Carter 33 ballast ratio and stability questions

[Boo2]

Hi,

I am considering buying a Carter 33 (note: not the 3/4 ton version or the Concubine) but am a bit concerned that the info I can find about the ballast ration on the sailboatdata website gives a ballast ration of only 36%.

This compares pretty poorly with eg the Colvic UFO 34 at 54% and I wondered if anyone here thinks there is a misprint in the figures for the C33 ? If not then what does this say about its ultimate stability and suitability for blue water cruising (my ultimate aim for the boat) ? Is the designer Richard Carter still with us and if so is there any way to contact him to find out the stability curves for this yacht ? Or does anyone here happen to know another source for this information ?

Thanks in advance,

Boo

[CT 249]

If the ballast ratio was only 33%, then the boat would have been miles different from everything else of that style at that time, when around 50% was normal.

The only one in Australia, the timber-built Skylark, was (if I recall correctly) rolled off Lord Howe Island in a very nasty storm, but recovered well enough.

Can't help you with the rest.

[TeddyDiver]

It looks somewhat heavier so might be better to compare the total amount of ballast (2860) to other boats of same size..
edit: Or maybe not.. depends if the weight was in kilos or lbs ???

[alan white]

Originally Posted by Boo2

Hi,

I am considering buying a Carter 33 (note: not the 3/4 ton version or the Concubine) but am a bit concerned that the info I can find about the ballast ration on the sailboatdata website gives a ballast ration of only 36%.

This compares pretty poorly with eg the Colvic UFO 34 at 54% and I wondered if anyone here thinks there is a misprint in the figures for the C33 ? If not then what does this say about its ultimate stability and suitability for blue water cruising (my ultimate aim for the boat) ? Is the designer Richard Carter still with us and if so is there any way to contact him to find out the stability curves for this yacht ? Or does anyone here happen to know another source for this information ?

Thanks in advance,

Boo

I bought a Carter 33 a few years ago from Steven Callahan (writer of the book, "Adrift"). I sold her without having a chance to launch her.
In his experience the boat rolled onto her beam ends once in a year of offshore cruising. This included a trip to Granada from New England.
As far as I remember, this boat (design) also won the around denmark race in '72. The boats still beat J30s if I recall.
If you're considering buying one, the one thing to look for is fatigue cracks at the keel root where it joins the hull. The root is rather thin (small radious) and mine had been repaired properly along with replacement of all major floors.
That issue ought to top your list of concerns. Otherwise, fantastic boat with great accomodations, small sails (400 sq ft working plan), moderate displacement (8000#), and great big wide decks for sail-handling. not to mention the beautiful workmanship.

[Eric Sponberg]

Dick Carter is no longer with us, having died long ago. However, Yves Tanton headed up Carter's design team, and working for him were none other than Bob Perry, Chuck Paine, and Mark Lindsay. Yves Tanton is a regular contributor to this forum, and you can reach him through his website at:

www.tantonyachts.com

He may have more information. You can also contact Bob Perry at:

www.perryboat.com

Of course, Bob Perry has written extensively on yacht design over the decades, and he may have particular first-hand knowledge of the Carter 33.

Eric

[sharpii2]

The Ballast/Displacement number can be very misleading.

What really counts is the ballast moment, which is the distance from the center of buoyancy of the boat (including keel) to the center of gravity of the ballast.

It is possible to have a very high Ballast Displacement ratio, yet have a low Ballast moment. A centerboarder with internal ballast is a good example the one extreme.

It is also very possible to have a very low Ballast/Displacement ratio, yet have a very high Ballast Moment. A boat with a deep, narrow fin with all the ballast concentrated in a bulb at the bottom is a good example of the other.

Both boats, if properly designed, can be expected to right themselves from a roll over.

[sharpii2]

The Ballast/Displacement number can be very misleading.

What really counts is the ballast moment, which is the distance from the center of buoyancy of the boat (including keel) to the center of gravity of the ballast.

It is possible to have a very high Ballast Displacement ratio, yet have a low Ballast moment. A centerboarder with internal ballast is a good example the one extreme.

It is also very possible to have a very low Ballast/Displacement ratio, yet have a very high Ballast Moment. A boat with a deep, narrow fin with all the ballast concentrated in a bulb at the bottom is a good example of the other.

Both boats, if properly designed, can be expected to right themselves from a roll over.

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by CT 249

If the ballast ratio was only 33%, then the boat would have been miles different from everything else of that style at that time, when around 50% was normal.

I would have guessed closer to 40% was considered "normal" for a boat of that type. A 50% B/D ratio would have been pretty hefty.

[pam carter]

He 's more into music these days, but my Uncle Dick is still on deck!

[Get-a-Life]

Not sure of the ballast ratio, but we have had our Carter 33 for a little over 2 years and have done considerable off shore cruising in her.

Sydney to Hobart, waters around Tasmania, etc.

Of the three keel boats we have owned over thirty years, this is the one I have had the most confidence in. Getting the gunwals under has proved to be impossible even when we have been down right tardy in reducing sail at the appropriate time.

Great boat.

[Tanton]

I have a figure of 1300KG. or 2860 Lbs. for the quantity of lead in the keel.

[gww25]

I've had the opportunity to do some extensive sailing in the 33 and would not hesitate to take one into some serious weather. As others have said the balast/displ. ratio is only part of the story. If possible also take a look at the lines of this particular hull as it derives a lot of stability from the form which was a little unusual for its day.

[gww25]

I should have qualified that last post with respect to which 33 design. I am speaking about the one in this picture.

[Steinsvik]

Finally I found another Carter 33 owner!

I bought a Carter 33 a year and a half ago (I live in Norway), and I think I'm the only one in this country who owns a Carter 33.
I've been trying to find some information (history, techincal specifications) about this boat, but there seems to be a lack of info on the Internet.
My boat was built in 1975 or 1976 on Olympic Yachts in Greece. I'm impressed over the beautiful craftmanship inside the boat and the spacious solutions. The great width gives much room on board the ship compared to other boats from the 70's.

I'm planning on sailing around the world in this boat in a couple of years. I've been living on board for more than a year now.

[T. Stoner]

Have been sailing a Carter33 3/4T for 10 years - except for two during rebuidling the deck. It has been a great boat and very stable in all conditions on the Chesapeake Bay. One case of a small knock down to maybe 70 degrees with easily coming back up by letting her round up. I still had some helm control. Another squall that had us surfing with the waves well beyond hull speed and no control issues with only a double reefed main.

I enjoyed the photos from Norway. While the style of the 3/4T is different, the charcter and quality are still their. I have beeen trying to find information on the location of construction for our boat and was hopeful to talk with D. Carter. Unfortunate to hear that won't be possible, however good to find there are other sources I can pursue. I have had a curiosity about the keel to hull transition, so want to pursue this important detail.

Thank you for the leads I have been looking for!
ts