comfort 32 sailboat

COMFORT 32 similar search results:

CLASSIC SAILING YACHT

The comfort 32 shown below has been sold:.

Sales information

• De Valk Corfu Greece
• (+30) 266 111 8095
• Call the broker

e-mail the broker

Tell a friend.

• download brochure

Take time onboard with a live video tour

Seen a boat that piques your interest but can't make a visit in person? One of our brokers will be your eyes and ears as they take you on a video tour with their phone. You can also ask them questions about anything that isn't visually obvious. Make the call and be welcomed aboard...

Download brochure

Broker's comments.

This exceptionally well maintained Comfort 32 Baetar (SE) offers fantastic sailing properties and lots of comfort on board. She can accommodate 6 people. The owner, an experienced yachtman & sailor, has taken part successfully in many yacht races & regattas. Now he reluctantly has to complete his sailing life & adventure of over 40 years.

General - COMFORT 32

Accommodation.

Fin w/spade rudder

Specifications COMFORT 32

1977 - 31.07 ft / 9.47 m - Comfortbåtar AB - Kenneth Albinsson

COMFORT 32 Sailboat Data

Hull Type: Fin w/spade rudder Rigging Type: Masthead Sloop LOA: 31.07 ft / 9.47 m LWL: 24.61 ft / 7.50 m S.A. (reported): 651.00 ft² / 60.48 m² Beam: 10.73 ft / 3.27 m Displacement: 10,141.00 lb / 4,600 kg Ballast: 4,034.00 lb / 1,830 kg Max Draft: 5.58 ft / 1.70 m Construction: FG Ballast Type: Lead First Built: 1977 Last Built: 1982 # Built: 308 Builder: Comfortbåtar AB Designer: Kenneth Albinsson

Information from  sailboatdata.com .

Type Engine: Diesel HP: 25 Hull Speed: 6.65 kn

Innehåll Comfort 32

• Beskrivning
• Forumdiskussioner
• Referenser o länkar

Presenterades 1978 av Comfortbåtar i Arvika. Tillverkades fram till 1982 i cirka 400 exemplar. Jämfört med jämngamla båtar är Comfort 32 relativt bred. Detta i kombination med att hon inte smalnar av akterut i samma utsträckning som IOR- båtar gör henne rymlig inuti. Comfort 32 har relativt låg överbyggnad och bra skarndäck att sitta på. Sittbrunnen är något framskjuten, vilket ger ett litet akterdäck. Comfort 32 fanns både som färdigbyggd och i 3/4- fabrikat.

• Båttyp Segelbåt
• Konstruktör Kenneth Albinsson
• Tillverkare Comfortbåtar AB

Konstruktion

Utrustning & Motor

Köp segel till Comfort 32:

Storsegel från 22 200 SEK Fock från 25 200 SEK Spinnaker från 39 500SEK

Till styrbord om nedgångstrappan finns L-format bakvänt pentry med dubbla diskhoar och spis med ugn. Till babord om nedgångstrappan finns toalett med tvättställ och garderob för sjökläder. För om toaletten finns ett navigationsbord. Salongen består av en U-soffa vänd förut. För om U-soffan finns en förpik. I aktern finns separat akterruff med två enkelkojer. Akterruffen kommer man åt genom separat ingång från sittbrunnen. Man kan även komma in genom toaletten (i varje fall barn).

SRS Klassificering

Styv och lättseglad...

Axel, 2019-10-01

Komplettering av tidigare...

Marc Landtblom, 2013-02-06

Lättseglad och stabil (st...

Marc Landtblom, 2011-06-22

Båten är fin att segla ,l...

Johan, 2011-01-16

Mycket lätt att hantera. ...

Christer karlsson, 2009-08-15

Styv och lugn. Seglar rel...

Jan Lindberg, 2008-08-02

En perfekt familjebåt som...

Magnus, 2005-09-07

Trygg, rolig o lätt att s...

Urban Löfgren, 2003-11-28

Bra och trygg seglare. Va...

Lena, 2003-03-11

Hyfsat snabb. Dock var de...

Bengt, 2002-07-10

Båten är utmärkt sjövärdi...

Anders Palmquist, 2002-05-20

Båten är en bra familjese...

Roland Johansson, 2002-04-12

Se fler Synpunkter

Proffsbesiktning.

1) Årsmodell 1979. En varvsbyggd båt med många produktionsfel. Därtill rejält grundslagen och dåligt reparerad med delamineringsskador i kölsvin. Resningsskador på däck vid vantinfästningar. Basinrede med vantinfästningar och skrov på senare tid ombyggt och sammanplastat. Viss dekoration döljer stora springor i inredning. Bra ny motorinstallation. 2)Comfort 32 -80. Besiktigad 2010. Enligt uppgift varvsbyggd trots detta oprofessionella installationer, inget nytt. Väl utrustad både komfort- och seglingsmässigt. Mycket torr i sandwichdäcket men blöt i skrovet, mindre grundskador i kölfickan. Sepiksystem luktar, dynor sunkiga, batteri och elsystem slarvigt, kort räddningsstege. Motorn Volvo Penta MD11C 23hk lätt sliten och rostig, dito avgaskröken. En bra båt att bygga vidare på och ett bra pris. Begärt pris 280 000:- Ök-pris 270 000:- justerat till 265 000:-. 3) Comfort 32 -82. Besiktigad 2008. En mycket sliten och vanvårdad båt, enligt uppgift också gått på uthyrning. Teakdäcket slut, fukt i skrovet trots påstådd epoxibehandling, grundskador och delamineringar i kölområdet, hjärtstockslagringar slut, gasolen underkänd, inga genomföringar bytta, elsystemet bedrövligt, jordfelsbrytare saknas, värmaren trasig, felaktiga septikslangar, motorn startar inte. 4) Comfort 32 -81. Besiktigad 2012. Besiktigad i sjön. Skrovsidor obesiktigade. Teaken på däck, överbyggnad och sittbrunn är helt slut, garanterat läckage in i sandwich. Skrovgenomföringar och kranar över 30 år gamla. Läckage i vantinfästningar. Riggen sliten, styrpedistal trasig och lös. Kölsvinet nyligen toppcoatat, men hög fuktighet. Träinredning sliten och partiellt rötskadad. Elsystem 12V mycket dålig klass, 220V-systemet felaktigt och trasiga/farliga anslutningar. Gasolinstallation felaktig och åldrad. Fel fekalieslangar och felaktiga dimensioner, odör. Värmaren trasig. Två kylanläggningar, ingen startade. Motorinstallationens kringutrustning ett bedrövligt amatörarbete. Motorn, VP MD11 startade endast vid fullgas, sliten och rostig. Båten är helt igenom en skitig båt och troligen ett amatörbyggt ¾-fabrikat. Tilltänkte köparen avstod från köp efter besiktning.

Priser ny båt

Inga nypriser finns registrerade.

Priser begagnade båtar

Begagnatpriserna ovan avser faktiskt genomförda affärer inrapporterade av båtägare (ej begärda priser).

Skicka in prisuppgifter

Diskuterat i forumet

Comfort 32 - montering av ankarspel i fã.

2014-09-18 18:34

Kölprofil till Comfort 32 - och allmän

2013-12-18 20:48

Comfort 32 - demontera roder ?

2007-11-03 17:35

vantskruv Comfort 32

2005-05-12 15:32

färg Comfort 32

2004-09-19 00:26

Bilder Comfort 32

Dela dina erfarenheter av Comfort 32 med andra

Lägg till bild eller segelmärke

Diskutera i forumet

Lägg till din åsikt

Återförsäljare

Vill du bli sedd av Nordens seglingstokar?

Genom att samarbeta med sailguide.com når du enkelt de flesta av Nordens segelbåtsintresserade människor. Du annonserar effektivt eftersom du når en väldefinierad kundgrupp, seglare!

© Segla mera Sverige AB 1999-2018, Sidan skyddas av svensk Upphovsrätt, kopiering ej tillåten utan upphovsrättsinnehavarens tillstånd. Användningsvillkor sailguide.com

• Choose the kind of boat Big boats Motor boats Rubber boats Sailing boats Sailing multihull boats

Comfort Boats Comfort 32

General Data

Shipbuilder:, see also: boats for sale.

• MARK 3 STAG 32
• Archambault Sprint 98
• Bavaria Yachtbau Bavaria 30 Cruiser
• Comfort Yachts Comfortina 42
• Comfortina Comfortina 42

Overall length:

Waterline length:, maximum beam:, displacement:, straightening:, sail details mq, equipments:.

Sailboat Comfort 32 · 1982 · Aline

Säbyvikens Marina, Åkersberga, Sweden

• 7 max. guests

Offered by Sail Stockholm

Zizoo partner since 2019 · Professional charter company · Verified

April Exclusive

With or without captain

No hidden fees

Can't travel? Get a full refund

What you'll find onboard

Every boat comes with standard safety equipment.

• GPS chartplotter
• Solar panels
• Life jackets

Optional add-ons you can book

You can select these optional add-ons during the reservation process.

€100 per week

€50 per booking

€150 per week

€25 per booking

No reviews (yet)

Check-in & check-out details.

Check-in: 1:00pm

Sailing time

Check-out: 9:00am

Things to know

Frequently asked questions.

Comfort 32 Aline for rent in Sweden

Sabyvikens marina (Sweden)

The boat is no longer available for charter. Pls click below to see similar models available for charter in Sweden

Sailboat Comfort 32 (1982)

• Bowthruster
• Air conditioner
• Electric Toilet
• Furling main sail
• Batten main sail
• Additional reading lights in salon and cabins
• Anchor line
• Fire extinguisher
• First aid kit
• Gas cookers
• GPS chart plotter
• Kitchen utensils (Galley equipment, cutlery)
• Life jackets
• Main anchor
• Mooring ropes
• Navigation/position Lights
• Refrigerator
• Salon table
• Solar panels
• Swimming ladder

ADDITIONAL SERVICES

Availability.

Current base:

Frequently Asked Questions about yachting

Does this boat have insurance, do i need sailing certificate for bareboat charter in sweden, am i qualified to rent comfort 32 bareboat, cancellation policy, booking procedure.

• Make online reservation (payment is not required)
• Complete sailing resume in case of bareboat charter
• Sign booking agreement electronically for the Comfort 32 charter in Sweden
• Make down payment according to the agreement

YACHTS NEARBY

Other popular destinations

• yacht charter france
• yacht charter italy
• yacht rental italy
• bvi boat rental
• bvi yacht charters
• bareboat charter martinique
• yacht charter in martinique
• usvi boat charters
• yacht charter croatia
• Pirovac yacht charters
• Pula yacht charters
• Trogir yacht charters
• greek yacht charter
• yacht rental greece
• Nai han beach yacht charters

Comfortina 32

The comfortina 32 is a 31.17ft fractional sloop designed by ingemar boding and built in fiberglass by comfortbåtar ab between 1982 and 1998., 860 units have been built..

The Comfortina 32 is a moderate weight sailboat which is a reasonably good performer. It is very stable / stiff and has a low righting capability if capsized. It is best suited as a coastal cruiser. The fuel capacity is originally very small. There is a very short water supply range.

Comfortina 32 for sale elsewhere on the web:

Main features

Login or register to personnalize this screen.

You will be able to pin external links of your choice.

See how Sailboatlab works in video

We help you build your own hydraulic steering system - Lecomble & Schmitt

Accommodations

Builder data, other photos.

Modal Title

The content of your modal.

Personalize your sailboat data sheet

Great choice! Your favorites are temporarily saved for this session. Sign in to save them permanently, access them on any device, and receive relevant alerts.

• Sailboat Guide
• Collections

The 30 most “comfortable” sailboats

The Comfort Ratio is as a measure of motion comfort. Ted Brewer dreamed up the comfort ratio tongue-in-cheek, but it has been widely accepted and, indeed, does provide a reasonable comparison between yachts of similar type.

From tedbrewer.com :

It is based on the fact that the faster the motion the more upsetting it is to the average person. Given a wave of X height, the speed of the upward motion depends on the displacement of the yacht and the amount of waterline area that is acted upon. Greater displacement, or lesser WL area, gives a slower motion and more comfort for any given sea state. Beam does enter into it as as wider beam increases stability, increases WL area, and generates a faster reaction. The formula takes into account the displacement, the WL area, and adds a beam factor. The intention is to provide a means to compare the motion comfort of vessels of similar type and size, not to compare that of a Lightning class sloop with that of a husky 50 foot ketch. The CR is : Displacement in pounds/ (.65 x (.7 LWL + .3 LOA) x B1.333). Ratios will vary from 5.0 for a light daysailer to the high 60s for a super heavy vessel, such as a Colin Archer ketch. Moderate and successful ocean cruisers, such as the Valiant 40 and Whitby 42, will fall into the low-middle 30s range. Do consider, though, that a sailing yacht heeled by a good breeze will have a much steadier motion than one bobbing up and down in light airs on left over swells from yesterday’s blow; also that the typical summertime coastal cruiser will rarely encounter the wind and seas that an ocean going yacht will meet. Nor will one human stomach keep down what another stomach will handle with relish, or with mustard and pickles for that matter! It is all relative.

These 30 sailboats have the highest Comfort Ratio of all known sailboats.

Eastwind 44

Mayflower 1620.

Belfast Lough One-Design (Class I)

Seawanhaka schooner.

Belfast Lough One-Design (Class II)

Clyde 20-Ton One-Design

Jongert 20s.

Nicholson 70

Controversy 30, little harbor 62.

Bar Harbor 31

Concorde 151

Jongert 21s.

Solent One-Design

Viking 30 (Buchanan)

West solent one-design, new york yacht club 50.

Hinckley Sou'wester 59

Little harbor 54.

Dolphin 47 (Alden)

Embed this page on your own website by copying and pasting this code.

• About Sailboat Guide

©2024 Sea Time Tech, LLC

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

  C.W. HOOD 32  

This is where function and beauty coexist.

The C.W. Hood 32 is a “stand out from the crowd” sailboat. Light and nimble, she can climb to windward with exceptional grace. She is easy to single hand and roomy enough for a crew if she finds herself in a skirmish with her sisters.

This is a true daysailer. There is nothing onboard to distract from her purpose. A beautiful, comfortable sailboat with the finest pedigree.

S end us an email or give our office a call at 781.631.0192 to learn more about this yacht.

  RECOGNITION  

WINNER, Sailing World’s Daysailor of the Year, Boat of the Year Awards 

“When I first saw the drawings of the Hood 32, I was taken with its beautiful lines. I have been a lifelong sailor/racer and after a few years hiatus, was looking for a performance-oriented Daysailer. Working with Chris Hood and his crew during the building has been a pleasure. Now that I have sailed the boat, it is everything I had hoped it would be both in appearance and handling. It is a true home run!” – Dr. Frank Morse, owner

WINNER, Sail Magazine’s Daysailor of the Year, Best Boats Awards

“Quite simply, as a day sailor the boat is perfection… I have sailed faster boats, more sophisticated boats, more challenging boats, roomier boats, etc. However, I have never experienced the ease, performance, comfort and beauty of this 32’ boat. Easy to rig, easy to sail, easy to enjoy, easy to put away.” – Joshua Summers

Click here to read Bob Perry’s review of the C.W. Hood 32 in Sailing.

  Click for Specs...  

  galleries  , construction ​.

DETAILS & LINE HANDLING

UNDERBODY & TRAILERING

SAILS &

GENERAL GALLERY

VIDEO - Hood 32 "Ruby" in the Vineyard

Video - hood 32 "fireball" in florida.

C.W. HOOD 32' Fireball

• Forum Listing
• Marketplace
• Advanced Search
• All Topics Sailing
• General Sailing Discussions
• SailNet is a forum community dedicated to Sailing enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about sailing, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, repairs, reviews, maintenance, and more!

Comfort Ratio - How to read 5 to 10 pts differences?

• Add to quote
• Tayana 37 - CR: 43.8 -> Reference point (RP)
• Pacific Seacraft 37 - CR: 38.0 -> -5.8 of RP
• Cabo Rico 36 - CR: 35.6 -> -8.2 of RP
• Shannon 37 - CR:33.5 -> -10.3 of RP

MCR = DISP / (.65*BEAM4/3(.7*LWL+.3*LOA)) This ratio was invented by Ted Brewer who say's he dreamed it up "tongue in cheek" as a measure of the motion comfort of a boat. A boat that has a more corky motion is considered less comfortable then one less affected by wave action. A higher value is better (if you like comfort). Smaller and beamier boats tend to have a lower ratio. This is best used to compare boats of similar size. A 26 footer should probably not be compared to a 40 footer using this ratio. The ratio is a factor of LOA and LWL and it may assume that boats with long overhangs tend to have wineglass shaped cross sections which provide more gradual buoyancy as they are immersed. However, a boat like a Valiant 42 has a long LWL for it's LOA and possesses this more wineglass shaped cross section. The ratio also favors displacement (higher gives larger result) and there is no accounting for distribution of weight. It also takes no account of waterline beam, a value that can be quite informative but is rarely available on stat sheets. Click to expand...

Keep in mind that any center cockpit or pilothouse boat is likely to be more comfortable by virtue of the fact that you are not at one end of a boat that is moving like a slow see-saw through the waves. Comfort is best appreciated on the boats themselves. I have found that I don't notice the "snappy" motion of a race boat if I am having fun on a race, just as I don't resent the stately tack of a heavy displacement full-keeler. I certainly notice a change in motion, however, when I go up from the pilothouse of that full keeler onto the aft deck and the "outside helm".  

According to the formula by Delerious, the comfort ration is based on three values: LOA, LWL, DISP, and BEAM. The four boat you list are very close in LOA and Beam. That means the main cause of the different values are Displacement and LWL. All else being equal, a boat with a higher displacement is slower, but has a better motion. All else being equal, a boat with a shorter water line is slower. I think the better motion in this case is probably more controversial. In any case, all of these are quite heavy boats that have moderate numbers in other areas. They will all be comfortable. I would focus far less on the motion comfort ratio than other factors when comparing these boats. Other factors that I think are more important when comparing these four boats are build quality and function of deck, cockpit, and cabin layout (you will have to tour all four do decide this). Even more important: which of these boats makes your heart sing when you look at it? They are all great boats, but the one that takes your breath away is the right one for you.  

LOL...Hey Jeff, you do know you're replying to a thread from last summer, right??  

5 to 50 points difference is totally useless in telling you about a boat characteristics. Its seems that as soon as someone posts a question about the seaworthiness of some particular boat, that a well meaning responder sends them to Carl's Sail Calculator to look at the Capsize Screen Formula and the Motion Comfort Index. And no sooner than poster questions the seaworthiness of some boat, that someone cites the Capsize Screen Formula and the Motion Comfort Index in that vessel's defense or prosecution. But as I have explained many times in the past, (and I am about to explain yet again) these surrogate formulas tell almost nothing about how the reality of a boat's likelihood of capsize or its motion comfort. In fact they provide so little indication of a boat's behavior that to rely on them in any way borders on the dangerous. Both of these formulas were developed at a time when boats were a lot more similar to each other than they are today. These formulas have limited utility in comparing boats other than those which are very similar in weight and buoyancy distribution to each other. Neither formula contains almost any of the real factors that control motion comfort, the likelihood of capsize, or seaworthiness. Neither formula contains such factors as the vertical center of gravity or buoyancy, neither contains weight or buoyancy distribution (of the hull both below and above the waterline), the extent to which the beam of the boat is carried fore and aft, and neither contains any data on dampening, all of which really are the major factors that control motion comfort or the likelihood of capsize. I typically give this example to explain just how useless and dangerously misleading these formulas can be. If we had two boats that were virtually identical except that one had a 500 pound weight at the top of the mast. (Yes, I know that no one would install a 500 lb weight at the top of the mast.) The boat with the weight up its mast would appear to be less prone to capsize under the capsize screen formula, and would appear to be more comfortable under the Motion Comfort ratio. Nothing would be further than the truth. And while this example would clearly appear to be so extreme as to be worthy of dismissal, in reality, if you had two boats, one with a very heavy interior, shoal draft, its beam carried towards the ends of the boat near the deck line, a heavy deck and cabin structure, perhaps with traditional teak decks and bulwarks, a very heavy rig, heavy deck hardware, a hard bottomed dingy stored on its cabin top, and the resultant comparatively small ballast ratio made up of low density ballast. And if we compare that to a boat that is lighter overall, but it has a deep draft keel, with a higher ballast ratio, the bulk of the ballast carried in a bulb, its maximum beam carried to a single point in the deck so that there was less deck area near the maximum beam, a lighter weight hull, deck and interior as well as a lighter, but taller rig, it would be easy to see that the second boat would potentially have less of a likelihood of being capsized, and it is likely that the second boat would roll and pitch through a smaller angle, and would probably have better dampening and so roll and pitch at a similar rate to the heavier boat, in other words offer a better motion comfort....And yet, under the Capsize Screen Formula and the Motion Comfort Index it would appear that the first boat would be less prone to capsize and have a better motion when obviously this would not be the case. There are some better indicators of a vessel's likelihood of capsize. The EU developed their own stability index called STIX, a series of formulas which considered a wide range of factors and provides a reasonable sense of how a boat might perform in extreme conditions. Unfortunately meaningful results require a lot more information than most folks have access to for any specific design. The Offshore Committee of US Sailing developed the following simplified formula for estimating the Angle of Vanishing Stability (Sometimes referred to as the 'AVS', 'limit of positive stability', 'LPS', or 'Latent Stability Angle' ): Screening Stability Value ( SSV ) = ( Beam 2 ) / ( BR * HD * DV 1/3 ) Where; BR: Ballast Ratio ( Keel Weight / Total Weight ) HD: ffice:smarttags" />lace w:st="on">Hulllace> Draft DV: The Displacement Volume in cubic meters. DV is entered as pounds of displacement on the webpage and converted to cubic meters by the formula: Displacement Volume in Cubic Meters = ( Weight in Pounds / 64 )*0.0283168 The Beam and Telstar 28 New England You know what the first rule of sailing is? ...Love. You can learn all the math in the 'verse, but you take a boat to the sea you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as the turning of the worlds. Love keeps her going when she oughta fall down, tells you she's hurting 'fore she keens. Makes her a home. -Cpt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity (edited) If you're new to the Sailnet Forums... please read this POST. Still-DON'T READ THAT POST AGAIN. Click to expand...

Yes I was aware of that. I had seen Phillipe's post about boats not to take voyaging and in forming an answer I had taken a couple minites to look at his earlier posts trying to see if I could get a sense of where he was coming from and how experienced he was since his short list and criteria were so strange. At the time I noticed this thread and thought I would return to it rather than highjack his other post when he had specifically said that he did not want to discuss his criteria on that post. Since he had posted the other thread I figured he was actively on the board and so might see this. Jeff  

Something very odd happened above. At least, on my screen anyway. I see Jeff's post #8, with Sailingdog's signature line at the bottom of his post. Then in post # 9, Jeff appears to be replying to a post (by SD?) that doesn't show up on my screen. Anyone else seeing this?  

JohnRPollard said: Something very odd happened above. At least, on my screen anyway. I see Jeff's post #8, with Sailingdog's signature line at the bottom of his post. Then in post # 9, Jeff appears to be replying to a post (by SD?) that doesn't show up on my screen. Anyone else seeing this? Click to expand...

John, It appears to be on you screen only, I also agree Jeff should make the comment her for the OP per there most recent post of about 24 hrs ago, with a BIG list or eclectic boats. marty  

Wow, something's really messed up on my end, then. Now the posts are numbered differently, and it even skips 2 post #s. I don't see SD's post at all, only his signature tagged on to the end of Jeff's post about the CR ratio. Are you guys all seeing SD's post, then?  

Jeff, thanks for the reply. Since that post, I have been reading a lot more. The purpose of this Jun 09 post was for me to understand whether a Shannon 37 was really less comfortable at sea (in term of motion) than a Tayana 37, and to get a feeling from users of this forum who own or sail those boats how the boats feel. I'd love to have the time to go sailing on every one of those boats, but I don't. Therefore, while I agree formulas cannot tell you exactly how a boat will behave, formulas are of a help to weed out the thousands of boats that exist out there to a short list that one can be comfortable with because they have 'on paper' good characteristics. The next step then being to visit those boats on the short list, and sail them hopefully. I am working still on the short list, as my other post shows, but I am starting as well to visit those boats. Thanks Philippe  

Philippe, Some formulas are helpful in comparing boats that are similar enough, others just don't add much value. I don't think Motion Comfort adds much of anything. I have a fair amount of experience on two boats that I've owned. They are both close in overall length. One has MC of 36, the other 21. I suffer from seasickness pretty easily and need to really watch myself offshore. I can unquestionably tell you that for me, the offshore comfort of the boat with the MC 21 is much better than the 36, even in rough conditions. Paul L  

Philippe, But you have to realize that you will potentially rule out a lot of great boats because of a flawed formula, and vice versa. /Joms  

Physics rules , not opinion Jeff says: "I typically give this example to explain just how useless and dangerously misleading these formulas can be. If we had two boats that were virtually identical except that one had a 500 pound weight at the top of the mast. (Yes, I know that no one would install a 500 lb weight at the top of the mast.) The boat with the weight up its mast would appear to be less prone to capsize under the capsize screen formula, and would appear to be more comfortable under the Motion Comfort ratio. Nothing would be further than the truth " Kevlar Pirate says: Actually, 500 lbs at the top of the mast would prevent a rollover why ? because there is a dynamic world out there not just a static world. In practice we would never do this for other reasons however the mass of the mast is important This is why a boat which loses it's mast is more susceptible to rollover even though the center of gravity is lower Jeff, I would suggest you take a class on statics and dynamics, read up on moment of inertia it goes by radius squared respectfully, you are out of your field. The comfort motion formulas and capsize ratio formulas are still very valuable. I am not defending them to the letter, however there is no designs today or ever which can invalidate these basic formulas in spirit. CSR did not intend for someone to denigrate it by using some far out example as you have attempted here with your 500 lb weight. Instead of misleading readers , you may want to first qualify your statement by admitting your own boat does not do too well with these formulas. calculus and Newtonian physics have accurately served this world for 400 years these formulas are plenty acceptable for the purpose they were developed  

kevlarpirate said: Jeff says: "I typically give this example to explain just how useless and dangerously misleading these formulas can be. If we had two boats that were virtually identical except that one had a 500 pound weight at the top of the mast. (Yes, I know that no one would install a 500 lb weight at the top of the mast.) The boat with the weight up its mast would appear to be less prone to capsize under the capsize screen formula, and would appear to be more comfortable under the Motion Comfort ratio. Nothing would be further than the truth " Kevlar Pirate says: Actually, 500 lbs at the top of the mast would prevent a rollover why ? because there is a dynamic world out there not just a static world. .... Jeff, I would suggest you take a class on statics and dynamics, read up on moment of inertia it goes by radius squared respectfully, you are out of your field. The comfort motion formulas and capsize ratio formulas are still very valuable. I am not defending them to the letter, however there is no designs today or ever which can invalidate these basic formulas in spirit. CSR did not intend for someone to denigrate it by using some far out example as you have attempted here with your 500 lb weight. Instead of misleading readers , you may want to first qualify your statement by admitting your own boat does not do too well with these formulas. calculus and Newtonian physics have accurately served this world for 400 years these formulas are plenty acceptable for the purpose they were developed Click to expand...

yes of course it would change the statics and the boat would likely lay over considerably to some heel angle and stay there ( in a calm lake) my point is that jeff is dismissing the value of the behavior in the dynamic world. He rambles about interior weight etc, and center of gravity being too high. In practice however, his argument can be null and voided by one experiment and that is by removing the mast , thus, even though substantially lowering the CG, now in the dynamic world of a high beam sea, the loss of moment of inertia is more dominant in affecting the behavior and now the boat is more prone to roll over. Here is a link to a huge argument which erupted a couple of years ago where jeff dismissed the work of some very good naval architects and authors. I am amazed he continues to argue this point.  

Capsize ratio Capsize ratio - Cruisers & Sailing Forums I can mention here that I race and run races , that I have raced about 50 boats back to 1971 or so and remember them all. The light weight boats, I don't care how fast , will always get kicked around and the motion comfort will be an issue. I own 2 early 70's ex SORC racers and I wouldn't trade them for boats costing way more , they are battlewagons , go upwind without pounding and are very comfortable and stable and QUIET at anchor. there is way more to cruising than going fast off the wind  

1 As I said of course 500 lbs would reduce the ultimate STATIC stability curve..... Are you are taking my statement out of the spirit it was intended ? I was using that to differentiate between statics and dynamics only and thought any reader would see for that specific reason. 2 the screening formulas are not old , unless in your head Newtonian physics is 'old" 3 we can easily prove the roll moment of inertia is DOMINANT over CG by removing the mast thereby increasing roll over frequency in a big sea even though the CG is much lower .... need I say this the 3rd time? IMO ,the author did not by any means compliment jeff for his understanding of this formula, following it, is not understanding it and being objective The author stated that these formulas were an estimation of a boats behavior in a violent sea and was not a prediction. An estimation is not absolute, but it is valid for MOST cases. Most people posting here are not sailing open 60's, they are sailing production boats which these formulas are quite adequate. I would also suggest you pull up some static stability curves of boats which do well under these "old" formulas and boats which do poorly under this "old" formula and you will see a strong correlation. That is my simple point. I believe the author understands these formulas are quite unpopular to many boat owners and manufacturers whose boats do not show good numbers. This is a different subject entirely and enters into defensive and emotional territory. I say that's just too bad, formula is valid and can be proven adequate many more times than not I have been in physics professionally all my adult life.. These concepts are quite basic, you do not have to be a naval architect to understand them. but you do have to have an understanding of Statics and Dynamics Any attempt to denigrate well done work like these formulas because of one or two examples and then try to apply those very few cases to speak for the entire lot only proves bias. That is exactly what is happening here. with jeff's and your own views. I can say further that jeff shows an amazing arrogance to denigrate the works of someone in the business for so long and then contact that same author at a later date... And for what reason? so the author would retract his work? say he was wrong ? The author did nothing of the kind, he continues to defend it as he should .. Why? because the formulas stand valid. Incidentally, very deep bulbs cause other problems, like getting slammed down in a trough on its beam, and that is a different subject in itself we can talk about if you care to go to the next level  

So, would it be reasonable to say that in comparing boats (on paper) it is way more important to understand the characteristics that will tend to make the boat behave in certain ways (heel, roll...) than it is to cram those stats into a formula?  

kevlarpirate said: ... 3 we can easily prove the roll moment of inertia is DOMINANT over CG by removing the mast thereby increasing roll over frequency in a big sea even though the CG is much lower .... need I say this the 3rd time?.. Click to expand...

I did not answer barquitos question because it was vague and open ended, perhaps I should have engaged him more. I mentioned I use physics regularly in my business, I had Statics and Dynamics , and all the math and physics classes for an engineering degree many years ago and that these laws of Newtonian physics serve our everyday lives. Without arguing your statements I will try to illustrate with an example : Suppose you were sailing along on a reach or just sitting bare poles fishing for that matter, and you looked to the side and see a 30 foot breaking wave approaching and you have one wish to be granted. Here would be what you should wish for : That for one instant in time , say for 5 seconds , that out of heaven , a 50 pound sandbag would be attached to the top of your mast , a second before the wave hit . and after the wave past that same sandbag would be removed. Actually , a 500 lb sandbag would be way better in this case. What this illustrates is moment of inertia which will resist your boat being rolled. The wave would sweep through you , not roll you over. The more mass up there, the more energy is needed to put your boat into motion. Moment of inertia goes by radius squared Also worth mentioning here is your statement about the powerboat . To that statement, a boat which has no forward motion will lie ahull and therefore become more vulnerable to a roll. As a related note a boat going fast will exhibit Newton’s first law and therefore you are thinking in the dynamic world , not the static world. I will also mention the capsize screening ratio is not invalidated because it does not take into account the specific height of CG. We all know we don’t carry our keels on deck. CSR is valid because all the common boats we speak of , including the Sport boats of today still have ratios very close to each other. The behavior of a boat in the real world is described by both the static AND dynamic inputs. A last note , I am not here to give physics lessons, this knowledge is in the books Which I have in my library for decades, I am posting for the purpose of countering misinformation and in some cases disinformation, not yours by the way, however I cannot stress enough the importance of a rigorous understanding of moment of inertia and the relationship between statics and dynamics /Kev  

one more thing PCP , don't get the impression I am a physics teacher sticking my toe in the world of sailing . I am a 40 year veteran of ocean racing and have the additional blessing of being able to understand the physics I am happy to answer to any and all issues you care to engage /Kev  

Paulo it has been some days now. I assume you are reading up on statics and dynamics, along with watching the races. Would you like to talk more? By the way , the static curves you posted show the dangers of "marketing" influence. The boats you show (new designs) except for one ,have dreadful curves Buyers apparently don't pay much attention to this. You state that this theoretical stuff should be left alone because it's over the head of most of the board readers here. Interesting to me is this board should represent more intelligent sailors than most. So if your statement is correct , this is really a sad state of affairs. I personally own two large early 70's IOR boats and their curves are far superior, each with over 130 degrees and over a 7:1 ratio of positive vs neg stability area under the curve. Early IMS boats like the J35 when fat butts , zero deadrise and low ballast numbers started to emerge actually had curves as bad as the worst of early 80's IOR curves. What should we conclude from all this? You and I obviously did not get off on a good footing I wish sailaway21 would come back here He is very well versed at this and you may want to read his posts if you have a continued problem with mine also he recommended a book "Stability and Trim for the Ship's Officer" and offered up a very well put together and unbiased account of these issues.  

kevlarpirate said: .....By the way , the static curves you posted show the dangers of "marketing" influence. The boats you show (new designs) except for one ,have dreadful curves Buyers apparently don't pay much attention to this...... I personally own two large early 70's IOR boats and their curves are far superior, each with over 130 degrees and over a 7:1 ratio of positive vs neg stability area under the curve. Early IMS boats like the J35 when fat butts , zero deadrise and low ballast numbers started to emerge actually had curves as bad as the worst of early 80's IOR curves. What should we conclude from all this? You and I obviously did not get off on a good footing .... Click to expand...

Not hard at all, My Performance Package is on board , I can scan it or take dig photos and send as jpeg i guess. It is not a massaged curve either like some do in hopes of getting a category 0 or 1. I will also post a curve of a J-35 which has a pos to neg of 1.5 BTW the expression is area "under" the curve no matter if the portion of the curve is in positive or below zero in negative territory I will need a day or so, will see the boats tomorrow, so in the meanwhile , why don't yo do some reading since now I am working for you here . then we can amp it up a bit , if you like. I am not biased or old school by the way, I am dedicated to physics, safe designs, I am current on process and manufacturing technology , ,uncompromising and I have a almost total disregard for marketing hype and personal bias and defending compromise Kev  

kevlarpirate said: ...BTW the expression is area "under" the curve no matter if the portion of the curve is in positive or below zero in negative territory ..... Kev Click to expand...

Paulo , it's just math talk in this case , the curve looks like a distorted sine wave. If you take a function such as that and use calculus, you can determine the area under the curve by integrating . If that were say an electrical current flowing , we would refer to that area as the energy under the curve. Once the curve goes negative it is still energy, the sum of the two as the total energy even though one part is in negative territory , (below zero) and so we just think of it as the absolute value , meaning it has no sign (positive or negative) I mention current flowing as an electrical analog, it may help, but back to boats the static curve shown shows the moment arm or torque as a function of heel angle. It should be noted that the smaller boat shows less moment arm on the Y axis. But look, it is only a 4.3 ton boat, so therefore it cannot develop the level of force the other boats can . The shape of it's curve is superior however, meaning the pos and neg area ratios. when you compare these areas , just like the electrical analog , just use the absolute values, meaning positive values . So the Bavaria looks like about 4 or 5 to one and the Hanse looks like under 2 to 1 (ratio pos/neg) The smaller the boat is , the higher the static stability limit (LPS) needed to qualify for a particular offshore category, 0,1,or 2. I just tried to upload the offshore category table and it failed to upload both gif or jpeg , will have to get IT guy in here , anyway google it hope this helps/ kev  

clarificationS; 1 think of absolute value as always positive 2 also the Bavaria cannot produce the "torque" instead of force. And to that end , generally, the bigger the boat is, the lower the LPS can be to qualify for a category or in a storm not get rolled , obviously as the boat gets bigger, the waves at a given sea state are smaller in relation (to the boat) Kev.. PS I saw some of those videos you posted , very exciting , wish I were there !!  

No , it is not the sum of those two areas. The ratio of those areas say 5 to 1 (pos vs neg) would mean that the energy needed to invert the boat would be 5 times the energy needed to flip the boat back upright from an inverted position. So , if a boat had a ratio of 1to1 pos vs neg, that would be really bad like a catamaran , that would say that the boat was equally as happy to be upside down as right side up. On other end is say a 7 to 1 ratio of areas , where once inverted, it would take only a small heel angle (energy) to roll back through zero and flip back upright . I am going to dig up some past posts by sailaway21 who explains this stuff way better than me. I leave too many gaps, have to run out now /later/ kev but also remember this is just static bathtub stuff, oh and do this , take a wine glass, and a margurita glass (both with stems) then seal the tops with saran wrap and a rubber band and do this experiment in the kitchen sink. have some fun / GFTD will get back  

OK here , read sailaway21 posts. http://www.sailnet.com/forums/sailboat-design-construction/38919-limit-positive-stability-lps.html starting 12-08-07 post no.6 . so as the heel is increased the curve rises (righting arm increases) then it comes to the top of it's curve and that will be somewhere around where the rail meets the water. then you continue force the boat to heel and it will push back (torque) but not as much. The righting moment (torque) will decrease to where at some angle where the curve crosses zero . you could touch the keel (now above the water) on either side and the boat would roll in whatever direction the push came from. This angle is the limit of positive (and negative for that matter) stability the angle of vanishing stability is a misnomer, the stability has vanished completely , so it should be called the angle of zero stability. sailaway is very squared away, technical guy  

• ?            
• 174K members

Top Contributors this Month