Education

Understanding the Numbers

Every design ratio on this site, explained - what it measures, how to read it, and where it lies to you.

Design ratios compress a boat into a handful of numbers. They're genuinely useful for shortlisting, and genuinely dangerous when treated as verdicts. Every metric below includes its blind spot, because knowing where a number fails is what separates research from numerology. No ratio replaces a survey, a sea trial, or the boat's actual passage history.

Capsize Screening Formula (CSF)

CSF = Beam ÷ ∛(Displacement ÷ 64)

A quick screen developed after the 1979 Fastnet disaster to flag boats whose proportions make them more vulnerable to capsize in large breaking seas. Beam in feet, displacement in pounds.

How to read it: Lower is better. A result of 2.0 or below is the conventional cutoff for offshore suitability; below 1.8 is excellent. Wide, light boats score high; narrow, heavy boats score low.

Where it falls short: It uses only beam and displacement. It ignores ballast placement, hull shape, and cabin buoyancy, all of which matter enormously in a real capsize. A ballasted narrow boat and a narrow boat with concrete in the bilge can score identically. Treat it as a first filter, never a verdict.

Angle of Vanishing Stability (AVS / LPS)

Measured from the boat’s righting-moment curve (no simple formula)

Also called Limit of Positive Stability. The heel angle beyond which a boat no longer rights itself and will instead continue to a full inversion. Derived from the stability curve, which depends on hull shape, ballast, and deck/cabin geometry.

How to read it: Higher is better. Offshore racing rules typically require 120° or more; 130°+ is excellent for a bluewater cruiser. A boat with an AVS of 120° that is knocked flat (90°) still has a 30° margin before it turns turtle, and a high AVS also means the boat spends less time inverted if it does go over.

Where it falls short: Published AVS figures assume light-ship trim; a loaded cruiser with gear on deck, a dinghy on davits, and half tanks will have a lower real-world AVS. Figures are also scarce for older production boats; absence of data is not evidence of a problem, just of an era that didn’t publish stability curves.

Displacement/Length Ratio (D/L)

D/L = (Displacement ÷ 2240) ÷ (0.01 × LWL)³

A dimensionless measure of how heavy a boat is for its waterline length. Displacement in pounds (converted to long tons), LWL in feet.

How to read it: Under ~100 is ultralight, 100–200 light, 200–300 moderate, 300+ heavy. Most classic bluewater cruisers on this site fall in the 300–400 range. Heavier boats carry more stores and tend toward a slower, steadier motion; lighter boats are faster in light air and surf earlier downwind.

Where it falls short: Says nothing about where the weight is. A boat with weight concentrated low in ballast behaves very differently from one with the same D/L and a heavy deck. It also punishes long waterlines: two identical hulls with different LWL measurement conventions can score quite differently.

Sail Area/Displacement Ratio (SA/D)

SA/D = Sail Area ÷ (Displacement ÷ 64)^⅔

The sailing equivalent of a power-to-weight ratio. Sail area in square feet (usually 100% foretriangle plus mainsail), displacement in pounds converted to cubic feet of seawater.

How to read it: Under 15 is under-canvassed or heavy (motorsailer territory), 15–18 is typical for cruisers, 18–22 performance cruisers, above that racing boats. A low SA/D boat will need the engine in light air; a high SA/D boat needs earlier reefing.

Where it falls short: Based on nominal sail plan, not what a boat actually flies: a cruiser with a big genoa or an asymmetric can sail well above its published number. It also uses light-ship displacement, so a loaded cruiser’s real SA/D is lower than the brochure figure.

Motion Comfort Ratio

CR = Displacement ÷ (0.65 × (0.7·LWL + 0.3·LOA) × Beam^1.33)

Ted Brewer’s tongue-in-cheek-but-useful estimate of how quickly a hull accelerates in a seaway, the jerkiness of motion, which is what actually fatigues a crew. Displacement in pounds, lengths and beam in feet.

How to read it: Higher is more comfortable. Under 20 is lively (daysailers, racers), 20–30 typical coastal cruisers, 30–40 moderate bluewater cruisers, 40+ the heavy traditional passage-makers. Narrow, heavy, longer boats score high.

Where it falls short: Brewer himself called it a bit of a joke that happened to work. It ignores hull sections, damping from the keel, and rig inertia. Use it to compare boats of broadly similar type, not as an absolute scale.

Ballast Ratio

Ballast Ratio = Ballast Weight ÷ Displacement × 100%

The percentage of a boat’s total displacement carried as fixed ballast.

How to read it: Most cruising sailboats fall between 30% and 45%. Higher generally means a stiffer boat that stands up to its sail plan and recovers from a knockdown more decisively.

Where it falls short: Ratio alone ignores ballast depth: 40% in a shallow full keel does less righting work than 35% in a deep bulb. Two boats with identical ratios can have very different stability curves. Read it together with draft and AVS, not alone.

Hull Speed

Hull Speed (knots) = 1.34 × √LWL (feet)

The theoretical maximum speed of a displacement hull, reached when the boat’s bow and stern waves merge into a single wavelength. A 25 ft waterline gives about 6.7 knots.

How to read it: Longer waterline = faster boat, which is why LWL matters more than LOA for passage times. Real-world sustained passage speeds are typically 60–75% of hull speed once weather, sea state, and sail changes are averaged in.

Where it falls short: It’s a soft wall, not a hard one: light boats can exceed it by surfing or planing, and heavy boats may lack the power to ever reach it. The 1.34 constant is a rule of thumb for traditional hulls; modern flat-sectioned hulls routinely beat it downwind.

Full Keel vs. Fin Keel

A full keel runs most of the hull’s length, often with the rudder hung on its trailing edge; many designs soften it with a cutaway forefoot. A fin keel is a shorter, deeper appendage, usually paired with a separate rudder.

How to read it: Full keels track steadily, heave-to well, protect the rudder and propeller in a grounding or debris strike, and take the ground more gracefully, at the cost of speed, pointing ability, and maneuverability in marinas. Fin keels are faster, closer-winded, and far handier under power, but transmit more motion and leave the rudder exposed. Many respected bluewater boats use the middle path: a long cruising fin with a skeg-hung rudder.

Where it falls short: Keel type is a poor proxy for seaworthiness by itself; execution matters more than category. A well-engineered fin-keeler has circumnavigated many more times than dock wisdom suggests, and a badly built full-keeler is still a badly built boat.

Skeg-Hung vs. Spade Rudder

A skeg-hung rudder sits behind a fixed fin (the skeg) that supports it top and bottom. A spade rudder hangs on its stock alone, fully balanced and unprotected.

How to read it: The skeg protects the rudder from impact and takes bending loads off the stock, reassuring for remote-waters cruising. A spade gives lighter, more precise steering and less drag, and because part of its area sits ahead of the stock it needs less helm effort. Keel-hung rudders (on full-keel boats) are the most protected and least efficient of all.

Where it falls short: A skeg is only as good as its construction: a weakly built skeg can itself be the failure point, tearing hull laminate when struck. Conversely, modern spade stocks are heavily engineered. As with keels, build quality beats configuration.

Bluewater Rating & Confidence

The ratios above describe a hull's proportions. The bluewater confidence bar shown on some boat pages and on Pending Boats measures something different: how directly PassageBoats has found and verified that this specific model, not just boats like it, has a real documented history of offshore or ocean-crossing use. It is a research status, not an engineering verdict.

Each boat sits in one of four tiers, based on the strongest evidence found for it so far:

Unverified · 0-19% confidence

No source has been found yet connecting this exact model to documented offshore use. This does not mean the boat is unsuitable, only that PassageBoats hasn't found and verified the evidence for it.

Documented · 20-39% confidence

The boat appears in an archive whose entire editorial scope is offshore-capable boats only, such as BlueWaterBoats.org's ~99 reviews or James Baldwin's AtomVoyages list of 72 boats he judged proven for offshore voyaging. Inclusion on either list is itself a real, if indirect, signal, since both sites screened for offshore criteria before including a model. But no specific documented passage (an Atlantic or Pacific crossing, a circumnavigation) has yet been independently verified for this exact hull. This tier is set automatically when a boat cites one of these two archives and hasn't yet had a full evidence review; a general specs citation (sailboatdata.com, Good Old Boat's saildata pages, Wikipedia) does not qualify a boat for this tier on its own, since those sources cover boats of every kind, not only offshore-proven ones.

Bluewater Capable · 40-74% confidence

Stronger, more specific evidence exists: a named third-party offshore safety rating (for example Practical Sailor's Category B rating under heavy conditions), a design pedigree from a naval architect with an established offshore record, or moderate passages reported by owners, but a full ocean crossing on this exact model hasn't been independently confirmed yet.

Ocean Proven · 75-100% confidence

Multiple independent, named accounts confirm this exact model completed real offshore passages: an Atlantic or Pacific crossing, a circumnavigation, or a top-tier third-party offshore rating (Practical Sailor Category A/B in Force 8 or worse) backed by real passage reports, not just a design claim.

Where it falls short: this reflects how much documented, citable evidence PassageBoats has found and verified, not an independent survey of the hull. A boat's real offshore pedigree can run well ahead of its confidence score if nobody has written it up yet; conversely, one glowing account doesn't guarantee every hull off that mold is equally sound. Treat the bar as "how much has been checked," not a warranty.

You can filter the full boat index by CSF and AVS, and every comparison shows these specs side by side. Research notes, not professional advice - always survey a vessel before purchase.