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.


OK, looks like I spoke in haste, at least a little bit. Looking over the
boat data base and running some numbers, I see a lot of well respected
cruising boats in the -below 40- category. I wonder if that is due to one
or more of the following
Any given boat can only carry X amount of weight... more ballast = less
stores

All else being equal, it's more expensive to build a boat with a higher
B/D ratio

A slightly lower B/D ratio will not make as big a difference in
stability in the common ranges of heel while sailing, but will make a
noticable difference in easy motion in a seaway. "Seakindliness" is a
term that may be applicable.

It's just a matter of differing priorities... and shucks, if you've got
the skill, you can circumnavigate in a canoe! However, having sailed a
wide range of boat types, my own taste leans strongly towards the
highest B/D ratio practical. Not to say you should get a racing type
boat with B/D around 60%, but there are plenty of boats over 40% or even
45% that would get a nod from serious passagemaker types.

The following is not a complete list at all, just boats that caught my
eye running through the data base-

Over 50%: Ericson 39, Abbott 33, Tartan 41, Avance 36, Kalik 40,
Serendipity 43, Morgan 41 (the old model)

Between 50% ~ 45%: Hylas 44, Cal 39-3, Tartan 37, C&C 40, Bristol 38.8,
Island Packet 350 & 37, Catalina 38, Hughes 38, some Ericsons,
Westerlys, Amels, Cape Dories

Between 45% ~ 40%: Calibers, Gozzards, Aldens, Contests, Sabres,
Bristols, Morris (mostly Chuck Paine designs AFAIK),Oysters, Albergs,
Bowmans, Hallberg-Rassy, Tayana 42 & 47

This is ignoring some of the boats that could make great cruisers but
probably would not be on your personal list, like Swans, the Corel 45,
NY-40, J-125, or the Herreshoff S-boat but am just showing that
it's not totally crazy to put priority there.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

I don't understand why the bigger Tayanas have a higher B/D ratio, it
seems to me that a smaller boat would need more reserve stability, not less.

"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

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

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
while the Cheoy Lee is not the dedicated ocean passage boat that the
Tayana is,

The Cheoy Lee is probably a better ocean passage boat than the Tayana,
except
that the 36 foot CL has an installed genset, which usually -- on that size
boat
-- makes the boat more top heavy, and also puts it off its lines. The
Tayana
starts top heavy.

Hmmm. The genset rides at about the wateline, or slightly below. I'm not
sure about the weight, etc. I'm going to take a hard look at her this
weekend- spend a couple hours developing a gripe list, find out what sort of
tanks she has, etc. I'm sure she's a faster and more responsive boat than
the Tayana, although surely not as comfy. That whole teak deck drama gives
me pause, but my oh my, she is a beautiful boat.

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...

Wendy

The Tayana and the CL-P36 have almost identical base numbers, although
the TY37 is a bit faster (hull speed).

Interestingly and due to the displacment weight vs. volume, the Tayana
will carry more load while the CL will be a better boat in light and
flukey conditions and when 'light'. The CL will have better
acceleration than the TY37; but, the TY37 will definitely carry more
stores and still be able to sail on her design waterline. .
The CL at 16.5K lb. when loaded with a normal crusing 'load' will be
deeper in the water and hence will affect sailing performance more. The
TY37 at 22.5K lb will not depress the water line as much hence will
retain her sailing characteristics to a better extent .... plus the
motion comfort of the TY 37 is 25% better. The caveat is that some
sailors puke more with a faster reacting boats and some puke faster
with slower period boat. The CL having a faster roll period, the TY37
slower.
The CL will not need to be reefed as frequently as the TY37 as the CL
SA/D is lower, meaning a more easily driven hull. But when fully laden
those numbers should drastically shift in favor of the TY37.

So, your reply about the CL being a better passage boat will only be
true at the end of the passage when all food, fuel, etc. is used up.
Heavily loaded at the beginning of a passaage the CL will be very deep
(comparitively) in the water and wont perform as well as unladen...
and will always be slower. The TY37 will stay more 'consistent'.

Its not impossible to add a ton or two of 'stores' when voyaging, ....
added equipment, emergency food/equip, accumulated junk, rocks, shells,
funny hats, booze, etc.

As far as the TY being top-heay .... sometimes true and sometimes not
..... as it depends on the arrangement of the (teak) interior, teak
deck or not, wooden spars or aluminum and amount of teak that the
original owner specified or omitted topsides. Remember that TY37s are
'semi-custom' boats and the original purchaser had a lot of influence
on the final displacement 'loading' of the boat.

For comparisons of the 'numbers'
http://www.image-ination.com/sailcalc.html go to part 1.

;-)

"Rich Hampel" wrote in message
...
The Tayana and the CL-P36 have almost identical base numbers, although
the TY37 is a bit faster (hull speed).

(very good stuff snipped)

Thanks loads! That's the sort of information it is nice to have, yet it
isn't readily apparent.

I'm with you on the booze weight

Wendy

"Rich Hampel" wrote in message
...
The Tayana and the CL-P36 have almost identical base numbers, although
the TY37 is a bit faster (hull speed).

(very good stuff snipped)

Thanks loads! That's the sort of information it is nice to have, yet it
isn't readily apparent.

I'm with you on the booze weight

Wendy

Rich, a Tayana 37 is a nice boat. I would love to have one myself. Yet, if I
were going to deliberately go out "in harm's way" (rather than being ordinarily
prudent) I might be inclined to look at a Van de Stadt 36 or a Dix 36 (in
plywood, because that is both stroner and lighter).

Again, a Tayana 37 is a niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice boat.
Know anyone with a T-37 that needs about 400 hours of TLC cleanup and who is in
deep financial trouble, a wife/mistress/mortgage all a month overdue? Let me
know. [grin]

I suspect Wendy is now aiming a tad more towards a nice cruising boat than a
serious, knock-em-on-your-ass roughwater voyager which seemed to be the aim
earlier in this thread.

Rich, a Tayana 37 is a nice boat. I would love to have one myself. Yet, if I
were going to deliberately go out "in harm's way" (rather than being ordinarily
prudent) I might be inclined to look at a Van de Stadt 36 or a Dix 36 (in
plywood, because that is both stroner and lighter).

Again, a Tayana 37 is a niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice boat.
Know anyone with a T-37 that needs about 400 hours of TLC cleanup and who is in
deep financial trouble, a wife/mistress/mortgage all a month overdue? Let me
know. [grin]

I suspect Wendy is now aiming a tad more towards a nice cruising boat than a
serious, knock-em-on-your-ass roughwater voyager which seemed to be the aim
earlier in this thread.

The Tayana and the CL-P36 have almost identical base numbers, although
the TY37 is a bit faster (hull speed).

Interestingly and due to the displacment weight vs. volume, the Tayana
will carry more load while the CL will be a better boat in light and
flukey conditions and when 'light'. The CL will have better
acceleration than the TY37; but, the TY37 will definitely carry more
stores and still be able to sail on her design waterline. .
The CL at 16.5K lb. when loaded with a normal crusing 'load' will be
deeper in the water and hence will affect sailing performance more. The
TY37 at 22.5K lb will not depress the water line as much hence will
retain her sailing characteristics to a better extent .... plus the
motion comfort of the TY 37 is 25% better. The caveat is that some
sailors puke more with a faster reacting boats and some puke faster
with slower period boat. The CL having a faster roll period, the TY37
slower.
The CL will not need to be reefed as frequently as the TY37 as the CL
SA/D is lower, meaning a more easily driven hull. But when fully laden
those numbers should drastically shift in favor of the TY37.

So, your reply about the CL being a better passage boat will only be
true at the end of the passage when all food, fuel, etc. is used up.
Heavily loaded at the beginning of a passaage the CL will be very deep
(comparitively) in the water and wont perform as well as unladen...
and will always be slower. The TY37 will stay more 'consistent'.

Its not impossible to add a ton or two of 'stores' when voyaging, ....
added equipment, emergency food/equip, accumulated junk, rocks, shells,
funny hats, booze, etc.

As far as the TY being top-heay .... sometimes true and sometimes not
..... as it depends on the arrangement of the (teak) interior, teak
deck or not, wooden spars or aluminum and amount of teak that the
original owner specified or omitted topsides. Remember that TY37s are
'semi-custom' boats and the original purchaser had a lot of influence
on the final displacement 'loading' of the boat.

For comparisons of the 'numbers'
http://www.image-ination.com/sailcalc.html go to part 1.

;-)