"Armond Perretta" wrote in message
...
However depending on boat size, having a canoe stern gives up a few
positive
aspects of transom stern boats without necessarily offering compensation.
I
want to suggest (at the risk of drawing ire) that there has never been any
real evidence that these designs are any better or worse than transom
boats
in rough going. We hear things about "parting breaking waves and seas"
and
so on, but I don't believe there is any quantifiable evidence that
double-enders do any better than any other designs. Not that they do any
worse either, but there's a suggestion of superiority out there that is
not
supported by any real evidence.

It seems like the design would simply *have* to be easier in a following
sea. I spent a lot of time running these boats
http://www.boatshow.com/POWER/CustomDivePro42.html which are rudderless
jets, and they were horrid in a following sea. But I admit that comparing a
300hp non-displacement hull to a 35-40 sailboat is an apples-and-oranges
thing. My experiences may well be a hindrance here... I am not committed
to a double-ender.

Next, and again depending on boat size, for a given length you definitely
_do_ lose some room, both on deck (in and around the cockpit) and below
(stowage-wise). This isn't much of a problem for a single-hander in a 40
foot boat, if a 40 foot boat is what you want. But single-handing a 40
footer is not necessarily what it's cracked up to be. I cannot tell for
sure after re-reading your initial post, but you seem to suggest that this
is a goal.

Not the be-all and end-all goal. I'm not antisocial Being single, I
simply expect there would be times when I would sail alone. I may be best
served by something smaller, but 37' is attractive. The Pacific Seacraft at
32' would be fine, I think.

This is going to be an involved (and entertaining) process. I know about
ten times as much about sailboats today than I did yesterday, and I still
don't know very much at all!

Wendy

Wendy wrote:
"Armond Perretta" wrote

... there has never been any real evidence that these
designs are any better or worse than transom boats in rough going.
We hear things about "parting breaking waves and seas" ...
but I don't believe there is any quantifiable evidence that
double-enders do any better than any other designs. Not that they
do any worse either, but there's a suggestion of superiority out
there that is not supported by [the] evidence.

It seems like the design would simply *have* to be easier in a
following sea.

Yes, it does seem so, and for that reason I suggested that what _seems_ to
be the case is not, to my knowledge, supported by verifiable evidence. I
don't really think there is a problem here, but making a purchase decision
on this basis is probably unsound. They still are pretty though, doncha
think?

... single-handing a 40 footer is not necessarily what
it's cracked up to be. I cannot tell for sure after re-reading
your initial post, but you seem to suggest that this is a goal.

Not the be-all and end-all goal. I'm not antisocial

If you equate "anti-social" with single-handing you are looking for an
argument (that _does_ sound a bit anti-social, doesn't it?). There are
plenty of reasons to sail alone, but in my experience an anti-social
personality is rarely one of them.

... I know
about ten times as much about sailboats today than I did yesterday,
and I still don't know very much at all!

This admission puts you ahead of about 90 percent of the fleet.

--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://kerrydeare.home.comcast.net/

suggested that what _seems_ to
be the case is not, to my knowledge, supported by verifiable evidence

there is _some_ evidence to show that canoe sterns fare less well in following
seas, though the evidence doesn't seem to be all that strong one way or the
other.

Much stronger evidence to show canoe stern boats are something slower in
sailing than transom sterns. There seems to be no real arguement about this.

Also seems little arguement that canoe stern boats are more squirrely under
power.

All that said, me personally I most definitely do like the looks of a canon
stern boat.

suggested that what _seems_ to
be the case is not, to my knowledge, supported by verifiable evidence

there is _some_ evidence to show that canoe sterns fare less well in following
seas, though the evidence doesn't seem to be all that strong one way or the
other.

Much stronger evidence to show canoe stern boats are something slower in
sailing than transom sterns. There seems to be no real arguement about this.

Also seems little arguement that canoe stern boats are more squirrely under
power.

All that said, me personally I most definitely do like the looks of a canon
stern boat.

Wendy wrote:
"Armond Perretta" wrote

... there has never been any real evidence that these
designs are any better or worse than transom boats in rough going.
We hear things about "parting breaking waves and seas" ...
but I don't believe there is any quantifiable evidence that
double-enders do any better than any other designs. Not that they
do any worse either, but there's a suggestion of superiority out
there that is not supported by [the] evidence.

It seems like the design would simply *have* to be easier in a
following sea.

Yes, it does seem so, and for that reason I suggested that what _seems_ to
be the case is not, to my knowledge, supported by verifiable evidence. I
don't really think there is a problem here, but making a purchase decision
on this basis is probably unsound. They still are pretty though, doncha
think?

... single-handing a 40 footer is not necessarily what
it's cracked up to be. I cannot tell for sure after re-reading
your initial post, but you seem to suggest that this is a goal.

Not the be-all and end-all goal. I'm not antisocial

If you equate "anti-social" with single-handing you are looking for an
argument (that _does_ sound a bit anti-social, doesn't it?). There are
plenty of reasons to sail alone, but in my experience an anti-social
personality is rarely one of them.

... I know
about ten times as much about sailboats today than I did yesterday,
and I still don't know very much at all!

This admission puts you ahead of about 90 percent of the fleet.

--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://kerrydeare.home.comcast.net/

It seems like the design would simply *have* to be easier in a following
sea.

Absolutely NO and a little bit yes !

Consider that there is LESS reserve bouyancy in a pinched stern. So,
in a steep following sea the sharp stern will initially penetrate into
the following wave as the wave advances ..... in contrast to the
fat-ass boat that lifts more/faster initially (and by reaction puts her
bow deeper into the trough).

---------------------

Supposedly, more Perry double-ended designs (mostly Tayanas and
Valiants) have circumnavigated than any other 'production' built /
designed sailboat. Thats pretty good 'testimonial' on a stern design
thats based primarily on Bob Perry's asthetic/styling whims. As I
stated on another post, Perry will flatly state that his tumblehome
canoe stern is totally design 'style' ...... His canoe stern designs
in comparsion to other 'double-enders' have more (although limited)
reserve buoyancy incorporated into his 'bustle' at the waterline.
There is a very big difference in the shape of Perry's canoe sterns and
other designers 'double enders'.

IMHO Where a pinched stern has advantage is when forced onto an extreme
heel. Then, the symmetry of the double-ender hull form can heel at
great angles ***without affecting change in weather/lee helm
balance***. Like an inland lake scow, you can sail a Perry design
'double-ender' over onto its beam ends and have very little change in
helm balance. Also note that the max. beam in such Perry designs is
carried quite full for the majority of the hull plan; hence, the less
than 'ideal' windward performance. .... always a trade-off.

It seems like the design would simply *have* to be easier in a following
sea.

Absolutely NO and a little bit yes !

Consider that there is LESS reserve bouyancy in a pinched stern. So,
in a steep following sea the sharp stern will initially penetrate into
the following wave as the wave advances ..... in contrast to the
fat-ass boat that lifts more/faster initially (and by reaction puts her
bow deeper into the trough).

---------------------

Supposedly, more Perry double-ended designs (mostly Tayanas and
Valiants) have circumnavigated than any other 'production' built /
designed sailboat. Thats pretty good 'testimonial' on a stern design
thats based primarily on Bob Perry's asthetic/styling whims. As I
stated on another post, Perry will flatly state that his tumblehome
canoe stern is totally design 'style' ...... His canoe stern designs
in comparsion to other 'double-enders' have more (although limited)
reserve buoyancy incorporated into his 'bustle' at the waterline.
There is a very big difference in the shape of Perry's canoe sterns and
other designers 'double enders'.

IMHO Where a pinched stern has advantage is when forced onto an extreme
heel. Then, the symmetry of the double-ender hull form can heel at
great angles ***without affecting change in weather/lee helm
balance***. Like an inland lake scow, you can sail a Perry design
'double-ender' over onto its beam ends and have very little change in
helm balance. Also note that the max. beam in such Perry designs is
carried quite full for the majority of the hull plan; hence, the less
than 'ideal' windward performance. .... always a trade-off.

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:29:31 -0600, "Wendy"
wrote:


"Armond Perretta" wrote in message
...
However depending on boat size, having a canoe stern gives up a few
positive
aspects of transom stern boats without necessarily offering compensation.
I
want to suggest (at the risk of drawing ire) that there has never been any
real evidence that these designs are any better or worse than transom
boats
in rough going. We hear things about "parting breaking waves and seas"
and
so on, but I don't believe there is any quantifiable evidence that
double-enders do any better than any other designs. Not that they do any
worse either, but there's a suggestion of superiority out there that is
not
supported by any real evidence.

It seems like the design would simply *have* to be easier in a following
sea. I spent a lot of time running these boats
http://www.boatshow.com/POWER/CustomDivePro42.html which are rudderless
jets, and they were horrid in a following sea. But I admit that comparing a
300hp non-displacement hull to a 35-40 sailboat is an apples-and-oranges
thing. My experiences may well be a hindrance here... I am not committed
to a double-ender.

Wendy, you are indeed extrapolating from something unrelated.
Remember, essentially all keel sailboats are doubelenders at and below
the waterline. The visible "canoe stern" loses a great deal of aft
buoyancy in a following sea.

I suggest that buying a long-distance cruiser is premature. Until,
that is, you have tried different kinds of boats to find out what you
enjoy sailing.



Rodney Myrvaagnes J36 Gjo/a

The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the
simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.
- Richard Dawkins, "Viruses of the Mind"

"Rodney Myrvaagnes" wrote in message
...

I suggest that buying a long-distance cruiser is premature. Until,
that is, you have tried different kinds of boats to find out what you
enjoy sailing.

I think there is a lot of merit in this observation, Rodney. I'm probably
starting from the "what I would like to have" point rather than the "what
would best suit me at this time" point. That said, I've loads of time to
figure all of this out. I'll get more involved in the local sailing
community, which will, I am sure, help and affect my purchasing decision a
lot. I'm off today to look at some boats, and that may well be an
eye-opening experience.

Wendy

In article ,
"Wendy" wrote:

"Rodney Myrvaagnes" wrote in message
...

I suggest that buying a long-distance cruiser is premature. Until,
that is, you have tried different kinds of boats to find out what you
enjoy sailing.

I think there is a lot of merit in this observation, Rodney. I'm probably
starting from the "what I would like to have" point rather than the "what
would best suit me at this time" point. That said, I've loads of time to
figure all of this out. I'll get more involved in the local sailing
community, which will, I am sure, help and affect my purchasing decision a
lot. I'm off today to look at some boats, and that may well be an
eye-opening experience.

Wendy



Don't necessarily try for the ultimate boat. I haven't heard of anyone
getting it right the first time, though Skip and Lydia might ;-) More
often, too much boat stays in the slip.

Go for one that will will suit an honest assessment of what you're
likely to do in the the near future, say 5 or so years. If that includes
crossing the pond, so be it, but if not, there are a lot of good, less
expensive boats that could serve you better.

For instance, a boat like our Xan is comfortable for 2, certainly up to
doing the eastern Caribbean, big enough to be stable and easily
single-handed, small enough that going out for a couple of hours is a
meaningful option, tough enough to take beginner mistakes, and "cheap"
to buy, upgrade and maintain. In the meantime, the extra $60-70k can
appreciate, make a pretty good cruising kitty or NOT be owed to the bank.

--
Jere Lull
Xan-a-Deux ('73 Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD)
Xan's Pages: http://members.dca.net/jerelull/X-Main.html
Our BVI FAQs (290+ pics) http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/