LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
JR Gilbreath
 
Posts: n/a
Default

No I really wasn't, but I don't know Capt Neal so I'm not sure if he
does what he says he will do or not. I haven't lurked here long enough
I guess. I have seen boats as small as 22 footers cross but I wouldn't
want to do it.
JR

JG wrote:

JR, you're joking right?

  #2   Report Post  
Joe
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I have seen boats as small as 22 footers cross but I wouldn't
want to do it


How come?

Joe

  #3   Report Post  
JR Gilbreath
 
Posts: n/a
Default

It just doesn't appeal to me. I like more comfort than a 22 foot boat
can provide.
JR

Joe wrote:

I have seen boats as small as 22 footers cross but I wouldn't
want to do it



How come?

Joe

  #4   Report Post  
Joe
 
Posts: n/a
Default

oh

  #5   Report Post  
Maxprop
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Joe" wrote in message

I have seen boats as small as 22 footers cross but I wouldn't
want to do it


How come?


Wish I could recall the name of their book, but a man and his wife sailed
their 20' Pacific Seacraft Flicka from the US left coast to the South
Pacific. The overriding theme of the book was the constant, incessant
beatings they both took from their passages in such a tiny boat. They quit
counting bruises and contusions after a while, there were far too many of
each. A few serious injuries as well. His wife flew home, forcing him to
single-hand on the homeward legs. Then only HE got beat up.

Small boats, while capable of making open water passages, simply don't offer
the level of comfort most humans have come to expect while sailing. Length
generally equals comfort.

Max




  #6   Report Post  
DSK
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Maxprop wrote:
Wish I could recall the name of their book, but a man and his wife sailed
their 20' Pacific Seacraft Flicka from the US left coast to the South
Pacific. The overriding theme of the book was the constant, incessant
beatings they both took from their passages in such a tiny boat. They quit
counting bruises and contusions after a while, there were far too many of
each. A few serious injuries as well. His wife flew home, forcing him to
single-hand on the homeward legs. Then only HE got beat up.


There's a similar book by a couple from Germany (live near Wilmington NC
as of last report) who circumnavigated in a sistership of Sopranino... a
19 foot offshore racer. Interesting story, including quite a lot of
rough sailing. The worst injury they had to contend with IIRC was a
severe scalding from the galley... a very serious hazard in any boat (or
any kitchen FWIW).


Small boats, while capable of making open water passages, simply don't offer
the level of comfort most humans have come to expect while sailing. Length
generally equals comfort.


JG wrote:
I agree with you about small boats and level of comfort.


I'd say that either displacement or cubic capacity equals comfort.

... Mine is fine for
day sails, but I've never quite gotten used to the cofin-size sleeping
arrangement.


It's that traditional low sweeping profile. If you don't mind higher
freeboard, you get decent head (and elbow) room. The Hunter 19 was quite
comfortable for weekending, or any length of cruise where you could tie
up or anchor in good shelter at night. Wouldn't be much fun trying to
sleep offshore in it though.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

  #7   Report Post  
Maxprop
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"DSK" wrote in message

I'd say that either displacement or cubic capacity equals comfort.


As a rule, yes, but a hull of a given volume can reach a point beyond which
increasing displacement has a negative effect on comfort, not to mention
safety. An example of this was a Norsea 27 in which a middle age man set
out to circumnavigate some years ago. The boat has an unladen disp/length
ratio of nearly 450, and with stores, extra fuel, water, equipment, etc. the
boat was simply too heavy and performed horribly in beam seas, which rolled
her over several times before he turned tail and headed home. Displacement
seems to offset cubic capacity somewhat, making really voluminous but light
boats uncomfortable and making voluminous and heavy boats more comfortable.

Max


  #8   Report Post  
DSK
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I'd say that either displacement or cubic capacity equals comfort.


Maxprop wrote:
As a rule, yes, but a hull of a given volume can reach a point beyond which
increasing displacement has a negative effect on comfort, not to mention
safety.


Agreed.

... An example of this was a Norsea 27 in which a middle age man set
out to circumnavigate some years ago. The boat has an unladen disp/length
ratio of nearly 450, and with stores, extra fuel, water, equipment, etc. the
boat was simply too heavy and performed horribly in beam seas, which rolled
her over several times before he turned tail and headed home.


THe problem is that he was at the margin... if you graphed motion &
stability against increasing displacement on a given hull volume, you'd
go from extremely bouncy (too bouyant) at the light extreme, to
increasingly comfortable, then back downhill again as the boat lost
responsiveness & stability (which is at least half due to bouyancy,
let's not forget), then back up again as the boat becomes a submarine...
the smoothest ride is 40+ fathoms down!


... Displacement
seems to offset cubic capacity somewhat, making really voluminous but light
boats uncomfortable and making voluminous and heavy boats more comfortable.


Yep. Everything is a trade-off. That's why life is such a good metaphor
for sailing....

Fresh Breezes-
Doug King

  #9   Report Post  
Maxprop
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"DSK" wrote in message
I'd say that either displacement or cubic capacity equals comfort.


Maxprop wrote:
As a rule, yes, but a hull of a given volume can reach a point beyond
which increasing displacement has a negative effect on comfort, not to
mention safety.


Agreed.

... An example of this was a Norsea 27 in which a middle age man set out
to circumnavigate some years ago. The boat has an unladen disp/length
ratio of nearly 450, and with stores, extra fuel, water, equipment, etc.
the boat was simply too heavy and performed horribly in beam seas, which
rolled her over several times before he turned tail and headed home.


THe problem is that he was at the margin... if you graphed motion &
stability against increasing displacement on a given hull volume, you'd go
from extremely bouncy (too bouyant) at the light extreme, to increasingly
comfortable, then back downhill again as the boat lost responsiveness &
stability (which is at least half due to bouyancy, let's not forget), then
back up again as the boat becomes a submarine... the smoothest ride is 40+
fathoms down!


LOL. Beneteau has, but does not distribute, graphic studies of net
displacement vs. stability for all of its boats built after the mid-90s.
Not sure if the French gov't. requires them or what, but I think they are
all just computer models depicting the safety margins of their boats. I've
seen the ones that apply to boats in the size range that interests me, and
frankly it's a bit scary. Bottom line: don't overload a 39' Beneteau. And
I'd suspect the same admonition might apply to similar boats, such as
Jeanneaus, DuFours, Catalinas, Hunters, etc.= the plastic fantastics. What
was interesting is that there seemed to be an over-center point, beyond
which the stability of the boat fell off precipitously. It was not a smooth
curve, rather it peaked, then plunged. I'm surprised that boat builders
don't publish a *do not exceed* load figure for each boat, even if they
don't want those graphs out and about.

... Displacement seems to offset cubic capacity somewhat, making really
voluminous but light boats uncomfortable and making voluminous and heavy
boats more comfortable.


Yep. Everything is a trade-off. That's why life is such a good metaphor
for sailing....


Aw, heck, I want it all, dammit. g

Max


  #10   Report Post  
Lloyd Bonafide
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The same could be said for motorhomes on the highway. In the ones greater
than 40 feet in length the potholes, small children, old ladies and bus stop
benches just seem to disappear under the wheels with no sound at all.

Lloyd


"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Joe" wrote in message

I have seen boats as small as 22 footers cross but I wouldn't
want to do it


How come?


Wish I could recall the name of their book, but a man and his wife sailed
their 20' Pacific Seacraft Flicka from the US left coast to the South
Pacific. The overriding theme of the book was the constant, incessant
beatings they both took from their passages in such a tiny boat. They

quit
counting bruises and contusions after a while, there were far too many of
each. A few serious injuries as well. His wife flew home, forcing him to
single-hand on the homeward legs. Then only HE got beat up.

Small boats, while capable of making open water passages, simply don't

offer
the level of comfort most humans have come to expect while sailing.

Length
generally equals comfort.

Max






 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 BoatBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Boats"

 

Copyright © 2017