sledracr

Not sure where that suggestion was made. It wasn't from me. The simple truth is that the IOR rule gave rating benefits to "speed inhibiting factors", and rating penalties to "speed producing factors". ALL the designers knew what a fast shape looked like - smooth entry, deep low-drag foils, lots of righting-moment, beam carried well aft and a smooth/flat-run underbody aft with no bustle or distortion. The problem is, if you designed that boat you'd get absolutely hammered by the resulting IOR rating. So the game was to design a boat that was sorta-kinda-fast, but with enough distortions and volume to make the IOR rule "think" the boat was a big heavy (and tender) displacement pig. Farr was (IMO) the first designer to stop playing the game. He designed shapes that were fast enough to outsail the punitive ratings they received. (one might make a strong argument that Bill Lee was on that path earlier - the SC-27 is unquestionably a fast shape, and will absolutely plane, but was never really competitive under IOR - a 27-foot-boat - actually pretty small for a half-tonner - but one saddled with a rating that put it in with the 33-35 foot 3/4-tonners. No way it was going to be competitive there unless it got exactly the conditions it needed.) I'd assert (again, my opinion), that the ability to plane is not just about shape, it's about a bunch of other things. Somewhere around a SA/D ratio of about 30 is where the line seems to be *if* the shape and weight are also conducive to planing. A Melges-32 has a SA/D of about 32, for example. A typical half-tonner from the70s had a SA/D of about 18-20. (to illustrate the Farr comment, his revolutionary "Gunboat Rangariri" had a SA/D of about 28, IIRC... long flat sections, lots of sailing length, light, and enough sail area to make it work. And while both modes technically meet the theoretical definition of planing (a mode where the boat's weight is "supported by hydrodynamic lift instead of hydrostatic bouyancy"), I'd argue that surfing is different than sustainable, flat-water planing. In the photo below, Margaret Rintoul III is unquestionably in that "hydrodynamic" mode. And the designer absolutely tweaked the lines to make them as fair and distortion free as possible, to make it so the hull could break free of its wave-train in the right conditions. But in no universe would the designer (Frers, in this case) claim that this was a "planing design". JMHO _/)_

Heh. Sailed a SoCal half-tonner called "knockers", back in the day. Owner was a plastic surgeon who really loved his work. Crew shirts were the usual polos with the name on the front and a line drawing on the back. But the ladies' shirts had, strategically located on the front, in large script, "half-ton knockers".

I spent a shit-ton of time in half-tonners, 3/4-tonners and 1-tonners "back in the day", spanning early-70s to mid-80s. Not one of them would plane. Even the ones that looked like they should - like the 44-foot "Pendragon" with the long flat run aft and the wide square transom... wouldn't plane. Just dug a bigger hole in the water. Just about anything will break loose for a moment, with an assist from decent breeze and following seas. But to plane you need not just the right shape, but it needs to be on the right side of the SA/D numbers. Planing means being light enough to sail up and out of your wave train. I can't think of any IOR ton-class boat that could do that until you got to (for example) the Ross (M-1), Farr (Scalawag), Andrews (Growler) era.... Maybe Wylie (Lois Lane) and Mull (Free Spirit)... and those weren't really IOR shapes, they were fast shapes that happened to have IOR ratings before the IOR rule finished dying. $.02

Unstick for a few wave-assisted moments? Sure. But sustained planing? Nope

+1 on Salito's. Go there hungry.

There's a book about the GL-70s but it is (obviously) focused on the sled-racing in the Great Lakes, not the Santa Cruz community

sailboatdata frequently has the measurements wrong....

My understanding (probably an overstatement of the situation) is that the Aeropress produces about 8 ounces of espresso-strength product. And then if you add water to that, you end up with 16 oz of coffee-pot strength liquid. Is that what you're doing? Or are you doing 2 x 8oz presses and ending up with 16oz of espresso-strength? (if yes, yeah, I can see why they'd call it a widow-maker...)

.. Point Break. Decent action, decent plot, watchable. Sad that his "best" is coming up on 30 years ago.

Heh. I'm of two minds (so far) On the one hand, I have a coffee-snob friend who says that coffee starts to go stale ("lose its nuances", in his parlance) the moment the beans are ground, so if I want it "good", fresh-ground is the only way to go (of course, he also says he can tell the difference between coffee that was steeped with 195F water vs. 200F water, and that using water at full-boil is for heathens, so there's that.) I don't actually mind the grind, it gives me something to do while waiting for the water to heat up. On the other hand... yeah, a few measuring-spoons full of pre-ground works just fine for me. I'll probably do similar on the boat. In fact... at home, I've been sort of dumping left-over ground coffee into a tupperware and occasionally using the resulting "blend" in the press when I don't feel like grinding anything. At present, it's a mix of Tully's house blend, Fidalgo Gold and Kaua'i Vanilla-Macadamia.... and a cup of that is freakin' awesome. So... there you go.

An update, with full expectation that nobody (maybe even me) will give a shit. What I've learned in the last month or so: Apparently I'm a coffee-wimp. 17:1 is way too strong for me, I'm liking it more around 20-22:1. And, I apparently don't like the taste of dark roasts. A coffee-connoiseur I will probably never be - I'm not EVER going to be the guy that picks up subtle notes of apricots and wet dogs, or whatever.... I just want a nice big cup of steaming caffeine-water that tastes like coffee. ObNote, a "cup" for me is a 20-oz insulated tumbler, vs. a "mug" which is a 30-oz tumbler. French press has proven to be easy enough even for me, and largely a fire-and-forget process (which is important, because I need coffee before I can do anything complicated). Measure the coffee, pour in a little water to let it "bloom", wait a bit, pour in the rest of the water, wait a bit more, press, pour. Even I can do a decent (for me) cup of coffee without mental gymnastics. The Bodum plastic press ($25 at the Starbucks kiosk in the local grocery store) seems to work just as well as the fancy Mueller I borrowed from a friend. I can't tell the difference, the Bodum is easier to clean up and no glass. Both press-pots seem to allow a fair bit of "fines" into the cup, even when the beans are coarse-ground, so... I guess I have to teach myself not to drink the last drops, or I'll get a mouthful of silt. I've tried pour-over using a Melitta cone and filters, it works fine, but is slower and needs periodic effort, so.... maybe on a hook when I have the attention span, but probably not for the "I want a cup of coffee while halfway across the strait" times. Haven't tried Chemex or V60 (don't want a big fragile glass flask bouncing around), haven't tried AeroPress (I think I'd have to do, like, 4 presses to make a "cup", see above). Same for the Moka pot - didn't see one big enough to make ~20oz of coffee at a time, so haven't tried it. I splurged and bought a hand-grinder and a scale. Hey, in for a penny. The Hario "mini-slim pro" works great, no glass, and the "pro" has a grounds-receptacle that holds a LOT more grind than the "plus". I also got a "coffee gator" scale+timer from Amazon for about 20 bucks. Works great. Those let me simplify what's on the boat - no need for a whole set of measuring spoons, a calibrated kettle, etc. Put the press on the scale, zero it, add desired amount of grounds, zero it, add desired amount of water. I'm currently doing about a 4-minute "steep time". I'm told more - or less - time will change the flavor. Don't know, don't care. The thing I like is that if I forget (or get busy) and don't get back to the press for a few extra minutes, it'll probably still be drinkable. I'm not sure that would be true with the pour-over process. Favorite coffees I've tried so far are Fidalgo Gold (medium-light), Peet's Big Bang (medium) and Tully's House Blend (medium). Bonus points to Kaua'i's Koloa Estate (medium). Didn't like ANY of the Seattles Best coffees I tried, and I already knew I didn't like Starbucks (I'm kinda biasing, so far, toward coffees I can get locally and that may be around for a while). I haven't bought any beans yet, but I've heard Costco's Kirkland-brand House Blend (medium) might be a good one for me. Having said all that... huge hat-tip to whoever suggested Nescafe "Clasico" instant. That's pretty great stuff! If I'd known about that sooner, I might never have gone on this jag... but now I have, and it's kinda fun to "explore" some of the many coffees out there. _/)_ sled

I looked hard at some C&Cs. The thing that waved me off was the cored hull most of them have. ymmv

Amateurs. When I worked for Big Corporate (actually, Big Defense Contractor), my team chipped in to get one of those infrared-beam door-chimes from Radio Shack... you know, the thing that makes a bell go off when someone walks into a small shop? Wired it to a small light on top of a shared whiteboard, instead of a chime. Everyone on my team got fair warning that "the boss" was coming down the hall, long before the contents of our screens were visible.

The big thing for them is downtime, or traveling empty. At one point I had thought about buying a boat that was in Flathead Lake, MT (would be a haul of about 500 miles). The *best* quote I got was nearly 10k, for a much shorter haul than one from southern California. When I asked, they said it was because there were no other jobs they could dovetail in the schedule that put them at Flathead. So they'd basically sit between their last load and my date, then travel empty to Montana for my load. They had to price my job to account for the downtime and the empty trip. So, yeah, the more flexible you can be, the better options they have for tweaking their schedule to minimize downtime and empty trips. $.02

I originally planned to use Dudley to bring my Ericson 32-III up in 2015. Highly recommended by local yards and builders. They ended up not being able to coordinate across my dates, so they subbed in Piazza and Sons, whose loaders/drivers are all "Dudley trained". I got the impression this was a common thing between them, sharing jobs to make their schedules work across trips. Cost $3800 including everything (permits, tolls, insurance, etc), they took great care in loading the boat, kept in touch throughout the trip, arrived on time, no damage... etc, etc. totally good experience. would recommend *either* firm.