SailNet Community banner

1 - 20 of 166 Posts

·
Philippe
Joined
·
23 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi,

I am making a short list of blue water boats (for a potential purchase and sabbatical) by looking at their ratios, and one of the criteria my girlfriend and I are trying to understand is the comfort ratio.

While I understand how it is calculated, and what is the overall meaning, I have no clue (due to being an inexperienced sailor, still taking sailing classes) what 5 to 10 points difference really make once blue water sailing.

Case in point (from online database):
  • Tayana 37 - CR: 43.8 -> Reference point (RP)
  • Pacific Seacraft 37 - CR: 38.0 -> -5.8 of RP
  • Cabo Rico 36 - CR: 35.6 -> -8.2 of RP
  • Shannon 37 - CR:33.5 -> -10.3 of RP

My question isn't which boat is better, I am not there yet. What I'd like to understand is whether the differences between these boats, in term of motion comfort, can truly be perceived at sea? Is a Shannon 37 really less comfortable than a Tayana 37? Tayana 37 vs. PS 37? PS 37 vs. CR 36? etc... or am I paying too close attention to what is just a number?

None of the boats I am considering seems to be apart of more than 10-12 points on the comfort ratio. Should I be happy their comfort are in the 30-40 range and move on to care about other numbers / other issues?

Thank you for your help,

Cheers
Philippe
 

·
Mud Hen #69, Mad Hatter
Joined
·
415 Posts
MCR = DISP / (.65*BEAM<SUP>4/3</SUP>(.7*LWL+.3*LOA)) This ratio was invented by Ted Brewer who say's he dreamed it up "tongue in cheek" as a measure of the motion comfort of a boat. A boat that has a more corky motion is considered less comfortable then one less affected by wave action. A higher value is better (if you like comfort). Smaller and beamier boats tend to have a lower ratio. This is best used to compare boats of similar size. A 26 footer should probably not be compared to a 40 footer using this ratio. The ratio is a factor of LOA and LWL and it may assume that boats with long overhangs tend to have wineglass shaped cross sections which provide more gradual buoyancy as they are immersed. However, a boat like a Valiant 42 has a long LWL for it's LOA and possesses this more wineglass shaped cross section. The ratio also favors displacement (higher gives larger result) and there is no accounting for distribution of weight. It also takes no account of waterline beam, a value that can be quite informative but is rarely available on stat sheets.
My interpretation is it relates how "corky" a sailboat feels, based on ratio of overhangs to waterline. But it does not take into account how "cow-like" or sluggish a non-corky boat can feel. My own boat only rates a 24.0, but I have no open ocean plans.

Based on these measurements the sailboats of the 60's through 80's will have a great advantage over those designed in the last 20 years with the more "European" hull shapes (beamy with lwl = loa). And maybe that is so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,491 Posts
Keep in mind that any center cockpit or pilothouse boat is likely to be more comfortable by virtue of the fact that you are not at one end of a boat that is moving like a slow see-saw through the waves.

Comfort is best appreciated on the boats themselves. I have found that I don't notice the "snappy" motion of a race boat if I am having fun on a race, just as I don't resent the stately tack of a heavy displacement full-keeler.

I certainly notice a change in motion, however, when I go up from the pilothouse of that full keeler onto the aft deck and the "outside helm".
 

·
Not Finished Yet
Joined
·
829 Posts
According to the formula by Delerious, the comfort ration is based on three values: LOA, LWL, DISP, and BEAM. The four boat you list are very close in LOA and Beam. That means the main cause of the different values are Displacement and LWL. All else being equal, a boat with a higher displacement is slower, but has a better motion. All else being equal, a boat with a shorter water line is slower. I think the better motion in this case is probably more controversial.

In any case, all of these are quite heavy boats that have moderate numbers in other areas. They will all be comfortable. I would focus far less on the motion comfort ratio than other factors when comparing these boats. Other factors that I think are more important when comparing these four boats are build quality and function of deck, cockpit, and cabin layout (you will have to tour all four do decide this).

Even more important: which of these boats makes your heart sing when you look at it? They are all great boats, but the one that takes your breath away is the right one for you.
 

·
Philippe
Joined
·
23 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Thanks all for the answers. I appreciate it.

I'll definitely ask more information when I am further in my research (and reading) of boats. For now, the cruising plan is still very fuzzy, just at the beginning, when dreams tend to be bigger than reality ;)

Cheers
Philippe
 

·
Administrator
Farr 11.6 (Farr 38)
Joined
·
9,489 Posts
5 to 50 points difference is totally useless in telling you about a boat characteristics. Its seems that as soon as someone posts a question about the seaworthiness of some particular boat, that a well meaning responder sends them to Carl's Sail Calculator to look at the Capsize Screen Formula and the Motion Comfort Index. And no sooner than poster questions the seaworthiness of some boat, that someone cites the Capsize Screen Formula and the Motion Comfort Index in that vessel's defense or prosecution. But as I have explained many times in the past, (and I am about to explain yet again) these surrogate formulas tell almost nothing about how the reality of a boat's likelihood of capsize or its motion comfort. In fact they provide so little indication of a boat's behavior that to rely on them in any way borders on the dangerous.
<O:p</O:p

Both of these formulas were developed at a time when boats were a lot more similar to each other than they are today. These formulas have limited utility in comparing boats other than those which are very similar in weight and buoyancy distribution to each other. Neither formula contains almost any of the real factors that control motion comfort, the likelihood of capsize, or seaworthiness. Neither formula contains such factors as the vertical center of gravity or buoyancy, neither contains weight or buoyancy distribution (of the hull both below and above the waterline), the extent to which the beam of the boat is carried fore and aft, and neither contains any data on dampening, all of which really are the major factors that control motion comfort or the likelihood of capsize. <O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

I typically give this example to explain just how useless and dangerously misleading these formulas can be. If we had two boats that were virtually identical except that one had a 500 pound weight at the top of the mast. (Yes, I know that no one would install a 500 lb weight at the top of the mast.) The boat with the weight up its mast would appear to be less prone to capsize under the capsize screen formula, and would appear to be more comfortable under the Motion Comfort ratio. Nothing would be further than the truth. <O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

And while this example would clearly appear to be so extreme as to be worthy of dismissal, in reality, if you had two boats, one with a very heavy interior, shoal draft, its beam carried towards the ends of the boat near the deck line, a heavy deck and cabin structure, perhaps with traditional teak decks and bulwarks, a very heavy rig, heavy deck hardware, a hard bottomed dingy stored on its cabin top, and the resultant comparatively small ballast ratio made up of low density ballast. And if we compare that to a boat that is lighter overall, but it has a deep draft keel, with a higher ballast ratio, the bulk of the ballast carried in a bulb, its maximum beam carried to a single point in the deck so that there was less deck area near the maximum beam, a lighter weight hull, deck and interior as well as a lighter, but taller rig, it would be easy to see that the second boat would potentially have less of a likelihood of being capsized, and it is likely that the second boat would roll and pitch through a smaller angle, and would probably have better dampening and so roll and pitch at a similar rate to the heavier boat, in other words offer a better motion comfort....And yet, under the Capsize Screen Formula and the Motion Comfort Index it would appear that the first boat would be less prone to capsize and have a better motion when obviously this would not be the case.<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

There are some better indicators of a vessel’s likelihood of capsize. The EU developed their own stability index called STIX, a series of formulas which considered a wide range of factors and provides a reasonable sense of how a boat might perform in extreme conditions. Unfortunately meaningful results require a lot more information than most folks have access to for any specific design. The Offshore Committee of US Sailing developed the following simplified formula for estimating the Angle of Vanishing Stability (Sometimes referred to as the ‘AVS’, ‘limit of positive stability’, ‘LPS’, or ‘Latent Stability Angle’ ):<O:p</O:p
Screening Stability Value ( SSV ) = ( Beam <SUP>2 </SUP>) / ( BR * HD * DV <SUP>1/3 </SUP>)<O:p</O:p
Where; <O:p</O:p
BR: Ballast Ratio ( Keel Weight / Total Weight )<O:p</O:p
HD: ffice:smarttags" />lace w:st="on">Hull</ST1:place> Draft <O:p</O:p
DV: The Displacement Volume in cubic meters. DV is entered as pounds of displacement on the webpage and converted to cubic meters by the formula: <O:p</O:p
Displacement Volume in Cubic Meters = ( Weight in Pounds / 64 )*0.0283168<O:p</O:p
The Beam and <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
<ST1
<ST1:place w:st="on">Hull</ST1:place></st1:City> Draft in this formula are in meters. These values are entered in feet on the webpage and are converted to meters before SSV calculation.
<O:p</O:p

Angle of Vanishing Stability approximately equals 110 + ( 400 / (SSV-10) )<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

There is a convenient calculator at http://www.sailingusa.info/cal__avs.htm<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

It should be noted that the AVS is only one indicator in evaluating the likelihood of capsize, meaning it only predicts the point at which the vessel wants to turn turtle. It does not predict the amount of force that would be required to heel the vessel to that limit, nor does it predict how the shape of the boat might encourage wave action to roll the boat closer to the angle at which it no longer wants to return. <O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
 

·
Telstar 28
Joined
·
993 Posts
LOL...Hey Jeff, you do know you're replying to a thread from last summer, right??
 

·
Administrator
Farr 11.6 (Farr 38)
Joined
·
9,489 Posts
Yes I was aware of that. I had seen Phillipe's post about boats not to take voyaging and in forming an answer I had taken a couple minites to look at his earlier posts trying to see if I could get a sense of where he was coming from and how experienced he was since his short list and criteria were so strange.

At the time I noticed this thread and thought I would return to it rather than highjack his other post when he had specifically said that he did not want to discuss his criteria on that post. Since he had posted the other thread I figured he was actively on the board and so might see this.

Jeff
 
  • Like
Reactions: SVAuspicious

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,680 Posts
Something very odd happened above. At least, on my screen anyway.

I see Jeff's post #8, with Sailingdog's signature line at the bottom of his post. Then in post # 9, Jeff appears to be replying to a post (by SD?) that doesn't show up on my screen. Anyone else seeing this?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
935 Posts
Something very odd happened above. At least, on my screen anyway.

I see Jeff's post #8, with Sailingdog's signature line at the bottom of his post. Then in post # 9, Jeff appears to be replying to a post (by SD?) that doesn't show up on my screen. Anyone else seeing this?
You must have slipped in between the cracks in the posts/web/universe because now I'm seeing normal stuff and in fact your post is #9 Time warp........................ :eek: Danger ...... Danger........... :laugher
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,302 Posts
John,

It appears to be on you screen only,

I also agree Jeff should make the comment her for the OP per there most recent post of about 24 hrs ago, with a BIG list or eclectic boats.

marty
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,680 Posts
Wow, something's really messed up on my end, then. Now the posts are numbered differently, and it even skips 2 post #s. I don't see SD's post at all, only his signature tagged on to the end of Jeff's post about the CR ratio.

Are you guys all seeing SD's post, then?
 

·
Splashed
Joined
·
572 Posts
John,

SD's posts looks fine, but I see none of yours :)



Wow, something's really messed up on my end, then. Now the posts are numbered differently, and it even skips 2 post #s. I don't see SD's post at all, only his signature tagged on to the end of Jeff's post about the CR ratio.

Are you guys all seeing SD's post, then?

Sorry, couldn't resist - it looks fine here. :D
Q: Should we have a sticky "Carls Sail Calculator should only be used to compare vessels otherwise comparable to Pinta and Nina" or whatever?
:D :D
 

·
Telstar 28
Joined
·
993 Posts
It's all in your head...

Something very odd happened above. At least, on my screen anyway.

I see Jeff's post #8, with Sailingdog's signature line at the bottom of his post. Then in post # 9, Jeff appears to be replying to a post (by SD?) that doesn't show up on my screen. Anyone else seeing this?
Jeff—

Thanks for the clarification. :D
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
394 Posts
Something very odd happened above. At least, on my screen anyway.

I see Jeff's post #8, with Sailingdog's signature line at the bottom of his post. Then in post # 9, Jeff appears to be replying to a post (by SD?) that doesn't show up on my screen. Anyone else seeing this?
Check with another moderator. The site is going to treat mods and non-mods differently. Could be a mod specific bug. Also might want to check with the SAs (Sys admins, not the other site) to see if there was any maintenance or upgrades performed. They may have broken something trying to give you greater superpowers. And of course try clearing your cache, closing your browser, and trying again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,680 Posts
Bizarre. This is what I see:

5 to 50 points difference is totally useless in telling you about a boat characteristics. Its seems that as soon as someone posts a question about the seaworthiness of some particular boat, that a well meaning responder sends them to Carl's Sail Calculator to look at the Capsize Screen Formula and the Motion Comfort Index. And no sooner than poster questions the seaworthiness of some boat, that someone cites the Capsize Screen Formula and the Motion Comfort Index in that vessel's defense or prosecution. But as I have explained many times in the past, (and I am about to explain yet again) these surrogate formulas tell almost nothing about how the reality of a boat's likelihood of capsize or its motion comfort. In fact they provide so little indication of a boat's behavior that to rely on them in any way borders on the dangerous.


Both of these formulas were developed at a time when boats were a lot more similar to each other than they are today. These formulas have limited utility in comparing boats other than those which are very similar in weight and buoyancy distribution to each other. Neither formula contains almost any of the real factors that control motion comfort, the likelihood of capsize, or seaworthiness. Neither formula contains such factors as the vertical center of gravity or buoyancy, neither contains weight or buoyancy distribution (of the hull both below and above the waterline), the extent to which the beam of the boat is carried fore and aft, and neither contains any data on dampening, all of which really are the major factors that control motion comfort or the likelihood of capsize.


I typically give this example to explain just how useless and dangerously misleading these formulas can be. If we had two boats that were virtually identical except that one had a 500 pound weight at the top of the mast. (Yes, I know that no one would install a 500 lb weight at the top of the mast.) The boat with the weight up its mast would appear to be less prone to capsize under the capsize screen formula, and would appear to be more comfortable under the Motion Comfort ratio. Nothing would be further than the truth.


And while this example would clearly appear to be so extreme as to be worthy of dismissal, in reality, if you had two boats, one with a very heavy interior, shoal draft, its beam carried towards the ends of the boat near the deck line, a heavy deck and cabin structure, perhaps with traditional teak decks and bulwarks, a very heavy rig, heavy deck hardware, a hard bottomed dingy stored on its cabin top, and the resultant comparatively small ballast ratio made up of low density ballast. And if we compare that to a boat that is lighter overall, but it has a deep draft keel, with a higher ballast ratio, the bulk of the ballast carried in a bulb, its maximum beam carried to a single point in the deck so that there was less deck area near the maximum beam, a lighter weight hull, deck and interior as well as a lighter, but taller rig, it would be easy to see that the second boat would potentially have less of a likelihood of being capsized, and it is likely that the second boat would roll and pitch through a smaller angle, and would probably have better dampening and so roll and pitch at a similar rate to the heavier boat, in other words offer a better motion comfort....And yet, under the Capsize Screen Formula and the Motion Comfort Index it would appear that the first boat would be less prone to capsize and have a better motion when obviously this would not be the case.


There are some better indicators of a vessel’s likelihood of capsize. The EU developed their own stability index called STIX, a series of formulas which considered a wide range of factors and provides a reasonable sense of how a boat might perform in extreme conditions. Unfortunately meaningful results require a lot more information than most folks have access to for any specific design. The Offshore Committee of US Sailing developed the following simplified formula for estimating the Angle of Vanishing Stability (Sometimes referred to as the ‘AVS’, ‘limit of positive stability’, ‘LPS’, or ‘Latent Stability Angle’ ):
Screening Stability Value ( SSV ) = ( Beam 2 ) / ( BR * HD * DV 1/3 )
Where;
BR: Ballast Ratio ( Keel Weight / Total Weight )
HD: ffice:smarttags" />lace w:st="on">Hulllace> Draft
DV: The Displacement Volume in cubic meters. DV is entered as pounds of displacement on the webpage and converted to cubic meters by the formula:
Displacement Volume in Cubic Meters = ( Weight in Pounds / 64 )*0.0283168
The Beam and
Telstar 28
New England

You know what the first rule of sailing is? ...Love. You can learn all the math in the 'verse, but you take
a boat to the sea you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as the turning of the worlds. Love keeps
her going when she oughta fall down, tells you she's hurting 'fore she keens. Makes her a home.

—Cpt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity (edited)

If you're new to the Sailnet Forums... please read this POST.

Still—DON'T READ THAT POST AGAIN.


But when I press the "quote" button, this is what I get:

LOL...Hey Jeff, you do know you're replying to a thread from last summer, right??
But that quote of Sd above is not otherwise visible.

Something's obviously messed up on my end. Sorry about the distraction...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
17,467 Posts
Wow, something's really messed up on my end, then. Now the posts are numbered differently, and it even skips 2 post #s. I don't see SD's post at all, only his signature tagged on to the end of Jeff's post about the CR ratio.

Are you guys all seeing SD's post, then?
Actually, I got the same thing a while back when quoting GeorgeB. It's like the post was somehow left open and stuff was appended to it. Bugginess.

Do you know how much I'd give not to see SD's posts? Heh-heh.
 

·
Philippe
Joined
·
23 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Jeff, thanks for the reply. Since that post, I have been reading a lot more.

The purpose of this Jun 09 post was for me to understand whether a Shannon 37 was really less comfortable at sea (in term of motion) than a Tayana 37, and to get a feeling from users of this forum who own or sail those boats how the boats feel.

I'd love to have the time to go sailing on every one of those boats, but I don't. Therefore, while I agree formulas cannot tell you exactly how a boat will behave, formulas are of a help to weed out the thousands of boats that exist out there to a short list that one can be comfortable with because they have 'on paper' good characteristics. The next step then being to visit those boats on the short list, and sail them hopefully.

I am working still on the short list, as my other post shows, but I am starting as well to visit those boats.

Thanks
Philippe
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
120 Posts
Physics rules , not opinion

Jeff says:

"I typically give this example to explain just how useless and dangerously misleading these formulas can be. If we had two boats that were virtually identical except that one had a 500 pound weight at the top of the mast. (Yes, I know that no one would install a 500 lb weight at the top of the mast.) The boat with the weight up its mast would appear to be less prone to capsize under the capsize screen formula, and would appear to be more comfortable under the Motion Comfort ratio. Nothing would be further than the truth "

Kevlar Pirate says:

Actually, 500 lbs at the top of the mast would prevent a rollover
why ? because there is a dynamic world out there not just a static world.

In practice we would never do this for other reasons however the mass
of the mast is important
This is why a boat which loses it's mast is more susceptible to rollover
even though the center of gravity is lower
Jeff, I would suggest you take a class on statics and dynamics,
read up on moment of inertia it goes by radius squared
respectfully, you are out of your field.

The comfort motion formulas and capsize ratio formulas are still
very valuable. I am not defending them to the letter, however there is no
designs today or ever which can invalidate these basic formulas in spirit.

CSR did not intend for someone to denigrate it by using some far out example
as you have attempted here with your 500 lb weight.
Instead of misleading readers , you may want to first qualify your statement by admitting your own boat does not do too well with these formulas.


calculus and Newtonian physics have accurately served this world for 400 years
these formulas are plenty acceptable for the purpose they were developed
 
1 - 20 of 166 Posts
Top