Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Reply
  This discussion is proudly sponsored by:
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about their products on Cruisers Forums. Advertise Here
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 10-10-2018, 17:50   #1
Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 30
Published light displacements accurate?

I was at the boat show in Annapolis last weekend and noticed the solid foredeck on the Bali cats. I saw some of the online criticism of this feature. One argument being that this adds unnecessary weight up front. I was curious and looked up the "light displacements" of several of the popular cats. The Bali was lighter than any of the Big 3's offerings and a whopping 7,000+ pounds lighter than the Lagoon 45.

Is this a number that is arbitrary due to options or is the published weight routinely fudged?
__________________

NPCampbell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2018, 18:50   #2
Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Long Island NY
Boat: Hylas 54
Posts: 57
Re: Published light displacements accurate?

The listed displacement is often a "design" weight, what the designer estimated it would weigh. The builder doesn't always meet this target and when they don't, the actual displacement can be substantially higher. Then you start adding equipment and other options and the weight climbs and climbs.
__________________

jt11791 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2018, 19:45   #3
Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 1,005
Re: Published light displacements accurate?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jt11791 View Post
The listed displacement is often a "design" weight, what the designer estimated it would weigh. The builder doesn't always meet this target and when they don't, the actual displacement can be substantially higher. Then you start adding equipment and other options and the weight climbs and climbs.
All that, AND it is a number that the marketing department publishes. I don't trust any of them.

Just try inserting a clause into the purchase contract that imposes a price penalty on the factory if they don't meet weight on a certified scale upon delivery. See which manufacturer runs forward to sign THAT deal...
billknny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2018, 07:54   #4
Registered User

Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Caribbean
Boat: Lagoon 450
Posts: 744
Re: Published light displacements accurate?

The Bali 4.5 published light displacement is 11.8T and Maximum is 16.4T so can be loaded up with people and gear to 4.6T (Lagoon 450 can carry up to 6.4T)
The actual length of the Bali is hard to interpret it has plum bows. The LWL is 42.6 ft so hull length without the spinnaker pole would be the same. The L450 is 45.9 ft without pole. The Bali beam is 24.3 ft, the L450 25.7. Sail area on the Bali is 1194sq ft, L450 is 1472 sq ft. So all up you are comparing it to larger boat - maybe it should be compared to a Lagoon 42. In fact most 45 badged catamarans should be compared to the L42 and the the 46 and 47s from FP etc compared to the L450.
Bean Counter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2018, 09:09   #5
Registered User
 
Scaramanga F25's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 593
Re: Published light displacements accurate?

I have manufactured solid glass decks, with hat sections, of similar weight to cored decks.
Scaramanga F25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2018, 09:26   #6
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Summer Europe Winter Florida
Boat: Dufour Nautitech435/FP Venezia42/Baltec Visiona 40/Catalac 10m used as a river cruiser
Posts: 131
Re: Published light displacements accurate?

Once I bought a new catamaran with 6.8 metric tons displacement. When she was delivered we found out that the displacement was 10.2 metric tons. I refused to accept the cat because the displacement was a part of the building description. Also the cat did not meet the EU regulations for Categrie A for this purpose 3,5 m3 (3500 Liters or 925 gallons) of foam had to be inserted in the hulls to meet the EU categorie A regulations.
I received the money what I had payd back in full. It is most important to have a detailed description of the boat and this is must be a binding part of the contract before signing.
Good luck

James
onavegador is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2018, 09:29   #7
Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 30
Re: Published light displacements accurate?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bean Counter View Post
The Bali 4.5 published light displacement is 11.8T and Maximum is 16.4T so can be loaded up with people and gear to 4.6T (Lagoon 450 can carry up to 6.4T)
The actual length of the Bali is hard to interpret it has plum bows. The LWL is 42.6 ft so hull length without the spinnaker pole would be the same. The L450 is 45.9 ft without pole. The Bali beam is 24.3 ft, the L450 25.7. Sail area on the Bali is 1194sq ft, L450 is 1472 sq ft. So all up you are comparing it to larger boat - maybe it should be compared to a Lagoon 42. In fact most 45 badged catamarans should be compared to the L42 and the the 46 and 47s from FP etc compared to the L450.
I'm really new to this so be prepared for some newbie questions ...
I see the LWL for Bali 4.5 vs Lagoon 450s as 42.65 vs 43.11 for a difference of 5.5 inches. I believe the point you are trying to make is that the Bali is counting the length of the bowsprit towards their LOA? Good point. However, if the LOA of the 450s is 45.1 and their LWL of 43.11 where is their 2 feet of difference between LWL and LOA? In the rake of their bows? If so, that probably doesn't account for 7,000+ pounds of weight difference.
NPCampbell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2018, 09:34   #8
Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 30
Re: Published light displacements accurate?

Quote:
Originally Posted by onavegador View Post
Once I bought a new catamaran with 6.8 metric tons displacement. When she was delivered we found out that the displacement was 10.2 metric tons. I refused to accept the cat because the displacement was a part of the building description. Also the cat did not meet the EU regulations for Categrie A for this purpose 3,5 m3 (3500 Liters or 925 gallons) of foam had to be inserted in the hulls to meet the EU categorie A regulations.
I received the money what I had payd back in full. It is most important to have a detailed description of the boat and this is must be a binding part of the contract before signing.
Good luck

James
Interesting.

In my research I noticed that there are several ISO standards in publishing light displacement. ISO 12217 and ISO 8666. They define the methods, standard equipment, fluids, etc that must be on the boat before publishing the displacement.

However, I see that the Lagoon 450s puts a "CEE" tag next to their published light displacement and none of the other manufacturers do. I wonder if they are the only ones adhering to the ISO standards?
NPCampbell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2018, 10:14   #9
Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 165
Re: Published light displacements accurate?

This is a great topic and critical when evaluating catamarans. Based on my research across brands like FP, Lagoon, Leopard, Nautitech, Catana, Outremer, and ITA it is clear that many manufacturers play marketing games with the reported light ship displacement. I have talked to owners of some of these boats that report big differences with the light ship displacement reported by the manufacturer and what they measure by crane. Further, based on my own factory tours, it is pretty obvious that many mainstream manufacturers pay little attention to weight control in their builds. Higher end builders in the performance end of the market, in general, seem to pay much more attention to weight quality control and measurement. For example, I spent some time with the ITA builder and when they built Hull No. 1 of the 14.99, they weighed every single piece of material and equipment prior to it going into the boat. They hit their design and reported light ship weight nearly exactly when they weighed the final build. Not too many manufacturers go through this process or even make this information available to buyers.

So it is buyer beware if you are concerned with weight and performance.

Gary
iliohale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2018, 12:45   #10
MJH
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, WA
Boat: Tayana Vancouver 42AC
Posts: 112
Re: Published light displacements accurate?

When I started my boat search in 2007 I soon learned that it is very common to see differing numbers for a boat's specifications when retrieved from various sources...there appears to be is no integrity to these numbers.

The most flagrant spec is sail area (SA). Some manufacturers will give the sail area without specifying that it is the 100% figure, in most cases because they have included a genoa rather than jib to boost the SA/Displacement spec shown...no apples to apples measurement possible there. I would rather they just publish the I, J, P, E numbers and I will compute it myself. Thankfully, some of the better sail magazines are now including the (100%) clarifier along with their review but I would still like to see the I, J, P, E numbers which are frequently not easy to locate.

~ ~ _/) ~ ~ MJH
MJH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2018, 12:50   #11
Registered User

Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 266
Re: Published light displacements accurate?

Like vanity sizing in women's clothes, this is an inauspicious trend.

The EU should require an actual weighing of a final production model and the manufacturer should have to include that number in all marketing material (yes, I mean in the minimal base model configuration, but clearly labelled such as "*no generator included"

I realize boat names are not legally binding, but I'd love to see the industry move away from misleading lengths included in the names as well. The Saona 47 comes in at 45 feet 9 inches. The have a new boat that is supposed to be their 45 that is 44 feet 2 inches. Theoretically, they could be factoring in length with a bowsprit or optional swim platform aft, but I don't think that's their intention.
Thalas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2018, 13:40   #12
Registered User

Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 723
Re: Published light displacements accurate?

A rough calculation shows that the Bali 4.5 could carry an extra 3700 pounds of sea water in the knee space of the "forward cockpit" of 58 cubic feet. I don't think the factory weight numbers include a wave over the bows, aka accidental acquarium.
cyan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2018, 14:06   #13
Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 1,005
Re: Published light displacements accurate?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thalas View Post
Like vanity sizing in women's clothes, this is an inauspicious trend.
This is hardly a new trend, and hardly unique to multihulls. Boatbuilders have been cheating on published weights ever since there were scales.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thalas View Post
The EU should require an actual weighing of a final production model and the manufacturer should have to include that number in all marketing material (yes, I mean in the minimal base model configuration, but clearly labelled such as "*no generator included"
I don't see where a new EU requirement is needed, with the addition of a 100 pages of new regulations. Just educated buyers who have the knowledge and assertiveness to insist on a clause in the purchase contract that says something like:

Quote:
Price decreases by US$500 for every 100 kg over the agreed on light ship weight. Contract is void and delivery will be rejected if delivery weight is 2000 kg over agreed on light ship weight.
The exact terms would of course be negotiable to the situation, but I know you would very quickly get an idea of who's numbers could be trusted based on the sales manager's reaction to including this proposal in a binding sales contract.
billknny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2018, 14:13   #14
Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 30
Re: Published light displacements accurate?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyan View Post
A rough calculation shows that the Bali 4.5 could carry an extra 3700 pounds of sea water in the knee space of the "forward cockpit" of 58 cubic feet. I don't think the factory weight numbers include a wave over the bows, aka accidental acquarium.
LOL, that's a big aquarium. Unfortunately, the Lagoon 450s, FP 45, Leopard 45 and Bali 4.5 all have recessed knee spaces in the forward cockpit. Some of them are flush with the salon. Doh!
NPCampbell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2018, 14:42   #15
Registered User

Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 723
Re: Published light displacements accurate?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NPCampbell View Post
LOL, that's a big aquarium. Unfortunately, the Lagoon 450s, FP 45, Leopard 45 and Bali 4.5 all have recessed knee spaces in the forward cockpit. Some of them are flush with the salon. Doh!
Yeah, and I get the attraction. Good times. I just wonder if anyone uses a "lid" over the front pit in heavey weather to avoid swamping it or only go out in houseboat weather? At least the Lagoon 450 has a more shallow pit and a trampoline. On the Bali, with a solid "sun deck" instead of a trampoline, one might look forward to a wave and ponder... where will all the water go? If you've ever surfed a cat down one monster until both bows dug into the bottom of the next, you'll appreciate the tramp. Pretty sure.
__________________

cyan is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
displacement, men

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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
Published in Cruising Outpost svPearlLee Our Community 2 24-02-2014 18:45
Published Costs of Cruising Livia Dollars & Cents 311 01-04-2013 20:02



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 14:04.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.