"DSK" wrote in message

... A diagram could explain this much much better.


Maxprop wrote:
Not really--that's quite clear.


Allow me to compliment your grasp of trig relationships. My boss doesn't
get it even after studying a diagram.

The study of optics is almost pure and applied trig. I enjoy trig, so it is
relatively easy and intuitive for me.

Most monohulls have elements of a sine curve in the stability.


Hmmm. The Beneteau graphs didn't appear sinusoidal at all, rather
asymmetrical.


That's a bad sign by itself IMHO. Consider the opposite case, a
catamaran... static righting moment hits max as soon as one hull clears
the water, maybe 15 degrees or less. The curve is almost vertical for the
first little bit, then drops off and becomes negative well before 90.

As a monohull becomes boxy & lightly ballasted, it's stability curve
trends more towards that catamaran type curve... good for sailing
performance under ideal conditions, but poor for "real life" sailing IMHO.
It can still have a good Limit of Positive Stability, though, which the
real meat of the matter.

I had a rather lengthy discussion with a Beneteau factory rep at a boat show
a few years back. I was inquiring whether, in the company's opinion, their
boats were truly offshore passage capable. He, predictably, answered to the
affirmative. I asked him why, and he gave me all sorts of reasons, such as
the method by which they laminate all bulkheads to the hull and deck
structures, their rigid gridwork under the sole, etc.--things of a
structural nature. When I asked about stability and seaworthiness, he
seemed at a loss. I commented that many of their boats had less than a 1:3
ballast/displacement ratio, and he said, "Oh that's really not terribly
important." Sure wish I'd had the company's graphs during that discussion.
It seems to me that the reps are spoon-fed the company standard line with no
particular enlightenment.

Max