SailNet Community - Reply to Topic

   Search Sailnet:

 forums  store  


Quick Menu
Forums           
Articles          
Galleries        
Boat Reviews  
Classifieds     
Search SailNet 
Boat Search (new)

Shop the
SailNet Store
Anchor Locker
Boatbuilding & Repair
Charts
Clothing
Electrical
Electronics
Engine
Hatches and Portlights
Interior And Galley
Maintenance
Marine Electronics
Navigation
Other Items
Plumbing and Pumps
Rigging
Safety
Sailing Hardware
Trailer & Watersports
Clearance Items

Advertise Here






Go Back   SailNet Community > On Board > Boat Review and Purchase Forum > Jeff H. Please compare
 Not a Member? 


Thread: Jeff H. Please compare Reply to Thread
Title:
  

By choosing to post the reply below you agree to the rules you agreed to when joining Sailnet.
Click Here to view those rules.

Message:
Trackback:
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:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

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.



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


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)
01-15-2004 06:44 AM
c172guy
Jeff H. Please compare

Thanks Jeff; I have ran across the numbers such as sa/disp, capsize ratio,disp/water line length. Etc in several books. Even here at Sailnet Rousmaniere has an article advocating using the numbers when picking a boat. John Vigor''s book on offshore boats seemed to favor traditional designs.
My personal experience is limited but The P323 has a better motion than a Catalina 30,Hunter 30 ,Macgregor 26, Buccaneer 28 but not as good as a Winga 28. As far as range of positive stability I don''t know but it definately feels less tender than those boats except the Winga.
I agree 100% on the Cape Dory. It''s just such a pretty boat.
How would you go about picking a boat for offshore use?? With so many boats to choose from how would you start the search?? Go to a Catalina or Hunter dealer?? I was surprised by Vigor''s relatively low safety at sea ratings for Pacific Seacraft boats. He seemed concerned about them being pooped without hatchboards in place.
My brother was very happy in the Pacific with his Pacific Seacraft 25. Even in waves higher than the mast near Guam he said he felt safe and in control and that he beat several larger boats on passages. But here in Mobile one broker called it a Sea Slug. But it may be the conditions as Guam and Mobile couldn''t be much more different places to sail.
Thanks again I enjoy your comments.
01-14-2004 06:30 PM
Jeff_H
Jeff H. Please compare

Remember that the when the Mackerel head theory was prevellent these boats could not go upwind. Going down wind shares a lot with freighters in that it is strictly about straight drag with no lift required. Also the bulb on modern ships occurs completely below the wave line and is comparatively small while the blunt Mackerel head bows occured all the way to the deck.

Jeff
01-14-2004 04:41 PM
flicker
Jeff H. Please compare

This is off the main topic, but it occurs to me that it was once obvious to hull designers that a bow shaped like the blunt head of a mackerel must be the most efficient form for passing through the water. Then, centuries later, this was disproven. (But then again, this design seems to have sprung up again in the latter half of the 20th century, in the underwater forepart of very large vessels.)

Chas
01-14-2004 02:59 PM
paulk
Jeff H. Please compare

The theory is that.... they''re supposed to be. It makes logical sense. The same way that it made logical sense to people in the 18th century that you should drain the bad blood out of people who were sick. No one seems to have actually been able to prove that double-ended boats are easier to control in a heavy following sea. So if you believe it to be so, it will be for you, and you can sail happily with a tiny cockpit, no lazarette and nowhere to mount your grill, self-steering, and MOB gear. The proof would involve the same helmsman taking the helm of the same double-ended boat and a transomed boat at the same time, so he could tell which was easier. Quite a trick.
01-14-2004 01:38 PM
flicker
Jeff H. Please compare

Are double-enders easier to control in heavy following seas?

Chas
01-14-2004 10:24 AM
Jeff_H
Jeff H. Please compare

A full keeled lower volume boat is at its best as a historical experience, in other words they offer a different sailing aesthetic than a modern design. That aesthetic can be appealing for a range of uses. They are at a disadvantage in lighter winds, and heavier winds preferring mid-range conditions. They are generally not ideal coastal cruisers being limited in interior volume and sailing ability. They are generally not ideal as offshore boats typically being wet and rolly and requiring more frequest sail changes than a newer offshore oriented design.

I want to point out that having a double end really does nothing good for you offshore. From a sailing dynamic standpoint the lack of a transom is strictly a styling issue which actually can work against offshore capabilities and comfort.

Also, while I generally like the Pearson 323 in many ways, I want to point out that the so called capsize ratio and motion comfort index tell you absolutely nothing about the likelihood of a capsize or the comfort of the motion of the boat. These surrogate formulas were developed when all boats were fairly similar in design and so worked when comparing boats of a feather. They contain none of the critical information that impacts the resistance to capsize or the motion of a vessel. A boat like the Pearson 323, whatever its obvious merits has a very high vertical center of gravity and deep canoe body and not much dampening. As a result dispite its capsize ratio and motion comfort index numbers it is not especially resistant to capsize and does not offer a particularly comfortable motion being on the corky, rolly side of the equation.

Respectfully,
Jeff
01-14-2004 05:19 AM
c172guy
Jeff H. Please compare

Thanks Jeff!!! My question was prompted by a question about windage effects on performance. It is too general a question but basically I was wanting a discussion of the tradeoffs between a fat high windage fin keel and a skinny,full keel boat.
I am the kind of guy who enjoys walking around the dock and yard just looking at boats. At my dock right now we have everything from a fat heavy double ender from Holland to water ballasted catalinas. Being conservative by nature I bought a Pearson 323 as a compromise between seaworthy and slow. My wife thought that I was disappointed with our pearson as I was so impressed with the double ender. My response was that I am pleased with the Pearson for our coastal cruising plans but would want the double ender to cross an ocean. The pearson is relatively slow and doesn''t point as well as some. but I like the 4.5'' draft,the 1.75 capsize ratio and higher motion comfort.
Back on topic: Under what conditions would a low windage full keel boat be more suitable than a high volume fin keel boat. For simplicity just consider sailing characteristics.
01-13-2004 07:44 PM
Jeff_H
Jeff H. Please compare

I am afraid that is a strange question. These are such dissimilar boats that I would not even begin to know where to start. When you say that the Cape Dory 25 was narrow and close to the water I can only assume that you are referring to the original CD 25. These were Okay boats for thier day. The build quality on these boats was pretty dismal but they were simple boats and so were able to be maintained and repaired as necessary. They were tender but sailed well for a boat of that type and era.

I don''t like anything about the Catalina 250. I am actually a fan of the Cat 27 having spent a lot of time on them. They are good boats for the dollar. The Cat 250 just plan seems to have wandered in a different and unappealing direction to me.

Jeff
01-13-2004 05:20 AM
c172guy
Jeff H. Please compare

A Cape Dory 25 with a modern boat like a Catalina 260. I was impressed this weekend by a CD. It is so long, thin and close to the water. I hadn''t realised how narrow until I stood on the dock at the stern. And the low freeboard looks like you can touch the water with your hand while sitting in the cockpit. I have always enjoyed your discussions.

 
Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may post attachments
You may edit your posts

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


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:32 PM.

Add to My Yahoo!         
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
(c) Marine.com LLC 2000-2012

The SailNet.com store is owned and operated by a company independent of the SailNet.com forum. You are now leaving the SailNet forum. Click OK to continue or Cancel to return to the SailNet forum.