On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:28:48 +0000, DSK wrote:
Lloyd Sumpter wrote:
OK...take your basic Merit/Olsen/Martin/Hotfoot/J and:
1. lose the $10K kevlar racing sails and put on dacron cruising sails
Why? If you've already got them, why not use them?
1. If you're buying new, you'd have to buy them, adding $10K to the
purchase price. Something cruisers don't do.
2. If they're used, the RACING concept would be to replace after a year to
two - again an expense most cruisers aren't will to accept.
2. put roller furling on the headsail and MAYBE a "cruising spinnaker"
(AKA "downwind floppy genoa")
3. Add 1500 lb or so of "cruising gear": 2 anchors, chain, etc. dishes,
water tank, holding tank, BBQ, crabtrap... (I had all this and more in my
Cal 25)
4. Add 6 mos accumulation of marine growth on the hull
Again, why? That's just plain neglectful and stupid. Especially on a small
boat that can be scrubbed with no great effort or time sunk.
How many times do you haul the boat?? If it's a racing boat, it often gets
hauled after every race, or at least many times in one year. Cruising
boats typically get hauled once a year. This is my point of "racing" vs
"cruising" mentality.
Now, sail it "cruising style": steer with your foot while you eat, tack
when you've finished lunch, leave the traveller centered, undercanvas so
you don't heel too much...
And you'll find these pocket rocketships don't go so fast. In fact, the
C25 may even beat it.
If the C25 was sailed under the same circumstances, not at all likely.
Hasn't been my experience. Many Martin 242's have been "converted" to
cruising boats, and they're not noticably faster than comparably-equipped
C25, C&C, US25, etc.
Why? The racers are designed to sail LIGHT and with
a lot of drive. For instance, they're not designed to sail downwind with a
genny. Many have very fine entries which work great when racing, but screw
up when there's 100lb of anchor gear in the bow.
Actually, the finer bow is likely to be slowed down less by weight forward.
I was referring to weight distribution. A lighter boat will suffer more
from "incorrect" weight placement than a heavier boat. Also, lack of
bouyance fwd WILL be more affected by weight fwd.
This kind of argument is common, but it's pure ignorance and wishful thinking.
FOr example, you know that Michael Jordan can jump higher than you, so that
suggests (by your logic) that you can therefore carry a heavier weight up a
hill.
Nope. My logic is more like "MJ can jump higher than an NFL lineman
because the lineman's way heavier. Make MJ the same weight as the lineman,
and I'll bet he couldn't jump as high as the lineman."
If a Catalina 25 is trialed against a Merit 25, with both of them light or
both of them loaded, the Merit is going to prove faster.
Totally "like for like"? Maybe. But noticably? In a race, 1/4 knot is VERY
significant, but cruising, 1/2 knot is nothing.
Now, I do notice that the C250 has one thing I HATE: "water ballast". Last
I checked, water is NOT heavier than water so IMHO does not constitute
"ballast" in a boat
Another example of ignorance.
Water is heavy. It doesn't have to be "heavier than water" to be ballast, it
just has to be below the boats center of gravity, or even below the boats
metacenter.
Tell me, is your boat's stability increased by filling a fuel tank down low in
the hull? Fuel is definitely lighter than water. How about a big cooler full
of ice & beer?
Compared to AIR, yes. Compared to lead, no. I'd show you the mathematics
if you feed me beer. In the meantime, try this experiment: fill a bottle
with water and see if it sinks.
Why not a full keel?
Too slow!
Lloyd Sumpter
"Far Cove" Catalina 36