twistedtree
Guru
To use Lou Codega's words: It "platforms" the waves in conditions like that - in accordance with the laws of physics.
i.e., it rolls, just like a planing hull boat. And as Delfin points out, fins will counteract that.
To use Lou Codega's words: It "platforms" the waves in conditions like that - in accordance with the laws of physics.
Paravanes would be an option I suppose, but I doubt would make much sense cost wise given the way these boats are typically used.It is hard to believe that ANY vessel at some point doesn't have an improved ride from some sort of stabilization.
Sure a hull can be designed to reduce that need...but as has been said...at some point roll is inevitable.
There are other types of stabilization that could possibly be used other than active fins...but I can't say for sure without further study.
I guess you don't see the distinction between "would not benefit from" and "can't be accommodated". And while I can't speak for TT, I feel no particular need to defend the proposition that stabilized vessels roll less than unstabilized vessels. I was just correcting a statement that some vessels wouldn't benefit at all from stabilization of whatever form.Delfin and Twistedtree,
I am not trying to win you over to "my side" - or pick a fight with you. The OP asked about 45-50' FD boats and whether to go with additional stabilization or not. I merely suggested that not ALL boats BENEFIT from additional stabilization - and you guys decided to refute my statement. But I'll say it again: A Great Harbour would not BENEFIT from additional stabilization. For many reasons - not least of which are the problems created by mounting fins. Fortunately, the naturally stable hull design allows them to travel safely in conditions that would REQUIRE external stabilization on most round-bilged boats. As to whether that motion would be preferable to that of a round-bilged hull with working active stabilizers? Personal preference and real-world comparisons might best determine that. But it would have to come from someone with a lot of sea miles on both types of boats. I can tell you that I have been subjected to those "12' beam seas" that Delfin mentioned for an extended passage offshore on a Great Harbour N37. It wasn't much fun. But I am pretty sure it wouldn't have been any fun in a Nordhavn/Krogen/what-have-you with active stabilizers either. Of course, absent or with malfunctioning fin stabilizers, I would question the ability of any round-bilged trawler to maintain that beam-sea heading.
I understand that you obviously have strong feelings about the style of hull and stabilization on your boat. No problem there. I am pleased that your choice of boats works so well for YOUR style of cruising. I am not trying to change your mind in any way. But there are other folks, like the OP, who may have legitimate questions about which type of hull might be best for THEM. In that case, denigrating the path Great Harbour has chosen to go with their hull - and with no practical experience on that style hull is doing a disservice to the Forum. But then, I'm just a salesman.
You may have lost the plot here Murray. The question was not whether or not a shallow draft vessel is superior to a deep draft vessel in shallow water. That one I think we can all figure out without too much controversy. The question was whether the statement was correct that some vessels in the ocean cannot have their resistance to roll reduced by stabilization. That proposition would be false.People sure get their panties in a knot over the weirdest things.
The person who's dreams gave birth to the Great Harbour series wanted a boat for coastal cruising and to cruise up the Amazon River. I invite Delfin to follow a Great Harbour N37 up the Amazon, and we'll see which is the better designed boat.
People sure get their panties in a knot over the weirdest things.
Not trying to pick a fight, just giving my opinion, based on about 10,000 nm aboard unstabilized GH's in all kinds of conditions.
I'd never seen those before. I suppose you could install them on a flat underbody, since the orientation of the tube doesn't seem like it would have an effect on stabilization. And, you could retract them for those trips up the Amazon! But doesn't it seem like there would be a fair amount of drag in this system? I'm also trying to visualize how you manage the forces of very rapid deceleration. Do they each rotate in both directions, or only one with each rotating in a different direction? Unclear from what I saw, but a very interesting idea.Yeah, about two years ago, I was up at Snead Island Boatworks and saw a huge Krogen on the hard that had something like those tubes sticking out of it. I imagined it must have been for stabilization, but didn't know how they worked. Thanks for the link.
To the OP--- Given the potential conditions you can encounter in the kind of boating it sounds like you want to do, I think if you can find a boat that you can afford that has active or passive stabilizers that are installed correctly, you will be happier with that boat than the same boat without stabilizers. Or, if you find a boat that you like but doesn't have stabilizers, if you can afford to have them installed correctly, it will prove to be a good investment.
However... if you find a boat that suits your purposes to a "T" but doesn't have stabilizers and you don't want to pay the cost of having them installed, it will not automatically mean that you won't enjoy the boat. You may need to mind weather and sea conditions a bit more carefully, depending on the boat's characteristics.
Our old 36' boat doesn't have stabilizers and installing them on a boat of this type would not be a viable expense in our opinion. Doesn't mean we wouldn't like a boat with stabilizers, or perhaps even prefer one once we experienced it. But it also doesn't mean we can't enjoy the boat we have to the fullest.
If it was us in your position, I think we'd try out boats we liked with and without stabilizers, ideally in the kinds of conditions we'd be likely to encounter. Beg rides or charter, but I think a boat of the type you are contemplating is too large an investment to base on assumptions, second-hand information, or opinions. These can help, of course, but in the end it's a decision you need to make yourself. Which to me means you want the most first-hand experience you can come up with.
All the forum posts in the world won't tell you what you really need to know, which is do YOU like the action of a boat with stabilizers, and do YOU like the action of a boat without stabilizers? Until you can definitively answer those two questions, you're just guessing.
I'd never seen those before. I suppose you could install them on a flat underbody, since the orientation of the tube doesn't seem like it would have an effect on stabilization. And, you could retract them for those trips up the Amazon! But doesn't it seem like there would be a fair amount of drag in this system? I'm also trying to visualize how you manage the forces of very rapid deceleration. Do they each rotate in both directions, or only one with each rotating in a different direction? Unclear from what I saw, but a very interesting idea.
I did get one dissention as a PM - but still the numbers are overwhelming. The point made about being higher up on the boat was particularly telling - that would make roll far less tolerable than on a sailboat when one is at or near the waterline.
Here's part of an email we received from a Kady Krogen 39 owner who had traveled from the Great Lakes to Trinidad plus spent several years cruising in the Caribbean with out stabilization. They added paravanes at a cost of just under 15K. They contracted the entire build/installation in Trinidad.
...We are also finding there is a large and steep learning curve to the paravanes. Things like launching and re-covering the dinghy, or re-covering and launching "the birds". Underway they are very close to a miracle. As you described, Larry, they seem to slow things down. The biggest difference I see is that the initial roll "down sea" is slower, but the "re-bound" is nearly non existent. We have been in beam seas with them that would have us running for cover before. At anchor, the characteristic roll Caribbean anchorage is far more comfortable. Bottom line....we like 'em!!
That is pretty much our experience also. Did it for $10k in Miami.
Our system seems simpler to deploy and retrieve, as I can deploy in a few minutes and retrieve just a few more, less than 10'
Also, easy for me to adjust, both underway and at rest.
I love my Naiad stabilizers and gave kept my dinner down more than once, just make sure if you buy a boat with them that they were serviced in the past three years or budget $3k to get the fins removed checked and the seals replaced .
Good luck
Eric-you posed my question-Where would stabilizers be installed on the GH hull? My understanding in that they should be somewhere around 30-35 degrees below horizontal to be most effective. I see no way tht could be done on the GH hull. that makes it a moot point as to whether the boat would perform better or not.