On 20 Jan 2004, r.brody wrote:

Beneteau's premium line???
What are you talking about, I wonder?

. . . I was refering to the custom series, . . .
semi-custom...they are very capable blue water
boats. Beneteau will work closely with a buyer
on these and heft mods can be had.

www.beneteauusa.com/custom/57_photos.php

And not only that, they (or, at least, the one sold so far in the
U.S.) have the ability to "disappear" from the dock, too!!


www.noonsite.com/Members/doina/R2004-01-20-1
charleston.net/stories/011704/loc_17sailboat.shtml
beaufortgazette.com/state_news/regional/story/3232497p-2891624c.html
www.coastnews.net/missingboat.html

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 19:58:17 GMT, felton wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 14:11:05 -0500, DSK wrote:

felton wrote:


By
"scientifically trained sailors", who would that be in reference to?

Graduates of the JAXAshby Advanced School of Scientific Sounding Sailboat Gibberish.

Is there a correspondence course? Do they offer any electives in
diesel mechanics? I doubt I could get in...I struggle with math.

JAXAshby wrote
Bob Perry would say different, but then Bob has publicly called me an asshole,

but Bob has also publicly stated that he has struggled with math all his life,
a statement on his part that I do not doubt.

Actually, I don't doubt either statement

Actually, I suspect that this is no more true than any other of Jax's claims, such
as having sex with various well known actresses or sailing around the Atlantic
looking for the Gulf Stream for a week.

I am fairly certain that Bob called Jax an asshole in the old Cruising
World forum. Then again, I suspect that it wasn't the first or last
time Jax has been "misidentified" as an asshole, so I am not certain
what that has to do with the boat, or the designer in question



..... Are you suggesting that yacht
design is ultimately a mathmatical exercise and the best slide rule
operator will design the best boat? That would be an interesting
theory to test.

It's already been tested. Ever since the origin of geometry, people have tried to
use math to design better (usually meaning faster) boats. While the use of large
computers has advanced the practice quite a bit lately, it seems that there is more
to it than pure abstract number crunching. As proven by a certain groups highly
advanced number crunched design that also crunched spars.....



I think Bob's success speaks for itself. The boat has been a success,
commercially and out on the water for over 30 years and is in the
Sailboat Hall of Fame. If "scientifically trained sailors" wish to
nitpick, then so be it.

If memory serves correctly a few years ago there was an article in Good Old Boat
magazine on factors affecting hull speed. The canoe stern doesn't allow as
clean a separation of the stern wave in addition to a slightly shorter effective
waterline at hull speed, both of which add a little drag.

In another article the designer of the Valiant acknowledged the design
limitations of the canoe stern but it was a requirement of the customer and that
he worked very hard to minimize them.

But above all, remember ALL boats are a compromise.

JJ


My only nitpick would be that the canoe stern reduces reserve bouyancy, and makes it
awkward to mount hardware back there. Some people seem to think that the Valiant is
similar in more than superficial aesthetics to some kind of historic pilot cutter or
rescue vessel from the days of sail, but it is really a modern (1970s era) design.
In it's day it was not a crab-crusher, rather it was on the light end of the
displacement/length scale.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King


Well, I agree it is an "old" design. I have asked the Valiant folks if
they have considered that a newer design might be about due, but they
seem to feel that "if it aint broke, why fix it." Hard to argue with,
I suppose. While I have never been aboard a Passport, I suspect that
it might be a design that would have more appeal to me, particularly
the stern, as you mention. A large part of why I admire the Valiants,
though, is knowing the people who build them and seeing the way they
are put together. They are very well made, and that is something that
is every bit as important as the design.

James Johnson
remove the "dot" from after sail in email address to reply

James Johnson wrote:
If memory serves correctly a few years ago there was an article in Good Old Boat
magazine on factors affecting hull speed. The canoe stern doesn't allow as
clean a separation of the stern wave in addition to a slightly shorter effective
waterline at hull speed, both of which add a little drag.

In another article the designer of the Valiant acknowledged the design
limitations of the canoe stern but it was a requirement of the customer and that
he worked very hard to minimize them.

But above all, remember ALL boats are a compromise.

JJ

That's definitely true.

One benefit of the canoe stern that I don't think anybody has mentioned
yet is that it is structurally stronger (all else being equal) than a
transom.

FB
Doug King

dougie, a "benefit" is something that adds to the overall effect. In this case
there is no benefit because there is no problem with transoms not being strong
enough on the size and type sailboats under discussion. Calling it a benefit
doesn't make it one. Don't you sell concrete slabs to trailor home people?
You should know the difference between a feature, an advantage and a benefit.

James Johnson wrote:
If memory serves correctly a few years ago there was an article in Good Old
Boat
magazine on factors affecting hull speed. The canoe stern doesn't allow as
clean a separation of the stern wave in addition to a slightly shorter
effective
waterline at hull speed, both of which add a little drag.

In another article the designer of the Valiant acknowledged the design
limitations of the canoe stern but it was a requirement of the customer and
that
he worked very hard to minimize them.

But above all, remember ALL boats are a compromise.

JJ

That's definitely true.

One benefit of the canoe stern that I don't think anybody has mentioned
yet is that it is structurally stronger (all else being equal) than a
transom.

FB
Doug King

JAXAshby wrote:
dougie, a "benefit" is something that adds to the overall effect. In this case
there is no benefit because there is no problem with transoms not being strong
enough on the size and type sailboats under discussion. Calling it a benefit
doesn't make it one.

Let's see... an inherently stronger structure is not better than an
inherently weaker one? What sort of engineering is this? Oh wait, it's
JAXINEERING!



.... Don't you sell concrete slabs to trailor home people?

No. Why, do you need to buy a concrete slab for your trailer home?

Dsk

so, making a transom (that doesn't break) 10 times stronger is a *benefit*?

Sounds like a disadvantage to me. Extra cost, extra weight, slower boat speed,
all to fix a problem that doesn't exist.


JAXAshby wrote:
dougie, a "benefit" is something that adds to the overall effect. In this
case
there is no benefit because there is no problem with transoms not being
strong
enough on the size and type sailboats under discussion. Calling it a
benefit
doesn't make it one.

Let's see... an inherently stronger structure is not better than an
inherently weaker one? What sort of engineering is this? Oh wait, it's
JAXINEERING!


Dsk

JAXAshby wrote:

so, making a transom (that doesn't break) 10 times stronger is a *benefit*?

Sounds like a disadvantage to me. Extra cost, extra weight, slower boat speed,
all to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

That must explain why there's no such thing as hull speed... structural strength
can be zero because they never break... that means boats can be weightless!

Getting all this MC?

DSK

DSK wrote:



That's definitely true.

One benefit of the canoe stern that I don't think anybody has mentioned
yet is that it is structurally stronger (all else being equal) than a
transom.


Oh that's a real benefit. I guess Doug must be saying that yachts often
sink from their transomes falling off. Hahahhahahahaha.

Cheers

DSK wrote:

JAXAshby wrote:

dougie, a "benefit" is something that adds to the overall effect. In
this case
there is no benefit because there is no problem with transoms not
being strong
enough on the size and type sailboats under discussion. Calling it a
benefit
doesn't make it one.


Let's see... an inherently stronger structure is not better than an
inherently weaker one? What sort of engineering is this? Oh wait, it's
JAXINEERING!



A reverse transom is still lighter and faster than a canoe and is
designed to be strong enough. Your argument is ridiculous.

Cheers

DSK wrote:

JAXAshby wrote:


so, making a transom (that doesn't break) 10 times stronger is a *benefit*?

Sounds like a disadvantage to me. Extra cost, extra weight, slower boat speed,
all to fix a problem that doesn't exist.


That must explain why there's no such thing as hull speed... structural strength
can be zero because they never break... that means boats can be weightless!

Getting all this MC?


Yes I'm seeing your ass get whipped again on very basic concepts. Why
not throw in the towel?

Cheers