Could you explain how a boat is too nimble?

Joe wrote:
Quirkey, jittery, both designed more for light winds than heavy winds.

That's a silly assumption. I've sailed a lot of lightweight
boats in strong winds, as long as they don't break (a good
way to define 'construction quality') they do great.

I'd rather sail a 470 in 30 knot winds and 10 foot waves
than most mass-produced keel boats, and any crab crusher.

Keep in mind I'm not use to a boat leaning over more than a 1/4 inch at
most when I step aboard. I like a good solid feel, a boat that minds
more than it need tending to.

I that's partly a matter of goals... do you want a fast
responsive boat, or a home at sea complete with fireplace &
barca-lounger?

... If you want to round bouys in a lake, or
enjoy light chop on the bay putzing around then they are good boats. I
would not even class them as coastal cruisers, and IMO a solid boat
that digs in deep makes a major difference in fighting and winning in
storms.


Sorry to disagree, but a boat with effective foils & rig is
going to be better at "fighting & winning" in storm
conditions... given that the boat is equipped & handled
competently, and (of course) nothing breaks.


.... dont like sail drive units

I'm not crazy about them either, but they do have some
advantages.


What besides no stuffing box?


Less drag, more compact, quieter, better weight
distribution, no prop walk (some people consider that an
advantage), better isolation of the engine & prop from the
rest of the cabin.

Personally, given a choice between a boat with a sail-drive
and an identical boat with conventional engine, tranny, &
shaft; I'd pick the conventional one. But I wouldn't diss
the sail drive just because it's new.

Some fo the big cats have them mounted so that the drive leg
is slanted inward between the hulls for better protection.



I did not have the time or want to go over them with a fine tooth
comb. I just delivered them with out scratching them or running
aground. That was enough for me.


Souds like you did a good job. I did go over the 121 with a
fine tooth comb at a boat show, expected my wife to love it
and maybe end up buying one. Hindsight being 20/20 perhaps I
could have spent my time elsewhere

DSK

DSK wrote:
Could you explain how a boat is too nimble?

Joe wrote:
Quirkey, jittery, both designed more for light winds than heavy winds.

That's a silly assumption. I've sailed a lot of lightweight
boats in strong winds, as long as they don't break (a good
way to define 'construction quality') they do great.

Thats the rub of it...looks fragile to me

I'd rather sail a 470 in 30 knot winds and 10 foot waves
than most mass-produced keel boats, and any crab crusher.

unless it breaks:0)

Keep in mind I'm not use to a boat leaning over more than a 1/4 inch at
most when I step aboard. I like a good solid feel, a boat that minds
more than it need tending to.

I that's partly a matter of goals... do you want a fast
responsive boat, or a home at sea complete with fireplace &
barca-lounger?

With RedCloud I have both

... If you want to round bouys in a lake, or
enjoy light chop on the bay putzing around then they are good boats. I
would not even class them as coastal cruisers, and IMO a solid boat
that digs in deep makes a major difference in fighting and winning in
storms.


Sorry to disagree, but a boat with effective foils & rig is
going to be better at "fighting & winning" in storm
conditions... given that the boat is equipped & handled
competently, and (of course) nothing breaks.

Yeah that breaking problem keep appearing in bay boats that venture
offshore.


.... dont like sail drive units

I'm not crazy about them either, but they do have some
advantages.


What besides no stuffing box?


Less drag,

I don't think so if both boats use folding props, a strut is more
streamline than a lower unit.

more compact, quieter, better weight
distribution, no prop walk (some people consider that an
advantage), better isolation of the engine & prop from the
rest of the cabin.

OK, even if you repeated a few points. Still it's a big trade off, and
long term a mistake IMO

Personally, given a choice between a boat with a sail-drive
and an identical boat with conventional engine, tranny, &
shaft; I'd pick the conventional one. But I wouldn't diss
the sail drive just because it's new.

New has nothing to do with it, water intrusin in that big ass hole in
the bottom of the boat, high dollar parts, and I bet high maintance are
what turn me off...and if you smack it good you have way bigger
problems then a bent prop and shaft.

Joe




DSK

Joe wrote
Thats the rub of it...looks fragile to me


Well, that's an issue for another discussion. Steel boats
have their disadvantages from my point of view, too


I'd rather sail a 470 in 30 knot winds and 10 foot waves
than most mass-produced keel boats, and any crab crusher.


unless it breaks:0)


Never broken one of them yet.


... that's partly a matter of goals... do you want a fast
responsive boat, or a home at sea complete with fireplace &
barca-lounger?


With RedCloud I have both


I will reserve comment until after I have sailed Red Cloud.
However I will say (not intending any insult) that a person
who begins sailing by learning to handle fast tippy racing
boats will have a totally different set of perceptions than
someone who learns to sail in big heavy slow boats.

There was a long discussion on this point some years ago,
and surprisingly enough Donal, who learned to sail in
keelboats and insisted that he had missed nothing by it,
changed tack abruptly after his dinghy sailing experiences.




Yeah that breaking problem keep appearing in bay boats that venture
offshore.


Like what?

Haven't seen any boats break up lately, what gear failures &
breakages I see tend to be maintenance problems rather than
construction flaws. Not that I'm saying one should jump in a
Catalina and head for Cape Horn, but the construction issue
is overblown most of the time.




.... dont like sail drive units

Less drag,


I don't think so if both boats use folding props, a strut is more
streamline than a lower unit.

That may be your opinion, but the test tank says otherwise.


more compact, quieter, better weight

distribution, no prop walk (some people consider that an
advantage), better isolation of the engine & prop from the
rest of the cabin.


OK, even if you repeated a few points

What did I repeat?

.... Still it's a big trade off, and
long term a mistake IMO


Hey, I'm not trying to sell you one!

DSK

Souds like you did a good job. I did go over the 121 with a
fine tooth comb at a boat show, expected my wife to love it
and maybe end up buying one.


Your bridges were burned, and now it's your turn
To cry, cry me a river
Cry me a river-er
Cry me a river
Cry me a river-er, yea yea


BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA! Priceless!!! HIS WIFE CRUSHED HIS PLANS AND
DREAMS!! THERE IT IS IN PRINT FOLKS!!!!
DOUG, YOU ARE NO MAN!!!


RB
35s5
NY

"Capt" Rob wrote:
Your bridges were burned, and now it's your turn
To cry, cry me a river
Cry me a river-er
Cry me a river
Cry me a river-er, yea yea


BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA! Priceless!!! HIS WIFE CRUSHED HIS PLANS AND
DREAMS!! THERE IT IS IN PRINT FOLKS!!!!
DOUG, YOU ARE NO MAN!!!


Bubbles, you're nuts.

DSK

DSK wrote:


more compact= better isolation of the engine & prop from the
rest of the cabin.

What did I repeat?

.... Still it's a big trade off, and
long term a mistake IMO


Hey, I'm not trying to sell you one!

Your goal is accomplished ;0)

Joe

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Joe wrote
Thats the rub of it...looks fragile to me


Well, that's an issue for another discussion. Steel boats
have their disadvantages from my point of view, too

Besides the rust, and being heavy and slow, what are the
disadvantages of a steel boat.

Scotty

Well, that's an issue for another discussion. Steel boats
have their disadvantages from my point of view, too


Scotty wrote:
Besides the rust, and being heavy and slow, what are the
disadvantages of a steel boat.


Well, there's the rust. Then there's the fact that it's not
as easy to repair as fiberglass. And it rusts.

It can never be as strong as a well-engineered and well
built fiberglass hull & deck, much less carbon fiber. The
biggest disadvantage is the rust, howewver, which once it
starts will never stop and eats away at every part of the
boat, especially the inaccessible crevices which are
structurally critical.

Then there's the issue of galvanic corrosion, not as bad as
aluminum but a dropped wire can eat right thru it, as can a
penny in the bilge. The rust is also a constant problem.

Because the galavanic corrosion, if lead ballast is used it
must be very carefully insulated from the structural parts
of the boat (usually done with fiberglass, which was
originally invented as electrical insulation). Alos because
steel is so heavy, it is difficult to design a steel boat
that can carry a high proportion of ballast. Don't forget
about rust.

Almost every steel boat will have slight ripples in the
metal from welding, and it will look crummy or else be
filled with Bondo. This isn't really a bad problem as long
as the putty doesn't fall off from rust under it.

As a Navy veteran, I can tell you that infinite man hours
and oceans of red-lead primer are not enough to keep a steel
vessel from rusting away beneath your feet. The first ship I
was on actually had fiberglass patches on the hull where the
rust had eaten thru. What does that tell you? Something like
"Build it out of fiberglass in the first place!"

But if you're going to get shot at, a couple of steel plates
between you & the bullets is very nice. The only thing
better would be some Kevlar or some of that new fiberglass
tank armor.



DSK

Think I'll stick with glass. I've heard that 'rust never
sleeps'.

What is the biggest fiber glass boat built?
Is it conceivable that a large ship could be built of glass?


--
Scott Vernon
Plowville Pa _/)__/)_/)_


"DSK" wrote in message
...
Well, that's an issue for another discussion. Steel
boats
have their disadvantages from my point of view, too


Scotty wrote:
Besides the rust, and being heavy and slow, what are the
disadvantages of a steel boat.


Well, there's the rust. Then there's the fact that it's
not
as easy to repair as fiberglass. And it rusts.

It can never be as strong as a well-engineered and well
built fiberglass hull & deck, much less carbon fiber. The
biggest disadvantage is the rust, howewver, which once it
starts will never stop and eats away at every part of the
boat, especially the inaccessible crevices which are
structurally critical.

Then there's the issue of galvanic corrosion, not as bad
as
aluminum but a dropped wire can eat right thru it, as can
a
penny in the bilge. The rust is also a constant problem.

Because the galavanic corrosion, if lead ballast is used
it
must be very carefully insulated from the structural parts
of the boat (usually done with fiberglass, which was
originally invented as electrical insulation). Alos
because
steel is so heavy, it is difficult to design a steel boat
that can carry a high proportion of ballast. Don't forget
about rust.

Almost every steel boat will have slight ripples in the
metal from welding, and it will look crummy or else be
filled with Bondo. This isn't really a bad problem as long
as the putty doesn't fall off from rust under it.

As a Navy veteran, I can tell you that infinite man hours
and oceans of red-lead primer are not enough to keep a
steel
vessel from rusting away beneath your feet. The first ship
I
was on actually had fiberglass patches on the hull where
the
rust had eaten thru. What does that tell you? Something
like
"Build it out of fiberglass in the first place!"

But if you're going to get shot at, a couple of steel
plates
between you & the bullets is very nice. The only thing
better would be some Kevlar or some of that new fiberglass
tank armor.



DSK

Scotty wrote:
Think I'll stick with glass. I've heard that 'rust never
sleeps'.


I heard that too. In fact I've heard it several times, real
REAL loud!

What is the biggest fiber glass boat built?
Is it conceivable that a large ship could be built of glass?


Dunno about the biggest, the new super-yachts are being
built of fiberglass (well, "composite" but it's basically
fiberglass) upwards of 200' and 700 tons. The Navy had a
class of minesweeps built of fiberglass, don't think they
were as long but they were likely more tonnage.

There's no reason a big ship couldn't be built out of
fiberglass. Nobody's doing it because the facilities are
already in place to build them of steel. It would be
interesting to see if fiberglass commercial hulls could have
a longer service life.

DSK