Crash

Members
  • Content Count

    3,471
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Crash

  1. It's, well, complicated. Here's what I believe. No one woke up one day and decided today would be the day to fuck up or fuck off. It happened slowly, over time. There's always tension between keeping hulls afloat (one ship, no matter how capable, can only be in one spot at any one time), or fleet numbers up (bigger fleet equals more flag billets), and cutting operational forces but staying highly "professional." The challenge (and it's real) with the cut the number of operational forces, but keep training is that inevitably, Congress or the President comes along and says, "Well, you've managed just fine with only 8 carrier battlegroups, or 50 destroyers, or whatever number. America hasn't been attacked. So there is not reason to need to "re-grow" the fleet, regardless of the change in international threat level. THAT is exactly the position the Navy found itself in just prior to the start of WWII. American Industry built the greatest fleet in the world. The Navy trained the greatest fleet in the world. But the loss in combat of "pre-war, regular navy guys" was very high. The pre-war Navy was the roadblock or speedbump, that slowed the Japanese, just enough to allow industry and our training program to catch up. In recent downturns, we have sacrificed almost everything to the alter of "keep the fleet numbers as high as we can." There are more Admirals today then at any time during WWII....the ratio of staff personnel to operational personal has continually grown since the end of WWII. While necessary to providing enough shore billets to allow reasonable sea-shore rotation times, it hampers the operational forces ability to keep trained and qualified watchstanders for all stations. I'm not sure that is the best approach.
  2. Crash

    H-Boat Renovation Project

    Why not pick your window and sail it back? I volunteer to crew...
  3. Sometimes, to gain capability in one area, you’ve got to give it up in another. Let’s go to the other extreme and take a Mazda Miata. Should we fault it because it has such low ground clearance that it can’t go off-road? Maybe they should just drive the vehicle with regard to its higher cog, and slow down some on areas where you might meet a moose. Or don’t turn so tight you flip it. Or just brake in a straight line and hope it doesn’t come thru the windshield.
  4. Its sometimes surprising how far from the "norm" a remote station or area can drift. If big Navy ignores it from a resourcing standpoint, and then layers on a never ending Ops Tempo, it's not too hard to image a negative culture emerging. The longer you're stuck out there and ridden hard, the easier it gets to "stop giving a damn, as they don't care about us." While not an excuse for the CO, XO, Ops Officer, etc, that seems to me to be what happened out there. Hence after the second collision, and big Navy "waking up" to the problem, a wholesale change of leadership going a long way uphill.
  5. If the group (fleet) you race in is made up of Capri 22s then the S2 6.9 rates much closer boat for boat, and is therefore likely to be in the same class/fleet, while retaining many of the same advantages/capabilities as the 7.9. That said, hard to go wrong with a 7.9.
  6. Crash

    Craigslist - Not mocking

    Not necessarily... Used to be, back in the day, families would actually go off on a week long cruise on their smaller racer/cruisers. Being able to sleep mom, dad and my 3 kids sure has made my boats (30-35 footers) more useable, and hence, sailed more often. Used to be, you went off to a race week, or an weekend regatta and slept on your boat. Did multiple Block Island Race Weeks in the late 70's/early 80s where many of the folks racing were also sleeping aboard. Used to be even smaller boats did overnight ocean races. Hence the MORC boats. Many a Ranger 26, etc were raced overnight. Need enough sea bunks for 1/2 the crew of so (yeah, we used watch systems and let folks sleep even on races that were "just overnight." Sad but true is the trend towards "how many couples can it sleep", and how many boats today have no "sea-berths." Which I think is what paps and the rest of you guys are really trying to say.
  7. This is for a container ship, but seems to indicate much less...around .4 to .6nm http://www.shipsbusiness.com/turning-circle.html Now if your talking a Super Tanker like Seawise Giant, etc, then that circle obviously grows...Wiki reports its turn radius as 2 miles, but that's the largest ship built...
  8. Several miles to turn once the rudder is put over? Or several miles because you have to get a crewman up there, that guy needs to get SA, disengage the autopilot, and put the rudder over? I totally get the its a big ship with lots of mass (I was an Officer of the Deck on a Aircraft Carrier), and that the perspective is totally different, (ship looks plenty far away to small boat guy, small boat is way too close and about to disappear into the "blind spot" over the bow for the ship guy)...but even with deck heel limits (3 degrees) due to operating/moving aircraft on deck, we could turn in less than several miles...and certainly could turn harder to avoid a collision if necessary...
  9. So while I totally agree the First 24 will be quicker, I'm not sure I agree the Colgate is slow or under-canvassed. After all, its rating compares favorably to a J-24, S2 7.9, Capri 25, Merit 25, Kirby 25, etc, etc. Also PHRF rating of the First 24 maybe harder to sail to on a light air lake where the opportunity to get up on a plane is less frequent. There was (is?) a Colgate 26 named Easy Button that raced quite successfully on the Chesapeake Bay - based in Solomons Island as I recall, and raced at Southern Bay Race Week a bunch. Should be able to find results for it, and a pretty stable rating as a result. First 24 will be easier to trailer/launch, but if there is a hoist at their club, certainly the C-26 can be trailered too. Colgate 26 has a well deserved reputation for being rugged. USNA has a fleet of them for training new plebes how to sail. Its a better "first boat" for folks just learning to sail. If they stick to sailing, likely they will end up selling either boat 5 or 6 years down the road for a bigger, different boat. Both boats will serve the need...
  10. If true, and no reason to believe it isn't, it's a total and complete leadership failure.
  11. Crash

    J 121

    I meant to say that the 120 had a nicer interior, not the 121. Obviously, my sentence structure wasn't particularly great...
  12. Crash

    J 121

    Roleur, Folks made this same argument when the J/109 came out. It wasn't really any faster than the 20 year older J-35... The 121 is only (according to J/Boat's specs) 1000lbs lighter than a 120 , and only has 29 sqft more sail area. So its only 7% lighter and has 4% more sail area. Plus 120 can carry larger overlapping headsails. 121 likely also has a longer immersed waterline while sailing, but again, not by a whole lot. So yes, it should be faster, but not by leaps and bounds. Plus, I don't think it was intended to be that much faster. It was intended to be able to be as fast (give or take) with 5 less guys on the rail... Also, I'd bet that a new build J/120 would actually cost a little more than a new build J/121, as it has a nicer interior, and that adds cost and labor... Plus its a shiny new boat, so you don't have age-related maintenance issues to deal with for the first 5 or 10 years... (by which time, many will have been sold in the natural order of things)... Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of the 120. but it all depends on what you goals and objectives are... Crash
  13. Crash

    J 121

    Come on guys, read the design brief! The boat is designed/optimized for offshore, short-handed distance racing, not W/L short course sausage fests. So, yeah its kinda a PHRF issue, but only in the sense that PHRF isn't really able to rate boats optimized for one environment well across all environments. You see it with sport boats all the time.
  14. Maybe, but that's a new boat issue as well...still need to maintain, or pay someone else to do it for you. And while yes, the cost of moorage and maintenance has also increased faster than the average middle class salary, that is also due to the reasons cited above, plus the fact that 99% of the population would rather have condo's on the water than a marina. Its a whole social values shift - some good, some not as good. Its too simplistic to try to blame it on only one cause (lack of middle class wage growth in this instance)
  15. First part is only sorta true...second sentence is true, but they all can afford a used boat and are choosing not to... Combined with the "economic stagnation" of the middle class, is that fact that WE have made building boats way more expensive than it used to be. The combination of increased environmental regulations, increased health and safety regulations on the job site, increased benefits and health care employers must provide, etc., have all combined to increase the cost of building a boat today. Add to that the fact that we "enthusiast" sailors demand every more capable, high tech boats. Heck, everytime a new J/boat (or almost any new racer/cruiser) comes out, most of the crowd here pans it for not being significantly faster than the boat its replacing - and given you can buy that used older J for less than half the price of a new one...
  16. Crash

    Performance boat as a family daysailer

    Some thoughts for your consideration... Boats like the FT and Columbia 32 are typically set up such that main has to come off and be rolled/folded, same for jib, and typically have to pull/insert job battens each time. No big deal from a crewed racing perspective, more of a PITA from a daysailing perspective...both boats/sails can be modified to make sailhandling easier but need to budget/factor depending on a particular boats setup... i hate dealing with having to dump the tank from a porta-potti, plus they may not have enough volume for a long weekend with a couple kids in harbors where peeing overboard at anchor is not appropriate... a manaul head and holding tank is easier to deal with/offers more “holding”... For daysailing, I like inboard diesels better than outboard on the stern. Never had a boat with outboard in a well like FT/C32, so that might be ok
  17. Crash

    J/99 anyone have info beyond the teaser?

    It looks to me (and I don't know) that this rectangular looking area outboard of/behind the galley cabinets (you'd need one outboard of Nav Station as well) might be where the water ballast tanks would go? Or I guess could be where the fill hoses for water and fuel go as well..
  18. Crash

    fixing the merit 25 keel

    you are a better man than I, Gunga Din!
  19. J-Boats? 1977 to present. But they are not really a builder, so don't know if we can count them in the same way you'd count C&C, etc
  20. Crash

    Kirby 25 RF 125 or 155%

    Check your local PHRF rules regarding RF credits. For example, on the Chesapeake Bay, if you take the RF credit, you can't change sails during a race or regatta, but must roller furl the sail for which you took the credit for. It also had to have a UV cover on it...those two "conditions" were enough to keep me from ever taking the credit, even though I had a furler on my boat. I wanted the option to be able to fly a light 155, or be able to switch to a #3 during a race/regatta if the wind built. So it depends totally on the "conditions" by which you can take the credit, and then the wind conditions for where you race as to whether or not the credit is "worth" taking from a pure racing perspective.
  21. First you'd have to bring back the folks from the 70s and 80s who actually want to buy a boat that can "sail," vs. the "lifestyle" buyer of today who is mostly interested in a floating dock condo, and not actually having to put and effort are work into sailing...
  22. socal, The issue here is indeed hull shape, and wetted surface as then pertain to upwind and downwind performance. Short of foiling, very few monohulls are capable of "breaking out" and planning upwind. So upwind its something of an immersed waterline length debate, with wetted surface area, and hull shape each playing a role. As an owner of an IOR hull shape, you know how good IOR boats are upwind, despite lower SA/D ratios. Their hull shape and sail plans are made to go upwind. The J/92s has a much more balanced hull shape, and likely has a longer immersed waterline, meaning it will go upwind faster and point higher then the Seascape in most cases. Downwind the Seascape's power advantage and hull shape come into play. As stated, it will break out sooner, and waterline length becomes less of a limiting factor. So as Jetfuel and others have said, the 92s is likely the better upwind boat, the Seascape the downwind boat. On short W/L sausage fests under PHRF, I'd go with the 92s. On the N2E (assuming its all downhill) the SC-27. Having raced in San Diego on a friends FT 7.5 (rated 91) in mixed PHRF racing, I can tell you the frustration of trying to go upwind against a bunch of masthead rigged, 30-35 footers that we owed time to, that were faster than us upwind, or on a tight jib reach in medium air, where they could carry their 155s upwind, and then sail deeper downwind, while there wasn't enough breeze for us to get on plane. In light air, esp if we could carry the chute and they were still on their gennys, we could make up time. In big air when we could plane we could make time. Given those challenges, and that both boats your talking about also carry non-overlapping jibs, and asyms, I'd go with the 92s as the more moderate, better suited to mixed PHRF racing... Crash
  23. Crash

    Coolboats to admire

    Though its direct predessor, MHS, was around by then. I raced the fall of 1982 on the Chesapeake Bay on an 1977 S&S 46 foot custom IOR boat that was almost untouchable under MHS...
  24. Crash

    Piper OD .. dayboat

    Alan, I figured you'd done that, just wanted to make sure it'b been thought of... Crash