Columbia Sabre Columbia 5.5 Scorpion

Discussion in 'Boat Design' started by lugnuts, Oct 22, 2020.

  1. lugnuts
    Joined: Jul 2011
    Posts: 9
    Likes: 1, Points: 3, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Colorado

    lugnuts Junior Member

    So I was using the “compare” function on to compare 3 boats that were popped from the same mold, the Columbia Sabre 32, the Columbia 5.5, and the Ericson Scorpion. All the numbers matched up pretty much as you would expect except for one. The Columbia 5.5 has LWL of 25.00 while the Sabre and the Scorpion have a LWL of 22.58 feet. How can this be? Three boats with the same hull, same displacement, same beam, etc, etc? I would think the heavier boats, Sabre and Scorpion, would sit lower in the water and might have a longer LWL. It makes no sense to me that the Columbia 5.5 has the longer LWL. Or perhaps this is simply an error? Or maybe the LWL of the 5.5 is calculated burdened with a crew? What am I missing? TIA
  2. bajansailor
    Joined: Oct 2007
    Posts: 1,315
    Likes: 381, Points: 83, Legacy Rep: 37
    Location: Barbados

    bajansailor Marine Surveyor

    Here are some links for reference - a

    The Sailboat Data has side profile drawings for the Sabre and the Scorpion, but not for the 5.5 which is a shame - if there was a drawing, one could roughly scale off the drawing to see what the LWL is.

    <mod note: removed s.g. links due to a problem with that site's bot scraping and not responding to polite requests to stop scraping without asking for permission first.>
  3. lugnuts
    Joined: Jul 2011
    Posts: 9
    Likes: 1, Points: 3, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Colorado

    lugnuts Junior Member

    Ok so I dug a little deeper and I found some more info on a Columbia website here:
    Columbia 5.5 & Sabre Specifications
    and they list the LWL for the C 5.5 and the Sabre to be the same: 22’7 inches. That makes a lot more sense. I believe that both Sailboat guide and sailboat data have incorrect numbers for the LWL of the C 5.5. Thanks for the reply tho.
    bajansailor likes this.

  4. sharpii2
    Joined: May 2004
    Posts: 1,955
    Likes: 137, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 611
    Location: Michigan, USA

    sharpii2 Senior Member

    Maybe not.

    If the shorter LWL ones used less ballast, the LWLs would come up shorter. Also, one may be measuring the LWL at light ship, and the other may be measuring it at a full load.

    We may never know what they mean by "displacement". Do they mean what the boat displaces empty? Half load? Or full load?

    Due to the long stern overhang of this design, a few inches of hull immersion would lengthen the LWL considerably.
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.