I mostly agree with Doug, but would put emphasis elsewhere.
Seaworthiness is largely relative to where you want to go and when. A boat
that would be perfectly fine in all conditions that you might meet on the
East Coast of the USA (except a hurricane, for which you would have plenty
of warning) would not be my first choice for doing a circumnav the wrong way
in the Southern Ocean. But to build and equip for the latter when all you
intend is the former is expensive and foolish. All boats are compromises,
and all factors, including seaworthiness must be weighted intelligently.
Speed is also a seaworthiness factor, as it gives you a better chance at
getting out of the way of storms. Your Colin Archer will not be as fast as
a modern design. Sayula II, a Swan 65, won the first Whitbread. She is
much faster, size for size, than a Colin Archer design, yet strong enough to
do a 180 in the Southern Ocean and come up with no significant damage.
Doug also touches on the question of comfort. IMHO, comfort is a major
seaworthiness factor. Unless you have a boat that will heave to and take
care of itself, and the sea room to do it, someone has to be sailing the
boat, which means that the crew has to be getting enough sleep and enough
food to stay able to do what they need to do.
As for ferro, I agree with Doug, but would add that a ferro boat is
essentially unsalable (it may also be unsailable, as they tend to be heavy).
While ferro can be cheap, why build in a material that no one wants to buy
in order to save maybe 5 or 10% of the cost of the whole project? You can
probably build in steel for very little more, and have a boat that you can
sell.
--
Jim Woodward
www.mvFintry.com
..
"DSK" wrote in message
...
Sorry to wander so far off topic, this post isn't much about boat
building.
Peter Ward wrote:
Greetings all, I'm considering building a kit Stornaway Weekender
www.scruffie.com as a teethcutting exercise;
Cute boats. Much lighter than their appearance would seem to indicate.
my primary objective is
to get a handle on the bedrock principles of 'seaworthiness'.
The best 1 page primer on "seaworthiness" is an essay by Peter Duff (of
Edey & Duff, the builders of the Stone Horse among other great boats). He
sums it up thusly:
1- easy to handle
2- comfortable (which he explains differently and more sensibly than many
people imagine 'comfort')
3- water tight integrity & reserve bouyancy
4- speed in sailing performance under a wide variety of conditions
5- beauty
My own explanation, given the many many demonstrations of lengthy &
perilous voyages in wildly unsuitable craft, is that seaworthiness
consists of a great combination of skill and/or luck on the part of the
skipper. This skill includes the ability to prepare & equip a boat
rationally for a wide range of anticipated conditions. The luck includes
not being there when very bad things happen, although careful attention
to unobvious details in predicting such happenings is definitely a skill.
From random reading I've formed the impression that the Bristol
Channel Pilot Cutter is the epitome of a seaworthy design. Colin
Archer designs seem to get the big tick also.
While they are good boats for rough water sailing, and definitely can be
said to maintain a more comfortable motion in a seaway (which, when things
get *really* bad, ain't saying much), they are pre-1920s technology. While
I agree with Peter Duff when he says, "The sea hasn't changed much" it is
unwise to overlook the accomplishments of modern engineering & materials;
also there are hazards nowadays such as being run down by a freighter or
hitting a container, that the previous generation of old salts did not
have to face.
BTW one of the prime characteristics in a boats safety at sea is the
ability to make distance to windward in deteriorating conditions... modern
keels & rigs have a great advantage in this, which is one of the points I
mentioned earlier to not overlook.
Consider the design factors in the two boats named... both were intended
for rough water sailing, intended to stay on station & be maneuverable in
very bad conditions. They were not intended for long duration at sea, nor
for carrying heavy loads; both were given hull & rig characteristics
intended to the best for windward sailing ability given the technology of
the era. Colin Archer worked on techniques of construction as much as hull
& rig types, to get the strongest lightest hulls possible. Do these points
tell you something about what the same service would indicate today?
What I'm seeking is advice on the most 'seaworthy' yacht design
available for a vessel under 35'. Becuase of the apparent advantages
of heavy displacement & relative ease of fairing, I'm also considering
a ferro hull ...any comments/observations on the pros/cons would be
much appreciated.
The problem with ferrocement is that it has no way of verifying hull
integrity, and is prone to catastrophic rather than incremental failure.
The main advantage of ferrocement is that it's cheap. For a vessel
intended to take to sea, there are better ways to pinch pennies IMHO.
I've foundy the following salty site quite useful in terms of Aussie
no-bull**** plain talking:
http://members.optusnet.com.au/coast...rocruising.htm
Thanks for the link. Very interesting reading.
Fresh Breezes- Doug King