>>Martin Schöön wrote:
> <snip>
> I forgot one thing in my previous response.
> Are the numbers below based on empty boat weight or sailing displacement
> with crew?
>
Empty, I believe.
There's a s****tboat forum at 'Sailing Anarchy' and they
argue all the time about what is and what isn't a s****tboat,
so I'm not sure there is any real definition. Not even the
guys who design them can reach full agreement, apparently.
But I will say, I know a s****tboat when I see one! ;)
>>How about this for a working definition:
>>
>>"A monohull keelboat that's capable of planing."
>
Wayne.B wrote:
> Doesn't work for me, there are lots of monohull keelboats that are
> capable of planing under certain conditions.
Yes, that's a very large playing field.
> .... I used to race on a B-29
> that was right on the cusp of almost being a s****t boat but it really
> wasn't. Downwind with 20+ kts it was one exciting ride however, and
> we once planed at 17 to 18 kts for over 2 miles. The B-29 carried a
> conventional spin****r pole which enabled it to go lower on a
> spin****r run than a true s****t boat, but also at lower speed.
>
It's very tricky to get the angles right, as I'm sure Martin
S will agree. You can always go faster thru the water by
heating up, but that doesn't necessarily get you higher VMG.
It is a lot of fun though!
I sailed a Johnson 18, a centerboard sprit boat that could
also plane upwind (something very very few keelboats can
achieve) and the asymmetric was a total blast. I have sailed
a number of boats with a conventional spin****r since then,
but I'm not planning on getting serious about another
one-design without it. It's just way too much bang for the buck.
Fresh Breezes- Doug King
|
