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:

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

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!


Good lord! It's like a discussion with an imbecile.

Cheers

"MC" wrote in message
...


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!


Good lord! It's like a discussion with an imbecile.

It was! He was talking to Jax!


Regards


Donal
--

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

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:43:05 +1300, MC wrote:



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

"The canoe stern, besides being a thing of beauty, is according to
Crealock, "a potential bow; for when the weather is truly bad, it is
the stern which will bear most of its venom."

The canoe stern is hardly unique to Valiant. The above quote from
Crealock was written relative to the PSC 37, also, coincidentally, in
the Sailboat Hall of Fame. Having a canoe stern doesn't seem to be
disqualifiying boats from the Hall of Fame

http://www.dreamcatcheryachts.com/pacific_seacraft/37/


As to Valiant, I think the history of the boat speaks for itself:

http://www.sailnet.com/valiant/valaccom.htm