# Are Island Packets as bad as some claim?



## BillMoran

I'm probably begging for a flame war, but I'm interested to hear opinions.

I've heard a lot of good about Island Packets. And looking them over, they seem like excellent boats.

The bad I've heard is twofold:
1) Chainplates are such that it's difficult/impossible to inspect them, and if they need replaced it's nearly impossible or very expensive to do so.
2) The water and fuel tanks are mounted such that replacement is very labor-intensive and thus expensive.

Which make it seem like an IP is a great boat to buy new, but not something one would want to buy used.


----------



## krisscross

The worst part about them is the price. I wish I could afford one. A used one, of course.


----------



## Lazerbrains

IP gelcoat is about the ugliest color I have ever seen on a sailboat.


----------



## Faster

I think as sailboats they are 'under performers', but they certainly appear to be nicely finished.

If you like the look and are prepared to live with the downsides, in general I think you'll have a boat that's comfortable and probably an easy resell at some later date. They are not alone in manufacturing a boat and installing components in a way that is not easily removeable/accessible after the fact. I think Catalina may be one of the few that install a lot of components after the deck is on.


----------



## killarney_sailor

'Under performers' translated to ordinary English means that they are very slow. You end up motoring a lot. For the money you can do much better.


----------



## fallard

killarney_sailor said:


> 'Under performers' translated to ordinary English means that they are very slow. You end up motoring a lot. For the money you can do much better.


Depends on what you are buying a sailboat for. They are well-built, albeit with a few engineering idiosyncrasies, like leaks around the chainplates. They also steer like the old cars that didn't have power steering. They are heavy and with their modified, relatively shallow draft full keels will not go to the weather with the best of them. They are not racing boats.

That said, they are remarkably comfortable to sail in heavier weather and are very comfortable at anchor. We've chartered IP's at least 8 time in the Virgin Islands because we are not racing, but chillin'. And yes, we motor against the wind.

My own boat is a more lively performer, but when I go on vacation, I am not focused on speed and polars. The IPs are generally more relaxing than my boat and I can--and do--sail circles around them in my home waters and enjoy doing so. But if you aren't de facto racing any boat on the same tack, you might find their genteel manners very rewarding. As far as the off-white color is concerned, that can be helpful when directing the launch driver to your boat in a crowed harbor, like Newport, RI.


----------



## ianjoub

fallard said:


> As far as the off-white color is concerned, that can be helpful when directing the launch driver to your boat in a crowed harbor, like Newport, RI.


Yes, I'm over there in the baby vomit yellow boat....


----------



## fallard

ianjoub said:


> Yes, I'm over there in the baby vomit yellow boat....


Well, that was a real classy comment! I wonder how many IP owners you offended.


----------



## Lazerbrains

fallard said:


> Well, that was a real classy comment! I wonder how many IP owners you offended.


How many times have my eyes been offended by that horrible color? :devil


----------



## aeventyr60

Think the IP's are the modern day replacement for the Morgan OI, that were the mainstay of the caribe charter fleet many years ago.


----------



## killarney_sailor

aeventyr60 said:


> Think the IP's are the modern day replacement for the Morgan OI, that were the mainstay of the caribe charter fleet many years ago.


I think this is a fair commentary. You can both comfort and decent performance. Our Bristol does both, with many days sailing more than 170 nm (highest was 211) and huge comfort. With a 12' draft board down we can go to windward too if needed - even if gentlemen do not sail to windward.


----------



## robert sailor

Nothing terribly wrong with Morgan OI but they were no match for IP when it came to quality finish. The Morgan's do not hold their value like an IP either. I'm not a fan of IP's but they obviously have a very loyal group of owners and that speaks volumes.


----------



## Minnewaska

They are not my cup of tea, nor apparently many others in the new market. They struggle financially and closed their doors for a short period last year. I think they sold and then reopened, but something had to be wrong. 

They do have a near cult following for some, which means they may hold up on value and have used buyers available. Every boat boat has a manufacturing oddity or two, so that would be my reason to avoid. I thought the BlueJacket was a reasonable boat (didn't love it), which was a collaboration of some kind, if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## capecodda

One measure of quality is the components. IMHO looking at IP's I see things like real port lights, heavy cleats, big winches, etc. Lot's of todays manufacturers skimp on this stuff. Since the cost of a boat is not one thing, it's the sum of it's parts, I assume this can explain some of the cost difference. I think a lot of buyers won't pay up for these differences, thus the market as it is.

I've chartered one once, never owned one. Yea, and we ended up motoring upwind too, just couldn't stand it. Nice boat in a heavy wind in a reach. Comfortable to live on too. Not the right boat for our style of coastal cruising, where the wind is always blowing from the place I wanna go, and the pure joy of sailing in any direction is a big reason for being out there. YMMV.


----------



## SVAuspicious

BillMoran said:


> I'm probably begging for a flame war, but I'm interested to hear opinions.
> 
> I've heard a lot of good about Island Packets. And looking them over, they seem like excellent boats.


They are well finished and very solid boats.

The chainplates are held in by great glassed in glass fiber strands which are very strong. That means if you do have to replace the chainplates the result will be less strong or require significant disassembly. Not hard to inspect, difficult to replace.

Like most boat builders IP puts the tanks in before the deck goes on. Sometimes you can get them out the companionway, sometimes you can't. Not at all unique to IP.

Bob Johnson really has/had a grip on his market. That doesn't include sailing performance. The older two-digit models point better than the newer three-digit models with the Full Foil Keel. Neither is great. Downwind and broad reach sailing is great. Things go downhill above that.

When I was looking for my current boat the IP 370 was in the final group of boats. It was entirely sailing performance that led me to drop it out. You may have different priorities than I do.



ianjoub said:


> Yes, I'm over there in the baby vomit yellow boat....


I have always considered the color sort of pink.



Minnewaska said:


> They struggle financially and closed their doors for a short period last year. I think they sold and then reopened, but something had to be wrong.


They sold and the logistics went poorly. Too many lawyers. The company that bought IP then sold which made things really complicated. Things seem to have settled out. Boat sales are definitely off and much of the dealer network is a little disenchanted at lack of information during the two sales.


----------



## ianjoub

fallard said:


> Well, that was a real classy comment! I wonder how many IP owners you offended.


I actually edited. It started off coming from the other end of the baby!


----------



## jwing

fallard said:


> Well, that was a real classy comment! I wonder how many IP owners you offended.


That "classy comment" said more about ianjoub than about the color of IP boats. I doubt that anybody could be offended by anything a class act like ianjoub writes.


----------



## killarney_sailor

I think IP has run into the same wall that has domed so many sailboat builders. They started out by addressing, quite successfully, a market need but over the years produced so many boats that they filled the market. Potential IP buyers have a choice - they can buy a new one or a used one, that might be even better than new if it had the right owner and care and it might cost 1/3 as much. Yesterday I looked at a 1987 Niagara 42, built by Hinterhoeller, a very good builder. It was in incredible shape and looked almost like a new boat, even has a new engine. Sale price is US$160k, Bruckmann will build you a 42 (same moulds - Hinterhoeller has been out of business for years - too many Nonsuchs and Niagaras on the market) that will go out the door for something more than US$1 million.

IP and other builders must constantly reinvent themselves with new boats, C&C for example made five different 27s to keep something fresh on the market. The Blue Jacket was an attempt to find/create a new market. To my mind it was not a very successful design since it did not address any particular market - it was too much in between different roles.


----------



## ianjoub

jwing said:


> That "classy comment" said more about ianjoub than about the color of IP boats. I doubt that anybody could be offended by anything a class act like ianjoub writes.


Lighten up Francis. It was a joke. It was not a joke about anyone in this thread. It was a joke about an inanimate object.


----------



## Stumble

From an engineering standpoint their chainplates are all kind of stupid. I mean really, really, really stupid. It's like they took a white paper on how to accelerate tests of crevice corrosion in stainless steel and thought that it was a suggestion on how to build stuff. 

Other than that they are very nice boats, very well put together, have a high build quality, and are so slow it's like sailing in reverse. 

It is absolutly not a boat I would ever want to own, it doesn't fit my personality, how I like to sail, what I consider desirable... basically I can't stand their hull design but this is a personal choice not a critique of the boat. Someone else with different priorities can make a very rational choice that it fits them like a glove.


----------



## zeehag

peachy color is not my favorite, but it works--just like chris craft with their fg boats--similar color. 
ip is not a racing boat. to race--go j boat.
ips are cruisers. many out here doing just that and owners are happy.

i p is faster sailing than my sturdy ketch.


----------



## Eder

I love it when people constantly come over to admire my 460. My IP definitely is not for the day sailor, but everyone loves it on 3 day passages. I can understand the hate here..everything is normal lol.


----------



## Stumble

Eder said:


> I love it when people constantly come over to admire my 460. My IP definitely is not for the day sailor, but everyone loves it on 3 day passages. I can understand the hate here..everything is normal lol.


Just to be clear, I do not hate IP's, though I do hate their chainplates. But there I should something not to love on almost any boat.

Personally I do not like sailing them. I don't find they are rewarding to be out on, sure they will get you there, but I just can't fall in love with the way they sail. I would much rather go cruising on a Pogo 40 than an IP 38. But this is down to personal choice not if I think the IP is a bad boat.

But then I am the guy who if I had the budget would have a Rapido 60 trimaran, or buy Paradox (detuned orma 60) for cruising... so I am a little strange.


----------



## fallard

Eder said:


> I love it when people constantly come over to admire my 460. My IP definitely is not for the day sailor, but everyone loves it on 3 day passages. I can understand the hate here..everything is normal lol.


We chartered an IP 460 last year out of the USVI. Yes, after checking in at Soper's Hole, we motored "up hill" to Spanish Town in order to have time at the Baths. On the other side of Tortola, we did well enough under staysail and main, as shown in the thumbnails.

You might note the condition of this boat--8 yrs old at the time, if memory serves. You might interpret that these IPs hold up better than any other charter boat we've used, from Moorings, Sunsail, TMM, etc., over the past 18 years. By comparison, the 5 yr. old Moorings boat we had looked like it was 15 yrs old by comparison.

That said, I wouldn't buy an IP for use in home waters for other reasons (including my requirement for extreme shoal draft, but they do have their niche.


----------



## Eder

Looks like you had a great sail. Once you get onto how these things sail,a close reach is a joy as well.

Jeff Harjoy was aboard my boat the other day, said he'd be happy to take her below all 5 capes like he did with his Baba 40 (record oldest person ever non stop). http://www.sailmagazine.com/cruising/profiles-cruising/circumnavigation-alone-aroundworld-part-1/
Was a great compliment.

Anyway I'm biased and in love with her so discount my opinions.


----------



## paulinnanaimo

I have already been told by another poster that my opinions don't matter, but I will give it anyway; anything is better than white.


----------



## capta

My only experience with an IP was with a 48 (or so?) we met in the Tobago Keys. The family aboard had just done the ARC across the Atlantic, and if memory serves had sailed her to Europe the previous year, so a well traveled vessel and experienced crew.
We left The TC intending to sail together on a typical 20 to 25 knot day. We had the main reefed down to the upper spreaders and the Yankee jib. They had a full main and genoa.
They were out of sight behind us within 2 hours. I was stunned.
Other than that, I can't say anything from personal experience.


----------



## Eder

So you were almost 12 miles ahead after 2 hours? Wow...maybe they were still anchored? 

In 20 knots I do about 8.5 knots with Yankee & main loaded for cruising...your boat must be very fast indeed!


----------



## robert sailor

Let's not get too wild about the poor IP yachts. If the winds were less than 10 or 12 knots then yes you probably would do an horizon job on an IP if you were sailing a modern racer/cruiser but if it's really blowing and your both really loaded up for cruising and you are reaching and you have similar water lines I think you'll be seeing each other for quite awhile.


----------



## fallard

Eder said:


> So you were almost 12 miles ahead after 2 hours? Wow...maybe they were still anchored?
> 
> In 20 knots I do about 8.5 knots with Yankee & main loaded for cruising...your boat must be very fast indeed!


As shown in the thumbnail in post #24, we were doing 7.23 kts while running in about 20 kts in our chartered IP 460 while towing a 12' dinghy and that was with staysail and main only. (We depowered in deference to a grandson who was turning green!) I consider that respectable for a charter boat that was fully loaded.

BTW, I don't know about others, but I have a hard time seeing another boat at 12 miles, unless it's on radar.


----------



## Don L

BillMoran said:


> I'm probably begging for a flame war, but I'm interested to hear opinions.


Yes and you will get to read lots of "options" because you asked a question to the general internet world where people only like certain boats and only then sometimes.

if you want real info about a boat you need to search out the owners sites


----------



## Minnewaska

If one is interested in what the general population thinks, the forum is a pretty good place to ask. Some answers come unvarnished, but it's not hard to sort them out to get good crowd sourced info. It doesn't mean that any one individual will agree with the crowd.


----------



## sailingfool

A look at a ratings list like http://www.phrfne.org/page/handicapping/base_handicaps should provide objective guidance on this subjext.


----------



## capecodda

Why do all boats have to be great at everything?

They aren't including the boat that I currently own, for example. A bit small in beam and length for full time cruising, too much teak and awl grip to maintain in the tropics, a shoal draft keel to get in the places we needed to....but it's what we wanted for how we sail and where we sail, day sails, weekends, and an occasional few weeks away...mostly coastal...occasional offshore.

We all tend to view all boats through the lens of how we use them. IMHO IP's are great purpose built boats with stout hardware that yea, don't go to weather like a deep fin keeled lightweight boat with high a high aspect rig. But with a rolled up staysail on the ready, and a few reef points in the main, a big long keel would require very little attention off the wind in a blow. Depending on what you are doing, and where you are headed, that might just be the ticket for you. 

My only experience was on charter, which is effectively daysailing where I don't think these things shine in a beat, but it sure was a nice platform to live on.

Every boat is a tradeoff. No boat does everything well. Every sailor has differing requirements. And just because it doesn't fit mine, doesn't mean it isn't exactly the right boat for someone else.


----------



## fallard

sailingfool said:


> A look at a ratings list like PHRF New England - Handicapping - Base Handicaps should provide objective guidance on this subjext.


To use this list properly, you need more information. The fleet listing shows 3 handicap number for the current NE fleet: base, cruising, and racing. If you are interested in Island Packets, you probably should look at the cruising handicaps for your list of boats of interest.

What may be more instructive is to group boats of interest into cruising, racing, and racer-cruiser categories, using the PHRF ratings as an indication of the seconds per mile your IP would require compared to that of a flat out club racer with full crew (rail meat) and a bottom scrubbed an hour before sailing. If you are in the market for a family van, it would be silly to lament the performance penalty compared to a Corvette.

BTW, a quick scan didn't show any IPs on the 2017 NE fleet list.


----------



## capta

Eder said:


> So you were almost 12 miles ahead after 2 hours? Wow...maybe they were still anchored?


Fair enough. A poor choice of words. Let me rephrase it.
"Indistinguishable from the other boats sailing behind us in two hours."


----------



## Stumble

Below is the PHRF rating for some of the IP range on the left, and a comparable Beneteau on the right. 

Boat...........................PHRF....PHRF.........BOAT
ISLAND PACKET 27......234......183...........Beneteau 285
ISLAND PACKET 29......204
ISLAND PACKET 320....198.......144...........Beneteau 32 MH
ISLAND PACKET 35......186
ISLAND PACKET 350....195.......69.............Beneteau 35
ISLAND PACKET 37......156
ISLAND PACKET 370....183
ISLAND PACKET 38......168
ISLAND PACKET 40......156.......54.............Beneteau 40.7
ISLAND PACKET 420.....141
ISLAND PACKET 45.......126......69.............Beneteau 456

As a group these are really slow for their size. Desperately slow really and that's ok if that's the type of boat you want. Nothing wrong with a slow boat, though I personally don't want one. Beneteaus are not particularly fast either, but are more 'normal' in terms of performance. For me theBeneteau is about the base line for a boat that size. PHRF is in terms of seconds/mile. So you would expect a IP 45 to be about a minute per mile slower than the B456.

What is missing here is that under PHRF boats are rated in their ideal conditions. So for the IP that means >20kn when the small sail plan can overcome the high wetted surface. In light air the IP is going to have to turn on the motor pretty early on because the sails just don't have enough power to keep the boat moving.

There is nothing wrong with this, it just doesn't interest me...


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Stumble said:


> So you would expect a IP 45 to be about a minute per mile slower than the B456.


Which equates to about 6 minutes per hour. 2 1/2 hours per day.

So you leave at 7:45 am and I leave at 9am and we drop anchor together at sunset. That's one hell of a difference.


----------



## fallard

Stumble said:


> Below is the PHRF rating for some of the IP range on the left, and a comparable Beneteau on the right.
> 
> Boat...........................PHRF....PHRF.........BOAT
> ISLAND PACKET 27......234......183...........Beneteau 285
> ISLAND PACKET 29......204
> ISLAND PACKET 320....198.......144...........Beneteau 32 MH
> ISLAND PACKET 35......186
> ISLAND PACKET 350....195.......69.............Beneteau 35
> ISLAND PACKET 37......156
> ISLAND PACKET 370....183
> ISLAND PACKET 38......168
> ISLAND PACKET 40......156.......54.............Beneteau 40.7
> ISLAND PACKET 420.....141
> ISLAND PACKET 45.......126......69.............Beneteau 456
> 
> As a group these are really slow for their size. Desperately slow really and that's ok if that's the type of boat you want. Nothing wrong with a slow boat, though I personally don't want one. Beneteaus are not particularly fast either, but are more 'normal' in terms of performance. For me theBeneteau is about the base line for a boat that size. PHRF is in terms of seconds/mile. So you would expect a IP 45 to be about a minute per mile slower than the B456.
> 
> What is missing here is that under PHRF boats are rated in their ideal conditions. So for the IP that means >20kn when the small sail plan can overcome the high wetted surface. In light air the IP is going to have to turn on the motor pretty early on because the sails just don't have enough power to keep the boat moving.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with this, it just doesn't interest me...


There does seem to be something wrong with this list. If you compare an IP 420 at 141 with a Beneteau 423 at 135 (no spinnaker), there is not such a big difference. Anyone looking at an IP certainly isn't contemplating performance racing, so it makes more sense to compare PHRFs for boats in cruising mode.

I have no problem with a buyer choosing a performance boat or another buyer choosing the slow and steady route.


----------



## Stumble

fallard said:


> There does seem to be something wrong with this list. If you compare an IP 420 at 141 with a Beneteau 423 at 135 (no spinnaker), there is not such a big difference. Anyone looking at an IP certainly isn't contemplating performance racing, so it makes more sense to compare PHRFs for boats in cruising mode.
> 
> I have no problem with a buyer choosing a performance boat or another buyer choosing the slow and steady route.


The Beneteau 423 has a base PHRF rating of 93, so about 50 seconds a mile faster than the IP 420. If you want to drop spinnakers from each of them... most PHRF rating bodies just give a base +12 sec/mile adjustment for non-spin boats so it wouldn't change the numbers.

A more accurate way to do it would be to calculate the downwind Sa/d change for each boat. But since PHRF isn't intended to be a calculated number but an experiencal number that's gets tricky from a rating body standpoint.

Because the IP is a cutter and can fly her staysail downwind you would expect her to be just a touch faster off the wind without a spinnaker than the Beneteau relatively. So let's say the IP closes the gap downwind by 3sec/mile... so the gap closes from 48sec/mile to 45sec/mile.

Again I am not saying that speed should be the deciding factor for everyone, and for some people it is a complete non issue. But for me it is a major part of why's I don't like IP's and it is a real consideration to others. I should point out that the Beneteau is not a particularly fast boat for its size. A J-130 which is a pretty reasonable racer/cruiser and about the same size rates 30. While an all out 40' race boat like a Carkeek 40 rates -40 (yes negative 40).


----------



## killarney_sailor

fallard said:


> There does seem to be something wrong with this list. If you compare an IP 420 at 141 with a Beneteau 423 at 135 (no spinnaker), there is not such a big difference. Anyone looking at an IP certainly isn't contemplating performance racing, so it makes more sense to compare PHRFs for boats in cruising mode.
> 
> I have no problem with a buyer choosing a performance boat or another buyer choosing the slow and steady route.


I think if you check you will see that the 141 rating for the IP is with spinnaker while the 135 is, as you say, white sails only. Really should make a fair comparison here. The reality is that to avoid motoring with the IP you will need to use a spinnaker (symmetric or asymmetric) a lot more f than with a Beneteau.


----------



## Don L

keep in mind that cruising on a sailboat (not weekending) isn't about sailing at all


----------



## sailingnurse

We looked for a good IP for a year. The one we found exceptional was in RI but had no cruising amentities. We now have a Hunter 45 DS and love, love, love. If I was going transocean I would outfit that IP though


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Don0190 said:


> keep in mind that cruising on a sailboat (not weekending) isn't about sailing at all


If its about living space an IP can be quite small inside where the IP owners would get lost on your boat.

(I would get lost too, but you could find me where the beer is coldest)


----------



## Don L

MarkofSeaLife said:


> (I would get lost too, but you could find me where the beer is coldest)


That's why Hunter owners know to have backup beer hidden :kiss


----------



## jorgenl

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Which equates to about 6 minutes per hour. 2 1/2 hours per day.
> 
> So you leave at 7:45 am and I leave at 9am and we drop anchor together at sunset. That's one hell of a difference.


You may want to check your math, unless you mean sunrise... ;-)


----------



## colemj

killarney_sailor said:


> The reality is that to avoid motoring with the IP you will need to use a spinnaker (symmetric or asymmetric) a lot more f than with a Beneteau.


The rating argument is a relative one, but this statement is absolute and only correct in certain conditions/areas. For example, in the Eastern Caribbean, we almost never took the first reef out of our sail, and often went weeks with the second reef in. Downwind. This has pretty much held true for our entire 9 years from East Coast US in the fall, through Bahamas and the entire Caribe/Central/South America and many points in the middle. Our Code 0 is about the silliest thing we ever spent money on for the boat.

In these waters, IP's we see are sailing just fine, if perhaps only a half knot slower than some others (I make that statement only based on the ratings data presented).

But speed is a very subjective thing - the IP may be slower than a similar sized Bene, but faster than a similar sized Formosa. And a smaller catamaran might blow by that larger Bene. Where one is sailing and how one is using the boat makes a difference.

The biggest difference is the owner - I have watched (and blown by) what should be fast boats sailing like pigs in molasses and not understanding how that could be. We met an owner of an Outremer 45 (in the E. Caribe) who hated his boat because the best speed he ever reached was 8kts, and his typical average speed was 5kts. I guarantee that wasn't the boat's fault.

I agree with Don whenever we are not making a longer passage - cruising isn't about sailing at all. However, whenever we are making a longer passage, it does seem all about the sailing, and I am constantly tweaking stuff and declaring I will toss 1,000lbs of crap off the boat the moment we hit shore, and planning new gear and mods to make the boat faster.

Then we get somewhere, and all that is forgotten and cruising isn't about sailing anymore.

One could do a lot worse than an IP during that 90% of time in cruising destinations where daysailing or anchoring is everything.

Like a Hunter. God, that would be a terrible boat for anything. I heard they are so unreliable they have to carry backup beer...

Mark


----------



## colemj

jorgenl said:


> You may want to check your math, unless you mean sunrise... ;-)


Maybe he is sailing close to the Arctic Circle in the spring.

But most likely, he found Don's backup beer stash.

Mark


----------



## colemj

BTW, the majority of all boats of all types and sizes we see in the Bahamas are motoring regardless of sailing conditions. Some might have their jibs out.

I don't know why most of these people wasted money on mainsails - many even spent a fortune on furling mains that will never see daylight.

We have many, many times been on nice beam reaches in 15kts of wind passing motoring boats rolling side to side with no sails up who are making the same 20-40nm trip we are.

Why is this? We don't see it much anywhere else outside the Bahamas. Jib only sailing, yes, but then generally off-wind in 20+kts and without motor.

Just to keep this on-topic, we see lots of IP's doing this too...

Mark


----------



## Eder

My head just exploded ...how can anyone compare a Beneteau to an IP? 

If you don't like the boat just say so, don't make things up.


----------



## colemj

Eder said:


> My head just exploded ...how can anyone compare a Beneteau to an IP?
> 
> If you don't like the boat just say so, don't make things up.


?????

Boats are compared all the time on many criteria. I don't see anything unusual about an IP compared to a Beneteau in regards to average speeds expected (as was done) - they are both similarly rigged monohulls of similar lengths and beams give or take a bit.

I could see your concern if the comparison was between a Formosa and Gunboat.

Mark


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

jorgenl said:


> You may want to check your math, unless you mean sunrise... ;-)


2 1/2 hours in 24 hours is 1 1/4 hours in 12 hours sunrise to sunset.

So I don't see where my maths is wrong.

But if it is I will go with anyone else's calculation.
The IP leaves at 7:45am and arrives at the anchorage at sunset the same day. The Beneteau starts at 9am and arrives the next day. :|

Maths is weird.


----------



## colemj

Oops, I read your post to mean 6min/hr for a 2.5hr daysail - which presumably would have one leaving in the morning at anchor well before sunset.

The easier way to look at it is it equates to 0.55kts difference in speed in optimum conditions, or 12-13 nm/day difference.

Mark


----------



## RichH

Some contrarian perspective here - 
IPs were designed for Island Hopping in TRADE WIND conditions of the Caribbean basin, etc. .... at 20++kts and with equivalent trade wind propagated waves, in which just about any IP (or any other 'heavy') will be at or close to 'hull speed'; and, will be typically be on or close to a beam 'reach' vs. the strong 'easterlies'. The 'good thing' about sailing a 'heavy' in '_the trades_' is you dont have to sweep up your dental fillings from the cockpit floor or cabin sole every couple of days, as you do when sailing a lightweight, fat assed, ever POUNDING flat bottomed, _on-top-of-the-water_ 'cork'.

In 'trade wind' venues, who cares if it takes you 2-1/2 hours more / 24hours to get to a destination ... especially when 'the cork' crews will probably be taking an additional 4-8 hours of sleep time to recover from their intense 'bone shaking' passage. Sea kindliness to me is more important than speed; if I need all that speed I can do some round the buoy racing in some protected estuary on a 'real' boat, or even take an airplane to that destination to really be sure to save that extra 2-1/2 hours time. 
One has to ask WHY when it comes to actual trade wind sailing venues does it seem that there are far more IPs actually 'doing it' than there are light weight round the buoy boats? and why when its blowing' stink, why are all the 'corks' mostly all hiding-out somewhere? ;-)


----------



## Stumble

Eder said:


> My head just exploded ...how can anyone compare a Beneteau to an IP?
> 
> If you don't like the boat just say so, don't make things up.


I did say I wasn't a fan, and then explained why. If you would rather compare them base upon some other criteria feel free to mention it. Personally performance is important to me and so I based boat buying criteria on that.

But I certainly didn't make anything up. Those numbers are directly from NE-PHRF ratings. IP's are appreciably slower than the pretty much the industry base line for cruising boats of the same size.


----------



## Sanduskysailor

The IP is not a race boat, obviously. The Beneteau Oceanis series boats aren't race boats either. I like the interiors on the IPs but the weight distribution and the long shallow keels are not that great. Reaching in swells are what IPs are good for. Around here (Lake Erie), they hobby horse like crazy in the steep chop. I can recall screaming past an IP 32 with my Sabre 28 in 15 knots of wind and on a reach. The IP didn't look all that comfortable in those conditions and was decidedly slow. The IPs are nice at the dock and the baby poop colored hulls look o'k when you are wearing cheap blue blocker sunglasses.


----------



## BillMoran

Don0190 said:


> Yes and you will get to read lots of "options" because you asked a question to the general internet world where people only like certain boats and only then sometimes.
> 
> if you want real info about a boat you need to search out the owners sites


Are you saying that owners are never biased? Because that runs contrary to my experience.

I'm trying to gather as much information from as many sources as possible. Prior to posting this I'd already talked (in person) to multiple IP owners, so I felt like I had a pretty good handle on that end of things.

I'm not disagreeing with you, per-se. I just find it odd that you assumed that I hadn't talked to owners despite my comment about hearing lots of good things.

The people one meets on the Internet span the gamut in much the same way that the people one meets on the docks do. I know no other way to learn than to collect as much information as possible, then apply myself to it in order to sort out the truth of things. I probably get it wrong half the time, but such is life.


----------



## SVAuspicious

ianjoub said:


> Lighten up Francis. It was a joke. It was not a joke about anyone in this thread. It was a joke about an inanimate object.


It wasn't a very good joke. Move on.



Eder said:


> I love it when people constantly come over to admire my 460. My IP definitely is not for the day sailor, but everyone loves it on 3 day passages. I can understand the hate here..everything is normal lol.


I don't see hate. I see some realistic assessment of different boats and different (opinions) conclusions based on that information.



fallard said:


> I consider that respectable for a charter boat that was fully loaded.


Charter boats are rarely fully loaded. No spares. No extra sails. No deep storage of provisions and personal "stuff." Charter boats are often worn but rarely loaded up for cruising.



MarkofSeaLife said:


> Which equates to about 6 minutes per hour. 2 1/2 hours per day.


Which adds up. Norfolk or Newport to Bermuda is half a day. Bermuda to Azores is a day and a half. You have to decide if you care. I do, but you may not (big you, not @MarkofSeaLife you).



colemj said:


> The biggest difference is the owner - I have watched (and blown by) what should be fast boats sailing like pigs in molasses and not understanding how that could be.


Agreed. When people ask me what they should buy to make their boat move faster I say "lessons."



RichH said:


> ... in which just about any IP (or any other 'heavy') will be at or close to 'hull speed' ...


There is no such thing as hull speed. Search for my previous rants and I'll save you from repeating myself.


----------



## colemj

SVAuspicious said:


> Charter boats are rarely fully loaded.


But charterers almost always are.

Mark


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

RichH said:


> One has to ask WHY when it comes to actual trade wind sailing venues does it seem that there are far more IPs actually 'doing it' than there are light weight round the buoy boats? and why when its blowing' stink, why are all the 'corks' mostly all hiding-out somewhere? ;-)


Good post and I agree with much of what you've said (especially the words: to, and, if, but, beer).

However, the last, quoted paragraph is codswallop. There's quite few IPs out "there" compared to Le Fantastique Plastique.
For the same price as a IP 40 they can get a Bene 50... so sea kindliness gets discounted (speed difference exacebated).

As is also rightly pointed out by you and others, we should not be into this artificial compare apples with pineapples BS. An IP owner will never have had a Bene on his shortlist. Or a cat.

Btw, in the trade winds of the Caribbean Catamarans are just about outnumbering all monos, commbined.

Mark


----------



## RichH

SVAuspicious said:


> There is no such thing as hull speed. Search for my previous rants and I'll save you from repeating myself.


Well maybe its that you dont understand the hydrodynamics of what entails 'hull speed' .... the underling tech definition is the speed of WAVES generated by the moving hull as a functional result of the sqrt of the length of the hull, not the speed of the apparent max. speed of the hull which is the dependent variable - a resultant. The wave speed propagation is the independent variable at the max. condition. Beyond 'hull speed' a displacement hull functionally loses WLL due to the bow overriding the bow wave ... and the stern 'squats'. Look at all this from the perspective of (hull supporting) waves, not the hull, and this will become 'more clear'.
;-)


----------



## Arcb

I'm also curious about the hull speed comment. Theoretical hull speed was covered in first year hydrodynamics and ship construction, along with the various methods of cheating it; bulbous bows, SWATH hull, semi planing hulls, planing hulls, excessive amounts of power, but I've always found theoretical hull speed to be a reasonably accurate limiting factor to speed with regards to conventional full displacement hulls.

However, looking at both the IP and Beneteau hulls, I'm not convinced either one would behave like a full displacement hull, it looks to me like either one would be capable of some degree of planing.


----------



## fallard

SVAuspicious said:


> Charter boats are rarely fully loaded. No spares. No extra sails. No deep storage of provisions and personal "stuff." Charter boats are often worn but rarely loaded up for cruising.
> 
> Agreed. When people ask me what they should buy to make their boat move faster I say "lessons.".


On the first quote above, I was relating to my experience with a chartered IP460 that had a serious AC installation and a serious solar charging system. We had provisioning for 6 adults and had just topped off the 260g water tank and were carrying close to 150g of fuel and were towing a dingy. The spec displacement of the IP 460 is about 32000 lbs, vs about 20000 lbs for a Beneteau 44.7 that has a 160g water tank and a 53g fuel tank. The difference in the weight of water and fuel for the 2 boats is about a ton. So, in our case we were not loaded to the gills, but were still fairly "heavy" compared to the lighter weight Beneteau. That was my point: we were close to hull speed (a recognized metric) on a run in about 20 kts of wind. That said, I will grant that the Island Yachts IPs are not typical for the charter business in the Virgins.

To your second quote, I couldn't agree more. And that applies even more so to folks who don't normally race--like IP owners who may not be tweaking as they go from point A to B. I learned my lessons years ago when I sailed--and raced--a catboat for 15 or so years. The conventional wisdom was: " It's easy to sail a catboat, but is isn't easy to sail it well." That perspective is not limited to catboats!


----------



## boatpoker

Hull speed is a theoretical rule of thumb. I know several boats that defy the formula including my own displacement hull. My fantail gains 4' waterline length when she squats and will hit 8.1knts. at full power. A previous displacement boat with 36' at the water line and grossly overpowered would do 11knts. it was ugly, noisy and the transom was below the water line but she would do it.


----------



## fallard

boatpoker said:


> Hull speed is a theoretical rule of thumb. I know several boats that defy the formula including my own displacement hull. My fantail gains 4' waterline length when she squats and will hit 8.1knts. at full power. A previous displacement boat with 36' at the water line and grossly overpowered would do 11knts. it was ugly, noisy and the transom was below the water line but she would do it.


Hull speed is not an absolute limit, but indicates the point of diminishing returns for speed gained vs. applied power for boats in displacement mode.

There are curves routinely available for many planing power boats that show fuel consumption vs speed. Typically the fuel consumption rate climbs as speed is increased beyond hull speed and then falls off as the boat gets on plane.

A cruising sailboat may have flat areas of the hull, typically toward the stern that can put the boat in a semi-displacement category, but the benefits to speed/fuel economy may be minimal. A racing sailboat designed to plane is a different animal.


----------



## Stumble

Good lord, not another hull speed thread please....

First it is a real number that is actually derived from real measurable physics. It is a function of the S/L ratio of free running waves in the open ocean, and Frouds numbers. It is not meaningless. The problem is that AT BEST all it can tell you is the point at which wave making resistance goes from a linear increase to an exponential one. It in no way says you can't go faster than X, it just says that to go faster than X the input force climbs really fast from this point forward. 

Secondly there are a lot of tricks that can get around it like using very skinny hulls. Which because of the nature of long skinny shapes haveing a reduced tendency to make waves. Or bulbous bows which act to create a second wave that interferes with the standing bow wave. 


Hull speed is real, it matters, and for ships operating with a Frouds number around .4 it is a pretty solid wall, for other ships it is more like a suggestion. But since about 95% of all vessels built prior to 1900 operated with a Frouds number in the .39-.41 range it really does describe a large portion of all vessels.


----------



## fallard

Stumble said:


> Good lord, not another hull speed thread please....
> 
> First it is a real number that is actually derived from real measurable physics. It is a function of the S/L ratio of free running waves in the open ocean, and Frouds numbers. It is not meaningless. The problem is that AT BEST all it can tell you is the point at which wave making resistance goes from a linear increase to an exponential one. It in no way says you can't go faster than X, it just says that to go faster than X the input force climbs really fast from this point forward.
> 
> Secondly there are a lot of tricks that can get around it like using very skinny hulls. Which because of the nature of long skinny shapes haveing a reduced tendency to make waves. Or bulbous bows which act to create a second wave that interferes with the standing bow wave.
> 
> Hull speed is real, it matters, and for ships operating with a Frouds number around .4 it is a pretty solid wall, for other ships it is more like a suggestion. But since about 95% of all vessels built prior to 1900 operated with a Frouds number in the .39-.41 range it really does describe a large portion of all vessels.


So, maybe we should compare boats on the basis of Froude number in addition to PHRF? BTW, most of us would not consider a boat made before 1900. :wink


----------



## Arcb

I drove a yacht club tender for a couple years that was built in 1894, iron hull, very much a displacement hull. Even she could exceed her hull speed, because she had the power, but you knew it as soon as you did because the passengers feet would get wet on the stern, and that speed was pretty close to the theoretical figure.

I doubt a deep very boxy vessel like a Laker or crude carrier with limited propulsion power could.

This is why I'm curious to see SVauspicious theory on this.


----------



## boatpoker

Stumble said:


> Good lord, not another hull speed thread please....
> 
> First it is a real number that is actually derived from real measurable physics. It is a function of the S/L ratio of free running waves in the open ocean, and Frouds numbers. It is not meaningless.


Don't think anyone said it was meaningless although pre-1900 ocean going ships have little to do with my interests.


----------



## Eder

lol @ this thread about a cruising boat but assuming only 1 metric being important...speed. 

What about tankage,build quality,real bilge,storage,kindly motion,protected prop,encapsulated keel,proper deck to hull construction,real chain lockers,and...err...nm. 

Lets get back to how fast we can sail around the beer cans in 6 knots of wind.


----------



## boatpoker

Eder said:


> lol @ this thread about a cruising boat but assuming only 1 metric being important...speed.
> 
> What about tankage,build quality,real bilge,storage,kindly motion,protected prop,encapsulated keel,proper deck to hull construction,real chain


Now you're talking !
Don't see may of these in Ontario but on one grounding insurance claim I saw the front two feet of the keel opened up. I was shocked to see a boat in this price range with ballast of crumbled cement, various pieces of rebar, scrap metal and what I think was the damper plate from a 73' Nova.

After somewhere around 4,000 surveys I no longer believe builders and their marketing hype or boating magazines.


----------



## fallard

Eder said:


> lol @ this thread about a cruising boat but assuming only 1 metric being important...speed.
> 
> What about tankage,build quality,real bilge,storage,kindly motion,protected prop,encapsulated keel,proper deck to hull construction,real chain lockers,and...err...nm.
> 
> Lets get back to how fast we can sail around the beer cans in 6 knots of wind.


First we need to know your Froude (not Frouds) number!:wink


----------



## SVAuspicious

RichH said:


> Well maybe its that you dont understand the hydrodynamics of what entails 'hull speed' .... the underling tech definition is the speed of WAVES generated by the moving hull as a functional result of the sqrt of the length of the hull, not the speed of the apparent max. speed of the hull which is the dependent variable - a resultant.





Arcb said:


> Theoretical hull speed was covered in first year hydrodynamics and ship construction, along with the various methods of cheating it; bulbous bows, SWATH hull, semi planing hulls, planing hulls, excessive amounts of power, but I've always found theoretical hull speed to be a reasonably accurate limiting factor to speed with regards to conventional full displacement hulls.





fallard said:


> Hull speed is not an absolute limit, but indicates the point of diminishing returns for speed gained vs. applied power for boats in displacement mode.
> 
> There are curves routinely available for many planing power boats that show fuel consumption vs speed. Typically the fuel consumption rate climbs as speed is increased beyond hull speed and then falls off as the boat gets on plane.





Stumble said:


> First it is a real number that is actually derived from real measurable physics. It is a function of the S/L ratio of free running waves in the open ocean, and Frouds numbers. It is not meaningless.


Well Rich, I'm pretty sure I do understand hydrodynamics. It says so on this piece of paper on the wall over here (Webb Institute '82) and is implied by this patent on towed bodies in the filing cabinet.

Back in the day when hull forms where all very similar we used empirically derived coefficients for a lot of things. Hull speed was one - 1.15xSQRT(waterline (ft)) = kts. As hull forms became more diverse there were a number of interesting attempts to take a lot of full-size and model data to correlate other characterizations (block coefficient, prismatic coefficient, Δ/L, and other more complex ratios and ratios of ratios) to the hull speed coefficient which is why you'll see multipliers between 1.1 and 1.4.

All of this neglects the fact that hull speed was never and is not a hard wall. It is indeed a fairly big region where the speed-power relationship curves up so that the power required for an incremental increase in speed increases dramatically. The region is a curve, so the rate at which the incremental power requirement increases itself increases. It's like the relationship between distance, speed, and acceleration. Naval architects used hull speed as a mechanism for comparing one platform to another not as a prediction of actual speed, although in the early days of steam it was a component (but only a component) in power plant sizing.

Fortunately as hull forms became more and more diverse our understanding of hydrodynamics continued to improve and other approaches pushed "hull speed" into the background. Model testing was part of that but far from all (which is the only application of Froude number, which relates to scaling between models and full scale). Over the last 50 years computer modeling has completely overwhelmed any other measure of the speed-power relationship.

Details:

Bulbous bows do decrease wave-making resistance, independent of "hull speed." Stern bulbs can do the same for low prismatic forms.

SWATH, like other catamaran hulls, take advantage of high L/B forms which are so far off the map of "hull speed" that they in fact demonstrate the limitations of simplistic parameters like hull speed.

Planing and semi-planing hulls work in non-linear regimes where "hull speed" just doesn't apply. Yes you need a lot of power to plane, but if you look at the speed-power curve you will see a real knee in the curve where planing begins (ish) that looks nothing like the region at "hull speed" for displacement hulls.

If you still aren't sure, consider all the 40' boats with "hull speed" around 6 - 6.5 kts that easily sail at 8 to 10 kts. Sails generate a tremendous amount of power.

"Hull speed" only has meaning when comparing boats of geo-similar hull forms.

The way that most people use it is meaningless.


----------



## Arcb

Okay, this is how I understand theoretical hull speed as well.

My most intimate experiment with hull speed came when my crew at the time took possession of a 60ft high speed power cat with with a couple of big MANs turning a pair of surface piercing propellers.

Any way, she had reportedly been capable of cruising at over 30 knots in salt water, but when we tried to trim her out on freshwater, we were unable to climb the bow wave. My role was just helmsperson, but that did give me a pretty good perspective of what was going on because I was controlling the yoke, trim and throttle much of the time.

These sea trials went on for months as we tried to achieve plane from both a vessel handling and engineering perspective in soupy warm fresh water. The team was eventually able to put the puzzle together and got her running flat. 

Long way of saying, I'm a big believer in the hydrodynamics principles that guide theoretical hull speed, but I do definitely appreciate, it's more of a rough guideline than any kind of hard rule, especially given how rare full displacement sailing yachts are in 2017.


----------



## amwbox

Eder said:


> lol @ this thread about a cruising boat but assuming only 1 metric being important...speed.


It's extremely annoying.

If I want to go fast...a sailboat...very nearly _any_ sailboat, is just about the worst possible choice of vehicle. I've never understood this bizarre obsession so many have about making a class of conveyances that are, collectively, just about the slowest mode of transport available...._"fast"._

An IP is a big, heavy, beamy, _cruising_ boat. If you're valuing cruising boats on their relative speeds, you've entirely missed the point.

Now, watch me go win an autocross event with a 1972 Chevy Suburban. Because that's what determines the usefulness and worth of Chevy Suburbans, doncha know?


----------



## fallard

amwbox said:


> It's extremely annoying.
> 
> If I want to go fast...a sailboat...very nearly _any_ sailboat, is just about the worst possible choice of vehicle. I've never understood this bizarre obsession so many have about making a class of conveyances that are, collectively, just about the slowest mode of transport available...._"fast"._
> 
> An IP is a big, heavy, beamy, _cruising_ boat. If you're valuing cruising boats on their relative speeds, you've entirely missed the point.


If I want to go fast, I use my stinkpot (first thumbnail)--that is, when my son hasn't commandeered it to take the grandkids to Napatree Point.:wink

Otherwise, I remain attached to my shallow draft sailboat that is parked at her home dock (2.5' MLW)--note the rudder is kicked up (second thumbnail)). This boat is very weatherly and fun to sail, especially when we are not towing a dinghy.

But when we charter in the Caribbean, we have become enamored of the Island Packets, like the IP460 (third thumbnail) with its 260 gallon water tank, which we topped off at Spanish Town before heading out to JVD. Two heads and daily showers are nice, especially with the kids and grandkids aboard for a week. Comfortable is fine on vacation!


----------



## Towguy

Fine looking sailboat Fallard.....Ralph. How shallow draft?


----------



## colemj

I know that boat and that dock! Lived in Mystic for 18yrs and walked by there countless times.

Mark


----------



## RichH

SVAuspicious said:


> Well Rich, I'm pretty sure I do understand hydrodynamics. It says so on this piece of paper on the wall over here (Webb Institute '82) and is implied by this patent on towed bodies in the filing cabinet.
> 
> Back in the day when hull forms where all very similar we used empirically derived coefficients for a lot of things. Hull speed was one - 1.15xSQRT(waterline (ft)) = kts. As hull forms became more diverse there were a number of interesting attempts to take a lot of full-size and model data to correlate other characterizations (block coefficient, prismatic coefficient, Δ/L, and other more complex ratios and ratios of ratios) to the hull speed coefficient which is why you'll see multipliers between 1.1 and 1.4.
> 
> All of this neglects the fact that hull speed was never and is not a hard wall. It is indeed a fairly big region where the speed-power relationship curves up so that the power required for an incremental increase in speed increases dramatically. The region is a curve, so the rate at which the incremental power requirement increases itself increases. It's like the relationship between distance, speed, and acceleration. Naval architects used hull speed as a mechanism for comparing one platform to another not as a prediction of actual speed, although in the early days of steam it was a component (but only a component) in power plant sizing.
> 
> Fortunately as hull forms became more and more diverse our understanding of hydrodynamics continued to improve and other approaches pushed "hull speed" into the background. Model testing was part of that but far from all (which is the only application of Froude number, which relates to scaling between models and full scale). Over the last 50 years computer modeling has completely overwhelmed any other measure of the speed-power relationship.
> 
> Details:
> 
> Bulbous bows do decrease wave-making resistance, independent of "hull speed." Stern bulbs can do the same for low prismatic forms.
> 
> SWATH, like other catamaran hulls, take advantage of high L/B forms which are so far off the map of "hull speed" that they in fact demonstrate the limitations of simplistic parameters like hull speed.
> 
> Planing and semi-planing hulls work in non-linear regimes where "hull speed" just doesn't apply. Yes you need a lot of power to plane, but if you look at the speed-power curve you will see a real knee in the curve where planing begins (ish) that looks nothing like the region at "hull speed" for displacement hulls.
> 
> If you still aren't sure, consider all the 40' boats with "hull speed" around 6 - 6.5 kts that easily sail at 8 to 10 kts. Sails generate a tremendous amount of power.
> 
> "Hull speed" only has meaning when comparing boats of geo-similar hull forms.
> 
> The way that most people use it is meaningless.


Wow thanks for the over-reactive introduction of marine hydrodynamics summary. My professional field of endeavor and with several degrees is applied and theoretical fluid and thermal sciences and most of the adjacent disciplines that support them. 
The mention of hull speed was to highlight that the IP seemingly is a design targeted towards trade wind sailing of the (Caribbean) islands, etc. and other venues of where 20+kts. are common and where IPs will typically be at max. developed speed due to the typical wind encountered in such a venue. In case you missed it, Hull speed is a relativistic conversion/equivalence of the wave speed propagation of the moving hull (shape) wherein even the early observationists/empiricists defined that for the common ~3:1 ratio of length to width resulted in a 'typical' hull speed or wave propagation back-deriving to a 'cookbook' equational constant of 1.34. Yet, when the L-W ratio was at higher values (military destroyers, frigates, catamarans (even Hobie Cats) etc. whose L/W approach 5:1 or more tend towards a K approaching 1.15, torpedoes approaching 1.) again, all cookbook, but only approximate values well known since the 18th & 19th centuries.

Apparently you missed entirely the purpose of my comments .... an IP sailing in its targeted trade wind venue & crewed by a knowledgeable crew will usually be at or near a max. relative speed (vs. input applied forces/power). Its the same for any 'designed shape' operating in either open or conduit fluid flow - if that flow value is far from DESIGN the developed dependent variable parameters (output) will be less (OR MORE) than expected/estimated. 
Again my 'point', the IP series seemingly was purpose/market designed for trade wind or near trade wind venues, in case you missed it. ;-)


----------



## SVAuspicious

Arcb said:


> These sea trials went on for months as we tried to achieve plane from both a vessel handling and engineering perspective in soupy warm fresh water.


But hull speed has nothing to do with planing hulls.


----------



## Arcb

SVAuspicious said:


> But hull speed has nothing to do with planing hulls.


I think we disagree on this point.

When a planing hull(s) can't achieve plane because they can't apply enough power to climb and over come their bow wave, I think it has a lot to do with the principles that govern hull speed.

A planing hull in displacement mode is just a rather poorly designed displacement hull.

She was stuck in her hole at 16-17 knots, she wasn't planing, when she hit 18, she flattened right out, we were able to bring the propeller tips clear of the surface of the water, create that beautiful SPP rooster tail, reduce the load on the engine and spool up the revs and she climbed to 30 knots easily.

My personal boat is actually much heavier than an IP of the same size, but as long as she doesn't try to exceed her theoretical hull speed she moves quite nicely through the water in my opinion. I don't know if the same is true of an IP, because I've never sailed one, but I get a great deal of sailing pleasure from my heavy displacement boat. She's comfy too.


----------



## fallard

Towguy said:


> Fine looking sailboat Fallard.....Ralph. How shallow draft?


The Clearwater 35 spec sheet says 1' 10"/ 5' 11", but I measured it at 2' with keel and rudder retracted, so that would make it just over 6' with keel down.

The difference is probably due to the added weight of stuff added to the base boat: windlass, CNG cylinders, Bimini, and all the extra stuff you stow on board, like extra sails, multiple anchors/rides, folding bicycles, grille, lots of books, and the list goes on.

When I was searching for a shallow draft sailboat, a local broker warned me that the spec sheets often understated the actual draft for a boat outfitted for the real world, mentioning the actual draft of a Bristol 35.5 was more like 4" greater than the spec sheet stated. In other words, the builder didn't allow for the extras that inevitably end up on a cruising sailboat.

I measured my actual draft when the boat was in the travelift.

BTW, you wouldn't sail this boat with the keel completely retracted and the rudder in the up position, unless you were going down wind. Rather, the shallow draft comes in handy when taking shortcuts, perhaps under power, or coming into a shallow water anchorage or dock, also more likely under power. Of course, this would apply to any swing keel boat.


----------



## SVAuspicious

RichH said:


> The mention of hull speed was to highlight that the IP seemingly is a design targeted towards trade wind sailing of the (Caribbean) islands, etc.


I think the IP is targeted at people that love pictures of sailboats, buy one, and motor most of the time. They are the folks who sail for the destination, not the sailing. They are the wonderful people who have their anchor screwed to the bottom in places like Georgetown and St Marteen and Cortez who are the first to invite you over for cocktails. They do some easy downwind and broad reach sailing but mostly motor.

Bob Johnson has built an outstanding boat for those people. Folks should have what they want. Are there IP sailors who really sail? Sure. Haydeen Cochran is a good example. Is that the norm? I don't think so.



RichH said:


> Apparently you missed entirely the purpose of my comments .... an IP sailing in its targeted trade wind venue & crewed by a knowledgeable crew will usually be at or near a max. relative speed (vs. input applied forces/power).


Which has nothing to do with "hull speed." There are other more interesting metrics that apply but again are more useful for comparable boats and comparable sailors.


----------



## SVAuspicious

Arcb said:


> When a planing hull(s) can't achieve plane because they can't apply enough power to climb and over come their bow wave, I think it has a lot to do with the principles that govern hull speed.


Sure. That doesn't have anything to do with "hull speed." It's about wave making resistance and the impact of waves on wetted surface. You can call that "climbing the bow wave" as a reasonable simplification but that doesn't have anything to do with "hull speed."



Arcb said:


> A planing hull in displacement mode is just a rather poorly designed displacement hull.


Agreed. Start with directional stability and progress to cargo capacity. That isn't what planing hulls are for.



Arcb said:


> She was stuck in her hole at 16-17 knots, she wasn't planing, when she hit 18, she flattened right out, we were able to bring the propeller tips clear of the surface of the water, create that beautiful SPP rooster tail, reduce the load on the engine and spool up the revs and she climbed to 30 knots easily.


Right. I haven't worked with planing hulls (other than driving them) much since college but the issue is usually forward sections and aft lifting surfaces.



Arcb said:


> I get a great deal of sailing pleasure from my heavy displacement boat. She's comfy too.


Which is great. Again has nothing to do with hull speed.

One of the things Bob Johnson and Bob Perry have both achieved is with full sections forward and a pretty good job of weight distribution (at least until owners get hold of them) maintain really comfortable rides, usually at the expense of boat speed, in deteriorating conditions. In flat conditions you can get some decent boat speed even in benign conditions. As seas build they get really slow (which leads to carrying more fuel, water, and provisions in a circle of declining performance). None of that has anything to do with hull speed.


----------



## Eder

SVAuspicious said:


> I think the IP is targeted at people that love pictures of sailboats, buy one, and motor most of the time.


I would beg to differ...There are IP's everywhere cruising everywhere as they are designed to do. I've met a 40 on the West coast Vancouver Island , a 44 just returning from Polynesia, a 485 that just left La Cruz for Polynesia, many cruising Sea of Cortez right now out of La Paz.

It is silly to buy an IP for a condo on the water...theres plenty of less expensive boats that are better at that use.

I think you may have formed your opinion from forum dogma. At any rate I realize this is a light, fun discussion here with a few jabs & plenty of BS...so your turn now.


----------



## SVAuspicious

Eder said:


> I think you may have formed your opinion from forum dogma. At any rate I realize this is a light, fun discussion here with a few jabs & plenty of BS...so your turn now.


I don't mean to jab at anyone. I like IPs. As noted above I came very close to buying one.

I just don't think they perform very well, especially to windward. I sail them, I deliver them, I work on them, I like them. I'm realistic about them. The 485 is a pretty good boat but if you look at the data the years it did well in the SRD and Carib 1500 they had beam winds from the beginning.

None of that has anything to do with forum dogma. It has to do with sailing the boats and a lot of experience on a broad range of boats to compare to.

They are comfortable. They are safe. They are lovely (although the pinky color puts some people off - I think it's kind of cool). They don't point well and that is exacerbated in heavy weather where leeway for the three-digit boats is a problem. For the target market they are great - they are safe, stable, and hold their value.

You would hear the same thing from Bob Johnson and Bill Bolen (who is sorely missed in the IP community).


----------



## killarney_sailor

To ask a dumb question. If I go to IP with a bunch of money in hand and want to buy one with a blue hull will they tell me I am out of luck?


----------



## colemj

Actually, I think they made blue hull IP's. I know I have seen several of them.

Mark


----------



## Eder

SVAuspicious said:


> . They do some easy downwind and broad reach sailing but mostly motor.


Well after asking around here in Puerto Vallarta it looks like more than 10 IP's are mostly motoring to the Marquesas right now... I guess they unscrewed their anchors?


----------



## aeventyr60

Eder said:


> SVAuspicious said:
> 
> 
> 
> . They do some easy downwind and broad reach sailing but mostly motor.
> 
> /QUOTE]
> 
> Well after asking around here in Puerto Vallarta it looks like more than 10 IP's are mostly motoring to the Marquesas right now... I guess they unscrewed their anchors?
> 
> 
> 
> You mean they are motoring through the thick band of the ITCZ? Pretty light going for any boat heading off from the West Coast of Mexico. How'd all yer go fast boats do in this?
> 
> PassageWeather
> 
> There's sweet FA wind for 1000 miles..
Click to expand...


----------



## mstern

All this IP discussion got me curious about how they are doing as part of Hake Marine, so I went to their website to see if there were any noticeable changes. The only thing I saw was that they don't seem to be offering the Estero any more. Too bad, as that one was my favorite. I loved the use of space in the cabin, but my wife just couldn't get past the gel coat color. Not that I am ever going to own one; sailing characteristics aside (and I've never sailed on one), I will never be able to afford it.

As for gel coat color options, I just found a 2005 price and option list for the 485 in a pile of boat show brochures that I have kept for some reason. It lists "boot stripe color" and "canvas color" as selections to be made. Nothing about hull and deck color, although the brochure itself has a picture of a blue 485.


----------



## Eder

Most people like white...always safe to fit in. I don't know about other sailboats but IP does warranty their hulls 10 years ...I know Benny's are only 5 . Most likely no boats get blisters anymore...lol. They also warranty their deck construction for 10 years as well as 3 year unlimited warranty on everything else.

I know I've put over 12,000nm's on mine with no important issues. No idea why I'm a fan!

I think original IP's gel coat had a pink hue ...the formula changed to todays beige color by the 90's...not sure if the formula used results in their incredible resistance to blisters and crazing.


----------



## Minnewaska

killarney_sailor said:


> To ask a dumb question. If I go to IP with a bunch of money in hand and want to buy one with a blue hull will they tell me I am out of luck?


I suspect they would try to sell you a BlueJacket.


----------



## fallard

Eder said:


> Most people like white...always safe to fit in. I don't know about other sailboats but IP does warranty their hulls 10 years ...I know Benny's are only 5 . Most likely no boats get blisters anymore...lol. They also warranty their deck construction for 10 years as well as 3 year unlimited warranty on everything else.
> 
> I know I've put over 12,000nm's on mine with no important issues. No idea why I'm a fan!
> 
> I think original IP's gel coat had a pink hue ...the formula changed to todays beige color by the 90's...not sure if the formula used results in their incredible resistance to blisters and crazing.


By the 90's, vinylester gel coats had arrived to mitigate the blister issue. My 1990 Clearwater has a vinylester gel coat and is still looking good after all these years. I had it walnut shell-blasted about 2 years ago and put 4 coats of Interlux 2000 on her bottom just for good measure. Some might call that a belt and suspenders approach, but I call it cheap insurance, and it also make a good prime coat for the bottom paint.

I would agree that the IPs I've sailed on don't have gel coat crazing and that includes the 35, 37, 38, 40, 44, and 46 footers that I've spent anywhere from 2 to 21 days on, so I've had a chance to take a good look. I don't know if that is a consequence of vinylester gel coat, but it certainly is one measure of build quality. Most of this time was on Island Yacht charters out of Red Hook.


----------



## SVAuspicious

Eder said:


> Well after asking around here in Puerto Vallarta it looks like more than 10 IP's are mostly motoring to the Marquesas right now... I guess they unscrewed their anchors?


Like any grossly oversimplified sweeping generalization, my statement has exceptions.



aeventyr60 said:


> Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SVAuspicious said:
> 
> 
> 
> They do some easy downwind and broad reach sailing but mostly motor.
> 
> 
> 
> Well after asking around here in Puerto Vallarta it looks like more than 10 IP's are mostly motoring to the Marquesas right now... I guess they unscrewed their anchors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean they are motoring through the thick band of the ITCZ? Pretty light going for any boat heading off from the West Coast of Mexico. How'd all yer go fast boats do in this?
Click to expand...

Your Passageweather link is based on gribs (ugh) which don't show the massive cold front sweeping South. It may or may not make it to the ITCZ. Regardless there is 10 kts of Easterlies going out a long way. Even downwind or on the quarter you should be able to get at least 3 kts out of that and perhaps 5 kts.

The challenge is always when to give up the NE trades to cross the ITCZ for the SE trades.


----------



## aeventyr60

SVAuspicious said:


> Like any grossly oversimplified sweeping generalization, my statement has exceptions.
> 
> Your Passageweather link is based on gribs (ugh) which don't show the massive cold front sweeping South. It may or may not make it to the ITCZ. Regardless there is 10 kts of Easterlies going out a long way. Even downwind or on the quarter you should be able to get at least 3 kts out of that and perhaps 5 kts.
> 
> The challenge is always when to give up the NE trades to cross the ITCZ for the SE trades.


Yep and deciding how long you want to wallow in those swells, go through the chinese fire drill of reefing and un reefing a zillion times in the heavy squalls coming up..Nope think ma and pa kettle will burn off some fuel to get to the easy stuff..DDown wind in those light airs the IP won't be doing 3 knots.. They'd have to use a kite..expressly forbidden on IP's..:crying


----------



## Eder

aeventyr60 said:


> ..DDown wind in those light airs the IP won't be doing 3 knots.. They'd have to use a kite..expressly forbidden on IP's..:crying


Lol I had to do a double take...I was going to respond but then I saw you own one of my favorite boats...a Tayana, and wondered where you formed that opinion from?


----------



## rostyvyg

I love woodworking so when looking at the boats I can't help but notice how interiors are built. Speaking of Island Packets: no laminates, just pure expensive high quality teak throughout, even in places not visible or readily accessible. Top notch joinery. Every cabinet is cedar lined and well ventilated (louvers built into every door on the boat). Tons of space for storage. Seriously, I still keep discovering some and finding previous owner's treasures - a spare propeller, for example, tucked under two layers of storage space in the fore cabin island berth. Enormous tankage with tanks located under cabin sole to keep center of gravity low. Yes, the aluminum holding tanks will leak and will have to be replaced. But at least this is doable as opposed to fixing cracking Caliber fiberglass holding tanks tanks. Bulletproof hull to deck joint. Synthetic deck core which never gets wet. The proprietary gelcoat that, as mentioned earlier in the thread, look like new after 25 years. Stainless steel and real glass port-lights. Incredible ventilation. Great engine access. Huge cockpit lockers. Great interior layout, especially starting with two head models. One really has to spend some time on those boats to appreciate attention to all details.

As to chainplates, they have been redesigned when 3 digit models came into production. Much thicker different stainless steel (316L) and drainage holes in fiberglass where chainplates are glassed into hull. No failures reported after change went into production since end of 1990's.

I think it is silly to compare IP's to fin keel daysalers or racers. It's like comparing a high quality RV to an average sports car. 

And, I , personally, love the color.

So, Island Packets are not as bad as they say. Especially if you could afford one 


Now, speaking of the company financial troubles and being sold twice, - they overdesigned and overbuilt their boats not realizing that, eventually, they would have to compete with their own used boats. Which aged supremely well and do not go away any time soon. Thus IP shifted to building bigger and bigger models which after real estate bubble burst became plain unaffordable. Maybe with current state of economy they will be able to finally recover and continue building their great boats. I sincerely hope so.

Good luck wit your search for a perfect sailboat. If such exists...


----------

