Keel Ballast

Hi Brian,

You may have noticed that I created a folder for Kirk in the "My Boat" area, but he never used it, so it seems more sensible to delete that folder and move the posts that I made on his behalf here, by way of further introduction to Tim's new acquisition.

=====

Kirk Ray invited me to kick off his reports The Milo. Here's one of the images he sent me which shows how the ballast in the keel is "old British motor parts and concrete"!

I think he's right when he says "my registration says 1971". It's certainly an early example, with exposed concrete ballast, which the previous owner seems to have had a crack at fixing.

Hi. The auto part and acorn stew that was masquerading as ballast has been removed. What is the proper amount of weight for the inside ballast (not including the drop keel.)?

Do you think it was as accurately calculated as that, or do you reckon they just mixed cement, nuts and bolts, and then poured it in till it was full? :)

Hi Perry,

I believe that the figure that Brian quotes is right for a boat of "The Miko"'s age and that there will be some accuracy to it. That's because John Bennett would have had a clear notion of the intended waterline for the boat and the weight of ballast needed to achieve that - but how closely that would have been followed in the factory is anyone's guess, and whether that means +/-1lb, +/-5lb or +/-20lb is anyone's guess.

I say that on the basis I the information of the information that I record at:
http://www.seahawk17.org.uk/boat-description-hull.php#ballast
and
http://www.seahawk17.org.uk/boat-description-hull.php#dimensions

What is missing from those two sections, but mentioned in the section between discussing the keel plate is that it is reported to be 70lb in weight - which is why the confusion about the change in weight arose, only to be resolved as more information came in.

What may be a little more arbitrary is what determined John's decision on the level of the waterline. It is interesting to compare weights of the Pedro and Ace of Sails. The photo at the bottom of the Ace of Sails page clearly shows a boat much higher in the water than even any early SeaHawk that I have seen.

I've just noticed that both Pedro and Ace of Sails have their waterline length given as 14'9", whereas the SeaHawk is given as 14'6" in the official brochures.

That doesn't tie in with the weights given for the boats - so the mystery remains!

I think the waterline length of Pedro is simply wrong!  The Pedro at Galmpton Creek on the Dart floats mush higher than my SeaHawk so must have a shorter WL - I would guess around 13' ish.