Published light displacements accurate?

[arsenelupiga]

Originally Posted by billknny

This is hardly a new trend, and hardly unique to multihulls. Boatbuilders have been cheating on published weights ever since there were scales.



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:



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.

that is very bad idea. Like in restaurant saying to cook that food is no good and he needs to take your plate and fix it. I sure do not want to eat what comes out of kitchen second time.

Builders will save on material get you exact weight but things will be breaking all around you when speeding at 8 kn At 10 kn you will have mayday situation.

[mikedefieslife]

Originally Posted by Thalas

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.

But there aren't any miss-leading lengths. Take your example of the Saona 47. It's just name like Samsung Galaxy s9 is a name. It has nothing to do with length. Perhaps in some older times gone by, but I've never seen anywhere state that the boat length is included in the name.

[Thalas]

Originally Posted by mikedefieslife

But there aren't any miss-leading lengths. Take your example of the Saona 47. It's just name like Samsung Galaxy s9 is a name. It has nothing to do with length. Perhaps in some older times gone by, but I've never seen anywhere state that the boat length is included in the name.

Of course you are correct. I just mean, why not call it the Saona 46 though since 99% of people are going to assume the number in the name refers to the length. Does it matter in the real world? Nowhere near as much as reported weight vs actual. When length really matters, someone is gonna have a tape measure out to make sure you pay them correctly for your actual length. But the illusion is that FP offers a 42, 45, and 47, when they actually offer a 41, 44, 46. It's just strange to me and I'm a huge fan of the brand.

Full agreement about the Bali deck. I'm a defender of Leopards being seaworthy as I feel the forward cockpit will drain fine and if you're that concerned about it, you can (relatively) easily seal it off from oncoming wave with aftermarket guards. But a solid deck burying into waves with the bows absolutely increases the odds of a pitchpole event.

[Bean Counter]

Originally Posted by mikedefieslife

But there aren't any miss-leading lengths. Take your example of the Saona 47. It's just name like Samsung Galaxy s9 is a name. It has nothing to do with length. Perhaps in some older times gone by, but I've never seen anywhere state that the boat length is included in the name.

Numbers in badging are usually there to mean something as a guide to the product. Your Prout Snowgoose 35 is actually a tad over 35ft. The Samsung Galaxy S9 is 9th in the series (models 1 - 8 precede it). V8 on a car means 8 cylinders not 6. Other products such as Boeing airliners have numbers that mean something to the company, not the public, like they all start with 7. In the case of the Saona 47 I struggle to see the significance of the number other than to imply that is bigger than the competitors 45, which it is not. One thought I had was that in the charter market new charterers might think they are getting a bargain when they can hire a Saona 47 for only a few dollars more than a Lagoon 450 or Leopard 45 wrongly assuming it is a bigger boat.

[smj]

Originally Posted by arsenelupiga

that is very bad idea. Like in restaurant saying to cook that food is no good and he needs to take your plate and fix it. I sure do not want to eat what comes out of kitchen second time.



Builders will save on material get you exact weight but things will be breaking all around you when speeding at 8 kn At 10 kn you will have mayday situation.

It’s not about saving on material to save weight it’s about using more expensive materials and building methods that will save weight and make for a lighter stronger more seaworthy catamaran.

[Bean Counter]

Originally Posted by smj

It’s not about saving on material to save weight it’s about using more expensive materials and building methods that will save weight and make for a lighter stronger more seaworthy catamaran.

I think the point he is making in a light hearted fashion is that with volume production boats if you penalize factories for going overweight, they will be tempted to use the same type of materials to make budget, but less of them to make the weight limit, they are unlikely to use more expensive materials when they have to deliver on a fixed price. Also when there is queue behind you wanting your boat, not giving a fig about a slight overweight situation on a production cruising boat you might be waiting a while to get a contract that you are happy with.

[billknny]

Originally Posted by arsenelupiga

that is very bad idea. Like in restaurant saying to cook that food is no good and he needs to take your plate and fix it. I sure do not want to eat what comes out of kitchen second time.

Builders will save on material get you exact weight but things will be breaking all around you when speeding at 8 kn At 10 kn you will have mayday situation.

If you seriously believe that heavier is always stronger and better, then you should not be sailing a catamaran.

[billknny]

Originally Posted by Bean Counter

I think the point he is making in a light hearted fashion is that with volume production boats if you penalize factories for going overweight, they will be tempted to use the same type of materials to make budget, but less of them to make the weight limit, they are unlikely to use more expensive materials when they have to deliver on a fixed price. Also when there is queue behind you wanting your boat, not giving a fig about a slight overweight situation on a production cruising boat you might be waiting a while to get a contract that you are happy with.

The point I was trying to make is that weight IS very important to a multihull. If you are making a selection of one model over another based on published weight figures, then you should either hold the manufacturer to their number, or forget it and pick the one with the ceramic bathtub installed. You'll buy a motorsailer instead of a sailboat. Nothing wrong with that--IF it is what you want.

[arsenelupiga]

Originally Posted by billknny

The point I was trying to make is that weight IS very important to a multihull. If you are making a selection of one model over another based on published weight figures, then you should either hold the manufacturer to their number, or forget it and pick the one with the ceramic bathtub installed. You'll buy a motorsailer instead of a sailboat. Nothing wrong with that--IF it is what you want.

you nailed it ! But you likely are not familiar with making passage in catamaran. You cant just cut out food, wife, spares etc. because they are too heavy.

And then you get very dangerous version of 'perfomance catamaran'

[mikedefieslife]

I'm still unsure on the numbers. No-one thinks the Lagoon 380 is 380 feet long.

In any case i'd bet the majority of boats in the world are sold in countries that use metric system and have no idea what a ft is. Likewise the vast majority of the worlds boat builders are based in metric countries too. In such a case then a Saona should actually be Saona 14 then. Which to me would read like it's the 14th version of that model, not 14m long. If I want to know the length of something, I usually check the specs, but then I'm not a traditional boater, so convention means little to me.

As to the solid decks on the Bali and some other boats. There is a school of thought that it adds buoyancy and in certain extent actually reduces the pitchpole risk initially.

[rom]

Originally Posted by billknny

The point I was trying to make is that weight IS very important to a multihull. If you are making a selection of one model over another based on published weight figures, then you should either hold the manufacturer to their number, or forget it and pick the one with the ceramic bathtub installed. You'll buy a motorsailer instead of a sailboat. Nothing wrong with that--IF it is what you want.

I think I understood what Arsen meant and I think the point you are trying to make does not really apply to the big 3. As long as those comfy boats are floating and sailing decently no one really cares if their 45 footer weights 15 or 17 tons. I have never heard of anyone taking weight into account when selecting one of the big 3.

If I were to buy an outremer 45 at 8 tons, and it finally gets out at 9 tons, I would probably not be happy at all. I believe (to be verified) Outremer and some other manufacturers of faster cats stand behind their numbers and support penalties pretty much the way you wrote it.
You spend so much time criticizing the big 3, you would like them to lighter and better build, this and that. But if they were, we (we potential buyers, not you obvioulsy) would have to pay them an Outremer price. It doesn't make sense. You may as well criticize Bavaria & Beneteau monohulls for not being built as an Amel. Please accept/respect the fact that there are boats for everyone.


That being said, I agree that weight figures should be clearer. And it seems to me Lagoon does the best with a CEE light displacement.

[rom]

Originally Posted by mikedefieslife

I'm still unsure on the numbers. No-one thinks the Lagoon 380 is 380 feet long.

In any case i'd bet the majority of boats in the world are sold in countries that use metric system and have no idea what a ft is. Likewise the vast majority of the worlds boat builders are based in metric countries too. In such a case then a Saona should actually be Saona 14 then. Which to me would read like it's the 14th version of that model, not 14m long. If I want to know the length of something, I usually check the specs, but then I'm not a traditional boater, so convention means little to me.

As to the solid decks on the Bali and some other boats. There is a school of thought that it adds buoyancy and in certain extent actually reduces the pitchpole risk initially.

Come one, as far as I can remember boats have always had ft numbers. Everyone one knows a 40 footer is about 12 meters. And it doesn't take long for a newby in a metric country to get the numbers right. Saona 47 is very very clearly showing that the Saona is about 47 ft, and that is definitely a marketing lie.

[cyan]

Originally Posted by mikedefieslife

As to the solid decks on the Bali and some other boats. There is a school of thought that it adds buoyancy and in certain extent actually reduces the pitchpole risk initially.

Well the Bali 4.5 does have more freeboard than other cats. However, some of the (not so independent?) reviews seem to reference the "ingenious" solid foredeck that was possible because of using advanced/lighter materials that did not need the weight reduction of a traditional trampoline. I think these reviews are missing the elephant in the room. The trampoline is not ONLY there for weight reduction- it provides a human platform, yet water can fall through to help avoid tripping. That's what I've seen happen, anyway. Pretty sure.

[NPCampbell]

Originally Posted by cyan

Well the Bali 4.5 does have more freeboard than other cats. However, some of the (not so independent?) reviews seem to reference the "ingenious" solid foredeck that was possible because of using advanced/lighter materials that did not need the weight reduction of a traditional trampoline. I think these reviews are missing the elephant in the room. The trampoline is not ONLY there for weight reduction- it provides a human platform, yet water can fall through to help avoid tripping. That's what I've seen happen, anyway. Pretty sure.

It looks like there is around 150 sq ft of 30 degree wedge starting at the leading edge of the foredeck on the Bali. You don't think that the dynamics of the hull would completely overwhelm all other forces until the hull slows down at which point buoyancy would be the dominant force?

[cyan]

Originally Posted by NPCampbell

It looks like there is around 150 sq ft of 30 degree wedge starting at the leading edge of the foredeck on the Bali. You don't think that the dynamics of the hull would completely overwhelm all other forces until the hull slows down at which point buoyancy would be the dominant force?

Not sure. I could still imagine burying the bows in big enough conditions. Since this seems like a thread hijack, though, I dusted off this other really old discussion on trampolines vs solid foredecks...
Trampoline Vs. Solid Foredeck - Page 3 - Cruisers & Sailing Forums