- Id like to be in a Chebaco, with a few small, carefully placed water-ballast tanks built in. (And wearing an anti-design-altering flame suit) JeffMessage 1 of 7 , Aug 1, 2000View SourceId like to be in a Chebaco, with a few small, carefully placed water-ballast
tanks built in.
(And wearing an anti-design-altering flame suit)
>you rather be in - an unballasted Chebacco or a ballasted Romilly?
- You should know that I m biased, I chose Chebacco. But if you plan to travel, the lighter weight is less trouble on the trailer, and that means visits to moreMessage 2 of 7 , Aug 1, 2000View SourceYou should know that I'm biased, I chose Chebacco.
But if you plan to travel, the lighter weight is less trouble on the
trailer, and that means visits to more cruising areas are more likely to
happen. (My oldest and most used boat is a canoe on top of the car.) I
find Chebacco goes on and off very easily, and my Chrysler mini-van doesn't
show any strain at all. That chunk of lead in Romilly will double your
weight -- maybe someone else can comment on trailering a heavier boat, I
haven't the experience.
From: Ralph Wight [mailto:UncleRalph@...]
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 12:35 PM
Subject: [bolger] Safety of ballasted vs. unballasted open boats
I am considering building either a Bolger designed Chebacco or a
Irens Romilly for my next boat building project. They have a number
- Similar LWL (19 to 19.5 ft.)
- Large day sailing cockpit (9 to 10 ft.)
- Small cuddy cabin (6 to 7 ft.)
- Centerboard with shallow keel.
- Strip plank construction, although Chebacco is deigned for other
- Unstayed cat-yawl rig, although Romilly is a lug and Chebacco is a
- Built in accommodation for an outboard motor.
The one major difference is that the Chebacco is unballasted, relying
on form and crew weight for stability, whereas the Romilly has about
1300 pounds of lead ballast.
My question pertains to the safety inherent in these two approaches
stability in a basically open boat. My first thought was that the
ballasted Romilly would be less susceptible to capsize and thus
"safer". (I know Phil Bolger and Bill Samson, the editor of the
Chebacco News say no Chebacco has ever capsized, but...) On
thought, at least if the unballasted Chebacco capsized it would still
be floating, however, I would think, that the Romilly with 1300
of ballast and a 10 foot long non-self bailing cockpit would sink if
I was wondering what this group thought about the safety aspect of
these two approaches. Keep in mind that I am not proposing that the
boat purposely be taken out in conditions where this is a concern,
unexpected and unpredictable things can happen. Should you get
in conditions that stretch the capabilities of the boat, which would
you rather be in - an unballasted Chebacco or a ballasted Romilly?
- no cursing
- stay on topic
- use punctuation
- add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
- add some content: send "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
- Ralph Wrote ... The sailing characteristics of these boats will be quite different and should be the biggest factor in your choice - a boat suited to localMessage 3 of 7 , Aug 1, 2000View SourceRalph Wrote
> The one major difference is that the Chebacco is unballasted, relyingThe sailing characteristics of these boats will be quite different and
> on form and crew weight for stability, whereas the Romilly has about
> 1300 pounds of lead ballast.
should be the biggest factor in your choice - a boat suited to local
conditions is always best and usually safest.
Romilly will have good momentum and will still sail well in windy, short
choppy conditions that will drive you nuts in Chebacco. In flatter water
(usually with less wind) Chebacco should be a dream and will sail past
There are heaps of ballasted open boats eg Dark Harbour Class, Bullseyes,
Herreschoff 12 1/2's, and they don't regularly drown people.
Lastly, when one starts their boating or building a boat they usually get a
bit obsessed with saftey/seaworthyness - I know I did. Symptoms are reading
all the "Survival at sea/Disaster" books, carefully studying the saftey
features of plans etc. etc. After a while the anxiety eases and you get on
with sailing. Its inportant not to let this faze unduly influence your
choice of boat or you'll end up doing what I did - building 2 boats before
the "right" one.
Regards - Foster
- To all, There is another safety related design characteristic that is not yet been mentioned here...it is the self righting capacity of the boat. When I wasMessage 4 of 7 , Aug 1, 2000View SourceTo all,
There is another safety related design characteristic that is not yet
been mentioned here...it is the "self righting" capacity of the boat. When I
was faced with the choice, I went with a weighted keel design. This was
because the boat was also described as "self righting". (Bolger designed
Oldshoe) Is it possible to get "self righting" capability that will work in
most conditions in an unballasted boat? Here in Florida , USA, we must be
prepared for sudden afternoon thunderstorms with winds that have substantial
strength and unpredictable direction , but (in my sailing area) not
especially large seas.
- In a message dated 8/1/00 2:37:24 PM Central Daylight Time, UncleRalph@aol.com writes:Message 5 of 7 , Aug 5, 2000View SourceIn a message dated 8/1/00 2:37:24 PM Central Daylight Time,
<< which would
you rather be in - an unballasted Chebacco or a ballasted Romilly?
>>IMHO - I'd rather be in a boat that floats! This advice from someone who
managed to sink a "Bolgeresque" boat in 3' of water not 2 miles for Port
Everglades (or whatever) with two elderly gentlemen aboard and ended up
seriously worried about the likelihood that hypothermia would be a problem.
Bill in MN
- at the risk of beating a dead horse,... I sailed a completely open boat, a 21 Drascombe Longboat, for 20 years and I would rather weather a gale on her thanMessage 6 of 7 , Aug 7, 2000View Sourceat the risk of beating a dead horse,...
I sailed a completely open boat, a 21' Drascombe Longboat, for 20
years and I would rather weather a gale on her than on most 30
footers that I know of.
She draws 1', is lightly ballasted in the form of a galvanized steel
centerboard and has positive flotation in the form of foam laced
under the seats, but it is her rig that sets her apart. I've never
had to test her floatation even though I've sailed her through storms
in the Chesapeake with a double reefed main and furled jib and mizzen
eating a peanut butter sandwich while most of the big guys scurried
in to harbor (and done other stupid things besides).
In my opinion, the rig contributes most to a boat's seaworthiness,
sail shortening effectiveness being the most important. Next comes
ballast & hull shape. To contrast, I also sailed a Rhodes 19 with a
deep bulb keel when I was growing up, but the shallow, light,
centerboard Drascombe (21' ft) was easily 10 times more able in a
Frank San Miguel