The criteria of "blue"

[paulanthony]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

I had a look at Feeling 44 and failed to find the blue points.

Can someone pls elaborate.

BTW very poorly designed website trying to pop-up with flash based elements that limit my viewing experience.

Can a company that cannot set-up a clean, informative and working website design boats well?

Hmmmmmm

;-)

b.

It floats...

Joking aside it is a swinging keel boat with the ballast inside the hull so it is hard to get the CG as low as with a conventional keel. It has an AVS of 113 I think but that is light ship and the tanks runs low in the keel also so there is opportunity to improve on that with a half a ton of fluid. I think the keel on the 44 has just been improved for 2015 so they may have frigged with the CG to improve it possibly.

The center of buoyancy is low on this boat also so a knock down with mast in the water is going to be only slightly over 90 degrees anyway.

I am not sure AVS is the ultimate accolade of a blue boat. If it is then there are many familiar names if you look at the RYA listing that we would need to revise our opinion on. Knowing your limits is probably the main thing and your angle of attack when smacked down.

All models now come with standard carbon fibre masts. Does a foam cored carbon fibre mast give positive buoyancy? - I think it does.

Inside its well configured for comfortable passage. Cockpit is nice too and not overly big.

[paulanthony]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

AVS of 112, STIX not given - F44 is non-blue by consensus of European naval architects. Despite having started this fascinating thread, Paul, you do seem more interested in price and superficial appearance than what makes blue.

And yes, strong and heavy will outlast strong and light - it's basically a trade-off between initial cost and life expectancy. Flexing leads to fatigue, and light and strong flexes more than heavy and strong. Besides, inertia is another major contributor to resistance to that knockdown, which is less than pleasant I can assure you. Ever been hit by an express train? ... strong and heavy helps withstand the capsizing forces, which is precisely why heavier displacement is permitted a lower AVS (in Europe at least).

It has an ISO Cat rating of A which means it must have a stix rating with a minimum of 32. (although 32 is not super duper but that must be at least its minimum) The angle of flipping is not the be all and end all. These numbers support an holistic profile of stability that may make it safer than a boat with a higher vanishing point of stability. The gap between center of gravity and buoyancy is also important. But it looks nice anyway.

[paulanthony]

Originally Posted by cards26

I don't know if you're directing the comment to me, but I totally agree that the Seaward 46 is butt ugly. I was going to say that, but forgot. $680,000 is a lot to pay for an ugly date.

BUT, I read the thread from ReefMagnet this morning, and said to myself that an ugly boat in one piece, is better than me smashing my keel against some coral at speed in the Bahamas.

Well, I have to say that you guys are making me think of some other options. We're getting some visas this week for the U.S., and I'll be stopping in at Hake to see things up-close, and personal. Pictures won't do it for me.

I think hte Seaward 46rk is going to come under the wing of Island Packet. if it does it will get a big injection of quality.

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by paulanthony

I think hte Seaward 46rk is going to come under the wing of Island Packet. if it does it will get a big injection of quality.

Still won't do anything to the basic layout? Or perhaps. Who knows.

And I wasn't directing my comments at anyone, just observations and reasons for them.

"Reinventing the wheel" when it comes to some layout features usually ends up with a square wheel.

[paulanthony]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

Still won't do anything to the basic layout? Or perhaps. Who knows.

And I wasn't directing my comments at anyone, just observations and reasons for them.

"Reinventing the wheel" when it comes to some layout features usually ends up with a square wheel.

I hope they resolve the layout also.. its a big mess. It's a kids obstacle course. Me not likey neither..

[barnakiel]

Hahaha ;-) Good try with Feeling 44. But now we are back to our (lack of) definition of blue.

Paint it blue, or believe it is, and it becomes.

Get one if you like it. A boat that makes you dream and takes you away may be actually more blue than one that is and out-and-out blue and remains tied to the dock!

Cheers,
b.

[Jon Eisberg]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

I had a look at Feeling 44 and failed to find the blue points.

Can someone pls elaborate.

Sorry, I can't help you out there... Like you, I look at boats like that, and all I see is stuff I wouldn't like offshore...

Deck ergonomics look terrible. What are you supposed to hold onto going forward? (I know, nobody ever leaves the cockpit anymore, but still :-)) I look at many of these Suppository-shaped designs today, and think they should probably apply non-skid to those cat-eye windows, that would probably be the best place to walk going forward when heeled :-)





I fear those damn 'sculpted' foredecks, with a very low and ill-defined coachroof that occupied much of the space forward of the mast, and compels you to move about the relatively narrow side decks forward, with nothing at all to hold onto (Sorry, lifelines are not handholds) Such foredecks can be incredibly dangerous, especially at night, and if the color of the 'real' deck closely matches that of the slick coachroof, a foredeck is no place to be 'feeling' your way around with your feet...

The best seaberths on that boat appear to be those in the quarter cabins. However, I see very little evidence of good natural ventilation to those cabins... Oh, well, just fire up the generator and run the AC, that's what passes for Bluewater Voyaging these days, anyway :-)

I see not a single deck or cabin hatch or portlight on that boat that could be left open in the rain. That boat positively screams for dorade vents, I don't see a single one... Yeah, these sexy Euro babes sure catch many an eye at the boat shows, particularly from those who have never done enough cruising on more traditional craft, with higher and 'boxier' deckhouses that afford far more security when moving about on deck, and whose more vertical sides allow portlights to be left open through a day of tropical showers...

I could go on, but what's the point?

:-)

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by Browning

Is it also that:
"light and strong" will wear down faster than "heavy and strong"?
If I want that the (hull, deck, ...) material is still strong after 30 years of use, and not only during the mandatory warranty period, I must put more of the said material, correct?

Browning,

Yes/No. Select.

If the manufacturer put not enough material, then yes. If the boat builder put enough material, then no.

Your question is valid.

All other things equal, light and strong and heavy and strong (built to the same 'ageing-point') will age at the same rate.

But they will likely not be build the same. The light may be using different materials (different resins, matrix, woods or alloys) to achieve the same ageing properties as the heavy one. Or different building techniques.

Tu put it in other words, building light and strong and well ageing (compared to heavy and strong) may require different materials and different techniques.

But if we were to build a Bavaria with a standard layup and then another 'identical' hull with a layup from which two layers were to be removed, then in real life the two hulls would age differently, if both were sailed the same amount in the same conditions. The difference would be more pronounced if you stuck to the same rig for both (unfair, as the lighter hull would get just as fast under smaller rig, which in turn would make the ageing difference somewhat smaller).

Light and heavy (same strength) structures put to the same dynamic loads will get loaded differently. So what I said above must be seen with a good dose of ifs and buts. Read into the Dashews' OCE chapter on structures and loads for a pro introduction to this subject.

I have seen my share of heavy and strong fail, so for the time being I will vote strong and then let the nut holding the steering wheel decide if they like it light or heavy.

b.

[Jon Eisberg]

Originally Posted by paulanthony

The center of buoyancy is low on this boat also so a knock down with mast in the water is going to be only slightly over 90 degrees anyway.

I am not sure AVS is the ultimate accolade of a blue boat. If it is then there are many familiar names if you look at the RYA listing that we would need to revise our opinion on. Knowing your limits is probably the main thing and your angle of attack when smacked down.

All models now come with standard carbon fibre masts. Does a foam cored carbon fibre mast give positive buoyancy? - I think it does.

I'm guessing few who have ever put the spreaders of a cruising boat in the water offshore would make such observations so casually... :-)

Here's what Evans Starzinger had to say a few years back about the centerboarders they had encountered "Down South"...

think I have probably said two things, and if not, I should have:

1. Jud's right that all the boats we know less that 40' who have done long southern ocean passages got knocked down. That is not necessarily a disaster but they have to be prepared to be knocked down. A contenssa 32 we know got spreaders in the water 7 times from the Falklands to Cape Town, and that's a pretty stable boat for her size. Righting inertia goes up with the 4th power of length (all other design factors held constant). So, a bit of extra length helps a lot and 40' seemed to be a break point in practice.

2. The centerboard boats did not seem to be knocked down any more or less but did come back up much more slowly. We know two (in different situations) that were pinned on their side for hours.

Stability down south

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by FastCruiser

... But if you come back stating the *** is the all out best cruiser/racer built on earth and no other boat comes close to it in comfort and speed, you are in fact insulting every other person with a boat other than what you have. Remember, in the real world of cruising,...

Just thought this was worth repeating.

Paul, when did you decide the F44 was the all-out best? Was it before or after you started this thread seeking advice about 'blue'? I won't insult your choice of yacht - go for it - but you started a discussion about 'blue' and all of that discussion so far seems to point in the exact opposite direction. I'm sure she will meet your needs admirably but I wouldn't try to convince anyone heading for Patagonia that this particular vessel represents 'blue'.

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by paulanthony

The center of buoyancy is low on this boat also so a knock down with mast in the water is going to be only slightly over 90 degrees anyway.

Did you even look at the post by JWColby (RYA - Stability Primer 101) before making this statement?
1. Low CoB and high CoG are the worst possible combination - the low CoB is trying to invert you (if indeed this yacht has a low CoB). Have another read of JW's post.
2. Knockdowns have no reason to stop when the mast hits the water, foam-filled, solid timber, carbon or alu makes no difference - the size of wave hitting you will make that decision. Plenty of those '79 Fastnet raceboats suffered complete roll-overs (and they were the lucky ones).

I really don't think you've been paying attention to the discussion, so what was the point of it?

[Browning]

Dear Barnakiel, thank you for your answer - I keep learning from these discussions.

Originally Posted by barnakiel

If the manufacturer put not enough material, then yes. If the boat builder put enough material, then no.

This is what I suspect. In your previous answer, you mentioned "enough material for the task". The point is, what the task is. The task for the boat builder is that the boat survives the mandatory warranty period of two years. For me as the buyer (in some future), the task is that it survives the 30+ years of usage.

All other things equal, light and strong and heavy and strong (built to the same 'ageing-point') will age at the same rate.

What comes into my mind now ist that ageing of the plastic hull differs from ageing of the steel. Roughly speaking, steel ages due to corrosion and wearing down the material width, so the possible age is more or less proportional to the material width, right? As there is no such thing as the corrosion for the plastic, ageing comes from micro-cracks that are created under load, right? And while the resistance to cracks grows with the material width, the load grows too due to the growing overall mass that gets moved.

Do I get it right now?

Light and heavy (same strength) structures put to the same dynamic loads will get loaded differently. So what I said above must be seen with a good dose of ifs and buts. Read into the Dashews' OCE chapter on structures and loads for a pro introduction to this subject.

The book will be bought soon.

I have seen my share of heavy and strong fail, so for the time being I will vote strong and then let the nut holding the steering wheel decide if they like it light or heavy.

Yes this particular nut needs to be educated first and then decide what he likes or not.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Browning

What comes into my mind now ist that ageing of the plastic hull differs from ageing of the steel. Roughly speaking, steel ages due to corrosion and wearing down the material width, so the possible age is more or less proportional to the material width, right? As there is no such thing as the corrosion for the plastic, ageing comes from micro-cracks that are created under load, right? And while the resistance to cracks grows with the material width, the load grows too due to the growing overall mass that gets moved.

Do I get it right now?

Not quite right. What you say about steel is mainly true (except it's material thickness, not width. But that's only language mishap). All materials are prone for fatique which means cyclic loading weaken their strength. Steel less, GRP and Al more. Good old wood is practically immune for fatique but has other drawbacks, but so have others like corrosion of steel, cracking and osmosis of GRP and electolysis of Aluminum.

Instead of talking light vs strong materials we should talk about light vs heavy scantlings ie the amount of safety factor used in the design. Cored GRP is inherently lighter and stronger than other materials (non high tec) and making structure with high safety factor won't add much weight but has drawbacks of it's own like delaminations, wetted or rotted core etc thou they are most often coused by lowsy workmanship, installations and maintenace.
BR Teddy

[paulanthony]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

Did you even look at the post by JWColby (RYA - Stability Primer 101) before making this statement?
1. Low CoB and high CoG are the worst possible combination - the low CoB is trying to invert you (if indeed this yacht has a low CoB). Have another read of JW's post.
2. Knockdowns have no reason to stop when the mast hits the water, foam-filled, solid timber, carbon or alu makes no difference - the size of wave hitting you will make that decision. Plenty of those '79 Fastnet raceboats suffered complete roll-overs (and they were the lucky ones).

I really don't think you've been paying attention to the discussion, so what was the point of it?

What I am trying to say is the boat is not up on its elbow when laying on its side.

I have requested from the boat yard full stability info so we can see properly. Most of the fin keel cruisers have low AVS.. Goes with the territory. Lets get the figures then we can rip it apart or give it the cruiser forums seal of blue approval.

Category A boat limits are a minimum mass of 3.0 tonnes and an AVS greater than [130 - (2 x mass)]º but always equal to or greater than 100º. ( think this suggest the feeling should have an avs of 129 ish. But but but...

However, read on there is an exception in ISO 12217-2

A bit of plagiarism courtesy of some one called.. Guillermo

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now you may think 100º and 95º(15 tons) are absolute minimums for categories A and B. Yes? Well: Not so. AVS can even be less than those figures. Let's see:
As per ISO 12217-2, point 6.3.2 "Alternative requirement for design categories A and B", boats may also be assigned to category A or B provided that certain limitations are fulfilled. Simplyfying here only the more relevant ones:
a) AVS ≥ 90º for category A, or AVS ≥ 75º for category B
b) when the swamped or inverted boat is totally inmersed, buoyancy is sufficient to support the mass of the loaded boat by a margin
c) watertight compartments used to provide buoyancy shall be constructed to watertightness degree 1 in accordance with ISO 11812 and hatches and doors satisfy watertightness degree 2 of ISO 12216
....
e) the recommended maximum wind strength for a given sail area shall be determined on the basis that the upright wind heeling moment in a gust of twice the mean wind pressure shall not be greater than the maximum righting moment at any heel angle.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

You maybe right Nevisdog but the feeling 44 is a iso cat A boat so it must qualify some how and it may well be on point ISO 12217-2

STIX scores generally fall in the range 5 to 50 and are applied in addition to the above limits on mass and AVS, ie:

Category A boats: equal to or greater than 32
Category B boats: equal to or greater than 23
Since June 1998 all new recreational boats sold in the European Community have been required by law to have undergone a stability assessment with the preferred method being the application of ISO 12217.

This means that all but a very few new monohull ballasted sailing boats sold in the EU will have had a GZ/RM curve generated, their displacement and AVS determined and a STIX calculated.

[paulanthony]

Originally Posted by Jon Eisberg

Sorry, I can't help you out there... Like you, I look at boats like that, and all I see is stuff I wouldn't like offshore...

Deck ergonomics look terrible. What are you supposed to hold onto going forward? (I know, nobody ever leaves the cockpit anymore, but still :-)) I look at many of these Suppository-shaped designs today, and think they should probably apply non-skid to those cat-eye windows, that would probably be the best place to walk going forward when heeled :-)





:-)

You can add to it.. The starting points are ok. Relative wide deck, decent bulwark, rail on roof, stays adjacent to mast. Add better hand holds on the bimimi and a tight line forward and away you go. From the side deck you can lean on to the coach roof but the mast is further forward anyway.

Would I cross an ocean in this during the wrong season? - No. Would I venture to high or low lattitudes? - No. Would I cross the Atlantic? - With knowledge and some experience I think I would.

Maybe there should be an A+ category that considers off season and extremes latitudes and or force 10 which I don't think is a compliance criterion for Cat A qualification.