"DSK" wrote in message

one really outrageous character was trying to sell us a Schock and making
all sorts of ludicrous statements, including "heel angle has nothing to do
with sailing speed or helm balance." At this point I was semi-serious
about that particular boat and challenged him to explain why, at which
point he got impatient and insisted that "when you have much experience as
me, you'll understand."

You're a relative youngster. They don't try to pull that crap with me any
longer. :-(

Anyway, the ballast certainly contributes to reserve stability & a high
LPOS but it's not the whole ball game. Given a choice for hard offshore
passagemaking between two boats, one with a 10% lower B/D ratio but a much
higher LPOS, the other with more ballast but also some negative factors
like a wide flat deck, big unprotected hatches, or the like, I'd pick the
one with higher LPOS.

As would I. Some designs simply have so many inherent flaws as to be
disqualified for anything beyond coastal daysailing. Small boats,
especially, often have no bridgedeck to speak of, or have companionways so
offset as to promote filling the hull on a knockdown on that side.

And remember that some extremely under rated factors in seaworthiness are
things like... do the cabin sole access panels lock in place, ditto the
galley cabinet doors, does the bilge pump have a good suction screen, how
good is the non-skid in the shower...

But I digress... sorry...

A high ballast ratio is a very good thing for hard sailing. Gives sail
carrying power and makes the boat more manageable, at the very least. But
it takes away from all the amenities that help sell boats!

Apparently, or should I say obviously. Short keels, tall topsides (high
freeboard), and megabeam carried well aft seems to be the rule in plastic
boats these days. Volume at all costs. Personally I think it is better for
a boat to look good than to sail good. :-) (apologies to Billy Crystal)

Max