Thread: Sea pearl vs Core sound vs Swallow boat... sail boat...which one

Who ever told you the Core Sound 20 is boxy and like a powerboat hasn't ever sailed one. The whole Core Sound series has proven fast, maneuverable, easily handled, easily sailed craft. The 20 is the latest in the line and more refined as a result. If you want to sail faster then the single digit speeds of the Seapearl, you'll need a CS-20.

The Cord Sound is faster and stiffer then the Seapearl on all points of sail. I'm not sure what you mean by "secondary stability" but there's only two ways to have stability in a sailboat and most boats use both methods, though some use a large percentage of one over the other. Second guessing stability requirements usually isn't a wise thing, though if you want to do the math, it's not had and I can show you how, but it is quite tedious.

The Core Sound easily has considerably more "initial" stability. We call this form stability, as it comes strictly from the boat's shape. The second type of stability is derived from weight. Naturally, the lower the CG can be placed, the more "potential" you have in heel recovery or resistance. Neither the Seapearl nor the CS-20 can be considered truly ballasted, though weight does play a role and they both have relatively low CG locations (for what they are). Taking on a few gallons of water shouldn't be confused with ballast. Think of it as a really flat crew member, laying on the cabin sole. It's just not much weight, for the volume, though can make a "lively" boat more calm. I'm not a big fan of water ballast, mostly because it doesn't do much, but is a marketing tool, because of a now dead racing trend, that has been over played.

In the end, you'll have to make the choice, but in the size range you're looking, there are hundreds of designs to select from. Of the Seapearl and CS-20, the Seapearl is more of a gentlemanly craft, with nothing surprising for the skipper, while the CS-20 has some spunk in it's butt and can get up and go (low teens MPH). Both can handle deep and rough water. Both have faired well in the EC Challenge, with the CS-20 winning it, a few years back. The Seapearl is a sweet looking double ender, while the CS-20 has a more conventional look. Both have similar advantages and disadvantages in the rig, so it's a tough call and I'm glad you're doing it and not me.

Tom,

If it is only you and your wife, you could go smaller. The BayRaider 17 is available for home completion and like her bigger sister is water ballasted, quick to launch and be underway (around 8 minutes) and is just a joy to sail. I have built and sailed many of the 20's and 17's and I have not found a better day boat on the market. As much as I respect PAR's opinion on most matters, the water ballast comments I would have to disagree with with respect to these boats. In the BR is a great system and really gives you two boats in one. Both boats have positive stability to at least 120 degrees with the ballast in and they can hit double digit speeds with the ballast out (or in in exciting conditions!).

If you haven't seen them, have a look at the videos of the boats on our youtube channel.

Performance wise, if you opt for a bermudan style main over the gunter, you will be pointing up with lasers and going fast.

Send me a PM if you want any more information.

regards,

AD

Again, there are lots of designs to choose from, including the BayRaider 17, which doesn't appear to fit the desires of the original poster, very well, though seems a well thought out design. I question the stabily range published (120 degrees) for an open boat, as most stabily curves for these, fall off a cliff after 80 degrees. I suppose there might be a small amount of righting arm left at 95 or 100, but I'd be surprised, without excessive freeboard and a cabin, neither of which the BayRaider 17 seems to have.

As I mentioned, there are lots of designs in this general size range (the most popular size range in the world). I have a 20' cat ketch I'm just putting the finishing touches on that can fit the bill, though it does have a cabin, it could be built without it.
BYYB-223-sm.jpg
This is Flint and she does have an impressive stability range, but this is acheved with a modest amount of ballast, deck structures, deck and roof crown. She has several interesting features, including a cabin that doesn't have a centerboard case intruding into the spaces, a completely free standing fully rotating rig and a rudder board that can balance the boat (self steer) on some points of sail. Currently she's available in multi chine (as shown) or glued lapstrake, both having the single, flat garboard bottom, which permits her to take to ground and beachings bolt upright.

BYYB-198.jpg
This is Rocky and a similar hull form, yet transom sterned and smaller (18' on deck). She's unballasted and has a similar stability curve, but is a stiffer, more initially stable design, mostly from her shape. Though she has stays on the main mast, it's fully rotating. The mizzen is free standing and also fully rotating. Rocky can plane off in modest winds, though can't sustain it, until wind strengths reach about 12 knots.

Both Rocky and Flint have huge cockpits that you can stretch out in or just house a crowd. Both have large V berths and minimalistic accommodations. Flint has enough room for a small stove, ice box and sink if desired. Nether have a centerboard case in the cabin to trip over. I should add that Flint has nicely balanced lines, that will offer no surprises for the skipper in rough going. Rocky has more performance potential, without needing to hike out and also can tolerate a rough slosh without undue habits or bad manners.

As I mentioned, there are lots of designs to choose from. You'd be well advised to look through the big plan seller sites and other design offerings. In this size range, there are literally thousands to mull over and the most important thing is, to look at as many as you can, because you can just as easily build a boat you'll hate to sail as one you'll love.

so, sand bags are basically just as good or better than water ballast? and apparently removable from the boat for trailering.

Sand bags, if fixed so they can't move, once placed are better, because they are denser (hard to correlate, but likely twice the density of water). Their removability is also and advantage, both in trailering and running aground. Water just doesn't weigh much and takes up huge volumes of space to get an effective amount. For example, if you need 400 pounds of ballast, you'll need well over 6 cu. ft. of water containment area. That's a big box on a small boat. Or you could use some plain old steel plates that take up a fraction of this volume, better yet would be lead which is 30% less volume than the steel. Water takes nearly 10 times the volume, for the same weight.

This said, if you can pump the water from one rail to the other, quickly, then you can use it to advantage, though sudden maneuvers can get you caught with your pants down. I've seen very few applications of water ballast (in small craft), that couldn't be more effectively applied with metals, particularly lead. In larger trailer borne craft, you can reduce trailering weights to a degree with water ballast, but if you're towing a 3 ton boat with a Smart car, you deserve to struggle. Simply put the boats large enough to warrant significant amounts of ballast, also need substantial tow vehicles, so the trailering weight issue becomes moot. For example a 22' trailer sailor will be in the 2,200 pound range on a 19' or so LWL. Assuming a reasonably high ballast/displacement ratio, you might have 1,000 pounds in ballast. If half of this is water (nearly 8 cu. ft. of water) you save a whopping 20% off the GVW on the trailer, which in my mind is just silly.

In the same vain, if the ballast wasn't water, but was lead, you'd only need a 1/2 a cu. ft. of volume for the same 500 pound hunk of weight. That's the huge difference, between water and metals. Don't get me wrong, there are some success stories, but for the most part, the trend is fading fast and I'm glad to see it go, much like the wing keels of the 80's and early 90's.