In article , DSK
wrote:

Rich Hampel wrote:
It amazing all right .... when the force of the breaking wave across an
open transom throws you into the wheel.... and when you recover the
wave who doesnt want to be in the cockpit in the first place attempts
to rip your pants off and knock you off your feet as is 'empties'.

???

I guess the part about "reserve bouyancy" didn't really mean anything?
Oh really? I guess you missed the part that equates to too much
bouyancy in the stern causes the stem to dive/plunge when a large wave
comes astern.


Nah ..... give me a place to hide.

If conditions are that bad, then one would most prudently be either
reaching off under very small sail or else lying to a sea anchor.
Yup, open sterns equate to optimally light weight (low scantling
numbers) boats that coudnt stand the pounding.


If you have irrational prejudices against modern boats, then surely you
can come up with some better rationalization?
Not at all, I own both traditional, modern and crazy.

A heavy displacement boat and/or double ender would be even worse off in
the same scenario, getting hit by breaking crests much harder as it
responds less to the waves.
Not so, most double enders (Perry, Creighlock, Harris, etc. designs)
have quite a bit of 'bustle' to the stern. In those designs one
considers that the 'protuberance' of the tumblehome canoe stern is just
a cosmetic/styling addition .... when you imaginarily cut the styling
off, you have essentially the same hull form bouyancy-wise. Go look at
the line drawings of them sometime - the 'pinch' is an addition well
aft of where the reserve is located. I guess by the same reasoning a
boat with an extended retractable bowsprit would be deemed to have less
reserve in the bow section. ;-)

An open transom is like standing naked on a sheet of plywood.

Oh yeah, that's *exactly* what it's like! Funny, in all the years of
sailing open transom boats, I never thought of that!
Honestly, when was the last time you were in the OCEAN for more than an
easy coastal passage with an open stern.... didnt happen. Open sterns
are nice for protected bays and lakes..... nope not on the ocean (balls
to the wall racing excluded).

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

I guess the part about "reserve bouyancy" didn't really mean anything?

Rich Hampel wrote:
Oh really? I guess you missed the part that equates to too much
bouyancy in the stern causes the stem to dive/plunge when a large wave
comes astern.

Not necessarily.

If you want to have a serious discussion, let's. But your earlier post
seemed mocking.


If conditions are that bad, then one would most prudently be either
reaching off under very small sail or else lying to a sea anchor.

Yup, open sterns equate to optimally light weight (low scantling
numbers) boats that coudnt stand the pounding.

Depends on the builder and the intent of the design, doesn't it?
Certainly there is nothing inherent about an open transom that requires
flimsy construction.

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



A heavy displacement boat and/or double ender would be even worse off in
the same scenario, getting hit by breaking crests much harder as it
responds less to the waves.

Not so, most double enders (Perry, Creighlock, Harris, etc. designs)
have quite a bit of 'bustle' to the stern. In those designs one
considers that the 'protuberance' of the tumblehome canoe stern is just
a cosmetic/styling addition .... when you imaginarily cut the styling
off, you have essentially the same hull form bouyancy-wise.

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...

A bustle or canoe stern isn't going to have the same reserve bouyancy as
a heavily flared stern section.

... Go look at
the line drawings of them sometime

I have, thanks.

... - the 'pinch' is an addition well
aft of where the reserve is located.

It's all about enclosed volume. If the shape reduces volume, then it
reduces bouyancy.

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.



... I guess by the same reasoning a
boat with an extended retractable bowsprit would be deemed to have less
reserve in the bow section. ;-)

Yep, I'd think so... judging by the amount of water that comes in some
of them...



Oh yeah, that's *exactly* what it's like! Funny, in all the years of
sailing open transom boats, I never thought of that!

Honestly, when was the last time you were in the OCEAN for more than an
easy coastal passage with an open stern.... didnt happen. Open sterns
are nice for protected bays and lakes..... nope not on the ocean (balls
to the wall racing excluded).

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?

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.

DSK

If you want to have a serious discussion, let's. But your earlier post
seemed mocking.
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'.



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.


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.


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', 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 .......

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.

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.

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