Why Was Production Stopped On Annapolis 30'?

[SassySailor]

I'm looking into a 1964 Annapolis 30' by Rhodes and there was a little snippet at the bottom saying that Rhodes had sued the builder of the boat because of modifications they had made. He won, and production stopped. Now I'd like to figure out what the modifications were and if it's something to worry about?


ANNAPOLIS 30 (RHODES) sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com


Thanks!

[Mike Vogdes]

The builder Olsen Marine had lightened the boat so much that the decks oil canned when you walked on them. They also lightened the rig quite a bit.

[SassySailor]

I see, thanks for the info!

[Southern Star]

I'm not sure how reliable the information is on that site - they show a displacement figure of 8500 lbs (fairly credible) and ballast at 6000 lbs. for a ballast/displacement ratio of 70.59%!!!!!

[SassySailor]

I was a little surprised by the 6,000 lb ballast too... I'm not entirely sure what that means though (the aspect ratio part)..

[Southern Star]

Sassy, it is the percentage of the total displacement that is made up out of the ballast. While some full keel boats had ratios of 40% or so, I am unaware of any boat with a ratio that high!

Brad

[SassySailor]

And being that it's disproportionate, what does that mean exactly? Would it never heel over because the ballast is so heavy?

[Sand crab]

They all ended up looking like this.

[SassySailor]

I'd laugh but it really just makes me sad!

[rgscpat]

The Etchells, a day-sailing racing keelboat, has a ballast ratio of about 59%, which is about as high as any boat I've ever heard of, and it is a specialized racing boat with no cabin structure, no engine, no accommodation, nothin' but racin' stuff. Some small dinghies might also get a very high ballast ratio if you take the approach of figuring the crew as ballast.

If you think about it, a boat with a ballast ratio of 70% would leave only 30% for everything but the keel, of which a certain amount is needed just to have enough hull to keep the keel afloat, which may not leave a whole lot of weight in order to have useful things like a mast, engine, bulkheads, accommodation, water, food, sails, anchors, and other silly little things.

Yet there would be maybe a bit more of a design conflict, because you'd need a big rig to drive the weight of a big keel through the water (and probably to generate enough force to work well with the big keel to generate good lift and get a good balance of forces of wind and water acting on the boat). So to make all this work, you might perhaps wind up with some kind of super-light racing hull, very stripped out with minimal accommodation, no motor (maybe a lightweight outboard in a well), etc. I don't even know if it's feasible to design such a boat, but maybe someone with some design experience could comment.

[CarlF]

Of course, these boats were from the day when fiberglass was laid thick and solid.

I expect Phil Rhodes would be even more upset if he could see the typical construction of today's production boats.

[cal40john]

Originally Posted by rgscpat

The Etchells, a day-sailing racing keelboat, has a ballast ratio of about 59%, which is about as high as any boat I've ever heard of, and it is a specialized racing boat with no cabin structure, no engine, no accommodation, nothin' but racin' stuff. Some small dinghies might also get a very high ballast ratio if you take the approach of figuring the crew as ballast.

If you think about it, a boat with a ballast ratio of 70% would leave only 30% for everything but the keel, of which a certain amount is needed just to have enough hull to keep the keel afloat, which may not leave a whole lot of weight in order to have useful things like a mast, engine, bulkheads, accommodation, water, food, sails, anchors, and other silly little things.

Yet there would be maybe a bit more of a design conflict, because you'd need a big rig to drive the weight of a big keel through the water (and probably to generate enough force to work well with the big keel to generate good lift and get a good balance of forces of wind and water acting on the boat). So to make all this work, you might perhaps wind up with some kind of super-light racing hull, very stripped out with minimal accommodation, no motor (maybe a lightweight outboard in a well), etc. I don't even know if it's feasible to design such a boat, but maybe someone with some design experience could comment.

12 meter boats were supposed to be 70-80% ballast.

[rgscpat]

Crude thought experiment for getting to a 70% ballast ratio boat that maybe works:
Start with a Hobie 33, 45% ballast ratio.
Add about 70% more keel weight.
Increase mast height and rig size to carry 70% more sail.
Make boat volume about 25% larger to carry the weight of the keel, and beef up hull strength to carry the big rig and keel, but keep the hull mass the same by using exotic, high-strength-to-weight materials and advanced building techniques, and by stripping out the boat even more than it was in the original design.
Get helmets for the crew.

And, to catch up with Cal40john's comment, maybe this would resemble a 12-meter... a stripped out racing machine.

[DoubleWhisky]

And here You can see what happens to the boat with 70+ % ballast ratio:

One Australia Sinking - YouTube

[cal40john]

Originally Posted by DoubleWhisky

And here You can see what happens to the boat with 70+ % ballast ratio:

Ummm, Australia One was designed to the IACC rule, completely different from the 12 meter rule. Never saw a 12 meter breakup. IACC boats were also supposed to have very high ballast to displacement ratios though.

I'd say your premise is flawed.