On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 21:53:36 -0400, DSK wrote:


Actually, the Navy takes rust prevention very seriously and invests a
heck of a lot of time & money on it. And with a great deal of success,
but not from an aesthetic standpoint.

They should pass on their tips...I care about avoiding rust...if the
boat looks like crap, it's less likely a target for thieves and
pirates. Besides, all boats look great when underway, and that's where
I will enjoy it most.



... and
provide a safe and easy ride in the 40-50 foot range.

Sorry, you're dreaming. There is no "safe & easy ride" for a small (say,
less than 20 tons) sailboat in conditions likely to produce 40 to 50
foot seas, especially if they break.

OK, "safer and easier" as endlessly profiled in "Heavy Weather
Sailing" and Marchaj and the like.

The material the boat is made of is
less important the it's overall design characteristics... the more like
a submarine, the better for such... but the worse for everything else.

I understand, but there are design compromises that can mitigate a lot
of discomfot.

But again, I digress. A big part of my objection to steel as a material
for small sailboats is that it's not inherently suitable. Too heavy and
too limp. Unless you're building a boat that's at least 20 tons... and
50 would be a more likely margin... there is no sense, engineering wise,
in building it out of steel.

Well, Brewer, Moitessier and a lot of European builders and sailors
would disagree. I would say sub-38 feet or so, steel is too damn
heavy.


One of the steel boats I've had experience with was owned by the Great
Lakes Naval training Center Sailing Club. It was a 40-ish foot ketch,
very heavy, an empty box with no accomodation inside. The empty space
was necessary for sail & tool stowage. I don't know how many sails the
boat carried but it must have been 30+. We used to entertain ourselves
by experimenting with mizzen staysails, of which there were at least a
dozen. It also had padeyes welded all over it for tying stuff down, all
seemed strong enough to lift the boat from.

I would have enjoyed seeing that boat G Mizzen staysails have always
seemed like a nice, trade-winds sort of thing: effortlessly effective
and beautiful to boot.



That greatly depends on how it's done. The racer starts out with better
hull lines, a higher ballast ratio, stronger structure. You could a
significant part of the boat's weight before degrading the stability and
performance unless you add it all at bow or stern, very high up, etc
etc. The real problem is that such conversions are too likely to be
undertaken by people who don't know or don't pay much attention to such
details, and may not have chosen the basic boat wisely in the first
place. However I've seen a couple of pretty nice ones.

I'm not saying it's by any means impossible, but you need to do a lot
of math before you can even make the call. A lot of race boats are far
too extreme (and are designed to last really just for the campaign) to
be considered candidates for conversion.



I don't think you're to get a custom 40+ footer for that kind of money.
Double, maybe. You could always buy the design, contract the hull and do
much of the fitting out yourself... not my cup o' tea.

Maybe mine, as I have some non-standard ideas about stowage and
accommodation.


... As a future world cruiser, I can
live with heavier, less space-age materials, but I want my systems and
stowage simple, accessible and as robust as is reasonable for cost and
weight. The cherry veneer is irrelevant in a Force 10 blow.

Agreed. But I like a boat that looks good, and how much time do you
spend battling gales anyway?

That I don't know, but if I battle one big blow in the five-seven
years I would like to be out, I want to make sure it's in a boat that
I can keep sailing and won't fail us. We won't be in a hurry or need
to impress anyone else, so functional is fine. There's beauty in a
well-made, simply appointed boat.

Having said that, I have no objection to good looks.

R.

Sorry for the delayed reply, Ive been out of town.

rhys wrote:
They should pass on their tips...I care about avoiding rust...

Lots & lots of man-hours deovted to chipping & wire-wheeling the tiniest
rust spot, and zinc chromate.


... if the
boat looks like crap, it's less likely a target for thieves and
pirates.

That's my theory with cars, it seems to work OK (although I do not care
to live or park in high-crime areas).

... Besides, all boats look great when underway

Agreed, but some look greater than others


.... There is no "safe & easy ride" for a small (say,
less than 20 tons) sailboat in conditions likely to produce 40 to 50
foot seas, especially if they break.


OK, "safer and easier" as endlessly profiled in "Heavy Weather
Sailing" and Marchaj and the like.

I think it's a great idea to have higher LPOS, great stuctural &
watertight integrity, and to have an efficient and easily worked storm
canvas. There is no conflict IMHO between these desirable
characteristics and a boat that sails fast.

OTOH the prime characteristic of a "fast" sailboat is that it has a
relatively light footprint. This makes it bouncier, all else being
equal. Question- is the likelihood of getting conked in the head by a
flying soup can a "seaworthiness" characteristic?



.. The material the boat is made of is
less important the it's overall design characteristics... the more like
a submarine, the better for such... but the worse for everything else.


I understand, but there are design compromises that can mitigate a lot
of discomfot.

It seems to me like a wise choice to put priority on issues of strength,
controllability, stability, & watertight integrity; and then & only then
get into the issue of fast & bouncy versus slow & submarinish
(personally, I'd choose fast!).


But again, I digress. A big part of my objection to steel as a material
for small sailboats is that it's not inherently suitable. Too heavy and
too limp. Unless you're building a boat that's at least 20 tons... and
50 would be a more likely margin... there is no sense, engineering wise,
in building it out of steel.


Well, Brewer, Moitessier and a lot of European builders and sailors
would disagree. I would say sub-38 feet or so, steel is too damn
heavy.

It's a judgement call... I don't much like steel as a material for
sailboats, but certainly there have been successful steel boats even
smaller than 38' LOA. None of them have been fast, at best you could say
they were a good working compromise between speed & other desirable
characteristics. OTOH there are many steel boats designed for the
homebuilder market that cannot get out of their own way under sail.



I'm not saying it's by any means impossible, but you need to do a lot
of math before you can even make the call. A lot of race boats are far
too extreme (and are designed to last really just for the campaign) to
be considered candidates for conversion.

True, although I think you're getting sucked too much into the 'racing
boats are flimsy' mindset. Racing boats *have* to be built strong to
even make it around the course. Breaking up is slow. And they're
expensive enough that nobody considers ephemerity as a good selling point.

The often pointed to examples of America's Cup boats breaking up are
actually (considering the facts)better examples of boats that were field
modified outside of the designers sight and had extreme force applied
inappropriately. Anybody who does that, cruiser or not, is rolling the dice.

The market for big racing keelboats is basically in freefall. Outside of
the very few who want impressive daysailers and those eccentrics in the
market to convert them into cruisers, there is zero demand for big
non-competitive racing sailboats.

It's interesting to note that the asking prices for cruising catamarans
also seems to be dropping... not in freefall, but big cats coming out of
charter fleets are asking 1/2 what they were.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:50:59 -0400, DSK wrote:

Sorry for the delayed reply, Ive been out of town.

Not a problem...been rethinking my exhaust system, anyway G

rhys wrote:
They should pass on their tips...I care about avoiding rust...

Lots & lots of man-hours deovted to chipping & wire-wheeling the tiniest
rust spot, and zinc chromate.

I know and respect this fact, but there are steps to minimize this
that come during construction and of course fitting out (rubrails and
Treadmaster come immediately to mind.

I am less concerned with superficial problems (scratches and dings)
than the sort of compromising structure corrosion on steel boats that
I believe can be...OK, not eliminated...but largely overcome through
current coating technologies, eyeballing low areas in the boat,
keeping the bilges dry, removable neoprene panels for insulation
instead of blown-in foam, , attention to electrolysis and bonding
issues, etc. It's not rocket science, just a different maintenance
pattern. And I haven't ruled out aluminum...which is more expensive,
way more problematic with electric current, and harder to weld
properly, but is otherwise a great material for cruisers.

snip

I think it's a great idea to have higher LPOS, great stuctural &
watertight integrity, and to have an efficient and easily worked storm
canvas. There is no conflict IMHO between these desirable
characteristics and a boat that sails fast.

I believe so, too, and more boat builders are supplying that market,
although a few have had boats like this all along. But a Sundeer or a
Swan is out of my league G

OTOH the prime characteristic of a "fast" sailboat is that it has a
relatively light footprint. This makes it bouncier, all else being
equal. Question- is the likelihood of getting conked in the head by a
flying soup can a "seaworthiness" characteristic?

That's a "stowage" characteristic, IMO. Quick movements are exhausting
for crew in the long run, but you have to balance of "how quick are we
talking about?" with "how LONG are we talking about?" I have a light,
seaworthy IOR-style racer-cruiser currently, and several of these
elderly '70s models have gone offshore down to the Caribbean or
farther, but having sailed in 35 knots on Lake Ontario, I believe
whereas the Good Old Boat would survive, the crew would get thrown
around too much. So a different approach is called for that meets
stowage, tankage and capacity needs AND certain performance
parameters. I don't want to wallow at a sea anchor when I can safety
run in a blow.

snip

It seems to me like a wise choice to put priority on issues of strength,
controllability, stability, & watertight integrity; and then & only then
get into the issue of fast & bouncy versus slow & submarinish
(personally, I'd choose fast!).

We agree, then. A fast boat that goes to the bottom because it gets
rolled or pooped isn't worth a thing unless you are a Volvo 60/Around
Alone type. Current ocean racing boats are extreme, but in a good
cause G. Something the Hiscocks would've recommended in 1965 is no
longer appropriate, although it might prove quite "survivable".
There's a happy medium somewhere, and I hope a medium-fast steel boat
is it.


It's a judgement call... I don't much like steel as a material for
sailboats, but certainly there have been successful steel boats even
smaller than 38' LOA. None of them have been fast, at best you could say
they were a good working compromise between speed & other desirable
characteristics. OTOH there are many steel boats designed for the
homebuilder market that cannot get out of their own way under sail.

Yes, I have been aboard a few! But it is equally true that in skilled
hands (and I've seen "better than factory" homebuilts even locally)
you can modify, say, a popular Roberts design to get better results.


True, although I think you're getting sucked too much into the 'racing
boats are flimsy' mindset. Racing boats *have* to be built strong to
even make it around the course. Breaking up is slow. And they're
expensive enough that nobody considers ephemerity as a good selling point.

Not flimsy...I've discussed this with Derek Hatfield, but not
appropriate for cruising. Racing boats provide ideas on keels,
rudders, rigging and so on that filters down in modified form to the
level of a cruiser...that's why foot for foot, today's cruisers are
faster than 30 years ago. But a lot of interior design, stowage,
height of lifelines and so on is not, IMO, up to extended cruising
standards. Great for Caribbean sundowners, mind you.

The often pointed to examples of America's Cup boats breaking up are
actually (considering the facts)better examples of boats that were field
modified outside of the designers sight and had extreme force applied
inappropriately. Anybody who does that, cruiser or not, is rolling the dice.

Certainly. Most racers know the odds are relatively good of a severe
gear failure due to tweaking for performance. Computer hobbyists call
it "overclocking" and you can get great performance at the risk of
melting your chips and putting out a small, expensive fire G

The market for big racing keelboats is basically in freefall. Outside of
the very few who want impressive daysailers and those eccentrics in the
market to convert them into cruisers, there is zero demand for big
non-competitive racing sailboats.

I think that's demographics: boating is expensive and there are fewer
young people with more ways to spend proportionally less money than
say, in the '70s and '80s.

It's interesting to note that the asking prices for cruising catamarans
also seems to be dropping... not in freefall, but big cats coming out of
charter fleets are asking 1/2 what they were.

Good for the buyers. I am not dismissive of owning a catamaran, just
too ignorant of real-life performance issues to debate what taking one
offshore would truly involve. I prefer the intrinsic plus, however, of
doing a 360 roll and coming up dismasted, with two feet of water in
the cabin but ALIVE in a monohull, to the prospect of a "terminal
invert" in a catamaran. But they are superior sailers, certainly.

Nice chatting with you,

R.