BYYB Forums

I'm planning on having the option of adding up to 200lbs of lead ballast in the forepeak of my Weekender. With this in mind, I have made up a number of weights. The two big square ones weigh 30lbs and the smaller round ones weigh 15lbs each and the really small round one is 5lbs.

My challenge now is figuring out how to best secure them inside the forepeak. I've put a threaded eyebolt in each of them to ease the handling of them and to allow them to be used as a "lunch hook".

My thought at this point is to set the weights in the forepeak inside some sort of box that is fastened to the bottom. Does anyone have any other thoughts?

Andrew,
I placed my battery in the forpeak. I don't think I would want any more weight then that that far forward. Empty the boat sits a little bit bow down.

I have a battery box just in front of the mast. The box is fasened to the hull. If you are planning a big marine battery, you may want to get the battery box now, and see where the other weight would fit around it. (unless you have other plans for the battery.)

Also, start planning where and how you will place your flotation.

J. Stephen Mustico

That is a lot of ballast for a small boat.
Going down wind could be dicey as you need the weight at the back to stop the stern lifting and the boat broaching.
I think if you want to put in ballast it should be built into the keel and someone who knows boat design with ballast should actually advise how much and where.
The ballast won't make it a safer boat if it is done wrong.

Hi Andrew, Bob Burgess did a nice job ballasting his Weekender keel. I plan to make a similar modification to my Vacationer this spring. He had some pictures on the old site, maybe he'll find this post and respond.

200 lbs in the forepeak would likely be a bit much.

I have 260 lbs bolted on the keel with the center of mass about 3 feet aft of the forward bulkhead.

As it is, the boat trims bow down when unloaded. However, with my son at 100 lbs and myself about 260 lbs aboard in the cockpit, a 6 hp motor hanging off of the transom and a 60 lb dog in the cockpit she trims just a bit stern down as verified by bubble trim indicator I installed in cockpit.

If sailing with less of a crew load, you would certainly want the lead ballast further back.

Now, having said that, you can put soome ballast in the forepeak, and some in the lazarrette if you wish to lower the VCOG down whil not intruding into cabin space, or bolting on the keel.

I find it interesting that so many people opine on what ballast does for the boat without first hand experience with it.

After having significant boat time both pre and post ballast, not only do I find it far more pleasant in every aspect, I also feel the boat is far safer with the ballast. heeling moments are reduced, and probably more importantly the time to react to a situation becomes much longer.

I also find it interesting that so many are concerned with the propenstiy of the boat to sink if capsized with lead ballast as most production keel boats do not have positive floatation in case of hull breach, or seacock failure.

While a broack knockdown indeed can be an issue in a following sea strong wind and wave situation, I still feel far more comfotrtable with a ballasted Weekender than unballasted.

nballasted the Vertical Center of gravity is so high that the addition of a moderate amount of live load un the gunwales really wants the boat to rotate on it's longitudinal axis and rollover. Go ahead, try to stand on the outside gunnel of an unballasted Weekender if you approach 200 lbs. Make sure you have a bathing suit on though. With 260 lbs of keel mointed ballast, I can place my weight on the gunnel without fear.

There also seems to be a rather disconcerting misunderstanding of Righting arms. Intuitively one feels that righting arm can only be sufficient if significant depth of the ballas can be added so that the wqeight swings over to windward as the boat heels. Fact is that lowering the boats Center of Gravity increases righting arm sufficiently as the metacentric height is higher. Ie the longitudinal pivot point raises up and the arc lengtherns significantly as the Vertical Center of Gravity is lowered. Even if no weight is placed benewat the boat or even the waterline at all assumign that the weight added is below the Vertical Center of gravity pre ballast.

Long and short of it is.... Experiment slowly with movable ballast. try different weights and locations. Try the boat in calm condiotions and then gradually push the envelope to learn what to expect from the new configuration.

I think you're right that it will take some experimenting. That's one reason why I have the lead in different, easy to handle sizes. To start with, after trying the boat with no ballast at all, I'll probably go with 60lbs in the forepeak.

I just need to figure a way to keep it in place on the bottom when the boat heels - I'll probably make a board that I can bolt the ballast to and secure that in some fashion - one end to the stem and the other to the mast box. I'll try different layouts in the spring when I start assembly.

My first experiment consisted of placing a 5 gallon bucket full of wheel weigths in the forepeak. Weighed about 150 lbs.

I was astounded at the difference it made. Further experiments weere with 260 lb bulbs and moving them fore and aft on cabin floor to find what I wanted.

Realistically, 60 lbs will likely do little more than help trim the boat, and make her better behaved in chop and boat wake.

I would try 50 lb increments at the very least to get a reasonable feel for each weight.

I settled on 260 lbs mathematically, roughly 30% of total boat and ballast weight once inastalled. Also, compared to West Wight Potter 18 I own, That utilizes a 325 lb ballast plate daggerboard combo. Center of mass with board down was 2 feet below waterline. Weekender is lighter, yet ballast mass center height is 0nly 1 foot below waterline...

While you do gain some righting efforet by having the ballast on the keel, the gainis offset poretty much evenly by the fact that the ballast is now immersed in water and hence displaces some water which in fact makes it somewhat lighter.

Chief benefit to external placement is preservation of limited space aboard the Weekender.
\
Fixing the ballast in place is a very good idea to prevent the ballast moving in the wrong position at the wrong time.

Here is what my weekender has for ballast:






This picture shows the placement of the ballast. I'm not sure how Bob came to the location of ballast and can't really comment
as to why it was placed in this specific location, but it gives you an idea of placement.





One on each side of the keel.

Basically what Bob did was thru bolt a lead plate on either side of the keel. Then added an additional laminate to the keel to bring the keel out to the thickness of the
plates. The laminates are taperd at each end to allow the keel to still easily cut through the water.
I will likely seal them up in the keel when I re-finish the boat this spring. I don't really want any water getting at those bolts and creating rott in the keel.

Bob told me that there was about 250lbs of ballast on the keel. He also mentions that the boat had never performed better, even in heavy weather.

That being said I can offer no information as to the performance of this vessle until I have had a chance to sail her this spring.

Hello all, I have not yet started my boat but am very interested in the ballast question. Has any one tried adding an external swing keel to the fixed keel? I was think about widening the center of the main keel, and through bolting a 3' x 9" swing keel to it. It had thought about making the keel out of steel. I haven't worked out the cable system yet. I realize this would add some drag but the performance of the boat seems to be pretty good. Again, I am just an amateur and was trying to think of a different way to add aditional stability. Any thoughts?
Thanks for your time,
Bret

Bret,
The original Weekender design had a swing centerboard located below the bottom of the boat in the center layer of the keel. It was dropped from subsequent designs when they found that it wasn't needed and that most builders didn't use it anyway. I've seen two of the original Weekenders, and sailed on one. It had had the centerboard removed and the keel closed up. No ballast and in moderately heavy seas of Hawaii I was totally comfortable with no concerns about the boat going over or being too tippy or unstable. The other had had the centerboard removed as well and the keel closed up. Two marine batteries placed in the forepeak. Sable and sailed in the open waters off of Kauai.

The Weekender under "normal" loading can benefit from some weight forward to keep the bow down in the water and the chines working. A Marine Battery or two generally does the job and the Weekender performs better in chop and moderate winds and tacks easier.

A dory type hull like the Weekenders will be less stable than a broader slab sided hull design with a wider transom. But it is also a better light air performer when others are just sitting. I've sailed with the main reefed down and the tops blowing off the waves. Had the rail buried in the water and had gusts blowing me all over but never felt as if it was in danger of going over at any time.

Yes, it heels over and then stabilizes, it is the initial tippiness that seems to get to most builders and novice small boat sailors and/or their families. And moving about on deck does cause it to move about. Personally, I've never felt the need to have additional ballast down low. The design is quite stable underway and has worked well for the vast majority of the builders that have built and sailed them in the past and still does today. Most Weekenders going over seem to have been in following winds with gybe handling mistakes rather than design or ballast issues. That is a learning curve for the novice to the boat. Doesn't happen to most and probably never will to most. But it can happen to anyone that doesn't understand what is happening and how to deal with it.

A Vactioner doesn't have the same issues, it is a much broader/heavier boat with a more stable attitude. Nor does the Pocket Cruiser.

I don't disagree with the desire to have a more stable platform. It eases the concerns of those that have added ballast. And makes it less tippy at rest. Ray's arguments are valid and it works to his advantage and makes his Weekender perform more as he wants it to.

Personally, I would recommend building the Weekender, getting used to it and tuning it so you can get good performance from it. Learn how it sails, how it handles, what to do under varying conditions that you sail in, in your local before modifying it. Loading it differently with weight distribution planned out makes a huge difference. Putting batteries in the rear of the boat generally makes the stern too heavy and brings the bow up too high under most conditions. Try to keep your gear and extras forward in the cabin rather than in the cockpit or under the seats. The keel/chine relationship works and works well if you understand how to load it and work with it.

I'm in agreement that before adding anything permanently, that you do as Andrew is doing, try it, move things around. Actually get used to sailing the boat under a lot of varying conditions before you add ballastg or make ballast changes and then perhaps try 50# sandbags inside heavy poly bags that you can place and move over a season before committing to adding permanent ballast to any location on/under the boat.