Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Mad Harold

It really is a buyers market.

Featured Posts

Why have a formula for calculating the weight of a boat? Why not just weigh the blooming thing? Unless very light-gauge steel was used, it would be surprising if a 69' X 11' boat weighed only 13 tons, wouldn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Athy said:

Why have a formula for calculating the weight of a boat? Why not just weigh the blooming thing? Unless very light-gauge steel was used, it would be surprising if a 69' X 11' boat weighed only 13 tons, wouldn't it?

Athy the way the 'weight' is calculated is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the actual weight It is a measure of volume

It is a theoretical weight derived from the number of 'tuns' ( a barrel type of cargo carrier) that can fit in the hold of a ship.

(A Tun is an imperial measure of capacity, equal to 4 hogsheads - 240 gallons).

 

See previous post showing how it is worked out.

Edited by Alan de Enfield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Athy said:

Why have a formula for calculating the weight of a boat? Why not just weigh the blooming thing? Unless very light-gauge steel was used, it would be surprising if a 69' X 11' boat weighed only 13 tons, wouldn't it?

That’s not what gross tonnage means, it refers to the cargo capacity, the volume under the deck. As Alan says, for canal boats, HMRC choose to define the deck as the gunwale, not the cabin roof.

 

ETA, crossed with Alan de E.

Edited by BruceinSanity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, so it's the weight of a potential payload, not of the boat itself. That's the second new thing I have learned today, and it's not yet 8 o'clock. The day looks promising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Athy said:

Ah, so it's the weight of a potential payload, not of the boat itself. That's the second new thing I have learned today, and it's not yet 8 o'clock. The day looks promising.

I blame Archimedes for all this displacement stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VAT free

Plus no engine or engine mounts.. Or has that changed over the years ?

Of course that could be the adapted for pleasure use, not sure.

But back in the day, the boat was to be built with no place for an engine. It was and is a very grey area.

 

But lets be honest, most every f/f NB built by a builder on the cut, is likely to be VAT'able, unless a builder can lead a very frugal life on one f/f boat per year.

I know of many builders and indeed brokers, that flout these rules. They do so at their own risk, me thinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

I blame Archimedes for all this displacement stuff.

Screw Archimedes, some might say. Yes, displacement is probably the mot juste here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Athy said:

Ah, so it's the weight of a potential payload, not of the boat itself. That's the second new thing I have learned today, and it's not yet 8 o'clock. The day looks promising.

Volume not weight, both Alan and BruceinSanity have made that point. Generally it's not just the payload either it's the volume of the whole ship (hence it's gross rather than net).

 

JP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

Volume not weight,

I am not a scientist, but I suspect that there is a close relationship between the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Athy said:

I am not a scientist, but I suspect that there is a close relationship between the two.

Yes, that's density. I'm sure that's needed for some purpose for shipping any given cargo but it isn't an absolute property of the vessel.

 

Weight of cargo on a ship (and indeed the weight of the ship itself) also varies with geography and time.

 

JP

Edited by Captain Pegg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Athy said:

I am not a scientist, but I suspect that there is a close relationship between the two.

I would suggest that there is tremendous difference in 'weight' between 80 cubic metres* (volume) of Feathers, Wood, Iron or Lead.

 

The only correlation would be (for example) that 5m3 of feathers would weigh 5 times the weight of 1m3 of feathers.

 

Feathers weigh approximately 2.5Kg per m3 (level of compaction unknown)

Lead weighs 11.3 tonnes per m3

 

* 66 foot (20m) x 14 foot (4m) x 39" (1m) = 80m3

Edited by Alan de Enfield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.