This thread sure has taken a tortuous track from the original question about the merits of Fin vs Full keels. Coming back to the thread, I find myself thinking; Are you still here?
But in its wild path, the thread has opened a whole slew of issues with various folks seemingly talking past each other, rather than having a productive and vaguely linear dialogue on the original topic of keel types.
It seems to me that much of this non-linearity has been caused by the sheer broad range of the topics being used, and the points diffused the loose association between the responsed and the topic being bandied about, and the sometimes dubious assumptions about the implicit connection between these various design factors. To me, in many cases, the connection between many of the indivdual comment and the responses to the point being raised, at best comes off as a real stretch and at worst, comes off as, 'I don't know nothing about art, nor understand your point, but I know what flavor ice cream I like' type non-sequitors. It would seem as if this discussion would be a lot more productive if the topics were treated separated rather being discussed with the assumption that they are a lot more linked than I would respectfully suggest that they are.
To try to help clarify this point, I would suggest that a brief index of the discussion topics contained within this thread might include:
• The merits and limitations of fin keels versus full keels.
• Boats operating as a system rather than as individual components discussed in abstract
• How most people who sail use their boats (day sailing and coastal cruising) and what those people need out of their boats, vs. more specialized uses such as offshore-distance cruising, performance passage makers, high level racers, and racer-cruisers.
• The impact of marketing vs. science in the selection of a boat by the general boat buying public.
• The impact of marketing vs. science in the selection of a boat by the offshore cruising boat buying public.
• Why Island Packets are not a good example of either traditional full keeled cruising boats nor of modern design principle, but somehow seem to be able to market themselves as both.
• The impact of cost on selection if the goal is one of these specialized uses.
• The merits and limitations of boats which are short or long for their displacement.
• The merits and limitations of various hull forms, and the impact of modeling on the success of a design of any general type.
• The merits of simplicity vs. sophistication vs. targeted sophistication.
I am sure that I am missing other topics that reared their ugly little heads, but it seems to me it would be a lot more useful, if people tried to make thier arguments based on points that were actually being made, and with the topic it was being mentioned in. Instead, it appears that many of the participants respond with an answer that only relates to a completely different topic relative to the point being contested and/or which at best perhaps assumes some association to the point raised.
For example, the thread starts with a very broad general discussion of keel types. The counter to some point in that discussion is an argument that boats that are longer or shorter for their weight make better offshore cruisers. To which the response is that the hull forms popular on coastal cruisers are less comfortable for offshore use. To which, the response is that coastal cruiser hull forms perform better. To which the response is that full fledged, grand prix level race boats are fragile. And so on. It sure makes for a confusing, and less useful thread, that taken at face value is not even all that accurate. But at least it has been mostly been civil…