Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 26-10-2003, 00:10   #16
Now on the Dark Side: Stink Potter.
 
CSY Man's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Ft. Lauderdale
Boat: 2001 Albin 28TE.
Posts: 3,400
Images: 115
Aye, Mr. Stede:

Yer note is well noted and I understand that ya are looking for a good boat for a good price.

As for shopping budget, yes there is some good 'uns out there.
Some old Pearson or Ericsons, 34 to 36 perhaps...Buyers market and in the 20s or less if ya want to do some re-wireing, repairs and such.

There is good sailing machines out there for a good price, but they take a lot of TLC..So after the money and the work ya are back up in the higher numbers..But ya learned a lot about yer boat and did not get paid for the labor....

If ya thought about keeping the old boat at the same time as ya re-do the new one...Forget it.....Ya can only have one God.
Or one wife.

Sell the old boat and stick the money into that new Pearson 36 or CSY 33..
That would be money well spent..
__________________

__________________
CSY Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-10-2003, 02:23   #17
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Gladwin Mi.
Posts: 148
Thumbs up Have you checked out the Cascades' ?

I know that they are not that well known, but they are very strong hulls and can be sailed very effectively. They build a 36 and 42. Even a trawler if ya want one.
__________________

__________________
29cascadefixer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-10-2003, 06:31   #18
Registered User
 
Stede's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NC
Boat: Mariner 36 Sloop, Seidelman 24 racer
Posts: 288
Images: 38
Hi everyone,

CSYman-- Thanks for the good advice. I know you've had some experience in the realm of buying and upgrading a boat. I've thought about a new boat, but I don't think I can afford one with the prices what they are now. One of the boats you mentioned I am interested in i.e. -Pearson 36.I've looked at your CSY 33, and while she's a fine boat, I've set my criteria to a minimum 35 ft.for a live aboard. To be honest though, I haven't been aboard any boats between the 32-35ft.range.When I go to physically look at some of the boats on my list, I hope to do so and maybe it will change my mind.

29cascadefixer -- I hear you loud and clear on the Cascades. I know they are very well made boats and several have done circumnavigations with them. However, I understand that these boats could be purchased at any level of completion that someone desires (I guess they still can) and the interiors of some are not very good because of this. Regardless, interiors can be fixed. At this point in my search, the Cascade 36 is at the top of the heap. There were two recently for sale on Yachtworld in the high 20's, and both were snatched up quick.More than likely, it would take another $30K to bring a older Cascade up to the level I feel I would want and need,but that would be acceptable as far as my price range. There's also a Cascade on Yachtworld for around $54K that just finished doing some blue water passagemaking.I would be very interested in purchasing this boat, but I'm not ready to buy yet. As I mentioned previously, I'm just doing my homework right now.Thanks for the input.

Gord - You really have a good eye for what's good and bad in a boat. It was funny reading your comments on the Dehler 372 because your remarks were almost exactly like the ones I noted on the boat.That tells me that I've learned something along the way in this process.I ran some numbers on the Dehler 372.This is what I came up with.

Sail area/displacement - 21.3 -- This is a very powerful sail plan on this boat.I hear you on the self tending jib though.I would imagine that this item could be change to a conventional set up though if desired?

Ballast/Displacement - You came up with 38%, and I came up with 43%? Probably my poor math. Regardless, this is a pretty stiff boat.

Displacement/Length - 214 - This would indicate that the boat would be a little on the light side as far load carrying- capability,and a little low on having a dampened motion at sea. Both of which are highly desirable in my opinion for a passagemaking boat.

Hull speed - 7.3

PHRF - 126 - Fast boat

Motion comfort - 23 - Slightly below average

Screen number - 1.98 - Good

Conclusion -Yes, this boat has some downfalls, but I can't dismiss her because she just looks so good, and meets a lot of my other criteria.The big racing wheel in the cockpit would definately have to go.The low bridgedeck could be a problem if the boat was pooped, but I would imagine the cockpit drainage to be very good, by looking at the stern configuration. Self tending jib? I would have to have some "hands on" experience to make a call on that one.I believe that this boat would make a great coastal cruiser.She would probably be o.k. for passagemaking also with some upgrades, and under normal conditions. If she was caught out in some really nasty stuff, she could probably handle it, but it wouldn't be pretty. Stede rated classification - Possible
__________________
Stede is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-10-2003, 07:29   #19
Moderator Emeritus
 
GordMay's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario - 48-29N x 89-20W
Boat: (Cruiser Living On Dirt)
Posts: 31,592
Images: 240
Dehler 372

Stede:

I'm more a 'systems' guy, but here's couple of quick comments:

Hull Speed is calculated as Square Root of Waterline x 1.34 (or 1.33), and is consequently only a factor of Waterline Length - not it's (other) performance characteristics. Her 7.4 number comes from a fairly long waterline.

I'm not certain I understand the headsail plan, as described. Self-tending jibs don't lend themselves to easy sail changes - so I'm confused by the 7 headsail inventory. That, and 2 mainsails (not a 'storn-tri') make me wonder if the boat has been heavily raced - not a good pedigree (IMO) for a potential 'cruiser'.

The lower Ballast / Displ. ratio (I still get 38%) may not be as significant as I first thought. It's pretty deep (5'-5") for a winged keel, so may offer a nice low centre of gravity. I'd like to hear Jeff_H on this - he's got great knowledge & experience on these issues.

I didn't see an "Air Draft" specified, and suppose it must be a very tall (fractional ?) rig. My bias (& it's just that) is more towards "moderation' (in most aspects).

I'm not certain that the Displ/Length ratio assures a particularly light load carrying ability. I think this (Lbs/In immersion) relates more to length & beam (& prismatic coefficient ?) The D/L of 214 seems to indicate a pretty lightly built boat (compare with many ‘cruising’ boats spec’s @ 250 - 350). Again. I’d like to hear from Jeff_H.

Cruisers are generally expected to have a Capsize Screening ratio of under 2.0, so I’d agree that 1.98 is acceptable.

Motion Comfort Numbers are interesting, but not exactly predictive - & I don’t put too much credence in them. Ted Brewer recommends factors of 30 - 40 for cruisers, so 23 ain’t that good (closer to a ‘racer’ - but then we knew that).

You really want to get Jeff_H interested in these numerical evaluations (the Ratios - hull form etc.). He really knows this stuff, and can offer clear & well thought out opinions.

Stay with it,

Gord
__________________
Gord May
"If you didn't have the time or money to do it right in the first place, when will you get the time/$ to fix it?"



GordMay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-10-2003, 22:17   #20
Now on the Dark Side: Stink Potter.
 
CSY Man's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Ft. Lauderdale
Boat: 2001 Albin 28TE.
Posts: 3,400
Images: 115
Mr. Gord and Mr. Casey:

I could not have said the above better myself if I tried.

The idea and the thoughts however are right on the mark of what I think, belive, understand and agree with.

It is far more important to just go and do "it" in a smaller/older boat than to sit around on yer lazy arse waiting to make enough money to buy that dream-boat with the dual A/Cs and power-roller everyting and all that crap.....By the time ya get the dream-machine out on the water and set sail, yer in that age range where yer cardiologist tells ya to stay in daily contact as as per personal systems need some TLC, not the boat's...

Trust me on that one guys, been there, done that:
I sold everything, bought a boat and moved aboard when I was 27 years old...(Did not have much to sell however. )

At any rate, it was a very powerfull experience and now that I have mid-life crises # 46, I am ready to do it again....Wish I could, but there is that wife factor....Guess I am puzzy-whipped.

Uh, and this was about what: Boat SIZE:
Well, size does matter and yet, it does not....

A bigger boat sails better, she is faster and perhaps more comfy...
That is about it....

I would rather be out there in a slightly smaller and older boat and be DOING IT....That means sailing/living than to save for some gin palace that is never perfect unless all the electrones are flowing in the same direction and all the Ts are crossed and the I's are dotted....
Don't get the wrong priority here folks, the perfect boat has not been built yet...And ya won't find it in 10 years by saving more money..

Just ask Christina Onassis..She had a 300' mega yacht, more money than God, but commited suicide because she was un-happy...Perhpaps she would have been much better off with a 30' sailboat..At least then you know who yer friends are..

As I said earlier: Yes, If the CSY Man won the lotto, he would probably purchase a brand new Oyster 55, or if the pay-out that week was small, a new Tartan 44..Either way I would sail in style and in comfort....

BUT if I had to work, save for, and pay for that Oyster 55 or Tartan 44, I'd either be a crook, or so smart on wall street that I could not appreciate the simpler things in life, such as re-placing the chain plates on my old boat, yet with an immense satisfaction in the chest after the job was done, and because the average Wall Street guy could not do it....

Size and money ain't everything despite what the glossy ads and Hollywood says, the real world is much better...
__________________
CSY Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2003, 06:09   #21
Registered User
 
Stede's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NC
Boat: Mariner 36 Sloop, Seidelman 24 racer
Posts: 288
Images: 38
Guys, I think maybe you've misunderstood my meaning here.

My intent of this thread wasn't to debate how much money you need to go cruising, what we love about sailing, when to go,or on what boat to go on. My intent was just to examine boats from a non-biased perspective.Maybe the title of the thread is misleading "The ideal monohull live aboard boat." That thought in itself means a lot of different things to people. I can't take off and cruise yet,even as much as I would love to.It just isn't possible because of some committments that I must honor. My intent here was just to examine possible passagemaking boats. The list of boats that I've compiled thus far, cover a broad range. The first example I gave was a Dehler 372.A very difinite type of boat.Others I'm condsidering are just the opposite of it.As I stated previously, I've been researching boats for about a year, and will continue to do so. I thought it might be an interesting thread for the board here to examine some of these boats and get input from fellow sailors on the good,and bad of them. My hopes were that maybe there are others out there like me, that are planning to go full time soon, and are looking at possible boats. As far as my preferences, yeah, I want it all in a boat, i.e.-speed,storage,good ratio numbers,etc.However,I learned a long time ago that what I want, and what I get are sometimes two very different things With the amount of money I'll have to spend,(which isn't much) I just want to make sure that I get the most I can by being educated on the merits of different boats.If I'm able to get another boat, it will be a one shot deal for me.I don't have a lot of money, so I want to make sure I get it right the first time.It might turn out that I have to go on the 26 footer I have now.If that's the way it is, fine, I'll still go and be happy about it.Sometimes when sailors talk about boats, it can get as touchy as talking about religion.Example- the criteria I've set includes wanting a boat with a maximum PHRF of 150. Someone reads that and thinks....hmmm, my boats 165 and she does fine.Why does he think he has to have a boat with that.Then it goes, on and on. I just threw out the criteria that I had set for myself, I'm not foolish enough (others may disagree ) to believe that my criteria is the best. It's just what I desire, whether it's right or wrong.
__________________
Stede is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2003, 18:42   #22
Senior Cruiser
 
Jeff H's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: May 2003
Location: Annapolis, Maryland
Boat: Farr 11.6 (AKA Farr 38) Synergy
Posts: 543
Images: 13
First of all, this is a very interesting thread. I think that the dialogue between Stede and Gordon has put out a lot of excellent information. I apologize for not jumping in sooner but I have had a lot on my plate or have been off cruising to recover from what has been on my plate. While I don't agree with everything that Gordon has suggested, I certainly agree with the majority or else sees the basis and validity of that basis for Gordon's opinions. We all do not have to agree on all of these ideas because for many of these questions there is not just one answer. Our own priorities, experiences, tastes, fears, sailing venues budgets, finances, attention spans, etc, will shape what is the right answer to many of these questions for each of us. My points of departure with Gordon fall mostly, if not exclusively in the category of 'what is right for each of us'.

I wanted to start my discussion this topic touching on the heading of this thread " ideal live aboard cruiser". I am not sure if I am alone in this (although I think that Gordon touched in this) but I think that it is important that we distinguish between ideal 'live-aboard' and the ideal 'distance cruiser'. These can be very different boats. In the case of a simply living aboard boat, almost any short fat boat will do. To a great extent, sailing ability and build quality by-and-large becomes secondary. Maximization of space and day-to-day functionality becomes more important. But in the case of a boat that is intended to be used for long distance voyaging a lot of other criteria become important and my comments will focus on that kind of a boat

(I apologize in advance to those of you who have seen me make this case previously) It seems like selecting the perfect boat almost always seems to begin with picking a size. I think that is a reasonable approach but I disagree with the concept that size should be based on length. I know that it is very common for people to search for boat based solely on length and the need for specific accommodations. I really think that the displacement of a particular boat says a lot more about its 'real' size. I strongly suggest that to pick the ideal cruising boat, to narrow the field of possible model choices that the process begins by going back to some time honored formulas. The traditional rule of thumb said that a proper cruising boat needed a displacement of three to five long tons of displacement per person. In recent years, Better hardware has permitted that ideal weight to creep up a little and the current trends in loading boats up with modern equipment and all of the comforts of home, has pushed that range up to closer to 11,000 to 14,000 lbs. of displacement per person. I personally prefer to cruise more simply and so chose to try to stay in the low end of more traditional weight range. With a crew of one or two people this suggested a boat with a total displacement in the 11,000 to 14,000 lb. range.

Historically, a cruising boat with a 5 to 7 ton displacement would have been 32 or so feet in length. When you look back at earlier distance cruising couples, they tended to use boats that were comparatively short when compared to the norm today. This shorter length resulted in a high length to displacement ratio (L/D) typically in a 250 to 350 range. These old style cruisers were typically pretty shallow, and carried a larger percent of their weight in their hull and rig resulting in a lower ballast to weight ratio and consequently less stability. As a result they also tended to have less sail area and lower aspect ratio rigs in proportion to their displacement with a SA/D ratio in the range of 14 to 16 or so.

But using modern materials and a better understanding of marine structures and hydrodynamics a 5 to 7 ton cruising boat can safely have an L/D of 160 or so and still have a higher ratio of ballast to displacement than its predecessors. This lighter L/D typically means a more easily driven hull and the greater ratio of ballast to displacement placed lower in the water can result in the ability to carry more sail. On more modern designs a SA/D ratio above 20 is not all that unusual. That combination means that the boat has enough sail area to sail at a reasonable speed in light air and a sufficiently easily driven hull to get by with less sail area in a blow.

You often hear the old saws about heavy displacement being necessary in a cruising and comments such as, "light boats don't have the capacity to carry enough gear and supplies to really go cruising." Or "they loose their speed advantage when loaded to go cruising". These kinds of statements ignore that boats in this size range are often raced with 1,500 to 2,000 lbs. of crew weight and in distance racing, an equal weight in racing gear and provisions for this crew.

More to the point, there seems to be a popular notion that boats with L/D's under 240 are not suited for distance cruising or that they are too light to carry the gear that is necessary to support life offshore. I think this comes from looking at traditional boats and how they were proportioned relative to new designs. First of all, it might help to compare two equal displacement boats say 15,000 lbs, one of an older design and one of a more modern design. The older design might have a waterline length of maybe 29 feet and a L/D around 275. If we look at a more modern design, it might actually be the same length overall as or slightly longer than the more traditional design but its waterline length would be closer to 34-35 feet giving it a L/D around 160. I think most yacht designers would tell you that the longer waterline boat of the same displacement would actually have better carrying capacity with less loss of seaworthiness and speed with added weight than the more traditional shorter length waterline boat.

I think that it is a mistake to home in on a particular length of boat and then try to find the roomiest or most burdensome boat of that length. It generally results in a boat that is perhaps a decent live aboard but one that gives up performance, motion comfort and ultimately seaworthiness.

Staying at a traditional weight range but lighter L/D simply results in a longer waterline boat, which is also good thing. One thing that has consistently come out of the studies of the Fastnet tragedy and the Sidney-Hobart disaster, is that there are a lot of factors that determine whether a boat is a good sea boat or not, but nothing succeeds in heavy weather like length.

For myself, using the lower end of the classic displacement rule of thumb, 10,000 to 16,000 lb of displacement seemed right for a couple. Using a more modern and lighter L/D near 160, I ended up with a 37 to 39 foot boat. For other reasons, I had decided that 36 to 39 feet was about the right length as well. Smaller than 36 feet it is hard to get the kind of accommodations and capacities that I wanted in lightweight boat

I want to touch on the "motion comfort index" and the "Capsize screen ratio". Both are worse than useless. I consider them to be so misleading as to be dangerous. Neither formula contains any of the critical factors governing motion comfort or the likelihood of a capsize. These formulas were developed when boats were a lot more similar to each other than they are today, before we really understood the factors that control either motion comfort or capsize mechanisms, and before the advent of modern IMS derived typeforms with their very high ballast stability and moderate form stability.

In terms of stability and motion comfort nothing succeeds like a low center of gravity relative to the center of buoyancy. Other factors include dampening and the inherent moment of inertia of the boat. Ideally a boat has a reasonably large roll moment of inertia that results from weight carried low such as a bulb keel. Of course this raises the draft issue. I think that moderate draft is important. That said we all seem to define 'moderate draft' in our own way. To me that means 6'-6" or less on a 38 footer. To others that means 5 feet or less and still to others that means 4 feet or less. One thing is clear, as draft is reduced performance and potentially motion comfort goes down quickly. There is no instant cure for reduced draft. Bulbs and wings help some, but there is no free ride on this one. Probably the best overall alternative is a daggerboard with a bulb but these are quite rare and built right are quite expensive to engineer and construct.

Everyone seems to focus on the LPS (limit of positive stability) in a way that assumes that a boat is simply deposited upside down like a turtle being politely placed upside down on its shell. In reality, in most recorded cases there is a lot of momentum and so a boat with an LPS of 125 or 130 degrees as measured for IMS is probably fine. (IMS does not include the volume of the cabin in the calculation which can often add as much as 20 degrees to the actual LPS. Traditional boats often had dismal angles of positive stability and old style heavy cruisers often have extremely poor angles of positive stability.

One of the most overlooked subjects in these discussions is downflooding. It is not unusual to see cruisers with the bridge deck below the coamings, hatches to cockpit lockers that connect to the interior of the boat, large plexiglass ports and so on. Down flooding is more likely to kill you than the actual capsize itself and once downflooding begins it makes capsize recovery nearly imposible.

In terms of rig, I strongly prefer a fractional rigged sloop, which I consider to be the ideal cruising rig for a boat of this size. Their proportionately smaller headsails are easier to stow, fly and tack. Because their jibs are a proportionately smaller part of the overall sail plan, fractional rigs can often have a greater wind speed range for each headsail and get by with non-overlapping jibs. This is especially true if the standing sail plan has an SA/D in the over 20 range. This may seem like a lot but here again this is an area where I would suggest that we look at traditional craft, which typically had huge standing rigs. At some point due to racing rules rigs sizes got substantially smaller and sail plans went to genoas as a way of producing performance approaching a reasonable level. But genoas are terribly inefficient. They take a lot of energy to tack and place a real stain on the rig in order to maintain headstay tension. They came into use to beat a measurement rule that under penalized the overlapping portions of the sail. They make no sense for distance cruising. When you take into account the sail area of a typical boat with a 140% genoa, the SA/D range is often over 20 but the boat gets little of the drive or ease of depowering of a smaller more efficiently shaped sail plan.

For single-handing the greater ease of tacking a non-overlapping headsail can't be beat. Another advantage of a fractional rig is that the simple application of backstay tension can induce controlled mast bend, which depowers both sails at once, which often balances the helm and thereby reduce the need to reef as quickly. Fractional rigged boats also can be generally sailed under their mainsails alone making a very handy rig for short-tacking your way in a confined area or dealing with a sudden increase in wind speed. (Sailing under genoa alone often produced poor pointing ability and dangerous lee helm in a gust.) The use of non-overlapping jibs mean that you can generally use the furler to roll in a small amount of sail and have a decent shaped storm jib sized sail. With the ease of modern two line slab reefing, in heavier conditions you can easily reef down to a very snug, depowered, and balanced masthead rig. I would want everything lead back to the cockpit. I suggest taking advantage of the advances in hardware such as adjust on the fly jib sheet leads.

I strongly prefer a deck stepped mast with moment capable jack post and a moment connection at the deck. These are pretty rare as well but allow the strength advantages of a keel stepped mast and the wide practical advantages of a deck stepped mast such as the ability to jetison a bent spar before it beats your boat to death.

I strongly prefer in cockpit travelers and tiller steering coupled with a below deck autopilot.

In terms of the interior I would want full sized berths for a reasonable number of people. Berths that are comfortable underway as well as at a boat show. Comfortable seating for the entire crew and a few visitors more. For living aboard I do not like having to count on things that are set up and taken down every day. Therefore I like a dinette table, but it also needs to be solidly constructed so that you can lean against it or be thrown against it without tearing it out of the deck

Obviously it is important to have a galley that works underway as well as in port. To me that means adequate counter space that can be used without moving everything off of the ice box lid and with high enough fiddles that you can set things down with some degree of safety. A fully equipped galley should be located near the companionway where it is within easy reach of the cockpit and dinette. Its position near the center of buoyancy means a galley with the least amount of motion. A top loaded icebox. Frankly the one item that seems to be the most problematic on boats is refrigeration so I am not sure that I would have refrigeration. As a vegetarian this could work for me.

Without refrigeration your battery banks and fuel tankage can be substantially smaller. I have mixed emotions about water makers. On one hand they reduce the amount of water tankage that is required but then you need to carry more diesel to have the power to operate them. They also only work in some areas of the world where the water is clean enough. In any event I would want minimally 30-40 gallons of water per person, and 40 hours or roughly 300 miles of fuel tankage. Lots of secure but comparatively accessible storage is important.

Obviously solidly attached, easy to grip and frequently placed handholds are important. If you are going offshore, narrow passages so that you can maintain good footing is important. For living aboard a shower set up so that you don't hose down the entire head is a nice thing to have. I would convert the hanging locker to a rack to store rubber maid type bins with spare parts, gear and stores.

Proper storage for ground tackle is essential. There seems to be an feeling that an electric windlass is a must. I don't believe that myself. Depending on the boat and the physical condition of the person, I think that a manual windlass or even no windlass can work quite well. On my 38 footer I use a chain hook and a dacron line lead to a deck winch to break out the hook when it is seriously planted.

I would love to have moveable water ballast for the offshore legs. My current boat has the water tanks set up so that roughly 40 gals of water can be shifted from side to side.

I prefer a composite hull with a closely spaced frame system, and water tight bulkheads forward. I do not believe that hull liners are appropriate on offshore cruisers. I prefer vinylester resin and a minimum of non-directional materials in the laminate. Although compartively rare I prefer a boat with kevlar laminate in the bow and bilge areas.

And here is the rub, it is next to impossible to find all of that in a boat in our price range. I had a budget of $60k when I bought my boat. That was all I had to buy, outfit and get the boat back to my dock. Given my goals a lot of what I looked at were either old IOR boats (not very suitable for what is being proposed) and a limited number of performance cruising boats from the early 1980's. One thing that I discovered is that the New Zealanders produced a lot of cruising designs that were quite advanced for thier day and I focused in on a Farr design that had an excellent offshore cruising and racing record. I also came across a 'White' design that was a wonderful boat and a 'Ross' that looked pretty good as well. I had considered refitting raceboats like this Farr one ton which can be purchased cheaply: http://www.yachtworld.com/listing/yw...USD&units=Feet

Another choice in this vein are the J-34c and J-35c which were performance cruisers. Dehler made some very nice boats that would serve as a good platform as well.

I guess that I could go on for a lot longer but this seems long enough for right now.

Regards
Jeff
__________________
Jeff H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2003, 19:14   #23
Now on the Dark Side: Stink Potter.
 
CSY Man's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Ft. Lauderdale
Boat: 2001 Albin 28TE.
Posts: 3,400
Images: 115
Okay Mr. Jeff, that was the short answer, now would you please expand just a tiny bit...

Uh, I sort of latched onto the thing about ya prefer a deck step masts in case of an emergency...Quite opposite of what a bunch of other "experts" say.

As far as displacement per person, also interesting and new information to me.

(My CSY 33 with a heavy displacement would then fit into that bracket for sure...She is somewhere around 22 to 24 thousand pounds loaded...The water-line has been raised twice and the water line lenght increased from 25 to 28 feet.....:-)

Since ya know a thing or two about yacht design and naval arcitects and such, and since ya answered my question about Bill Tripp Jr. who designed my previous boat, do ya have any comments about Peter Schmit, his work in general and the CSY designs and the CSY 33 in particular..?

Appreciate any comments and if negative ones, will take 'em as a man....
__________________
CSY Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-10-2003, 05:29   #24
Registered User
 
Stede's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NC
Boat: Mariner 36 Sloop, Seidelman 24 racer
Posts: 288
Images: 38
Hi everyone,

Jeff, thanks for your input.You've given me (and I'm sure others) a lot to digest, and decipher I've made a copy of your comments so that I can review them, and then hopefully ask some intelligent questions. From previous comments that I've read of yours, and others, it's made me realize the importance of good boat design for what I want to do, possible passagemaking. I've been trying to learn as much as I can about the dynamics of good design, but I still have a long way to go. Is there a book that you would recommend that covers sailboat design, from kind of a layman perspective? I saw what appeared to be a good book on design at the local bookstore this last weekend. It was pretty expensive, and I don't want to spend a lot of money for the wrong book if I can avoid it.Thanks!

*** I took a look at the Farr 40 you provided the link to.The boat has a lot of potential. I could see where making some changes below could provide a fast, comfortable cruising boat.
__________________
Stede is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-10-2003, 07:30   #25
Registered User
 
Troubledour's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Ohio River, USA
Posts: 150
Images: 1
Jeff Weighs In

There's the post I've been looking for, Thanks Jeff

Troubledour
__________________
Troubledour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-10-2003, 10:33   #26
Moderator Emeritus
 
GordMay's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario - 48-29N x 89-20W
Boat: (Cruiser Living On Dirt)
Posts: 31,592
Images: 240
Thanks Jeff

Deck-Stepped Masts & the “Experts”:

You’ll note that Jeff was very precise about his preference for a deck stepped mast - he
specified “moment capable” compression (jack) post and deck connections, and went on to note their relative “rarity”.

Many deck stepped rigs will not meet this stringent requirement, and hence may be despised by many ‘experts’.

Likewise, many experts disdain cored hulls; which (properly done) can provide tremendous strength in a lightweight assembly. These experts have seen poorly executed hulls, and condemn them all. And so on ...

Jeff points out that deck stepped mast is much more easily disconnected and/or abandoned than is the keel stepped. We’ve personal experience /w just this situation. A friend was dismasted in the Delaware. We were sailing in company, and Maggie watched his stick come down , so we were only moments away from providing effective assistance. Our dinghy was under tow (& immediately available), and my 36" cable cutters were near the top of the bin. We were able to keep his rig afloat & away from his boat, while quickly cutting the entangling stays.

BTW: The rig came down, without hurting anyone, and was bent in a sideways“W”. We salvaged the hardware, which was installed on a new-used mast, in Annapolis. Darn - I wish I could remember the little yard that sold him the stick, some new cable, and lent us his tools. Great guy!

Deck-Stepped mast - OK in my opinion, as long as well engineered.

Regards,
Gord
__________________
Gord May
"If you didn't have the time or money to do it right in the first place, when will you get the time/$ to fix it?"



GordMay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-10-2003, 11:30   #27
Registered User
 
Stede's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NC
Boat: Mariner 36 Sloop, Seidelman 24 racer
Posts: 288
Images: 38
Hi Gord and all,

A couple of follow up comments, to some follow up comments

Deck stepped mast - I've read, and heard this debate go both ways. As Jeff and you both point out, one advantage of a deck stepped mast is the ability to cut the broken spar away and keep it from banging in to the boat,etc. Of course others say a keel stepped mast is better because if it breaks, you usually have a portion of it (stub) left to create a jury-rig off of.I know this is nothing new to either of you. Another passagemaking website I like to refer to: Mahina.com - states:

Mast Support System

"Deck stepped masts work well, but only if proper structural members transmit the load to the keel. Otherwise deflection and possibly delaminating under the mast occur. With keel stepped masts, inspect for corrosion at the base of the mast. Check the mast for trueness."

In regard to cored hulls and decks, they state:

Decks - "I would recommend having a surveyor look very carefully at any boat older than eight years with balsa-cored decks. Unless the core has been eliminated in favor of a solid laminate where stanchion bases, genoa tracks, cleats and other deck fittings are placed, water will penetrate the balsa sooner or later, and repairs may be extensive and expensive.
If the boat has foam-cored decks, the marine surveyor will check all horizontal surfaces carefully for voids or delaminating by tapping with a small hammer."

Hulls - "If the hull is balsa-cored and the core material becomes saturated because of improperly installed thru-hulls, or if the boat has "gone on the beach" you may want to look at a different boat because of the cost of repairs and potential for future problems.
Foam-coring provides excellent insulation above the waterline but there can be problems with water absorption if coring is used below the waterline."

*** I noticed that on the Farr 40 that Jeff referred to, the hull material is a: Kevlar Glass / Closed Cell Foam Sandwich. I would think that with these high-tech.materials make the hull very strong, but what about the "potential problems with water absorption with coring below the waterline?" I wouldn't think that this foam material would absorb water, but I guess it does? Around thru-hulls, etc. this could be a real problem in boats 10-15 years old,couldn't it?How familiar are marine surveyors with these types of materials,and how closely do they examine them?
__________________
Stede is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-10-2003, 17:16   #28
Moderator Emeritus
 
GordMay's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario - 48-29N x 89-20W
Boat: (Cruiser Living On Dirt)
Posts: 31,592
Images: 240
Yep, the argument(s) go both ways. As with anything it's (Deck-Stepped, & Cored Hulls) gotta be done right!

Also like any other endeavour, some surveyors are better than others.

Having stated the obvious:

I don't advocate either mast-step as preferable overall. I look to the quality, without prejudice.

I've worked on several Cored Hull power boats, and never found a serious problem - except justifying my time to the owner.

Stede opines that they're all great - he loves boats. I also love boats; but working full-time on boat repair took a lot of my love for boat designers, builders, and repairers.

Regards,
Gord
__________________
Gord May
"If you didn't have the time or money to do it right in the first place, when will you get the time/$ to fix it?"



GordMay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-10-2003, 19:59   #29
Senior Cruiser
 
Jeff H's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: May 2003
Location: Annapolis, Maryland
Boat: Farr 11.6 (AKA Farr 38) Synergy
Posts: 543
Images: 13
A couple follow-ups:

Gordon caught my point about the moment connected mast. With a moment connected mast, it has the same strength characteristics as a keel stepped mast, meaning the portion of the mast acts structurally like the bottom panel of a keel stepped mast. Because the mast is bolted at the deck, you have an equal chance of having a useable stub standing as you would with a keel stepped mast. The big advantage (besides dry bilges) is that you can unbolt the stub if the bent mast threatens the boat.

Any quality boat will have cored decks. Balsa is cheap and readily available but requires a lot more care in laying up to prevent delamination and core rot and requires a solid material in way of bolting. Moderate to high density closed cell foam is a more carefree material. The 'closed cell' means that it can't absorb water. Higher density foams do not require solid blocking at bolting and is sometimes used in higher quality boats at bolting locations.

Done right there is no better way to build a boat for strength to weight and for longevity than a kevlar vinylester resin layup and a medium density closed cell foam core. My last boat, also a Farr design was built this way. It is an amazingly tough way to build a boat. Again the closed cell foam is should not absorb water. It is helpful to seal the hull at thru hulls but in the case of my kevlar/vinylester foam cored hull, there was solid glass with no core at the thruhulls. My prior boat remained in the water for 3 years at a time without being hauled and she never tested wet on haul out.

Jeff

(I will comment on the CSY another time.)
__________________
Jeff H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-10-2003, 21:13   #30
Now on the Dark Side: Stink Potter.
 
CSY Man's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Ft. Lauderdale
Boat: 2001 Albin 28TE.
Posts: 3,400
Images: 115
Okay all, good input on deck stepped masts, cored decks and such.

I sure learn something every time I come visit here...

(Never thought I would respect a deck stepped mast in the morning however, but perhaps I have been narrow-minded?)

Have also learned a bunch from reading this surveyors web page, he has done some 4000 surveys and has opinions about cored hulls and other stuff.

Serious good reading:

http://www.yachtsurvey.com/

Okay Mr. Jeff I would appreciate comments on the CSY boat,s later. Thanks.

We have a little page set up, with comments and pictures about CSY,s: www.turtlebones.com/forum

Yours truly is the moderator and have been spreading opinions all over the place.

We also have a e-mail list over at csy@topica.com

And one at www.sailnet.com find the list menu, then sign up for the CSY list.

Feel free to join if remotly interested in the best kept secret in production built sail boats from the 70,s......



For personal messages to this prophet, e-mail csy33@bellsouth.net

Sail safe, heavy and in comfort and style.....
__________________

__________________
CSY Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
liveaboard

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
Crusing , Passage Making and General Liveaboard Videos fyodor1564 General Sailing Forum 20 30-07-2011 16:33



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:15.


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.