Upwind performance of condomarans

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by StuM

80g per, includng "baggage" for an extended ocean package? What about stores?

Kinda perplexing, Stu.... 80 g of what? Is this a carry over from the weed thread?

But the whole idea of 18 bodies on such a small cat is weird, even for a day sail, let alone a passage of any length.

The numbers do not make sense to me, other than for a short tourist ride or such, so I wonder what the vendors are on about.

Jim

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by StuM

80g per, includng "baggage" for an extended ocean package? What about stores?

The allowed persons aboard do seem like ridiculous numbers. I guess it might just be an easier way for people to visualise weight.

But in some charter operations they actually do put those CE type numbers aboard. There used to be a Seawind 1000 that did whale watching in Hervey bay. So obviously not category A. But they used to get 30 + people on that boat.

[Firstbait]

My be this is the one being talked about.


Seawind 1160 Resort Party Boat.
$2600 for 4 hours Nov-Dec for up to 33 guests.
Seawind 1160 Resort Party Boat
Catamaran Charters Sydney Habour

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Kinda perplexing, Stu.... 80 g of what? Is this a carry over from the weed thread?

But the whole idea of 18 bodies on such a small cat is weird, even for a day sail, let alone a passage of any length.

The numbers do not make sense to me, other than for a short tourist ride or such, so I wonder what the vendors are on about.

Jim

Doh, the "k" key on my keyboard is sticking and I have to hit it hard to get it to print.

That was supposed to be 80kg which is the the Cat A 1450 kg for "bodies + bags" divided by the 18 bodies shown in post #1677

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by rom

Nope, it's in the 20kEUR "comfort pack", which I suppose 99.9% of Lagoon buyers would purchase.

So yes, for lagoon where everything comes as an option, CE light displacement could be seen as the boat without any options.

That fight was not in vain, we all get a better understanding of CE payload & displacement now.

Yes, thank you for having been so honest. I'm not sure everyone here would have been.

It must make it tricky, when loading your boat though. Even though it has an excellent payload capacity, how do you know what your starting point is?

For instance, I wonder how many people would know what their antifoul weighs?

[Jim Cate]

For instance, I wonder how many people would know what their antifoul weighs?

Stuff is damn heavy! Long ago I scraped 17 years worth of hard bottom paint off of my old IOR one tonner. Had to collect the scrapings for disposal... weighed nearly 400 lbs! Than figure may well have included some other crap swept up, but the bulk of it was old copper based antifoul. Makes one appreciate ablative paints which don't build up like that.

Jim

[Anders]

Directive 94/25/EC applicable until 18 Jan 2017 Annex 1 section 2.2 says

"- manufacturer's maximum recommended load according to section 3.6,"

Directive 2013/53/EU applicable on 18 Jan 2016 Annex 1 section 2.2 says:

"manufacturer’s maximum recommended load derived from point 3.6 excluding the weight of the contents of the fixed tanks when full;"

Not really sure if that is a real difference in the regulation or a clarification?

[PaulinOz]

Quote 44C "Even though it has an excellent payload capacity, how do you know what your starting point is?" Is that not the question I have been asking all along. To simply state a load figure, needs to be defined further with what is and is not included in the figure.

As to davits being optional, I imagine that may well be because more and more of these boats are being fitted with dinghy lift in lieu of davits as standard from the factory.

[44'cruisingcat]

How about antifoul? An optional extra, not included in the initial displacement figure?

You then have to wonder, are sails optional extras? Anchor and chain? House batteries? (And how many?)

[arsenelupiga]

so, you still fighting about nothing ?

Who cares what particular boat capacity is. Numbers stated for boats have proven to be at least 90 % incorrect, nearly always worse than advertised.

In meantime I have inspected rigging and is 100%

Really pity that you managed to scare away dyango - guy really knows stuff. CF should be more careful not to become worthless content of info.

[rom]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

How about antifoul? An optional extra, not included in the initial displacement figure?

You then have to wonder, are sails optional extras? Anchor and chain? House batteries? (And how many?)

I answered some of those questions already. I don't really know about other manufacturer but Lagoon provides a very detailed list of the weight of optional equipment. At least for the L440 which I posted here and for L500 as well.

What it is that you are suggesting behind those questions ?

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by rom

I answered some of those questions already. I don't really know about other manufacturer but Lagoon provides a very detailed list of the weight of optional equipment. At least for the L440 which I posted here and for L500 as well.

What it is that you are suggesting behind those questions ?

I was wondering if it was actually possible to know where you were relative to the stated load capacity, if items which are generally considered basic necessities, such as antifoul are not included in the "starting weight".

But if every item is listed, along with the weight you would be able to calculate it.

Anyway I think it shows that the stated CE load limits are perhaps only useful as a guide, and if you really want to know how close you are to maximum displacement you may need to actually weigh the boat.

For most of us this is pretty much academic, but there are people who seem to believe that exceeding load limits by even a small margin is dangerous and criminal.

[PaulinOz]

Quote 44C "I was wondering if it was actually possible to know where you were relative to the stated load capacity"

Bravo you finally get it, is that not the same question I have been asking for the past 3 pages. When we where discussing the load capacity of the Seawind 1250.

What is and is not included in the standard weight of the vessel is irrelevant, as long as it is clearly stated, so then you will know exactly what items need to be included in the load carrying capacity of the vessel.

Quote 44C "if items which are generally considered basic necessities, such as antifoul are not included"

Quote Jim Cate "Stuff is damn heavy! Long ago I scraped 17 years worth of hard paint.html" target="_blank">bottom-IRJDSUNE9932123321222xxeww-paint off of my old IOR one tonner. Had to collect the scrapings for disposal... weighed nearly 400 lbs!"

Very informative post, the manufacturer of any vessel have no control over the amount of anti-foul that is or is not applied to a vessel and at 20-30 kg an application that can add up very quickly depending on type and frequency of application.

You seem to be nit picking through, what amounts to a very detailed list of what is and is not included in the load capabilities of one vessel. Yet when we where trying to get to the bottom of the load capacity for the Seawind 1250 all we had was a displacement figure and a load figure from a manual, with no accurate indication of what was or was not included in either of those figures. Followed by guesses to how that then tallied with a CE load Plate figure.

Quote 44C "there are people who seem to believe that exceeding load limits by even a small margin is dangerous and criminal."

I am not sure about the criminal aspect, the dangerous side I guess depends very much on by what percentage you exceed the safe carrying load for the vessel (we have already seen how hard that is to ascertain for some vessels). But on the other side of the fence there are those here who advocate, if you need or want to carry more load just raise the waterline when next you anti-foul (from a previous thread on a similar subject. I wonder why all the manufacturers have not caught on to that trick yet).

PS: By raising the waterline you will also need to use more anti-foul paint and also add to the total load of the anti foul on the vessel as well.

[arsenelupiga]

Originally Posted by django37

So Factor: You dissagree with QMYC, which in their rating rule -OMR- say that daggerboards only make a multihull 0.5% faster than the same boat with minikeels?

it is rainy out there so have some time to burn

FACTOR

you forgot to respond to above query from django.


What is the answer ?

[PaulinOz]

Quote arsenelupiga "it is rainy out there so have some time to burn"

Same up here in Lake Macquarie, so I just re read the last 10 pages to get a gist of where this all started and progressed, I came across these two gems that got lost "in the fog of war" (IE: informative, Cruisers Forum banter with slight thread drift along the way.)

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

Since we're setting arbitrary definitions for cruising boats, IMO a proper cruising boat should have as standard equipment at least 3 reefing points in the mainsail. Anything that doesn't is a coastal cruiser.

Next but one post.

Originally Posted by Factor

Thats a bit tough, there are some recent cats that have a mainsail that wouldn't have enough room for 3 reef points.

Then I remember reading this on Seawind's current website when looking for the load figures.

SEAWIND 1260 (12.45 METRES / 42ft)
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND EQUIPMENT -3 Cabin Version
"2 x mainsail single line reefing fitted."

I can only assume this is a misprint, based on the quick retort re: "mainsail that wouldn't have enough room for 3 reef points" from somebody that does know what they are talking about.