[Amel Yacht Owners] Weight distributuion


James Alton
 

Bill,

   Thanks for your input and opinion.  It seems that most of the Amels that I have seen to date seem to be down by the stern at least some but on the other hand I don’t hear many complaints about handling or performance.  Perhaps as you allude the Amel hull is not too sensitive to fore/aft trim changing those parameters?    That would certainly be a desirable trait to have on a cruising hull but not something that I have studied or thought about much so far...   You make a good point about the shallow bows of some boats  being must more sensitive to fore/aft trim changes than the deeper Amel bow.  The (by todays standards) relatively sharp and deep bow entry of the Amel is one of the things that I really like about the hull design as it seems to eliminate much of the pounding as compared to a more flatish entry.

    I like the way my boat handles the way she is  (very slightly down by the stern) and want to do my best to not mess that up by altering the weight distribution and changing the fore/aft trim of the boat in an unfavourable direction.  My testing in light conditions with no sail up shows that the boat has only a very slight tendency for the bow to blow off which to me means that the boat will be under control at low speeds while maneuvering and so far that is how it has worked out.  The bow also does not blow off after a slow tack as many other boats I have sailed do which is important in the event that I am ever forced to tack in a critical area, perhaps with no engine as a backup.  I found that while coasting along with no sail up I could continue to turn the boat towards the eye of the wind down to about 1/10 of a knot of boat speed in light air conditions.  I feel that this type of balance is really nice in gusty conditions since the boat tends to not be directionally affected much by the gusts giving me one less thing to worry about.  Depressing the stern further would increase windage forward and reduce it aft while also moving the CLR aft, all of  which will combine to increase the tendency for the bow to blow off at low speeds, hence my concern.    On the other hand the windage of an arch would be a little like having some mizzen out and tend to hold the bow up an might compensate for some or even all of the fore/aft trim change due to adding the arch.  I guess one could try to work some of this out mathematically but sometimes  the only way to know for sure  is to make the actual change and live with it.  So this is why I am trying to gather as much information as I can before committing to a particular arch design,  thanks for your contribution even it if is just speculation.   

Best,

James
SV Sueno,  Maramu #220

On Dec 16, 2017, at 1:59 PM, greatketch@... [amelyachtowners] <amelyachtowners@...> wrote:

James,


I could speculate about the effect of minor changes in fore and aft trim, but it would be just that--speculation  Some boats have a very carefully calibrated bow immersion, any deeper and they wallow, and any higher they come out of the water.  I really don't think the Amel hull design is such that the line drawn on the plans is clearly better than one a tipped a little one way or the other.

When we first bought Harmonie, and she was empty of gear, she was on the waterline as drawn by Amel within a cm or so.  She rides a bit stern heavy right now.  Nothing in the way she handles indicates she has a serious problem with that.  Her helm balance is easily adjusted with sail trim. I can work her upwind easily, and she is well behaved overall.

< /div>
However...  all that said, I am not now and never have been a racing sailor tuned in to the really finer points of tweaking a boat.  I work hard and study to make her go upwind as best as I can, and pretty much figure everything else will follow along once I have that dialed in!

Bill Kinney
SM160, Harmonie
Fort Lauderdale, FL
 



greatketch@...
 

James,

I could speculate about the effect of minor changes in fore and aft trim, but it would be just that--speculation  Some boats have a very carefully calibrated bow immersion, any deeper and they wallow, and any higher they come out of the water.  I really don't think the Amel hull design is such that the line drawn on the plans is clearly better than one a tipped a little one way or the other.

When we first bought Harmonie, and she was empty of gear, she was on the waterline as drawn by Amel within a cm or so.  She rides a bit stern heavy right now.  Nothing in the way she handles indicates she has a serious problem with that.  Her helm balance is easily adjusted with sail trim. I can work her upwind easily, and she is well behaved overall.

However...  all that said, I am not now and never have been a racing sailor tuned in to the really finer points of tweaking a boat.  I work hard and study to make her go upwind as best as I can, and pretty much figure everything else will follow along once I have that dialed in!

Bill Kinney
SM160, Harmonie
Fort Lauderdale, FL
 


James Alton
 

Bill,

   I appreciate your speculation and think that you well might be right about spreading the weight out being a bad thing on a more modern hull.  I did however want to point out that I have good data showing that there have been boats where this method apparently worked quite well and it bothers me a bit as to why…  

  Could you speculate on whether it would better to move weight forward in the boat to be stowed under the vee berths in the forward cabin  (this is the location I was considering for the batteries)  as required to put the boat on her designed waterline versus sailing the boat with the stern down on her lines?  The boat is currently down by the stern some and I want to add an arch with as much solar as I can fit along with davits to carry the dink in protected waters. My understanding is that if the boat is down on her lines in the stern that wetted surface is increased to the detriment of light air sailing along with some other undesirable characteristics such as the tendency for the bow to blow off which I really don’t like in a boat…   

  Last year,  we put a carbon mast into a 47’ sloop that was almost 500 lbs. lighter than the severely oversized aluminum spar which had been cut down from a much larger boat.  The boat being quite narrow was fairly tender and the difference in the the sail carrying ability was nothing short of amazing.  The pitch and roll frequency went up noticeably. Sailing the old rating the boat proved unbeatable during the 2016 Chester Race Week.   The rigging wire certainly weighs more more now than the new spar so a switch to fiber could save a lot more but the rigging geometry might prohibit that change due to the shroud angles.  

Best

James

SV Sueno, Maramu #220 


On Dec 16, 2017, at 11:43 AM, greatketch@... [amelyachtowners] <amelyachtowners@...> wrote:

Danny,


I haven't done the experiment of moving heavy things from the middle of the boat out to the ends as a sailing experiment, and not sure that will every bubble up to the top of my priority list. I will be happy to speculate on the results...

I was taught that weight in the ends of the boat was always a bad thing.  That does not mean that this statement is true, but here is my thinking.  Assuming the trim of the boat stays the same, moving the weight out to the ends, as you said, increases the pitch moment of inertia.  That has a number of effects, and to my mind the most important one is it reduces the boat's natural pitch frequency.  She'll "hobbyhorse" slower--not less--just at a different frequency.

For most boats that would be a bad thing, because a "good" boat will have a pitch frequency high enough that it rarely gets triggered by waves, unless they are very short and steep.  Reducing the pitch frequency brings it into the range where it is closer to "normal" waves.  Also, with more mass, the oscillations will take more energy to stop, i.e. they will last longer. It is really amazing how quickly a boat can come to nearly a full stop when she is pitching at her natural frequency, all the energy that should be moving the boat forward, get used to just pitch her up and down.   

If we are changing the fore-and-aft trim of the boat at the same time it could get a lot more complex.

But, ultimately the dynamics we are talking about here are so complex and have so many moving parts the answer isn't easy to guess.

The only experiment I ever did that was even remotely similar was re-rigging a boat from stainless wire to dyneema--fairly dramatically reducing the roll moment of inertia.  What a difference! With reduced heel she carried full sail in 5 knots more wind, leeway was less, it just made her a better sailing boat.  And this wasn't a race boat, but a 40 foot cruising ketch.  I didn't notice a change in the roll frequency, but I didn't try to measure it either.

Bill Kinney
SM160, Harmonie
Fort Lauderdale, FL.


---In amelyachtowners@..., wrote :

Danny,

   This is an interesting area of discussion that can affect the way that we use our boats.  I understand the simplistic explanation that you provided but I think that there is quite a bit more going on and suspect that the actual data from testing might seem a little confusing when those tests are done in waves of  varying period and amplitude.  

   I know that on an older traditional design such as Olin’s Dorade that spreading out the weight can work out well.  Dorade was in fact so comfortable (and fast, the restored Dorade is in fact still doing very well racing)  that trips across the Atlantic were chosen intentionally to have the wind forward of the beam because of this fact..and because the boat rolled downwind terribly. (grin)   I think that the reason spreading the weight worked for that type of boat (under most conditions) is because the bow was very fine with little buoyancy as compared to more modern wider boats and with the pitch heavily dampened by both a heavy mast and heavy ends that the bow did not lift enough to initiate hobby horsing.  This makes for a very wet boat of course and I suspect that if the wave period happened to be close to the natural pitching moment of the boat that the weight spreading was probably not a good thing, but this is just a guess.    The Amel hull is so different that perhaps none of this will translate over but it would be nice to know for planning purposes.  Perhaps when I get my boat back to Florida waters I can attempt some testing but perhaps some other Amel owners have already done some experimentation?  

  I completely agree with you about trying to keep the heavy stuff as low as possible.  My heaviest items will also reside in the bilge.  

Best,

James
SV Sueno,  Maramu #220