http://sailboatdata.com/viewrecord.asp?class_id=3630The class or company website has the SA listed as 637sf which is missing from the entry.http://www.samlmorse.com/?a=bcc_specification
I've created a dbase in Excel that does it.If you are running something similar, I could help.What's the software handling the data behind the website?
Have you considered running the data thru Excel, which can easily do the math including all the if/then stuff I have, before it goes into SM-sql. The the math is done upfront, and some error checking can be done like calcing SA from rig dimensions and comparing against advertised SA. I don't know how you would keep photos and line-drawings properly sync'd. I don't know SQL and am hesitant to put the effort into learning since I have plenty of other things demanding my attention. Is there an on-line tutorial I could peruse? I could at least take a whack at the math side of it for you.
For this reason, any calculation based on LOA is not going to be very meaningful.
OH, sorry, missed that.For sure I would add:DLR aka D/L- I'm not a big fan of this number since it uses LWL rather than LOD and becomes misleading for boats with huge overhangs or very short/no overhangs. However it is the generally understood ratio that people look at to figure out if the boat is heavy or light for it's length. The history of the ratio goes back to early handicapping rules which looked at LWL a lot rather than LOD.Capsize Screen aka CSF- I know you are not interested in becoming a comparison site, but if you are going to do SA/D which is what racers are really interested in, CSF is the corollary the cruisers are going to be interested in. Another way to look at is that SA/D serves racers mostly, and cruisers some, whereas CSF only serves racers. Another thought is that all the numbers you include are going to confuse newbies or spur them to learn more so they can understand things better. I think I've covered all the possible arguements here. I would put it in because I am interested in it, my logic for it is just trying to look like I have a rational reason for it. QuoteSo this one is just lwl /disp? Shouldn't be that hard.Likely I would add:Hull speedQuoteSo we are just taking sq rt of LWL and multiplying by a constant? I have to say I've never been a big fan of this one unless we're talking about ships or something. LoD/BmQuoteI could do LOA/Beam?%Ballast QuoteIsn't this just Bal/Disp? - which I would like to do. Less likely I would add:Hull WtQuoteThe only thing I have is listed disp.??DLR variant using LOD rather than LWL for reasons discussed aboveQuoteI only have LOA. You think that might work?/hp for hull speedFuel efficiency at Hull speed and 4.5kt. There is a huge disparity in fuel consumption between those speeds and most people don't realize it. Most people's experience is with cars where the difference between driving 60mph and 75mph (I live in CA) is on the order of an extra 10-20% fuel. In boats the difference between 4.5kt and Hull speed it on the order of double the fuel consumption for boats over about 27'. If it sunk in with people how much more fuel they use as they approach HS, I think they would slow down at least some. Once again this is just a rationalization, I would put it in because it intreests me.
So this one is just lwl /disp? Shouldn't be that hard.
So we are just taking sq rt of LWL and multiplying by a constant? I have to say I've never been a big fan of this one unless we're talking about ships or something.
I could do LOA/Beam?
Isn't this just Bal/Disp? - which I would like to do.
The only thing I have is listed disp.??
I only have LOA. You think that might work?/