SailNet Community - View Single Post - Taipan 28 - How well offshore?
View Single Post
  #7  
Old 11-04-2003
Jeff_H's Avatar
Jeff_H Jeff_H is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
Posts: 6,445
Thanks: 3
Thanked 64 Times in 47 Posts
Rep Power: 10
Jeff_H has a spectacular aura about Jeff_H has a spectacular aura about Jeff_H has a spectacular aura about
Taipan 28 - How well offshore?

First of all, I suggest that you are highly mistaken about my preferences in boats. For most of my sailing life I have owned 25 to 28 footers (including a wooden Folkboat and 1939 Stadel Cutter). My bias is towards boats that are well designed regardless of their length. For example, I am a big fan of the H-28 and the Folkboat for the same reasons I don''t especially like the Newell Cadet.

My post was about your specific question. You asked about seaworthiness and the ''numbers'' and that was what I was responding to. If you don''t like my response do not seek a non-existant prejudice to explain it away. My response probably does reflect my personal prejudice toward well designed small boats rather than boats whose designs were concieved not as a response to seaworthy design principles but whose lines are corrupted by the desire to beat some arbitrary racing rule (in the case of the Newell Cadet that rule was the RORC which was a very close cousin of the CCA rule).

To comment on your specific points, with a low ballast ratio, low density ballast, heavy decks and topsides, and a heavy rig, despite the narrow beam, boats like these have comparatively small angles of positive righting moment and can require a fairly large righting force to come back up. They are rarely designed to prevent downflooding meaning that once overturned they have a small chance of survival.

As I have said many times before on this and other venues, the capsize screen ratio tells you absolutely nothing at all about a boats likelihood of capsizing and motion comfort index tells you less than nothing about the motion comfort of a boat. Neither formula contains such key factors as vertical center or gravity, vertical center of buoyancy, buoyancy and weight distribution, vertical center of effort, waterline beam, deck house and topsides volume or any of the other factors that actually control motion and ultimate stability. To explain, I typically give the example of two identical boats except that one has 1000 lbs of lead at the top of its mast. In reality the boat with the 1000 lbs of lead at the top of the mast would be more prone to capsize and more prone to an extremely high angles of rolling and pitching motion that would have high accellerations at the end of the swing. In other words you would expect that boat to do more poorly both from a motion comfort and capsize standpoint. Yet, if you compared the capsize screen ratio and motion comfort index results, the boat with the 1000 lb lead weight up its mast would have better ''numbers''.

Similarly, the hullspeed number tells you very little about the real hullspeed of a boat like that. Longer waterline 28 footers(in other words, a 28 footer that was designed to be cruised rather than raced, or go offshore safely and comfortably) of the same displacement are likely to have a more easily driven hull and so would spend more of its life closer to its hull speed, a hull speed that would be higher to begin with. Short waterline boats like these spend very little of their life at or near hullspeed.

In any event, we all buy boats that appeal to each of us from one standpoint or another. Obviously this boat appeals to you and that is a good thing. BUT if you ask a question and you get a serious answer, then with all due respect, I see little point in an ad hominem attack on the person responding to your inquiry.

Respectfully,
Jeff


Reply With Quote Share with Facebook