SailNet Community - Reply to Topic
Thread: what the numbers say? (long) Reply to Thread
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the SailNet Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
Please note: After entering 3 characters a list of Usernames already in use will appear and the list will disappear once a valid Username is entered.

User Name:
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:


Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Click here to view the posting rules you are bound to when clicking the
'Submit Reply' button below

  Topic Review (Newest First)
06-27-2003 07:15 PM
what the numbers say? (long)

This is complex because the numbers do not tell you as much as you would think. SA/D tells you that the Holland will probably be a better light air boat than the Brewer, and the L/D''s suggest the same but both boats are moderate displacement for their waterline lengths. 186 is just not that light with very competent and comfortable modern cruisers with D/Ls as low as 160.

The motion comfort and capsize ratios really tell you less than zip about either the likely comfort or the likeliness of a capsize. The Motion Comfort Index nor the Capsize Ratio do not include hardly any of the key factors affecting comfort or capsizing such as vertical center of gravity, weight distribution, bouyancy distribution, waterline beam, cross sectional properties, profile characteristics etc. that really control the motion of a boat or its likelihood to capsize. Both are surrogate formulas that are at best marginally useful in comparing nearly identical boats.

Back to the problem at hand. The Holland is likely to be an IOR based hull and rig form. The Holland would certainly offer better performance and provide a better choice to learn to develop sailing skills. The Holland would be easier to sail short handed and would make a better daysailer. The Holland has a higher ballast to displacement and an equal draft so is likely to be able to stand to a bigger sail plan, which when combined with its more easily driven hull may be easier to sail in a blow. That said, the Holland is not likely to be a very good offshore boat, not because of its numbers, i.e. light weight, but because of its IOR hull form and weight distribution.

By the same token the Brewer is likely to be slow and not a terribly well suited to developing sailing skills and daysailing but potentially might be the better offshore boat.

Of course these are comparatively broad generalities but it is next to imposible to be more specific without actually the actual models.


06-27-2003 10:27 AM
what the numbers say? (long)

I''m seeking some feedback on a couple boats I''ll be inspecting with the possiblity of purchase.

USES: Day sailing in nice weather – sometimes single handed. Overnight & weekend excursions in Puget Sound – two adults. One to two week cruise in the Spring and Fall – two adults, occasional guests (1-2). Seaside “cabin” for weekend get-aways.

With improving skills and increasing experience - Inside passage to Alaska. Bluewater voyaging (I''d like to sail a small boat to a small island, at least once).

CHARACTERISTICS: Quality construction. Respected and proven design. Nice Lines. Solid hull (not cored). Fin keel with skeg-hung rudder or modified full keel. Sloop or cutter with sound rigging. Sails in good condition. Diesel auxiliary. Well designed and crafted interior with ample storage and tankage. Solid, simple, easily accessed and maintained systems. 6’2” headroom is nice, but not required.

BOAT A... Designer: Ron Holland.... Mid 1980s... LOA: 36... LWL: 30... Beam: 11... Draft: 5''6"... Disp: 11240 lbs... Ballast: 4246... Sail Area: 667 sq ft... SA to Disp: 21.27... Capsize Ratio: 1.96... Disp to LWL: 186... Motion Comfort: 22.23... Engine: Yanmar 27hp... Fuel: 22g... Water: 65g... Fin Keel/Semi-Skeg Rudder

BOAT B... Designer: Ted Brewer.... Early 1980s.... LOA: 34... LWL: 28''8"... Beam: 11''2"... Draft: 5''6"... Disp: 13600 lbs... Ballast: 4700, lead... Sail Area: 445 sq ft... SA to Disp: 12.5... Capsize Ratio: 1.87... Disp to LWL: 258... Motion Comfort: 27.68... Engine: Westerbeke 27hp... Fuel: 26g... Water: 60g... Fin Keel/Full Skeg Rudder

So, what does all of this tell me? Is BOAT A too light for my stated uses?...too far shifted toward racing? The sails and rigging are all high performance - rod rigging, Spectra main. The boat looks sleek - modern - even though it is 15+ years old. She has relatively deep midsections and carries a good deal of beam well aft.

BOAT B is described as comfortable, beamy with a long waterline. It is frequently mentioned that it is "reasonably fast" - is this code for "it''s a bit of a slug"?

A costs more than B (about 25%) and is a stretch for me, but the budget could be pushed. Both are under U$75K.

Now, overwelm me with your knowledge, experience and opinions. Please.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome