2 ms·
I know little to nothing about sailing, but I didn't realize they had 200T (tonnes? 200.000 kilos?) of ballast, and that some of it is movable to well below the
by Cthulhu_ 2y ago
I know little to nothing about sailing, but I didn't realize they had 200T (tonnes? 200.000 kilos?) of ballast, and that some of it is movable to well below the waterline.
- tromp 2y agoBesides the metric ton of 1000kg there are various others that differ slightly [1]. So that is indeed approximately 200,000 kilograms. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ton
- WJW 2y agoAll of it should be well below the waterline, it's what keeps the ship upright against the heeling torque from the sails. The whole ship displaced "only" about 540 tonnes (including the ballast), which I think is fairly light for a vessel of that size. As a comparison the navy vessels I used to sail on came in at 6000 tonnes for 150 metres, so 540 for 54 metres is quite a bit lighter.
- jabl 2y agoThanks to the square cube law, you can't linearly extrapolate the displacement from a 150m ship to a 54m one. Looking at some random ships in roughly that size one can see e.g. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stavros_S_Niarchos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stavros_S_Niarchos sailing ship of 59m, 635 tons - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gepard-class_fast_attack_craft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gepard-class_fast_attack_craft German naval ship, 58m, 390 tons. Considering it was a yacht with relatively fine lines, even taking into account the ballast, 540 tons seems about ok.