pvb
Well-Known Member
Quite, facts are a bore which just stick around to annoy
Never a good idea to let facts get in the way of the truth
Indeed! But I think the OP has enough info by now to be able to sort the truth from the myths.
Older Westerly OceanLord
- Thread starter Tinto
- Start date
Indeed! But I think the OP has enough info by now to be able to sort the truth from the myths.doug748
Well-Known Member
Like the truth that you measure the volume of a hull by multiplying the beam by the length.
pvb
Well-Known Member
doug748
Well-Known Member
Time to stop digging....
I don't mind, the level of your understanding seems to be trivial. If your ideas are correct it will save marine architects a lot of head scratching.
Lets throw it open, is there anyone else out there who agrees with you:-
- The measure a boat's volume is found by multiplying the beam by the LOA.
Anyone?
Frank Holden
Well-Known Member
LxBxDxCoF...... for underwater volume ie displacement..
Frank Holden
Well-Known Member
Speaking of prejudice.... your views would appear to be based on having owned bilge keeled 'Laurent Giles and Partners' boats.... quite different animals to the Ed Dubois designed boats.... apart from carrying over the internal draining chain locker..
pvb
Well-Known Member
You need to be careful; I haven't made that claim.
pvb
Well-Known Member
Speaking of prejudice.... your views would appear to be based on having owned bilge keeled 'Laurent Giles and Partners' boats.... quite different animals to the Ed Dubois designed boats.... apart from carrying over the internal draining chain locker..
I always thought the Westerly Corsair I owned had been designed by Ed Dubois...
doug748
Well-Known Member
Well, I'm eager to learn the logic behind post 64:
"Ahem... Westerly Oceanlord's beam is 4.1m, Bavaria Cruiser 40's beam is 3.99m. So which has the bigger hull?"
When I suggested a boat with smaller dimensions overall might indeed have a bigger, heavier hull:
"Ah, right, so the Bavaria is shorter, and narrower, but despite that you reckon it's got a bigger hull
"This is why I said your ideas seem to be trivial. Thinking before you speak is better than back tracking later.
There is a lot to be said about hull forms, materials and design but most people take a balanced view. Maybe you are of those folk you yourself have branded as "enthusiasts".
Frank Holden
Well-Known Member
Note that I said 'appear'....
You had not mentioned in this thread that you had owned a Corsair....
You seemed to base your opinions on bilge keelers
Corsairs.. nice boats.. a poor man's Sealord... and reason for the creation of the Oceanlord
That said ... I prefer the Sealord... sub 12 metres... seaberths in the saloon not burgered up by the 'wraparound' non-sense on the port side... and a mast compression post that you can get a grip on.. not some faux teak boxed up bit of rollocks....
pvb
Well-Known Member
Well, I'm eager to learn the logic behind post 64:
"Ahem... Westerly Oceanlord's beam is 4.1m, Bavaria Cruiser 40's beam is 3.99m. So which has the bigger hull?"
When I suggested a boat with smaller dimensions overall might indeed have a bigger, heavier hull:
"Ah, right, so the Bavaria is shorter, and narrower, but despite that you reckon it's got a bigger hull
This is why I said your ideas seem to be trivial. Thinking before you speak is better than back tracking later.
There is a lot to be said about hull forms, materials and design but most people take a balanced view. Maybe you are of those folk you yourself have branded as "enthusiasts".
Like many old boat fans, you seem to be oblivious to reality. Anyway, I don't have the inclination to argue with you - believe what you want.
pvb
Well-Known Member
The Corsair is listed in my profile.
I don't recall my Corsair having "wraparound nonsense" or a "faux teak" compression post.
jordanbasset
Well-Known Member
Interesting discussion re the internal volume, I think what is being got at is the beam and length measurements only take you so far. Think if a ship was a rectangular shape, it will have substantially more internal volume that one that is a ship shape
Of course that is an extreme and far fetched example but then think about some boats who have their beam carried further to the stern and bows compared to those what have narrow sterns and more tapering bows
Of course that is an extreme and far fetched example but then think about some boats who have their beam carried further to the stern and bows compared to those what have narrow sterns and more tapering bows
Frank Holden
Well-Known Member
Get a grip... I was talking about the difference between the Sealord and the Oceanlord.... as I said the Corsair was the poor man's Sealord....
And I don't bother reading people's 'profiles' to see why they have their niks in a knot.......
doug748
Well-Known Member
Exactly so.
Taking the stereotype further.
The beam is carried right aft, the undersides are flatter, waterline beam increased. Topsides rise steeply with increased freeboard, chines make a comeback . Sterns are cut with little overhang, drop down platforms replace sugar scoops. Forward the lines are drawn out to a bluff, plumb bow.
The rough characteristics of a high volume modern hull form.
Last edited:
PaulRainbow
Well-Known Member
If GRP boat x has a bigger internal volume than GRP boat y, but they both weigh the same, then there must (overall) be less material per square whatever, on average. LOA and beam aren't the only figures to take into account, how about height ? Later Ben/Jen/Bavs have higher freeboard than a lot of older boats. Also, beam is a measurement taken at the widest point of the boat, those newer boats have fat transoms, where did the GRP come from to make the fat transom if the weight didn't increase ? It's pretty obvious, if the same weight of material was used it must be stretched thinner. If anyone knows how to make a fat transom without adding weight, my fife would be interested in a chat with you 
One thing we all know they did, at the same time they were making those transoms, was to flatten the bottom and reduce the forefoot, so they might have moved some of the GRP from those areas to the fat transom.
Something else they did too was to improve the techniques for manufacture. If you made a sheet of GRP by hand, adding lots of layers and lightly rolling it, you might end up with a pretty strong, thick, heavy sheet of GRP. If you left off a couple of layers then heavily rolled the layup, squeezing out a good amount of the resin, you'd end up with a thinner, lighter and stronger sheet of GRP. If the sheet were put in a press, it could be considerably thinner and lighter and even stronger.
So it's pointless arguing about weight. My last boat was a nearly new Jeanneau, it had some seriously thick areas of GRP, has some thin ones too. My current boat is a Westerly Discus, i've drilled a few holes and filled a few redundant ones, some parts of the boat are ridiculously thick, i've seen areas half inch or more thick. I removed a redundant through hull, i didn't think the bottom was excessively thick.
Newer boats are built with better methods, the benefit of computer modelling and a far greater knowledge of the strength of GRP. So, they can be thicker where they need to be, thinner where it's not so important and use a similar weight of material, without compromising strength. It's all well and good saying "my boat is an inch thick", so what, if it only needed to be 1/4" thick, what's the point ?
One thing we all know they did, at the same time they were making those transoms, was to flatten the bottom and reduce the forefoot, so they might have moved some of the GRP from those areas to the fat transom.
Something else they did too was to improve the techniques for manufacture. If you made a sheet of GRP by hand, adding lots of layers and lightly rolling it, you might end up with a pretty strong, thick, heavy sheet of GRP. If you left off a couple of layers then heavily rolled the layup, squeezing out a good amount of the resin, you'd end up with a thinner, lighter and stronger sheet of GRP. If the sheet were put in a press, it could be considerably thinner and lighter and even stronger.
So it's pointless arguing about weight. My last boat was a nearly new Jeanneau, it had some seriously thick areas of GRP, has some thin ones too. My current boat is a Westerly Discus, i've drilled a few holes and filled a few redundant ones, some parts of the boat are ridiculously thick, i've seen areas half inch or more thick. I removed a redundant through hull, i didn't think the bottom was excessively thick.
Newer boats are built with better methods, the benefit of computer modelling and a far greater knowledge of the strength of GRP. So, they can be thicker where they need to be, thinner where it's not so important and use a similar weight of material, without compromising strength. It's all well and good saying "my boat is an inch thick", so what, if it only needed to be 1/4" thick, what's the point ?
pvb
Well-Known Member
If GRP boat x has a bigger internal volume than GRP boat y, but they both weigh the same, then there must (overall) be less material per square whatever, on average. LOA and beam aren't the only figures to take into account, how about height ? Later Ben/Jen/Bavs have higher freeboard than a lot of older boats. Also, beam is a measurement taken at the widest point of the boat, those newer boats have fat transoms, where did the GRP come from to make the fat transom if the weight didn't increase ? It's pretty obvious, if the same weight of material was used it must be stretched thinner. If anyone knows how to make a fat transom without adding weight, my fife would be interested in a chat with you
Yes, newer boats have wider transoms, but the boats I mentioned in post 59 as examples are over 10 years old, and their hull shape is more traditional. Here are plan views of the Westerly Oceanlord and the 2008 Bavaria Cruiser 40:-
They don't look markedly different in overall form.
PaulRainbow
Well-Known Member
But are the two internal volumes the same ? If you are saying the layup on both boats is the same, or thereabouts, then there needs to be the same square feet of GRP.
But, as i said, what's it matter ? Is an inch of lightly rolled layup better or worse than half an inch of heavier rolled layup ?
Neither the weight of the boat or the thickness of the GRP mean much, on their own, with regards to strength or robustness.
pvb
Well-Known Member
Probably similar; I'd guess they both have adequate headroom.
pvb
Well-Known Member
True, but the discussion started when someone claimed that older Westerly boats have a far heavier fibreglass layup than boats of today, essentially they don't.