# What makes a functional cruiser?



## sskimberdreams (Apr 24, 2004)

Im relatively new to the sailing world and nearly all of my knowledge has been gleamed from the many books i''ve been reading. My long term goal is to buy a boat that I can either singlehand or sail with a crew of 2-3 on long open-ocean cruises. 

I understand the proverbial trade-off between functionality and comfort in cruiser desgin- what I don''t understand is specifically what these tradeoffs are. I don''t know enough about sailing as of yet to understand how design elements such as LWL, draft, beam, displacement, keel design, rig setup, etc. affect performance. What I want to be able to do is identify a cruiser that is designed to be a strong sailer and stable in bad weather as opposed to a cruiser that is made for looking pretty at anchorage. What are the things I should be looking at?

Ultimately, when I do purchase a cruiser, I want its beauty and allure to be in its strength at sea. I just need to find out what that boat is. You''re free to answer this broad question straight out but I will gladly research any websites/past threads/books that you can recommend on this subject. Thanks in advance.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I must say that is a group of questions that could fill a book or start a major bar fight. These are the kinds of questions for which there are no univerally right answers. They are the kind of questions that lead to a lot of "on the other hands". I will try to take a stab at your questions this evening but I warn you that this is a ''War and Peace'' (meaning lots of characters with names that are hard to remember and lots of subplots) sort of a question. You might search this forum for prior discussions on this topic as there have been some duzies. 

Jeff


----------



## sskimberdreams (Apr 24, 2004)

You bring up a great point and I''ll change my tack just a little to try and sidestep some of the argument type issues. 

I''m not necissarily asking what is the BEST setup because, as Jeff_H stated, there''s no real answer to that question. Instead, if you could recomend websites/bookts/etc. that explain how these design factors attribute to cruiser performance, I can research and deside for myself what is best. I appreciate the help.

Also: I tried searching for similar past discussions, but had little luck because im clueless in terms of what to look for. What would be the best keyword to search for?


----------



## jsgsail (May 19, 2004)

I''m looking for the same boat, my research has me looking at heaver boats such as Robert Perry designs, when you load up a light weight boat for a crossing you may change its sailing performance.
-Thick hull,strong rigging- compare a swan to a Catalina rigging you''ll see what i mean
If you got the cash-Tayana,Island packet, swan etc.
Im no expert!, this is what i found so far


----------



## DuaneIsing (Jul 10, 2001)

What makes a functional cruiser? 

Apr. 24 2004 1:16 AM 

Author: sskimberdreams 

"...I will gladly research any websites/past threads/books that you can recommend on this subject..."
__________________

Well, since you never got an answer to that part of your question, 2 books I highly recommend are Nigel Calder''s Cruising Handbook and Beth Leonard''s Voyager''s Handbook. Their focus is not solely on the choice of boat, but there is enough good info in there to help you, I believe. After that, there are numerous books written just about various boat designs and their relative merits, but I don''t have their names available right now.

Good luck; you seem to be taking a prudent approach in your search.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

While I am a fan of many of Bob Perry''s cruising designs, jsgsail''s post seems to imply some fairly major misconceptions. 

To begin with when you talk about a cruising boat, displacement is a better measurement of size and carrying capacity than length. Historically there was a tendancy to think that there is an advantage to cramming more displacement into a shorter sailing length. Nothing is further from the truth. 

All things being roughly equal, a longer boat of the same displacement will have greater carrying capacity, equal or less initial cost and equal or lower maintenance costs, greater seaworthiness, speed, ease of handling, more room for accomodations and will have a more comfortable motion. 

In sizing a boat there is an optimal displacement per person (traditionally 2 1/2 to 5 long tons) and all things being roughly equal, a boat with the displacent that you are seeking and with a lower L/D will generally be a better boat all around.

Substanially heavier hull thickness is generally a mark of a poorly engineered boat. Adding fiberglass laminate to a hull is a relatively inexpensive but terribly inefficient way to increase the strength of a boat. It is far less effective than designing and building a proper laminate and framing system. This extra thickness is often achieved with the use of a higher percentage of non-directional laminates (mat or chopped glass). Non-directional laminates are seen as greatly reducing impact resistance and greatly increasing the tendancy towards fatigue. A thicker hull made up with a larger percentage of non-directional material may have a much smaller resistance to puncture and be a lot more flexible and fatigue prone than a lighter hull that has a properly engineered framing system and laminate. 

Comparing rigging between boats in and of itself tells you nothing about the actual strength of the rig. Beamier, heavier weight boats for their length, such as the Island Packet, place much higher stresses on their
rigs and so heavier rigging is required to equal the strength of a lighter boat with lighter rigging. Similarly boats like the Swan with its narrow spreader and shroud width, produce much higher rigging loads than a less performance oriented rig. 

Lastly, in and of iteself weight does nothing good for a boat. Weight does not make a boat stronger, greater weight does not allow a boat to have a greater carrying capacity, greater weight does not give a boat a more comfortable motion, greater weight does not make it more seaworthy, greater weight does not automatically produce a boat that has more stability, greater weight does not make the boat easier to handle, greater weight does not make a boat that has better accomodations, in fact, in and of itself, greater weight does not make a boat better in any way. Weight only breeds more weight and that means greater maintenance costs, bigger ground tackle, higher stresses, lower fuel efficiency, and more work for the crew. 

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## geohan (Mar 8, 2000)

Jeff:
Did a gremlin creep into the 4th paragraph of your 2004-5-20-0735 post i.e., a lighter boat with other things being equal would have a (higher) L/D? You have me now thinking that boats as well as people can have a weight problem.
You have also piqued my interest in the Laser 28 but my remaining concern has to do with the comfort of its motion. Are its pitch, roll and heave accelerations moderate? I can''t shake the idea that light displacement might equate with a bouncy ride.
Thanks for your input, it is valued.
Regards, George


----------



## DuaneIsing (Jul 10, 2001)

geohan,

I think Jeff meant to use the term D/L instead of L/D. Then his statement makes sense.

Cheers,
Duane


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I''m sorry folks, I did mean D/L. I just washed my hands and I can''t do a thing with them. And yes, a lighter boat would have a smaller D/L. 

As to the motion of Laser 28, If you compare a Laser 28 which weighs in at 4100 lbs to a heavier 28 footer her motion was quite lively. But consistent with my earlier point, if you compared a Laser 28 to a shorter boat of similar displacement like a Cal 25, the Laser 28 was far more seakindly, had a much more comfortable motion, had a larger weight carrying capacity before speed was affected, and was a much faster boat.(The Laser 28''s actually have a pretty large capacity to carry a quite a bit of weight without losing speed.) 

Comparing the Laser 28 to the Cal 25(both or which I have spent a lot of time on often on back to back days) The Cal is a lot more rolly and the Laser seemed to have a slower roll rate (taller mast and deeper keel). The Cal is actually raced with more sail area than the Laser 28 and did not track as well. The Cal definitely pitches more violently. The Cal seems to heave more violently although that is probably a product of heave being largely controlled by wave size relative to boat length rather than overall displacement. In terms of heave, the forces of the waves are so great that weight typically changes the timing of the motion but not necessarily the amplitude or accelleration.

Jeff


----------

