Quote:
Originally Posted by Amgine  Last-wordism.
What it meant is, from a statistics point of view (something I do) and with a very bad source of numbers (this board of cruisers), it looks to me that there's no evidence big boats are inherently less likely to be knocked down, or that small boats are more likely to be.
|
After stating that your data source (this board) is a very bad source of data you then try to reach a conclusion with that data. In terms of statistics (something I also do) this is the worst sin of statistical analysis.
There is insufficient data to conclude statistically one way or another - end of story.
Buy a big boat because you like a big stateroom. Buy a small boat if you can't afford a big boat.
What is possible is to analyze with some certainty the stability of each boat based on long established naval engineering standards. This is beyond the ken of a statistical analyst and requires a naval engineer.
Also, you have to very specifically define you terms. The participants here seem to want to asses aboats resistance to a) Roll-over - meaning the mast goes in the water through at least 180 degrees - caused by a combination of sea and wind and may include broaching. Knock down - maning the mast goes into the water at about 90 degrees caused by wind only or a combination of wind and seas and may include broaching.
With no statistics or naval engineer to back me up, intuitively I would take a longer, bigger and heavier boat with weight distributed more around the lower 1/3 of the boat.
My 25 footer @ 4,500lb vs. your 53 footer @ 17,000 lbs is no contest - to argue otherwise would simply make me pig headed.