"Frank Maier" wrote...
You're incorrigible. Couldn't we discuss double entendres, instead? IF
we did that, I'll bet we could somehow work in the phrase "small
cockpit."

As long as I don't start getting spam about how to enlarge it....


Matt/Meribeth Pedersen wrote:
Are we going to talk about the Moses theory of a double
ender parting the waves?

If running with a drogue, sure. IMHO your idea about the balance between
reserve bouyancy fore & aft is right on.


The Norwegians came up with the seaworthy
double ender for their pilot boats (I was going to type
Redniskote but I'm sure I'd spell it wrong).

Far be it from me to criticize anybody's spelling. The Redningskoite
originated as a fisheries service & rescue boat, developed by a Scotsman
named (fanfare of trumpets) Colin Archer.

http://www.boat-links.com/Atkinco/Sail/Ingrid.html

The funny thing about the Colin Archer designs is that most people who
profess to love the type don't really know anything about them... for
example, extolling heavy displacement and moderate reserve bouyancy
aft... whereas these boats were built as light as possible for the
strength required, given the technology of the day, and one of the big
changes Colin Archer made in previous design was to dramatically
increase reserve bouyancy.

The Valiant series is an interesting case study... they are not in any
way related to the Colin Archer type, having wall sides, snubbed canoe
sterns, and fin keels. Bob Perry once said in an unguarded moment that
the Valiat resulted when he took a moderate displacement fin keeler and
had fun making it look like a pirate ship. But not to hold that against
them, they are good boats and darn well built. And to the superficial
glance, they do *look* like a Colin Archer....

The Westsail 32 is another boat often hailed as a modern Colin Archer,
but isn't even close.

... But it's interesting
that the British, under nearly identical sea conditions came up
with their plumb stemmed, long waterline cutters for their
pilot service. I guess that just goes to show you that a good
boat is a good boat, no matter what her fanny looks like.

One thing to keep in mind is that those old timers had a lot more
patience than we do, and a much higher tolerance for user-unfriendly
systems. These boats sail more like submarines than a modern sailor is
likely to put up with.



Oh, and as for small cockpits, I've always thought that it's
easier to remedy a too big cockpit than a too small one.
Whatever you do, don't forget to put big drains in.

How about an open transom? Can't get much more drain area than that. The
issue is to keep the reserve bouyancy figures similar.



Bob Whitaker wrote:
Well, Frank, since you brought it up, I feel compelled to reply. It
seems, that Doug could be a good contributor if he wanted to.

Dear Bob-
You take yourself, and me, and probably everybody else far too seriously.

As for "Blue Water Cruiser" that is strictly an advertising phrase.

Most sailors who actually cross oceans call their boats passage makers,
and there is a tremendous amount of discussion (informed and otherwise)
on what characteristics make for a desirable passage making sailboat. It
appears to me that the most important feature is between the skippers
ears, all else is a matter of familiarity, prejudice, and personal taste.

People have crossed oceans in waterproofed refrigerator crates, so a
real sailboat would have to be pretty bad before it couldn't do it. OTOH
you will find a large number of people with some experience in a given
type of boat who will vigorously proclaim that this is the ONLY type of
ocean capable boat. YMMV

Fresh Breezes- Doug King