|
I still say what is comfort ratio good for if it can't be used as a comparative measure or if it totally misses the boat on basic gross indicators (as illustrated in the examples that I mention above)?
If I look at the basics of the formula, it appears to employ the waterline length backwards when it sees increasing waterline length as decreasing comfort. If you look at motion studies, increasing slenderness should result in a more comfortable motion from a pitch, yaw, and surge perspective, and to a lesser extent from a roll perspective.
At the heart of it, I understand that it is tough to develop surrogate formulas that actually provide a reasonable degree of accuracy with readily available information. At one time the motion comfort ratio may have had some usefulness, but as it stands it lacks so many critical factors that I can't see how anyone can argue that it has any utility at all. It would be nice if someone sat down and wrote a useful motion comfort formula that took into account such factors as ballast weight, draft, perhaps spar height, some kind of corrector for how the boat carries its beam (a narrower boat that carries more of its beam towards the ends can have more form stability than a beamier boat that carries its beam at a single spot and which has a lot of flare- visualize a Seidleman 25 for example.) and so on.
Jeff
|