Vancouver 27 "overall depth"

[Sepharad]

I am being asked for the "overall depth" of my Vancouver 27, by the US coast guard. My boat is trapped in another country by Covid. The measurement is vertical from the midpoint of the boat deck to the bottom of the keel. I can't find this measurement anywhere including on my blueprints. Any help would be appreciated. This is a requirement for their simplified measurement.

 

[scruff]

How accurate does it need to be?

Draught is showing as 4' with a 6ft headroom inside. So add on a couple of foot for keel below the bottom of the hull and call it 8ft6"

 

[davidmh]

I have a Vancouver 27 detailed drawings of the rig, masts and sail plan. it is a 1/16 th scale. The official draft is 4ft 3 ". The height from waterline to the top of the sliding hatch scales 5ft 4 ins. So the depth the US coast guard needs would be 9ft 7 ins.
Hope this helps.
David MH

 

[neil_s]

sailboatdata.com have a side elevation of the Vancouver 27 and also detail it's overall length. A couple of minutes with a ruler and pocket calculator should give you the dimension you heed to within a couple of inches or so!

 

[Sepharad]

The measurement is from the deck at midpoint on the beam of the boat, to the bottom of the keel. Not the cabin roof.
It is to me a rather odd measurement. So basically the draft, Keel to waterline plus waterline to the toerail/deck.

The measurement of waterline to deck is my missing element. How accurate? I don't know. But I dread the power of bureaucrats.

 

[Sepharad]

I will draw a waterline on my blueprints(which have no waterline amazingly) and try to calculate the balance. I was just hoping someone had dealt with this issue before and had a solid number. It's a common boat in the UK but almost unknown in the states. Such is life, thank you all for your help.

 

[Greenheart]

Why do they want a measurement that doesn't reflect the space the vessel needs, or, on its own, hint at volume, stability or buoyancy?

 

[Babylon]

I've had mine for nearly 14 years.

To the best of my knowledge the draught is between 4'3" (empty) and 4'6" (fully loaded), so assume 4'3". (Early drawing of production V27 attached is incorrect in stating 4'0".)

My calculation (extrapolated from drawing, rather than measured on actual boat) is that the distance from waterline to lowest point of deck (in way of the companionway) is 3'2", which gives a combined sum of 7'5".

Hope your bureaucrat is kind.

POSTSCRIPT (some hours later): Looking at this again, I made a slight error in calculating draught of 4'3" from the waterline given on the drawing below (which is where their incorrect 4'0" comes from). The true waterline is easily 2-3" above this (i.e. about where the white boot-top is shown on the drawing), therefore the calculated figure for freeboard of 3'2" needs to be reduced by a proportionate amount to 3'0". Thus your combined figure should be no more than 7'3" or thereabouts. If however they want deck height at widest point of the beam (roughly midway between bow and stern), then add back about 2" to give a combined total of 7'5".

 

[Babylon]

PS Further information can be found at the Vancouver Yachts Association website:
Vancouver Yachts historical archive

Also consider joining the VYA private Facebook group (a ton of knowledge there):
Facebook

 

[Sepharad]

I have a Vancouver 27 detailed drawings of the rig, masts and sail plan. it is a 1/16 th scale. The official draft is 4ft 3 ". The height from waterline to the top of the sliding hatch scales 5ft 4 ins. So the depth the US coast guard needs would be 9ft 7 ins.
Hope this helps.
David MH

Perfect response David, Thank you.

 

[Sepharad]

Why do they want a measurement that doesn't reflect the space the vessel needs, or, on its own, hint at volume, stability or buoyancy?

Why do they want it? Apparently to drive me crazy. Once all was submitted, they were still unsatisfied. Seems their ability to cope with a 30 year old boat built in England was beyond the USCG.

I abandoned the effort and registered the boat in the U.K. As an American, I am disappointed. As fellow sailors I am appreciative of your responses.

 

[Sepharad]

PS Further information can be found at the Vancouver Yachts Association website:
Vancouver Yachts historical archive

Also consider joining the VYA private Facebook group (a ton of knowledge there):
Facebook

I joined the VYA and was disappointed to find their active online presence is on Facebook. As I refuse to use Facebook, I resigned my membership. I would gladly pay a double membership fee to have their forum on a private, hosted website that doesn't mine and sell my data. It's a real shame.

 

[Sepharad]

I've had mine for nearly 14 years.

To the best of my knowledge the draught is between 4'3" (empty) and 4'6" (fully loaded), so assume 4'3". (Early drawing of production V27 attached is incorrect in stating 4'0".)

My calculation (extrapolated from drawing, rather than measured on actual boat) is that the distance from waterline to lowest point of deck (in way of the companionway) is 3'2", which gives a combined sum of 7'5".

Hope your bureaucrat is kind.

POSTSCRIPT (some hours later): Looking at this again, I made a slight error in calculating draught of 4'3" from the waterline given on the drawing below (which is where their incorrect 4'0" comes from). The true waterline is easily 2-3" above this (i.e. about where the white boot-top is shown on the drawing), therefore the calculated figure for freeboard of 3'2" needs to be reduced by a proportionate amount to 3'0". Thus your combined figure should be no more than 7'3" or thereabouts. If however they want deck height at widest point of the beam (roughly midway between bow and stern), then add back about 2" to give a combined total of 7'5".

View attachment 106082

Thank you, ultimately they were NOT kind. They disliked the fact that my documents were 30 years old and not of USCG origin. They disliked the fact that there is no "builders certificate" in a form they like. They had several other reasons they can't cope with U.K. documents. The result is as an American citizen it was too much hassle to register my boat in the U.S. I now have a Registry 1, in the UK with a home port in England.

YOUR information was meticulous and I thank you.

 

[[70521]]

I joined the VYA and was disappointed to find their active online presence is on Facebook. As I refuse to use Facebook, I resigned my membership. I would gladly pay a double membership fee to have their forum on a private, hosted website that doesn't mine and sell my data. It's a real shame.

They can't mine your data if you only post to the one group under a false name and date of birth. If you are extremely paranoid about it then use a computer for only that function.

 

[Minerva]

Thank you, ultimately they were NOT kind. They disliked the fact that my documents were 30 years old and not of USCG origin. They disliked the fact that there is no "builders certificate" in a form they like. They had several other reasons they can't cope with U.K. documents. The result is as an American citizen it was too much hassle to register my boat in the U.S. I now have a Registry 1, in the UK with a home port in England.

YOUR information was meticulous and I thank you.

If it's any consolation; it is for all practical purposes impossible to import an American boat into the UK as a UK citizen too!

 

[Sepharad]

They can't mine your data if you only post to the one group under a false name, and date of birth. If you are extremely paranoid about it then use a computer for only that function.

Minerva, I tried that.

Facebook immediately detected who I was and asked to immediately begin associating my data. They immediately detected my other email address, home address and name.

Is that paranoia? Is having to create an utterly false name, false date of birth and alternate account something a reasonable person should have to do? Do you really find that "normal" behavior"?

Given that I would have to falsify my name, face, age and address to use their product to maintain basic privacy, how can I be paranoid?

Doesn't the need to do these things prove that rather than paranoid, I am being reality based?

In April of 2021 the business insider reported:

"533 million Facebook users from 106 countries, including over 32 million records on users in the US, 11 million on users in the UK, and 6 million on users in India. It includes their phone numbers, Facebook IDs, full names, locations, birthdates, bios, and, in some cases, email addresses."

Facebook sat on this information for months.

The irony is that selling your data is what Facebook does, and that they are unhappy someone stole their data and sold it without them profiting.

Having a forum or business expose me to these issues because "It's cheap" or "it's free" is a business I chose not to associate myself with. It's not paranoia, it's a business decision.

Everyone is free to choose. They can choose to ignore things and many, if not most, do so.

My business choice was to speak with the Administrator at VYA about my concern. He confirmed others had voiced a similar concern and had been told to be careful what they posted on the forum.

I think they are a marvelous group and resource. I was sad to feel I had to walk away. I have their burgee in my boat and great respect for their group.

But Facebook wasn't what my original post was about. Thank you all for responding to my inquiry about the peculiar boat height measurement I required.

 

[Sepharad]

If it's any consolation; it is for all practical purposes impossible to import an American boat into the UK as a UK citizen too!

I hear you Minerva, as people who instinctively seek a measure of freedom, we seem to suffer increasingly across-the-border bureaucratic grief. I was actually just trying to flag the boat. The world is just growing more and more complex.