Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Thanks. We’ve added the reported sail area, based on 74m² main and 45m² jib, to the records of the 56 and 60.
We would be happy to add a “thank you for you help” in the notes section of the records if you don’t mind.Thanks Paul. I try to say on top of spam. This one fell through the cracks for a bit.
I’ve blocked the poster and deleted his post.
Separately, if you get a chance, please send me an email to: contact at sailboat data dot com
Thanks.Hi Markus, thanks for sharing this info. We’ll add the boats shortly. Would it be possible to send us a copy of the material you have? Or maybe send a photo of the relevant page? That’s would be really helpful. If it’s easier, please send what you have to contact at sailboatdata dot com.
Thanks.Thanks for reaching out. We have the same rig dimensions posted for both models. We can only post one set of specs so we try as best as we can to report the builders information. But we also know individual owners can change things to their unique situation. That’s why we added the Calculator. That’s where you can go to see how your changes will effect the performance ratios for your boat.
We didn’t have the reported sail area, only the rig dimensions. If you have the original reported sail area, please share that so we can update our record.
Thanks again.Hi. That’s on me. Sorry. We’ll update the calculation to include the metric version. It might take a while but it will happen eventually.
Thanks for the “heads-up.”I agree these are all nice ideas. Paul is correct, we do not allow wholesale access to our database because in doing so, we would lose our ability to vet the content for accuracy.
Offering more detail with regard to hull material is something we’ll try to do going forward. Particularly for new models as building technics and materials are constantly evolving.
We’ll look into introducing a dark mode compliant site but to be honest, with everything we have on our plate, it won’t happen for a while.
Thanks for your input.
We’ve added the Bavaria 43 Cruiser and the Hanse 410.
Regarding gross tonnage, you are correct, it is not a specification which is typically mentioned (outside of the cargo hauling world). But it is an interesting way to compare internal space.
Our site is not set up to include it as we rarely see it ourselves. That said, we have added the gross tonnage information in the “Notes” section of the Hallberg Rassy models where reported.
Thanks.Hi Peter, Here are my thoughts…
The Hunter 38 was designed to be a cruising boat. Standard equipment for the H38 includes the roller furling jib. I believe the differences in furling vs non-furling sail area you are seeing in Hunter documentation refer to the mainsail, not the jib. It’s possible, but unlikely, that someone would purchase an H38, remove the jib roller furling system and also replace the jib itself with one you manually hoist and douse. Then add multiple headsails including a reaching sail. Doing that will help with performance. But that’s not why you buy the boat. There is also a downside. In doing that there won’t be a way to reef the headsail. In reefing conditions, at some point, you’ll have to replace the sail with one that is smaller. Not easy. With the furling jib, when the wind picks up, you can lessen sail area by simply furling in the jib to any point you want. Jib furling sails are designed to keep their shape for about the first 25-30% of furling. After that, sail shape is too full. But then you can just furl in more.
If you decide to keep the furling jib, you might want to consider the optional symmetrical spinnaker and pole instead of a reaching sail. The reaching sail will need a second tack point which I’m not sure the H38 has.
So, regarding your story, you can reduce the area of a furling jib. You can’t reduce the sail area of a hanked on jib. In that situation, you have to replace the sail with a smaller one.
Realistically, because it’s a Hunter 38, I would keep the furling jib.
Hope this helps.
It kinda depends on where and how you will use it. What you want is for the prop to remain in the water during use. In coastal sailing with waves and chop or an area with lots of power boat wake, a longer shaft might be better. In marinas and on lakes with flat water, a short shaft should be fine.
For me, the mistake of having a shaft that is too short (prop coming out of the water) is way worse than the mistake of having a shaft that is longer than necessary (slightly less efficient operation).
As you are probably aware, the more important considerations are HP and prop size.
Hello Dave, This is one that is a little hard to nail down. At the beginning of the model run, Beneteau reported the displacement of the 343 as 5,380 kg / 11,861 lbs. They also reported the shallow keel as the standard keel with a ballast of 1,960 kg / 4,321 lbs.
By the end of the run, they were reporting the displacement (lightship) as 6,100 kg / 13,448 lbs and the deep keel became the standard with a ballast of 1,543 kg / 3,402 lbs.
These changes are the reason for the discrepancy you noticed as we normally report the earliest specs we can find.
We do not know when the changes were implemented by Beneteau but, as the only brochure we found reported the later specs, we updated our record using those.
Thanks for letting us know about this.Paul is correct, HIN numbers have specific formats. In 1982 there were two options. In both options, the first three letters, assigned by the US Coast Guard, identified the builder. VYN was assigned to Ria Yachts DBA Victoria Yachts. The next five numbers were the serial number which was at the discretion of the builder. It may or may not include the hull number although most do. In your case it’s pretty likely the 18 was for the model. It is unlikely the 104 is the hull number. That seems too low. 1045 seem too high and doesn’t fit with the format required in 1982.
The last four digits after the serial number were for the date of certification. Keep in mind, model years start in August of the previous year so, for a model year 82, the format could be either 4 numbers (ex. 0981 for September; or 0482 for April). Or the second option would be M82 (model year 1982) followed by a letter from A-L representing the month built (A=August 1981, B=September 1981… F=January 1982 etc.).
The HIN you are seeing doesn’t completely match either of these formats. Are you 100% on the number? Either way, it doesn’t appear the HIN helps ID the hull number.
Sorry this doesn’t help answer your question.
Sorry for the delayed response. We typically don’t make access to our database available to third parties. While your intensions might be honorable, there are too many unscrupulous people out there. Some with sites they started by taking our database without authorization. We are also hesitant to send out large portions of our database as once we do, we lose control over how it’s used.
One of our red flags is a request that includes boats with a large range. This makes us believe there is commercial intent. Your request, for example, includes boats with an LOA of 33′ up to 80+’. We tend to question why such a range? It doesn’t seem realistic for someone to be in the market for a 33 footer and/or even a 50 footer, let alone an 80 footer.
When we do work with third parties to send all, or a large portion of our database, we require a User Agreement to be in place. This agreement will outline very specifically how the database can be used.
We also, typically, ask for a fair market price. Keep in mind, we have been working on our database for the past 20 years. Building it by hand, one boat at a time. If you are asking for commercial purposes, we think purchasing the data is a reasonable request.
We are happy to discuss this further if you want. If so, please email us at contact@sailboatdata.com
Thanks, we hope you understand.
We’ve added the C46 (Bavaria) to our database. The Oceanis 46.1 (Beneteau) and the Hanse 460 are already there. You might already be doing this but you can use the compare feature to look at all three at the same time, if you want.
Hope this helps.
Not my area of expertise but you might have a clog (carbon build up?) in the exhaust system. I’ve seen diesel motors completely rejuvenated after an exhaust elbow replacement.
Hi Pewit35, we double checked and everything seems to be working. We changed your Topic title for this post a little so hopefully, when on the Weta page, it is not confusing.
The only time you should see the “You cannot add new topics” message in the forum is if you are not logged in. But you had to be logged on to post this topic.
All we can suggest at this point is to try posting again. From the Weta page, click on “New Topic +” and go from there.
Let us know if you are still having problems.
