To JRGilbreath
 

Looks like you were wrong, my friend, about no mud in the Bahamas.

Read the replies to my query about mud in Marsh Harbour.

http://coconuttelegraph.net/forums/s...ead.php?t=1506

CN

Capt. It truly looks like I don't know the different between sand and
mud. Good thing I don't mix cement. Are you really taking your boat to
the bahamas?
JR


Capt. Neal® wrote:

Looks like you were wrong, my friend, about no mud in the Bahamas.

Read the replies to my query about mud in Marsh Harbour.

http://coconuttelegraph.net/forums/s...ead.php?t=1506

CN

JR, you're joking right?
--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"JR Gilbreath" wrote in message
. ..
Are you really taking your boat to the bahamas?
JR

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?

I'm a Korean War veteran (Navy) and let me tell you that Marsh Harbor has
almost as much mud as Inchon Harbor. I don't know what it is with these
people's disrespect for decorated war veterans such as ourselves.

LLoyd

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...
Looks like you were wrong, my friend, about no mud in the Bahamas.

Read the replies to my query about mud in Marsh Harbour.

http://coconuttelegraph.net/forums/s...ead.php?t=1506

CN

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

How come?

Joe

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

oh

"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

You never know with Neal... I suppose it's possible, but more likely he'll
just go to some bar, get drunk, try to pick up some 13 year-old, and get his
parole revoked again.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"JR Gilbreath" wrote in message
.. .
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?

I agree with you about small boats and level of comfort. Mine is fine for
day sails, but I've never quite gotten used to the cofin-size sleeping
arrangement.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"JR Gilbreath" wrote in message
.. .
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?

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

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

Lloyd,

You keep driving your motorhome as a worthy Korean war veteran should.
In other words, don't take any flack from all those unexceptional people
driving little cars and little SUV's. People like them who cannot afford
homes with at least 4,700 square feet of floor space don't even deserve
to be licensed to drive. Who are they, anyhow, to impede the progress
of a war veteran who has places to go and things to do? The country
owes you a great debt of honor.

I was wondering, Lloyd, when are you going to be in the Western Estates
area so we can get together for a duet again. Summertaculer is coming
up fast.

Remember, Lloyd, honk real loud before you run somebody off the road.
The 'little people' deserve that much at least.

Love,
Margaret Gray


"Lloyd Bonafide" wrote in message .net...
I'm a Korean War veteran (Navy) and let me tell you that Marsh Harbor has
almost as much mud as Inchon Harbor. I don't know what it is with these
people's disrespect for decorated war veterans such as ourselves.

LLoyd

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...
Looks like you were wrong, my friend, about no mud in the Bahamas.

Read the replies to my query about mud in Marsh Harbour.

http://coconuttelegraph.net/forums/s...ead.php?t=1506

CN

"Lloyd Bonafide" wrote in message k.net...
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

You go, Lloyd!

I don't want to upset you, Lloyd, but did you know the supermarket
in Alhambra is going to be giving away free sausage snacks and
cheese snacks again this Memorial Day.

Do you have another protest in mind?

Love,
Margaret Grey

"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

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

"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

OH MY GAWD! Who, besides Lloyd, who's senile most of the time, would believe YOU have anything to do with Western Estates?
For one thing, you' re too old and harsh-looking to be admitted here. For another, my husband Frank would veto any vote to allow you
in.
We don't want you living here with your rebel-rousing columns and racist ideas.

Give the old loser a break, Margaret, and don't humor him along like that. He's Bonafide alright - bonafide borderline lol The old
fart
is dangerous. He's daft and he's looney. Did you hear he punched a woman the other day and then bragged about doing it to defend the
honor if the country? No excuse.

What's that, Frank? My butt? C'mon, don't bother me when I'm getting something straight on the newsgroup. Yes, I know you love the
looks
of my ass since I got the imlplants, but give it a rest for now. Later, honey, later. (The man loves my body, what can I say? He
he.)

What was I saying, now? Oh yes! Stop impersonating me, Margaret! You're not young and fit and tight like me. You're an old bat who
writes
liberal columns for newspapers. I'm a mover and a shaker here at the Assn. I doubt the smallest of my four bathrooms would even fit
in your
living room. Western Estates has no openings for your type, Margaret - no offense. We have age restrictions, ya know. Western
Estates is a
young, vibrant place and you, like your name, are old and gray. We already had one old lady die when I turned off her A/C last
summer so
the noise of it wouldn't bother Frank when we're having sex. I'd be afraid you'd be next.

Cheers,
Bobbi Dooley - President of the Western Estates Homeowner's Assn.

P.S. Nobody but me is allowed to hang their underwear out to dry at Western Estates.
P.P.S. No RV's allowed in W.E. - too unsightly.
P.P.P.S. Run along now. . .
P.P.P.P.S. Yes, Frank, I'm ready for you, now. Come and get it Big Boy!!!!!




"Margaret Gray" wrote in message ...


Lloyd,

You keep driving your motorhome as a worthy Korean war veteran should.
In other words, don't take any flack from all those unexceptional people
driving little cars and little SUV's. People like them who cannot afford
homes with at least 4,700 square feet of floor space don't even deserve
to be licensed to drive. Who are they, anyhow, to impede the progress
of a war veteran who has places to go and things to do? The country
owes you a great debt of honor.

I was wondering, Lloyd, when are you going to be in the Western Estates
area so we can get together for a duet again. Summertaculer is coming
up fast.

Remember, Lloyd, honk real loud before you run somebody off the road.
The 'little people' deserve that much at least.

Love,
Margaret Gray


"Lloyd Bonafide" wrote in message .net...
I'm a Korean War veteran (Navy) and let me tell you that Marsh Harbor has
almost as much mud as Inchon Harbor. I don't know what it is with these
people's disrespect for decorated war veterans such as ourselves.

LLoyd

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...
Looks like you were wrong, my friend, about no mud in the Bahamas.

Read the replies to my query about mud in Marsh Harbour.

http://coconuttelegraph.net/forums/s...ead.php?t=1506

CN

You can always call the Citizen's Auxiliary police to keep the rabble out of
Western Estates. Come to our next meeting, the first Wednesday of every
month at Ted's Steak House over in Beverly Hills and every third Wednesday
at the "Oh Be Joyful" Church led by Pastor Rennick. If he's not there then
Mavis Leonard will let you in.

Jay Santos



"Bobbi Dooley" wrote in message
...

OH MY GAWD! Who, besides Lloyd, who's senile most of the time, would
believe YOU have anything to do with Western Estates?
For one thing, you' re too old and harsh-looking to be admitted here. For
another, my husband Frank would veto any vote to allow you
in.
We don't want you living here with your rebel-rousing columns and racist
ideas.

Give the old loser a break, Margaret, and don't humor him along like that.
He's Bonafide alright - bonafide borderline lol The old
fart
is dangerous. He's daft and he's looney. Did you hear he punched a woman
the other day and then bragged about doing it to defend the
honor if the country? No excuse.

What's that, Frank? My butt? C'mon, don't bother me when I'm getting
something straight on the newsgroup. Yes, I know you love the
looks
of my ass since I got the imlplants, but give it a rest for now. Later,
honey, later. (The man loves my body, what can I say? He
he.)

What was I saying, now? Oh yes! Stop impersonating me, Margaret! You're
not young and fit and tight like me. You're an old bat who
writes
liberal columns for newspapers. I'm a mover and a shaker here at the Assn.
I doubt the smallest of my four bathrooms would even fit
in your
living room. Western Estates has no openings for your type, Margaret - no
offense. We have age restrictions, ya know. Western
Estates is a
young, vibrant place and you, like your name, are old and gray. We already
had one old lady die when I turned off her A/C last
summer so
the noise of it wouldn't bother Frank when we're having sex. I'd be afraid
you'd be next.

Cheers,
Bobbi Dooley - President of the Western Estates Homeowner's Assn.

P.S. Nobody but me is allowed to hang their underwear out to dry at
Western Estates.
P.P.S. No RV's allowed in W.E. - too unsightly.
P.P.P.S. Run along now. . .
P.P.P.P.S. Yes, Frank, I'm ready for you, now. Come and get it Big
Boy!!!!!




"Margaret Gray" wrote in message
...


Lloyd,

You keep driving your motorhome as a worthy Korean war veteran should.
In other words, don't take any flack from all those unexceptional people
driving little cars and little SUV's. People like them who cannot
afford
homes with at least 4,700 square feet of floor space don't even deserve
to be licensed to drive. Who are they, anyhow, to impede the progress
of a war veteran who has places to go and things to do? The country
owes you a great debt of honor.

I was wondering, Lloyd, when are you going to be in the Western Estates
area so we can get together for a duet again. Summertaculer is coming
up fast.

Remember, Lloyd, honk real loud before you run somebody off the road.
The 'little people' deserve that much at least.

Love,
Margaret Gray


"Lloyd Bonafide" wrote in message
.net...
I'm a Korean War veteran (Navy) and let me tell you that Marsh Harbor
has
almost as much mud as Inchon Harbor. I don't know what it is with these
people's disrespect for decorated war veterans such as ourselves.

LLoyd

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...
Looks like you were wrong, my friend, about no mud in the Bahamas.

Read the replies to my query about mud in Marsh Harbour.

http://coconuttelegraph.net/forums/s...ead.php?t=1506

CN

Maxprop wrote:
.... Beneteau has, but does not distribute, graphic studies of net
displacement vs. stability for all of its boats built after the mid-90s.

I wonder if they assume that the center of gravity stays the same?

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.

Probably true of any boat that is shaped like a normal sailboat. The
only way to be able to keep stability constant is to load all the weight
increasingly lower down so as to maintain the relationship between the
centers of bouyancy & gravity. Actually, as the beam/disp ratio drops,
the lever arm between CG and CB needs to increase... very unlikely!

... 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.

Maybe like a sine wave, with the peak for the point at which the
gunwhale immerses?

... 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.


Ever hear of the Plimsoll marks? For commercial ships, these figures are
published and are supposed to be kept by the captain. For naval vessels,
they keep a whole book of figures on stability.


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


If you figure out how, let me know.

Fresh Breezes- Doug king

"DSK" wrote in message

Maxprop wrote:
.... Beneteau has, but does not distribute, graphic studies of net
displacement vs. stability for all of its boats built after the mid-90s.

I wonder if they assume that the center of gravity stays the same?

No indication of CoG movement on the graphs I have, but I'd assume that it
would have to change, unless one puts all the additional weight in the
bilge.

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.


Probably true of any boat that is shaped like a normal sailboat. The only
way to be able to keep stability constant is to load all the weight
increasingly lower down so as to maintain the relationship between the
centers of bouyancy & gravity. Actually, as the beam/disp ratio drops, the
lever arm between CG and CB needs to increase... very unlikely!

Not sure I comprehend that concept, but I'll assume you know what you're
talking about here.

... 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.

Maybe like a sine wave, with the peak for the point at which the gunwhale
immerses?

Sounds a bit extreme, or tongue-in-cheek.


... 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.

Ever hear of the Plimsoll marks? For commercial ships, these figures are
published and are supposed to be kept by the captain. For naval vessels,
they keep a whole book of figures on stability.

No, never heard of them, but it might be a good idea for recreational boats
to keep such figures handy as well. Then again, perhaps it's difficult to
exceed those critical figures in terms of load.

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


If you figure out how, let me know.

Still working on it. No solution in sight.

Max

Maxprop wrote:
No indication of CoG movement on the graphs I have, but I'd assume that it
would have to change, unless one puts all the additional weight in the
bilge.


Well, it makes the calculations simpler if you assume the Center of
Gravity doesn't change, even though that would be almost impossible in
real life.



.... 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.



Probably true of any boat that is shaped like a normal sailboat. The only
way to be able to keep stability constant is to load all the weight
increasingly lower down so as to maintain the relationship between the
centers of bouyancy & gravity. Actually, as the beam/disp ratio drops, the
lever arm between CG and CB needs to increase... very unlikely!


Not sure I comprehend that concept, but I'll assume you know what you're
talking about here.


Not sure if I can explain, but here's a try:
When you look at stability, two things help. Weight down low and beam.
As the boat heels from 0 to 90 degrees, beam loses it's effectiveness &
weight down low gains. The lever arm between the center of bouyancy &
center of gravity is determined by these, so if you increase weight you
increase the leverage of the boat's beam but sink the hull deeper in the
water which decreases the lateral shift in bouyancy. Unless that weight
is down real low, you're reducing both modes of static stability.

Another way to look at it is by the Capsize Screening Ratio, a number
wich tells how likely the boat is to roll upside down and stay that
way... heavy + narrow = good... but if you're rightside up and want to
stay that way, the same relationship holds true which makes heavy +
narrow = not so good!




... 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.

Maybe like a sine wave, with the peak for the point at which the gunwhale
immerses?


Sounds a bit extreme, or tongue-in-cheek.


Not at all. Consider a hull shaped like a cylinder, with a weight at the
bottom. This will have zero stability due to beam; called initial
stability or form stability. It will have very very little righting
moment at low angles of heel, then as it approaches 45 the righting
moment starts increasing steeply, then nears max somewhat short of 90
and increases slowly to the max at 90... a sine wave. A diagram could
explain this much much better.

Most monohulls have elements of a sine curve in the stability.



Ever hear of the Plimsoll marks? For commercial ships, these figures are
published and are supposed to be kept by the captain. For naval vessels,
they keep a whole book of figures on stability.


No, never heard of them, but it might be a good idea for recreational boats
to keep such figures handy as well. Then again, perhaps it's difficult to
exceed those critical figures in terms of load.


Depends on what you're carrying. In the old days, sailors used to love
to carry lumber because it's bouyant and when stacked up & strapped down
on deck, the boat was very safe (although a PITA to work around the deck
load).

About Plimsoll marks-

http://amchouston.home.att.net/plimsoll.htm

The story I heard was that the basic idea behind Plimsoll marks came
from a lowly insurance clerk who tabulated ship losses & their loading,
but could not get anybody to pay attention... ship captains being rather
set in their ways...



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

If you figure out how, let me know.


Still working on it. No solution in sight.


I don't want it all. I just want a time travel machine.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

"DSK" wrote in message

Maxprop wrote:

Not sure I comprehend that concept, but I'll assume you know what you're
talking about here.


Not sure if I can explain, but here's a try:
When you look at stability, two things help. Weight down low and beam. As
the boat heels from 0 to 90 degrees, beam loses it's effectiveness &
weight down low gains. The lever arm between the center of bouyancy &
center of gravity is determined by these, so if you increase weight you
increase the leverage of the boat's beam but sink the hull deeper in the
water which decreases the lateral shift in bouyancy. Unless that weight is
down real low, you're reducing both modes of static stability.

Okay. Makes sense.



Sounds a bit extreme, or tongue-in-cheek.

Not at all. Consider a hull shaped like a cylinder, with a weight at the
bottom. This will have zero stability due to beam; called initial
stability or form stability. It will have very very little righting moment
at low angles of heel, then as it approaches 45 the righting moment starts
increasing steeply, then nears max somewhat short of 90 and increases
slowly to the max at 90... a sine wave. A diagram could explain this much
much better.

Not really--that's quite clear.


Most monohulls have elements of a sine curve in the stability.

Hmmm. The Beneteau graphs didn't appear sinusoidal at all, rather
asymmetrical.

No, never heard of them, but it might be a good idea for recreational
boats to keep such figures handy as well. Then again, perhaps it's
difficult to exceed those critical figures in terms of load.

Depends on what you're carrying. In the old days, sailors used to love to
carry lumber because it's bouyant and when stacked up & strapped down on
deck, the boat was very safe (although a PITA to work around the deck
load).

About Plimsoll marks-

http://amchouston.home.att.net/plimsoll.htm

The story I heard was that the basic idea behind Plimsoll marks came from
a lowly insurance clerk who tabulated ship losses & their loading, but
could not get anybody to pay attention... ship captains being rather set
in their ways...

I did a search after posting my reply. Didn't see that website, but several
others. Interesting stuff, actually.

Still working on it. No solution in sight.


I don't want it all. I just want a time travel machine.

Hey, I gotta good used flux capacitor I could let ya have real cheap . . .


Max

... A diagram could explain this much
much better.


Maxprop wrote:
Not really--that's quite clear.


Allow me to compliment your grasp of trig relationships. My boss doesn't
get it even after studying a diagram.



Most monohulls have elements of a sine curve in the stability.


Hmmm. The Beneteau graphs didn't appear sinusoidal at all, rather
asymmetrical.


That's a bad sign by itself IMHO. Consider the opposite case, a
catamaran... static righting moment hits max as soon as one hull clears
the water, maybe 15 degrees or less. The curve is almost vertical for
the first little bit, then drops off and becomes negative well before 90.

As a monohull becomes boxy & lightly ballasted, it's stability curve
trends more towards that catamaran type curve... good for sailing
performance under ideal conditions, but poor for "real life" sailing
IMHO. It can still have a good Limit of Positive Stability, though,
which the real meat of the matter.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

"DSK" wrote in message

... A diagram could explain this much much better.


Maxprop wrote:
Not really--that's quite clear.


Allow me to compliment your grasp of trig relationships. My boss doesn't
get it even after studying a diagram.

The study of optics is almost pure and applied trig. I enjoy trig, so it is
relatively easy and intuitive for me.

Most monohulls have elements of a sine curve in the stability.


Hmmm. The Beneteau graphs didn't appear sinusoidal at all, rather
asymmetrical.


That's a bad sign by itself IMHO. Consider the opposite case, a
catamaran... static righting moment hits max as soon as one hull clears
the water, maybe 15 degrees or less. The curve is almost vertical for the
first little bit, then drops off and becomes negative well before 90.

As a monohull becomes boxy & lightly ballasted, it's stability curve
trends more towards that catamaran type curve... good for sailing
performance under ideal conditions, but poor for "real life" sailing IMHO.
It can still have a good Limit of Positive Stability, though, which the
real meat of the matter.

I had a rather lengthy discussion with a Beneteau factory rep at a boat show
a few years back. I was inquiring whether, in the company's opinion, their
boats were truly offshore passage capable. He, predictably, answered to the
affirmative. I asked him why, and he gave me all sorts of reasons, such as
the method by which they laminate all bulkheads to the hull and deck
structures, their rigid gridwork under the sole, etc.--things of a
structural nature. When I asked about stability and seaworthiness, he
seemed at a loss. I commented that many of their boats had less than a 1:3
ballast/displacement ratio, and he said, "Oh that's really not terribly
important." Sure wish I'd had the company's graphs during that discussion.
It seems to me that the reps are spoon-fed the company standard line with no
particular enlightenment.

Max

Maxprop wrote:
I had a rather lengthy discussion with a Beneteau factory rep at a boat show
a few years back.

Why?
;)

Sometimes when I find a boat salesman of amusing mendacity, I'll start
playing along just to see how far he'll push his act. It's really
amazing what these guys will say some times.


.... I was inquiring whether, in the company's opinion, their
boats were truly offshore passage capable. He, predictably, answered to the
affirmative. I asked him why, and he gave me all sorts of reasons, such as
the method by which they laminate all bulkheads to the hull and deck
structures, their rigid gridwork under the sole, etc.--things of a
structural nature. When I asked about stability and seaworthiness, he
seemed at a loss. I commented that many of their boats had less than a 1:3
ballast/displacement ratio, and he said, "Oh that's really not terribly
important."

Well, it depends on what your sailing goals are.

.... Sure wish I'd had the company's graphs during that discussion.
It seems to me that the reps are spoon-fed the company standard line with no
particular enlightenment.


Some of them are good & knowledgeable sailors who will say anything to
sell a boat, others are simply not well educated in naval architecture.
The most mendacious salesmen I've met, as a group, are the ones pushing
the Seaward line. Don't know why that brand seems to attract them, but
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."

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.

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!

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 09:00:29 -0500, DSK wrote
this crap:

Sometimes when I find a boat salesman of amusing mendacity, I'll start
playing along just to see how far he'll push his act. It's really
amazing what these guys will say some times.


So you admit to being a liar and a pussy?





This post is 100% free of steroids

"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

... I'd pick the
one with higher LPOS.

Maxprop wrote:
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.


Agreed. Some boats are clearly designed for sitting on while drinking
beer at the dock, and aren't really practical for that either.

Off center companionways bug me. Sure it can make sense to give more
room to the galley, etc etc, but I just don't like it. Some therwise
wonderful boats have that feature, though.



.... Personally I think it is better for
a boat to look good than to sail good. :-) (apologies to Billy Crystal)


L. Francis Herreshoff once said, "If it looks right to your eye, chances
are it'll look right to the sea." Of course his mastery was in producing
boats that looked hypnotically right, and yet didn't have much in the
way of racing successes. Personally, while I think any boat that wins is
automatically beautiful, I also put a high value on looks and have only
owned one boat that was not at least pretty... some called the Hunter 19
cute, but it always looked pudgy to me.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:49:08 -0500, DSK wrote
this crap:


Agreed. Some boats are clearly designed for sitting on while drinking
beer at the dock, and aren't really practical for that either.

Off center companionways bug me. Sure it can make sense to give more
room to the galley, etc etc, but I just don't like it. Some therwise
wonderful boats have that feature, though.


DSK is a lying cocksucker, and a coward.

DSK has posted blatent lies on this newsgroup, and when he is proven
to be a liar, he doesn't have the balls to defend himself.






This post is 100% free of steroids

"DSK" wrote in message

... I'd pick the one with higher LPOS.

Maxprop wrote:
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.


Agreed. Some boats are clearly designed for sitting on while drinking beer
at the dock, and aren't really practical for that either.

Off center companionways bug me. Sure it can make sense to give more room
to the galley, etc etc, but I just don't like it. Some therwise wonderful
boats have that feature, though.

Like some of the Hinckleys and the Mason 43/44, for example. My Sea Sprite
34 is slightly offset, but only slightly. I don't think it poses a risk
during a knockdown, especially with the massive keel we have and the 5'
draft.

.... Personally I think it is better for a boat to look good than to sail
good. :-) (apologies to Billy Crystal)


L. Francis Herreshoff once said, "If it looks right to your eye, chances
are it'll look right to the sea." Of course his mastery was in producing
boats that looked hypnotically right, and yet didn't have much in the way
of racing successes. Personally, while I think any boat that wins is
automatically beautiful, I also put a high value on looks and have only
owned one boat that was not at least pretty... some called the Hunter 19
cute, but it always looked pudgy to me.

The Hunter 19 wasn't bad compared with the current crop of Hunters. Those
recent boats in the small to medium size range are positively homely, with
their arytenoid transoms and myriad dark glazing ports all over the house.
I find it amusing that the newest Hunters have returned to a more
traditional look, like the new 38. It's not a half-bad looking boat.

As for L. Francis Herreshoff's designs, they are among the most gorgeous
boats ever penned or lofted. Cannell, Payne, and Page have one for sale
currently, a 44' boat bearing #1, built in 1905, and while it isn't cheap,
it will draw admiring stares everywhere it sails, not to mention that it can
carry a ****load of sail as well.

Max

Off center companionways bug me. Sure it can make sense to give more room
to the galley, etc etc, but I just don't like it. Some therwise wonderful
boats have that feature, though.


Maxprop wrote:
Like some of the Hinckleys and the Mason 43/44, for example. My Sea Sprite
34 is slightly offset, but only slightly. I don't think it poses a risk
during a knockdown, especially with the massive keel we have and the 5'
draft.


I was thinking aesthetics, but the safety aspect shouldn't be
overlooked. A lot of schooners and ketches have off set companionways to
get it out of the way of the mast... the Freedom 40s do, one of that
boat's few drawbacks.



.... Personally I think it is better for a boat to look good than to sail
good. :-) (apologies to Billy Crystal)


L. Francis Herreshoff once said, "If it looks right to your eye, chances
are it'll look right to the sea." Of course his mastery was in producing
boats that looked hypnotically right, and yet didn't have much in the way
of racing successes. Personally, while I think any boat that wins is
automatically beautiful, I also put a high value on looks and have only
owned one boat that was not at least pretty... some called the Hunter 19
cute, but it always looked pudgy to me.


The Hunter 19 wasn't bad compared with the current crop of Hunters.

No, but it's best feature is practicality... I kept telling myelf that
'function is beauty' but it didn't take. Too pudgy, too high
freeboard... but a lot of fun, and I realized that you don't have any
idea what a boat looks like when you're sailing it.


... Those
recent boats in the small to medium size range are positively homely, with
their arytenoid transoms and myriad dark glazing ports all over the house.
I find it amusing that the newest Hunters have returned to a more
traditional look, like the new 38. It's not a half-bad looking boat.


Their boats, even the Cherubini series, don't do much for me. In all
honesty, most mass-produced mass-marketed boats seem to be ungainly
compromises... they have to appeal to the lowest common denominator in
order to sell. Except for one-design racing boats, of course ;)


As for L. Francis Herreshoff's designs, they are among the most gorgeous
boats ever penned or lofted. Cannell, Payne, and Page have one for sale
currently, a 44' boat bearing #1, built in 1905, and while it isn't cheap,
it will draw admiring stares everywhere it sails, not to mention that it can
carry a ****load of sail as well.



You mean this one?
http://www.cppyacht.com/boatsforsale/nautilus.htm

One of these would be a lot of fun to sail. There's an old early 1900s
Herreshoff sitting in a back lot in South Carolina, offered for free to
anybody that will restore her... been thinking about that, but my wife
would have to be dragged kicking & screaming away from the tugboat...
I'll give a her some more time to perfect her varnishing skills...

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

"DSK" wrote in message

You mean this one?
http://www.cppyacht.com/boatsforsale/nautilus.htm

Yup. NY30 #1, Nautilus. She's amazing, at least to my eyes.

One of these would be a lot of fun to sail. There's an old early 1900s
Herreshoff sitting in a back lot in South Carolina, offered for free to
anybody that will restore her... been thinking about that, but my wife
would have to be dragged kicking & screaming away from the tugboat... I'll
give a her some more time to perfect her varnishing skills...

Good luck. No takers here. I turned down a Herreshoff 12 1/2 a few years
back. It was a sad-looking little boat, but certainly worth restoration.
The owner wanted it in good hands--not sure why he thought mine were
qualified--but I simply didn't have the time or the motivation to tackle
such a project. I'm told it went to a Chicago gent who has about two more
years of work before completion. Properly restored, they seem to bring
quite a bit of money. But then they take a whole truckload of money and
time to restore, so it's probably not going to wash on the balance sheet.

Keep us posted.

Max