New one to me

order to comply with the latest Safety Of Life At Sea (SOLAS) stability standards

You have to LOVE >standards< ,

in NYC they stick the rudder about 30-40 ft in from the stern , so the dinner boat admeasures just under 100Tons.

A boat driver with a 100T license is cheaper .

Sure is an education to watch them dock in a 4K current .

They may be cheap help , but they earn their bucks in a breeze!!

RickB said:

Since Mark has dropped in with his hurricane at sea story (and pics to prove the severity of the event) would you concur that cruise ships are seaworthy? If so, perhaps a glance at the stern of Veendam, Oriana, Disney Magic, Splendour of the Seas, and a growing number of vessels of all sorts are fitted with a stern appendage that would probably never meet your design approval.

Many of those "ducktails" were added in order to comply with the latest Safety Of Life At Sea (SOLAS) stability standards. In plain English ... those things contribute to stability and seaworthiness, not as you mistakenly believe, detract from it.

Please keep in mind, Eric, that there is a difference between reality and what we sometimes think is reality based on what little we know in reality about topics on which we hold strong opinions.

Here are a few cruise ship sterns for you to ponder, and a flat stern that at least a few folks think is seaworthy.

Click to expand...

Gents - I believe we are talking apples and oranges here. The massive sized ships that Rick shows in photos as compared to our tiny sized pleasure craft (no matter from 30' to 90') hold a different "response-actuality" in regard to seas encountered regarding hull-draft/steering/power/gross-weight/size-compared-to-waves... etc. I've been in some real hairy following seas in inlets and am confident that in some conditions a swim step could be a BIG hindrance for control. I will admit that I never experienced a harsh following sea with swim step attached - and, I really HOPE I never do!

except for rescue craft...I think very few boats are designed to take breaking waves in inlets versus breaking seas offshore...those are apples and oranges too.

Rick is correct in saying neither flat bottoms or appendages are automatically unseaworthy.

Blue Moon said:

I've logged a little under 500 hours on my Menorquin 160 since purchase 12 months ago. This boat is not for everyone but meets our needs and expectations well. Extreamly sea worthy, great all around access for docking, compact profile with low wind impact at anchor or docking, just enough interior space for comfortable living aboard, fits in at anchorages well with both power and sail boats, great swim platform (no, it doesn't present a problem in a following sea), and important to me has a real salty look that isn't the same old same old. A real sail boaty interior space with excellent joinery and woodwork. Extensive mahogany above deck requires time to maintain, but like a fancy wife, that's the price for having a head turner on your arm.

Click to expand...

Thank you, Blue Moon, for adding some personal experience with Menorquin yachts to the pool of speculation. I was the guy who stopped by yesterday and urged you to share your knowledge. It was interesting that your experience with the boat also ranged from ocean conditions to that terribly short lake-chop in your home grounds of the Great Lakes. Your Menorquin 160 exhibits a hulky, massive impression that really sets it apart, but without personal knowledge of handling, we can only guess. You description of getting caught in 10 footers for three hours on Lake Michigan really speaks a lot for the boat, especially since your Admiral is quite a bit like mine, and has little tolerance for rough seas. Thanks again.

Seaworthy, in regard to: hull and superstructure design / weight placement / # of engines / rudder size / HP available... and, sea conditions encountered...

Different strokes for different folks, but...

IMHO (having spent some days in relatively rough off shore and inlet seas aboard different size, shaped, and powered boats) I have come to the following conclusions for a boat's capability to help its pilot (me) handle rough seas (of course I'm always still learning!):

1. Twins are better than single and either choice needs to have extra power for when it's really required. Dual rudder or single needs ample sq. inch area
2. Well founded planing hull and SD hull boat bottoms act responsive in rough sea conditions; I prefer quick snap-back of hard chine to the wallowing roll of FD
3. Well founded displacement hull bottoms (particularly deep keel / canoe stern) do very well in following seas; but, again, their tendency to wallow disturbs me
4. Any boat needs to have low center of gravity and not be too “top heavy”
5. Tall sharp edged bow stems with decent draft and considerable flair toward gunnels works best in all sea conditions with any type bottom design
6. Decks must be well set up to shed water very quickly if necessary
7. Port holes, windows, doors, exterior hatches need be very rugged and secure to withstand the pounding of big seas
8. All items aboard boat must be able to be securely fastened in place
9. For more than one reason, boats without flying bridge are best suited to handle really rough conflicting seas and huge bow-on breaking swells

There’s my nine cents! Maybe someday I’ll get my opinions all the way to a dime - LOL

Happy Boating Daze! - Art

Duck tails and swim steps don't make a boat more seaworthy. One can guess what it makes them in this regard. But it seems most all boats are seaworthy enough anyway as I've never heard of a boat going down because of them. But guessing what swim steps do for seaworthyness is good enough for me. And yo'all are welcome to your own guesses.

Something to consider though is the fact that most boats that we would consider seaworthy (and that would have transoms) will have the transom raked outboard like the flared sides of most boats. Both features are an element of design to keep water out of a boat. Swim steps and duck tails have the ability to keep the stern down when flooded w water making the boat considerably more vulnerable to swamping.

But you're as welcome to your opinion as I am to mine.

or provide buoyancy with decent water shedding ability....depending on the design.

This kind of stern appendix in cruisers are made to increase the speed reducing consumption also (I red about 0,8 knots) when navigating at cruise speed (22 knots !! full displacement) , and adapts the hull to the natural wave in the stern. This is the advantage...

I would like to know the behaviour with no power of that appendix bumping on to the water with 10 feet waves (all of us know about the swim platform bumping..)

Cruisers stability is another question, they are having in general 8 meters draft and up to 60 meters the superstructure !!. Even having the last four decks made in aluminium their metacentre is not high. But they have no big variances in cargo above the floating line, just passengers and some more.

The aircraft carrier is more determined by operational use, I think.

Alberto,
Yes many variables and things to consider.

Psneeld,
You think w a the tiny bit of buoyancy the swim step "may" provide it could overcome several tons of water right on top of it? Like they said in the 60s .... Far out

Don't think it...know it.....
.....of course I did have a modifier with my statement "depending on the design"...I don't regularly make sweeping, outlandishly incorrect (and proven with multiple links) statements as some here do.

FF said:

in NYC they stick the rudder about 30-40 ft in from the stern , so the dinner boat admeasures just under 100Tons.

Click to expand...

FF, the position of the rudder doesn't have squat to do with the tonnage measurement.

And SOLAS doesn't apply to inland dinner boats.

I haven't spent much time at sea on the Med, but the wind can blow up some nasty, steep, uncomfortable seas. I have been on a mid sized cruise ship and various sizes of ferries there. Very few smooth passages, I would think a boat built there would be built for those type of seas.

Art said:

Gents - I believe we are talking apples and oranges here.

Click to expand...

No, we are not. Eric made a blanket statement about stability and seaworthiness that is outright false.

Then people starting saying that such and such doesn't add to stability, again a blanket statement that can be patently false. Saying something doesn't add to seaworthiness (especially when wrong wrong wrong) is like saying having a carpet in the salon doesn't add to seaworthiness ... what is the point in making that kind of statement? If it doesn't detract from it, who cares?

You have heard from a Menorquin owner that his boat is seaworthy regardless of what the local gurus here want to think or believe they can calculate from a photo.

The force of water is measured in pounds per square foot, an integral swim step is normally designed to handle the load expected from a column of water on the area it presents. Loading is proportional, a big ship has higher total loads than a little boat but might see the same per unit of area... we went over this once before, just because a boat is large or small does not change the physics or the mechanics.

The way you guys backpedal and try to wiggle out of your blanket statements will shortly only permit a description of a certain color boat heading a certain direction in the ICW on a Tuesday running a 120 HP diesel with a certain size prop at a certain rpm with the wind blowing from a certain direction.

Anyone who claims to be able to say a boat is seaworthy or not by looking at a photo probably can't define seaworthiness in the first place. Boats have been lost because of a failed swimstep ... there was one a few years ago on a passage from California to Hawaii ... look it up. That doesn't mean swimsteps add or detract from seaworthiness.

I've had enough of these rude dudes here.

Good bye all ......................

Manyboats,
I have not read all of this thread and I don't know exactly what has been said but the fact of the matter is many people are are much more rude on the internet then they would be otherwise. That said don't let it detract from the value of the information. We need you and all of the contributors that have valuable real world experience in this genre. If someone is rude call them out and hopefully they will stop if not contact the moderators if need be. In the end this is by far one of the least vitriolic web sites available. We need your voice so please reconsider.

Eric, I second Daddyo's sentiments. I enjoy your perspective but enjoy may others as well. If we all had to be in agreement on a particular boat, there would only need to be be one boat, of one length and one motor out there (probably a Jarvis Newman lol).

Again, please reconsider.

You can always "ignore" a user. Sure helps for me.

Eric, don't go.

Like many others I enjoy your perspectives on whatever you're commenting on at the time. As a Rocna fan/owner I don't always agree with you, but so what?
It's great to see someone wear their heart on their sleeve as well as you do.

It's important to remember that this is a recreational boating site, inhabited by folks who enjoy boating as recreation and are passionate about it. We all have something to offer, whether it is personal experience, personal views, or hard gotten technical information.

It would be disconcerting to think that anyone used this forum as their sole source of information. Rather it is a place for the exchange of ideas and a launch point for further research that may be triggered by comments here.

Eric, you have a lot to offer, and we have yet to hear everything you have to say. Don't go.

I'm a member of a few boating forums and I find this one is actually more polite and civil than most, as internet forums go. I would second the suggestion about setting some users on ignore. For me the rude and tiresome writers become obvious pretty quickly. Not many of them by any means, but I've found just deleting two or three makes a big difference in the civility level.

I whole-heartedly agree with the above, Eric. Most of the time, I don't know much of what you're talking about, but I learned a lot more since I've been here. I look forward to one day being able to comment about an attractive buttock line without a back-hand from my Admiral.

I think, Larry, that any discussions about buttocks should be in the OTDE section....

dimer2 said:

Eric, I second Daddyo's sentiments. I enjoy your perspective but enjoy may others as well. If we all had to be in agreement on a particular boat, there would only need to be be one boat, of one length and one motor out there (probably a Jarvis Newman lol).

Again, please reconsider.

Click to expand...

I will have to agree for its purpose, the Jarvis Newman is the near perfect boat.

Who the hell was being rude anyway? Since when is calling someone out on some comments they made being rude? I for one enjoy some of this banter.

So..there yah go Eric, you are refused permission to leave...you are not dismissed…is that clear..? Besides, think back to childhood - bickering' can fun…just let it wash over you if it's not your thing..

C`mon Eric. You are too valuable to lose. Let it slide past.
Someone may not agree with you and may even say so forcefully, but most here, me included, respect your opinions and the genuine effort you put into your contributions.

I pretty much disagree with all of you; I am the scapegoat. Coo coo ca choo

GEEEZZZZ Eric - Ol' forum discussion boat buddy; Ol" Pal! You B too much GOOD for TF to just up and quit cause you B a bit pissed off!

Buck Up Buddy and say F em that you don’t get along with. If I bother you let me know. I may not quit bothering you... but I may say I’m sorry you’re upset - lol.

Heck – stick around, things can only get better!

I haven't read thru this subject thread,...but just wondering if anybody has suggesting adding a swim platform to this vessel :lol:

Let's see if I have this straight ...

Someone says a boat is not seaworthy because of the shape of its hull and appendages.

Someone else points out that there are thousands of very seaworthy vessels with that hull form and provides photos and links to document that fact.

Someone else says that doesn't apply because the size or use is different.

An owner of the boat in question states unequivocally that the boat is indeed "seaworthy" and describes his history with the boat.

Rather than explain why a certain hull shape and its appendages make a boat "unseaworthy" someone claims to have suffered an insult and plays the passive aggressive card by advertising his withdrawal from the field.

Is the purpose of withdrawal an admission that someone doesn't know what someone has been posting about or is it a mechanism to collect sympathy, or a means to passively shift some "blame" on someone else?

Personally, if I couldn't defend my position(s) with facts and wanted to walk away from having to do so, I would just walk away, no need to advertise or claim that decision was made under the duress of "insult."

Well, I like the back and forth discussions. Everyone learns something and opinions become more refined in a debate. And people like me looking on from the cheap seats with popcorn get to think about things we may have never considered before. Don't stop it...!