not for the volume, not for the bouyancy.

A canoe stern, or almost any double-ender type stern, is
better triangulated than any transom.

DSK wrote:



You ran away from explaining the capsize ratio,

On the contrary I explained it in terms a mathematical layperson like
you should have been able to understand. Why do you live the big lie,
afraid of the truth? Now do you really want me to repost it so you won't
understand it again?

Cheers

JAXAshby wrote:

The canoe stern is hardly unique to Valiant.

It also follows very old design ideas.


the design dates from when it was impossible to build a boat with a watertight
meeting of the ends of planks. Therefore, if one bent the planks around and up
so that they met above the waterline, you didn't have to worry so much about
taking on water.

A good point, but Doug won't like it.

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

felton wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:52:40 +1300, MC wrote:


But we weren't talking about optimal racing designs. We were
originally talking about seaworthy designs for challenging conditions,
at least I think we were.


We are not talkng about optimal racing designs as much as why a canoe
stern is not that great except for people who expect to have to stop
sailing in storms.

Cheers

JAXAshby wrote:

not for the volume, not for the bouyancy.


A canoe stern, or almost any double-ender type stern, is
better triangulated than any transom.


But you you can't argue with an expert of triangulation!

LOL

Cheers

DSK wrote:



And structural strength. That was the specific point I raised which MC
seems to have not grasped.


Repost:

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


Cheers

JAXAshby wrote:
the design dates from when it was impossible to build a boat with a watertight
meeting of the ends of planks. Therefore, if one bent the planks around and up
so that they met above the waterline, you didn't have to worry so much about
taking on water.

How far back was this, Jax, the Vikings? In the 1800s they could
certainly make watertight plank ends.

Does your Scientific Sailboat Training include marine archeology now?

DSK

JAXAshby wrote:
(among other things)
canoe sterns have less reserve bouyancy than transom

Correct, Jax. Very good!

.... one of the bigger
complaints re canoe sterns

Uh-oh, you better talk it over with MC. He says that reserve bouyancy
isn't an issue because it's the transom that keeps out big scary waves.

DSK

You ran away from explaining the capsize ratio,

MC wrote:
On the contrary I explained it in terms a mathematical layperson like
you should have been able to understand. Why do you live the big lie,
afraid of the truth? Now do you really want me to repost it so you won't
understand it again?

Yes please do.

Also, be prepared to explain why _your_ explanation disagrees with the
explanation of the professional naval architects who devised this measure.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King