Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 30-09-2010, 18:05   #46
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: between the devil and the deep blue sea
Boat: a sailing boat
Posts: 17,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiracer View Post
I agree that 1400 pounds is too light for total cruising load, but that sounds just about right to me for the difference between light and loaded cruising displacement.
Going where? Across the bay? (;-)

Well, it all depends. We also sailed the two of us and I cannot believe we ever had less than 1100 in a 6600 (light) boat. Often, a lot more.

I think the low (IMHO way too low) figures come from the fact that people omit so many items when calculating the cruising load - e.g. the dink, the rode, cordage, sails, spares ... and so on and so forth.

Anyway, I have a BCC here at hand so will ask the owner how they perform vis-a-vis the paper boats.

b.
__________________

__________________
barnakiel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2010, 18:13   #47
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 2,313
I would also find 1400# hard to believe.

Lynn and Larry: 350#
Water, 100 gallons: 800#
Food: 200#
Sails: 300#
Ground tackle: 500#
Spares: 300#
Clothing:?
Misc:?


Quote:
Originally Posted by barnakiel View Post
Perhaps.

Yet this source:

Lin and Larry Pardey's Boat Taleisin | YachtPals.com

quotes SA 740 and disp (light) 16400, 17800 loaded

while this source:

http://www.samlmorse.com/?a=bcc_specification

quotes SA 637 and disp (light?) 14000

So, as you can see the SA/DISPL ratio is the same and actually slightly better for the BCC. In the cruising mod (much as I distrust Pardey's claim to carry only 1400 of extra weight) the ratio will be even less, and, in fact, well below any modern cruising design.

The boat may be better than expected in light airs but will not be better than equally well sailed Bene, Bavaria and such likes.

And if they did outsail anybody in light airs, I will insist it was because they are good sailors NOT because their boat has better SA/DISPL than the other designs (because based on the data I could get from the net, it does not).

barnie
__________________

__________________
Joli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2010, 18:28   #48
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: between the devil and the deep blue sea
Boat: a sailing boat
Posts: 17,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joli View Post
I would also find 1400# hard to believe.

Lynn and Larry: 350#
...
Hehehe. I guess. Last time I saw them one plank was all that was left of the freeboard.

;-)))

The good news is they are worth their weight in gold!

b.
__________________
barnakiel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-09-2010, 18:33   #49
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 2,313
The weight was a guess but glad to hear they are doing well and prospering.

Quote:
Originally Posted by barnakiel View Post
Hehehe. I guess. Last time I saw them one plank was all that was left of the freeboard.

;-)))

The good news is they are worth their weight in gold!

b.
__________________
Joli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2010, 10:29   #50
Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The boat lives at Fidalgo Island, PNW
Boat: 36' custom steel
Posts: 992
I guess I'm interpreting light versus loaded cruising displacement differently. Full fuel and water plus all ground tackle and people and food for a week, etc., would be included in light displacement. Loaded would be all the other stuff needed for extended cruising.

I didn't understand Larry to be differentiating between an empty boat and a boat loaded for cruising, but rather a cruising boat loaded for a week long vacation versus fully loaded for extended cruising. The 1400 extra pounds seemed about right in that context.

I give Larry the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the question of whether he knows how much gear it takes to go cruising. I can't imagine that he thinks he's only carrying 1400 pounds of stuff, total. That makes no sense at all. He's more knowledgable than that. So I try to interpret what he says in a way that makes sense. Obviously 1400 pounds for total load for cruising is way too low, and Larry has to know that. Ergo, my interpretation:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiracer View Post
I agree that 1400 pounds is too light for total cruising load, but that sounds just about right to me for the difference between light and loaded cruising displacement.
__________________
John, sailing a custom 36' double-headed steel sloop--a 2001 derivation of a 1976 Ted Brewer design.
Hiracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2010, 11:00   #51
Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The boat lives at Fidalgo Island, PNW
Boat: 36' custom steel
Posts: 992
Quote:
Originally Posted by barnakiel View Post
Anyway, I have a BCC here at hand so will ask the owner how they perform vis-a-vis the paper boats.
OK, but I'm not convinced that the BCC production boat sails like the Pardey's boat because of differences in SA/D. So I'm not sure production BCC's performance helps me on the question of why the Pardeys were able to sail away from many more modern designs in light air. I still haven't seen anything that convinces me that the SA/D ratios are the same.
__________________
John, sailing a custom 36' double-headed steel sloop--a 2001 derivation of a 1976 Ted Brewer design.
Hiracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2010, 12:05   #52
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: between the devil and the deep blue sea
Boat: a sailing boat
Posts: 17,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiracer View Post
I guess I'm interpreting light versus loaded cruising displacement differently. Full fuel and water plus all ground tackle and people and food for a week, etc., would be included in light displacement. Loaded would be all the other stuff needed for extended cruising.
Again, we are running into the issue of your interpretations. I have quickly browsed the net and found the following:

"Lightship or Lightweight measures the actual weight of the ship with no fuel, passengers, cargo, water, etc. on board."

and

"Generally the light ship is the vessel complete and with such items as anchors and chain etc on board."

And it seems to coincide with what I have been taught in school.

So, we might discuss if and how much ground tackle is included in the lightship condition, but fuel, water, people and food are NOT included in it, by definition.

We might also discuss the definition but please provide the ones that do include the items.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiracer View Post

I didn't understand Larry to be differentiating between an empty boat and a boat loaded for cruising, but rather a cruising boat loaded for a week long vacation versus fully loaded for extended cruising. The 1400 extra pounds seemed about right in that context.
Would Larry, with all his skill and nautical knowledge, be using marine terms in a non-marine way? I do not think so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiracer View Post
I give Larry the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the question of whether he knows how much gear it takes to go cruising. I can't imagine that he thinks he's only carrying 1400 pounds of stuff, total. That makes no sense at all. He's more knowledgable than that. So I try to interpret what he says in a way that makes sense. Obviously 1400 pounds for total load for cruising is way too low, and Larry has to know that. Ergo, my interpretation:
Yes, I agree.

Either the data we have is not correct, or the statement saying that Talesin outsailed the newer and lighter designs is an urban legend. (Or else, which is my original interpretation - the better performance is not in their boat design but rather in their sailing skills).

I will try to do some more browsing on the designs as I do not have their book onboard anymore. I think it was in the 'Self-sufficient Sailor' where they described the process of designing, building and outfitting of their boat in detail.

b.
__________________
barnakiel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2010, 12:12   #53
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: between the devil and the deep blue sea
Boat: a sailing boat
Posts: 17,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiracer View Post
OK, but I'm not convinced that the BCC production boat sails like the Pardey's boat because of differences in SA/D. So I'm not sure production BCC's performance helps me on the question of why the Pardeys were able to sail away from many more modern designs in light air. I still haven't seen anything that convinces me that the SA/D ratios are the same.
Well, we have the data that we have and that is the data we can use. Or else we can try to find other data.

Or else we can reject what we have and follow opinions and intuitions. But I would stick to the data we have because part of it comes from owners of the boat in question while the other half comes from the manufacturer. And also because I trust even poor data more than I trust the word of mouth.

As I sad above I will do some searching after my jogging tnite and see if I can find more on the BCC and Talesin on the net.

Cheers,
barnie
__________________
barnakiel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2010, 13:17   #54
Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The boat lives at Fidalgo Island, PNW
Boat: 36' custom steel
Posts: 992
Quote:
Originally Posted by barnakiel View Post
Would Larry, with all his skill and nautical knowledge, be using marine terms in a non-marine way? I do not think so.
Quite possibly, yes.

I aware of what lightship means to a N.A. I'll bet Larry knows what it means also. But I don't think he was using marine terminolgy in the strict sense when he referenced a differential of only 1400 pounds.

I think the displacement difference between weekend sailing and extended sailing is more useful information because my boat hasn't seen lightship displacement since the day it was launched. If you are trying to distinguish between real world displacements, lightship displacement isn't particularly helpful. It's the kind of thing a N.A., rather than a world cruiser, would focus on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by barnakiel View Post
I think it was in the 'Self-sufficient Sailor' where they described the process of designing, building and outfitting of their boat in detail.
I don't have my copy anymore either, but I seem to recall that's the book where she discusses the history of the design process. IIRC, they even stated what the differential is between lightship and full cruising load for their boat! Something in the order of 4,000 pounds, not the 1,400 pounds you are referencing. But my memory could be playing tricks on me. Maybe somebody can check this out.

In your internet excursions, you also might want to check into the accuracy of manufacturer stated displacements. I found stuff on that on that.
__________________
John, sailing a custom 36' double-headed steel sloop--a 2001 derivation of a 1976 Ted Brewer design.
Hiracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2010, 13:30   #55
Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The boat lives at Fidalgo Island, PNW
Boat: 36' custom steel
Posts: 992
OK, Larry was not referring to lightship displacement. He was referring cruising versus racing displacement. This is the source the 1,400 displacement differential, from their blog:


"TALEISIN
Designed for Lin and Larry by Lyle C Hess in 1977. Development of Seraffyn. Launched 10/ 31/1983. Length on deck 29′ 6″, waterline 27′ 6″, beam 10′ 9″, draft 5′ 3″, displacement for cruising 17,800. Racing displacement 16,400. Sail area – 740 square feet. Construction – Built by Lin and Larry, teak carvel planking over sawn black locust frames, bronze floors, bronze hanging knees. Solid teak decks, material cost $US 38,000 complete."


| Sailing Blog | Lin & Larry Pardey (Emphasis added.)


So he was not using the term like a N.A. would.

Presumably lightship displacement is under 16,400 pounds. And I still have suspicions that lightship displacement for the production BCC is more than the stated 14,000. Ergo, I still think the SA/D ratios for these two boats are not the same.

I will concede that Larry is a fine sailor in light airs, that he has had lots of practice on engineless boats. But I still suspect that he is smart enough to have some healthy SA/D ratios helping him out.

Which comes full circle to my original point: That a higher SA/D ratio is more important for light air performance than having a light boat in the abstract (that is to say, displacement without regard to SA/D). Give a heavy boat enough horsepower, and she can out sail lessor powered boats, even lighter boats of more 'modern' design.
__________________
John, sailing a custom 36' double-headed steel sloop--a 2001 derivation of a 1976 Ted Brewer design.
Hiracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2010, 15:55   #56
Senior Cruiser
 
Jim Cate's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: May 2008
Location: cruising SW Pacific
Boat: Jon Sayer 1-off 46 ft fract rig sloop strip plank in W Red Cedar
Posts: 11,465
FWIW,

More anecdotal evidence: We have had two friends w/ BCC's, and sailed in company with them many times. These were both long-term cruisers, been living aboard and offshore cruising for years, so were definitely far from light-ship!

What we observed was that they didn't sail all that well in light to moderately heavy conditions, especially to windward, and that they were extremely wet boats. We never had the experience of sailing in company in heavy weather. Both crews were competent sailors, but not keen racer types. Both had the normal assortment of cruising sails, neither new nor blown out.

Specifically, in light airs they needed help from the engine to keep moving, where our old IOR boat (longer OAL but similar LWL), equally heavily loaded, was able to continue sailing. In stronger breezes they wouldn't point as high nor did they have as good boatspeed on any point of sail. We were not very impressed with these quite expensive character boats, but their owners loved them, and that's what really matters when it comes to boats!.

What does this prove? Bugger all, that's what... just another sailors story, and probably not at all relevent to the Pardy's boat. I think that I'd have to come down on the side of believing superior light air performance (if factual) for Talesin being due to superior skills, if Talesin is similar to a BCC.

Cheers,

Jim and Ann s/v Insatiable II lying Cairns, Qld, Oz
__________________
Jim and Ann s/v Insatiable II , lying Port Cygnet, Tasmania once again
Jim Cate is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2010, 16:26   #57
Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The boat lives at Fidalgo Island, PNW
Boat: 36' custom steel
Posts: 992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Cate View Post
if Talesin is similar to a BCC
That's the issue. Rig and displacement are the question marks. The boats look similar, but if the sail plan or displacement, or both, are meaningfully different, then that could explain a performance edge.

Clearly the Pardeys know how to sail well and have the light air sails to move their boat.

What we have here is a case of confounding factors. Attributing cause to effect is more than a little difficult. In this case, both the causes and the effects are being challenged!

I have seen a BCC sail as there is one in my marina, and they didn't look fast to me. It's going up for sail, or just got sold, not sure which.
__________________
John, sailing a custom 36' double-headed steel sloop--a 2001 derivation of a 1976 Ted Brewer design.
Hiracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2010, 19:44   #58
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: between the devil and the deep blue sea
Boat: a sailing boat
Posts: 17,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiracer View Post

That's the issue. Rig and displacement are the question marks. The boats look similar, but if the sail plan or displacement, or both, are meaningfully different, then that could explain a performance edge.
But the urban legend has it that they sailed faster than newer design boats (meaning ? Benes, Bavas, Js, Valiants?) NOT against a BCC.

Please go into one of production boat sites and compare Talesin against a modern cruiser. At best they will have similar SA/D, but I bet the ratio will be better for the newer designs.

Now add the effect of flatter hull, finer and more efficient foils.

We are talking light winds sailing.

I am sorry, but I do not buy this 'SA/D alone' explanation as to me it clearly does not stick to the facts and numbers.

I would not be so stubborn on this issue but being an ex-racer and sailing a nearly classic hull here, much as I like the Pardeys, I simply do not buy some of the legend associated with their way of cruising.

barnie
__________________
barnakiel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2010, 10:18   #59
Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The boat lives at Fidalgo Island, PNW
Boat: 36' custom steel
Posts: 992
Quote:
Originally Posted by barnakiel View Post
Please go into one of production boat sites and compare Talesin against a modern cruiser. At best they will have similar SA/D, but I bet the ratio will be better for the newer designs.
Well, a Catalina 30 is the first one I looked at. SA/D of 15.1. A very popular boat and highly probably was in the fleet that the Pardeys sailed away from. Seems like the Pardey boat could outsail that, even assuming comparable captain skills.
__________________
John, sailing a custom 36' double-headed steel sloop--a 2001 derivation of a 1976 Ted Brewer design.
Hiracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2010, 10:41   #60
Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The boat lives at Fidalgo Island, PNW
Boat: 36' custom steel
Posts: 992
If Larry's racing displacement is greater than the designed 'lightship' displacement, and I think it is, I'm gettng a SA/D ratio for Larry's boat of over 18. This is a healthy ratio. In competent hands, this boat could move against many other boats, especially recreational sails who probably do not have light air sails (drifters, etc.) or the same skill set. I don't see a problem with this 'urban legend' as you call it. Seems like a rather predictable result to me.
__________________

__________________
John, sailing a custom 36' double-headed steel sloop--a 2001 derivation of a 1976 Ted Brewer design.
Hiracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cheaper Old Boats: False Economy ? hoppy Monohull Sailboats 87 25-08-2010 12:39
Traditional Wooden Boats in SE Asia lejie General Sailing Forum 12 05-08-2010 07:29
Hello from False Creek, Vancouver B.C. zeppelin Meets & Greets 3 10-09-2008 12:09
Truth or False? BlueWater1 Construction, Maintenance & Refit 26 03-02-2007 15:14
Traditional Navigation GordMay Pacific & South China Sea 0 11-08-2005 12:49



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 19:31.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.