Westerly Falcon hull problems?
- Thread starter Stephan&Beth
- Start date
AntarcticPilot
Well-Known Member
A few back of the envelope calculations suggest that an increase of weight of 1 ton on a 10m x 4m hull (area at waterline APPROXIMATELY 20m2) would increase the draught by about 5cm. This is definitely in "Consider a spherical cow" territory, but it is the right sort of size. It also assumes that the hull is a prism with parallel vertical sides, but of course the area increases with increasing immersion, making the figure less than I guesstimated.
Concerto
Well-Known Member
My Fulmar is quoted as being 4½ tons, but when lifted the crane drives said it weight 5½ tons. I cannot believe there was a ton of water, diesel, sails, running gear, lighter replacement engine, etc. So I think the displacement weight of 4½ tons is probably nearer 5 tons.
Rafiki
Well-Known Member
Is this damage actually the keel/hull joint? To me it looks lower than that.
btw Fox's have one Falcon for sale on their website and another one just taken in, which would require a lot of work which they haven't yet put on their website, but the price is bound to reflect the current condition.
btw Fox's have one Falcon for sale on their website and another one just taken in, which would require a lot of work which they haven't yet put on their website, but the price is bound to reflect the current condition.
PeterWright
Well-Known Member
Quite possibly, in which case the keel needs dropping again for the top to be blasted and primed before remaking the keel joint - easy job for a pro like you, but not a job for the inexperienced, imho.
The key question is "What does redone mean?" Perhaps the joint was just raked out and some filler stuffed in.
Peter.
PeterWright
Well-Known Member
Very true, but all the GK's were aimed at a different market and weight kept down to aid performance. There were three Westerlys built solidly which also sailed well, all Ed Dubois designs, the Fulmar 31, the Storm 33 and the Typhoon 37. Sadly, Westerly ignored the fractional rig Dubois drew for the Storm and put a masthead rig in her, so she was not as close winded as the other 2, but still sailed well (rated faster than a Fulmar. All 3 of these boats were solidly built, in the usual Westerly tradition, but also good performers.
Peter
lpdsn
Well-Known Member
I think you'd be surprised. I normally round up to 12t from 9.5t when talking to the crane driver and in one such conversation a hoist operator took the exact words out of my mouth.
A few years ago I cleared out the boat in prep for the Scottish Islands Peaks Race and it was four trips by 4X4 to get the excess gear home. I reckon the draught reduced by 1".
I've also just tried to do a few calculations. I reckon my jib is 98Kg (just taking the cloth spec'd by the sailmaker and multiplying by area, so possible an underestimate). The main feels far heavier and I can barely lift it - managed to carry the jib 200yds today but wouldn't want to go further. So I've quite plausibly got 400Kg of sails on board (above + no.2 + old and new storm jibs and spinny). Dom batteries are 2 X 50 Kg. I've eight toolboxes on board at the last count and I'm sure they induce a list. Tankage is about 3/4 ton, albeit I usually try to drain the water tank to lift. So with a guesstimate for all the things I haven't thought of yet 2.5t of extras is entirely plausible.
Which makes 1t for your gear plausible too.
PaulRainbow
Well-Known Member
When did the strength of an object become the deciding factor of its strength anyway ?
A 30 x 15 greenhouse weighs more than a 30 x 15 corrugated shed, but we all know which is the strongest.
A 30 x 15 greenhouse weighs more than a 30 x 15 corrugated shed, but we all know which is the strongest.
Lucky Duck
Well-Known Member
According to the invoice for washing a main and jib for my old similar sized (to the Falcon) Maxi they both weighed a grand total of 52kg...
PeterWright
Well-Known Member
Strength is usually represented pretty accurately by strength.
Comparing 2 similar structures made of completely different materials is hardly relevant to a discussion on the strength of boats all made from grp.
Peter
PaulRainbow
Well-Known Member
So why are you banging on about displacement ?
It illustrates that the weight of something has no bearing on its strength. You could make to identically sized hulls from GRP, one significantly thicker and heavier than the other, but the thicker and heavier one could be substantially weaker the the lighter one.
The strength of something is determined by the way it is designed and built, not by how much it weighs, or even what its made from.
Bru
Well-Known Member
Erm, no it couldn't. Not if they were identical other than the thickness of the layup
PaulRainbow
Well-Known Member
Erm, yes it could. Depending on how well it was laid up and the materials used (chopped strand vs biaxial cloth frinstance) . But that's not actually what i meant. One could be thinner and lighter than the other, but better designed and stronger. Composites, hollow reinforcing etc.
PeterWright
Well-Known Member
Hardly identical then!
And your greenhouse / corrugated shed merely illustrates that cheap thin glass is much less ductile than cheap corrugated iron.
pvb
Well-Known Member
You're wasting your time, the Westerly/Moody "brick outhouse" mob don't accept logical arguments!
Bru
Well-Known Member
You're wasting your time, the Westerly/Moody "brick outhouse" mob don't accept logical arguments!
When someone comes up with a logical argument I'll accept it
Concerto
Well-Known Member
I would like to add tha comparison of boats weight solely by length is so inaccurate. Older boats have longer overhangs and are narrower than modern boats, yet the advertised displacement is similar. The advertised displacement should be a bare boat, but have they included the rig or any extras fitted to the boat. All of this does not make sense. The only accurate way to see any difference to to have a stripped out boat accurately weighed. The alternative to have someone who regularly cuts holes in hulls to comment on the actual thickness of the layup. Personally I think that modern boats are fine and strong enough for sailing, but are not strong enough on a hard grounding. Damage around keel areas is a more modern occurance and was almost unheard off 20 to 30 years ago. Also many modern hull constructions are foam sandwich above the waterline, but can easily suffer separation with repeated flexing or water ingress.
So pvb, I still prefer my brickhouse hull with a thick gel coat over your modern reinforced construction with a wafer thin gel coat. Just do not get me on the shape of the modern wider hulls, they are great for the Med, but..............................
So pvb, I still prefer my brickhouse hull with a thick gel coat over your modern reinforced construction with a wafer thin gel coat. Just do not get me on the shape of the modern wider hulls, they are great for the Med, but..............................
PaulRainbow
Well-Known Member
Did i say identical ? No, i didn't, try and keep up at the back.
sailorman
Well-Known Member
1 point, older boats had "real" marine engines with relatively low power & were very heavy, compared to those fitted today. that will has pushed up the hull weight. Boats of yore were built primarily to sail with accommodation as a secondary consideration, to day the accommodation is king & a hull wrapped around to keep the water out, wide beam LOA maxed for accommodation with form stability used instead of lead hung underneath, consequentially reefing req much sooner
PeterWright
Well-Known Member
It's you who needs to pay attention. While you didn't use the word yourself, your post was attempting to refute Bru's statement "Erm, no it couldn't. Not if they were identical other than the thickness of the layup", which you clearly hadn't read fully before responding.
Peter