Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27

Thread: Boat Weight

  1. #11
    Twister_Ken's Avatar
    Twister_Ken is offline Registered User
    Location : 'ang on a mo, I'll just take some bearings
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Posts
    26,495

    Default

    Never been weighed, but 34'. Designed weight is 5 tonnes dry, so allowing for fuel, water, kit, etc...
    Next time, it'll all be different.

  2. #12
    Flapjack's Avatar
    Flapjack is offline Registered User
    Location : Chichester Harbour
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    408

    Default

    Wasn't done on a crane, it was done on this so should be correct

    Alcohol doesnít make you fat it makes you lean..
    On bar, tables, chairs, ugly people..

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    19,611

    Default

    Not super heavy. A Bavaria 34 is dry about 4.2 tons. My 37 is 5.4. Typically fuel, water nad cruising kit add around 1-1.5 tons. My fuel and water alone if full is .4 tons.

  4. #14
    Flapjack's Avatar
    Flapjack is offline Registered User
    Location : Chichester Harbour
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    408

    Default

    Thanks for that guys, not that much difference really between the old and the new, as wklein says you get more hull for your length these days and that must account for a bit, but in a crash I think Iíd still rather be in my old girl
    Alcohol doesnít make you fat it makes you lean..
    On bar, tables, chairs, ugly people..

  5. #15
    Coaster is offline Registered User
    Location : home Warwickshire / boat currently in Plymouth
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,884

    Default

    For what it's worth, our 34' Westerly displaces about 8 tons in cruising trim. The bare unladen weight measured on a crane, without mast etc., was 7.2 tons.



  6. #16
    Woodlouse's Avatar
    Woodlouse is offline Registered User
    Location : Behind your curtains.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    6,453

    Default

    Depends how old you go really. My 35 footer weighs 13 tons with all the kit on.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    13,156

    Default

    Never understand why some boat owners obsess about the heavyness of their boats as if weight alone were something of merit. As Uffa Fox allegedly said, weight is only of merit in a steam roller.

    In boats, increased weight reduces sailing performance and arguably makes a boat more vulnerable to damage through increased inertia in the face of wave impacts. My 35 footer weighed 7.7 tonnes empty at launch and I would be much happier if that had been 4 tonnes thanks to high tech epoxy / carbon fibre sandwich construction.

    To put it another way, a 36 ft Bav weighs in at 7 tonnes whilst a 42 ft Swan comes in at 7.2 tonnes. Clearly the Swan is a lighter boat for its size. Anyone here think the Bav is superior because of its weight? In truth, its cheaper to build crude and heavy than light and strong. And thats what happened in the old days when grp was new and people knew no better.
    Last edited by Bosun Higgs; 24-04-12 at 20:28.

  8. #18
    wklein's Avatar
    wklein is offline Registered User
    Location : Dartmouth, Devon
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    498

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bosun Higgs View Post
    Never understand why some boat owners obsess about the heavyness of their boats as if weight alone were something of merit. As Uffa Fox allegedly said, weight is only of merit in a steam roller.

    In boats, increased weight reduces sailing performance and arguably makes a boat more vulnerable to damage through increased inertia in the face of wave impacts. My 35 footer weighed 7.7 tonnes empty at launch and I would be much happier if that had been 4 tonnes thanks to high tech epoxy / carbon fibre sandwich construction.

    To put it another way, a 36 ft Bav weighs in at 7 tonnes whilst a 42 ft Swan comes in at 7.2 tonnes. Clearly the Swan is a lighter boat for its size. Anyone here think the Bav is superior because of its weight? In truth, its cheaper to build crude and heavy than light and strong. And thats what happened in the old days when grp was new and people knew no better.
    Well the carbon boat would certainly not last as long as the heavy built equivalent. I got beat to **** in a 45' steel boat that weighed 20T instead of 12T so weight in itself is certainly not a virtue. However if the gear matches the weight its certainly more seaworthy and comfortable.

    Design is as important as weight when performance is concerned.

    I also suspect the Bavaria is laid up with a CSM gun so strength is not equivalent to equivalent well laid up boat. (only legend as far as i have seen advertise CSM guns in the brochure)
    Yes, to dance beneath the diamond sky with one hand waving free


  9. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    7,741

    Default

    34 feet and 13 tonnes how's that for a weight to length ratio?

    Uffa Fox was a great sailor and some of his designs were nice but some were just bonkers. Clearly weight can be jolly useful, like in a keel for example, so maybe not just in steam rollers

    The characteristics of our heavyweight yacht suit us with a large and young family. It allows for a vast internal volume, a comfortable and predictable motion, dry sailing and the tough construction is reassuring. You can get vast and tough for a lot less weight but you'd pay a lot more money for it. It's not better or worse, just different.
    Last edited by Lazy Kipper; 24-04-12 at 21:20.
    Colvic Watson slideshow video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RayUzX7LZQ

  10. #20
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    59,822

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bosun Higgs View Post
    Never understand why some boat owners obsess about the heavyness of their boats as if weight alone were something of merit. As Uffa Fox allegedly said, weight is only of merit in a steam roller.

    In boats, increased weight reduces sailing performance and arguably makes a boat more vulnerable to damage through increased inertia in the face of wave impacts. My 35 footer weighed 7.7 tonnes empty at launch and I would be much happier if that had been 4 tonnes thanks to high tech epoxy / carbon fibre sandwich construction.

    To put it another way, a 36 ft Bav weighs in at 7 tonnes whilst a 42 ft Swan comes in at 7.2 tonnes. Clearly the Swan is a lighter boat for its size. Anyone here think the Bav is superior because of its weight? In truth, its cheaper to build crude and heavy than light and strong. And thats what happened in the old days when grp was new and people knew no better.
    does the Bav have a lead keel as the Swan does, IE weight where it helps, not just o/all weight
    I may be wrong but not always

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •