# Avoid Spade Rudders?



## Elijah on the Water (Jul 21, 2020)

I'm new to big boat sailing and looking for a bluewater, family cruiser. We will start on the great lakes and hopefully one day explore Eastern Canada and the Caribbean. 

A skeg mounted rudder seems like a smart way to go as it will be more durable, less prone to tangling or serious failure. However avoiding spade rudders eliminates a lot of boats that would otherwise work for us. I'm wondering what peoples experiences and opinions are about spade rudders. Do they get damaged that often? What about just carrying a backup emergency rudder? 

Thanks.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

I think you would be surprised at how weak many of the skegs are that hold rudders in place. Some of them are just for show. There is no general problem with spade rudders while cruising. Of course, the rudder must be constructed well and in good shape, but that is no different than any rudder configuration.

I guess you could carry a backup rudder, but that takes a lot of space, and you still need to get the boat in a position to swap it in. Better would be to have a way to steer the boat without a rudder if needed. However, loss of rudder is not a common failure. Funny, we have a friend who carries a backup rudder, and this is on a catamaran with two rudders! 

IMO, I'd actively seek a boat with a spade rudder over a full-keel or skeg, but that is because the boats that spade rudders are typically attached to are my type of cruising boat, and the others are not.

Mark


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I would not rule out a well constructed spade rudder. It would be nice, if the shaft tube extended above the water line, in the very unlikely event you broke it off. Stuff does happen to rudders, but just as likely to steering linkage, so rudder type isn't always the issue. Our autopilot steers independent of the helm linkage.

This is also a great vid on steering your boat, with a drogue.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

My spade rudder is 19 years old and has no damage etc. It is pretty easy to keep it this way by not running it into things


----------



## Skipper Jer (Aug 26, 2008)

Well, the spade rudder on our 25 foot Hunter did break off. BUT that was kinda my fault for grounding her too many times. I haven't ruled out spade rudders. I would want the shaft solid, and as mentioned before the tube to extend about the water line. Barring a solid shaft and it was an older boat and we had an extended trip coming up and she was on the hard I would reinforce the shaft by adding an internal sleeve that extended well into the rudder.


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

My Spade is 35 years young and never had an issue. It's been to Bermuda, Maine, Florida etc. Don't hit stuff is a good philosophy. I have replaced the quadrants and the cables etc over the years. The Rudder itself has held up.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

I've hit a whale, a tree, a 5 mile long fishing net and a container, just to mention just a few things that are out there, and I wouldn't be comfortable on a boat with a spade rudder offshore. I prefer a full skeg or keel hung.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Did you hit those with your rudder or your keel? We've hit a couple of things like a log and a manatee, and they just hit the keel and either rolled away from the boat or rolled deeper past the rudder. Keels do a good job of protecting rudders, although I guess that is highly dependent on the particular design and implementation.

Mark


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

The spade rudder on my boat is 34 years old. I maintain it, and have never had a problem with it. Maintaining it consists of draining (siphoning, actually) the water that collects in the rudder post, a stainless steel tube, every fall after haul out.



> We will start on the great lakes and hopefully one day explore Eastern Canada and the Caribbean.


What you plan to do would be considered by many to be coastal cruising.

Here is a video that was made by the GM of my old marina on how HE could steer his boat with a Galerider drogue; 




I understand that he actually drove his boat through Newport Harbor with the drogue as his only steering control.


----------



## Lazerbrains (Oct 25, 2015)

For offshore use (as described by op), I certainly prefer keel-hung, transom hung, or skeg hung. Loss of steering is the number one cause of ship abandonment at sea. With these type of designs you have a better chance of keeping your rudder, IMHO (I also prefer internal ballast over bolted keels for similar reasons, but I am conservative in this regard). I know of many sailors who are fine with spade rudders for passagemaking as well - you really have to decide your own comfort level.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

I always wonder about the "offshore" thing as to why people think that is MORE dangerous than close to shore/coast. To me "offshore" is safe water!!!!!! Near shore has shoals/boats/rocks/floating crap/short steep waves/changing wind directions and all kinds of dangers.

Everyone has to decide for themselves if the extra 0.01% chance of boat loss due to the rudder being a spade rudder is worth the 100% time loss of better handling and control it provides.


----------



## Lazerbrains (Oct 25, 2015)

Totally agree with you - the worst conditions I have ever experienced were near shore. However, I would much prefer to lose a rudder near shore where I can contact coast guard if need be, instead of 1000 miles offshore. As for the "better handling and control" of a spade rudder - offshore is not the same as racing with constant tacks and jibes - you are typically on the same tack and wind direction for weeks at a time - keel hung or skeg hung rudders provide better tracking in this situation, whereas a spade rudder can become more "squirrelly" with it's quicker response - makes it harder on autopilots and crew as it needs more attention.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Lazerbrains said:


> makes it harder on autopilots and crew as it needs more attention.


I would say this could be true for a windvane (I don't know), but not for an electronic autopilot. A spade rudder does not load up like an unbalanced rudder, and a boat quicker to react to steering is much safer in heavy following seas.

Autopilots will always work best (and with least electrical consumption and forces on the system) with the lightest and most responsive steering.

I would like to see data that support the number one cause of abandoning ships at sea are steering issues, as well as how much of those are because of spade rudders themselves. I could believe the steering issue part in general, but that includes so many other things besides the design of the rudder blade - most of which are shared with skeg, keel, and free rudder designs.

Mark


----------



## Lazerbrains (Oct 25, 2015)

"A spade rudder does not load up like an unbalanced rudder, and a boat quicker to react to steering is much safer in heavy following seas."

Running in big following seas is probably the worst situation in which I would want a spade rudder. I ran in a strong gale (F9) for 12 hours last year in 12-15' breaking seas with a fast period in a modified full-keel 30' boat and can attest to the virtues of the design in such a situation. When I finally got to a point where I could make safe harbor the winds had died down to the mid 20's, but the seas were still large and fast, although no longer cresting. I had to time the waves to make the entrance, and the long keel kept me on track into the harbor. The next morning I saw this spade-ruddered boat who had tried the same entrance that night and not been able to do it.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Lazerbrains said:


> "A spade rudder does not load up like an unbalanced rudder, and a boat quicker to react to steering is much safer in heavy following seas."
> 
> Running in big following seas is probably the worst situation in which I would want a spade rudder. I ran in a strong gale (F9) for 12 hours last year in 12-15' breaking seas with a fast period in a modified full-keel 30' boat and can attest to the virtues of the design in such a situation.


Have you done so with a good spade rudder design? Again, a lighter helm and quicker response is better for an autopilot, and performs better under autopilot. By extension, it is the same for hand steering. Broaching is a problem for boats that don't respond fast enough running in heavy seas - either because the rudder can't turn the boat well, or because it is so loaded up it overcomes the effort to turn it. Both of those situations are least with a balanced spade rudder (leaving out the rest of the boat design, of course).

Mark


----------



## JimsCAL (May 23, 2007)

I am becoming convinced the OP is going to analyze this boat selection to death, finally buy something, and after living with a short time, learn that all the things he agonized about are not really that important. And there are lots of things he never considered that will be on his list for the next boat.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

Heck .......... backspaced and deleted it all because decided wasn't important to “win”


----------



## Lazerbrains (Oct 25, 2015)

colemj said:


> Have you done so with a good spade rudder design? Again, a lighter helm and quicker response is better for an autopilot, and performs better under autopilot. By extension, it is the same for hand steering. Broaching is a problem for boats that don't respond fast enough running in heavy seas - either because the rudder can't turn the boat well, or because it is so loaded up it overcomes the effort to turn it. Both of those situations are least with a balanced spade rudder (leaving out the rest of the boat design, of course).
> 
> Mark


ok


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

I am sure personal preference plays a factor. I am partial to balanced or semi balanced rudder. Takes less steering input/strength/mechanical advantage to steer, which results in not only easier handling but probably less strain on the steering system as well.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Lazerbrains said:


> "A spade rudder does not load up like an unbalanced rudder, and a boat quicker to react to steering is much safer in heavy following seas."
> 
> Running in big following seas is probably the worst situation in which I would want a spade rudder. I ran in a strong gale (F9) for 12 hours last year in 12-15' breaking seas with a fast period in a modified full-keel 30' boat and can attest to the virtues of the design in such a situation. When I finally got to a point where I could make safe harbor the winds had died down to the mid 20's, but the seas were still large and fast, although no longer cresting. I had to time the waves to make the entrance, and the long keel kept me on track into the harbor. The next morning I saw this spade-ruddered boat who had tried the same entrance that night and not been able to do it.
> 
> View attachment 136523


So this picture and text were added later and not part of the original message.

Your argument is specious and illogical. The rudder design made one boat stand offshore until things were better in daylight, and made the other boat attempt it at night in worse weather? And the rudder alone was the reason this boat came to grief? Shall I show you pictures of full keeled boats that have come to grief, and insist it was the keel-hung rudder that was the cause?

Good grief...

Mark


----------



## Lazerbrains (Oct 25, 2015)

Mark, I don't want to argue with you, just relaying my experiences that I have firsthand knowledge of. Both boats had gone through during the same night - I never said the spade rudder caused other boat to crash, please re-read what I wrote. For all I know he was a bad skipper. Editing was for misspellings and to add the photo. Please chill and be respectful - I'm just sharing what I learned from an actual experience.


----------



## Lazerbrains (Oct 25, 2015)

Arcb said:


> I am sure personal preference plays a factor. I am partial to balanced or semi balanced rudder. Takes less steering input/strength/mechanical advantage to steer, which results in not only easier handling but probably less strain on the steering system as well.


I do remember reading Bob Perry writing about this at one point - he said that with following seas, spade rudders have "bending forces" exerted on them, whereas skeg rudders have "twisting forces" exerted on them - he then went on to say that "bending forces" were much stronger forces. I'll see if I can find the quote.....


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

Elijah on the Water said:


> I'm new to big boat sailing and looking for a bluewater, family cruiser. We will start on the great lakes and hopefully one day explore Eastern Canada and the Caribbean.
> 
> A skeg mounted rudder seems like a smart way to go as it will be more durable, less prone to tangling or serious failure. However avoiding spade rudders eliminates a lot of boats that would otherwise work for us. I'm wondering what peoples experiences and opinions are about spade rudders. Do they get damaged that often? What about just carrying a backup emergency rudder?
> 
> Thanks.


Spade vs skeg rudders is one of those subjects, like best anchors and full keel vs fin keel, that is always divisive. They both have their place, and they both have their strengths and weaknesses. Boats are all about compromises.

What you are talking about doing is not really "bluewater cruising", you are talking about coastal cruising. That means you will likely be doing a lot more tight maneuvering and backing up in marinas and anchorages than the typical bluewater cruiser might. Don't discount the benefits of a spade rudder and the extra maneuverability they offer. There is a reason they are so popular, and so common on modern designs. I am sitting in an anchorage right now and looking around I would guess maybe 80% of the boats I can see have spade rudders and fin keels.

I don't know what the statistics are regarding rudder failures, but I would guess they are fairly rare. Certainly I have heard of rudders breaking off due to corroded rudder posts or compromised structure, but skeg or keel hung rudders arent immune to failures either. If you are that concerned you can always devise an emergency steering device, but odds are you will never need it.

Don't let that one design feature distract you. There are many thousands of boats with spade rudders cruising waters all over the world.

Find the boat that suits your needs right now, not the one you think you may want years down the road. I guarantee you once you get out there your priorities will change and evolve.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Lazerbrains said:


> Both boats had gone through during the same night - I never said the spade rudder caused other boat to crash, please re-read what I wrote.


I did read what you wrote, which is why I responded. You stated that you got through the entrance because of your keel, but that the spade rudder boat couldn't make it and came to grief. Why would you make that distinction if you didn't mean to imply it? Why would it even be in a post about spade rudders?

No sails, no running rigging, no winches, no cleats, no hatches, no deck hardware, and broken into small pieces - that boat got pretty stripped and broken up in just the supposed couple of hours since it came to grief...

Mark


----------



## Lazerbrains (Oct 25, 2015)

Mark, I see you desperately want someone to argue with. I do hope your life gets happier than it obviously is now. Peace


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

The easiest decision I have made yet in all this analysis (like Elijah, also seeking first boat) is that my 'spare rudder' will be a windvane autopilot.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

There is a difference between argument and debate. The OP asked for opinions and experiences, and deserves reasoned ones. You have resorted to ad hominem, not debate.

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Rush2112 said:


> The easiest decision I have made yet in all this analysis (like Elijah, also seeking first boat) is that my 'spare rudder' will be a windvane autopilot.


Not all fill that need, so research carefully for one that does.

Mark


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Lazerbrains said:


> Running in big following seas is probably the worst situation in which I would want a spade rudder.


I have read more than one blog now of experienced sailors saying a full keel with attached rudder is far superior when running downwind in strong following seas. And a long keel with a skeg attached rudder (assuming a quality built boat of course) is also a big advantage in this situation. One guy said he was literally 'surfing' down the waves, and his short fin keel and spade rudder had him careening left and right and taking every ounce of his energy to keep it just pointed straight, and he was praying to all that's holy that he could just have his long keel and directional stability back.

I'm personally not experienced in such situations, but his argument was pretty compelling.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Like Shock said you can find “truths” on which ever side you have an opinion on. It’s an age old debate.

having sailed both,it’s the captain who controls the boat. No one should be “ careening wildly while surfing waves”.That story represents an out of control captain no an out of control boat


----------



## overbored (Oct 8, 2010)

I was waiting to see if someone was going to win this debate but i don't think so. well the wind is up so I guess I will take my transom hung rudder out for a sail and see if it stays on the boat. Oh thats right I have two rudders so no big deal if I lose one.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

chef2sail said:


> Like Shock said you can find "truths" on which ever side you have an opinion on. It's an age old debate.
> 
> having sailed both,it's the captain who controls the boat. No one should be " careening wildly while surfing waves".That story represents an out of control captain no an out of control boat


Hmm, I'm not so sure that the captain or the boat was technically 'out of control'.

The point he was making was that under the right conditions, the directional stability of a full keel with attached rudder can be quite an advantage. My point in posting the anecdote was simply that it coincided with Lazerbrains mentioning sailing downwind with a strong following sea.

I've also read that for cruising the extra directional stability of the full keel setup can put a bit less strain, and energy usage on the autohelm.

For the record, I'm probably not going for a full keel at this point, as most novice accidents (they say) are statistically in negotiating marinas. For now I'll probably go with a long-ish keel, and full skeg hung rudder, sort of a happy medium it seems. When I start out on the North Sea and doing distance cruising in earnest (most likely a good year or two away), I'll seriously consider switching over.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

overbored said:


> Oh thats right I have two rudders so no big deal if I lose one.


You have dual transom hung rudders? Or do you mean you have a spare rudder around?

One benefit of a catamaran is always having a spare rudder in place ready for use. 

That's only half tongue in cheek. We were on a downwind passage once with 35-40kt winds and 10-12' seas surfing right along at 8-10kts all day and night under autopilot. The autopilot directly drives one rudder, and the rudders are not connected by a solid bar. It wasn't until the end of the passage as we entered a bay and I turned off the AP that I found out the steering system was completely disconnected and we had no steering. The cable had jumped the quadrant.

The boat was steered on only one rudder the whole time under autopilot, and we didn't even notice because the boat handling didn't change. I guess the other rudder just streamed along because it would have been noticeable if it stalled.

Mark


----------



## john61ct (Jan 23, 2017)

Don L said:


> To me "offshore" is safe water!


I think with true "blue water" offshore, actually crossing oceans and even attempting circumnavigation

the danger factor isn't so much in from being far from land

but in travelling over a greater portion of our planet, that you would be encountering a much greater variety of hazards, and a higher percentage them of them unexpected and novel to you.

As opposed to the more familiar well traveled coastlines where so many other sailors can give you preventative tips.



capta said:


> I've hit a whale, a tree, a 5 mile long fishing net and a container, just to mention just a few things that are out there, and I wouldn't be comfortable on a boat with a spade rudder offshore. I prefer a full skeg or keel hung.


Besides the above, coral reefs are apparently another good reason for a more protective design.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

It is 2020! Isn't it about time sailors at least started thinking like it is 2000 instead of the 1970s? Maybe if people stopped reading “how to” and “what kind of boat” boats written in the 70s & 80s they could experience more “modern” ideas and less 70s fear ones.


----------



## overbored (Oct 8, 2010)

colemj said:


> You have dual transom hung rudders? Or do you mean you have a spare rudder around?
> 
> One benefit of a catamaran is always having a spare rudder in place ready for use.
> 
> ...


two transom hung rudders like a Cat connected together by a solid rod. they are angled outboard so when the boat is healed one rudder is vertical in the water and the other is out of the water . rudder doesn't wash out and so no round ups


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

overbored said:


> two transom hung rudders like a Cat connected together by a solid rod. they are angled outboard so when the boat is healed one rudder is vertical in the water and the other is out of the water . rudder doesn't wash out and so no round ups


I just looked up a BF30. Not what I was expecting!

Mark


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Rush2112 said:


> Hmm, I'm not so sure that the captain or the boat was technically 'out of control'.
> 
> The point he was making was that under the right conditions, the directional stability of a full keel with attached rudder can be quite an advantage. My point in posting the anecdote was simply that it coincided with Lazerbrains mentioning sailing downwind with a strong following sea.
> 
> ...


Not sure I understand
You start the discussion and obviously by your posts favoring the full keel skew rudder by continuously using
Supporting examples
Now you decide to switch off to a longer but not full keel
And then in two years your going to sell and get a different boat. 
I'm confused


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

john61ct said:


> Besides the above, coral reefs are apparently another good reason for a more protective design.


It would indeed be some unusually bad luck and precise steering to miss a coral head with the keel but hit it with the rudder.

Would probably jam a skeg rudder and leave one without steering. A spade stands a better chance of bending a little but still usable to steer.

Mark


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Rush2112 said:


> I have read more than one blog now of experienced sailors saying a full keel with attached rudder is far superior when running downwind in strong following seas. And a long keel with a skeg attached rudder (assuming a quality built boat of course) is also a big advantage in this situation. One guy said he was literally 'surfing' down the waves, and his short fin keel and spade rudder had him careening left and right and taking every ounce of his energy to keep it just pointed straight, and he was praying to all that's holy that he could just have his long keel and directional stability back.
> 
> I'm personally not experienced in such situations, but his argument was pretty compelling.


 Here's what you wrote
*
"One guy said he was literally 'surfing' down the waves, and his short fin keel and spade rudder had him careening left and right and taking every ounce of his energy to keep it just pointed straight, and he was praying to all that's holy that he could just have his long keel and directional stability back."*

Sounds like out of control to me?


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Rush2112 said:


> I have read more than one blog now of experienced sailors saying a full keel with attached rudder is far superior when running downwind in strong following seas. And a long keel with a skeg attached rudder (assuming a quality built boat of course) is also a big advantage in this situation. One guy said he was literally 'surfing' down the waves, and his short fin keel and spade rudder had him careening left and right and taking every ounce of his energy to keep it just pointed straight, and he was praying to all that's holy that he could just have his long keel and directional stability back.
> 
> I'm personally not experienced in such situations, but his argument was pretty compelling.


Just because the boat had a spade rudder and fin keel, doesn't mean that is what was making the boat squirlley when surfing.

Other causes seem reasonably likely. Too much main, not enough headsail, excessive boat speed etc.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Rush2112 said:


> Hmm, I'm not so sure that the captain or the boat was technically 'out of control'.


By most definitions, he and it were. When things reach the point where the boat is surfing down waves "_careening left and right and taking every ounce of his energy to keep it just pointed straight, and he was praying_", then it is time to slow the boat down and regain control.

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Don L said:


> It is 2020! Isn't it about time sailors at least started thinking like it is 2000 instead of the 1970s? Maybe if people stopped reading "how to" and "what kind of boat" boats written in the 70s & 80s they could experience more "modern" ideas and less 70s fear ones.


You've hit upon something we were just discussing the past couple of days. It seems like a lot of new cruisers are still reading those 70's and 80's era books and slavishly following examples and information that is way out of date (if it ever was good advice). For sure, some of it is basic stuff always true, but much is now hogwash. But it seems there isn't much new stuff written, and Youtube has taken over. One might think that would fill the void, but from all appearances, most of youtube are people who just got into cruising and are spouting facts and dogma from the start. Probably in the past, one must have had to prove themselves to get a book published, but that certainly isn't true for spewing videos on the internet.

There are people in brand new catamarans reading these ancient books and soaking labels off cans and putting them in their bilges, searching for pots of bitumen, putting baggywrinkle on their rigging, worm parcel and serving lines, and all sorts of crazy old days stuff.

Then there are the old die-hard boat design bits of wisdom like discussed here. You can recognize them because they all start with "I'd NEVER have...".

This is getting dangerously close to circling around to a Smackdaddy blue water boat debate!

Mark


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

chef2sail said:


> Not sure I understand
> You start the discussion and obviously by your posts favoring the full keel skew rudder by continuously using
> Supporting examples
> Now you decide to switch off to a longer but not full keel
> ...


I don't favor anything really. I'm just posting arguments I've read for the sake of argument.
For me it's just all about learning. 
As far as selling yes- it has been advised to me to get an easier to maneuver 'starter boat', build my skills, then possibly upgrade to a more difficult to maneuver full keel boat for long distance cruising, North Sea, etc. It sounded like a good argument so I believe I will take that path.
Also I thought I would be heading straight out to the North Sea, now I'm sure I want a good deal of inland water experience first.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

I have never read any of those old “how to sail/cruise/what boat to buy” books. I am still trying to unlearn so much of the expert wisdom I learned on internet forums. I came to the forums with no sailing experience at all. I have now been on this and the other forum long enough to see newbies show up with “the questions” and progress to expert status.

This thread is a perfect example of the old school book fear


----------



## Steve Bateman (Aug 10, 2016)

Don L said:


> I always wonder about the "offshore" thing as to why people think that is MORE dangerous than close to shore/coast. To me "offshore" is safe water!!!!!! Near shore has shoals/boats/rocks/floating crap/short steep waves/changing wind directions and all kinds of dangers.
> 
> Everyone has to decide for themselves if the extra 0.01% chance of boat loss due to the rudder being a spade rudder is worth the 100% time loss of better handling and control it provides.


Guessing you haven't done many ocean passages then !


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

chef2sail said:


> Here's what you wrote
> 
> *"One guy said he was literally 'surfing' down the waves, and his short fin keel and spade rudder had him careening left and right and taking every ounce of his energy to keep it just pointed straight, and he was praying to all that's holy that he could just have his long keel and directional stability back."*
> 
> Sounds like out of control to me?


Well he did say 'careening' so- maybe you're not far off. Still I took it to mean he had his hands full, more than out of control. Anyway, he was definitely missing his full keel was the point. By the way he seemed to have a good reputation and nobody was challenging his skills, for whatever that's worth. In fact the discussion continued that he was right, full keels are more stable in that situation, esp in really big waves.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

Rush2112 said:


> I don't favor anything really. I'm just posting arguments I've read for the sake of argument.
> For me it's just all about learning.
> As far as selling yes- it has been advised to me to get an easier to maneuver 'starter boat', build my skills, then possibly upgrade to a more difficult to maneuver full keel boat for long distance cruising, North Sea, etc. It sounded like a good argument so I believe I will take that path.
> Also I thought I would be heading straight out to the North Sea, now I'm sure I want a good deal of inland water experience first.


"Starter" boats are for loser fear wimps. Then you add 40 year old out of date boats to your learned path. Why are you here as you must have a book?

But i wouldn't know anything being the wannabe dreamer I am.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

Steve Bateman said:


> Guessing you haven't done many ocean passages then !


Only in my bathtub oh mighty troll guru


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

colemj said:


> By most definitions, he and it were. When things reach the point where the boat is surfing down waves "_careening left and right and taking every ounce of his energy to keep it just pointed straight, and he was praying_", then it is time to slow the boat down and regain control.
> 
> Mark


By the sound of it, the situation was pretty heavy weather so I don't know what options he had really.
All I know is he was running downwind and had a strong following sea.
And by the way, his was not the only report I've read of this situation being an advantage for the directional stability of a full keel boat. Lazerbrain was at least the third time I've read that so I though it worth mentioning. It seems legit.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Don L said:


> "Starter" boats are for loser fear wimps. Then you add 40 year old out of date boats to your learned path. Why are you here as you must have a book?
> 
> But i wouldn't know anything being the wannabe dreamer I am.


I guess you are a dreamer... if you've never heard of a BUDGET.
But hey, I'm just a working class guy, so I guess I should just give up and go read a book.


----------



## Steve Bateman (Aug 10, 2016)

Don L said:


> Only in my bathtub oh mighty troll guru


Mainly refering to the amount of large debris out there Bath tub man.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

Dreamed my way from never sailing to full time cruiser. How is your dream working out?

You want to know how to budget wreck your dream? Waste money and time 
buying, maintaining, and selling “starter” boats.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Don L said:


> I have never read any of those old "how to sail/cruise/what boat to buy" books. I am still trying to unlearn so much of the expert wisdom I learned on internet forums. I came to the forums with no sailing experience at all. I have now been on this and the other forum long enough to see newbies show up with "the questions" and progress to expert status.
> 
> This thread is a perfect example of the old school book fear


Well first off I haven't read any books about sailing, everything I've learned has been from chatting with people, and reading blogs of experienced circumnavigators.

And I've actually learned a lot on the forums from helpful people.
I learned that I don't necessarily need a full keel boat, not right now.
I learned that its better to buy a well maintained boat that someone has put investments into than to buy a junker and fix it up.
I learned that marinas are a major challenge for novice sailors, and a good handling smaller boat may be better to learn on.
And I got steered away from the Moody's and toward the Contests, and I'm pretty confident that I'll find a good first boat that will be a good fit for me.
In the meantime I'm sailing rental boats on the inland waters, and enjoying it.
So my dream is going just fine, thank you very much!


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Arcb said:


> Just because the boat had a spade rudder and fin keel, doesn't mean that is what was making the boat squirlley when surfing.
> 
> Other causes seem reasonably likely. Too much main, not enough headsail, excessive boat speed etc.


Fair enough. Like I said I'm just relaying on some experiences I've read.
So would you say that full keel boats don't actually provide more directional stability?
I wonder why I keep hearing about it specifically in the context of "running downwind with a strong following sea".
And in the context of less work for the autopilot.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Rush2112 said:


> Fair enough. Like I said I'm just relaying on some experiences I've read.
> So would you say that full keel boats don't actually provide more directional stability?
> I wonder why I keep hearing about it specifically in the context of "running downwind with a strong following sea".
> And in the context of less work for the autopilot.


Some maybe. My last boat had a long keel with skeg hung rudder and she didn't have a lot of exceptional handling qualities.

She was a comfortable and affordable live aboard, but I don't remember her being anything special in a following sea and she took a fair amount of paying attention to handle in a marina.

Only 35 ft but had hydraulic steering to muscle the rudder around.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Arcb said:


> Some maybe. My last boat had a long keel with skeg hung rudder and she didn't have a lot of exceptional handling qualities.
> 
> She was a comfortable and affordable live aboard, but I don't remember her being anything special in a following sea and she took a fair amount of paying attention to handle in a marina.
> 
> ...


Hmm interesting that hydraulic steering was actually required.

The general shapes that I'm looking at now, might not even be what you consider 'long keel' they might just be normal:
32ft








34ft


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Rush2112 said:


> Fair enough. Like I said I'm just relaying on some experiences I've read.
> So would you say that full keel boats don't actually provide more directional stability?
> I wonder why I keep hearing about it specifically in the context of "running downwind with a strong following sea".
> And in the context of less work for the autopilot.


You've put to much faith in the directional stability of a full keel in large following seas. Here, directional stability can get you into trouble because the boat can broach before the autopilot can muscle it around. There is a reason why those old books spend so many words talking about preventing broaching and having to hand steer down wind in heavy seas because the windvanes and autopilots couldn't handle the boat. Arcb was being subtle when he described his hydraulics as being up to the task of muscling around his rudder.

Directional stability upwind for sure - that is why those old books revel in being able to lash the tiller and walk away for an hour to do some varnishing and splicing and sponging up water leaking in below. Helps here that they are slow also, so don't respond much to wind changes.

A lot of this is location. You appear to be in the North Sea, so you will be getting opinions mostly from people with full keel boats. Go down to France and you will meet a lot of people who think full keel boats are insane.

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Rush2112 said:


> The general shapes that I'm looking at now, might not even be what you consider 'long keel' they might just be normal:


I wouldn't consider those overly long, particularly the second one.

Mark


----------



## Elijah on the Water (Jul 21, 2020)

Wow, I think the easily bruised egos of some of the posters here may be more dangerous on the water than any type of rudder. 

Thanks for the helpful posts though. Having read this I will reconsider my views on spade rudders. But I will add that newer does not always equal better. Some design ideas become widely accepted for reasons other than safety.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Almost all my experience is with a deep fin (+/- 8' long) and a fully skegged rudder. My experience includes about 25-30,000 nm on offshore Atlantic passages. Coastal sailing I have had no "control issues" with a skeg rudder either. I have sailed hundreds of miles off the wind in large following seas. AP may not track perfectly straight, but a helmsmen can. I also have an enclosed prop shaft. I feel the skeg is stronger than a balanced spade and less vulnerable. For sure my rudder can't drop to the bottom of the sea as I believe spades can. I doubt my boat would perform better with a balanced spade rudder.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Don L said:


> "Starter" boats are for loser fear wimps. Then you add 40 year old out of date boats to your learned path. Why are you here as you must have a book?
> 
> But i wouldn't know anything being the wannabe dreamer I am.


Get up on the wrong side of the bed today did you??


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

I want to be clear

I 100% don't care want boat others ant or why. I do sometimes wonder why people feel the need to get a forum approval, especially when they only wanted to hear they were right. But even then i dont really care regardless of any reply i may have made.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Don L said:


> I want to be clear
> 
> I 100% don't care want boat others ant or why. I do sometimes wonder why people feel the need to get a forum approval, especially when they only wanted to hear they were right. But even then i dont really care regardless of any reply i may have made.


So then don't read it, or ignore it
Maybe OTHERS don't care to read the negativism.


----------



## Lazerbrains (Oct 25, 2015)

Looks like a Fantasia 35 - not exactly known for it's sailing qualities. Known more for wicked weather helm, yawing downwind, and can't point.



Arcb said:


> Some maybe. My last boat had a long keel with skeg hung rudder and she didn't have a lot of exceptional handling qualities.
> 
> She was a comfortable and affordable live aboard, but I don't remember her being anything special in a following sea and she took a fair amount of paying attention to handle in a marina.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

colemj said:


> You've put to much faith in the directional stability of a full keel in large following seas.


Well I'm not actually 'putting faith' into anything.
I've just seen some conflicting ideas and I'm trying to get to the bottom of it.
As I think the keel is a pretty important design consideration, and as it relates directly to the OP (Elijah's) question about rudders.

I think the most important thing is just to keep an open mind and listen to all reasonable responses- you never know when you'll learn something 



colemj said:


> Here, directional stability can get you into trouble because the boat can broach before the autopilot can muscle it around. There is a reason why those old books spend so many words talking about preventing broaching and having to hand steer down wind in heavy seas because the windvanes and autopilots couldn't handle the boat. Arcb was being subtle when he described his hydraulics as being up to the task of muscling around his rudder.
> 
> Directional stability upwind for sure - that is why those old books revel in being able to lash the tiller and walk away for an hour to do some varnishing and splicing and sponging up water leaking in below. Helps here that they are slow also, so don't respond much to wind changes.
> 
> ...


Well those are some interesting points to consider- thank you for your response.
Perhaps there is no 'best' fin and keel setup, maybe it's just what's best for you ;-)


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Elijah on the Water said:


> But I will add that newer does not always equal better. Some design ideas become widely accepted for reasons other than safety.


Yeah, I've read from a number of 'old sea dogs' that they actually prefer the 70s to mid 80s fiberglass as they built them so thick and strong. Then later learned they could get away with a lot less and save a bunch of money. The Contests I'm looking at now allegedly have 3 inches (!) of fiberglass on the bottom, with extra reinforcement for the fin and skeg. Yes please, I'll have some of that ;-)


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Lazerbrains said:


> Known more for wicked weather helm, yawing downwind


Exactly the attributes that Rush's unnamed skipper is attributing to all fin keel/spade rudder boats. Strange right?


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Arcb said:


> Exactly the attributes that Rush's unnamed skipper is attributing to all fin keel/spade rudder boats. Strange right?


Casting shadows of doubt on 'my unnamed skipper' as though he's a spy on my personal paylist.
You by the way are an unnamed skipper. Just saying...
And implying the whole criticism is just dubious. I think you are going just a little bit too far.
Especially when you say 'all' fin keel/spade rudder boats... I don't recall using the word 'all'. If there is a concern with certain general design, it doesn't mean they 'all' have the problem, or at least to the same extent. 
Just that it's something to consider with that design, is all I'm suggesting.

What's 'strange', really, is how the term 'running downwind in a strong following sea' has come up several times with associated criticisms of fin keels and spade rudders stability! That really is strange. What a precise phrase to use!

'Running downwind in a strong following sea' is certainly not 'my' term, before I looked it up (after reading this criticism) I literally had no idea what it meant, and I would never have made it up if I tried. And I have literally only ever heard the term in the context of this specific criticism. Then I hear literally exactly the same thing quoted yet again, on this site in this thread, AND by somebody offering the same conclusion. 
Now THAT is a 'strange' coincidence!

Anyway, there are no circumnavigating bloggers on my payroll


----------



## JimsCAL (May 23, 2007)

Rush2112 said:


> Yeah, I've read from a number of 'old sea dogs' that they actually prefer the 70s to mid 80s fiberglass as they built them so thick and strong. Then later learned they could get away with a lot less and save a bunch of money. The Contests I'm looking at now allegedly have 3 inches (!) of fiberglass on the bottom, with extra reinforcement for the fin and skeg. Yes please, I'll have some of that ;-)


It's not quite as simple as that. In the early days of fiberglass construction, they didn't know a lot about how to build a strong laminate, so they just used more material. Newer boats may be just as strong (or stronger) and with less dead weight to haul around. Better engineering.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Rush2112 said:


> Yeah, I've read from a number of 'old sea dogs' that they actually prefer the 70s to mid 80s fiberglass as they built them so thick and strong. Then later learned they could get away with a lot less and save a bunch of money. The Contests I'm looking at now allegedly have 3 inches (!) of fiberglass on the bottom, with extra reinforcement for the fin and skeg. Yes please, I'll have some of that ;-)


I think you are experiencing the problem with old sea dogs.

Many of the "thick and strong" boats from the earlier days were not actually so. Thick fiberglass does not equate to strength, particularly if the resin ratios and types of glass used aren't good (and few of them were).

Boats not made with thick glass are often much stronger and better built. Coring is expensive, as is the directional glass, and vacuum bag techniques, so this type of build is not based on cost savings.

While it is possible there is 3" of glass on a Contest around the keel root/stub, I doubt the hull itself is that thick - Contest knew what they were doing and had good engineering and build practices. If it was, I'd run away from it, not toward it.

Mark


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

JimsCAL said:


> It's not quite as simple as that. In the early days of fiberglass construction, they didn't know a lot about how to build a strong laminate, so they just used more material. Newer boats may be just as strong (or stronger) and with less dead weight to haul around. Better engineering.


Fair enough.


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

Rush2112 said:


> .....
> 'Running downwind in a strong following sea' is certainly not 'my' term, before I looked it up (after reading this criticism) I literally had no idea what it meant, and I would never have made it up if I tried......


Point of sail...and sea conditions
Very common terms
Some might say 'running before the wind'

Youre seeing a puzzle, thinking you will solve it


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

colemj said:


> I think you are experiencing the problem with old sea dogs.
> 
> Mark


I see your points of technology and improvement and all, but I'm not sure all old sea dogs like old things just because they're old school. Sometimes its because they are tried and true, and from experience, and reputation.

I get your points though. Also some older boats like the Camper & Nicholson 38 have a reputation for osmosis issues, while others like the Sparkman & Stephens and Contests have little such problems at all, and are reputed to be built like tanks.

Also I actually like the extra weight, especially if it is associated with durability, and a higher stiffness and comfort ratio.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Rush2112 said:


> What's 'strange', really, is how the term 'running downwind in a strong following sea' has come up several times with associated criticisms of fin keels and spade rudders stability! That really is strange. What a precise phrase to use!
> 
> 'Running downwind in a strong following sea' is certainly not 'my' term, before I looked it up (after reading this criticism) I literally had no idea what it meant, and I would never have made it up if I tried. And I have literally only ever heard the term in the context of this specific criticism. Then I hear literally exactly the same thing quoted yet again, on this site in this thread, AND by somebody offering the same conclusion.
> Now THAT is a 'strange' coincidence!


Is it possible the coincidence is that this term is used by people with full-keeled boats who have never sailed modern designs in those conditions? Or perhaps sailed a few bad old IOR-type designs?

Otherwise, you probably aren't hearing this stuff from people in modern design boats. You won't hear it from the Dashews. Nor from anyone on a Swan. Perry doesn't worry about it with his designs. The only people talking about it are on full keeled boats worrying about broaching or having to hand steer because the AP is overloaded - and convinced it would be worse on another type of boat.

I owned a 40' full keeled boat for 11years, read all of the books, and like you, knew I needed a long keel and attached/skeg rudder for serious cruising. Along the way to a cruising life, I started sailing other more modern boats and found out they are much more of a delight in all conditions. There are good and bad designs on both sides, but overall, a full keel and barn door unbalanced rudder is simply fighting you when you least need it to. The one thing that helps them is that they are so slow. If they had the speed of a more modern boat in those conditions, they would be downright uncontrollable.

Consider the Southern Ocean racing boats. The fin keels and spade rudders are not just for speed - they need precise control and the ability to use an autopilot under extreme running downwind in strong following seas.

Mark


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

RegisteredUser said:


> Point of sail...and sea conditions
> Very common terms
> Some might say 'running before the wind'
> 
> Youre seeing a puzzle, thinking you will solve it


No, just referencing a very specific condition. 
There are actually three variables here, not just one- two in the description, and one in the association to keel design.
'Running downwind in a strong following sea'


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Rush2112 said:


> I see your points of technology and improvement and all, but I'm not sure all old sea dogs like old things just because they're old school. Sometimes its because they are tried and true, and from experience, and reputation.


Keep in mind that in the late 60's and early 70's, the old sea dogs were bashing fiberglass boats as unfit and claiming only wood and steel is a suitable design for "blue water". Some never came around.

But keep in mind I'm a complete heretic. I'm sailing a daggerboard catamaran - no keels AND spade rudders (and a catamaran). Oh yeah, it has saildrives too. It's lucky I can survive a trip to the fuel dock...

Mark


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

colemj said:


> Is it possible the coincidence is that this term is used by people with full-keeled boats who have never sailed modern designs in those conditions? Or perhaps sailed a few bad old IOR-type designs?
> 
> Otherwise, you probably aren't hearing this stuff from people in modern design boats.
> 
> Mark


Well again fair enough. But then again, both the OP Elijah and myself are set at a 30K budget, so anything from the 90s up is pretty much out of our budget, so our options for fin keeled boats and spade rudders might not have these newest technologies that you talk about. In which case the argument is still valid.

Personally at this point I'm a lot more concerned with the rudder, and as SanderO has mentioned there are plenty of stories of spade rudders just dropping right off for no apparent reason at all. So I really like the idea of both a well designed, strong skeg hung rudder AND a windvane autohelm- which does have a little tiller and can be used in a pinch.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

colemj said:


> Keep in mind that in the late 60's and early 70's, the old sea dogs were bashing fiberglass boats as unfit and claiming only wood and steel is a suitable design for "blue water". Some never came around.
> 
> Mark


Yeah I can just hear them "Plastic?! Are you serious??!!"
LOL


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Rush2112 said:


> Well again fair enough. But then again, both the OP Elijah and myself are set at a 30K budget, so anything from the 90s up is pretty much out of our budget, so our options for fin keeled boats and spade rudders might not have these newest technologies that you talk about. In which case the argument is still valid.
> 
> Personally at this point I'm a lot more concerned with the rudder, and as SanderO has mentioned there are plenty of stories of spade rudders just dropping right off for no apparent reason at all. So I really like the idea of both a well designed, strong skeg hung rudder AND a windvane autohelm- which does have a little tiller and can be used in a pinch.


Yes, the debate here has been on design attributes only. Budget is not debatable, and choices are what they are. A full keel design chosen by budget is different than a full keel design chosen by a belief in a quality that may not exist.

I doubt there is a single case of a spade rudder falling off for no reason at all. They can break because they were not designed or maintained properly. However, attached rudders (and skegs) also fail for the same reasons.

Again, not all windvanes can act as rudders. Actually, I think they are the minority of the designs. So research carefully.

Mark


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Rush2112 said:


> You by the way are an unnamed skipper. Just saying...
> And implying the whole criticism is just dubious. I think you are going just a little bit too far.


Yes, I am unamed, but when I bought the boat I showed above, I was in the same boat as you with regards to wanting a liveaboard cruiser under $30k. However, I already had some experience and I was under no impression that the boats limitations made it better handling than a more modern design. It was just cheaper. It was more boat for the money, that's it. No more no less. Cheap because fewer sailors are willing to tolerate the idiosyncrasies.

And yes, I think the entire criticism is dubious. There might have been something to it 40 years ago, but boats have changed.

Btw, I have no bone in this. I have owned both fin and full keel boats, but I sail neither now and I don't think I would go back.

If I ever own a larger cruising boat again, it will in all likelihood be a catamaran.

*edit. Oh, and her shallow draft I considered to be a big plus as I frequently visit canals and shallow marinas. 4ft 10 inch draft. Not bad for a 24000 pound monohull.


----------



## Lazerbrains (Oct 25, 2015)

Arcb said:


> Exactly the attributes that Rush's unnamed skipper is attributing to all fin keel/spade rudder boats. Strange right?


Not really - the Fantasia 35 is one of the worst sailing boats designs I can think of. It makes a Westsail seem like a performance racer. It is a great boat for liveaboard though.


----------



## Interlude (Jun 16, 2016)

Our boat. If set up right she will steer herself with no hand on the wheel or autopilot engaged. I can turn her around in her own length in a marina, 4 foot draft, built in 1989. Works for us.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

That’s good. Not a full keel either. Very narrow beam.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Rush2112 said:


> Yeah, I've read from a number of 'old sea dogs' that they actually prefer the 70s to mid 80s fiberglass as they built them so thick and strong. Then later learned they could get away with a lot less and save a bunch of money. The Contests I'm looking at now allegedly have 3 inches (!) of fiberglass on the bottom, with extra reinforcement for the fin and skeg. Yes please, I'll have some of that ;-)


I don't know where you got that that from but with all due respect, every bit of that is inaccurate. The hulls on boats from the 70's and 80s were no thicker than they are on modern boats of the same length or displacement. Its just that the glass work from the 70's and 80's was generally inferior to the laminate of today. By an large, boats built in the 70's and 80's generally used resin rich laminates proportionately larger percentages of non-directional fabric, inferior fabrics and fabric handling techniques, and looser quality controls. Collectively those produced a laminate that was comparatively weak by modern standards and extremely prone to fatigue and puncture over time.

Similarly, I would be pretty confident that no builder would have 3" of fiberglass anywhere on a boat under 40-45 feet, especially in the 1970's and 1980's when we were still reeling from the impact of the fuel crisis. The heaviest laminates on boats of that era would be in the area of the keel where the fiberglass from either side of the boat would overlap. On a 40 footer with an encapsulated keel, that might approach 1 1/2 inches (38 mm) at the bottom of the keel encapsulation.

Properly constructed by the engineering standards of the day (and today for that matter), the skeg would have been molded with the hull, and then the aperture closed at the top. If very heavily done, that would result in roughly 1 1/2" thickness at the top of the skeg but only where the membrane joined the hull. Then internal framing consisting of transverse and longitudinal framing would occur above that adding at most 1/4" where the tabbing crossed the the edges of closure membrane. 3" of laminate would create a massive stress riser at its edges and would actually be a much weaker design that would accelerate fatigue in the already fatigue prone laminate.

As to Contests, my family owned a Contest in the 1960's and I have spent a lot of time on Contests over the years. It is true that at some point in the mid-to late 1980's Contest really upped its game in terms of build quality, but their older boats had lovely interior finishes coupled with a pretty poor build quality. My dad had to cut away and redo the keel encapsulation envelope and replace the transverse framing on our Contest where it has failed and become delaminated from the ballast keel. These were not heavily built boats. In fact, the appeal of the early Contests were that they were lightly built and so offered better performance.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Lazerbrains said:


> I do remember reading Bob Perry writing about this at one point - he said that with following seas, spade rudders have "bending forces" exerted on them, whereas skeg rudders have "twisting forces" exerted on them - he then went on to say that "bending forces" were much stronger forces. I'll see if I can find the quote.....


I believe that you are thinking of something I said in a discussion that included Bob Perry. The gist of that discussion was that in normal service the rudder posts on skeg hung and keel hung rudders tend to experience large much higher torsional forces than counterbalanced post-hung rudders and when fully supported by a skeg, experience almost no bending loads. Post hung rudder posts experience much higher bending loads but smaller but not insignificant torsional loads.

As the rest of that discussion continued, because the assumption is made that keel hung and skeg hung rudder posts do not experience bending forces, their rudder posts are generally designed with smaller safety factors and tend to smaller in diameter due to their smaller assumed loading. But those same assumptions mean that they are therefore more prone to torsional deflections and a greater propensity towards the associated fatigue. Beyond that, many skegs from the early spade rudder era were intended mainly as for hydrodynamic reasons (helping with directional control or to reduce weather helm) and were not really engineered to support the rudder meaning that the rudder was actually more vulnerable than a properly engineered post hung rudder.

That is not to say that post hung rudders are inherently stronger. They are not! But because of the higher bending loads, the rudder post and its support structure for a post hung rugger needs to be engineered for those higher service loads with higher safety factors to allow the rudder to survive in adverse non-standard service loads In other words construction quality control, and engineering needs to be more sophisticated and comprehensive on a post hung rudder. The good news is it is generally (but not always) the case that post-hung rudders do receive that extra engineering and care and so generally end up being as strong as most skeg-hung rudders.

But this gets down to the more nebulous issue. There is a tendency to talk about various yacht design features in black and white terms. But most the reality of the advantages and liabilities of any design element is likely to be far more nuanced and contain a whole lot of "yeah but's". The virtue or disadvantages of full keels, vs. fin keels, encapsulated vs bolt on keels, skeg hung vs post hung rudders are all subject to the "It all depends" rule. Because in the end, it comes down to how it was done on the specific boat in question, and not some oversimplified court of common wisdom conclusion.

Repectfully,
Jeff


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Jeff_H said:


> As to Contests, my family owned a Contest in the 1960's and I have spent a lot of time on Contests over the years. It is true that at some point in the mid-to late 1980's Contest really upped its game in terms of build quality, but their older boats had lovely interior finishes coupled with a pretty poor build quality. My dad had to cut away and redo the keel encapsulation envelope and replace the transverse framing on our Contest where it has failed and become delaminated from the ballast keel. These were not heavily built boats. In fact, the appeal of the early Contests were that they were lightly built and so offered better performance.


Interesting. I just looked up all the Contest models to make sure I wasn't confusing them with another brand. It appears the models I have some familiarity with are from the 90's, with one exception from the 80's. I didn't realize they were building boats in the late 50's. We have friends with a 48CS, which is a very nice boat.

Mark


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

I think right around the keel the layup can be as much as 3". I know it's at least 3 because I have installed thru hulls on the CL forward of the keel and to stbd just aft of the mast. It has no core in these areas... just solid GRP. This is a 1985 boat. The rest of the hull is balsa cored and about 3/4-1" thk OAL I can't speak for other Contests. Deck fittings and the like are mounted on areas of solid glass... no core.

The company began as a mfg plywood I believe and then went into boat building.


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

Jeff_H said:


> I believe that you are thinking of something I said in a discussion that included Bob Perry. The gist of that discussion was that in normal service the rudder posts on skeg hung and keel hung rudders tend to experience large much higher torsional forces than counterbalanced post-hung rudders and when fully supported by a skeg, experience almost no bending loads. Post hung rudder posts experience much higher bending loads but smaller but not insignificant torsional loads.
> 
> As the rest of that discussion continued, because the assumption is made that keel hung and skeg hung rudder posts do not experience bending forces, their rudder posts are generally designed with smaller safety factors and tend to smaller in diameter due to their smaller assumed loading. But those same assumptions mean that they are therefore more prone to torsional deflections and a greater propensity towards the associated fatigue. Beyond that, many skegs from the early spade rudder era were intended mainly as for hydrodynamic reasons (helping with directional control or to reduce weather helm) and were not really engineered to support the rudder meaning that the rudder was actually more vulnerable than a properly engineered post hung rudder.
> 
> ...


It should also be noted that Bob Perry has designed quite a few boats with spade rudders, which implies that he is not fundamentally opposed to them, just that different load dynamics need to be considered in their design and construction.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## Lazerbrains (Oct 25, 2015)

No Bob is not opposed to them at all - many of his designs were racers or daysailors, although his most famous cruiser boats all have skeg or keel hung rudders. The context was on a different forum, JeffH, but he was talking about when designing a spade rudder, the post and shaft need to be designed significantly larger than for a skeg hung (or presumably keel hung) because the bending force on a spade is far greater than the twisting forces exerted on skeg/keel hung. He also stated that spade shafts were more subject to work hardening due to the bending forces exerted on them. 

BTW, the earlier comments about using an autopilot in big following seas is ridiculous. Anyone who has been in those conditions knows that you do not sail in a straight line as an autopilot would - you make your way through each train of seas and active helming is essential, regardless of rudder type. I seriously doubt anyone making such statements has actually experienced such conditions.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Lazerbrains said:


> BTW, the earlier comments about using an autopilot in big following seas is ridiculous. Anyone who has been in those conditions knows that you do not sail in a straight line as an autopilot would - you make your way through each train of seas and active helming is essential, regardless of rudder type. I seriously doubt anyone making such statements has actually experienced such conditions.


I seriously doubt anyone questioning this ability has actually experienced the boat types and autopilots that allow one to do so.

Simple question: do you think all of those Southern Ocean racing boats barreling down huge waves at high speed are hand-steered full keels? In case you don't know, the answer is those boats are more highly responsive than most, and use autopilots available to recreational sailors.

Good modern autopilots do not steer as you suggest they do. Good modern boat designs do not behave as you ascribe to them.

Maybe I'm just lucky to have both?

Or maybe you are taking things to the extreme for your point, and are talking about outright survival conditions and not just a sporty ride into an entrance?

Mark


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Lazerbrains said:


> No Bob is not opposed to them at all - many of his designs were racers or daysailors, although his most famous cruiser boats all have skeg or keel hung rudders. The context was on a different forum, JeffH, but he was talking about when designing a spade rudder, the post and shaft need to be designed significantly larger than for a skeg hung (or presumably keel hung) because the bending force on a spade is far greater than the twisting forces exerted on skeg/keel hung. He also stated that spade shafts were more subject to work hardening due to the bending forces exerted on them.
> 
> BTW, the earlier comments about using an autopilot in big following seas is ridiculous. Anyone who has been in those conditions knows that you do not sail in a straight line as an autopilot would - you make your way through each train of seas and active helming is essential, regardless of rudder type. I seriously doubt anyone making such statements has actually experienced such conditions.


I think that you are partially correct and that part is in complete agreement with what I wrote above. It is absolutely true that _"designing a spade rudder, the post and shaft need to be designed significantly larger than for a skeg hung (or presumably keel hung) because the bending force on a spade is far greater than the twisting forces exerted on skeg/keel hung." _That is 100% correct. I said the same thing above and also in a conversation that Bob Perry was part of back around 2010 that is here on SailNet somewhere. And yes the rudder post on a post hung rudder absolutely needs to be more robust (larger diameter and more material) than a skeg hung or keel hung rudder. And as noted above, because the forces are greater, the engineering and construction needs to be done more carefully. But as result, post hung rudders (for cruising boats) are also typically engineered with much higher safety factors than would be used for a skeg hung or keel hung rudder.

Where you go off the track, is that because of the higher safety factors, post hung rudders are actually less prone to work hardening (fatigue) than rudder posts on keel or skeg hung rudders. .

Many of us have sailed in the kinds of heavy seas that you describe on a variety of boats. In the 1970's, I delivered a 1908 Herreschoff cutter from Savannah to St. Augustine at one point in waves that were well above the spreaders. There were big winds but we did not have a wind instrument. When we turned down wind we had to rig a block and tackle to the tiller to be able to steer adequately to avoid broaches. What would happen is that the wave would kick the transom around and the deep forefoot would dig in and the broach would start with the wave forces trying to spin the boat like a top around the forefoot of the boat. If you leaned into the helm you could slow the spin, if you failed, you rolled the cabin sides and part of the top of the boat into the water.

I sailed my Stadel Cutter in slightly more benign conditions, but had pretty much the same experience of the bow rooting and the boat fighting to broach. I cannot imagine a longer keel than Indian had.
Indian out of water jeff_halp, r

Similarly I have sailed post hung rudder boats in some pretty serious waves, and there is no doubt that the boat needed more frequent steering, but the loads were smaller and it was often a matter of a flick of the wrist more than a whole body leaned into a pennant on a block and tackle.

I contrast to a description that an acquaintance provided me of delivering a sister-ship of my boat from Capetown to Annapolis by way of the Caribbean to my experience with full keels in big waves.. Shortly after leaving Capetown, the winds built to 30 gusting to 50 knots and the seas built to near masthead height.. He spent the first 10 days in those conditions riding the storm north and west across the Atlantic. In those conditions, the boat was steered by the windvane for pretty much the whole passage. He described standing in the companionway looking aft though the plexiglass companionway slide at the wall of water overtaking the boat, the stern would start to rise, Near the crest the waves were breaking and would collide with the transom of the boat, but by then the boat was moving fast and the impact was minimal with just the top of the wave sending spume into the cockpit and against the bridge deck. He said that never touched the helm during this time, but would slide the hatch forward and poking his head around as he neared the crests of the wave looking for traffic, then slamming the hatch shut as each wave hit the stern. He said that the GPS showed a high speed at 16 knots which was back in the day when GPS's averaged every 30 seconds so who knows how fast he was really going.

He was on a sistership, but here is what my boat's keel and rudder looks like.
PIC00003 jeff_halp,
PIC00005 ,
And here is sailing double-handed down wind on day gusting to 27 knots:
[URL=https://flic.kr/p/2jhsnUs]
Poplar Island Race_Synergy at Finish Line 2020-06-27 by jeff_halp,

At that moment the helm was finger tip light but she did take some steering as she was surfing in the waves. (Which were only a little bigger than they look.)

The reality is that it is more about the design itself than some arbitrary preference for one the design features. Some boats with fin keel and spade rudders will sail themselves for days at a time. I owned a could of those. Some skeg hung rudders won't track at all.. Some full keels won't track for a moment. On the other hand, my nearly full keeled Folkboat would track miraculously seemingly forever..... my Stadel cutter, not on its life.
Jeff


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Jeff_H said:


> The hulls on boats from the 70's and 80s were no thicker than they are on modern boats of the same length or displacement.


Hmm, I'm not going to generalize to say 'all' but some of the better quality manufacturers definitely built their boats a bit thicker in those days. Holman & Pye, Camper & Nicholson, Van De Stadt, and Sparkman & Stephens were all known to build pretty thick 'tanks' in their day. Not to say everything made in the day adhered to the same quality!



Jeff_H said:


> Similarly, I would be pretty confident that no builder would have 3" of fiberglass anywhere on a boat under 40-45 feet, especially in the 1970's and 1980's when we were still reeling from the impact of the fuel crisis.


I'm not sure that it was the entire hull, in fact most likely not, just in certain extra reinforced areas. The point of course being that quality builders were conscious of the fact that they didn't yet have fiberglass fully understood or mastered, and often overbuilt boats to adhere to high quality standards.



Jeff_H said:


> As to Contests, my family owned a Contest in the 1960's and I have spent a lot of time on Contests over the years. It is true that at some point in the mid-to late 1980's Contest really upped its game in terms of build quality, but their older boats had lovely interior finishes coupled with a pretty poor build quality.
> 
> Respectfully,
> Jeff


Well I'm not sure which 'older boats' you're referring to but the Contest 31HT made from 72 to 80 has a fantastic reputation for seaworthiness and durability. The 36 made from 74 to 81 as well. The 32 made from 78-85 not quite so much, but then the 36s from 84 to 94 is practially legendary in its durability and build quality. So it really matters which ones you look at.

I've actually been chatting with Dick Zaal lately, who designed some of these early Contest boats, and he's been very helpful in seperating the wheat from the chaff, and there is definitely wheat out there! Some of these early boats really were built like tanks, you just have to be careful in picking which one ;-)


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I must admit that you are a veritable font of misinformation. Let's take it apart on error at a time.


Rush2112 said:


> Hmm, I'm not going to generalize to say 'all' but some of the better quality manufacturers definitely built their boats a bit thicker in those days. Holman & Pye, Camper & Nicholson, Van De Stadt, and Sparkman & Stephens were all known to build pretty thick 'tanks' in their day. Not to say everything made in the day adhered to the same quality!


To begin with, of these names Holman & Pye, Camper & Nicholson, Van De Stadt, and Sparkman & Stephens, only Camper & Nicholson actually built boats.

The other three were yacht designers. During the 1970's and 1980's these were designers of light weight race boats. There is no doubt that all three were some of the most sophisticated firms when it came to engineering capabilities for that era.

But since none of these firms actually built the boats they designed, the build quality of boats designed by these firms varied from very high quality to absolute scary junk. I have actually owned a Sparkman and Stephens design and a Van De Stadt from that era and sailed and worked on dozens of them. The 1972 S&S I owned was beautifully constructed and engineered, but the hull was thinner than the Kirby 25 race boat that I owned that was built a decade later and which no one would call a tank.

Van De Stadt did design some robust cruising boats and Dehler built some extremely high quality versions of Van De Stadt designs, but the majority of their production boats were purposely light weight and thin skinned by any standard, and that at a time when the resins and fabrics and laminating techniques weren't as good as what we get today.

In this era, Camper & Nicholson built light weight Holland designed race boats. If you want to learn something accurate about those boats read about the Fastnet disaster.

With the exception of Van De Stadt's cruising designs, not one of these designers or builders designed or had production built 'tanks' . They designed well engineered boats and that means as light weight as possible with structural framing in order to minimize hull thickness.



Rush2112 said:


> I'm not sure that it was the entire hull, in fact most likely not, just in certain extra reinforced areas. The point of course being that quality builders were conscious of the fact that they didn't yet have fiberglass fully understood or mastered, and often overbuilt boats to adhere to high quality standards.


You obviously know very little about yacht design or the history of yacht design. I was actually designing boats in the 1970's , and studied yacht design in the 1960's with a designer employed by Sparkman and Stephens. By the early 1950's the engineering properties of fiberglass was completely understood as a material. In the 1940's the US Government poured a fortune into researching fiberglass and Owen Corning had published a widely circulated engineering manual for engineering with fiberglass.

Designers knew that fiberglass had a lot of strength in bending but had very poor stiffness. Designers knew that fiberglass was very dense compared to wood or aluminum, so you could not get the same stiffness out of fiberglass without ending up with an incredibly heavy boat.

But those pioneering boat builders who were betting on fiberglass made a marketing decision not to have space robbing internal framing. So 1950's and 1960's era boats tended to have slightly thicker hull skins as a compromise between being obscenely heavy and being ridiculously flexible. From a design and engineering standpoint this was a lose-lose proposition.

To make matters worse, the extra thickness was achieved by bulking up the laminate with non-directional fabric and resin rich layups. These were especially fatigue prone laminates on flex prone boats. The brittle nature and sheer plain characteristics of non-directional fabrics in the laminate schedules of the day was also particularly weak in terms of puncture resistance.

Cutting to the chase, these boats started out weaker than properly constructed laminate and grew weaker more rapidly over time.

But by the late 1960's designers were aware that boats needed to get lighter and stiffer. In Europe, the Brits and shortly after the other Commonwealth countries, quickly adopted a system of building that employed a thinner skin and closely spaced glassed in framing. In the US coring began to become popular on the the higher quality boats. Higher volume production boats like Pearson, O'Day, Morgan, Cal, Columbia, Coronado etc. Simply went for a thinner skin. The sheer amount of flexure in those boats was scary.

But around that time, companies like Ericson and Beneteau began using 'force grids' which were molded framing systems that greatly stiffened these boats and was way less labor intensive than hand glassing on English frame systems.

The trouble with force grids is that the framing was glued in with polyester slurry which are prone to failure over time especially if used for distance cruising where the load cycle count goes way up over a boat used as a typical coastal cruiser. .

There were also changes in resin formulation during the 1970's which further reduced the long term strength of the laminate. The net result is that the 1970's and early 1980's was the low point in terms of hull thickness and hull strength. It was by no means a high point or even a mid-point. And these boats are now 40-50 years old, weakened by decades of use and abuse.

To better put this in perspective, if we look compare production 35 footers from the 1970's 
Pearson 35 disp.= 13000 lb ballast= 5400 lb weight without ballast= 7600 lb
Oday 34 disp.= 11500 lb ballast= 4600 lb weight without ballast= 6900 lb

to a current design like the Beneteau 35.1
Beneteau 35.1 disp.= 13150 lb ballast= 4740 lb weight without ballast= 8410 lb

While this is not an apples to apples comparason if you factor in the heavier engines and much heavier interiors of the 1970-80's and the greater surface area of a modern boat, but you should be able to understand that boats from the 1870's and 1980's just were not any more heavily constructed than boats of today. 
And while its true that the Contest 34 of that same era displaced 16,315 lbs, it had 7054 lbs in ballast weight, meaning that the remaining weight was 9261 lbs. While definitely heavier than the Beneteau, most of that weight difference came from the Bene being measured dry, vs the more popular half load weight of that era and was also contained in the lovely interiors fit out and heavy weight hardware that came standard with Contests of that era.



Rush2112 said:


> Well I'm not sure which 'older boats' you're referring to but the Contest 31HT made from 72 to 80 has a fantastic reputation for seaworthiness and durability. The 36 made from 74 to 81 as well. The 32 made from 78-85 not quite so much, but then the 36s from 84 to 94 is practially legendary in its durability and build quality. So it really matters which ones you look at.
> 
> I've actually been chatting with Dick Zaal lately, who designed some of these early Contest boats, and he's been very helpful in separating the wheat from the chaff, and there is definitely wheat out there! Some of these early boats really were built like tanks, you just have to be careful in picking which one ;-)


[/QUOTE]

I will start by agreeing with the point that you are raising that there were good boats out there from this period. That is very true. There were designers and builders who did an exceptional job of engineering and constructing boats during this era. There truly were stand out designs in almost any period. By and large those were designs which anticipated what yacht designers have learned from the 40 plus years of research that followed the Fastnet Disaster and in the 20 years of research that lead to the CE Standards for Recreation Watercraft.

Those boats were exceptional for reasons that your comments to not seem to understand and so you are likely to select a design based on your misunderstanding of these facts rather than a boat which actually makes sense for your ambitious plans.

When it comes to Contest, as a broad generality, Contest began by building boats which were very advanced designs from a hull form standpoint. They were pushing the leading edge of the day. They were quite light for the 50's and 60's and even into the early 1970's. The fit and finish on these boats was exceptional and their layouts were clever and comfortable for boats their size.

But these were lightly built boats and the glass work and engineering was typical of that era and not particularly well done when viewed by what we now know about the materials and methods of the day. Contest had nothing to be ashamed of in their boats from the era that you are talking about, but neither do they have bragging rights.I will acknowledge that by the mid-1980's the engineering and construction at Conyplex seemed to have made a giant leap forward, but the hull forms still had not progressed. Based on what we now know (or knew by the mid 1980's) about seaworthiness and motion comfort, these were no where near preferable offshore hull forms. A skilled and knowledgeable sailor could take a Contest of that era and make long passages. But a skilled and knowledgeable sailor probably would not pick a Contest of that era for what you want to do. My point here is that you are only looking for one boat, and it should be as good a boat as you can find for your budget.

Beyond that, I am not calling you out to pick on you. Frankly, my overarching point here and my respectfully submitted suggestion, is that you need to slow down, learn about boat construction so that you better understand why a boat under 40 feet with 3" of hull thickness (anywhere except a keel sump bottom on a bolt on keel) is more likely to be a weaker (relative to its loadings) boat than one that is properly engineered. You need to read up on current yacht design theory so you better understand hull forms and rigs.

This is advisable because there is a reason that a 35 foot boat would be priced below $30,000. 35 foot boats which benefit from better designs, better construction, and boats that are in good solid condition will generally be substantially more expensive than $30,000. Once you understand the design principles involved in producing a sturdy, durable boat that sails well, (i.e.offers superior seaworthiness, motion comfort, ease of handling under sail and motor, and therefore makes the best platform for what you are considering doing) then you can winnow out the exceptional from those which are a really bad idea.

Respectfully,
Jeff

P.S., If you don't mind being laughed at, next time you chat with Dick Zaal, ask him where on any of those models you named there is 80 mm of hull thickness. I would love to hear his answer.


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

I’ve had boats with a full keel and skeg hung rudders, but my only ‘spade’ rudder experience is in my Sunfish. So you can evaluate my opinion accordingly.

Full keel boats are really difficult to maneuver in close quarters and you can almost forget about backing up. I talked with a frustrated experienced sailor who couldn’t get his Mason 44 on a mooring in strong winds because he’d lose the ability to steer at slow speeds as he approached the pickup buoy and the strong winds would blow him off to one side or the other. Either a spade o skeg hung rudder with a fin keel would be able to be steered at slow speed in these conditions. In the tight quarters of a marina a full keel is very difficult to maneuver unless you have a bow thruster. But, I once was running downwind in my 35’ full keel boat and ran squarely into a telephone pole sized log at 6+ knots. I didn’t see it until it was already passing under the bow. But it did no damage, just rolled beneath the full length of my keel and popped up spinning behind me. I don’t even want to think about how such an encounter might have gone with either a skeg or spade rudder design. At a minimum, the prop would have been mangled and the skeg or spade possibly damaged. Along similar lines, I sail in Maine where it’s impossible to avoid all the lobster buoys and the pot warp leading up to them. For shedding them without a problem a full keel is best, a skeg hung rudder usually is fine, but the space between the top of a spade rudder and the hull is a magnet for these lines. If you get pot warp caught in there the line cutter on your prop shaft will do you no good and you will most likely need to go for a swim to free yourself. The cold water is no big deal for a hardy mariner but if you’ve never tried diving underneath a many ton boat as it moves around in 3’ seas, take my word for it that you don’t want to. It’s a very good way to be knocked senseless under water, which could bring a sudden halt to your sailing career.

my skeg hung rudders have both been on Perry designs and I find them to be very maneuverable and keep the boat controllable in all conditions I’ve encountered for over 20 years of sailing them. Only a few cases of really bad conditions, but I’ve never felt out of control. There’s no doubt that a spade rudder is more maneuverable in close quarters but a skeg isn’t a bad compromise. I can back my current boat in most conditions and can spin it in its own length using the bow thruster. But even without the bow thruster it’s surprising how tightly it can be turned once you get the hang of it. But there’s no question that a spade is more effective at close in maneuvering in tight spots.
There’s been several mentions regarding the lighter steering forces with a semi balanced spade and I don’t doubt that. But when I start to notice any significant steering force being necessary for any length of time beyond momentary that tells me I need to check my sail trim and balance things up so rudder displacement and the force required to hold it there is minimal. 
A quality boat with a spade rudder doesn’t just lose it for no reason. Usually there’s prior damage from a grounding that wasn’t properly investigated and repaired, or it wasn’t properly maintained. The same is true for skeg hung rudders. I know someone who was sailing his high quality boat with skeg hung rudder back to Maine from the Caribbean and he lost his skeg in mid ocean. The rudder dropped a few inches but the quadrant prevented him from losing the rudder and he continued to sail until safely ashore. I couldn’t understand how that could happen to a high quality boat until someone else I know told me he saw that boat up on the rocks the year prior where the skeg had likely been damaged and never properly repaired. Most spade rudder losses have a similar back story. 
I hope this has been a balanced discussion of some of the pros and cons of various rudder types that I’ve had experience with. Like I said up front I’ve never had a spade rudder on a cruising boat but I wouldn’t be afraid of getting one. The important thing is that the overall boat was properly designed and constructed no matter which type of rudder your boat has. So, just as you are, do your research and choose a quality boat designed by someone who is a top designer who set out to design a good cruising boat, not a racing rule beater because some of the compromises in those boats can become problematic in harsh conditions. Personally I’d stay away from full keels and would go with either a skeg hung or spade and would do my research to ensure I was getting a good example of either type. Good luck!


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Jeff_H said:


> I must admit that you are a veritable font of misinformation. Let's take it apart on error at a time.


How about let's start with not being a rude ass?
If you find an error, you're more than welcome to correct it, but on several occasions I've seen people on this thread attack others personally when it was totally uncalled for. It really isn't helpful in the process of learning which some of us are here for.



Jeff_H said:


> To begin with, of these names Holman & Pye, Camper & Nicholson, Van De Stadt, and Sparkman & Stephens, only Camper & Nicholson actually built boats.


I've read that the *Sparkman & Stephens 34*, specifically was actually built like a tank.
I've read that the *Holman & Pye Sovereign 35, *specifically was actually built like a tank.

Maybe the specific models you're referencing were of lesser quality?
Maybe the specific ones I read about were built by better higher quality builders?
All you had to say was "Build quality varied by specific model and individual builder" and leave it at that.
Instead of being dismissive of everything that I said, which I'm pretty sure actually does contain factual content.



Jeff_H said:


> Van De Stadt did design some robust cruising boats and Dehler built some extremely high quality versions of Van De Stadt designs, but the majority of their production boats were purposely light weight and thin skinned by any standard, and that at a time when the resins and fabrics and laminating techniques weren't as good as what we get today.


I have read that the *Van De Stadt 36 Excalibur, *specifically was built like a tank.

Again, all you had to say was "Build quality varied by..." and leave it at that.



Jeff_H said:


> With the exception of Van De Stadt's cruising designs, not one of these designers or builders designed or had built 'tanks' . They designed well engineered boats and that means as light weight as possible with structural framing in order to minimize hull thickness.


I've read that the *Camper & Nicholson 38,* specifically was built like a tank.

Again, all you had to say was 'racing boats were of quite a bit lesser durability where compromises were made for speed'. And BTW, (again I'm no expert!) but which of us on this specific point would have technically been more correct? This isn't a thread about racing boats! Both the OP and myself have made clear that we are looking for durable stable cruisers.



Jeff_H said:


> You obviously know nothing about yacht design or the history of yacht design.


Hey look, you have some interesting information, and its good to know of the variances in quality by design (race vs cruise) and by specific model and builder, but really man these kinds of comments just don't help anybody.

Technically I believe that the four boats I was referring to were built to very high standards of strength and durability.

But I have said several times that I am both a novice sailor and my knowledge is limited and mostly from reading forums and circumnavigator blogs. My profile literally says "I'm looking for my first boat".

I never pretended to be an expert. I read a lot. Fine, blame my parents. And just put my arguments, actually not even mine, but those that I've read from others out there, for the very purpose of being challenged. I have no problem with being wrong, it's a learning opportunity, to be corrected.

And It seems that you have conveyed a lot of potentially useful information.
But you make it difficult to actually learn anything from your post, when your tone is so abrasive.
It's actually hard to listen to someone who is screaming at you...
Just saying... I'm trying to listen, but please just tone it down a bit


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

Listen people, just let him get the boat that he thinks knows all about. What does anyone care really?


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

jtsailjt said:


> I've had boats with a full keel and skeg hung rudders, but my only 'spade' rudder experience is in my Sunfish. So you can evaluate my opinion accordingly...


Several people have made very helpful posts so far, but that was about the most balanced and comprehensive single post yet. Thank you very much for taking the time to detail the pros and cons of rudder types.

I am coming to the conclusion that after my first purchase which will likely be a Contest 34 or 36 with skeg rudder, when I feel ready to really go for some longer excursions across the North Sea or the Atlantic, I will still likely chose a full keel. And the main reason is durability (as you colorfully illustrated by literally plowing over a log) for both keel, which can literally never fall off, and especially for rudder and prop. I've been watching and reading a lot of blogs lately of circumnavigators and one of the biggest things they fear are floating debris, and poorly marked fisherman's gear, especially at night. With a full keel, most of the time it literally just passes under the boat, as you mention there is no space between fin and rudder for it to get caught. One solo sailor kept diving gear in case he had to go down there at sea to remove caught up gear. Not a situation I want to be in, ever! He also kept a waterproof go pro camera on a telescoping pole to check things out down below without actually having to go down there every time, which is the kind of gems I keep not of out of these stories ;-)

Anyway, thanks again for all of the balanced information!


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Rush2112 said:


> I've read that the *Camper & Nicholson 38,* specifically was built like a tank.
> 
> Again, all you had to say was 'racing boats were of quite a bit lesser durability where compromises were made for speed'. And BTW, (again I'm no expert!) but which of us on this specific point would have technically been more correct? This isn't a thread about racing boats! Both the OP and myself have made clear that we are looking for durable stable cruisers.


I don't think you fully comprehended Jeff_H's points. Built like a tank does not mean 3" of fiberglass everywhere. Thickness really has nothing to do with it. Even tanks aren't built like a tank in that sense.

Compromises are not made in racing boats for speed. Just the opposite, in fact. A Volvo ocean racer is built far stronger than your examples of "tanks". Production boats are where compromises in strength are made, as Jeff_H pointed out.

Cored construction, good resins, unwoven directional fibers, controlled resin/glass ratios, engineered bulkheads and stiffeners, etc are what make boats lighter and stronger. Glass thickness itself has almost nothing to do with strength or stability or durability - either sailing, or hitting things while sailing.

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Rush2112 said:


> Several people have made very helpful posts so far, but that was about the most balanced and comprehensive single post yet. Thank you very much for taking the time to detail the pros and cons of rudder types.
> 
> I am coming to the conclusion that after my first purchase which will likely be a Contest 34 or 36 with skeg rudder, when I feel ready to really go for some longer excursions across the North Sea or the Atlantic, I will still likely chose a full keel. And the main reason is durability (as you colorfully illustrated by literally plowing over a log) for both keel, which can literally never fall off, and especially for rudder and prop. I've been watching and reading a lot of blogs lately of circumnavigators and one of the biggest things they fear are floating debris, and poorly marked fisherman's gear, especially at night. With a full keel, most of the time it literally just passes under the boat, as you mention there is no space between fin and rudder for it to get caught. One solo sailor kept diving gear in case he had to go down there at sea to remove caught up gear. Not a situation I want to be in, ever! He also kept a waterproof go pro camera on a telescoping pole to check things out down below without actually having to go down there every time, which is the kind of gems I keep not of out of these stories ;-)
> 
> Anyway, thanks again for all of the balanced information!


Your choices are fine for you, but you need to realize that you are simultaneously assigning opposite attributes in your criteria. If you want a boat that handles well in following seas, it is a different type than one that has a lesser chance of catching a net. So if boat design choice is really a thing for you, you need to decide which risks are more acceptable.

FWIW, we've hit logs, manatees, and lobster and crab pots with a fin keel, spade rudder, and exposed saildrive boat. What happens is that the keel rolls the object deep or off to the side, and it pops up behind the boat. Yes, these types of boats have a higher chance of a problem with this stuff, but in 12yrs of full-time cruising in many places with logs, traps, nets, etc, our encounters of such things have been far, far fewer than the times when steering response and ability were crucial to the boat's well-being.

Mark


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

colemj said:


> I don't think you fully comprehended Jeff_H's points. Built like a tank does not mean 3" of fiberglass everywhere. Thickness really has nothing to do with it. Even tanks aren't built like a tank in that sense.
> 
> Compromises are not made in racing boats for speed. Just the opposite, in fact. A Volvo ocean racer is built far stronger than your examples of "tanks". Production boats are where compromises in strength are made, as Jeff_H pointed out.
> 
> ...


Again, you're comparing modern tech to the tech of the day. It really isn't fair to bring modern Volvos into a conversation someone looking for a 30K cruiser, which will almost necessarily be at least 30 years old. I believe that with what they had in the day, thicker was at least one of the primary means of stronger. And I never said the boats were all 3 inches thick back then, that was just one specific example of one location on one boat.

A lot of people today say avoid most cored construction from 30+ years ago as it can be extremely expensive and difficult to repair if a leak ever occurred. So again, for the budget on topic, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure cored is an 'improvement'.

I think what's getting lost is the stated goals and budget of the OP, which just happen to be pretty much the same as mine.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Rush2112 said:


> Again, you're comparing modern tech to the tech of the day. It really isn't fair to bring modern Volvos into a conversation someone looking for a 30K cruiser, which will almost necessarily be at least 30 years old. I believe that with what they had in the day, thicker was at least one of the primary means of stronger. And I never said the boats were all 3 inches thick back then, that was just one specific example of one location on one boat.
> 
> A lot of people today say avoid most cored construction from 30+ years ago as it can be extremely expensive and difficult to repair if a leak ever occurred. So again, for the budget on topic, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure cored is an 'improvement'.
> 
> I think what's getting lost is the stated goals and budget of the OP, which just happen to be pretty much the same as mine.


I personally wouldn't go with an old cored hull unless it was in very good shape, which seems unlikely at $30k for a large boat.
I also probably wouldn't go with a full keeled boat if I could find a comparable more modern design because for the most part the full keeled boat would likely be relatively heavy, slow, hard to maneuver, need bigger rigs to get them going and mostly pretty old.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Arcb said:


> I personally wouldn't go with an old cored hull unless it was in very good shape, which seems unlikely at $30k for a large boat.
> I also probably wouldn't go with a full keeled boat if I could find a comparable more modern design because for the most part the full keeled boat would likely be relatively heavy, slow, hard to maneuver, need bigger rigs to get them going and mostly pretty old.


Yeah, I can't speak for Elijah, but personally I only tolerate so much analysis until I need to make a decision and GO!
I'm fortunate enough to be able to live relatively close to the water. And every day I take a walk down and watch the sailboats go by. And though I'm rocking between a 34 and 36 footer, I see a 20 foot sailboat go by and I'm jealous 
I really think that just about anything that got me out on the water NOW would make me happy. The full keel is off the table for now at least. Skeg protection sounds like a good happy medium, and in a quality built boat (like a Contest) I should be mostly fine.

I'm being told to wait a couple months because after summer there are better deals on boats, but it's difficult to hold off!


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Rush2112 said:


> Yeah, I can't speak for Elijah, but personally I only tolerate so much analysis until I need to make a decision and GO!
> I'm fortunate enough to be able to live relatively close to the water. And every day I take a walk down and watch the sailboats go by. And though I'm rocking between a 34 and 36 footer, I see a 20 foot sailboat go by and I'm jealous
> I really think that just about anything that got me out on the water NOW would make me happy. The full keel is off the table for now at least. Skeg protection sounds like a good happy medium, and in a quality built boat (like a Contest) I should be mostly fine.
> 
> I'm being told to wait a couple months because after summer there are better deals on boats, but it's difficult to hold off!


~20 feet is the logical place to start, smaller loads, smaller costs and for the most part, people who never get small boat experience have a much slower learning curve because it's so much riskier to touch the limits of the boat on a 30+ ft boat. A boat you can capsize and right is probably the best learning tool because you can exceed the boats limits, bring it back and do it all again.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Rush2112 said:


> I believe that with what they had in the day, thicker was at least one of the primary means of stronger.


Again, this point is incorrect - even back then. A thin solid glass construction can be much stronger than a thick one - even back then. It is just a myth that fiberglass construction was not understood in the early days, so manufacturers simply slopped it on as overkill. They actually did so for cost and marketing reasons, not strength or robustness.

I would bet a donut that for two equivalent size and age solid glass boat hulls, the manufacturer using thinner glass probably understood and used proper fiberglass techniques, materials and supporting engineered components, and produced a stronger, more robust boat than the one simply using thick glass all around.

Some here seem to be contorting to keep their beliefs in certain things, even when an actual naval architect is telling them otherwise, and providing detailed explanations as for why.

I understand your budget, as well as that brings choices and compromises. We are all there at varying levels, because real rich people don't visit these forums. Some are trying to provide information to help you better make those choices and compromises - not steer you into a racing machine or out of your budget.

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Arcb said:


> A boat you can capsize and right is probably the best learning tool because you can exceed the boats limits, bring it back and do it all again.


He says he sails the North Sea area. Don't know if I'd want to be capsizing and righting a boat there!

Mark


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

colemj said:


> A thin solid glass construction can be much stronger than a thick one - even back then.


So then how do you dismiss the makers of the boats I've listed above, who built extra thick boats?

Sparkman & Stephens 34, Holman & Pye Sovereign 35, Van De Stadt 36 Excalibur, Camper & Nicholson 38.

These boats have extremely good if not legendary reputations for durability, and just happen to be extra thick.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Arcb said:


> I personally wouldn't go with an old cored hull unless it was in very good shape, which seems unlikely at $30k for a large boat.
> I also probably wouldn't go with a full keeled boat if I could find a comparable more modern design because for the most part the full keeled boat would likely be relatively heavy, slow, hard to maneuver, need bigger rigs to get them going and mostly pretty old.


The cored boat being unfit is a misnomer. A good conditioned cored boat 30 years old with no intrusion is no problem 
I have a 37 year old one with zero water intrusion issues, zero delamination issues. All materials put through the core MUST be done with care as they were done on Haleakula. Even the non Hull cored boats should beware that their topsides above the waterline probably also contain cored areas . Care must be taken when adding/ fixed equipment into those areas.

our coring contributes to Haleakulas stiffness, build quality, and sail ability.. yes of course if you want a cored boat take a close look as the surveyor should. It's only one factor in choosing a boat. And yes if it hasn't been taken care of properly, walk away

it gets tiring to hear people say....I'd never have a core boat....it's automatically disqualified and warn others they shouldn't buy one. They are missing out on some good boats.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Arcb said:


> ~20 feet is the logical place to start, smaller loads, smaller costs and for the most part, people who never get small boat experience have a much slower learning curve because it's so much riskier to touch the limits of the boat on a 30+ ft boat. A boat you can capsize and right is probably the best learning tool because you can exceed the boats limits, bring it back and do it all again.


That sounds about like our local rental boats that I've been learning on, they're about 5-7 meters.
See the larger blue ones in the background, that's our weekend baby. Love em. Not very fast but wide, stable, and really fun.





__





Boot huren op de Loosdrechtse en Vechtplassen


Wil je een boot huren om de Loosdrechtse en Vechtplassen op te gaan? Boek direct online je sloep, zeilboot, roeiboot, vlot, kano, sup of optimist!




www.ottenhome.nl


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

colemj said:


> He says he sails the North Sea area. Don't know if I'd want to be capsizing and righting a boat there!
> 
> Mark


Will be sailing the North Sea, will be.. for now its inland waters for training ;-)


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Rush2112 said:


> So then how do you dismiss the makers of the boats I've listed above, who built extra thick boats?
> 
> Sparkman & Stephens 34, Holman & Pye Sovereign 35, Van De Stadt 36 Excalibur, Camper & Nicholson 38.
> 
> These boats have extremely good if not legendary reputations for durability, and just happen to be extra thick.


Unless you are ascribing "extra thick" as another layer or two of laminate, I doubt they were built extra thick compared to other comparable boats from that time. I'm not going to do the research to find the scantlings of each, but so far your claim of such has only been anecdotal. I'd reconsider if you provide some real facts and comparisons.

It seems like the SS34 is still in production. Here is an interesting quote about them: "_Since 2004 a new generation of boats have been built using advanced construction materials and techniques. These newer boats use foam-sandwich construction, vinylester resins and multiaxial glass. They are 25% lighter, as well as being much stronger and stiffer, and exhibit better impact strength._" That kind of sums up the disadvantage of thick glass layup for the sake of it wrt cloth, resin, and engineering - heavier, weaker, and bendier.

It has been pointed out that only the C&N38 was actually built by the company using the name. The others were just the names of the designers. In fact, the SS34 has been produced by five different companies using whatever scantlings they independently decided to use. I wouldn't lump them all in the same boat.

Mark


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

colemj said:


> Unless you are ascribing "extra thick" as another layer or two of laminate, I doubt they were built extra thick compared to other comparable boats from that time. I'm not going to do the research to find the scantlings of each, but so far your claim of such has only been anecdotal. I'd reconsider if you provide some real facts and comparisons.


Well again, my research has been on forums and reading blogs so its just coming from people who are themselves purporting to be experts. I've tried looking up the data, but hull thickness is unfortunately not a hotlist item on early brochures. I mentioned it originally because it was just one of those things like 'directional stability' and durrability and rudder protection associated with full keels that is sited so many times and never (until now) challenged so I took it to be true.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Rush2112 said:


> How about let's start with not being a rude ass?
> If you find an error, you're more than welcome to correct it, but on several occasions I've seen people on this thread attack others personally when it was totally uncalled for. It really isn't helpful in the process of learning which some of us are here for.


For the record, I have not attacked you personally. I challenged the array of misconceptions that you are pumping out in great quantities. If you think that anyone is a rude ass who attempts to provide you with more accurate information than the erroneous concepts that you purport to have learned somewhere, then pretty much the majority of people that you meet must seem to be rude asses to you.

But that aside, I get that you are new to sailing. I understand that you have picked up snippets of information that you have stitched together to create your own perception of the strengths and weaknesses of various aspects of selecting a yacht. But reading your posts it is clear that you are describing a few small pieces of a very large puzzle and are seeming concluding with a near religious fervor that you know what the entire puzzle looks like.You don't.

None of us expect you, or anyone else for that matter, to come here knowing everything there is to know, and none of us claim to know everything there is to know. Most of us know that we all started out knowing nothing and learned over time. We understand that we would not know much of what we have learned if people did not generously corrected our misconceptions along the way. The SailNet Members who are responding to you and Elijah are trying to fill in some of the gaps between the puzzle pieces in your hand, and the broader view that comes from studying primary sources, and from many years of sailing experience. As I said in my original post. "I am not calling you out to pick on you. Frankly, my overarching point here and my respectfully submitted suggestion, is that you need to slow down, learn about boat construction so that you better understand why a boat under 40 feet with 3" of hull thickness (anywhere except a keel sump bottom on a bolt on keel) is more likely to be a weaker (relative to its loadings) than one that is properly engineered. You need to read up on current yacht design theory so you better understand hull forms and rigs."



Rush2112 said:


> This isn't a thread about racing boats! Both the OP and myself have made clear that we are looking for durable stable cruisers.


And this gets to why many of us are trying to provide you with more useful information than you currently have. We all get that you are trying to buy a durable stable cruiser and we are trying to steer you that way. But you keep listing boats that began life as race boats and which have had their seaworthiness, motion comfort, carrying capacity, ease of handling, and structural capabilities (in some cases severely) compromised in order to trick some racing rule into making them the winning boat.

Which brings us to these four boats which are good examples to illustrate this point.


Rush2112 said:


> I've read that the *Sparkman & Stephens 34*, specifically was actually built like a tank.[
> I've read that the *Holman & Pye Sovereign 35, *specifically was actually built like a tank.
> I have read that the *Van De Stadt 36 Excalibur, *specifically was built like a tank.
> I've read that the *Camper & Nicholson 38,* specifically was built like a tank.


Have you actually been on a *S&S 34 *or sailed one. They were pretty much standard issue early IOR race rule beating boats. The later Australian built ones were built with the English method or framing, and were quite robust and updated Northstar versions had a higher standard of construction. But there was nothing tank like about these boats, especially the British built boats which were meant as grand prix IOR race boats. I actually owned a smaller S&S designed Norhstar model of the same period as the Northstar version of the S&S 34 and have a very large number of nm's racing on the S&S designs of this era. The S&S 34 was a good design for its day, but the naval architecture was heavily distorted by the racing rules of the day making them a poor choice as offshore boats.
The *Sovereign 36 *was a pretty nice motor sailor and probably is a very robust boat, Kim Holman did a nice job engineering his designs and I would expect nothing less. Boats like these make good coastal cruisers if you don't mind motoring a lot but looking at the design, they lack the sailing ability to be a good choice for a longish offshore passage. The lack of motion comfort and the steering location aft of the mast would be a deal killer for me. (Another similar design that built in larger numbers was the S&S designed Chris Craft Caribbean 35)
The *Excaliber 36* is a classic RORC race rule boat. Like most of Van de Stadt's race boats of this era they were a very advanced design for their day. Tyler who built these boats was one of the better British builders and so I would expect this to be a boat with a lighter hull thickness and lots of internal framing. All of that is good for strength and stiffness, but not exactly tank like either. The bigger problem with the *Excaliber 36 *is its design and specifically the distortions to its hull form and rig that resulted from being an RORC race boat. The extreme narrow beam, the extreme short water line length, the extreme dependence on large overlapping headsails (although better than the CCA race rule boats) make these tough boats to sail in changeable conditions that tended not to stand up to its sail plan and so could really grind down a crew. More significantly the aberrations forced on the design by the RORC Racing Rule limits carrying capacity, and results in poor motion comfort especially with regards to pitch, roll and yaw. Boats like these don't track worth a darn due to the hull form rather than the keel and rudder. The spade rudder actually takes a boat which would otherwise be a bear to steer and makes it a lot more manageable.
*Camper & Nicholson 38, *is an interesting boat. It was designed by John Alden's office. Alden's office was pretty conservative as a rule. (I worked for yacht designer Charlie Wittholz who was in John Alden's office around the time when this boat was designed.) The hull was molded by Halmatic who was probably one of the best fiberglass shops in the world at that time in terms of quality control. (I think LeCompte probably was a little better.) Halmatic was also a very early adopter of the closely spaced framing and thinner skins, if not one of the originators. This would probably be a very sturdy boat if properly maintained. Looking at the specifics of the design, my sense is that the lines were probably drafted by Carl Alberg while he was at Alden's. Carl's work was pretty easily distinguished and differed from the other designers at Alden in that he was a big proponent of CCA race boat type hull forms and very full bows. It made for a pretty boat to look at but a lousy boat to sail, especially in rough conditions. Like the Excaliber the rule dictated distortions limited carrying capacity, and resultes in poor motion comfort especially with regards to pitch, roll and yaw. Boats like these don't track worth a darn due to the hull form rather than the keel and rudder. In the day, the short waterline and cutaway forefoot would classify this as a fin keel with attached rudder (A classification no longer in use) which were some of the hardest boats to sail,neither tracking nor being maneuverable.

Anyway, lunch is over so I better get back to work,

Respectfully,

Jeff


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Jeff_H said:


> For the record, I have not attacked you personally. I challenged the array of misconceptions that you are pumping out in great quantities.


Dramatic exaggerations like this are exactly what I'm talking about- rude.

I do a lot of research and I'm generally pretty good at it. And if I post an argument then you can be pretty much guaranteed that I've read it from more than one source. If it just personal observation as with my sun shade thread, then I will say so.

And what exactly are these 'great quantities'?
1. I named 4 older fiberglass boats that are known for being thick, heavy, and extremely durable.
2. I posted that full keels are known for excellent directional stability and excellent protection of rudder and prop.
3. I posted that skeg hung rudders provide more rudder protection than just a spade.

Just because you have more facts doesn't mean that everything that I say is 'misinformation'.
Feels like some posturing and ego going on frankly.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

I'm understanding that your research consists of keeping the information you want to believe and discarding that in which you don't. This is classic confirmation bias. I don't think I can help anymore.

Mark


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

colemj said:


> I'm understanding that your research consists of keeping the information you want to believe and discarding that in which you don't. This is classic confirmation bias. I don't think I can help anymore.
> 
> Mark


And the ad-hominem hits just keep on rolling...
Hey I weigh all of the arguments, nothing more. And this site is just one source of information.
Sorry but blogs of people who are actually out there sailing around the world, I weigh them just a little bit heavier- nothing personal.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

But you don’t value them at all....just the ones who agree with you. JeffH has been very politically correct in his posts to you permit me to be blunt

all who have posted her are experienced sailors. You sir have zero practical experience.Take away the snippets of research you have done, you have less than zero knowledge. Book learning means nothing in sailing. Experience everything. In order to learn however you must be will to LISTEN and LEARN from the experienced . I don’t see that from you. Therefore if you can’t listen your can’t learn.

when someone who has no experience starts spewing an opinion and refuses to listen, it makes the people who want to help just stand back. You obviously don’t need any of us or our opinions. You either want affirmation of your opinions or just want to argue.

Good luck to you and your sailing. I am doing something I rarely do and placing you on ignore


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

I did not intend an ad-hominen, and don't see how it could have been taken that way. I was merely noticing that you keep holding onto certain beliefs, while discarding information that contradicts them. Perhaps you are not seeing this in your posts, but you keep circling back to three or four beliefs you desire to be correct. Blogs of people who have the same unfounded and unexamined beliefs are no more authoritative than others bringing different facts. Particularly if they are validating their choices using their choices as the validation.

For much of the data you desire, naval architects and current designers provide more useful information as to desirable build scantlings, performance tradeoffs, etc. Even books like Heart of Glass fully document how well fiberglass building techniques were known at the genesis of the fiberglass boat industry, and how it is a myth that thick layups were because of intentional "over-building" resulting in tank-like boats.

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

chef2sail said:


> You sir have zero practical experience.Take away the snippets of research you have done, you have less than zero knowledge. Book learning means nothing in sailing. Experience everything.


Don't be too hard. The guy is new and does seem to be engaging to learn. He is just stuck on a couple of mental blocks as to a few things. Otherwise, his overall plans and aspirations seem reasonable.

I would disagree that book learning means nothing. Not everyone can experience drafting, design, and construction of boats, but reading about them can vastly increase one's knowledge. Reading is usually a prerequisite for more quickly gaining experience than not. After all, most courses come with reading instruction before the hands on.

Mark


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

colemj said:


> I'm understanding that your research consists of keeping the information you want to believe and discarding that in which you don't. This is classic confirmation bias. I don't think I can help anymore.
> 
> Mark


Just let him have his "research" which doesn't really have anything to do with asking others and considering a point that is conflict with what he learned from thinking thinking that is 20+ years out of date. Are you are doing is being "rude".


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Rush2112 said:


> And what exactly are these 'great quantities'?
> 1. I named 4 older fiberglass boats that are known for being thick, heavy, and extremely durable.
> 2. I posted that full keels are known for excellent directional stability and excellent protection of rudder and prop.
> 3. I posted that skeg hung rudders provide more rudder protection than just a spade.
> Just because you have more facts doesn't mean that everything that I say is 'misinformation'.


But those three statements are a good example of why much of what you are writing is misinformation:
1) You named four older fiberglass boats. Of those only one probably has a little thicker hull structure than the typical boats that came later, three were not heavy for their lengths as least compared to similar concept boats from that era or those eras that came after them, and since two of them have glass over plywood decks, those two are not especially durable.

2) Back in the old days, it was thought that full keels offered better directional stability than fin keel boats. But that was largely based on early fin keel- spade rudder boats (like the Contests) that truly were squirrelly. Over time, better design has proven that does not need to be the case. While there is no doubt that fin keel/spade rudder full-blown race boats and early fin keelers don't track at all, it is equally true that many, if not most full keel boats do not necessary track well either.

This is true for a number of reasons. On boats under around 40-50 feet, the forces involved in a boat under sail are such that the dynamic forces are the main controlling factor on how well a boat tracks. In other words, the controlling factor on how long a boat will hold its course (rather than yaw) is the equilibrium between the sails trying to rotate the boat one direction and the sum of the side forces, drag, and rudder angle etc. trying to perhaps turn her another direction. If not balanced those forces will over power the resistance of the keel to rotate the boat in almost all conditions during which there is an adequate wind to go sailing.

But to some tracking ability equates solely to resistance to yaw. Ignoring hull form for a moment, the resistance of the under body of a sailboat to yaw is dependent on the polar moment between the forces on the keel and rudder; the bigger that moment the greater the resistance to yaw. Since that polar moment is the product of unit of side force, area exposed to side force, and the separation of the resisting side forces, full keels with their larger area and long lengths would intuitively seem to be more resistant to yaw.

But as it turns out, the leading edges of a foil (keel or spade rudder) generate much higher unitary side forces than the turbulent areas along the sides of a long or full keel. As a result the separated higher force leading edges of the keel and either the skeg or the rudder generate much higher forces with about the same lever arm as a long keel and therefore higher polar moments. Properly designed, a fin keel and spade rudder (whether skeg hung or post hung.) actually would resist yawing equally and often better than a a full keel.

Then there is the issue of dynamic forces on the rudder itself. All boats that are sailing any course (besides running) experience side loads on their keels and rudders. Because skeg hung and keel hung rudders are hinged on their forward edge, that side force tries to turn the rudder so the boat pivots up into the wind (weather helm). The greater the wind, the greater the side force, and the more weather helm these produce. The way around that is to tie off the helm in a position that counteracts that weather helm. Because the dynamic forces change with wind speed the boat is more likely to veer or back off course with a gust or lull. Because post hung rudders generally are counter balanced, small changes in the side force are less likely to cause course changes.

Summing up, Full Keels were once thought to offer excellent directional stability, but modern science suggests that full keels do not offer any more "excellent directional stability" compared to well designed boats that have fin keels and spade rudders. Which is why when you look at virtually all modern distance cruisers they have fin keels and spade rudders.

3) Neither do full keels (or boats with keel hung rudders for that matter) necessarily offer more rudder protection than a spade rudder. Most full keel boats have the rudder extending nearly to the bottom of the keel where it is actually more exposed to damage in a grounding. That is in contrast to standard practice on a fin keel boat where the bottom of the rudder is generally 20-25 % of the draft above keel and so less likely to touch bottom in a grounding.

Your point about the protection of the prop is mostly true. But there are all kinds of practical reasons not to put up with the negatives of a full keel that outweigh that issue. If protecting the prop is of critical importance to you personally, you can do what people who are concerned with that typically do which is to run a light strong pennant from the trailing edge of the fin keel to the bottom of the rudder or skeg so that a stray element is a little less likely to foul the prop.

So, while you do not see your comments as being misinformation, for the most part they only tell a tiny piece of the story and in doing so, at best leave a false impression, and at worse, are just plain wrong.

Frankly, I don't care whether or not you personally want to retain your prejudices and misconceptions. That is completely up to you.

But when you post out on a public forum, for those of us who have taken the time to understand how boats work, and have the practical experience to shape our knowledge, and beliefs, it is important for the sake of others reading these discussions, that clear explanations, providing correct information gets posted so that others reading your posts more fully understand a more science and history based reality.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

I am an experience sailor... but with one boat... and I can't comment on the influence of hull thickness from MY experience. I also can't evaluate what the actual experience of other sailors on SN is with respect to the impact/influence of hull thickness in different conditions.

My boat is a Contest 36s of 85 vintage with a bolt on deep fin keel which is about and steel "belts" running athwartship at keel bolts. I can see evidence of them in the bilge. The layup where I have a thru hull (close to the keel) is perhaps 2 or more inches. The cast iron keel as about 9' at the hull and the flange is about 10' and about 10" wide. The hull is formed with a recess to accept the flange and then filled with fairing. The structure down there seems very robust. I believe this was an approach used on Contest boats of that era.

All that matters to me is that none of Contest lost a keel or a rudder (I believe) and I experience no "problems" related to the "thickness". I don't care about other boats.

Likewise. the OP should look into the performance history of the boat he is interested in.

Naval architecture as it relates to sailboats is only of minor interest to me and may be to most other sailors. Few have the technical structural background to inform their thinking and rely on the "community" prattle for their ideas. So what? All that matters to you is the boat you are going to buy and sail. THAT one needs to be vetted


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

What is that square thing with a hose attached to it?

Mark


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

colemj said:


> What is that square thing with a hose attached to it?
> 
> Mark


Mark

It looks like a strum box to me. Easier to take apart and clear than a pump and especially a good idea on a boat without a sump.

That keel attachment techniques was very popular on boats with bolt on cast iron keels. In the states it was most popular in the 1960's and 70's but went out of style in the 80's. The nice thing about that is that connection is that the keel bolts are easily replaceable. The down side is that there is no sump and its hard to do transverse framing.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

colemj said:


> What is that square thing with a hose attached to it?
> 
> Mark


It's a strainer for the bilge pump. (there are 2 actually) Bilge is dry. Deck stepped mast... The only water in the bilge is from:
water when the speedo is removed for cleaning
fresh water plumbing leaks

Shower pump has a Y valve and could be use as a bilge pump. 35 years... this bilge has never been pumped except for pressure water hose connection failure.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Doh! Thanks. I'm embarrassed - we have two of those on our boat (no bilges), but my mind was on a mono having a sump, so I didn't even consider it and thought it was something clever I hadn't seen before.

Personally, I dislike not having a sump now because any small amount of water means having to sponge it up by hand, and the water spreads out along the hull bottom. We get water from pulling the transducer and cleaning the A/C strainers. Our previous catamaran had mini keels with sumps where all the water ran.

Mark


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

colemj said:


> Don't be too hard. The guy is new and does seem to be engaging to learn. He is just stuck on a couple of mental blocks as to a few things. Otherwise, his overall plans and aspirations seem reasonable.
> 
> I would disagree that book learning means nothing. Not everyone can experience drafting, design, and construction of boats, but reading about them can vastly increase one's knowledge. Reading is usually a prerequisite for more quickly gaining experience than not. After all, most courses come with reading instruction before the hands on.
> 
> Mark


Sorry Mark,

Book and research doesn't apply universally to interest or a prerequisite to knowledge. Sometimes it serves as a block to understanding how much experience plays a larger part. In addition sometimes book knowledge can serve as a block to the reader and gives them a false sense of knowledge

I come from an industry where no matter how much you read about food, it doesn't and nor can it make you a good cook or a chef. In fact there are many book chefs who not only can't create , can't physically cook, don't understand food except intellectually. I put much less importance on reading knowledge than experience.

To gain experience you must be open to others opinions and take them in and then practice. Intellectualization only takes you so far. The OP has spent his last posts arguing with JeffH an accomplished naval architect, who in addition has practical building experience , not to mention is a crackerjack sailor which I have personally seen. All the OP wants to do is spout of fragments of book knlowedge as fact as one as one off peoples experiences, without engaging and asking questions of what Jeff is saying, instead arguing with him.

so maybe you have more patience with this poster than I, I don't care to waste my time with someone who won't even attempt to listen.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Sailing and owning can caring for a boat is way more complex than cooking. So that analogy might not be the best one.

There are many way to acquire knowledge and reading and watching are definitely valid. It's what we do in school.

However one needs to learn how do do things... manual knowledge... spacial, eye and hand skills and so on. Like dancing you can't learn it by reading... you have to learn it by doing.

Sailing knowledge and skills are hardly organized into a formal system. People approach sailing (knowledge) in a range of ways... and there is no shortage of armchair experts such as what this forum largely consists of. You take everything with the right sized grain of salt.

However in the case of a newbie such as the OP...absent a formal system to acquire sailing/boat knowledge and skills one is kinda on their own using resources available to them. Noobs will make mistakes, they HAVE to make mistakes. We learn FROM and BECAUSE of mistakes.

Everyone wants a strong boat to sail... strong enough for the conditions and the way they will sail. You can find this out by reading, asking and do it in an informal way....unless you intend to be a marine architect. Most sailors assume most boats are built strong enough. Some boats are built for special conditions. Dutch boats, for example are built for the North Sea.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

colemj said:


> Doh! Thanks. I'm embarrassed - we have two of those on our boat (no bilges), but my mind was on a mono having a sump, so I didn't even consider it and thought it was something clever I hadn't seen before.
> 
> Personally, I dislike not having a sump now because any small amount of water means having to sponge it up by hand, and the water spreads out along the hull bottom. We get water from pulling the transducer and cleaning the A/C strainers. Our previous catamaran had mini keels with sumps where all the water ran.
> 
> Mark


We have a strum box too..for the manual bridge pump


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

Iirc krisscross had similar ideas but didnt argue them as much
He found a 35 ft island packet and did a bunch of work on her
Havent seen him around here in a long time


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

colemj said:


> Doh! Thanks. I'm embarrassed - we have two of those on our boat (no bilges), but my mind was on a mono having a sump, so I didn't even consider it and thought it was something clever I hadn't seen before.
> 
> Personally, I dislike not having a sump now because any small amount of water means having to sponge it up by hand, and the water spreads out along the hull bottom. We get water from pulling the transducer and cleaning the A/C strainers. Our previous catamaran had mini keels with sumps where all the water ran.
> 
> Mark


We have a strum box too..for the manual bridge pump&


SanderO said:


> Sailing and owning can caring for a boat is way more complex than cooking. So that analogy might not be the best one.
> 
> There are many way to acquire knowledge and reading and watching are definitely valid. It's what we do in school.
> 
> ...


Come on Jeff,

Sailing is easy, I started when I was 4. Cooking is something you can't do. neither skill is obtainable through reading

You may get by.....like I did sailing when I was 4, but to a critical eye like mine your cooking skills are probably a 3 at best

My point was sailing is a learned experience you cant obtain from a book. Oh you can read books on sailing or cooking, but that only takes you so far.

you learn to sail by mistakes....just like cooking. Even the pedestrian home cook learns that way. We aren't talking professionals here, because again you can learn from a book, a blog, the internet or a genie.

part of learning is experience, much of my learning was self taught experience, but in both cooking and sailing I had mentors. I was eager and open to learn.

sailing is way easier actually in my experience ( I've done both) , there is no artistic or creative component. Sailing you only have to please yourself.

you can teach a child to sail, ( were not talking the Volvo race here) . You see the small fleets out every morning
taking care of a boat Is not that hard either. Doesn't require a degree . No special skill set. in 55 years with boats I was never challenged by the sailing...just the conditions. That's why it's a form of therapy for many, me included. It's not hard.

It's not sending a rocket to Mars. It's not creating food dishes which people pay money for. All you have to satisfy is yourself on your boat. It's not designing buildings. Those all require special developed skill sets.

look how many threads of people with NO experience want to buy a boat and sail off to the horizon.

The OP is like that. He just wanted affirmation of what he read. His issue was he wasn't open to others with opinions.


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

The problem with forums such as this one is you don't usually know who is on the other side of the screen. Those of us who have been around for a while have some idea who the true experts are, and are able to give their posts and opinions the appropriate weight. When someone new comes along they don't know who is who so it is easy to make the mistake of arguing against someone who is far more qualified on a given subject than they are. Most of us have likely done that at one point or another; I know I have!

I feel bad for the OP, because once you realize what's happening it is a bit embarrassing! I do think some of the responses were a bit harsh. Jeff H's responses were certainly full of good information but there were some perhaps unnecessary little shots mixed in that were a bit inflammatory. Hopefully the OP can see past those and realize what a wealth of information has come out of this thread.

I know I learned a lot just following along!



Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

colemj said:


> Again, this point is incorrect - even back then. A thin solid glass construction can be much stronger than a thick one - even back then. It is just a myth that fiberglass construction was not understood in the early days, so manufacturers simply slopped it on as overkill. They actually did so for cost and marketing reasons, not strength or robustness.
> 
> I would bet a donut that for two equivalent size and age solid glass boat hulls, the manufacturer using thinner glass probably understood and used proper fiberglass techniques, materials and supporting engineered components, and produced a stronger, more robust boat than the one simply using thick glass all around.
> 
> ...


Sure, fiberglass technology has improved over the years but you're just as incorrect as you say he is when you claim that thicker hiulls weren't generally stronger or more robust than thinner ones back in the day. Also, a thicker hull doesn't mean the builder was doing it for marketing purposes. I had a Hinckley Pilot built in 1966 and it had a very thick hull, especially beneath the waterline. The extra thickness down there did no great harm and it added stiffness and abrasion resistance. Since these older FRP. Hulls werent cored, extra thickness was necessary to avoid excessive flexing and twisting and oil canning of the hull. All these considerations, while not purely related to strength are just as important as strength because when they occur they cause fatigue and that leads to failure. A thicker hull also meant it would take longer to abrade through in the event of a grounding. Similarly, while a thin deck would be structurally sound enough to support both the loads from the rig and the humans sailing it, nobody feels comfortable feeling the deck flex every time you take a step on it.So, thick, solid glass hulls were how the very best and most expensive fiberglass hulls were built back then. Gradually, it became more common for builders to use balsa or foam or even plywood coring in order to obtain necessary stiffness while decreasing weight but many early cored boats eventually had problems when water found its way into the sandwich and rotted it, especially when the whole hull was cored rather than just the topsides and deck. Since adequate stiffness was being provided by the thickness of a cored deck and hull, some builders realized they could have adequate strength with less fiberglass and this led Hinckleys to be one of the pioneers of the SCRIMP method of building a fiberglass hull, where the whole hull is vacuum bagged so a much smaller amount of resin can be used because rather than just painting or spraying it on and hoping it is absorbed by the fibers, the resin is sucked into the glass mat. But even in these high tach hulls, a certain amount of excessive thickness was advisable below the waterline in a cruising boat for abrasion resistance. Then, around 20 years ago, top builders started offering a hull that used Kevlar in the outer layer of their hulls to provide greater abrasion resistance without extra thickness.
As I'm sure you can imagine, each of these advances came with a price tag and none of them are available in a quality built boat if your budget is only $30K.
Yes, properly laid up fiberglass is a very strong material, so a thin layer will give great strength, but there's also stiffness and abrasion resistance to consider and back in the day when the boats he's considering were built, and with a $30K budget, a thicker solid glass hull is probably better than a thinner one for other reasons than strength. 


colemj said:


> Again, this point is incorrect - even back then. A thin solid glass construction can be much stronger than a thick one - even back then. It is just a myth that fiberglass construction was not understood in the early days, so manufacturers simply slopped it on as overkill. They actually did so for cost and marketing reasons, not strength or robustness.
> 
> I would bet a donut that for two equivalent size and age solid glass boat hulls, the manufacturer using thinner glass probably understood and used proper fiberglass techniques, materials and supporting engineered components, and produced a stronger, more robust boat than the one simply using thick glass all around.
> 
> ...


----------



## JacobClark86 (Aug 12, 2020)

Hello! A very interesting topic. I've learned a lot. Advise me where to start if you are a complete beginner? I just recently started to get involved in this topic. I want to find useful information


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Jeff H’s retort posts are characteristically informative and authoritative, but uncharacteristically abrasive. Not sure why. I suspect the subject matter is a trigger, but maybe I missed what provoked it. Rush, btw, is not the OP of this thread. I also disagree with the thought that old heavily laid up glass is (bigger, better, stronger, whatever). I also disagree that spade rudders are ineligible. However, I really don’t see one poster‘s thoughts on a sailing forum as anything like a misprint in the encyclopedia.

I think we should stopping taking round houses at the new guy. Jeff’s, at least, we’re intellectual. Some of the chest pounding from the self-ordained super experienced made me chuckle. He or she may have to learn some of this the hard way. I hope the next “jump the new guy“ post comes from someone who can claim they’ve never made that mistake.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

jtsailjt said:


> I had a Hinckley Pilot built in 1966 and it had a very thick hull, especially beneath the waterline.
> 
> So, thick, solid glass hulls were how the very best and most expensive fiberglass hulls were built back then.


Was your Pilot thicker than similar boats of the day?

I believe your Pilot was originally a wood boat? The boats like that, which transitioned into glass, were never designed as glass boats. So scantlings had to take up the slack from a lack of proper framing, positioning of bulkheads, and other factors that would have been naturally present in an original design of a fiberglass boat.

Back then boats were built with thicker glass compared to today's boats, but not thicker in comparison to each other (good build to good build), and thickness didn't imply strength and stiffness. JeffH provided several descriptions of scantlings for these boats showing that they actually were not comparatively thicker in the day.

The best and most expensive fiberglass hulls back then were built with bulkheads, framing, and other stiffening and strengthening components to get the lightest build possible with the technology available. None of the higher end manufacturers or designers thought that gobbing on lots of extra weight with unnecessary amounts of fiberglass was the way to build a good boat. I bet not a single one thought of extra thick glass for reasons of groundings - that is an uncontrollable factor providing no guidance on the amount, or even range, of extra glass that would work.

All of the negatives you mentioned for boats - oil canning, flexing, twisting, etc - were solved back in the day for solid glass hulls without egregious use of glass thickness. Some did choose to solve it solely by glass thickness, but it doesn't take a genius to understand why.

I'll still stand by my statement that among similar boats of the day, the ones with noticeably thicker hulls outside a narrow range of variability were probably worse designed/built and poorer performance. I certainly wouldn't put hull thickness as a criteria for choosing a boat, and I wouldn't count on it for stiffness and robustness.

Mark


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> Jeff H's retort posts are characteristically informative and authoritative, but uncharacteristically abrasive. Not sure why. I suspect the subject matter is a trigger, but maybe I missed what provoked it. Rush, btw, is not the OP of this thread. I also disagree with the thought that old heavily laid up glass is (bigger, better, stronger, whatever). I also disagree that spade rudders are ineligible. However, I really don't see one poster's thoughts on a sailing forum as anything like a misprint in the encyclopedia.
> 
> I think we should stopping taking round houses at the new guy. Jeff's, at least, we're intellectual. Some of the chest pounding from the self-ordained super experienced made me chuckle. He or she may have to learn some of this the hard way. I hope the next "jump the new guy" post comes from someone who can claim they've never made that mistake.


Oneupsmenship seems to be very common www forums of whatever topic. Yes there are many people who try to and are helpful... regardless of their "credentials" and many do like to grandstand.
A person who wants to learn can use a forum such as this... or use google and find articles, books, video/YTs to bootstrap themselves. Who cares?,,, whatever works.

When posting I can only write from my limited experience albeit decades with the same boat... and my experience in LIS and Southern NE, the Windward Islands and the offshore passages I have made. This may or may not be useful to anyone. I hope it is.

There are several hot topics where people have strong ideas....anything related to anchoring comes to mind.

There is a lot of experienced sailors on this forum and their experiences are valuable.

Find a solution which works for your boat, your type of sailing, your budget, your skills. Find your own way... take responsibility for your decisions.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

chef2sail said:


> sailing is way easier actually in my experience ( I've done both) , there is no artistic or creative component. Sailing you only have to please yourself.


You are comparing recreational sailing with professional cooking. If you take your posts and substitute "professional sailing" for "cooking", and "recreational cooking" for "sailing", they make the same sense.

I can recreationally cook to only please myself simply by reading a book. I started when I was 6. To a professional sailor, your sailing skills are a 3 at best (as are mine - I wasn't denigrating).

But the point that was made is that reading books or internet can give one a lot of knowledge on design and construction that can help guide a decision. Nobody talked about the sailing itself, and the person asking questions about design and construction already stated he was learning to sail through a club on boats in protected waters.

Mark


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

colemj said:


> Was your Pilot thicker than similar boats of the day?
> 
> I believe your Pilot was originally a wood boat? The boats like that, which transitioned into glass, were never designed as glass boats. So scantlings had to take up the slack from a lack of proper framing, positioning of bulkheads, and other factors that would have been naturally present in an original design of a fiberglass boat.
> 
> ...


Nobody is advocating "egregiously" thick hulls so I'm not sure who you're arguing with there. But those old solid glass hulls did use their "excessive" thickness to help provide stiffness. Some builders saved money by building thinner, solid glass hulls and they felt cheap underfoot and flexed and this led to fatigue of the materials and separation of bulkheads and most of them are no longer afloat. So, in the range of boats he can afford and is looking at, I don't think it's at all unreasonable to acknowledge the advantages of a thicker hull. Whether you think they should have or not, builders did brag about the thickness of their hull and the benefit of it in a grounding situation. In order to persuade buyers that his hulls were rugged enough to stand up to the rigors of offshore sailing, Henry Hinckley was known to take a pistol out into the yard and shoot an actual hull that had imperfections so was not going to be sold, and then he'd show the prospective buyer that the bullet hadn't penetrated all the way through. That wouldn't have made his point very well if the glass was thin and the bullet made a hole. Hinckleys, and the rest of the industry have come a long ways since then and much better solutions are available (but not for $30K in a 35' boat) than adding thickness to obtain strength and stiffness and abrasion resistance, but almost all of those old, thick solid glass Pilots are still being sailed regularly even though they are more than 50 years old so maybe his considering a boat built this way isn't quite as bad a thing as you and a few others have been insisting.

Youre right that Hinckley did build an earlier, wooden version of the Pilot, but that had nothing to do with how thick they made the solid glass hull once they hired S&S to update the design for the fiberglass Pilot. They have similar hull shape but lots of differences once you look more closely. My boss back in 1990 had a wooden Pilot Liten Van) when I had my fiberglass Pilot (Willow) and we rafted together on more than one occasion so had ample opportunity to make the comparison.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

jtsailjt said:


> Nobody is advocating "egregiously" thick hulls so I'm not sure who you're arguing with there. But those old solid glass hulls did use their "excessive" thickness to help provide stiffness.


The original argument brought up was that a thicker hull was better than a thinner hull when choosing among boats. All along, we have been assuming similar designs and build years - so not an old boat vs new boat.

It was in that frame that I have been suggesting that any hull with scantlings outside the narrow range of norms for the time (either way) was done for reasons other than stiffness, robustness, etc.

You mentioned thinner than normal builds for cost reasons (less cost of material). I've mentioned thicker than normal builds for the same reasons (less cost of design and engineering). The latter provides opportunities for marketing that aren't grounded (pun) in fact, nor predicated on experimental evidence.

You kind of made my point with the story of shooting a hull with a bullet solely for marketing reasons. Grounding survival is purely made up fantasy designed to provide a feel-good without any evidence at all - it just sounds good and seeps into the mind as acceptable. How does one decide what level of thickness works for surviving a grounding, where a 1/4" less won't? How does one even quantitate the effects of a grounding, since they are all completely different?

Mark


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

JacobClark86 said:


> Hello! A very interesting topic. I've learned a lot. Advise me where to start if you are a complete beginner? I just recently started to get involved in this topic. I want to find useful information


read....find someone who has a boat that you can go out on and crew. If the interest is there from you you'll learn a lot from them. Join a sailing club.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Reading my posts above, I agree that the tone was unnecessarily harsh on Rush.and for that I apologize to him and the forum. Minnewaska is right when he said that something set me off. I had been following this thread for a while and had decided not to weigh in. But as I read the discussion, there was so much misinformation and half truths being presented that I felt that I needed to weigh in just to clear the record for other members reading this thread. I must admit that by the time I posted that first post I was pretty wound up. But none of that justifies the tone.

On a slightly related issue, I do want to talk about the structure of the Hinckley Pilot since this was actually a very interesting boat structurally whose origins was also very interesting. The design for the Hinckley Pilot was not actually commissioned by Hinckley. It was commissioned by a syndicate of originally 12 but later 17 experienced sailors, most of whom sailed on Long Island Sound. The heart and brains of this syndicate were experienced racing sailors looking for a high tech racing sailboat. At least 3 of these original syndicate members were involved America's Cup campaigns and 2 were aviation engineers (I believe with Grumman). I actually knew three of the syndicate members and the first race I ever did in my life was on one the original Pilots (as an almost new boat) with the one of the original syndicate members.

The pilot was an extremely advanced design in some ways, and its structure was particularly noteworthy. Prior to the Pilot, designers of the day simply took the scantling rules (guidelines for sizing the framing and planking) for wooden boats, and essentially back-engineered them to achieve the same flexural qualities as a wooden boat. It was quickly realized that if literally built to match the structural properties found in wooden boat scantling rules these boats would be obscenely heavy. The designers of the day chose to strike a balance between being too heavy and being too flexible. Because planking thicknesses were consistent pretty much from the keel to the deck, the laminate schedules and hull thicknesses of early fiberglass boats were also consistent from keel to deck (with the exception of where there was tabbing or where laminate overlapped at the center line of the boat or at engine beds and shaft logs.

This led to boats which were heavier than they needed to be and a whole lot more flexible than is ideal. When fiberglass versions were compared to the wooden boats of the same design, the glass boats tended to be some mix of heavier hulls and decks than the wood boats, less ballast, and/or wildly less stiff and/or sturdy in bending and impact.

But the Pilot was being designed as a high performance boat and had the benefit of some of the best marine engineering available at the time. Between the engineering horsepower of S&S's America Cup experience and their commercial ship division, they had some of the best data available. It also helped that the original syndicate contained some very skilled engineers as well. (The advanced nature of that syndicate might be demonstrated by the fact that the first experimental 3/4 oz ripstop spinnaker that was flown on a boat that was not a 12 meter was flown on a Hinckley Pilot.)

In order to save weight, the Pilot was one of the first boats to use a tapered laminate schedule. In other words the hull was thicker where the loads were greatest (keel and turn of the sump) and tapered as the laminate came up towards the turn of the bilges and getting thinnest in the topsides. The original Pilots had a series of light transverse frames that were glassed into the the thinnest hull portions of the boat amidships to provide additional stiffness in this area. These boats then had cedar ceilings (the inner fore and aft planking on a wooden boat) fastened to those frames that added fore and aft stiffness. This reduced the weight of the hull compared to similar fiberglass designs of that era, but more significantly the engineering of the Pilot produced a much stiffer hull hull that was able to stand up to the extremely high rigging loads of the masthead rigs that were popular at that time.

Construction of the boats was bid to several builders, Hinckley was chosen in part because some of the members were part of the syndicate that developed the wooden Sou'wester. But also because the build requirements for these boats required a much better quality control than was the typical in the industry in those days and Hinckley was willing to step up to the plate.

There is no doubt that all things being equal there are some advantages to having a slightly thicker hull. The key phrases in that sentence are "All things being equal" and "Slightly thicker". In the 1960's, as mentioned above the majority of production boat builders were thickening the hulls to avoid having internal framing. As we now know, that was a bad idea.

But what made that worse was how that thickening was accomplished. Production boat builder of that era were thickening the hulls with proportionately large percentages of non-directional fabrics and resin rich formulations. Because cure times (not to hardness but to reaching nearly full strength) is longer on a thicker hull, they were using accelerators in the resin. Accelerators actually slightly slow the initial set, but as the name implies caused the laminate to achieve a larger percent of its overall strength in a shorter period of time so that the boat could be removed from the molds sooner. But accelerators produce a weaker overall resin and a much greater fatigue prone resin. Collectively for any of the added thickness, these boats were generally not a strong as boats from the late 1980's when better engineering and material handling practices became more of the norm.

But to circle back to my comments on Rush's post regarding hull thickness, he was focusing on boats from the 1970's and early 80's, claiming they had thicker hulls. By the early 1970's almost industry wide (the traditional 'character boat' cruisers of the 70's being an exception) pretty much all production boats had moved to much thinner hulls than the boats that preceded them or followed them. By and large, the 1970's and early 80's was the the low point in hull structure as the skins were getting thinner but the engineering and laminate materials and methods had not improved.

Which comes back to what set me off. I really think that it is important that new sailors looking for inexpensive platforms to go cruising understand the realities of these boats. There truly were some exceptionally better boats built during these periods, but there was a majority of boats from that era that were junk then and are a whole lot worse after 30-50 years of use and hindsight. In my mind, for those who are new to the sport, it does a great disservice to leave misleading statements floating around without those statements at least being put into context.

There is another thread that discusses the Sailing Uma folks. However it happened, they purchased one of the better sailing designs of that era. In order to make the boat structurally more seaworthy, they spoke with experts and then added a lot of the supplemental structure that a boat from that era requires. I think that they did a good job of beefing up those areas that are likely to be problematic on a boat of this era. They somehow understood the problem and addressed it. And that gets to the point of my posts above.

If you are new to the sport and don't understand how or why boats are built as they are, it is easy to make false assumptions which are potentially dangerous. When these go up on the internet, and are read by others who are new to the sport, that is likely to cause harm to others who take them at face value.

In my day to day life, I mentor a lot of people getting into the sport. I try to provide balanced information so that they end up with the best boat possible for their needs and budget. My advice is not a one size fits all solution. I try to put myself in their shoes and provide not just advice but the thinking behind that advice so it helps fill in the gaps that each may have. I do this for much the same reason that I have been a moderator here for the past 2 1/2 decades; to return the gift of knowledge that others have generously given to me throughout my life. I readily admit and strongly regret that my posts in this thread do not represent me at my best. For that I am truly very sorry.

Jeff


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

colemj said:


> The original argument brought up was that a thicker hull was better than a thinner hull when choosing among boats. All along, we have been assuming similar designs and build years - so not an old boat vs new boat.
> 
> It was in that frame that I have been suggesting that any hull with scantlings outside the narrow range of norms for the time (either way) was done for reasons other than stiffness, robustness, etc.
> 
> ...


i understand what you are saying.

I don't consider myself over a 3 as a sailor either. I am humbled what I learn daily. 
I feel I always learn. I am not a cruiser so I defer in those fields, I do however have an extensive racing background so I feel more competent to talk about that with knowl edge and experience. I do take on many DYI boat projects many others would pay to have someone do so I think by experience I have learned some skills in that.n

Some on here think sailing so hard to do. It's not IMHO. kids can do it.....just like everyone can cook. That's doesn't mean the kids are experts at sailing or everyone are experts in cooking.

There's a false sense of security that some people have because they read on a subject that they have become subject experts. you see it on here all the time.
Because they do something once or read on it they feel qualified to expound upon it. False information is not good. We've seen people profess they are experts in electronics, HVAC, electrical , engines, sailing, racing, navigation, when in actuality they don't hold a candle to someone who is a real subject expert in the field. That's why I try and ask a persons background when the information doesn't make sense or conflicts with what a subject matter expert says. I actually asked you in a different thread when your advice was different than ShockT on refrigeration. Turns out that's his career and he is a subject matter expert. It doesn't mean your information was bad, because from your experience and reading it was the best you knew. Like Sander said, you don't know what you don't know. The danger is posting things as fact, when you don't know.

My point was experience in many fields , projects trumps book smarts. In my field that's true. Hands on beats a book.

in this thread you had a subject matter expert, JeffH. He was trying to correct sweeping false statements a self professed novice was making after doing a little reading. I accept Jeff's qualifications because 1- he has quite a variety of sailing as well as boat construction EXPERIENCE 2- he was a naval architect , and 3- from personal observation as I've met him and run into him once in a while as he's in my area ( or I'm in his) he's a crackerjack sailor.
he's not one dimensional like me ( racing , coastal cruising) or you ( cruising) , or the OP- no experience.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

I've just caught up on this thread after being without internet access for 6 days.... Damn you Isias.

For Rush, I think it has come down to him being Boatstruck with the Contest; nothing more, nothing less. You see a particular boat, and suddenly, nothing else will do. There are no arguments or facts that can change your mind.

Rush, I've been there buddy. I'd be willing to bet we all have. I say this without judgement: you may be right, you may be wrong; but at this point, it doesn't matter. You gotta have a Contest. But once you see that one special boat.... That's it.

There's no point in feeling put out or badly if there are those on this forum who disagree with your choice. Because it's not really a choice; you gotta have it. I think that's a good thing. Without it, I doubt many of us would have boats. Owning a boat in general is not a rational decision: it's way more cost effective to be a guest on other people's boats or to even rent. Boats are expensive, time consuming, aggravating, and at times downright scary. Our rationale parts would ultimately veto the idea. So buy the Contest and sail the hell out of it. I'd suggest using the advice here to inform your choices of when and where to sail, but buy the boat that inspires you, the one that inflames that passion to get out on the water. 

BTW, even if you disagree with Jeff H, you should save his responses here. Jeff is far and away the gem of this site; his expertise and his willingness to share his knowledge are unique. I've learned more from Jeff on this forum about boat design than I ever thought I would know or need to know, and it's been very, very helpful to me. You'll be glad you have it as a reference when you evaluate designs for your next boat. The fact that he recognized that he was snarky and apologized is another example of the kind of guy he is; I strongly urge you to move past that and recognize expertise far beyond what is generally available for free.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

chef2sail said:


> I don't consider myself over a 3 as a sailor either. I am humbled what I learn daily.


I use to consider myself at least a 6. After all, since childhood I've collected trophies racing in local and club events, and have been sailing a wide variety of boats from dinghies to large cruising boats since I was 6yrs old.

However, I've sailed with professionals on these boats below and quickly realized I'm a 3 at best. I spent 3 weeks with our professional friend on his Catana (very similar to our boat) and in perfect conditions upwind, he could consistently get almost a knot better out of it than me. Without paying much attention to doing so at all.



chef2sail said:


> We've seen people profess they are experts in electronics, HVAC, electrical , engines, sailing, racing, navigation, when in actuality they don't hold a candle to someone who is a real subject expert in the field. That's why I try and ask a persons background when the information doesn't make sense or conflicts with what a subject matter expert says. I actually asked you in a different thread when your advice was different than ShockT on refrigeration. Turns out that's his career and he is a subject matter expert. It doesn't mean your information was bad, because from your experience and reading it was the best you knew. Like Sander said, you don't know what you don't know. The danger is posting things as fact, when you don't know.


You put more blind faith in SME's than I do. I guess as a research scientist, SME's get stuck in their knowledge and fall all the time - it is how science advances at all. In your particular case, the SME did not know there were commercial system based on small compressors and holding plates. He stated that there was no way a small compressor could even freeze a holding plate. Both of those are demonstrably incorrect, as was several other points regarding efficiencies of evaporator plates. I bowed out of that because it was obvious that it was important for others to believe an SME regardless of facts, and I had presented alternate information as well as I could.

Mark


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

colemj said:


> I use to consider myself at least a 6. After all, since childhood I've collected trophies racing in local and club events, and have been sailing a wide variety of boats from dinghies to large cruising boats since I was 6yrs old.
> 
> However, I've sailed with professionals on these boats below and quickly realized I'm a 3 at best. I spent 3 weeks with our professional friend on his Catana (very similar to our boat) and in perfect conditions upwind, he could consistently get almost a knot better out of it than me. Without paying much attention to doing so at all.
> 
> ...


Not quite an accurate representation of that discussion, but whatever!

It is a good example of what Chef is talking about though. You read about systems that some manufacturers are marketing, you liked those products, so you didn't want to hear any explanation of why they may not be the greatest system ever, even when it is coming from someone who has a much more solid understanding of the principles involved than you do.

So Rush can buy his Contest, and you can buy your 12v holding plate system, and no doubt you will both be happy!

Now let's move on.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

Jeff_H said:


> Reading my posts above, I agree that the tone was unnecessarily harsh on Rush.and for that I apologize to him and the forum. Minnewaska is right when he said that something set me off. I had been following this thread for a while and had decided not to weigh in. But as I read the discussion, there was so much misinformation and half truths being presented that I felt that I needed to weigh in just to clear the record for other members reading this thread. I must admit that by the time I posted that first post I was pretty wound up. But none of that justifies the tone.
> 
> On a slightly related issue, I do want to talk about the structure of the Hinckley Pilot since this was actually a very interesting boat structurally whose origins was also very interesting. The design for the Hinckley Pilot was not actually commissioned by Hinckley. It was commissioned by a syndicate of originally 12 but later 17 experienced sailors, most of whom sailed on Long Island Sound. The heart and brains of this syndicate were experienced racing sailors looking for a high tech racing sailboat. At least 3 of these original syndicate members were involved America's Cup campaigns and 2 were aviation engineers (I believe with Grumman). I actually knew three of the syndicate members and the first race I ever did in my life was on one the original Pilots (as an almost new boat) with the one of the original syndicate members.
> 
> ...


Interesting additional info about the Pilot, especially the part about the varying thickness rather than just using thicknesses similar to the wooden Pilot as someone had asserted earlier. The team at S&S was obviously much smarter than that and the glass Pilot was much more than a glass version of the wooden ones! But the glass thickness when I drilled through my old Pilot to mount a depth transducer was WAY thicker than the glass in any modern boat that I've seen. But, as the thickness added stiffness and weight where it would the least harm, it wasn't a bad thing to do. But even as we move up the sides of the hull, the glass thickness was still substantial. I never realized that the ceiling strips were structural (and my BS is in CE with a concentration in structures) but it makes sense as the wood strips they were fastened to were glassed to the hull, effectively making a sort of network of ribs with longitudinal connections. My reason for bringing up the Pilot was that it's a solid glass boat I happen to be familiar with and it has glass thickness much thicker than would be considered normal today, but I would never tell anyone to not buy one. They're great boats and sail very well and handle heavy weather surprisingly well too. In the only race (Retired Skippers Race in Castine) I entered her in, I won my class and got her picture in the paper, and I can assure you that wasn't due to my superior tactics or helmsmanship. I'd tell anyone that if you're less than 6' tall and are in the market for a great looking, seaworthy, 30' cruising sailboat, find a Pilot 35 and buy it!

I don't know anything about the Contest or the other boats he was considering but evidently you didn't think they were good choices. They were built well after the Pilots were designed so is it safe to assume that the all glass hulls he is looking at are even less "egregiously thick" than the Pilot was by today's standards? Maybe you already suggested a better boat for him than what he's considering but I must have missed that and am too lazy to reread this whole thread. So, considering his $30K budget, and the fact that he doesn't want a spade rudder, what boats would you encourage him to consider?

I think you're a little too worried about misinformation on this forum because it's virtually everywhere. In fact some of the most frequent posters on this forum and other similar forums make the biggest contributions to misinformation. And when you think about it, that makes sense because if they were as busy sailing as they suggest they are, they wouldn't be making multiple posts on ANY Internet forum on a daily basis. A lot frequent posters seem to form sort of a club and due to their familiarity with each other they tend to be very accepting of each other's misinformation and share each other's sometimes misplaced bias's or maybe they just don't know better. There seems to be less of that here than in some other places and I credit both the membership and the mods for that, but it still exists. On another sailing forum there's a certain poster who pretends to be an authority on EVERY facet of sailing and cruising and racing and naval architecture and sail design, etc. when in reality he's a pretty typical recreational sailor and part time cruiser much like most of the rest of us, BUT he's a GREAT writer and knows how to make people think that he knows way more than he actually does and I'm frequently surprised that so many people seem to be taken in by him and his never ending line of BS. So I can understand your concern but there's just NO WAY you or me or anyone else can stop this phenomenon. I can't even guess at how many times I've set out to set his misinformation straight only to decide that it probably won't kill anyone and I have better things to do so I usually hit delete and move on. 
You're obviously right that the thickest hull isn't always the strongest or the most stiff, but what real harm will it do for a newbie poster and sailor to buy a heavier than necessary boat if that's what makes him feel more secure in an environment that's new to him? Do you really think that him talking about it here (he fully admits to being a newbie) is going to spark a trend of many others reading it and going out and buying excessively thick, slow, boats? I think it's extremely unlikely and even if it happened, it's unlikely to be a fatal or irreversible error. You obviously are the real deal and know a lot about various sailboats, so if you tell him once that the boat he wants to buy isn't appropriate and give him your reasoning and suggest a better alternative or two, then you've done your job and if he chooses to go in his own direction anyway and talk about it, it's not your fault. I gave him a few of my thoughts, and included that I'd stay away from full keel boats (except a classic like a Pilot) but he seems to still want to graduate to a full keel. Oh well, I think he'll eventually regret it but maybe not. Readers with any intelligence won't take the choice of a self professed newbie as gospel truth just because he's very enthusiastic about a particular boat. Most will read it, go " "hmmmm, maybe someday I'll look up what a Contest or whatsitsname boat is" and move on to another thread and forget all about it. So I'm glad you talked yourself down out of that tree because these internet discussions just aren't that important.

But even if he isn't interested in your opinion about what a great $30k cruising boat without a spade rudder is, I'd love to read what boats you'd advise him to buy that meets his criteria, leaving out any boats that you like with spade rudders. What do you think?


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

jtsailjt said:


> Interesting additional info about the Pilot, especially the part about the varying thickness rather than just using thicknesses similar to the wooden Pilot as someone had asserted earlier. The team at S&S was obviously much smarter than that and the glass Pilot was much more than a glass version of the wooden ones! But the glass thickness when I drilled through my old Pilot to mount a depth transducer was WAY thicker than the glass in any modern boat that I've seen. But, as the thickness added stiffness and weight where it would the least harm, it wasn't a bad thing to do. But even as we move up the sides of the hull, the glass thickness was still substantial. I never realized that the ceiling strips were structural (and my BS is in CE with a concentration in structures) but it makes sense as the wood strips they were fastened to were glassed to the hull, effectively making a sort of network of ribs with longitudinal connections. My reason for bringing up the Pilot was that it's a solid glass boat I happen to be familiar with and it has glass thickness much thicker than would be considered normal today, but I would never tell anyone to not buy one. They're great boats and sail very well and handle heavy weather surprisingly well too. In the only race (Retired Skippers Race in Castine) I entered her in, I won my class and got her picture in the paper, and I can assure you that wasn't due to my superior tactics or helmsmanship. I'd tell anyone that if you're less than 6' tall and are in the market for a great looking, seaworthy, 30' cruising sailboat, find a Pilot 35 and buy it!
> 
> I don't know anything about the Contest or the other boats he was considering but evidently you didn't think they were good choices. They were built well after the Pilots were designed so is it safe to assume that the all glass hulls he is looking at are even less "egregiously thick" than the Pilot was by today's standards? Maybe you already suggested a better boat for him than what he's considering but I must have missed that and am too lazy to reread this whole thread. So, considering his $30K budget, and the fact that he doesn't want a spade rudder, what boats would you encourage him to consider?
> 
> ...


Sorry to have to write... this post is pointless... and adds nothing to the discussion and is not likely to help the OP find the right boat.


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

SanderO said:


> Sorry to have to write... this post is pointless... and adds nothing to the discussion and is not likely to help the OP find the right boat.


Neither did the post I quoted or did YOUR post point him in the direction of finding a boat. So your point is? Also, about half the posts in this thread have been various people telling him how stupid he is, with precious few actual boat recommendations made. I'm one of a few people who actually tried to give him some pros and cons of various types without judging or bashing him. And actually, if you read my post that you called pointless, I clearly DID recommend a boat, though one probably beyond his budget constraints....but come to think about it, about 3 weeks ago someone mentioned to me that his parents had one in a barn that they haven't sailed in years and they were now too old and did I know anyone who might be interested. I don't know the location of the OP and I didn't inquire about the asking price but it sounded like it might be a potential bargain. It's full keel like he wants and it sails just fine and is seaworthy, but is tiny for a 35' footer. I loved sailing mine but I'm 6'1" and I also wanted more systems and there's just no room for them on a Pilot.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

colemj said:


> I use to consider myself at least a 6. After all, since childhood I've collected trophies racing in local and club events, and have been sailing a wide variety of boats from dinghies to large cruising boats since I was 6yrs old.
> 
> However, I've sailed with professionals on these boats below and quickly realized I'm a 3 at best. I spent 3 weeks with our professional friend on his Catana (very similar to our boat) and in perfect conditions upwind, he could consistently get almost a knot better out of it than me. Without paying much attention to doing so at all.
> 
> ...





colemj said:


> I use to consider myself at least a 6. After all, since childhood I've collected trophies racing in local and club events, and have been sailing a wide variety of boats from dinghies to large cruising boats since I was 6yrs old.
> 
> However, I've sailed with professionals on these boats below and quickly realized I'm a 3 at best. I spent 3 weeks with our professional friend on his Catana (very similar to our boat) and in perfect conditions upwind, he could consistently get almost a knot better out of it than me. Without paying much attention to doing so at all.
> 
> ...


quite and interesting way of not say I was wrong.....since I do have an advanced science degree in Psychology I'll mark it up as the defense mechanism....rationalization?


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

jtsailjt said:


> Neither did the post I quoted or did YOUR post point him in the direction of finding a boat. So your point is? Also, about half the posts in this thread have been various people telling him how stupid he is, with precious few actual boat recommendations made. I'm one of a few people who actually tried to give him some pros and cons of various types without judging or bashing him. And actually, if you read my post that you called pointless, I clearly DID recommend a boat, though one probably beyond his budget constraints....but come to think about it, about 3 weeks ago someone mentioned to me that his parents had one in a barn that they haven't sailed in years and they were now too old and did I know anyone who might be interested. I don't know the location of the OP and I didn't inquire about the asking price but it sounded like it might be a potential bargain. It's full keel like he wants and it sails just fine and is seaworthy, but is tiny for a 35' footer. I loved sailing mine but I'm 6'1" and I also wanted more systems and there's just no room for them on a Pilot.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The only boat and mfg I recommend is the one I own - Contest... designed and manufactured in Holland Rush is from Holland and looking for a boat for the North Sea and so I told him to look at Contests and suggested he speak to Dick Zaal who designed for Contest for years. Rush seems to like what he saw and the conversation he had with Dick Zaal. Hopefully he will be getting guidance from someone who knows the boat, the North Sea etc. I reported on how my hull is made and how thick it is. I don't compare it to other boats because I don't know other boats. Some boats have reputations.... Halberg Rassy is one. Contest is another... but you don't know it because you don't live in Europe.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Of course you love your boat brand and are passionate about it.....who isnt😀
Was an appropriate recommendation I thought. 
There are other well made “North Sea “ type boats made there besides the Hallbergs which I love
Arcona, Nayad, Malo to name a couple.


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

SanderO said:


> The only boat and mfg I recommend is the one I own - Contest... designed and manufactured in Holland Rush is from Holland and looking for a boat for the North Sea and so I told him to look at Contests and suggested he speak to Dick Zaal who designed for Contest for years. Rush seems to like what he saw and the conversation he had with Dick Zaal. Hopefully he will be getting guidance from someone who knows the boat, the North Sea etc. I reported on how my hull is made and how thick it is. I don't compare it to other boats because I don't know other boats. Some boats have reputations.... Halberg Rassy is one. Contest is another... but you don't know it because you don't live in Europe.


 of course I'm familiar with Hallberg Rassy and agree they're among the very best. You see a fair amount of them here in Maine. But I'm not familiar with Contests. It's great that you gave him some good advice about boats because it's so hard for a newbie to understand what's important and what's not. He seems to want an older heavily built boat and for a newbie on a limited budget that seems to me to be a pretty good choice, or at least a choice that won't hurt him. Maybe there are quality built cruising boats with spade rudders that are ruggedly built and seaworthy at his price point, but we don't seem to be hearing from too many offering constructive suggestions. And no matter what anyone says, he really wants a full keel boat or at lease a skeg hung rudder so it's good of you to suggest a quality boat like that he can afford. There's no point in arguing with him about spade rudders, especially on boats he can't afford anyway, and for what he says he wants to do and the size boat he's considering having a spade rudder isn't anywhere near the top of his priorities, nor should it be.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Sorry for the late reply but when things on forums get a bit heated I just take a day or two off. I'm an old hippie and don't have the energy or the desire for flame wars. I don't see that it's ever worth anybody's effort. Anyway...



Jeff_H said:


> But those three statements are a good example of why much of what you are writing is misinformation:
> 1) You named four older fiberglass boats. Of those only one probably has a little thicker hull structure than the typical boats that came later, three were not heavy for their lengths as least compared to similar concept boats from that era or those eras that came after them, and since two of them have glass over plywood decks, those two are not especially durable.


All four of the boats I mentioned have a higher than average displacement/length, for their time and especially compared to today. So I don't see how this statement is true?

H&P Sovereign 35 Ketch
Disp./Len.: 415.29

Van De Stadt Excalibur 36
Disp./Len.: 333.19

Camper & Nicholson 38
Disp./Len.: 360.72

Sparkman & Stephens 34
Disp./Len.: 290.72



Jeff_H said:


> 2) Back in the old days, it was thought that full keels offered better directional stability than fin keel boats. But that was largely based on early fin keel- spade rudder boats (like the Contests) that truly were squirrelly. Over time, better design has proven that does not need to be the case. While there is no doubt that fin keel/spade rudder full-blown race boats and early fin keelers don't track at all, it is equally true that many, if not most full keel boats do not necessary track well either.


Sorry but this statement, especially the latter part simply goes against everything I have read from other, what I consider reputable sources.

While I have read that modern fin designs have excellent tracking when moving well, they lose a lot of their directional stability when they lose their speed, and do not for example hold a healed to position as well as a full keel.



Jeff_H said:


> 3) Neither do full keels (or boats with keel hung rudders for that matter) necessarily offer more rudder protection than a spade rudder.


Again, this goes against conventional wisdom. And I'll have to take the word of say Tom Cunliffe, and about a dozen others who have either circumnavigated or sailed across oceans to a great extent. I'm not trying to go after you personally, I'm just putting your thoughts on one side of the scale and theirs on the other. And sorry but theirs is heavier at the moment.



Jeff_H said:


> Your point about the protection of the prop is mostly true.


Yes, OK...



Jeff_H said:


> So, while you do not see your comments as being misinformation, for the most part they only tell a tiny piece of the story and in doing so, at best leave a false impression, and at worse, are just plain wrong.


Actually it seems that you are the one focusing on specific aspects of the story to shoot down the actually valid generalizations, which I have said, which are in fact generally true. So that statement is a bit ironic and reversed.

The boats I stated have a reputation for being thick heavy and durable, whether or not you agree, that is their reputation. Read the reviews, go to the owner's sites, these words are commonly used, by those who own and use these boats.
Full keels have a reputation for directional stability. That I still believe is generally true.
Full keels have a reputation for excellent durability, not falling off, and protecting the bottom of the boat, the rudder and the prop.

These statements are all 'generally' true from everything I've read and seen of bloggers who are actually in it, now sailing the world. So you point out exceptions, and advances, and that's fine, I'm not saying your points are wrong, but you are also failing to make concessions that what I have said is in fact 'generally' true. And that is misleading! So your statement of 'misinformation' could fit yourself as well as anybody else...

Look, I see your points, I really do! And I've added them to the considerations. But calling out the points I made as 'misinformation' is not fair in the least. I could go for 'incomplete' - fine, 'incomplete' might be fair, but 'misinformation?' no sorry, that's unnecessarily exaggerated and unfair.

Again, I'm not married to these ideas, and it's a little bit provoking when somebody say's that I am, just because I'm not easily swayed. I'm just putting all data that I find on a scale, one side or the other, and weighing it up. If anything, in my research I've found that the people most emotionally attached to perspectives on boat designed are those who actually own the design they are arguing for!


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

SanderO said:


> Naval architecture as it relates to sailboats is only of minor interest to me and may be to most other sailors. Few have the technical structural background to inform their thinking and rely on the "community" prattle for their ideas. So what? All that matters to you is the boat you are going to buy and sail. THAT one needs to be vetted


This is actually an excellent point. This is why I put just a little bit more weight in long term reputation of boats and by circumnavigator blogs, than I do general forum posts.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

chef2sail said:


> ...
> The OP is like that. He just wanted affirmation of what he read. His issue was he wasn't open to others with opinions.


I'm not going to say again "I'm just weighing the opinions from varied sources"... oh dangit! There I went again...

You know Chef, you shouldn't knock book smarts, after all you'd do well in college...
You already have the knack for cancel culture ;-)


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

There is something to be said for sailor's opinions about their boats who are out there doing thousands of nm in all sorts of conditions. In reality they can only "affirm" how THEIR boat performs not that it is better or worse than another boat/design.
There are those who have experience with multiple boats and those who are naval architects and have engineering wisdom regardless of whether they have the experience on the water.
So how does someone facing a buying decision decide who to "listen" to... whose advice will be used to inform their buying decision?
If I were facing such a decision I would listen to both... though the technical engineering likely would be outside of my expertise. For sure hindsight is valuable and so over time there is a history of the performance of various boats, design features and so on. And this doesn't even address the idea that there are many variations of the sailboat... sloop. cutter, ketch, yawl, catamaran, hull forms, keel forms, rudder types and so on. And don't forget that the accommodation plan should be a large consideration for any live aboard cruising off the grid boat.

I consider JeffH a value font of knowledge about sailing and boats... so his comments should be taken as valuable. Of course it's never acceptable (to me) to talk down or "preach" to anyone, especially someone new who is learning and has admitted as much. Very few people who want to buy a boat will reach out to a naval architect for a primer on yacht design history and very few naval architect have the time inclination to spend with a person who is not their client. Sailing forums provide armchair experts of varying degree of expertise and experience... but how to tell what is BS and what is valuable?

I hope we learn of how the search for a boat goes and what the final purchase is.... and even how reality of owning compares to the fantasy.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Rush2112 said:


> I'm not going to say again "I'm just weighing the opinions from varied sources"... oh dangit! There I went again...
> 
> You know Chef, you shouldn't knock book smarts, after all you'd do well in college...
> You already have the knack for cancel culture ;-)


Speaking of my own history.... starting out as a 100% boat idiot.... after some actual sailing exposure on a friend's boat... became enchanted and then sought knowledge which at the time was essentially books, mags and so on. It was pre WWW and no youtubes.

I enrolled in a learn to sail program which was 5 mornings of "classwork" with a small book and some tests... learned basic knots... and then 5 afternoons of sailing on a Soling. Then an exam and off I went to start sailing,.. without a boat. So I decided to buy a boat... and one too big for me at the time... But I definitely wanted one which could be a "home" and not a recreation. I was lucky and got an excellent boat and went on to learn and after 6 years took off for the tropics.

I am still learning and now able to share my limited experience... with those who are interested.

The Sailboat

How simple, yet complex
The sailboat is
Each part essential
Time tested solutions
To the problems
Of how to go
From here to there
With wings of cloth
Flying through the air
Yet swimming too
With fins of metal
Across vast oceans blue
Touching and caressing
Each land 
On our planet Earth
Afloat in a vast
Heavenly sea of stars
Men of all times
Looked to the heavens
to find their way
Knowing the signs
Placed skyward
To guide them
Over infinite waves
Disappearing into the horizon
Where all dreams lay
Now electrons too small
For senses to know
Carry the messages
From man made stars
Too insignificant to shine
A matrix of ideas
Dividing the earth
Into precise little squares
As addresses
In a metropolis
For all to know
With the need to go
From here to there


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Rush2112 said:


> I'm not going to say again "I'm just weighing the opinions from varied sources"... oh dangit! There I went again...
> 
> You know Chef, you shouldn't knock book smarts, after all you'd do well in college...
> You already have the knack for cancel culture ;-)


See you act like you want to learn...then you get snarky just like you accused JeffH. 
I already have 2 masters degrees , 1 in Political Science and 1 in Psychology. Graduated with 3.82 GPA. I should go back to school? Did you make some assumptions from reading ....huh...Did you assume I was a Chef.

Well I haven't been one ( career wise ) for or 20 years or so, though I still have that experience. Suffice to say I have over 1600 employees ( all laid off because of Covid 19) and am the Regional General Manager of 26 restaurants for a the largest worldwide food service company . The restaurants have an aggregate volume of over $68 million.

you proved my point about internet knowledge and making assumptions from what you read. You read into it and developed a false assumptions from just my screename.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Chef... let it go... what's the point?


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

JacobClark86 said:


> Hello! A very interesting topic. I've learned a lot. Advise me where to start if you are a complete beginner? I just recently started to get involved in this topic. I want to find useful information


Well you said 'complete' beginner, so I'd start with a little inspiration 
My uncle was a sailor and so I grew up with lots of inspirational stories of courageous early circumnavigators and cross ocean racers. I think this put some of the fire in me to always want to learn to sail. Its a shame I'm starting so late but better late than never!

Anyway, so maybe start with some inspiring media? These are just a few that I liked:
There's a newer movie, but I like the original Kon Tiki better:








Kon-Tiki (1950) - IMDb


Kon-Tiki: Directed by Thor Heyerdahl. With Thor Heyerdahl, Herman Watzinger, Erik Hesselberg, Knut Haugland. A documentary about the Kon-Tiki expedition of the Norwegian explorer Thor Heyerdahl.




www.imdb.com












The Ra Expeditions (1971) - IMDb


The Ra Expeditions: Directed by Lennart Ehrenborg, Thor Heyerdahl. With Norman Baker, Roscoe Lee Browne, Abdullah Dilbrine, Santiago Geneves. Documentary of the Ra expedition organized by Thor Heyerdahl, which crossed the Atlantic Ocean in a papyrus boat in 1969 and 1970.




www.imdb.com












Deep Water (2006) - IMDb


Deep Water: Directed by Louise Osmond, Jerry Rothwell. With Tilda Swinton, Ted Hynds, Robin Knox-Johnston, Donald Kerr. A documentary about the disastrous 1968 round-the-world yacht race.




www.imdb.com












Red Dot on the Ocean: The Matt Rutherford Story (2014) - IMDb


Red Dot on the Ocean: The Matt Rutherford Story: Directed by Amy Flannery. With Marlowe Macintyre, Herb McCormick, Doug Rutherford, Matt Rutherford. Red Dot on the Ocean is the story of Matt Rutherford, a severely troubled youth, who became a sailing legend. Departing Annapolis, MD in a scrappy...




www.imdb.com












Maiden (2018) - IMDb


Maiden: Directed by Alex Holmes. With Frank Bough, John Chittenden, Bruno Du Bois, Pat Edwards. The story of Tracy Edwards, a 24-year-old cook on charter boats, who became the skipper of the first ever all-female crew to enter the Whitbread Round the World Race in 1989.




www.imdb.com












Maidentrip (2013) - IMDb


Maidentrip: Directed by Jillian Schlesinger. With Dick Dekker, Kim Dekker, Laura Dekker, Barbara Mueller. 14-year-old Laura Dekker sets out on a two-year voyage in pursuit of her dream to become the youngest person ever to sail around the world alone.




www.imdb.com




I know it's not a documentary but still one of my favorite old sailing movies:








Mutiny on the Bounty (1935) - IMDb


Mutiny on the Bounty: Directed by Frank Lloyd. With Charles Laughton, Clark Gable, Franchot Tone, Herbert Mundin. First mate Fletcher Christian leads a revolt against his sadistic commander, Captain Bligh, in this classic seafaring adventure, based on the real-life 1789 mutiny.




www.imdb.com





A few youtubers that are fun and educational:








Tom Cunliffe - Yachts and Yarns


If you’re interested in sailing, things maritime and the salty road to freedom, then pour yourself a glass of the finest and settle down to listen to my occa...




www.youtube.com












Adventures of an old Seadog


This is the home of the exciting sailing and cruising adventure web series 'Adventures of an old Seadog' Gritty down to earth videos of sailing singlehanded ...




www.youtube.com












Sailing Uma


👋 We are Dan (From Canada) & Kika (From Haiti), Creating videos of our journey, adventures, and lessons learned, as we explore the world, One country at a ti...




www.youtube.com





Lately women have been really catching up and making records, and I like the stories of:
Jeanne Socrates

OK, now you're fired up and inspired!
Google Google, lots of Google ;-)
Play that fun game of learning the terminology and finding the perfect boat:





__





Yachts for Sale - YachtWorld


World's largest selection of brokerage boats for sale by professional yacht brokers with new, used, sailing, power and super yachts for sale.




yachtworld.com








__





Beginner’s Guide to Boat Terminology - boats.com


It's your go-to dictionary for #everythingboats: From boat parts to boat type, and every action command you'll need out on the water.




www.boats.com












What's in a Rig? The Cutter Rig - American Sailing


A variation on the last installment of What’s in a Rig (the sloop) is the Cutter Rig. The modern cutter rig is generally a set-up with two headsails.




asa.com





I always google first for "boat x review" and see if there is a review from a reputable source, usually a magazine or publication, if I can't find one I go to the owner's forums and read about the reputation and qualitities of the boat.

And of course there are lots of how to guides for beginners on Youtube:


https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=learn+to+sail



Good luck with your new adventure!


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Jeff_H said:


> Reading my posts above, I agree that the tone was unnecessarily harsh on Rush.and for that I apologize to him and the forum.


Hey no worries man, I know we're all in it for the love of the sport.
And the sailing bug has bit me and there's not much I can do at this point. 
There is only one way and that's forward ;-)

And correct information is important in this game! I for one have gained a respect for the sea that I don't need to get the hard way. My local pool is the North Sea, and that baby don't mess around. So good decisions on equipment are critical to say the least. And I may press a bit sometimes but I'm just trying to get things straight, especially when different sources conflict.

Your posts have been helpful and have shown in short- it's complicated! 
As SanderO said- be careful to chose the particular ones that are actually vetted, and not just general designs.
So you've both been tremendously helpful, and thanks again


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

chef2sail said:


> See you act like you want to learn...then you get snarky just like you accused JeffH.
> I already have 2 masters degrees , 1 in Political Science and 1 in Psychology. Graduated with 3.82 GPA. I should go back to school? Did you make some assumptions from reading ....huh...Did you assume I was a Chef.
> 
> .


WOW! Your choice of what your 2 degrees are in and apparent need to tell us all about them though neither has any bearing on the discussion, and even including your GPA explains quite a lot. I've never seen anyone do that. And if you think that 2 masters degrees or a dozen doctorates or just a high school GED has any bearing on the need for 'going back to school' about the millions of subjects you may encounter and become curious about, then you're going to miss out on a lot.

He DOES want to learn, but you and a few others seem to be having trouble getting your heads around the fact that you're not the only self appointed "professors" he is studying under and you apparently feel threatened by his researching lots of sources besides just those of us on this forum and bouncing other ideas than our own off of us. You seem quite frustrated by him and this thread. FYI, in case you didn't realize or have forgotten, this forum has blessed us all with the ability to 'unsubscribe' to any thread that we don't like. It's a great tool that helps us all avoid getting so wound up that we say things that we later regret.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

chef2sail said:


> See you act like you want to learn...then you get snarky just like you accused JeffH.


Ah, I was actually just kidding there man...
I am listening to everything, processing it all, and throwing it on the scales of balance.
Rest assured I'm not just throwing anything away. I'm not in a position to just blatantly ignore wisdom and experience, even if I do challenge ideas a little stubbornly.
Apologies if it seemed 'snarky'...


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

jtsailjt said:


> WOW! Your choice of what your 2 degrees are in and apparent need to tell us all about them though neither has any bearing on the discussion, and even including your GPA explains quite a lot. I've never seen anyone do that. And if you think that 2 masters degrees or a dozen doctorates or just a high school GED has any bearing on the need for 'going back to school' about the millions of subjects you may encounter and become curious about, then you're going to miss out on a lot.
> 
> He DOES want to learn, but you and a few others seem to be having trouble getting your heads around the fact that you're not the only self appointed "professors" he is studying under and you apparently feel threatened by his researching lots of sources besides just those of us on this forum and bouncing other ideas than our own off of us. You seem quite frustrated by him and this thread. FYI, in case you didn't realize or have forgotten, this forum has blessed us all with the ability to 'unsubscribe' to any thread that we don't like. It's a great tool that helps us all avoid getting so wound up that we say things that we later regret.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Learning requires an open mind.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I am glad to see Rush back, I don't want to do a point by point by point debate largely since I think that we are beginning to see some convergence. I did want to touch on one point though which is commonly brought up when discussing older designs. Rush rightly notes that the four boats that he mentioned have very heavy L/D's.
(H&P Sovereign 35 Ketch: Disp./Len.: 415.29, Van De Stadt Excalibur 36: Disp./Len.: 333.19, Camper & Nicholson 38: Disp./Len.: 360.72, Sparkman & Stephens 34: Disp./Len.: 290.72)

That is very true, but to answer Rush's question which I would paraphrase as "Since all four of the boats have a higher than average displacement/length I don't see how this statement (that they do not have thicker hulls) is true?

The following is intended an explanation of why these boats have higher L/D's but probably do not have thicker hulls (The Sovereign possibly excluded for reasons explained in my posts above) results from a number of factors. I will start with the biggest contributor to the lower L/D of modern boats. The main reason that these older boats have a much higher L/D had little to nothing to do with hull thickness is that L/D is based on waterline length. The racing rules of the era caused even cruising boats to have extremely short waterlines for their length on deck. (Short waterlines and the resultant high L/D do nothing good for a boat in terms of seaworthiness, motion comfort, ease of handling, tracking, or carrying capacity but that is outside of this discussion.)

It is probably easiest to understand this by comparing these boats to more modern designs. I would like to look these three boats in more detail, starting with Length on Deck, then LWL then displacement, ballast weight and the net weight of the boat w/o ballast: and also the percentage that the LWL is of the LOA.
Excalibur 36 LOD= 36 ft LWL= 26.25 Disp= 13500 lb Bal= 5,500 lb disp less bal= 8,000 lb LWL/LOA= 73%. L/D= 333.19
Nicholson 38 LOD 37.38 ft LWL 27 Disp 15,900 lb Bal= Not published LWL/LOA= 72% .L/D= 360.72
S&S 34 LOD 33.5 ft LWL 24.17 Disp 9,195 lb Bal 5,400 lb disp less bal 3795 lb LWL/LOA= 74%. L/D= 290.72

Pretty typical of boats designed under the CCA, RORC and early IOR race rules these boats have LWL/LOA's in the 72-74% range and are actually slightly towards the higher end of the range for CCA era boats. I will compare that to pretty standard production boats from the 1990's, a Beneteau Oceanis 350 and Oceanis 370 and (which I doubt most of us would consider excessively robust).
Oceanis 350 LOD= 33.83 ft LWL= 29.83 Disp= 10,582 lb Bal= 3,540 lb disp less bal= 7,042 lb LWL/LOA= 88% .L/D= 181.25
Oceanis 370 LOD= 35.67 ft LWL= 31.58 Disp= 12,787 lb Bal= 4,078 lb disp less bal= 8,709 lb LWL/LOA= 88.5% .L/D= 181.25

I think that if you compare the Oceanis 350 to the S&S 34, you will note that the weight of the 350 without ballast is actually heavier than the S&S 34 suggesting that the Oceanis actually has a a heavier construction than the S&S 34. Similarly if you compare the Oceanis to the similar length Excalibur, the weight of the 370 is actually heavier than the Excalibur suggesting that the Oceanis actually has a heavier construction than the Excalibur.

In fairness, there are a variety of factors that support both sides in this discussion. There is a lot more surface area on the Oceanis so that extra weight is spread over a larger area, and the Oceanis tends to have more interior fit out which might suggest that the skin was thinner on the Oceanis than might at first appear. On the other hand, weighing against the Oceanis having a thinner hull is that modern rigs are much lighter and stronger due to better engineering practices, modern interiors are much lighter construction than the interiors used before the late 1980's, modern decks are lighter than these older boats, and modern diesel engines are hundreds of lbs lighter than the same horsepower engines that preceded them in the 1960's through 80's. .

I also do want to respond to Jtsailjt, comment ( paraphrased) "In your opinion what would be a great $30k cruising boat without a spade rudder?, What boats would you advise him to buy that meets his criteria, leaving out any boats that you like with spade rudders." Having written the above I am short of time at the moment, but I will get back with some suggestions.

But to start that discussion, I will note that one of the issues with finding a robustly constructed boat anywhere in the world is that the vast majority of boats that were built in larger numbers were value-oriented and aimed at coastal cruising and club racing. That was where the market place was and unfortunately that market pressure tended to produce boats that are not all that robust. Therefore, more robustly constructed boats tend to be rarer and produced in smaller quantities making them harder to find. Therefore those smaller production number, more robust boats were more expensive to begin with and often hold their value much better than boats which were not as robustly constructed.

That leaves the sailor on a budget with two alternatives, either pay a little more to buy a boat that began life with a little more robust construction, or do as the Sailing Uma folks did and buy a boat with mediocre build quality but of one of the better designs from her era and then spend the time and money to beef it up to stand up to the conditions that the boat will be used in. That can be done with a boat like the Pearson 36 (Uma). It can't always be done with all boats and not all designs are equal in terms of seaworthiness, motion comfort, carrying capacity etc.

In my mind, on either path, the most critical component in this is to chose a design that was one of the better designs from her era for that person's intended present day purpose rather than some mediocre or ill-suited design, When I look at the 4 designs that Rush mentioned, solely from a yacht design standpoint, none of those fall in that category (except possibly the S&S 34) given what Rush would like to do.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Rush2112 said:


> Ah, I was actually just kidding there man...
> I am listening to everything, processing it all, and throwing it on the scales of balance.
> Rest assured I'm not just throwing anything away. I'm not in a position to just blatantly ignore wisdom and experience, even if I do challenge ideas a little stubbornly.
> Apologies if it seemed 'snarky'...


I have many friends with dual degrees
My father was a Mayo trained thorassic surgeon who went to law school in his early 50
College only teaches you how to learn IMHO. Books only go so far.
I worked in a profession for 20 years which required extensive learning but very little done by books ,
Learning done by mentoring, practicing to gain experience, I don't see formal books learning as the only or even 
The best way to learn. 
I didn't learn how to sail by reading a book. I didn't learn about other boats reading books.

Learning requires an open mind.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

.......

In my mind, on either path, the most critical component in this is to chose a design that was one of the better designs from her era for the intended purpose rather than some mediocre or ill-suited design, When I look at the 4 designs that Rush mentioned, solely from a yacht design standpoint, none of those fall in that category (except possibly the S&S 34) given what Rush would like to do.

Respectfully,
Jeff
[/QUOTE]

So are boats built in Scandinavian nations bordering the North Sea generally more robust.... as their local market would be sailing the North Sea? What about the German boats?


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

chef2sail said:


> ....
> I didn't learn about other boats reading books.
> ...


Sailing may be analogous to dance on one level. Dancers don't do classrooms or learn from books as far as I know. It's a physical and "body learning" and mind body training.

Sailing like sports is also a physical activity... but I think more mental than a lot of other sports. Owning and caring for a boat is physical but much / some can be learned from books or in a classroom. I learned navigation in a classroom, We had homework and books! Sail theory is kinda a book thing but it DOES require real time experience to "integrate" the principals into practice.

So my take away is that there is a lot to learn about boats and sailing in books, reading and watching video. But you have to DO sailing to integrate the knowledge into your practice.

I suppose you can "learn to sail" without a book, own a boat without reading a book or an instruction or owners manual. But it seems reading etc. DOES inform you and makes you a better and more aware sailor.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

maybe one of these days I will read one of those books to get myself along toward cruising

oh,...................... wait a minute


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Jeff_H said:


> The main reason that these older boats have a much higher L/D had little to nothing to do with hull thickness is that L/D is based on waterline length.


OK, so I get what you are saying about the IOR rules, and how boat makers of the era used to create short waterlines to sort of 'hack' the rules. Some have even said that these boats were designed to maximize speed at such a heel that more surface area is exposed to the water, making the boat effectively longer in the water and therefore faster.

So then your argument is that displacement/length is actually calculated based upon the length of the water line LWL and not the length overall LOA. And since these earlier boats were short at the waterline, this exaggerated their displacement/length numbers.

OK, fine. So just for fun (I can't help it I'm a compulsive analyst) I ran the numbers to see if we set all boats into Disp/LOA numbers to see how they would compare. And the results are interesting. I also threw the Sovereign back in, I missed why you excluded it.

Sovereign 35
Displacement: 16,350 lb 
Disp./LWL.: 415.29
Disp./LOA : 170.2
Beam: 10.00 ft

Excalibur 36 
Disp= 13500 lb 
D/LWL= 333.19
D/LOA= 129.17
Beam= 9.9

Nicholson 38 
Disp 15,900 lb 
D/LWL= 360.72
D/LOA= 135.9
Beam= 10.5

S&S 34 
Disp 9,195 lb 
D/LWL= 290.72
D/LOA= 109.18
Beam= 10.08

Oceanis 350 
Disp= 10,582 lb 
LWL/LOA= 88%
D/LWL= 177.98
D/LOA= 122.01
Beam= 11.25

Oceanis 370 
Disp= 12,787 lb 
D/LWL= 181.25
D/LOA= 125.77
Beam= 12.42

Three of the four boats I listed still have a greater D/LOA than the Oceanis boats, and by a pretty fair margin.

Then if we add the fact that the Oceanis boats are a fair bit wider than the older boats listed, this margin gets even greater.

Just on casual observation it's easy to see that the 36ft Oceanis 370 is a monster compared to the 36ft Van de Staadt, and that fiberglass weight is stretched over a vastly larger surface area.

D/LOA= 125.77









D/LOA= 129.17









If I had to guess I'd say the Oceanis boats probably have 30-50% more surface area over which the fiberglass is stretched compared to the older boats. As the greater width of the Oceanis boats feeds into an exponential equation for surface area. Then add to that the fact that the extra width is carried both fore and especially aft. 30-50% more surface area in the oceanis is not a wild estimate.

Now, even taking into consideration the points you are making, which I believe to be valid, the amount of displacement/(lets say surface area of fiberglass hull) is enormous.

All other things being equal this should translate into a 60% or more greater thickness in the hulls of the older boats.

Another factor to consider might be the interior furnishings, as the Oceanis has probably 70% or more interior volume for furnishings. However this might be balanced (to some degree) by the fact that older furnishings were probably heaver per sq/ft. So I think it's generous to call that a wash, although I'll bet the Oceanis interiors might just be heavier, especially if they have refrigerators and other niceties.

It's a great argument you've made and a keen observation, and it does lessen the gap considerably between the newer and older boats to consider LOA instead of LWL, but I'll still stick to the prior conclusions of owners of these old beasts that they are in fact 'thick as a brick'!


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

chef2sail said:


> I didn't learn how to sail by reading a book. I didn't learn about other boats reading books.


Yes, I get your point that there is only so much you can learn before getting out there, when the real experience begins.

But I can say from a little car racing class that I once took many years ago, where the 3 day school turned out to be almost 2 days in class, that sometimes, when safety is on the line, its good to get as much theory as possible before throwing yourself into it.

BTW if you're curious, the first day we learned things like the difference between driving a FWD and a RWD and AWD, we learned the concepts of under-steer and over-steer, and how to correct it in different vehicles, we learned heal toe techniques and trail breaking, and how to properly nail an apex and an exit point.

Then they wet down an asphalt parking lot and let us spin out intentionally forcing and recovering from under-steer, over-steer, etc.

The second day in class we had first aid, and learned the various turn worker flags and what they mean, and we studied the racetrack. We learned every single corner, what gear it is in typically, what to look out for, how to setup for the turn, etc. We literally had the track memorized before we drove out on it!

The third day we were finally allowed on the race track. And I can tell you that those first two days undoubtedly saved my life! If I'd gone straight out and took off the gas too early on turn 1, it was a certain spin out at top speed.

Lesson learned: when safety is paramount, it can be worth it to spend a little more time in 'ground school' ;-)


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Camper and Nicholson 38, was my first big favorite boat.
I just love the look of the boat, such beautiful classic lines, and it has fantastic reviews of seaworthiness on their owners website, where many have sailed the world in them.

And I really like this guy's videos, he manages to single hand them:


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

I've always taken "reviews" of people's own boats with a few grains of salt. I've never met anyone who thinks their boat is less than really good; usually, they think they're great. Sure, sometimes I hear "I wish she had more storage space", or something similar, but I've never heard "She sails like a toaster and wallows like a pig. Frankly, she's a death trap and I wish I had bought a different boat."

We all have the need to protect our egos from admitting a mistake to some degree; no one likes to admit that their judgment was faulty, especially for a purchase as large as a boat. In fact, the only time I've ever heard someone substantively criticize their sailboat is after they've sold it.

I'm as guilty of this as anyone. I used to think that my Oday 23 was a fine sailing boat; points high, nice turn of speed, etc. But then I started sailing on other boats too. And I started comparing my boat to the performance of others while I was sailing. It took a few years of reality, but I finally had to admit to myself that my boat was not a "fine sailing boat". Since I sold her, the weak points of the boat are much easier for me to admit.

So when I read that someone claims that their Sailomatic 3000 does X well, I take that in. But frankly, I'm more influenced by someone who can say that they've been on the Sailomatic 3000 as well as on the Blowhard 38, and the Blowhard is way better at X than the Sailomatic.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

mstern said:


> ...but I've never heard "She sails like a toaster and wallows like a pig. Frankly, she's a death trap and I wish I had bought a different boat."


LOL, good one.
Yeah I see your point. Whenever I research a new model I look first for Google: "Boatx review" and hope that I get an old magazine article, as they seem to be the best. Just one or two guys usually who work for the magazine, don't own the boat, but have a lot of experience on different boats, who can put it through the courses and tell you what's what with little fluff. Too bad those are relatively rare and often so hard to find...

A couple of good examples:


http://sovereign35.com/page5.html?LMCL=qesQ9I






__





The Hallberg-Rassy 35 Rasmus Sailboat : Bluewaterboats.org







bluewaterboats.org


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Speaking from my limited experience on a few boats and 10s of thousands on mine... my review is not very ego driven... my LWL is under 30' and I do 150 nm in the ocean in 24 hrs and as much as 175. My boat is not a responsive race boat and doesn't get moving in light winds, but above 10 kts she move well. A few sailors who have sailed on the boat commented that she sailed well.
I do pitch the interior design / build and cockpit which I think are excellent. I have few complaints... galley is huge and well placed. I like the walk thru forward head without separate shower... others seem to not like this at all. I can't prove it is better, but I am fine with it and there are some benefits... one of them that it is pretty roomy,
There is no wet locker. I haven't worn foul weather gear in decades. And if I did I would hang it in the head and let a few drops land on the cabin sole... no big deal.
I have mixed feelings about the bridge deck main sheeting and traveler. I am used to it but it could be nice not to have it there many times.
And so on.


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

Meanwhile, the true OP, Elijah, hasn't said a word! He is just keeping his head down! I am surprised he is still lurking on this site after witnessing such a pissing contest!

Maybe Sailing Anarchy would be less hostile!

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

SanderO said:


> I have mixed feelings about the bridge deck main sheeting and traveler. I am used to it but it could be nice not to have it there many times.


Thanks for the review.
BTW, that's the only thing that really bugs me about the Contests, the 34 Sloop and 36 CC both share that main sheeting location, and it appears that it cannot be easily moved above the companionway. Perhaps with a mini arch or sorts? Also this creates a problem for a continuous sun shade in these boats which is something I highly desire 

However the good news is..
I ran the same numbers above on the Contests as well and here's what I found:

Contest 34 Sloop
LOA: 34.00 ft
LWL: 27.58 ft
Displacement: 7,400kg 16,314lbs
Ballast: 3,200 kg 
Comfort Ratio: 34.39
D/LWL= 347.16
D/LOA= 181.25
Beam: 11.16 ft

Contest 36 CC Ketch
LOA: 35.92 ft
LWL: 28.87 ft
Displacement: 8,146 kg 17,959 lbs
Ballast: 3,028 kg 
Comfort Ratio: 35.88
D/LWL= 331.30
D/LOA= 171.84
Beam: 11.15 ft

Which shows the highest D/LOA of all boats mentioned so far. So they really did build the Contests thick and heavy.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Rush2112 said:


> OK, so I get what you are saying about the IOR rules, and how boat makers of the era used to create short waterlines to sort of 'hack' the rules. Some have even said that these boats were designed to maximize speed at such a heel that more surface area is exposed to the water, making the boat effectively longer in the water and therefore faster.


Two (hopefully) quick thoughts here:
It was actually the International Rule and the CCA rule (not the IOR) that tried to trick the rating by having a short static waterline that became longer when the boat was heeled. Both historic and modern research showed that the gain from the heeled water length was minimal, and was generally largely offset by the greater drag of the heeled boat and the greater leeway that came from sailing heeled over. These days those old CCA era boats are sailed pretty flat or at least as flat as you can sail a boat with very little stability relative to drag. By comparison the early IOR and the RORC rule boats were trying to cheat the rule into thinking that there was less stability than there really was. Part of that cheat was how stability was measured which is why the pinched transoms, but part of it was that these boats purposely did not have much stability and so relied on a lot of crew weight sitting up on the rail. The pinched sterns made these boats prone to yawing, broaching and rolling, making them very hard to steer except upwind.

I looked at your number crunching analysis, and suggest that the mistake that you were making was looking at the total displacement, rather than the weight of the boat without ballast. If we trying to get a relative sense of the skin thickness, then including the ballast provides a misleading result. I say this because modern boats with their greater form stability and bulb keels tend to have comparatively small Bal/disp ratios. If we look at these boats without the ballast you can see that Excalibur and the and Nicholson have L/D (using LOA and weight of the boat without ballast) around 77 and 79. The S&S 34 is substantially lighter (which matches my impression from being on these boats and feeling them flex and oil can.)

Without a correction for the greater beam the two Beneteaus are heavier by a significant amount. Even when correcting for the greater beam (the % greater width x 2 for the fuller stern) the Beneteau 350 is in that same general weight range and the Beneteau 370 is still heavier than the S&S 34. And none of that takes into the account the much heavier rigs, interiors, and engines found on these older designs. From actually doing the weight calculations ,I can assure you that the differences in rigs, interiors, and engines could be in the 1200 to 1500 lb range and would more than offset the added hull area on the Beneteau boats. In other words nothing points to these older boats having heavier skins. Since you like to see numbers, I ran the numbers through a quick spreadsheet and you can see them below.

One quick comment on the numbers, you need to remember that that the Beneteaus in question are boats that most people would consider to be lightly built production boats. These are not even heavier duty modern cruising boats.

And as one more quick comment, for the purpose of this comparison, most yacht designers frankly would not consider the Super Sovereign 35 to be a sailboat as much as it is a motorsailor. It is a pretty nice design for a motorsailor, and should sail pretty well for a motorsailor, but it is way too short on sail area and the necessary stability to carry that sail area to be considered a boat whose primary means of of propulsion is under sail.


Sovereign 35LOA35​LWL26​Displacement:16,350​Ballast6230​Disp w/o Bal10,120​Disp./LWL.:415.29​Disp./LOA :170.2​105​Beam:10​Excalibur 36LOA36​LWL26.25​Displacement:13500​Ballast5500​Disp w/o Bal8,000​Disp./LWL.:333.19​Disp./LOA :129​77​Beam:9.9​Nicholson 38LOA37.83​LWL27​Displacement:15,900​Ballast6360​Disp w/o Bal9,540​Disp./LWL.:360.72​Disp./LOA :135.9​79​Beam:10.5​S&S 34LOA33.5​LWL24.17​Displacement:9,195​Ballast5400​Disp w/o Bal3,795​Disp./LWL.:290.72​Disp./LOA :109.18​45​Beam:10.08​Oceanis 350LOA33.83​LWL29.83​Displacement:10,582​Ballast3450​Disp w/o Bal7,132​Disp./LWL.:177.98​Disp./LOA :122.01​82​Beam:11.25​112%​74​Oceanis 370LOA35.67​LWL31.58​Displacement:12,787​Ballast4078​Disp w/o Bal8,709​Disp./LWL.:181.25​Disp./LOA :125.77​86​Beam:12.42​148%​58​
Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## Calmwater (Aug 5, 2018)

This is an old subject with pros and cons with a lot of subjective opinions, usually based on the owner’s own boat... 

I had a Catalina with tall rig, deep fin keel with spade rudder and never had a problem but I was extremely careful and never sailed in shoal waters (was mainly in the Med), the steering was easy and very responsive.

My preset Contest has an impressive extra strong full skeg. I’ve extensively cruised in the Caribbean and the Bahamas over the last two years where with a spade rudder I would have to avoid a lot of areas - this is also true with the ICW and southeast inlets. I felt much safer with my skeg hanging rudder. 

If you look at the common ‘recommended’ blue water cruisers at the reputable magazines and other pro sources, most of the highly recommended have skeg mounted rudder (HR, Amel, Najad, Contest, Oyster, Moody, Pearson, Tartan, Freedom etc...). It doesn’t mean you don’t see many cruising boats with spade rudder, but from what I could see over the years, these are more common with the typical coastal sailors, charters etc. and much less with ‘pro’ blue water cruisers.

This is by no means a research study, but during a refit I was running at the IGY Marina Boatyard In St Lucia, last year, within three months two boats arrived, one from crossing the Atlantic, without their spade rudder - both were Bavaria, which isn’t the most common boat in that area vs. Jeanneau and Beneteau. The boatyard was rather quick to build new rudders for them and when I asked about their experience, they told me they get damaged spade rudders all the time... But we can all check with our boatyards and hear what they say.

Still my subjective 2 cents here.


----------



## maersi (Mar 26, 2013)

Rush2112 said:


> I have read more than one blog now of experienced sailors saying a full keel with attached rudder is far superior when running downwind in strong following seas. And a long keel with a skeg attached rudder (assuming a quality built boat of course) is also a big advantage in this situation. One guy said he was literally 'surfing' down the waves, and his short fin keel and spade rudder had him careening left and right and taking every ounce of his energy to keep it just pointed straight, and he was praying to all that's holy that he could just have his long keel and directional stability back.
> 
> I'm personally not experienced in such situations, but his argument was pretty compelling.


I have been in the same position, a loss of directional stability while sliding(surfing) down steep waves. This required massive and rapid helm input to maintain course. I later decided that the cause was reaching and exceeding planing speed in a hull that was not designed to do that. The point being that the boat had a skeg hung rudder, and with the designed amount of hull in the water, it was directionally stable.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Jeff_H said:


> I looked at your number crunching analysis, and suggest that the mistake that you were making was looking at the total displacement, rather than the weight of the boat without ballast.


OK fair enough, it's a good argument that ballast should be removed for the purpose of this analysis.



Jeff_H said:


> Without a correction for the greater beam the two Beneteaus are heavier by a significant amount.


Well here is where I'm going to push back a little bit.
I mean what we are really trying to get at, in a perfect world would be:
(Displacement-Ballast) / Surface Area (SA)

But since we don't have SA numbers, we have to approximate by adjusting length for beam, but even this is highly flawed. Because if again, we just look at the top down shots of these two boats, essentially two boats anyway as each generation is basically shaped the same, what we are basically comparing is a diamond to a rectangle with a little point on the end.

I would argue that a more valid way of getting at surface area would be to simply look at the interiors of the boats in question. This is where the actual size of the surface area of the hull becomes more apparent. So let's say we played a game where we looked at photos of the interior of the VDS Excalibur, and then we picked the appropriate length of Oceanis which appeared to have a similar sized interior, indicating a similar surface area hull. This is where things get a little surprising.

Let's first look at the VDS 36 interior:









OK, now let's look at the Oceanis 370 interior:









OK now it becomes obvious that we can't even compare these two boats on surface area. That Oceanis is a monster. You could play football in there! OK, so let's keep stepping it down until we find a reasonable match...

VDS 36 again









VS. Oceanis 30.1









OK, now we're getting closer, but I would still give the nod to the Oceanis for overall size. And that's just looking forward, there is going to be an even more dramatic difference in the rear of the boat as these more modern shapes are almost rectangles in the rear, again vs the almost diamond shapes of the older boats.

So where does that bring us? Right back where we started!
It probably is most accurate to actually compare Displacement/LWL!
Because the fact is, that any length that the boat has which is purely over the waterline, is adding extremely little actual surface area to the hull of the boat. And any difference between LOA and LWL is likely more than offset by the enormous rear end of modern boat designs.

There's no surface area actually in the tips of this boat, I mean just look at it...









Look at how stout this thing is in comparison, and we all know what the back end looks like from the top down!









So I would contend that the better comparison is actually where we started, length at the waterline LWL.
Anything above the waterline, especially these old boats, there just isn't anything in it, 
and whatever little is there, is far more than offset by the extra beam and shape of the newer models.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

This discussion is mostly devoid of facts.
tracking-the appendages are only one of many factors that determine whether a boat tracks. I’ve had true full keel, modified full keel, high aspect fin, low aspect fin, fin bulb. I’ve had attached, skeg hung, transom hung and spade rudders. I can confirm from experience there is absolutely NO correlation between these features and the ability to tract. On passage from Newport to BVI we had the AP in standby for a whole 4 hour watch without knowing it. Course didn’t vary at all. That was on a bulb fin, spade rudder Outbound with 18-24 on starboard quarter and 1 to 2 meter seas with a 2’ to 3‘ wind chop on top. This repetitive statement about full keel boats is just NOT true.
Failure- All to often the rudder holds on the skeg not the other way around. The attachment point between the skeg and canoe body is narrow. GRP is very strong in tension, strong in compression but doesn’t bend. the glass fibers crack when lateral force is applied. Unless the skeg is designed with a wide base that flows into the canoe body it’s hard to make a strong skeg. There’s a wide variance on spades. Some are supported by multiple bearings, Some have CF posts, some high grade stainless, some low, some aquamat, some have 4” posts, some smaller or larger. Outbounds have 4” high grade stainless. Middle bearing is well above the waterline in a massive tube with massive supports.. There are 3 bearings. The third at level of the cockpit sole. A sistership ran into rock on a turn. direct hit. Continued on. Got a short haul. Dropped rudder and straighten it. Back in the water and cruising within 24 hours. A month later did the Salty Dawg. The blanket statement about the strength of any type of rudder is pure nonsense. It’s TOTALLY boat and design specific.
Steering- sensitivity and steering effort is dependent on balance. You can achieve both in any type. 80 year old transom hung rudders can be canted forward. With the skeg you can extend the rudder blade forward and under the skeg. But you can achieve a NASA foil and balance with a spade most easily. By all measures a spade with perform best if executed correctly.
We’ve cruised a spade for 7 years. Thousands of blue water miles. Thousands of coastal miles. Docking, close quarters maneuvering, surfing, gales, squalls , you name it. At this point if my goal was long range cruising and blue water I would not buy a boat WITHOUT a spade.
BTW we have a Hydrovane. That’s our spare rudder. If we didn’t would just hang two warps over at the aft corners. A friend Mike Keyworth did this with his older Swan. It steered just fine with no rudder.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

outbound said:


> This discussion is mostly devoid of facts.


And that's mostly arrogant and rude and dismissive of a wealth of information in this thread.


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

Rush, while the D/L ratios using LWL can be a bit deceiving, using LOA is probably even more inappropriate. 
Some more modern designs have almost no overhangs so LOA=LWL, but old CCA boats may have overhangs that amount to 1/4 of their LOA. But on these older boats, when heeled over while sailing their LWL increases, but as has already been mentioned by JeffH, not as much as advertised back in the day. So, to most fairly compare the ‘heaviness’ of the 2 types of boats using the D/L formula I think that on the CCA designs with long overhangs you might add just a foot or two to the LWL rather than using LOA, and use LWL for newer boats that lack any significant overhangs . But even doing that, you’ll get confusing info because as you’ve noted, the displacement includes the weight of the ballast and that can vary significantly between boats without affecting overall ruggedness. And sometimes the boat with more ballast needs a heavier and stronger layup in the keel stub and where it’s tied to the hull to support that additional ballast, and this extra weight doesn’t necessarily mean the rest of the boat is built ruggedly. So, while all this number crunching can provide some insights, it can also drive you crazy while introducing additional confusion. The D/L formula is most commonly used by naval architects to come up with a number for comparison purposes that will represent how heavy the boat will feel in the water, not to tell us how ruggedly the boat is built. 

It’s fine to do the number crunching that you’ve been doing and it can provide some useful info if you understand their limitations, but when it comes down to it, the numbers you generate at best only tell part of the story, and as you’ve already discovered, if you’re not careful they can mislead you. Much more info can be determined by reading about how the boat was constructed, talking to prior owners about their impressions and common troublespots, and then inspecting the boat to see how it looks and feels and sails. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Rush2112 said:


> And that's mostly arrogant and rude and dismissive of a wealth of information in this thread.


Sorry its just a little tiresome when somebody feels the need to open up with a one liner like that.
Makes it almost impossible to read and take seriously anything else they say.


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

More adjectives plz


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Question, you seem to be really concerned about impact resistance. Not really concerned about performance or comfort.

Are steel boats something that are on your list? If plan is to go out and bang into stuff, steel or aluminum may be an option.


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

outbound said:


> This discussion is mostly devoid of facts.
> tracking-the appendages are only one of many factors that determine whether a boat tracks. I've had true full keel, modified full keel, high aspect fin, low aspect fin, fin bulb. I've had attached, skeg hung, transom hung and spade rudders. I can confirm from experience there is absolutely NO correlation between these features and the ability to tract. On passage from Newport to BVI we had the AP in standby for a whole 4 hour watch without knowing it. Course didn't vary at all. That was on a bulb fin, spade rudder Outbound with 18-24 on starboard quarter and 1 to 2 meter seas with a 2' to 3' wind chop on top. This repetitive statement about full keel boats is just NOT true.
> Failure- All to often the rudder holds on the skeg not the other way around. The attachment point between the skeg and canoe body is narrow. GRP is very strong in tension, strong in compression but doesn't bend. the glass fibers crack when lateral force is applied. Unless the skeg is designed with a wide base that flows into the canoe body it's hard to make a strong skeg. There's a wide variance on spades. Some are supported by multiple bearings, Some have CF posts, some high grade stainless, some low, some aquamat, some have 4" posts, some smaller or larger. Outbounds have 4" high grade stainless. Middle bearing is well above the waterline in a massive tube with massive supports.. There are 3 bearings. The third at level of the cockpit sole. A sistership ran into rock on a turn. direct hit. Continued on. Got a short haul. Dropped rudder and straighten it. Back in the water and cruising within 24 hours. A month later did the Salty Dawg. The blanket statement about the strength of any type of rudder is pure nonsense. It's TOTALLY boat and design specific.
> Steering- sensitivity and steering effort is dependent on balance. You can achieve both in any type. 80 year old transom hung rudders can be canted forward. With the skeg you can extend the rudder blade forward and under the skeg. But you can achieve a NASA foil and balance with a spade most easily. By all measures a spade with perform best if executed correctly.
> ...


You need to keep in mind that his budget is $30K so tales of how great your half million dollar cruiser tracks aren't very relevant. He can't afford either the length or engineering that makes your boat perform the way it does, and there's nothing wrong with that. I wouldn't personally rule out a spade but i think it's a personal preference thing and if he wants a full keel or skeg hung rudder, we can work with that. After all. It's not like there aren't any good boats without spade rudders.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

outbound said:


> This repetitive statement about full keel boats is just NOT true.


I think it's already been discussed and concluded that the specific design is very much dependent on the specific make and model of boat and builder. And generalizations about the different designs have to be taken within that context.

Also there is truth to the fact that fin keels are known to lose directional stability as speed decreases. I got this from Tom Cunliffe, whose opinion I respect, and I haven't seen anybody challenge this statement yet.

That being said, there are certain makes and models of boats, as has been mentioned in this thread, which have literally never lost a fin or keel, and those just happen to be full keel, attached rudder, or robustly built fin with skeg. Just saying...

Also I mentioned earlier in the thread that the easiest decision I made on this topic was to always have a hydrovane. But nobody picked up on it.

So maybe the thread was not so 'devoid of facts' as you thought?

Again, appologies for snapping back, but geez people can't we just leave the aggressive one liners out?
It really stumbles the progression and I think we're all trying to get to the same place.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Arcb said:


> Question, you seem to be really concerned about impact resistance. Not really concerned about performance or comfort.
> 
> Are steel boats something that are on your list? If plan is to go out and bang into stuff, steel or aluminum may be an option.


I can't speak for the OP, I think he heard enough on fin vs full keel a while back to make up his mind.
We both have the same budget, and are both looking for durable, seaworthy boats, him for Great Lakes I believe, and me for the North Sea, which have good space inside, him for family, me for liveaboard. And we are both looking in the 30K range.

Personally I like the Van de Staadt Seal for its durability reputation, relatively flat forward decks, and the layout inside, but not so much what I've heard about the cost of maintaining steel. Maintenance being the same reason I've excluded all wood boats. Though if you have any compelling arguments, I'd like to hear your thoughts?

Of course I have no 'intention' of banging into things. But as one respondent said, nobody expects to hit ground or a fisherman's pot ever, and yet almost everyone hits something eventually.


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

Also, regarding Outbounds statement regarding rudders holding the skeg on rather than the skeg supporting the rudder, that’s not true at all on properly designed and built boats. Does outbound really think he’s the first to notice that the attachment point of the skeg is relatively narrow and all the naval architects and builders involved with building skeg hung rudder boats somehow missed noticing this and didn’t compensate by adding reinforcement like extra layers of glass or building the skeg around a substantial stainless steel ‘T’ that’s bolted to the hull? Amazing. 
I get it that Outbound seems to be taking someone’s preference for not having a spade rudder as a personal attack on his own spade rudder boat, and I understand we’re almost all guilty of that sort of thing to varying degree regarding “our baby” but making derogatory and misleading statements about other types of boats in response isn’t helpful at all. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

For OP for great lakes, I don't see the need for anything special. Catalina 30 or similar should be more than up to the task. No special boat is required for cruising Lake Hurons North Channel. 

As for recommendations about steel or aluminum, not really. I just know there are lots of cheap steel boats and some of them can take a hammering.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

I think this guy is legit:


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Rush2112 said:


> Of course I have no 'intention' of banging into things. But as one respondent said, nobody expects to hit ground or a fisherman's pot ever, and yet almost everyone hits something eventually.


Sure, I bang into stuff all the time. It comes with the territory when you sail a lot of boney skinney water like I do. My boat has a few simple design features that make this easier. Kick up bilge boards (like centre boards but two of them). If you are going to hit bottom, in all likelihood it's going to be the deepest part of the boat. Balanced post hung rudder for improved maneuverability in tight spots, rudder is protected by hull. Extra layers of fibreglass on the bow for beaching. I beach on sand, gravel and rock. Fibreglass grounding plate stands up fine. There is one large hole that has been patched from the time it didn't. Point is, I hit stuff all the time, but my boat doesn't have any of the features that you list. It is highly maneuverable though, which is something that is important to me for sailing in tight spots.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Calmwater said:


> ........I've extensively cruised in the Caribbean and the Bahamas over the last two years where with a spade rudder I would have to avoid a lot of areas -


I couldn't follow your rationale for this statement. Could you expand?


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Rush2112 said:


> .....Whenever I research a new model I look first for Google: "Boatx review" and hope that I get an old magazine article, as they seem to be the best. Just one or two guys usually who work for the magazine, don't own the boat, but have a lot of experience on different boats, who can put it through the courses and tell you what's what with little fluff. Too bad those are relatively rare and often so hard to find...


So you're saying that magazine reviews would be unbiased? I think it's well accepted that magazines, who rely on ad revenue, from boat manufacturers are indeed biased. I don't think they go so far as to say things that defy any fact. I do think they gloss over the negatives to avoid conflict. They may simply not review a boat at all, if they think it would cause ad revenue issues.

I have the Cruising World article that reviewed my current boat, when the model was launched in 2004. It was pretty glowing and I don't think anything they said was wrong. They certainly didn't dwell on its weaknesses either.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Appraising a boat is a complex calculus which clearly would not be applicable to any particular owner/buyer. I liked the video or Cunliffe and found it instructive.

Design is always a series of trade offs and making prioroties.

Production boat design evolves... and the "innovations/changes" feedback over time into design revisions. I hardly makes sense to produce a full scale of a design and out it through extensive in water real world testing. And if this was done.... how would they isolate what "feature" contributed to the total performance.

Designers and builders seem to work with the broad and well established design principles... and those seem to endure.

Foils were a race innovation and produced some dramatic changes to sailing. I don't see this making its way into cruising designs.

++++

While performance is for sure important and could even be a life safety issue... I would think accommodation plans and ergonomics would/should be a more important consideration in the "decision matrix" in choosing a boat.

I would guess that aside from racing boats most people who own and use boats for "cruising" spend more time on boat NOT underway and down below. And this is where the design of the interior is mission critical.

Why is there not more discussion and focus on functionality of interiors and cockpits both for use underway and more importantly perhaps at anchor, moored or dockside?


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

Rush2112 said:


> I think this guy is legit:


He is legit for sure. But that video isn't an unbiased recap of various keel designs. Nor is it a good overview of the pros and cons of full keel boats. That video is a beautiful and passionate love letter to that particular boat and to Tom's youth. The only objective things I took away from it were: modern bulb keels go to windward better than full keels, and full keels heave-to better than bulb keels.

I think he makes a good point about outboard rudders being easier to inspect and service. But for me, the added vulnerability to the rudder and the exposed steering station make it a better design for a boat that won't be exposed to big following seas.

But, different strokes for different folks. Like I said before, you should buy the boat that makes you feel like Tom feels about that boat.

And FWIW, I've found that just about any boat will heave to. My old O'day 23, a stub keel/centerboard design with almost no keel and a very canoe-like flat bottom, would heave to with ease.

Nice video. I love it when people love boats.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

So the two prospective buyers in this thread because financial considerations are looking for older boats... porbably 80s vintage. They will get the most INTERIOR bang for the bucks and as my previous post noted... interiors are way more important than a spade of skeg or a full keel in the end.

Hull shape and rudder and keel form DO impose limitations on what can be done in / with the interior.

Look at the interiors please.


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

SanderO said:


> Appraising a boat is a complex calculus which clearly would not be applicable to any particular owner/buyer. I liked the video or Cunliffe and found it instructive.
> 
> Design is always a series of trade offs and making prioroties.
> 
> ...


I really don't think foils have much of a place in cruising boats for lots of reasons, but I do wholeheartedly agree that livability down below and cockpit design are very important things to consider when choosing a boat. Some of that is to personal taste but some features are things almost anyone would like or dislike. 
For example, in this discussion, the Contest that's been mentioned apparently has the traveler located IN the cockpit. For me, even if I thought this boat was perfect in every other way, I'd reject it for my perception of this being a safety issue, plus the difficulty it presents in having a dodger to protect from sun and wind and rain while sailing. But others have gotten used to it and see it as no big deal. I like a cockpit with benches long enough to stretch out on. That was the one beef I had with the Nordic 44 I used to own. Cockpit was great for sailing but not as good for lounging. Lots of the old Swans which were very expensive and well built had travelers on the bridge deck and no access to the interior from the cockpit. That's fine I guess if you're a racer, but IMHO crazy for a cruiser. My own boat is a center cockpit design and that means a steep 5 steps to go below. That's not an issue for me but I can see where it would disqualify my boat for some people, and when we had a 83# dog, I have to admit I occasionally worried what might happen if I lost my balance while climbing the 5 steps with both hands occupied cradling her. I once helped deliver a beautiful, expensive 76' sailboat from Bermuda to Maine and while it had a nice dodger to protect the 'social' cockpit, the actual cockpit where the helm was located was very shallow and was completely exposed with no chance for a dodger. I remember thinking that I'd be much more comfortable helming my old 35 footer than I was standing out on that deck during night watches with the cold wind chilling me to the bone. So many other considerations unrelated to sailing performance or ruggedness but of equal importance when choosing a cruising sailboat that you can live comfortably sigh at sea and in the harbor.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

So true......a true sailor if honest could talk about whaT are the shortfalls of what they own in critical terms. I rarely see anyone one here do that except for trivial items like tankage etc, I too value more the opinions other have who have spent time on them. We all look at our boats through rose colored glasses.


SanderO said:


> Appraising a boat is a complex calculus which clearly would not be applicable to any particular owner/buyer. I liked the video or Cunliffe and found it instructive.
> 
> Design is always a series of trade offs and making prioroties.
> 
> ...


if it's all about interiors Beneatau and Catalina have it hands down


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

mstern said:


> And FWIW, I've found that just about any boat will heave to. My old O'day 23, a stub keel/centerboard design with almost no keel and a very canoe-like flat bottom, would heave to with ease.
> .


I think that statement needs to be qualified a bit because there's a wide variation in how well different designs heave to. Yes, pretty much any boat will heave to in a 20knot breeze, but for offshore cruising in order to be able to depend on using heaving to as a storm tactic you need a boat that will heave to and be stable in 50 knots or more. I'd be quite surprised if your ODay 23 would meet that criteria, and neither would lots of modern designs with efficient underbodies. Not saying they are bad boats, but heaving to in them isn't as useful a storm tactic as it is with more traditional designs.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Speaking of the bridge deck location of the mainsheet and traveler.

I am used to it and there a few minor advantages such as ease of fine trimming with an 8:1 purchase.
In fact I am not trimming the main as much as the head sail. The location is convenient for gybing.
There are obvious disadvantages such as cockpit enclosure.

On the other hand the cockpit on the 36 is huge and you can line down fore-aft and athwartship. And for at anchor there are work arounds for the mainsheet.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

[QUOTE="chef2sail, post: 2051688031, member: 145292"

if it's all about interiors Beneatau and Catalina have it hands down
[/QUOTE]

Please explain... which Benes and which catalinas?


----------



## GlanRock (Feb 26, 2013)

Whichever boat the OP or any others (RUSH2112?) ends up getting, you can rest assured there are things you will love about it and things you will hate about it. There are always trade-offs! Further, as mentioned, you can research sailing until your head is full but until you actually get out there on the water and experience it_ for several seasons_ you will only then come to realize the internal list of what is important to you in your boat and what is "meh". And that list will be different from others lists.

This thread has been a trove of information for me though, in historical reference and such. Also very interesting reading in the never ending debates of this boat versus that boat design.

For the OP, and RUSH2112, find the boat that 'ticks' the most boxes in your current 'want list' and also is within your price range and get it. Remember to have money left over for the things your Surveyor missed, or didn't miss, because then its time to get to work on it. Create a checklist of items for your Surveyor, and make sure he or she doesn't mind you asking questions. Assuming you have one of course. Sometimes the best person to look at a boat you want might be the person who hates that design, they'll point out every flaw the vessel you've fallen in love with has. Okay perhaps not quite like that, but hopefully that makes sense. You obviously are trying to put a lot of thought into this, and no one faults you for it. However what I think many here are trying to help you see is that if you've already fallen in love with a boat, and now are trying to justify why that is a great design, and smart move on your part, and any other things. It doesn't matter. Just do it. You will love it, and you will hate it. As you get more experience, and your reading switches to the "How To" types, as does your YouTube videos, you will flip your mentality to a list of "What I Still Love" and "What I Want To Change/Upgrade" about your boat. The only way I can think of around that is unlimited resources.

We fell in love with the 1984 Endeavour 40' CC about 8 years back. We looked at a lot of boats, it was within our range, and we found ourselves comparing all the other boats to it. It didn't matter if so and so doesn't like center cockpits, because I wasn't buying the boat for them! It didn't matter that her weather helm was annoying, but that turned out to be more about having way too much genoa. She had a dreamy interior, it ticked all of OUR boxes. She didn't have a bow-thruster, and moving in reverse seemed to depend on the current position between the current, wind conditions above 2 knots, and somehow the position of the Moon and its current phase. She had storage, beautiful teak (later we hated it) exterior, and fantastic lines, that wonderful aft cabin, and more.

Hopefully my point comes across, get a boat and go sailing. Things will break, we didn't know about checking the steerage cable and connectors and lost it during a 3rd voyage but that story I'll save for my own thread. We had rough times, good times, lots of times though.

Since then we've moved on to another newer boat, but we had a new list! And we've already found things we hate, but then we remind ourselves that it was a trade off because we wanted more of this or that, or less of this or that.

Best of luck to OP and RUSH2112, I hope to hear about some adventures from you soon.

And frankly, I'm pretty sure I would happily listen to Jeff_H for hours, can't wait for the next time I'm in Annapolis anchored down there. I'll be watching for Synergy!

Regards, 
John

S/V Serendipity


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Rush2112 said:


> Also there is truth to the fact that fin keels are known to lose directional stability as speed decreases. I got this from Tom Cunliffe, whose opinion I respect, and I haven't seen anybody challenge this statement yet.


There is something not right about this statement. Perhaps it is the definition of "directional stability"? To me, that is described in terms of lift and leeway. A full keel has at least double the drag, and a lot less lift, than a short aspect fin keel (depending on planform). This is even greater differences for moderate aspect fins. It is true that the faster a higher aspect foil is moving, the more lift and less leeway it produces. So the opposite is also true.

However, the lift of a full keel in comparison is much lower at all speeds, and the leeway is much higher, so it seems like its directional stability should also be lower. At zero speed, the full keel has better directional stability simply because both keel types are operating in pure drag, and the larger planform drags the most.

It seems odd attributing increased drag to a positive feature.

Perhaps there is a crossover point in velocity flow where fin keels can't produce enough lift to overcome their planform drag, or they stall because the angle of attack is too high. However, this would be a rarer narrow area of sailing conditions where the increased efficiency of a fin keel couldn't provide the extra speed to regain acceptable lift.

After all, who is worried about directional stability at 1-2kts of speed? Particularly if the keel itself is keeping one at those speeds.

Mark


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Minnewaska said:


> So you're saying that magazine reviews would be unbiased?


No. And I get your point. But, when doing a used boat review of an (at the time) 20 year old boat, and both of the reviewers are just borrowing it for the day (and don't actually own it!) my impression of these kinds of reviews is that they are pretty balanced overall. They list strengths and weaknesses and seem pretty fair as I'm pretty sure there isn't much corporate agenda on the line with a 20 year old boat. Maybe the mileage would vary with new boat reviews where current sales competition is on the line as you mention...


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

mstern said:


> He is legit for sure. But that video isn't an unbiased recap of various keel designs. Nor is it a good overview of the pros and cons of full keel boats.


Mmm, I'm not so sure... I think he lays out the more important pros and cons as he sees them.



mstern said:


> That video is a beautiful and passionate love letter to that particular boat and to Tom's youth. The only objective things I took away from it were: modern bulb keels go to windward better than full keels, and full keels heave-to better than bulb keels.


Again, I think his videos are pretty objective. I believe he behaves professionally, and though he shows spirit and passion for sailing he is also careful to be accurate with his words.



mstern said:


> Nice video. I love it when people love boats.


Yeah me too!


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

SanderO said:


> So the two prospective buyers in this thread because financial considerations are looking for older boats... porbably 80s vintage. They will get the most INTERIOR bang for the bucks and as my previous post noted... interiors are way more important than a spade of skeg or a full keel in the end.
> 
> Hull shape and rudder and keel form DO impose limitations on what can be done in / with the interior.
> 
> Look at the interiors please.


Well if I focus on interiors I'm back to Moody and Westerly center cockpits ;-)
For the money I don't think you can do much better for living space as they both have fantastic, spacious and airy aft cabins.

But I have to say my main consideration is going to be biased toward seaworthiness and durability as I have one major differentiating factor from the OP- I'll be sailing on the North Sea. When I go south I'll cross through the opening of the English Channel, and cross the Bay of Biscay.

I have no choice- seaworthiness and durability have to take precedence.
Though for the OP, I have no doubts you may be right!


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

jtsailjt said:


> For example, in this discussion, the Contest that's been mentioned apparently has the traveler located IN the cockpit. For me, even if I thought this boat was perfect in every other way, I'd reject it for my perception of this being a safety issue, plus the difficulty it presents in having a dodger to protect from sun and wind and rain while sailing.


Yep, the traveler location is a bit of a hangup for me as well.
And if you see my sun shelter thread, you'll see shelter from the elements is very important to me.
So I'm looking for ways to either relocate that traveler to the top of the companionway, or come up with a custom bimini solution, or both. Still looking for solutions on this. The interior on the Contest boats though, I have to say I quite like.


----------



## GlanRock (Feb 26, 2013)

RUSH2112, I would take a look at some of Patrick Laine's video presentations on YouTube. He's a solo sailor who traverses (I believe) the areas you are looking at. Not for the vessel so much as the information and experiences he imparts. We also enjoy Sailing UMA, more so when they're actually doing 'boat stuff' than the other fluff, along with several others.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

jtsailjt said:


> I think that statement needs to be qualified a bit because there's a wide variation in how well different designs heave to. Yes, pretty much any boat will heave to in a 20knot breeze, but for offshore cruising in order to be able to depend on using heaving to as a storm tactic you need a boat that will heave to and be stable in 50 knots or more. I'd be quite surprised if your ODay 23 would meet that criteria, and neither would lots of modern designs with efficient underbodies. Not saying they are bad boats, but heaving to in them isn't as useful a storm tactic as it is with more traditional designs.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I agree. I do not believe the Oday 23 would heave-to well in 50+ knots of wind. Mostly because the mast and sails would be blown off, and the owner wouldn't even be aboard as the Coast Guard would have stopped him from going out in that weather in the first place by placing him on a psych hold. Nevertheless, back when I owned that boat, it was quite pleasant to heave-to in 10 knots of wind, have a sandwich and maybe go below to take care of some business. Not so much a storm tactic as a way to leave the tiller for a few minutes while I did something else.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

jtsailjt said:


> I really don't think foils have much of a place in cruising boats for lots of reasons,


I am not sure that you mean that. Keels (even full keels) and Sails are foils under the classic fluid engineering definition:" A *foil* is a solid object with a shape such that when placed in a moving fluid at a suitable angle of attack the lift (force generated perpendicular to the fluid flow) is substantially larger than the drag (force generated parallel to the fluid flow)." But I agree with you if I assume that you mean the type of foils that lift a boat out of the water.

I would like to touch on a couple quick points here.
Hull thickness:
I think that the discussion of hull thickness got off the rails trying to find surrogate ways to determine the strength and durability of hulls. Cutting to the chase, however we sliced and diced the numbers, we compared a lightly built reasonably current production coastal cruiser to a cluster of older boats and the numbers were not all that dissimilar.

But beyond that, I actually have calculated and prepared laminate schedule for glass boats in the 70's, 80's and early 2000's. Each were calculated using the standard methods of the day and were consistent with the way boats were built during those periods. There were very minor differences in hull thicknesses. ( On the last boat that I did this on [see image below] the topsides were slightly thinner but the other portions of the boat up to about a foot above the waterline were the same and there was more closely spaced framing than the older designs.)

 by Jeff_Halpern 2013 ,
Schooner for Jerry Taylor- Sail Plan by Jeff_Halpern 1982,

What has changed dramatically is what happens within that thickness, which has changed enormously. Under the various generations of design protocols, the composition of the laminate has changed so that in current engineering practices there is more reinforcing for that given thickness, even the 'regular' fiberglass fabrics are much better in terms of fiber length and consistency, the normal building processes uses better construction procedures, standard laminating polyester resins are better than we had in the 60's, 70's and 80's, and resin ratios are easier to optimize. The net result is hulls that even if the same thickness (or slightly thinner) start out much stronger and resistant to puncture, fatigue and abrasion than the older laminates.

Directional stability and heaving to.
There is a lot of out of date thinking above. There is no doubt that it seems intuitive that a full keel would offer better longitudinal stability than a long keel with a cut away forefoot and a raked keel hung rudder, and that would have better directional stability than a long keel with a skeg-hung rudder, and that would have better directional stability than short fin keel and post-hung rudder. (Please note that both a skeg-hung rudder and a post-hung rudder are spade rudders by the classic definitions.) But that pecking order does not play out in real life. In reality, based on the literature, and my own experience having sailed on and owned a lot of boats that fit every one of those descriptions, by far the worst (in terms of heaving to or tracking) of these configurations is the long keel with a cut away forefoot and a keel hung rudder, and you almost cannot heave-to with that configuration in strong conditions. But the other three configurations can end up tacking and heaving to very well, or very poorly depending on the specific design.

The idea that you cannot heave to on a fin keel boat with a post hung rudder has long been debunked. Its done all the time in all kinds of conditions.

But what is also true is that a boat with a short chord length, fin keel and a high efficiency post-hung rudder will make a lot more leeway when it has little or no forward motion. This impacts what happens when a high aspect fin keel boat with a post-hung rudder is hove to. Typically a fin keel boat with a post hung rudder will make a lot more leeway when hove-to. My own boat, which is a pretty extreme fin keel boat with a post hung rudder for the late 1970s when she was designed, made approximately a knot of leeway when hove to in 40 knots of wind although some of that may have been from wind driven surface current since it came off my GPS.

The flip side of the issue with fin keel boat with a post hung rudder making a lot more leeway is that they are less likely to be flipped by large steep waves since the keels stall out and generate less sheer force in the wave face. This more recent understanding runs counter to the early research on fin keels.

In the early research after the Fastnet, the hull forms and keel configurations of these 1960s and 1970's boats were such that the data supported the hypothesis that a deeper draft boat experienced greater surface sheer in steep waves and so were more likely to get rolled by the surface sheer. Later testing did not appear to support the earlier hypothesis. Current thinking is that while a deep draft high aspect fin keel boat with a post hung rudder does experience greater surface sheer in a big wave, the smaller area and tendency to stall at high angles of attack make them less prone to being rolled than a full keel in the same conditions. Of course, that is all geometry driven and independent of the greater stability that more modern designs tend to have.

Lunch over, time to get back to the drawings board.....

Jeff


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

JeffH, the poster I was responding to mentioned foils in the context of a “race innovation” and I think most of us would take that as a reference to the sort of foils most famously found on America’s Cup Cats that lift the boat and allow great speed, not to sail or keel type foils. Apparently you missed the context? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

jtsailjt said:


> JeffH, the poster I was responding to mentioned foils in the context of a "race innovation" and I think most of us would take that as a reference to the sort of foils most famously found on America's Cup Cats that lift the boat and allow great speed, not to sail or keel type foils. Apparently you missed the context.


Jtsaijt: I got the context but was ribbing you on the choice of words which struck me funny the first time I read them. I meant no harm.

In any event, I essentially agree that the displacement reducing foils have no place in cruising boats at their current state of development. That said, at present there is some very interesting work being done on the DSS (Dynamic Stability System) foils for cruising boats. If these prove to work as theorized they might do a lot to help reduce heel and roll, making for a much more comfortable and faster cruising boat.

Jeff


----------



## Elijah on the Water (Jul 21, 2020)

Wow, this thread has been a bit of a journey. Thanks for all of the information. As a new, to big boats, sailor trying to navigate the unknown waters of boat design/performance/safety, this has been super helpful (for the most part - could do without the ego trips though . My feeling is the skeg mounted rudder still seems like a more durable design, but one should not avoid a spade on a well made boat that otherwise fit's your criteria. My immediate goal is to get on board a variety of boats in the near future in order to experience some of the differences first hand. I will be spending 3 or 4 days on a Hunter this month. I've also got a date with a Douglas 32 and a Catalina in my local marina. 

Thanks for all the info


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

Elijah on the Water said:


> Wow, this thread has been a bit of a journey. Thanks for all of the information. As a new, to big boats, sailor trying to navigate the unknown waters of boat design/performance/safety, this has been super helpful (for the most part - could do without the ego trips though . My feeling is the skeg mounted rudder still seems like a more durable design, but one should not avoid a spade on a well made boat that otherwise fit's your criteria. My immediate goal is to get on board a variety of boats in the near future in order to experience some of the differences first hand. I will be spending 3 or 4 days on a Hunter this month. I've also got a date with a Douglas 32 and a Catalina in my local marina.
> 
> Thanks for all the info


Glad you didn't run away screaming!

Like I said before, go for the boat that "speaks" to you! Don't discount boats over one design feature, that will dramatically limit your options. Just about any well maintained boat will be able to handle anything you can throw at it regardless of of keel and rudder design.

Focus on what will make you and your family comfortable and happy!

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

SanderO said:


> [QUOTE="chef2sail, post: 2051688031, member: 145292"
> 
> if it's all about interiors Beneatau and Catalina have it hands down


Please explain... which Benes and which catalinas?
[/QUOTE]
Almost across the board the interior room of the benne/ Catalina 38 ft have great interior volume


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Two disqualifies for me out of the box when I went from my Islander 28 to out C&C 35 MKIII were cockpit travelers and Volvo engines.

I guess if you spend a lot of time singlehanding it may not be as big a deal, but it makes the cockpit potentially uncomfortable. Always something to go around or trip over. I’ve a friend with a T34C . Only thing I don’t like about his boat. Plus as was stated presents issues in terms of bimini dodger protection


----------



## olson34 (Oct 13, 2000)

I hardly _ever_ disagree with 'Chef'...  Altho we _are_ perfectly aligned about the evil-ness of Volvo auxiliaries. 
Our cockpit traveler was one major reason for buying our boat. It's in the right place for sailing short or single handed, provides a strong hand-hold when traversing over the bridge deck, and being aft quite a ways on the boom needs less force and # of sheaves to control the main.
"Each to his/her own" as the saying goes!
Fair Winds..........


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

olson34 said:


> I hardly _ever_ disagree with 'Chef'...  Altho we _are_ perfectly aligned about the evil-ness of Volvo auxiliaries.
> Our cockpit traveler was one major reason for buying our boat. It's in the right place for sailing short or single handed, provides a strong hand-hold when traversing over the bridge deck, and being aft quite a ways on the boom needs less force and # of sheaves to control the main.
> "Each to his/her own" as the saying goes!
> Fair Winds..........


I agree, as far as performance sailing goes, traveller aft is the best. It allows for better main trim, and better control. On the other hand, the mainsheet in the cockpit does pose a hazard when gybing, particularly if you have kids or non-sailor guests on board. It also limits your ability to have a bimini or cockpit enclosure. That's why so many boats make the compromise of having the traveller on the coach roof.

As for Volvo engines, my last boat had a 40 year old raw water cooled Volvo MD7a. I'll grant you Volvo had some interesting ideas back then, but that old engine never let me down. It was easy to maintain, and I never had any trouble finding the parts I needed. I wouldn't pass up a good boat if it had a well maintained Volvo in it.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

The main sheet is also a "hand hold" at times. And though it may be something to "get around" It is not a dripping hazard at all,
When I got the boat a cockpit enclosure was not even a thought... but protection from wind and spray was and the dodger handles that and does provide protection from the elements in the forward end of my cockpit.
But over time because of the desire to block sun and at times rain (though the latter was much less a consideration)...protection in the cockpit was considered. I used a simple boom tent at anchor which was effective and simple.... but a bit of work. I still use it at times. But that's not a solution for protecting most of the cockpit underway. I don't want, like the look of, nor would consider a full cockpit enclosure... A partial bimini over the back of the cockpit is a compromise I am considering... and a connector for at anchor.
In reality we seem to like to be spend time below when not sailing.
I suppose you discover and adapt to the features of the boat you have... and hopefully buy one with the features you want. I had no experience with marine diesels, but the MD17D has been working for 35 years with not unexpected maintenance such as elbow replacements, pump replacements and alternator upgrade etc. Of course you learn over time about every aspect of the boat. That's normal,


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

SchockT said:


> ...On the other hand, the mainsheet in the cockpit does pose a hazard when gybing, particularly if you have kids or non-sailor guests on board.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


Gybing is a hazard if it is uncontrolled or accidental,.. even for a skilled crew person. Understanding this I have been very mindful sailing down wind and try to plan controlled gybes. The main sheet location on the bridge deck actually works fine for gybing single handed on the 36s... but this is also because of the AP location and how I use it to gybe and tack. I avoid sailing dead down wind in very light air and stronger breezes. The boom is above head height so it can't knock someone standing on the sole of the cockpit. I execute my gybes by slowly steering to dead down wind as I trim the main close as possible to CL... traveler also CL. I often roll in the head sail and possible take it out on the the other side. Boat speed is slowing. I prefer to align the course with the following sea. I gybe by turning the course dial a few degrees the main is backed and gybes over and then standing in the cockpit well with my body braced by the pedestal I then ease the main sheet and it begins to fill as I steer off the wind to a broad reach. It would be very difficult to single hand gybe from the helm. Boat is really set up to operate it from the well forward of the pedestal aft of the bridge deck and main sheet where all sheets, primary winches, engine controls and AP are in reach.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

colemj said:


> There is something not right about this statement.
> 
> After all, who is worried about directional stability at 1-2kts of speed? Particularly if the keel itself is keeping one at those speeds.
> Mark


It seems that Mr. Cunliffe is arguing that in the worst of conditions when you need to heave to and hold it there, that the full keel has a great advantage. He describes the fin in this particular circumstance as a crisps wrapper blowing across the surface. I am a very inexperienced sailor and cannot say anything at all about this (emergency?) situation, but he is quite confident and emphatic in his response, so I tend to think there's something to it. Aside from that- yeah sorry can't really respond


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

GlanRock said:


> RUSH2112, I would take a look at some of Patrick Laine's video presentations on YouTube.


Yes, I like his videos. Like Tom Cunliffe, he's got real 'sea cred', you just know he's the real deal. I saw him a while back then lost him, he's back in my list now- thanks!

Also I agree I really like the youtubers who focus more on sailing than relationship and personal dramas and bla bla... I'm more into learning about real sailing than 'reality TV'! Really like that guy No BS Just Sailing, his videos are fantastic, educational, and like Cunliffe and Laine, you just know he's legit ;-)


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Rush2112 said:


> It seems that Mr. Cunliffe is arguing that in the worst of conditions when you need to heave to and hold it there, that the full keel has a great advantage. He describes the fin in this particular circumstance as a crisps wrapper blowing across the surface. I am a very inexperienced sailor and cannot say anything at all about this (emergency?) situation, but he is quite confident and emphatic in his response, so I tend to think there's something to it. Aside from that- yeah sorry can't really respond


I wonder how much time you would honestly spend hove to on the North Sea. Waiting for a tide to turn is the most likely reason I can think of. It's a big body of water, but crossings would be measured in days not weeks.

I think I would rather have a fast boat that could get across in 4 days than a boat that heaves to well but takes a week to get across.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Jeff_H said:


> Hull thickness:
> I think that the discussion of hull thickness got off the rails trying to find surrogate ways to determine the strength and durability of hulls. Cutting to the chase, however we sliced and diced the numbers, we compared a lightly built reasonably current production coastal cruiser to a cluster of older boats and the numbers were not all that dissimilar.


Well again, I'll have to hold my ground on that one ;-)
I still believe we went full circle, and after all the analysis it was clear to me at least that length of waterline LWL which is the standard measurement on say sailboatdata.com really is the best measure for the basis of Displacement/Length, and the best indicator of boat thickness over said surface area, as those old boats really have very little above the waterline surface area, to justify using length overall LOA. And the much greater width and surface area of more modern boats stretches the Disp./Length over a much larger area. And the conclusion that they are most likely quite a bit thicker than modern boats logically holds. That's just on analysis, on reputation from the owners this holds up as well.

So I'm more than ever of the belief that those old fiberglass boats (the well built ones from quality builders of the 70s-mid 80s) really are much thicker than those from say the 90s on.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Elijah on the Water said:


> Wow, this thread has been a bit of a journey. Thanks for all of the information. As a new, to big boats, sailor trying to navigate the unknown waters of boat design/performance/safety, this has been super helpful (for the most part - could do without the ego trips though . My feeling is the skeg mounted rudder still seems like a more durable design, but one should not avoid a spade on a well made boat that otherwise fit's your criteria. My immediate goal is to get on board a variety of boats in the near future in order to experience some of the differences first hand. I will be spending 3 or 4 days on a Hunter this month. I've also got a date with a Douglas 32 and a Catalina in my local marina.
> 
> Thanks for all the info


There was a point in this journey when all I wanted was a Hunter.
For the length and the price, they seem to offer fantastic value, especially if live-aboard space matters.

This video is a pretty good detailed tour of the interior. My favorite part was his argument for having a hot water shower! And the separate shower stall looked _really_ nice.





And I liked this blog:








How We Got To Hunter


So let's face it, across virtually all the sailing forums, Hunter is probably one of the most maligned brands of yacht there is...apart from McGregor, of course




bfsshop.com





It was only after reading a guy who said his keel had literally fallen off and the boat sank down out from under him that 'durability' entered my criteria. And further research showed not everything is meant for the North Sea! But you're not sailing the North Sea. And in all fairness I've learned a lot since then! And I think if you get a good inspection and I would actually have the bolts professionally checked and torque tightened (if necessary) by a keel specialist, and where you're sailing you'll probably be just fine.

Again if you have any reservations about the rudder, I think the most compelling argument is to buy a Hydrovane. They're not cheap. But they're bolted on, always ready, and work as a second rudder in a pinch. They'll get you home. Someone here pointed out that they don't all have tillers, so make sure the model you get does, and I think you're effectively 'rudder covered' at that point.

Good to see you back, and I'll be really curious how your search progresses.
Good luck and have fun with the onboard trials


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

Man this is a terrible thread! 12 pages of a newbie telling everyone how he knows what is right and how the people out there are doing it is wrong!


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Rush2112 said:


> ......So I'm more than ever of the belief that those old fiberglass boats (the well built ones from quality builders of the 70s-mid 80s) really are much thicker than those from say the 90s on.


Rush. I hope you enjoy the heck out of whatever boat you acquire. Perhaps this discussion is just an intellectual exercise and the debate is enjoyable. Nevertheless, Jeff is a naval architect, who was actually there when these older boats were new. (Sorry Jeff, you've outed your own age already) He knows the answer and is just trying to put it in terms and examples others might understand. He's not entirely showing how he drew his conclusion.

You're, of course, welcome to whatever conclusion you'd like to draw. While there is some credibility in those that have been there done that, an awful lot of scientific "knowledge" has been spread over the years and ultimately proven incorrect. But lots of people bought the original premise, in some cases because it was repeated over and over. Like hiding under my grade school desk was going to help, in the event of a nuclear attack. ?









Superseded theories in science - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Rush2112 said:


> There was a point in this journey when all I wanted was a Hunter.
> For the length and the price, they seem to offer fantastic value, especially if live-aboard space matters.
> 
> This video is a pretty good detailed tour of the interior. My favorite part was his argument for having a hot water shower! And the separate shower stall looked _really_ nice.
> ...


Interesting that you mention showers on boats. Absolutely you want a hot pressurized water shower. On our boat the shower is a hand shower which is also the sink spout. It has a shut off so once temp is mixed you can shut the flow by pressing a button on the spout.
I have written before about the head configuration on the Contest36s which as a walk thru head and the head IS the shower. This does not work for many who use the V for sleeping. We use the aft cab for that and theV is more a "spare room/walk in closet space"... so forward of the head is not a problem.

A separate shower takes up floor space and uses it for one purpose showering which is actually a rare activity. Our head is large and has a very large hatch above so it is extremely well ventilated. Our walls are high gloss varnish which after 35 years of use look like new.... and they get a wash down and wipe after every shower. I often hand things to dry from the forward facing hatch in the V or the head. Head would be perfect for foulies... but we rarely use them as we are now fair weather sailors and the boat sails dry. Our head/shower allows us to sit on the toilet to show, had multiple strong hand holds and can be used heeled quite well. The head feels large compared to aft heads and compartmented heads with a separate shower. The design also has storage for towels and toiletries etc. all in easy reach. I am very much used to and adapted to the design and now find it intelligent. But as with all (accommodation) design decisions... they are a matter of personal preferences. This applies to galleys, nav stations, tables and so on.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

SanderO said:


> The main sheet is also a "hand hold" at times. And though it may be something to "get around" It is not a dripping hazard at all,
> When I got the boat a cockpit enclosure was not even a thought... but protection from wind and spray was and the dodger handles that and does provide protection from the elements in the forward end of my cockpit.
> But over time because of the desire to block sun and at times rain (though the latter was much less a consideration)...protection in the cockpit was considered. I used a simple boom tent at anchor which was effective and simple.... but a bit of work. I still use it at times. But that's not a solution for protecting most of the cockpit underway. I don't want, like the look of, nor would consider a full cockpit enclosure... A partial bimini over the back of the cockpit is a compromise I am considering... and a connector for at anchor.
> In reality we seem to like to be spend time below when not sailing.
> I suppose you discover and adapt to the features of the boat you have... and hopefully buy one with the features you want. I had no experience with marine diesels, but the MD17D has been working for 35 years with not unexpected maintenance such as elbow replacements, pump replacements and alternator upgrade etc. Of course you learn over time about every aspect of the boat. That's normal,


SanderO,
I really appreciate your practical comments lately about what you like and don't about your boat.
The cockpit is for me also a really big deal. As already discussed in the 'sun shelter' thread, that sun and weather shelter is super important to me. I really love the idea of a continuously shaded cockpit. And I'm even a big fan of the hard bimini as on the Rasmus 35 Sloop (ketch has the mainsheet in cockpit).

My favorite cockpit overall though I'd have to say is actually the boat I keep bringing up (because I love it and I think it's gorgeous!) is my first true sailboat love the C&N 38. To me a cockpit can't get any better. It's very deep, relatively small, sheltered by a hard bimini/top that goes all the way back, yet is open on the sides and allows full access to all controls under sail. Brilliant! I'm also not a fan of an enclosed pilothouse, too disconected from the experience. Whereas this being open on 3 sides strikes the perfect balance.

And I mean not to mention, just look at her:









I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but when I see that baby- ooh key the Marvin Gaye!


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

SanderO said:


> Interesting that you mention showers on boats...


Thanks for the great description, very helpful!
That in mind, I'm reconsidering the value of a separate shower stall, as it takes precious square footage.

Getting back to the Contest.
Would it be outrageous to have a custom hard bimini with hard top and attached main sheet traveler above? I see a lot of high end new boats going to an 'arch' design and putting the traveler up there (and then using a nearby winch for leverage if necessary) so I imagine a custom bimini/top could be just as strong theoretically. If I could work out a good cockpit shelter on a contest 34 sloop/36 ketch I wouldn't need to look any further!


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Rush2112 said:


> It seems that Mr. Cunliffe is arguing that in the worst of conditions when you need to heave to and hold it there, that the full keel has a great advantage. He describes the fin in this particular circumstance as a crisps wrapper blowing across the surface. I am a very inexperienced sailor and cannot say anything at all about this (emergency?) situation, but he is quite confident and emphatic in his response, so I tend to think there's something to it. Aside from that- yeah sorry can't really respond


So we are talking about comparisons of pure drag from a completely stalled foil. I guess that goes back to the points made earlier that some full keel boats heave to well and some don't. Same with fin keeled boats.

That "advantageous" drag works against you at all other times, though.

Mark


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Minnewaska said:


> You're, of course, welcome to whatever conclusion you'd like to draw.


It gets a little bit annoying when I have to say 20 times that these ARE NOT MY CONCLUSIONS.
//End rant

I read from different sources, much of them circumnavigator blogs and owner's forums.
I put it all together and balance the data, that is all.
Literally nothing I have said is MY conclusion.

So please get off it already!


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Also I have a feeling that the real deal circumnavigators with the most real world experience, don't actually spend much time on internet forums. Just saying...


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

We have


Rush2112 said:


> Also I have a feeling that the real deal circumnavigators with the most real world experience, don't actually spend much time on internet forums. Just saying...


We have at least 2 or 3 circumnavigators that post here regularly. Aside from them, there are quite a few very experienced sailors who post here. You're assumption is incorrect.


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

Don L said:


> Man this is a terrible thread! 12 pages of a newbie telling everyone how he knows what is right and how the people out there are doing it is wrong!


Those may be your private thoughts, but what made you think it would contribute anything to the discussion or help to steer it in a direction you'd prefer to come on here and insult the newbie? Perhaps instead you could share some of your thoughts on what a seaworthy $30K sailboat looks like it at least constructively tell him what you think is wrong with his reasoning? Or if you read part of a thread and don't find it to your taste, simply close it and click on another thread that you do like. In your personal life when you happen to overhear part of a discussion that you think is stupid do you walk up to the group having the "stupid" discussion and tell them that, or do you move on until you find a discussion that interests you and you think you can contribute to? I've never understood people who think anyone cares that they don't like a thread so they have to make a post announcing that.

I really don't see him as telling anyone that he knows what is right and everyone is doing is wrong. If you read the thread through he's questioned everything though and checked a variety of sources and that's a great way to learn. He HAS learned and I happen to agree with most of his conclusions so far and I've been sailing various boats and interested in their design both from a sailing and engineering perspective for a little over 50 years so far, so you certainly don't speak for everyone when you announce that he is saying "the people" out there are doing it wrong.

So specifically, what seaworthy boat should he be looking at that he can buy for $30K? What is so wrong about the boats he's considering given his budget constraints and intended sailing area? He doesn't want a spade rudder and I don't know why that's such a big deal for some people. The Pardeys spent their lifetimes sailing around the world in a full keel boat and I've lost count how many times Fatty Goodlander has circumnavigated in old boats with skeg hung rudders. Spades certainly have their advantages but they're not for everyone, especially entry level sailors on a limited budget.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Arcb said:


> We have
> 
> We have at least 2 or 3 circumnavigators that post here regularly. Aside from them, there are quite a few very experienced sailors who post here. You're assumption is incorrect.


Yeah, OK, fair enough. 
I feel like I'm getting a little too easily annoyed right now. I'm feeling a little provoked by people who keep saying that these are 'my' conclusions and I just 'like' them and 'want' to believe them. And I'm actually pretty good generally at keeping things on balance and actually I really have no skin in the game.

And ironically I feel like someone who keeps saying this to me is someone who is actually not listening.
So I hope nobody takes these comments too personally. Apologies again if you did. Again I'm just feeling annoyed right now. Best at these times just to take a little 'time out' for a few days ;-)

I see this as a spiritual journey, and I'm feeling a little off track at the moment.
Nothing wrong with taking a little break every now and then, and this might just be a good moment


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

jtsailjt said:


> He doesn't want a spade rudder and I don't know why that's such a big deal for some people. The Pardeys spent their lifetimes sailing around the world in a full keel boat and I've lost count how many times Fatty Goodlander has circumnavigated in old boats with skeg hung rudders. Spades certainly have their advantages but they're not for everyone, especially entry level sailors on a limited budget.


Just to be clear, I don't think anyone has told him he needs a spade rudder, and most have acknowledged his choice range within his budget. What people have done is pushed back on some of the hypothetical advantages being assigned to full keels and attached rudders. Choosing a full keel boat for reasons of liking the boat or having more choices of those in a budget range is one thing. Choosing one because they erroneously expect it, on the basis of the keel or rudder, to perform a certain way or keep them out of danger is another.

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Rush2112 said:


> I'm feeling a little provoked by people who keep saying that these are 'my' conclusions and I just 'like' them and 'want' to believe them.


We are the Priests of the Temples of Syrinx. Our great computers fill the hallowed halls.

Mark


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

Rush2112 said:


> Thanks for the great description, very helpful!
> That in mind, I'm reconsidering the value of a separate shower stall, as it takes precious square footage.
> 
> Getting back to the Contest.
> Would it be outrageous to have a custom hard bimini with hard top and attached main sheet traveler above? I see a lot of high end new boats going to an 'arch' design and putting the traveler up there (and then using a nearby winch for leverage if necessary) so I imagine a custom bimini/top could be just as strong theoretically. If I could work out a good cockpit shelter on a contest 34 sloop/36 ketch I wouldn't need to look any further!


I think it's a vary bad idea to be considering such an arch because it will cost too much to have properly engineered and built. The boats with travelers mounted on arches over the cockpit are designed and the loads analyzed and necessary areas appropriately reinforced during the design and build process. For your budget of $30K you can't begin to buy a structurally sound boat and then reconfigure it in such an extreme way and be sure you didn't screw up your analysis of all the loads it may transfer to its attachment points. Find a boat you like as is that doesn't require any big expensive projects before you ever get it in the water.

Other than the traveler in the cockpit, since I've read a little about the Contest 36, it's grown on me. I've seen photos of them with a nice dodger and bimini. If you want to completely cover the cockpit while at anchor by adding a connector between the two, you could add a boom gallows and unshackle the main sheet from its traveler while at anchor. When it's time to go sailing you remove the connector and reattach the main sheet. For motoring in rainy weather you could choose to leave the connector intact and the boom secured to its gallows.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

jtsailjt said:


> Those may be your private thoughts, but what made you think it would contribute anything to the discussion


Because I felt like saying it! Did I need some other reason? I didn't read beyond the above in your long post that I bet is complaining about about my complaining, but saying your complaining is of higher value. I really only look once in a while out of the train crash effect and after each time I need to wait a while to unfollow so I don't get the alerts.

I do get the feeling the thread has drifted to something else now and instead of "whoever" starting a new thread that others with feedback might read they are just adding it to this one. Thereby basically ensuring it is a 3-4 person "discussion"


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

Don L said:


> Because I felt like saying it! Did I need some other reason? I didn't read beyond the above in your long post that I bet is complaining about about my complaining, but saying your complaining is of higher value. I really only look once in a while out of the train crash effect and after each time I need to wait a while to unfollow so I don't get the alerts.
> 
> I do get the feeling the thread has drifted to something else now and instead of "whoever" starting a new thread that others with feedback might read they are just adding it to this one. Thereby basically ensuring it is a 3-4 person "discussion"


I tried....


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Rush2112 said:


> It gets a little bit annoying when I have to say 20 times that these ARE NOT MY CONCLUSIONS.
> //End rant
> 
> I read from different sources, much of them circumnavigator blogs and owner's forums.
> ...


Listen, Rush. I've defended you above, for being new at this, so folks shouldn't give you a hard time.

To clarify my point, you've read conflicting information and have said you concluded which you believe, as you say others you've read are the real deal. That's a conclusion. Chill and move on is a good plan.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

I don't have the plans of these boats so I can't "design" a cockpit "cover"

My cockpit works for me because I can do everything I need to do from the location aft of the bridge deck - forward of the pedestal. But this is not a location that can have cover because of the mainsheet while underway and sail handling.

At anchor a segmented bimini w/ connector can provide full cover... main sheet is not an issue then ;-).

I am well aware that most owners setup operations behind the helm/wheel or where their tiller is located. I don't sail that way... and because of the architecture of the boat... I migrated my sailing operation to forward of the pedestal for all functions except hand steering to and from a dock or a mooring. I rarely drive from the helm unless I have to in demanding conditions or when it's perfect conditions and I like to feel the boat.

My AP steers my boat, my windlass raises my anchor... my furler "handles" my sail... I trim... My Dutchman tames the main coming down and for reefing. Why would I want to be trapped behind the helm?


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Don L said:


> Because I felt like saying it! Did I need some other reason? I didn't read beyond the above in your long post that I bet is complaining about about my complaining, but saying your complaining is of higher value. I really only look once in a while out of the train crash effect and after each time I need to wait a while to unfollow so I don't get the alerts.
> 
> I do get the feeling the thread has drifted to something else now and instead of "whoever" starting a new thread that others with feedback might read they are just adding it to this one. Thereby basically ensuring it is a 3-4 person "discussion"


I must complain

I feel like I just arrived at Monte Pythons room for an argument ( just substitute the word complaint😀


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Rush
The people posting here have different backgrounds. JeffH said pretty much the same thing I did in a earlier post. Jeff trained as a naval architect. He has an extensive sailing history as well. Mark also (Colgem) many blue water miles. I have over 35000 miles of blue water under my keel. We all have owned, sailed and experienced squalls, gales and the rare storm while sailing full keel, modified full, fin, fin/bulb, centerboard, lift, and other keel types. Please note at present ALL the boats doing round the world races, and ALL the boats racing in the Southern Ocean have spade rudders. There was a recent exception where the boats were by rule had to be designed in the period you mentioned. The drop out rate was huge. Very few finished. NAs are not stupid. There’s a reason why naval architecture has evolved the forms currently in use. Yes there are good boats and bad in all periods of time. There are multiple lists of what’s a good blue water boat. Please read them. The boats you have mentioned are not on the list. My is as well as many others. 
i owned and did repetitive Marion to Bermuda races in a Bob Perry Tayana. It’s a full keel boat. There’s absolutely no question in my mind I’d rather hit a log at hull speed in my Outbound than in my prior Tayana. The hull is much stronger. There’s a collision bulkhead. The log would be pushed aside. Your preconceptions are not borne out as fact. Read good and bad features. It’s an informative book.


----------



## olson34 (Oct 13, 2000)

Whether dealing with gov't, a utility, a bank, corporations.... I have recommended that Python sketch as a 'training video' for many many decades. It's amazing how well it relates to reality!

"No it isn't. Yes it is!!


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

It seems like you type about your 'feelings'..a lot

Joe friday ran a tight ship...


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

outbound said:


> Rush
> The people posting here have different backgrounds. JeffH said pretty much the same thing I did in a earlier post. Jeff trained as a naval architect. He has an extensive sailing history as well. Mark also (Colgem) many blue water miles. I have over 35000 miles of blue water under my keel. We all have owned, sailed and experienced squalls, gales and the rare storm while sailing full keel, modified full, fin, fin/bulb, centerboard, lift, and other keel types. Please note at present ALL the boats doing round the world races, and ALL the boats racing in the Southern Ocean have spade rudders. There was a recent exception where the boats were by rule had to be designed in the period you mentioned. The drop out rate was huge. Very few finished. NAs are not stupid. There's a reason why naval architecture has evolved the forms currently in use. Yes there are good boats and bad in all periods of time. There are multiple lists of what's a good blue water boat. Please read them. The boats you have mentioned are not on the list. My is as well as many others.
> i owned and did repetitive Marion to Bermuda races in a Bob Perry Tayana. It's a full keel boat. There's absolutely no question in my mind I'd rather hit a log at hull speed in my Outbound than in my prior Tayana. The hull is much stronger. There's a collision bulkhead. The log would be pushed aside. Your preconceptions are not borne out as fact. Read good and bad features. It's an informative book.


Which of the boats you mention in this post can he buy for $30K?

Of course a boat like yours or the ones that around the world pro racers sail have more up to date engineering, are able to take advantage of the latest advances in naval architecture, and are built of materials far superior to a 30 to 40 year old 35' boat selling for $30K. So he's looking at an entirely different category of boat than the ones you cite.

You may well be right that your relatively new and larger boat might do better than your old full keel boat if you struck a log broadside, but you don't really know that as fact. I'd say it's very unlikely. The log I hit broadside in my full keel boat might have rolled under your current boats keel without damage, but what if it rolled directly under your boat as it did mine? How can you say with a straight face that any boat with either a skeg hung or spade rudder and an unprotected prop would better survive this type of collision than a full keel boat? I'm not saying this type of accident is likely to happen again but it did happen once to me and since you specifically brought it up....

There's no question that modern spade boats have some advantages and with modern engineering and materials, I'd be very confident in the safety of a boat like yours. But I can't say the same (and neither can you) about lots of smaller spade rudder boats of the 70's and 80's that sell for under $30K. Some might be perfectly fine but some have spades that wouldn't survive almost any kind of collision On the other hand, lots of great blue water fiberglass boats of the approximate size he's looking at with full keels or skeg hung rudders have circumnavigated safely over the past 50 years.

Once again, he can't afford your boat, and I don't see a lot wrong with the boats he's considering. If you think he's making a mistake, rather than pointing to your boat or the multi million dollar race boats, how about pointing out a good, rugged, blue water $30K spade rudder boat he could buy. He probably won't choose it even if you can come up with one, but it would make your position that there are better options he's not considering a lot more credible than does citing the capabilities of million dollar race boats that he can't even begin to afford.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

SanderO said:


> I don't have the plans of these boats so I can't "design" a cockpit "cover"
> 
> My cockpit works for me because I can do everything I need to do from the location aft of the bridge deck - forward of the pedestal. But this is not a location that can have cover because of the mainsheet while underway and sail handling.


Good to know, thanks. I have seen the gear locations around the cockpit and have a feeling I would be sailing from the same location on the Contests. Which just happens to be impossible to shade while underway. This is pretty much my only hangup right now with going for say a Contest 36 Ketch.



chef2sail said:


> I must complain
> 
> I feel like I just arrived at Monte Pythons room for an argument ( just substitute the word complaint?
> 
> ...





outbound said:


> i owned and did repetitive Marion to Bermuda races in a Bob Perry Tayana. It's a full keel boat. There's absolutely no question in my mind I'd rather hit a log at hull speed in my Outbound than in my prior Tayana. The hull is much stronger. There's a collision bulkhead. The log would be pushed aside. Your preconceptions are not borne out as fact. Read good and bad features. It's an informative book.


I had a Tayana 37 on my list for quite a while. Usually a good bit out of the budget range, but occasional deals can be found, and those who have circumnavigated in them have plenty of stories of groundings and hitting logs, fisherman's pots, etc. That crowd is pretty religious about these boats! Full keel or not, they're still in my 'real deal' category!



jtsailjt said:


> Which of the boats you mention in this post can he buy for $30K?
> 
> Once again, he can't afford your boat, and I don't see a lot wrong with the boats he's considering. If you think he's making a mistake, rather than pointing to your boat or the multi million dollar race boats, how about pointing out a good, rugged, blue water $30K spade rudder boat he could buy. He probably won't choose it even if you can come up with one, but it would make your position that there are better options he's not considering a lot more credible than does citing the capabilities of million dollar race boats that he can't even begin to afford.


Amen brother!

I have found it frustrating lately that every boat I have mentioned except the unfortunately unshadeable underway Contests have been shot down in flames:

Well then! I guess that leaves me... nowhere!

So Durable, Seaworthy, Reasonbly good at actually sailing, Liveable, Shadeable- I guess maybe something has to go to fit the budget.

I'm about to go full circle back to either the C&N 38, or the Westerly 34.

C&N 38, best sheltered cockpit of all I've seen, deep, and covered by a hard dodger / hard top, and interestingly I found it on this list:









Updated Offshore Cruising Boat List - January 2008


I have the updated boat list from Mahina Expeditions. The last list was dated2002 posted on the website and this is the new revised (January 2008) list. I will see if I can upload here as it is not yet available on the site. I get an invalid file..can someone direct me how to update. It is a...




www.sailnet.com





So I'm guessing it really is seaworthy.

Negatives, Jeff H. says it sails like crap.
Tiny living space for the size.

or

Westerly 34, best livable space for the size of any I've seen, wonderful aft cabin, Lloyd's certificate of build quality, which allegedly means it's tough. Main sheet at the very rear of the cockpit means it's shadeable. This boat hull ran in various forms for over 20 years, with different names- Seahawk, Falcon, Oceanquest, and Oceandream, so it was definitely successful with sales.

Negatives, Jeff H. says it sails like crap.
Some say they dislike the relatively high cockpit position.
Others say it doesn't matter as many rear cockpits have full cabins under them these days and sit higher than old boats did.

or

Move forward with the Contests and LOTS of sunscreen, hats, gloves, full length pants, etc.

Two months ago I thought I would be sailing right now, and not stuck in 'analysis paralysis'. I had no idea this would be such a difficult decision!

or

Other option: just give up for now, save more money for another year or two and buy a better boat.

or

Stay inland waters for a year or two on a less seaworthy vessel, which is at least livable, and practice sailing, and avoid the powerful seas that literally surround my location. It's not the worst compromise I suppose...


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Maybe some new suggestions as jtsailjt suggests.
Since:

Camper & Nicholson 38 (my first true love!) : Garbage
Van De Stadt Excalibur 36 : Trash
H&P Sovereign 35 Ketch : Horrible
Sparkman & Stephens 34 : Terrible
H&R Rasmus 35 : Useless
Moody 34 : Rubbish
Westerly 34 : Vile
Westerly 36 : Evil


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

So since everything in the price range is rubbish, garbage, filthy, vile, evil, trash, maybe which boat in the 30k range fits the criteria and is the least evil vile trash?
LOL, but really...


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Sounds like you have a few options. Waiting doesn't seem like a good one. Try to get something. Either one of the boats above or more of a sheltered water design.

Btw, seaworthiness is defined by a boat and her crews suitability for their given voyage. Boats built primarily for sheltered waters are not less seaworthy on sheltered waters than a heavy cruiser. In all likelihood they are more seaworthy on inland waters as that was what they were designed for. If you are sailing on an inland river or small lake, you don't want some big tub that's going to take forever to tack; light and nimble are serious seaworthyness considerations on inland waters. 

A lot of big cruisers just motor on rivers and canals, if their drafts, height, length and beam allow them to operate there at all.


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

[ don’t know much about them except that Kretschmer sailed one around Cape Horn and had good things to say about it, but just based on that maybe the Contessa 32 would be worthy of consideration?


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

edit to clean up repetitive posting


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

I've read the first page and the last. I don't have time to read the entire thread. But at first glance it looks like OP has made the common newb mistake of focusing on one design feature to excess, and then obsessing over that one design feature's benefits without recognizing the detriments. It doesn't take a marine architect to tell you that every boat has compromises, and you must consider all the attributes as a whole, in comparison to your own priorities for how you are going to use a boat, to draw a valid conclusion.

I think it is almost impossible for a rookie to negotiate these tradeoffs successfully on his very first boat. If you don't plan to go out in oceans right away, don't look for a bluewater boat yet. Save your money and buy one of the many nice, roomy family cruisers (almost certainly with a spade rudder), learn what you like and don't like about it, and use that knowledge to find your eventual bluewater boat.

Bluewater boats and skeg rudders impose definite tradeoffs on creature comforts and control in smaller waters. You may find that these compromises detract from your family's enjoyment of the learning process and turn them off to sailing entirely.

My opinion is just one of many, but I would say that the whole concept of "saving money by buying my ultimate boat NOW" usually ends up costing you more money in the end.


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

jtsailjt said:


> Oops, it seems that these also have the traveler on the bridge deck. Sorry.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


But with these boats having tillers rather than wheels that force you to sit either in front or behind them, you could sit in the shade of a bimini while sailing and still reach your main sheet.

When I got my Hinckley Pilot, one of the first things I did was to convert it from tiller to wheeled steering and I always regretted that hasty decision. On a boat this size it's very possible to steer via a tiller and it's so much more simple and foolproof and much more fun too. It also allows you the use of the whole cockpit when at anchor.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## olson34 (Oct 13, 2000)

LOTS of sailors have bought (and at this age refurbished) the Robert Smith-designed Cascade 36, and then circumnavigated.... multiple times. Out of production now, but the hulls are solid layup, all roving. Fast under sail, too. Friends of ours are presently cruising one in Mexico, and we know several others that have crossed oceans during extended cruises.
First, shop in the higher-end of build quality and design. The look of the underwater appendages is less important than the build and pedigree.
And, lest we all forget in the heat of yacht design debating, it's always good to buy smaller than your initial dream! 
Once you get to about 29 or 30 feet, there are some great designs to "take you anywhere" .... and as more than one couple on a smaller boat has observed, the sunsets look the same regardless of the size and luxury of the vessel.......
Fair winds!


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

Analysis Paralysis....that's a great term for it! 
You are looking for your ultimate Bluewater Cruiser on a 30k budget. That is just not going to happen. A proper bluewater ready boat is going to cost you far more than that.
Get yourself a good coastal cruiser, and get out there and start sailing! No matter what boat you get, I can assure you that your skills and abilities are going to be the limiting factor, not the boat. That is probably the case with most of us here.

Don't obsess about the "what ifs". I have been sailing for over 30 years, and I have never hit a log, and I live in an active forestry area, so believe me, there are a LOT of logs out there. They are not a problem if you keep a proper watch. I have also never been caught in a major storm, because I pay attention to the forecasts, and don't go out when severe weather is in the forecast.

Once you have got a boat you can start gaining real world experience. 

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Was caught in a storm(sustained winds>48 kts) for 3+ days in a Hinckley Pilot. Blew out all the sails. Destroyed all the exterior varnish, had engine intake thru hull fail. But after 10 d got home and all 4 crew survived. Can’t say enough about the strength and handling of this design. 
statement about book learning (and courses) is spot on. Experience teaches you reality. Books/ courses teach you why.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

jtsailjt said:


> Which of the boats you mention in this post can he buy for $30K?
> How about pointing out a good, rugged, blue water $30K spade rudder boat he could buy.


To begin with I will readily acknowledge that this is a bit of a needle in a haystack search because any 34-36 footer that is selling for $30K or less is likely to have some mix of liabilities which might include medocre or obsolete design, construction, equipage and/or being worn out and or have some major issue, and/or just plain being undesirable for some other reason. Boats which were purposefully designed to be seaworthy and structurally sound, tend to sell for a lot more than that even if they have a lot of sea miles on them. So the process comes down to searching for that rare bird that was a good cruising design for its era, that was well constructed and which was well maintained by its owners and yet is priced right. That usually takes a little more hunting and a little more knowledge of yacht design to weed through the bad choices. And often it means buying a boat that has good bones but which is a serious project.

To explain the basis for me saying that finding the right skeg hung rudder or keel hing rudder boat in the requested price range is a needle in a haystack is as follows:

The requirement for a skeg-hung rudder really narrows the field of choices. Properly engineering and constructing a structural skeg to support a rudder is very expensive. Because of that a large number of the larger production run boats with skegs, saw the skeg as providing minimal support for the rudder but mainly included the skeg for hydrodynamic reasons. The design of those skegs were somewhat of a hybrid with the skeg carrying part of the load and a larger rudder post providing some of the support for the rudder. For example:







Skeg rudder ,
But pretty quickly the majority of the yacht design firms of the world saw skeg-hung rudders as offering no real advantages over a properly engineered post hung rudder for the way that most folks used a boat. The net result (for better or worse) was that skeg-hung rudders were popular for a very short period of time. That said, until recently, skeg hung rudders remained the norm for higher quality, higher priced offshore cruisers. Those boats remain extremely popular to this day and generally demand much higher prices than $30k if they are in decent condition.
Similarly, it is very difficult to design a full keel boat that sails well in a reasonably broad range of conditions. It can be done, (Bob Perry and Lyle Hess showed that) but it rarely was done.Those full keel boats which were capable of being easily handled, and which sail a little better at either end of the wind range tend to end up in a cult boat status and again sell for more than the $30k range if in decent shape. Poorer quality designs and thrown together full keel boats can be found at the bottom of that market but those boats offer little to nothing positive, especially for someone trying to learn to sail.
Boats with comparatively long waterlines relative to length and moderate form stability are generally seen as being superior in terms of sea-keeping, motion comfort, ease of handling, and performance. In that regard, during the period when a $30K boat would likely to have been constructed, the vast majority of boats built would have been modeled after the racing rules of their day, which tended to produce pretty poor designs for heavy weather cruising.
But saying that the choices will be limited does not make finding the right $30K boat impossible; it just means some mix of making a compromise on one area or another and/or finding a boat that is being sold for less than the market value of some other choice out there. At least here in the States, those exist. (I really don't have a sense of pricing in Europe but understand its higher than the US for good quality boats).
There has been a lot of discussion about a goal of higher build quality and more robust construction. One way to approach that would be to look for boats built by higher quality builders which have not become cult boats. In the 1960's,1970's, and 1980's when it came to higher standard glass work and design quality some of the better European builders and models would include:
Lecompte- ALC 35-2 and Medalist (both of which were made in keel hung, skeg hung and post hung rudder versions)
Halmatic- (mainly built hulls and decks finished by others some in large numbers and some almost one off's) An example of a good choice from Halmatic might be the Nicholson 32, Deb 34 (fixed keel version), Hustler 35, and maybe the Trintella III.
Albin: build quality varied with model and construction date) Stratus
Sweden Yachts- Sweden 36
Vindo Omega 34 & 36.
Northshore Yachts (UK) , Victoria 34 (Chuck Paine)
Jeremy Rodgers: OOD 34, Contessa 38
Robertson (South Africa) built a number of limited production boats that might work. The conditions down there were very demanding requiring boats with a mix of good light air performance and good heavy air performance as found near the Cape Hope.
(Hallberg-Rassy built consistently high build quality boats, but the early ones used a foam core that did not prove durable and the later ones tend to be very expensive)
A couple US boat builders and models might include, (but at higher than $30K)
CE Ryder- Southern Cross 35
Morris: Morris 32
Esprit 37
Whistler 32 cutter (Chuck Paine)
Shannon 37-38
Cabo Rico 38 (Very heavy long keel ideal for offshore use only)
From Asia:
Cheoy Lee 35 (Ray Richards)
Offshore 32 and 38 (Ray Richards)
Whitewing 35/36 (Bob Perry)
Or the US version:
Nordic 34 (AKA Islander 34)
Traveler 32 (pirated Phil Rhodes design)
CT 35
Then there are some lesser known designs:
Elvstrøm 32 (Blue Dane 32, Blue Leth 32)
Swede 38
Lavranos designed Tosca 36, and Charger 33
Fortissimo (Long keel with attached rudder)
Amigo 33
Sovereugn 32 ( not my favorite Ian Anderson design)
Departure 35 (Charlie Whittholz. When I worked for Charlie he was updating some of his older designs. One of those was an updated version of the Departure that had a skeg hung outboard rudder and long fin keel intended for glass over plywood. I have no idea if any of those were built but they would be a good boat for the purposes. Charlie's last boat was a steel Departure 35.)
There are options which would mean some compromises from the requested attributes such as:
Westerly Storm 33 or Falcon 34
Intrepid 35 (McCurdy and Rhodes)
Contessa 33 (Rob Humphries)
Pearson 367 or 323.
CSY 33
Then there are the project boat category.that are boats with great bones but are likely to need some work:
Hughes 38
Galaxy 32 (AKA Paceship 32)
Pearson 10M
Pearson 36
Bristol 33/34 (Halsey Herreshoff)
Islander 36 (Gurney)
One of my favorite inexpensive boats is the Tartan 30. These can be bought in the US for $5,000-7,000 and good all around boats. I had not sailed one for a while and was very impressed when I recently sailed one back to Annapolis from Baltimore despite the not so great sails. A friend is living full time on that boat.
A quick comment on the Galaxy 32, these Tripp designs were exceptionally advanced in hull form and keel design. An acquaintance picked one up that was a partially competed renovation(new engine and almost new sails) for around $3,500 and dumped about $20K and a lot of work into the boat. He went all over the place with that boat from Nova Scotia to South America. Last, I heard he was considering an Atlantic crossing. I am not pointing to the Galaxy to say, buy one and fix it up (although you could do a lot worse), my point is mainly that there are exceptional cruising boats out there that people are completely unfamiliar with and so can be bought cheaply.
Similarly, in Europe in the 1960's through 1980's there were a comparatively large number of yards building small quantities of very high quality designs built to a high level of quality. An example of this that I encountered was a boat built in the early 1970's by a small yard in Sweden. That yard had been a wooden boat builder of Tumlaren, Gothenburg Flyers and Folkboats. At some point they began building fiberglass versions of the Tumlaren and Flyers. In the early 1970's they tooled up a great little 34-35 foot cruising boat that had a skeg hung outboard rudder (Which would be my preference if long distance cruising is being considered) I sailed one of those with a friend from Charleston to Hilton Head that had been sailed into the states on her own bottom. We left Charleston in light air but eventually the conditions deteriorated so that we took a pounding (12-15 foot seas and probably gusts to 30 knots). That boat sailed spectacularly well in everything that was thrown at it including beating out to sea in big waves and wind. The downside of that boat was that only the hull was fiberglass, the deck and cabin were built like a wooden boat and glassed over. That would make sense in terms of keeping costs down since they did not have to tool up a deck mold to build what I understood to be only a dozen or so of those boats that were built.
The reason that I mentioned that is that my friend, who was from Sweden said that there were a lot of smaller yards building boats like this in Europe that never made it to the States and which were minimally known even in Europe outside of a limited area where they were built. Boats like those would be super offshore cruisers and should be affordable if you can find one. The thing is that boats like these will not show up on Yachtworld and the like, and are more likely to show up on for boats for sale by owner sites or the equivalent of Craig's list. In order to take advantage of these unknowns and get a really good design it will be important to take the time to better understand what separates a good design from one that is not worth messing with.
Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

olson34 said:


> LOTS of sailors have bought (and at this age refurbished) the Robert Smith-designed Cascade 36, and then circumnavigated.... multiple times. Out of production now, but the hulls are solid layup, all roving. Fast under sail, too. Friends of ours are presently cruising one in Mexico, and we know several others that have crossed oceans during extended cruises.


I had a friend with a Cascade 36 and I thought it was a great boat that handled well. Had other friends with a Cascade 42. However, it is pretty much the opposite type of boat being searched for by Rush2112. I think most of them were finished by owners, so a lot of the interiors were rough, to say the least. I don't know the prices on them, but because of their interiors and other idiosyncrasies, I imagine they are lower than average in their comparison range. Probably difficult to find where Rush lives too.

Mark


----------



## Izzy (Feb 14, 2016)

Comet 38 is an awesome boat, my friend picked one up for $16,000 that was built during the late 1980's. Fast, rugged and all you'll need to get started.


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

I kind of got lost here. What is it that we're looking for? A blue water cruiser, 30'-34' for the North Sea? for $30,000 U.S. ? or 22,900 or so British pounds ?


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

To help Rush2112 find Comets, I think they were all metric model numbers, so a 38' Comet would be listed as a Comet 11. I know someone with a Comet 11 and it seems like a nice boat - looks fast. He mainly uses it as a liveaboard and not a cruiser. 

However, it is a fin keel and spade rudder. Lots of room for comfortable living, and looks easy to build in weather protection like bimini, etc. Not sure how the teak decks held up, nor those large slanted windows - old ones could be leaky. They also might push the $30K a bit over budget, but perhaps not by much - $16k sounds like a very good price.

One thing not mentioned yet is that the engine in boats this age could be dicey. Finding a boat that meets Rush's criteria and with a sound engine could constrain the search. An engine replacement would be a real budget blower.

Mark


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Hi all,
I just wanted to check in and say thanks for all the recommendations.
It's been a lot of info in the past day or so and I need to process and research and catch up with it all.
So thanks again for all the tips and I'll get back after a little bit


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Would note analysts of boat behavior in survival conditions and storms(>48kts sustained) shows the following 
classic full keeled boats do worst
cutaway keel next worst
low aspect fin
then high aspect fin
centerboarders with board up or lift keels with keel retracted do best.

other than small boats I’ve never owned a center or daggerboard boat.

Thinking is with low lateral resistance those boats slid down the face of a wave even if broadside to the face of a wave. Whereas full keel boats are trapped so much more likely to turn turtle or be overwhelmed. This is reality in actual use not theory as presented above. I understand this is contrary to traditional thinking. 
Having been in severe weather with all different types of appendages below me and having read the literature my opinion is for general cruising the best mix of safety and performance is high aspect fin with post hung rudder done correctly. Once in storm conditions hang a Jordan series drogue. Hoving to is a discounted technique. Safe up to gale conditions but not at storm. This has also been demonstrated by compiling experience of fleets of boats in the same conditions (Fastnet etc.) 
In weather when surfing full keel boats do poorly. Fin/post boats allow rudder input to actually allow rapid change in course. This is the difference between a broach or a giggle. You end up surfing if the wind is behind the mast but also as you zigzag on any type of reach and often even if going upwind. For the rudder to do anything there must be water flowing past it. If the rudder is going the same speed as the water it does nothing. The more unbalanced the rudder is the more effort it takes to both change its position and to hold its position in place. Unbalanced skeg or transom hung rudders require marked anticipation of the need of input and massive effort compared to balanced rudders. Helming in severe weather is fatiguing. We change helmsman every 15 to 20 minutes. Do to increased effort and latency when under windvane or AP you can allow those devices to steer with a balanced post hung rudders at much higher wind speeds and greater wave heights before needing to go to hand steering. Although modern APs do anticipate and learn doubt the OP is going to buy a $30k autopilot system in to his boat. Often it’s the crew not the boat that makes the difference. Looking at individuals experience may say more about them than the boat. Lin and Larry are heroes of mine (RIP) but they were dead wrong as regards features for small offshore boats given current knowledge.


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

outbound said:


> Would note analysts of boat behavior in survival conditions and storms(>48kts sustained) shows the following
> classic full keeled boats do worst
> cutaway keel next worst
> low aspect fin
> ...


Who are these "analysts" of whom you speak? I'd like to read about how they came to this conclusion and what their credentials are.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I am not sure that Outbound has the order listed correctly, but there is a lot of data that can be found in the various studies that were done following the Fastnet, and a couple decades later in the lead up to the EU RCD. Much of my information came from attending symposiums where papers on those studies were presented on these topics and from having the opportunity to discuss the research methods and findings with the authors. 

But frankly it is not easy to find primary source information for a variety of reasons. These studies tend to look at narrowly defined individual elements of seakeeping. Broadly studies might include the impact of keel and hull form configurations but any individual study might only look at a few variables. Because these studies tend to explore only narrowly defined sections of the puzzle its hard to find a comprehensively collective summary of the various studies. In my mind, the best studies looked at data on full sized vessels and actual occurrences the correlated the real life with model testing. Probably the best summary of these studies appeared in the Amended Panel Recommendations for the RCD That document used to appear online and would think that it should be available in the research library at SYRF. Secondary sources may be included in magazines like Seahorse and articles in SYRF. 

Jeff


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

Jeff_H said:


> I am not sure that Outbound has the order listed correctly, but there is a lot of data that can be found in the various studies that were done following the Fastnet, and a couple decades later in the lead up to the EU RCD. Much of my information came from attending symposiums where papers on those studies were presented on these topics and from having the opportunity to discuss the research methods and findings with the authors.
> 
> But frankly it is not easy to find primary source information for a variety of reasons. These studies tend to look at narrowly defined individual elements of seakeeping. Broadly studies might include the impact of keel and hull form configurations but any individual study might only look at a few variables. Because these studies tend to explore only narrowly defined sections of the puzzle its hard to find a comprehensively collective summary of the various studies. In my mind, the best studies looked at data on full sized vessels and actual occurrences the correlated the real life with model testing. Probably the best summary of these studies appeared in the Amended Panel Recommendations for the RCD That document used to appear online and would think that it should be available in the research library at SYRF. Secondary sources may be included in magazines like Seahorse and articles in SYRF.
> 
> Jeff


I looked at both the Recreational Craft Directive site and the Sailing Yacht Research Foundation websites and didn't see any information about yacht stability or safety in survival conditions available there.

I think that over the years we've all read way too many accounts and opinions regarding the various lessons learned from the '79 Fastnet disaster but most conclude that the big problems were caused because they lacked good, up to date, weather information and many of them were navigating by dead reckoning so had no idea where they were once the weather became awful, and boats of that time through so called recent (in 1979) "advances" in yacht design, according to Rousmaniere, were little more than lightweight, big dinghies as opposed to the heavier, traditional designs that had dominated the race in past years and decades. I've never heard anyone except Outbound suggest that you're safer in a storm in a centerboard boat with the centerboard up (sounds like the "dinghy-like" boats Rousmaniere was referring to), rather than a deep draft full or fin keel boat with a much higher limit of positive stability. I get that you two want to promote lighter weight, spade rudder designs, but I think you need to be very careful because you're bordering on putting out some pretty dangerous and misleading information when you attribute the safety factors inherent in modern spade designs to some of the spade rudder boats built 40 years ago the these guys might be able to actually afford.

I really have no problem with the safety of a high quality, modern spade rudder boat (except when amongst lobster traps) , but neither the OP or Rush can afford one of those, and if they did opt for a fin/spade boat, it would likely be of the vintage that had so much trouble during Fastnet '79, and that's why I think their instinct to focus on more traditional full keel or long fin with skeg hung rudders is their best course or action. For those who can spend half a million or more on a modern boat, or around the world racers who have access to the very latest technology and are in constant communication with race organizers and SAR forces, they understandably can come to a different conclusion regarding what type boat to sail that will best balance that speed vs safety equation applicable to their situation.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

By 1979, many of those old full keel designs were already pretty old designs. 

There were pretty decent fin and spade designs by the late 60s that could surely be had for less than $30k. The OP was talking about the North Channel. I have freinds who cruise the North Channel in dinghies and sleep under tarps. There is no need to go to a 1950s or 60s designed full keel boat to sail there safely.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

jtsailjt said:


> I looked at both the Recreational Craft Directive site and the Sailing Yacht Research Foundation websites and didn't see any information about yacht stability or safety in survival conditions available there.
> 
> I think that over the years we've all read way too many accounts and opinions regarding the various lessons learned from the '79 Fastnet disaster but most conclude that the big problems were caused because they lacked good, up to date, weather information and many of them were navigating by dead reckoning so had no idea where they were once the weather became awful, and boats of that time through so called recent (in 1979) "advances" in yacht design, according to Rousmaniere, were little more than lightweight, big dinghies as opposed to the heavier, traditional designs that had dominated the race in past years and decades. I've never heard anyone except Outbound suggest that you're safer in a storm in a centerboard boat with the centerboard up (sounds like the "dinghy-like" boats Rousmaniere was referring to), rather than a deep draft full or fin keel boat with a much higher limit of positive stability. I get that you two want to promote lighter weight, spade rudder designs, but I think you need to be very careful because you're bordering on putting out some pretty dangerous and misleading information when you attribute the safety factors inherent in modern spade designs to some of the spade rudder boats built 40 years ago the these guys might be able to actually afford.
> 
> I really have no problem with the safety of a high quality, modern spade rudder boat (except when amongst lobster traps) , but neither the OP or Rush can afford one of those, and if they did opt for a fin/spade boat, it would likely be of the vintage that had so much trouble during Fastnet '79, and that's why I think their instinct to focus on more traditional full keel or long fin with skeg hung rudders is their best course or action. For those who can spend half a million or more on a modern boat, or around the world racers who have access to the very latest technology and are in constant communication with race organizers and SAR forces, they understandably can come to a different conclusion regarding what type boat to sail that will best balance that speed vs safety equation applicable to their situation.


I don't know what you searched, but there is a lot of data available in study reports on factors affecting sea keeping that can be accessed through the SYRF research library. I cannot tell you whether the studies that were funded by the EU to develop the RCD are still available online. During the time that the RCD was being developed these studies and the conclusions of the corresponding committee were readily available online, and I followed those closely.

I will say that your summary of the research that resulted from the Fastnet does not really summarize the vast amount of research and studies that followed it and which led a huge advancement in the current understanding of the science behind yacht design. While navigational and weather prediction failures certainly played a role in the Fastnet Disaster, the biggest underlying cause of the Fastnet Disaster was the specific design of the boats involved and secondary items that included failure of key structural components, (fiberglass rudder posts and rigging attachment points, fragile spars, etc), hatches which could not be secured against downflooding.as well as, the then generally accepted heavy weather strategies (heaving to) proving to be more dangerous than the current thinking on dealing with heavy conditions.

You probably should go back and read Rousmaniere (although I will note that while his book was great for its time, none the less it was written early in the research on sea keeping and does not provide an accurate understanding of sea keeping characteristics, especially as they apply to hull forms) More to the point, you are mistaken when you say that the boats in question were "little more than lightweight, big dinghies". Hull form wise they might have been better off if they were big dinghies. The race boats that got in trouble were IOR rule beaters. Typical of IOR and RORC race boats, they lacked both form stability (unlike dinghy hull forms) and ultimate stability. They had extreme beam at the deck line amidships, pinched ends, and were comparatively narrow at the waterline. They counted on crew weight in the rail for stability. Those boats had stability curves rose quickly until the deck hit the water and dropped quickly after that point. They were definitely light weight and those early studies after the Fastnet that were focused on the boats that were sailed in the race,and certainly considered their light weight to be a factor.

But once yacht science community reached the conclusion that IOR (and RORC) boats were not a good solution for in terms of sea keeping ability, the research moved onto evaluating the properties that do contribute to a boat that does offer good sea keeping. These studies looked at motion comfort, stability is high winds. stability in waves that are too small to overturn a boat vs waves that are likely to flip a boat, factors that could contribute to a roll over such as wave face sheer, the role that form stability played in getting knocked down and the roll it played in righting from a roll over. These studies researched at factors impacting ultimate stability vs the stability required in the wind range experienced by boats sailing in the normal conditions that most boats are likely to encounter.The net result was that there was a mix of factors that made some boats better or worse for seaworthiness; Those factors somewhat in order are:
Length of waterline (longer the better which is the primary reason that both traditional water working watercraft and modern offshore designs tend to have long waterlines relative to their overall length)
Damping (The hull form, keel and rudder's ability to minimize roll and pitch)
Buoyancy and Weight Distribution (impacts almost every aspect of seaworthiness and seakindliness i.e. roll and pitch damping, form stability, ultimate stability, etc)
Water plane distribution when heeled and vertical
Impact of surface sheer
Beam at the waterline vs deck.
Rig proportions
Displacement (which was shown to play a minor role in motion comfort and seaworthiness, with Buoyancy and Weight Distribution order of magnitudes more significant)

One of the reasons that most people have a take away that traditional boats were safer than the race boats of the Fastnet era is that they generally were more conservative designs that were on the right side of many of the key equations in producing seakindly and seaworthy boats. But remember that the original Fastnet studies only looked at the boats in the race. At the time of the race it was widely reported that a number of cruising boats that were caught in the worst of the storm were also rolled (including a Westsail 32 that lost its rig and motored in) .

Cutting to the chase, anyone who has read many of my posts would know that I do not advocate IOR race rule (or the very similar RORC rule) derived designs for offshore cruising for precisely the reasons that the 1979 Fastnet was a disaster. The list of boats being considered by Rush are largely RORC and IOR boats of that ilk, which is why I think that those particular boats are a less than ideal choice if a primary concern is seaworthiness.

I would also agree with you that a design that was based on a traditional working watercraft would offer better seaworthiness than boats which were deeply compromised by race rules like the CCA, IOR,and RORC, where the seaworthiness was purposefully disregarded to trick a race rule into thinking that a boat is incrementally slower than it really is.That said, traditional working water craft tend to be poor platforms to learn to sail on.

To expand on the comment about centerboarders doing better in heavy going relates to the wave surface sheer issue, without getting into detail, ocean waves are largely seen as being a distorted rolling cylinder moving through the water and the wave that we see is only a small piece of the surface of that cylinder. At a point in center of the cylinder there is no rotational motion, while the surface experiences the fastest (distance not angular) motion. In between the center and surface there is a spectrum of less speed speed nearer towards the center. Beyond that the speed of the surface water is accelerated in breaking waves. The net result is that there is a variation in velocity (speed and direction) between the surface water and the water deeper in the wave. The deeper the distance into the wave, the larger the difference in speed. The overturning forces that are created by the difference in velocity in surface vs deeper in the wave is referred to as surface sheer.

The traditional theory was that a deeper draft boat would experience more surface sheer than a shallower boat and that would add to the likelihood of a roll over. Under that theory and supported by test tank data, a centerboard boat with its center board up was less likely to be rolled than it would with the centerboard down.

But what we also now understand, is that the likelihood of being rolled is more complex that 'draft bad, shallow draft good', because while the unit force of surface sheer is higher with greater depth into the wave, the actual overturning force is the net result of the area of the keel, its depth in the water, and its likelihood of stalling. The reason that current theory believes that long keel boats are more prone to being rolled is that they are minimally shallower but that they have huge amounts of surface area, and relatively little stability relative to the amount of surface area. And while fin keels are generally deeper, they stall out more quickly with large angle side flows and so the unit forces attempting to overturn them are less as well.

While it is not a large scientific study, if we look at the last Golden Globe Race which was mostly sailed in RORC designs, pretty much every one of them experienced a 360 degree roll or a pitch pole. That is largely unheard of in newer designs of equal displacement that have done round the world racing. The point being, if you are going to buy an older $30K boat then focus on boats which have been compromised the least by the racing rules of that era.

Most of the boats that listed above generally were outliers for the era that they were created in terms of some mix of their hull forms, relative waterline to deck length, and damping.

Jeff


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

Jeff_H said:


> I don't know what you searched, but there is a lot of data available in study reports on factors affecting sea keeping that can be accessed through the SYRF research library. I cannot tell you whether the studies that were funded by the EU to develop the RCD are still available online. During the time that the RCD was being developed these studies and the conclusions of the corresponding committee were readily available online, and I followed those closely.
> 
> I will say that your summary of the research that resulted from the Fastnet does not really summarize the vast amount of research and studies that followed it and which led a huge advancement in the current understanding of the science behind yacht design. While navigational and weather prediction failures certainly played a role in the Fastnet Disaster, the biggest underlying cause of the Fastnet Disaster was the specific design of the boats involved and secondary items that included failure of key structural components, (fiberglass rudder posts and rigging attachment points, fragile spars, etc), hatches which could not be secured against downflooding.as well as, the then generally accepted heavy weather strategies (heaving to) proving to be more dangerous than the current thinking on dealing with heavy conditions.
> 
> ...


This is way more about design than I ever hope to need to know. But I will say that Jeff's sharing of his yacht design knowledge has shaped my boat searches and purchases.

At one point a few years ago, there was a discussion here about CCA-inspired designs. I chimed in with how much I love the look of those old boats like the Pearson Vanguard, and how I was considering upgrading from my '70's era O'day to a true classic like the Vanguard or Triton. The conversation went something like this (edited for clarity):

Me: I love the way the Triton and Vanguard look.
Jeff: They do look great, but they don't sail particularly well.
Me: but they are so pretty....
Jeff: yes, but they were lightly built with inferior construction methods,and they don't sail particularly well at all
Me: but they are pretty, right?
Jeff: yes, they are very pretty.

Sure, there was some technical stuff too, as Jeff explained why they don't sail well, and how more modern designs have improved sailing ability, motion comfort, liveability, etc. In the end, I didn't go for the old Pearson or other CCA type boat, but a modern Catalina. I'm glad I did. That discussion showed me that the only reason supporting the choice of a Triton/Vanguard was the look. I subsequently made a list of the features I wanted in a boat, and started my search from there. A much better way of doing things than "Me want pretty boat that costs less than 20K".

So thanks Jeff!


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

I've got nothing against trawlers but is this really the place to be discussing them? That "sailing related" statement at the top of this page should mean something, and I doubt if the OP or others interested in the various types of sailboat underbodies ever envisioned this thread morphing into a discussion of stabilizers and gensets, etc.

Perhaps one of the mods could move post 277 and subsequent trawler related posts that have nothing to do with spade rudders or even sailing to another thread so that anyone wishing to discuss the subject of this thread can do so?


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

Jeff_H said:


> The requirement for a skeg-hung rudder really narrows the field of choices. Properly engineering and constructing a structural skeg to support a rudder is very expensive. Because of that a large number of the larger production run boats with skegs, saw the skeg as providing minimal support for the rudder but mainly included the skeg for hydrodynamic reasons. The design of those skegs were somewhat of a hybrid with the skeg carrying part of the load and a larger rudder post providing some of the support for the rudder. For example:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think you've put your finger on one of the biggest reasons why production boats turned to spade rudders and that is cost, not necessarily because they were better for cruising. As you say, building a proper skeg is expensive and it's much cheaper and less time consuming to pop a canoe shaped hull out of the mold, glass in a couple bearings, stick a rudder in it, and call it good. And if all the boat is going to do is ply the Sir Francis Drake Channel over and over again, it is.

I would call the broken skeg in the photo you chose to be a very poorly made one and of course there are plenty of those around, just as there are plenty of too fragile spade rudders. I once saw a spade rudder 40 footer being hauled out with it's rudder broken cleanly off about a foot beneath the waterline and it appeared that's how far down the metal that the rudder was built around ran and beneath that it was all just foam encased in a couple thin layers of fiberglass. In your photo it looks like there is no embedded bronze or stainless steel reinforcements, just foam covered in fiberglass. A spade rudder like the broken one I saw built this way wouldn't fair very well either. But if you look at a quality built skeg hung rudder, the skeg will be reinforced and so will the rudder itself. Or in more modern higher end boats it's built of high strength carbon fibers but those don't fall within the budget we are talking about. Also, if you look at the top of your photo, the rudder post looks very fragile and doesn't run continuously down the front of the rudder. Maybe there's reinforcement inside the top part of the rudder that we can't see but I don't see any sign of it. I just don't think that overall, this is a very good example of a skeg hung rudder.

Your two statements regarding skeg hung rudders above seem to be in contradiction. You claim that skeg hung rudders were popular for a very short time, but then in the very next sentence say they remained the norm "until recently." Since the popular Valiant 40 was designed in 1973, and as you say, skeg hung rudders remained the norm until recently, I wouldn't call that "a very short period of time" at all.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

This is the skeg for my 1985 Contest 36s, a completely different design from what JeffH posted previously. It appears to be strong and well supported and the prop shaft likewise is enclosed in a stout structure. I see this design as structurally superior to many others, including balanced spades. It may not perform as good as a balanced spade but I have experienced no problems with steering.


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

SanderO said:


> This is the skeg for my 1985 Contest 36s, a completely different design from what JeffH posted previously. It appears to be strong and well supported and the prop shaft likewise is enclosed in a stout structure. I see this design as structurally superior to many others, including balanced spades. It may not perform as good as a balanced spade but I have experienced no problems with steering.


The skeg and rudder on your boat seems to be a very good example of what I think of as a properly executed skeg hung rudder design. There appears to be a substantial gudgeon that makes up most of the bottom of the skeg, and the rudder stock runs the full length of the rudder so the leading edge of the rudder is both protected by the skeg and very strong in itself. What we can't see without X rays is how the the rudder is fastened to the stock but typically there are several horizontal stainless steel arms welded to the stainless steel stock that the fiberglass rudder is then formed around and I trust that's how yours is built. It looks very secure to me.

Regarding performance, I'm among the first to admit that spades are much easier to maneuver in tight quarters and they have less wetted surface so slightly less drag, but neither of those factors are a really high priority to a cruiser. Those of us with skeg hung rudders learn how to adapt to their limitations in tight quarters once you get used to steering your boat. I've gradually gotten so that in calm winds I can back mine (more or less) where I want to go even without using the bow thruster but if I have to I "cheat" when necessary. As long as I'm going at least two or three knots, I'm surprised how tightly my boat will turn even without the thruster. When sailing in more boisterous conditions, with the mechanical advantage of my large diameter destroyer wheel and with some attention paid to keeping my sails balanced and trimmed properly, I've never found the forces necessary to steer to be excessive at all.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

In winds up to (guess) 10 kts I can turn the boat within a bit more than its own length using forward and reverse. I suppose boat could be faster with a spade... but how much and this in practical terms for me amounts to a hill of beans. I suspect the rudder has horizontal steel belts connected the the rudder which I think is something like solid 50mm Ø steel rod. I think the designer and builder would do everything with the same build quality and fit and finish. I don't see any place where they have cut corners.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

jtsailjt said:


> I've got nothing against trawlers but is this really the place to be discussing them? That "sailing related" statement at the top of this page should mean something, and I doubt if the OP or others interested in the various types of sailboat underbodies ever envisioned this thread morphing into a discussion of stabilizers and gensets, etc.


Why not??? Isn't that what people are expecting based on the thread title?


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

jtsailjt said:


> I think you've put your finger on one of the biggest reasons why production boats turned to spade rudders and that is cost, not necessarily because they were better for cruising. As you say, building a proper skeg is expensive and it's much cheaper and less time consuming to pop a canoe shaped hull out of the mold, glass in a couple bearings, stick a rudder in it, and call it good. And if all the boat is going to do is ply the Sir Francis Drake Channel over and over again, it is.
> 
> I would call the broken skeg in the photo you chose to be a very poorly made one and of course there are plenty of those around, just as there are plenty of too fragile spade rudders. I once saw a spade rudder 40 footer being hauled out with it's rudder broken cleanly off about a foot beneath the waterline and it appeared that's how far down the metal that the rudder was built around ran and beneath that it was all just foam encased in a couple thin layers of fiberglass. In your photo it looks like there is no embedded bronze or stainless steel reinforcements, just foam covered in fiberglass. A spade rudder like the broken one I saw built this way wouldn't fair very well either. But if you look at a quality built skeg hung rudder, the skeg will be reinforced and so will the rudder itself. Or in more modern higher end boats it's built of high strength carbon fibers but those don't fall within the budget we are talking about. Also, if you look at the top of your photo, the rudder post looks very fragile and doesn't run continuously down the front of the rudder. Maybe there's reinforcement inside the top part of the rudder that we can't see but I don't see any sign of it. I just don't think that overall, this is a very good example of a skeg hung rudder.
> 
> Your two statements regarding skeg hung rudders above seem to be in contradiction. You claim that skeg hung rudders were popular for a very short time, but then in the very next sentence say they remained the norm "until recently." Since the popular Valiant 40 was designed in 1973, and as you say, skeg hung rudders remained the norm until recently, I wouldn't call that "a very short period of time" at all.


In response to the above, I readily acknowledge that in order to try to explain complex topics my posts tend to be very long and that within those long discussions, it is easy to lose sight of the points that were being made. I respectfully suggest that is the case with the quoted post. To boil the points that I was trying to explain down to their essence:
I understood that the discussion was about finding a robustly constructed approximately 32 to 35 foot boat with good sea-keeping ability, ease of handling, that did not need a massive fix-up and which had either a long keel with attached rudder or a skeg-hung rudder. I was prefacing a list of potential candidates by stating that that mix of attributes will be hard to find for the following reasons;
1) 35 foot boats that are selling for under $30,000 typically are priced in that range for some mix of the following:
a) mediocre or obsolete design,
b) poor build quality,
c) poor condition, major issue, or worn out.
d) built by an unknown or undesirable company,
e) minimal equipment, or
F) just plain being undesirable for some other reason.

2) I pointed out that most of the boats that have been built (and therefore the majority of the boats in that price range) were built by higher volume, value oriented companies, and that their offerings in that size range are typically designed as coastal cruisers that to one degree or another were influenced by the race rules of their era. As a result the majority of those boats (which are the majority of the boats built) would fail to the criteria due to 1a, 1b, and possibly 1d.

3) I noted that there was a very short period during which these higher volume companies produced skeg-hung rudders. That period was short because a skeg that was able to actually support the rudder is difficult to engineer and construct, offers no advantage over a post hung rudder structurally or in terms of sailing ability, and potentially is more expensive to construct.

4) I noted that skeg-hung rudders remained popular on purpose built long distance cruising boats, but that a 32 to 35 foot purpose built long distance cruising boat is likely to be out of the price range if it is in decent shape.

5) That same post addressed the comment that on some boats, the skeg was not structurally capable of supporting the rudder and that was often the case on higher volume, value oriented boats. The picture of the failed skeg was not intended to say all skegs are inadequately engineered, but this is what one looks like that was not properly engineered.

To address the specifics of the quoted post,



jtsailjt said:


> I think you've put your finger on one of the biggest reasons why production boats turned to spade rudders and that is cost, not necessarily because they were better for cruising. As you say, building a proper skeg is expensive and it's much cheaper and less time consuming to pop a canoe shaped hull out of the mold, glass in a couple bearings, stick a rudder in it, and call it good. And if all the boat is going to do is ply the Sir Francis Drake Channel over and over again, it is.


While it is true that a post hung rudder is less expensive to construct, It is not necessarily that much less expensive to build if it is pro;properly engineered. A properly engineered post hung rudder requires a significantly more robust rudder post and internal structure. The supporting structure for the rudder requires significantly more robust and intensive internal framing. A post hung rudder requires both and upper and lower bearing, as well as a thrust bearing and all of those need to be a higher capacity than those of skeg hung rudder where the skeg is capable of supporting the rudder. So while I agree there is a cost difference, I don't know cost was the primary driving force behind the shift to post hung rudders, I would suggest (since I was designing boats at the time, that the shift was in large part also driven by a combination of the better performance and hydrodynamic properties, better maneuverability and lower helm loads of a post hung rudder. I also think that the shift within the industry to wheel steering even on small boats played some role as well since it is much easier to find room to install the steering quadrant on a post-hung rudder.

But whatever the cause, pretty much universally large volume builders shifted to post hung from keel or skeg hung rudders after a very short period, making inexpensive boats that have robustly constructed skeg hung rudders pretty rare.



jtsailjt said:


> I would call the broken skeg in the photo you chose to be a very poorly made one and of course there are plenty of those around, just as there are plenty of too fragile spade rudders. I once saw a spade rudder 40 footer being hauled out with it's rudder broken cleanly off about a foot beneath the waterline and it appeared that's how far down the metal that the rudder was built around ran and beneath that it was all just foam encased in a couple thin layers of fiberglass. In your photo it looks like there is no embedded bronze or stainless steel reinforcements, just foam covered in fiberglass. A spade rudder like the broken one I saw built this way wouldn't fair very well either. But if you look at a quality built skeg hung rudder, the skeg will be reinforced and so will the rudder itself. Or in more modern higher end boats it's built of high strength carbon fibers but those don't fall within the budget we are talking about. Also, if you look at the top of your photo, the rudder post looks very fragile and doesn't run continuously down the front of the rudder. Maybe there's reinforcement inside the top part of the rudder that we can't see but I don't see any sign of it. I just don't think that overall, this is a very good example of a skeg hung rudder.


We agree that the damaged skeg-hung rudder in the picture was poorly engineered. I will say that even on robustly built skeg hung rudders there rarely is a metal insert in the skeg. More typically the skeg is all fiberglass and the skins of the skeg are engineered to support the loads. I also agree that there are a lot of badly engineered and constructed post hung rudders.

But while we agree that this is not a good example of a skeg that is structurally capable of supporting a rudder, I would contend that the majority of skeg hung rudders were built by higher volume, value oriented yards, and therefore the engineering is not likely to be any better than the damaged rudder in the picture. I will also note that the rudder post on a skeg-hung rudder typically is a lot smaller diameter and so may actually be more prone to failure in heavy conditions where torsion rather than side loads become the dominant stress.

Again this all goes back to my initial recommendations that whatever boat the OP buys, it should be a boat that started out being well designed and well constructed and that is especially true but harder to find the older the boat.



jtsailjt said:


> Your two statements regarding skeg hung rudders above seem to be in contradiction. You claim that skeg hung rudders were popular for a very short time, but then in the very next sentence say they remained the norm "until recently." Since the popular Valiant 40 was designed in 1973, and as you say, skeg hung rudders remained the norm until recently, I wouldn't call that "a very short period of time" at all.


While I certainly could have expressed that a little more clearly, none the less there is only a contradiction if the modifiers are left out of my post. Here is what I said: (underlines added for emphasis)
"But pretty quickly the majority of the yacht design firms of the world saw skeg-hung rudders as offering no real advantages over a properly engineered post hung rudder for the way that most folks used a boat. The net result (for better or worse) was that skeg-hung rudders were popular for a very short period of time. That said, until recently, skeg hung rudders remained the norm for higher quality, higher priced offshore cruisers. Those boats remain extremely popular to this day and generally demand much higher prices than $30k if they are in decent condition."

Hopefully editing it as below will remove the potential for there to appear to be a contradiction: (italic phrases added for clarity)
"But pretty quickly the majority of the yacht design firms of the world saw skeg-hung rudders as offering no real advantages over a properly engineered post hung rudder for the way that most folks used a boat. The net result (for better or worse) was that skeg-hung rudders were popular _for the majority of boats built_ for a very short period of time. That said, until recently, skeg hung rudders remained the norm f_or the comparatively small marketplace_ for higher quality, higher priced offshore cruisers. Those boats remain extremely popular _with long distance cruisers_ to this day and generally demand much higher prices than $30k if they are in decent condition. "

Jeff


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I also want to comment on the skeg on the Contest, which is an excellent example of why it is difficult to make a skeg that is structurally capable of supporting the weight of a rudder. From a hydrodynamic standpoint, the smaller the skeg the more efficient a skeg hung rudder would tend to be. If we look at that photograph of the skeg on the Contest it is a long cantilever with a very small cross section. The longer the cantilever the higher the stresses tend to be. 

If that skeg was constructed today, it would be built in one of a number of ways, a) molded in a female mold in a manner similar to a carbon fiber mast, where the reinforcing is wrapped around an air bladder and inserted into the mold, then the bladder inflated to compress the reinforcing against the mold. The resin would either be a pre-preg material or else infused. b) constructed over a male mold or a foam core (very labor intensive and harder to structurally attach to the hull, or c) be molded in female molds in two halves and then the halves glassed together and to the boat. 

Of course option 'a' did not exist in the 1980's when the Contest was built, I believe that it was stated that typical of that era, the skeg was laid up with the hull, so it was unlikely that it was built on a male mold nor built in two halves glassed together and to the hull. Similarly, if built today, that skeg would be largely constructed with unidirectional tow reinforcing and biaxial fabric. But those fabrics were not in use back then either. 

So its likely that the skeg was hand laid up the same manner, and using the same materials as the hull. In order to achieve a structural laminate, it would mean that someone had to be able to reach their arm all the way into the mold, place each layer of cloth and then wet it out, without getting an excessively resin rich laminate and without getting folds and other defects, which could result in diminished strength. And that needs to be done for perhaps a half dozen to a dozen lamination. You can easily visualize how difficult it would be to work in that space that is largely beyond easy reach, that movement is limited by the opening being not much larger than a person's arm, and surrounded on all sides by tacky resin That is also why most boats with skeg hung rudders that were purposefully designed and built for distance cruising have much larger cross sectional area to their skegs.

Jeff


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

Jeff_H said:


> I also want to comment on the skeg on the Contest, which is an excellent example of why it is difficult to make a skeg that is structurally capable of supporting the weight of a rudder. From a hydrodynamic standpoint, the smaller the skeg the more efficient a skeg hung rudder would tend to be. If we look at that photograph of the skeg on the Contest it is a long cantilever with a very small cross section. The longer the cantilever the higher the stresses tend to be.
> 
> If that skeg was constructed today, it would be built in one of a number of ways, a) molded in a female mold in a manner similar to a carbon fiber mast, where the reinforcing is wrapped around an air bladder and inserted into the mold, then the bladder inflated to compress the reinforcing against the mold. The resin would either be a pre-preg material or else infused. b) constructed over a male mold or a foam core (very labor intensive and harder to structurally attach to the hull, or c) be molded in female molds in two halves and then the halves glassed together and to the boat.
> 
> ...


Or another possibility is that the slender Contest skeg was built around a substantial stainless steel "T" and bolted to the hull with a backing plate glassed in, then faired in. With this type of construction the layup problems you cite aren't as significant because the strength is provided by the "skeleton" inside that you don't see rather than by the fiberglass. This is how the Nordic 44 skegs from this era were built. I don't know how many others used this type of construction but I'd be surprised if Nordic was unique among boatbuilders of this era.


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

Jeff_H said:


> In response to the above, I readily acknowledge that in order to try to explain complex topics my posts tend to be very long and that within those long discussions, it is easy to lose sight of the points that were being made. I respectfully suggest that is the case with the quoted post. To boil the points that I was trying to explain down to their essence:
> I understood that the discussion was about finding a robustly constructed approximately 32 to 35 foot boat with good sea-keeping ability, ease of handling, that did not need a massive fix-up and which had either a long keel with attached rudder or a skeg-hung rudder. I was prefacing a list of potential candidates by stating that that mix of attributes will be hard to find for the following reasons;
> 1) 35 foot boats that are selling for under $30,000 typically are priced in that range for some mix of the following:
> a) mediocre or obsolete design,
> ...


But Rush and the OP don't want a boat to be used "for the way most folks used a boat" so that doesn't really apply to them. In an earlier post I mentioned that many of these boats were built as coastal cruisers or charter boats, with relatively few of them ever venturing offshore so it was OK to pop the hull out of the mold, add a little reinforcing and a couple bearings, insert a rudder stock and slap a for sale sign on it. There are tons of these boats out there but though superficially they look a lot like a modern, well engineered, spade rudder boat, they were built "for the way most folks used a boat" and that doesn't include offshore in northern climates. That's one reason I think they'd be better off with a boat that has a skeg hung rudder that may not perform as well as a spade rudder boat from this era, but will not necesssrily been built solely for the coastal cruiser or charter fleet in mind.

On the other hand, Mark of Sea Life has successfully sailed his relatively lightly built ex charter boat around the world once and probably the equivalent distance again bouncing from the Caribbean to NY and to Europe and he hasn't has any structural problems that I'm aware of so it's hard to argue with the record he's amassed with Sea Life.

So I don't think all these boats are likely to have structural problems with their spade rudders but the trick is to know which ones were well built and which were built to lower standards because that's what the market was demanding at the time.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

jtsailjt said:


> Or another possibility is that the slender Contest skeg was built around a substantial stainless steel "T" and bolted to the hull with a backing plate glassed in, then faired in. With this type of construction the layup problems you cite aren't as significant because the strength is provided by the "skeleton" inside that you don't see rather than by the fiberglass. This is how the Nordic 44 skegs from this era were built. I don't know how many others used this type of construction but I'd be surprised if Nordic was unique among boatbuilders of this era.


I would agree that in the era that the Contest was constructed a stronger structural solution for the skeg would have been to build a full length stainless steel skeleton housed in a glass skin that could then be attached through the hull to internal framing. (just the same way as a properly designed post hung rudder was built in that era.)

That is a very expensive way to build a skeg since there is a lot of hand work glassing and fairing it where it meets the hull. I did not mention that approach since I believe that SanderO or Rush mentioned that skeg was glassed continuous with the hull layup on the Contest. While it would be possible to insert a stainless steel structure into the skeg after the it was molded with the hull, it would be much harder to produce structurally sound connections.



jtsailjt said:


> But Rush and the OP don't want a boat to be used "for the way most folks used a boat" so that doesn't really apply to them. In an earlier post I mentioned that many of these boats were built as coastal cruisers or charter boats, with relatively few of them ever venturing offshore so it was OK to pop the hull out of the mold, add a little reinforcing and a couple bearings, insert a rudder stock and slap a for sale sign on it. There are tons of these boats out there but though superficially they look a lot like a modern, well engineered, spade rudder boat, they were built "for the way most folks used a boat" and that doesn't include offshore in northern climates. That's one reason I think they'd be better off with a boat that has a skeg hung rudder that may not perform as well as a spade rudder boat from this era, but will not necesssrily been built solely for the coastal cruiser or charter fleet in mind.


You are finally agreeing with me 100% since that was exactly my point in saying that finding the boat that they want for the price that they want to pay will be a needle in a haystack precisely because the vast majority of boats that were built "for the way most folks used a boat" and they want something different.



jtsailjt said:


> On the other hand, Mark of Sea Life has successfully sailed his relatively lightly built ex charter boat around the world once and probably the equivalent distance again bouncing from the Caribbean to NY and to Europe and he hasn't has any structural problems that I'm aware of so it's hard to argue with the record he's amassed with Sea Life.
> 
> So I don't think all these boats are likely to have structural problems with their spade rudders but the trick is to know which ones were well built and which were built to lower standards because that's what the market was demanding at the time.


That was the point that I was trying to explain to Rush earlier. Over time boat building practices have simply gotten significantly better than they were on boats from the era he is considering. Mark's boat was produced at a time when the engineering had become much more sophisticated, the quality of the standard resins and reinforcing materials produced stronger laminates, building techniques, adding internal framing, and quality controls resulted in a stronger and more durable completed product. So while Mark's boat arguably was a high production number, value oriented, lighter built design for its era, it was robust enough to survive being a charter boat and still sail all over the place.

But as you have pointed out to me on several occasions, unfortunately the OP and the Rush are not financially able to afford a newer boat, and so the best advice that anyone can give them is to try to find the best quality design, in the best condition that they can afford from the era that they are considering.

Jeff


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

jtsailjt said:


> Or another possibility is that the slender Contest skeg was built around a substantial stainless steel "T" and bolted to the hull with a backing plate glassed in, then faired in. With this type of construction the layup problems you cite aren't as significant because the strength is provided by the "skeleton" inside that you don't see rather than by the fiberglass. This is how the Nordic 44 skegs from this era were built. I don't know how many others used this type of construction but I'd be surprised if Nordic was unique among boatbuilders of this era.


I suspect that skeg was built from the inside...with a structural metal "core" and plywood perhaps core connected to the hull. There is a 2" wide structural "element" which projects up into the hull which is also tabbed to an athwartship bulkhead which is the forward portion of the rudder tube structure. On the exterior the base of the skeg flares out to about 20" wide where it is faired into the bottom of the hull. The skeg is about 4" thick where the rudder post is.
Rush or someone else perhaps can call or write to Dick Zaal or Conyplex and ask for the details.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Well I've had some fun researching the recommended boats.
Here's a quick update on what I found:

@ olson 34
The Cascade 36 looks like a nice boat. The LWL/LOA is .81 which should be enough to keep Jeff happy  Unfortunately I was unable to find any for sale outside of the USA, and very few in older posts sold in Europe, so that one may be a challenge. Also the price is usually around 50K+. Ouch. Nice but a bit pricey. I'll keep an eye out for a good sale in the coming months, who knows. Thanks for the suggestion.

@ outbound 
The Hinckley Pilot is unfortunantly like the Cascade 36 a bit hard to find outside the USA, and usually 40K+. Its definitely considered seaworthy, although with a .699 LWL/LOA it may suffer a bit from race design rules. We'll see what Jeff says about it. It's certainly a looker! At least in my book. Thanks for the suggestion.

@ Jeff_H 
"Look for Bob Perry and Lyle Hess designs. Full keel and sail well in light and strong winds. Cult status boats, expensive." Uh.. yeah! When 40+ year old boats are still pulling 70 grand sales prices, I suppose that's 'cult status'.

Le Comte ALC 35 II: Seems a bit hard to find, 45K+ asking prices. I'll keep an eye out...

"Halmatic- (mainly built hulls and decks finished by others some in large numbers and some almost one off's) An example of a good choice from Halmatic might be:"

Nicholson 32: Pluses: excellent seaworthiness reputation, good prices. 
Minuses: Small dated interiors (which actually might present an interesting opportunity to apply some 'Sailing Uma' interior inspiration). Tiller. I know I know, I'm supposed to be open to these, but maybe I'm just a wheel snob ;-)

When I see a tiller I think this:









And when I see a wheel I think this:









Deb 34 (fixed keel version): a little bit difficult to find, I'll keep an eye out.

Hustler 35 - A nice looking boat, interior looks livable enough. 
I'm surprised you didn't exclude this one for the short-ish waterline and LWL/LOA of .73. It's in the right price range. Minus- tiller, main sheet in cockpit makes shade a challenge.

Trintella III - This is where my research got 'stumbled', right away I loved it! I'm a huge fan of the hard dodger and large shelter it provides, and the spacious wonderful aft cabin. Ketch and sloop rigging available, nice enough accommodation forward. A perfect candidate for a Sailing Uma modernization project. A fairly powerful engine for the size. Good looking, especially the ketch. 400 liter fuel and water tanks, nice! Funky heads literally in the v-birth, but I've never seen a v-birth I've really liked so why not make it a heads? LOL. Especially with such a nice aft cabin. The IIIA model looks like a pirate ship- haha what more can you want? Excellent reputation for seaworthiness.

Jimmy Cornell sailed one around the world for six years.








Previous Aventuras - Cornell Sailing Publications


Jimmy Cornell’s previous boats Aventura III Aventura II Aventura I Back to top Aventura III (Aventura Trois) Built in 1998 by Alubat at Sables ...Read more




cornellsailing.com





I found a pretty good tour by a young Dutch couple:














What else can I say? Love it.

There's a decent looking one on a Dutch site for sale with a low enough hours engine (900 I think is OK?), recent osmosis work, a power Lewmar winch, and power winlass, bowthruster, and fairly recent sails. It says hot water and heating so that's two fewer things to worry about- for 37.500:









1971 Trintella III for sale at Botentekoop.NL.


1971 Trintella III for sale at Botentekoop.NL. Botentekoop.nl is the site with the best selection in the Netherlands.




www.botentekoop.com





(negatives: its not a ketch)

Thoughts?


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Oh, and the LWL/LOA is .80 so I suppose that fits in the better side of the range of boats considered so far...


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Rush2112 said:


> Funky heads literally in the v-birth


Trust me - if you get a boat with this, you will quickly come to think it was the best design decision made by the designer. V-berths are stupid and almost useless, particularly on smaller boats. Heads take up inordinate amount of space for their usefulness. Putting a waste of space in the less usable part of the boat is genius.

Mark


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

colemj said:


> Trust me - if you get a boat with this, you will quickly come to think it was the best design decision made by the designer. V-berths are stupid and almost useless, particularly on smaller boats. Heads take up inordinate amount of space for their usefulness. Putting a waste of space in the less usable part of the boat is genius.
> 
> Mark


Yeah, it sure seems funky but actually it might be a great idea after all! I mean I remember seeing the v birth on my uncle's cal 39 as a kid and thinking hunh, well that's a weird bed... Literally every boat I've looked at I've automatically considered removing the main table and converting a settee to a double and just throwing sails in the v birth, or even turning it into shelving or cabinets. Considering how much storage space most boats this size have, it never seemed like a terrible idea to just convert the v birth anyway. Yeah, this design decision is growing on me.


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

I can relate because I was a “wheel snob” starting out and spent about $7000 30 years ago to convert from tiller to wheel, and then regretted it. A tiller gives you better feel and is nearly bulletproof and leaves the cockpit wide open to be used while at anchor. A wheel divides the cockpit in two and takes up space and that will be particularly noticeable on a boat in the mid 30’s in length. If I ever have another boat around 35’ LOA or less, I’d much rather it have a tiller. I really love the feel and awareness of rudder position that a tiller gives you. You can still have a below decks autopilot so it’s not like you have to grip the thing all day long. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tempest (Feb 12, 2007)

IDN. I have a mid-30's boat, and the cockpit seats 4 comfortably under sail, or at anchor, not including the helmsperson. ( more than 4 if need be.) And, there's No need to switch positions while tacking. I like sailing a tiller boat for the "feel" as well, but I haven't felt space limited having a wheel.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

Some people dislike V-berths. But I would encourage any newcomer to spend a night at anchor before trashing a V-berth. If designed with a forward-facing hatch, the ventilation will be far superior to an aft berth. This is especially true if you've motored to your anchorage, as the engine's heat usually dumps into the aft berth.

V-berth designs can vary widely - some are good and some are horrible. For years we planned to buy a Catalina 320, and just before we were about to place an offer on one, we went and chartered one for a week. The V-berth was extremely claustrophobic, with the bulkhead right up against the bed. My wife refused to sleep in the V-berth, so she used the aft berth (which was hot from the motor). I couldn't take the heat back there, so I slept alone in the well ventilated (but claustrophobic) V-berth. A week after our charter we placed an offer on a Catalina 34, which is about 2.5' longer, and allocated 18" of the extra length to extend the V-berth with storage lockers that opened up the whole V-berth tremendously. Had we not done that charter, we would have ended up with a boat that we hated. But we never suspected this problem until we lived on the boat for a week. Now, we can sleep together in the well ventilated V-berth.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

TakeFive said:


> Now, we can sleep together in the well ventilated aft berth.


Did you mean V-berth? If not, I lost the point here.

Mark


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

I think the V Berth thing might be personal preference. My first live aboard really only had a Vberth as a practical bed for two, without folding down the dining table and it was pretty comfortable. 30 ft, late 60s design (with a fin keel and spade rudder 😮).

Next boat had a big VBerth with room to walk around at the foot. Also had a nice aft cabin, but really, both were comfortable cabins.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

jtsailjt said:


> I can relate because I was a "wheel snob" starting out and spent about $7000 30 years ago to convert from tiller to wheel, and then regretted it. A tiller gives you better feel and is nearly bulletproof and leaves the cockpit wide open to be used while at anchor. A wheel divides the cockpit in two and takes up space and that will be particularly noticeable on a boat in the mid 30's in length. If I ever have another boat around 35' LOA or less, I'd much rather it have a tiller. I really love the feel and awareness of rudder position that a tiller gives you. You can still have a below decks autopilot so it's not like you have to grip the thing all day long.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Is an autopilot really as doable?
Also, it seems that most boats with deep cockpits have wheels. 
I like deep cockpits. They make me feel safe. Especially deep center cockpits.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

The 36s does not have a walk around berth in the aft cabin. It has 3 ports and is above the aft end of the engine compartment. You can sleep 2 fore-aft or athwartship. The head is forward of the salon and aft of the V. We find the aft cabin is cosy and the V is difficult to get up on to. We use the V as a spare and catch all (walk-in "closet" for whatever). Spinnaker is stowed beneath along with tools. Aft cabin is well supplied by forced air heat. Of course we would prefer a walk around berth, but as all we do is sleep there it seems to work. A boat is small and having the head (forward of the salon) "far from" where we sleep makes more sense and is less disturbing for whomever is asleep aft.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

colemj said:


> Did you mean V-berth? If not, I lost the point here.
> 
> Mark


Yes. Corrected.


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

Rush2112 said:


> Is an autopilot really as doable?
> Also, it seems that most boats with deep cockpits have wheels.
> I like deep cockpits. They make me feel safe. Especially deep center cockpits.


Sure, a below decks autopilot can connect via an arm to the rudder stock and be completely independent of the wheel steering apparatus. Of course you'll want to either have an easily removable tiller or flip it up so it's vertical so you don't get whacked when A/P is engaged.

I like deep cockpits too but that really has nothing to do with a tiller or wheel.
My boat has a center cockpit and I like it a lot, but it's really difficult to find one under about 40' that doesn't look like a wedding cake. One of the few to pull it off successfully (IMHO) is Hallberg Rassy. In fact there are a couple nice looking Rasmus for sale right now. I've never sailed one but HR has had the reputation for building solid cruisers for years and I expect their old full keel boats are no exception. You might want to check them out....


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

A new sailor, perhaps inexperienced with larger boats needs to really "experience" the accommodation plans of various boats... and even better getting to use them to inform their purchase.

I bought my boat with essentially no experience whatsoever. I did feel I had a leg up because I am an architect and planning space utilization is something I have training it. Boats are for sure different... and much more ergonomic and parsimonious in how space is used and of course boat is dynamic in its motion unlike dirt architecture.

Most sailboats of a similar size will have similar plans. But there are often variations and something like a head in the V is extremely rare... and that would make this hard to evaluate in "3D".

I think "comfort" is more important that many recognize as they are focusing on performance. But the typical cruising sailor will spend WAY more time at anchor than underway. A racer might not even need an interior!

I discovered that cockpit seating needs to allow occupants to stretch out and not sit as if they are in church. Being able to comfortably lay down turns out to be very important to me (us).

I discovered that a head which is not cramped makes a big difference and if this means not have a separate stall shower... so be it. You simply don't shower enough to give valuable real estate to this function. The solution of "head AS" shower therefore is a good one. AND in the forward location with a large forward facing hatch.... the space is ventilated and almost "pleasant".

"Helming" turned from something to learn... to something that can be challenging and even thrilling... to what it is MOST OF THE TIME.... B O R I N G. and why autopilots are so important relieving one of the NEED to steer the boat 98% of the time. MY AP will not get the boat on and off a dock or into and out of a slip or mooring. THAT's a skill every boat owner MUST have. And this brings me to "data" for sailing.

Sailing data needs to be visible and accessible from where the boat is operated from.. because that DATA informs steering, sail trim and other hazards and concerns for the helmsman. As such, relieved of having to be behind the helm... I realized that the data displays are best located forward in the cockpit where anyone in the cockpit can see the data. An above the companionway dash is a great location for instruments. 

A spray hood or dodger is almost mission critical for obvious reasons. But when your operations move aft a bimini begins to make a lot of sense... but it does kill visibility of the main.

I adapted to the architecture of the boat I bought and discovered through use what worked well for me... and essentially sold me on the merits of the decisions the architect made. I suppose I could have adapted myself to other designs and not miss what I hadn't experienced.


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

I think a reasonably roomy head is important and on a boat in the low to mid 30’ range that means a separate shower stall isn’t practical. Given the space constraints, small tankage and lack of a Watermaker on most smaller sailboats, as much as I enjoy a daily shower, it’s just not practical. That’s one of the reasons I sold my Hinckley Pilot that I really loved to get a boat with more room for creature comforts.

A cockpit that’s roomy enough to really stretch out in is necessary on any size cruising boat.

One problem with locating a head in the far forward V is that things can get a little more exciting (and messy) up there than most of us would prefer in rough seas. They work well on larger boats with another head located closer to the mid area of the boat where motion is less so the forward head can be reserved for use on relatively calm days or while at anchor. Waking up in the V Berth of my Nordic 44 to come on watch as we exited the Delaware Bay I found myself literally horizontally airborne as the boat plunged into the incoming ocean swells with the current behind us. I shudder to think what might have been if I were sitting on the head in that same location.
I also like having as much data forward in the cockpit as possible. I want everyone aboard to be able to see it and be aware so maybe that one time when I get a little too careless or distracted, someone else will save me. Also, when offshore I’m almost always on autopilot and rarely ever venture back behind the wheel because it’s much more comfy and protected to stay up near the companionway, so I need to have enough info forward to run the boat. My boat is 47’ and currently has instruments over the companionway but the big plotter is in a big nav pod at the helm. I plan to replace my outdated Simrad plotter this winter and am seriously considering moving the big combo plotter/radar display to a swing out mount at the companionway, or just go with a bigger iPad than the one I have now and just have a small plotter in a smaller nav pod at the helm which will improve forward visibility when I’m behind the wheel. I have a huge “nav station” that’s a great place to locate radios and electrical and heater and stereo controls, but I never actually navigate from there so can’t see why I’d want a plotter there, especially with the iPad that has the same info available anywhere on the boat.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

jtsailjt said:


> I think a reasonably roomy head is important and on a boat in the low to mid 30' range that means a separate shower stall isn't practical. Given the space constraints, small tankage and lack of a Watermaker on most smaller sailboats, as much as I enjoy a daily shower, it's just not practical. That's one of the reasons I sold my Hinckley Pilot that I really loved to get a boat with more room for creature comforts.
> 
> A cockpit that's roomy enough to really stretch out in is necessary on any size cruising boat.
> 
> ...


My 36s has a full nav station which has wind, depth and speed displays and I mounted a SSB radio, fixed mount VHF, AIS, at one time a radar monitor and then 2 plotters. Nav instruments repeat data to companionway dash displays. There was no GPS when I got the boat and began using electronics... So my AP was a robust below decks but with no GPS interface. Essentially you set a course and it holds it... or you can turn a dial like a mini helm to steer. I mounted the control forward in the cockpit. 
When plotters appeared I mounted them in the nav desk and then realized I never looked at them when underway... and got a hand held Garmin PDA which included street nav and blue charts for sailing. This was very convenient... and all I needed was the heading/course line to inform my steering control of the AP. A few years ago I picked up a B&G Zeus7 with onboard antenna and adapted their bracket to mount in a very little used winch under the dodger next to the companionway... it is power by a cig plug. I use this as I did the Garmin... no way points... just the heading line. I will enter a waypoint into the plotter at the nav station... which repeats to the dash instruments.... COG, DTW, CTW, TTG, SOG, XTE. I am not thinking of upgrading to an N2K but will keep a winch mounted plotter on the network so I can see radar. The times I need to hand steer I don't really need the instruments... and the winch mounted plotter works fine for that if I do.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

jtsailjt said:


> I plan to replace my outdated Simrad plotter this winter and am seriously considering moving the big combo plotter/radar display to a swing out mount at the companionway, or just go with a bigger iPad than the one I have now and just have a small plotter in a smaller nav pod at the helm which will improve forward visibility when I'm behind the wheel. I have a huge "nav station" that's a great place to locate radios and electrical and heater and stereo controls, but I never actually navigate from there so can't see why I'd want a plotter there, especially with the iPad that has the same info available anywhere on the boat.


Pretty much all the current plotters now connect wirelessly to an iPad and allow mirroring at a minimum, but most allow complete control from the iPad. It may be all of them - I don't have experience with all of them, but know B&G, Furuno, and Garmin do. There can be a bit of noticeable latency, but if one wanted to do a lot of work on a plotter, like creating a complicated route, etc, then one would do it on the plotter and not the tablet.

Mark


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

colemj said:


> Pretty much all the current plotters now connect wirelessly to an iPad and allow mirroring at a minimum, but most allow complete control from the iPad. It may be all of them - I don't have experience with all of them, but know B&G, Furuno, and Garmin do. There can be a bit of noticeable latency, but if one wanted to do a lot of work on a plotter, like creating a complicated route, etc, then one would do it on the plotter and not the tablet.
> 
> Mark


I used one set up that way a little last fall on a friends boat and it was mirroring his Raymarine plotter. But I'm more used to the Navionics on my phone so didn't bother playing with it very much.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Have a wireless remote for the AP. Just need to be careful you have good batteries in it. It’s so nice to be free of the wheel.Use it when reefing and I’m alone. It hangs on a string around your neck or you can put in a pocket. Much better logistically then using a pad or phone if you’re doing stuff. It smaller and has buttons that work even if wet. All plotters for some time now mirror via WiFi or Bluetooth to iPhones, IPads and android devices.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Funny, I almost never use my autopilot. Pretty much the only time I use it is to jibe the spinnaker when I am jibing the pole. If I was going offshore I would really like wind vane steering. My boat had one when she was sailed in from South Africa to the states. The mounting points are still on the transom. One of the things that I really like about outboard rudders is how easy it is to add a trim tab that is actuated by a windvane. I had planned to add a trim tab and wind vane to my Folkboat when I built the new rudder but never got around to it.

I have my GPS mounted on a turn table near the wheel so I can see it from the helm no matter where I am in the cockpit. 
Jeff Sailing September 2018 by jeff_halp, on Flickr

Jeff


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

I would have thought the Farr to be so quick accelerating that a windvane would be less useful and hunt a lot. On the other hand, I imagine that wheelpilot you have isn't much better in heavier or gusty conditions.

Our AP is on pretty much continuously. We have a wireless remote for it but don't find it useful. However, all of our sail controls and reefing is in the cockpit.

Mark


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

outbound said:


> Have a wireless remote for the AP. Just need to be careful you have good batteries in it. It's so nice to be free of the wheel.Use it when reefing and I'm alone. It hangs on a string around your neck or you can put in a pocket. Much better logistically then using a pad or phone if you're doing stuff. It smaller and has buttons that work even if wet. All plotters for some time now mirror via WiFi or Bluetooth to iPhones, IPads and android devices.


I just had a wireless autopilot controller installed, with my electronics upgrade. I'm pretty sure no vendor allows their phone and tablet repeaters to run the autopilot, for safety. Therefore, no guest can accidentally take over the ship.

So far, I'm underwhelmed by it. It will act as an AP controller at the nav station, if I ever need such on a long passage. The screen is monochrome. It has a rechargeable lithium battery, which I'm told lasts "forever". Of course, not literally, but I have no idea what the techs idea of forever is. Ironically, it is wired to charge, when the breaker for the plotter is on. A bit counter intuitive, as I'd presuambly want to be using it, when the plotter is on and charge at the slip or anchor, when it's off.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Minnie if you’re alone on deck it’s helpful. We have just about everything brought aft. In the cold or spray or rain you can tuck under the hard dodger and run the boat never being out in the wind or wet. Of course there’s a screen you can tap to change heading but its so much easier on the remote. Also if you need to go forward to fool with something the remote is helpful. You can tap the +/-10 to unload a sail and line briefly or rework a reef. Agree with even one other person up on deck it isn’t helpful. However I often sit and read while drinking tea or coffee while on watch. See something in the water or do my 360 visual scan and just change things for a moment it’s convenient.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

outbound said:


> Minnie if you're alone on deck it's helpful. We have just about everything brought aft. In the cold or spray or rain you can tuck under the hard dodger and run the boat never being out in the wind or wet.


This is exactly why I got it. I didn't have the need on our month long cruise this summer, but expect to, as things return to normal next year. Response rates are notable slower than the helm controller, but good enough.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

So here's my take on use of a hand held AP remote on the fore deck.

I am not going to the fore deck unless there is a problem except for anchoring and picking up a mooring or letting it go, For the mooring it could be somewhat helpful picking up a mooring with throttle control. It may be used to hand to steer as the boat makes way without the prop spinning. But in my experience control of the throttle is as important as steering in mooring pick up.
The problem for me.... at this stage of my life is that I really need to hold on to something for stability... and that leave only one hand to do anything... Pick up the mooring or steer to it. If the remote hangs around my neck I can let go of it and grab the mooring. And this is on a flat deck with a calm sea.

Going forward to fix something underway is much more challenging with only one hand available. Here a harness is absolutely required... but that does not help with balance and footing handicaps. An hand hold AP seems unnecessary. What I would do is find a point of sail... generally down wind where the boat is flat. But with seas running the deck is still "active" and required one hand to hold on. This makes "fixing" something extremely challenging if not impossible. A hand held AP remote would be of little use I suspect.

Controlling the AP from below seems absurd when popping up into the cockpit and controlling the AP from the control in arms reach of the companionway where I can eyeball conditions makes more sense.

If you are not single handing one crew can control the AP from the cockpit. For slow maneuvering like docking you need both steering and throttle control and maybe thrusters too.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

colemj said:


> I would have thought the Farr to be so quick accelerating that a windvane would be less useful and hunt a lot. On the other hand, I imagine that wheelpilot you have isn't much better in heavier or gusty conditions.
> 
> Our AP is on pretty much continuously. We have a wireless remote for it but don't find it useful. However, all of our sail controls and reefing is in the cockpit.
> 
> Mark


The Farr 11.6 was designed as cruising boat and so does not have the kind of speed that most folks think of from a Farr design.
As far as sailing using a windvane, when I was researching various boat models for what eventually became my boat, I spoke to a number of people who had done long passages with Farr 11.6's. One of those people was part of a couple who had sailed a Farr 11.6 from South Africa to Scotland and the other had single hand sailed from South Africa to the Caribbean and then Caribbean to Annapolis. Both used Hasler style windvanes and both swore by the boat's ability to sail well under a vane.

In my research, I was concerned that the boats have small fuel tanks and was concerned about having adequate fuel to keep batteries charged for the autopilot. As a result I was very interested in whether and how well the boat could be steered with a wind vane.

The single hander described using the vane broad reaching and running in 30 knot winds gusting to 50 knots at times, in waves that were between the height of the mast and the height of the spreaders. He noted that the vane did best beating and close reaching, and deep reaching, but less reliable in lighter winds between a beam reach and a deep reach which I assume is an issue with apparent wind variation.

The wheel pilot works well on my boat in terms of holding course. I have used it during a spinnaker drop in the high teens of wind gusting into the low 20 knots with a short steep quartering chop. To me that was the real test of the auto pilot and it worked well. I think it works well because the boat has very light helm loads and surgically precise steering.

Jeff


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Jeff_H said:


> The Farr 11.6 was designed as cruising boat and so does not have the kind of speed that most folks think of from a Farr design.


Yes, I think of fast when I hear Farr. Not up on all of their designs, so I guess the fastest ones get all the press and come to my attention.



Jeff_H said:


> I think it works well because the boat has very light helm loads and surgically precise steering.


That is important for all AP's, and allows boats to operate well with smaller ones, or use less power for larger ones. I've always been impressed at how little power our AP uses because our boat is responsive and the steering light. It is rated at 30A , but it averages ~2-3A, and typically uses 5-6A instantaneous.

Mark


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

colemj said:


> To help Rush2112 find Comets, I think they were all metric model numbers, so a 38' Comet would be listed as a Comet 11. I know someone with a Comet 11 and it seems like a nice boat - looks fast. He mainly uses it as a liveaboard and not a cruiser.


I just found a Comet 11 and what an unusual interior!





__





Comar / Sipla - sailing boats for sale - length 9-12 m


Sailing boats for sale. Buy or sell a used boat? Comar / Sipla or another brand? Use the range of yachts for sale on Yachtall! - length 9-12 m




www.yachtall.com





There are no bulkheads behind the companionway stairs its just all open with a large seating area in the back. If that area were converted into a bedroom it would be brilliant as a liveaboard.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

TakeFive said:


> Some people dislike V-berths. But I would encourage any newcomer to spend a night at anchor before trashing a V-berth. If designed with a forward-facing hatch, the ventilation will be far superior to an aft berth. This is especially true if you've motored to your anchorage, as the engine's heat usually dumps into the aft berth.


I am now considering ventilation thanks for bringing it up. I always thought this matter was overrated, not I'm not so sure. See the video above I posted of the Trintella III and the one thing the young lady seems to greatly dislike about the boat is the aft cabin ventilation, or lack thereof. I imagine if I go for this model in the end I'll have to factor in cost of 'openable' portholes (I know there's a proper term for this sorry). Anyway thanks again. So many considerations I feel like a professional juggler


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Rush2112 said:


> I am now considering ventilation thanks for bringing it up. I always thought this matter was overrated, not I'm not so sure. See the video above I posted of the Trintella III and the one thing the young lady seems to greatly dislike about the boat is the aft cabin ventilation, or lack thereof. I imagine if I go for this model in the end I'll have to factor in cost of 'openable' portholes (I know there's a proper term for this sorry). Anyway thanks again. So many considerations I feel like a professional juggler


There is not very good ventilation in the aft cabin of the Contest 36s. It's really a very large sleeping hole and we crawl in and sleep. We have forced air heat, 3 opening ports and a fan which does the job. It's not a stateroom... or even really a cabin.

However the rest of the boat has excellent ventilation from 3 forward facing hatches and several opening port lights. And even the main cabin has 2 bulkhead mounted fans and I added a portable rechargeable one.

Ventilation is very important.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

jtsailjt said:


> In fact there are a couple nice looking Rasmus for sale right now. I've never sailed one but HR has had the reputation for building solid cruisers for years and I expect their old full keel boats are no exception. You might want to check them out....


OK its good to know that tillers can have autopilots too, thanks.
Also, I am considering the HR Rasmus. I wonder if it has the potentially problematic cored hull that Jeff_H was talking about...


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

outbound said:


> Minnie if you're alone on deck it's helpful. We have just about everything brought aft. In the cold or spray or rain you can tuck under the hard dodger and run the boat never being out in the wind or wet. Of course there's a screen you can tap to change heading but its so much easier on the remote. Also if you need to go forward to fool with something the remote is helpful. You can tap the +/-10 to unload a sail and line briefly or rework a reef. Agree with even one other person up on deck it isn't helpful. However I often sit and read while drinking tea or coffee while on watch. See something in the water or do my 360 visual scan and just change things for a moment it's convenient.


I need to start a separate thread just for all the electronics stuff. Seems important and I have a lot to learn about there, because basically all I know is I want a radio (of some kind) and an AP (of some kind). I saw one boat had a laundry list of about 15 electronics made my head spin. Yep more to learn!

It seems I am also going to want lines run aft and single line reefing if possible. I want to minimize the time I have to go up on the foredeck, especially in weather.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Jeff_H,
I'm still trying to catch up with all of your recommendations.
So far your list has led me toward some boats that I really like!
The Trintella III is on my shortlist.
I really like the Sweden 36, the Victoria 34, and the Contessa 38.
Some of the others are quite a bit difficult to find in Europe but I'll keep an eye out.
The Shannons are also pretty nice.

By the way, I never did get your feedback of what you thought of the Contests?
There is a 32 CC and 38 CC both with a nice aft cabin, and a 34 sloop.

Also have you seen the Moody 39 or the Halberdier? I wonder what you think of those.

I still have several on your list to get to thanks again.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

My recommendations:
Electronics:
speed log
depth sensor
temp sensor can be handy.... and some transducers have all 3 in one unit or speed and depth in one unit
wind instrument for the top of the mast.
displays for the above forward in the cockpit visible from anywhere in the cockpit
Some displays are multi functional and you can get the data you want etc.
VHF radio w/ DSC, fixed mount and hand held
AIS B
GPS plotter / MFD in the cockpit.
Radar
Below decks AP driving the rudder post

Reefing
Reefing lines should be led to the cockpit thru rope clutches whether one or two line.
Roller furling headsail.


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

Rush2112 said:


> OK its good to know that tillers can have autopilots too, thanks.
> Also, I am considering the HR Rasmus. I wonder if it has the potentially problematic cored hull that Jeff_H was talking about...


I wouldn't worry too much about those "potentially problematic" cored hulls because before buying you are going to get a thorough survey and the surveyor is going to go to great lengths to make sure there's no moisture in the core. If there is you walk away. If it's a 40+ year old boat with no moisture in the hull or deck, then unless you poke a hole in it, it's pretty likely to stay that way. If you do poke a hole in it, you immediately have it hauled, dried out, and repaired. My 29 year old boat has a cored hull that's dry. I don't worry about it even a little.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

Rush2112 said:


> I need to start a separate thread just for all the electronics stuff.


I suggest you use the search function to take advantage of the hundreds of posts that have already been made on this topic.

For under $30,000, do you really think you're going to get much in the way of electronics?


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Rush2112 said:


> It seems I am also going to want lines run aft and single line reefing if possible. I want to minimize the time I have to go up on the foredeck, especially in weather.


I do a lot of single hand sailing, often in pretty heavy weather. I am a big proponent of running the halyard and reef lines back to the cockpit. But there isn't universal agreement on that. Those who disagree with running the control lines back to the cockpit point out there is less friction if the halyard and reef lines are at the mast. They also make a case that moving around the boat to reef help build muscle memory to needed to get around the boat quickly in an emergency.

I am of a different school of thought. I tend to push a boat hard and reef late, which means I need to be able to reef quickly on any point of sail. That requires being able to play the sheets and vang at the same time I am reefing.

So I prefer a two line reefing system since there is much less friction, less to go wrong and a whole lot less line to haul in. But more significantly two line reefing allows much better control of sail shape which is especially important in heavy air.

Jeff


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

I’ve had single on first two and double on the third. Single line sucks. When I single hand before leaving I carefully reflake the reefing lines regardless of who handled them last. The least bit of twist in those lines can screw things up. When reefing with them I carefully ease a bit of halyard then tighten the line and then repeat. It takes me twice as long to do a single line reef evolution than the double line third reef. And I get a better shape with the double line third reef. Still, after using in mast (whistle, no roach, finnicky,can jam catastrophically) and in boom (hard to tune, must head into the wind with risk of broach, usually need to turn on the engine to do safely ) slab is definitely the way to go.
Think everyone is clueless (self included) of what 30-35 kts means in the open ocean. Fetch of waves is thousands of miles. “It isn’t the wind that kills you....it’s the waves”has much truth. Even the constant 20kts can be so fatiguing after a few days of everything having a another layer of complexity to do things. There are very few boats I personally would take voyaging at 30-35’ range. My focus would be different than the OPs. It would be could I function(eat, cook, sleep, toilet, navigate etc.) the particular boat throughout a full passage. My questions would be different as well. Things like
can I safely cook? Would I need to put on foulies to not get burnt?
can I stay on the seat of the head? How do I brace myself?
am I going to be wet every time I’m in the cockpit?
where do I sleep? On a run? Reach? Beat?
where’s storage? Do I need to move things to get to things? How much storage is there? Does it effect performanc?
whats the tankage?
in short all the little things that make the difference between being wet, too cold or hot, rested, hydrated and fed, not bruised up, not seasick, and happy making good decisions or miserable, not at your peak so prone to making bad decisions. Much of the above thread seems to have little to do with things that make a great passagemaker.
think he should look at the various lists of blue water boats. Think he should look at the article in attentable adventures given his budget. Think his budget is too low. A reasonable BCC28 fitted out is going to be $50k or more when heading out a small Rustler more.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

I've run single line reefing back to the cockpit on two boats. The key to friction is using blocks, and the blocks on the sail need to be fixed so they cannot twist the lines. Most people just run the reef lines through cringles, which are terrible for friction. Even rings are not good enough. A thinner reef line using dyneema for strength is helpful too. Never had a problem with sail shape.

There is the same amount of line in the cockpit for single line vs double line, but it is partitioned differently. I actually don't have a preference between 1 or 2 lines - just that 2 lines in the boats we owned would have been more complicated to run with the extra blocks, organizer, and clutches, and no room to mount them.

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

outbound said:


> Much of the above thread seems to have little to do with things that make a great passagemaker.


Yet everywhere we go, we run into old inexpensive small boats of uncertain lineage and questionable provenance seemingly doing just fine. Not at all the type of boats I would consider passagemakers, but they are making the passages.

I have to remind myself of this occasionally.

Mark


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Ya but Mark when you chat them up you find they came to the cruising grounds years ago and haven’t left. The one big exception seems to be young French families on homemade steel.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

I grant that the French comprise a high number of them, followed probably by Germans. Generally younger, of course. Not at all on homemade steel, although there are some, and the majority of them are passage making and not end-of-the-road types.

At least the ones we meet. The types you describe are usually found in the ends of the line places like Rio Dulce, Key West, and Portobello, where tough decisions need to be made for continuing, and living (and drugs/alcohol) is cheap to stay. 

Mark


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

Regarding reefing, I'd stay away from single line reefing because there's just too much friction so it becomes next to impossible in difficult conditions. Sounds great, but in my experience didn't live up to my expectations. I had it on my Nordic 44 and took it out in favor of single reefing lines led forward along the boom and a hook at the goosneck for the reefed tack. Yes, I had to leave the cockpit but it's not far and I'm always clipped on while enroute and then clipped onto the mast while up there. Since I know I'm going to have to leave the cockpit, I didn't wait until the last minute to decided to tuck in that second or third reef when it's needed. This philosophy of reefing early, in addition to being safer for the crew, is also easier on the boat and its hardware. This method is very simple and results in a minimum of stray spaghetti tangles in the cockpit when the weather gets nasty. My current boat has a roller furling main but when I go back to a boat with a hanked on sail, I know just how I'm going to rig it because on my last boat I found out what works best for me and the way I like to sail. But I know that other opinions about this are just as valid due to the way other people like to sail or how their boat is configured or their own degree of agility and ability to move around safely on deck, or just their personal preferences. Just remember the goal here is to be able to simply and reliably reduce sail when conditions dictate. So, read all our opinions but remember they are just that, and then make your best choice based on how YOU will sail and what your personal preferences are.

If I had a boat like JeffH's, I'd probably wouldn't dare to go forward to the mast to reef in bad weather so would want to be able to reef from the cockpit too because a flatter bottomed, lighter weight, boat like that is going to get thrown around in bad weather a lot more than a more traditional heavier cruising boat so I'd worry that its more abrupt motion would be likely to throw me off balance. So, for the type of sailing he likes to do, his boat, and his reefing system makes perfect sense to him, but that doesn't mean it makes any sense for me or possibly for you. There's no right or wrong answer to this question but rather several different approaches that are most appropriate for different types of cruising and different types of boats.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

I agree that there is no wrong or right answer, and it is a personal preference. I just want to reiterate that blocks fixed on the reef tack and clew points remove pretty much all the friction and prevent twisting of the reef lines. Our mainsail is large roach elliptical 710 square feet and is easily reefed with a single line. I know others with similar sails with reef lines through cringles, and they have a lot of difficulty with friction.

Mark


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

I have put in my reefs with my single line reefing lots of times in bad conditions where i waited too long before doing. Good thing i didnt know how hard or impossible it was.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

colemj said:


> I agree that there is no wrong or right answer, and it is a personal preference. I just want to reiterate that blocks fixed on the reef tack and clew points remove pretty much all the friction and prevent twisting of the reef lines. Our mainsail is large roach elliptical 710 square feet and is easily reefed with a single line. I know others with similar sails with reef lines through cringles, and they have a lot of difficulty with friction.
> 
> Mark


Using blocks at the reefing cringles makes an enormous difference. I couldn't believe how much easier the process became once I added the blocks.


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

Don L said:


> I have put in my reefs with my single line reefing lots of times in bad conditions where i waited too long before doing. Good thing i didnt know how hard or impossible it was.


Same here. The single line reefing on my boat is very smooth and easy, and sail shape is good. My mainsail has blocks on the leech, and the single line reefing is incorporated into the Selden boom.

I think perhaps there is not a problem with the concept of single line reefing, rather it is a poor implementation of the concept that can be problematic.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

We’ve sailed thousands of miles with single line. We have blocks on both luff and leach at the first and second reef points. Problem is they don’t come down together unless you take down the sail fairly slowly. The sail already down and folded on the boom (not the reefing line) is what creates the friction or hang ups. Also you can’t adjust tension on the clew and tack independently so sail shape suffers. Twist occurs when you use a winch or lines aren’t flaked correctly. We can get 95% of the reef in just by pulling by hand but to get a low chord flat sail usually take a slight grind on a winch. Usually just half a turn or even less. Kind of like adjusting the outhaul. Never use power winching for that. You won’t feel a hang up. The other trick is unlike old school keep the reefed sail a couple feet up from the boom so the unused portion stays out of the way. The least bit up twist can give a hang up at a deck organizer. These lines are real long on anything over 40-45’. Lots of spaghetti. The twist adds up as you reef so just a little bit becomes significant toward the end. Think single line is better than in boom or in mast and is quite livable. But simple double line is more bulletproof so better. Would still have blocks along the leach for double line once sail is big enough.


----------



## JimsCAL (May 23, 2007)

My current boat came with two reefs with double lines lead back to the cockpit. Works well so have not seen any reason to change things. No blocks on the sail needed.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

I am usually setting a reef with the motor steering eye to the wind whenever possible. Main is flogging about and friction is not an issue until the reef lines are tightened the last bit using a winch. Two lines work fine... and we have the coach roof 4 cockpit line stoppers (4&4) set up as:
vang
reef 1st reef clew
reef 2nd reef clew
outhaul

main halyard
topping lift
reef 1st reef tack
reef 2nd reef tack

My reefs are pretty deep and I've changed over time from 4 reefs to 3 and now just 2 which works fine and is less like a lo mein bowl.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Oct 11, 2013)

I haven't read all this thread, but even if I did it wouldn't change my opinion of these type of rudders, which hang precariously of the stern of modern boats. They were "invented" because they are cheap to make and install. Just like skinny fin keels bolted to a hull, which sometimes fall off completely, i.e. like on beneteau's.
Now they are screwing lumps of lead to the bottom of these keels, which uses less lead and means they can make the fins of cheaper material. You sure get what you pay for nowadays in boats.
Next thing we will hear are boats made of _Papier_-_mâché which will be very light and fast-until you put them in the water!_
IMHO there is only one answer, especially for ocean cruising. A long keel with a traditional rudder hung on pintles and gudgeons. And these are not limited to large boats either. A Folkboat is a beautiful little ship with traditional lines, and there are many others.
Sorry about the rant chaps. I'm just an old sailor with an old boat.
JR


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Can't always reef when heading into the wind, and it is important to be able to reef downwind. Friction can really come into play reefing downwind. Whatever one's reefing setup, it helps to remove as much friction as possible.

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Jolly Roger said:


> IMHO there is only one answer, especially for ocean cruising. A long keel with a traditional rudder hung on pintles and gudgeons. And these are not limited to large boats either. A Folkboat is a beautiful little ship with traditional lines, and there are many others.


That would make a terrible catamaran or trimaran configuration. Too bad you didn't read the entire thread, although as you stated - your mind is closed to facts and evidence anyway.

Mark


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Rush2112 said:


> Jeff_H,
> I'm still trying to catch up with all of your recommendations.
> So far your list has led me toward some boats that I really like!
> The Trintella III is on my shortlist.
> ...


Here are a few comments on some of the issues that you have asked about:
Contests:
Having owned one and sailed on quite a few of them, I am not a fan of Contests. ( I know that SanderO had been very pleased with his and has taken it all over the place which should definitely be taken seriously as a data point.) I have no direct experience with either the 32 cc or 38cc, so I can only talk in a very general sense. Having tried to design and having cruised on a number of small center cockpit boats, I would say that it is very hard to design a center cockpit boat that is under 40 feet that is also a good cruising boat. Most smaller center cockpit boats make decent live aboards, but are seriously compromised in terms of storage, or creating a galley that can be used underway. In order to make a center cockpit design work on a small boat, the bow is generally made fuller so the vee berth can be pushed further forward (as appears to be the case on the 32 CC and 34s) thereby compromising motion comfort. The 38 appears to be a decent design but I would look for a aft cockpit, sloop rigged version, if such a thing exists.

Ketches: 
While there are some advantages to a ketch for certain types of cruising, generally the ketch rig is a one trick pony whose one trick is reaching pretty well in moderate breezes. When it comes to a broader range of wind conditions they tend to be miserable downwind and upwind, and not all that great in light air. They tend to be expensive to maintain (a whole lot more parts) and difficult to make as structurally sound as a sloop rig.

Ketch rigs made sense in the days when boats had much less stability relative to drag, and had keel configurations that did not allow them to point very well. They were popular in certain racing classes where exceptions in the racing rule gave them an advantage. (Think Farr's Volvo Race IOR Maxi's) But for a boat with a decent hull and keel design, and with adequate stability, the ketch rig offers absolutely no advantage.

I know much is made of a Ketch's ability to run jib and jigger in heavy air. That certainly was true at one time. But when you look at a ketch whose working sail plan (100% jib) has an SA/D down below 18-20 or so, they will typically carry a large genoa in winds up to around 12-15 knots. If that genoa is modern fabric with a foam luff, the range of that much more expensive sail may be extended to 18-20 or so knots by partially furling the sail after which the fabric would generally be too light for higher wind loads if the sail is of use in lighter winds. At that point a sail change becomes necessary or you live with a less efficient sail limiting your ability to heave to or point, in much the same way as it would on a sloop with a similar SA/D.

These days, modern reefing is much easier to do than in the past, further taking away an advantage that a ketch historically had when reefing meant dropping a sail, tying in a reef, then re-raising the shortened sail. Today, reefing a sail is much easier and faster than even dropping a sail to the deck. And having owned a cutter where the boom extended past the transom, for me that alone would eliminate most ketches as cruising boats.

Moody 39:
That was one of the Angus Primrose designed Moody's. Primrose's designs were highly idiosyncratic and while have done a lot of sea miles, have a really dismal reputation when it comes to seaworthiness. Also my experience with Moody, of the 1970's through early 1990's was that they were not all that well built.

Moody Halberdier:
I don't actually know the Halberdier. Looking at the numbers they appear to be motor-sailors rather then auxiliary sailboats. Most motor-sailors are neither good motor boats (too much drag and roll) nor good sailboats (not enough stability and too much drag) . If you are looking for a boat to do serious cruising under sail, in a venue with rough sailing conditions, and are looking to better develop your sailing skills this should probably be a non-starter.

Jeff


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Jolly Roger said:


> A Folkboat is a beautiful little ship with traditional lines, and there are many others.
> JR


I will say that often these theoretical discussions get pretty far afield and don't really get down to brass tacks. While I disagree with almost everything that Jolly Roger said in Post #339, I conmpletely endorse his comments on the Folkboat. I will say that I have been thinking for a while that one of the best boats for Rush might actually be a Folkboat. Of all of the boats that I have owned and sailed, my current boat and the Folkboat that I owned in the 1970's were my two favorites.
Folkboat Restored jeff_halp,








Folkboat from astern
I have always been amazed at how well that the Folkboat sailed in a broad range of conditions and how easy she was to handle. If it wasn't for the fact that Rush wants to live aboard this would be a super first boat for him. These boats can handle pretty much whatever nature throws at them and would be a great platform to build skills. Some years ago when I was considering moving to Portugal, I looked at boats for sale in the EU. At the time there was a large number of fiberglass Folkboats in the $5,000 to $10,000 range, many of which had single cyl diesels. The Atlantic off Portugal has notoriously rough weather in late fall, winter and early spring, but light air the rest of the year so I thought a Folkboat would make a good option. (For those of you who know me and are scratching their heads right now, I also was considering a Figaro 1 and a JOD).
Jeff


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

If considering a Folkboat, why not add Contessa 26 to the list. Bit more headroom, self draining cockpit.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

The reefing discussion was very interesting and I want to again say thanks to everyone who contributed. I still continue to learn a lot from reading these discussions. And one thing I have learned, or knew all along and am now being reminded is that I do in fact need to actually learn more about sailing! The little rental boats are great fun, but I need to supplement my learning with a little reading. So I just picked up Tom Cunliffe's book The Complete Yachtmaster:


Amazon.com



So far I really like it because there are lots of color pictures 

And I am still going through researching the different boats suggested, and will continue to do so.
So thanks again for all the feedback.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Jolly Roger said:


> I haven't read all this thread, but even if I did it wouldn't change my opinion of these type of rudders, which hang precariously of the stern of modern boats. They were "invented" because they are cheap to make and install. Just like skinny fin keels bolted to a hull, which sometimes fall off completely, i.e. like on beneteau's.
> Now they are screwing lumps of lead to the bottom of these keels, which uses less lead and means they can make the fins of cheaper material. You sure get what you pay for nowadays in boats.
> Next thing we will hear are boats made of _Papier_-_mâché which will be very light and fast-until you put them in the water!_
> IMHO there is only one answer, especially for ocean cruising. A long keel with a traditional rudder hung on pintles and gudgeons. And these are not limited to large boats either. A Folkboat is a beautiful little ship with traditional lines, and there are many others.
> ...


JR,
Thanks for the input. I would actually recommend you go through and read the discussion, because it twists and turns in unexpected directions and I believe there is a wealth of useful information, at least I've learned a lot. The discussion on keels and rudders is a little heated at times but again I've found it very useful.

As far as the Folkboats go, well they sure are pretty looking aren't they?
I mean I know this all comes down to personal taste but I've looked at several now and to me they just look fantastic. I really love the lines. And as far as the sailing characteristics, they also look a very good fit for my needs. Unfortunately as a liveaboard they just seem a bit small inside. I've gotten quite a bit more flexible as my search has progressed, and I think if I was ten years younger I'd probably go for it! But at this stage I really do need a bit more accommodation.

Thanks again for the recommendation, I do hope to sail on one of these some day!


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Jeff_H said:


> Here are a few comments on some of the issues that you have asked about...


Jeff,
Thanks for the feedback. As usual that's a lot of information and I'll have to chew on it, and research a bit.
I actually found the Contests to have some of the nicer, more livable looking interiors, and I really like the reviews for seaworthiness. I wonder what you mean by compromising motion comfort by pushing the v birth forward. Are pointier nosed boats generally associated with more motion comfort?

Regarding ketches, couldn't one just go with a reasonably durable head sail so they don't have to change sails when wind kicks up? The extra maintenance costs with ketch are a good consideration thanks. And I have to admit, my fondness of ketch is mostly cosmetic. Although I do quite like a deep center cockpit for the sense of security if nothing else.

It's altogether possible that this first purchase will not be my ultimate boat, but it's good to know the trade-offs involved, so thanks again for the info.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Rush2112 said:


> JR,
> Thanks for the input. I would actually recommend you go through and read the discussion, because it twists and turns in unexpected directions and I believe there is a wealth of useful information, at least I've learned a lot. The discussion on keels and rudders is a little heated at times but again I've found it very useful.
> 
> As far as the Folkboats go, well they sure are pretty looking aren't they?
> ...


This is why I suggested Contessa 26. More or less upsized Folkboat. Quite a few well known circumnavigations on them. Not bad live aboard space, depending how tall you are. I can stand up in one at just shy of 5ft9.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Arcb said:


> This is why I suggested Contessa 26. More or less upsized Folkboat. Quite a few well known circumnavigations on them. Not bad live aboard space, depending how tall you are. I can stand up in one at just shy of 5ft9.


I think that the Contessa 26 was a good suggestion for those reason. But Contessa should not be the only version added to the list. One of the things that surprised me when I was looking at Folkboats in Europe is that there are a pretty large number of variations. Most of the fiberglass ones do have self draining cockpits. (The European version of the Contessa 26's (vs Canadian) have their cockpit sole so close to the waterline that they actually have standing water in the cockpit when the water tank is full.) There are also some versions with a small doghouse that is similar to the Canadian built Walton 25-Continental 25. Walton originally had these beautifully built in Europe ( I think at de Vries Lentsch in Amsterdam) I think that the European version still had a fractional rig, while the Walton-Whitby-Grampian Version was a masthead rig. I personally like the fractional rig version better just because they were easier to sail in changing conditions but both make great little very affordable cruisers that can take whatever is thrown at them and which make a decent platform to learn to sail on.

Jeff.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Oct 11, 2013)

Finding a boat is not unlike meeting your future wife—you will know her when you meet her—but you might have reservations as to length and beam. After all, we are all compromises.
JR


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Rush2112 said:


> Jeff,
> Regarding ketches, couldn't one just go with a reasonably durable head sail so they don't have to change sails when wind kicks up? The extra maintenance costs with ketch are a good consideration thanks. And I have to admit, my fondness of ketch is mostly cosmetic. Although I do quite like a deep center cockpit for the sense of security if nothing else.


The deal with "the reasonably durable head sail" works like this. The leading edge of the sail is where almost all of the forward drive comes from. When you start out with a boat that has a small SA/D to begin with, you lose the ability to sail in light to moderate winds unless unless the jibs have a very large overlap. But as the overlap gets bigger and bigger the sail gets less and less efficient, so it takes a lot more sail area to perform in a manner that approaches that of a higher aspect ratio sail (which is why most modern boats have very tail minimally overlapping headsails).

When you have a sail that has a large overlap, the fabric needs to be very light weight or it won't achieve a decent flying shape in light to moderate wind because there is so much cloth that the weight of the cloth causes it to sag into a nearly useless shape. But as the wind builds, if that light weight fabric is dacron, it will be very stretchy and instead of the flat shape that is needed for heavier winds, the sail gets rounder and causes the boat to heel more, make more leeway, and develop a lot more weather helm. But because many of the boats of that era had comparatively little stability relative to their drag, the solution ends up being a suit of multiple sails that have very narrow wind ranges. It would be possible to build a high tech sail that would be light enough fabric for light air and yet limited in stretch when the wind builds. (And example of that is the carbon fiber-twaron blend AP jib on my boat that replaces 2-3 sails on my boat)

But the problem gets worse on a ketch where the Jib and Main luff lengths tend to be short and hope to make it up with the mizzen. But on a ketch, the mizzen mast operates in the turbulent air of the other sails upwind, and the mainsail operates in the turbulent air downwind, so they are only at their best when reaching. And while Ketches can fly Mizzen Staysails when reaching, Mizzen staysails do nothing useful for the boat upwind or running. And mizzen staysails need to be dropped and re-raised every time the boat tacks or jibes.

There is a reason that the Ketch rig has become obsolete and even Amel has moved on from them.

Jeff


----------



## olson34 (Oct 13, 2000)

Since others have mentioned specific choices, I might as well promote the 26 footer we sailed (mostly cruised, but raced hard for two -winning- seasons) for a decade. It was a Hinterhoeler designed and built Niagara 26. Fractional rig, well built, and fast. Easy to sail really well even for an average duffer like me.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Jolly Roger said:


> Finding a boat is not unlike meeting your future wife-you will know her when you meet her-but you might have reservations as to length and beam. After all, we are all compromises.
> JR


Well if she's anything like my past wife, I can't afford her 



olson34 said:


> Since others have mentioned specific choices, I might as well promote the 26 footer we sailed (mostly cruised, but raced hard for two -winning- seasons) for a decade. It was a Hinterhoeler designed and built Niagara 26. Fractional rig, well built, and fast. Easy to sail really well even for an average duffer like me.


Looks like a nice boat, so many nice boats at good prices- in the USA.
I'll keep an eye out if one pops up on this side of the pond, thanks for the suggestion.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Well after all this analysis and careful review of the maintenance costs thread, I'm think I've actually found my boat! A 30k budget should be able to maintain this one for at least a couple years


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Seriously at this point I highly doubt that I'll have much choice on this boat purchase decision at all. It looks like it's literally going to come down to two questions- How much money did the prior owners pour into the boat, and what are they asking for it. I just don't think I'm going to have the luxury of any choice at all on the make and model. It's going to come down to pure luck on that front. If for example I needed new chain plates on any boat that I'm considering, the boat would essentially be a throw away, it simply wouldn't be worth it.

All this information has been very helpful and is fantastic to know- I've definitely learned a lot!
But I'm actually dizzy after reading some of the expenses on that maintenance thread. 30 grand isn't a good budget to buy a sailboat, 30 grand isn't even a good maintenance budget!

Most every boat I've seen for under 30 grand that's considered blue water capable, which lists the items maintained and upgraded, doesn't even scratch the surface of the quite long list of maintenance items that simply must be done by the 35+ year mark. Most have the original engine and nothing mentioned at all about standing rigging or running rigging, and if they brag about anything its usually a new bimini (7 years ago!) and a low ticket item or two like interior LED lights or a sea toilet or something. I literally never read anybody did anything with chain plates or the 20 other big ticket items, at least several of which will almost certainly need replacing.

I'm really starting to think that most boats for sale under 30K are basically throw-aways, on their last leg. And owners know it, and they're just figuring it is cheaper to buy a newer boat than to spend double what the old boat is worth fixing it up. It really rocked me to see what chain plates just a couple dinky little pieces of metal cost- most boats in this price range it wouldn't be worth it to do the job. And there's a good chance the surveyor might not catch it. That one alone looks like a financial land mine! Yikes. 

I'm almost thinking boats under 30K would be best avoided entirely.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

Rush2112 said:


> I'm really starting to think that most boats for sale under 30K are basically throw-aways, on their last leg. And owners know it, and they're just figuring it is cheaper to buy a newer boat than to spend double what the old boat is worth fixing it up. It really rocked me to see what chain plates just a couple dinky little pieces of metal cost- most boats in this price range it wouldn't be worth it to do the job. And there's a good chance the surveyor might not catch it. That one alone looks like a financial land mine! Yikes.
> 
> I'm almost thinking boats under 30K would be best avoided entirely.


OK, you can't find and maintain a safe and seaworthy boat to cross oceans for under $30k. (Although I wonder if you've actually gone and looked at any, or just "armchair shopping".) We could have told you that 350 posts ago. You've priced yourself out of that market. But you said you weren't going to go out in oceans until "hopefully someday". In the meantime, you have a lot to learn about sailing and boat maintenance, and a lot of potential enjoyment while on that educational journey.

There are hundreds of people here who enjoy sailing lovely boats for under $30k. My prior boat was 25' long, 12 years old when I bought her, and cost me $14k in sail-away condition. I sailed her for 6 years and sold her for the same price (in less than a week) when I found a bigger boat that I had grown into. I didn't go into the ocean, but I went a lot of places in protected waters.

I suggest that you be careful about referring to any boat as "throw-away". There are many here who could be offended by that characterization.

[EDIT: I just noticed that you are not the original poster, so some of what I said may be inaccurate. With the old forum software I'd be able to search for what you posted on this thread, but they took that capability away, and I don't have time to manually re-read 18 pages of posts, so I'll have to leave my post as-is.]


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Finally you got it. Good on you. When you start again remember 
unless you’re looking to be a hermit the boat must be comfortable and liveable for you and your significant other at sea and anchor.
unless you’re superman the boat must be easy to sail in all conditions.
unless you have a death wish it must follow the general accepted rules for blue water boats (AVS >120, tankage, storage for 1 1/2 times your longest trip, etc.)
you must have the skill set and tools and spares to deal with anything concerning key systems and the room to store them.
don't pick a brand or model . Pick a particular boat. That’s what you’ll be sailing on. 

I had been sailing for 25 years. Had owned 7 prior boats. Had done many blue water ocean races. Was still clueless what blue water cruising was about. However I knew exactly what I wanted and didn’t want in an passage making boat. Actually made a list of must have, must not have and don’t care be be nice to have. Then it was real obvious which boat to get. That list came from experience. Not books. Would very strongly suggest you get on crew list services like OPO, crew finder, SDR etc. Do as much blue water as you can. Much of what you said in this thread is very dated. Theres considerable experience posting here and many voices. Pay attention to those who have been long distance cruising in recent times or are currently doing it. Yes I know teenagers jump on a small old boat, and go around the world but that’s not cruising. It’s not living the life. Decide if you have something to prove or something to experience. Are you running toward or away from something. end of rant


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Any reason you couldn't just get a smaller boat? You can sail on the North Sea without sailing across the North Sea. That's what a lot of people do, sail in reasonable proximity to the coast. I suspect that is what most sailors do. 

You may not be able to get an ocean crossing passage maker for your budget, but you could probably buy a brand new 22 ft boat for that and can certainly find something in the mid twenty range with that budget.


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

I wouldn't characterize a $30,000 boat as a "throwaway" unless it had a serious structural problem.

My last boat cost me $15,000 16 years ago, and when I sold it a couple of years ago I sold it for $15,000. Certainly I spent a fair amount of money on it over the years we owned it, but it was very affordable. It was a fin keel, spade rudder, IOR design, but it was well built and sailed well. It had a 40 year old diesel engine that was still going strong. And no the keel never fell off, and no the rudder never broke!

You are getting a lot of information on this thread; some good, and some perhaps not so good! There are a lot of boat designs being suggested, but as you have noted, many of those boats are irrelevant because they never made it across from North America.

You need to look at what boats are popular in YOUR region and look at what is on the market there that appeals to you. 

Let go of the idea that you are going to get a bluewater ready boat in your budget. That is simply not realistic. On the other hand there are probably plenty of production boats that would serve your purposes very well, and any of those boats would be able to handle far worse conditions than you would dare venture out in as a beginner sailor.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

TakeFive said:


> [EDIT: I just noticed that you are not the original poster, so some of what I said may be inaccurate. With the old forum software I'd be able to search for what you posted on this thread, but they took that capability away, and I don't have time to manually re-read 18 pages of posts, so I'll have to leave my post as-is.]


Yes I am not the original poster to this thread though several others here know what I'm looking for as they've responded to me across threads, if that makes sense. The OP and I are both looking for 30K boats with good space- him for family, me for liveaboard, with our main boat distinction being I will sail the North Sea and him the Great Lakes.

Next time I'll start a separate thread, you shouldn't have to read through 18 pages to figure that out, fair enough 

BTW, no offense meant with the 'throw away' comment- I didn't mean it that way. Certainly not all boats under 30 grand are throw aways! But I'm looking for a specific kind of boat for 30 grand that's both seaworthy and an accommodating liveaboard, and that narrows the field considerably, and these are the specific boats that I'm referring to.

And I was just referring to it not being financially feasible to sink say 12 grand into new chain plates, which probably won't improve resale value at all. So the owners 'throw away' the boat by no longer putting money into it once it needs a big ticket item, which most I'm looking at do.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

outbound said:


> Would very strongly suggest you get on crew list services like OPO, crew finder, SDR etc. Do as much blue water as you can.





outbound said:


> Yes I know teenagers jump on a small old boat, and go around the world but that's not cruising. It's not living the life. Decide if you have something to prove or something to experience. Are you running toward or away from something.


"A lot of people work jobs that they hate
To buy things that they don't need
To impress people they don't even like"

My favorite quote from (somebody?) about trying to impress people 

So yeah I hear you its a good point- what I really want is:
1. To be out of the big city, which I never liked and
2. Back closer to nature which I always did like and find super therapeutic and
3. Have a few adventures traveling, mostly to nature destinations for hiking, photography, etc
4. Doing so on a relatively stable, safe, and comfortable boat 
5. In absolutely no Rush whatsoever ;-)
6. I might write a book.

I doubt I'll prove anything that many haven't proven already. 
I'm just trying to do this in the most relaxed stress free manner possible.
And to see places from a perspective that I haven't done before, to come sailing into a place and live off the hook instead of landing in a dirty dusty crowded stressed out airport, figure out transport, find a hotel, etc. Oh and by the way to have my own room and board with me thank you very much! I doubt that I'll do this forever, maybe a year or two, while I'm still young enough and motivated.

I'll probably be a bit of a hermit 
And as far as things to do during Covid, well sailing around between national reserves, mostly away from people, actually beats sitting at home in a very high population density city! It's something to do, and I've always wanted to see the fjords and the Swedish and Scottish waterways, islands, etc, so why not?

Anyway, that's the rough idea.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Arcb said:


> Any reason you couldn't just get a smaller boat? You can sail on the North Sea without sailing across the North Sea. That's what a lot of people do, sail in reasonable proximity to the coast. I suspect that is what most sailors do.
> 
> You may not be able to get an ocean crossing passage maker for your budget, but you could probably buy a brand new 22 ft boat for that and can certainly find something in the mid twenty range with that budget.


Good points. I know this is probably a silly question but the weather is generally better closer to the coast? I wonder why so many stress over the Bay of Biscay if they can just follow the coast and avoid the big seas?

Maybe something closer to the latest 26ft recommendations would be a better pick for my budget and skill level.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

SchockT said:


> Let go of the idea that you are going to get a bluewater ready boat in your budget. That is simply not realistic. On the other hand there are probably plenty of production boats that would serve your purposes very well, and any of those boats would be able to handle far worse conditions than you would dare venture out in as a beginner sailor.


Hmm, maybe you're right. Food for thought...


----------



## bigdogandy (Jun 21, 2008)

Rush - I'm late to the discussion, and will confess to not having read most of this thread, but have you considered something like a Westsail 32 as a starter boat? You could probably find one in good shape that is close to your budget, and in my opinion from having sailed on several friend's Westies they are both rugged and comfortable boats. Not fast, by any means 



Rush2112 said:


> Yes I am not the original poster to this thread though several others here know what I'm looking for as they've responded to me across threads, if that makes sense. The OP and I are both looking for 30K boats with good space- him for family, me for liveaboard, with our main boat distinction being I will sail the North Sea and him the Great Lakes.
> 
> Next time I'll start a separate thread, you shouldn't have to read through 18 pages to figure that out, fair enough
> 
> ...


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Rush2112 said:


> Good points. I know this is probably a silly question but the weather is generally better closer to the coast? I wonder why so many stress over the Bay of Biscay if they can just follow the coast and avoid the big seas?
> 
> Maybe something closer to the latest 26ft recommendations would be a better pick for my budget and skill level.


The weather isn't necessarily any better. But if it doesn't look good, you just duck into a Bay or behind an island or into a marina until it passes. You aren't doing 150 mile days on open ocean. Maybe more like 30 or 40. Stop most nights. But you're still getting to where you're going and enjoy the trip along the way. Making long passages on the ocean can be a bit like entering a teleportation machine. Enter at one place, spend some time in relative uniformity of the sea, then arrive at your destination. You aren't necessarily seeing a lot along the way.

I lived on an old thirty footer. Loved it. There was lots of space for my tastes. Had a galley, quarter berth, dining table for about 4 or 5, a couch across from the dining table, enclosed head and a V-Berth. How much space do you need?

Had a crumby old atomic 4, but the boat sailed well so the engine was only really needed for docking. A lot of the time wasn't even needed for that.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Actually Rush2112, you came farther along this curve, and faster, than probably any other person I've seen with similar goals on forums. As for a $30k boat ready and able to take one on open waters, just remember that all of the exemplars held up as proof of the validity of "$30k older boat and go around the world" concept, like Tania Abi, Robin Graham, Zach Sunderland, Jesse Caldwell, Jessica Watson, etc, bought their boats and then spent a lot of time and money getting them up to the point of being able to do what you want. Many of them had shore programs and constant help along the way. That part is always conveniently left out of the discussion. Abi had a father with the money to completely redo her boat and support repairs along the way. Graham didn't have as much money, but still spent quite a bit to get going, then worked continuously keeping the boat floating until it got so bad he finally had a better boat given to him as part of a promotion deal. ALL of the others are similar stories.

I'm just now catching on that your goal isn't to sail far and wide, but to just sail around in the North Sea. I have no experience with sailing in the North Sea, but expect that there are a lot of people recreationally sailing it who just don't go out when conditions are terrible. This doesn't take any kind of special boat type to accomplish, and can easily be done on a $30k boat. Just buy a $20K boat and keep $10k for upkeep and repairs as needed.

Mark


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

If offshore in predictably nasty conditions is not a constant issue... ie one is sailing coastal around the north sea... I suppose one could and should wait for weather windows to make hops or a long sail. Sure you want a well found boat that can take anything but if you can largely plan to avoid the nasty stuff... you can step down from the offshore type boat.... and equip a local type cruiser with some offshore upgrades. 

In my 35 years of sailing the tough stuff is memorable but amounts a small number of hrs or miles... Some crave that sort of sailing... rail down... others avoid it at all cost.... but being prepared you should be. An older boat well cared for is the way to go... a comfortable seaworthy one with a good reputation. What that costs I have no idea.


----------



## olson34 (Oct 13, 2000)

Too Bad you are not shopping in the NW. There is a _fully restored_ Cascade 29 for sale in our marina. Owner died in a crash and family really needs to move on. Asking was around 29K, and is coming down. This is a 120K boat. Full on restoration and rebuild was just done. This kind of deal is super rare, but not unheard of... you just have to keep your eyes open...
Good luck.
Let me know if you want a link to the current ad.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

bigdogandy said:


> Rush - I'm late to the discussion, and will confess to not having read most of this thread, but have you considered something like a Westsail 32 as a starter boat? You could probably find one in good shape that is close to your budget, and in my opinion from having sailed on several friend's Westies they are both rugged and comfortable boats. Not fast, by any means


The Westsail 32 looks pretty good. Except for the marina fee killer bowsprit, I quite like it. 
Unfortunately not many available in Europe- but I'll keep an eye out. Thanks for the recommendation.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Arcb said:


> The weather isn't necessarily any better. But if it doesn't look good, you just duck into a Bay or behind an island or into a marina until it passes. You aren't doing 150 mile days on open ocean. Maybe more like 30 or 40. Stop most nights. But you're still getting to where you're going and enjoy the trip along the way...


Yeah that sounds about my speed. Maybe if I just move from cover to cover, and always have a ditch out location in mind, and a keen eye on the weather I can avoid most of the nasties. I'm definitely not in that category that's seeking out the big waves. I just want to be prepared with a reasonably durable boat should the occasion occur.

I think I can adjust to living on a 30 foot boat. My needs are pretty simple. In fact I look around me and find that most of the 'stuff' I just don't need at all. What I do need is a change of lifestyle, and more direct contact with nature, and what's real. No bonus at work or new tv ever made me as happy as a long walk on a nice trail or the sound of water spashing and feel of wind on my face ;-)


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

colemj said:


> As for a $30k boat ready and able to take one on open waters, just remember that all of the exemplars held up as proof of the validity of "$30k older boat and go around the world" concept, like Tania Abi, Robin Graham, Zach Sunderland, Jesse Caldwell, Jessica Watson, etc, bought their boats and then spent a lot of time and money getting them up to the point of being able to do what you want. Many of them had shore programs and constant help along the way. That part is always conveniently left out of the discussion.


Yeah! I found the same when I looked into Laura Decker and the veritable army that practically carried her around the world. And then stopping at locations for months and months while her team planned her next move. Frankly I'd rather find a nice spot or two and just sail there, than sail around the world just to say I did. I have to admit I'm curious about sailing New Zealand, The Gold Coast, The Bahamas, The South Pacific, The Mediterranean, and of course The North Sea. If in the end I do a loop around then fine, but it's not the ultimate goal in itself and that's so far off it's out of focus. Sweden, The Fjords of Norway, and Scotland are my biggest dream now. Such beautiful nature to see and explore, practically right on my doorstep. It would almost be a shame to squander my time in The Netherlands and not see these things.



colemj said:


> I'm just now catching on that your goal isn't to sail far and wide...


Well again, not immediately 



colemj said:


> I have no experience with sailing in the North Sea, but expect that there are a lot of people recreationally sailing it who just don't go out when conditions are terrible. This doesn't take any kind of special boat type to accomplish, and can easily be done on a $30k boat. Just buy a $20K boat and keep $10k for upkeep and repairs as needed.
> 
> Mark


This sounds like a reasonable goal- thanks again.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

olson34 said:


> Too Bad you are not shopping in the NW...


You know the best deals I see on boats are in the USA- Florida, Annapolis, Portland, etc.
Really makes me wonder if just paying a captain to sail her home wouldn't actually be worth it in the end.
At first it didn't seem economically feasible, but for a boat in great shape at a good price, now I'm not so sure.

Yes please post the ad, just for fun.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

SanderO said:


> ...you can step down from the offshore type boat.... and equip a local type cruiser with some offshore upgrades.


You know in my chat with Dick Zaal he said the Contest 32 was 'more' of a coastal cruiser, but it's reputation for seaworthiness is quite good, and it has a fantastic amount of living space and about double the tankage of a similar sized boat, and can be found in sloop rigging. Plus here in The Netherlands Contests are all over the place- which certainly helps. I might just give these another look.

I just saw a pretty nice one sold for 15K with new standing rigging and sails.
I posted it earlier, remember this one:




__





Contest Yachts for sale - YachtWorld


Find Contest Yachts for sale in your area & across the world on YachtWorld. Offering the best selection of Contest Yachts to choose from.




www.yachtworld.co.uk





Plus that would leave 15k for maintenance.
Not the fastest or most comfortable in bad seas as Jeff H noted, but for the money it might be a good tradeoff.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Rush2112 said:


> You know in my chat with Dick Zaal he said the Contest 32 was 'more' of a coastal cruiser, but it's reputation for seaworthiness is quite good, and it has a fantastic amount of living space and about double the tankage of a similar sized boat, and can be found in sloop rigging. Plus here in The Netherlands Contests are all over the place- which certainly helps. I might just give these another look.
> 
> I just saw a pretty nice one sold for 15K with new standing rigging and sails.
> I posted it earlier, remember this one:
> ...


It appears to me that you are doing your due diligence in figuring out the boat for the mission. Mission will likely change but you will most likely stick with the boat.
All sailors want a fast boat and their own boat to perform at its best.
I sailed the Marion Bermuda race in 91 for the offshore experience. It took me 4 days and 16 hrs of I recall correctly. I've done it in 4 1/2 days other times. The difference was 4 hrs.... or 1 hr each day or and extra 5 minutes each hr. Not a lot of time to get worried about.
Your boat will be your home. It should be as comfortable as it can be... unless comfort means nothing to you.... but that is hard to believe. I think many sailors down play the comfort / plan aspect of the sailboat. There is not much variation in plans... more variations on a theme... And most focus on SAILING as opposed to time spent aboard not sailing.
I read the of many declaring the need for a wet locker next to the companionway to hand wet foulies. To me much ado about nothing if you are sailing single or short handed. Hang you foulies in the shower or bathroom... and suffer a few drops of water on the cabin sole it takes to get them there. In reality I very very rarely even use foul weather gear and I suspect many with cockpit covers don't need them. I bought a cheapie neoprene triathlon suit to use for bad weather... but never have used it. As I wrote multiple times... the boat buying decisions is informed by where you sail, when you sail, how you sail... and how you use the boat when not sailing.... most of the time.
I discovered that I use my engine a fair bit. It gets me places such as to and from a dock, to and out of an anchorage... and to destinations when the wind is not enough. But the engine also makes hot water, charges my batteries and cools my refer. Engine is important for more than "docking". You want a reliable one and one you will use regularly.
Tank sizes are often a big deal and this makes sense when you are "off the grid". I have found the 99%+ of the time I have easy access to fuel and water which on boat lasts days for water and months for fuel. I drink bottled water anyway because I don't need to worry about water getting me sick. Bottled water is readily available and so a water maker hardly males sense if it is where you will be sailing.
A really good AP is very important to the single / short handed crew. You'll want a good reliable robust one. I would avoid wheel pilots.
Finally as I also wrote many times I did not know much about boats and was very lucky to buy the 36s. I discovered how well designed and built it was and how well suited it is for short and single handed sailing.... when upgraded for that purpose. I've sallied scores of thousands of miles and much off shore. It is a coastal cruiser but it is excellent offshore and for live aboard. I didn't realize this until I had try by fire as it were. So I report from my experience.... which is all I can do. Bigger might be better. Smaller might be big enough... This one seems right and I see no reason to want to change.
Find the boat that fits you and your mission. You're asking the right questions and have way more guidance than I did or was available 35 yrs ago.
You'll do it!

That 32 looks very nice and similar to the 36s


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

outbound said:


> ....general accepted rules for blue water boats (AVS >120,


Mine is only 116, buy I'm going to call it close enough. 

Actually, while "ocean rated", I'd personally characterize my boat as a first rate coastal cruiser, but a just capable ocean cruiser. I think Rush will learn there is a much wider spectrum of options out there.


----------



## john61ct (Jan 23, 2017)

Is this it? 1974 Cascade 29 Sloop for sale - YachtWorld


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> Mine is only 116, buy I'm going to call it close enough.


What is this number and how is it computed?


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

SanderO said:


> What is this number and how is it computed?


The Angle of Vanishing stability is a somewhat theoretical figure derived from the vessels stability curve. It can be derived through modeling or experimentation (inclining experiment). Or a combination of the two.

If you look at your stability curve you will see stability increases to a certain angle of heel, apexes and then declines until it eventually crosses the Y axis of the stability curve, at which point the boat loses positive righting moment until a wave or some other outside force pushes it back into the range of positive stability.

Just like most of these numbers it isn't one size fits all. Catamarans have a relatively low AVS but are often still quite capable. Likewise I suspect M's boat with 116 is a heck of a lot safer on ocean waves than a 30 footer with 121.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

You did not explain how this is computed. Or how is a vessel's stability curve calculated?



Arcb said:


> The Angle of Vanishing stability is a somewhat theoretical figure derived from the vessels stability curve. It can be derived through modeling or experimentation (inclining experiment). Or a combination of the two.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

I've hesitated until now, but since Rush2112 is expanding his options and usage, he might want to attempt to wrap his head around something completely different: Sailing Catamarans - Miriam Sagitta catamaran

For sure, that is a lot more performance, stability, space, and comfort than anything he has considered so far. The asking price is higher than his goal, but the selling price could meet the goal - this size catamaran isn't a hot market, and I believe the boat has been on the market for a while. On paper, it looks complete and not needing a lot of post-purchase work.

Mark


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

SanderO said:


> You did not explain how this is computed. Or how is a vessel's stability curve calculated?


Quadratic interpolation.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Arcb said:


> Quadratic interpolation.


Wonderful.... I would like to "get the number" for my boat....

Walk me through it please.

and I found this:

"Depending on how the calculations are made, it is possible to come up with significantly different numbers for the same boat. Unfortunately, the International Measurement System (IMS) and the International Standards Organization (ISO) have different methodologies, although both are based on a lightly loaded condition and both exclude the effect of any superstructure on the calculation, so the results are likely to be reasonably close. Much bigger differences are likely between either of these methodologies and any methodology that includes the superstructure (which significantly increases the LPS/AVS) and/or substantial payload. For this reason, it is important to use the same measurement methodology when comparing boats."


----------



## JimsCAL (May 23, 2007)

SanderO said:


> You did not explain how this is computed. Or how is a vessel's stability curve calculated?


Not a question that can be simply answered in a paragraph or two. Google "sailboat stability curve" if you are really interested.


----------



## olson34 (Oct 13, 2000)

While the Cascade 36 has a long standing reputation for being "the affordable circumnavigator" the local boat I refer to is another Bob Smith design, his Cascade 29. This one had a new scoop added, BTW.




__





Boats for sale - YachtWorld


Find new or used boats for sale in your area & across the world on YachtWorld. Offering the best selection of boats to choose from.




www.yachtworld.com




Asking price has reportedly been lowered since ad was posted. Given its condition, it's a 'steal'.

The Cascade-29 design has tons of ocean crossings to its credit. Hulls on these boats are solid layup and all roving/cloth. The original builder is closed now, but we used to visit and had a chuckle over the piece of hull layup sitting on a shelf with a riffle slug embedded in to -- a successful test to show that their hulls were "bullet proof".


----------



## olson34 (Oct 13, 2000)

john61ct said:


> Is this it? 1974 Cascade 29 Sloop for sale - YachtWorld


Nope. Same hull, though. Probably a decent normal deal, but would likely need updating and the usual deferred maintenance done. "Good bones" for sure.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

colemj said:


> I've hesitated until now, but since Rush2112 is expanding his options and usage, he might want to attempt to wrap his head around something completely different: Sailing Catamarans - Miriam Sagitta catamaran
> 
> For sure, that is a lot more performance, stability, space, and comfort than anything he has considered so far. The asking price is higher than his goal, but the selling price could meet the goal - this size catamaran isn't a hot market, and I believe the boat has been on the market for a while. On paper, it looks complete and not needing a lot of post-purchase work.
> 
> Mark


Oh boy, this looks like a whole another research project- catamarans!
Here we go!
To be honest I hadn't even considered them yet, mainly just because most of them are so darn expensive.
It's an interesting topic though, I'll look into it, thanks for the link.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

john61ct said:


> Is this it? 1974 Cascade 29 Sloop for sale - YachtWorld


Looks nice! Especially for the 15k.



olson34 said:


> Asking price has reportedly been lowered since ad was posted. Given its condition, it's a 'steal'.


Yep, looks like it, especially if they really put that kind of money into it!
Now if I can just get someone to sail it to The Netherlands for me LOL


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

It's probably information you would get from your manufacturer.



SanderO said:


> Wonderful.... I would like to "get the number" for my boat....
> 
> Walk me through it please.
> 
> ...


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

colemj said:


> I've hesitated until now, but since Rush2112 is expanding his options and usage, he might want to attempt to wrap his head around something completely different: Sailing Catamarans - Miriam Sagitta catamaran
> 
> For sure, that is a lot more performance, stability, space, and comfort than anything he has considered so far. The asking price is higher than his goal, but the selling price could meet the goal - this size catamaran isn't a hot market, and I believe the boat has been on the market for a while. On paper, it looks complete and not needing a lot of post-purchase work.
> 
> Mark


If he's balking at slip fees for the bow sprit on a Westsail, do you really think he'd spring for a beamy catamaran?


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

He also balked at spade rudders, no full keels, and other criteria, but I threw it out there because he seems to be considering and thinking about all ideas beyond his initial narrow focus. A 30' catamaran vs 30' mono gives one much more space and comfort, and can easily dry out on daily tides if on a less expensive shallow mooring instead of a dock slip (something most monos will have trouble with). The one I linked to has enough performance to give more options for sailing around weather windows than any 30' monohull under consideration - 150-170nm days will be easy. Woods is an English designer who is familiar with the proposed usage, most of his boats are sailed in the proposed areas, and he pays particular attention to simple systems and robust construction. Personally, I dislike his aesthetics, but can't argue with his philosophy, and he packs a lot of boat into his smaller models (his larger ones not so much).

Mark


----------



## olson34 (Oct 13, 2000)

Rush2112 said:


> Yep, looks like it, especially if they really put that kind of money into it!
> Now if I can just get someone to sail it to The Netherlands for me LOL


Well, by the time you reach home, you will have enough experience to give expert advice on forums like this!
You will have acquired the blue water descriptor : "Wrung more water out of his socks than I have sailed over!"

It's a cool achievement, and worth even more when others talk about it and you just shrug and say "awe shucks".


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

S even more important than AVS is to look at the entire Gz curve. Pay particular attention to the area under baseline and compare to the area above. The AVS is the point where the Gz curve crosses the baseline.

People pay an untoward amount of focus on heavy weather. In 35+ years of ocean sailing I’ve been in sustained force 8 once. Squalls more times than I can count but those are quite brief. Gales exhaust fingers and toes but only only hit by those when offshore. As important and probably more important for most folks is durability. Been crew on too many boats that oil can, have stringers separate from the canoe body skin, crack, or have keel stub problems. Size and money doesn’t separate the good from the bad. Think knowing “best practices “ on construction details is the most important thing a prospective boat buyer can know. Probably more important than comparing sailing polars or aesthetics .


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Would note the poster implies he’s in the Low Countries. Other than possibly NZ The Netherlands has a history of building the finest metal boats in the world. There’s an aversion to metal in the US which is not rational imho. There are many 30-35’ steel boats that might fit his budget and be more than enough boat to fit his program.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Well after a small break due to 'life' I'm back to searching, though with a completely revised plan. Now my priorities are 1) somebody already poured a small fortune into the boat and 2) the boat fits my budget 3) that it's a decent liveaboard as it's been suggested several times that cruisers spend far more time 'on the hook' than they do actually sailing, so liveability is paramount.

To keep in budget something has to give, and as several have suggested that will probably be performance and blue water durability. Now most likely as has also been widely suggested, if I do really enjoy the cruising lifestyle as much as I think I will, this will likely not be my last boat. So I have compiled a list of boats suggested with characteristics and notes, comments, etc. and I've still learned a ton about boat designs from this thread! So thanks again to all who have contributed 

So with my entirely new search criteria, when it comes to boats with a ton of money and work already dumped into them, this one with the word new stated literally dozens of times we have- the Grampian 34!

So this baby has new standing rigging, new running rigging, an engine from 2007 'meticulously' maintained, professionally winterized engine and tanks and sails and put on the hard 6 months a year, new plumbing, all new wiring, a bunch of Raymarine stuff including new AP and Radar. New cushions and upholstery throughout, pressurized hot and cold water throughout, and a diesel forced air heater. This thing checks an awful lot of boxes from the maintenance list:






Grampian boats for sale - YachtWorld


Find Grampian boats for sale in your area & across the world on YachtWorld. Offering the best selection of Grampian boats to choose from.




www.yachtworld.com





Downsides: engine is in a kind of weird spot, though maybe good for maintenance, the keel was actually replaced which seems kind of weird, why would they do that? Then again it appears he spared no expense. Oh also after looking at Contest interiors I have to say it looks pretty chintzy in comparison. Still, it looks like a lot of 'new' for the money. What do you guys think???

Mark, Jeff, does this thing float? Does it move generally in a forward direction when the wind blows? LOL, but seriously. I'm bracing for the bad news now...


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Oh and I forgot a new bimini dodger and full cockpit shelter, which would be nice in winters, a long counter in the galley, alcohol stove, and 600amp hour batteries, new Lewmar windlass and wind generator and solar panels on custom arch. New lazy jacks, roller reefing head sail system, new anchors, chain, and seacocks. And the windows were removed and resealed. Aside from the chain stays (which I'm still paraniod about) I don't see much that isn't actually new on this boat!


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Looks narrow and smallish and doesn't compare to the Contest34. Looks like an old boat which was cared for. Doesn't seem terribly comfy to me. It might be worth real world visit. I think when you compare real world G34 and C34... you will pass on the G34.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

@MikeOReilly cruised on a Grampian 34 I am pretty sure.

I lived aboard a Grampian 30. I have described my experiences above. I loved my G30. Sailed nicely, took weather on the chin, nice layout for a live aboard.

Canadian boats, probably not really common in the North Sea, but every where on the great lakes where they were built.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Grampian was an early fiberglass production boat manufacturer in Canada. They may have been the first Canadian fiberglass manufacturer. I'm from Michigan, and Grampians are all over the Great Lakes. One thing I think might be wrong in that advert is that Grampian went out of business in the 1970's, so I don't think that is a 1984 boat. However, it is possible that Grampian continued under new ownership.

Grampian wasn't known as a top-quality boat builder, although they were probably right in the middle of the pack for the times. The interiors are basic and cheap because this was a production boat designed and built to sell hundreds of them into the market at a time when the Canadian dollar was low. Doesn't mean that is bad - but it isn't the level of finish of other boats you are considering. You would want a good survey looking for things like chain plates and stem fittings and hull-deck joins, because these may be some of the corners that were cut in production - a lot of the production boats of this era used aluminum stem fittings and aluminum hull deck channels with rivets or screws that can go bad. Less likely that the keel was replaced vs. dropped and rebedded/rebolted. I don't know where they would get a new keel for this boat.

I haven't seen this particular Grampian model before. The 34' I'm familiar with was a ketch and center cockpit. Personally, I find most of the Grampians visually odd and unappealing because they attempted huge headroom and interior volumes, but this one is a visually much more pleasing design than most.

One thing it has going for it is that it is in the UK. That means it probably sailed there. It does look in good shape, and has a lot of nice extras for a boat this age/size/price, like a rigid vang, new engine, and quality furler. That is an unfortunate paint job on the deck, though. Luckily, it will probably work well in the area you plan to sail, but if you ever took it South where the sun shines more, you could literally fry eggs on that deck. You won't be able to walk on it without shoes.

Tough call. It isn't your "blue water" boat to take everything the North Sea can throw at you, but it is a reasonable boat with reasonably planned cruising capability at a nice price. I don't know if $30k is a good price or not for this boat.

The only Grampian I've ever sailed was a late 60's or early 70's G26. It wasn't a stellar performer by any means, and much less performance than the 1973 Columbia 26 I owned at the time. Just by looking at it, I suspect that G34 sails better than the G26 after taking into account the size difference.

Mark


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

There is something strange about the age of that boat. Grampian Marine went out of buisiness in the late 70s. I would clear up that detail.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

SanderO said:


> Looks narrow and smallish and doesn't compare to the Contest34. Looks like an old boat which was cared for. Doesn't seem terribly comfy to me. It might be worth real world visit. I think when you compare real world G34 and C34... you will pass on the G34.


Yeah the C34 was pretty nice. I kind of wish now that I'd jumped on it, but it sold some time ago...
The main thing that attracted me to this boat is just all the new stuff. He claims to have put 70 grand into the boat, which post maintenance cost thread sounds pretty fantastic in itself.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Arcb said:


> @MikeOReilly cruised on a Grampian 34 I am pretty sure.
> 
> I lived aboard a Grampian 30. I have described my experiences above. I loved my G30. Sailed nicely, took weather on the chin, nice layout for a live aboard.
> 
> Canadian boats, probably not really common in the North Sea, but every where on the great lakes where they were built.


Oh OK that was a Grampian you were talking about. Did yours also have the engine in the middle of the boat like this one? It seems kind of strange but I don't know.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

No. My G30 had her engine in kind of a normal place for a sailboat that size. Kind of under the forward end of the cockpit. 

I wouldn't necessarily rule out a mid engine boat. Gets the weight a bit lower in the boat where it does the most good. The engine kind of becomes part of the ballast system.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Looks like this one is a Grampian 2-34, the earlier G34 was in fact a Ketch, and as mentioned, not exactly a 'looker' LOL I think about the ugliest sailboat I've seen. Anyway.. it did go out of production in 77, weird error hmm, thanks for catching that guys...



https://sailboatdata.com/sailboat/grampian-2-34


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Arcb said:


> No. My G30 had her engine in kind of a normal place for a sailboat that size. Kind of under the forward end of the cockpit.
> 
> I wouldn't necessarily rule out a mid engine boat. Gets the weight a bit lower in the boat where it does the most good. The engine kind of becomes part of the ballast system.


Hmm OK, interesting, so that may be beneficial. Also it looks easy to get at for maintenance.
I just can't believe all the 'new' I haven't seen any ad yet with that much new stuff, although the Contest 34 had a new engine and sails and a lot of stuff. It's a tough call. I have to say my favorite boat so far for the money has been the Contest, really a great sense of quality, and a reputation to match. 
But not so many for sale right now. Maybe patience will pay off ;-)


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Worth a look. I’d ask some pointed questions? Any damage history? Impact, foundering, etc? Why a new keel? What’s with the year beyond manufactures dates. Feel out the replies. I’ve been shoveled the ‘delayed launch’ from manufacture date BS. It’s irrelevant over time. 

A “Company Director“ has a 25,000 pound boat they dumped 70,000 into, with a plan to sail the med? Weird. 

Could be a good find, but shake the tree for answers that makes sense.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Minnewaska said:


> Worth a look. I'd ask some pointed questions? Any damage history? Impact, foundering, etc? Why a new keel? What's with the year beyond manufactures dates. Feel out the replies. I've been shoveled the 'delayed launch' from manufacture date BS. It's irrelevant over time.
> 
> A "Company Director" has a 25,000 pound boat they dumped 70,000 into, with a plan to sail the med? Weird.
> 
> Could be a good find, but shake the tree for answers that makes sense.


Hmm, good points. I'll send an email with these questions.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Also I wonder is a radar really useful on a sailboat?


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Yes. For sure. Radars will let you see through fog, rain, snow. Nothing else does that.

Eats a lot of juice, but if you are in cruddy visibility, no shame in running the engine to power a RADAR.


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Arcb said:


> Yes. For sure. Radars will let you see through fog, rain, snow. Nothing else does that.
> 
> Eats a lot of juice, but if you are in cruddy visibility, no shame in running the engine to power a RADAR.


Hmm OK, good to know, thanks.
I don't see them on many boats, but that may be the price range.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

OK, thanks to the wonders of this new software I've noticed my name was taken in vain . I did indeed own a Grampian 34 ketch, and cruised many years in both the North Channel and Lake Superior with it.

The one linked is actually a Grampian 34-2 sloop. They made both the ketch and the sloop on the same hull. My understanding is that the ketch came first, but didn't sell that well, so they switched to a sloop.

I'm happy to share what I know (or think I know) about these boats. They are solid, simple, but well built boats. Nothing fancy about either the interior or exterior, but easy to work on, and tough as nails. My understanding is that they were designed as coastal cruisers, but obviously many have crossed the Atlantic.

As for price, it is listed at almost double what it would probably go for in the Great Lakes. But I assume the UK market is different, and if it's in exceptional condition, it may be worth considering.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Rush2112 said:


> Hmm, good points. I'll send an email with these questions.


I'd speak to them, in order to better assess the answers. Allowing for careful editing of an email, or vague answers that drive followup questions, doesn't help as much.

I see above the price may be high, then again, it may well reflect the amount of current work. It may also reflect an insurance repair. Sort it out.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

Rush2112 said:


> But not so many for sale right now. Maybe patience will pay off ;-)


Rush, my friend, if there is one thing I've learned in twenty plus years of sailboat shopping, it's this: there's always another "perfect" boat out there. If you pass on one, there's another that will come along that is just as good if not better. It is an immutable law of nature.

For this Grampian, you can easily check to see if the price here is in line with others in the UK by looking at comp asking prices. And don't be too surprised if this one is an outlier. In my humble experience, it is not unusual for owners who put a lot of money into their boats to feel that their investments justify a sale price well in excess of the boat's value.

Case in point: a few years ago when I was in shopping mode, I fell in love with the Pearson Renegade, a late '60's 27 foot model. Very traditional styling above the waterline, but with a "modern" underbody. Think Pearson Triton with a fin keel. I was always on the lookout for the boat, but everything I saw was in only fair condition at best; all were priced under 10K. Not surprising for a gas (or outboard) powered 27 foot boat that was at least 45 years old. Until I came across one particular Renegade in Colorado; the owner had completely rebuilt the interior (with real wood), redone the wiring, painted the hull, etc. Still an outboard powered version of the boat, but the thing was pristine and beautiful. And he wanted something like 50K for the boat. That's just nuts. No matter what you do to a 10K boat, you will not more than quadruple the value. In the end, it's still a 50 year old value-engineered fiberglass boat. And as much as I lusted for the Renegade, I passed on each and every opportunity. Ultimately, my current boat (Catalina 28) just popped up unexpectedly: in my price range and practically in my backyard. Boom. That's the way it works.

Your Grampian may be one of those. Or it could be one of those "but Honey, I did put her up for sale" ads where the owner purposefully prices it so that he won't get any interest. Fewer of those on Yachtworld for sure, but not unknown.

FWIW, my limited experiences with Grampians have been good.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

mstern said:


> Honey, I did put her up for sale" ads where the owner purposefully prices it so that he won't get any interest. Fewer of those on Yachtworld for sure, but not unknown.


I don't know how many there are or aren't, but I got caught up in one once. A very good price on a late model boat and I was almost ready to send a P&S agreement at asking price, sight unseen, and take my chances on survey. Broker was dragging his feet, not getting back to me or getting very vague answers (I just wanted to know there wasn't some unadvertised problem or damage history). I was afraid I would lose it. Then it drops off yachtworld. Turns out it was a BS move during a divorce. He was never going to sell it.

I've also known many who have listed their boats at pay it or forget it prices. They're only interested in selling at top dollar.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

Minnewaska said:


> I don't know how many there are or aren't, but I got caught up in one once. A very good price on a late model boat and I was almost ready to send a P&S agreement at asking price, sight unseen, and take my chances on survey. Broker was dragging his feet, not getting back to me or getting very vague answers (I just wanted to know there wasn't some unadvertised problem or damage history). I was afraid I would lose it. Then it drops off yachtworld. Turns out it was a BS move during a divorce. He was never going to sell it.
> 
> I've also known many who have listed their boats at pay it or forget it prices. They're only interested in selling at top dollar.


I'm more surprised when that stuff happens on Yachtworld; I would think that a broker would be less likely to waste his time on a client that is clearly pricing his boat unrealistically. But hey, maybe any listing is a good listing?


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

mstern said:


> I'm more surprised when that stuff happens on Yachtworld; I would think that a broker would be less likely to waste his time on a client that is clearly pricing his boat unrealistically. But hey, maybe any listing is a good listing?


This broker clearly had a bigger relationship going on. He fessed up, months after the fact, and tried to sell me something else. In fact, ten years later, I actually went into contract on another boat, where he was the selling broker. It was probably a favor to be the other guys go-to for his next boat, or they were yacht club buddies, or something like that.


----------



## olson34 (Oct 13, 2000)

Rush2112 said:


> Also I wonder is a radar really useful on a sailboat?


Depends on where you boat. In the Pacific NW we get fog, and I notice that radar has become quite common in the last 20 years. We have it and appreciate how it reports reality, unlike the plotter. I would not give up my modern plotter with its AIS overlay, but do keep in mind that it represents a virtual world with many points of possible error, from software to hardware to satellite glitches. There's a long chain of digital choke points for the information to transit before reaching your little screen.
Assuming that you have done your due diligence and kept your maintenance up to date, your radar will show you what is actually around you, in real time. So both both are wonderful to have, but it's worth remembering that they do different things... Wonderful Things!


Edit: our current Lowrance digital unit, also requires less amps by far compared to our original klystron tube model(s).


----------



## Rush2112 (Jul 12, 2020)

Hi Everyone, 
I just wanted to post a message to everyone to tell everyone that the thread discussion related to my boat purchase has been moved to here:









Rush's Boat Search


This thread is being created for topics related Rush2112's boat search. To date Rush's boat search has led to discussions containing a large collection of posts on a broad range of topics that contain a lot of very useful information from a wide range of points of view. All of that is a very...




www.sailnet.com





Jeff_H created a separate thread for my boat purchase as this thread has gotten very long, and in fairness quite off topic as it really has nothing to do with 'spade rudders' anymore! So, fair enough, I'll be responding over there from now on. I'll copy the quotes over to keep it going, thanks for understanding and for the absolute wealth of information that has been shared here, as it has been tremendously useful in my learning process which really has been accelerated by all the help here. Thanks again


----------



## Salty Cracker (Jul 8, 2020)

Rush2112 said:


> ... set at a 30K budget, so anything from the 90s up is pretty much out of our budget, so our options for fin keeled boats and spade rudders might not have these newest technologies that you talk about.


I think there might be more options than you've seen. And a post 90's boat in decent condition for 30k is doable from what I've been seeing. I'm shopping too... hard. And am finding that even in the vintage we're looking for, there seems to be plenty of options for fin/spade hull design. I'm also seeing a lot of modified fin keels (which I like a lot) with balanced spade, semi-balanced skeg and full skeg rudders. Even Cheoy Lee's.
I'm putting a lot of thought into hull/rig design. My budget isn't as low as yours but still pretty strict. At first I was disappointed with the selection of 80's-90's full keel boats I was seeing that would suit my sailing destinations. I was myself convinced that for me it had to be full keel or nothing. So I decided to get my head around the idea that a WHOLE lot of fin/spade designs are floating around the world quite well. But my heart will always belong to full keel boats. I won't be the only one skippering either. I have to think of the ease of handling for an aging female adult and two young boys.


----------



## Calmwater (Aug 5, 2018)

Salty Cracker said:


> I think there might be more options than you've seen. And a post 90's boat in decent condition for 30k is doable from what I've been seeing. I'm shopping too... hard. And am finding that even in the vintage we're looking for, there seems to be plenty of options for fin/spade hull design. I'm also seeing a lot of modified fin keels (which I like a lot) with balanced spade, semi-balanced skeg and full skeg rudders. Even Cheoy Lee's.
> I'm putting a lot of thought into hull/rig design. My budget isn't as low as yours but still pretty strict. At first I was disappointed with the selection of 80's-90's full keel boats I was seeing that would suit my sailing destinations. I was myself convinced that for me it had to be full keel or nothing. So I decided to get my head around the idea that a WHOLE lot of fin/spade designs are floating around the world quite well. But my heart will always belong to full keel boats. I won't be the only one skippering either. I have to think of the ease of handling for an aging female adult and two young boys.


As you've correctly mentioned, a modified fin keel and a full/half skeg boats are a very good choice of both worlds with a reasonably good inventory of used boats from the 90's and north.
While a standard fin keel and spade rudder is an easy cheaper build that ruled the mass production over the years, I see too many cases of broken spade rudders - at the boatyard I'm currently at, two arrived just this week.


----------



## Salty Cracker (Jul 8, 2020)

Calmwater said:


> As you've correctly mentioned, a modified fin keel and a full/half skeg boats are a very good choice of both worlds with a reasonably good inventory of used boats from the 90's and north.
> While a standard fin keel and spade rudder is an easy cheaper build that ruled the mass production over the years, I see too many cases of broken spade rudders - at the boatyard I'm currently at, two arrived just this week.


Do you know why all the cases of broken rudders including the two new arrivals? User error, maintenance, grounding, flotsam/jetsam? How much could be attributed to purely bad design/build quality? This isn't a challange question desiged to put you on the spot. I'm honestly curious. The Rush fan suggested issues of them just falling off and dropping to the ocean floor for no reason. As much as I'm predisposed to heavy displacement long keels, I can't imagine that being reality.
I can't believe that I am having an instinct to defended spade rudders... what's happening to me!?


----------



## Calmwater (Aug 5, 2018)

I've definitely don't have a global statistics on failures, the reason for failure etc. All I can say is what I've seen in my 30+ years of sailing, cruising and boatyards. Indeed, the number of spade rudders out there is by far higher than skeg hanged - and I've owned also spade rudder boats with zero problems.
What was scaring me over the last 18 months is multiple cases of Bavaria boats that simply lost the rudder during ocean cruise (no grounding) and the result of soft sandbar groundings on spade rudders vs skeg hanged.

So basically, as I always say, almost all boats are good - *for their intended design and use*. The question for cruisers (less for the day/coastal sailors) is what happens in the most extreme weather conditions, grounding etc. - this is where a better designed and built boat will keep its seaworthy...


----------



## Salty Cracker (Jul 8, 2020)

Yeah, we're right on the same page.
I'm trying very hard to find a modified keel with full skeg rudder.


----------



## Calmwater (Aug 5, 2018)

Not sure what your budget is but you can look at Pearson, Moody, Hallberg Rassy, Contest, Najad, Oyster, Malo, Dehler and alike. I think there are quite few for sale on both end of the pond.


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

Some of you know that I experienced a HARD grounding while attempting to enter Sapelo Sound in Georgia during NOAA "small craft warnings" (yeah - it was rough!). During the grounding my spade rudder post was bent, so that the rudder was pushed up against the hull. The net result is that the wheel was VERY difficult to turn and I was afraid of breaking the steering cable.

Al Walker at Foss Foam (the company that built the OEM rudder - BTW - they are AWESOME!!!!) advised me against trying to bend the rudder post back, and instead advised me to simply CUT THE TOP OF THE RUDDER off so that it no longer chafed against the hull. Couldn't do this unless the rudder was a spade. I did this and was able to continue my journey out of Georgia, and was able to successfully bring the boat into Fort Myers, Florida (sections offshore, in the AICW and in the Okeechobee Waterway) without issue. The boat handled just as it had before the grounding. The rudder is being replaced as I type, but I believe that I could have gone the full season, and brought the boat back to Rhode Island without issue. Actually, I wish that I had.


----------



## Calmwater (Aug 5, 2018)

eherlihy said:


> Some of you know that I experienced a HARD grounding while attempting to enter Sapelo Sound in Georgia during NOAA "small craft warnings" (yeah - it was rough!). During the grounding my spade rudder post was bent, so that the rudder was pushed up against the hull. The net result is that the wheel was VERY difficult to turn and I was afraid of breaking the steering cable.
> 
> Al Walker at Foss Foam (the company that built the OEM rudder - BTW - they are AWESOME!!!!) advised me against trying to bend the rudder post back, and instead advised me to simply CUT THE TOP OF THE RUDDER off so that it no longer chafed against the hull. Couldn't do this unless the rudder was a spade. I did this and was able to continue my journey out of Georgia, and was able to successfully bring the boat into Fort Myers, Florida (sections offshore, in the AICW and in the Okeechobee Waterway) without issue. The boat handled just as it had before the grounding. The rudder is being replaced as I type, but I believe that I could have gone the full season, and brought the boat back to Rhode Island without issue. Actually, I wish that I had.


Quite amazing. Had the same experience right there... sent you a message.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Calmwater said:


> What was scaring me over the last 18 months is multiple cases of Bavaria boats that simply lost the rudder during ocean cruise (no grounding) and the result of soft sandbar groundings on spade rudders vs skeg hanged.
> 
> So basically, as I always say, almost all boats are good - *for their intended design and use*. The question for cruisers (less for the day/coastal sailors) is what happens in the most extreme weather conditions, grounding etc. - this is where a better designed and built boat will keep its seaworthy...


Bavaria had a lot of problems with their rudder construction during a period of time. I'm not just talking about the well known racing incident, but problems that aren't advertised. We had friends with a B42 whose rudder just peeled right off the post while they were motoring along. I know of others with similar rudder problems.

However, this is a very localized issue with a particular brand of boat built in a narrow band of time. It is by no means an example of spade rudder expectations in general. Spade rudders on quality boats are very robust and their failures are statistically few.

I'm always surprised when people choose a design feature based on hard groundings, hurricane survival, or other extreme situations. It seems like a titanium sphere would be the best vessel for these fears. All the while discounting the more common and mundane issues like smacking into other boats while docking because of poor steering control due to full keels and barn door rudders, wallowing around in low winds and sloppy seas because their boat designed to crash into reefs can't sail in those conditions, etc.

Mark


----------



## alpinekid (Oct 22, 2020)

Minnewaska said:


> This is also a great vid on steering your boat, with a drogue.


Thanks, now I have one more thing to play with and learn about when I get back on the water. I'm a big believer in practice and preparedness.


----------



## Steve Bateman (Aug 10, 2016)

Salty Cracker said:


> Do you know why all the cases of broken rudders including the two new arrivals? User error, maintenance, grounding, flotsam/jetsam? How much could be attributed to purely bad design/build quality? This isn't a challange question desiged to put you on the spot. I'm honestly curious. The Rush fan suggested issues of them just falling off and dropping to the ocean floor for no reason. As much as I'm predisposed to heavy displacement long keels, I can't imagine that being reality.
> I can't believe that I am having an instinct to defended spade rudders... what's happening to me!?


The two I have seen float ! One stayed on the shaft the other went floating on by///


----------

