Seaworthiness

Interesting to review some of Vega's interesting opinions at the “Keels and Keels again” thread:

I cannot less than strongly agree with him.
(But then I feel somewhat confused comparing this with some of his statements in several of his recent posts at this and other threads.....)

Cheers.

 

Most of the boats racing under ORC are cruising boats, as were most boats racing under IMS.

They mean that in the future, handicap rules will not anymore allow that slow, tender and heavy boats beat, on the racing field, much faster, lighter and stiffer boats. They also mean that the new rules will encourage (as all the handicap rules) to design according to what the rule favors, and that means in this case: Not heavy boats, not tender boats and accordingly, not slow boats .

As most of the boats on the sail-racing panorama (I mean, all world ocean races, big and small) are cruising boats, that means that cruising boats will be heavily influenced by the new rule, as they have been influenced by older handicap rules.

And these criteria are already on the cruising grounds and we know that you consider it “nuts” even if sailors think otherwise (the market offer expresses their desires) .

 

That is a contradiction in terms .

If it is heavy, it is not fast. If it’s fast, it can not be heavy .

Why do you think multihulls are faster than monohulls?

(Because they are lighter (they don’t carry ballast) and because they are stiffer (they are lot beamier and that gives them a much bigger MAX GZ) .

 

Contradiction in terms....!
What about just your own plain contradictions?

Instead of diverting, would you please clarify your own 2006's statements against you later ones through these last months? Some of us are very interested...

(P.S: Aren't you afraid of being sued by boatbuilders and magazines...? )

 

Yes, I have learned and I have changed. When are you going to change ?

I will post the picture of a boat that I was designing when I have posted that (two years ago). It was what I considered then, as the boat I wanted for cruising ( I remember you liked the boat).

I will post also a drawing of another boat, one that I began drawing when I understood that the first drawing didn’t represent the boat I wanted anymore (too heavy and too slow).

I have abandoned that too. I will modify a lot of things. Not fast enough, not stiff enough.

The differences between those two boats are in consonance with the differences between what I thought two years ago and what I thought some months ago.

Cheers

 

Yes, I have learned and I have changed.

I guess those of us who were not born with the knowledge have to admit we learn and we change. Imagine!!!...changing your opinion based by studying new information and running the risk of relinquishing unsubstantiated biases. What kind of a yachtsman would do such a thing?

I am being a bit of a wise *** but seriously Vega, I must commend you!

 

Yes DG, all of us learn. But what cannot be done is to believe we are 'top guns' as soon as we learn a couple of things, and then do not listen and even refute what more knowledgeable people are saying, without having enough basis. That's what is annoying.

Cheers.

 

Umm ..... actually a displacement hull is a displacement hull whether there are two of them or one, the cat gets its superior performance (sometimes) because we can optimise the hulls wrt wave making. That is the hulls are long and narrow. we dont have to add beam to give a better form stability, and long narrow hulls are superior displacement forms.
A lot of cats are absolute dogs because of issues poorly understood by the designer despite a high form stability and light displacement.

So long as we are talking displacement hulls and as I explained before; the performance does not depend on the displacement but on the shape (Cp) and the ratios and the GZ curve.

 

So who are the "top guns" here Guillermo? It only seems that Vega is in a questioning, thinking out loud, learning, mode and pointing out some boats he thinks would be fun. You seem annoyed that he keeps interrupting your soapbox tirade on the virtues of creeping around the ocean on painfully slow boats.
By your standards driving down the highway in anything less than an M1 Abrams battle tank is shear folly. Yes I am sure you could produce the statistics that prove it is the safe and prudent thing to do and there would not be a way for anyone to refute your numbers...but you must see that guys who want to restrict people to their own idea of sailing, scares me! Some people just love experiencing the shear joy of sailing in its purest form. They go sailing to sail, not motor.


I know you are aware the sailing world is full of mythology and misinformation and salesman and hucksters and crooks and stupid sailors and bad boats. There are also some really talented and innovative madmen out there that contribute much to our fun. Your points are all valid, but not the final word. There is much more to sailing than engineering and statistics can describe. Your talent and insight is appreciated and heard but cut loose and try to see the side of us "less careful" types occasionally.

And Guillermo, I think it would do you some good to go out and haul *** on one of those scandalously light racing machines, We won't tell anyone...really.

 

Those are your words, not mine. You should not make the same mistake Vega does, this is to judge my intentions and distort my words. I say what I say, nothing else. Interpretations and generalizations are yours. Please read carefully.

Do you consider to race a J 105 is good enough for my ***? Why have you become scorny too, knowing nothing? Who the hell do you think you are?

 

I asked you first!


You sound threatening Guillermo. Those in fact are my words and my interpretation. And your words are yours...an interpretation like many other well informed ones.

Are you saying I know nothing or everybody knows nothing?

Sorry...I forgot that English is your second language..."hauling ***" is a slang American phrase that means going fast...not anything to do with your backside.

And no, a J105 isn't what I had in mind.

By the way, I was mostly teasing you, but I guess you don't appreciate my humour.

 

DGreenwood,

May I suggest that you learn the difference (use a dictionary) between "shear" and "sheer" and also, choose your words very carefully. Your last two posts, including a snide comment about teasing, are both inappropriate. Guillermo does not have to share his knowledge here, not has he anything to prove to the likes of you and Vega. Most of us come here to gain information, not to see one individual plagiarise the works of other authors and post them here as original research. It's not helpful.

What surprises me most it that you do not seem to have an understanding of the phrase, "Put up or shut up." Guillermo has his NA website.

http://www.gestenaval.com/

Where is your website and what are your qualifications? I suppose you could answer that by claiming a BSc. from the "School of Hard Knocks and Tough Experiences", but I don't think I would want to put to sea in a boat designed by someone with that qualification. I will also put a similar question to Vega.

Maybe you guys can sail boats, but have either of you built and guaranteed seagoing vessels that carry your reputations. I don't think so!

Pericles

 

I have show to you my evolution on boat design, in what concerns cruising sailboats...I know, I am only learning, but I have not yet saw what such a knowledgeable professional like you is capable. I am sure that your deep interest on oceangoing sailboats has a material expression.

Would you do us the pleasure of posting one of your own design oceangoing cruising sailboat ?

 

Think as you wish Pericles...but you would be wrong.


Oh wow ...you caught me making a typo. Feel victorious do we? Maybe you should learn the difference (use the dictionary) between "not" and "nor" That was intended as a "snide" comment. The others were not.

If you knew as much about this site and its goings on as you like to pretend, you would know that in the past I have stepped in to defend Guillermos right to speak his informed mind. And if you were as literate as you let on, and followed your own advise in careful reading you would see in my next to last post I gave Guillermo credit for being an informed guy.

The simple fact is I am not ready to take Guillermo as the final word on this stuff. Nor does Vega hold that position.
I am not questioning Guillermos' knowledge, just his indignity over being countered by Vega. Vegas' stance is not ill informed, possibly has errors, and is prone to his love of fast boats. I'd say that is the ingredients for a good discussion, not a reason to club him into submission.Guillermo is not "top gun" either.

 

"but you would be wrong." WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

Advice is a noun and advise is a verb, The difference between shear and sheer wasn't a typo . You used the word twice. Why your silliness about me pretending to know this forum (site). You have a bizarre understanding of my position.

What you have or have not written in the past is not important, I took you to task over your words ON THIS THREAD. BTW it's Guillermo's not Guillermos.
and it's "those are the ingredients", not "that is the ingredients", the reason being the word ingredients is plural. The s on the end should tell you that!

As for this?

"Oh wow ...you caught me making a typo. Feel victorious do we? Maybe you should learn the difference (use the dictionary) between "not" and "nor" That was intended as a "snide" comment. The others were not."

Grow up child. This forum is not somewhere for you to have a tantrum. It's the cyberspace of learning.

Pericles