# displacement/ballast ratio



## KejaGrad (Dec 24, 2013)

Hi.

How significant is the displacement/ballast ratio? For example, a 36% vs 44% ratio; would that make a huge and noticeable difference in the boat's cruising capabilities?

Thanks.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

In and of itself, the displacement to ballast ratio only gives you one small portion of the story. It really is not all that useful without knowing the vertical center of gravity of that ballast, and the beam of the boat. For example, a deep draft boat with a smaller D/Bal say, around 33% but which employed a high density in a bulb, would inherrently be more stable than a shallow draft boat with a much higher ballast ratio but in the form of a low density ballast carried in the bilge or an encapsulation envelope. 

Similarly, a very narrow boat with a very high ballast ratio carried very low, might not have as much stability as a more moderate beam boat with the same ballast ratio or even with a lower ballast ratio.

In other words, boats act as a system. While a boat's statistics and ratios may provide helpful information, they cannot provide a comprehensive picture of the behavior of the boat as a whole. For that reason, modern designs which are often lighter and have smaller ballast rations than more traditional designs may in fact have significantly higher stability (relative to their displacement and drag) across a broad range of heel angles. 

Jeff


----------



## Alex W (Nov 1, 2012)

This is one number out of many. Is everything else completely identical between the two boats? That is pretty unlikely.

If the additional weight is at the very end of the keel, perhaps in the form of a bulb, it could make the 44% boat stiffer. If it is evenly distributed throughout the keel it could be less noticeable.

Chances are that the lower B/D boat has a wider beam and a hull form that provides more form stability, so the builder was able to get away with less ballast.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Ballast displacement ratio is an important indicator regarding boat stability but one that is pretty meaningless if you don't see the whole picture. It is an indicator regarding a way of lowering the CG of a boat but the CG can be also lowered by a superior draft, or a more efficient keel, a bulbed one, being the most efficient a torpedo keel. it can also b lowered even more if the ballast is lead instead of iron.

if you compare for instance American production cruising boats with European ones you will see that American ones will tend to have a superior BD ratio but that does not mean that the CG is lower since European boats have normally a bigger draft and more efficient keels, including torpedo ones.

Lowering the CG is also a way of increasing the stiffness of the boat (power) but not the only one. That can also be made through increasing beam. Normally narrower boats need a bigger BD ratio regarding beamier boats to have the same positive stability and power. However, regarding beamy boats you have always to keep a CG lower enough to allow the boat a good stability at 90 degrees and a good AVS (reserve stability) even if that low center of gravity is not needed to have the power to sail the boat.


----------



## KejaGrad (Dec 24, 2013)

Thanks for the responses; a bit advanced than my current understanding of boats, but I am learning as I go.


----------



## KejaGrad (Dec 24, 2013)

Here are the two boats I had in mind:

SONIC 23 sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com

EDEL 6 (665/660) sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com

Does the data point to one boat being a better, more comfortable cruiser?


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Neither appear to be particularly good designs. Both appear to be somewhat dated, light duty, coastal cruisers. Neither would fall into a category of a comfortable cruiser. Unless they were extremely inexpensive for some reason, there are much nicer boats out there in their general size and normal price range.


----------



## KejaGrad (Dec 24, 2013)

These are in the 3.5-5K range.

There is a J24 for sale - but different purpose boat, is it not?


----------



## Markwesti (Jan 1, 2013)

What will be of interest to you also is DWL displacement to water line ratio .


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Markwesti said:


> What will be of interest to you also is DWL displacement to water line ratio .


But by itself, even that only tells you a small piece of the story. Take two equal length, beam, and weight boats but one with a short waterline and the other with a longer waterline. The D/L of the long waterline boat would perhaps suggest it is less suitable as a distance cruiser, yet that would not at all be the case.

Jeff


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

whats better a tractor or a moped?

different stuff all together...

look at general stats and if possible reviews by owners and stuff you can find from clubs and such

ive had boats mostly with high ballast to displacement rations even one that had 51% Ill let you guess which one that was... 

in the end all boats have other attributes and deifficiencies that make them what they are

cheers


----------



## seabreeze_97 (Apr 30, 2006)

Comfort is a relative term, but between the two, I'd give the nod to the Sonic.


----------



## Alex W (Nov 1, 2012)

KejaGrad said:


> Does the data point to one boat being a better, more comfortable cruiser?


Cruising is a vague term. For some people that might mean short day sails where the goal is relaxation. For others it could be going around the world non-stop. For most they mean something in between, single or multiweek coastal trips in protected waters.

How do you intend to use the boat?


----------



## Markwesti (Jan 1, 2013)

Jeff you lost me in that last sentence .


----------



## kwaltersmi (Aug 14, 2006)

As many have mentioned, the numbers only tell a portion of the story, if any at all. Better to talk with owners and others with real world cruising experience aboard the boats you're interested in. I love using numbers, ratio, etc. to compare boats but there's really no substitute for firsthand experience.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Markwesti said:


> Jeff you lost me in that last sentence .


That last sentence probably would have been clearer if it has said, "The _smaller_ D/L of the longer waterline boat would perhaps suggest that it is a lighter boat and therefore as viewed by traditional standards,[/I] less suitable as a distance cruiser. _In fact, because the longer waterline boat would typically have a better motion, better carrying capacity, often more stability, and more preformance, the longer waterline boat would typically be the better cruising boat. _

I don't know whether that explains that last sentence well enough. In essense, if the two boats had the same length, weight, beam, deck plan and draft, and same general weight distribution, as the waterline length grew, there would be better pitch dampening, large capacity per submersion inch, and a shallower canoe body reducing the roll angle, and increasing dampening, stability and foil performance. Generally, a longer water line boat is thought to be more seaworthy as well.

But the L/D of the of shorter waterline boat would make the shorter waterline boat seem to be heavier displacement and would make some people think that the shortline boat was a better cruiser when that would not the case.

Jeff


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

Jeff_H said:


> But the L/D of the of shorter waterline boat would make the shorter waterline boat seem to be heavier displacement and would make some people think that the shortline boat was a better cruiser when that would not the case.


Do you think it would be useful to calculate a Displacement / Length Overall ratio? Would that tell you more about the feel of a boat than the standard D/L?


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I don't think that using the Length on Deck would tell you all that much either, since that would ignore the waterline length which is a key dimension in determining all kinds of behavior. 

My point about the conventional way of looking at L/D is that the actual L/D of the boat can be misleading if only viewed as a single value on its own. Given the wide range of boats shapes that are out there, the L/D of any given boat needs to be filtered by looking at other factors such as the relationship of length on deck to length on the waterline, beam, draft, ballast ratio and so on. Its only when you look at the overall picture that you can understand the meaning of any particular L/D.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Jeff- Modern designs seem to stress form stability and construction to minimize weight. I understand weight is the enemy of speed. I had thought increasing form stability had the risk of:
increasing wetted surface so increasing parasitic drag and therefore decreasing performance in light air resulting in increased motoring.
increasing beam and frontal surface so running risk of decreased performance to windward. Also slamming in a seaway when wind before the beam.
increasing risk of not self righting or doing so slowly so increasing risk of down flooding if turned turtle.
I understand performance down wind will be enhanced and "stiffness" as well. I also understand the boat will be lighter requiring less ballast. All this translates to a possibly faster boat if diligently sailed and attended to but cruising does not always involve that level of alertness. We sometimes need to attend to other contingencies or just don't have the mind set due to sickness or fatigue. I think ( possibly wrongly) a boat highly dependent on form stability is less forgiving of our frailties. I think they are like unballasted dinghies but in an ocean setting. Also my limited experience to date is these boats float on the water not in the water so in most circumstances especially short chop on top of swells the ride is less pleasant. I would be interested in your take on this. Is there a divergence in design with some customs and one offs holding to "traditional" design of a relatively heavy boat of modest beam and "cutting edge" design furthering weight cutting and maximum beam. Most folks are not racing. They are interested in cruising safely and comfortably be it coastal day hops, multiple days of watch and watch or passage making.


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

I dont get into discussions like this anymore cause I never understood the new vs old argument

fiberglass still has some decades left to see what happens to it after say a century

what I think will happen is they will get soft and craze and become to flexible and you will just have to stop sailing them aggresively

in any case about ballast to displacement ratios without getting to technical it comes down to this

more ballast per displacement means that theoretically yo will be able to carry full sails longer, meaning the boat will like and perform better in string winds

if the keel is long and deep this means good tracking and stability

if the keel is short and fin like but still has a big ballast comparatively speaking this also means it will carry sail longer but the issue here is stress at such a small area in one point of the hull

this is why you see a lot or some better put fin keels with bulbs plopping off the flat racing bottoms on some maxi boats and surfing sleds, the reason is that the bolts stress a small area and unless hugeley supported inside or they point strees too much

anywhoo cca boats and the like had relatively small ballast percentages when considering they were cutaway forefoots or medium full keelers or shallow full keelers

tritons vanguards and rhodes and most albergs of that time hovered around 38-40%

compare that say to a nordic folkboat with full deep keel and they would be considered tender 

I had a folkboat with 51% ballast ratio...that thing could be hammered into 30 knot winds...full sails or spill the main and it tracked like a train yet was nimble and very fast...

it also benefited from an extrenally bolted keel..and was rounded...and had a beatiful rudder...well balanced etc

lastly when one considers ballast displacement ratios its always wise to look at mast height and sail area as well...

cause as we all know the keel balances the mast...so if you have a too short and stubby mast with very little sail area and have a massive amount of ballast say around 45 percent and above your boat is going to need A LOT of wind t move and even then will have bad sailing qualities

what I love about cca boats is that they are dinghy like tender the first 15 degrees or so then they stay put at 20 degress and feel awesome...they also improve waterline length thanks to a rule design...and they are seakindly

anyone who argues that is just arguing for arguments sake

take a j24 and then take a pearson triton or smaller electra if you will

if you can tell me with a straight face that the electra or triton does not have better sea motion or stabilty then I applaud you cause the reality is they are apples and oranges even though ballast ratios are similar...

not to mention keel and rudder design as well as underbody design

again this is not technical just an opinion from somebody that loves BOTH types of boats...


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Outbound,

Very little of that is correct.  See my comments in red.



outbound said:


> Jeff- Modern designs seem to stress form stability and construction to minimize weight.
> It is true that the most modern designs have focused on high levels of stability, but that stability is a mix of greatly lowered vertical centers of gravity and in the most recent boats an increase in form stability. But the primary way that stability is being increased is from the lowering of the vertical center of gravity and by and large that mitigates the issues normally assumed to be associated with large amounts of form stability such as a small angle of positive stability.
> 
> It is also true that modern designs use careful engineering and superior materials to reduce the overall weight of all fixed components so that the weight savings can be used for increased ballast weight and carrying capacity.
> ...


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Appreciate your thoughts Christian but look forward to being educated by Jeff. BTW I have a fin keeled boat with no keel bolts. It also is bulbed. In 52 boats and counting cruising the seas of the world none have had issues let alone fallen off.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

outbound said:


> *Modern designs seem to stress form stability* and construction to minimize weight. I understand weight is the enemy of speed. *I had thought increasing form stability had the risk of:
> increasing wetted surface so increasing parasitic drag and therefore decreasing performance in light air resulting in increased motoring.*
> increasing beam and frontal surface so running risk of decreased performance to windward. Also slamming in a seaway when wind before the beam.
> *increasing risk of not self righting or doing so slowly so increasing risk of down flooding if turned turtle.*
> I understand performance down wind will be enhanced and "stiffness" as well. I also understand the boat will be lighter requiring less ballast. All this translates to *a possibly faster boat if diligently sailed and attended to but cruising does not always involve that level of alertness.* We sometimes need to attend to other contingencies or just don't have the mind set due to sickness or fatigue. *I think ( possibly wrongly) a boat highly dependent on form stability is less forgiving of our frailties. I think they are like unballasted dinghies but in an ocean setting.* Also my limited experience to date is these boats float on the water not in the water so in most circumstances especially short chop on top of swells the ride is less pleasant. I would be interested in your take on this. Is there a divergence in design with some customs and one offs holding to "traditional" design of a relatively heavy boat of modest beam and "cutting edge" design furthering weight cutting and maximum beam. Most folks are not racing. They are interested in cruising safely and comfortably be it coastal day hops, multiple days of watch and watch or passage making.


There are many types of modern designs and you do a wild generalization assuming they all have followed a Open type hull. Modern, and I prefer contemporary, means only a boat designed to the state of the art and regarding that there are several concepts, some that follow Open boat hull design others not.

Regarding Open boats you seem to not have understood its advantages or why they were designed for in first place. You assume they are more difficult to sail and need a superior alertness. Quite the contrary, they were designed to suit the solo sailor and to be sailed at speed even on autopilot with no problem.

You assume these boats, because they are beamy and have a huge hull form stability, have a lower CG than the traditional cruiser, like yours and that is certainly not the rule.

A boat like the Pogo 12.50, due to his huge draft (with a swing keel) and very considerable B/D ratio has probably a better AVS and a better downfloading angle than your boat, or at least a comparable one. Off course that big RM from the ballast/draft more the huge RM from the hull stability gives it a huge stability not only statically but dynamically and make it a very seaworthy boat with a several times bigger positive stability than negative stability.

The wet area of the boat has not to do with the beam but with its weight, and area of its appendices. A boat like the Pogo 12.50, with a huge beam, that weights about 5.5T has a very small and narrow wet area surface, one that has to do with its weight and not beam. I should add that because the boat is very light will need to sail fast a much smaller sail area and that makes the sails much more manageable.

Finally this type of boat that I understand but it is not the one I personally favor (except if I was planning to do a transat or circumnavigation) is far from being the only type of contemporary cruiser around in what regards hull shape even if the boats based on Open boats have the great advantage of being very forgiving to sail, sail with little heel and are very easily driven by an autopilot. That is what makes almost all mass production big brands to base their models on this concept: easiness of sailing and comfort.

Edit: I did not had seen Jeff post when I posted this. Some repetition here.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Thanks Jeff- I was more thinking of boats drawn later than 1960's. I agree with your view on things for the boat I want. Fortunately I have it. Think all things are ultimately compromises. No way I would go back to a heavy displacement full keeled boat or even a boat without a bulbed keel. We're 12 1/2' beam so much beamier for LOA in proportion to my earlier boats. 
Haven't been on a Pogo but have sailed some of the newer French boats. I assumed all the boats would be on autopilot most all the time. Think >95% of the miles on my boat have been on autopilot and expect this is true for most sailors even other cruisers like me.
Interesting in another thread Mr. Perry suggested current crop of cruisers may have difficulty in light air if I understood him correctly.


----------



## jwing (Jun 20, 2013)

KejaGrad said:


> Thanks for the responses; a bit advanced than my current understanding of boats, but I am learning as I go.


Check the sailboat calculator for better understanding of interpreting the numbers, and the limitations of statistical evaluations of sailboats. You can compare different boats and get an idea of their different sailing characteristics, within the limitations of what the numbers can tell you.

Sail Calculator Pro v3.53 - 2500+ boats


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

jwing said:


> Check the sailboat calculator for better understanding of interpreting the numbers, and the limitations of statistical evaluations of sailboats. You can compare different boats and get an idea of their different sailing characteristics, within the limitations of what the numbers can tell you.
> 
> Sail Calculator Pro v3.53 - 2500+ boats


I had one of those calculators 20 years ago...I through it away 15 years ago. It really is of no use to understand the huge variety of boats around. Maybe it is of some use with boats between the 60's and the 80's but even so it is a very weak tool.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## jwing (Jun 20, 2013)

PCP said:


> I had one of those calculators 20 years ago...I through it away 15 years ago. It really is of no use to understand the huge variety of boats around. Maybe it is of some use with boats between the 60's and the 80's but even so it is a very weak tool.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Yeah...If you had actually looked into the link I gave, you'd know that the site's creator is very upfront regarding the limitations of the tool. He even questions the validity of some of the ratios it calculates.

However, these numbers continue to be bandied about, so it is good for a person who has not sailed many boats to understand what they mean and how useful (or unuseful) they are. And, the OP is looking at boats that are of the vintage for which you say the calculator is useful.


----------



## mad_machine (Dec 16, 2012)

christian.hess said:


> I dont get into discussions like this anymore cause I never understood the new vs old argument
> 
> fiberglass still has some decades left to see what happens to it after say a century
> 
> what I think will happen is they will get soft and craze and become to flexible and you will just have to stop sailing them aggresively


it's funny you bring this up (and this is slightly off topic) back in the early 1980s my parents bought one of the rare Grampians,, a 23 with a fixed fine keel (there were so few made that even Grampian owners do not know they existed) and the current consensus then was that 'glass had about a 20 year lifespan before it got too brittle and the bottom would "drop off" (I assume they meant the keel)

My 51 year old Sea Sprite certainly disproves that. yes, the gel coat is crazed, but it is still a very solid boat


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

mad_machine said:


> it's funny you bring this up (and this is slightly off topic) back in the early 1980s my parents bought one of the rare Grampians,, a 23 with a fixed fine keel (there were so few made that even Grampian owners do not know they existed)


I assume you mean the Grampian Classic 22. That was a super little boat. Amazingly it had foam cored decks and seats.

I owned one of them back in the 1980's myself. I actually fell in love with that design when I worked in the Grampian booth during the 1965 New York Boat show when I was kid. (I still have literature friom that show) Great little boats. One sold here in Annapolis for $1500 within the past 3 years.

If there was a shortcoming to the boat, they had iron keels with galvanized keel bolts. Your folks may have been concerned about the keel bolts. They were also a PIA to fair once the keel fairing material needed to be redone.

Jeff


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

jwing said:


> Yeah...If you had actually looked into the link I gave, you'd know that the site's creator is very upfront regarding the limitations of the tool. He even questions the validity of some of the ratios it calculates.
> 
> However, these numbers continue to be bandied about, so it is good for a person who has not sailed many boats to understand what they mean and how useful (or unuseful) they are. And, the OP is looking at boats that are of the vintage for which you say the calculator is useful.


Sorry, I did not meant to offend you, that's I am a bit tired of hearing people talking about capsize ratio, comfort ratio or displacement/ length as relevant tolls to determine is a boat is safer, more comfortable or better than another one.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## bljones (Oct 13, 2008)

PCP said:


> Maybe it is of some use with boats between the 60's and the 80's but even so it is a very weak tool.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Which is exactly what the PO is looking for, and as a tool to compare two boats of similar LOA, it is a good tool to know how to use. yesm, it doesn't take into account sail area and rig, but those metrics don't mean much on their own either.
as you mention, it is a tool. One can never have too many tools.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

bljones said:


> Which is exactly what the PO is looking for, and as a tool to compare two boats of similar LOA, it is a good tool to know how to use. yesm, it doesn't take into account sail area and rig, but those metrics don't mean much on their own either.
> as you mention, it is a tool. One can never have too many tools.


Jeff and Faster know pretty well the boats of that era on the American market. They are a much better toll in what regards an evaluation between two of them

Regards

Paulo


----------



## bljones (Oct 13, 2008)

Jeff_H said:


> Neither appear to be particularly good designs. Both appear to be somewhat dated, light duty, coastal cruisers. Neither would fall into a category of a comfortable cruiser. Unless they were extremely inexpensive for some reason, there are much nicer boats out there in their general size and normal price range.


Jeff, some background might help explain why this answer ticks me off.

The OP is looking for a boat in southwestern Ontario, Canada. His parameters, as stated in another thread, are trailerability, and a boat for learning and weekending, with a budget under $5K.

So, here's why it ticked me off. You burned the guy's choices, but didn't tell him WHY, and didn't offer any alternative options.
Further, you didn't bother to ask him what he was looking for. It turns out he is looking for a "light duty coastal cruiser." So, as much as you disparage the choices, they fit, to a certain extent, his needs.
The Sonic 23 is known locally as an improved Tanzer 22- similar sailplan, better accommodation, and the Tanzer 22 is a popular 
"first" boat, with one of the only complaints being layout. A Sonic 23, in good shape, isn't a bad choice, IMO.

Maybe they are the only boats in the area that fit his parameters- so by telling him they both suck, you may have prevented a novice sailor from sailing.

Neither boat would be my *first *choice as a weekender or a ""first" boat for a family new to sailing, on a budget, either. A Challenger 24, Georgian 23, Northern 24, Mirage 24, Grampian 23 would all be acceptable choices in the size and price range the OP is looking, and all are available within 2-3 hours of the OP's desired homeport.


----------



## bljones (Oct 13, 2008)

PCP said:


> Jeff and Faster know pretty well the boats of that era on the American market. They are a much better toll in what regards an evaluation between two of them
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


But the PO is looking for a trailer sailor under $5K on the Canadian side of the Great Lakes. Before you dismiss a tool, might be a good idea to find out what someone is building.


----------



## mad_machine (Dec 16, 2012)

Jeff_H said:


> I assume you mean the Grampian Classic 22. That was a super little boat. Amazingly it had foam cored decks and seats.
> 
> I owned one of them back in the 1980's myself. I actually fell in love with that design when I worked in the Grampian booth during the 1965 New York Boat show when I was kid. (I still have literature friom that show) Great little boats. One sold here in Annapolis for $1500 within the past 3 years.
> 
> Jeff


no, told you she was rare. This was a 23 with a fin keel. Looked just like the centreboarder, but had a 4 foot keel bolted to her bottom instead


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

buying a boat based on people opinions on a forum is akin to asking if a used car at a sales lot is a good deal to the salesman!

so please do yourself a favor and try to find owners of these boats, by either going to marinas, sending emails to owners on chat rooms or forums, and then see the boats themselves...or hey what do you know by the owner a six pack or some fuel or whatever and maybe go sail with them
if your nice and inquisitory without being offensive or nagging most owner are happy to tae people sailing

this way youll know for sure what you like and dont...

If I would of looked on forums first(thank god forums werent as popular 15 years ago)for all the boats I have owned in the past I probably would of pussied out and backed out...regretting terribly afterwards that I chose neither.

just sayin

input is input, try to weed out the crsap and bias and have fun fixing and sailing the boat you currently own or want to

thats my take on what boat is better type threads

no such thing first of all


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

christian.hess said:


> buying a boat based on people opinions on a forum is akin to asking if a used car at a sales lot is a good deal to the salesman!
> 
> so please do yourself a favor and try to find owners of these boats, by either going to marinas, sending emails to owners on chat rooms or forums, and then see the boats themselves...or hey what do you know by the owner a six pack or some fuel or whatever and maybe go sail with them
> if your nice and inquisitory without being offensive or nagging most owner are happy to tae people sailing
> ...


Not very objective too. Rarely owners are objective regarding the boats they own and many times they know that one but don't have a vast knowledge of the boats on the market neither they have sailed them. It is hard to have a global opinion if all you know it is your boat Probably many like not very good boats because they like sailing and that's what they know as a sailing boat.

Regarding opinions on a forum I admit that if someone is new to a given forum that can be quite confusing but if someone know the members and their previous contributions he will know what credibility they deserve and it is easy to know who knows about what he is talking about and has a vast experience with many boats and the ones that don't.

As I have said regarding old boats I have seen Faster, Jeff and Bob Perry among others contribute with credible and informed data that I will value much more that the more subjective opinion of an owner that many times has very limited experience with the other boats.

Ask to an Westsail owner if that is the best general purpose cruiser for its displacement and price and you will hear for sure that it is. Ask to any of the above and I will bet that you will hear more diversified opinions.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

bljones said:


> Jeff, some background might help explain why this answer ticks me off.
> 
> The OP is looking for a boat in southwestern Ontario, Canada. His parameters, as stated in another thread, are trailerability, and a boat for learning and weekending, with a budget under $5K.
> 
> ...


BLJones,

I can certainly see where you are coming from, and going back and reading the thread, in hindsight I can also see why you might look at my post as not being helpful and perhaps being dismissive. That said, at the time that I wrote the comment that "ticks" you off, I saw the purpose of this thread differently than you seem to be perceiving it. At that time, my perception was of a thread that was a hypothetical/ theoretical discussion of the role of the ballast to displacement ratio in picking a cruising boat. My comments were in response to this perception of the thread.

Until seeing your comments, I did not perceive this as a "help me pick the right boat" discussion. In the post that ticked you off, my comments on the boats in question was in response to the OP's question, _"Does the data point (ballast/Disp ratio) to one boat being a better, more comfortable cruiser?" _

My response in particular was expressed in the context of the phrase _"comfortable cruiser". _As I reread my hastily written response, it certainly would have been clearer if the paragraph had read, _" If you are actually comparing these to designs with the objective of selecting a comfortable cruiser, then neither appear to be particularly good cruising designs, at least as I would use the term 'comfortable cruiser'. Both appear to be somewhat dated, light duty, coastal cruisers. Neither would fall into a category of a comfortable cruiser. Unless they were extremely inexpensive for some reason, there are much nicer boats out there in their general size and normal price range."_

Had I perceived this as a 'help me pick a boat' thread, then you are right that I should have asked a bunch more questions and tried to provide more meaningful advice. Prior to that comment, nothing that I saw in this thread suggested that_ "The OP is looking for a boat in southwestern Ontario, Canada. His parameters, as stated in another thread, are trailerability, and a boat for learning and weekending, with a budget under $5K._"

I had not seen the other thread that you referenced. Had I seen that thread, I would have made my comments on that thread and not here in order to keep this thread on topic. And if I commented on that thread, I would have explained my disparaging comments in more detail, perhaps asked more detailed questions about the intended use of the boat, and suggested some alternatives within his general price and size range.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------

