Even when Lowell North
> went cruising in 1992 - you think he went cruising in a Hobie 33 (or a Santa
> Cruz 50, or a Santa Cruz 52, or a Santa Cruz 70 or an Andrews 70). No - he
> went in a plain fat sluggy old Tayana 52.
> Why would North go cruising in a slow fat
> Tayana 52 when he could have had an exhilarating sport car ride with speed and
> manouverability on a "GoFast Rocketship 57" - for 3-4 years of exhilarating
> pure pleasure.
One thing I never understood about ultra-lights, why do you always have
to go fast? A discussion a while back concerning a Santa Cruz 50
something, it would rocket off a wave and slam into the next one making
it impossible to sleep. If cruising from SF to Hawaii, you can put up a
#2 with a short reef in the main instead of flying your 3/4 oz chute?
Just becuase the boat can surf at 18 knots doesn't mean you can't cruise
comfortable at 7 knots.
Now try to picture a 45' heavy displacement boat (let say 25,000 lbs
displacement) surfing 18 knots over 6' waves. Now that would be a
hellish ride would it not?
I really don't know the answer, I never sailed on a ultralight boat.
Mark
Rodney Myrvaagnes
On Tue, 28 Apr 1998 21:32:20 -0700, jktho...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>Sorry - I gave up reading "Chartering" World when I went cruising so I missed it.
>Though I did read on p. 2 of Vol 1 of "The Common Sense of Yacht Design" by LF
>Herreshoff where he says that "on all vessels and particularly racing sailboats
>at low speed in light weather the surface resistance is nearly the whole
>resistance. This is the reason why the fin keeler and the catamaran with their
>large surface are hopeless in light weather." So if cats are slow in light
>weather and could have the ultimate in a large range of instability (upside-down
>transverse stability) - wonder why he'd want one ?
Actually LFH knew zilch about cats. I would probably not choose a cat
myself, but "slow in light air" is not a reason, because it is not
true. Easily observed.
I am not talking condomarans, of course.
And of course ULDB monohulls generally sail fine in light air also.
Doug Blaisdell
Just wanted to thank everbuddy who responded to this post, and its offshoots I
got alot of pointers from the result, like watching a bunch of good tennis
players. I'll probably
go out and buy one of these boats, or something in the same price range, if I
can find a good one.
doug
doug a blaisdell wrote:
> Hi Everbuddy!
>
> Very newbie looking around for a boat in the Hobie 33 price range (ie cheap)
> to do world cruising (eg. carribean, polynesia, se asia, etc). I'd like
> something safe, that's low/cheap maintenance, too. (All this preesuming
> I'll be a competent bluewater sailor when the time comes.) I don't mind
> roughing it, for the right price (I may graduate to something more comfortable
> eventually).
>
> I understood that the Hobie was up to this task, though rather cramped.
>
> thanks,
> doug
Rodney Myrvaagnes
>Would someone who can explain what an author writes, rather than just
>quoting it, explain this conclusion to me? Which other parameters have to
>change in order for the fin keeler or catamaran to be comparatively
>hopeless
>in light air?
>
See Terry Schell's message. He explained it clearly.
Jim Manzari
Paul Kamen wrote:
>
> Ever been around Point Reyes in typical Spring weather?
> No sledding on the uphill leg...
Amazing, all of 25 miles outside the Golden Gate! What a
comprehensive test of long-term, blue-water, ocean cruising
capability! This must be a joke or more recreational typing on your
part! Yes, I do remember how benign it often was most of the year,
once I got out of the funnel in the Golden Gate, to sail up to Drakes
Bay or down to Half Moon Bay, which, I hear, is now a marina for those
who find anchoring too stressful. Oh, BTW, do they now have mooring
buoys in Drake's Bay like those behind Angle Island?
> >Just curious, where did you get that statistic about 30 knots
> >being "routine"...
>
> I didn't say that 30 knots was "avarege," but I'll stand by "routine" for
> in the Bay or outside. Meaning that it happens often enough so that it's
> not considered unusually stressful or hazardous.
If anyone is wondering why I can never trust anything you say in this
newsgroup, this is a classic example. I gave you a chance to qualify
or retract what may have been a simple exaggeration or common yacht
club bar talk, but you really insist on making a fool of yourself.
For a person who purports to be an engineer you are wrong on matters
of fact just too many times for my taste. For a person who purports
to be a racer around the Golden Gate area you certainly have a vast
lack of knowledge of the real wind conditions that you must sail in
during your go-fast games.
If you take a look at the table of simple descriptive statistics
below, you will see that the number of observations in 1997 where the
wind speed was equal or greater than 30 knots was exactly 27 times out
of 8657 observations. This is a whopping 0.3% of the time. Now
doesn't this make your twice-repeated statement that 30 knot winds are
"routine" look foolish and stupid.
Yup, things haven't changed much since I spent 10 years happily
sailing up and down this coast and in SF Bay. It is just as I
remember it, wind-wise.
The following are the wind speed values taken from the National Data
Buoy archives for the San Francisco Bar Buoy No. 46026 for the year
1997.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Total Median Std. Max. # Obs.
Month # Obs. Wind Speed Dev. Wind Speed 30 kts or more
----- ------ ---------- ------ ---------- --------------
Jan 737 11.45 7.13 33.56 8
Feb 653 12.61 7.43 34.73 14
Mar 737 10.86 6.21 25.61 0
Apr 712 13.00 7.22 28.32 0
May 736 8.34 4.86 24.64 0
Jun 716 14.55 6.43 29.88 0
Jul 736 8.15 5.29 25.41 0
Aug 735 8.92 4.62 21.53 0
Sep 717 9.89 5.19 24.83 0
Oct 735 9.51 6.24 31.23 1
Nov 704 10.28 5.81 31.62 4
Dec 739 13.00 6.33 28.91 0
--------------------------------------------------------
1997 8657 10.48 6.34 34.73 27
(1) Number of observations each month and for total year 1997.
(2) Median wind speed in knots for the month.
(3) Standard deviation in knots
(4) Highest wind speed recorded during the month, in knots.
(5) Number of observations where wind speed equal or greater than 30 knots.
Here's the same data in 5 knot bins of the year 1997. The center of
the bin is the indicated value with the edges at +/- 2.5 knots about
the central value.
knots Count percent
--------------------------------
0.00 385.00 4.45
5.00 2451.00 28.31
10.00 2352.00 27.17
15.00 1881.00 21.73
20.00 1150.00 13.28
25.00 360.00 4.16
30.00 70.00 0.81
35.00 8.00 0.09
--------------------------------
11.36 8657.00 100.00
You will notice that only 70 observations out of 8657 were between
27.5 knots and 32.5 knots, or a whopping 0.8% of the observations.
Here's the data for the windiest summer month (June) in 5 knot bins:
knots Count percent
0.00 16.00 2.23
5.00 134.00 18.72
10.00 143.00 19.97
15.00 183.00 25.56
20.00 187.00 26.12
25.00 48.00 6.70
30.00 5.00 0.70
--------------------------------
13.88 716.00 100.00
You will notice that only 48 observations out of 716 were between
27.5 knots and 32.5 knots, or a whopping 6.7% of the observations.
Hardly, what any reasonable man would call "routine", even in the
windy summertime.
Oh, and as I remember these peak winds only blow for a few hours in
the afternoon. By nightfall things are back to normal, ie 15 knots or
less.
> >...This is a natural part of cruising where 2 months of water
> >and fuel, 2 or more bottles of cooking fuel, 6 months of food...
>
> Not all offshore cruising involves such long periods of self-sufficiency.
> As I noted in my previous post, the suitability of a boat as small and
> light at a Hobie 33 depends to some extent on the frequency of long
> crossings, among other things.
I don't understand your words "frequency of long crossings". Seems to
me, whether you make 1 or 10 crossing you must be able to carry
supplies for the maximum duration anticipated plus some safety
reserves. Makes no difference how many times you cross. The only
thing that counts is the duration of the crossing. If you want to
stop for any length of time in places like the Tuamotu Archipelago you
will be required to carry several months of supplies as a minimum.
Let's put the Hobie 33 to bed...here is how it compares to the
Cruising World Evaluators "ideal" cruising boat and the 340 members of
the Ocean Cruising Club's "ideal" cruising boat:
disp- bal- sa- cap- comfort lwl-
model lwl disp disp Vmax risk factor beam
------------------------- ------ ---- ----- ---- ---- ------- ----
OCC IDEAL CRUISING YACHT 258.35 0.43 16.89 8.65 1.61 37.58 2.88
CRUISING WORLD IDEAL BOAT 256.14 0.37 16.08 8.41 1.59 37.74 2.92
HOBIE 33 62.94 0.45 27.11 9.83 1.95 12.31 3.81
Now doesn't the Hobie 33 stick out like a sore thumb? Lots of sail,
very little displacement, relatively high risk of capsize, not much in
the way of motion comfort, but rather fast. Obviously, designed for
the purposes of downwind sled racing.
> >What's a "normal" cruising route and season? Not too long
> >ago you were telling us about the 1980 Cabo storm that drove a
> >number of boats ashore. Was this disaster in an ab-"normal"
> >cruising route and season?
>
> It was extremely abnormal, and boats of all types were caught unprepared
> and destroyed. As noted, the ultralight Olson 40 seemed to suffer the least
> damage of all the boats that were driven ashore. But if you need a
> working definition, by "normal routes and seasons" I mean routes ans
> seasons that avoid hurricans.
Unfortunately you are again wrong on a matter of fact. One of my
colleagues is a fan of Bernard Moitessier and looked up the exact date
of the Cabo San Lucus storm in which his boat was blown ashore. It
happened December 8, 1982. According to Moitessier's account, who
should know a thing or two about these sorts of things, this was NOT a
hurricane at all. Just the usual surprise depression disaster that
has become an annual ritual in many of the snow-bird anchorages around
the world.
Just curious, could you point us to the source of your statement that an
Olson 40 "seemed" to suffer the least damage.
Jim Manzari
Terry Schell
Jim Manzari <man...@bluewin.ch> writes:
<snip>
>If you take a look at the table of simple descriptive statistics
>below, you will see that the number of observations in 1997 where the
>wind speed was equal or greater than 30 knots was exactly 27 times out
>of 8657 observations. This is a whopping 0.3% of the time. Now
>doesn't this make your twice-repeated statement that 30 knot winds are
>"routine" look foolish and stupid.
Your reasoning is weak. The hands on my clock only indicate times
between 1600 and 1601 a whopping .07% of the time, does that mean
it is not "routinely" 4 o'clock? Couldn't you say that sailboats are
"routinely" racing on the bay at 4 pm? Why can't you say that sailboat
are "routinely" racing in 30 knot winds?
Full hurricanes hit the virgin Islands only once every few years... probably
only .000001% of the time, and yet we say that hurricanes routinely hit
the virgin islands.
I fly to California once every 5 weeks. I feel I can say I "routinely"
fly to California even though I only spend .05% of my time acually
flying to California. I spend more of my time eating breakfast... but
I wouldn't say I routinely eat breakfast, since I eat it maybe 3
times a week.
One can say the wind is routinely over 30 knots in SF bay *not* because
it happens such a large percentage of the time, but because it occurs
with a higher frequency and greater regularity than at almost any other
sailing location.
The fact remains that the Hobbie 33 is sailed in high wind conditions
with some regularity on SF bay. These boats see near-gale conditions far
more regularly than cruisers in any of the popular cruising routes.
They have a sterling reputation for holding up under these conditions
and for being easy to control (in spite of the fact that they are
being pushed to the absolute limit). These boats are clearly strong
enough to hold up to the sailing stresses that a short-handed cruising
crew would subject her to. There are lots of valid reasons to decide
that the Hobie 33 is not what you want in a cruiser, but not handling
high winds is extremely unlikely to be one of them.
Sincerely,
Terry Schell
Jim Manzari
Terry Schell wrote:>
<lots of mumbo-jumbo snipped>
> One can say the wind is routinely over 30 knots in SF bay *not* because
> it happens such a large percentage of the time, but because it occurs
> with a higher frequency and greater regularity than at almost any other
> sailing location.
Let see, you have played the "let's be honest" card and the "devil made
it happen card". We wondered how long it would take you to play the
"symatics" card. The next card, I guess will be the "measurements"
are wrong.
I know you would like reality to be the way "you want it to be",
rather than the "way it actually is"...the fact of the matter is that
from the beginning of March until the end of September of 1997 the
wind was never once at or over 30 knots. Period! We're talking about
a frequency of ZERO.
Oh, and if you really want to see places with 30 knots of wind
"routinely", try the equatorial Indian Ocean in the Monsoon season, or
the South Atlantic trades, or the booming winter trade winds in the
Windward Islands. There you will find 30 knots night and day for
weeks on end, in certain seasons.
> The fact remains that the Hobbie 33 is sailed in high wind conditions
> with some regularity on SF bay.
I hate to point out that the original requestor was looking for a boat
to sail in the S. Pacific and Asia. This implys he will have to leave
the tradewind regions to avoid tropical storms. This usually means
New Zealand or Austrailia. This means he will have to sail in an area
known for its severe storms.
Sailing in SF Bay is not much of a test of long-term bluewater
capability, as you would know if you had any real experience in this
field.
How will this boat handle big waves? This can't be tested by racing
around the buoys on a Sunday afternoon. As I recall the waves in SF
Bay never get higher than about 2-3 feet and then for only a few
hours. I wonder how well this 4,000 pound, fin keel, spade rudder,
go-fast machine would heave-to in a Force 6 to 9 wind and 20-35 foot
seas? Could the crew sleep or rest while exposed to the violent
motion of such a light boat? Does the rather high capsize risk value
indicate that this boat would be penalized by the Beam-Length Factor
in the proposed ISO Dynamic Stability Calculation? Can this boat
standup to heavy weather in the open sea? Was it designed for the
purpose of cruising or racing? What does the designer say about
long-term bluewater cruising? What is its designed purpose?
In my view, just too many questions for this to be a good long-term
bluewater cruiser recommendation.
Jim Manzari
Quote-for-the-day:
"Big-wave capsizes certainly are not the only type of capsize that
occurs. I don't believe they are the most frequent type of capsize.
Just plain over-powering with too much sail and getting an unexpected
combination of a gust and a sea can roll a boat over."
---Olin Stephens, 1998---
Terry Schell
>"routinely", try the equatorial Indian Ocean in the Monsoon season, or
>the South Atlantic trades, or the booming winter trade winds in the
>Windward Islands. There you will find 30 knots night and day for
>weeks on end, in certain seasons.
I suggest you check this with a pilot chart. I don't have one in front
of me, but I have looked at both areas before. Try more like 22-25
knots.
kpk...@acpub.duke.edu
Jim Manzari wrote:
> I know you would like reality to be the way "you want it to be",
> rather than the "way it actually is"...the fact of the matter is that
> from the beginning of March until the end of September of 1997 the
> wind was never once at or over 30 knots. Period! We're talking about
> a frequency of ZERO.
This is total BS. The measurements you posted do not reinforce this
claim.
> Oh, and if you really want to see places with 30 knots of wind
> "routinely", try the equatorial Indian Ocean in the Monsoon season, or
> the South Atlantic trades, or the booming winter trade winds in the
> Windward Islands. There you will find 30 knots night and day for
> weeks on end, in certain seasons.
"In certain seasons"?? And at other times of the year? This is exactly
what you just ranted against SF Bay...
> I hate to point out that the original requestor was looking for a boat
> to sail in the S. Pacific and Asia.
If you hate to do it, then don't. Besides, you're wrong again. The
original request was no such thing. Once again, you are making "reality
to be the way "you want it to be", rather than the "way it actually
is"..." The original question was whether or not a Hobie 33 could be
used as or converted into a "bluewater cruiser," a term of relatively
open definition (especially by Jim Manzari- it means whatever he wants
it to mean at the time).
> Sailing in SF Bay is not much of a test of long-term bluewater
> capability, as you would know if you had any real experience in this
> field.
And why have you once again set yourself up to judge the experience of
another person? Have you followed himm around all his life? The fact is
that you have no idea what sort of experience has formed his opinions,
and you obviously aren't interested in learning.
> How will this boat handle big waves? This can't be tested by racing
> around the buoys on a Sunday afternoon.
Nobody (except Jim Manzari) suggested that it could. The boat has been
sailed in other locations, you know! I know of a Hobie 33 that recently
sailed from the Bahamas to the Virginia Capes against a norther the
whole way. A norther in the Gulf Stream is no joke- Waves are always
exaggerated and broken, moderate gales can produce forty-foot breaking
waves. The patches of alternating warm and cold water can produce
violent local tempests and micro-bursts. It's not a China Sea typhoon,
but it's very unpleasant and can be deadly.
> ... I wonder how well this 4,000 pound, fin keel, spade rudder,
> go-fast machine would heave-to in a Force 6 to 9 wind and 20-35 foot
> seas?
It would probably sail just fine in Force 6 (25 to 31 knots). No need to
heave-to at all. I have often had very enjoyable sailing in Force 7 or 8
(39 to 46 knots) in similar boats, and smaller ones. By Force 9 (47 to
54 knots), heaving-to might be a good idea for a brief respite. If
conditions got much worse, or these winds were accompanied by large
breaking waves, running to a drogue would probably be the best tactic.
> .... Does the rather high capsize risk value
> indicate that this boat would be penalized by the Beam-Length Factor
> in the proposed ISO Dynamic Stability Calculation?
We were hoping you'd tell us, not go off an another rant.
> ... Can this boat
> standup to heavy weather in the open sea?
People who have owned them and sailed them hard in rough conditions have
said "Yes" to this question in this forum. Weren't you paying attention?
> .... What does the designer say about
> long-term bluewater cruising?
Maybe if you asked politely he'd answer. Of course, if you don't really
want an answer then you have done just the right thing- ask rudely in
mid-rant. That way you won't have any inconvenient truths popping up.
> .... What is its designed purpose?
I assume it is to SAIL.
> In my view, just too many questions for this to be a good long-term
> bluewater cruiser recommendation.
In that case, don't buy one.
Fresh Breezes (but only up to Force 5, otherwise one might have to
heave-to)
-Doug King
Anders Svensson
Now for playing the measurement card:
International weather observators define wind strenght as the mean wind
strenght during 10 minutes. That is the main reason for being able to see
30-40 knots repeatedly on the WS indicator and then hear that official wind
strenght was just 25 knots.
It is not completely dishonest to refer to any of these two measurements as
"windspeed", but subjectively, you will tend to overestimate windspeed
rather than underestimate it.
--
Anders Svensson
----------------------------------------
Jim Manzari <man...@bluewin.ch> skrev i inlägg
<354D4DB7...@bluewin.ch>...
> Terry Schell wrote:>
>
> <lots of mumbo-jumbo snipped>
>
> > One can say the wind is routinely over 30 knots in SF bay *not* because
> > it happens such a large percentage of the time, but because it occurs
> > with a higher frequency and greater regularity than at almost any other
> > sailing location.
>
> Let see, you have played the "let's be honest" card and the "devil made
> it happen card". We wondered how long it would take you to play the
> "symatics" card. The next card, I guess will be the "measurements"
> are wrong.
>
> I know you would like reality to be the way "you want it to be",
> rather than the "way it actually is"...the fact of the matter is that
> from the beginning of March until the end of September of 1997 the
> wind was never once at or over 30 knots. Period! We're talking about
> a frequency of ZERO.
>
> Oh, and if you really want to see places with 30 knots of wind
> "routinely", try the equatorial Indian Ocean in the Monsoon season, or
> the South Atlantic trades, or the booming winter trade winds in the
> Windward Islands. There you will find 30 knots night and day for
> weeks on end, in certain seasons.
>
> > The fact remains that the Hobbie 33 is sailed in high wind conditions
> > with some regularity on SF bay.
>
> I hate to point out that the original requestor was looking for a boat
> to sail in the S. Pacific and Asia. This implys he will have to leave
> the tradewind regions to avoid tropical storms. This usually means
> New Zealand or Austrailia. This means he will have to sail in an area
> known for its severe storms.
>
> Sailing in SF Bay is not much of a test of long-term bluewater
> capability, as you would know if you had any real experience in this
> field.
>
> How will this boat handle big waves? This can't be tested by racing
> around the buoys on a Sunday afternoon. As I recall the waves in SF
> Bay never get higher than about 2-3 feet and then for only a few
> hours. I wonder how well this 4,000 pound, fin keel, spade rudder,
> go-fast machine would heave-to in a Force 6 to 9 wind and 20-35 foot
> seas? Could the crew sleep or rest while exposed to the violent
> motion of such a light boat? Does the rather high capsize risk value
> indicate that this boat would be penalized by the Beam-Length Factor
> in the proposed ISO Dynamic Stability Calculation? Can this boat
> standup to heavy weather in the open sea? Was it designed for the
> purpose of cruising or racing? What does the designer say about
> long-term bluewater cruising? What is its designed purpose?
>
> In my view, just too many questions for this to be a good long-term
> bluewater cruiser recommendation.
>
Jim Manzari
Anders Svensson wrote:
>
> Now for playing the measurement card:
> International weather observators define wind strenght as the mean wind
> strenght during 10 minutes. That is the main reason for being able to see
> 30-40 knots repeatedly on the WS indicator and then hear that official wind
> strenght was just 25 knots.
>
> It is not completely dishonest to refer to any of these two measurements as
> "windspeed", but subjectively, you will tend to overestimate windspeed
> rather than underestimate it.
It is true that these Data Buoys do sample for an 8 minute period to
determine the average wind velocity. However, for peak velocity
measurements the sampling period is very much shorter at ~5 seconds.
It would be, however, a hell of a coincidence if the 8700+ reported
measurement periods completely missed all the peak wind values,
because somehow the sampling rate is perfectly and constantly out of
sync with the wind. Very unlikely, in my view.
I think there is a simpler explanation for why Kamen would, from time
to time, see higher than average wind velocities. When sailing in a
small low mass/inertia racing boat like his Merit 25, Express 27, or
Hobie 33, in the fairly choppy waters of SF Bay, the motion at the top
of the mast would be considerable. My guess is that he periodically
sees 30+ knots due to the motion of the mast -- not actual wind
velocity at all.
Another consideration is the wind at the top of his mast will be
slightly stronger than at mid-sail or sea level.
All these factors may have contributed to his mistaken belief that
winds are higher then they are in reality.
You'll have to excuse me if I don't blindly agree with the racing
enthusiasts on this cruising newsgroup who try to preach that sailing
a small racing boat 25 miles up the coast from the Golden Gate is a
comprehensive test of long-term bluewater cruising capability -- and
then try to use faulty "facts" to convince me otherwise.
You have, apparently, forgotten that the original request was to
cruise to SE Asia and the S. Pacific (among others). This implies the
skipper will have to seek a place out of the typhoon and cyclone
regions. This usually means New Zealand or Australia. I won't want
to be caught in one of those "bomb" depressions, like the 1994 Pacific
Storm disaster, in one of these low mass/inertia racing sleds. It is
likely, in similar conditions, the 4,000 pound Hobie 33 would not fall
off a wave, but would be literally blown off the wave.
Jim Manzari
Paul Kamen
Jim Manzari <man...@bluewin.ch> writes:
>...Yes, I do remember how benign it often was most of the
>year, once I got out of the funnel in the Golden Gate, to
>sail up to Drakes Bay or down to Half Moon Bay...
The Northern California coast has many moods, but "benign" is certainly
not the first descriptive word that comes to mind. Been around Point
Reyes in the Spring?
>If anyone is wondering why I can never trust anything you
>say in this newsgroup, this is a classic example. I gave
>you a chance to qualify or retract what may have been a
>simple exaggeration or common yacht club bar talk, but you
>really insist on making a fool of yourself.
Well, then allow me to continue making a fool of myself. The issue is the
seaworthiness of the Hobie 33. An example was cited of some Hobi 33s
dropping out of a race somewhere on the east coast because the wind was in
the 20s. I noted that 30 knots is routine for our local ocean races out of
SF Bay, where the Hobie as a very good reputation. "Routine" meaning that
it's nothing unusual. Races aren't cancelled because the wind is over 30,
boats generally don't withdraw from races in those conditions unless
something breaks. Some of our most popular events are the single and
double-handed Farallone races, held in early Spring. 30 knots and more is
not unusual.
>If you take a look at the table of simple descriptive statistics
>below, you will see that the number of observations in 1997
>where the wind speed was equal or greater than 30 knots was
>exactly 27 times out of 8657 observations....
I'm flattered that you have gone to so much trouble to collect the data,
but I fear that the numbers you have unearthed may not be completely
representive of our local ocean races over the years. Where exactly is
Buoy No. 46026? Do other wind reporting stations show similar stats? See
if you can find data for S.E. Farallone, or Point Reyes, or for inside the
bay try Point Blunt, which is more representive of central bay wind speed.
>I don't understand your words "frequency of long crossings"...
The point is that if most of your cruising is coastal, with only an
infrequent long hop, then you can tolerate a bit of performance
degradation due to modest overload. Presuming it doesn't compromise
safety, of course, which in this type of boat is very unlikely.
>Let's put the Hobie 33 to bed...here is how it compares to the
>Cruising World Evaluators "ideal" cruising boat and the
>340 members of the Ocean Cruising Club's "ideal" cruising boat:
Yes, we know it's way off the numbers. A winnebago it ain't.
>Now doesn't the Hobie 33 stick out like a sore thumb? Lots of
>sail, very little displacement, relatively high risk of
>capsize...
"Risk of capsize" is doubtful, being relatively narrow and deep. This is
an example of the simplified formula leading you a bit astray, I think.
>...not much in the way of motion comfort, but rather fast.
>Obviously, designed for the purposes of downwind sled racing.
Disagree here too. It's more comfortable than a "normal" boat of equal
weight, on any point of sail. It's even more comfortable than most
"cruising" boats of equal cost. There's really no substitute for length
when it comes to motion in a seaway. Obviously you can find longer and
more expensive boats that have easier motions.
If boats like the Hobie are below your personal "minimums," then fine,
don't cruise on one. But if your resources are limited, a well-built
ultralight with an excellent track record in the ocean will often be a
better and safer solution than the affordable alternatives.
>Unfortunately you are again wrong on a matter of fact...this
>was NOT a hurricane at all.
You are again wrong on a matter of reading comprehension. The Cabo storm
was not a hurricane. My proposed "working definition of normal route and
season" did not say that it was. The storm was certainly "abnormal," the
location and season were not.
>Just curious, could you point us to the source of your
>statement that an Olson 40 "seemed" to suffer the least damage.
Article in Latitude 38 about the storm and the resulting damage, probably
a month or two after the incident. I good friend of mine now owns the
boat in question, and I sail on it often.
Campbell
I just realized that "Manzari" and "senseless ranting" are tautology:
Jim Manzari wrote:
> > If you take a look at the table of simple descriptive statistics
> > below, you will see that the number of observations in 1997 where the
> > wind speed was equal or greater than 30 knots was exactly 27 times out
> > of 8657 observations. This is a whopping 0.3% of the time. Now
> > doesn't this make your twice-repeated statement that 30 knot winds are
> > "routine" look foolish and stupid.
>
> > The following are the wind speed values taken from the National Data
> > Buoy archives for the San Francisco Bar Buoy No. 46026 for the year
> > 1997...
Manzari's stats appear irrelevant. San Francisco "Bar Buoy" No. 46026 is located
some 12 nautical miles outside the Gate (due west).
Here is a slightly more relevant set of data points: Crissy Fields, the park just
inside the Gate, sheltered, in part, by Fort Point.
In the past five days, which have been light air days here in SF Bay (clearly not
one of the days which fall into what Manzari claims to be "the windiest summer
month (June)"), Crissy Fields has experienced winds at or above 30 mph all five
days -- two out of the five days had winds exceeding 34 knots (the other three
days, winds exceeded 25 knots). A "whopping" 40% of the time winds exceeded 30
knots, not the 0.3% Manzari cites.
So why the difference? As Manzari references, "the funnel in the Golden Gate."
So why does Manzari babble about routine winds inside and outside the gate? Who
knows.
Without a doubt, Manzari is right, at least about one thing. The further outside
the gate, the lighter the wind effect of the Gate.
However, without a doubt, Manzari is babbling. Winds routinely exceed 30 knots
inside and outside the Gate -- how far inside or outside appears irrelevant.
(BTW, Manzari claims, in his table, that observations are taken only once per
hour... The Crissy Fields data is polled every 15 minutes... Funny how statistics
work.)
camp
Campbell
I just realized that "Manzari" and "senseless ranting" are tautology:
Jim Manzari wrote:
> > If you take a look at the table of simple descriptive statistics
> > below, you will see that the number of observations in 1997 where the
> > wind speed was equal or greater than 30 knots was exactly 27 times out
> > of 8657 observations. This is a whopping 0.3% of the time. Now
> > doesn't this make your twice-repeated statement that 30 knot winds are
> > "routine" look foolish and stupid.
>
> > The following are the wind speed values taken from the National Data
> > Buoy archives for the San Francisco Bar Buoy No. 46026 for the year
Campbell
I just realized that "Manzari" and "senseless ranting" are tautology:
Jim Manzari wrote:
> > If you take a look at the table of simple descriptive statistics
> > below, you will see that the number of observations in 1997 where the
> > wind speed was equal or greater than 30 knots was exactly 27 times out
> > of 8657 observations. This is a whopping 0.3% of the time. Now
> > doesn't this make your twice-repeated statement that 30 knot winds are
> > "routine" look foolish and stupid.
>
> > The following are the wind speed values taken from the National Data
> > Buoy archives for the San Francisco Bar Buoy No. 46026 for the year
Campbell
I just realized that "Manzari" and "senseless ranting" are tautology:
Jim Manzari wrote:
> > If you take a look at the table of simple descriptive statistics
> > below, you will see that the number of observations in 1997 where the
> > wind speed was equal or greater than 30 knots was exactly 27 times out
> > of 8657 observations. This is a whopping 0.3% of the time. Now
> > doesn't this make your twice-repeated statement that 30 knot winds are
> > "routine" look foolish and stupid.
>
> > The following are the wind speed values taken from the National Data
> > Buoy archives for the San Francisco Bar Buoy No. 46026 for the year
Jesse Deupree
RE The Following:
>
> >Would someone who can explain what an author writes, rather than just
> >quoting it, explain this conclusion to me? Which other parameters have to
> >change in order for the fin keeler or catamaran to be comparatively
> >hopeless
> >in light air?
> >
The quote from Herreshoff is interesting because of the ignorance he
expresses. He was writing with only empirical knowledge and comments on
the poor state of naval science. The variable he is interested in is
wetted surface resistance, although he includes in his discussion the
shape of the wetted surface as well (he is writing at a time when bulbous
bows had been discovered to reduce resistance on large powerboats when the
purpose of their design was to push mines out of the way. At the time
there was no scientific formula to explain the phenomena).
A boat with high wetted surface for its weight (ie a multihull) will
"stick" in light air. This has to do with more than just wetted surface,
it frequently also includes wave action- here the loss of momentum and the
bouncier motion all make it hard for a light boat to build speed. My F 27
has trouble in less than 2k if there is any sea. Once the boat begins
moving however things change and my ability to accelerate will increase
and steady my apparent wind, allowing me to sail far more often than most
monohulls when cruising. I only power when there is no wind and will
happily sail at monohull powering speeds when they are all doing so from
necessity.
Herreshoff's comments about "fin keelers" are related to wetted surface as
well. He contrasts the increased wetted surface of a fin keeler with the
wetted surface of a full bodied boat of the same lateral plane. Most "fin
keeled" boats do not have anywhere near the lateral plane of their "full
keeled" bretheren any more, so Herreshoff's dictum about light air
performance for fin keelers is not relevant to today's designs. The
difficulty some modern designs have in light air and chop is sometimes due
to their extreme lack of lateral plane and surfaces that require
significant flow to produce any lift from their keels. They also have
momentum and disturbed sail flow like my boat in very light air.
Jesse Deupree
F27 ION
Portland Maine
Anders Svensson
I think, Jim, that you have a very firm opinion about whats "right". So has
Paul, and I would like to say that both of you have interesting and
valuable opinions.
I know nothing about Hobie 33's and will not comment on that, but I know of
some competent and very able seamen that travel the world in very unlikely
boats. I have had the pleasure to meet and talk extensively to Sven Lundin
and look into the kind of boat he advocates. He also had a look at mine and
we both secretly thought that the other guys boat wasn't really fit for a
"proper cruise".
It is however likely that I am in more error than he is...
--
Anders Svensson
----------------------------------------
You have, apparently, forgotten that the original request was to
cruise to SE Asia and the S. Pacific (among others). This implies the
skipper will have to seek a place out of the typhoon and cyclone
regions. This usually means New Zealand or Australia. I won't want
to be caught in one of those "bomb" depressions, like the 1994 Pacific
Storm disaster, in one of these low mass/inertia racing sleds. It is
likely, in similar conditions, the 4,000 pound Hobie 33 would not fall
off a wave, but would be literally blown off the wave.
Jim Manzari
----------
Jim Manzari
Paul Kamen wrote:
>
> Where exactly is Buoy No. 46026? Do other wind reporting stations
> show similar stats? See if you can find data for S.E. Farallone, or
> Point Reyes, or for inside the bay try Point Blunt, which is more
> representive of central bay wind speed.
Try http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov and http://facs.scripps.edu/surf/spectrum.html
for lots of good data on wind and wave conditions off the west coast.
The San Francisco Entrance Buoy is located within about 1/2 mile of a
rhumb line between Mile Rocks and S. Farallon, about 14nm west of the
Golden Gate.
I'll ignore that you're now trying to shift the discussion to the
"central" bay. Your original assertion was for "inside" or "outside"
SF Bay. As the original requestor wanted to know about a boat to
carry him to the S. Pacific and Far East, that is the offshore context
to which my comments apply. Silly of me to assume you had read and
comprehended the original post.
> The point is that if most of your cruising is coastal, with only an
> infrequent long hop, then you can tolerate a bit of performance
> degradation due to modest overload. Presuming it doesn't compromise
> safety, of course, which in this type of boat is very unlikely.
Well, the requestor does want to go to the S. Pacific and the Far
East. Not too much coastal work in this, the last time I looked.
These infrequent hops, as you call them, are 1500-3000 miles long
taking many weeks with no marinas along the way.
> >Now doesn't the Hobie 33 stick out like a sore thumb? Lots of
> >sail, very little displacement, relatively high risk of
> >capsize...
>
> "Risk of capsize" is doubtful, being relatively narrow and deep. This is
> an example of the simplified formula leading you a bit astray, I think.
The proposed B/L factor of the ISO Dynamic Stability Factor penalizes
too wide or too narrow a boat. There may be other factors for depth
that offset this penalty. Since you must have all the relevant
documents at your disposal, maybe you could work it out for us and let
us know the results.
Certainly a single simplified formula may be misleading. However, as
I've pointed out many times before, all the factors taken together
form a pretty good picture. There is nothing else for the public to
base their decision on, except some vague "trust me" statements from
people who have a commercial interest in selling product.
The Ocean Cruising Club, Cruising Club of American, and the Cruising
World evaluators must know a little something about what constitutes a
"proper" bluewater cruiser. We're talking here about hundreds of
experienced bluewater cruising people, at least in the OCC and CCA.
It is remarkable, in my judgment, that these groups independently
reach pretty much the same conclusions regarding the six ratios and
factors regardless of some differences in absolute values for
dimension, displacement, ballast, beam, draft, and sail area.
I appreciate that there are more precise ways to describe a boat and
its motion in a seaway. These simple ratios and factors are, however,
the only ones available to the public. Interestingly, come next month
in the European Community, any dealer or broker who wishes to sell a
new boat to the public must show the stability curve to the customer.
That's the law. Should be some interesting heat in the system come
June.
I suspect that in a few years time we will have a complete set of
curves for almost all boats, both US and European and it will be
possible to make much better judgments in regards to safety and
comfort. Hopefully, the fashion in cruising designs will swing back
toward favoring comfort and safety over raw round-the-buoys speed.
> If boats like the Hobie are below your personal "minimums," then fine,
> don't cruise on one.
You needn't worry too much about this! Interestingly, this boat also
does not meet the personal requirements of the 340 respondents of the
OCC bluewater "dream" boat questionnaire. Nor the requirements of
Cruising World's Evaluators. The "ideal" proposed by the CW
Evaluators is really strange when you consider who is on the panel --
Bill Lee, the "Fast is Fun" prophet, and several others who are most
certainly not long-term cruisers by any stretch of the imagination.
Neal is the only real long-term cruising sailor on the panel. And
there are no women, which seems a bit strange..
> But if your resources are limited, a well-built ultralight with an
> excellent track record in the ocean will often be a better and safer
> solution than the affordable alternatives.
"In the ocean" does NOT mean 25 miles up and back. To me it means
something more than a weekend race. It means, among other things,
carrying all that you need to live and survive without any outside
assistance of any kind. It would also be nice if there was some
comfort as well. Hell, it's mandatory that there be comfort, for it is
comfort that will keep the crew functioning and out of much trouble.
What can be tolerated for a weekend or a few weeks at most, will wear
pretty thin after a few months.
What one needs is a scaled-down workboat rather than a scaled-up
racing boat, in my view.
Sure would be nice if you would back up your opinion regarding
"excellent track record" of the Hobie 33 in the ocean by telling us
with whom and where these boats have cruised. I'm sure there a number
of risk-takers, racers, and adventurers who find this boat just fine
for ocean sailing or racing. Tell us about some husband and wife team
who have successfully used the Hobie 33 for cruising to the S. Pacific
and the Far East. So far all you have said is "trust me". Sorry, but
that's not enough when the safety and comfort of my family is at
stake.
> You are again wrong on a matter of reading comprehension. The Cabo
> storm was not a hurricane. My proposed "working definition of
> normal route and season" did not say that it was. The storm was
> certainly "abnormal," the location and season were not.
I'm glad we agree that it was not a hurricane. These little surprise
depressions are much more common than most folk think. I don't know
what your idea of "normal" means relative to route or season. These
storms can happen anytime and anywhere in the world. As I said
before, we experienced one per year during our last cruise. We heard
first-hand accounts of this kind of storm from many of the other
cruising people during this same period.
Jim Manzari
-----
Quote-of-the-day:
"Relatively long ends help you to carry a lot of stores. When a
short-end boat is pressed into the water, its D/L goes up. With long
enough ends, the waterline length increases as the boat takes on a
load. Certainly, on short-ended boats, if you bury the transom,
that's very bad."
---Olin Stephens, CW, April 1998---
Paul Kamen
Jim Manzari <man...@bluewin.ch> writes:
>...The San Francisco Entrance Buoy is located within about 1/2
>mile of a rhumb line between Mile Rocks and S. Farallon, about
>14nm west of the Golden Gate.
So buoy 46026 is the entrance buoy? Yes, I'm very surprised that it
doesn't show 30 knots more often. Might be a bit out of calibration -
would be interesting to see if nearby buoys up the coast show the same
wind profile. Or maybe '97 was a mild year.
>I'll ignore that you're now trying to shift the discussion
>to the "central" bay. Your original assertion was for
>"inside" or "outside" SF Bay...
The central bay is what I'd call "inside." The entrance buoy, along with
lots of wother places to measure wind, is "outside." Aren't we still
talking about both?
>The proposed B/L factor of the ISO Dynamic Stability Factor
>penalizes too wide or too narrow a boat...
Interesting that the ISO should find fault with a narrow boat with a low
center of gravity and a high ballast ratio. Don't you agree that these
are factors that contribute to good capsize characteristics?
>The Ocean Cruising Club, Cruising Club of American, and the
>Cruising World evaluators must know a little something about
>what constitutes a "proper" bluewater cruiser. We're talking
>here about hundreds of experienced bluewater cruising people,
>at least in the OCC and CCA...
>...Interestingly, this boat also does not meet the personal
>requirements of the 340 respondents of the OCC bluewater
>"dream" boat questionnaire. Nor the requirements of Cruising
>World's Evaluators...
But did they consider boats in the price range of the Hobie 33? Not many
evaluators would limit the cost of the boat to the 20-25K range when
specifying their "dream" offshore cruiser.
>I'm glad we agree that [the Cabo storm] was not a hurricane.
>These little surprise depressions are much more common than
>most folk think...
Yes, and the damage seemed to be distributed more-or-less equally among
all boat types. (Except that the lightest boat to wash ashore seemed to
suffer the least damage)
John S. Ward
Jim, I'm curious.
How many miles have you sailed in a Hobie 33? How
many times have you sailed in a Hobie 33 in over
30 knots of true wind? Your many opinions about
this boat suggest that you have a lot of experience
with it.
ted.ro...@gmail.com
Since the last post 4 yeqars ago, two Hobie 33s raced in the 2003
Bermuda 1-2, and three are tentatively planned to enter this spring's
race from Newport R I to St Georges, crossing the Gulf Stream.
Accounts of the 2003 race, and modifications to the Hobie for offshore
to address issues raised in the group can be found at bulldogtrust.com
Ted Robinson