|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|04-02-2017 07:12 PM|
Re: Bluewater defined?
Very good Article a lot of ! information here may require rereading several times.
Thank you for taking the time to write it
|07-29-2009 07:20 PM|
|camaraderie||CKH...Of course there is no Joshua Slocum Society equivilent for those who were never heard from again. It is not a question of some folks being able to make it through some combination of luck and skill... it is a question of the odds of doing so.|
|07-29-2009 12:09 AM|
I am completely unqualified, but that has never stopped me before.
I found this most interesting.
Do a search for : joshua slocum society intl.org solo circumnavigators
Assuming all these people were not just lucky, their choice of boat may have slowed them down, but didn't seem to stop them.
|11-20-2008 08:11 AM|
Are there any other recommended books that help explain the distinction?
|04-18-2008 02:00 AM|
I do agree with Jeff that discussions like this one tend to move in circles. Often because definitions, values and priorities are not stated at the offset. Since Jeff shows a vast amount of knowledge conserning boatdesign, I still hope to reach an agreement, somehow.
In my opinion boatdesign is a compromise between several different and sometimes opposing considerations. Like stability, speed, comfort, payload etc. Not to forget the conditions in local waters where the boats berths.
One example may be the vikingship. This design was ideal for warring, looting and piracy some 1000 years ago. It could sail into shallow waters, it could be rowed if the wind was contrary, but it could not take any large payload.
Later trade became more profiting than piracy and this design was abandoned. When speed became important for transporting tea the Americans developed the clipper. When economy became important the steamships replaced the sailingships, because the payload pr. manpower was considerably smaller.
Boatdesign conserning leisureboats has also been influenced by handicap-rules in races. I believe many remembers designs like "The Drake" that had a very short LOA, but was designed to achieve a greater LOA when heeling due to the overhangs.
I must confess that in this discussion my own concern is to value comfort and stability above speed. My considerations started with the idea that I wanted the biggest boat I could get and still sail it alone. And of course within the limits of my financial capacity.
Since the marked for old wooden ships is very small, I got a 37 foot gaffrigged ketch for a very acceptable price. Of coursed an old wooden ship demands maintenance, but being retired that is only meaningful leisure time. An alternative to watching TV.
Now in this respect payload is important to me. I have 900 litres and diesel tank, 400 litres of watertank. Hot and cold pressure water and space for mechanical tools and carpeting (electrical power) tools and a generator to power them, spareparts and materials. This again is because my resources are limited and I cannot use a workshop anything happens, I must do all the repairs myself.
Also I should rephrase my statement. Not weight, but payload is in my opinion important, if that can bring an agreement closer?
|04-17-2008 10:13 AM|
This might add to the banter, but ever since I was a child, a "bluewater" vessel was a Ship, not a Boat. I was told that "boats go on ships."
The requirements I've always been taught was there are "suitable" offshore ships and "optimized" ones. It has been well proven that a good boat, properly handled, can endure terrible conditions offshore.
Further, a strong hull, strong hatches with dogs, and ports that are secure and tough (and not too big that you can't pump out the boat if you loose one in a storm) were points. Displacement weighs on the crew and master as a rolling and pitching ship is flat exhausting. A long, deep full length keel is also something I have seen a good property. the final things I would say make an offshore boat, besides design and crew, is the safety equipment and redundant systems.
I took a 28' with 9' of beam offshore this winter to Cayman from Houston, and then back to Cancun and back north along the coast to Houston. This included almost 6 days at drouge and heave-to in rain storms and high winds from that system that flooded the central USA.
Almost anything, In my opinion could make it offshore, but there are "optimized" designs that do better than others.
|04-16-2008 03:14 PM|
I think these discussions often go around in circles because of the way that we come to define them. Perhaps this will clarify my point. It takes a certain amount of displacement to support the boat and crew. If we have two boats of equal dry load (meaning empty tanks, and lockers etc) displacement, generally the boat with the longer waterline will carry a larger percentage of its weight in full load capacity. Obviously there is a limit to how long an equal weight boat becomes before the boat ceases to be structurally suitable, but withing a reasonable range the longer boat of equal length will offer a gentler motion, a more easily driven hull and so a smaller sail plan making it easier to handle, and will perform better as well.
And By the same token the cost to build and the cost to maintain is larger proportionate to displacement rather than length.
So while we may rightly say that if we compare two boats of equal length, similar hull forms, rigs, and weight distributions and ballast ratios, the heavier one would be more comfortable (up to a point), when we talk about going distance cruising, I think we need to define the displacement that we need to carry of stuff, and then look for the longest boat that can safely do that (which means a lower L/D).
|04-16-2008 03:05 AM|
Obviously I am writing slower than I think. My point is only that on long trips like crossing the Atlantic Ocean, one need (or at least I need) to bring along food, water, diesel, spareparts, tools etc. If the boat is lightweighted, the freeboard will diminish and the wet area will become larger when the payload is big enough. This is by the way the reason why fishing ships seldom have any accidents towards the fishing place, but more often on the way home, because of to much payload.
A heavier boat can carry more weight without changing its stability.
I do not mean that a heavier boat is advantageous in any circumstance.
|04-16-2008 12:07 AM|
|Plumper||And be as wet as a half tide rock as Ted Brewer once said|
|04-15-2008 11:49 PM|
|sailaway21||With all due respect to Jeff, weight does have it's advantages. While I would not classify it as the most important factor, the heavier displacement boat per length will in general be more sea-kindly. And slower. (g)|
|This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|