Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #52   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Looked today ( Boat Choices)

On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 11:41:02 -0600, "Wendy"
wrote:


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?


That is frequently the case with teak screwed into fiberglass:
accidents waiting to happen. Teak is very nice to walk on...on other
people's boats G. Me, I get the same effect from a reasonable
substrate and a handful of sand. The fewer holes through or into most
decks, the better, I think, and teak does add weight where you don't
want it.

Even in the Great Lakes, where wear and tear on surfaces is arguably
less (excepting the freeze-thaw expansion problems on exposed decks in
winter), I see the evidence of former teak decking frequently.
Expensive to tear out and refinish, but not as expensive as keeping it
in, at least for some. Your mileage, etc...

Looks nice, but I don't have the crew of "Master and Commander" to
keep it dry and clean.

R.
  #53   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Looked today ( Boat Choices)

On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 11:41:02 -0600, "Wendy"
wrote:


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?


That is frequently the case with teak screwed into fiberglass:
accidents waiting to happen. Teak is very nice to walk on...on other
people's boats G. Me, I get the same effect from a reasonable
substrate and a handful of sand. The fewer holes through or into most
decks, the better, I think, and teak does add weight where you don't
want it.

Even in the Great Lakes, where wear and tear on surfaces is arguably
less (excepting the freeze-thaw expansion problems on exposed decks in
winter), I see the evidence of former teak decking frequently.
Expensive to tear out and refinish, but not as expensive as keeping it
in, at least for some. Your mileage, etc...

Looks nice, but I don't have the crew of "Master and Commander" to
keep it dry and clean.

R.
  #54   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Looked today ( Boat Choices)

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 21:35:11 GMT, Rich Hampel
wrote:

The underlayment of teak decks on Tayanas is built up of softwood
squares individually isolated by dams of polyester. If such
underlayment does get wet it usually doesnt not spread accross the
whole deck as would be the case with ''sheets' of core filler.
Not that you cant get a soggy deck on a Tayana; but, if you do the
damage wont be as catastrophic as would a deck with continuous
underlayment filler. Teak deck maintenance isnt all that bad if you
kkep up a gentle and consistent regime of maintenance. Hell, I bet you
expend more time scrubbing a glass deck than a teak deck owner does in
periodically looking for loose bungs.

Give me a teak deck anytime. So what if it makes the boat a bit more
top heavy, **nothing** is this world has the non-dkid ability of bare
teak.


The opposing view, and no doubt a boat I would love to visit because
it looks so nice. This gentleman knows the problems with teak, knows
how to deal with them, knows the best case scenario, and considers the
net benefit worth it.

I do not, although I've seen nice teak over metal decks that would put
me off less than teak over cored decks.

To each sailor his or her own. The less wood on the outside, the
happier I am, but that's me and is totally from the upkeep point of
view.

R.

  #55   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Looked today ( Boat Choices)

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 21:35:11 GMT, Rich Hampel
wrote:

The underlayment of teak decks on Tayanas is built up of softwood
squares individually isolated by dams of polyester. If such
underlayment does get wet it usually doesnt not spread accross the
whole deck as would be the case with ''sheets' of core filler.
Not that you cant get a soggy deck on a Tayana; but, if you do the
damage wont be as catastrophic as would a deck with continuous
underlayment filler. Teak deck maintenance isnt all that bad if you
kkep up a gentle and consistent regime of maintenance. Hell, I bet you
expend more time scrubbing a glass deck than a teak deck owner does in
periodically looking for loose bungs.

Give me a teak deck anytime. So what if it makes the boat a bit more
top heavy, **nothing** is this world has the non-dkid ability of bare
teak.


The opposing view, and no doubt a boat I would love to visit because
it looks so nice. This gentleman knows the problems with teak, knows
how to deal with them, knows the best case scenario, and considers the
net benefit worth it.

I do not, although I've seen nice teak over metal decks that would put
me off less than teak over cored decks.

To each sailor his or her own. The less wood on the outside, the
happier I am, but that's me and is totally from the upkeep point of
view.

R.



  #56   Report Post  
DSK
 
Posts: n/a
Default Boat Choices... teak decks

Rich Hampel wrote:
Give me a teak deck anytime. So what if it makes the boat a bit more
top heavy, **nothing** is this world has the non-dkid ability of bare
teak.



I've heard a lot of people say this, but it's not true in my
observations. This is probably heresy, but to me it has always seemed
like a teak deck is among the worst surfaces. I don't expect anybody
else to agree, but I am telling only what I have seen to be true.

I've heard "A teak deck is best when barefoot" when it has been proven
to me by painful experience that a teak deck will get blistering hot in
the southern sun. I've heard "A teak deck is incredible non-skid" said
by a crew who had just returned from the foredeck on their hands & knees.

In short, I own a boat with a teak deck... they're beautiful but they
are not practical in any way... the maintenance is awful, the surface is
unreliable, and if it's screwed down over cored fiberglass it's a
lurking rot instigator. Our teak deck is coming off in the near future,
to be replaced by either plain fiberglass with painted non-skid, or
perhaps those industrial textured non-skid materials.


wrote:
The opposing view, and no doubt a boat I would love to visit because
it looks so nice. This gentleman knows the problems with teak, knows
how to deal with them, knows the best case scenario, and considers the
net benefit worth it.

I do not, although I've seen nice teak over metal decks that would put
me off less than teak over cored decks.

To each sailor his or her own. The less wood on the outside, the
happier I am, but that's me and is totally from the upkeep point of
view.


A little wood here & there is nice, but whole layer of it over the deck
is a bit much. Might as well build the whole boat out of the stuff

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

  #57   Report Post  
DSK
 
Posts: n/a
Default Boat Choices... teak decks

Rich Hampel wrote:
Give me a teak deck anytime. So what if it makes the boat a bit more
top heavy, **nothing** is this world has the non-dkid ability of bare
teak.



I've heard a lot of people say this, but it's not true in my
observations. This is probably heresy, but to me it has always seemed
like a teak deck is among the worst surfaces. I don't expect anybody
else to agree, but I am telling only what I have seen to be true.

I've heard "A teak deck is best when barefoot" when it has been proven
to me by painful experience that a teak deck will get blistering hot in
the southern sun. I've heard "A teak deck is incredible non-skid" said
by a crew who had just returned from the foredeck on their hands & knees.

In short, I own a boat with a teak deck... they're beautiful but they
are not practical in any way... the maintenance is awful, the surface is
unreliable, and if it's screwed down over cored fiberglass it's a
lurking rot instigator. Our teak deck is coming off in the near future,
to be replaced by either plain fiberglass with painted non-skid, or
perhaps those industrial textured non-skid materials.


wrote:
The opposing view, and no doubt a boat I would love to visit because
it looks so nice. This gentleman knows the problems with teak, knows
how to deal with them, knows the best case scenario, and considers the
net benefit worth it.

I do not, although I've seen nice teak over metal decks that would put
me off less than teak over cored decks.

To each sailor his or her own. The less wood on the outside, the
happier I am, but that's me and is totally from the upkeep point of
view.


A little wood here & there is nice, but whole layer of it over the deck
is a bit much. Might as well build the whole boat out of the stuff

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

  #58   Report Post  
DSK
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


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.

  #59   Report Post  
DSK
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


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.

  #60   Report Post  
JAXAshby
 
Posts: n/a
Default Looked today ( Boat Choices)

I was part of the EAA for years, and my baby brother used to write technical
articles for them. To get an amateur built aircraft into the air requires a
serious inspection by the FAA and flight testing in an out of the way area. To
get an aircraft design "type certified" is a much long and expensive process,
and must be completed before an aircraft can be manufactured for sale.

No such thing is needed to produce a boat for sale. Anyone -- in most states
-- can call themselves a naval architect. Even an 8 year old girl in pigtails.

(JAXAshby) wrote:

Badly designed airplanes never get on the runway, let alone airborne.


You haven't seen some of the "planes" of the EAA ;-) I saw one lifting
body shaped like a flying saucer that even actually flew once, but no
sane pilot would take it up for a second flight.

Truth be told, the Quickie has some bad design flaws, but it sure proved
the power of canards. (12 hp, 100 mph and 60+ mpg, but I believe every
one of them was ground looped at least once.)


I have seen people who claim
to be highly qualified naval architects claim that the "slot" between an
overlapping jib and the main _increases_ lift, something no aero eng on the
planet would say of a biwing aircraft.


You don't win many races in multi-sail boats, do you?

--
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/








Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Boat fell off trailer bb General 31 January 27th 04 10:22 PM
4th FL trip report, shorter, this time! Skip Gundlach Cruising 40 January 14th 04 10:19 PM
I need your advice for a new boat Kharlosan Cruising 24 November 19th 03 10:27 AM
Interesting boat ride...... Gould 0738 General 21 October 21st 03 02:00 AM
Sailor's tattoo, must be married too long, Wooden Boat Festival Gould 0738 General 2 September 10th 03 06:38 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:15 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 BoatBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Boats"

 

Copyright © 2017