|
Heavy displacement vs Medium Displacement for Ocean Passages
Are boats like the Tayana 37 still popular and still a good choice for
ocean crossings? I've crawled in and out of a few boats during the past couple weeks and it looks to me that the heavy displacment boats are just built a lot better than the mid to light displacement ones. This is especially true in the price range I can afford (less than $100k). Most of the heavy displacement boats also have more storage because the tanks are usually located in the bilge leaving the settees free for storage. This appears to be another plus. When comparing open ocean vessels, Is the performace between a heavy and mid displacment boat really all that much different? If not, then maybe I wouldn't get bored with a lower performance heavy displacment vessel. I'm not sure about this and would like comments. Most heavy displacement boats have bow sprits. If a boat has a 5' bowsprit, do you add that into the total length of the boat when computing moorage charges? It would be ashame to get charged for 42' when the boat is only has 37' on deck and 37' of living space. As you can see, I'm still having trouble finding a suitable boat. I want something to liveaboard here in Alaska and in 3 years take off and at least sail the S. Pacific if not farther. |
Heavy displacement vs Medium Displacement for Ocean Passages
|
Heavy displacement vs Medium Displacement for Ocean Passages
|
Heavy displacement vs Medium Displacement for Ocean Passages
Bart wrote:
Are boats like the Tayana 37 still popular and still a good choice for ocean crossings? I've crawled in and out of a few boats during the past couple weeks and it looks to me that the heavy displacment boats are just built a lot better than the mid to light displacement ones. This is especially true in the price range I can afford (less than $100k). Most of the heavy displacement boats also have more storage because the tanks are usually located in the bilge leaving the settees free for storage. This appears to be another plus. When comparing open ocean vessels, Is the performace between a heavy and mid displacment boat really all that much different? If not, then maybe I wouldn't get bored with a lower performance heavy displacment vessel. I'm not sure about this and would like comments. Most heavy displacement boats have bow sprits. If a boat has a 5' bowsprit, do you add that into the total length of the boat when computing moorage charges? It would be ashame to get charged for 42' when the boat is only has 37' on deck and 37' of living space. As you can see, I'm still having trouble finding a suitable boat. I want something to liveaboard here in Alaska and in 3 years take off and at least sail the S. Pacific if not farther. Our daughter and son-in-law worked in Saipan for 5 years. During that time they bought a very badly maintained 36' Union and worked hard to make it livable and seaworthy. In Seattle, I was telling a sail boating friend about the purchase and the product and he put on a disappointed face, saying "I hate to see kids buying a boat like that." I was alarmed but, in a flash, realized he was a racing sailor for whom nothing was as important as that. And he confirmed it as he went on: "The damn things are like Hans Christians - they can't get out of their own way in less than a full gale." He must have seen my anxiety, because he seemed to relent and finally said: "Of course, no matter how bad it gets, she'll bring her crew home". Our kids had previously had no significant blue water experience, maintenance and surveying on Saipan was minimal, and I was terribly worried about their planned crossing to Seattle in the summer of 2001. We got reports from Pacific Seafarers' Net, but worried constantly. We could tell they were having some trouble with equipment - the Saipan fuel congealed in the cold weather of the north Pacific, the water maker stopped working... All through those months I clung to those words like a mantra: "She'll bring them home". And she did. Our daughter told us later that they experienced about every type of condition they could imagine, and not once had any concern for their safety. My vote is: "Heavy" g -- This outgoing message has been scanned by AVG Anti-Virus 7.0. http://www.grisoft.com/us/us_index.php |
Heavy displacement vs Medium Displacement for Ocean Passages
We have only been charged one time for our bowsprit and boomkin and windvane.
That was on a face dock, they also only charged for 35 feet (westsail 32 that is 43 feet overall). Rich |
Heavy displacement vs Medium Displacement for Ocean Passages
You might take a look at:
www.mahina.com/boats.html Joh Neal provides one-liners for quite a few boats. If nothing else, it should serve as a handy check-list to narrow your search a bit. Hope this helps....Norm B. On Sun, 09 May 2004 03:06:17 GMT, (Bart) wrote: Are boats like the Tayana 37 still popular and still a good choice for ocean crossings? I've crawled in and out of a few boats during the past couple weeks and it looks to me that the heavy displacment boats are just built a lot better than the mid to light displacement ones. This is especially true in the price range I can afford (less than $100k). Most of the heavy displacement boats also have more storage because the tanks are usually located in the bilge leaving the settees free for storage. This appears to be another plus. When comparing open ocean vessels, Is the performace between a heavy and mid displacment boat really all that much different? If not, then maybe I wouldn't get bored with a lower performance heavy displacment vessel. I'm not sure about this and would like comments. Most heavy displacement boats have bow sprits. If a boat has a 5' bowsprit, do you add that into the total length of the boat when computing moorage charges? It would be ashame to get charged for 42' when the boat is only has 37' on deck and 37' of living space. As you can see, I'm still having trouble finding a suitable boat. I want something to liveaboard here in Alaska and in 3 years take off and at least sail the S. Pacific if not farther. |
Heavy displacement vs Medium Displacement for Ocean Passages
"Bart" wrote in message ... Are boats like the Tayana 37 still popular and still a good choice for ocean crossings? When comparing open ocean vessels, Is the performace between a heavy and mid displacment boat really all that much different? If not, then maybe I wouldn't get bored with a lower performance heavy displacment vessel. I'm not sure about this and would like comments. In passagemaking, I don't see the moderate displacement boats burning up the miles significantly faster than the heavy displacement ones. I do think that you need to have adequate sail area to make a decent passage, but when you're cruising, trying to keep the boat speed up over about 1.2 sqrt WL is just too much trouble. As long as you are powered up, then waterline length is going to govern. Most heavy displacement boats have bow sprits. If a boat has a 5' bowsprit, do you add that into the total length of the boat when computing moorage charges? It would be ashame to get charged for 42' when the boat is only has 37' on deck and 37' of living space. Different policies in different places - permanent moorage usually charges LOA. I know a guy who cruises on a boat with bowsprit and when he goes for guest moorage, if they don't ask he'll tell them the LOD. He can save a few bucks that way. |
Heavy displacement vs Medium Displacement for Ocean Passages
In article , Bart
wrote: I have a TY37, so consider that I have a bias towards them. Are boats like the Tayana 37 still popular and still a good choice for ocean crossings? Yup, they are still popular. A 'good' one will only take a week or two to sell. The Tayana yard just delivered a new TY37 pilothouse - still in production but obviously not as in demand as before .... design is getting a little ' long in the tooth' and is subject to poor prior maintenance. I've crawled in and out of a few boats during the past couple weeks and it looks to me that the heavy displacment boats are just built a lot better than the mid to light displacement ones. This is especially true in the price range I can afford (less than $100k). I would say that 'heavies' are too overbuilt. The laminate schedules are probably waaaaaaaay to thick and were produced in a non-continuous process resulting in a much thicker but ultimately weaker structure than by todays standards of good yards. Until recently, yards would be on an ~8 hour basis, leaving the uncompleted laminate to cure overnight before starting again the morning. The result is a weak bond between the partly cured layers. Ultra-modern layup is vacuum bagged, almost continuous, and may even be done under refrigerated conditions to ensure a complete bond between layers. The result is vastly stronger and much lighter weight structure. Most of the heavy displacement boats also have more storage because the tanks are usually located in the bilge leaving the settees free for storage. This appears to be another plus. Nah.... most of the heavies NEED tank-ballast in the bilge because they have encapsulated keels (of cement and iron, etc.) ..... making the the underwater profile of keel ***width*** to length somewhat ridiculous by todays standards. Personally, I think most of the 'heavies' are too 'top-heavy' also. When comparing open ocean vessels, Is the performace between a heavy and mid displacment boat really all that much different? If not, then maybe I wouldn't get bored with a lower performance heavy displacment vessel. I'm not sure about this and would like comments. Yes there is a significant difference. An easily driven lightweight hull typically depends a lot on form stability (beam, etc.) while the 'heavy' depends more on ballast. The lighter weight is more easily driven, allows a vastly smaller sail plan (usually a fractional rig), accelerates faster when tacking, etc. Heavies are usually old fashioned spoon bowed - resulting in a shorter waterline length, while light weights are usually 'knuckle bowed' - longer water line length = FASTER. A heavy will usually have a slower roll period while the lightweight will be have a much faster roll period .... choice depends on which roll period makes you puke. Especially when loaded in the ends, a short water line length heavy will hobby-horse more than a knuckle-bowed, fat assed lightweight. Most heavy displacement boats have bow sprits. If a boat has a 5' bowsprit, do you add that into the total length of the boat when computing moorage charges? It would be ashame to get charged for 42' when the boat is only has 37' on deck and 37' of living space. Huh? you live in the cockpit.... the 'living-space' is for stores. A TY37 is ~43 LOA .... but when coming into a marina, I just tell them its a Tayana 37 and let the sprit hang out in the fairway, most marinas are too lazy to look ... all they hear is 37. I have a 'fold-up' stern davit that removes another 4 ft. Buy a good set of anchors and dinghy in. As you can see, I'm still having trouble finding a suitable boat. I want something to liveaboard here in Alaska and in 3 years take off and at least sail the S. Pacific if not farther. If you're not out to beat any trans-ocean speed records, a heavy will do just fine. Its the total miles not the speed of passage that counts. Need to get there faster, take a plane. If you need to show off, get a Donzi or a Hobie. A well prepared heavy: faired hull and keel, baby's-ass smooth bottom, feathering prop, well cut and well set/shaped sails, etc. will be an incredible performance boost on any 'heavy', especially for light air. A cutter rig with a removable jibstay is great for 'coastal' work, just dont believe ANYTHNG you've ever read about the disadvantages of a staysail. .... all BS. If you opt for a cutter, get a staysail boom, just keep your knees and head clear A boomed staysail (needs a vang) is self-tacking, keeps its shape on a reach, run, etc. - learn to become an instant flat-spot on the foredeck if all goes wrong. Most 'heavies' you find will have the bottom smoothness of a hand-laid tarmac or dirt road - bottom paint put on with a GD thick knapped roller, through-hulls sticking out all over the place like carbunckles, a 3 or 4 blade fixed prop (might as well drag a wash tub), the sails will usually be beyond blown-out bed sheets, all the weight in the bow and stern ..... typically Winnebagos with sails. Light winds.... no problem for heavy with a smooth/fair bottom and good sails. I occasionally race my TY37 'tub' with quite surprising results (boat is highly underated by PHRF). Once you get up to hull speed, it doesnt make any difference if its a heavy or a light weight, although the modern lightweights can point MUCH better. If you have any racing experience, apply that to a 'heavy' and you have a secure, relatively fast (not a racehorse), safe passagemaker. Consider Robert Perry, Robert Harris, etc. designs .... proven designs. More Perry designs have circumnavigated than any designer: Tayana, Tashiba, Baba, Valiant, Passport, etc. etc. .... that ought to tell you something. If I had it to do all over again, I'd opt for external ballast, split underbody with a balanced spade rudder. If I were in the market for a brand new blue-water boat, I really lean towards a deep fin external keel (with a not-so-flat bottom), with a balanced spade rudder (perhpas giving up the supreme advantage of being able to totally heave-to in quiet stability). I dont think that 'weight' buys you anything. My ultimate 'dream boat ' would be a Millennia (or Tollycraft) **FastPassage 39**, (PHRF ~115). A faster boat can 'avoid' the weather a little better. Stay away from the old 'rule beaters' - narrow / short waterline lengths, etc. Once you narrow your choice, go to the design-specific email discussion groups on Sailnet, etc. and do a detail archive search for the 'problems'. ;-) |
Heavy displacement vs Medium Displacement for Ocean Passages
Rosalie B. wrote:
But I can answer about the bow sprits ... Now on a mooring, I don't think they do count. If you have a 37 foot boat with a 5 ft bow sprit and the length limit for the moorings is 40 feet, I think the bow sprit would not count. Our experience may differ, but I've never encountered rental moorings priced by length. I have certainly encountered moorings that are designed for particular lengths or displacements or drafts, etc., but they were all rented at the same dollars/day, Martha's Vineyard and Northeast Harbor ME are typical examples. Where have you paid different prices for putting different length vessels on a mooring? -- Good luck and good sailing. s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat http://kerrydeare.home.comcast.net/ |
Heavy displacement vs Medium Displacement for Ocean Passages
On Sun, 09 May 2004 15:46:35 GMT, Gualtier Malde
wrote: Bart wrote: Are boats like the Tayana 37 still popular and still a good choice for ocean crossings? I've crawled in and out of a few boats during the past couple weeks and it looks to me that the heavy displacment boats are just built a lot better than the mid to light displacement ones. This is especially true in the price range I can afford (less than $100k). Most of the heavy displacement boats also have more storage because the tanks are usually located in the bilge leaving the settees free for storage. This appears to be another plus. When comparing open ocean vessels, Is the performace between a heavy and mid displacment boat really all that much different? If not, then maybe I wouldn't get bored with a lower performance heavy displacment vessel. I'm not sure about this and would like comments. Most heavy displacement boats have bow sprits. If a boat has a 5' bowsprit, do you add that into the total length of the boat when computing moorage charges? It would be ashame to get charged for 42' when the boat is only has 37' on deck and 37' of living space. As you can see, I'm still having trouble finding a suitable boat. I want something to liveaboard here in Alaska and in 3 years take off and at least sail the S. Pacific if not farther. Our daughter and son-in-law worked in Saipan for 5 years. During that time they bought a very badly maintained 36' Union and worked hard to make it livable and seaworthy. In Seattle, I was telling a sail boating friend about the purchase and the product and he put on a disappointed face, saying "I hate to see kids buying a boat like that." I was alarmed but, in a flash, realized he was a racing sailor for whom nothing was as important as that. And he confirmed it as he went on: "The damn things are like Hans Christians - they can't get out of their own way in less than a full gale." He must have seen my anxiety, because he seemed to relent and finally said: "Of course, no matter how bad it gets, she'll bring her crew home". Our kids had previously had no significant blue water experience, maintenance and surveying on Saipan was minimal, and I was terribly worried about their planned crossing to Seattle in the summer of 2001. We got reports from Pacific Seafarers' Net, but worried constantly. We could tell they were having some trouble with equipment - the Saipan fuel congealed in the cold weather of the north Pacific, the water maker stopped working... All through those months I clung to those words like a mantra: "She'll bring them home". And she did. Our daughter told us later that they experienced about every type of condition they could imagine, and not once had any concern for their safety. My vote is: "Heavy" You said they had no experience, so "every type of condition they could imagine" means nothing. All responsible studies of bad weather problems have concluded that for any given displacement, the longer the safer, as long as it is structurally sound. I wion't offer an opinion. I don't think anyone should make such a choice based on internet opinions. Rodney Myrvaagnes J36 Gjo/a Ask not with whom the buck stops . . . |
Heavy displacement vs Medium Displacement for Ocean Passages
"Armond Perretta" wrote:
Rosalie B. wrote: But I can answer about the bow sprits ... Now on a mooring, I don't think they do count. If you have a 37 foot boat with a 5 ft bow sprit and the length limit for the moorings is 40 feet, I think the bow sprit would not count. Our experience may differ, but I've never encountered rental moorings priced by length. I have certainly encountered moorings that are designed for particular lengths or displacements or drafts, etc., but they were all rented at the same dollars/day, Martha's Vineyard and Northeast Harbor ME are typical examples. Where have you paid different prices for putting different length vessels on a mooring? That's not what I meant. I didn't mean that you would be charged a different price. I meant that you wouldn't be allowed to rent the mooring at all if you were oversized. grandma Rosalie |
Heavy displacement vs Medium Displacement for Ocean Passages
Matt/Meribeth Pedersen wrote: In passagemaking, I don't see the moderate displacement boats burning up the miles significantly faster than the heavy displacement ones. I do think that you need to have adequate sail area to make a decent passage, but when you're cruising, trying to keep the boat speed up over about 1.2 sqrt WL is just too much trouble. As long as you are powered up, then waterline length is going to govern. Half a knot to a knot means a lot on a passage. That is 12 to 24 miles a day which adds up pretty nicely on a 5 or 6 day run. Most of the time you are not going to be driving at hull speed so a boat that can easily be driven in light winds has a definite advantage. OTOH, the quicker motion of the medium displacement boat can get a bit tiring. -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com |
Heavy displacement vs Medium Displacement for Ocean Passages
Rosalie B. wrote:
"Armond Perretta" wrote: Rosalie B. wrote: But I can answer about the bow sprits ... Now on a mooring, I don't think they do count ... If you have a 37 foot boat with a 5 ft bow sprit and the length limit for the moorings is 40 feet, I think the bow sprit would not count. Our experience may differ, but I've never encountered rental moorings priced by length. I have certainly encountered moorings that are designed for particular lengths or displacements or drafts, etc., but they were all rented at the same dollars/day, Martha's Vineyard and Northeast Harbor ME are typical examples. Where have you paid different prices for putting different length vessels on a mooring? That's not what I meant. I didn't mean that you would be charged a different price. I meant that you wouldn't be allowed to rent the mooring at all if you were oversized. I sometimes have trouble knowing what folks meant. I do however know what they wrote. Bart stated: "Most heavy displacement boats have bow sprits. If a boat has a 5' bowsprit, do you add that into the total length of the boat when computing moorage charges? It would be a shame to get charged for 42' when the boat is only has 37' on deck and 37' of living space." Rosalie replied: "But I can answer about the bow sprits. Yes you usually do count them. You especially count them if it is a face dock. The amount of dock space you take up includes bow sprits and dinghy davits, and then they allow about 5 feet between boats. So many marinas do charge for the total "dock length" (as apposed to deck length) of the boat ... Now on a mooring, I don't think they do count. If you have a 37 foot boat with a 5 ft bow sprit and the length limit for the moorings is 40 feet, I think the bow sprit would not count. At which point I asked the question I asked. Sorry if I didn't know what you "meant." Please note that I am _not_ referring to bowsprits specifically, but rather to the idea of renting mooring and charging by length. -- Good luck and good sailing. s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat http://kerrydeare.home.comcast.net/ |
Heavy displacement vs Medium Displacement for Ocean Passages
"Armond Perretta" wrote:
Rosalie B. wrote: "Armond Perretta" wrote: Rosalie B. wrote: But I can answer about the bow sprits ... Now on a mooring, I don't think they do count ... If you have a 37 foot boat with a 5 ft bow sprit and the length limit for the moorings is 40 feet, I think the bow sprit would not count. Our experience may differ, but I've never encountered rental moorings priced by length. I have certainly encountered moorings that are designed for particular lengths or displacements or drafts, etc., but they were all rented at the same dollars/day, Martha's Vineyard and Northeast Harbor ME are typical examples. Where have you paid different prices for putting different length vessels on a mooring? That's not what I meant. I didn't mean that you would be charged a different price. I meant that you wouldn't be allowed to rent the mooring at all if you were oversized. I sometimes have trouble knowing what folks meant. I do however know what they wrote. Bart stated: "Most heavy displacement boats have bow sprits. If a boat has a 5' bowsprit, do you add that into the total length of the boat when computing moorage charges? It would be a shame to get charged for 42' when the boat is only has 37' on deck and 37' of living space." Rosalie replied: "But I can answer about the bow sprits. Yes you usually do count them. You especially count them if it is a face dock. The amount of dock space you take up includes bow sprits and dinghy davits, and then they allow about 5 feet between boats. So many marinas do charge for the total "dock length" (as apposed to deck length) of the boat ... Now on a mooring, I don't think they do count. If you have a 37 foot boat with a 5 ft bow sprit and the length limit for the moorings is 40 feet, I think the bow sprit would not count. At which point I asked the question I asked. Sorry if I didn't know what you "meant." Please note that I am _not_ referring to bowsprits specifically, but rather to the idea of renting mooring and charging by length. I'm sorry if I offended you. I should perhaps have made a paragraph between the bit about face docks and slips, and the section about moorings. We have been prevented from using moorings because our overall length was too great. (and we DON'T have a bow sprit) Altho IMHO it would be more sensible to factor in boat tonnage and not just length. The problem I had was not knowing whether Bart meant dockage when he said moorage, or if he was just talking about moorings, or if he was including both. I was assuming that he was using the term to indicate coming into a marina to a dock or slip. But just in case he meant actual moorings rather than a dock, I stuck that last 2 sentences in there. It was a separate thought. Sorry if it was confusing. grandma Rosalie S/V RosalieAnn, Leonardtown, MD CSY 44 WO #156 http://home.mindspring.com/~gmbeasley/id2.html |
Heavy displacement vs Medium Displacement for Ocean Passages
Bart wrote:
Are boats like the Tayana 37 still popular and still a good choice for ocean crossings? It depends on who you ask. I've crawled in and out of a few boats during the past couple weeks and it looks to me that the heavy displacment boats are just built a lot better than the mid to light displacement ones. This is especially true in the price range I can afford (less than $100k). Bzzt, sorry to disagree, but I can offer positive proof that it ain't so. Chipboard bulkheads and chopper gun fiberglass are very heavy and can be very thick but will never be strong for marine structures... and you see a lot of that kind of thing on the lower priced heavy displacement cruisers. When comparing open ocean vessels, Is the performace between a heavy and mid displacment boat really all that much different? Depends very much on the sailor & on the conditions. maybe I wouldn't get bored with a lower performance heavy displacment vessel. Well, it sounds to me like you are very much in favor of the heavy displacement boats and are trying hard to stretch a point. Go for it. BTW don't think I am being insulting, I am a racing sailor and generally see no use in heavy displacement boats except for people who would be better off with a trawler. I happen to also own & cruise in a trawler. Fresh Breezes- Doug King |
Heavy displacement vs Medium Displacement for Ocean Passages
Armond Perretta wrote:
Rosalie B. wrote: "Armond Perretta" wrote: Rosalie B. wrote: But I can answer about the bow sprits ... Now on a mooring, I don't think they do count ... If you have a 37 foot boat with a 5 ft bow sprit and the length limit for the moorings is 40 feet, I think the bow sprit would not count. Our experience may differ, but I've never encountered rental moorings priced by length. I have certainly encountered moorings that are designed for particular lengths or displacements or drafts, etc., but they were all rented at the same dollars/day, Martha's Vineyard and Northeast Harbor ME are typical examples. Where have you paid different prices for putting different length vessels on a mooring? That's not what I meant. I didn't mean that you would be charged a different price. I meant that you wouldn't be allowed to rent the mooring at all if you were oversized. I sometimes have trouble knowing what folks meant. I do however know what they wrote. Bart stated: "Most heavy displacement boats have bow sprits. If a boat has a 5' bowsprit, do you add that into the total length of the boat when computing moorage charges? It would be a shame to get charged for 42' when the boat is only has 37' on deck and 37' of living space." Rosalie replied: "But I can answer about the bow sprits. Yes you usually do count them. You especially count them if it is a face dock. The amount of dock space you take up includes bow sprits and dinghy davits, and then they allow about 5 feet between boats. So many marinas do charge for the total "dock length" (as apposed to deck length) of the boat ... Now on a mooring, I don't think they do count. If you have a 37 foot boat with a 5 ft bow sprit and the length limit for the moorings is 40 feet, I think the bow sprit would not count. At which point I asked the question I asked. Sorry if I didn't know what you "meant." Please note that I am _not_ referring to bowsprits specifically, but rather to the idea of renting mooring and charging by length. Funny how different people read things differently. I could tell when she changed the topic from marina dock length and charging by foot to a mooring where they don't charge by foot but may have "length limit". Especially since in the original post they were in a separate paragraph. Steve |
Heavy displacement vs Medium Displacement for Ocean Passages
I have to admit I really like the looks of the Tayana. I don't like
the teak decks and long bowsprit though. I believe the Union also has both of these. There is one in San Diego that appears ready to go anywhere for $89k. I just don't know how to get it up to Seattle and am not positive if its the type of boat we want this time around. We use to have a Fuji 36 that is very similar. Your story is very interesting. There is a young couple here in Juneau, Alaska that brought a Union 36 from Saipan back around 2001. Did your daughter move to Alaska by chance? On Sun, 09 May 2004 15:46:35 GMT, Gualtier Malde wrote: Bart wrote: Are boats like the Tayana 37 still popular and still a good choice for ocean crossings? I've crawled in and out of a few boats during the past couple weeks and it looks to me that the heavy displacment boats are just built a lot better than the mid to light displacement ones. This is especially true in the price range I can afford (less than $100k). Most of the heavy displacement boats also have more storage because the tanks are usually located in the bilge leaving the settees free for storage. This appears to be another plus. When comparing open ocean vessels, Is the performace between a heavy and mid displacment boat really all that much different? If not, then maybe I wouldn't get bored with a lower performance heavy displacment vessel. I'm not sure about this and would like comments. Most heavy displacement boats have bow sprits. If a boat has a 5' bowsprit, do you add that into the total length of the boat when computing moorage charges? It would be ashame to get charged for 42' when the boat is only has 37' on deck and 37' of living space. As you can see, I'm still having trouble finding a suitable boat. I want something to liveaboard here in Alaska and in 3 years take off and at least sail the S. Pacific if not farther. Our daughter and son-in-law worked in Saipan for 5 years. During that time they bought a very badly maintained 36' Union and worked hard to make it livable and seaworthy. In Seattle, I was telling a sail boating friend about the purchase and the product and he put on a disappointed face, saying "I hate to see kids buying a boat like that." I was alarmed but, in a flash, realized he was a racing sailor for whom nothing was as important as that. And he confirmed it as he went on: "The damn things are like Hans Christians - they can't get out of their own way in less than a full gale." He must have seen my anxiety, because he seemed to relent and finally said: "Of course, no matter how bad it gets, she'll bring her crew home". Our kids had previously had no significant blue water experience, maintenance and surveying on Saipan was minimal, and I was terribly worried about their planned crossing to Seattle in the summer of 2001. We got reports from Pacific Seafarers' Net, but worried constantly. We could tell they were having some trouble with equipment - the Saipan fuel congealed in the cold weather of the north Pacific, the water maker stopped working... All through those months I clung to those words like a mantra: "She'll bring them home". And she did. Our daughter told us later that they experienced about every type of condition they could imagine, and not once had any concern for their safety. My vote is: "Heavy" g -- This outgoing message has been scanned by AVG Anti-Virus 7.0. http://www.grisoft.com/us/us_index.php |
Heavy displacement vs Medium Displacement for Ocean Passages
On Mon, 10 May 2004 10:15:17 -0400, Glenn Ashmore
wrote: OTOH, the quicker motion of the medium displacement boat can get a bit tiring. =========================================== More than a bit in my experience. A quick motion is a bad thing, and a quick squirrelly motion is absolutely the pits. There is really no substitute for length and displacement for a half way comfortable ride. |
Heavy displacement vs Medium Displacement for Ocean Passages
Norm,
I am very prejudiced towards the Tayana 37, so take anything I say with a grain of salt. You should know though that not all of them have teak decks. One of the main selling points when we bought Tricia Jean was that it had teak back in the cockpit area, but the side decks and foredeck are pure unadulterated plastic. I like the look and feel of the teak back in the cockpit, but it just never made sense to me to take a nice waterproof plastic boat and drill thousands of holes in it then expect the water to stay exclusively on the outside. As far as performance goes, we were pleasantly surprised with it (and absolutely love the asym. spinnaker we recently bought). Of course, you've got to understand that our previous boat was a Catalina 30 - a nice boat and we sure had good times with it, but when we took it to Baja in the '99 HaHa, we were one of the last boats to arrive at every stop. Fair winds - Dan Best p.s. Did I mention storage? That's what REALLY sold us on the boat. We've had it 2 1/2 years and I still have 3 drawers that have nothing in them. Norm wrote: I have to admit I really like the looks of the Tayana. I don't like the teak decks and long bowsprit though. I believe the Union also has both of these. There is one in San Diego that appears ready to go anywhere for $89k. I just don't know how to get it up to Seattle and am not positive if its the type of boat we want this time around. We use to have a Fuji 36 that is very similar. -- Dan Best - (707) 431-1662, Healdsburg, CA 95448 B-2/75 1977-1979 Tayana 37 #192, "Tricia Jean" http://rangerbest.home.comcast.net/TriciaJean.JPG |
Heavy displacement vs Medium Displacement for Ocean Passages
Steven Shelikoff wrote:
Funny how different people read things differently ... It happens sometimes. As a person well versed in things naval (and I suspect recent history also), you're probably well aware of how different dispatches and intelligence reports were interpreted in different ways by different individuals in positions of authority just before December 7, 1941. The consequences are well known. In fact it's likely that we don't even have to go all the way back to the 1940's for relevant examples. Just watching the current 9/11 commission hearings provides many examples that fit your observation. You're quite right, Steve. Different people read things differently. However the result is not always funny. Best regards, Armond -- Good luck and good sailing. s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat http://kerrydeare.home.comcast.net/ |
Heavy displacement vs Medium Displacement for Ocean Passages
Rosalie B. wrote:
I'm sorry if I offended you ... Rosalie, I was not offended, and thank you for the polite rejoinder. Often I am not sufficiently aware of what's going on to be offended, and I suspect this was one of those times. I attribute this malady to overexposure to salt air and epoxy. Best regards, Armond -- Good luck and good sailing. s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat http://kerrydeare.home.comcast.net/ |
Heavy displacement vs Medium Displacement for Ocean Passages
Dan Best wrote in
news:WXZnc.23973$536.4637926@attbi_s03: We've had it 2 1/2 years and I still have 3 drawers that have nothing in them. WOW! You are certainly an inspiration. I've lived on a boat since I was 5 (I'm now 25) and I'm still too much of a packrat. Aaron |
Heavy displacement vs Medium Displacement for Ocean Passages
Glenn Ashmore wrote
Matt/Meribeth Pedersen wrote: In passagemaking, I don't see the moderate displacement boats burning up the miles significantly faster than the heavy displacement ones. I do think that you need to have adequate sail area to make a decent passage, but when you're cruising, trying to keep the boat speed up over about 1.2 sqrt WL is just too much trouble. As long as you are powered up, then waterline length is going to govern. Half a knot to a knot means a lot on a passage. That is 12 to 24 miles a day which adds up pretty nicely on a 5 or 6 day run. Most of the time you are not going to be driving at hull speed so a boat that can easily be driven in light winds has a definite advantage. OTOH, the quicker motion of the medium displacement boat can get a bit tiring. I have spent the last three years cruising the Pacific in my 42 foot medium displacement catamaran and I have observed the cruising fleet closly. A speed to length ratio of 1.2 is very fast for passages outside of the trades (eg. the islands to New Zealand). Most couples sail and motor their boats to an S/L of about 0.8 over time, but many are slower and few are much faster. Heavier boats are typically motored more often and at higher speeds than lighter ones, so the daily runs are similar. Some couples who don't like sailing as such and aren't very advanced sailors love long term cruising and some very good sailors don't. Most cruising is done at anchor anyway. It's hard to know what kind of boat will meet your needs best before you get into the life style, and, given all the boat modification that I see in New Zealand, I'd guess that most folks don't guess exactly right. I think a cruising boat should at the very least have a dry, warm place to stand watch and the ability to make ground to weather in 20-25 knots of wind without beating the crew up very much. However, given the right attitude and a bit of good luck, most any boat will get you where you want to go. BTW, motion in a seaway is largely a function of a small waterplane area to displacment. Multihulls, with their narrow hulls, can make comfortable sea boats even at light displacements. Cheers, -- Tom. |
Heavy displacement vs Medium Displacement for Ocean Passages
What is the 'speed to length ratio"? Are you referring to square root of the
waterline? Paul www.jcruiser.org "Tom Webb" wrote in message om... Glenn Ashmore wrote Matt/Meribeth Pedersen wrote: In passagemaking, I don't see the moderate displacement boats burning up the miles significantly faster than the heavy displacement ones. I do think that you need to have adequate sail area to make a decent passage, but when you're cruising, trying to keep the boat speed up over about 1.2 sqrt WL is just too much trouble. As long as you are powered up, then waterline length is going to govern. Half a knot to a knot means a lot on a passage. That is 12 to 24 miles a day which adds up pretty nicely on a 5 or 6 day run. Most of the time you are not going to be driving at hull speed so a boat that can easily be driven in light winds has a definite advantage. OTOH, the quicker motion of the medium displacement boat can get a bit tiring. I have spent the last three years cruising the Pacific in my 42 foot medium displacement catamaran and I have observed the cruising fleet closly. A speed to length ratio of 1.2 is very fast for passages outside of the trades (eg. the islands to New Zealand). Most couples sail and motor their boats to an S/L of about 0.8 over time, but many are slower and few are much faster. Heavier boats are typically motored more often and at higher speeds than lighter ones, so the daily runs are similar. Some couples who don't like sailing as such and aren't very advanced sailors love long term cruising and some very good sailors don't. Most cruising is done at anchor anyway. It's hard to know what kind of boat will meet your needs best before you get into the life style, and, given all the boat modification that I see in New Zealand, I'd guess that most folks don't guess exactly right. I think a cruising boat should at the very least have a dry, warm place to stand watch and the ability to make ground to weather in 20-25 knots of wind without beating the crew up very much. However, given the right attitude and a bit of good luck, most any boat will get you where you want to go. BTW, motion in a seaway is largely a function of a small waterplane area to displacment. Multihulls, with their narrow hulls, can make comfortable sea boats even at light displacements. Cheers, -- Tom. |
Heavy displacement vs Medium Displacement for Ocean Passages
"Paul L" wrote in message ...
What is the 'speed to length ratio"? Are you referring to square root of the waterline? Paul Yes, the speed to length ratio is the speed of the boat divided by the square root of it's sailing length. The units are feet and knots. The ratio gives a feel for how fast a boat is when corrected for length. A speed to length ratio of 1.34 is the speed of the wave that has a length equal to the sailing length of the boat and is called the "hull speed". Hull speed is a topic that has been discussed to death on this board in the past, but you could google it if you really want to know. Anyway, the speed/length ratio comes out in weird units (feet per radical knots) so it has been replaced by the Froude number in most new work... Cheers, -- Tom |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:58 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com