Sorry for the delayed reply, Ive been out of town.

rhys wrote:
They should pass on their tips...I care about avoiding rust...

Lots & lots of man-hours deovted to chipping & wire-wheeling the tiniest
rust spot, and zinc chromate.


... if the
boat looks like crap, it's less likely a target for thieves and
pirates.

That's my theory with cars, it seems to work OK (although I do not care
to live or park in high-crime areas).

... Besides, all boats look great when underway

Agreed, but some look greater than others


.... 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.

I think it's a great idea to have higher LPOS, great stuctural &
watertight integrity, and to have an efficient and easily worked storm
canvas. There is no conflict IMHO between these desirable
characteristics and a boat that sails fast.

OTOH the prime characteristic of a "fast" sailboat is that it has a
relatively light footprint. This makes it bouncier, all else being
equal. Question- is the likelihood of getting conked in the head by a
flying soup can a "seaworthiness" characteristic?



.. 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.

It seems to me like a wise choice to put priority on issues of strength,
controllability, stability, & watertight integrity; and then & only then
get into the issue of fast & bouncy versus slow & submarinish
(personally, I'd choose fast!).


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.

It's a judgement call... I don't much like steel as a material for
sailboats, but certainly there have been successful steel boats even
smaller than 38' LOA. None of them have been fast, at best you could say
they were a good working compromise between speed & other desirable
characteristics. OTOH there are many steel boats designed for the
homebuilder market that cannot get out of their own way under sail.



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.

True, although I think you're getting sucked too much into the 'racing
boats are flimsy' mindset. Racing boats *have* to be built strong to
even make it around the course. Breaking up is slow. And they're
expensive enough that nobody considers ephemerity as a good selling point.

The often pointed to examples of America's Cup boats breaking up are
actually (considering the facts)better examples of boats that were field
modified outside of the designers sight and had extreme force applied
inappropriately. Anybody who does that, cruiser or not, is rolling the dice.

The market for big racing keelboats is basically in freefall. Outside of
the very few who want impressive daysailers and those eccentrics in the
market to convert them into cruisers, there is zero demand for big
non-competitive racing sailboats.

It's interesting to note that the asking prices for cruising catamarans
also seems to be dropping... not in freefall, but big cats coming out of
charter fleets are asking 1/2 what they were.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King