| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Heavy displacement vs Medium Displacement for Ocean Passages
|
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Heavy displacement vs Medium Displacement for Ocean Passages
|
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
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'. ;-) |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
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/ |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
