I'd look for a Tanzer 22. There are a bunch out there in decent condition for good prices. Relatively big cabin and great cockpit for a 22 footer. Medium weight and good performance. Old, but loved, so a lot have been well maintained or upgraded.
Only two things matter for ballast. It needs to be heavier than the rest of the boat in a fixed location. Thats it.I still can't get my head around water ballast, and I quit considering water ballasted boats for purchase.
Ocean racers continue to use water as MOVABLE ballast to take the place of crew on the rail. The Figaro 2 does, as does the brand new J/121. The common link between most of these boats is they are designed to be sailed shorthanded, and its easier to find 128 gallons of water to put on the rail than it is to find 5 extra crew. Tack? just pump it to the other side.I know big, ocean racers were sometimes built with water ballast, but a lead weight on a rail, to move back and forth with an electric motor, would work better. Maybe there are racing rules that favor water ballast over movable solid weights.
So, why not do that with a much smaller block of lead moved along rails? It would take less energy to move and provide lower CG. Is this so you can blow the ballast tanks when on a down wind run? Make the boat lighter? That has to only work well for longer races. Pumping a hundred plus gallons of water in and out of a tank isn't fast. The other option I can envision is using your on-board fresh water supply, since you have to carry water anyhow, but by the end of an ocean race, you may be short on ballast unless you can replace the lost fresh water with seawater without mixing them.its easier to find 128 gallons of water to put on the rail than it is to find 5 extra crew. Tack? just pump it to the other side.
Water doesn't move when you yell at it, unless of course youre Jesusits easier to find 128 gallons of water to put on the rail than it is to find 5 extra crew. Tack? just pump it to the other side.
It would not be easy moving 1000 lbs of lead from side to side. And you have to secure it. The water pumps from tank to tank in a bit less than 10 minutes. You drain it if the breeze is light. You always use seawater. Would be crazy to use up fresh water.So, why not do that with a much smaller block of lead moved along rails? It would take less energy to move and provide lower CG. Is this so you can blow the ballast tanks when on a down wind run? Make the boat lighter? That has to only work well for longer races. Pumping a hundred plus gallons of water in and out of a tank isn't fast. The other option I can envision is using your on-board fresh water supply, since you have to carry water anyhow, but by the end of an ocean race, you may be short on ballast unless you can replace the lost fresh water with seawater without mixing them.
The Old Man's last couple of ocean racers had water ballast. I never talked to him much about that aspect of his boats.
-Will (Dragonfly)
Ah! Now that is the real benefit. For a long down wind leg, being 1000 lbs lighter can really pay off.You drain it if the breeze is light. You always use seawater.
Priceless!Water doesn't move when you yell at it, unless of course youre Jesus
Plaster and water... not exactly the same density, but I'll play along. I also know this thread has gotten way off topicOnly two things matter for ballast. It needs to be heavier than the rest of the boat in a fixed location. Thats it.
Take a water bottle and fill it halfway with water and place in water. It will bob nicely upwrite, but not perfect since the water ballast is not fixed.
Different bottle, fill with plaster. When plaster hardens float bottle. It will bob same way, however it will be the most stable bottle you have ever seen. It is stable because the space above the plaster is less dense than the plaster.
If the weight of the water in a water ballested boat is in a fixed location below the less dense part above, then you have some nice stability.
The addition of the ballast moves the center of mass towards the ballast.
Of course, but...If you remove the water ballast, center of gravity moves up, righting moment (gz) decreases, so the water ballast does help right the boat.
Joe is saying, especially in the case of his illustration, that if you simply built your boat without the area of the water ballast tank on the inside, just open up the bottom so your cross sectional shape followed the outline of the tank without a bottom, you would get a shape reminiscent of a catamaran or a tunnel hull. In that case, joe is right, the righting moment wouldn't be any different.Now remove the water ballast and hull (tank) that surrounds it. She'd look like a catamaran, right?
Put the weed down. Thats like saying if im drowning all i have to do is roll over and ill float higher. If an iceberg flips over it will displace less water. BS. Thats the same false garbage that heeling reduces wetted surface, nope. Thats only for multihullsSame thing happens in a centerboard dinghy; as she heels, more hull is pressed under water, displacing more water than when sitting upright. This newly displaced water is what's forcing the boat to right itself.
Well, there is less ice on top of an iceberg than on the bottomIf an iceberg flips over it will displace less water.
Yes, weight is weight is weight. (Which weighs more, a pound of lead or a pound of feathers?)Thinking of it another way, if you added ballast below the water line in the form of lead, wood, or gold bullion, for that matter, and it weighed the same as your ballast tank of water, are you then saying ballast of lead below the water line makes no difference in righting moment because it's under the water, and if you cut out the ballast and the hull form it sat in, it would make no difference? Weight is weight whether it's an equivalent amount of water or lead. Show me the light![]()