Looked today ( Boat Choices)
 

Wendy wrote:
Here's the link again, if anyone's interested:
http://www.yachtworld.com/core/listi...&&ywo=sealake&

Don't know why I'm as interested as I am in this boat. I'm certainly not
ready to buy...

Thanks for posting the link. I always like to window-shop and look over
other people's shoulders. Does the cabinet around the motor come
completely apart? If not, the engine access doesn't look too good to me.
The genset access looks terrible. Also, you've heard the stories about
teak decks, especially taiwan teak decks... "Danger Will Rogers!"

One point I don't know if anybody else has mentioned-
ballast/displacement ratio. If this boat's *sailing* displacement (which
is a different figure from it's weight as it left the factory, a figure
often quoted as 'displacement') is really 16K# then it's b/d ratio is a
tad under 40%... close to the minimum for a seagoing boat IMHO. And if
the displacement figure is fudged, as they often are, then it is in a
grey area. Furthermore the stability will be degraded as you load stores
(true of almost any boat, but much less important as the B/D ratio gets
up towards 50%). Rather a nit-picky technical issue, but one that is
important.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Looked today ( Boat Choices)
 

doug, it is a Cheoy Lee.

I always like to window-shop and look over
other people's shoulders. Does the cabinet around the motor come
completely apart? If not, the engine access doesn't look too good to me.
The genset access looks terrible. Also, you've heard the stories about
teak decks, especially taiwan teak decks... "Danger Will Rogers!"

One point I don't know if anybody else has mentioned-
ballast/displacement ratio. If this boat's *sailing* displacement (which
is a different figure from it's weight as it left the factory, a figure
often quoted as 'displacement') is really 16K# then it's b/d ratio is a
tad under 40%... close to the minimum for a seagoing boat IMHO. And if
the displacement figure is fudged, as they often are, then it is in a
grey area. Furthermore the stability will be degraded as you load stores
(true of almost any boat, but much less important as the B/D ratio gets
up towards 50%). Rather a nit-picky technical issue, but one that is
important.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Looked today ( Boat Choices)
 

doug, it is a Cheoy Lee.

I always like to window-shop and look over
other people's shoulders. Does the cabinet around the motor come
completely apart? If not, the engine access doesn't look too good to me.
The genset access looks terrible. Also, you've heard the stories about
teak decks, especially taiwan teak decks... "Danger Will Rogers!"

One point I don't know if anybody else has mentioned-
ballast/displacement ratio. If this boat's *sailing* displacement (which
is a different figure from it's weight as it left the factory, a figure
often quoted as 'displacement') is really 16K# then it's b/d ratio is a
tad under 40%... close to the minimum for a seagoing boat IMHO. And if
the displacement figure is fudged, as they often are, then it is in a
grey area. Furthermore the stability will be degraded as you load stores
(true of almost any boat, but much less important as the B/D ratio gets
up towards 50%). Rather a nit-picky technical issue, but one that is
important.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Looked today ( Boat Choices)
 

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .

Thanks for posting the link. I always like to window-shop and look over
other people's shoulders. Does the cabinet around the motor come
completely apart? If not, the engine access doesn't look too good to me.
The genset access looks terrible. Also, you've heard the stories about
teak decks, especially taiwan teak decks... "Danger Will Rogers

The engine access is good- the cabinetwork does come apart. The genset
would be an upside-down thing, now that you mention it... I'll look into
that more this Saturday. Now, what's this I hear about taking up the teak
and epoxying down again, sans screws? Anyone know anything about that?

One point I don't know if anybody else has mentioned-
ballast/displacement ratio. If this boat's *sailing* displacement (which
is a different figure from it's weight as it left the factory, a figure
often quoted as 'displacement') is really 16K# then it's b/d ratio is a
tad under 40%... close to the minimum for a seagoing boat IMHO. And if
the displacement figure is fudged, as they often are, then it is in a
grey area. Furthermore the stability will be degraded as you load stores
(true of almost any boat, but much less important as the B/D ratio gets
up towards 50%). Rather a nit-picky technical issue, but one that is
important.

Oh god. More numbers. I picked up a text on offshore design Saturday; I've
yet to look through it but I will do so this week. That should set some
things straight in my mind, and make me a more informed buyer.

Wendy

Looked today ( Boat Choices)
 

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .

Thanks for posting the link. I always like to window-shop and look over
other people's shoulders. Does the cabinet around the motor come
completely apart? If not, the engine access doesn't look too good to me.
The genset access looks terrible. Also, you've heard the stories about
teak decks, especially taiwan teak decks... "Danger Will Rogers

The engine access is good- the cabinetwork does come apart. The genset
would be an upside-down thing, now that you mention it... I'll look into
that more this Saturday. Now, what's this I hear about taking up the teak
and epoxying down again, sans screws? Anyone know anything about that?

One point I don't know if anybody else has mentioned-
ballast/displacement ratio. If this boat's *sailing* displacement (which
is a different figure from it's weight as it left the factory, a figure
often quoted as 'displacement') is really 16K# then it's b/d ratio is a
tad under 40%... close to the minimum for a seagoing boat IMHO. And if
the displacement figure is fudged, as they often are, then it is in a
grey area. Furthermore the stability will be degraded as you load stores
(true of almost any boat, but much less important as the B/D ratio gets
up towards 50%). Rather a nit-picky technical issue, but one that is
important.

Oh god. More numbers. I picked up a text on offshore design Saturday; I've
yet to look through it but I will do so this week. That should set some
things straight in my mind, and make me a more informed buyer.

Wendy

Looked today ( Boat Choices)
 

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
One point I don't know if anybody else has mentioned-
ballast/displacement ratio. If this boat's *sailing* displacement (which
is a different figure from it's weight as it left the factory, a figure
often quoted as 'displacement') is really 16K# then it's b/d ratio is a
tad under 40%... close to the minimum for a seagoing boat IMHO. And if
the displacement figure is fudged, as they often are, then it is in a
grey area. Furthermore the stability will be degraded as you load stores
(true of almost any boat, but much less important as the B/D ratio gets
up towards 50%). Rather a nit-picky technical issue, but one that is
important.

Ok, I got intrigued and ran some numbers applying your above methodology to
three other boats (I'm in accounting, numbers interest me):

Pacific Seacraft 37 .38
Tayana 37 .30 (!!)
Cabo Rico 37 .37

Now, I am not a naval architect, but the people who designed the above
(well-respected) sea-going yachts are, and their numbers prompt me to ask
what you base your 40% number on. I'm not calling your assertion
questionable, I just want to know what I am missing here- help me out.

Wendy

Looked today ( Boat Choices)
 

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
One point I don't know if anybody else has mentioned-
ballast/displacement ratio. If this boat's *sailing* displacement (which
is a different figure from it's weight as it left the factory, a figure
often quoted as 'displacement') is really 16K# then it's b/d ratio is a
tad under 40%... close to the minimum for a seagoing boat IMHO. And if
the displacement figure is fudged, as they often are, then it is in a
grey area. Furthermore the stability will be degraded as you load stores
(true of almost any boat, but much less important as the B/D ratio gets
up towards 50%). Rather a nit-picky technical issue, but one that is
important.

Ok, I got intrigued and ran some numbers applying your above methodology to
three other boats (I'm in accounting, numbers interest me):

Pacific Seacraft 37 .38
Tayana 37 .30 (!!)
Cabo Rico 37 .37

Now, I am not a naval architect, but the people who designed the above
(well-respected) sea-going yachts are, and their numbers prompt me to ask
what you base your 40% number on. I'm not calling your assertion
questionable, I just want to know what I am missing here- help me out.

Wendy

Looked today ( Boat Choices)
 

Wendy wrote:

Ok, I got intrigued and ran some numbers applying your above methodology to
three other boats (I'm in accounting, numbers interest me):

Pacific Seacraft 37 .38
Tayana 37 .30 (!!)
Cabo Rico 37 .37

Now, I am not a naval architect, but the people who designed the above
(well-respected) sea-going yachts are, and their numbers prompt me to ask
what you base your 40% number on. I'm not calling your assertion
questionable, I just want to know what I am missing here- help me out.


There are a lot of numbers and B/D is probably going to be lower
on heavy displacement boats - like the ones you are looking at.
More useful will probably be Displacment to Waterline Length,
Motion Comfort Ratio, and Capsize Ratio.

Looking at my notes, a Catalina 30 we looked at had a B/D of .41,
a D/Wl of 291.4, a Comfort ratio of 24.8, and a Capsize ratio of
1.99. The Crealock 37 we looked at was .383, 344, 34.3, and 1.7
respectivly.

It's important to remember that these numbers will only give you
a suggestion of how a boat will perform. In reality there are a
lot of factors that go into performance that these numbers can't
account for.

Cindy

--
the return email is a spam trap
send legit emails to cindy_at_ballreich_dot_net

Looked today ( Boat Choices)
 

Wendy wrote:

Ok, I got intrigued and ran some numbers applying your above methodology to
three other boats (I'm in accounting, numbers interest me):

Pacific Seacraft 37 .38
Tayana 37 .30 (!!)
Cabo Rico 37 .37

Now, I am not a naval architect, but the people who designed the above
(well-respected) sea-going yachts are, and their numbers prompt me to ask
what you base your 40% number on. I'm not calling your assertion
questionable, I just want to know what I am missing here- help me out.


There are a lot of numbers and B/D is probably going to be lower
on heavy displacement boats - like the ones you are looking at.
More useful will probably be Displacment to Waterline Length,
Motion Comfort Ratio, and Capsize Ratio.

Looking at my notes, a Catalina 30 we looked at had a B/D of .41,
a D/Wl of 291.4, a Comfort ratio of 24.8, and a Capsize ratio of
1.99. The Crealock 37 we looked at was .383, 344, 34.3, and 1.7
respectivly.

It's important to remember that these numbers will only give you
a suggestion of how a boat will perform. In reality there are a
lot of factors that go into performance that these numbers can't
account for.

Cindy

--
the return email is a spam trap
send legit emails to cindy_at_ballreich_dot_net

Looked today ( Boat Choices)
 

"Cindy Ballreich" wrote in message
...
It's important to remember that these numbers will only give you
a suggestion of how a boat will perform. In reality there are a
lot of factors that go into performance that these numbers can't
account for.

Yes, I understand this concept. I think it's probably safe to say that any
one number in and of itself is almost meaningless; these figures probably
become important through their interrelationship- the old "whole is greater
than the parts" idea. Sailboat gestalt, if you will :) A familiarity with
the basic concepts of aerodynamics is essential to flight, but one need not
be able to design a wing in order to understand how it works. I strongly
suspect that the same principle applies to nautical design and operation.

Wendy