Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]()
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Feb 27, 4:08 pm, " wrote:
On Feb 27, 5:29 am, wrote: " said: IMO, Ted Brewer's motion comfort ratio is BS. ... No, it's defensible on several grounds. It was invented by a knowledgeable NA, it does model that "bigger + heavier = more comfort" which is true, and it is widely quoted. No, the ratio does not say that "bigger" is more comfortable. Yes it does. Look at the math. Increase displacement, "Comfort Ratio" goes up. Increase LOA but not LWL, the ratio goes up. The funny thing is that if you take the same LOA and Disp, and reduce LWL, the ratio goes up. If you keep everything the same and decrease beam, the ratio goes up. The assumption is that the heavier a footprint a boat has, the higher load per waterplane area, will give a boat more comfortable motion in a seaway. There is some real-life justification for that, but to assume that narrow heavy boats with long overhangs are the ultimate in seagoing comfort is absurd. .... Just the opposite. It penalizes length (70% waterline + 30% overall) and beam to the 1/3. The results of this can be silly. The idea that an Alberg 30 is vastly more "comfortable" than a Transpac 52 is absurd. In this case, "comfort" is defined only by the boat's motion in a seaway. I want to be clear that I'm not disparaging Brewer. He has drawn some beautiful boats and written at least one very good book. Many moons ago, my family owned a Brewer design. It was a good boat. It's just his "CR" that's bogus. Brewer claims that heave and pitch response will be slower on a boat with a heavily loaded water plane and low ppi all else being equal. That's true for heave and probably reasonably indicative for pitch. He also asserts that roll response will be slower on heavy narrow boats. That may be true, but misses some major factors. The problem is that he goes on to assert that boats with slow initial pitch and roll and heave responses are "more comfortable". This completely ignores major factors like period, amplitude and damping. Agreed. But those can't be reasonably quantified with the very simple dimensions commonly available. .... And, of course, begs the questions of what is comfort is and what conditions we are talking about. Down wind boats with high "CR" will be slow and have a tendency to roll uncontrollably. Upwind they will be slow but wet; if you don't rise to meet a wave you must go through it. Indeed, a high "CR" pretty much assures slowness. It is true that slower is generally more comfortable. It is also true that you can sail a fast boat slowly but you can't make a slow boat fast... Agreed Theres more, but my work is calling. I'd say your work here is done ![]() DSK |
#2
![]()
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Feb 27, 2:51 pm, wrote:
... No, the ratio does not say that "bigger" is more comfortable. Yes it does. Look at the math. Increase displacement, "Comfort Ratio" goes up. Increase LOA but not LWL, the ratio goes up. The funny thing is that if you take the same LOA and Disp, and reduce LWL, the ratio goes up. If you keep everything the same and decrease beam, the ratio goes up. ... Help me out Doug. The formula is: C = D/(.65(.7Lwl+.3Loa)*B^1.33 Where C is the "Comfort Ratio", D is displacement, Lwl is the length on the load waterline, Loa is the overall length and B is the beam. Now, if you fix the displacement but make the boat bigger in any dimension the ratio goes down. All of the dimensions are in the denominator. Thus, it seems to me that making the boat "bigger" makes it score less well on the CR. I don't follow how you can say that if you increase the LOA but not LWL the ratio goes up. Are we looking at the same formula? -- Tom. |
#3
![]()
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
tsmw wrote:
C = D/(.65(.7Lwl+.3Loa)*B^1.33 Where C is the "Comfort Ratio", D is displacement, Lwl is the length on the load waterline, Loa is the overall length and B is the beam. Now, if you fix the displacement but make the boat bigger in any dimension the ratio goes down. All of the dimensions are in the denominator. Thus, it seems to me that making the boat "bigger" makes it score less well on the CR. I don't follow how you can say that if you increase the LOA but not LWL the ratio goes up. Are we looking at the same formula? -- Tom. Try it in excel. I think the multiplier of less than one has an effect. If you keep everything else constant and increase the LOA, the "Motion Comfort Ratio" goes up slightly. That's making the boat bigger, nyet? If you keep everything else constant and decrease the LWL, the "Motion Comfort Ratio" goes up by a greater amount than above. Ditto for decrease in Beam. This isn't increasing size, but decreasing LWL while holding everything else constant is increasing the overhangs, which does not really improve seakindliness. The greatest increase in the ratio is of course had by increasing Displacement, which is again increasing size. Disp & LOA are the largest factors in a boats size IMHO ![]() DSK |
#4
![]()
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Feb 28, 4:50 pm, wrote:
Try it in excel. I think the multiplier of less than one has an effect. ... I don't do excel but since I have it I put in: =D2/ (0.65*((0.7*B2)+(0.3*A2))*(C2^1.33)) and if you increase any dimension the CR goes down. Remember the mathematical operators have an order of precedence that not all programming languages enforce so you might need the extra parans to get the formula to work as Brewer intended. -- Tom. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Motion comfort | Cruising | |||
Aid and Comfort to the Enemy | ASA | |||
Cold comfort | Boat Building | |||
Cold comfort | Cruising | |||
Pitch & Roll sensor with USB output | Electronics |