View Single Post
  #20  
Old 05-07-2015
guar's Avatar
guar guar is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 802
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frfletch View Post
I concur that NH could not have absorbed, nor evaporated 1000+ lbs of water. Someone made a mistake.

We weighed Voila with a scale on the single point lift. She was in racing trim and was 4683 lbs. Her designed weight is 3,950. I know from the builder that they never got the weight below 4,350 with no rig or hardware. They argued the case with Farr who suggested they must be resin rich, but they could not get it lower than 4,350 without running into delamination issues. Bruce Farr's cousin worked in the Laser yard in the UK and he could not get them down below 4,350 either. Finally the designer yielded to the idea that his team made an error in calculations, but the brochure had already been printed so they let it go. This adds to the previously mentioned issue of builders allowing lower design weights to be used in the marketing nomenclature, likely fully aware that the boats weigh significantly more. It sort of make a nonsense out of the designed and stated ballast ratios.
I imagine a lot of it is marketing driven perhaps with an attitude of "everyone else does it" and our boat won't be as appealing compared with boats built for the same market.

I'm surprised the L28 is out by that much. I would think the design weight would include mast and hardware so she is out by almost 800 lb. If you take the design disp of 3900 and back out the 1500 lb ballast and say 800 lb of misc you get 1600 lb hull and deck, which is probably generous. So the 800 extra lb means the hull and deck weight is out by 50%.

As to Farr's initial claim of them being resin rich. I'll assume roughly 50% resin/glass ratio which is on the low side, but will do for a "top of my head" calc would mean if it were a simple matter of being resin rich, the builder would have used double the designed amount. No way the laminate if done to the lam schedule could absorb anywhere near that much excess resin.

Besides the marketing side of things, my guess is also inaccurate or incomplete weight studies, especially in the pre-computer days where everything would have to be hand tabulated. For example were all the toe rail bolts included, cleats, tabbing, hoses etc accounted for or was an allowance simply made for them. I suppose if it were an allowance, the marketing department might find it easy to remove them from the equation. Anyway, just speculation on my part, but I find this side of things interesting.
Reply With Quote