Good Old Boat and Ted Brewer
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2003 10:28 am
I'm developing the opinion that Ted Brewer is the nautical-literary equivalent to someone who talks and talks and talks just to hear the sound of his own voice. (yeah, takes one to know one)
Last night I read both of his articles in the current Good Old Boat. I put the magazine down wondering why I'd bothered.
The first is an opinion paper railing against the (past 20 years) design trend that packs lots of tiny berths into boats that can't support them, sacrificing the basics like stowage and a decent head, etc... It's the "Sleeps Six!" marketing phenomenon that's created the beamy high-topsides clorox bottles we see at the boatshows. (cite "Dawson 26")
He starts off with the baseline of the classic basic 25-30 footer (mentions the Triton) vberth-head-settee layout, and talks about how designers developed upon this by packing in quarterberths and nav stations and other brickabrack to the detriment of the liveability of the vessel. He goes on and on for two pages about how you need this, don't need that, and finally settles on a layout that meets with his approval ON A 38-FOOT WATERLINE LENGTH.
I'm sorry, but how is that a design solution to the problem of a liveable 25-30 footer???
Second article: a review of the Victoria 18. I respect the work that the owner put into the boat, and I beg the pardon of the V18 fans out there, but that is one of the most ungainly daysailors I've seen in a while. Just awful. But that's my subjective opinion. Here's fact:
Following the format of the magazine, design reviews are followed by an empirical comparison against similar vessels, along with discussion of various attributes of sail power, ballast, hullform, etc.
The V18 was compared with the Typhoon (twice as heavy) and the Compac 18 and a 17footer that I can't remember, both of which are centerboard cruisers, not daysailors. The displacement of the V18 was guessed, and the waterline length was scaled from a drawing.
Empirical data? Not in my world. Why even bother?
Or maybe I was just tired and cranky from a long day on the water.
Last night I read both of his articles in the current Good Old Boat. I put the magazine down wondering why I'd bothered.
The first is an opinion paper railing against the (past 20 years) design trend that packs lots of tiny berths into boats that can't support them, sacrificing the basics like stowage and a decent head, etc... It's the "Sleeps Six!" marketing phenomenon that's created the beamy high-topsides clorox bottles we see at the boatshows. (cite "Dawson 26")
He starts off with the baseline of the classic basic 25-30 footer (mentions the Triton) vberth-head-settee layout, and talks about how designers developed upon this by packing in quarterberths and nav stations and other brickabrack to the detriment of the liveability of the vessel. He goes on and on for two pages about how you need this, don't need that, and finally settles on a layout that meets with his approval ON A 38-FOOT WATERLINE LENGTH.
I'm sorry, but how is that a design solution to the problem of a liveable 25-30 footer???
Second article: a review of the Victoria 18. I respect the work that the owner put into the boat, and I beg the pardon of the V18 fans out there, but that is one of the most ungainly daysailors I've seen in a while. Just awful. But that's my subjective opinion. Here's fact:
Following the format of the magazine, design reviews are followed by an empirical comparison against similar vessels, along with discussion of various attributes of sail power, ballast, hullform, etc.
The V18 was compared with the Typhoon (twice as heavy) and the Compac 18 and a 17footer that I can't remember, both of which are centerboard cruisers, not daysailors. The displacement of the V18 was guessed, and the waterline length was scaled from a drawing.
Empirical data? Not in my world. Why even bother?
Or maybe I was just tired and cranky from a long day on the water.