[frers-list]Fairing keel and rudder
ozgur
frers-list@lists.frers33.com
Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:39:48 -0500
--001a11c2529e9ed84304ed34f395
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
relentless is hull #33, fyi.
oz.
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Courtney Thomas <
courtneycthomas@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Art,
>
> My boat IS --> #54, but has no horizontal "wing", just the bulb, which
> does have "some" horizontal aspect to it, but not what I'd call a wing. But
> maybe Frers or Carroll Marine, through testing, felt that the 33 was
> adequate without a pronounced wing aspect. Dunno. My boat is the only one
> of which I'm aware with the factory built shallow draft but would sure like
> to hear from anyone else that has this keel.
>
> The 40" measurement I previously gave was not from the waterline, but
> rather from the keel-front-hull-entry-point to the keel's bulb bottom,
> so....perhaps mine would measure about 4' 11" from the waterline. I'll make
> a rough measurement next time at the boat. So....maybe I'm not in as dire
> straits as feared :-) I assumed the draft was from the waterline but was
> not sure from what points others were measuring their keel/rudder lengths.
>
> I wanted the shallower draft but, as I said, am not sure if it has been
> altered and even improperly so.
>
> I have assumed that since less keel depth produces a shortened lever arm,
> that, my boat (#54) would have required a serious bulb for ballast
> compensation for the lost keel mass, (as opposed to Oz's picture of the
> unadorned Relentless keel); as well as a more winglike profile than #54
> has... for enhancing lateral stability, but I'm no NA.
>
> Wonder if Carroll himself would remember this boat's keel construction,
> since it was possibly one of a kind............
>
> Most gratefully,
>
> Courtney
>
>
> On 12/10/2013 11:30 AM, Arthur Kelley wrote:
>
>> Courtney,
>>
>> We know hull #54 was built with a wing keel, but I don't have a photo of
>> that. A local Frers 38 has a wing keel and it is very distinctly a wing
>> keel with fairly large wings. It does sound like yours was an after-market
>> modification.
>>
>> The draft of 4'11" as specified for the wing keel should have been from
>> the waterline.
>>
>> I am not a naval architect so won't make a recommendation. It sounds like
>> Bill Thompson did it the right way engaging Mars Keels and adding more
>> weight than he removed.
>>
>> I don't see your name on our list on the web site. Which boat name and
>> hull number? Maybe someone has some background on this boat. You may need
>> to go back to the owner who made the modification to find out what was
>> really done.
>>
>> Art
>>
>> On Dec 10, 2013, at 9:25 AM, Courtney Thomas <
>>> courtneycthomas@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Art,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the data.
>>>
>>> My understanding is that on the Frers33 a wing keel was an option whose
>>> draft apparently was 4' 11". Is that from the keel root, waterline, or
>>> what ?
>>>
>>> The keel depth on my boat, measured from the root front to the foot
>>> bottom, ... is about 40".
>>>
>>> I don't know if a former owner modified said keel, or if I have a
>>> "wing", though the foot shape is torpedo like and does not have a
>>> horizontal wing.
>>>
>>> More importantly, I'm concerned that someone, not a marine architect,
>>> has sufficiently altered this keel so that it's ballast is insufficient,
>>> the boat's handling is impaired if not dangerous, or that it's performance
>>> is significantly reduced.
>>>
>>> Please bear in mind my intended use is coastal cruising, not racing.
>>>
>>> 1-What's your opinion on my boat's circumstance ?
>>>
>>> 2-If of serious consequence, what's your recommendation regarding proper
>>> assessment and remedy ?
>>>
>>> Hopefully I'm unnecessarily concerned :-) but with a 50' mast and
>>> sail capacity on such a small and light boat and it's intended 'below the
>>> belt' ballast I'm concerned.
>>>
>>> Most appreciatively,
>>>
>>> Courtney
>>>
>>> PS - Anyone else that will weigh in is welcome, of course.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> frers-list mailing list
>> frers-list@lists.frers33.com
>> http://lists.frers33.com/mailman/listinfo/frers-list
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> frers-list mailing list
> frers-list@lists.frers33.com
> http://lists.frers33.com/mailman/listinfo/frers-list
>
--001a11c2529e9ed84304ed34f395
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">relentless is hull #33, fyi.<div><br></div><div>oz.</div><=
/div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, =
Dec 10, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Courtney Thomas <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"m=
ailto:courtneycthomas@bellsouth.net" target=3D"_blank">courtneycthomas@bell=
south.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Art,<br>
<br>
My boat IS --> =A0#54, =A0 but has no horizontal "wing", just =
the bulb, which does have "some" horizontal aspect to it, but not=
what I'd call a wing. But maybe Frers or Carroll Marine, through testi=
ng, felt that the 33 was adequate without a pronounced wing aspect. Dunno. =
My boat is the only one of which I'm aware with the factory built shall=
ow draft but would sure like to hear from anyone else that has this keel.<b=
r>
<br>
The 40" measurement I previously gave was not from the waterline, but =
rather from the keel-front-hull-entry-point to the keel's bulb bottom, =
so....perhaps mine would measure about 4' 11" from the waterline. =
I'll make a rough measurement next time at the boat. So....maybe I'=
m not in as dire straits as feared =A0:-) =A0 I assumed the draft was from =
the waterline but was not sure from what points others were measuring their=
keel/rudder lengths.<br>
<br>
I wanted the shallower draft but, as I said, am not sure if it has been alt=
ered and even improperly so.<br>
<br>
I have assumed that since less keel depth produces a shortened lever arm, t=
hat, my boat (#54) would have required a serious bulb for ballast compensat=
ion for the lost keel mass, (as opposed to Oz's picture of the unadorne=
d Relentless keel); as well as a more winglike profile than #54 has... for =
enhancing lateral stability, but I'm no NA.<br>
<br>
Wonder if Carroll himself would remember this boat's keel construction,=
since it was possibly one of a kind............<br>
<br>
Most gratefully,<br>
<br>
Courtney<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
<br>
On 12/10/2013 11:30 AM, Arthur Kelley wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Courtney,<br>
<br>
We know hull #54 was built with a wing keel, but I don't have a photo o=
f that. A local Frers 38 has a wing keel and it is very distinctly a wing k=
eel with fairly large wings. It does sound like yours was an after-market m=
odification.<br>
<br>
The draft of 4'11" as specified for the wing keel should have been=
from the waterline.<br>
<br>
I am not a naval architect so won't make a recommendation. It sounds li=
ke Bill Thompson did it the right way engaging Mars Keels and adding more w=
eight than he removed.<br>
<br>
I don't see your name on our list on the web site. Which boat name and =
hull number? =A0Maybe someone has some background on this boat. You may nee=
d to go back to the owner who made the modification to find out what was re=
ally done.<br>
<br>
Art<br>
<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On Dec 10, 2013, at 9:25 AM, Courtney Thomas <<a href=3D"mailto:courtney=
cthomas@bellsouth.net" target=3D"_blank">courtneycthomas@bellsouth.net</a><=
u></u>> wrote:<br>
<br>
Art,<br>
<br>
Thanks for the data.<br>
<br>
My understanding is that on the Frers33 a wing keel was an option whose dra=
ft apparently was =A04' 11". =A0Is that from the keel root, waterl=
ine, or what ?<br>
<br>
The keel depth on my boat, measured from the root front to the foot bottom,=
... is about 40".<br>
<br>
I don't know if a former owner =A0modified said keel, or if I have a &q=
uot;wing", though the foot shape is torpedo like and does not have a h=
orizontal wing.<br>
<br>
More importantly, I'm concerned that someone, not a marine architect, h=
as sufficiently altered this keel so that it's ballast is insufficient,=
the boat's handling is impaired if not dangerous, or that it's per=
formance is significantly reduced.<br>
<br>
Please bear in mind my intended use is coastal cruising, not racing.<br>
<br>
1-What's your opinion on my boat's circumstance ?<br>
<br>
2-If of serious consequence, what's your recommendation regarding prope=
r assessment and remedy ?<br>
<br>
Hopefully I'm unnecessarily concerned =A0 =A0:-) =A0 =A0but with a 50&#=
39; mast and sail capacity on such a small and light boat and it's inte=
nded 'below the belt' ballast I'm concerned.<br>
<br>
Most appreciatively,<br>
<br>
Courtney<br>
<br>
PS - Anyone else that will weigh in is welcome, of course.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
frers-list mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:frers-list@lists.frers33.com" target=3D"_blank">frers-lis=
t@lists.frers33.com</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://lists.frers33.com/mailman/listinfo/frers-list" target=3D"=
_blank">http://lists.frers33.com/<u></u>mailman/listinfo/frers-list</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
frers-list mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:frers-list@lists.frers33.com" target=3D"_blank">frers-lis=
t@lists.frers33.com</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://lists.frers33.com/mailman/listinfo/frers-list" target=3D"=
_blank">http://lists.frers33.com/<u></u>mailman/listinfo/frers-list</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
--001a11c2529e9ed84304ed34f395--