aroostifer wrote:
I'm interested in a Choate 41 (2 ton IOR) for sale in the Bay Area. My
interest is NOT in racing but rather in long-distance cruising.

Interested in the seaworthiness of these designs. It seems some say
they can be squirrely to steer downwind, but others say that applies
mostly to racing situations where the boats being driving hard. Have
heard all the Fastnet stories, but this boat is post-Fastnet vintage
(very early eighties I believe, but may be very late seventies.)

Former owner did the Baja HAHA and Bash. My immediate crusing plans
would be SF Bay, Mexico, Hawaii, and eventually the wild blue yonder.
Would love to circumnavigate the Pacific.

Thoughts, opinions, slander, or wild conjecture about the suitability
of such a boat for bluewater cruising?

It's a 1979, apparently. Former racers make indifferent offshore boats
due to their lack of capacity to sail well heavily loaded. I admit the
concept of skimming along at 8 kts in a light breeze while other boats
drudge along barely moving is attractive. However, a water capacity of
50 gallons is thin for moving 'beyond'. I may be wrong here, but I think
if you loaded this boat up with what most folks take to hit the south
pacific, it'd sail terribly.

There is a reason offshore types gravitate to heavy boats. They're not
stupid.

aroostifer wrote:

I'm interested in a Choate 41 (2 ton IOR) for sale in the Bay Area. My
interest is NOT in racing but rather in long-distance cruising.

Dennis builds race boats, not cruising boats.

BTW, his yard is in the neighborhood and always seems to be busy.

Lew

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 08:20:11 -0600, Paul Cassel
wrote:

However, a water capacity of
50 gallons is thin for moving 'beyond'. I may be wrong here, but I think
if you loaded this boat up with what most folks take to hit the south
pacific, it'd sail terribly.

Those are good points. Another thing to consider is that virtually
all racing boats are designed to sail with a lot of crew weight on the
rail (movable ballast). Without that extra stability, most if not all
will have trouble carrying full sail in any kind of breeze, and will
lack power going to windward.

Paul Cassel wrote:
However, a water capacity of
50 gallons is thin for moving 'beyond'.

Is it impossible to put in a bigger tank? For potable water,
bladder tanks work fine.

... I may be wrong here, but I think
if you loaded this boat up with what most folks take to hit the south
pacific, it'd sail terribly.


Why?

Wayne.B wrote:
Those are good points. Another thing to consider is that virtually
all racing boats are designed to sail with a lot of crew weight on the
rail (movable ballast). Without that extra stability, most if not all
will have trouble carrying full sail in any kind of breeze, and will
lack power going to windward.


If true, that is a good point. But it's still quite possible
that the boat will develop enough power to sail to windward
quite capably and better than at least 75% of "cruising"
boats. A lot of older racing boats have had improved bulb
keels added, which makes a huge difference.

One thing to bear in mind is that racing boats are generally
designed to be easily driven and to steer relatively well
while driving hard. They will sail effectively under
shortened sail and the more efficient rig is less work.

The other strikes me as foozling around on the edge of
almost-logic, looking hard for an excuse to dislike
something you already hate. Why would Boat X, much faster
than Boat Y when both are in normal sailing trim, suddenly
become much slower than Boat Y when both are heavily loaded?

It seems more sensible to me that a light, strongly built
boat with a fast hull, would carry loads much better than a
boxy hull that was heavier to begin with.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 22:57:30 -0400, DSK wrote:

It seems more sensible to me that a light, strongly built
boat with a fast hull, would carry loads much better than a
boxy hull that was heavier to begin with.

It really boils down to what is the impact of your cruising gear on a
light displacement boat vs heavy displacement. Let's for the sake of
argument say that you've got 4,000 lbs of cruising "stuff", e.g.,
extra water, extra fuel, larger batteries, extra anchors, chain,
windlass, solar panels, cruising canvas, food, refrigeration, tools,
spares, dinghy, motor, etc, etc.

On a 10,000 lb boat, that is a 40% increase, a considerable amount
which will no doubt adversely affect performance.

Same gear on a 20,000 lb boat is only a 20% increase.

Assuming both were the same speed to begin with, the lighter boat will
be more severely impacted.

It seems more sensible to me that a light, strongly built
boat with a fast hull, would carry loads much better than a
boxy hull that was heavier to begin with.



Wayne.B wrote:
It really boils down to what is the impact of your cruising gear on a
light displacement boat vs heavy displacement.

Agreed. But I think it's easy to overgeneralize in a way
that reinforces one's prejudices.

... Let's for the sake of
argument say that you've got 4,000 lbs of cruising "stuff", e.g.,
extra water, extra fuel, larger batteries, extra anchors, chain,
windlass, solar panels, cruising canvas, food, refrigeration, tools,
spares, dinghy, motor, etc, etc.

On a 10,000 lb boat, that is a 40% increase, a considerable amount
which will no doubt adversely affect performance.



Same gear on a 20,000 lb boat is only a 20% increase.


Except that it doesn't quite work that way. What you need to
know is how the load will affect the center of gravity and
the wetted surface area, mostly... lighter weight boats
generally have higher ballast displacement ratios and more
reserve stability, and have so much less wetted surface than
a crab-crusher that the increase from loading is negligible.

A useful figure would be the pounds-per-inch-immersion for
each hull. Just a percent of gross displacement isn't going
to say anything that can be generalized about how the two
boats sail, comparatively.


Assuming both were the same speed to begin with, the lighter boat will
be more severely impacted.


Well, show me two boats of the same LWL with the same PHRF
rating, one at 10k and the other at 20k!

Another factor is that the heavier hull will have a lot more
volume and tend to be more heavily loaded. And the faster
boat will have more sail area, so the SA/D ratio isn't going
to take such a hit (given equal increases in disp).

Of course, my prejudices tend towards performance boats and
so I work towards justifying that.... but there is a good
bit of logic along with some real world experience in the
justification also.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 13:06:28 -0400, DSK wrote:

Of course, my prejudices tend towards performance boats and
so I work towards justifying that.... but there is a good
bit of logic along with some real world experience in the
justification also.


I did two Newport-Bermuda races on a nice fast Frers 41 displacing
about 10,000 lbs give or take. No extreme conditions encountered,
just typical offshore 15 to 20 kts, fast reaching through 6 to 8
footers. The boat was extremely uncomfortable with a fast squirrelly
motion that defies explanation, but in my view totally unsuited to
extended cruising in those conditions.

On two other N-Bs with a custom Ron Holland 50 displacing over 40,000
lbs, and in far worse conditions, we had a very comfortable ride. Not
exactly an apples to apples comparison because of the length
difference, but two very valid data points nevertheless.

It's one thing to go out for a couple of days on a light weight boat
and bash around a race course, but an entirely different proposition
to take off for 6 months or more of serious liveaboard cruising.

Wayne.B wrote:
I did two Newport-Bermuda races on a nice fast Frers 41 displacing
about 10,000 lbs give or take. No extreme conditions encountered,
just typical offshore 15 to 20 kts, fast reaching through 6 to 8
footers. The boat was extremely uncomfortable with a fast squirrelly
motion that defies explanation, but in my view totally unsuited to
extended cruising in those conditions.


understood... and to a large extent agreed... a boat can be
relatively light and not be bouncy though. It's a
combination of straight D/L ratio, PPI, reserve bouyancy,
CG, and weight distribution.

It may be that this very same bouncy uncomfortable boat
would change it's motion noticably if about 2 tons of
cruising were added, and the weight distributed to dampen
the bounciness.


On two other N-Bs with a custom Ron Holland 50 displacing over 40,000
lbs, and in far worse conditions, we had a very comfortable ride. Not
exactly an apples to apples comparison because of the length
difference, but two very valid data points nevertheless.


It's possible that the D/L ratios of the two boats were not
that different. Size alone makes a big difference...
aircraft carriers give an extremely smooth ride.


It's one thing to go out for a couple of days on a light weight boat
and bash around a race course, but an entirely different proposition
to take off for 6 months or more of serious liveaboard cruising.


As you pointed out, it wouldn't be a light weight boat then

Fresh Breezes- Doug King