On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 21:53:36 -0400, DSK wrote:


Actually, the Navy takes rust prevention very seriously and invests a
heck of a lot of time & money on it. And with a great deal of success,
but not from an aesthetic standpoint.

They should pass on their tips...I care about avoiding rust...if the
boat looks like crap, it's less likely a target for thieves and
pirates. Besides, all boats look great when underway, and that's where
I will enjoy it most.



... and
provide a safe and easy ride in the 40-50 foot range.

Sorry, you're dreaming. There is no "safe & easy ride" for a small (say,
less than 20 tons) sailboat in conditions likely to produce 40 to 50
foot seas, especially if they break.

OK, "safer and easier" as endlessly profiled in "Heavy Weather
Sailing" and Marchaj and the like.

The material the boat is made of is
less important the it's overall design characteristics... the more like
a submarine, the better for such... but the worse for everything else.

I understand, but there are design compromises that can mitigate a lot
of discomfot.

But again, I digress. A big part of my objection to steel as a material
for small sailboats is that it's not inherently suitable. Too heavy and
too limp. Unless you're building a boat that's at least 20 tons... and
50 would be a more likely margin... there is no sense, engineering wise,
in building it out of steel.

Well, Brewer, Moitessier and a lot of European builders and sailors
would disagree. I would say sub-38 feet or so, steel is too damn
heavy.


One of the steel boats I've had experience with was owned by the Great
Lakes Naval training Center Sailing Club. It was a 40-ish foot ketch,
very heavy, an empty box with no accomodation inside. The empty space
was necessary for sail & tool stowage. I don't know how many sails the
boat carried but it must have been 30+. We used to entertain ourselves
by experimenting with mizzen staysails, of which there were at least a
dozen. It also had padeyes welded all over it for tying stuff down, all
seemed strong enough to lift the boat from.

I would have enjoyed seeing that boat G Mizzen staysails have always
seemed like a nice, trade-winds sort of thing: effortlessly effective
and beautiful to boot.



That greatly depends on how it's done. The racer starts out with better
hull lines, a higher ballast ratio, stronger structure. You could a
significant part of the boat's weight before degrading the stability and
performance unless you add it all at bow or stern, very high up, etc
etc. The real problem is that such conversions are too likely to be
undertaken by people who don't know or don't pay much attention to such
details, and may not have chosen the basic boat wisely in the first
place. However I've seen a couple of pretty nice ones.

I'm not saying it's by any means impossible, but you need to do a lot
of math before you can even make the call. A lot of race boats are far
too extreme (and are designed to last really just for the campaign) to
be considered candidates for conversion.



I don't think you're to get a custom 40+ footer for that kind of money.
Double, maybe. You could always buy the design, contract the hull and do
much of the fitting out yourself... not my cup o' tea.

Maybe mine, as I have some non-standard ideas about stowage and
accommodation.


... As a future world cruiser, I can
live with heavier, less space-age materials, but I want my systems and
stowage simple, accessible and as robust as is reasonable for cost and
weight. The cherry veneer is irrelevant in a Force 10 blow.

Agreed. But I like a boat that looks good, and how much time do you
spend battling gales anyway?

That I don't know, but if I battle one big blow in the five-seven
years I would like to be out, I want to make sure it's in a boat that
I can keep sailing and won't fail us. We won't be in a hurry or need
to impress anyone else, so functional is fine. There's beauty in a
well-made, simply appointed boat.

Having said that, I have no objection to good looks.

R.