Date: 6/11/1999, 11:25 pm
Being a Pygmy Arctic Tern builder myself, I have to admit I'm a bit biased, but I believe the Tern is much better in rough water. The Tern's deck is raised at the stem and stern, which helps part the top of a wave and keep the top of the wave from washing over the deck. Chesapeakes can't raise their stems an sterns much due to the fact that the wood is already bent in the other direction (to form the cambered deck) and trying to bend the tip up would buckle the wood. So given a flatter deck, the bow will have a tendancy to punch through a wave and have waves wash over. You will find that this is especially true of the North Bay, which is very long and low. The regular Chesapeake (especially the non-LT version) is much higher volume, so the added bouyancy will help lift the bow up and over a wave.
The price you pay for a more contoured deck is time -- it takes longer to build a Pygmy since the deck must be stitched-and-glued. On the other hand, once the deck is built, it mates to the deck without any forcing, as the Chesapeake does.
Hope my 2-cents' worth is helpful...:) Dean
Messages In This Thread
- Arctic Tern vs CLC Chesapeak vs North Bay XL
Jan Gunnar Moe -- 6/11/1999, 1:50 pm- Re: Arctic Tern vs CLC Chesapeak vs North Bay XL
Bobby Curtis -- 6/17/1999, 11:10 am- Re: Arctic Tern vs CLC Chesapeak vs North Bay XL
Dean Trexel -- 6/11/1999, 11:25 pm- Re: Arctic Tern vs CLC Chesapeak vs North Bay XL
Don Lueder -- 6/14/1999, 11:44 pm- Re: Arctic Tern vs CLC Chesapeak vs North Bay XL
lee -- 6/16/1999, 11:28 am- Re: Deck Strength--CLC vs. Pygmy
Shawn Baker -- 6/15/1999, 3:18 pm- Re: Arctic Tern vs CLC Chesapeak vs North Bay XL
Randy Knauff -- 6/15/1999, 1:06 pm - Re: Deck Strength--CLC vs. Pygmy
- Re: Arctic Tern vs CLC Chesapeak vs North Bay XL
- Re: Arctic Tern vs CLC Chesapeak vs North Bay XL
- Re: Arctic Tern vs CLC Chesapeak vs North Bay XL