[Rhodes22-list] Ballast ?

[Slim Chance]

John, I referred to a catastrophe thinking about bolting something to the
hull which I assume would mean drilling some holes, then later deciding to
reverse the procedure and would have to question my confidence in my fiber
glass repair skills. If you have that confidence and also the need to
"tinker" then by all means go ahead. Myself, I'd worry about leaks or other
unforeseen problems down the road.

As for the daggerboard and torpedo bulb, you'd have to rework the whole
interior cap design, give up space in the cabin, engineer a lifting
mechanism and run the risk of the bulb breaking off, which caused an
infamous immediate turtleing of a small craft in the Atlantic a number of
years ago. To undergo that extensive of modification would take a much
braver man than I. But again, it's your boat. Are you sure you wouldn't be
happier just buying a small, full keel boat like a Cape Dory or a Flicka
instead of trying to reinvent the wheel?

Re high wind sailing performance, no doubt at all that hanked on jibs will
out-perform my 175 w/luff pad roller any day. When you roll that big thing
up to 25-50% it's not going to have good shape. I'm just not the type of
sailor to give up the convenience of the roller for extra performance
upwind. I don't want to go forward to change headsails in 30 knots of wind,
nor would I ask my crew, if any, to do that.
Let us know what you decide and good luck!
Slim


On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:31 AM, John Shulick <jsbudda at verizon.net> wrote:

>
> Lee,
>
>  Running before the wind I can get a 1/2knt increase (confirmed by GPS) by
> retracting the board.
>
> JohnS
>
>
>
> Leland wrote:
> >
> > John,
> >
> > What the heck--go for it.  As long as you can easily change things back
> if
> > they go awry there's not much risk and the results might be interesting.
> >
> > You got me thinking about the slot.  If the centerboard is in the up
> > position the slot is mostly covered.  If the lowered centerboard itself
> > creates some drag I wonder how much more is caused by the slot.  I love
> my
> > centerboard but I'm still convinced that it can slow you down in those
> > reach conditions where the stubby keel provides enough of an opposing
> > force against the sails.
> >
> > Good luck!
> >
> > Lee
> >
> >
> >
> > John Shulick wrote:
> >>
> >> Slim, Lee, Goodnews,
> >>
> >>  I understand that I may not gain much and that I may end up removing
> >> them a week after putting them on but how do you figure 200 lbs ballast
> >> would court a potential catastrophe? I have considered putting the
> weight
> >> in the hull but bolting it to the bottom of the shoal keel would add
> >> considerable mechanical advantage over just sticking it under the
> >> floorboards. I was mistaken in my calculation of increase in whetted
> area
> >> it should have been 288 sq/in or ~ 2 sq/ft still just not that much IMO.
> >> It would be like having an extra invisible crew member who always knows
> >> when to switch sides. If 200lbs of ballast is such a radical mod, here's
> >> another thought. How about chucking the swing centerboard and replacing
> >> it with a retractable dagger board with a lead torpedo at the bottom?
> >> That would eliminate the open slot in the hull which I believe to be a
> >> major drag component. Phillip Rhodes did not design boats in the modern
> >> era of computer modeling and space age materials. I wonder how he would
> >> build the R22 today ?
> >>
> >> Tinkerers of the world UNITE !
> >>
> >> JohnS
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://old.nabble.com/Ballast---tp33176958p33183956.html
> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe go to
> http://www.rhodes22.org/mailman/listinfo/rhodes22-list
>
> For the list Charter and help with using the mailing list and archives go
> to http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>