I think that Seabreeze's comments were directed at my poor choice of wording and spelling. I apologize for using the word "naive" (now editted out) and the fact that I mispelled it. Typing in haste, I did not mean the word to be an insult as much as to say, that within the design community, these surrogate formulas are seen as being outdated, overly simplistic, providing little or no useful knowledge.
My comment about Tom Dove's experience with the Vanguard is that in the article he says things like, "It should be well-mannered in big waves and a chop", "It tracks far better than a modern fin-keel designs" and "the hull form that makes the Vanguard tender should make her seakindly". None of those statements match my experience with the boat especially in rougher conditions, and my point is that if Mr. Dove had more experience with the boat, he would find that the boat is not well manner in big waves or a chop, does not track well at all, and has an uncomfortable motion, rolling though very wide angles before snapping to a stop as she suddenly builds buoyancy on her topsides.
Seabreeze's other comment about Mr. Dove never sinking one refers to the fact that my family's Vanguard was sunk in December of 1969. We had left her with a boat yard to haul her for the winter. There was a nor'easter coming in, and the yard mistakenly told us that she had been hauled out. I was away at college, so my dad went down to check her on the cradle only to discover that she had not been hauled and had been left on a mooring. By the time that had been figured out, she had chafed through the mooring line, had broken free, and ended up a total loss on the beach near the rocks at Ft Toten.
I also want to comment on the RM chart that Conquistadore posted. This is very out of date. Modern IMS and IRC derived designs have much larger AVS's and require a lot more energy to capsize than traditional heavy displacement boats. And when the chart refers to a "Narrow Heavy Displacement Hull" this is not referring to a CCA type hull form. This is referring to the traditional long water line cruisers.
Which gets to the central point that I was trying to make, even in the era when CCA race boats were popular, there were boats being designed and built specifically for the purpose of going cruising rather than for the racing/coastal cruising purposes of a boat like the Vanguard. And these boats cost little or no more than a boat like a Vanguard, but their basic design had substantially longer waterline lengths relative to their length on deck, more suitable rigs for offshore cruising, better motion comfort, more stability and more robust construction than the CCA era race boats and so would be better suited for your asperations.
My advise was not intended to suggest that you buy a modern boat, it is simply that if you are looking for an offshore cruising boat, then buy an offshore cruising boat, and not a 50 year old race boat. But I would also that you spend a little more time, understanding hull forms and the negative impact that short waterline lengths have on motion comfort, seakeeping, carrying capacity, and overall sailing ability.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Curmudgeon at Large- and rhinestone in the rough, sailing my Farr 11.6 on the Chesapeake Bay and part-time purveyor of marine supplies