Cockpit sizes of Tashiba, Tayana, Baba, Cabo Rico, Hans Christian

[Elie]

Double ender has by nature a smallish cockpit, but deep. I'm surprised to see so many sailors of the forum having double ender. I wonder why. Most modern well designed boats have wide spacious cockpits and in the case of mine(GibSea 472) open transom, with wide flatish buttocks, that lend to very good speed and an great ability to rise to the sea and therefore remain dry even in a blow. I never had any wave making its way into my cockpit even in a blow in the Gulf Stream. A friend in the same conditions(into the same blow) had its Corbin 39(an heavy double ender) cockpit filled a few times by passing waves.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by Elie

Double ender has by nature a smallish cockpit, but deep. I'm surprised to see so many sailors of the forum having double ender. I wonder why. Most modern well designed boats have wide spacious cockpits and in the case of mine(GibSea 472) open transom, with wide flatish buttocks, that lend to very good speed and an great ability to rise to the sea and therefore remain dry even in a blow. I never had any wave making its way into my cockpit even in a blow in the Gulf Stream. A friend in the same conditions(into the same blow) had its Corbin 39(an heavy double ender) cockpit filled a few times by passing waves.

Some good observations here! So many of the "heavy long keel double ended crab crusher" enthusiasts fail to understand the the slow and stately motion at sea that they love is matched to being easily pooped when the vessel fails to rise rapidly to a steep and high sea, overtaking from astern. They worry a lot about filling the cockpit with water, and perhaps rightly so, for the shape of their stern sections has little reserve buoyancy, and thus suffer more from he extra weight than a vessel with a broader bum.

At any rate, our experience with a moderate but modern hull shape says that pooping has been a rare act indeed. In fact, in the 55,000 miles we've now logged in Insatiable II, we've had some splashes in the cockpit but no serious water at any time.

Jim

[rbk]

Re: Cockpit sizes of Tashiba, Tayana, Baba, Cabo Rico, Hans Christian
Double ender has by nature a smallish cockpit, but deep. I'm surprised to see so many sailors of the forum having double ender. I wonder why. Most modern well designed boats have wide spacious cockpits and in the case of mine(GibSea 472) open transom, with wide flatish buttocks, that lend to very good speed and an great ability to rise to the sea and therefore remain dry even in a blow. I never had any wave making its way into my cockpit even in a blow in the Gulf Stream. A friend in the same conditions(into the same blow) had its Corbin 39(an heavy double ender) cockpit filled a few times by passing waves.

Not to rehash this again but those that love them tend to feel the lack of reserve buoyancy is what makes them more comfortable and safer in following seas while looking better doing it.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by rbk

Not to rehash this again but those that love them tend to feel the lack of reserve buoyancy is what makes them more comfortable and safer in following seas while looking better doing it.

So, enlighten us, please: how does a lack of reserve buoyancy make a boat safer?

Jim

[ronbo1]

If you're looking for a commodious cockpit check out the 36/37 Gozzard. It has one of the biggest with the large steering pod minimizing volume and providing a good foot rest.
The transom has a large crash door draining any pooped water quickly.

Ronbo

[rbk]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

So, enlighten us, please: how does a lack of reserve buoyancy make a boat safer?

Jim

Ya I'm not biting at that hook. Maybe you should tell us what type of dog is best or which style of house or car is best while we're at it. If you read my post "those that love them tend to feel..." this is how I feel and is why I bought the boat I did, and most likely why the original poster inquired about them as well. Now I could with you and probably several others for several hours and both sides have valid points and neither will be swayed. If you want my technical reasons for my opinion feel free to research them yourself. All the best

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by rbk

Ya I'm not biting at that hook. Maybe you should tell us what type of dog is best or which style of house or car is best while we're at it. If you read my post "those that love them tend to feel..." this is how I feel and is why I bought the boat I did, and most likely why the original poster inquired about them as well. Now I could with you and probably several others for several hours and both sides have valid points and neither will be swayed. If you want my technical reasons for my opinion feel free to research them yourself. All the best

So, it sounds like you do not have any supporting data to explain your "feelings" that your favourite design is safer than others.

OK, all is understood now.

Jim

[buzzstar]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

So, it sounds like you do not have any supporting data to explain your "feelings" that your favourite design is safer than others.

OK, all is understood now.

Jim

If I understand things correctly, and I may not, a fat ass does not necessarily add to a vessel's reserve buoyancy. It may, but it depends.

[Elie]

Originally Posted by buzzstar

If I understand things correctly, and I may not, a fat ass does not necessarily add to a vessel's reserve buoyancy. It may, but it depends.

Its de volume that lends to reserve buoyancy. And skinny assed boats with their Norvegian rear end have le least reserve. But that is not all. The real problem with a heavy double ender has to do also with its displacement, and more importantly with the moments of inertia (distribution of the weight). Light ends is an weight centering around the keel is THE important factor to rise to a sea, and be secure. We see this when crossing a big tanker offshore: It can't move fast enough and all the waves crash on it like it was a fixed wall....

[rbk]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

So, it sounds like you do not have any supporting data to explain your "feelings" that your favourite design is safer than others.

OK, all is understood now.

Jim

And your supporting data is where...

So, it sounds like you do not have any supporting data to explain your "feelings" that your favourite design is safer than others either.

OK, all is understood now.

[buzzstar]

Originally Posted by Elie

Its de volume that lends to reserve buoyancy. And skinny assed boats with their Norvegian rear end have le least reserve. But that is not all. The real problem with a heavy double ender has to do also with its displacement, and more importantly with the moments of inertia (distribution of the weight). Light ends is an weight centering around the keel is THE important factor to rise to a sea, and be secure. We see this when crossing a big tanker offshore: It can't move fast enough and all the waves crash on it like it was a fixed wall....

You have added nothing to change my mind. But its not what either one of us think. Aside from the fact that I truly doubt that you (or at least your boat under sail) moves fast enough to out run the waves, or even equal them (no broaching while running/surfing wing & wing), and I do not think you want to simply slide sown the backside every time -or do you? I'd love to hear from an actual naval architect. Any around and willing to comment.

Maybe one will engage in a writing moment. Anyway, I am pooped for now.

[Suijin]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Some good observations here! So many of the "heavy long keel double ended crab crusher" enthusiasts fail to understand the the slow and stately motion at sea that they love is matched to being easily pooped when the vessel fails to rise rapidly to a steep and high sea, overtaking from astern. They worry a lot about filling the cockpit with water, and perhaps rightly so, for the shape of their stern sections has little reserve buoyancy, and thus suffer more from he extra weight than a vessel with a broader bum.

Jim I think you're conflating three design principles; heavy, long keel, and canoe stern.

Not all double-enders, or canoe stern boats are heavy or full keel. My boat is about average in terms of displacement for a long-distance cruiser of her length, and she has fin keel and skeg hung rudder.

She also has tremendous reserve buoyancy in her stern and is well known for her good manners in a large following sea. Look at her haunches in my profile avatar. She's a big-bottomed girl aft.

The small cockpits of these boats are not designed specifically to mitigate the effects of being pooped from the stern; it was a principle of the day when open transom cockpits had not yet gained traction in design circles.

[Jim Cate]

For RBK and others:

I quote Bob Perry (perhaps you have heard of him?)...


"Years later, with the IOR making people angry, a reactionary movement sprung up in the cruising community. Heavy, slow, salty, Colin Archer type double enders propelled by the Westsail movement were the accepted boats for offshore cruising. For some reason double enders were seen as safer offshore boats. This probably came from the Colin Archer lifeboat tradition. But there were all sorts of strange theories as to why the double ender was the best hull form for offshore. “The stern parts the following seas.” I call this the “Moses effect”. Maybe the stern parts the following sea because there is not enough buoyancy aft for the stern to rise to the following sea. “There is more reserve buoyancy aft.” This is certainly not true in a boat like a Westsail with almost no stern overhang at all. There is almost no buoyancy aft. Ok, fine, what about a canoe stern? Yes, a canoe stern can give you far more buoyancy aft than a Westsail type stern but a nice broad transom stern with some overhang will have far more buoyancy aft than a canoe stern. “In a double ender the heeled waterlines are more balanced.” Yes, in most cases this is true and it’s a good thing but I’m not certain it makes a boat more seaworthy or sea kindly. It does make some boats easier to balance over a wide range of heel angles.
Then why did I make the Valiant 40 a double ender? Marketing! It was just assumed that offshore cruising boats had to be double enders and rather than buck that trend I decided to go with it and at the same time add my own twist to the shape to try and improve the performance of the double ender."


So, you see, there are some folks who agree with my statements above.

Of course, he could be wrong and the good feelings folks right...

Jim

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Some good observations here! So many of the "heavy long keel double ended crab crusher" enthusiasts fail to understand the the slow and stately motion at sea that they love is matched to being easily pooped when the vessel fails to rise rapidly to a steep and high sea, overtaking from astern. They worry a lot about filling the cockpit with water, and perhaps rightly so, for the shape of their stern sections has little reserve buoyancy, and thus suffer more from he extra weight than a vessel with a broader bum.

At any rate, our experience with a moderate but modern hull shape says that pooping has been a rare act indeed. In fact, in the 55,000 miles we've now logged in Insatiable II, we've had some splashes in the cockpit but no serious water at any time.

Jim

I agree with Jim. Why buy a boat designed with a cockpit that's likely to fill up with water? That doesn't make any sense.

Yacht design has evolved since the 1960's and 1970's.

[MIRELOS]

all points well taken and yes, Robert Perry does know about boats and one thing not mentioned in the article but very often referred by him is the aesthetic line, what is a good looking boat?......most important; will you gaze back at your boat in admiration as you leave her behind.