JAXAshby wrote:
so, doug, what kind of "reserve bouyancy" did you "fitted cockpit cushions"
provide on your Hunter 19?

We did not have fitted cockpit cushions on our Hunter 19

http://community.webshots.com/photo/...83126076NPuUer

Any other questions Jax?

DSK

Rich Hampel wrote:

I'm an iconoclast at heart, I cant help myself. Whenever someone
states such and so is the correct true form ... usually means whats
currently in vogue' .... and soon to go out of 'vogue'.



Some things never go out of style... long sweeping overhangs, for
example... beautiful! But not practical unless you can have a really big
one like say, Shamrock


There are plenty of instances of modern designs sticking out weather
that hammered more traditional boats, including (sadly) breaking up.

All depends on if the sailor KNOWS how to sail, doesnt it.









Funny, all those racing boats have to be delivered to the starts and
from the finishes. Usually they have a tight schedule and are often out
in weather that's at least a little uncomfortable. If they were that
bad, then we'd be hearing news about them sinking and loss of life etc
etc. But not a whisper... is it a cover-up?

Essentially its is when you know how many designs destructively fail
and never make it to the race course at all.


There are plenty of instances of modern designs sticking out weather
that hammered more traditional boats, including (sadly) breaking up.


All depends on if the sailor KNOWS how to sail, doesnt it.



Sure. That's the key to getting performance... whatever one defines the
performance goal to be... out of any type boat.

Of course, if one's defined goal is "impress everybody around the dock,
while being slow under sail and difficult to maneuver in optimal
circumstances" that's easy to achieve. It's one reason why I have such a
distaste for the faux Colin Archer types.

Some time ago I overheard a couple of people arguing about whether the
Valiant 40 was derived from North Sea or Baltic working vessels... I
didn't interrupt to ask how many of either had fin keels, but I should
have...





The original Colin Archer redningskoite designs were dependent on
reserve bouyancy forward and aft... an aside, they were also built as
lightly as possible given the technology of the times...


I dont think they were, my perception is that they were quite 'pinched'
on the ends, simply because one cant bend the strakes to include much
bustle in the ends.


Take a look at the lines of the real deal Colin Archer some time. There
is no bustle, they have flared aft and foreward sections for reserve
bouyancy. They also have more salient keel flat, unpopular with
fiberglass builders.

Here's an interesting pic of a model
http://www.maritim-modellklubb.no/Im...n_Archer_4.jpg

There used to be a Colin Archer lines plan on the wwweb but I can't find
it at the moment.

William Atkins "yacht-ized" the original plans back in the 1930s and
each successive generation has bowdlerized it even further and still
claimed the pedigree. Some are nice boats. Most have little relation to
the original and any similarity in sailing/handling characteristics are
coincidental.



OTOH it's also possible to have the volume in the wrong place, such
as those beautiful old fashioned counter sterns that are utter beasts at
sea.


They weren NOT designed for 'comfort'


I didn't say they were.

... they were designed as 'rule
beaters' .... and wound up with too much 'rocker' and extreme short
water line length when upright. The rule at the time penalized long
waterline length .......



Rating rules still penalize waterline length. Anyway, if you check out
Rob't Perry's 'comfort index' formula you'll see that it rewards long
overhangs. Rather odd IMHO but I'm not a famous yacht designer! It seems
likely to me that it is a "quick and dirty" way to get reserve bouyancy
fore & aft into a relatively simple math equation.


Funny, all those racing boats have to be delivered to the starts and
from the finishes. Usually they have a tight schedule and are often out
in weather that's at least a little uncomfortable. If they were that
bad, then we'd be hearing news about them sinking and loss of life etc
etc. But not a whisper... is it a cover-up?


Essentially its is when you know how many designs destructively fail
and never make it to the race course at all.


I have an idea, but it's a lot lower than you'd like.


Some people's "easy coastal passage" is another person's nightmare.
It's all relative. If you want to believe that open transoms are death
traps (and I've had several "old salt" types tell me exactly that) then
be my guest. But there isn't really much fact to support that position.


Except those that that have had their teeth loosened during a blow
riding on a wildly bucking, fat assed sled. Thanks, I prefer to go
below and simply wait it out. hmmmmmpf.



It's a matter of how the boat is sailed as much as anything else. I've
handled a lot of fairly light fast boats in hard weather, and if your
goal is not ultimate VMG to weather then you can take it easy and they
don't pound any more than the HMS Victory would.

This is pretty much heresy to most cruisers, but my experience has shown
me that modern boats sail much better in worse weather than the old time
traditional boats. The foils are more efficient, the sailplans are
easier to work (if you're not dedicated to cracking on regardless), they
steer better. Usually they're a lot drier below too.

As an iconoclast yourself, you should consider rejecting all those old
wives tales about what seaworthy boats *have* to look like. Robert Perry
once said (in an unguarded moment) that the Valiant 40 resulted from a
good modern design concept that he then sold by making it look like a
pirate ship.

The worse sea conditions get, the more important ultimate structural
integrity is, and the greater tha chance of getting conked on the head
by a flying can of soup. But the last point is usually not factored in
at the design table!

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

so, doug, what kind of "reserve bouyancy" did you "fitted cockpit cushions"
provide on your Hunter 19?

We did not have fitted cockpit cushions on our Hunter 19


why is that? after you claimed that fitted cockpit cushions are a serious
safety imporvement are we to take it you have a death wish for not installing
such on your personal boat?

JAXAshby wrote:
why is that? after you claimed that fitted cockpit cushions are a serious
safety imporvement

Please quote where I said any such thing.

DSK

Sheesh, Doodles, you're really gett'n hard up for an argument, aren't you.

JAXAshby wrote:
so, doug, what kind of "reserve bouyancy" did you "fitted cockpit cushions"
provide on your Hunter 19?

We did not have fitted cockpit cushions on our Hunter 19



why is that? after you claimed that fitted cockpit cushions are a serious
safety imporvement are we to take it you have a death wish for not installing
such on your personal boat?

how soon you forget, dougies. having a senior moment, are you?

why is that? after you claimed that fitted cockpit cushions are a serious
safety imporvement

Please quote where I said any such thing.

DSK

dougies were bein' pontificatin' on hous muches hiss noses 'bout dem boaty
tings and hiss says "fitted cockpit cushions" are for whats makes dem boaty
tings mosterler seeworthee. I jes pointin' outs dat dougoies gots nose see
'cperience to nose whatz iss seeworthees or nots.

Sheesh, Doodles, you're really gett'n hard up for an argument, aren't you.

JAXAshby wrote:
so, doug, what kind of "reserve bouyancy" did you "fitted cockpit
cushions"
provide on your Hunter 19?

We did not have fitted cockpit cushions on our Hunter 19



why is that? after you claimed that fitted cockpit cushions are a serious
safety imporvement are we to take it you have a death wish for not
installing
such on your personal boat?

Oops, Doodles, forgot to turn your spell checker on, again, I see.

otn

JAXAshby wrote:
dougies were bein' pontificatin' on hous muches hiss noses 'bout dem boaty
tings and hiss says "fitted cockpit cushions" are for whats makes dem boaty
tings mosterler seeworthee. I jes pointin' outs dat dougoies gots nose see
'cperience to nose whatz iss seeworthees or nots.


Sheesh, Doodles, you're really gett'n hard up for an argument, aren't you.

JAXAshby wrote:

so, doug, what kind of "reserve bouyancy" did you "fitted cockpit

cushions"

provide on your Hunter 19?

We did not have fitted cockpit cushions on our Hunter 19



why is that? after you claimed that fitted cockpit cushions are a serious
safety imporvement are we to take it you have a death wish for not

installing

such on your personal boat?

sorry, over the knee. I turned on my trailer trash spel czech especially for
you. are you saying you didn't appreciate being rminded of your language of
origin?

Oops, Doodles, forgot to turn your spell checker on, again, I see.

otn

JAXAshby wrote:
dougies were bein' pontificatin' on hous muches hiss noses 'bout dem boaty
tings and hiss says "fitted cockpit cushions" are for whats makes dem boaty
tings mosterler seeworthee. I jes pointin' outs dat dougoies gots nose see
'cperience to nose whatz iss seeworthees or nots.


Sheesh, Doodles, you're really gett'n hard up for an argument, aren't you.

JAXAshby wrote:

so, doug, what kind of "reserve bouyancy" did you "fitted cockpit

cushions"

provide on your Hunter 19?

We did not have fitted cockpit cushions on our Hunter 19



why is that? after you claimed that fitted cockpit cushions are a serious
safety imporvement are we to take it you have a death wish for not

installing

such on your personal boat?

LOL, Doodles, spell check on, spell check off, it's obvious that your
knowledge of spelling just about equals your knowledge of anything boating.
As for being "trailer trash" BG ....nah .... my old schools song says
it best .... starts off, "For we're a bunch of *******s, scum of the
Earth ..... ".

otn

JAXAshby wrote:
sorry, over the knee. I turned on my trailer trash spel czech especially for
you. are you saying you didn't appreciate being rminded of your language of
origin?