Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 16-12-2014, 14:56   #121
Registered User
 
avb3's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Florida/Alberta
Boat: Lippincott 30
Posts: 9,913
Images: 1
Re: Hunter 356 Bluewater Capable?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockhead View Post
BOAT TYPE D/L RATIO

Light racing multihull 40-50

Ultra light ocean racer 60-100

Very light ocean racer 100-150

Light cruiser/racer 150-200

Light cruising auxiliary 200-250

Average cruising auxiliary 250-300

Heavy cruising auxiliary 300-350

Very heavy cruising auxiliary 350-400

From this excellent resource: Ted Brewer Yacht Design

To calculate D/L ratio you can use this formula: displacement in tons (of 2240 lbs) divided by .01 LWL cubed, or, Dt/(.01 LWL)3

from the same resource, or this calculator: D / L Ratio

Average boats have become lighter over the years since Brewer wrote these scales, for different reasons. For one thing, fiberglass construction is better understood now and can be engineered to be "strong enough" without a massive solid layup.

Also, lighter is cheaper, so it's part of value engineering. Some light boats are light very much at the expense of strength, but not everyone really needs boats to be as strong as the strongest ones are.

Lighter is faster. The Island Piglet 35 has a LWL of only 30 feet, so its D/L is about 290. By modern standards, that's a heavyweight. The Hunter 356 is 217 -- I have never sailed or even seen one, but I will bet dollars to donuts that it will sail rings around the IP 35.

My previous boat's D/L was about 300. My present boat is 188. The difference in sailing dynamics is incredible, not all down to D/L (15' of extra waterline length doesn't hurt ), but D/L plays a big role.
I've been told in another thread that these calculators are virtually useless using them to as filter in comparing boats. My opinion continues to say that yes, they are useful.
__________________

__________________
If your attitude resembles the south end of a bull heading north, it's time to turn around.
avb3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2014, 15:21   #122
Registered User
 
Polux's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Portugal/Med
Boat: Comet 41s
Posts: 5,757
Re: Hunter 356 Bluewater Capable?

Quote:
Originally Posted by avb3 View Post
I've been told in another thread that these calculators are virtually useless using them to as filter in comparing boats. My opinion continues to say that yes, they are useful.
No, you are mistaken, SA/D and D/L ratio are useful tools to have an idea of a given boat, specially in what regards performance.

What have been said to you by several regards only the so called Capsize ratio formula is only useful regarding boats of the some era (old boats) with similar characteristics and also that those values are relative, meaning that a 20ft boat with a better number will not be more difficult to capsize than a 100ft boat with a worse number, quite the contrary.
__________________

Polux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2014, 15:32   #123
Moderator
 
Dockhead's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cowes (Winter), Baltic (Summer) (the boat!); somewhere in the air (me!)
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 19,737
Re: Hunter 356 Bluewater Capable?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polux View Post
No, you are mistaken, SA/D and D/L ratio are useful tools to have an idea of a given boat, specially in what regards performance.

What have been said to you by several regards only the so called Capsize ratio formula is only useful regarding boats of the some era (old boats) with similar characteristics and also that those values are relative, meaning that a 20ft boat with a better number will not be more difficult to capsize than a 100ft boat with a worse number, quite the contrary.
Indeed.

Capsize screening ratio was never intend as a widely applicable measure of stability. Shouldn't be used to compare boats of different sizes or types.

SA/D and D/L are both extremely useful, although the labels Ted Brewer gave them are slightly obsolete.
__________________
Dockhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2014, 15:45   #124
Registered User
 
ka4wja's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Florida
Boat: Catalina 470
Posts: 2,033
Re: Hunter 356 Bluewater Capable?

EDIT:::
In the hour or two I've been away from my others have picked up the keyboard and answered Bob's questions.....oppsss...sorry about the redundant info....



In all my years sailing, voyaging, cruising, etc. and all my years on-line, I've steered clear of the "what's a 'Bluewater' boat" and "hunter vs. beneteau, etc." discussions....
And, I'm not sure if I should break my own rules and actually post something here, but since someone (Bob) asked a legit honest question and not gotten an answer (and Newt commented on something that I may be of help with)....
I thought, what the heck....I'll add a few things that some might find useful....

{note, I won't wade into the 'bluewater' argument, though...}



1) Bob, directly to your questions, yes there are rules-of-thumb, that describe what's "heavy", "moderate", "light", and "ultralight"....(but these are ranges, not absolutes...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobH260 View Post
Is there some rule of thumb or ratio of length to displacement to specify what is light or medium or heavy displacement ? Is the amount of ballast and how it is distributed a consideration ?
I need to advise caution when using "numbers", as many times the exact design of the hull, keel, rudder, etc., the boat's wetted surface, etc. will have MUCH more to do with whether it preforms as "light", or "moderate", than the exact "number" that you've calculated or is published....and this applies to Bal/D and LPS as well...
(but, you can use these numbers to get a general idea of how different boats / different designs compare...)

Unless we are looking to see if the boatyard's travel lift is big enough, when taking about sailboat weights, we are always going to be talking about the Displacement-to-Length ratio (D/L).....
This is used to compare the relative weights / mass of boats, without regard to their specific individual lengths.

{This does not use the ballast, nor its location/distribution, at all....the ballast/displ, or Bal/D, can be useful in determining stability and along with beam, etc. contribute to the righting moment and overall Limit-of-Positive Stability (LPS)...}

Traditional figures:
D/L's = 100 - 150 = ultralight...(racing boats)
D/L's = 150 - 200 = light...(racers and racers/cruisers)
D/L's = 200 - 300 = moderate...(cruisers)
D/L's = 300 - 400 = heavy...(heavy cruisers)
But, these exact definitions have changed a bit over the years...

Modern figures:
D/L's < 100 = ultralight (racing boats)
D/L's = 100 - 175 = light (racers and performance cruisers)
D/L's = 175 - 250 = moderate (cruisers)
D/L's = 250 - 350 = heavy (heavy cruisers)
D/L's > 350 = heavy (heavy and heavy traditional cruisers)


Here's an old D/L calculator...
D / L Ratio

And, a SA/D calculator....
SA / D Ratio


Traditionally, the sailing press (and now internet experts) have made statements that "heavy" or "traditional" boats have a "more comfortable motion".....but this IS a subject comment, and quite frankly not really a factual statement at all...
(and in my experience in sailing offshore over the past 40 years, 3 widely different designs... "traditional"/"heavy" boats, and in "moderate"/"cruisers", and in "light"/"performance cruisers", it has been my personal experience that the light, performance cruiser has the best "motion", with the "moderate" cruiser a close second place, and the "heavy" a very distant 3rd place....NOT saying that I'm an expert here at all....just stating what my experience has been...)



{As example my current boat, a performance cruiser, a Catalina 470...a 47' sloop, has a D/L of 162 - 165 (depending on keel type)....and a SA/D of 18....and a Ballast/Disp of 33%....and has done well for me across the Atlantic twice, multiple full Gales in the middle of the Atlantic, thru the Bahamas and Caribbean a few times, as well as 3 days sailing thru a Tropical Storm, etc....

But, I will say that the "motion" was not too comfortable when on-board at anchor during the three Category 3 hurricanes (Frances, Jeanne, and Wilma), that she and I survived....but I don't think 110 - 115mph winds would make any boat too comfortable, except for a submarine.... }


CATALINA 470 sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com

Now, as I wrote above, the "numbers" don't really tell 'ya the real story....it is the "design" that an experienced naval architect / sailing yacht designer comes up with is what makes the difference....
Anyone can make a flat-bottom light-weight boat, put a tall mast and lots of canvas on it (and make the "numbers" look good), and sell it to the masses...
But, it takes a real effort (from a real designer) to make a hull with low wetted surface AND a nice round shape....AND one that is light AND strong...AND one that has adequate interior volume AND still have low wetted-surface, etc. etc. etc...
This goes WAY above my head (although I majored in physics, I've made my living in electronics....I'm NOT a naval architect!!)
But, if you wish to see some pictures of my hull, keel, rudder....have a look at these....

Here's my Annie Laurie...(with the 6' draft fin/wing keel)





And, here's an exact sister-ship...(with the same 6' draft keel)





And, here is another sister-ship, with the "standard keel" (8' draft)





Here's a layout diagram....and drawing....











2) Newt, I'm with 'ya on most of the hunters and bendy's....but you really need to make a passage on a Catalina 470, and I think you'll be convinced!!! (even some other Catalina's behave well offshore, like the C42, C38....although I've never sailed a C309/C310/C315, from what I hear from a good friend, they're remarkable for a "pocket cruiser"....)
Quote:
Originally Posted by s/v Beth View Post
I'm a simple man.
If it behaves in big waves and winds I like it.
If it doesn't I don't
Can I sleep on her in peace?
Bendys, most Catalinas and Hunters haven't been able to pass the test so far...
But that doesn't mean they couldn't- I just haven't sailed on one that could.
Newt, there are a few of my fellow C470 sailors up in the PacNW....many head south for the winter, but some stay....and some of them cruiser Alaska in the summer, so you may find some around you....have a look...

Here's an old picture, before my new canvas, solar panels, etc...





I hope this helps...

Fair winds to all...

John
s/v Annie Laurie

P.S. Here are two videos of my Annie Laurie (a Catalina 470) sailing across the Atlantic (one eastbound, and one westbound)...enjoy...



__________________
ka4wja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2014, 15:56   #125
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 2,961
Re: Hunter 356 Bluewater Capable?

Originally Posted by Exile
Making note of other Hunter owners who are happy with their boats and others who have gone long-distances is helpful.

Yeah. That's why I highlighted those people.

Of course you did. More cheerleading with no specifics. You offered nothing to suggest that Kenomac was off base with his comments about anchoring, even though others supported his observations with actual facts about the shape of the respective hulls & their displacement. How any particular boat behaves at anchor is just one of countless features, good & bad, and probably not the most important. Not sure why it's so personally offensive for you when it sounds like your boat has plenty of positive features that you otherwise enjoy.

Originally Posted by Exile
But distorting the comments of others who have a more negative opinion only blows your credibility and reveals your refusal to get beyond your own obvious bias.

That might be true. But it depends on what I'm "distorting". For example, how many times have you heard of people complaining that "cushions and all kinds of stuff being flung from one side of the boat to the other"- while at anchor - or this doozy "How is the damn thing falling apart while at anchor "dependent on the sailor?" Honestly. That's not distortion? That's not bias?

Could very well be. But trying to explain one's discomfort & frustration with a boat's build quality or how it behaves at anchor is a far cry from accusing a sailor with obvious experience of not knowing how to anchor or worse, of anchoring "in the surf." Unlike you, I don't have to characterize this as "ridiculous" since it speaks for itself. Among other things, it makes it obvious that you have no idea what's it like to anchor in an opposing swell, or how little influence you may have over these sorts of conditions. Same idea as misrepresenting "repairs" on an Oyster as structural issues when they only involved a routine bottom job.

Remember, credibility isn't dependent on a boat's brand, value, or size.

Oh, I get it. My view of your credibility has nothing to do with the veracity of your posts, but is instead based on the fact that you own a Hunter. That's convenient.

Originally Posted by Exile
Wouldn't it be wiser to learn from others about the strengths & weaknesses of your own boat so you could better prepare?

Absolutely. That's exactly what I'm doing. Some are good teachers. Others...not so much.

Look, I get that you might not like me very much, and that's okay, but you're really letting your emotions cloud the obvious here.


Actually, I feel much more informed about the pros & cons of the different types of boats discussed in this thread, and generally have a more positive view of the design of the modern boats, regardless of whether I find them personally appealing. For me, it's more about the level of build quality as opposed to heavier or lighter construction, and I am still convinced that quality is coincident with cost. The fact that lower quality may be good enough for many if not most applications is a point well taken, provided buyers understand the trade-offs. The debate gets boisterous at times, but you seem to be the only one on either side that takes offense to even hearing about these trade-offs, and is willing to go to absurd lengths to counter it. THAT's actually what I don't like.
__________________
Exile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2014, 16:06   #126
Registered User
 
neilpride's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: in the world
Boat: csy 44 tall rig.
Posts: 3,099
Re: Hunter 356 Bluewater Capable?

No ofense, but that Catalina unique 5 piece construction dont mean nothing to me, what they try to say?
__________________
neilpride is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2014, 17:44   #127
Registered User
 
ka4wja's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Florida
Boat: Catalina 470
Posts: 2,033
Re: Hunter 356 Bluewater Capable?

Neil,
No worries....it was a mistake....I posted the wrong photo, it was supposed to be a line drawing...
Please ignore it....(I can't go back and edit it now...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by neilpride View Post
No ofense, but that Catalina unique 5 piece construction dont mean nothing to me, what they try to say?
That's what I get for posting while in the middle of other things....


Fair winds....

John
__________________
ka4wja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2014, 17:59   #128
Registered User
 
funjohnson's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Currently Indiantown FL
Boat: 37' aluminum pilothouse "Elements"
Posts: 1,846
Re: Hunter 356 Bluewater Capable?

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilpride View Post
No ofense, but that Catalina unique 5 piece construction dont mean nothing to me, what they try to say?
Ha! I spent a few minutes with a blank stare trying to figure it out too
__________________
MJSailing.com - Written Blog
Youtube MJ sailing - Vlog
funjohnson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2014, 18:29   #129
cruiser

Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,132
Re: Hunter 356 Bluewater Capable?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JK n Smitty View Post
Yet you sail one of the boats that doesn't perform well in big waves due to its marketing driven design flaw. Doesn't make much sense to me.

In case you are unsure of what I am speaking, from the keyboard of Bob Perry:

Not trying to be insulting but I do get aggravated when statements about design are driven by opinion rather than an understanding of boat design.
I sure wish Bob was still around here. So silly.

Oh well, I get to hang out with him on SN and SA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by s/v Beth View Post
As for Bob- I have heard many things attributed to him. I like him as a person. But I don't take everything he says as gospel.
Don't knock a boat until you have sailed her.
Since he designed her, I think he can probably knock her - authoritatively. Several of his boats made CW's top 40 list - and the Valiant 40 was #1.

Quote:
1. Valiant 40
Few if any contemporary yacht designers have as broad and varied a body of work as the prolific Bob Perry, but his celebrated Valiant 40 is certainly the most popular of them all. Perry’s double-ender, with its signature canoe stern, has a salty profile, but it’s the split appendage fin-keel and skeg-rudder combination that made it one of the first true “performance cruisers.”
See, Bob is honest. All he cares about is good design - not protecting old ideas...even good ones. Others should take his cue.

PS - The Hunter 356 is 15th on that list...beating the snot out of a lot of BWC boats.
__________________
smackdaddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2014, 18:30   #130
cruiser

Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,132
Re: Hunter 356 Bluewater Capable?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockhead View Post
Average boats have become lighter over the years since Brewer wrote these scales, for different reasons. For one thing, fiberglass construction is better understood now and can be engineered to be "strong enough" without a massive solid layup.
Not according to the BWC. It needs to be "overbuilt" to count.
__________________
smackdaddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2014, 18:47   #131
cruiser

Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,132
Re: Hunter 356 Bluewater Capable?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ka4wja View Post
Traditionally, the sailing press (and now internet experts) have made statements that "heavy" or "traditional" boats have a "more comfortable motion".....but this IS a subject comment, and quite frankly not really a factual statement at all...
Bingo. Thank you.

The rest of your post was awesome as well.
__________________
smackdaddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2014, 18:58   #132
Registered User
 
neilpride's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: in the world
Boat: csy 44 tall rig.
Posts: 3,099
Re: Hunter 356 Bluewater Capable?

I wonder if that smoothie attitude is natural or forced... he he.
__________________
neilpride is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2014, 19:19   #133
Registered User

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Halifax
Posts: 435
Re: Hunter 356 Bluewater Capable?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ka4wja View Post
EDIT:::

Traditionally, the sailing press (and now internet experts) have made statements that "heavy" or "traditional" boats have a "more comfortable motion".....but this IS a subject comment, and quite frankly not really a factual statement at all...
(and in my experience in sailing offshore over the past 40 years, 3 widely different designs... "traditional"/"heavy" boats, and in "moderate"/"cruisers", and in "light"/"performance cruisers", it has been my personal experience that the light, performance cruiser has the best "motion", with the "moderate" cruiser a close second place, and the "heavy" a very distant 3rd place....NOT saying that I'm an expert here at all....just stating what my experience has been...)
The issue with discussing motion is fraught with problems not the least of which is that what one sailor might consider a 'comfortable motion' another sailor might consider too soft. I prefer the term easier, and the fact is some folks like a little pounding, some don't, and like discussing wine, it's too subjective an issue to to say this or that is best (as you state). However, all other things being equal, a boat and it's gear inevitably prefer an 'easier' motion, and the motion that allows for the most rested on-watch crew will result in the most effective crew.
__________________
Brob2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2014, 19:23   #134
Registered User
 
avb3's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Florida/Alberta
Boat: Lippincott 30
Posts: 9,913
Images: 1
Re: Hunter 356 Bluewater Capable?

Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
Not according to the BWC. It needs to be "overbuilt" to count.
Of course we all are aware of structures built to spec, that just maybe should have been overbuilt.

How many shopping center rood collapses occurred because they were 'good enough' as designed by the architect and approved by the engineer, until the 1 in a 100 year dump of snow happened. Or 1 in 250, depending whatever the standards are.

The point is 'good enough' will work in most cases, but what about stress cycles, incidences out of the ordinary but ones that do occur? I prefer overbuilt for that. If you saw some of the massive construction on Dockhead's Moody he posted pictures of, one certainly gets the impression it was not built just 'good enough'.

But for the coastal sailor who always can choose a weather window (95% of boat owners), your right, 'good enough' works just fine. But let's not pretend it is better, just that it is 'good enough'. And for most, there is nothing wrong with that. Just recognize it for what it is, don't make it something it is not.

You know, like calling a bottom prep job a massive repair.
__________________
If your attitude resembles the south end of a bull heading north, it's time to turn around.
avb3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2014, 19:40   #135
Moderator
 
Dockhead's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cowes (Winter), Baltic (Summer) (the boat!); somewhere in the air (me!)
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 19,737
Re: Hunter 356 Bluewater Capable?

Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
Not according to the BWC. It needs to be "overbuilt" to count.
Who is this "BWC"? I'm not sure that it is healthy or correct to divide people up into camps.

Does anyone argue that a boat needs to be merely heavy? I don't recall hearing such an argument.

Some people think that boats used for tough offshore passages need to be stronger than some run of the mill production boats. But strong and heavy are different things.
__________________

__________________
Dockhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
hunter, water

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
Are Cats truly bluewater/long passage capable? sundowner Multihull Sailboats 102 20-01-2017 13:04
Comments on Hunter 42 passage, Hunter 45, hunter 45 cc, hunter 49 and 50 chucklet321 Monohull Sailboats 3 07-10-2012 14:19
Hunter (e)33 bluewater capable? GreggL Monohull Sailboats 5 08-07-2012 12:34
For Sale or Trade: Looking for Bluewater Capable Vessel Greg67 Classifieds Archive 1 18-01-2011 13:23
WTB: Bluewater-Capable Sailboat kaadkins Classifieds Archive 2 23-12-2009 23:12



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:36.


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.