I think your surveys asking which boat is more likely to get in trouble does a disservice to your followers. In my opinion seaworthiness is NOT a function or result of a particular boat design and its parameters, in and of itself. You can take the same design, whether thought to be generally seaworthy or not, put it in the hands of two different skippers and have very different results where safety is concerned. To me, seaworthiness does not and should not take the boat, alone into account. It has to also take the human factor into consideration. This would be things like the experience of the skipper, how well or not a boat is maintained, and how well it may be equipped to deal with an emergency.
I've heard this critique before, but I'm not sure I really get it. The point of the exercise—recognizing it's mostly just fun speculation—is to take the theoretical skill and experience of the skipper OUT of the equation, so we can compare the relative merits of the designs alone. Nobody is suggesting that boat design alone is the sole or even primary factor in how well a boat and crew would fare. Obviously the same boat is more or less seaworthy depending on the capability of the crew—but can we also agree certain boats are inherently more seaworthy by design than certain other boats? If so, simply assume all other things are equal and play along.
I enjoy these exercises, makes me check out various boats and ask myself , if I had to which one would I choose to face a angry sea! I’m looking to down size from a SJ24 to a smaller more manageable craft as I approach 80. This exercise is helping me go through this process. Thanks Josjh!
All of them at the same time, with their small hulls and tall rigs. I don't see a mizzen anywhere! Limited versatility. Everyone knows that they should take a Drascombe Lugger like Webb Chiles...
But the lightest one might fare the best, bobbing like a cork vs battering into waves.
You’ll have to so a meta-analysis of all these surveys to see if ‘salty’ looks correspond with boats we quick judging folks call seaworthy- i suspect there is a deep seated subconscious sense that good looking boats are seaworthier whatever the ballast ratio n righting movement. Heck, put up a Stevenson Weekended or an open internal ballast Block Island cowhorn (seaworthy if you grew up in em and could accept occassional drownings as the price of earning aliving from the sea, but deadly in many of our hands), and many of us will vote em most seaworthy… Would be fun to add an article explaining objective indicators of seaworthyness (eg EU ratings, etc) and how some stats can inform our judgements!
I have a 1981 ComPac16 (bought it new in 1981) and I’ve had the occasion to sail it in many bodies of water and various wind/wave conditions ( Florida Bay, Tampa Bay, Santa Barbara CA. to Ventura CA, lakes in Colorado, Nebraska, Utah and Wyoming). After a hard and scary lesson which taught me the value of reefing early ( in a sudden squall while in Twin Lakes CO at about 10,000 feet ASL) I have found that the ComPac handles heavy weather well when one pays attention to wind and waves and takes appropriate action. It’s important not to be caught in a lee shore since with the Scheel keel, its windward performance suffers.
I agree with Ed Clark that it’s not just the boat but the skipper as well.
It would be difficult to make a rational comparison if one hadn't experienced all four vessels under challenging conditions. Thus the 'survey' is just a somewhat biased opinion poll. In the future, perhaps providing architectural specifics about each vessel might result in a more informed and enjoyable decision-making process for readers. And of course, we would expect all other factors to be equal, e.g. skipper, crew, gear weight, etc.
In the caption below the pictures there’s a link to information on each boat. I found that to be helpful to get a feel for the ballast, sail area, etc.
All seem to be comparably well built. I'd prefer the one with the smallest cockpit. I've been in a 23' boat with waves washing over the cabin and smacking me in the face. A flooded cockpit could have spelled doom.
I think your surveys asking which boat is more likely to get in trouble does a disservice to your followers. In my opinion seaworthiness is NOT a function or result of a particular boat design and its parameters, in and of itself. You can take the same design, whether thought to be generally seaworthy or not, put it in the hands of two different skippers and have very different results where safety is concerned. To me, seaworthiness does not and should not take the boat, alone into account. It has to also take the human factor into consideration. This would be things like the experience of the skipper, how well or not a boat is maintained, and how well it may be equipped to deal with an emergency.
I've heard this critique before, but I'm not sure I really get it. The point of the exercise—recognizing it's mostly just fun speculation—is to take the theoretical skill and experience of the skipper OUT of the equation, so we can compare the relative merits of the designs alone. Nobody is suggesting that boat design alone is the sole or even primary factor in how well a boat and crew would fare. Obviously the same boat is more or less seaworthy depending on the capability of the crew—but can we also agree certain boats are inherently more seaworthy by design than certain other boats? If so, simply assume all other things are equal and play along.
I enjoy these exercises, makes me check out various boats and ask myself , if I had to which one would I choose to face a angry sea! I’m looking to down size from a SJ24 to a smaller more manageable craft as I approach 80. This exercise is helping me go through this process. Thanks Josjh!
All of them at the same time, with their small hulls and tall rigs. I don't see a mizzen anywhere! Limited versatility. Everyone knows that they should take a Drascombe Lugger like Webb Chiles...
But the lightest one might fare the best, bobbing like a cork vs battering into waves.
You’ll have to so a meta-analysis of all these surveys to see if ‘salty’ looks correspond with boats we quick judging folks call seaworthy- i suspect there is a deep seated subconscious sense that good looking boats are seaworthier whatever the ballast ratio n righting movement. Heck, put up a Stevenson Weekended or an open internal ballast Block Island cowhorn (seaworthy if you grew up in em and could accept occassional drownings as the price of earning aliving from the sea, but deadly in many of our hands), and many of us will vote em most seaworthy… Would be fun to add an article explaining objective indicators of seaworthyness (eg EU ratings, etc) and how some stats can inform our judgements!
Interesting how the photo of it, actually gives it away!
I have a 1981 ComPac16 (bought it new in 1981) and I’ve had the occasion to sail it in many bodies of water and various wind/wave conditions ( Florida Bay, Tampa Bay, Santa Barbara CA. to Ventura CA, lakes in Colorado, Nebraska, Utah and Wyoming). After a hard and scary lesson which taught me the value of reefing early ( in a sudden squall while in Twin Lakes CO at about 10,000 feet ASL) I have found that the ComPac handles heavy weather well when one pays attention to wind and waves and takes appropriate action. It’s important not to be caught in a lee shore since with the Scheel keel, its windward performance suffers.
I agree with Ed Clark that it’s not just the boat but the skipper as well.
Ed Pajon
It would be difficult to make a rational comparison if one hadn't experienced all four vessels under challenging conditions. Thus the 'survey' is just a somewhat biased opinion poll. In the future, perhaps providing architectural specifics about each vessel might result in a more informed and enjoyable decision-making process for readers. And of course, we would expect all other factors to be equal, e.g. skipper, crew, gear weight, etc.
In the caption below the pictures there’s a link to information on each boat. I found that to be helpful to get a feel for the ballast, sail area, etc.
Thanks!
Same same. I find it interesting as I consider a new (to me) boat.
Tried unsuccessfully to fix typos. Sorry.
All seem to be comparably well built. I'd prefer the one with the smallest cockpit. I've been in a 23' boat with waves washing over the cabin and smacking me in the face. A flooded cockpit could have spelled doom.