Seaworthiness

Sorry to wander so far off topic, this post isn't much about boat
building.

Peter Ward wrote:

 > Greetings all, I'm considering building a kit Stornaway Weekender
 > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.scruffie.com" target="_blank">www.scruffie.com</a> as a teethcutting exercise;

Cute boats. Much lighter than their appearance would seem to indicate.


 > my primary objective is
 > to get a handle on the bedrock principles of 'seaworthiness'.

The best 1 page primer on "seaworthiness" is an essay by Peter Duff (of
Edey & Duff, the builders of the Stone Horse among other great boats). He
sums it up thusly:
1- easy to handle
2- comfortable (which he explains differently and more sensibly than many
people imagine 'comfort')
3- water tight integrity & reserve bouyancy
4- speed in sailing performance under a wide variety of conditions
5- beauty

My own explanation, given the many many demonstrations of lengthy &
perilous voyages in wildly unsuitable craft, is that seaworthiness
consists of a great combination of skill and/or luck on the part of the
skipper. This skill includes the ability to prepare & equip a boat
rationally for a wide range of anticipated conditions. The luck includes
not being there when very bad things happen, although careful attention
to unobvious details in predicting such happenings is definitely a skill.



 >
 >
 > From random reading I've formed the impression that the Bristol
 > Channel Pilot Cutter is the epitome of a seaworthy design. Colin
 > Archer designs seem to get the big tick also.

While they are good boats for rough water sailing, and definitely can be
said to maintain a more comfortable motion in a seaway (which, when things
get *really* bad, ain't saying much), they are pre-1920s technology. While
I agree with Peter Duff when he says, "The sea hasn't changed much" it is
unwise to overlook the accomplishments of modern engineering & materials;
also there are hazards nowadays such as being run down by a freighter or
hitting a container, that the previous generation of old salts did not
have to face.

BTW one of the prime characteristics in a boats safety at sea is the
ability to make distance to windward in deteriorating conditions... modern
keels & rigs have a great advantage in this, which is one of the points I
mentioned earlier to not overlook.

Consider the design factors in the two boats named... both were intended
for rough water sailing, intended to stay on station & be maneuverable in
very bad conditions. They were not intended for long duration at sea, nor
for carrying heavy loads; both were given hull & rig characteristics
intended to the best for windward sailing ability given the technology of
the era. Colin Archer worked on techniques of construction as much as hull
& rig types, to get the strongest lightest hulls possible. Do these points
tell you something about what the same service would indicate today?



 >
 >
 > What I'm seeking is advice on the most 'seaworthy' yacht design
 > available for a vessel under 35'. Becuase of the apparent advantages
 > of heavy displacement & relative ease of fairing, I'm also considering
 > a ferro hull ...any comments/observations on the pros/cons would be
 > much appreciated.

The problem with ferrocement is that it has no way of verifying hull
integrity, and is prone to catastrophic rather than incremental failure.
The main advantage of ferrocement is that it's cheap. For a vessel
intended to take to sea, there are better ways to pinch pennies IMHO.


 >
 >
 > I've foundy the following salty site quite useful in terms of Aussie
 > no-bullshit plain talking:
 >
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://members.optusnet.com.au/coastalcruising/introcruising.htm</font" target="_blank">http://members.optusnet.com.au/coastalcruising/introcruising.htm</font</a>>

Thanks for the link. Very interesting reading.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Seaworthiness 

I mostly agree with Doug, but would put emphasis elsewhere.

Seaworthiness is largely relative to where you want to go and when. A boat
that would be perfectly fine in all conditions that you might meet on the
East Coast of the USA (except a hurricane, for which you would have plenty
of warning) would not be my first choice for doing a circumnav the wrong way
in the Southern Ocean. But to build and equip for the latter when all you
intend is the former is expensive and foolish. All boats are compromises,
and all factors, including seaworthiness must be weighted intelligently.

Speed is also a seaworthiness factor, as it gives you a better chance at
getting out of the way of storms. Your Colin Archer will not be as fast as
a modern design. Sayula II, a Swan 65, won the first Whitbread. She is
much faster, size for size, than a Colin Archer design, yet strong enough to
do a 180 in the Southern Ocean and come up with no significant damage.

Doug also touches on the question of comfort. IMHO, comfort is a major
seaworthiness factor. Unless you have a boat that will heave to and take
care of itself, and the sea room to do it, someone has to be sailing the
boat, which means that the crew has to be getting enough sleep and enough
food to stay able to do what they need to do.

As for ferro, I agree with Doug, but would add that a ferro boat is
essentially unsalable (it may also be unsailable, as they tend to be heavy).
While ferro can be cheap, why build in a material that no one wants to buy
in order to save maybe 5 or 10% of the cost of the whole project? You can
probably build in steel for very little more, and have a boat that you can
sell.

--
Jim Woodward
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.mvFintry.com" target="_blank">www.mvFintry.com</a>


..
"DSK" <doug888.DeleteThis@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3FAFDA3D.C94ED7A8@bellsouth.net...
 > Sorry to wander so far off topic, this post isn't much about boat
 > building.
 >
 > Peter Ward wrote:
 >
  > > Greetings all, I'm considering building a kit Stornaway Weekender
  > > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.scruffie.com" target="_blank">www.scruffie.com</a> as a teethcutting exercise;
 >
 > Cute boats. Much lighter than their appearance would seem to indicate.
 >
 >
  > > my primary objective is
  > > to get a handle on the bedrock principles of 'seaworthiness'.
 >
 > The best 1 page primer on "seaworthiness" is an essay by Peter Duff (of
 > Edey & Duff, the builders of the Stone Horse among other great boats). He
 > sums it up thusly:
 > 1- easy to handle
 > 2- comfortable (which he explains differently and more sensibly than many
 > people imagine 'comfort')
 > 3- water tight integrity & reserve bouyancy
 > 4- speed in sailing performance under a wide variety of conditions
 > 5- beauty
 >
 > My own explanation, given the many many demonstrations of lengthy &
 > perilous voyages in wildly unsuitable craft, is that seaworthiness
 > consists of a great combination of skill and/or luck on the part of the
 > skipper. This skill includes the ability to prepare & equip a boat
 > rationally for a wide range of anticipated conditions. The luck includes
 > not being there when very bad things happen, although careful attention
 > to unobvious details in predicting such happenings is definitely a skill.
 >
 >
 >
  > >
  > >
  > > From random reading I've formed the impression that the Bristol
  > > Channel Pilot Cutter is the epitome of a seaworthy design. Colin
  > > Archer designs seem to get the big tick also.
 >
 > While they are good boats for rough water sailing, and definitely can be
 > said to maintain a more comfortable motion in a seaway (which, when things
 > get *really* bad, ain't saying much), they are pre-1920s technology. While
 > I agree with Peter Duff when he says, "The sea hasn't changed much" it is
 > unwise to overlook the accomplishments of modern engineering & materials;
 > also there are hazards nowadays such as being run down by a freighter or
 > hitting a container, that the previous generation of old salts did not
 > have to face.
 >
 > BTW one of the prime characteristics in a boats safety at sea is the
 > ability to make distance to windward in deteriorating conditions... modern
 > keels & rigs have a great advantage in this, which is one of the points I
 > mentioned earlier to not overlook.
 >
 > Consider the design factors in the two boats named... both were intended
 > for rough water sailing, intended to stay on station & be maneuverable in
 > very bad conditions. They were not intended for long duration at sea, nor
 > for carrying heavy loads; both were given hull & rig characteristics
 > intended to the best for windward sailing ability given the technology of
 > the era. Colin Archer worked on techniques of construction as much as hull
 > & rig types, to get the strongest lightest hulls possible. Do these points
 > tell you something about what the same service would indicate today?
 >
 >
 >
  > >
  > >
  > > What I'm seeking is advice on the most 'seaworthy' yacht design
  > > available for a vessel under 35'. Becuase of the apparent advantages
  > > of heavy displacement & relative ease of fairing, I'm also considering
  > > a ferro hull ...any comments/observations on the pros/cons would be
  > > much appreciated.
 >
 > The problem with ferrocement is that it has no way of verifying hull
 > integrity, and is prone to catastrophic rather than incremental failure.
 > The main advantage of ferrocement is that it's cheap. For a vessel
 > intended to take to sea, there are better ways to pinch pennies IMHO.
 >
 >
  > >
  > >
  > > I've foundy the following salty site quite useful in terms of Aussie
  > > no-bullshit plain talking:
  > >
<font color=green>  > > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://members.optusnet.com.au/coastalcruising/introcruising.htm</font" target="_blank">http://members.optusnet.com.au/coastalcruising/introcruising.htm</font</a>>
 >
 > Thanks for the link. Very interesting reading.
 >
 > Fresh Breezes- Doug King
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Seaworthiness 

Great post.
Thank you for pointing out those "forgotten factors" of seaworthiness: speed
and comfort.

--
Jacques
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.bateau.com" target="_blank">http://www.bateau.com</a>


"Jim Woodward" <jameslwoodward at attbi dot com> wrote in message
news:J6SdnbpXuNQrfDKi4p2dnA@comcast.com...
 > I mostly agree with Doug, but would put emphasis elsewhere.
 >
 > Seaworthiness is largely relative to where you want to go and when. A
boat
 > that would be perfectly fine in all conditions that you might meet on the
 > East Coast of the USA (except a hurricane, for which you would have plenty
 > of warning) would not be my first choice for doing a circumnav the wrong
way
 > in the Southern Ocean. But to build and equip for the latter when all you
 > intend is the former is expensive and foolish. All boats are compromises,
 > and all factors, including seaworthiness must be weighted intelligently.
 >
 > Speed is also a seaworthiness factor, as it gives you a better chance at
 > getting out of the way of storms. Your Colin Archer will not be as fast
as
 > a modern design. Sayula II, a Swan 65, won the first Whitbread. She is
 > much faster, size for size, than a Colin Archer design, yet strong enough
to
 > do a 180 in the Southern Ocean and come up with no significant damage.
 >
 > Doug also touches on the question of comfort. IMHO, comfort is a major
 > seaworthiness factor. Unless you have a boat that will heave to and take
 > care of itself, and the sea room to do it, someone has to be sailing the
 > boat, which means that the crew has to be getting enough sleep and enough
 > food to stay able to do what they need to do.
 >
 > As for ferro, I agree with Doug, but would add that a ferro boat is
 > essentially unsalable (it may also be unsailable, as they tend to be
heavy).
 > While ferro can be cheap, why build in a material that no one wants to buy
 > in order to save maybe 5 or 10% of the cost of the whole project? You can
 > probably build in steel for very little more, and have a boat that you can
 > sell.
 >
 > --
 > Jim Woodward
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.mvFintry.com</font" target="_blank">www.mvFintry.com</font</a>>
 >
 >
 > .
 > "DSK" <doug888.RemoveThis@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
 > news:3FAFDA3D.C94ED7A8@bellsouth.net...
  > > Sorry to wander so far off topic, this post isn't much about boat
  > > building.
  > >
  > > Peter Ward wrote:
  > >
   > > > Greetings all, I'm considering building a kit Stornaway Weekender
   > > > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.scruffie.com" target="_blank">www.scruffie.com</a> as a teethcutting exercise;
  > >
  > > Cute boats. Much lighter than their appearance would seem to indicate.
  > >
  > >
   > > > my primary objective is
   > > > to get a handle on the bedrock principles of 'seaworthiness'.
  > >
  > > The best 1 page primer on "seaworthiness" is an essay by Peter Duff (of
  > > Edey & Duff, the builders of the Stone Horse among other great boats).
He
  > > sums it up thusly:
  > > 1- easy to handle
  > > 2- comfortable (which he explains differently and more sensibly than
many
  > > people imagine 'comfort')
  > > 3- water tight integrity & reserve bouyancy
  > > 4- speed in sailing performance under a wide variety of conditions
  > > 5- beauty
  > >
  > > My own explanation, given the many many demonstrations of lengthy &
  > > perilous voyages in wildly unsuitable craft, is that seaworthiness
  > > consists of a great combination of skill and/or luck on the part of the
  > > skipper. This skill includes the ability to prepare & equip a boat
  > > rationally for a wide range of anticipated conditions. The luck includes
  > > not being there when very bad things happen, although careful attention
  > > to unobvious details in predicting such happenings is definitely a
skill.
  > >
  > >
  > >
   > > >
   > > >
   > > > From random reading I've formed the impression that the Bristol
   > > > Channel Pilot Cutter is the epitome of a seaworthy design. Colin
   > > > Archer designs seem to get the big tick also.
  > >
  > > While they are good boats for rough water sailing, and definitely can be
  > > said to maintain a more comfortable motion in a seaway (which, when
things
  > > get *really* bad, ain't saying much), they are pre-1920s technology.
While
  > > I agree with Peter Duff when he says, "The sea hasn't changed much" it
is
  > > unwise to overlook the accomplishments of modern engineering &
materials;
  > > also there are hazards nowadays such as being run down by a freighter or
  > > hitting a container, that the previous generation of old salts did not
  > > have to face.
  > >
  > > BTW one of the prime characteristics in a boats safety at sea is the
  > > ability to make distance to windward in deteriorating conditions...
modern
  > > keels & rigs have a great advantage in this, which is one of the points
I
  > > mentioned earlier to not overlook.
  > >
  > > Consider the design factors in the two boats named... both were intended
  > > for rough water sailing, intended to stay on station & be maneuverable
in
  > > very bad conditions. They were not intended for long duration at sea,
nor
  > > for carrying heavy loads; both were given hull & rig characteristics
  > > intended to the best for windward sailing ability given the technology
of
  > > the era. Colin Archer worked on techniques of construction as much as
hull
  > > & rig types, to get the strongest lightest hulls possible. Do these
points
  > > tell you something about what the same service would indicate today?
  > >
  > >
  > >
   > > >
   > > >
   > > > What I'm seeking is advice on the most 'seaworthy' yacht design
   > > > available for a vessel under 35'. Becuase of the apparent advantages
   > > > of heavy displacement & relative ease of fairing, I'm also considering
   > > > a ferro hull ...any comments/observations on the pros/cons would be
   > > > much appreciated.
  > >
  > > The problem with ferrocement is that it has no way of verifying hull
  > > integrity, and is prone to catastrophic rather than incremental failure.
  > > The main advantage of ferrocement is that it's cheap. For a vessel
  > > intended to take to sea, there are better ways to pinch pennies IMHO.
  > >
  > >
   > > >
   > > >
   > > > I've foundy the following salty site quite useful in terms of Aussie
   > > > no-bullshit plain talking:
   > > >
<font color=brown>   > > > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://members.optusnet.com.au/coastalcruising/introcruising.htm</font" target="_blank">http://members.optusnet.com.au/coastalcruising/introcruising.htm</font</a>>
  > >
  > > Thanks for the link. Very interesting reading.
  > >
  > > Fresh Breezes- Doug King
  > >
  > >
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Seaworthiness 

DSK <doug888 DeleteThis @bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<3FAFDA3D.C94ED7A8 DeleteThis @bellsouth.net>...
&
"Jim Woodward" <jameslwoodward at attbi dot com> wrote in message news:<J6SdnbpXuNQrfDKi4p2dnA DeleteThis @comcast.com>...

Thanks both for the excellent advice clearly based on extensive briny
experience.

I guess I was thinking of seaworthiness in the fairly narrow sense of
being able to survive something like 'The Perfect Storm'; &
particularly the ability to quickly self-right in the event of
capsize. According to Czeslaw A. Marchaj
in 'Seaworthiness : The Forgotten Factor' the "point of vanishing
stability" et.al. of most modern yacht designs is woefully inadequate
- deficiencies he attributes to the pervasive influence of
International Offshore Rules & the 'floating gin-palace' ethos of the
charter-boat industry, on modern yacht design & construction. This
observation appears to have been borne-out empirically by the 1988
Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race http://www.radford-yacht.com/stablty1.html

As a natural pessimist, I want to build the 'ultimate-unsinkable'
craft, which will weather the worst that the sea can inflict;
however, I get the distinct impression leafing through all the myriad
yachting magazines, that most boats out there are little more than
flimsy eye-candy. Just another prettified escapist consumer commodity
designed more to part you from your hard-earned lucre, than to be
truly "worthy of the sea".

Yet on the other hand I continually read accounts of wildly improbable
craft -http://www.famoussmallboats.com/ - criss-crossing the Atlantic
& Pacific with apparent ease. All quite confusing really.
 >> Stay informed about: Seaworthiness 

define "seaworthiness"

I thought it meant a boat that would take care of itself in rough
conditions, not a boat that could perhaps outrace the weather. This
outracing the weather is only helpfull along the coast where, given
advance warning of deteriorating weather conditions over the radio, the
faster boat can run for cover. Its not much help mid ocean in a big
weather system.

The main indicator of seaworthiness is the displacement to length ratio.
Boats with a ratio over (I think) 300 are the most seaworthy. These are
ocean going cruisers. Because boats are sold by the pound they are
expensive. I know lighter materials can cost more per pound by they don't
have as many pounds. The heavy cruisers also have more room for
accomdation and storage and a better comfort factor. They can make good
time under all conditions but light winds.

There are books on cruising sailboats as distinct from racing and coastal
sailboats. One that I read recently is Danny Greene's "Cruising Sailboat
Kinetics" (1984).


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William R Watt National Capital FreeNet Ottawa's free community network
homepage: www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm
warning: non-freenet email must have "notspam" in subject or it's returned
 >> Stay informed about: Seaworthiness 

Again, I point at Sayula II. Tough boat, but a whole lot faster than a
Colin Archer.

As for outracing the weather at sea, if I have a hurricane forecast in front
of me, with pretty good track guesses from the NHC, I'd rather have a boat
that was a modern, fast, tough, seaworthy design, rather than an old, slow,
tough, seaworthy design. Not extreme, but taking into account modern design
thinking.

For example, there's some evidence that a modern keel and skeg design is
less likely to "trip" on a wave and capsize, than the old full keel designs.
Certainly modern designs with the rudder way aft have more steering leverage
and therefore will steer better in extreme conditions than long keels with
attached rudder.

Sweetwater (Swan 57) has a D/L of about 230. She certainly never gave us any
concerns on our circumnav and I would believe she is sufficiently seaworthy
for all "ordinary" purposes -- no Southern Ocean work, I think. A 230 D/L
does not mean "weak" as a simple glance around at the scantlings of a Swan
will show you.

As far as references go, my favorite single book is Desirable and
Undesirable Characteristics of Offshore Yachts, The Technical Committee of
the Cruising Club of America, John Rousmaniere, Ed., W.W. Norton, 1987.
While written partly in response to Fastnet 1979, by an organization best
known for racing, the authors have 750,000 miles at sea in small boats among
them, and it is good reading for any cruiser planning to venture out of the
sight of land.

Tony Marchaj, cited earlier in this thread, has also written several books
with good information on the good, the bad, and the ugly in offshore
design.


--
Jim Woodward
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.mvFintry.com" target="_blank">www.mvFintry.com</a>


..
"William R. Watt" <ag384.DeleteThis@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:bop150$qk9$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
 > define "seaworthiness"
 >
 > I thought it meant a boat that would take care of itself in rough
 > conditions, not a boat that could perhaps outrace the weather. This
 > outracing the weather is only helpfull along the coast where, given
 > advance warning of deteriorating weather conditions over the radio, the
 > faster boat can run for cover. Its not much help mid ocean in a big
 > weather system.
 >
 > The main indicator of seaworthiness is the displacement to length ratio.
 > Boats with a ratio over (I think) 300 are the most seaworthy. These are
 > ocean going cruisers. Because boats are sold by the pound they are
 > expensive. I know lighter materials can cost more per pound by they don't
 > have as many pounds. The heavy cruisers also have more room for
 > accomdation and storage and a better comfort factor. They can make good
 > time under all conditions but light winds.
 >
 > There are books on cruising sailboats as distinct from racing and coastal
 > sailboats. One that I read recently is Danny Greene's "Cruising Sailboat
 > Kinetics" (1984).
 >
 >
 > --
 > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
 > William R Watt National Capital FreeNet Ottawa's free community
network
<font color=purple> > homepage: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm</font" target="_blank">www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm</font</a>>
 > warning: non-freenet email must have "notspam" in subject or it's returned<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Seaworthiness 

The Perfect Storm was in the North Atlantic in October -- in winter, in
weather terms. It's no accident that "Winter North Atlantic" has its own
loadline, and that it's the one that requires the most freeboard of all.
And, although both the book and the movie have obscured reality somewhat
(the movie much more than the book), it appears the Andrea Gail had a number
of seaworthiness problems.

If you choose your times and places with some intelligence -- stay out of
hurricane areas, the Winter North Atlantic, the Southern Ocean, then you're
very unlikely to face survival weather. Many circumnavigators will tell you
that they never saw serious weather on their entire trip -- our highest wind
speed was around 42 knots.

I, too, am a natural pessimist. People who go to sea should understand that
Mother Nature does not suffer fools lightly. But pessimism should not bring
paranoia. As I said earlier in this thread, designing and equipping a boat
for the worst possible weather is expensive and unnecessary unless you
really intend to go out at times and places where such weather is really an
issue. Your "ultimate-unsinkable craft, which will weather the worst that
the sea can inflict" is a wonderful thing to think about, but I wouldn't
want to sail it, as it would likely be slow, uncomfortable, and difficult
for its crew. I'd rather choose my times and places and stay away from
anything anywhere near "the worst the sea can inflict". I'm pretty sure
that's a realistic goal for all except masochists and thrill seekers.

As for the quality of production boats, there are production boats that I
wouldn't want to take out of sight of land and others that I would happy
with almost anywhere, although not at all times of year. You pay your money
and, by and large, you get what you've paid for. And, BTW, they're not hard
to tell apart at the boat shows -- if you see two boats about the same size
and weight and one has fittings -- turnbuckles, for example -- noticeably
heavier than the other, you can guess which one I'd rather be aboard.


--
Jim Woodward
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.mvFintry.com" target="_blank">www.mvFintry.com</a>


..
"Peter Ward" <peter_ward.DeleteThis@skali.com> wrote in message
news:15415a8.0311101735.26e1ea61@posting.google.com...
 > DSK <doug888.DeleteThis@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:<3FAFDA3D.C94ED7A8.DeleteThis@bellsouth.net>...
 > &
 > "Jim Woodward" <jameslwoodward at attbi dot com> wrote in message
news:<J6SdnbpXuNQrfDKi4p2dnA.DeleteThis@comcast.com>...
 >
 > Thanks both for the excellent advice clearly based on extensive briny
 > experience.
 >
 > I guess I was thinking of seaworthiness in the fairly narrow sense of
 > being able to survive something like 'The Perfect Storm'; &
 > particularly the ability to quickly self-right in the event of
 > capsize. According to Czeslaw A. Marchaj
 > in 'Seaworthiness : The Forgotten Factor' the "point of vanishing
 > stability" et.al. of most modern yacht designs is woefully inadequate
 > - deficiencies he attributes to the pervasive influence of
 > International Offshore Rules & the 'floating gin-palace' ethos of the
 > charter-boat industry, on modern yacht design & construction. This
 > observation appears to have been borne-out empirically by the 1988
<font color=purple> > Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.radford-yacht.com/stablty1.html</font" target="_blank">http://www.radford-yacht.com/stablty1.html</font</a>>
 >
 > As a natural pessimist, I want to build the 'ultimate-unsinkable'
 > craft, which will weather the worst that the sea can inflict;
 > however, I get the distinct impression leafing through all the myriad
 > yachting magazines, that most boats out there are little more than
 > flimsy eye-candy. Just another prettified escapist consumer commodity
 > designed more to part you from your hard-earned lucre, than to be
 > truly "worthy of the sea".
 >
 > Yet on the other hand I continually read accounts of wildly improbable
 > craft -http://www.famoussmallboats.com/ - criss-crossing the Atlantic
 > & Pacific with apparent ease. All quite confusing really.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Seaworthiness 

On 9 Nov 2003 22:29:10 -0800, peter_ward.TakeThisOut@skali.com (Peter Ward) wrote:

 >Greetings all, I'm considering building a kit Stornaway Weekender
 >www.scruffie.com as a teethcutting exercise; my primary objective is
 >to get a handle on the bedrock principles of 'seaworthiness'.
 >
 >From random reading I've formed the impression that the Bristol
 >Channel Pilot Cutter is the epitome of a seaworthy design. Colin
 >Archer designs seem to get the big tick also.
 >
 >What I'm seeking is advice on the most 'seaworthy' yacht design
 >available for a vessel under 35'. Becuase of the apparent advantages
 >of heavy displacement & relative ease of fairing, I'm also considering
 >a ferro hull ...any comments/observations on the pros/cons would be
 >much appreciated.
 >
 >I've foundy the following salty site quite useful in terms of Aussie
 >no-bullshit plain talking:
 >
 >http://members.optusnet.com.au/coastalcruising/introcruising.htm


The most bedrock principle is the need for a capable crew. An archaic
design may make you feel salty, but that isn't the same thing.



Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC

Let's Put the XXX back in Xmas<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Seaworthiness 

On 10 Nov 2003 17:35:40 -0800, peter_ward.RemoveThis@skali.com (Peter Ward)
wrote:

 >DSK <doug888.RemoveThis@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<3FAFDA3D.C94ED7A8.RemoveThis@bellsouth.net>...
 >&
 >"Jim Woodward" <jameslwoodward at attbi dot com> wrote in message news:<J6SdnbpXuNQrfDKi4p2dnA.RemoveThis@comcast.com>...
 >
 >Thanks both for the excellent advice clearly based on extensive briny
 >experience.
 >
 >I guess I was thinking of seaworthiness in the fairly narrow sense of
 >being able to survive something like 'The Perfect Storm'; &
 >particularly the ability to quickly self-right in the event of
 >capsize. According to Czeslaw A. Marchaj
 >in 'Seaworthiness : The Forgotten Factor' the "point of vanishing
 >stability" et.al. of most modern yacht designs is woefully inadequate
 >- deficiencies he attributes to the pervasive influence of
 >International Offshore Rules & the 'floating gin-palace' ethos of the
 >charter-boat industry, on modern yacht design & construction. This
 >observation appears to have been borne-out empirically by the 1988
<font color=purple> >Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.radford-yacht.com/stablty1.html</font" target="_blank">http://www.radford-yacht.com/stablty1.html</font</a>>

The International Offshore Rule did produce some nasty boats. It
passed out of use in the late 1980s. It is only of concern if you
might buy an IOR boat used.

Marchaj's polemic flails about with generalizations that don't really
tell you anything useful. All boat designs are compromises that juggle
conflicting desires. He seems to want naval architecture to stop at
some preconceived "golden age."

It doesn't work like that. A good (not genius) naval architect,
knowing the specific requirements of a client, should be able to
improve an existing design, even from a "genius" architect, if it was
not designed for the same detailed requirements.

If you buy a boat designed to sell at a boat show to nonsailors, you
should realize that the compromises may be tilted toward interior
accommodations at the expense of sailing ability. If you buy a
modest-sized boat that is mainly designed for racing around the buoys,
you may not be able to stand up in the cabin.



Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC J36 Gjo/a


"Curse thee, thou quadrant. No longer will I guide my earthly way by thee." Capt. Ahab<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Seaworthiness 

On 10 Nov 2003 21:49:20 GMT, ag384.RemoveThis@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (William R.
Watt) wrote:

 >
 >The main indicator of seaworthiness is the displacement to length ratio.
 >Boats with a ratio over (I think) 300 are the most seaworthy. These are
 >ocean going cruisers. Because boats are sold by the pound they are
 >expensive. I know lighter materials can cost more per pound by they don't
 >have as many pounds. The heavy cruisers also have more room for
 >accomdation and storage and a better comfort factor. They can make good
 >time under all conditions but light winds.
 >
All I have learned at Safety at Sea seminars says the bigger a boat is
(at the same displacement) the less likely it is to capsize. Bigger at
the same displacement means more expensive materials and construction,
of course.

At a given size, the better the ballast ratio, the more capsize
resistance. That also asks for expensive materials.



Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC J36 Gjo/a


"Curse thee, thou quadrant. No longer will I guide my earthly way by thee." Capt. Ahab<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Seaworthiness 

"Peter Ward" <peter_ward RemoveThis @skali.com> wrote in message
news:15415a8.0311101735.26e1ea61@posting.google.com...
 >
 > I guess I was thinking of seaworthiness in the fairly narrow sense of
 > being able to survive something like 'The Perfect Storm'; &
 > particularly the ability to quickly self-right in the event of
 > capsize. According to Czeslaw A. Marchaj
 > in 'Seaworthiness : The Forgotten Factor' the "point of vanishing
 > stability" et.al. of most modern yacht designs is woefully inadequate
 > - deficiencies he attributes to the pervasive influence of
 > International Offshore Rules & the 'floating gin-palace' ethos of the
 > charter-boat industry, on modern yacht design & construction. This
 > observation appears to have been borne-out empirically by the 1988
<font color=purple> > Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.radford-yacht.com/stablty1.html</font" target="_blank">http://www.radford-yacht.com/stablty1.html</font</a>>
 >
In the Sydney-Hobart, the main lesson is don't get caught where the
conditions are bad. The analysis showed that it didn't really matter
what type of boat you were in - heavy narrow boats, light beamy ones,
and everything in between got capsized.. But the boats in a certain
area, the area with the worst conditions, were most likely to capsize.
John Rousmaniere in his excellent book Fastnet Force Ten came
to a somewhat similar conclusion about the Fastnet - that boats
in a certain area were more likely to be capsized. That doesn't
validate poor design, but it tells me that if you are in the wrong
place at the wrong time, it doesn't matter what kind of boat you're
in. Personally, Id recommend a boat with a limit of positive
stability of greater than 120 degrees, with all the cruising gear
included in the calculation (which is probably not the design
condition). And make sure your boat is ISAF Category 1 or
zero compliant.

Design is one element of seaworthiness, but the crew (and luck)
is equally or more important. Consider that the boat that won
the 98 Sydney-Hobart was a light 35 footer that consistently does
well in that race and you'll start to get a feeling that those
guys could probably sail a crappy old raft through just about
anything. And it sounds like you've read the books about the
guys with no experience who cross oceans, so you can see
the part that lady luck plays as well.

More books that would probably be of interest to you:
Heavy Weather Sailing has lots of good info, including chapters
about desingn features. The Drag Device Data Book if you're
really serious about going offshore. Fastnet Force 10. There's
also a book about the Queen's Birthday Storm that hit a
bunch of cruisers in the South Pacific, but I can't remember
the name right now.

 > As a natural pessimist, I want to build the 'ultimate-unsinkable'
 > craft, which will weather the worst that the sea can inflict;
 > however, I get the distinct impression leafing through all the myriad
 > yachting magazines, that most boats out there are little more than
 > flimsy eye-candy. Just another prettified escapist consumer commodity
 > designed more to part you from your hard-earned lucre, than to be
 > truly "worthy of the sea".

Well, there are good boats and bad boats. There are quite a few
seaworthy ones available for good prices. Some of them are
lightweight flyers, and some are heavy tanks. It's hard to make a boat
unsinkable but it is possible to minimize the probability. Watertight
subdivision is one way to do it, but you will find that only the Amel
boats come from the factory that way.

Ramblin' Matt<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Seaworthiness 

"William R. Watt" <ag384 DeleteThis @FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:bop150$qk9$1@freenet9.carleton.ca...
 > define "seaworthiness"
 >
 > I thought it meant a boat that would take care of itself in rough
 > conditions, not a boat that could perhaps outrace the weather. This
 > outracing the weather is only helpfull along the coast where, given
 > advance warning of deteriorating weather conditions over the radio, the
 > faster boat can run for cover. Its not much help mid ocean in a big
 > weather system.

Sorry to disagree but some years ago, during a westward Atlantic crossing,
we became threatened by a tropical storm that later developed in a
hurricane. My boat was fast enough to efficiently take the classic escape
course from such a system. It was my fault to cross to early in season but
the fast boat made all the difference and kept us safe, right in the middle
of the ocean.


--
Jacques
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.bateau.com" target="_blank">http://www.bateau.com</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Seaworthiness 

Peter Ward wrote:

 > I guess I was thinking of seaworthiness in the fairly narrow sense of
 > being able to survive something like 'The Perfect Storm'; &
 > particularly the ability to quickly self-right in the event of
 > capsize. According to Czeslaw A. Marchaj
 > in 'Seaworthiness : The Forgotten Factor' the "point of vanishing
 > stability" et.al. of most modern yacht designs is woefully inadequate

There are some fairly simple ways to evaluate the relative stability of a
sailboat, and there is a very wide range of boats on the market. To say 'modern
yacht designs' have *any* single factor in common is like saying 'modern motor
vehicles' are all thus-and-so. How about we say 'some popular modern yacht
designs are woefully inadequate'? Then the trick is much simpler, just avoid
these particular ones.


 >
 > As a natural pessimist, I want to build the 'ultimate-unsinkable'
 > craft, which will weather the worst that the sea can inflict;

As a natural pessimist myself, let me assure that such a thing does not exist.
The ocean is incredibly powerful, it can tear up battleships & supertankers when
it's in the mood to. The only answer for surviving such conditions in a small
sailboat is.... be elsewhere....

That said, a high ballast displacement ratio and full positive flotation make a
lot of sense for ocean passagemaking sailboats.




 >
 > "William R. Watt" wrote...
  > > define "seaworthiness"
  > >
  > > I thought it meant a boat that would take care of itself in rough
  > > conditions

That is a good quality to have, but it can also include having the right gear
such as a drogue and/or a storm staysail.

  > > .... not a boat that could perhaps outrace the weather. This
  > > outracing the weather is only helpfull along the coast where, given
  > > advance warning of deteriorating weather conditions over the radio, the
  > > faster boat can run for cover. Its not much help mid ocean in a big
  > > weather system.

I disagree strongly. A boat that can make good miles, especially reaching or
close reaching in a seaway, is going to spend a lot less time in a storm system
and will be able to keep further away from the center.

 >
  > >
  > > The main indicator of seaworthiness is the displacement to length ratio.
  > > Boats with a ratio over (I think) 300 are the most seaworthy. These are
  > > ocean going cruisers. Because boats are sold by the pound they are
  > > expensive. I know lighter materials can cost more per pound by they don't
  > > have as many pounds. The heavy cruisers also have more room for
  > > accomdation and storage and a better comfort factor. They can make good
  > > time under all conditions but light winds.

And to windward, usually.

The issue here is that a lot of the current generation like heavy heavy boats.
Therefor, since so many of the boats out there cruising are heavyweights, the
statistical evidence that heavy boats make the best cruisers is self
perpetuating.

Heavy boats are good at one thing.... not getting bounced around. Weight conveys
no advantage beyond simple inertia.



 > Jim Woodward wrote:
 > Again, I point at Sayula II. Tough boat, but a whole lot faster than a
 > Colin Archer.
 >
 > As for outracing the weather at sea, if I have a hurricane forecast in front
 > of me, with pretty good track guesses from the NHC, I'd rather have a boat
 > that was a modern, fast, tough, seaworthy design, rather than an old, slow,
 > tough, seaworthy design. Not extreme, but taking into account modern design
 > thinking.
 >
 > For example, there's some evidence that a modern keel and skeg design is
 > less likely to "trip" on a wave and capsize, than the old full keel designs.
 > Certainly modern designs with the rudder way aft have more steering leverage
 > and therefore will steer better in extreme conditions than long keels with
 > attached rudder.

They will also respond better with less work by either helmsman or autopilot. A
tired helmsman is a poor safety factor to have in big breaking seas.

 >
 >
 > Sweetwater (Swan 57) has a D/L of about 230. She certainly never gave us any
 > concerns on our circumnav and I would believe she is sufficiently seaworthy
 > for all "ordinary" purposes -- no Southern Ocean work, I think. A 230 D/L
 > does not mean "weak" as a simple glance around at the scantlings of a Swan
 > will show you.

Further point, heavily built is not necessarily stronger. Polyester resin is
brittle. In an early edition of his book on building the Westsail 32, Ferenc
Mate advocated using resin & newspaper to block in parts of the hull. This is
going to add zero strength. Lots of older boats with very thick hulls are
actually weaker due to the use of short strand mat, chopper guns, lots of voids,
cloth edges at odd points, etc etc.

All else being equal, heavier is usually stronger. But 'all else' never is quite
equal, and the strongest boats are the ones that are well engineered and
properly built with suitable materials. This doesn't happen by accident.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Seaworthiness