# A blue water sailer that can go in light winds



## williamkiester

Is there such a beast? I'm looking for a 30-36 ft cruiser that can also move in light winds. Local coastal sailing would probably be solo. Does anyone have a suggestion for a good full keel boat that has a little get up and go that doesn't cost a fortune? Cape Dory 28 was on my list, but I want more room. Allied Luders 33 is my front runner right now but on the expensive side. Allied Seawind was a little funky looking in the cabin front for my tastes and too slow in light winds. Downeaster 32 is a good honest boat, but too slow I fear. Apologies if this overlaps another thread. I'm ok with traditional lines or modern ones as long as they have some style.


----------



## COOL

I am going have to go with,
'there is no such animal'.
Light air performance, in a full keel design
would be a very rare combination. There are 
some modern builds that combine up to date
underbodies with traditional looks, but they are
generally very spendy.


----------



## olson34

Lots of great choices out there. Here is just one. Cascade 36, designed by the late Robert Smith. While many were/are home finished, all have all-roving hand layup hulls. These are very stout boats, and fast as well.
Built from the 60's to current. _Tens_ of thousands of ocean-crossing miles with many couples.
Picture attached of the local boat that won the previous Pacific Cup outright... beating out boats costing hundreds of thousands of $.


----------



## sailingdog

A good full keel boat that can go in light winds... hmm... why does it need to be a full keel boat? There are plenty of fin-keeled boats that are bluewater capable, and most do far better in light winds than a full keel boat will. 

Since you asked for full keel... look for a HR Rasmus 35 or a Monsun 31, a Southern Cross 31 or 35 might also work well. The Elizabethan series of boats, the 30, 31, 33, might be good choices as well.


----------



## williamkiester

I could look at fin keel boats, though I think my partner in crime in this venture wants the security of a full keel with the rudder attached. Also, I my mooring is in a shallow bay. Am I wrong to think that the fin keel draws more water? I can be convinced to widen the search to include fin keels. 

Thanks for suggestions. I'll definitely look at those boats.


----------



## JomsViking

I'd start here: Xc 38 · A perfect blend of cruising comfort and performance


----------



## sailingdog

There are boats that have a fin keel with a skeg-hung rudder, which gives you better performance than a full-keel boat but has more security than a spade-rudder equipped boat.


----------



## killarney_sailor

Not sure that you will find a full keel boat or even a long fin keel boat in that size range that will be good in light air. You may have to do the speed improvement with sail selection. We are using our asymmetric spinnaker a lot these days to have better speed in light winds. I suspect an AS and a Code Zero for close reaching would do the trick. Both can fitted with a snuffer or furler to make handling much easier.


----------



## williamkiester

My favorite so far is the Southern Cross, though they might be out of my price range and the cockpit looked pretty small. The Cascade 36 is a contender in the fin keel category. I'm checking the other link just posted.


----------



## williamkiester

Jomsviking, very cool boat, and fits the bill. Unfortunately I'm several $100,000 short on that perfect blend. Painful dreaming for us poor child rearing parents. Before I had put my sites into blue waters, I wanted an Alerion 33 or an e33, again way out of my price range, but I still visit the sites periodically. Will add the X yachts to my roaming.


----------



## sck5

"There are boats that have a fin keel with a skeg-hung rudder, which gives you better performance than a full-keel boat but has more security than a spade-rudder equipped boat."

Like my Caliber 33 (and the Caliber 35 it turned into in the 90's). Pretty good compared to a full keel boat but still a fairly heavy cruiser.


----------



## brak

As a recent owner of HR 35 I can say that while it definitely is a great offshore boat, it is not very good in light winds. Meaning - it is not a "daysailing" vessel.

It could be a coastal cruiser, certainly, depending on what you plan to do. It is also not perfect for singlehanding since sail handling lines are not usually lead to the cockpit due to windshield design - so you must get out and go to the mast. On the other hand, the cockpit is very secure and convenient. And the boat sure looks beautiful while sailing


----------



## JomsViking

*Can't afford it either*



williamkiester said:


> Jomsviking, very cool boat, and fits the bill. Unfortunately I'm several $100,000 short on that perfect blend. Painful dreaming for us poor child rearing parents. Before I had put my sites into blue waters, I wanted an Alerion 33 or an e33, again way out of my price range, but I still visit the sites periodically. Will add the X yachts to my roaming.


Sorry, I can't afford it either, so was just being a arseh... 
It's a brand new design, and the first one just got splashed last week, and can be seen at the Open Yard thing at X-Yachts next weekend.


----------



## cormeum

Full keel boats that go in light air tend to be a lot skinnier than what you'd be used to with modern designs.


----------



## Sailormon6

If you're still interested in a Luders 33, I know of one that I believe to be in good condition, with a nearly new Yanmar diesel engine that might be bought reasonably. Contact me by pm if you want more info. I have no personal interest in it and am not the owner or a dealer.


----------



## ehmanta

I know it's not exactly a full keel, but a substantial skeg and shallow draft makes the Tartan 34c a good choice. Sparkman, Stevens designed so she sails well and is capable of blue water with the proper upgrades. The design has been out of production for 35 years or so, but still a nice boat. With most boats of this vintage, the tankage will be small.


----------



## williamkiester

I think the Cascade 36 is a winner. Most seem to be on the west coast. Are there other boats like the Cascade 36 that I could consider to broaden my search (and find something on the east coast). Looks like that hull shape shape counters the need for a full keel.


----------



## Sailormon6

IMHO, light air sailing is more about good light air technique than it is about the boat's design, but it's generally nervewracking to sail in light air. If you're racing, it's worth the effort to concentrate so intensely for so long, because there's a "reward" if you're successful, but, if you're cruising, and you want to "get somewhere," then 1 1/2 kts per hour just isn't enough of a "reward" for most people to justify the effort, so they'd rather fire up the engine and get to their destination. I race a full keel boat occasionally, and our best chance of winning on that boat is always in light air. Some of the full keel boats, notably some of the Alberg designs, have large sail areas to help compensate for the weight and drag of a full keel, and that extra sail area means a lot in light air.


----------



## bb74

I don't doubt the seaworthiness of the full keel boats, but at the same time, I have a real hard time undertstanding the attraction to these as a "must have".... Full keel boats were designed at the time given material and stress constraints, not because it is some inherent "better / safer" design.

I don't see people looking to buy top dollar, 70's design quality cars, houses, planes, trains, gear, etc.... but for some reason, 50's to 60's epoch designs on the marine side are considered the cat's meow...???

If you plan on light air sailing, with an occassional heavy air sail, go for a safe design that works very well for the majority of the time, not for a mystical minority of "what if" scenario. In those situations, it's crew, not boat that make the difference.

I like the old Shannon, Albin, C. Dory, and Rustler boats to name a few, quite a bit, it's the nostalgia and the "feel", certainly not the sailing performance or ultimate comfort of "getting there" 6 hours later than the "other guys". 

Best of luck on your purchase, and please do yourself a favor and sail as many desings as possible before biting the bullet, you may be suprized.


----------



## cormeum

bb74 said:


> I don't doubt the seaworthiness of the full keel boats, but at the same time, I have a real hard time undertstanding the attraction to these as a "must have".... Full keel boats were designed at the time given material and stress constraints, not because it is some inherent "better / safer" design.


Not really. Hull shape was as much a "design to the rule" exercise than an advance in hydrodynamics. The reason people like those designs is they work really well and are (usually) more forgiving.



> I don't see people looking to buy top dollar, 70's design quality cars, houses, planes, trains, gear, etc.... but for some reason, 50's to 60's epoch designs on the marine side are considered the cat's meow...???


Apples/oranges. New isn't necessarily "better" it's only "better" for what it's designed to do.



> If you plan on light air sailing, with an occassional heavy air sail, go for a safe design that works very well for the majority of the time, not for a mystical minority of "what if" scenario. In those situations, it's crew, not boat that make the difference.


Rather not have to reach for the EPIRB.. if you know what I mean. That said, I'm not damning "new" designs _en masse_, but there's been some real problems with engineering not having caught up to the work of the designer/architect. No one goes looking for bad weather do they? But if you're caught out, do you really want a boat that beats you up? Or takes care of the crew?



> I like the old Shannon, Albin, C. Dory, and Rustler boats to name a few, quite a bit, it's the nostalgia and the "feel", certainly not the sailing performance or ultimate comfort of "getting there" 6 hours later than the "other guys".


You can have your cake and eat it too. 9 kts in a stiff breeze, and noticably faster than most new boats in light airs. Note the lack of a fin keel and spade rudder.
:laugher 











> Best of luck on your purchase, and please do yourself a favor and sail as many desings as possible before biting the bullet, you may be suprized.


Yes, you may be


----------



## daviddupzyk

if no one has suggested it, you might want to take a look at a javelin designed by bill tripp. nice hull, lines and rig with full keel and attached rudder.


----------



## casioqv

Westsail 32! I've heard they go great in light winds.... with the diesel engine :laugher


----------



## PCP

It all depends of what you call a bluewater boat and weak winds.

If weak winds are 8, 10k...lots of boats, including for example the HR 372 or the new RM 1060. If weak winds are 5 or 6K, not so many, perhaps the Pogo 10.50, the Salona 37 or the Elan 380. 

But as I said it depends of what you call a bluewater boat. All the above boats, if conveniently equipped will have no problem in crossing the pond, providing the right latitude and the right season.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## williamkiester

I'm liking the Javelin 38, but can't find more than a couple small photos and I don't see any for sale. It's now on the list.


----------



## SVAuspicious

brak said:


> As a recent owner of HR 35 I can say that while it definitely is a great offshore boat, it is not very good in light winds. Meaning - it is not a "daysailing" vessel.


Try any of the Frer's design HRs, like the 34 and 36. Much faster in light air.


----------



## kwaltersmi

Another suggestion might be the Perry designed Nordic/Valiant Espirit 37. She's a bluewater double-ender with a modern bottom and good value, pending your budget.


----------



## SophiP

I sailed on a Southern Cross 31 for years, and now live/sail on a Downeaster 32. The 32 sails much better in light air (5kts with full canvas out in only 5-10kt winds) and handles *great* under power. We can back her up like you would a car! Really remarkable. Draws only 4'9"... we love her. The cockpit is comfy (much larger than on the southern cross we had). Another main difference is the turning radius... the Southern Cross was a doggg (3 boat lengths to turn, probably) while the DE 32 is quick to respond and turns in 1 boat length. Just got the boat this summer so have yet to do an off-shore stint on her, but we're confident she'll be safe and comfortable.


----------



## williamkiester

I just moved the Downeaster 32 up on the list. I like cutters. Is it tragically difficult to singlehand this big lady?


----------



## Jeff_H

I don't know what SophiP has done to make this miracle happen, (perhaps redefine 'light air)' since my esperiences with the Downeast 32's is that the are nearly useless as sailboats in wind under 10-12 knots even with very large genoas. I also found them pretty poor in higher winds where they were not able to stand up to their sailplan and had a miserably rolly motions. In my mind these are neither decent light air boats, and pretty mediocre blue water boats. I would also suggest that they are anything but good single handers if your plan is to sail in a broad range of windspeeds.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## SophiP

We haven't sailed her in heavy winds yet, but in ocean swells (not large, 4-6 feet) she isn't "rolly" at all. The previous owner had all the lines run back to the cockpit so he could "single-hand" her with his wife aboard, we find that I run up to the mast to adjust something pretty often, but it is possible to sail her alone. This is certainly not a modern blue-water boat, she can't outrun any storm and I wouldn't sail her through anything bad on purpose, but I wouldn't want to be in terribly rough weather anyways. I think she's built ruggedly enough to make some ocean crossings if you time your weather right. Just my two cents!


----------



## kevandraper

Hi, if you intend to really go blue water, may I respectfully suggest light air performance should be secondary, it is bumpy , heavy weather you need to consider. having done a lot of blue water sailing , including a trip from Japan to Dutch harbour in a 38 footer, I would much rather have something that is slow in light air but can handle heavier conditions. In 25,000 miles , I averaged 5.3 knots, you are not going to make much difference to your average speed with a better light air performer but you will feel a lot safer and more comfortable when the wind gets up and you are in the middle of nowhere. I have been caught in some terrible scary stuff, but overtime actually realised the boat ( Robert Tucker 38) handled the weather better than I did. Light air can be frustrating, sails up, sails down, engine on , engine off, engine on , etc but if you do not have a tight time table, consider whether it mateers whether you arrive a day or two later at your destinations. Even after years of cruising, mexico, pacific, australia, PNG , Alaska leaving the harbour and heading straight out still fills me with a good deal of fear !!! Get a solid good yacht under your feet and after a while the worry reduces as you become more confident with the yachts capabilities.


----------



## williamkiester

Thank you all for your thoughtful comments. They were helpful, and I enjoyed looking up all the fine boats. In the end, myself and a partner bought a 1966 Allied Luders 33. I'll probably do some paddling in the light airs, but she sure is pretty and seems very able. I'm excited to be out on the water this season. Cheers.


----------



## GBurton

casioqv said:


> Westsail 32! I've heard they go great in light winds.... with the diesel engine :laugher


Actually the Westsail does OK in light wind. Two weeks or so ago I went sailing in ~8kts of wind and managed 4.5 kts boat speed. This with just the main and Yankee up..

YouTube - Sunday sail


----------



## Sailormon6

williamkiester said:


> Thank you all for your thoughtful comments. They were helpful, and I enjoyed looking up all the fine boats. In the end, myself and a partner bought a 1966 Allied Luders 33. I'll probably do some paddling in the light airs, but she sure is pretty and seems very able. I'm excited to be out on the water this season. Cheers.


If you bought the Luders 33 that I'm thinking about, on the Chesapeake Bay, you got a good one!


----------



## RichH

The efficacy of 'light wind' sailing is mostly dependent on the SKILL of the helmsman and the accuracy of how the sails are carefully SHAPED, etc. ( the sails not 'just raised' but carefully 'shaped' after raising). 
The use of a full set of tell tales and a developed knowledge of 'how' to use them, a knowledge of what/which sail SHAPE to use and how to attain such shape by precise adjustment of the halyard, outhaul, cunningham, etc. etc. etc. are vitally important on 'any' boat to make it go in light winds. 

Also - The condition of the underwater surfaces also play a role in effective light weight sailing - SMOOTH (and 'clean') bottom paint, feathering or folding prop, faired through-hull 'protuberances' etc. etc. 

If you want a boat that will perform well in 'light' conditions - choose one that has the minimum of underwater surface area, typically a fin keel + spade rudder, a 'modern' light weight boat - for better 'acceleration', LARGE sail plan, and loooong waterline length.


----------



## RXBOT

You know that Luders hull speed is about 6.5 knots because she has about 9 feet of overhangs so about 24 feet at waterline. Jeffs Farr 38 is bigger,lighter, larger sail area and longer on the waterline. His hullspeed is about 7.5 knots. So if they both did hull speed for 10 hours the Luders is only 10 nautical miles back or 24 for a full 24 hour sail.


----------



## Jeff_H

Ah so, but the reality is that hull speed says little about how fast a boat actually goes. The real predictor of passage times is the amount of time that a boat spend near, at or above its hullspeed. In my experience, it is very hard to get a Luders to sail anywhere near her hullspeed since they have such limited stability relative to their drag. Even sailing them with the 170% genoas that they were designed to use, they never were able to maintain their hullspeed even in moderate breezes. By comparason, in cruising mode, upwind, in 8 knots (true, 13 knots apparent) wind, the Farr 38 is often at her hullspeed or doing slightly more than her hullspeed, while my experience with the Luders 33 is that they rarely do their hullspeed. Actually, the Farr 38 and Luders 33 have the same design weight, but the Luders 33 sails on a 24 foot waterline and the Farr on a 32 foot waterline. 

The reality is if both boats sailed from Annapolis to St. Michaels in 10 knots of wind, there would be a mix of beating, reaching and running and (from actual experience) it would take the Farr roughly 4 1/2- 5 hours and the Luders something over 8 hours. 

In a more general sense, I find this thread very interesting, in part, because its opening premise was that the original poster started out wanting a boat that was a good single-hander and light air boat that was also a good offshore boat, starting out with a list of boats which had none of these characteristics (with the possible exception of the Cape Dory 28 which arguably is a decent offshore boat). It seems as if the original poster evaluated a number of options before deciding that neither offshore or light air ability was all that important and so chose an older racer/cruiser. 

I don't mean this a critique, but more as an observation. All to often people come on these forums exploring a range of ideas. For many, it is a process of self-discovery. Some discover that there are a range of ideas that appeal to them and so may end up in a very different place than where they started, while others learn that they genuniely knew themselves at the start of their explorations and like this poster, end up exactly where they began, albeit sometimes for completely different reasons. 

Before I leave this discussion, I do not want to leave the impression that I think that the original poster bought the wrong boat. I don't think he did. There is almost no such thing as the universally wrong boat. Obviously, this boat appeals to the OP and his "partner in crime" and that is what makes it right for them. 

The main point of this post is that when I look at the specific choice of boat that the OP sellected, it does not come even close to matching the criteria that the OP described in his written goals; good light air capabilities, good offshore cruiser, easy to single-hand, protected rudder, or even a full keel. This boat offers none of that, but the good news is that the OP and his partner in crime are happy with what they bought and that is all that really matters. 

Jeff


----------



## souljour2000

kevandraper said:


> Hi, if you intend to really go blue water, may I respectfully suggest light air performance should be secondary, it is bumpy , heavy weather you need to consider. having done a lot of blue water sailing , including a trip from Japan to Dutch harbour in a 38 footer, I would much rather have something that is slow in light air but can handle heavier conditions. In 25,000 miles , I averaged 5.3 knots, you are not going to make much difference to your average speed with a better light air performer but you will feel a lot safer and more comfortable when the wind gets up and you are in the middle of nowhere. I have been caught in some terrible scary stuff, but overtime actually realised the boat ( Robert Tucker 38) handled the weather better than I did. Light air can be frustrating, sails up, sails down, engine on , engine off, engine on , etc but if you do not have a tight time table, consider whether it mateers whether you arrive a day or two later at your destinations. Even after years of cruising, mexico, pacific, australia, PNG , Alaska leaving the harbour and heading straight out still fills me with a good deal of fear !!! Get a solid good yacht under your feet and after a while the worry reduces as you become more confident with the yachts capabilities.


This is one of the best brief posts on bluewater sailing that I have ever seen..I would not know if it is true from personal experience but for me it is the best bluewater-topic post I have ever read as it seems very genuine and humble while also being descriptive and helpful to the uninitiated. That's my take on things this watch and weatherset and I am sticking to it...


----------



## nemier

Yes, this is interesting. When I read Souljour2000's reply, I felt he/she seemed to miss the point.  Light Air performance is extremely important to me in order to keep the boat moving, and not have to use the engine in the first palce.. The engine 'on' then 'off' cycle would seriously affect my sailing experience. My next vessel must be able to keep moving in the lightest airs.

Of course I would want to know that the vessel can handle storm force wx, but from my experience, and from what I've been researching, that is the exeption, not the norm. Obviously, you would plan your passage in a suitable season, and bin any thought of a 'schedule'.

So for me, light air peformance is still a priority.


----------



## mitiempo

As posted above the sails are important as is the boat. A light drifter and a light nylon mainsail are easier to keep full in light air than dacron sails. Several owners of Nor'Sea 27s have found this to be true to maximize light air sailing and minimize engine running.


----------



## BTB

The original poster having made his choice, I thought I might prolong the discussion. I have read many posts here, including those by Jeff H. I am hoping you will weigh in Jeff.

I am interested in older designs. I am not speaking of race boats (CCA, RORC, etc) built to a rule. Still, I recognize that most rules will influence designs of their era, race boats or not.



Jeff_H said:


> Ah so, but the reality is that hull speed says little about how fast a boat actually goes. The real predictor of passage times is the amount of time that a boat spend near, at or above its hullspeed. In my experience, it is very hard to get a Luders to sail anywhere near her hullspeed since they have such limited stability relative to their drag.
> 
> [The] Farr 38 and Luders 33 have the same design weight, but the Luders 33 sails on a 24 foot waterline and the Farr on a 32 foot waterline.


I want to explore this a bit. I often see this position advocated in comparisons of older, higher Displacement/Length ratio hulls with more modern designs such as the Farr 38. The Farr has a longer waterline length. It should be faster. How much of the advantage is attributable to the length and how much to the rate at which the newer boats accelerate (come up to speed)? With sufficient horsepower (sail area), the bulkier hull should come up to speed, but more slowly, correct? This assumes equivalent stability, which is lacking in the original comparison.



Jeff_H said:


> In my experience, it is very hard to get a Luders to sail anywhere near her hullspeed since they have such limited stability relative to their drag.


How would one go about improving stability on a boat like a Luders 33? On an older wooden design with cast iron ballast, changing to lead from cast iron without changing the weight, might be a viable option, yes? How about the standing rigging? Is it fair to say going from an older aluminum mast to a carbon fiber rig (or newer aluminum section) might also help?



mitiempo said:


> As posted above the sails are important as is the boat. A light drifter and a light nylon mainsail are easier to keep full in light air than dacron sails. Several owners of Nor'Sea 27s have found this to be true to maximize light air sailing and minimize engine running.


How many older designs get the same budget as the more race oriented boats? Can some of the disparity be offset in this manner?

Thanks

BTB


----------



## williamkiester

*That's the one*



Sailormon6 said:


> If you bought the Luders 33 that I'm thinking about, on the Chesapeake Bay, you got a good one!


Thanks for your comment. I think we did well after a lot of research which was fun. She's recently repowered. New awlgrip on the hull. Working refrigeration and hot water. Good salty previous owner who lived aboard. She's a solid sailor in good condition at the price we could afford. Not a rocketship, but she sounds seaworthy and should take care of my family if we get caught out. The original brochure brags about not having to reef while everyone else has (but I'm careful what I believe so we will see). Got a detailed survey that cost a fortune but was worth it. I'm not sure how people bought boats without the internet just for comparison's sake and all the photos available. Very excited to sail her up to Cape Ann in June.


----------



## catamount

williamkiester said:


> The original brochure brags about not having to reef while everyone else has.


Such a statement usually means the boat is _not_ one that can go in light winds... (to go back to the title of the thread.)

If that's still a goal, do everything you can to keep your bottom clean and smooth, invest in good sails, and keep excess weight off the boat.


----------



## williamkiester

I gave up on the light winds for longer offshore sailing trips. It didn't seem like I was able to do both within my price range and when push came to shove, I wanted a tough seaworthy vessel that could go far and wide with peace of mind. I am now willing to drag around locally and probably won't do much day sailing, but maybe some local overnighting. I have a good light drifter and a spinnaker, and maybe I'll just swim alongside. Scrubbing the bottom regularly is a good idea. Robin Graham did claim that this boat sailed well in light airs, but he was probably comparing it to an anchor.


----------



## williamkiester

And I have a fully battened main sail. I'm guessing that might give us a tug or two when the winds is light by keeping its shape, but I don't really know the physics of it and my only experience with this is a camber induced windsurfer sail that used to take me into the channel of the SF Bay.


----------



## williamkiester

After all this looking I thought the Cascade 36, one of the first suggestions on the thread, and Sabre 34 seemed like the best choices that fit the thread theme. Both were just beyond my financial means factoring in the costs of upgrades to take one of these ladies into the big blue. They seemed like relatively nimble boats that were blue water capable, especially the Cascade but I couldn't find a viable Cascade on the east coast.


----------



## BTB

*No thoughts from anyone on these questions?*



BTB said:


> The original poster having made his choice, I thought I might prolong the discussion. I have read many posts here, including those by Jeff H. I am hoping you will weigh in Jeff.
> 
> I am interested in older designs. I am not speaking of race boats (CCA, RORC, etc) built to a rule. Still, I recognize that most rules will influence designs of their era, race boats or not.
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff_H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah so, but the reality is that hull speed says little about how fast a boat actually goes. The real predictor of passage times is the amount of time that a boat spend near, at or above its hullspeed. In my experience, it is very hard to get a Luders to sail anywhere near her hullspeed since they have such limited stability relative to their drag.
> 
> [The] Farr 38 and Luders 33 have the same design weight, but the Luders 33 sails on a 24 foot waterline and the Farr on a 32 foot waterline.
> 
> 
> 
> I want to explore this a bit. I often see this position advocated in comparisons of older, higher Displacement/Length ratio hulls with more modern designs such as the Farr 38. The Farr has a longer waterline length. It should be faster. How much of the advantage is attributable to the length and how much to the rate at which the newer boats accelerate (come up to speed)? With sufficient horsepower (sail area), the bulkier hull should come up to speed, but more slowly, correct? This assumes equivalent stability, which is lacking in the original comparison.
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff_H said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my experience, it is very hard to get a Luders to sail anywhere near her hullspeed since they have such limited stability relative to their drag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would one go about improving stability on a boat like a Luders 33? On an older wooden design with cast iron ballast, changing to lead from cast iron without changing the weight, might be a viable option, yes? How about the standing rigging? Is it fair to say going from an older aluminum mast to a carbon fiber rig (or newer aluminum section) might also help?
> 
> 
> 
> mitiempo said:
> 
> 
> 
> As posted above the sails are important as is the boat. A light drifter and a light nylon mainsail are easier to keep full in light air than dacron sails. Several owners of Nor'Sea 27s have found this to be true to maximize light air sailing and minimize engine running.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many older designs get the same budget as the more race oriented boats? Can some of the disparity be offset in this manner?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> BTB
Click to expand...


----------



## mitiempo

The boat has to be able to stand up to her canvas. If it is a heavy boat, especially one with a lot of wetted surface it needs sail area, and for that to work well, stability. More ballast, lower ballast, and a lighter rig all help. 
As an example if you place 20 lbs of weight 25 feet above the waterline you need 500 lbs 1 foot below the waterline to compensate and maintain the same vertical center of gravity. Or 250 lbs 2 feet below the waterline. So lightening the rig does make a difference.
But the cost to make major changes to an older boat would be high and not really worth it. Probably better to get a boat that can sail well as designed.


----------



## PCP

Putting Jeff answer in other words:

Only very light oriented performance boats can go easily over hull speed (+14K wind). Most boats are limited by hull speed. Hull speed has to do with the length of the boat at the water line and not with the overall size of the boat.

Let's assume two identical 12m motor boats, heavy boats, that are limited by hull speed.

Let's assume that one has a 100hp engine and the other has a 25hp engine. On perfect conditions with flat water the differences in speed would not be very noticeable. In any other conditions the difference would be huge (that's why fishermen on 12m boats don't have 25hp engines).

The sails of the boat are its engine and the boat stability what is needed to be able to carry the sails. Boats with a huge stability can carry lots of sail area, boats with small stability can carry only a small sail area. The boat stability is given in a most considerable part by form stability (beam) and also by the lower center of gravity (ballast).

Let's assume two 12m sailing boats and assuming that both have the same water line length, hull shape and weight (not planning hulls) but that one has a lot of stability and a lot of sail area and the other has a small stability and small sail area. Like on the motor boats, on ideal conditions, flat water and 18K of wind (depending on the boat), both boats would not have very different speeds.

On any other conditions the difference would be huge. Like on the motor boat, with waves, each wave will tend to stop the boat. The boat with small power will diminish its velocity and will start to accelerate slowly, just to be stopped again by the next wave. The powerful boat will power it's way trough the waves without losing speed. On more difficult conditions the low power boat cannot even make way against the sea and wind because the power available is just not enough.

With weak winds the big sail area of the powerful boat will permit it to reach hull speed with 9 k wind. At that wind speed the small sail area low power sailboat will be sufficient only for half the hull speed. And if we consider smaller wind speeds the differences in speed would even be greater. With 5K of wind the powerful boat will be doing about 5K speed upwind while the low power sailboat will be doing 1 or 2K.

I hope this helps to explain the differences in speed between powerful sailboats and low power sailboats.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## GBurton

Here is Bob Perry who created the "Wetsnail" moniker explaining his agenda.

original document: http://www.sailnet.com/photogallery/watermark.php?file=7280&size=1

(Thanks goes to BGD. He mailed WCA an article taken
from SAILING MAGAZINE. May 1986. It deals with a design
analysis and it is by Robert H. Perry. Here are some points
Mr. Perry brings out.)
'In my youth I argued long and hard against the Westsail
type in order to attract attention to my own 'performance
cruiser' goal. I felt certain that the Westsail
suocess...was created by a myth ...... I remember one sunny day
reaching back from Catalina in a well known and performance
respected 40-footer. we slowly overtook a W32. we had about
20 knots apparent and the apparent wind was at about 65
degrees. This Westsail had a big drifter reacher up and it
was really moving along. It took us a painful long time to
pull clear ahead. I earned a new respect for the that, little
'Wetsnail'. `
(Mr. Perry goes on to explain that the modern cruising
boat owes alot to the Westsail line. The line produced a
movement in sailing that was not there previously. Here was
a boat that could make dreams come true. A boat that could
be sailed anywhere.)


----------



## BTB

mitiempo said:


> The boat has to be able to stand up to her canvas. If it is a heavy boat, especially one with a lot of wetted surface it needs sail area, and for that to work well, stability. More ballast, lower ballast, and a lighter rig all help.





mitiempo said:


> But the cost to make major changes to an older boat would be high and not really worth it. Probably better to get a boat that can sail well as designed.


Thanks for your reply. I understand the example given. Going from cast iron ballast to lead without changing the ballast weight accomplishes what you were talking about, albeit with shorter moment arms. I have seen postings by a Hinckley owner who went to a carbon fiber mast - I'm not willing to go that far. However, going from a solid wooden spar to an aluminum mast offers a similar, if lesser benefit.

I am interested enough in the earlier designs to build rather than buy. While building is more expensive than buying (used), I think it might be more practical than major surgery on something like the Luders 33.

I guess a way to rephrase the question I had about sails would have been to ask what sort of improvement have people seen when upgrading their sails. Has anyone quantified the benefits of newer sail technology (cloth, cut, etc.) versus old when refitting something like a Luders 33?


----------



## BTB

PCP said:


> The sails of the boat are its engine and the boat stability what is needed to be able to carry the sails. Boats with a huge stability can carry lots of sail area, boats with small stability can carry only a small sail area. The boat stability is given in a most considerable part by form stability (beam) and also by the lower center of gravity (ballast).
> 
> Let's assume two 12m sailing boats and assuming that both have the same water line length, hull shape and weight (not planning hulls) but that one has a lot of stability and a lot of sail area and the other has a small stability and small sail area. Like on the motor boats, on ideal conditions, flat water and 18K of wind (depending on the boat), both boats would not have very different speeds.
> 
> On any other conditions the difference would be huge. Like on the motor boat, with waves, each wave will tend to stop the boat. The boat with small power will diminish its velocity and will start to accelerate slowly, just to be stopped again by the next wave. The powerful boat will power it's way trough the waves without losing speed. On more difficult conditions the low power boat cannot even make way against the sea and wind because the power available is just not enough.
> 
> With weak winds the big sail area of the powerful boat will permit it to reach hull speed with 9 k wind. At that wind speed the small sail area low power sailboat will be sufficient only for half the hull speed. And if we consider smaller wind speeds the differences in speed would even be greater. With 5K of wind the powerful boat will be doing about 5K speed upwind while the low power sailboat will be doing 1 or 2K.
> 
> I hope this helps to explain the differences in speed between powerful sailboats and low power sailboats.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Thanks for your reply. I understand the stability issue and the power issue. I also understand the contribution of the waterline length.

What I am trying to evaluate is how much improvement can be expected from getting the older designs a bit closer to the newer designs, which benefit from several decades of developments in materials. The design parameters that I view as being available to change are

1. Ballast type: lead -vs- cast iron 
2. Lighter spars and lighter, lower drag rigging
3. Better sails

The basic shape of the hull isn't being considered as a variable. Building the hull a bit lighter and increasing the ballast to displacement ratio might be, but I have a lot of faith in the basic designs. The sail area might be treated as a variable, particularly as other changes increase stability, but the idea isn't to restart the design spiral so much as it is to fine tune an older design with improvements in materials (spars and sails) and a better budget (lead for cast iron).


----------



## BTB

GBurton said:


> Here is Bob Perry who created the "Wetsnail" moniker explaining his agenda.
> 
> original document: http://www.sailnet.com/photogallery/watermark.php?file=7280&size=1


Thanks for your reply. I could not get the link to work, but the important point seems to be that older hull forms should not be completely written off.

Having said that and believing it to be true, I imagine there is some data that supports a nickname like "Wetsnail." It would interesting if there was a bit more detail to Perry's comments.


----------



## haffiman37

First of all there are no 'blue water boats' in my opinion.
I'll rather cross the northern Atlantic in a Vega with an experienced 'blue water sailor' than in a HR52 with someone that thinks his boat may handle everything that comes!
Fin keel, full keel, free hanging rudder, skegg hinged rudder, keel-hinged rudder they all works if designed and built correctly.
Find a boat YOU (and the BOSS) are comfortable with handling and maneuvering both of you!
As for light wind sailing. that is a lot in the sails.
I just changed my old main and genua that have served me well 20.000 miles from Norway to Malaysia with a new set from UK Halsey, Batmain and Passagemaker, both Dacron.
From last year being 'a mile behind', I got 3 line honors in this years Langkawi regatta in winds more like a duck-fart!

It is the crew and captain that makes the boat, not the other way around.


----------



## PCP

BTB said:


> ....
> 
> What I am trying to evaluate is how much improvement can be expected from getting the older designs a bit closer to the newer designs, which benefit from several decades of developments in materials. The design parameters that I view as being available to change are
> 
> 1. Ballast type: lead -vs- cast iron
> 2. Lighter spars and lighter, lower drag rigging
> 3. Better sails
> 
> The basic shape of the hull isn't being considered as a variable. Building the hull a bit lighter and increasing the ballast to displacement ratio might be, but I have a lot of faith in the basic designs. The sail area might be treated as a variable, particularly as other changes increase stability, but the idea isn't to restart the design spiral so much as it is to fine tune an older design with improvements in materials (spars and sails) and a better budget (lead for cast iron).


Basically new boats versus older ones have more beam. Beam is by far the most efficient way of increasing the boat initial stability, the one that is used to power the boat. Modern technologies and materials have permitted the use of all the ballast inside a bulb suspended down on the end of a long keel (that sometimes can be lifted). This permits the better of three worlds, to increase hugely initial stability (beam) to have a decent final stability when the boat is knocked down (ballast) and to have light boats that don't need a large sail area to sail well with weak winds.

Without changing the hull shape and keel you are limited to what you have said, lead instead of iron, carbon masts and good sails, but the results in speed would not be very noticeable. Probably you would notice more the difference at bigger angles of heel, that are not used for sail. I mean, you would get a boat that recovers faster from a knock down, but one that has only slighted improved its initial stability and as I have said, that's the one that is used to power the boat.

Modern boats that use what seems old hull shapes (kind of classical boats on the superstructure) uses modern considerable draft keels with bulbs (for instance the classical Morris line). That improves stability (even initial one) in a much more considerable way than to simply change iron to lead.



















Regards

Paulo


----------



## BTB

haffiman37 said:


> First of all there are no 'blue water boats' in my opinion.


Thanks for your reply. I'll have to disagree here, at least to the extent that there are definitely boats that are unsuitable for offshore or even boisterous inshore sailing.



haffiman37 said:


> Fin keel, full keel, free hanging rudder, skegg hinged rudder, keel-hinged rudder they all works if designed and built correctly.


I agree with this. Having said that, there seems to be no denying the performance improvements that come with more modern shapes. There do appear to be some trade-offs for that performance.



haffiman37 said:


> As for light wind sailing. that is a lot in the sails.
> I just changed my old main and genua that have served me well 20.000 miles from Norway to Malaysia with a new set from UK Halsey, Batmain and Passagemaker, both Dacron.
> From last year being 'a mile behind', I got 3 line honors in this years Langkawi regatta in winds more like a duck-fart!


That's precisely what I'm hoping to get a feel for. I've sailed/raced both old designs and new offshore, but the experiences were separated by enough years that I can't make a comparison.



haffiman37 said:


> It is the crew and captain that makes the boat, not the other way around.


No disagreement beyond my first comment, and I think the quality of the crew makes a big difference for both safety and speed.


----------



## BTB

PCP said:


> Basically new boats versus older ones have more beam. Beam is by far the most efficient way of increasing the boat initial stability, the one that is used to power the boat.


Thanks for your additional input. The designs I am looking at are comparable as far as beam is concerned. The differences compared to newer designs is a few percentage points at most. The keels are traditional, I would call them "long keels" since the forefoot is not dramatically cut back. Also, the overhangs are modest - shorter than typical CCA boats. The closest design that can be found online is Chuck Paine's ANNIE, but she's anywhere from 20%-30% smaller with respect to displacement although very close in the linear dimensions.



PCP said:


> Without changing the hull shape and keel you are limited to what you have said, lead instead of iron, carbon masts and good sails, but the results in speed would not be very noticeable. Probably you would notice more the difference at bigger angles of heel, that are not used for sail. I mean, you would get a boat that recovers faster from a knock down, but one that has only slighted improved its initial stability and as I have said, that's the one that is used to power the boat.


I had hoped the improved stability from the limited changes available would yield some benefit sooner than at large angles of heel. I do think even the incremental benefits are worth having. One concern is changing a design with good manners to one with a quick motion. I'm not quite sure how to test for that on paper. I can do the math for the other effects.

That Wally NANO is a very pretty boat! While I don't want to blend the modern and the classic in that way, there is no denying she is a beauty and I'm sure a very smart sailer. Thanks for the picture.


----------



## mitiempo

BTB
Stability is initially form stability, which comes from beam and underbody shape. The ballast needs a lever arm to be effective. In other words the boat has to heel for it to work. Once at a given angle of heel, say 15 to 20 degrees, the ballast will keep the boat from heeling much more in a steady breeze, allowing the boat to carry more sail area at that angle than the same hull form with less ballast and/or less deep ballast.


----------



## haffiman37

*BTB.

*You took my first comment a bit too much by the letter.
Boats are in general designed for a certain use and limits. The CE certification lays that out quite clearly:

Category A: OCEAN - Designed for extended voyages where conditions may exceed wind force 8 (Beaufort scale) and significant wave heights of 4 m and above, and vessels largely self sufficient
Category B: OFFSHORE - Designed for offshore voyages where conditions up to, and including, wind force 8 and significant wave heights up to, and including, 4 m may be experienced.
Category C: INSHORE - Designed for voyages in coastal waters, large bays, estuaries, lakes and rivers where conditions up to, and including, wind force 6 and significant wave heights up to, and including, 2 m may be experienced.
Category D: SHELTERED WATERS - Designed for voyages on small lakes, rivers, and canals where conditions up to, and including, wind force 4 and significant wave heights up to, and including, 0.5 m may be experienced.

That said, I will not call all boats in class 'A' for 'blue water boats'.Let us compare 2 boats, both in 'A', both rather similar in hull design and specs.
However by a closer look, a huge difference.
- Load capacity Jeanneau SO37: 2400Kg
- Load capacity Bavaria 37: 1200Kg.

This includes crew and whatever you add to the empty boat.
Fuel, water, crew, anchor/chain. food, life-raft, dinghy, outboard, ++++++
One of the main reasons I chose the Jeanneau!
There are a lot of other things to consider, the list is just too long to put here.
However I would not consider the SO37 being suitable for a trip in the North-West passage with ice etc, or a long up-wind beat crossing against the wind over the Atlantic. May probably be done, but there I might prefer a different design.
I however had a planned route mainly going down-wind!


----------



## sailpower

I looked at this last week. It's a little rough but it's all there and cheap.

I'm told that the original owners converted this boat because they wanted something fast.

http://www.yachtworld.com/core/list...rency=USD&access=Public&listing_id=77729&url=


----------



## PCP

haffiman37 said:


> ...
> 
> That said, I will not call all boats in class 'A' for 'blue water boats'.Let us compare 2 boats, both in 'A', both rather similar in hull design and specs.
> However by a closer look, a huge difference.
> - Load capacity Jeanneau SO37: 2400Kg
> - Load capacity Bavaria 37: 1200Kg.
> 
> This includes crew and whatever you add to the empty boat.
> Fuel, water, crew, anchor/chain. food, life-raft, dinghy, outboard, ++++++
> One of the main reasons I chose the Jeanneau!
> There are a lot of other things to consider, the list is just too long to put here.
> ....


Regarding max load, both boats are very similar in design and weight (I am talking about 2002 boats) it just happens that the French are much more optimistic than the Germans

Both boats correctly equipped and handled are capable of extensive offshore sailing, providing they don't go to high latitudes and have a minimum of good sense with the weather patterns.

There is a Portuguese that made two circumnavigations with the same Bavaria 36 (2001 I think) and both sailing alone.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## BTB

Here's a three-part article on Sailing Anarchy that supplements the contributions above. Some of the modifications are targeted at separate keel and rudder boats, but others are applicable to all boats.

Turbo-ing you ride

Turboing Part 2

Turboing Part 3


----------



## haffiman37

*PCP:
*That brings us back to one of my earlier posts:
'It is the sailor that makes a Blue Water Boat'.
Some decades back the Vega was a popular 'Atlantic Crosser', and even a Maxi 68 went over from time to time. I do not know how they ends in the EU classifications, but hardly as 'A' classes.

*BTB.
*A negative aspect of a lot of the suggestions mentioned in the articles are that they may have a negative impact on your IRC (or whichever) rating used during racing. Some of the different things mentioned like keel-alterations and rigging are what has been done in the 'Fast' versions of Jeanneau and Bavaria.
The first thing to 'avoid' is an in-mast furling.
The 'easiest' are the sail design and lay-out.
I 'maxed' out my roach (stayed withing the IRC limit) to 'just at back-stay'.
Kept the main measurements at the genua, but got a different 'shape' and went slightly lighter in sail-cloth.
How 'fast' the different types of boat MAY be relative to others, based on measurements, hull-shape etc, you may find out by searching for their handicaps.
Use the ARC Challenge result list to compare IRC.
On this link you have some PHRF comparisons:
PHRF Handicaps For Some Common Sailboats
Here is another link that may give info:
Sailboat Builders List, Sailboats Listed by Builder
And even search for 'PY' (Portsmouth yardstick) rating.


----------



## slap

Here is a large table of PHRF ratings for sailboats. This table provides a high, low and average PHRF handicap rating for each boat.

http://offshore.ussailing.org/Assets/Offshore/PHRF/High+Low+Mean+PHRF+Handicaps.pdf


----------



## mgiguere

Hi. I have had a S&S Apache 37 sloop for 20 years. Goes well in light air (minimum wetted surface, smaller fortriangle for easier sail handling, relatively easy to single hand (big primaries next to you), and built like a tank (thick early glass, cast iron fin keel with bulb at the bottom, (have hit rocks full speed without incident)). Designed by S&S for Chris Craft after Intrepid, the only Americas Cup boat to win twice.

They are relatively inexpensive. Check out one that's for sale in the Northern Neck of Virginia:

Chris Craft sailboats for sale by owner.

Moe


----------



## BTB

*sailpower *& *mgiguere*:

Thanks for the links. I'm more focused on building than buying, mostly because there are a number of older (much older) designs that appeal to me. I will concede a modest interest in the Bristol 34 as far as newer boats go. What's interesting and consistent in comparing the designs that interest me and the Apache and the Catalina is that the Catalina and Apache are much longer boats, especially on deck, but the displacements are very close.


----------



## BTB

*slap *& *haffiman 37*

Thanks for the PHRF links. I don't have any plans on racing, but it's always possible. Also, we all know whenever you're on the same tack as another boat, you're racing, right?

It was really interesting to look over the PHRF numbers in the .pdf file for boats I know as well as boats I've thrown into a spreadsheet to compare specifications.

The graph was also interesting. If you back out this equation: _Speed = 3600 * sqrt(Length) / H0_ from the link, where H0 is a constant with a value of 2580, you get a more favorable version of the standard _Hull Speed = 1.34*square root of LWL_ equation. Working backwards from the equation from the curve fitting, the constant of 1.34 jumps up to 1.4. On a boat with a 24-foot waterline that takes the theoretical hull speed from 6.56 to 6.86.

*haffiman 37*

How much of an improvement have you seen from your modifications?


----------



## haffiman37

BTB said:


> *slap *& *haffiman 37*
> 
> *haffiman 37*
> 
> How much of an improvement have you seen from your modifications?


That is a bit difficult to say, but fore sure substantial.
It may perhaps be best described by the action of the regatta 'measure r' that abruptly changed my handicap from 0.963 (from expired IRC cert) to 1.028. However no changes were made that would inflict on my IRC rating.


----------



## GBurton

An interesting take by John Vigor on full keeled boats and light wind:
John Vigor's Blog: The virtues of traditional keels


----------



## mitiempo

I agree with most of what John Vigor said.

But " on corrected time" doesn't mean much as the fattest tub can come in last and still win "on corrected time" by beating her terrible rating by more than the others beat theirs.


----------



## GBurton

mitiempo said:


> I agree with most of what John Vigor said.
> 
> But " on corrected time" doesn't mean much as the fattest tub can come in last and still win "on corrected time" by beating her terrible rating by more than the others beat theirs.


Ah but Saraband was boat for boat the third boat to arrive, 45 boats started

History of the Pacific Cup | Pacific Cup



> Most entrants finished within three days of each other, and the first five boats overall represented all four crewed classes. In fact, the first three boats overall represented a complete range of sailboat types with first being an ultralight, second a medium displacement racer-cruiser, and third a heavy displacement cruiser. The first three boats overall in order of finish were Oaxaca (Santa Cruz 50), Heart of Gold (Schumacher 50) and Saraband (Westsail 32).


----------



## PCP

GBurton said:


> An interesting take by John Vigor on full keeled boats and light wind:
> John Vigor's Blog: The virtues of traditional keels


"A properly designed and constructed medium- or heavy-displacement cruiser is not the poor relative of the family, even in speed. As the renowned cruising designer Bill Crealock once told me: *"A racing boat accelerates quicker, but there's no reason why cruising hulls can't be just as fast over long distances."*

He is talking about 1988. That's 23 years ago, an eternity in what concerns boat design evolution. I don't know if that was right in 1988 but I can tell you that today that statement does not make any sense. Compared with an old 40ft full keeler, even one that among its equals is a fast one, a 40class racer will make a Transat in almost half the time and that means almost double speed average. I have explained on a previous post why.

*"In 1988,...The winner on corrected time was Saraband, a Westsail 32 that had sailed a consistent pace for 14 days, 17 hours elapsed time, an amazing feat in relatively light winds."*

Corrected time means that the westsail has a handicap..-and handicap means slow even when the boat wins.

To give you an example: Let's imagine a 100m race. Two racers, one a top athlete the other a guy without a leg and with crutches. Someone with responsibility for the attribution of fair handicaps on the sport establishes that the fair handicap for the guy with one leg to compete in equal terms with the athlete, for that distance is 25s. The athlete makes the race in 9.9s, the guy with one leg and crutches races in 36s and wins on compensated time.

*Now one thing is saying that he won on compensated time another thing is saying that the guy with one leg and crutches is a fast runner*

Regards

Paulo


----------



## GBurton

What about last year when the same boat beat a valiant 40, a fin keeler, amongst other fin keelers? (boat for boat)

Have you ever sailed aboard a Westsail 32?



PCP said:


> "A properly designed and constructed medium- or heavy-displacement cruiser is not the poor relative of the family, even in speed. As the renowned cruising designer Bill Crealock once told me: *"A racing boat accelerates quicker, but there's no reason why cruising hulls can't be just as fast over long distances."*
> 
> He is talking about 1988. That's 23 years ago, an eternity in what concerns boat design evolution. I don't know if that was right in 1988 but I can tell you that today that statement does not make any sense. Compared with an old 40ft full keeler, even one that among its equals is a fast one, a 40class racer will make a Transat in almost half the time and that means almost double speed average. I have explained on a previous post why.
> 
> *"In 1988,...The winner on corrected time was Saraband, a Westsail 32 that had sailed a consistent pace for 14 days, 17 hours elapsed time, an amazing feat in relatively light winds."*
> 
> Corrected time means that the westsail has a handicap..-and handicap means slow even when the boat wins.
> 
> To give you an example: Let's imagine a 100m race. Two racers, one a top athlete the other a guy without a leg and with crutches. Someone with responsibility for the attribution of fair handicaps on the sport establishes that the fair handicap for the guy with one leg to compete in equal terms with the athlete, for that distance is 25s. The athlete makes the race in 9.9s, the guy with one leg and crutches races in 36s and wins on compensated time.
> 
> *Now one thing is saying that he won on compensated time another thing is saying that the guy with one leg and crutches is a fast runner*
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


----------



## PCP

GBurton said:


> What about last year when the same boat beat a valiant 40, a fin keeler, amongst other fin keelers? (boat for boat)
> 
> Have you ever sailed aboard a Westsail 32?


A valiant 40 is a 30 year old design and a slow sailing boat.

Can you tell me of what you are talking about?

I cannot see any Westsail 32.

2010 Final Standings Page | Pacific Cup

But looking at the real time race you can see that a modern mini racer with only 22ft (raced by a woman) beat the two Cal 40 one by 2 days 4 hours, the other by 2 days 17 hours, beat a Pacific Seacraft 44 by 3 Days 6 hours and a Passport 40 by 4 days 11 hours. Now can you Imagine what would have done a 40 class racer that is similar to a mini racer but with 40ft instead of 22ft?

One of the modern racers there, a smaller one, a Farr 36, made it in 8 days and 13 hours. I guess that a 40class racer would make it in about 7 days, that is about half the time that it took to the cal 40, and I am pretty sure that a Cal 40 is way faster than a Westsail 32.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## GBurton

Single handed Transpac... and we are talking about cruising boats.

The Westsail is a cruising boat, not a purpose built racer. My point in all of this is that many heavy full keeled boats perform better than internet message boards would have you believe. There seems to be much misinformation about how these boats sail and perform.
Another thing, if you want to get somewhere fast - get on a plane. You can get to Hawaii in half the time on a multi-million dollar sailboat compared to a Westsail 32, but it only takes 10 hours on a plane. Millions of dollars will get you 6 days...woopee



PCP said:


> A valiant 40 is a 30 year old design and a slow sailing boat.
> 
> Can you tell me of what you are talking about?
> 
> I cannot see any Westsail 32.
> 
> 2010 Final Standings Page | Pacific Cup
> 
> But looking at the real time race you can see that a modern mini racer with only 22ft (raced by a woman) beat the two Cal 40 one by 2 days 4 hours, the other by 2 days 17 hours, beat a Pacific Seacraft 44 by 3 Days 6 hours and a Passport 40 by 4 days 11 hours. Now can you Imagine what would have done a 40 class racer that is similar to a mini racer but with 40ft instead of 22ft?
> 
> One of the modern racers there, a smaller one, a Farr 36, made it in 8 days and 13 hours. I guess that a 40class racer would make it in about 7 days, that is about half the time that it took to the cal 40, and I am pretty sure that a Cal 40 is way faster than a Westsail 32.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


----------



## slap

GBurton said:


> Ah but Saraband was boat for boat the third boat to arrive, 45 boats started
> 
> History of the Pacific Cup | Pacific Cup





> Most entrants finished within three days of each other, and the first five boats overall represented all four crewed classes. In fact, the first three boats overall represented a complete range of sailboat types with first being an ultralight, second a medium displacement racer-cruiser, and third a heavy displacement cruiser. The first three boats overall in order of finish were Oaxaca (Santa Cruz 50), Heart of Gold (Schumacher 50) and Saraband (Westsail 32).


You left out this part:



> The 1990 race had generally nice conditions except for light wind for the first few days. This race had a number of firsts, such as staggered starts over a four-day period and a record number of entries (peaked at 53 with 45 crossing the starting line).


Which means the Westsail 32 probably started 4 days ahead of the fastest boats.

It should be noted that the race goes from San Francisco to Hawaii, and is mostly downwind. So the poor windward performance of the Westsail 32 is minimized. Since the race is run using PHRF, which is based on a combination of upwind and downwind performance it is not surprising that it would do well corrected. And in 1988 it won on corrected time, but had the slowest elapsed time of all of the boats racing under PHRF.


----------



## GBurton

slap said:


> You left out this part:
> 
> Which means the Westsail 32 probably started 4 days ahead of the fastest boats.
> 
> It should be noted that the race goes from San Francisco to Hawaii, and is mostly downwind. So the poor windward performance of the Westsail 32 is minimized. *Since the race is run using PHRF, which is based on a combination of upwind and downwind performance it is not surprising that it would do well corrected. And in 1988 it won on corrected time, but had the slowest elapsed time of all of the boats racing under PHRF*.


Actually I think the Pacific cup uses a special rating (PCR) that allows for most of the race being off the wind. For the Transpac the Westsails rating was 199 (for instance)
Be that as it may, the race was won by the Westsail. This is a fact.
Another thing, how many races are there to windward?....and like I said before the Westsail is a cruising boat.
And your last sentence is false


----------



## slap

GBurton said:


> Actually I think the Pacific cup uses a special rating (PCR) that allows for most of the race being off the wind. For the Transpac the Westsails rating was 199 (for instance)
> Be that as it may, the race was won by the Westsail. This is a fact.
> Another thing, how many races are there to windward?....and like I said before the Westsail is a cruising boat.
> And your last sentence is false


Download :

http://www.pacificcup.org/archive/pcupresults/PCup 1988 results.pdf

Please show me where I am wrong.


----------



## PCP

GBurton said:


> Single handed Transpac... and we are talking about cruising boats.
> 
> ...


No, you have said:



GBurton said:


> An interesting take by John Vigor on full keeled boats and light wind:
> John Vigor's Blog: The virtues of traditional keels


And on that take we can read something that makes no sense, at least today:

*These people are misinformed.

A properly designed and constructed medium- or heavy-displacement cruiser is not the poor relative of the family, even in speed. As the renowned cruising designer Bill Crealock once told me: "A racing boat accelerates quicker, but there's no reason why cruising hulls can't be just as fast over long distances."

He was right, of course, you only had to look at Saraband's record for that to make sense. She was a flat-out cruiser, a deep heavy, tubby cruiser, a Westsail 32 in fact - and she won the Pacific Cup race from San Francisco to Hawaii on corrected time.*

He is comparing racing boats performance with heavy displacement full keeled boats. There is no possible comparison as I have showed to you. About half the speed is what race results show.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

slap said:


> Download :
> 
> http://www.pacificcup.org/archive/pcupresults/PCup 1988 results.pdf
> 
> Please show me where I am wrong.


Well, you are right. the Westsail took 14 days 16 hours and 53s to make it and it was the slowest boat, but that was not a bad result for a Westsail 32 and that's why he won the race in compensated (a very handicapped boat).

But that was at almost 25 years ago. The Westsail is still the same slow boat but today's boats ( racers, cruiser racers and cruisers) are all much faster than 25 years old comparable boats and the difference, that was already considerable between a Westsail and a modern boat of that era, is huge if compared with a modern boat.

I don't have nothing against heavy full keeled boats (I have sailed one for many years) they have its charm and its pleasures but pretending they are fast or comparing them with performance cruisers makes no sense.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## GBurton

PCP said:


> No, you have said:
> 
> And on that take we can read something that makes no sense, at least today:
> 
> *These people are misinformed.
> 
> A properly designed and constructed medium- or heavy-displacement cruiser is not the poor relative of the family, even in speed. As the renowned cruising designer Bill Crealock once told me: "A racing boat accelerates quicker, but there's no reason why cruising hulls can't be just as fast over long distances."
> 
> He was right, of course, you only had to look at Saraband's record for that to make sense. She was a flat-out cruiser, a deep heavy, tubby cruiser, a Westsail 32 in fact - and she won the Pacific Cup race from San Francisco to Hawaii on corrected time.*
> 
> He is comparing racing boats performance with heavy displacement full keeled boats. There is no possible comparison as I have showed to you. About half the speed is what race results show.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Well lets see... a 70' boat took 9 days 3 hours 23 minutes to get to Hawaii.
A 32' boat took 14 days 16 hours 53 minutes to get to Hawaii.

Seems like a pretty good performance by the 32' boat. Are you suggesting there should not be handicaps?


----------



## slap

GBurton said:


> Your .pdf shows 28 boats....how many started?


One boat, Wyvern, is listed as DNF - did not finish. Only one DNF for a race as long as this is pretty good.

But a DNF is just that, and is not considered when looking at the finish order of the boats. She may have had to turn back, required outside assistance, etc. - no other information is provided.


----------



## GBurton

PCP said:


> Well, you are right. the Westsail took 14 days 16 hours and 53s to make it and it was the slowest boat, but that was not a bad result for a Westsail 32 and that's why he won the race in compensated (a very handicapped boat).
> 
> But that was at almost 25 years ago. The Westsail is still the same slow boat but today's boats ( racers, cruiser racers and cruisers) are all much faster than 25 years old comparable boats and the difference, that was already considerable between a Westsail and a modern boat of that era, is huge if compared with a modern boat.
> 
> I don't have nothing against heavy full keeled boats (I have sailed one for many years) they have its charm and its pleasures but pretending they are fast or comparing them with performance cruisers makes no sense.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


You have missed the point entirely.


----------



## GBurton

slap said:


> One boat, Wyvern, is listed as DNF - did not finish. Only one DNF for a race as long as this is pretty good.
> 
> But a DNF is just that, and is not considered when looking at the finish order of the boats. She may have had to turn back, required outside assistance, etc. - no other information is provided.


How about in 1990, a light wind year?


----------



## GBurton

I guess more to the point 1990 results (a light wind year)

http://www.pacificcup.org/archive/pcupresults/PCup 1990 (1) results.pdf

First in division A *elapsed* time...and also the 2nd shortest boat in that division.


----------



## GBurton

Are you there slap?


----------



## slap

GBurton said:


> How about in 1990, a light wind year?


Since you have seen the results from the 1988 race, you can see for yourself that what I said earlier was correct.

The Westsail 32 did better in 1990 than they did in 1994. In 1994 they came in second to last place overall on elapsed time, and 4th from last place overall on corrected time, out of 37 boats that finished.


----------



## GBurton

slap said:


> Since you have seen the results from the 1988 race, you can see for yourself that what I said earlier was correct.
> 
> The Westsail 32 did better in 1990 than they did in 1994. In 1994 they came in second to last place overall on elapsed time, and 4th from last place overall on corrected time, out of 37 boats that finished.


Too funny. You are expecting a 32' boat to win on elapsed time when competing against boats twice its size and *designed* for racing. The Westsail was designed for cruising yet still wins races.. no wonder people cant handle it.


----------



## mitiempo

On a race like the Transpac strategy and local weather patterns can make a big difference. 
How about a level playing ground like an America's cup course! 

I looked at the 90 results but not knowing which design each boat was it means little.


----------



## PCP

GBurton said:


> Well lets see... a 70' boat took 9 days 3 hours 23 minutes to get to Hawaii.
> A 32' boat took 14 days 16 hours 53 minutes to get to Hawaii.
> 
> Seems like a pretty good performance by the 32' boat. Are you suggesting there should not be handicaps?


If sailors are happy in winning races on compensated time in slow boats that have a big handicaps, good for them.

I am not even particularly interested in racing but I like fast boats. If I was interested in a 30/32ft boat, I would like to have a fast boat, not a slow 30/32ft boat that can win races on compensated time because its handicap is huge.

The westsail 32 is a slow boat that seems to have a huge handicap that permits it to won races in compensated time. Its a bit like the guy with one leg and crutches that has an handicap so big that can beat on compensated time a fast athlete. Not my cup of tea.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## GBurton

mitiempo said:


> On a race like the Transpac strategy and local weather patterns can make a big difference.
> How about a level playing ground like an America's cup course!
> 
> I looked at the 90 results but not knowing which design each boat was it means little.


Here are the designs:

http://www.pacificcup.org/archive/pcupresults/PCup 1990 (2) results.pdf


----------



## GBurton

mitiempo, the point I've been laboring to make is that the Westsail was designed as a cruising boat, and for a 32' cruising sailboat its performance is respectable when compared to other cruising sailboats of similar size. The OP asked the question: "A blue water sailor that can go in light winds"

The 1990 Pacific cup Division A was won on *elapsed* (and corrected of course) time in a *light wind year* by a Westsail 32 - Saraband


----------



## GBurton

PCP said:


> If sailors are happy in winning races on compensated time in slow boats that have a big handicaps, good for them.
> 
> I am not even particularly interested in racing but I like fast boats. If I was interested in a 30/32ft boat, I would like to have a fast boat, not a slow 30/32ft boat that can win races on compensated time because its handicap is huge.
> 
> The westsail 32 is a slow boat that seems to have a huge handicap that permits it to won races in compensated time. Its a bit like the guy with one leg and crutches that has an handicap so big that can beat on compensated time a fast athlete. Not my cup of tea.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Well Paulo, if and when you race your "fast boat" you will be beaten by bigger faster boats on elapsed time which according to your argument is "not your cup of tea". I suggest you do not race as you will find that you are a bit like the guy with one leg and crutches.

And consider this, if the Westsail 32 wins easily on handicap then there must be something wrong with its handicap, which means that its faster than people give it credit for.


----------



## mitiempo

This is a cruising boat as well - quite a bit faster - in light or heavy winds. 
Amazing what about 80 years of design improvements can do - the Westsail was based on the Atkin Eric which first appeared in 1928.

Here's a link to a review of this fantastic offshore cruiser.
http://www.aerodyne.fi/assets/models/ad35/ad35_review.pdf


----------



## GBurton

mitiempo said:


> This is a cruising boat as well - quite a bit faster - in light or heavy winds.
> Amazing what about 80 years of design improvements can do - the Westsail was based on the Atkin Eric which first appeared in 1928.
> 
> Here's a link to a review of this fantastic offshore cruiser.
> http://www.aerodyne.fi/assets/models/ad35/ad35_review.pdf


Do you have any pictures and specs on the interior? Will I be able to stand upright in the cabin like I can in my Westsail? I'm 6'3"

I would rather be on my boat in a survival situation than an ultralight.

I have nothing against these surfboards that some people like to call cruising boats, they are just not my cup of tea. Rather like sleeping in a VW beetle compared to a RV with all the amenities.


----------



## haffiman37

GBurton said:


> mitiempo, the point I've been laboring to make is that the Westsail was designed as a cruising boat, and for a 32' cruising sailboat its performance is respectable when compared to other cruising sailboats of similar size. The OP asked the question: "A blue water sailor that can go in light winds"
> 
> The 1990 Pacific cup Division A was won on *elapsed* (and corrected of course) time in a *light wind year* by a Westsail 32 - Saraband


I believe something has happened to boat designs since 1990?
I do not think they may do that again in 2011?
On the other hand in 'low wind' conditions other factors comes into play more than the theoretical hull speed and rating. Sails, skipper skills, luck in wind shifts, you name it.
One of the 'fastest' local boats here are 2 Contessa 28 from late 1970!! In low wind conditions around 5 knots, they have no problems beating the higher rated ones of the latest designs. Give them 20++ knots, and they are in trouble. They got shocked this year when I for the first time in 5 yrs+ beat them in their favorite wind conditions, and that was mainly due to a new set of sails!


----------



## mitiempo

It describes the interior in the review I linked to. Here is the layout.

It would be a fun ride to Hawaii. Probably get there fast too.


----------



## GBurton

haffiman37 said:


> I believe something has happened to boat designs since 1990?
> I do not think they may do that again in 2011?
> On the other hand in 'low wind' conditions other factors comes into play more than the theoretical hull speed and rating. Sails, skipper skills, luck in wind shifts, you name it.
> One of the 'fastest' local boats here are 2 Contessa 28 from late 1970!! In low wind conditions around 5 knots, they have no problems beating the higher rated ones of the latest designs. Give them 20++ knots, and they are in trouble. They got shocked this year when I for the first time in 5 yrs+ beat them in their favorite wind conditions, and that was mainly due to a new set of sails!


Boat designs are evolving like anything else - of course! Does this mean that boats that are not on the drawing boards now are not desirable? Of course not! And the funny thing is, because of handicaps which will never go away in these types of races, the Westsail could still win..... if you wanted to race it of course. Most of us are just cruisers and not interested in racing anyway.


----------



## GBurton

mitiempo said:


> It describes the interior in the review I linked to. Here is the layout.
> 
> It would be a fun ride to Hawaii. Probably get there fast too.


Can you afford one?


----------



## mitiempo

No.

But a lot who can posted on this link: http://www.sailnet.com/forums/boat-review-purchase-forum/62341-interesting-sailboats.html

For the most part about up to date fast cruisers.


----------



## haffiman37

GBurton said:


> Most of us are just cruisers and not interested in racing anyway.


Here I may have to disagree.
There is hardly a sailor out there, cruiser or day sailor, that does not want to catch up the boat in front! It is no need to attend an official race and this is probably what started this thread.
Simply a boat that does not get sailed away or caught up by any other boats in light winds.


----------



## PCP

GBurton said:


> Well Paulo, if and when you race your "fast boat" you will be beaten by bigger faster boats on elapsed time which according to your argument is "not your cup of tea". I suggest you do not race as you will find that you are a bit like the guy with one leg and crutches.


Well, has I have said, I am not interested in racing but has harfiman has said:

*There is hardly a sailor out there, cruiser or day sailor, that does not want to catch up the boat in front! It is no need to attend an official race and this is probably what started this thread.
Simply a boat that does not get sailed away or caught up by any other boats in light winds."*

And that seems to be your case otherwise you wouldn't care less if the Westsail 32 is fast or slow

Yes, I like to catch the boat ahead and I don't like to be overtaken, specially by a smaller or same sized boat. Not having any beef in being out sailed by a much bigger boat. That is natural.

I don't like to race but on the few occasional races that I have made, an oceanic small one, I came out in second being beaten only by a much larger boat and it felt good.

Of course it felt good but that had nothing to do with my skills has a sailor, it happens that almost all the other boats were old boats (more than 10 years old) and mine was a new lighter 36ft, with more sail and faster even if many of the others were 40fts. The guy that come in first had a First 44.7 with carbon sails and won from me about the same distance I won from the rest of the pack (about 30 sailing boats).



GBurton said:


> And consider this, if the Westsail 32 wins easily on handicap then there must be something wrong with its handicap, which means that its faster than people give it credit for.


That is obvious. But a slow boat is still a slow boat even if someone considers that he is even slower than he is.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## GBurton

haffiman37 said:


> Here I may have to disagree.
> There is hardly a sailor out there, cruiser or day sailor, that does not want to catch up the boat in front! It is no need to attend an official race and this is probably what started this thread.
> Simply a boat that does not get sailed away or caught up by any other boats in light winds.


Fair enough. Get a Westsail and surprise a few people


----------



## GBurton

PCP said:


> Well, has I have said, I am not interested in racing but has harfiman has said:
> 
> *There is hardly a sailor out there, cruiser or day sailor, that does not want to catch up the boat in front! It is no need to attend an official race and this is probably what started this thread.
> Simply a boat that does not get sailed away or caught up by any other boats in light winds."*
> 
> And that seems to be your case otherwise you wouldn't care less if the Westsail 32 is fast or slow
> 
> Yes, I like to catch the boat ahead and I don't like to be overtaken, specially by a smaller or same sized boat. Not having any beef in being out sailed by a much bigger boat. That is natural.
> 
> I don't like to race but on the few occasional races that I have made, an oceanic small one, I came out in second being beaten only by a much larger boat and it felt good.
> 
> Of course it felt good but that had nothing to do with my skills has a sailor, it happens that almost all the other boats were old boats (more than 10 years old) and mine was a new lighter 36ft, with more sail and faster even if many of the others were 40fts. The guy that come in first had a First 44.7 with carbon sails and won from me about the same distance I won from the rest of the pack (about 30 sailing boats).
> 
> *That is obvious. But a slow boat is still a slow boat even if someone considers that he is even slower than he is.*
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Back in the day I used to race motorcycles. I would go to the races and there would be the crowd with the latest trick gear, newest bikes that were "better" than the previous bikes, better suspension, better jetting, better everything. Usually these guys were midpack riders and would get beaten by guys on older equipment who were better riders. I have come to see that the sailing world is a bit like this  There are guys who are better sailors "beating" guys in "cooler" boats all the time. Its fun actually


----------



## PCP

GBurton said:


> Back in the day I used to race motorcycles. I would go to the races and there would be the crowd with the latest trick gear, newest bikes that were "better" than the previous bikes, better suspension, better jetting, better everything. Usually these guys were midpack riders and would get beaten by guys on older equipment who were better riders. I have come to see that the sailing world is a bit like this  There are guys who are better sailors "beating" guys in "cooler" boats all the time. Its fun actually


Finally we agree in something That's probably because I also used to race motorcycles . Yes , if the conditions are tough (not on light winds) a good sailor can make all the difference....but give to the same good sailor a fast boat and a slow boat and you will see the diference

Regards

Paulo


----------



## GBurton

PCP said:


> Finely we agree in something That's probably because I also used to race motorcycles . Yes , if the conditions are tough (not on light winds) a good sailor can make all the difference....but give to the same good sailor a fast boat and a slow boat and you will see the diference
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


A lot of good sailors seem to recognize that the boat is not as big a part of the equation as many would have others believe.....


----------



## Jeff_H

As someone who also raced motorcycles, I would have to say, that you are both right, that a better rider will get more out of his motorcycle and better sailor will usually get more out of his boat. And there is no two ways about it, a small amount of inherent speed difference can be made up with skill. 

But here is the fallasy in the discussion above. We are not discussing corrected boat speed as a factor in a race, nor are we discussing the relative speed of a slow boat sailed by a faster sailor and a fast boat sailed by a slower sailor, we are discussing the relative speed of two boats sailed by the same sailor in the same conditions. I have sailed a Westail 32 and whatever else you may say about them, or John Vigor's may theorize, there are huge differences in the speed of a Westsail 32 and an equal displacement boat of a better more modern performance oriented design. 

In my experience, Westsails do not even begin to come alive below 8 knots of wind, and only then with huge overlapping headsails, which are overpowered around 12 - 15 knots of wind. As a skilled sailor, I was able to coax some movement out of the boat at lower windspeeds, but boats around us were steadily moving at speeds, which quickly took them over the proverbial horizon. 

It is not unusual for a individual slow boats to sail better than thier PHRF rating. That only makes sense if you think that a boat's PHRF rating is based mostly on the model's historic performance in prior races. For the most part, it would be pretty unusual for someone who actually cared about performance to buy a Westsail, let alone even sail on one. You would not expect a Westsail to have a racing bottom, or proper sail handling gear, or racing sails. And so the PHRF rating for a Westsail would be based on the race results of a less that crack crew sailing a less than PHRF optimized boat. And while that less than PHRF optimized Westsail may be truly representative of a typical Westsail, if someone wanted to win races at any cost, they could optimize the boat and pick up 6-9 seconds a mile which is enough of an advantage that they might win a distance race under the right circumstances. But that should not be construed to mean that the Westsail 32 offers decent performance for a 20,000 lb boat. 

A well designed 20,000 lb reasonably modern boat will be roughly 40-44 feet on deck and 36-40 feet on the waterline. That more easily drive hull form boat will be much faster and easier to sail on all points of sail, including the extreme upper end of things. If we compare the PHRF rating of the Westsail at 222 to a typical 15-20 year old quality performance cruiser of the same displacement, you would expect the performance cruiser to rate 1 1/2 to 2 minutes a mile faster. Out on the water, cruising that is a huge difference. 

And so even if the Westsail was able to be prepped and sail above its rating by 6-9 seconds a mile, in real practice, given the same sailor sailing each boat, the longer boat for its displacement translates to much faster passage times, less motoring time, and a far more comfortable passage, because longer boats for any given displacement usually will have a more comfortable motion all around. 

Jeff


----------



## GBurton

Jeff_H said:


> As someone who also raced motorcycles, I would have to say, that you are both right, that a better rider will get more out of his motorcycle and better sailor will usually get more out of his boat. And there is no two ways about it, a small amount of inherent speed difference can be made up with skill.
> 
> But here is the fallasy in the discussion above. We are not discussing corrected boat speed as a factor in a race, nor are we discussing the relative speed of a slow boat sailed by a faster sailor and a fast boat sailed by a slower sailor, we are discussing the relative speed of two boats sailed by the same sailor in the same conditions. I have sailed a Westail 32 and whatever else you may say about them, or John Vigor's may theorize, there are huge differences in the speed of a Westsail 32 and an equal displacement boat of a better more modern performance oriented design.
> 
> In my experience, Westsails do not even begin to come alive below 8 knots of wind, and only then with huge overlapping headsails, which are overpowered around 12 - 15 knots of wind. As a skilled sailor, I was able to coax some movement out of the boat at lower windspeeds, but boats around us were steadily moving at speeds, which quickly took them over the proverbial horizon.
> 
> It is not unusual for a individual slow boats to sail better than thier PHRF rating. That only makes sense if you think that a boat's PHRF rating is based mostly on the model's historic performance in prior races. For the most part, it would be pretty unusual for someone who actually cared about performance to buy a Westsail, let alone even sail on one. You would not expect a Westsail to have a racing bottom, or proper sail handling gear, or racing sails. And so the PHRF rating for a Westsail would be based on the race results of a less that crack crew sailing a less than PHRF optimized boat. And while that less than PHRF optimized Westsail may be truly representative of a typical Westsail, if someone wanted to win races at any cost, they could optimize the boat and pick up 6-9 seconds a mile which is enough of an advantage that they might win a distance race under the right circumstances. But that should not be construed to mean that the Westsail 32 offers decent performance for a 20,000 lb boat.
> 
> A well designed 20,000 lb reasonably modern boat will be roughly 40-44 feet on deck and 36-40 feet on the waterline. That more easily drive hull form boat will be much faster and easier to sail on all points of sail, including the extreme upper end of things. If we compare the PHRF rating of the Westsail at 222 to a typical 15-20 year old quality performance cruiser of the same displacement, you would expect the performance cruiser to rate 1 1/2 to 2 minutes a mile faster. Out on the water, cruising that is a huge difference.
> 
> And so even if the Westsail was able to be prepped and sail above its rating by 6-9 seconds a mile, in real practice, given the same sailor sailing each boat, the longer boat for its displacement translates to much faster passage times, less motoring time, and a far more comfortable passage, because longer boats for any given displacement usually will have a more comfortable motion all around.
> 
> Jeff


Jeff, this is all good and well but you are theorizing just as you say John Vigor is. The reality is that Westsails do win races and beat other boats of similar size and even lighter displacement and more modern design on elapsed time.
These are facts.

What is also interesting is that a skilled sailor would chose a Westsail over other boats... this is because the boat offers performance that is acceptable and comfort, and for lack of a better term better "livability" than many other boats in the same size range.

Just because your Farr is old and slow when compared to cutting edge boats does not mean that it is useless or undesirable.


----------



## GeorgeB

Pardon me for jumping into this fray… GBurton, am I to understand that you are currently a Westsail 32 owner? If so, you should recognize that Westsail sold the 32 as either unfinished, partially finished or complete, so in the used boat market the condition and “build” quality is all over the place from “poor” to “good”. Are you from the SF Bay area? You have really made a study of the PacCup. Have you raced in it? You probably know that Dave King and Sarabrand are kind of unique and not a typlical cruiser. Dave has been a professional delivery skipper since the late 1970’s and like Skip Allen, has many, many thousand of ocean miles under his keel. I would not count his experience as typlical.

As for the PacCup, I believe that the PacCup rating came into being for the 2008 race (I had difficulty calculating the rating for our boat). Before that, I think they raced pure NorCal PHRF numbers. Although the race attracts a few sleds each year, it is no way as hotly competitive as the TransPac, especially in those early years. Although the race is primarily downhill, the first couple hundred miles is a beat to break free of the California coast. You are then in reaching mode to get around the south eastern quadrant of the North Pacific High. You are not in the trades until you are at the latitide of Ensenada or Cabo (or in a “slow” year, PV!). How can you tell by the results what is a slow year? When I look at the sled’s times, they look to be pretty typlical (2008 was relatively slow). On our own race, we were passing Division A boats starting on the evening of the second day and were ahead of pretty much all of them after one week. Navigation and weather routing is easy for the slower boats as all they have to do is plot the positions of the boats ahead and pick the one with the most wind. During one of the “childrens hours” a slower boat said that they ceased navigating and were merely plotting their course each time to our last position report. The boats in the front of the pack have a much harder time insomuch we have to do our own weather forecasting and routing.

<OI think that in order to support your argument, you need to base the results on more than one particular boat and one skipper. Have you tracked the Westsail in the TransPac or Newport/ Bermuda? You could also scan the results for SF’s OYRA. Where is your boat? If you are in the Bay area, perhaps you can take me out on it and show me what she is capable of. I’m not planning on racing my boat in the DH Lightship or DH Farallones this year so perhaps...


----------



## jrd22

I know this doesn't really address the subject of the thread but the recent discussion here caused me to think of the two boats used by Jessica Watson and Abby Sunderland. The S&S 34 used by Watson is "old school" and has all the attributes that someone looking for a modern fast design doesn't want. The Open 40 on the other hand does have all the modern design features. One boat successfully made a safe trip while the other didn't, even though both encountered similar horrific conditions with fairly comparable "crew". I know I'll be bashed for bringing up this blasphemy, and I readily acknowledge that I have a bias/love of older designs, and I recognize that modern designs rule the world's major ocean races, but those guys are professionals and I, and most of us, are not.


----------



## PCP

jrd22 said:


> I know this doesn't really address the subject of the thread but the recent discussion here caused me to think of the two boats used by Jessica Watson and Abby Sunderland. The S&S 34 used by Watson is "old school" and has all the attributes that someone looking for a modern fast design doesn't want. The Open 40 on the other hand does have all the modern design features. One boat successfully made a safe trip while the other didn't, even though both encountered similar horrific conditions with fairly comparable "crew". I know I'll be bashed for bringing up this blasphemy, and I readily acknowledge that I have a bias/love of older designs, and I recognize that modern designs rule the world's major ocean races, but those guys are professionals and I, and most of us, are not.


Yes you are right, that has nothing to do with the subject of the thread but since you talk about that I would say that two cases, one of each category means statistically nothing about the suitability of modern versus old designed boats regarding ocean passage.

Now if we want to look at statistically more meaningful comparison we could compare the results in what regards abandons and sinked boats between the boats from the Jester Challenge ( Transat) and the abandons from the Mini class Transats.

Both are small boats even if the mini are smaller but while almost all the minis finish their Transats, on the Jester Challenge, when 50% of the boats finish, it is a very good year

In 2006 there were 10 boats "racing". Only two finished and one of them was the only "modern" boat racing, a Benetau First.

Entry List

In 2010 there were 23 boats "racing". Only 8 boats finished the transact. Again the only two "modern" light boat there, a Dehler 29 and a Mistral finished the race.

JC 2010 Entry List

Now take a look at the abandons of a bigger mini Transat, from France to Brasil, and take into consideration that these guys are not only interested in arriving but in winning and are pushing the boats in a way the old salts from the Jester are not even able to imagine, averaging 7K over the Atlantic in a 22ft boat:

On the 2009 edition started 85, finished 78

Mini Transat â€" Sailing 4,200 Miles Solo on 21' Boats | YachtPals.com

Mini Transat Winner Arrives in Brazil - Thomas Ruyant | YachtPals.com

And that is not an unusual result. There are always very few abandons and among the young kids racing there are also some old salts racing...and they usually finish their race

Regards

Paulo


----------



## GBurton

GeorgeB said:


> Pardon me for jumping into this fray&#8230; GBurton, am I to understand that you are currently a Westsail 32 owner? If so, you should recognize that Westsail sold the 32 as either unfinished, partially finished or complete, so in the used boat market the condition and "build" quality is all over the place from "poor" to "good". Are you from the SF Bay area? You have really made a study of the PacCup. Have you raced in it? You probably know that Dave King and Sarabrand are kind of unique and not a typlical cruiser. Dave has been a professional delivery skipper since the late 1970's and like Skip Allen, has many, many thousand of ocean miles under his keel. I would not count his experience as typlical.
> 
> As for the PacCup, I believe that the PacCup rating came into being for the 2008 race (I had difficulty calculating the rating for our boat). Before that, I think they raced pure NorCal PHRF numbers. Although the race attracts a few sleds each year, it is no way as hotly competitive as the TransPac, especially in those early years. Although the race is primarily downhill, the first couple hundred miles is a beat to break free of the California coast. You are then in reaching mode to get around the south eastern quadrant of the North Pacific High. You are not in the trades until you are at the latitide of Ensenada or Cabo (or in a "slow" year, PV!). How can you tell by the results what is a slow year? When I look at the sled's times, they look to be pretty typlical (2008 was relatively slow). On our own race, we were passing Division A boats starting on the evening of the second day and were ahead of pretty much all of them after one week. Navigation and weather routing is easy for the slower boats as all they have to do is plot the positions of the boats ahead and pick the one with the most wind. During one of the "childrens hours" a slower boat said that they ceased navigating and were merely plotting their course each time to our last position report. The boats in the front of the pack have a much harder time insomuch we have to do our own weather forecasting and routing.
> 
> <OI think that in order to support your argument, you need to base the results on more than one particular boat and one skipper. Have you tracked the Westsail in the TransPac or Newport/ Bermuda? You could also scan the results for SF's OYRA. Where is your boat? If you are in the Bay area, perhaps you can take me out on it and show me what she is capable of. I'm not planning on racing my boat in the DH Lightship or DH Farallones this year so perhaps...


 Hello George, yes I have an owner finished W32 and you are right - I have seen some owner finished boats that were not very good, but also some owner finished that were better than the factory boats. Just like any kit boat there are many good and some bad examples.

I like my boat and don't like to see it denigrated on these boards. Why is it that I have to put up with the name calling and snide remarks when clearly the boat is not what people say it is..... as I have demonstrated by some of its sailing results.

We are in Brookings Oregon and pretty busy at the moment as I'm sure you can imagine. My boat suffered some cosmetic damage when a concrete dock got swept under the bow area, but being a Westsail it will take more than a concrete dock to really hurt it. Many other boats were holed and sunk.
You are welcome to come up and sail any time. We usually have ~2k or 25 - 30k and not much in between.

Which boat is yours George?


----------



## Jeff_H

jrd22 said:


> I know this doesn't really address the subject of the thread ....


You have that right. 

I truly am not trying to get in your face on this, and at some level I understand your point, but I am not really sure how a comparison of Jessica Watson vs Abby Sunderland fits here.

Not to take a thing away from Jessica Watson, but she chose a conservative but comparatively modern era, moderate by IOR standards, IOR II era raceboat and sailed a carefully weather routed voyage at safe times of year. I would call that reasonable and prudent seamanship.

Abby Sunderland on the other hand chose a bleeding edge design, and sailed it into one of the most dangerous oceans of the world at the wrong time of year, and got distracted working on her engine. We will probably never know precisely why Abby's boat capsized, but I don't know what the fact that she capsized that has to do with the discussion of a how high drag, full keel boats are supposed to somehow miraculously offer similar light air performance to more modern lower drag design.

And GB,


GBurton said:


> Just because your Farr is old and slow when compared to cutting edge boats does not mean that it is useless or undesirable.....


But that is exactly the point, I understand that the better more modern designs offer greater speed, nicer accommodations, and better motion comfort and ease of handling than my older Farr and would never say otherwise. And that is my point precisely, while we all may find our own boats suitable for our own needs, in a discussion like this it makes no sense to distort the capabilities of these boats beyond what is vaguely realistic. So while I have made tactical moves that allowed my nearly 30 year old Farr to beat a brand new Aerodyne 38 boat for boat, I would never claim that my Farr was faster.

By that same token I never said, and for that matter would never say that a Westsail 32 is useless. But what I did and would say is that is that the Westsail 32 offers miserable performance and lackluster motion comfort for a boat of its displacement. Westsail 32's still make reasonably good distance cruisers if you don't care about performance.

But back to the earlier point about light air and heavy displacement for their length, full keeled boats; no matter how you slice it, the physics on light air performance is pretty linear....

Full keeled/heavy displacement for their length hullforms have a lot more drag than an equal weight modern (longer boat for its displacement) hull forms and foils.
A boat with higher drag requires more drive to maintain its speed in light air,
There is only one way to get enough drive for any boat in light air.... lots of efficient sail area, and if there is high drag then you need even more sail area that is highly efficient.
Unfortunately lots of high efficiency and lots of sail area comes with the need to have a lot more stability.
While heavy for their length, full-keeled boats have lots of stability for their length, they don't have all that much stability for their displacement or drag.
And so most heavy for their length, full-keeled boats can't really stand up to the kind of high efficiency sail plans that would be associated with achieving adequate drive in light air that is sufficient to overcome their relatively high drag.
Full keeled/heavy displacement for their length hullforms can try to offset that lack of efficiency with lots of lower efficiency sail area, but that only works over a very narrow wind range and in dead flat water.
It is for that reason, that modern longer for their displacement boats will generally be much faster in light air (and heavy air for that matter where their low drag hullforms can often surpass their theortical hull speeds).
The point where John Vigor's article is sort of right occurs at mid-range windspeeds; windspeeds where modern boats lose the light air advantage of their more efficient hulls and rigs, but before the point where they are able to exceed theior theoretical hullspeeds. In this range both modern and traditional water craft will operate near their hull speeds but not exceed it and at that point a traditional boat can offer much better than expected performance.

But that said, passage times are about how much of the time a boat can spend near, at, or above its theoretical hull speed. Frankly, it is the difficulty of traditional hull forms to remain near, or achieve, or exceed their theoretical hull speed that give modern designs a real speed advantage as passage makers.

I should state for the record that I personally believe that there is nothing wrong with buying a slower boat than might otherwise be available on the market if it suits your needs (I know I certainly did and don't regret it), But when the thread is a discussion of a blue water cruiser that can go in light winds, (and while a Westsail 32 may be a good blue water cruiser,) it makes no sense to try to recommend a Westsail 32 as a good light air boat when it does not sail well in what the rest of us would consider truly light winds.

Calling a spade a spade is not denegrating anyone's boat, its just simple honesty.

Jus' Say'n,

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## PCP

Jeff_H said:


> ...The point where John Vigor's article is sort of right occurs at mid-range windspeeds; windspeeds where modern boats lose the light air advantage of their more efficient hulls and rigs, but before the point where they are able to exceed theior theoretical hullspeeds. In this range both modern and traditional water craft will operate near their hull speeds but not exceed it and at that point a traditional boat can offer much better than expected performance.
> 
> But that said, passage times are about how much of the time a boat can spend near, at, or above its theoretical hull speed. Frankly, it is the difficulty of traditional hull forms to remain near, or achieve, or exceed their theoretical hull speed that give modern designs a real speed advantage as passage makers.
> 
> ...


I agree with that but that let me point out that modern performance cruisers (and I am not talking about racers) have lowered a lot the wind intensity that they need to start to plane and go over its hull speed. If you look at the polar speed from the Elan 350, a mass production boat, you can see that with 12k on some points of sail the boat is already over its hull speed. So that margin you are talking (medium winds) where a displacement boat makes about the same speed as a planning boat is disappearing. Most of the heavy displacement boats needs at least 12K wind to reach hull speed

http://www.soloelan.com/images/Elan350/Elan_350_polar_diagram.pdf

Regards

Paulo


----------



## haffiman37

GBurton said:


> I like my boat and don't like to see it denigrated on these boards. Why is it that I have to put up with the name calling and snide remarks when clearly the boat is not what people say it is..... as I have demonstrated by some of its sailing results.
> 
> Which boat is yours George?


I think you take it all too personal.
All boats have their characteristics and 'soul' that fits into the demands and wishes of different people.
Personally I have nothing against your 'type' of boat, but will never buy one for the sailing I'm or have been doing. However I fully understand those who prefers that type of boat, its behaviour in rough weather and happy with its limitations. I got my fair share of comments on my trip like 'run-away Sun-Sail', too small, and a lot more. Who cares, we, my wife, son and I were happy in our 37ft, mass-produced boat. To me it had the characteristics I wanted, reasonable fast, easy to handle and an overall quality that kept the boat in one piece in all the conditions. That it is a killer and no fun in up-wind sailing in 15 m/s in the Bay of Biscay I could live with, that was just a few days. I was planning mainly to go down wind.
My wife enjoyed the spacious cockpit where she could fully stretch out under the shade of the sun-roof when the seasickness hit her as it did every 3 days after we left port!!
My first 'race' with it was a 5 days race from Port Klang to Langkawi (Malaysia) as the last stage of our planned trip and managed quite well. However when you have to anchor for 3 hours in 'no-wind' and head current while you see the rest of the fleet slowly keeps on moving does not make you too happy. Finally after 5 years I changed my sails, and got a 'new' boat!
So please be happy with your boat and what it gives you, but respect that other people may have other demands and wishes. 
No one is 'denigrating' the Westsail 32 by claiming it is slow in low wind, the fact is it generally is when sailed by an 'average' sailor. It has never been designed to be a fast low-wind sailor! However max out the sail area with double fore-sails etc and experienced crew and that may partly be compensated. Take the same crew and same 'modification' on a 'modern' design boat, and the West Sail 32 will be parked in low wind conditions.
Just live with it, accept it but it is no reason to take it personally.

PS:
Coming from the land of Colin Archer, I'm well familiar with that type of boats!
DS

The same basic design, in fact partly copied! This from a 100year old 'lady' in the conditions she was designed to master:
YouTube - RS 14 "Stavanger"


----------



## BTB

Spend a bit of time away traveling and a (near) knife fight breaks out! 

First, thanks *haffiman37* for the data on the change in your IRC rating from 0.963 to 1.028 courtesy of upgraded sails.

I think the original poster was looking for what is the Holy Grail for some sailors - a traditionally shaped, inexpensive sailboat that has some potential to go in light weather. I tried to piggyback on that theme with a related question on how to optimize the more likely boat, a traditional design that has room for improving its stability and rig, and therefore performance.

I don't imagine all traditional boats are hopeless pigs and I don't imagine all modern boats are paragons of the virtues of performance and comfort. I do believe that relying on a boat's handicap to "prove" it's fast is great for racing, but not day-to-day performance comparisons.



Jeff_H said:


> But back to the earlier point about light air and heavy displacement for their length, full keeled boats....


Yes, please.



Jeff_H said:


> Full keeled/heavy displacement for their length hullforms have a lot more drag than an equal weight modern (longer boat for its displacement) hull forms and foils.


Accepted.



Jeff_H said:


> A boat with higher drag requires more drive to maintain its speed in light air,
> There is only one way to get enough drive for any boat in light air.... lots of efficient sail area, and if there is high drag then you need even more sail area that is highly efficient.


Improve on this by adding more sail area and/or better sails than available when the boat was designed/built.



Jeff_H said:


> Unfortunately lots of high efficiency and lots of sail area comes with the need to have a lot more stability.


The "cheapest" route here is lessening weight up high - the rig, and improving ballast CG and/or ratio. Probably incremental improvement, but improvement nonetheless.



Jeff_H said:


> While heavy for their length, full-keeled boats have lots of stability for their length, they don't have all that much stability for their displacement or drag.


Accepted and there isn't much beyond the above that can be done about it.



Jeff_H said:


> And so most heavy for their length, full-keeled boats can't really stand up to the kind of high efficiency sail plans that would be associated with achieving adequate drive in light air that is sufficient to overcome their relatively high drag.


I disagree within the limits of what the above modifications can offer.



Jeff_H said:


> Full keeled/heavy displacement for their length hullforms can try to offset that lack of efficiency with lots of lower efficiency sail area, but that only works over a very narrow wind range and in dead flat water.


What do you mean by "low efficiency" and "high efficiency" sail area, the aspect ratio of the sail plans? Also, why only in "dead flat water?" Is this based on the assumption that no or little improvement can be made in stability, or is this a hull form efficiency assumption?



Jeff_H said:


> It is for that reason, that modern longer for their displacement boats will generally be much faster in light air (and heavy air for that matter where their low drag hullforms can often surpass their theortical hull speeds).


All things being equal, a longer boat will be faster without regard to the era.

An few additional thoughts

*haffiman37* improved his boat's performance (a 2002 Jeanneau Sun Odyssey 37) by 6.75% as interpreted by the handicap applied by a regatta measurer - granted a single, subjective data point.

If the 6.75% represents an accurate evaluation, it should be reasonable to expect a bit more optimizing an older design - maybe 10-12%, yes? I realize that's less than a 1/2-knot on a 23'-26' LWL boat

Adding sail area efficiency costs the difference between the price of "ordinary" sails versus that of higher tech, higher cost sails. Not cheap, but not wholly unreasonable.

Adding more sail area likely means a higher workload - possibly undesirable.

A good older hull should not work any less well (not the same as "as efficiently") than a good new design. It will likely require more work - reducing sail commensurate to the wind speed earlier, but it should be able to move along smartly without undesirable behavior.



Jeff_H said:


> But that said, passage times are about how much of the time a boat can spend near, at, or above its theoretical hull speed. Frankly, it is the difficulty of traditional hull forms to remain near, or achieve, or exceed their theoretical hull speed that give modern designs a real speed advantage as passage makers.


The price of admission.



Jeff_H said:


> I should state for the record that I personally believe that there is nothing wrong with buying a slower boat than might otherwise be available on the market if it suits your needs (I know I certainly did and don't regret it)...


Thanks. 

BTB


----------



## Plumbean

Jeff_H said:


> Not to take a thing away from Jessica Watson, but she chose a conservative but comparatively modern era, moderate by IOR standards, IOR II era raceboat and sailed a carefully weather routed voyage at safe times of year. I would call that reasonable and prudent seamanship.


Jeff: Not sure when the "IOR II" era began, but the S&S 34 was designed in 1967, pre-IOR but obviously with an eye toward it, as Olin was involved in the rule design. Jessica's boat was a Mark I version, with a skeg hung rudder. The Mark II has a spade and a slightly modified keel. It's actually probably not a bad fit for the original criteria of the thread, as it is blue water capable and easily single-handed. (Full disclosure -- I own one)

[Cringing now while waiting for Jeff to thrash my boat's design ....]


----------



## sailpower

Jeff_H said:


> Calling a spade a spade is not denegrating anyone's boat, its just simple honesty.
> 
> Jus' Say'n,
> 
> Respectfully,
> Jeff


Speaking of honesty, When was that picture of you taken?


----------



## mitiempo

Based on the last few volatile pages of this post the S&S 34 is a fairly modern design, about 40 years newer than Atkin's Eric design and Atkin based that on Colin Archer's designs from the past. The S&S 34 is a good size for a single hander, very suitable for offshore work and of good pedigree. 

The Westsail 32 is a comfortable cruiser, solidly built, well finished if a good example (bad home built ones excepted) and a good choice for a stately cruise offshore. It is not fast and spritely!

But we should and do love our boats and as long as they do what we would like to do with them that is ok.

I have a friend and neighbor with a Westsail 32 who will be heading south soon. The boat is well equipped and is in excellent shape. It is a good boat and I wish him well. But he won't be breaking any speed records I don't think.


----------



## PCP

haffiman37 said:


> ...
> Coming from the land of Colin Archer, I'm well familiar with that type of boats!
> DS
> 
> The same basic design, in fact partly copied! This from a 100year old 'lady' in the conditions she was designed to master:
> YouTube - RS 14 "Stavanger"


Nice movie, nice boat. I love old traditional boats and I love sailing them. Some would say that it is a contradiction for someone that likes and wants yo have a fast boat, but look at Tabarly and his never ending love for his old family boat, the original Pen Duick (all his racing boats were named Pen Duick):

YouTube - Pen Duick I

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

BTB said:


> ...
> 
> All things being equal, a longer boat will be faster without regard to the era.
> ..
> BTB


Yes, all things being equal. But if we talk of an old displacement full keeled boat and a modern planning boat (they are not equal) the differences can be huge and smaller boats are much faster than much bigger boats.

The differences come as Jeff has explained from light wind sailing performance and from the ability of the smaller boat to easily surpass its hull speeds.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## kevlarpirate

*Get real*

From Paulo:
"I would say that two cases, one of each category means statistically nothing about the suitability of modern versus old designed boats regarding ocean passage."

statistically nothing ??? 
All I here is a bunch of quibbling and cherry picking. and again we hear jtrying to broad brush slam the IOR. The S&S was NOT an IOR boat
it was a well designed boat for offshore conditions. If you want to slam the IOR 
you have to go to the early 80's.

Truth be told Amie's boat was not a successful offshore design. It is a design 
far more vulnerable to sustaining damage that the S&S. 
Poor behavior and lacking material strength. Here , let me explain:
Amie's has way less roll moment of inertia and will snap roll and slam its spindly carbon mast into the back side of the passing beam wave. Once that carbon mast gets out of column ..... bang , and down she comes.

The S&S will have the protection of a sluggish response to a beam sea and if her
stout aluminum mast did hit , it would have better chances of survival.

When interviewed, Amie said her boat was designed for those conditions.
but Amie is a teenager with little knowledge of these things and can only repeat what she is told. Obviously the design was not a "successful" design.

regarding the Westsail 32 . I have sailed one to Catalina and laid on a mooring and sailed home.
The upwind leg was not exciting but we got there, The quietness and lack of motion below when on the mooring ball was a delight so we stayed an extra day. The return reach home was a delight with easy motion comfort .

Since cruising boats are at anchor 90% of the time , I call this a successful cruising design , and as for seamanship , that boat in the perfect storm says volumes, lying on the sand with no more than some life line damage.

Now, all you armchair cruisers, tell me. Have you ever anchored out on one of your high performance designs and see it track from side to side 
annoying you and your neighboring boats as you get within a boat length
of them . And the annoying slapping waves against your hull distracting your conversations and making everyone irritable? and the constant butt slapping 
so you can't sleep at night? If you have done this I'm sure you will agree
but so far all I hear is quibble and no experience. I have sailed several of these 
cutting edge boats and they are NOT , repeat NOT to be trusted offshore 
and absolutely miserable at anchor.

Plumbean: you have a good boat but don't cringe. 
As for light air performance, My Newport 41 does 6.5 knots upwind in 6 knots true
and that's plenty good for light air performance. We're talking a 1968 design here
over 40 years ago.

These newer boats are highly compromised in order to get them out of the displacement mode and in my book, that's laughable.

Bottom line here is a bunch of agenda driven cherry picking and little regard to 
prudence, comfort, robustness, and engineering


----------



## haffiman37

BTB said:


> Spend a bit of time away traveling and a (near) knife fight breaks out!
> 
> First, thanks *haffiman37* for the data on the change in your IRC rating from 0.963 to 1.028 courtesy of upgraded sails.
> 
> ----------------------
> 
> *haffiman37* improved his boat's performance (a 2002 Jeanneau Sun Odyssey 37) by 6.75% as interpreted by the handicap applied by a regatta measurer - granted a single, subjective data point.
> 
> If the 6.75% represents an accurate evaluation, it should be reasonable to expect a bit more optimizing an older design - maybe 10-12%, yes? I realize that's less than a 1/2-knot on a 23'-26' LWL boat
> 
> Adding sail area efficiency costs the difference between the price of "ordinary" sails versus that of higher tech, higher cost sails.  Not cheap, but not wholly unreasonable.
> 
> Adding more sail area likely means a higher workload - possibly undesirable.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> BTB


Let me add a bit more info.
Let us have a look at handicaps of some of the boats participating where the IRC rating is known, and how the 'measure r' started playing based on the performance in the regatta. Some boats he even changed multiple times:
Jeanneau SO 37:
IRC 0.963 - changed to 1.028

HR 52
IRC 1.005 - changed to 1.003, 1.023, 0.962

Contessa 28
IRC 0.970 - changed to 0.940

Jeanneau DS 45
IRC 1.061 - changed to 0.945, 0.981

All these boats were within the IRC measurements and all running std Dacron sailes. The changes were simply 'result' based.
The Contessa was running a bit 'baggy' sails, but the others I would say was more or less equal in sail quality.
In my opinion it may add to those stating that even an , on paper, slow boat may beat the faster ones.
Among my crew were 3 coaches from the Malaysian national sailing school constantly doing the sail trimming and handling, my job was skipper and helm. 
It does not matter how 'fast' the boat is if skipper and crew does not master it, and a 'duck' might be a racer in the right hands.


----------



## slap

kevlarpirate said:


> too.. but at least our keels don't fall off and kill people. now at least two cases in a Farr 38. but of course jeff will have a verrry long winded and detailed answer for that.


Where one wasn't even a Farr design - it was a Cape Fear 38, and the other was where a builder put in a substantially weaker keel support structure than what the Farr office had designed. See here for Jeff_H's comments:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/boat-review-purchase-forum/72458-39-soverel-location-michigan-2.html


----------



## slap

kevlarpirate said:


> From Paulo:
> "I would say that two cases, one of each category means statistically nothing about the suitability of modern versus old designed boats regarding ocean passage."
> 
> statistically nothing ??? Paulo you can't be serious,


Actually, Paulo is right.

The S&S 34 is a typical example of a good offshore boat of the time. The Open 40 is an all out racing boat meant to be sailed flat out by an expert sailor - obviously not a typical example of a good modern offshore boat. The S&S 34 was sailed on a relatively conservative route; the Open 40 was sailed into a dangerous ocean at the wrong time of the year.

And anyone who would try to draw conclusions from just two datapoints would be laughed at by a statistician. As an example, the Mayflower successfully sailed to America and back; The Titanic didn't. Was the Mayflower a more seaworthy design then the Titanic?


----------



## PCP

kevlarpirate said:


> From Paulo:
> *"I would say that two cases, one of each category means statistically nothing about the suitability of modern versus old designed boats regarding ocean passage."*
> 
> *statistically nothing ???*
> All I here is a bunch of quibbling and cherry picking. and again we hear jtrying to broad brush slam the IOR. The S&S was NOT an IOR boat
> it was a well designed boat for offshore conditions. If you want to slam the IOR
> you have to go to the early 80's.
> 
> Truth be told Amie's boat was not a successful offshore design. It is a design
> far more vulnerable to sustaining damage that the S&S.
> Poor behavior and lacking material strength. Here , let me explain:
> Amie's has way less roll moment of inertia and will snap roll and slam its spindly carbon mast into the back side of the passing beam wave. Once that carbon mast gets out of column ..... bang , and down she comes.
> 
> The S&S will have the protection of a sluggish response to a beam sea and if her
> stout aluminum mast did hit , it would have better chances of survival.
> 
> When interviewed, Amie said her boat was designed for those conditions.
> but Amie is a teenager with little knowledge of these things and can only repeat what she is told. *Obviously the design was not a "successful" design*.
> 
> ...


You mean one of each kind makes it statistically relevant?!!!!  

That design is just the design type resulted for dozens of years of research from all top boat designers in what regards a passage making fast and safe solo sailing boat. They didn't arrive to different boat conceptions but all reached the same basic conception and that's about that basic design conception, proved by thousands of transats and dozens of circumnavigations, that you are saying: *"Not a successful design"*. It makes no sense .

For the rest Jeff had already answered. I agree with what he have said about it:



Jeff_H said:


> ...
> 
> Not to take a thing away from Jessica Watson, but she chose a conservative but comparatively modern era, moderate by IOR standards, IOR II era raceboat and sailed a carefully weather routed voyage at safe times of year. I would call that reasonable and prudent seamanship.
> 
> Abby Sunderland on the other hand chose a bleeding edge design, and sailed it into one of the most dangerous oceans of the world at the wrong time of year..


You cannot compare what is incomparable.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## haffiman37

kevlarpirate said:


> Now, all you armchair cruisers, tell me. Have you ever anchored out on one of your high performance designs and see it track from side to side
> annoying you and your neighboring boats as you get within a boat length
> of them . And the annoying slapping waves against your hull distracting your conversations and making everyone irritable? and the constant butt slapping
> so you can't sleep at night? If you have done this I'm sure you will agree
> but so far all I hear is quibble and no experience. I have sailed several of these
> cutting edge boats and they are NOT , repeat NOT to be trusted offshore
> and absolutely miserable at anchor.
> 
> As for light air performance, My Newport 41 does 6.5 knots upwind in 6 knots true
> and that's plenty good for light air performance. We're talking a 1968 design here
> over 40 years ago.
> 
> These newer boats are highly compromised in order to get them out of the displacement mode and in my book, that's laughable.
> 
> Bottom line here is a bunch of agenda driven cherry picking and little regard to
> prudence, comfort, robustness, and engineering


Why not cruise the oceans in an 'armchair'?
I kind of liked it.
I was not even worried when approaching Cairns and the wind meter peaked at 50 knots TRUE, or when approaching Fiji at night doing 7 knots on dodger only!
Of course that was before I read your comments about how untrusted my kind of boat is in your opinion.
A slap in the but I got when I was born, one more at anchor is ok!
However a few tricks and it is gone!
However your Newport must be a 'turbo' version?


----------



## PCP

slap said:


> ... The Open 40 is an all out racing boat meant to be sailed flat out by an expert sailor - obviously not a typical example of a good modern offshore boat. ..


The problem in what regards experience with Open40 relates to the power available and the huge sail area. Like in a race car you need experience to control that power. Of course you can have enough experience to sail the boat very conservatively but even for that it is necessary experience to know the boat limits. That boat for that purpose and with a relatively inexperienced kid as skipper should have been provided with a smaller rig.

I don't know if the capsize had to do with excessive sail area carried at the moment or if she had set an appropriated course. The only thing we now is that the boat was laterally caught by a breaker capsized and returned to its original position in seconds, with a broken rig and that she was inside the boat, at night in a big storm.

We will never know if the boat was properly steered and adequately sailed, but any small boat can be capsized in a big storm by a big breaking wave. In that case a boat should re-right itself quickly and the boat had done just that. Any boat rolled, heavy or light displacement, carbon mast or aluminium mast has a huge probability of losing the mast. That has nothing to do with the type of boat or the type of mast. Actually the only ones that I think have a bigger probability to survive a roll are the free standing carbon masts, but there are not many of those around (there are a good thread about it for the ones that want to look further at the subject).

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

kevlarpirate said:


> ...
> As for light air performance, My Newport 41 does 6.5 knots upwind in 6 knots true and that's plenty good for light air performance. We're talking a 1968 design here over 40 years ago.
> ....


It seems that there are some problem with your measured speeds, or at least with what you call upwind and what is generally called upwind.

Accordingly with the Polar that was posted the *Newport 41*, in flat water and perfect conditions, can make a bit less than 6.5K at 105º of true wind. Around here we don't call 105º upwind. We call upwind between 32º and 60º of true wind. At 45º the Newport should be making about *4K* and at 60º is making about *5.7K*. That is really good for an old boat.

But if you compare it with the performance of an *Elan 350* (a much smaller boat) you can see that the Elan can make *5k* at 45º and *5.9K* at 60º. We can see also that with 10K wind at 45º and 60º the speeds are *6* to *6.6* and *6.8* to *7.2* (Newport/Elan).

http://www.soloelan.com/images/Elan350/Elan_350_polar_diagram.pdf

However, as Jeff has explained:



Jeff_H said:


> ...
> 
> But back to the earlier point about light air and heavy displacement for their length, full keeled boats; no matter how you slice it, the physics on light air performance is pretty linear....
> 
> Full keeled/heavy displacement for their length hullforms have a lot more drag than an equal weight modern (longer boat for its displacement) hull forms and foils.
> A boat with higher drag requires more drive to maintain its speed in light air,
> .....
> Full keeled/heavy displacement for their length hullforms can try to offset that lack of efficiency with lots of lower efficiency sail area, but that only works over a very narrow wind range and *in dead flat water*.
> ....


In real conditions you almost never find flat water. That means that in real conditions those differences are going to be a lot bigger and while the Elan, that has a lot less drag and inertia, will be capable of maintain a relatively constant speed with some waves, accelerating quickly, the heavier, big drag Newport will be partially stopped at each wave, accelerating slowly just to be stopped again by the next wave. In the end the average difference of speed between the two boats would be quite substantial, much more than what the polars would suggest...and those polars show already a quite considerable difference even if the two boats had the same size.

The difference is really *BIG*, if we consider that the *Elan 350 is much smaller*.

but saying all this I have to congratulate you :

The Newport 41 is a fine and beautiful boat, a lot better than that ugly Ericson that you had some months back, a boat that should make proud its owner and as you have said, a fast boat in light weather, not so fast as a light modern one but much better than the average old cruiser.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Jeff_H

Plumbean said:


> Jeff: Not sure when the "IOR II" era began, but the S&S 34 was designed in 1967, pre-IOR but obviously with an eye toward it, as Olin was involved in the rule design. Jessica's boat was a Mark I version, with a skeg hung rudder. The Mark II has a spade and a slightly modified keel. It's actually probably not a bad fit for the original criteria of the thread, as it is blue water capable and easily single-handed. (Full disclosure -- I own one)
> 
> [Cringing now while waiting for Jeff to thrash my boat's design ....]


No cringe necessary. I apologize for my error. I had recalled Jessica's bpat from memory and had mistakenly thought that Jessica's boat was a 34 foot Australian version of the She 36, a later IOR II design which I was familiar with.

The S&S 34 appears to be a variation on an one of S&S's RORC designs. The RORC rule produced some very good, well rounded boats for its era. Olin Stephens in his writings, like many of the top designers of the day, was a big fan of the last versions of the RORC rule and the boats that it produced as was Allard Coles, who spoke very highly of these boats as well.

It was therefore not surprising that Olin Stephen, who served on the IOR rule committee, commented that the last version of the RORC was used as a starting point for the IOR-1 rule. The tweeking to make the IOR rule "International" produced some less than desirable results. Probably the most obvious of these was the change in the way that beam and chaingirths were measured, which led to the extreme tumblehome and extremely pinched transoms often associated with IOR-1 boats. There was an effort to correct some of these issues during the comparatively the quick change over to IOR II, which produced some of the most well rounded designs within the IOR rule years.

In any event, the S&S 34's have had a long and successful carreer as performance cruisers after their day as leading edge RORC boats ended.



Sailpower said:


> Speaking of honesty, When was that picture of you taken?


That picture was probably taken around 2006-2007. I have to admit that I am a little grayer these days. In the spirit of honesty, here is a more recent picture taken of my lovely bride and myself at our wedding back in June of 2010.

Jeff


----------



## Curt

Well done,,,, Congrats...



Jeff_H said:


> That picture was probably taken around 2006-2007. I have to admit that I am a little grayer these days. In the spirit of honesty, here is a more recent picture taken of my lovely bride and myself at our wedding back in June of 2010.


----------



## PCP

Jeff, I also agree with you on that one , lovely wife!

congrats.


----------



## Jeff_H

Thanks guys....

Jeff


----------



## LandLocked66c

I think I have that same tie!


----------



## BTB

PCP said:


> Yes, all things being equal. But if we talk of an old displacement full keeled boat and a modern planning boat (they are not equal) the differences can be huge and smaller boats are much faster than much bigger boats.
> 
> The differences come as Jeff has explained from light wind sailing performance and from the ability of the smaller boat to easily surpass its hull speeds.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


No disagreement here. I was trying to highlight that length alone can account for performance differences.

I think planing hulls are a step further removed from the long keel versus fin keel cruising boat discussion and certainly offer additional proof that the gap in performance between newer designs and traditional forms can be very large.


----------



## BTB

PCP said:


> In real conditions you almost never find flat water. That means that in real conditions those differences are going to be a lot bigger and while the Elan, that has a lot less drag and inertia, will be capable of maintain a relatively constant speed with some waves, accelerating quickly, the heavier, big drag Newport will be partially stopped at each wave, accelerating slowly just to be stopped again by the next wave. In the end the average difference of speed between the two boats would be quite substantial, much more than what the polars would suggest...
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


I'm curious about your comments in a general sense using the example above. In a chop, I would think the inertia of the larger boat - its momentum, would be an advantage, if the hull forms are similar. Some hullforms are better than others in a chop, but all things being equal (again  ) I would think the heavier boat would be less affected by the chop. I completely agree with your points about acceleration.


----------



## GBurton

BTB said:


> I'm curious about your comments in a general sense using the example above. In a chop, I would think the inertia of the larger boat - its momentum, would be an advantage, if the hull forms are similar. Some hullforms are better than others in a chop, but all things being equal (again  ) I would think the heavier boat would be less affected by the chop. I completely agree with your points about acceleration.


you are correct...the heavier boat will do better. I think Ted Hood took this into consideration when designing American promise.


----------



## Jeff_H

BTB said:


> I'm curious about your comments in a general sense using the example above. In a chop, I would think the inertia of the larger boat - its momentum, would be an advantage, if the hull forms are similar. Some hullforms are better than others in a chop, but all things being equal (again  ) I would think the heavier boat would be less affected by the chop. I completely agree with your points about acceleration.


I would agree with you that while weight and the resultant inertia is a factor, 
the overall behavior of a boat in a chop is not strictly dependent on weight or inertia. The overall speed of a boat in a chop is controlled by a lot of factors, all of which come into play in figuring out which boat is likely to be faster in a chop. 
<O</O

If we think of a boat colliding with any particular wave, the two determinants of how much deceleration occurs are the momentum of the boat, and the impact of the wave, i.e. the amount of force that the wave imparts into the boat. The amount of impact felt by the boat is somewhat dependent on the shape of the bow of the boat. So if we had two boats of equal length and weight, but one had a blunt bow and one had a sharp bow, the boat with the sharp bow would experience less decelerating force. <O

To understand this point, visualize someone diving off a board which is 10 feet above the water. The fellow who does a belly flop will experience more deceleration than the person who does a perfect head first dive. In other words, the greater impact area and blunter shape of the belly-flopper will slow his speed more suddenly and therefore he will not go as deeply into the water as the comparative knife edged entry of the perfect diver. <O

But of course that is not the whole equation. If we had two boats that were shaped so that each experienced an equal decelerating force out of any given wave but one was boat heavier, (ignoring any differences in speed for a moment, since speed is of course a component of momentum) the heavier boat would have more momentum and would therefore lose less speed on each wave collision. <O

But again the equation for relative distance traveled through a chop does not end there. The last piece of the equation has to do with how quickly both boats recover the speed that was lost with each wave collision. Even though the heavier boat lost less speed, it takes more force to overcome its inertial loss in speed than would be required to accelerate a lighter boat which lost an equal amount of speed. It is here that things become less predictable. That force has to overcome the inertia of the heavier boat, but also its drag. Not all heavy boats are made alike. <O

Here I want to disagree with Paulo for a moment; boats like the Newport 41 have comparatively fine bows and present a comparatively narrow frontal area, so they lose relatively little speed in each collision with a wave in a chop. They also have a pretty generous sail area, and comparatively low drag, and so can accelerate back to speed pretty easily. <O

But back to the discussion, for a given sail area, the lighter boat will accelerate more quickly simply because it is lighter, but that is an oversimplification. The reason that many newer light weight designs do better in a chop than older 1970's era light weight designs that I raced back then has to do with favorably manipulating all of the variables. For example, one of the things that has happened on newer designs is that their waterline lengths have been stretched to a larger percentage of the length of the boat, and the center of buoyancy moved aft. This results in a finer bow, and that results in a smaller impact with each wave, and consequently less deceleration per wave than might have been experienced otherwise. <O

Another aspect of modern designs that is manipulating the variable is that modern designs tend to have a very high stability relative to the boat's displacement, and that allows the boat to carry a very large sail plan. The size and efficiency of this sail plan provides a very high accelerating force to get the modern boat back to speed quickly. Further adding to this ability to get back lost speed quickly, modern boats tend to have very low drag hulls, keels, rudders, and rigs which also allow these more modern boats use this greater drive more effectively to get back to speed more quickly. <O

This in part gets back to the reason that I qualified my earlier comment about traditional full keeled boats being able to more easily beat their rating in moderate winds but only in flat water. Very often traditional full keel, heavy displacement for their length boats, will have very full ends , which means that they experience a greater impact with each wave. In a chop, each wave slows them down more than would occur with more moderate, equal displacement design, and their high drag and comparatively small sail plans (for their drag) conspire to prevent them from recovering this lost speed easily. It would be tempting to think that since the force felt in each collision with each wave is also dependent on the closing speed between the wave and the boat, the traditional boat's slower speed means that they might feel less impact than would be felt by a finer bowed, faster moving boat, but since the wavetrain in a chop is generally moving several times faster than the speed of the boat, the affect of the small relative difference in speed between the boats is not as significant as one might think at first blush. <O

Respectfully,<O
Jeff<O


----------



## sailpower

Hey Jeff, my bad. From your posts I assumed you were older.

So much for my attempt at humor.


----------



## Jeff_H

S.P. 

I am older (at least than my avatar). Between the avatar photo and now I passed the big six-oh. That is older! And I was amused by you pointing that out. 

Jeff


----------



## jorgenl

Jeff_H said:


> I would agree with you that while weight and the resultant inertia is a factor,
> the overall behavior of a boat in a chop is not strictly dependent on weight or inertia. The overall speed of a boat in a chop is controlled by a lot of factors, all of which come into play in figuring out which boat is likely to be faster in a chop.
> <O</O
> 
> If we think of a boat colliding with any particular wave, the two determinants of how much deceleration occurs are the momentum of the boat, and the impact of the wave, i.e. the amount of force that the wave imparts into the boat. The amount of impact felt by the boat is somewhat dependent on the shape of the bow of the boat. So if we had two boats of equal length and weight, but one had a blunt bow and one had a sharp bow, the boat with the sharp bow would experience less decelerating force. <O
> 
> To understand this point, visualize someone diving off a board which is 10 feet above the water. The fellow who does a belly flop will experience more deceleration than the person who does a perfect head first dive. In other words, the greater impact area and blunter shape of the belly-flopper will slow his speed more suddenly and therefore he will not go as deeply into the water as the comparative knife edged entry of the perfect diver. <O
> 
> But of course that is not the whole equation. If we had two boats that were shaped so that each experienced an equal decelerating force out of any given wave but one was boat heavier, (ignoring any differences in speed for a moment, since speed is of course a component of momentum) the heavier boat would have more momentum and would therefore lose less speed on each wave collision. <O
> 
> But again the equation for relative distance traveled through a chop does not end there. The last piece of the equation has to do with how quickly both boats recover the speed that was lost with each wave collision. Even though the heavier boat lost less speed, it takes more force to overcome the inertial loss in speed that is required to accelerate a lighter boat which lost an equal amount of speed. It is here that things become less predictable. That force has to overcome the inertia of the heavier boat, but also its drag. Not all heavy boats are made alike. <O
> 
> Here I want to disagree with Paulo for a moment; boats like the 41 have comparatively fine bows and present a comparatively narrow frontal area, so they lose relatively little speed in each collision with a wave in a chop. They also have a pretty generous sail area, and comparatively low drag, and so can accelerate back to speed pretty easily. <O
> 
> But back to the discussion, for a given sail area, the lighter boat will accelerate more quickly simply because it is lighter, but that is an oversimplification. The reason that many newer light weight designs do better in a chop than older 1970's era light weight designs that I raced back then has to do with manipulating these variables. For example one of the things that has happened on newer designs is that their waterline lengths have been stretched to a larger percentage of the length of the boat, and the center of buoyancy moved aft. This results in a finer bow, and that results in a smaller impact with each wave, and consequently less deceleration per wave than might have been experienced otherwise. <O
> 
> Another aspect of modern designs that is manipulating the variable is that modern designs tend to have a very high stability relative to the boat's displacement, and that allows the boat to carry a very large sail plan. The size and efficiency of this sail plan provides a very high accelerating force to get the modern boat back to speed quickly. Further adding to this ability to get back lost speed quickly, modern boats tend to have very low drag hulls, keels, rudders, and rigs which also allow these more modern boats use this greater drive more effectively to get back to speed more quickly. <O
> 
> This in part gets back to the reason that I qualified my earlier comment about traditional full keeled boats being able to more easily beat their rating in moderate winds but only in flat water. Very often traditional full keel, heavy displacement for their length boats, will have very full ends so that they experience a greater impact with each wave. In a chop, each wave slows them down more than would occur with more moderate, equal displacement design, and their high drag and comparatively small sail plans for their drag conspire to prevent them from recovering this lost speed. It would be tempting to think that since the force felt in each collision with each wave is dependent on the closing speed between the wave and the boat, the traditional boat's slower speed means that they might feel less impact than the felt by the finer bowed, faster moving boat, but that since the wave in a chop is generally moving several times the speed of the boat the affect of the small relative difference is speed of the boats is not as significant as one might think at first blush. <O
> 
> Respectfully,<O
> Jeff<O


Darn, I was just about to say all that but Jeff_H beat me to it....  

Excellent explanation.


----------



## kevlarpirate

Bottom line you have to decide which boat you would want to be on 
I take the S&S, you couldn't pay me to endure Amies boat to go around the world , getting bounced about 
trying to get some sleep inside a tin can being rolled down a cobblestone street

And anyone who would try to draw conclusions from just two datapoints would be laughed at by a statistician. As an example, the Mayflower successfully sailed to America and back; The Titanic didn't. Was the Mayflower a more seaworthy design then the Titanic?

Laughable , Two data points? try thousands in a journey around the world 
Where in the world do you come up with ONLY TWO, 

as for upwind, I did not say hard on the wind, No one , I repeat no one sails 
hard on the wind unless they are racing, The joy of sailing is not at 24 degrees apparent in light air. Sounds like you guys do it on paper.

BTW paulo, I sold my 41, shipped my beautiful Ericson 46 , all 33,000 lbs, to Florida
now undergoing a complete cosmetic restoration , ........ 

What have YOU done? Did you ever get your dream boat ? or still pondering the unknown, 

I looked at that Elan , nothing more than a compromised down wind skimming dish


----------



## kevlarpirate

Very nice wedding picture, you both look very happy. And I read your reply on the Cape Fear an I stand corrected, but somehow, I came to understand they were the same boat , or a similar variant. 

My general points still remain, and that is as buyers get soaked with adrenalin
from off wind speed potential, they become less fearful of what mother nature can dish out and when mother nature does her worst, these downwind sailors 
will come up with anything to defend. I call that a delusion. 

My Ericson 46 cuts waves in two and the ice in my glass of rum hardly moves
A J-44 sinks on the way to the Baja in calm seas , likely the keel dropped off, and a 35 foot race boat gets nudged by a whale and springs a leak and sinks on a return from the Transpac. Need I say more 

My 46 weighs twice my 41 , you can really feel the difference in an on coming sea and even that boat did very well


----------



## PCP

BTB said:


> I'm curious about your comments in a general sense using the example above. In a chop, I would think the inertia of the larger boat - its momentum, would be an advantage, if the hull forms are similar. Some hullforms are better than others in a chop, but all things being equal (again  ) I would think the heavier boat would be less affected by the chop. I completely agree with your points about acceleration.


Inertia works both ways. Yes you are right if we were talking about a single wave, but in a chop with many waves close spaced together each wave will slow the boat down and he has to accelerate to the next wave just to be slowed again by the next one, accelerate and so on. On other words, the boat needs power to keep it going. A boat with more inertia will have an advantage at the two or three first waves (he would take more time to slow down) but after a while he is slowed down by the continuous pounding and then inertia is an obstacle because it makes harder the acceleration between waves.

Inertia has another unwanted effect on the heavier boat : It is going to produce a much more noticeable pitching movement and that makes the boat dive more deeply on the water increasing wet surface and drag.

So a more powerful boat, assuming the same drag will have the advantage here and regarding upwind power the Elan 350 has a sail area/displacement ratio of 25.14 while the Newport has 17.82. On the SailingUSA they say about sail area/displacement ratio: This ratio indicates how fast a boat is in light wind. The Elan 350 has a lot more power .

Sailboat Design and Stability

But that is not all, we need to look at the drag. Drag had to do with many factors, but assuming both boats were designed to be fast boats at their own time, he can assume that the shape and design minimizes drag and that both boats have fine entries so drag will be dependent as usual on the wet surface of each boat:

Both boats have a close beam with 11.3ft for the Newport and 11.5ft for the Elan, a bit more beam for the Elan. In what regards waterline length its the inverse, close but a bit more for the Newport: 33.1ft to 32.1ft, so we have a match here. But the difference of weight (the Newport weights 35% more) will make the Newport to sit more on the water increasing the wet surface, but most of all there are a huge difference of area between the two boats in what regards their keel. While the Elan 350 has not even a fin keel, but just a narrow foil with a bulb, the Newport also does not have a true fin keel, but a kind of mix between a Fin keel and a long keel.

We can safely conclude that the wet area of the Newport will be much superior to the one from the Elan.

So regarding your question about the performance of both boats passing a chop upwind I will confirm that with 30% more power and less drag, the Elan 350 will over-sail easily the Newport and in a much noticeable way than in flat water.

The difference in power here will be fundamental. It is a bit like comparing two cars, one with 30% less power and 35% more weight, in what regards Max speed (assuming the same aerodynamic drag). It is not going to make a big difference on a non inclined road but put them both on an inclined road and measure that max speed again and you will see that there is going to be a huge difference.

The continuous pounding of a chop has the same effect on the boats (inclined road) but of course we are talking about two cars with the same drag and he have already saw that the Elan 350 has a lot less drag so the difference will be bigger than if we consider only the difference in power

http://sv-fortytwo.com/Newport41PSReview.pdf

http://sail.elan-yachts.com/slike/plovila/e350/katalog_e350.pdf

Regards

Paulo


----------



## GBurton

PCP said:


> Inertia works both ways. Yes you are right if we were talking about a single wave, but in a chop with many waves close spaced together each wave will slow the boat down and he has to accelerate to the next wave just to be slowed again by the next one, accelerate and so on. On other words, the boat needs power to keep it going. A boat with more inertia will have an advantage at the two or three first waves (he would take more time to slow down) but after a while he is slowed down by the continuous pounding and then inertia is an obstacle because it makes harder the acceleration between waves.
> 
> Inertia has another unwanted effect on the heavier boat : It is going to produce a much more noticeable pitching movement and that makes the boat dive more deeply on the water increasing wet surface and drag.
> 
> So a more powerful boat, assuming the same drag will have the advantage here and regarding upwind power the Elan 350 has a sail area/displacement ratio of 25.14 while the Newport has 17.82. On the SailingUSA they say about sail area/displacement ratio: This ratio indicates how fast a boat is in light wind. The Elan 350 has a lot more power .
> 
> Sailboat Design and Stability
> 
> But that is not all, we need to look at the drag. Drag had to do with many factors, but assuming both boats were designed to be fast boats at their own time, he can assume that the shape and design minimizes drag and that both boats have fine entries so drag will be dependent as usual of the wet surface of each boat:
> 
> Both boats have a close beam with 11.3ft for the Newport and 11.5ft for the Elan, a bit more beam for the Elan. In what regards waterline length its the inverse, close but a bit more for the Newport: 33.1ft to 32.1ft, so we have a match here. But the difference of weight (the Newport weights 35% more) will make the Newport to sit more on the water increasing the wet surface, but most of all there are a huge difference of area between the two boats in what regards their keel. While the Elan 350 has not even a fin keel, but just a narrow foil with a bulb, the Newport also does not have a true fin keel, but a kind of mix between a Fin keel and a long keel.
> 
> We can safely conclude that the wet area of the Newport will be much superior to the one from the Elan.
> 
> So regarding your question about the performance of both boats passing a chop upwind I will confirm that with 30% more power and less drag, the Elan 350 will over-sail easily the Newport and in a much noticeable way than in flat water.
> 
> The difference in power here will be fundamental. It is a bit like comparing two cars, one with 30% less power and 35% more weight, in what regards Max speed (assuming the same aerodynamic drag). It is not going to make a big difference on a non inclined road but put them both on an inclined road and measure that max speed again and you will see that there is going to be a huge difference.
> 
> The continuous pounding of a chop has the same effect on the boats (inclined road) but of course we are talking about two cars with the same drag and he have already saw that the Elan 350 has a lot less drag so the difference will be bigger than if we consider only the difference in power
> 
> http://sv-fortytwo.com/Newport41PSReview.pdf
> 
> http://sail.elan-yachts.com/slike/plovila/e350/katalog_e350.pdf
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


 ummm you have completely missed the point again Paulo


----------



## slap

kevlarpirate said:


> A J-44 sinks on the way to the Baja in calm seas , likely the keel dropped off, and a 35 foot race boat gets nudged by a whale and springs a leak and sinks on a return from the Transpac. Need I say more


The Ericson 46 is very similar to the Ericson 39 - are you familiar with the Ericson 39 that almost sank due to cracks in the hull just forward of the keel?


----------



## PCP

kevlarpirate said:


> as for upwind, I did not say hard on the wind, No one , I repeat no one sails
> hard on the wind unless they are racing, The joy of sailing is not at 24 degrees apparent in light air. *Sounds like you guys do it on paper*.





kevlarpirate said:


> My general points still remain, and that is as buyers get soaked with adrenalin from off wind speed potential, they become less fearful of what mother nature can dish out and when mother nature does her worst, *these downwind sailors will come up with anything to defend. I call that a delusion*...These newer boats are highly compromised in order to get them out of the displacement mode and in my book, that's laughable. Bottom line here is a bunch of agenda driven cherry picking *and little regard *to prudence, comfort, robustness, and *engineering*.


You could be a nice guy to talk to if you were not such an arrogant kind of fundamentalist, kind of: I am an experienced sailor and all others on this forum just "do it on the paper".

But then you say that all guys that like modern generation boats are " *downwind sailors*" but you say also that you (and everybody) don't sail hard on the wind:" *No one , I repeat no one sails hard on the wind unless they are racing, The joy of sailing is not at 24 degrees apparent in light air*".

I don't know what talk is that about sailing upwind at 24º of apparent wind. I don't know any boat capable of doing that (perhaps your Ericson?). I was talking about 45º of apparent wind and I can assure you that this paper sailor does that normally when trying to make way against the wind (providing the wind is strong enough).

Of course the speeds you were referring regarding the Newport were very far away from that angle. You have mentioned 6.5K with 6K wind against the wind and if we consider 45º to true wind the Newport will be only making 4K (in ideal conditions and in flat seas) . The speed you mentioned would only be approached with 105º of the true wind. That's funny that you consider 105º as going against the wind and at the same time call me and all that like modern designed boats *"Donwnwind sailors"*.

You could be a nice guy to talk to if you were bot such an arrogant kind of fundamentalist, kind of: I like heavy IOR boats for cruising and as I am a very experienced sailor that should make them the ideal cruising boat for everybody except for paper and armchair sailors. As new performance cruisers are very far away from that kind of boat in what regards design and sailing characteristics you say about them (Elan 350):



kevlarpirate said:


> "*I looked at that Elan, nothing more than a compromised down wind skimming dish*..Now, all you armchair cruisers, tell me. Have you ever anchored out on one of your high performance designs ..? .. *so far all I hear is quibble and no experience*. I have sailed several of these cutting edge boats and they are NOT , repeat NOT to be trusted offshore and absolutely miserable at anchor."


The Elan 350 that you were referring to is a good example of the modern light weight cruiser with offshore potential. It was elected in Europe the 2011 performance cruiser. The boat was tested by expert sailors from 11 European countries and they have said this about that boat:

*ELAN 350

GBR - Yachting World - British Jury:

Light, direct and responsive on the helm, the 350 is an absolute pleasure to push hard. Like many modern cars, she is capable of plenty more than most people will have the nerve to try. And that bodes well when it comes to more everyday performance where she is nimble, light to handle and easy to sail at a brisk pace.
....
this boat is a perfect match for those who are looking for a boat that strikes a balance between good performance and practical requirements of family sailing. There are plenty of boats that have claimed this territory, but few that really deliver.

Below decks, despite her modest yet modern looks, she's attracted praise and criticism is equal measures. For me she's spot on, a mixture of sparking performance and a simple practical layout below.

GER - YACHT - Germany Jury:

Happy marriage between a fully fitted-out cruiser and a fast beast when ist blowing.

She needs wind and sail area to fly, but when she does she makes you want to go forever.

Great steering despite the twin rudders and twin wheels. Good cockpit layout. Super bow sprit solution. well built.

Downsides? Only one biggy: The base price is a bit misleading, fully spec'ed she will easily cost 150k or more. But of all contemporary performance cruisers her size that is still a fair deal.

ITA - Fare Vela, Italian Jury:

Maybe one of the best and more complete example of new age fast cruisers, she proved good speed and fun under sail with lots of very well thought solutions, either on deck or inside. And all this in a good looking and refined design, specially considering the hull shape.

Easy to sail fast with a lot of fun, good space inside, a perfect fast cruiser for young and sportive families.

NED - Waterkampioen, Dutch Jury:

a fantastic performance cruiser from Elan: the 350. It combines perfectly the luxury you need for (family)cruising with great sailing abilities.

Easily planing downwind, fantastic upwind. A boat that I - almost - would like to own myself.

FRA - Voile, French Jury:

A wide transom, with two rudders and a chine : it looks promising and it is !

Rob humphreys did for sure a superb job for the boat is very well balanced and the stern is always very smooth. It is not so frequent when having a double rudder.

The boat goes fast and with ease, even in the lights winds. A very good cruiser racer from whatever point of vue.

AUT - YachtRevue, Austrian Jury:

Exciting Design, exciting performance: We like the smooth movement in the waves, the way the boat accelerates going downwind and the layout of the fittings in the Clubracing-Version.

Under deck: There is more space as expected and some really nice details.

SWE - BatNytt, Swedish Jury:

Elan 350 Head-on-design with comfort:

With Elan 350 regatta sailors, solo racers and families alike get seldom seen performance.

Chines, twin rudders, extreme beam aft, give unrivalled control when cruising and inspire adventurers to test limits.

When testing the boat in 25 knots wind, we noted 14 knots on the speedo and no wipeouts. Expect even higher numbers when surfconditions are up. ...

Among the innovations we like the carbonsprit smartly hidden in the foredeck, well constructed and lowfriction steering system with GRP wheels resulting in the lightest grip experienced on any twin rudder boat so far.

Inside styling might divide fans, but light woodwork, dark floorboards and angular corners, create a without doubt a very modern atmosphere on board. ...
NOR - Seilas, Norway Jury:

Wide hull with a lot of stability is the new trend. A few yard have been pushing the ideas from the Open-classes to the mass marked, but non have made this in such a clever style as Elan.

Elan 350 looks good, works well, and will sett the benchmark for performance yachts for this class.

It's fun to sail with double digits on the log, not only at the face of a wave, but for hours.

SUI - Marina.ch, Swiss Jury:

...She combines classy sailing-performance with the comfort-needs of a non-professional crew.

A plus is the feeling at the helm - a weak point on many yachts with double-rudder configuration.

DEN - BådNyt, Danish Jury:

Modern looks, lots of comfort both in terms of sailing abilities an down below.

The wide transom and the twin rudder setup is the signature of the boats of the coming decade.

It reaches planing speed with ease and stays there for long.

The two wheels are both nice to look at and nice to control the boat with. It is a clear winner destined for succes.

*

Off course, all these testers, that sail dozens of different boats each year and that are very experienced cruisers and racers, are just for you "armchair" and paper sailors" and his experience should be dismissed because you are the only true sailor around.

I have nothing against old designs, I find that many are very good designs and offer different sailing pleasures but assuming like you do that modern performance cruising designs (and the Elan 350 is a very good example) are unsuitable for cruising or that old boats are better does not make any sense.

Everybody has its own tastes in what regards cruising and some prefers old designs for several reasons but for a sailor that like to go fast it makes no sense choosing an old design over a new one and even less to call to all those that choose to have modern performance cruiser "armchair sailors", "paper sailors" and "Downwind sailors".

Regards

Paulo


----------



## bb74

kevlarpirate said:


> From Paulo:
> "I would say that two cases, one of each category means statistically nothing about the suitability of modern versus old designed boats regarding ocean passage."
> 
> statistically nothing ???
> All I here is a bunch of quibbling and cherry picking. and again we hear jtrying to broad brush slam the IOR. The S&S was NOT an IOR boat
> it was a well designed boat for offshore conditions. If you want to slam the IOR
> you have to go to the early 80's.
> 
> Truth be told Amie's boat was not a successful offshore design. It is a design
> far more vulnerable to sustaining damage that the S&S.
> Poor behavior and lacking material strength. Here , let me explain:
> Amie's has way less roll moment of inertia and will snap roll and slam its spindly carbon mast into the back side of the passing beam wave. Once that carbon mast gets out of column ..... bang , and down she comes.
> 
> The S&S will have the protection of a sluggish response to a beam sea and if her
> stout aluminum mast did hit , it would have better chances of survival.
> 
> When interviewed, Amie said her boat was designed for those conditions.
> but Amie is a teenager with little knowledge of these things and can only repeat what she is told. Obviously the design was not a "successful" design.
> 
> regarding the Westsail 32 . I have sailed one to Catalina and laid on a mooring and sailed home.
> The upwind leg was not exciting but we got there, The quietness and lack of motion below when on the mooring ball was a delight so we stayed an extra day. The return reach home was a delight with easy motion comfort .
> 
> Since cruising boats are at anchor 90% of the time , I call this a successful cruising design , and as for seamanship , that boat in the perfect storm says volumes, lying on the sand with no more than some life line damage.
> 
> Now, all you armchair cruisers, tell me. Have you ever anchored out on one of your high performance designs and see it track from side to side
> annoying you and your neighboring boats as you get within a boat length
> of them . And the annoying slapping waves against your hull distracting your conversations and making everyone irritable? and the constant butt slapping
> so you can't sleep at night? If you have done this I'm sure you will agree
> but so far all I hear is quibble and no experience. I have sailed several of these
> cutting edge boats and they are NOT , repeat NOT to be trusted offshore
> and absolutely miserable at anchor.
> 
> Plumbean: you have a good boat but don't cringe.
> As for light air performance, My Newport 41 does 6.5 knots upwind in 6 knots true
> and that's plenty good for light air performance. We're talking a 1968 design here
> over 40 years ago.
> 
> These newer boats are highly compromised in order to get them out of the displacement mode and in my book, that's laughable.
> 
> Bottom line here is a bunch of agenda driven cherry picking and little regard to
> prudence, comfort, robustness, and engineering


I wasn't going to comment on this but I've had a tough week and some of the caustic commentary just got to me.

First of all, we're not all looking for 5 star accommodations on the hook. So what if there's a bit of swinging - add a gallon bucket, a yard of rope and you have a stay anchor... The first night with the water lapping on the hull can be disconcerting, after 2 to 3 nights you don't even hear it anymore. Sure, that's a compromise, but then everything in life is a compromise and some just don't mind. Doesn't mean they're wrong.

As for seaworthiness... I'm sure old shoes feel better but sometimes if you want to run a marathon, not walk it, you need to change. Things may bang more, get a bit more uncomfortable, but at the same time, offwind at 12-15 kts with fingertip feel of what the boat is doing is something many would willingly trade off. Are we stupid? Are the people that are building these boats to perform that way just dumb? Is the fact many of these boats are insubmersible a compensation for poor design? Or is it perhaps, just perhaps, the builder looking out for the owner? My boat, the keep falls off, it doesn't sink. Yours?

Honestly, other than trolling to make an argument that any reasonable sailor would not consider, I don't understand the point of your diatribe. You like heavy, classic designs. Fine. A mast fell off an Open 40 in the South Pacific. Dear me, how can that be? Things happen. That's how. Doesn't mean the design isn't made for what she was doing.

over and out...


----------



## williamkiester

Dear Jeff,

Congratulations on the nuptial. Look for a white hulled Allied Luders 33 named Bella making way for better or for worse in the Chesapeake this July sailing from Flag Harbor to Cape Ann. Hoping that I'll be caught up with all the thread reading by then.

--Will


----------



## Jeff_H

Thank you Will. If you get up by Annapolis, please look me up. Meanwhile I'll keep my eyes peeled for _Bella,_ a pretty name for a pretty boat.

Jeff


----------



## kevlarpirate

hey BB, not trolling to make an argument, just pointing out how delusional 
people can get. Slapping at anchor at night . you don't hear it after three days?
What are you smoking? On the contrary , it gets worse. Drives people nuts! Did I mention rolling at anchor? I suppose you don't notice that after three days also.
And pounding in a 1 foot chop, but the stem knuckle looks so cool when I walk up to my boat at the dock. All laughable.

And Paulo , I am not arrogant, just not easily sold on compromise and i am not shy about voicing my claims. If you want to argue my points, OK fine but these long winded pastes you do are not followed by specifics just your own theory, where is a polar on this Elan 35. lets cut to the chase here

As for the comment on never sailing upwind unless you are racing , yes I defend that and add to it that if you are on a really tight schedule like making
the anchorage before nigh fall, yes I have done this but the crew was not happy and the boat was a mess, and yes we were pounding on the breaking waves over 5 feet, The Elan would have been a nightmare.

I have sailed a Shock 40 and a 35 footer of similar design and rating but I won't mention what because the owner may read this , however they were both nightmares in the same conditions, being thrown about with nothing to hold on to. 

As for the Ericson 39, my boat is of the dame design , but almost twice the weight. Totally different boat. As for the 39, I know they sailed in very rough conditions for over 1000 miles on that particular voyage , and that the owner had removed interior framing , the details unknown but something loosened up and became compromised, that's different than being under built from the get go. I have inspected 
mine just the same and find nothing unusual, but I can guarantee I have no fears ramming a whale, and for that matter one of these teacup boats you refer to. 

BTW Paulo what did find a boat or just watch U-tube videos, you were shopping a year ago did it happen?


----------



## kevlarpirate

BB 

here is the point and please , this time let it sink in, see it globally , I said it a year ago, 

Designers and manufacturers making the claim these are cruising boats. They are NOT cruising boats unless you re define the term cruising. These are racing boats and in 30 years after launching most will be in pieces. 

At least Porsche respects their buyers enough to not make the claim you can take a turbo Carrera off road. 

As for experience I have yet to hear of anyone who has sailed one of these
plumb bowed pounder wonder boats upwind in a 5 foot chop and sat a night at anchor.


----------



## haffiman37

kevlarpirate said:


> BB
> 
> here is the point and please , this time let it sink in, see it globally , I said it a year ago,
> 
> Designers and manufacturers making the claim these are cruising boats. They are NOT cruising boats unless you re define the term cruising. These are racing boats and in 30 years after launching most will be in pieces.
> 
> At least Porsche respects their buyers enough to not make the claim you can take a turbo Carrera off road.
> 
> As for experience I have yet to hear of anyone who has sailed one of these
> plumb bowed pounder wonder boats upwind in a 5 foot chop and sat a night at anchor.


And what is 'cruising' pr your definition?


----------



## chall03

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ha ha ha ha heeeeeeee now this is Sailnet................

(insert picture of movie popcorn here... Sorry Chall the pic had to go.....)

Old Shoe vs a Portagee. Havent had that around here in a while.


----------



## slap

kevlarpirate said:


> As for the Ericson 39, my boat is of the dame design , but almost twice the weight. Totally different boat.


If you scale up the displacement of the Ericson 39 to the same length as the Ericson 46, you end up with about the same displacement.

19000*(45.83/39 )^3 = 30833 lbs, compared with 31500 lbs listed for the Ericson 46. Just larger, and not totally different.

BTW, the Ericson 39 and 46 were well known as being difficult to control going downwind when pushed in windy conditions. While they sail quite nicely upwind, going downwind could be "interesting" when pushing the boat. Of course, much of this is reduced if you sail conservatively.


----------



## PCP

kevlarpirate said:


> hey BB, not trolling to make an argument, just pointing out how delusional
> people can get. Slapping at anchor at night . you don't hear it after three days?
> What are you smoking? On the contrary , it gets worse. *Drives people nuts!* Did I mention rolling at anchor? I suppose you don't notice that after three days also. And pounding in a 1 foot chop, but the stem knuckle looks so cool when I walk up to my boat at the dock. *All laughable.*


Yes, that's why sailors buy those boats and why the 350 Elan is just one of the biggest sales success around. Most sailors are masochists . You seem to be an exception



kevlarpirate said:


> .. OK fine but these long winded pastes you do are not followed by specifics just your own theory, where is a polar on this Elan 35. lets cut to the chase here


I have posted a link to that polar on the post were I was comparing the Elan performance with the Newport one.



kevlarpirate said:


> BTW Paulo what did find a boat or just watch U-tube videos, you were shopping a year ago did it happen?


I was not shopping, I was looking at boats to chose the one it adapts better to my money, my needs and my sailing style.

Now I am shopping. I have not concluded the deal, but an Elan 380 or 350 are options and well adapted to what I want from a cruising sailing boat.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## KeelHaulin

PCP said:


> It seems that there are some problem with your measured speeds, or at least with what you call upwind and what is generally called upwind.
> 
> Accordingly with the Polar that was posted the *Newport 41*, in flat water and perfect conditions, can make a bit less than 6.5K at 105º of true wind. Around here we don't call 105º upwind. We call upwind between 32º and 60º of true wind. At 45º the Newport should be making about *4K* and at 60º is making about *5.7K*. That is really good for an old boat.


I hate to tell you this, but there is a huge difference between what is shown on a polar diagram and what a boat can ACTUALLY sail. Your comment about it only sailing at 105deg at 6.5 kts in 6kt wind is unfair and incorrect. The boat would probably need ~55 deg true to sail at 6.5kts in 6kts of wind.

Some polars are 'wishful thinking' on the part of the boat designer and the marketing department, while other are actually more conservative than the boats' capability because only certain performance oriented measurements are used in the Velocity Prediction Program (computer algorithm) that is used to generate the polar diagram. A polar diagram is only an educated guess at what a modeled boat can actually do, not the reality.

I also own a Newport 41. I can tell you from experience that the boat is faster than predicted on the polars. You can argue that the Elan 350 is a faster boat, for which you are right in off wind racing conditions, but we are not talking about off wind racing here, are we? Would you be flying a chute on every downwind passage while cruising? The only way to reach those high off wind velocities are by sailing off the wind and pushing the boat to the point where it is planing. This is not a comfortable way to sail unless you are fully crewed and are constantly trimming to control the natural roll of the boat, the wave action and the sails. Who does this while they are cruising???

The Newport 41 does just fine sailing upwind in 6kts. IME she points a fair bit higher than predicted and sails a bit faster. The reason is that the waterline length increases as the boat picks up speed and increases in heel. I don't think this is taken into account on the VPP polar.



> But if you compare it with the performance of an *Elan 350* (a much smaller boat) you can see that the Elan can make *5k* at 45º and *5.9K* at 60º. We can see also that with 10K wind at 45º and 60º the speeds are *6* to *6.6* and *6.8* to *7.2* (Newport/Elan).
> 
> http://www.soloelan.com/images/Elan350/Elan_350_polar_diagram.pdf
> 
> However, as Jeff has explained:
> 
> In real conditions you almost never find flat water. That means that in real conditions those differences are going to be a lot bigger and while the Elan, that has a lot less drag and inertia, will be capable of maintain a relatively constant speed with some waves, accelerating quickly, the heavier, big drag Newport will be partially stopped at each wave, accelerating slowly just to be stopped again by the next wave. In the end the average difference of speed between the two boats would be quite substantial, much more than what the polars would suggest...and those polars show already a quite considerable difference even if the two boats had the same size.
> 
> The difference is really *BIG*, if we consider that the *Elan 350 is much smaller*.


As to your comment on slowing down in chop, actually it's a bit of the opposite to your comments on how the N41 will perform. The boat has a very narrow bow section and with the momentum of her heavier displacement it tends to slice through the chop and lose little momentum because it has the inertia to carry the speed and not lose the apparent wind. Additionally, having a taller rig, the sail will not see as much shadowing by swell. The only time it has trouble in chop and swell is in the lightest of wind <3 kts. The polars are not much different in the case of sailing upwind in light air; and as I stated earlier the N41 out preforms its polar.



> but saying all this I have to congratulate you :
> 
> The Newport 41 is a fine and beautiful boat, a lot better than that ugly Ericson that you had some months back, a boat that should make proud its owner and as you have said, a fast boat in light weather, not so fast as a light modern one but much better than the average old cruiser.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


My dock neighbor sails an Olson 40 (not Open 40). It's a ULDB hull; it weighs only slightly more than the keel does on my Newport 41. I have sailed his boat on several occasions and I can say that it's a fun boat to daysail and it moves better in light air but I can't say I would prefer it in heavy air and especially not in heavy offshore conditions. A great bay racing boat which could be converted to a cruising boat, but its more fatuiging to sail in heavy air and rough water. My boat does not need to reef as early as his boat does; and needs less helm correction because it can be sailed in-trim instead of spilled when the wind is up. Both boats are well suited to their task. The Newport 41 (formerly the C&C Redline 41) made the perfect conversion from winning race hull design to performance oriented racer/cruiser. The Olson 40 was the perfect ULDB coastal racer with potential for a cruising conversion. It's all about what you are willing to step aboard when it comes to offshore conditions and a possibly a short handed crew.


----------



## PCP

KeelHaulin said:


> .. You can argue that the Elan 350 is a faster boat, for which you are right in off wind racing conditions, but we are not talking about off wind racing here, are we? Would you be flying a chute on every downwind passage while cruising? The only way to reach those high off wind velocities are by sailing off the wind and pushing the boat to the point where it is planing. This is not a comfortable way to sail unless you are fully crewed and are constantly trimming to control the natural roll of the boat, the wave action and the sails. Who does this while they are cruising???
> 
> ...


I understand what you say regarding going downwind but the need of spinnaker, the crew and the careful hand on the helming is what older designs need to go relativelly fast downwind and to start planning. The Elan 350 belongs to a generation of boats that are designed taking with reference solo sailing racers. They are designed to be solo sailed and to go fast and safe downwind on autopilot and they don't need a spinnaker to go over hull speed.

They don't roll like old boats. Their large stern , the beam carried after and two rudders give them an incomparable stability. They don't need to be "pushed" to plane, they to do it easily and naturally. All they need is 14K of wind...and no chute needed. But nothing as seeing it

On the first movie with 14.5K wind at 139º the boat is doing 8.3K on autopilot while the skipper is adjusting sails, the boat is rock solid on its tracks. On the second one they are doing 9.3K with 15.3k wind and are sailing in a relaxed way. On the third I don't have the speed but the boat is obviously going fast and easy, planning.

YouTube - Elan 350 planing

YouTube - Elan 310

YouTube - sundaysail.mp4

Regards

Paulo


----------



## KeelHaulin

I don't see a boat planing in that photo... I see a boat on a power reach and a bunch of water wooshing because the stern is wide and ends abruptly. I don't know how fast it is going because I can't see any knot log; the camera is fixated on the transom. It's sailing in flat water BTW; something you don't see very often in the open ocean. While I'm sure it's sailing fast; the question is how well does it go upwind? These boats are tailor designed to go fast downwind and usually the performance is less than desirable for upwind sailing. How much does that boat cost BTW?? I'm pretty sure I am looking at around 4-500k; which is way beyond what most people on a cruising budget are going to spend. So what happens when this boat takes a knockdown? Looks like you get launched off the high side like a rolled catamaran. I question the form stability of a flat bottomed shallow draft boat that only has enough keel to keep it upright at the dock.


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ha ha ha ha heeeeeeee now this is Sailnet................
> 
> (insert picture of movie popcorn here... Sorry Chall the pic had to go.....)
> 
> Old Shoe vs a Portagee. Havent had that around here in a while.


What's an "old shoe". Never heard of it.


----------



## smackdaddy

kevlarpirate said:


> Bottom line you have to decide which boat you would want to be on
> I take the S&S, you couldn't pay me to endure Amies boat to go around the world , getting bounced about
> trying to get some sleep inside a tin can being rolled down a cobblestone street
> 
> And anyone who would try to draw conclusions from just two datapoints would be laughed at by a statistician. As an example, the Mayflower successfully sailed to America and back; The Titanic didn't. Was the Mayflower a more seaworthy design then the Titanic?
> 
> Laughable , Two data points? try thousands in a journey around the world
> Where in the world do you come up with ONLY TWO,
> 
> as for upwind, I did not say hard on the wind, No one , I repeat no one sails
> hard on the wind unless they are racing, The joy of sailing is not at 24 degrees apparent in light air. Sounds like you guys do it on paper.
> 
> BTW paulo, I sold my 41, shipped my beautiful Ericson 46 , all 33,000 lbs, to Florida
> now undergoing a complete cosmetic restoration , ........
> 
> What have YOU done? Did you ever get your dream boat ? or still pondering the unknown,
> 
> I looked at that Elan , nothing more than a compromised down wind skimming dish


Wow - this dude's smart. Nice summation kev. Seriously.


----------



## chall03

chall03 said:


> Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ha ha ha ha heeeeeeee now this is Sailnet................
> 
> (insert picture of movie popcorn here... Sorry Chall the pic had to go.....)
> 
> Old Shoe vs a Portagee. Havent had that around here in a while.


You can never have too much popcorn.
This forum is popcornist.  

For what it's worth, I sail an older, heavier, more traditional boat, but also enjoy sailing often on a variety modern designs.

Isn't this just the same old argument, and once again isn't it just a case of horses for courses??


----------



## kevlarpirate

Keelhaulin
thanks for adding some true facts as you base your comments on experience, 
and yes, I have bettered my polars by a couple of tenths upwind. I rate 93
and consider it a fair rating in most cases. 

As for sailing hard on the wind in a chop, these boats like the Elan will be quite a challenge. Even a boat like a C&C 37R hard on the wind in a big sea was tough and slow but we were pointing higher than anyone , therefore our VMG was 
winning our race for us. Concentration was 100% or you fell out of the slot , I mentioned no one wants to do this, better to crack off and have some fun.
Cruising is about having fun, and that includes comfort below which includes motion and quietness, It also includes a cockpit which is comfortable and 
accommodates people. I have witnessed wives who avoid sailing because 
their husbands choice is inhospitable.

slap, yes, my 46 is a scaled up version of a 39 and being so, it's motion 
is very noticeably more comfortable being much more massive and bigger relative 
to waves out there, It is also faster and quite easy to sail. The tight butt
makes for well balanced helm upwind even when overpowered. 
Downwind, we don't fly spinnakers in 20 kts. however with my custom rudder
that would not be a problem. The problem is getting crew who are willing to handle 20 foot spinnaker poles. Plus, I have no desire to sail that way any more. I have a 3/4 and half ounce chute which are fine and well needed if we head south. Most all these boats from that era 
need upgraded rudders. All the Cal 40's I know in LA area , now all beautifully restored, have upgraded rudders, My Newport became a different boat after the refit.

Thanks smak, love that picture


----------



## haffiman37

kevlarpirate said:


> Cruising is about having fun, and that includes comfort below which includes motion and quietness, It also includes a cockpit which is comfortable and
> accommodates people. I have witnessed wives who avoid sailing because
> their husbands choice is inhospitable.


We had a lot of fun on our trip, and my wife really enjoyed to fully stretch out in the cockpit. The spacious cockpit was in fact one of many deciding factors to buy that specific boat. With only 2 adults and our 4 yrs old son, we enjoyed the comfort downstairs as well, both in harbors and when the trade winds pushed us along over the oceans.
So by your 'definition' I guess even a Jeanneau SO37 might be classified as a cruiser?


----------



## kevlarpirate

I looked at 2 on Yachtworld, a 2006 and a 99? I like the interior a lot good layout
forward facing nav station, fun galley, looks like you could have 6 down below without being crowded. great cockpit with that wrap around drivers seat
nicely radiused easy on the legs and back, looks like the cockpit seats 
may be a bit skinny, maybe the wood just makes it look that way. but a good reason to not engage the good life too much and not get fat. . sail on

has anyone had problems uploading pictures , my uploads failed , (jpeg under 100k)


----------



## PCP

KeelHaulin said:


> I don't see a boat planing in that photo... I see a boat on a power reach and a bunch of water wooshing because the stern is wide and ends abruptly. I don't know how fast it is going because I can't see any knot log; the camera is fixated on the transom. It's sailing in flat water BTW; something you don't see very often in the open ocean. While I'm sure it's sailing fast; the question is how well does it go upwind? These boats are tailor designed to go fast downwind and usually the performance is less than desirable for upwind sailing. How much does that boat cost BTW?? I'm pretty sure I am looking at around 4-500k; which is way beyond what most people on a cruising budget are going to spend. So what happens when this boat takes a knockdown? Looks like you get launched off the high side like a rolled catamaran. I question the form stability of a flat bottomed shallow draft boat that only has enough keel to keep it upright at the dock.


Let me make it clear. I have nothing against older designs. Some look nice to me like the Newport, some look ugly like the Ericson but that has to be with each person tastes and its a personal choice as it is the kind of boat one prefers to sail and to cruise. I have horror to only one thing: to the kind of guys that want to impose their choices and personal tastes over others. Rest assured I am not one of those.

Regarding your post you say a lot of things, many related with your own preferences but nothing against what I was talking about and that was regarding this statement of yours:

Originally Posted by KeelHaulin 
.. You can argue that the Elan 350 is a faster boat, for which you are right in off wind racing conditions, *but we are not talking about off wind racing here, are we? Would you be flying a chute on every downwind passage while cruising? The only way to reach those high off wind velocities are by sailing off the wind and pushing the boat to the point where it is planing.

This is not a comfortable way to sail unless you are fully crewed and are constantly trimming to control the natural roll of the boat, the wave action and the sails*. Who does this while they are cruising???

I have showed to you that this is not simply true, the Elan 350 can easily plane and go over its hull speed (7.7K) with as little wind as 14K. It can do it without spinnaker, without a crew on autopilot and without rolling. On the first movie I had posted you see it on a power reach and on the second you see it going downwind. You say you don't see a knot log but that is not true. Let me show you again: On this movie you can see the log and the boat is making downwind 8.3K (140º of wind) and with only 14.4K wind.

YouTube - Elan 350 planing

On this one the boat is on a power reach and you can see also the knot log. The boat is making 9.3K with only 15.3K wind. He is planning and he is already 1.6K over its hull speed.

YouTube - Elan 310

So, Why are you saying this?



KeelHaulin said:


> I don't see a boat planing in that photo... I see a boat on a power reach and a bunch of water wooshing because the stern is wide and ends abruptly. I don't know how fast it is going because I can't see any knot log; the camera is fixated on the transom.


Perhaps you didn't saw all the movies, just the last?



KeelHaulin said:


> ... the question is how well does it go upwind? These boats are tailor designed to go fast downwind and usually the performance is less than desirable for upwind sailing.


Ah! but this boat is good upwind. Didn't you saw the polar speeds? Of course it is unfair to compare the performance of a new performance boat with the performance of an old boat, but you can see from that polar that the 350 performance upwind is very good, a lot faster than the the Newport, and the Newport is much bigger. Here you have some images of the boat and in some of these the boat is really close to the wind (in the end of the movie):

YouTube - Elan 350 video -- Yachting World



KeelHaulin said:


> .. How much does that boat cost BTW?? I'm pretty sure I am looking at around 4-500k; ..


So, what this has to do with the boat performance? Some have money to buy new boats, others have not. That has nothing to do with performance.

Some like to restore some beautiful classic boats and spend 2 or 3 times more than if they buy a modern mass production boat. I love those guys, I have not the money for it, but restoring a beautiful old boat is a cultural act, its to preserve for the future some of the most beautiful boats that were ever made, but it is not cheap.

Bottom point, the Elan 350 is a not expensive mass production boat and it is a lot of boat for the money regarding the performance it offers. If someone had the idea of restarting the production of the Newport (with old building techniques and all), your boat, a new boat, would cost today 2 or 3 times the Elan 350 price. You can only compare the price of new boats with the price of other new boats



KeelHaulin said:


> So what happens when this boat takes a knockdown? Looks like you get launched off the high side like a rolled catamaran. I question the form stability of a flat bottomed shallow draft boat that only has enough keel to keep it upright at the dock.


That makes no sense. One of the things that the design of this boat takes into consideration is solo or duo Transtlatic races. The stability and rigging design have taken that into consideration.

Here you can find a stability curve (at the bottom):

http://sail.elan-yachts.com/slike/plovila/e350/katalog_e350.pdf

You can see that the boat has a good AVS (130º) a big positive stability curve and a small inverted curve.

This is obtained putting all ballast down on a bulb and with a relatively big draft (for a 35ft boat).

Regarding being projected when the boat takes a knock down...You should be connected to your boat with a short jack line and if you are a good sailor and are sailing the boat as it should be sailed, you are going nowhere. The line will not permit that.

This does not mean that I am saying that the Elan 350 is a better cruising boat then the Newport 41. It is certainly a lot faster but the choice and preferences for each boat sailing style and cruising style are individual ones.

The Newport will probably please more the ones that prefer a quiet live and the Elan to the sailors that enjoy speed, sailing pleasure and don't mind to trade some comfort for that extra sailing fun.

There are families were only the skipper enjoy sailing but there are others where all members enjoy fast sailing and for those the Elan 350 will be the perfect choice.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> You can never have too much popcorn.
> This forum is popcornist.
> 
> For what it's worth, I sail an older, heavier, more traditional boat, but also enjoy sailing often on a variety modern designs.
> 
> Isn't this just the same old argument, and once again isn't it just a case of horses for courses??


Popcornist? Popcorny? Popcornography? Popcornographic?

I like it.


----------



## Jeff_H

A few days ago, in one of the earlier posts, someone asked the question, "How do you define cruising?" I think at the heart of it, this question represents much of the basis for the gap between the various view points contained within this and similar discussions. I suggest that the justification of anyone's choice of cruising boat is in part derived from each person's personal definition of the term 'cruising'. In that regard, I am largely in agreement with the general direction voiced by Kev. L.P. in this discussion, but I really think that we all tend to shift our own definitions to suit our own circumstances. 

For example, as a kid, a friend and I once took his half decked boat and went 'cruising' on Long Island Sound. Some nights we pitched tents on the beach and camped and some nights we rolled out sleeping bags and slept on the floor boards. While my definition may not match anyone else's, at some level, at the time I would have argued that this was a form of cruising at its most primitive level. 
<O</O
But when asked define a 'cruising boat', I suggest that the definition needs to go beyond simply being able to camp on board. In my mind, a cruising boat needs to minimally provide more than safe shelter for her crew for a reasonable period of time. A cruising boat needs to sail well and safely in whatever conditions she encounters. She needs to be easily short-handed so that the crew on watch can do almost anything without disturbing the off-watch's sleep. She needs adequate carrying capacity and storage space for gear, operating supplies, spares and consumables that are sufficient for a reasonable length passage. She needs to have an adequate cockpit, sea berths, navigation area, head and galley. She needs to be robust enough for the rigors of offshore passage-making and needs to carry the kind of sail handling gear, and ground tackle and tackle handling gear to be able to deal with whatever nature dishes out along the way. 
<O</O
There have been times when the racing rule of the day, produced boats which were either suitable as state of the art dual purpose racing and cruising boats, or where the basic design principles were adaptable to producing well rounded performance cruisers. An example of this might be the era which produced the Valiant 40. While the Valiant 40 is pretty slow relative to modern designs, in its day it was close in speed to and faster on some points sail than the race boats from which its hull-form, keel, rudder and (to a lesser extent) its rig were derived. 
<O</O
When I look at the current crop of 'cruising' boats, which have been derived Open Class race boats, (such as the new 35 foot Elan and 30 foot Beneteau) I find myself in general agreement with the Pirate in that I am not so sure that the design principles behind these boats really do produce what I personally would considered to be a good cruising boat. While I understand that these boats are very fast, and that the racing versions have produced amazing passage times and have a pretty good safety record, I think that there are issues which by my personal definition of a cruising boat would make them seem to be a dubious choice as a serious cruiser for my own use. 
<O</O
I know that a skilled crew can make safe passages in these Open Class derived boats, and that they have large interior volumes, that care has been taken on better examples to provide handholds and footholds and that they offer tremendous speed advantages, but I still think that adaptation of Open Class design principles makes it hard to produce a well rounded cruiser and here is my basis for this conclusion. 
<O</O
Seaworthiness and Seakindliness: 
I should preface this by acknowledging that I have not sailed any of the latest generation of Open Class derived designs so some of this is conjecture. But when I look at the hull-forms of these boats and read how they are supposed to be sailed several items jump out at me. 
<O</O
First of all, in windspeeds and points of sail, which are insufficient to permit planning, such as going up wind in moderate breeze, because of their large wetted surface, they are supposed to be sailed at high enough heel angles that their windward rudder is clear or almost clear of the water. At that heel angle, they are at or approaching their Angle of Diminishing Stability (the point at which the amount of righting force begins to decrease with heel angle- not to be mistaken for the Limit of Positive Stability, the angle at which a boat would prefer to turn turtle rather than remain upright). Sailing at or near the Angle of Diminishing Stability makes a boat more prone to a serous knock down but also maintaining that angle takes pretty aggressive trimming in changeable conditions, not all that dissimilar to flying a hull in a multihull. Simply pointing, trimming and sailing at the high upwind speeds that these boats are capable of becomes less of an option. 

I know the better of these boats do offer a lot of stability and relatively good limits of positive stability, but this comes at the price of very deep draft, and high freeboard and cabib volumes. 
<O</O
But even if this does not represent a hazard, in order to maintain speed you end up sailing at comparatively high heel angles, (it looks like 20 to 25 or so degrees) in order to balance on the leeward chine, (and this may be me as a post 60 year old speaking) does not sound all that easy on the crew or all comfortable when you are talking about a cruising boat sailing in moderate conditions. 
<O</O
I also suspect that when heeled the large flat bottoms and high flat freeboard would appear to be a target for hard slamming and pounding in a short chop. I understand that heeled over the boat behaves like a vee bottom presenting less of a vertical and horizontal flat to the seas, but it still seems like this configuration would have to take some very hard hits in a chop. (I have not sailed these in a chop so acknowledge that this is pure speculation.)
<O</O
These designs count heavily on dynamic stability at speed to achieve motion comfort. Reports that I have read suggest that at speed they offer a very comfortable motion, but only when they are at speed. But in lighter, left-over slop conditions (or powerboats wakes on a light to moderate air day), where dynamic stabilization cannot occur, I would have to think that their wide beam would give them a quick and uncomfortable motion. 
<O</O
Draft: 
An important part of cruising is being able to get into normal ports of call. There are venues where you can get by with almost any draft boat, but the places that I tend to sail, (the US Atlantic Coast and nearby islands) restrict the practical depth of a vessel. In order to achieve the very high righting moments that these boats achieve, they have very deep draft, generally deeper than I would consider acceptable in my preferred sailing venues. Clearly, I understand that this is a personal preference of mine. 
<O</O
Structure: 
While I know that this issue can be engineered around, long lever arm of their deep drafts, and the very small keel footprint place extremely high loads on the keel connections, and hull. These loads need to be distributed using pretty extreme and expensive engineering measures if the designers hope to achieve vaguely reasonable safety margins. While this can be done, I think that as many of the production and racing versions of these Open Class boats are being built, the safety margins are small enough that few of these boats will survive hard groundings or impacts near the bottoms of their keels without major repairs or total loss. But even if they do survive, I suspect that the high load concentrations will result in cyclical long term damage to the supporting structure such that I do question whether these boats will ultimately have the capacity to offer a long service life and low maintenance life cost. 

But my concerns about the service life is also in the details. So many of these boats have gone to plastic and composite deck and interior fittings including item like hinges and cabinet connections. I question how well these items will hold up over the life of the boat. I know that I have had to change these on my boats.
<O</O
At least from my perspective, I would suggest that the last time that a racing rule was such that it produced design principles which could be translated into good cruising boats was either early in the IMS rule and perhaps early in the IRC. I would suggest that some examples of what I would consider to be good cruising boats which derived from the design principles of the IMS and IRC rules might include boats like the Morris 45, C&C 121, Hallberg Rassy 37, or Farr 50 PH, but these same principles have also shown up in value oriented boats like the new Catalina 445. I do understand that these boats do not offer the speed advantages of Open Class derived designs, but at the heart of it, I think that all boats are a compromise, and that we each chose where we are willing to make compromises. In my case, I cannot afford to purchase these newer Open Class based designs, but even if I could, I do not believe that they will offer the kind of forgiving, ease of handling, and shallow enough drag that I personally would want out of a boat that I would cruise. This does not make these bad boats, or invalidate them for others, but when I think of the realities of my day to day sailing, that is my sense for my own needs and wants.


Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## LandLocked66c

Wasn't "rule 62" one of these newly designed boats you guys are talking about? If i'm not mistaken, the crew was beat to death and seasick. Which was the reason they bailed on the race and met with an unfortunate end.


----------



## Jeff_H

From what I read about the sinking of 'Rule 62', it occurred for similar reasons to the 1908 Herreshoff that we nearly sank at the entrance to St. Augustine by missing the channel in rough weather, because we were seasick and exhausted and made a bad judgement call...it had little to do with the boat and everything to do with the crew and the conditions. 

But yes,' Rule 62' was a modern, value-oriented, coastal cruiser that was being used to cross oceans. It's design type represents neither the concept that Paulo is a proponent of, nor of a type that I particularly would recommend for that purpose. 

Jeff


----------



## KeelHaulin

Well said Jeff... I also have nothing against these boats as 'go fast sleds' and I have nothing against those who can afford to own and race them. My points were only to the practicality of them as cruisers; thank you for putting that sentiment into a thoughtful and well written essay.


----------



## Jeff_H

KH,

Thank you for the kind words, and you are very welcome. 

Jeff


----------



## chall03

KeelHaulin said:


> Well said Jeff... I also have nothing against these boats as 'go fast sleds' and I have nothing against those who can afford to own and race them. My points were only to the practicality of them as cruisers; thank you for putting that sentiment into a thoughtful and well written essay.


+1 Jeff.

You have a way of articulating these design discussions in terms that make a lot of sense!


----------



## kevlarpirate

By keehaulin

"This is not a comfortable way to sail unless you are fully crewed and are constantly trimming to control the natural roll of the boat, the wave action and the sails. Who does this while they are cruising???"

this statement speaks volumes, ask any recent Transpac veteran 
you sleep tied to the transom rail, armchair sailors have no Idea what it takes to keep these boats sailing their ratings, no margin for error, a joke as a comfortable cruiser

jeff, very well written essay, but you are almost too kind, I will make op for this and take the heat

BTW on a friends Morris 46, we had a well balanced helm hard on the wind 
in about 10 kts true small chop , very pleasurable when we were high enough 
to crack off and head for the Isthmus, I noticed an instant weather helm 
which required quite a tug on the wheel, I found it annoying

My Newport and Ericson don't do that and remain well balanced when I crack off
When I look at the sailplans of all these newer boats, I see what appears 
to be a much farther forward keel. When you look at my boats , the CLR looks substantially more rear of the CE . 
As you know I am a fan of big J's and short booms, and I don't mean to present that as a bias, but I do use that as my argument why this off wind
helm develops, but never sure if my theory holds water
The Morris has a long boom but it also has a "board flat" tri radial main , because it has in boom reefing , so I cant blame the weather helm on leech cup. 

Can you comment on this, I have noticed this on many wide transomed boats
with forward keels and have always wondered why keels went so far forward

As for many innovations which supposedly make sailing easier therefore opens the market to people who should stick to driving RV's this in boom reefing can be down right dangerous. 

On the Morris, we were furling it into the boom in a very windy anchorage and without us knowing it , the strong wind conditions allowed some line to stretch
which made the boom not exactly 90 degrees to the mast. at about the half way point , the rolled up bolt rope was squishing itself against the mast and jammed 
and the electric winch started to bog down. This caused a huge amount of 
frustration , because if there was one time we needed a sail down quickly , this was it. Inside of seconds , we realized we had a big problem on our hands.
The adjustment to get this thing right had to be made by first raising the sail
again in very gusty crowded conditions. The angle change to get it to work was very small so it was not obvious anything was wrong. 

I have a hard line on many innovations which have not stood the test of time
This in boom furling is flawed and besides it makes for a big clunky looking boom

In general, I feel design has gone the wrong way , being driven by adrenalin junkies better suited for jet skies and video games. I will say I have no complaints , because it has developed a very affordable supply of older proven designs
which sail well and are beautiful. . 
My Ericson is now on it's 21 st day in the yard, I am surprised how many compliments I get from real experienced old school sailors


----------



## KeelHaulin

Something else to consider is that the downwind polar on the Elan is definitely with a spin up, and that video showing it sail at 8.4 in 14.5 kts is more realistic. My Newport 41 will sail 7.5 kts in 14.5 at that course, so it's only 1kt slower but costs over 300k less. So is that performance 'worth' the extra cost? Personally I don't think so.

A Newport 41 won in it's non-spin division of the Figawi last year, with several other much newer boats (beneteau, J, etc) racing against it. It won on both non corrected and corrected time.


----------



## PCP

Jeff_H said:


> A few days ago, in one of the earlier posts, someone asked the question, "How do you define cruising?" I think at the heart of it, this question represents much of the basis for the gap between the various view points contained within this and similar discussions. I suggest that the justification of anyone's choice of cruising boat is in part derived from each person's personal definition of the term 'cruising'. &#8230; but I really think that we all tend to shift our own definitions to suit our own circumstances.


Yes I agree with that point of view.

I would say that Cruising has two parts: One that has to do with living and enjoying the boat, on the marina or at anchor and the other part has to do with sailing, getting there and the way to get there.

There are sailors that enjoy much more the sailing part, so much that some will rarely stop and like to enjoy the boat at sea and even among those the choice would not be the same with some given more importance to the comfort at sea and living quarters others given more importance to sail pleasure and fun that is normally associated with speed.

I would say that there are cruisers with very different tastes. If there is a sufficient number of cruising sailors to define a significant trend the market will provide boats adapted to that kind of cruising style/life, simply because there are a market for it and they are there to make money and to offer cruisers what they want for their cruising pleasure.



Jeff_H said:


> &#8230;When I look at the current crop of 'cruising' boats, which have been derived Open Class race boats, (such as the new 35 foot Elan and 30 foot Beneteau) I find myself in general agreement with the Pirate in that I am not so sure that the design principles behind these boats really do produce what I personally would considered to be a good cruising boat. While I understand that these boats are very fast, and that the racing versions have produced amazing passage times and have a pretty good safety record, I think that there are issues which by my personal definition of a cruising boat would make them seem to be a dubious choice as a serious cruiser for my own use.
> &#8230;&#8230;
> I know that a skilled crew can make safe passages in these Open Class derived boats, and that they have large interior volumes, that care has been taken on better examples to provide handholds and footholds and that they offer tremendous speed advantages, but I still think that adaptation of Open Class design principles makes it hard to produce a well rounded cruiser and here is my basis for this conclusion.
> 
> I should preface this by acknowledging that I have not sailed any of the latest generation of Open Class derived designs so some of this is conjecture. But when I look at the hull-forms of these boats and read how they are supposed to be sailed several items jump out at me.
> Seaworthiness&#8230; :First of all, in windspeeds and points of sail, which are insufficient to permit planning, such as going up wind in moderate breeze, because of *their large wetted surface*, they are supposed to be sailed at high enough heel angles that their windward rudder is clear or almost clear of the water. At that heel angle, they are at or approaching their Angle of Diminishing Stability (the point at which the amount of righting force begins to decrease with heel angle- not to be mistaken for the Limit of Positive Stability, the angle at which a boat would prefer to turn turtle rather than remain upright). Sailing at or near the Angle of Diminishing Stability makes a boat more prone to a serious knock down but also maintaining that angle takes pretty aggressive trimming in changeable conditions, not all that dissimilar to flying a hull in a multihull. Simply pointing, trimming and sailing at the high upwind speeds that these boats are capable of becomes less of an option.


Jeff, respectfully I have to say that the base for the conclusions you take in what regards seaworthiness is non existent. I agree that *"sailing at or near the angle of diminishing stability makes a boat more prone to a serious knock down but also maintaining that angle takes pretty aggressive trimming in changeable conditions, not all that dissimilar to flying a hull in a multihull"* but the stability curve of this boat shows the opposite of what you are talking about.

You say correctly that to get the max performance of this boat against the wind it should be sailed at 20/25º of heel but completely wrong when you say that at that point of heeling the boat is nearer the point of diminishing point of stability and this is a fact not an opinion.

If you look at the stability curve you see that the diminishing point of stability happens near 55º, very far away from 25º.

You can see also that at 25º the righting moment is 24KNm and that at 55º the righting moment is 37Knm, a big difference. But more important, the righting moment at 90º is 25KNm.

This is really outstanding and contradicts what you say regarding easy knock-Downs. *Those numbers say that at 90º the boat is making more force to return to the upright position than all the force that he is making at 25º to counteract all pressure he has at the sails, the pressure needed to make it heel to 25º*.

This is a stiff boat and that's why he can have big sails. The force the righting moment is counteracting at 25º is huge as it is huge the force that is righting the boat at 90º angle of heel. This is a very safe boat and very difficult boat to knock down.










Jeff, take also a look at the small inverted stability and high AVS. I had said before and I say it again, this boat has a very good stability curve and an excellent all around stability including safety stability.



Jeff_H said:


> I know the better of these boats do offer a lot of stability and relatively good limits of positive stability, but this comes at the price of very deep draft, and high freeboard and cabin volumes.


This boat does not look to me as a high freeboard boat, at least if compared with other modern designs and in what regards draft I would not call very deep to 2.15m and that would be fine with me, but of course it all depend of the cruising grounds.

Anyway that has nothing to do with the type of design because there are several boats with the same design type and that offer different solutions to diminish draft. I am thinking about the Pogo cruising line line (10,50 and 12,50) and the Opium 39 with swinging keels and 0,5m of draft and the RM 1050 (twin keel) with 1.65m of draft.



Jeff_H said:


> &#8230;In points of sail, which are insufficient to permit planning, such as going up wind in moderate breeze, *because of their large wetted surface,* they are supposed to be sailed at high enough heel angles that their windward rudder is clear or almost clear of the water.
> But even if this does not represent a hazard, in order to maintain speed you end up sailing at comparatively high heel angles, (it looks like 20 to 25 or so degrees) in order to balance on the leeward chine, (and this may be me as a post 60 year old speaking) does not sound all that easy on the crew or all comfortable when you are talking about a cruising boat sailing in moderate conditions.


Jeff, this boat has a very small wetted surface. The boat's wetted surface when the boat is heeled is very small it has nothing to do with the boat large transom. Finot has an article that explains this. I will post the images that are self explanatory and the article that is very interesting (French).


















Groupe Finot, Architectes navals

The wetted surface is a function of the boat weight and the size of its appendices. The Elan 350 is very light and the keel is not even a fin, but a foil with a bulb. That's why I have said that this boat would lose a lot less speed than the Newport on a chop: Less wetted surface fine entries and a lot more power.

The rest of your reasoning was assuming this boat has a big wetted surface, but that is not true it has a very small one and very fine entries so it needs a small sail area to go fast upwind.

Off course if you want in a breeze to take all the boat has to offer in terms of speed yes, you will go with 25º of heel and high in the air and I admit that could be fun but not enjoyable all the time. But you don't need to go with a 25º heel to go fast even very close to the wind.

This type of boats has a huge form stability (and small wetted surface) so it has a lot more sailing power (righting moment) at smaller angles of heel than a narrower boat like the Newport. Take another look at the stability curve, it is all there:

At 17º of heel the righting moment is already 18KNm but at 25º of heel you only get more 6KNm. This means that you have a lot of power at 15/17º of heel and you will not gain much speed going into a breeze with full sail and 25º of wind.

If you reef and go with 17º of heel I will bet that the difference will be a lot less than 0.5K. At least is that what I have found out when I have sailed the Opium 39 that is a kind of bigger Elan 350.



Jeff_H said:


> I also suspect that when heeled the large flat bottoms and high flat freeboard would appear to be a target for hard slamming and pounding in a short chop. I understand that heeled over the boat behaves like a vee bottom presenting less of a vertical and horizontal flat to the seas, but it still seems like this configuration would have to take some very hard hits in a chop. (I have not sailed these in a chop so acknowledge that this is pure speculation
> These designs count heavily on dynamic stability at speed to achieve motion comfort. Reports that I have read suggest that at speed they offer a very comfortable motion, but only when they are at speed. But in lighter, left-over slop conditions (or powerboats wakes on a light to moderate air day), where dynamic stabilization cannot occur, I would have to think that their wide beam would give them a quick and uncomfortable motion.


About this I don't know , I have found that people have very different notions of what is for them a satisfactory boat motion comfort. There are the ones that like more the motion of heavy boats there are the ones that like more the motion of light fast boats.

I mean I know what I prefer and I know that the Elan 350 comfort would be good enough for me. I know that because this boat is not in that respect different from any other modern boat. The boat looks beamy but it is not, with 3.5m is in the average and has very fine entries (it looks beamy because it has a large transom).

The one that had test sailed it, and they are professionals that know well all other modern boats (and the ones that don't have large transoms) said about it:

*&#8230;.We like the smooth movement in the waves

&#8230;.She combines classy sailing-performance with the comfort-needs of a non-professional crew&#8230;.

&#8230; lots of comfort ... in terms of sailing abilities *

And these opinions are not of one tester, but the opinions of three different ones so I guess than in what regards sea motion is a bit above average, in what concerns modern boats.



Jeff_H said:


> I know that a skilled crew can make safe passages in these Open Class derived boats


As I have showed the stability curve of this boat make it a very forgiving boat and a very hard boat to knock down. This is not a boat designed for a crew, this boat is designed for Solo or Duo sailing like the Open boats that have served as model for its design.

The difference between a boat designed for solo sail comparing it with a boat that is designed for a crew is that a Solo boat has to be a lot more forgiven and easy to sail and that's what this boat offer.

The biggest difference for a more conventional design is the safety in going downwind. A traditional boat will roll and will need a hand at the helm. This one can go on autopilot. Like all open solo boats it is designed to do that. And that does not mean that he is slow or difficult to steer upwind.

Regarding safety and easy sailing the opinion of the professional testers that have test sailed the boat (and they were a lot) were unanimous:

*Like many modern cars, she is capable of plenty more than most people will have the nerve to try. And that bodes well when it comes to more everyday performance where she is nimble, light to handle and easy to sail at a brisk pace.*

*this boat is a perfect match for those who are looking for a boat that strikes a balance between good performance and practical requirements of family sailing. There are plenty of boats that have claimed this territory, but few that really deliver.*

*Easy to sail fast with a lot of fun, good space inside, a perfect fast cruiser for young and sportive families.*

*Easily planing downwind, fantastic upwind. A boat that I - almost - would like to own myself.*

*The boat goes fast and with ease, even in the lights winds. Chines, twin rudders, extreme beam aft, give unrivalled control when cruising and inspire adventurers to test limits.

It reaches planing speed with ease and stays there for long.*

Anyway, as you have said, there are as many choice of cruising boats as there are cruising sailors, providing these represent a significant number that makes profitable to build mass production boats for them.

And regarding cruising sailors I would like to point out that in Europe the Elan 350 is one of the biggest success in sales and that the Pogo 10.50 is sold for the next three years and for the 12.50 you need to wait one year and a half and the RM 1060 has already a long waiting list.

These are not race boats (the Pogo has a racing line and the Elan 350 is not designed to perform well under handicap) these are cruising boats and the cruisers that identify themselves with the kind of cruising they offer are more than the offer in boats the European market can provide and that is a big one .

But even if in Europe there is already a considerable number of sailors that identify themselves with the kind of cruising these type of boats offer I easily agree that this kind of boat will not be for all, not even for the majority.

As one of the testers of the boat of the year had said : *this is the boat for sportive families*, the ones were everybody likes to have fun while sailing and that's my case .

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

KeelHaulin said:


> Something else to consider is that the downwind polar on the Elan is definitely with a spin up, and that video showing it sail at 8.4 in 14.5 kts is more realistic. My Newport 41 will sail 7.5 kts in 14.5 at that course, so it's only 1kt slower but costs over 300k less. So is that performance 'worth' the extra cost? Personally I don't think so.


Don't no what you mean. The boat on the video is doing 8.3 with 14.4 at 140º and that is consistent with the Polar.

http://www.soloelan.com/images/Elan350/Elan_350_polar_diagram.pdf

With more wind the differences will be much bigger specially if you use a spinnaker. That boat was been test sailed with 25k and they sailed at 14K. The Polar only show 11.4 with that wind. I doubt the Newport can sail over 10K.

I have already said the Newport was a fast sailboat on its time and today it is still a relatively fast cruiser but we are comparing a 35ft boat with a 41ft boat. The Newport 41 should be compared with a same sized boat not a 35ft boat.

Regarding extra cost I have already explained to you that when you talk about a Newport you are talking about an old used boat and you are comparing that price with a price of a new Elan 350. If You could have a new Newport 41 it would cost 2 or 3 times the cost of the Elan and then you could ask if the price deserved the difference, I mean between the expensive new Newport and the inexpensive Elan.

I understand what you mean but really it makes no sense to compare the price of an old boat with a new boat. the difference in price has nothing to do with performance it has to do with one being old and the other new.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## KeelHaulin

If you look closely at the Elan polar the hull speeds for 20 kt and below are within 1 kt of the Newport 41. Just because you push a boat faster than the hull speed does not mean that it is on a plane. If you look at the polars for the hull speed above at 25 kts you see a large jump in hull speed at 145 deg. That is where the boat begins to plane. So to begin significantly out preforming a fast displacement hull you need 25 kts of wind. Look at the heel of that boat at 140 in 14.4. What would the heel be at 25 kts?? Would it be comfortable to sail for several hundred miles at that heel angle in 25+ likely in heavy seas and shorthanded crew?? I don't think so...

I've sailed in a Newport 41 on upwind legs where the heel angle was above 60 degrees. Water was lapping the portlights on the doghouse. Nobody was freaking out because the boat felt stable and the deep cockpit was comfortable although we were standing on the walls of the pit. Compare that to trying to cling to the high side of a boat that has a 12' beam at the stern. Lose your footing and you might fall to your death and /or right out of the boat.

There are stories of the 41 planing in the right wind conditions...


----------



## smackdaddy

KeelHaulin said:


> If you look closely at the Elan polar the hull speeds for 20 kt and below are within 1 kt of the Newport 41. Just because you push a boat faster than the hull speed does not mean that it is on a plane. If you look at the polars for the hull speed above at 25 kts you see a large jump in hull speed at 145 deg. That is where the boat begins to plane. So to begin significantly out preforming a fast displacement hull you need 25 kts of wind. Look at the heel of that boat at 140 in 14.4. What would the heel be at 25 kts?? Would it be comfortable to sail for several hundred miles at that heel angle in 25+ likely in heavy seas and shorthanded crew?? I don't think so...
> 
> I've sailed in a Newport 41 on upwind legs where the heel angle was above 60 degrees. Water was lapping the portlights on the doghouse. Nobody was freaking out because the boat felt stable and the deep cockpit was comfortable although we were standing on the walls of the pit. Compare that to trying to cling to the high side of a boat that has a 12' beam at the stern. Lose your footing and you might fall to your death and /or right out of the boat.
> 
> There are stories of the 41 planing in the right wind conditions...


60 degrees? Dude...reef.

That's beyond even FC sailing.


----------



## mitiempo

I don`t think it was going very effectively at 60 degrees of heel. Leeway would increase a bit at that angle I think. Time to reef.

Planing in the right conditions - maybe crossing a bar in surf!


----------



## KeelHaulin

mitiempo said:


> I don`t think it was going very effectively at 60 degrees of heel. Leeway would increase a bit at that angle I think. Time to reef.
> 
> Planing in the right conditions - maybe crossing a bar in surf!


It was sailing along fine, but I'm sure the boat would have sailed to weather faster with less heel. It was not my boat, and the first reef was in the main. I estimate the wind was up around 35-40 kts.

Planing was reported by David Shore when they won their division (on elapsed and corrected time) in the Vic-Maui in '98 aboard S/V Maestro. IIRC it required 30+ kts, flying a heavy chute, with following seas.


----------



## prroots

My vote is for the Wauquiez Hood 38. She is a heavy displacement, true blue water boat and does amazingly well in all winds, light and heavy. We cruised on one for over 8 years.
Pete


----------



## kevlarpirate

On my Newport 41 , I once took a couple of big beam seas , set of three looked like 12 feet but probably smaller, face was vertical but not breaking , we were entering a shelf area where the depth went from 600 to 100
feet we were in 31 kts true, beam reaching #3 two reefs, 8+ kts
we were knocked down to 60+ deg 3 times water almost came over the combing into the cockpit, we laughed , that's about all we could do , but we didn't lose a quarter knot.
That Hood is nice , but ask are you willing to pay $135K , no doubt part of that for the name Hood? not me , the N41 is less than half that price and better sailing boat, let alone faster. 

One issue I don't see discussed , and haven't seen mentioned especially by Paulo, who after a year is still having a paper love affair with this Elan 35
is mass. 

Mass and momentum when sailing means waves have less effect on a boat

My 33000 lb Ericson is noticeably more comfortable than my Newport 41 
and that boat was in a completely different ballpark than the Schock 40 
which bounced us around like a big dingy. 

The static stability curve shown is almost a duplicate of the N-41 curve
with 7.3:1 positive vs: neg areas , However in the dynamic world
The curve on the Elan gives a false sense of security do to low mass.

The Newport at 19000 lbs will be the boat of choice in bad conditions
so therefore , because of its mass difference, the Newport should be given a multiplier factor , like almost 2 , therefore statistically 2 times more rollovers for the Elan, however I really don't believe for one second that 
static curve won't fall to pieces in the dynamic world .
My opinion , is that curve is useless


----------



## PCP

kevlarpirate said:


> ....
> 
> The static stability curve shown is almost a duplicate of the N-41 curve
> with 7.3:1 positive vs: neg areas , However in the dynamic world
> The curve on the Elan gives a false sense of security do to low mass.
> 
> .... however I really don't believe for one second that
> static curve won't fall to pieces in the dynamic world .
> My opinion , is that curve is useless


So the Elan curve is good...but useless due to low mass???????

Off course that would make your boat the 33 000 lbs Ericson a lot safer than an Open 60 that has only half your boat mass, hell maybe the Open 60 is even a dangerous boat

Regarding that mass issue I have questioned myself about that and, some years back, even post a thread about that:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/general-discussion-sailing-related/11338-how-heavy-too-heavy-ii.html

The difference is that now I know more about dynamic stability and the importance it represents on the boat global seaworthiness .

If mass was a determinant factor to overall stability the modern mini transats (with 70 or 80 boats racing), raced in boats that look like miniature Elan 350 would always be tragic events. The boat's displacement are only 2150lb

Well no, it is a very safe race, one that has one of bigger percentage of boats finishing the race and I don't remember any tragic event.

Mini Transat 6.50 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am not saying that a mini class racer cannot be capsized. All small boats can be capsized (including your Ericson) given the right circumstances, what I am saying is that mass is not a determining factor. Dynamic stability mainly and also Static stability are.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

KeelHaulin said:


> It was sailing along fine, but I'm sure the boat would have sailed to weather faster with less heel. It was not my boat, and the first reef was in the main. I estimate the wind was up around 35-40 kts.


I'm a little dubious. It's hard to sail along fine when your keel is out of the water. Even so, that rail is definitely wet! Heh-heh.










Of course, who am I to poo-poo a big sailing story?

Keel - was that this year? If so I'll add it to the BFS thread!


----------



## haffiman37

I've been around boats most of my life, and taken quite some both to the limits and some evenover the limits.
It is however only one rule I've found works and that is:
I want my body to 'break' before the boat!
In this case I would say that for those who has a body that does not handle the physical challenge it is to sail some of these modern 'on the limit' cruiser/racer or whatever, go with something a bit more sedate. One should enjoy the sailing, cruising or whatever, people are different, have different ways of enjoying this sport.
Some like the challenge of the Elan and its dinghy behavior, some like the more solid like a HR52 that moves like a train.
They are both 'good' boats, but in the right hands.


----------



## KeelHaulin

Well we sail my boat with a maximum heel of 45deg, at that angle the water is just starting to lap the rail. At 45 deg heel you are bracing against the walls of the pit. At higher angles you feel like you are standing on the walls of the pit. On the occasion I mentioned earlier, we were definitely standing on the walls of the pit.

Something your diagram does not take into account is that displacement hulls tend to carve a pocket on the lee side as they approach hull speed. At 60 deg heel the entire lee deck of the 41 is submerged, however we only got a few small splashes into the cockpit. Amazing that it could heel that much and continue sailing without taking in any water.


----------



## kevlarpirate

I never sailed my 41 over 35 deg, but I have sailed by 46 at 45 deg. 
both boats did fine, I was really surprised with my 46 . Pretty much no helm. 

Paulo. I was incomplete to just say mass. because size is in there too. 
However If all boats were constructed in similar fashion , so then have a similar 
"weight per cubic foot" ratio, then in that case you can talk mass alone

The case of the race boats you reference are built with materials which have substantially higher strength to weight ratios, but that does not kill my argument. The references you make do not apply to cruising type boats
which have similar size (volume) to mass ration. 

So my friend, in our world, my mass argument stands and your examples don't apply


----------



## PCP

kevlarpirate said:


> ....
> The case of the race boats you reference are built with *materials which have substantially higher strength to weight ratios, but that does not kill my argument. The references you make do not apply to cruising type boats*
> which have similar size (volume) to mass ration.
> 
> So my friend, in our world, my mass argument stands and your examples don't apply


Yes they apply. The boats I am talking about are not low-cost boats made with inexpensive materials they use high-tech materials and techniques. They utilize top materials in some cases identical to the ones used in race boats (in some cases really top materials comes as an extra, others utilize the same materials they use in race boats). That's why they are so light.

But even with standard high-tech materials their strength to weigh ratio is much superior to the similar boats (performance mass produced boats) made 10 years ago mainly because they all now use vacuum infusion, multiaxial glass fiber and vinilester or epoxy based resins.

The difference in strength to weight ratio is big if compared with 15 year's ol boats, but when compared with 30 year's old boats is just *HUGE*.

So, why does my argument not apply?

I have said and I say again, I have nothing against old boats, but they are what they are were made with 30 year's old technologies and materials. There are some companies specialized in manufacturing classic type boats (beautiful boats) made with modern materials and modern appendices (Keel and ruder). These ones are light, strong and fast but they cost a fortune.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## kevlarpirate

Paulo you have COMPLETELY and TOTALLY MISSED THE POINT 
I think I said this in a post over a year ago......
just remembering here


----------



## Lendow

If you are not planning on sailing in heavy weather and light air sailing is at the top of your list go fin keel or you will find everyone else quickly passing you. Deside what you want from your boat.


----------



## smackdaddy

Lendow said:


> If you are not planning on sailing in heavy weather and light air sailing is at the top of your list go fin keel or you will find everyone else quickly passing you. Deside what you want from your boat.


This from a dude with a boat launchin' off a wave in his avvy?!?!?!? Dude is that you????? Nice!


----------



## smackdaddy

kevlarpirate said:


> Paulo you have COMPLETELY and TOTALLY MISSED THE POINT
> I think I said this in a post over a year ago......
> just remembering here


I'm not so sure he has missed the point kevo. You seem to be talking "comfort" (e.g. - mass+momentum=less effect of waves on boat, or comfort) he seems to be talking "safety" (stability+speed+seaworthiness=safety, or comfort).

Now, what's interesting about this argument is that it's all about shades of gray.

The bottom line variables seem to be: Do you want heavy and slow? Or do you want light, strong and fast? (we should take "stable" out of the equation).

What really needs to be discussed here is the definition of "comfort at sea". I think that is the variable that is changing here precisely because of the technology.


----------



## KeelHaulin

smackdaddy said:


> The bottom line variables seem to be: Do you want heavy and slow? Or do you want light, strong and fast? (we should take "stable" out of the equation).


I think we reduced that argument a bit. Again, if you look at the polars for the Newport 41 VS. the Elan 350 you see that nowhere on the polars at or below 20kts are the hull speeds different by more than 1kt. The difference comes when the wind speeds are up above 20kts and there is no polar that shows what the 41 can do at higher wind speeds so the actual differences are unknown. I argue that if a 41ft 'fast' boat designed in the mid-60's is capable enough to be within 1kt in (normal sailing conditions) of the latest go-fast racer-cruiser, then what about boats that are ULDB that were developed to out preform a boat like mine? How does an Express 37, Farr 40, J-120, Olson 40 or Choate 40 compare, and why would they be any less worthy than the Elan 350 while arguably more seaworthy? I think boats similar to these should be considered if cost is an issue and the buyer is looking for more performance.



> What really needs to be discussed here is the definition of "comfort at sea". I think that is the variable that is changing here precisely because of the technology.


It's a matter of how much punishment you are willing to take. The heavily built older designs are considered comfortable (more comfortable than my Racer/Cruiser) for a reason. It's because their pitching motions are slower and they don't get pounded by wave motion as easily as a lighter displacement hull. There is a point where you must decide how much heft you want and how much speed you want or need. For me and many others who own boats like Ericsons, Islanders, Cat 38, etc; the perfect combination lies in the realm of boats like my Newport 41.

PCP called the Ericson 39 an ugly boat, blah, blah, blah... But I will remind you that although I also find the Newport 41 a bit nicer looking, SimonV sailed his E-39B from San Francisco to Australia mostly single-handed; and ran over a whale in the South Pacific with no hull damage. How many bulb keels would be able to withstand a whale strike? Simon's boat was beautifully set up for singlehanding with inboard winches aft of the helm and had a comfortable feel while sailing.


----------



## haffiman37

I think you all forget the most important 'variable', the skipper!
What kind of boat is the skipper capable and willing to handle?
Is he a 'dinghy' sailor that prefers the vivid Elan, or a 'sofa' sailor that feels more comfortable in the 'Newport'.
If cruising for some days or weeks out in the oceans, keeping the Elan on it toes to get the speed advantage might be quite a job.


----------



## KeelHaulin

I would not call the N-41 a boat for 'lounging'. Take a look at these photos and tell me what you think...




































More here:

Good Grief, 8/26/07 - Lyons Imaging :: Our Galleries


----------



## kevlarpirate

Really good looking shots! You and I may be the only owners of yellow hulls. 
I recently sold mine to an engineer , so she is in good hands. 
As for the Ericson 39, that is the most successful of all cruising boats according to some data out there, can't think of the source, and how does one define successful. something like the one boat which scores the highest in serious cruising owner satisfaction.

Smackdaddy As for comfort, yes , but also safety, on the Newport is superior
in big seas , 

In an ugly sea, the Elan will handle like a big dinghy and be on it's ear tossing people about including very possibly overboard. the Newport would be able to sail on until seas were substantially worse. The Elan will pull it's underweight keel straight out of the water as it rolls up on all that buoyancy in the rear. It will remain on its side with no control or speed dead in the water until the wind gust dies. Again, the point is it will handle like a dinghy, not a keel boat which will get swept by the same wave but stay buried and emerge still sailing.

The Elan's static curve may be supported by tank test data, but in a nasty sea 
it's a different ball game.


----------



## PCP

Lendow said:


> If you are not planning on sailing in heavy weather and light air sailing is at the top of your list go fin keel or you will find everyone else quickly passing you. Deside what you want from your boat.


How! That's your boat on the Avatar?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

KeelHaulin said:


> .....
> 
> PCP called the Ericson 39 an ugly boat, blah, blah, blah... But I will remind you that although I also find the Newport 41 a bit nicer looking, SimonV sailed his E-39B from San Francisco to Australia mostly single-handed; and ran over a whale in the South Pacific with no hull damage. How many bulb keels would be able to withstand a whale strike? Simon's boat was beautifully set up for singlehanding with inboard winches aft of the helm and had a comfortable feel while sailing.


It was not the 39 but its bigger sister. I also said that beauty is a subjective issue. I find it ugly and like you I find the Newport better looking but there would be sailors that would think the opposite.

I have also said that different sailors would prefer different boats and that obviously long keel boats offer advantages in what regards grounding or hitting submerged objects regarding new light boats. I never said otherwise.

In what regards comfort a light boat moves through the water differently from a heavy boat. It is well known that there are sailors that prefer the sea motion of heavy boats to the sea motion of light boats but there is also true that there are others that prefer the motion of light modern boats.

Furthermore you are comparing boats with different sizes and as a general rule a bigger boat will always be more comfortable. You are also assuming that what matters is the comfort the boat will offer in very specific situations (storm) situations that will be experienced very rarely in the life of any boat and forgetting 99% of the sailing the boat will do.

I have already said to you that it is not fair to compare not only a 35ft with a 41ft but also a much more expensive boat with a inexpensive boat. You cannot compare in terms of price an old boat with a new one. If you go to the market to find something similar to your boat, it would cost at least 3 times the price of the Elan.

And that story that an old boat offers the same pleasure as a new boat is a very relative concept. It may be like that for you (and you are a lucky guy if that is so to you) but the guys that are interested in buying new boats are only interested in buying older boats if they cannot afford a new one and will buy the more recent boat they can afford. The situation with boats is identical to the ones with cars. Sure there is some great old cars around but people, if they can, prefer new cars. They are just better even if more expensive. Makes no sense to compare the price of a new car with the price of a 30 year old car, the same sense that makes to do that comparison with boats



KeelHaulin said:


> I think we reduced that argument a bit. Again, if you look at the polars for the Newport 41 VS. the Elan 350 you see that nowhere on the polars at or below 20kts are the hull speeds different by more than 1kt. The difference comes when the wind speeds are up above 20kts *and there is no polar that shows what the 41 can do at higher wind speeds so the actual differences are unknown. * I argue that if a 41ft 'fast' boat designed in the mid-60's is capable enough to be within 1kt in (normal sailing conditions) of the latest go-fast racer-cruiser, then what about boats that are ULDB that were developed to out preform a boat like mine? How does an Express 37, Farr 40, J-120, Olson 40 or Choate 40 compare, and why would they be any less worthy than the Elan 350 while arguably more seaworthy? I think boats similar to these should be considered if cost is an issue and the buyer is looking for more performance.


Of course you know (I hope) that the difference in speed with more than 20K downwind is huge. You know that downwind with 20K wind (and over) the Elan 350 is in planning mode and that The Newport will only dig deeper in the water and make a big bow wave . Those wind speeds are considered in the Elan Polar because they make a significant difference in the boat speed. Not the case with the Newport. This is basic knowledge between what is the behavior on those circumstances of an heavy narrow no-planning hull and a light large transom planning hull.

But even not considering that *you are already saying that the Elan 350 is a lot faster than your boat*. Any 35ft capable of going faster than a 41 ft is a faster boat and you are not only saying that the Elan 350 is faster than that 41 on all points of sail by at least a 1K. That is HUGE if we consider that we are talking about a 35ft boat against a 41ft boat.

If you want to consider boats of the same size you should consider what is now for that size the most popular boat for the guys that like to cruise fast, the Pogo 12.50 (that is a 40ft boat). You will see that already big difference in speed will increase a lot, to 2K and over (and not talking downwind sailing with 20K wind where the Pogo can be 5K faster) :

*The Pogo 12.50 is a pure sailing boat.

Capable of sailing in just in 3-4 knots of true wind speed, the Pogo 12.50 will start planing in 10-12 knots of wind.

While most boats rarely reach 10 knots of boat speed, you will often find yourself sailing at this cruising speed.

And you will regularly be sailing at over 15-17 knots with ease, in perfect comfort and great safety. On the Pogo 12.50, you set the limits, and adjust your speed according to your mood.
*

http://pogostructures.com/pdf/doc1250UK.pdf

Bottom point I am not sayng that the Elan 350 or the Pogo 12.50 are better cruising boats than an Ericson or a Newport. I am just saying that they are much faster cruising boats. The option to choose one over another for cruising depends of what you value regarding sailing and cruising but its evident that for a significant number of sailors these are the boats they want for their concept of cruising. That's why these boats are hot selling boats in Europe and they are not sold to racers but to cruisers. I will gladly admit that the American sailor is a lot more conservative than the European but past experience shows that it is only a question of time till american boats follow European trends (hull design), at least in what concerns mass production boats.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

KeelHaulin said:


> It's a matter of how much punishment you are willing to take. The heavily built older designs are considered comfortable (more comfortable than my Racer/Cruiser) for a reason. It's because their pitching motions are slower and they don't get pounded by wave motion as easily as a lighter displacement hull. There is a point where you must decide how much heft you want and how much speed you want or need. For me and many others who own boats like Ericsons, Islanders, Cat 38, etc; the perfect combination lies in the realm of boats like my Newport 41.





kevlarpirate said:


> RIn an ugly sea, the Elan will handle like a big dinghy and be on it's ear tossing people about including very possibly overboard. the Newport would be able to sail on until seas were substantially worse. The Elan will pull it's underweight keel straight out of the water as it rolls up on all that buoyancy in the rear. It will remain on its side with no control or speed dead in the water until the wind gust dies. Again, the point is it will handle like a dinghy, not a keel boat which will get swept by the same wave but stay buried and emerge still sailing.





PCP said:


> Furthermore you are comparing boats with different sizes and as a general rule a bigger boat will always be more comfortable. *You are also assuming that what matters is the comfort the boat will offer in very specific situations (storm) situations that will be experienced very rarely in the life of any boat and forgetting 99% of the sailing the boat will do.*
> 
> Bottom point I am not sayng that the Elan 350 or the Pogo 12.50 are better cruising boats than an Ericson or a Newport. I am just saying that they are much faster cruising boats. The option to choose one over another for cruising depends of what you value regarding sailing and cruising but its evident that for a significant number of sailors these are the boats they want for their concept of cruising. That's why these boats are hot selling boats in Europe and they are not sold to racers but to cruisers. I will gladly admit that the American sailor is a lot more conservative than the European but past experience shows that it is only a question of time till american boats follow European trends (hull design), at least in what concerns mass production boats.


These three quotes kind of encapsulate the argument. As I said above, it seems to boil down to the definition of "comfort". Statistically, PCP's right in his quote above that the really ugly seas of a storm are few and far between for the cruising sailor. Even Hal Roth, who's been sailing his entire life, makes this point in his HWS book I just read.

So, that said, it comes down to the question of whether you sacrifice speed for the duration of 99% of your sailing life, for the 1% storm that might come and make you puke? Or whether you always get to where you're going far more slowly, comfortable in the fact that when that 1% storm does hit, your heavy full-keeler will not spill your tea?

Ahhhh, but it's not that simple. Back to speed. One of the arguments made as regards a faster boat and heavy weather is that the faster boat can more readily move out of the way of the weather (and generally does better on more points of sail).

So, in this case, speed can actually equal more comfort in the long run. In a faster boat, you're either already sipping a D&S at anchor (real comfort) while fullkeeler is being sucked into the vortex 100 miles behind you (hoping for comfort), or you're running off to starboard to get get out of the storm (eventual comfort), while fullkeeler is "crossing the t" (praying for survival). Your call.

Speed can indeed equal comfort. It's all about the 99/1 ratio I think.


----------



## Lendow

Smackdaddy awesome shot eh. It is the one and only SHARK. 24 feet of racing speed and sailed to Australia and across oceans. I love sharks they are an all around blast to sail. Not very comfortable in heavy weather but for 6 grand who would complain . I sail a cc29 MII now, fast but also a great boat in some blows. Reef be smart and go for the ride.


----------



## PCP

smackdaddy said:


> These three quotes kind of encapsulate the argument. As I said above, it seems to boil down to the definition of "comfort". Statistically, PCP's right in his quote above that the really ugly seas of a storm are few and far between for the cruising sailor. Even Hal Roth, who's been sailing his entire life, makes this point in his HWS book I just read.
> 
> So, that said, it comes down to the question of whether you sacrifice speed for the duration of 99% of your sailing life, for the 1% storm that might come and make you puke? Or whether you always get to where you're going far more slowly, comfortable in the fact that when that 1% storm does hit, your heavy full-keeler will not spill your tea?
> 
> Ahhhh, but it's not that simple. Back to speed. One of the arguments made as regards a faster boat and heavy weather is that the faster boat can more readily move out of the way of the weather (and generally does better on more points of sail).
> 
> So, in this case, speed can actually equal more comfort in the long run. In a faster boat, you're either already sipping a D&S at anchor (real comfort) while fullkeeler is being sucked into the vortex 100 miles behind you (hoping for comfort), or you're running off to starboard to get get out of the storm (eventual comfort), while fullkeeler is "crossing the t" (praying for survival). Your call.
> 
> Speed can indeed equal comfort. It's all about the 99/1 ratio I think.


I agree with most of what you say except with part of what you quoted on Kevlarpirate.

Smack, since you try to make some sense of this I will try to clarify this statement, just for you

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevlarpirate 
... The Elan *will pull it's underweight keel straight out of the water* as it rolls up on all that buoyancy in the rear. It will remain on its side with no control or speed dead in the water until the wind gust dies. Again, the point is it will handle like a dinghy, *not a keel boat which will get swept by the same wave* but stay buried and emerge still sailing.

Regarding the underweight keel, if (according to Kevlar pirate) the boat has a similar stability GZ curve to the one from the Newport, this means that the weight on that keel provides a similar balance. For managing the same effect the Elan 350 needs a lot less ballast than the Newport (to provide a similar stability curve).

The Elan 350 is built with modern materials and techniques that permit to have a strong boat with much less weight and therefore it will needs a lot less ballast. The ballast needed on a boat is related to the boat weight and to the position where it is positioned. Modern technologies and materials also permit that all the ballast on the Elan 350 to be situated on a bulb at 2.15 or 2.35m depth (if it is situated at 2.15 it has more ballast to compensate) and that means a lower center of gravity and again less ballast for the same effect.

Regarding this: *"It will remain on its side with no control or speed dead in the water until the wind gust dies".*

Any boat giving the right amount of wind will be on its side with no control. The wind needed is related with the sail area and the righting moment of the boat. Both boats have similarly designed stability curves and the Elan will need a lot let sail to sail with heavy winds but in the end with the right amount of sail for the wind (that would be very different on both boats) both boats will recover quite well from a gust (similar stability curve). The Newport because it has a superior inertia will lose less speed but the Elan will re-accelerate faster.

I have showed in a previous post (analyzing the stability curve) that the Elan will be doing at 90º more force to right itself up than the force that is needed to heel the boat to 25º and that's a lot of force( this is a stiff boat that can carry a lot of sail). That's why comparing the behavior of an Elan 350 with a Dinghy (no keel boat) is absurd.

About this: *not a keel boat which will get swept by the same wave but stay buried and emerge still sailing.*

Regarding to this I partially agree. The Elan 350 because it has a much smaller inertia a larger beam and an incomparable smaller keel will tend to be swept sideways by a breaking wave on the side (it will offer small resistance to that lateral push).

This lateral movement will dissipate the energy preventing a capsize. This is one of the Dynamic characteristics of this kind of boats that makes their dynamic stability so good (that is what explains the very small number of capsizes on the mini races). On the other hand the Newport that is "buried" on the water and with a big keel offering a big resistance down below will not be swept away and the energy that would have been dissipated that way will be transformed in a rolling movement. That's what is vulgarly called "trip on the keel".

Saying this I am not saying that the Elan 350 is more seaworthy than the Newport 41. It is known that the length of the boats are an important factor in what regards seaworthiness and I have already said that it makes no sense to compare a 35ft boat with a 41ft boat but I would say that the Elan 350 is a boat designed to be capable of making safe transats in moderate latitudes and on the right season and to withstand a fair share of really bad weather, more than most sailors would dare to consider.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

Lendow said:


> Smackdaddy awesome shot eh. It is the one and only SHARK. 24 feet of racing speed and sailed to Australia and across oceans. I love sharks they are an all around blast to sail. Not very comfortable in heavy weather but for 6 grand who would complain . I sail a cc29 MII now, fast but also a great boat in some blows. Reef be smart and go for the ride.


That looks like a freakin' blast! Very nice dude.


----------



## kevlarpirate

Paulo , you are lost , you are in love with a big dinghy and when conditions deteriorate all the lengthy assumptions you make will fly straight out the window. pfft ,,,, flipped like a tiddlywink , on your ear ,Newport recovers 
keeps sailing. and of course the Ericson 46 didn't even feel it 
keeps the crew safe and sound 

over and out, and you have bought this breakthrough boat?


----------



## smackdaddy

PCP said:


> I agree with most of what you say except with part of what you quoted on Kevlarpirate.
> 
> Smack, since you try to make some sense of this I will try to clarify this statement, just for you
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by kevlarpirate
> ... The Elan *will pull it's underweight keel straight out of the water* as it rolls up on all that buoyancy in the rear. It will remain on its side with no control or speed dead in the water until the wind gust dies. Again, the point is it will handle like a dinghy, *not a keel boat which will get swept by the same wave* but stay buried and emerge still sailing.
> 
> Regarding the underweight keel, if (according to Kevlar pirate) the boat has a similar stability GZ curve to the one from the Newport, this means that the weight on that keel provides a similar balance. For managing the same effect the Elan 350 needs a lot less ballast than the Newport (to provide a similar stability curve).
> 
> The Elan 350 is built with modern materials and techniques that permit to have a strong boat with much less weight and therefore it will needs a lot less ballast. The ballast needed on a boat is related to the boat weight and to the position where it is positioned. Modern technologies and materials also permit that all the ballast on the Elan 350 to be situated on a bulb at 2.15 or 2.35m depth (if it is situated at 2.15 it has more ballast to compensate) and that means a lower center of gravity and again less ballast for the same effect.
> 
> Regarding this: *"It will remain on its side with no control or speed dead in the water until the wind gust dies".*
> 
> Any boat giving the right amount of wind will be on its side with no control. The wind needed is related with the sail area and the righting moment of the boat. Both boats have similarly designed stability curves and the Elan will need a lot let sail to sail with heavy winds but in the end with the right amount of sail for the wind (that would be very different on both boats) both boats will recover quite well from a gust (similar stability curve). The Newport because it has a superior inertia will lose less speed but the Elan will re-accelerate faster.
> 
> I have showed in a previous post (analyzing the stability curve) that the Elan will be doing at 90º more force to right itself up than the force that is needed to heel the boat to 25º and that's a lot of force( this is a stiff boat that can carry a lot of sail). That's why comparing the behavior of an Elan 350 with a Dinghy (no keel boat) is absurd.
> 
> About this: *not a keel boat which will get swept by the same wave but stay buried and emerge still sailing.*
> 
> Regarding to this I partially agree. The Elan 350 because it has a much smaller inertia a larger beam and an incomparable smaller keel will tend to be swept sideways by a breaking wave on the side (it will offer small resistance to that lateral push).
> 
> This lateral movement will dissipate the energy preventing a capsize. This is one of the Dynamic characteristics of this kind of boats that makes their dynamic stability so good (that is what explains the very small number of capsizes on the mini races). On the other hand the Newport that is "buried" on the water and with a big keel offering a big resistance down below will not be swept away and the energy that would have been dissipated that way will be transformed in a rolling movement. That's what is vulgarly called "trip on the keel".
> 
> Saying this I am not saying that the Elan 350 is more seaworthy than the Newport 41. It is known that the length of the boats are an important factor in what regards seaworthiness and I have already said that it makes no sense to compare a 35ft boat with a 41ft boat but I would say that the Elan 350 is a boat designed to be capable of making safe transats in moderate latitudes and on the right season and to withstand a fair share of really bad weather, more than most sailors would dare to consider.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


P - I just quoted Kev highlighting the crux of his argument. I didn't say I agreed with him.

Generally, I think you've made a very good case for the Elan (and other boats of newer design and better technologies). And your point about the length being a major factor in this debate (especially when comparing polars, speed, etc.) is spot on.

So, essentially accepting your arguments, my point is that the very idea of "comfort at sea" needs to be redefined simply because true speed coupled with stability and strength of newer designs have opened up possibilities that didn't exist even 10 years ago. That is, you don't necessarily have to be in the middle of nasty stuff. You can get out of its way much more nimbly than ever before. Older boats can't do this - so those sailors have to accept the equation of less motion/no pounding as the optimum way to achieve comfort. It's just all they've got basically.

BTW - I finally found a pic of Keel cranking away in his N41 on that sick 60 degree heel:










Oops. Sorry - that's the new-fangled design crankin' along AT 70 DEGREES! A Newport could only dream of a wake like that. Heh-heh.


----------



## kevlarpirate

interesting that the wind appears to be under 10 kts true 
I see flat seas and the boat ahead on a close reach

Which again begs the question, has anyone ever sailed one of these hi tech dinghys?


----------



## GBurton

smackdaddy said:


> P - I just quoted Kev highlighting the crux of his argument. I didn't say I agreed with him.
> 
> Generally, I think you've made a very good case for the Elan (and other boats of newer design and better technologies). And your point about the length being a major factor in this debate (especially when comparing polars, speed, etc.) is spot on.
> 
> So, essentially accepting your arguments, my point is that the very idea of "comfort at sea" needs to be redefined simply because true speed coupled with stability and strength of newer designs have opened up possibilities that didn't exist even 10 years ago. That is, you don't necessarily have to be in the middle of nasty stuff. You can get out of its way much more nimbly than ever before. Older boats can't do this - so those sailors have to accept the equation of less motion/no pounding as the optimum way to achieve comfort. It's just all they've got basically.
> 
> BTW - I finally found a pic of Keel cranking away in his N41 on that sick 60 degree heel:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oops. Sorry - that's the new-fangled design crankin' along AT 70 DEGREES! A Newport could only dream of a wake like that. Heh-heh.


Smack, if you are going to be crossing an ocean you will always be running the risk of getting caught out, even in the Queen Mary. So there goes that argument. If coastal hopping, the weather forecasts are good enough now that you can avoid bad weather...passageweather is good for a week out - so it does not matter how fast your boat is.
Like I said before, the boat that won the last singlehanded transpac was an ULD olson 30 that was out for 14 days and the heavy cruiser Westsail was out for 17 days. The accommodations on these boats are as different as night and day. I would rather be on the Westsail for 17 days than the Olson for 14 any day of the week. And comfort also has to do with the noise and motion of the boat through the water of course. You are a bit like Paulo in that you do a lot of sailing form behind your desk......


----------



## kevlarpirate

So if no one can figure what is going on in this picture I will do it for you 
The boat ahead is sailing only about 20 degrees lower and close reaching
I would guess the wind is 8 kts. The race boat is sailing under 25 deg BAW
and generating enough forward speed to raise the VAW to over 16 kts, and 
so the heel due to low keel weight is in the 70 deg range 
The righting moment as the boat with a wide transom rolls off rapidly . heading toward crossing zero. A boat with heavier keel will not exhibit this excessive heel as the keel GC keeps extending as the boat heels.

and bottom like to stay on track , the concept of this boat design being 
even remotely associated with cruising is totally laughable. No one , except racers and those trying to make landfall before dark will ever maintain over 25 deg heel for any length of time. Let's hear from those who have done it.


----------



## KeelHaulin

I thought a page or two ago (according to your diagram, Smack) it was not possible to sail at +60 degrees of heel. I also would like to point out that the friends Newport 41 I sailed aboard at 60 degrees of heel was in 35kts+ (honestly it might have been more); and that's what it takes to get an N-41 to heel that much; not a flat water wind condition. 

In terms of the boat you picture; I see two guys clinging to the high rail trying to help right the boat; a trimmer with the tiller extension in his hand, and the helmsman holding onto the winch handle that is locked onto the starboard winch. The leeward winch is buried in the wake. Would you like to climb down there and trim it? Again; as I said before when we were sailing an N-41 at 60 deg and in 35+ of wind and breaking wind waves (4' chop) the cockpit felt secure and there would have been no problem spilling the jib sheet or trimming it in if the helmsman or skipper had asked for it.

This thread asked the question "A blue-water boat...". Do you honestly think that boat in your photo is "blue-water"? Would you go offshore in a boat that has no lifelines, no briddgedeck AND an open transom, and what appears to be decks with no non-skid on them?


----------



## KeelHaulin

KP-

To me it looks like this boat is trimmed for close-hauled while sailing on a beam reach. It's getting blown over (in light wind) because it is not sailing to it's as-trimmed course. The boat in the distance looks like it is sailing on a broad reach.


----------



## PCP

kevlarpirate said:


> Paulo , you are lost , you are in love with a big dinghy and when conditions deteriorate all the lengthy assumptions you make will fly straight out the window. pfft ,,,, flipped like a tiddlywink , on your ear ,Newport recovers
> keeps sailing. and of course the Ericson 46 didn't even feel it
> keeps the crew safe and sound
> 
> over and out, and you have bought this breakthrough boat?


You keep assuming that this is the type of boat I prefer. I am not like you and I try to have a realistic opinion about several types of boats even if they are not my preferential choice.

The Elan 350 offers almost an unbeatable relation between price quality, performance and cruising potential ( and I am not talking of 30 year's old boats) but if I can have the money for it I would chose a more traditional fast boat.

I am not far away from 60 year's old and even if I am in good shape I will recognize that is not the ideal boat for an old salt in what regards blue-water passages. But I am not the only one sailing. I have to consider the crew and regarding my kids (17 and 23) they would love that boat.

I have also to consider that 95% of my sailing is coastal. In the end if I cannot have a more satisfying compromise it is possible that I end up with an Elan 350 but that is not the boat that I am trying to buy nor the one that I would buy if I had the money for it, but one that will satisfy my needs and pleasures at a price I can afford.

This is also a small boat with low marina costs, easy to get in and out and the ideal size and type to be solo sailed and that's the way I sail most of the time and that's the way I like to sail. In this boat with the kind of experience I have it is easy to fly a spinnaker or a gennaker (solo sailing) and I would not be able to do that in a 46ft sailboat, at least without a fair chance of ruining the sails.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

smackdaddy said:


> ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oops. Sorry - that's the new-fangled design crankin' along AT 70 DEGREES! A Newport could only dream of a wake like that. Heh-heh.


Great picture and beautiful boat. Put that is a race boat with race sails. Those sails don't have reefs. They have to change the main if needed. They are just testing the boat and having fun. In normal conditions they would have already reefed (if they had cruising sails).

But you are right that picture shows a thing common to this kind of boats with two rudders: They can have incredible heeling without loosing control. On this one the keel is out of water, the boat is sailing and obviously with control (or that guy would not be on the keel ).



















Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

kevlarpirate said:


> interesting that the wind appears to be under 10 kts true
> I see flat seas and the boat ahead on a close reach
> 
> Which again begs the question, has anyone ever sailed one of these hi tech dinghys?


I have already said that I have test sailed one and there are guys on this forum that have not only a considerable experience with them but that have made commands to buy them (they have to wait 1 to 3 years depending on the model).

Wind under 10K true? And you say you are an experienced racer? Do you know of any racing sailboat that has a main sail that needs to be changed with less than 10k wind? If you know something about modern racing boats you would know that these kind of boats have an huge initial stability and that is not compatible with the need to chain the main with 10K wind. Not a single racing boat has a main that needs changing at 10K.

As usual you are not very serious about what you say and I am assuming that you have the experience you say you have. With all that experience you should know better

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

GBurton said:


> Smack, if you are going to be crossing an ocean you will always be running the risk of getting caught out, even in the Queen Mary. So there goes that argument. If coastal hopping, the weather forecasts are good enough now that you can avoid bad weather...passageweather is good for a week out - so it does not matter how fast your boat is.
> Like I said before, the boat that won the last singlehanded transpac was an ULD olson 30 that was out for 14 days and the heavy cruiser Westsail was out for 17 days. The accommodations on these boats are as different as night and day. I would rather be on the Westsail for 17 days than the Olson for 14 any day of the week. And comfort also has to do with the noise and motion of the boat through the water of course. You are a bit like Paulo in that you do a lot of sailing form behind your desk......


Yeah - agreed, I'm thinking more of coastal cruising than crossings in the speed equation. But look at it this way...if you have the ability to receive updated GRIBS on an ongoing basis during a crossing - and your boat has the ability to move twice as fast (or more) than a 4KSB, aren't you gaining a serious advantage in staying away from bad stuff...i.e. - being twice as far from it, or more, than the 4KSB? Seems like it to me.

As an example, look at the '98 Sydney-Hobart, would you rather have been aboard _Sayonara/Brindabella_ or _Winston Churchill_?

As for the noise and motion - again, granted. The modern design boat will be rough. But, again, the point is, as underscored very heavily by Hal Roth in his "Handling Storms..." book, these storms happen very, very rarely. So, the 99/1 equation is the real issue in the debate (e.g. - what kind of boat do you want 99% of the time), not the notion of "comfort" as only applied to that 1% occurrence.

As for sailing from behind my desk, guilty (except when I'm out sailing 1-2 times a week). But here's the deal, I'm not saying anywhere that I'm an expert. As a matter of fact, I'm just a student. A very, very rabid student that gets real deep into this stuff. So I'm the best possible audience for these kinds of debates. I'm the one the experts are trying to convince. Some of them just don't do as well as others.


----------



## PCP

kevlarpirate said:


> So if no one can figure what is going on in this picture I will do it for you
> The boat ahead is sailing only about 20 degrees lower and close reaching
> I would guess the wind is 8 kts. The race boat is sailing under 25 deg BAW
> and generating enough forward speed to raise the VAW to over 16 kts, and
> so the heel due to low keel weight is in the 70 deg range
> The righting moment as the boat with a wide transom rolls off rapidly . heading toward crossing zero. A boat with heavier keel will not exhibit this excessive heel as the keel GC keeps extending as the boat heels.
> 
> ...


Come on, 8K

Look at the boat ahead, an heavy old traditional boat with all sails full of wind and making way against the wind. With 8K wind that boat would have flapping sails and would be motoring 

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

KeelHaulin said:


> I thought a page or two ago (according to your diagram, Smack) it was not possible to sail at +60 degrees of heel. I also would like to point out that the friends Newport 41 I sailed aboard at 60 degrees of heel was in 35kts+ (honestly it might have been more); and that's what it takes to get an N-41 to heel that much; not a flat water wind condition.


I said I was dubious of your claim that the N41 was sailing along fine at 60 degrees...I didn't say it was inherently not possible....just not likely for a N41.

Even these guys don't appear to be "sailing"...as you rightly point out. They're all holding on for dear life. But, judging by that wake, that boat sure is moving along isn't it?


----------



## PCP

GBurton said:


> ...
> Like I said before, the boat that won the last singlehanded transpac was an ULD olson 30 that was out for 14 days and the heavy cruiser Westsail was out for 17 days. The accommodations on these boats are as different as night and day.* I would rather be on the Westsail for 17 days than the Olson for 14 any day of the week.* And comfort also has to do with the noise and motion of the boat through the water of course. You are a bit like Paulo in that you do a lot of sailing form behind your desk......


No beef with your preferences. The problem is that you seems to think everybody has to share your tastes regarding sailing, fun and comfort. That's a fundamentalist kind of thought. You have to learn to be more democratic and understand that sailors and people are very different and they like different things, in politics, in sailing and in the way they choose to live.

Regarding me and sailing behind my secretary, you are right, that's very frustrating to be waiting for a new boat and to be restrained to have a year with charter as only option and that's why I write so much. But on the last 9 years I have sailed more than 10 000 miles. That's not much, I could only sailed basically on the summer cause I had to work. How many miles do you have sailed on the last 10 years?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

PCP said:


> Regarding me and sailing behind my secretary, you are right, that's very frustrating to be waiting for a new boat and to be restrained to have a year with charter as only option and that's why I write so much. But on the last 9 years I have sailed more than 10 000 miles. That's not much, I could only sailed basically on the summer cause I had to work. How many miles do you have sailed on the last 10 years?


Oh SNAP! GB, this better be good! Heh-heh.


----------



## smackdaddy

Hey williamkiester....are you still reading this stuff? What do you think?


----------



## KeelHaulin

So you loved my account of my extreme day on an N-41 when I posted it on your BFS thread a couple years ago, but now you don't believe me? Which is it Smack? You can't have it both ways. You can't choose to believe me when it suits your needs; and then say it aint so when the same account serves to support an argument that you are on the wrong side of. I also don't like being called a liar; especially when 4 other sailors were aboard the boat who I could refer people to.


----------



## smackdaddy

KeelHaulin said:


> So you loved my account of my extreme day on an N-41 when I posted it on your BFS thread a couple years ago, but now you don't believe me? Which is it Smack? You can't have it both ways. You can't choose to believe me when it suits your needs; and then say it aint so when the same account serves to support an argument that you are on the wrong side of. I also don't like being called a liar; especially when 4 other sailors were aboard the boat who I could refer people to.


Both ways? Dude...from the very first brilliant post in the world-renowned BFS thread:



smackdaddy said:


> Then, hopefully, you'll throw down some BFS of your own (either your own story, stories you admire, or *stories that are just flat-out lies but with great BFS value* - whatever).
> 
> Now, let's have some fun...shall we?


Fanciful yarns and outright lies are great when it comes to big sailing stories! Who doesn't know that? So definitely not both ways. Why should I argue with someone over details if it's a great story?

However, to be very clear, despite the above disclaimer, I'm not saying what you're saying is a "lie". And there's no doubt that it sounds pretty awesome - and definitely qualifies as BFS. I still love that story!

What I am saying is that the "*sailing along fine"* at 60 degrees part just sounds a little iffy. Especially when the whole argument here is all about the sailing ability of the boat: polars, speed, stability, etc. (i.e. - very "non-fanciful" stuff).

Even so, I still love the sound of it. And I'm glad you agree with me that wicked stupid heeling and complete rail submersion is fun.

So it's all good.


----------



## KeelHaulin

"IT" meaning the boat; was sailing fine. I'm sure it would have been sailing much better with less sail up. But it was amazing to watch a boat take that sort of punishment with little more than a challenging time at the helm for the helmsman who, BTW was another N-41 owner from New Orleans who was visiting SF. I don't recall him sawing on the helm or the boat rounding violently. I do recall him asking us to trim the traveler but there was so much load on it that we could not adjust it. I think the boat was fine; but I was pretty close to freaking out. The only thing that kept me from getting nervous was the fact that the owner of the boat was largely unconcerned. I've never sailed my boat with that much continuous heel and I don't plan to. The pictures I posted earlier in this thread were downright tame compared to the day I am referring to. If you can find a GRIB file archive for SF Bay of May 12 2006 you will see what sort of wind we were in.


----------



## kevlarpirate

keelhaulin 

these guys have problems with real experience , best to let it go


----------



## smackdaddy

kevlarpirate said:


> keelhaulin
> 
> these guys have problems with real experience , best to let it go


Granted - I'm a newb. I'm only averaging 100-300 nm/year right now...in a lake. But can you match PCP's 1K+/yr? That ain't bad for a workin' dude.

Show 'em if ya got 'em, pal.


----------



## smackdaddy

KeelHaulin said:


> "IT" meaning the boat; was sailing fine. I'm sure it would have been sailing much better with less sail up. But it was amazing to watch a boat take that sort of punishment with little more than a challenging time at the helm for the helmsman who, BTW was another N-41 owner from New Orleans who was visiting SF. I don't recall him sawing on the helm or the boat rounding violently. I do recall him asking us to trim the traveler but there was so much load on it that we could not adjust it. I think the boat was fine; but I was pretty close to freaking out. The only thing that kept me from getting nervous was the fact that the owner of the boat was largely unconcerned. I've never sailed my boat with that much continuous heel and I don't plan to. The pictures I posted earlier in this thread were downright tame compared to the day I am referring to. If you can find a GRIB file archive for SF Bay of May 12 2006 you will see what sort of wind we were in.


I believe you Keel. As for the owner being unconcerned...that's just like me on my boat. Except in my case, it's being oblivious.


----------



## donradclife

We are leaving Panama for Hawaii tomorrow. About 4600 miles, with the first 2000 in less than 10 knots of wind, and the last 2000 in 20 and up. Have fun arguing, I'll be back online in about a month. We are taking a Beneteau first 456, a real performance cruiser in both light and heavy air.


----------



## smackdaddy

My Dearest Kev,

I just found one of your old posts where you mentioned that you are an ex-SORC racer (and engineer, and materials guru).

PCP - you lose. Sorry old chap.

Now, I'm buying a N41 and sailing it at 60 degrees of heel to be more comfortable.


----------



## smackdaddy

donradclife said:


> We are leaving Panama for Hawaii tomorrow. About 4600 miles, with the first 2000 in less than 10 knots of wind, and the last 2000 in 20 and up. Have fun arguing, I'll be back online in about a month. We are taking a Beneteau first 456, a real performance cruiser in both light and heavy air.


Okay don, you REALLY win. Have fun. We'll still be here arguing.

And bring back some pics for crying out loud!


----------



## kevlarpirate

smack , you keep the humor going, and that picture of you is priceless,
what movie is that out of? And yes , I have that background and can apply my physics background to explain what's going on. I appreciate Paulos level of passion, Hope he realizes all aspects of realizing his dream, and suggest his due diligence include spending a night at anchor aside from sailing in conditions
less than ideal which are easily dealt out even to coastal cruisers especially here in the tropics where thunderheads build and line squalls are frequent ,

My 46 in in Crackerboy boatworks in Riviera Beach FL doing a total restoration
I can't upload pictures however my uploads fail even though I am under 99k

I will switch to Firefox, bay help


----------



## puddinlegs

hmmm. Must be winter. Everyone's edgy and not making a whole lot of sense with the 'mine's bigger than yours' stuff going on. A N-41 sailing along just fine at 60 degrees of heel? It's a great way to put sail maker's and riggers kids through school. :laugher I'm sure some fine leeway was made as well!


----------



## smackdaddy

kevlarpirate said:


> smack , you keep the humor going, and that picture of you is priceless,
> what movie is that out of? And yes , I have that background and can apply my physics background to explain what's going on. I appreciate Paulos level of passion, Hope he realizes all aspects of realizing his dream, and suggest his due diligence include spending a night at anchor aside from sailing in conditions
> less than ideal which are easily dealt out even to coastal cruisers especially here in the tropics where thunderheads build and line squalls are frequent ,
> 
> My 46 in in Crackerboy boatworks in Riviera Beach FL doing a total restoration
> I can't upload pictures however my uploads fail even though I am under 99k
> 
> I will switch to Firefox, bay help


Kev, that pic is from the film "Falling Down". It's very descriptive of my virginal foray into this very sailing forum via the historic FightClub thread.

On the photo uploads, really the best way to do it is to set up a Photobucket account:

Image hosting, free photo sharing & video sharing at Photobucket

It automatically sizes images for as you upload - and gives you a bunch of other options. And it's free. Then you can just link to those photos from SN (copying the IMG code of the photo and pasting here) and you're golden. Doesn't matter what browser you have. Works kind of like this:










Now, in light of your above post, I have to give you a bit of the old..."dude, seriously...you're goin' all Moses here". From my cheap seat, you're just as blinded by your love of the N41 as you accuse PCP of being with his Elan 35. This is pretty clear since the old post I found of yours was in a thread where you were going round-and-round with Jeff_H and Surfesq like 5 years ago...cracking glasses and taking names in the process (which I obviously admire and enjoy) on this very issue.

So, let's get down to the nitty-gritty. You can provide calculations all day long to support your stance that the older heavy, slow, skinny-assed boats are the most comfortable in nasty stuff (stuff that happens pretty rarely). PCP can provide calcs that the more modern light, fast, fat-assed boats are more fun and still safe and comfortable (depending on finish) the majority of the time one is cruising it. Back to the 99/1 equation. It's subjective.

Now, let's try to get away from hyperbolic language - which you like to accuse PCP of using - but you are a tad guilty of it your self (from the thread mentioned above):



kevlarpirate said:


> These are some of the reasons I bought the Newport and was not lured into the new (foolish) thinking just to get a little adrenalin going down a wave. I also don't like pounding in a 2-foot chop to weather. And I also don't like the idea of rolling gunwale-to-gunwale and slapping wavelets at anchor, which is what these newer designs do.


Pounding in 2' chop? Gunwale-to-gunwale? Knockdowns in 8 knots of wind? This just all sounds a tad hyperbolic to me. Did you hear about that BFS Proponent, Ronnie Simpson, and his pal who motor-sailed a '98 Jutson 30, 800 miles to SF AFTER it lost its entire keel? In terms of stability...that's not so bad.

So - here's the real crux of all this argument...

1. Do you mostly want speed when you're cruising - and are willing to sacrifice some comfort - MOSTLY ONLY IN THE CASE WHERE YOU'LL BE BEATING INTO UGLY SEAS (running off or sea anchored would negate much of that argument no? And remember, we're talking cruising not racing - so you don't HAVE to go all out.)? Or,

2. Do you mostly want comfort in the occasional ugly seas and are willing to move slowly the rest of the time, having no further need of adrenaline? Or,

3. Do you buy a First 45 and get the best of both worlds like _*an actually cruising Don*_ (lucky bastard)?

Finally, do you personally consider speed an important factor in safety?


----------



## kevlarpirate

never mentioned knockdowns in 8 kts . but more to the point , My experience on a wide variety of newer boats and how compromised they are just to get 
speed ,and mostly downwind, is below my standards. I am not in love with my Newport, it is just an overall good design, The arguments I make are defended
experimentally, not theoretically 

no need to belabor this , I only post to counter misinformation for readers who 
seek info doing their due diligence

I recently sold my Newport and had to defend and disqualify jeff's opinions to a potential, buyer. Just as I suspected, people read posts. and jeff's one data point and negative comments got into the mix.

I am really tired of giving physics lessons. good lick to all, and smack thanks for the photobucket info , so long


----------



## smackdaddy

kevlarpirate said:


> never mentioned knockdowns in 8 kts . but more to the point , My experience on a wide variety of newer boats and how compromised they are just to get
> speed ,and mostly downwind, is below my standards. I am not in love with my Newport, it is just an overall good design, The arguments I make are defended
> experimentally, not theoretically
> 
> no need to belabor this , I only post to counter misinformation for readers who
> seek info doing their due diligence
> 
> I recently sold my Newport and had to defend and disqualify jeff's opinions to a potential, buyer. Just as I suspected, people read posts. and jeff's one data point and negative comments got into the mix.
> 
> I am really tired of giving physics lessons. good lick to all, and smack thanks for the photobucket info , so long


No worries Kev. Hang tough brotha!

Now about sailing yachts, new and old, and that pesky Third Law of Thermodynamics...


----------



## PCP

smackdaddy said:


> My Dearest Kev,
> 
> I just found one of your old posts where you mentioned that you are an ex-SORC racer (and engineer, and materials guru).
> 
> PCP - you lose. Sorry old chap.
> 
> ..


Ehh!!! I dont like to lose

I have already said that I don't defend for cruising and for all sailors any type of boat over others. I think sailors with some experience are quite capable of making its own choices and those choices even if informed will not be the same because they look and search for different things, pleasures and life style while cruising. Well cruising is cruising but the things one likes most while cruising can differ widely from sailor to sailor and that will give all sort of different compromises about the perfect cruising boat, a different one to each cruiser.

You say that I am in love with the Elan 350. That's not true is just a dam good boat (and that's why it was elected the European boat of the year) offering great cruising potential and great cruising speed at a good price.

As I have said before it would not be the boat I would chose if I could (or can) pay. I would chose an option more suitable to me and my own personal choices. Now, that First 45 you were talking about would be just perfect










if I could afford it but even if I can't I would clearly prefer a a Dehler 41 or a Salona 41 over the Elan 350, bigger and more expensive boats. That is not the point. The point is that I would not prefer over the Elan 350 a First 35, a Salona 34 or a Dehler 35 or any other boat that costs the same price. The Elan just offers more speed, probably more seaworthiness more fun and better cruising accommodations (more space).

I have already said it makes no sense comparing a smaller boat with a substantially bigger boat.

*But as I don't like to lose lets look at things on Kev perspective**: I am the most experienced sailor around, I have raced and cruised in all kind of boats therefore you guys can't compare with me in what regards knowledge about the perfect cruiser, the one that should be the paradigm of all cruising boats for all sailors* (his 40 year's old beloved Ericson 46).










If that is so,* if sailing experience is the utmost factor to choose for all the perfect cruising boat* I would like to nominate as my Champion Mr Jean-Pierre Dick. He is not a young lad. Has 45 year's old and wants to cruise with his family and friends when he is not racing so we put all his experience at work and with a help of a friend NA designed his dream boat a bluewater one, the "Dreamer".

According to your line of thought this should be the perfect cruising boat for all, the paradigmatic offshore cruising sailboat, taking into account his experience that make yours seem really insignificant. His experience include (among many other smaller races and cruises): 43 transats (18 solo), 2 circumnavigations (he is finishing the third). And he is not a third rate racer, he had won some of the biggest races, including two big transats, one circumnavigation (and is going to win the one he is finishing).

So let's hear about its perfect cruising sailboat (that is a kind of overgrown Elan 350 ):

http://www.jp54.fr/gallery-video/page_qU.html

Jean-Pierre Dick: *"I imagined the cruising yacht of my dreams during my last two Vendée Globe races. I wanted to sail offshore and at the same time enjoy stopovers. I therefore conceived the JP54, a uniquely designed light and fast yacht, to retain the pleasure of surfing at 20 knots more comfortably than on my racing yacht. With the JP54, you can share the sensations and the pleasures of sailing with your family and friends."

"Through the experience of single-handed sailing, I have been able to design a boat that is really simple to use." The hydraulic winches remove the physical side to manoeuvring. In 10 minutes, all the sails are hoisted! The cockpit is uncluttered making movement easy on deck and allowing you to enjoy the sunbaths comfortably. The whole of the pit is brought back to starboard on an electric winch. There is no mainsheet rail. The JP54 can easily be manoeuvred double-handed in all circumstances".*










Jean-Pierre Dick Launches Cruising Design

YouTube - JP54 test sail - Yachting World

*The JP54 gives you a novel experience enabling you to reconcile the pleasures of sailing aboard an extremely high performance and innovative boat, whilst benefiting from her ease of handling and her unique design.

There is no compromise to be made between speed, comfort and the pleasure of sailing; the JP54 brings together all these elements to satisfy your desire to get away from it all. As such you'll be able to fully benefit from new horizons and the thrills of speed, amidst the sounds of the wind, the sea and the birds&#8230; Revel in the indescribable freedom and pleasures synonymous with sailing, and share these unforgettable moments with family or friends.

The uncluttered deck layout of the JP54 facilitates movement around the boat, both whilst under sail and at anchor. Virtually all the manœuvres can be performed from the cockpit, protected from the waves. Indeed, the hydraulic Harken Racing winches ensure that manoeuvring is no longer a heavy physical activity and as such it is possible to make sail changes in a matter of minutes.

The JP54 is a comfortable boat, which is both uncluttered and spacious, with clean lines and a unique design. Integrated into the living space the galley pivots in order to transfer the weight to windward in a matter of seconds. This innovation enables the performance of the JP54 to be optimised, whilst benefiting from an original and comfortable galley, equipped with numerous clever stowage facilities. This ensures that cooking is effortless even to windward.

A real haven of peace, the JP54 is ideal for sailing with your family, A subtle blend of conviviality and intimacy, the JP54 gives you the chance to share some exceptional moments in the harmonious shared spaces in the saloon, the galley and the living area. Furthermore, for quieter moments there is the luxury of private cabins.

The pleasure of speed, the discovery of new horizons and the comfort on the water, make the JP54 a unique fast cruiser.*

Absolute dreamer - JPDICK yachts - JP54

So KEV, go and buy this boat, or at least dream with it (it is called Dreamer by some motive ).

*According to your way of thinking you know better than anybody on this thread what is best for all of us as a cruising boat because you have so much more experience than anyone here. Well, this guy makes your experience seem insignificant so you have to admit that he knows a lot better what is the perfect cruising boat for all...and that includes you*

Regards

Paulo


----------



## kevlarpirate

smack, to illustrate my message about how differently a boat will react to high winds/seas, google images "love machine" SORC , you will see a boat of my era, a S&S 
or type design built by Tanton. 39 feet and near 20,000 lbs. This boat kept sailing, note how much jenoa overlap there is , he has plenty of sail area up 
and not worried about it. 

also google Jameson sailboat. you will see a fractional rig deeply reefed flipped on its side rudder exposed. helpless , you see no big sea , just wind.

this is what I mean when I say the boat will handle like a big dinghy and this is the direction boats went after my era. Jameson generates righting moment 
from boyancy in the wider rear beam. This allows for more control under spinnaker in big air, but pulls rudders out which contributed to that crash.

since then , designers realized they can overcome the Jameson bad manners 
by deepening the keel on a long blade and put a bulb on the bottom 
and eliminate the rudder pulling out problem by going to 2 rudders.

The characteristics of these boats are that these boats are sailing 
on their chines and yes , they can sail at very high heel angles, 
that one picture shows plenty. They are in under 10 kts true wind 
and sailing under 26 deg apparent and probably have 17 kts apparent
(VAW) and so that heel angle is where the boat comes to equalibrium
and is able to sail.

Here is my main objection is when a designer manufacturer wants to grab 
more market and detune it a hair and maybe add a few extra things below and call it a CRUISING VERSION . This is laughable , however the "paulos" out there will fall for it because they already have emotional investment in it.

These boats are fun but unpractical and unrewarding when you try to live in them. When sailing , you end up on the rail way up high, any waves slap the huge exposed under belly, the stem knuckles start pounding almost immediately, and the driver has to be on it at the 100% level.

and all this for no worthwhile upwind speed advantage, notice I sail "worthwhile" meaning maybe 15% and huge downwind advantage 
but only in really high winds and fully crewed with top notch people. 

This is NOT cruising, and is why most wives won't participate after the first encounter. 

boats from my era (early 70's) were at the peak of the curve when it comes to all around performance , strength comfort, and sea motion, 

performance : ability to go upwind in big sea/ wind "with control"
Strength: being able to take a severe grounding without disabling damage
Comfort: at anchor, noise and roll
sea motion: mass and roll/ pitch moment of inertia

a boats looks are subjective , neophites and adrenalin guys see the new boats as beauty. guys like myself see plumb bows and square off butts as ugly. BTW paulos dig at my ericson was just a jab, juvenile. 

btw, storms can do 800 miles a day , so out running them with a faster boat 
is not a good argument, you need to count on getting caught and 
have a boat like Love machine and my Newport which can handle deteriorating conditions . / good talking to you , I will get that movie


----------



## smackdaddy

Now we're getting somewhere.

PCP, you lay out a good argument with some very compelling photos and a great report from a real Dick. Who can argue with that? Also, I will admit, when I look at the following photos, one of them gives me much more of a "Jeane-Pierre" than the other. I mean look at these and take your pick:










or










Now, to be fair to KEV, my attraction to the Bene at this point is purely superficial. I don't care how she sails in ugly seas, I just want to take her home and sail the hell out of her because she's gorgeous. Call me shallow. Anyway...

Also, PCP, I think you're exactly right that the comparisons between old and new (in terms of technology, cost, size, etc.) need to be very carefully framed. It's definitely not an apples to apples comparison by any means.

From my view, and as you rightly point out, this is why if one assumes that there is only one boat design that "counts for cruising" it's not a realistic or fair assumption.

KEV, here are the pics you mentioned...

"Love Machine":









"Jameson":


















And "Jameson the Love Machine"








(Thanks Google! Ahm, not that I'd know anything about her - okay back to the point...)

A couple of things I see about Jameson (the boat not Jenna) is that, as you mention in your post, she's still an old technology: quarter tonner from the late '80's early '90's right? (okay, so is Jenna I guess)). Also, it looks like she was flying a kite (in the second pic), and has just blown the guy (the boat, not Jenna) - so a knockdown isn't all that surprising. Right? As for the first pic, what the hell? Anyway...

My takeaway at this point is that, as you say, technology has made some incredible strides in addressing the problems shown in these older boats. Granted, that technology pendulum has swung all the way to the creation of a boat like the JP54 that looks like a more comfortable Open60 or VO70 - but it's still advancement. Right?

What I don't understand is what you're saying about that 70 degree heel race boat pic I posted above. Are you saying that that's it's "normal" condition (it's only point of equilibrium) when beating into in 10 knots of wind?

I patently don't believe that. I have absolutely no calculations or experience (except some time on a J24) to back up that disbelief...but I've seen many, many of these style boats sailing in much stiffer wind than that and doing just fine. The JP54 above sure is sailing flat on a close haul into 10 knots or so. So I'm obviously not understanding your point.

Again, just a newb's perspective. But I have to say that your arguments sound more subjective and hyperboloc than PCPs - and there's nothing wrong with subjectivity - but I think the overall point is that it still boils down to the type of boat one wants the vast majority of the time they are cruising versus the very low percentage of time they are battling a gale.

I take your point about actually being able to "outrun" a storm. True, it's something you don't want to count on. But an interesting aspect to this debate is the conflation of cruising style sailing versus racing style sailing as related to the boat styles. Putting a fast boat in the hands of a cruiser doesn't mean they are going to sail like a racer - which mitigates the discomfort argument somewhat. In other words, the whole point of racing is that you deal with whatever weather comes your way and go as fast as you can until you win or break the boat. Cruising is almost the polar opposite of that.

That said, again thinking in the realm of cruising not racing, would an answer on a more modern fat-assed boat be to take more conservative measures earlier to mitigate discomfort? Love Machine is still hammering away in big seas. But what if the cruising fast boat just reduces sail and runs off as opposed to bashing away or beam on - the cause of the most discomfort? Is this a fix?

What's interesting about this question to me is that - if this is a good tactic - the speed-to-destination advantage might flip from the "fast boat" to the "slow boat" as the latter can keep bashing away more comfortably.

For me, this is a pretty fascinating debate. And I just think it's damn cool to get both sides from dudes that have a great deal of experience - and know what they're talking about...even if there's a lot of opinion involved. Raise your glasses to SN!

Finally, as to the JP54 - THAT IS ONE SICK BOAT!!! Did you guys watch the video??? The galley and the nav module FREAKING ROTATES FROM ONE SIDE TO THE OTHER! WOW!!!!


----------



## puddinlegs

This thread has gotten pretty ridiculous. I see two great boats from two different era's with very different design briefs... some people want to live in a craftman cottage, others dig Corbusier. An Ericson 46 would be a nice older cruiser (ex-early IOR racer that Jeff will surely loath ) and provide a lot of bang for the buck, go to weather comfortably, and make a nice passage maker. Myself, I have a huge soft spot for the old S&S Swan 44 and one day hope to own and restore one even knowing that it's going to be much slower than a more modern boat. I also have a nearly irrational love of anything Carl Schumaker drew, and do own one of those! The Beneteau First is a very nice modern 'moderate' hull form. Nice entry on the bow, and similar bene 40.6 that has some very nice ocean racing palamares going for it. They do go upwind very well, and downwind better than most IOR driven designs. A First 47 was sailed by the owner and family from Vancouver to Aus, did Sydney Hobart with the race crew, and sailed back. It survived last year's Southern Straights race very well as it was properly prepped for ISAF Cat. 1. The owner also experienced the '79 Fastnet, so has some good ideas about what makes and how to prepare a seaworthy boat. The 54' er is designed for a guys who really knows about Open design type boats, where he's planning to sail, strengths, weaknesses, etc... It's his brief for the designer, and I'm sure he'll love it and enjoy cruising his new ride even if kev doesn't dig it. It's not an 'either/or' proposition, but one of personal preference.

_ (Kev, no boat, modern or otherwise excels at 60 to 70 degrees of heel. IOR genoas are relatively large because the main is tiny, but I'm pretty sure you know this and are simply being rhetorical. Modern designs, and many later IOR boats, particularly Farr boats, are the opposite. To base this on one picture that smack posted is as silly as showing IOR round ups and downs while racing with some claiming that IOR driven designs can't make good cruising boats.) _


----------



## mitiempo

Agreed. No boat sails at her best while heeled past about 25 degrees or so. A boat should have enough stability to carry enough sail to keep speed up. If a boat is regularly sailing on her ear either she has a low ballast ratio or she is overcanvassed.

Most racing rules of the past 50 or so years created boats with distorted hull lines in one way or another to get a good rating. The IOR was the king at this with pinched sterns, fat in the middle, and with sail plans that required frequent sail changes forward. Now we are seeing many good boats that have far less rule created distortion, more powerful stern sections, rigs that don't depend on a different jib for each 5 knots of breeze, and less overhangs for a longer waterline. While it is true that a boat like the Newport 41 will increase waterline with heel, there is no reason not to have a long waterline all the time. Overhangs, while beautiful, serve no great purpose if all racing rules are ignored. A boat with a longer waterline will be faster in all but the lightest airs and have more longitudinal stability. I don't think I am a great fan of superwide sterns, but I certainly don't favor the IOR pinched stern designs either.
A boat of moderate beam, without a pinched stern, and with almost no forward overhang can be easily driven, meaning a smaller sailplan for the same speed and easier to handle as well.

puddinlegs
The Swan 44 has always been a favorite of mine as well. The IOR grew out of the RORC, a rule Olin Stephens liked, and it shows. He was the major force behind the IOR and the distortions came later. The early boats, while admittedly slower than today's designs, were good sailers and pretty to look at.


----------



## chall03

_


smackdaddy said:



And "Jameson the Love Machine"








Click to expand...

I personally don't see anything wrong with the width of her transom.....

Now if you were to take










And +










That would be a mighty fine day on the water   _


----------



## mitiempo

chall03

That picture doesn't show her transom - it's at the other end.


----------



## PCP

mitiempo said:


> chall03
> 
> That picture doesn't show her transom - it's at the other end.


I agree that is beam. I would say beamy


----------



## kevlarpirate

again we have opinion but no experience. Wide butts make for big weather helm and loss of control The Green JAMESON (one ton, not 1/4 ton)
was going to weather and pulled her rudder and the picture tells the rest of the story. My point was that this trend has continued to get WORSE, and that the laughable concept of twin rudders had to be implemented to overcome such unpleasant handling characteristics.
In addition bulbs on spindly fins had to be developed to overcome the newer 
hull shapes (designed for down wind speed) 

My point is for those who didn't get it the first time is that the entire direction 
of these "sport" boats has parted company with safe al around comfortable boats and that manufacturers use the term "cruising" to expand market.

Overhangs are way better than super extended waterlines which pound to weather in the smallest chop and slap and slam all night long. light hulls have jerky movements and are noisy below. 

If you want that , fine , buy it, but don't think for a moment you can have it all. My boat, with its pinched stern has no weatherhelm even when overpowered, and could hit a whale or container and survive. say that for these "new" designs. again , laughable 
BTW , that is not my Ericson, that one is up in the Great Lakes area
as for successful cruising boats, the Ericson 39 tops the list and my boat is a bigger version , therefore is even better and I have proven that .

Paulo, hang it up, no need to get personal, The laft that the Elan is a top selling boat means little. Bose is a top seller but far inferior to high end audio, What they are good at is marketing and selling perception 

Obama was good at convincing people he was the best choice, I will have to hand him that, but what we ended up with was a dufus


----------



## RXBOT

Wavelegnth 35


----------



## mitiempo

If an extended waterline slams it is badly designed. Any length waterline can slam to windward if not designed properly.


----------



## kevlarpirate

sooner or later you guys will figure it out


----------



## KeelHaulin

mitiempo said:


> Agreed. No boat sails at her best while heeled past about 25 degrees or so. A boat should have enough stability to carry enough sail to keep speed up. If a boat is regularly sailing on her ear either she has a low ballast ratio or she is overcanvassed.


Not true. Some boats don't like being heeled more than 25 Deg. Boats with narrow keel sections (like J-boats that have a bulb keel, the Beneteau pictured in this thread, etc) really don't like heel because they don't track well, and they end up with too much side slip. But boats with keels like the E-39, and the Newport 41 just keep generating more forward speed because the swept fin keel generates more leeway force which translates into forward motion. Some of our best upwind tacks are when the boat gets a bit of a side gust or we bear away from the wind for for a few seconds and the boat heels over to 45deg; then get round it back up onto close hauled and the boat just takes off. The windex points straight forward. (sorry I don't have wind instruments or I would tell you what the true vs apparent wind is).



> Most racing rules of the past 50 or so years created boats with distorted hull lines in one way or another to get a good rating. The IOR was the king at this with pinched sterns, fat in the middle, and with sail plans that required frequent sail changes forward. Now we are seeing many good boats that have far less rule created distortion, more powerful stern sections, rigs that don't depend on a different jib for each 5 knots of breeze, and less overhangs for a longer waterline. While it is true that a boat like the Newport 41 will increase waterline with heel, there is no reason not to have a long waterline all the time. Overhangs, while beautiful, serve no great purpose if all racing rules are ignored. A boat with a longer waterline will be faster in all but the lightest airs and have more longitudinal stability. I don't think I am a great fan of superwide sterns, but I certainly don't favor the IOR pinched stern designs either.


Some more corrections here. People tend to lump all IOR rated boats together. Remember this was an ERA. At the beginning of the IOR, boats that were end-era CCA were given an IOR rating also. They were CCA designed hulls and their overall shape was driven by the design standards of that rule. The overhangs were 'cheats' to minimize waterline length for the CCA era measuring system, not the IOR. But they also served the purpose of minimizing the wetted surface area of a displacement hull. At low speeds the hull has the smallest waterline possible, and as speed increases so does waterline length; allowing the boat to exceed her 'theoretical' hull speed and go up to the hull speed of the now longer waterline length. It's a form of hull shape optimization to allow the boat to move at it's maximum speed in both light and heavy air. The Newport 41 was designed in 1965. The hull mold is pre-IOR. The only reason it has a high aspect raito sail is because Capital Yachts wanted the boat to have a better IOR rating. The original C&C Redline 41 sailplan called for a boom on the main that was about 4' longer than the Newport 41 with end-boom sheeting on a traveler car that went across the cockpit just in front of the binnacle. With this reduction in sail area it's amazing that the Newport 41 (a ~46 year old hull design) still wins races regularly. Of course the pre-requisite is heavy air to win races; something that this design excels at.



> A boat of moderate beam, without a pinched stern, and with almost no forward overhang can be easily driven, meaning a smaller sailplan for the same speed and easier to handle as well.


Yes, but we are talking apples and oranges here. Boats like the Newport 41 are displacement hulls; while the newer designs with plumb bows and flat bottoms are downwind planing design hulls. Now that does not mean that any flat bottom downwind boat will plane. If you take a planing hull then put a full cruising interior in it; it's no longer an ULDB design and it becomes difficult to make plane without +25 kts of wind. It's now a semi-displacement hull with a flat bottom that might not be able to go upwind well in a heavy blow, and downwind performance is not what it -should- be.


----------



## puddinlegs

A plumb bow makes for a wet boat, sure, but a boat that slams is all about the forefoot.. what's below the waterline.


----------



## mitiempo

Leeway translates into forward motion? I don't think so. An instrument that shows VMG would prove it.

Yes it is true that a boat with long overhangs has less wetted surface when upright in light air. But a boat with very little or no overhang that is easily driven and not beamy has advantages. The longer waterline will translate to a faster boat in all but light air and a slightly slower boat possibly in the light stuff.

I didn't lump all IOR boats together. I believe the Swan 44 was an excellent IOR design as well as many others. Still designed to a rule, and any rule creates a certain type of boat but not extreme. 

I am talking about easily driven fast boats, no distortions for the sake of a rule, not super wide aft but with long waterlines and fair hull lines, light enough to be easily driven by a smaller more easily managed sailplan. I didn't mention planing at all.


----------



## kevlarpirate

miti

"swept fin keel generates more leeway force which translates into forward motion." that was the statement

He said more leeway "force", meaning resistance to leeway , and he is correct
he did not say leeway translated into forward motion, 

keelhaulin, I have a sigh of relief someone here is explaining the physics with experimental data. Whew, I thought I was alone. 

As for long waterlines miti, when you say if it slams it poorly designed, 
the reality is the designer doesn't care if it slams. If it had a deeper forefoot 
it would slam less, but that would reduce planing ability and that is the direction (purpose) of the design and so deeper forefoot is not where the designer takes it . 
For that matter , the designer doesn't care if the but slaps all night long either. These big dinghies have one purpose and that is to break out of the displacement mode in as little wind as possible. 

The loss of comfort, noise, jerky motions and other sacrifices made in performance at the other end of the envelope are all to be rationalized away by the new excited owner. 

One of the best points made was that once you load this boat up with cruising comforts, you no longer have a ULDB and in reality have defeated the purpose. 

Now one more step, just think is you really loaded it up for real cruising
That amount of weight would create a totally different boat, one which 
would likely be the absolute worst platform conceivable to do the job

Also happy to see we now have dissected the CCA out of the early IOR
which was 15 years before the IOR got really bad Unfortunately these newer 
sport boats would likely fare worse in the Fastnet disaster. Unfortunately the data has too high a beta to make sound conclusions, so one must theorize


----------



## KeelHaulin

mitiempo said:


> Leeway translates into forward motion? I don't think so. An instrument that shows VMG would prove it.


Leeway force is the force generated by flow of water over the keel. It, more than the keel weight, is what resists the lateral force generated by the sails. The difference in the net opposing forces of the leeway force vs the sail force is a resulting force pointing forward, and hence forward motion of the boat. The more sail force and leeway force a boat can generate, the faster it will go upwind. The way to generate leeway force is to have a large underwater wing. Bulb keels don't have a big wing. They have a narrow chord fin with a bulb on the bottom that provides more righting moment. When the leeway force on a bulb keel is exceeded it will begin to side slip more rapidly. This happens at a shallower angle of heel and this is why these boats don't like being heeled excessively on upwind tacks; and they prefer light wind while sailing upwind. It's more efficient in light to moderate winds because that is when you don't need more leeway force than the narrow chord and bulb keel will provide. The design specifically encourages downwind performance while sacrificing upwind performance in stronger wind.



> Yes it is true that a boat with long overhangs has less wetted surface when upright in light air. But a boat with very little or no overhang that is easily driven and not beamy has advantages. The longer waterline will translate to a faster boat in all but light air and a slightly slower boat possibly in the light stuff.


I think you are confusing the two types of boat again. The newer designs that have little overhang (not cruising boats) are even lower in wetted surface than a displacement hull because it's a much lighter boat and therefore displaces less water. For example, my neighbors Olson 40 weighs less than half of my boat. So it's wetted surface area sitting at the dock will be much less than my boat. It does not need a waterline that gets longer because the wetted surface is already minimal. Designs like the C&C 41 (Newport 41) were developed to minimize drag on a hull that was limited by the weight of it's construction. This is why C&C sold the Redline 41 hull to Enterprise (later Capital Yachts); so they could develop hulls that utilized balsa coring to reduce the weight of construction. They were on the right track because it set an industry standard that is still used to this day (sandwich construction of the hull to reduce weight).



> I didn't lump all IOR boats together. I believe the Swan 44 was an excellent IOR design as well as many others. Still designed to a rule, and any rule creates a certain type of boat but not extreme.


Well, you did indirectly when you used the Newport 41 as an example of the typical IOR boat. It does not have an excessively pinched stern, or excessive overhangs. The stern is narrow by todays standards because the entire hull form is narrow. It's not as narrow as a wood hulled racer but you certainly would not call it 'beamy'. Practical Sailor called the overhangs 'moderate' in their highly positive review of the boat. The C&C Redline 41 hull was a platform CCA design upon which IOR designs evolved out of. That's where I was trying to correct your commentary. IOR era boats became beamier and more narrow in the stern to conform to the IOR rule while producing faster, shallower displacement hulls.



> I am talking about easily driven fast boats, no distortions for the sake of a rule, not super wide aft but with long waterlines and fair hull lines, light enough to be easily driven by a smaller more easily managed sailplan. I didn't mention planing at all.


Could you give me an example of a boat that fits what you describe? Are we talking about a newer boat with classic lines and a plumb bow (like the recent Perry designed cruiser)? I believe Perry's new boat also has a bulb keel but a more moderate fin section.


----------



## mitiempo

Not a ULDB, nor unmanageable in heavy weather. Fast, well mannered, easy to control downwind and doesn't slam. Very narrow entry, excellent longitudinal stability. Light enough to excel with a sail plan that is not over large.
Unfortunately the beam/length ratio of 4 1/2 to 1 doesn't translate to a very small boat.

If I had the money I would buy one in a heartbeat.


----------



## mitiempo

I misunderstood what you were trying to get across. If forward force is what makes a boat move forwards then leeway force is what makes a boat move sideways. I think you mean resistance to leeway.


----------



## PCP

KeelHaulin said:


> ... Now that does not mean that any flat bottom downwind boat will plane. If you take a planing hull then put a full cruising interior in it; it's no longer an ULDB design and it becomes difficult to make plane without *+25 kts of wind*. It's now a semi-displacement hull with a flat bottom that might not be able to go upwind well in a heavy blow, and downwind performance is not what it -should- be.


You mean 14/16K wind to start planning?

Here you have the polar of the Pogo 10.50:


















pogo10.50

This is not a racing boat, it even has a swing keel and this is the one that has a 3 year waiting list.

The boat is designed by Jean Marie Finot, one of the great designers of all times. He is about 70 years old and this is the boat he has now (among the hundreds he had designed) to cruise with his wive.

Actually the boat sails faster downwind than the polar predicts and this previsions are not from a naked version (there is not one) this are from a boat with a standard cruising interior.

This is a 35ft boat so hull speed should be around 8K. You can see that the boat downwind with 12K wind is already making *9K*, with 16K is making *over 10K* and with 25K is making *almost 14K* and with 30K wind is making *over 16K*.

Off course this is a boat for the ones that like to cruise light and with the water tanks full will be slower and it will need more wind to plane but we are talking about more 2/4k wind for the same speed (and that is a lot). With about 2/3 of its max cruising load I am quite sure this boat will be well over its hull speed with 16K wind, probably less.

YouTube - pogo 10.50 cocody
Dailymotion - POGO 10.50 VINI v2 - une vidéo Sports & Extreme
YouTube - cocody spiouest france 2010 a
Regards

Paulo


----------



## bb74

Trying to take the emotion out of the discussion here... it certainly sounds as if there are 2 ends of the spectrum, one criticism for the design being unworthy, and the other for the use of the said design not really complying with the targeted use (loading a planing hull with a bunch of "stuff"....)

On the first point, the planing designs not being fit for purpose... The designed purpose of these boats is to be category A and/or unsinkable, then fast and easy to handle. I don't think anyone expects creature comfort and ease of motion to be top of the list when buying a Pogo, JPK, Archambault, etc. It's the tradeoff many are willing to accept. Maybe if poorly handled you will experience more leeway than with a long keel design.. You will certainly have a lot more motion. In the end however, you have to admit these boats are designed for purpose. That purpose has some drawbacks that some find reprehensible. In the end, that's when we get into the gray area of opinion.

On the second point, I agree entirely that many purchasing these designs will load them up with so many creature comforts that they will no longer be fit for purpose. To each his own in that regard. It's like buying a sports car or a big 4x4. Outside of that 1%, nobody will use them for the purpose expected. It's 99% aura and ego, 1% utility. I don't think you're looking at that 1% on these types of boats, probably more like 30-40% used for purpose and 60% overfitted and overburdened. Human nature and this has absolutely nothing to do with the design guidelines and built for purpose approach of the builders.

Finally, I would add that there is likely a 3rd difference in perspective here and that is these designs are built to "hop across the blue" quickly and downwind, then cruise on the coast until the next hop. That is the other design criteria of these boats. No-one is going to spend 1000 days doing circles in the atlantic on one of these boats. Can you do that on other, more conservative designs? Absolutely. That's a difference in design principle on these boats.

On a side note, I get the impression that Kevlarpirate has spent a fair amount of time on the lightweight desings and racing. Having "been there, done that", I think he's become a bit jaded or at the least blasé about these boats. I think if he were to look back onto the mindset at the time and the motivation for sailing these sleds, he would have to admit that as uncomfortable as they may have been, they were exciting outings and without that experience he probably wouldn't have his current perspective on what he considers a suitable design for his purposes. Similar to a guy that just went from a Pogo 8.50 to a HR 31. There's a time and place for everything. It doesn't mean the guy was an idiot to have done numerous transats on the Pogo. It just means that his end game has changed a bit and the HR fits the purpose better.


----------



## jorgenl

mitiempo said:


> Not a ULDB, nor unmanageable in heavy weather. Fast, well mannered, easy to control downwind and doesn't slam. Very narrow entry, excellent longitudinal stability. Light enough to excel with a sail plan that is not over large.
> Unfortunately the beam/length ratio of 4 1/2 to 1 doesn't translate to a very small boat.
> 
> If I had the money I would buy one in a heartbeat.


Deerfoot?


----------



## mitiempo

Sundeer actually. Deerfoot was the predecessor. My ideal bluewater boat. The problem is the smaller you go, the less the design works, 50' being probably the minimum. Below that the boat becomes progressively beamier relative to its length. The 60 has a beam of 13.5 feet and it works very well. Boats designed to be sailed by a couple anywhere. A large number have circumnavigated.

Chuck Paine's Apogee is similar as are many of his larger designs, though not quite as extreme as the Sundeers by Steve Dashew.


----------



## smackdaddy

bb74 said:


> Trying to take the emotion out of the discussion here... it certainly sounds as if there are 2 ends of the spectrum, one criticism for the design being unworthy, and the other for the use of the said design not really complying with the targeted use (loading a planing hull with a bunch of "stuff"....)
> 
> On the first point, the planing designs not being fit for purpose... The designed purpose of these boats is to be category A and/or unsinkable, then fast and easy to handle. I don't think anyone expects creature comfort and ease of motion to be top of the list when buying a Pogo, JPK, Archambault, etc. It's the tradeoff many are willing to accept. Maybe if poorly handled you will experience more leeway than with a long keel design.. You will certainly have a lot more motion. In the end however, you have to admit these boats are designed for purpose. That purpose has some drawbacks that some find reprehensible. In the end, that's when we get into the gray area of opinion.
> 
> On the second point, I agree entirely that many purchasing these designs will load them up with so many creature comforts that they will no longer be fit for purpose. To each his own in that regard. It's like buying a sports car or a big 4x4. Outside of that 1%, nobody will use them for the purpose expected. It's 99% aura and ego, 1% utility. I don't think you're looking at that 1% on these types of boats, probably more like 30-40% used for purpose and 60% overfitted and overburdened. Human nature and this has absolutely nothing to do with the design guidelines and built for purpose approach of the builders.
> 
> Finally, I would add that there is likely a 3rd difference in perspective here and that is these designs are built to "hop across the blue" quickly and downwind, then cruise on the coast until the next hop. That is the other design criteria of these boats. No-one is going to spend 1000 days doing circles in the atlantic on one of these boats. Can you do that on other, more conservative designs? Absolutely. That's a difference in design principle on these boats.
> 
> On a side note, I get the impression that Kevlarpirate has spent a fair amount of time on the lightweight desings and racing. Having "been there, done that", I think he's become a bit jaded or at the least blasé about these boats. I think if he were to look back onto the mindset at the time and the motivation for sailing these sleds, he would have to admit that as uncomfortable as they may have been, they were exciting outings and without that experience he probably wouldn't have his current perspective on what he considers a suitable design for his purposes. Similar to a guy that just went from a Pogo 8.50 to a HR 31. There's a time and place for everything. It doesn't mean the guy was an idiot to have done numerous transats on the Pogo. It just means that his end game has changed a bit and the HR fits the purpose better.


+1.


----------



## KeelHaulin

I'll post tomorrow on this... Had a GREAT sail today, we hit 10.3 kts for a short time and averaged 9.7 crossing the central bay with a full main and a reefed jib. The boat never dipped the rail in.


----------



## kevlarpirate

I don't believe for s moment the "deerfoot" looking boat is NOT a slammer
I will bet it slams plenty. Of course back at the wheel you probably don't mind 
that much. 

BB yes i have done plenty including visiting neighbors on the "ball" 
at Howlands landing , where there may be 75 different boats at one time. 

The sport boats being touted as cruisers must be kept light and yes, you
must give up plenty to enjoy them at their potential. It is amazing how quickly 
these boats respond to just an inflatable going by at 5 kts. slap slap slap
and then the rolling and pitching. This is what happens when you make a 35 foot boat weigh 4400 lbs. There is no way out of it. The only way to have fun is to be sailing, because you sure pay for it when at anchor. 

jaded..? not really, just not duped my hype to the point where a new norm is born.... cruising is about comfort, safety, more specifically robustly built
comfortable good all around designs capable of handling the weight of necessary gear. That is the criteria, not down wind speed


----------



## PCP

kevlarpirate said:


> ...
> jaded..? not really, just not duped my hype to the point where a new norm is born.... *cruising is about comfort*,.. That is the criteria, *not ...speed*


This seems to be the issue. If we consider things like that then you are right and I have no doubt that for what you want from cruising a heavy and comfortable boat is what you need.

But the pleasure of cruising is not only to stay comfortable at anchor (some even prefer marinas) or going from point A to B in a reasonable time with comfort and carrying all the goodies that some need to have an enjoyable and comfortable stay. For some, even to the majority, that's the important thing, the only thing about cruising.

For others, there are the places you can reach with the boat, there are the times you stay on anchor but the most important for them is the sailing while cruising. And I don't mean comfort, I mean having fun, overtake all the sails you see in the horizon, and fell good with the boat the sea and the speed. Doing this on affordable boats and have the minimum requirements for cruising is what those modern fast sailing boats offer.

You can cruise also on land. Most people that like to do that would chose a big touring BMW or a Mercedes, if they had the money for it. Plenty of power, plenty of comfort plenty of space for luggage and they will go by fast roads to the places they want to visit. That's the most comfortable way of cruising.

But there also some that would chose country and mountain twisting roads, fast and small sports car or even a powerful motorcycle. This choice would make no sense at all for the ones that like comfort and relative speed. They would say that country and mountain roads, motorcycles and nervous sports cars are dangerous and uncomfortable that they cannot carry almost no luggage and that the difference in speed is not that big and they would be right. Some would even refuse to believe that some people would prefer that crazy stuff saying that they just never had tried to cruise that way because if they had they would find it unportable and very disagreeable.

But the fact is that there are some that love to cruise that way and gladly change all that comfort, luggage for the added pleasure of an exhilarating ride. For them the fun in the ride is the essence of cruising. I know I am one of those, I mean I cruise with a sports car or a powerful motorcycle and I am not the only one. Plenty of guys doing that.

So why it is so strange that in what regards cruising with a sailing boat the same logic prevails? The fact that there are builders doing that kind of boats (sports performance cruiser) and selling them very well shows that there is a market for it and contrary to what you say the ones that buy these boats are not inexperienced sailors and some even chartered first to be sure that was what they wanted (like some in this forum).

I will point out that sailors are not stupid and know very well what they want and if there were a market for the exact kind of boat you find best adapted to cruising you would find boats similar to the Ericson 39/46 or the Newport 41. The truth is that there is not a market that justifies a shipyard to build a boat like the Ericson 39/46 or the Newport 41 because there is not a significant number of sailors that want that kind of boats (for cruising or for racing) and that seems plain to me.

I am not saying that they are not the ideal cruising boat to you I am just saying that you refuse to see that the word cruising, and the kind of pleasure that is associated with, means different things to different people and that the market offers different boats for almost any type of cruising style, yours (at least more or less ) mine and many others.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## puddinlegs

kevlarpirate said:


> .... cruising is about comfort, safety, more specifically robustly built
> comfortable good all around designs capable of handling the weight of necessary gear. That is the criteria, not down wind speed


In general, I agree with what you are saying regarding seakindliness and comfort, but where I have a problem is attempting to make your criteria, your design brief if you will, everyone else's.

I know folks who've happily completed circumnavigations in boats that you passionately dislike as well as one's who've done them in boats that you would approve. Bottom line is they all got around the marble safely and in the style that matched their performance expectations/abilities. Some people really like to go fast and push their performance envelope. Like I said earlier, I'd love to buy and restore an S&S swan 44. The boat is a work of art IMHO. The other boat that I'd be perfectly happy sailing down the west coast to Mexico on would be an SC 50 (easily driven hull, much smaller hardware and rig loads than the Swan, etc... No doubt the Swan would be relatively more comfortable for the trip back up. I say relatively because it's likely to be pretty uncomfortable at some point in the trip for any boat. In any case, my point is I've mentioned two classic boats that I really like knowing full well they have clear strengths and weaknesses. Both have long records of successful and safe passage making, ocean crossings, racing, and cruising. Both are extremely well built. Neither would be appropriate for high latitude 'polar' style cruising. No doubt you'd like the Swan, and that's understandable. Another friend completed the Mini Transat and all the qualifiers. Not comfortable. This is very much in the realm of 'sailing as athletic event', but exactly what he was looking for as a personal challenge. The Mini's are certainly NOT comfortable, but they do have a very admirable safety record. Back to our Swan and Santa Cruz, I'd be happy with either, but if we were looking to explore shallower cruising venues, we'd both be out of luck.


----------



## mitiempo

Why would a Deerfoot or Sundeer slam? The forefoot at the entry is rounded, not V'ed so there is not a flat surface to slam at a heeled angle. Steve Dashew is way ahead of your thoughts.


----------



## KeelHaulin

Downwind VMG of the pogo 10.5 is only .68 kt faster than the Newport 41 at 16kts of wind; only 1.5 kts faster at 20 kts. I ask again; how many sailors *blue water cruise* their boat under maximum sail when there is more than 20 kts wind? Usually when at sea and the wind/seas are up around 20 if you have not reefed down yet to prepare for heavier weather; you are asking for a bigger problem later. Just because a boat can carry sail in heavier winds does not mean it or you should. Everyone talks about the people who sail circumnavs in open 50's and other racing hulls like they are just average joe sailors. They are not. They have massive experience in offshore racing sailing and single or short handed sailing. There is a long, long history of FAILURES of these people, their equipment, and their boats. They truly are sailing on the cutting edge of technology and taking huge risks. To compare the raw performance of a new racer/cruiser with a more traditional design; talk about sailing downwind in 30kts shorthanded (insert picture of your favorite circumnav sailor here); and then say "you can do this to" is bad advice and just plain foolish.

I don't have a problem with go-fast boats. I don't have a problem with the people who can afford to own and sail them (can I have a ride?). What I do have a problem with is the marketing of inappropriate designs as 'blue-water cruisers' with raw data that backs up it's RACING performance, and no context of what it takes (see above) to sail at those extremes.

On our sail yesterday we followed an Express 37 for a bit. It was also being double handed. We started off sailing close hauled to the lee of her and behind her on Starboard tack; winds were around 20 kts apparent. The E-37 started rounding violently and heeling excessively in the gusts to 25. She could not point as high as us, and as a result, within 2 miles we were passing the E-37 and at least 200 yards to weather of her before we tacked away. An E-37 rates 72; the Newport 41 rates 108 on SF Bay. I'm sure it's faster downwind; but the upwind performance was not as good as my boat with dacron sails and roller reefing jib (their boat had racing sails).


----------



## kevlarpirate

puddin , don't be so sensitive. BTW a SC50 is a major slammer
and pulls its rudder when heeled, it has a horrible interior
It is a strongly built boat, I have a friend who owns one

The deerfoot has a very long and shallow bow section whether it is round or Veed
it is still long and hangs way out there so of course it is a pounder
and Dashew knows this quite well

Keelhaulin, You have diplomatically and accurately nailed this issue.
I notice you don't get too much response, and for me , I get darts thrown at me because of my arrogance.... but truth be told, at least there are two of us
who understand this stuff , you just have to do it to know I guess. 

so long


----------



## PCP

KeelHaulin said:


> *Downwind VMG of the pogo 10.5 is only .68 kt faster than the Newport 41 at 16kts of wind; only 1.5 kts faster at 20 kts.* I ask again; how many sailors *blue water cruise* their boat under maximum sail when there is more than 20 kts wind? Usually when at sea and the wind/seas are up around 20 if you have not reefed down yet to prepare for heavier weather; you are asking for a bigger problem later. Just because a boat can carry sail in heavier winds does not mean it or you should. ....


I have already told you many times that a 35ft boat that is faster than a 41ft boat is a much faster boat. But besides that you have to read correctly a polar speed. *Downwind with 16K wind the Pogo 10.50 is not0.68K faster but about 2K faster and with 20K wind is not 1.5K faster but about 3K faster*. That is really huge





















KeelHaulin said:


> I ask again; how many sailors *blue water cruise* their boat under maximum sail when there is more than 20 kts wind? Usually when at sea and *the wind/seas are up around 20 if you have not reefed down yet to prepare for heavier weather*; you are asking for a bigger problem later. Just because a boat can carry sail in heavier winds does not mean it or you should. ....


What are you talking about? Downwind with winds up around 20K you prepare for heavier weather ? 20K winds are what you get on the trade winds, days in a row, when you cross the Atlantic and it is with that kind of winds this boat excels. With 20K winds you are making almost 12K and have over the deck a bit more than 8K. Very agreable . You don't even need to be at the wheel you can have a sunbath, this boat is designed to make that on autopilot.

*But if we consider a Pogo the same size of the Newport 41, **that difference of speed downwind with 20K wind would not be of 3K but of 5K* and you would be gliding at 14K with only a gentle breeze over the deck. That is what BB74 is talking about when he says:



bb74 said:


> ...
> 
> On the first point, the planing designs not being fit for purpose... The designed purpose of these boats is to be category A and/or unsinkable, then fast and easy to handle. ..
> ..these designs are built to "hop across the blue" quickly and downwind, then cruise on the coast until the next hop.


And quickly is really quickly in what regards trade winds and crossing the pond. Take a look at the one that is the same size of your boat, the Pogo 12.50:

Dailymotion - Une journée en Pogo12.50 - une vidéo Sports & Extreme

YouTube - Adriatic BOXX class 40 sailing downwind in wind force 6-7

Regards

Paulo


----------



## KeelHaulin

*VMG (VELOCITY MADE GOOD)* OPTIMUM RUN:

16Kts Windspeed:

Newport 41 - 7.09 [email protected] 175 DEG TRUE (can likely beat this with good helming)
Pogo 10.5 - 7.77 [email protected] 160 DEG TRUE *published on your table above.

Difference: 0.68 NM/hour

20 Kts Windspeed:

Newport 41 - 7.74 Kts @ 175 DEG TRUE (Can likely beat this with good helming)
Pogo 10.5 - 9.29 Kts @ 147.3 DEG TRUE *published on your table above

Difference: 1.55 NM/hour; BUT do you want to sail with quartering seas and GYBE multiple times in heavy air and seas to make your destination?? 20kts of sustained wind equates to big seas; and bigger if it's over 20.

LETS NOT QUIBBLE OVER THE SIZE OF THE BOAT!! THE 35' BOATS YOU BROUGHT TO THIS DISCUSSION ARE LARGER ON THE INTERIOR AND 6X+ MORE EXPENSIVE THAN MY 41!!

ARE YOU GOING TO TRUST YOUR AP OR VANE TO CONTROL YOUR BOAT IN 25+ WITH BIG QUARTERING SEAS AND FULL SAILS??


----------



## smackdaddy

KeelHaulin said:


> LETS NOT QUIBBLE OVER THE SIZE OF THE BOAT!! THE 35' BOATS YOU BROUGHT TO THIS DISCUSSION ARE LARGER ON THE INTERIOR AND 6X+ MORE EXPENSIVE THAN MY 41!!


Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think the comparison here has anything to do with interior space or cost - but more the wetted surface/waterline (hence speed) that extra 6' gives you, no?


----------



## KeelHaulin

UPWIND VMG:

WINDSPEED NEWPORT 41 POGO 10.5 DIFFERENCE

6KTS 3.26KTS 3.34KTS *0.08KTS*
12KTS 4.59KTS 4.98KTS *0.39KTS*
16KTS 4.80KTS 5.22KTS *0.42KTS*

HOW MUCH FASTER IS THIS BOAT IN REAL WORLD CONDITIONS?


----------



## smackdaddy

KeelHaulin said:


> UPWIND VMG:
> 
> WINDSPEED NEWPORT 41 POGO 10.5 DIFFERENCE
> 
> 6KTS 3.26KTS 3.34KTS *0.08KTS*
> 12KTS 4.59KTS 4.98KTS *0.39KTS*
> 16KTS 4.80KTS 5.22KTS *0.42KTS*
> 
> HOW MUCH FASTER IS THIS BOAT IN REAL WORLD CONDITIONS?


I honestly don't know how to read the Pogo chart. It's all in French and stuff (heh-heh). So right now I've got your word against PCPs.

Regardless those numbers are still a 10.5 as PCP points out...compared to 41'.

So, what are the numbers of the 12.5 - a much closer comparison? If it's 3-5 knots better...that's pretty sweet.

(PS - Did you watch those vids of the 12.5? Impressive.)


----------



## puddinlegs

KeelHaulin said:


> On our sail yesterday we followed an Express 37 for a bit. It was also being double handed. We started off sailing close hauled to the lee of her and behind her on Starboard tack; winds were around 20 kts apparent. The E-37 started rounding violently and heeling excessively in the gusts to 25. She could not point as high as us, and as a result, within 2 miles we were passing the E-37 and at least 200 yards to weather of her before we tacked away. An E-37 rates 72; the Newport 41 rates 108 on SF Bay. I'm sure it's faster downwind; but the upwind performance was not as good as my boat with dacron sails and roller reefing jib (their boat had racing sails).


We have an Express 34. I've spent a lot of time on 37's as well. I will tell you this about sailing them either double handed or fully crewed. They require active and 'particular' main trim upwind. If the main trimmer is not tuned in, and/or an inexperience helms person, yes, they will perform exactly as you've described. Once you figure out that the boats really like vang sheeting, trav down before you start adding lot's of twist, you'll have plenty of boatspeed, higher pointing, etc... I've been absolutely blown away by the upwind boatspeed and good tacking angles we can get in 20-25kts. What I will say is that I'm guessing that the 37 sailors were relatively new to their boat as under the conditions you described upwind in 20kts you will NOT outperform a well sailed E-37 on any point of sail save the possibility of waterlining on a beam reach . I'm also confident in guessing you weren't sailing next to Eclipse or Golden Moon. The beauty of these boats is not in their raw comfort, but in their all around excellent performance in many conditions and wind ranges. Add to that the quality of the Alsberg Bros. glasswork, and you have boats that have been sailed hard and successfully, for over 20 years. Bottom line is, all boats can be sailed well or sailed poorly. To make a blanket assumption about a particular design based on an observation of one clearly being sailed poorly isn't a good comparison.


----------



## puddinlegs

kevlarpirate said:


> BTW a SC50 is a major slammer
> and pulls its rudder when heeled, it has a horrible interior
> It is a strongly built boat, I have a friend who owns one


I'm sorry that you missed my point that it's very much ' horses for courses ' and that while I'd love the SC 50 going downhill, I'd prefer the old Swan 44 on the way back up. I don't think we're in all that much disagreement at all. Both are classics of their eras. Interiors? Sure, these too are so vastly different that they're impossible to compare. One thing both the Swan and SC 50 have that few modern cruisers have are very comfortable sea births. A more modern cruising boat that I've really enjoyed sailing on is the Outbound 46. It's well built (solid glass hull) well laid out, great engine access, good tankage, etc... It's a very moderate boat in all regards. The whole 'there are two of us who know anything here' is just internet chest pounding and silly. You're not reading what I'm saying at all, just stating your personal preferences for a particular type of boat. I get it. No need to condescend to others.


----------



## KeelHaulin

Puddinlegs-

I did not make a blanket statement. Did I not say that I'm sure they would be faster on a run? I said it was being double handed (by a couple that appeared to know what they were doing). But keep in mind that we (myself and sailing companion) were also double-handing in a casual way. While they were scrambling all over the boat to adjust the trim we just kept sailing and pointing higher. I'm talking about suitability as cruising boats here; not racing. I know full well that an E-37 on the race course would be tough to sail against and I could probably only win on corrected time; BUT there are instances where the Newport 41 has won 1'st overalls and not in the distant past; as you stated when you mention wind conditions, having heavy air is a pre-requisite.


----------



## KeelHaulin

smackdaddy said:


> I honestly don't know how to read the Pogo chart. It's all in French and stuff (heh-heh). So right now I've got your word against PCPs.


That table is simple. It's a tabulated polar chart. If you took each row and plotted it on a polar diagram you would get the boat's 'polars'. In addition, the bottom six rows are:

Upwind Boat Velocity
Upwind Angle to True Wind
Upwind Velocity Made Good

Downwind Boat Velocity
Downwind Angle to True Wind
Downwind Velocity Made Good



> Regardless those numbers are still a 10.5 as PCP points out...compared to 41'.


Do you know what the waterline length of the N-41 is? It's 30'!! What's the AVERAGE of the LWL and LOA? It's 35.5'. So again; these boats are not significantly different in regards to 'size'. The 10.5 probably has a much larger interior volume.


----------



## PCP

KeelHaulin said:


> LETS NOT QUIBBLE OVER THE SIZE OF THE BOAT!! THE 35' BOATS YOU BROUGHT TO THIS DISCUSSION ARE LARGER ON THE INTERIOR AND 6X+ MORE EXPENSIVE THAN MY 41!!


Yes, the fact that the Pogo 10.50 has a bigger interior is an advantage of this type of design, but boats are measured by length, not by interior volume. A 41ft boat is a 41ft boat and a 35ft boat is a 35ft boat, no matter what.The bills on the marina will regard lenght since the beam of the Pogo is still considered "normal".

Price can also be a measure of a boat, specially if you consider price/performance or price/ interior space, *but you should be the only guy I know that compares the price of 40 year old things you the price of new things. That's crazy* in what regards boats, cars, or anything else. If the Newport 41 was made now (or if you have one built) it would cost 3 times the price of a Pogo 10.50 and if you want to make a price comparison those are the numbers. The Pogo is an incomparable less expensive boat to have and to maintain.

So, if you consider either price, length or interior volume, the Pogo is a less expensive boat to have.



KeelHaulin said:


> *VMG (VELOCITY MADE GOOD)* OPTIMUM RUN:
> 
> 16Kts Windspeed:
> 
> Newport 41 - 7.09 [email protected] 175 DEG TRUE (can likely beat this with good helming)
> Pogo 10.5 - 7.77 [email protected] 160 DEG TRUE *published on your table above.
> 
> Difference: 0.68 NM/hour
> 
> 20 Kts Windspeed:
> 
> Newport 41 - 7.74 Kts @ 175 DEG TRUE (Can likely beat this with good helming)
> Pogo 10.5 - 9.29 Kts @ 147.3 DEG TRUE *published on your table above
> 
> Difference: 1.55 NM/hour; BUT do you want to sail with quartering seas and GYBE multiple times in heavy air and seas to make your destination?? 20kts of sustained wind equates to big seas; and bigger if it's over 20.


Again, your notion of big seas puzzles me. Between 20 and 30K is what I had most of the time nearer the marina where I had my boat. I wonder what you call big seas

Regarding your measures I really don´t understand what you mean. *I was talking about the best downwind speed on both boats and regarding that my numbers are correct*.

Downwind sailing is anything over 100º true wind and if you don't want to talk about max speed downwind then what matters is the performance of the boat in each point of sale on all those directions and not on a particular one.

*So if it is not max speed you want lets take a look at the average speeds downwind at 16K and 20K.*

Looking at an average of those sail points and comparing (each 10º over 100º) the Newport speeds (*green*) with the Pogo speeds (*blue*) and how much faster the Pogo is (*red*) we have:

For *16K wind*:

*100º* - *7.9* -*9.3* *+1.4K*

*110º* - *7.9* -*9.3* *+1.4K*

*120º* - *8.1* - *9.8* *+1.7K*

*130º* - *8.0* - *10.1* *+2.1K*

*140º* - *8.0* - *9.7* *+1.7K*

*150* - *7.5* -* 8.9* *+1.4K*

*160º* - *7.3* -* 8.3* *+1.0K*

*170º* - *7.2* -* 7.8* *+0.6K*

*180º* - *7.0* -* 7.4* *+0.4K*

Considered all angles, with:
*16K wind, downwind, average speed from the Pogo over the Newport = + 1.3*

For *20K wind*:

*100º* - *8.2* -*10.0* *+1.8K*

*110º* - *8.3* -*10.4* *+2.1K*

*120º* - *8.7* - *10.8* *+2.1K*

*130º* - *8.7* - *11.3* *+2.6K*

*140º* - *8.6* - *11.7* *+3.1K*

*150* - *8.2* -* 10.7* *+2.5K*

*160º* - *8.1* -* 9.7* *+1.6K*

*170º* - *8.0* -* 9.1* *+1.1K*

*180º* - *7.7* -* 8.6* *+0.9K*

Considered all angles, with:
*20K wind, downwind, average speed from the Pogo over the Newport = + 2.0*

Of course if we consider 25K wind that difference should be even greater probably around 3K.

*This is a huge difference* that would be much bigger if we put the 41ft Newport against a similarly sized Pogo. Well, people just mount an expensive folding propeller to get just more 0.5K speed



KeelHaulin said:


> ARE YOU GOING TO TRUST YOUR AP OR VANE TO CONTROL YOUR BOAT IN 25+ WITH BIG QUARTERING SEAS AND FULL SAILS??


Now, why are you talking of winds over + 25K? We were talking about 16K and 20K winds, but with 30K and with 150º downwind the difference in speed to your boat would be just awesome. The Newport you be making a huge wave bow, stressing all structures, buried in the water making about 10K while the Pogo, with much less sail would be effortless gliding at 16K.

These boats are fast enough for reeling on autopilot that are a lot more reliable than a wind vane and yes, with 20k wind the boat would be completely in control with autopilot.

You have to understand that these boats are not like the Newport. They don't roll . They are designed to do that and the large transom and the two rudders give them a stability that would be hard to believe without experiencing them.

These are boats designed for solo sailing or short crew sailing. Downwind with 20k wind on a transat when the night falls you just put the boat in autopilot and go to sleep

With 30K wind downwind this boat would not have any problem. Remember that you have 30K wind but only 16/17k apparent wind (while on the Newport you would have 22/23K). For the night and at that speed I would reduce sail for making about 12/13 K and I am sure I would not have any problem going to sleep on autopilot, in regular trade winds.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

smackdaddy said:


> I honestly don't know how to read the Pogo chart. It's all in French and stuff (heh-heh). So right now I've got your word against PCPs.
> 
> Regardless those numbers are still a 10.5 as PCP points out...compared to 41'.
> 
> So, what are the numbers of the 12.5 - a much closer comparison? If it's 3-5 knots better...that's pretty sweet.
> 
> (PS - Did you watch those vids of the 12.5? Impressive.)


That's easy to read. That is a page that was cut into two, so you have the wind angles on the first page that I have posted before . I will post the two pages again and you have just to imagine both pages put together to make sense




























There you have. It should to be easy to compare now.

Both charts have furthermore the information I gave the best upwind VMG for the Newport and Pogo. We can see that the speeds are very close, with the Pogo marginally faster till 16K wind, and then a bit faster with 16K (*+0.5K*) and more faster with more wind: 20K (*+0.7K*).

The optimum VMG downwind run with 16K and 20K show a *+0.7* and *+1.6K* advantage for the Pogo.

But most of the time you don't sail dead upwind and dead downwind and that is where the Pogo is much faster: With *16K* wind at *60º* of the wind he is doing *+0.8K*, at *80º* *+1.1K*, at *90º* *+1.5K* and at *130º* *+2.1K*.

With *20K* wind at *60º* of the wind he is doing *+0.9K*, at *80º* *+1.3K*, at *90º* *+1.5K* and at *140º* *+3.1K*.

With 25K wind and 30K wind the Pogo would increase its difference in speed to the Newport, specially downwind.

I guess this gives you a picture of the speed potential of the two boats. But of course we are comparing a 35ft boat with a 41 ft boat. If we take the 41ft Pogo the differences that are already very substantial would be much bigger.

I hope it is all clear.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

Ahh - that makes much more sense. Thanks for posting the other half of that chart.

It really does blow me away that in 4 knots of wind, sailing at 100º you can be hitting *4.67 knots* in the Pogo!!!!


----------



## KeelHaulin

PCP said:


> Yes, the fact that the Pogo 10.50 has a bigger interior is an advantage of this type of design, but boats are measured by length, not by interior volume. A 41ft boat is a 41ft boat and a 35ft boat is a 35ft boat, no matter what.The bills on the marina will regard lenght since the beam of the Pogo is still considered "normal".
> 
> Price can also be a measure of a boat, specially if you consider price/performance or price/ interior space, *but you should be the only guy I know that compares the price of 40 year old things you the price of new things. That's crazy* in what regards boats, cars, or anything else. If the Newport 41 was made now (or if you have one built) it would cost 3 times the price of a Pogo 10.50 and if you want to make a price comparison those are the numbers. The Pogo is an incomparable less expensive boat to have and to maintain.


So what SIZE slip will it fit in? It's ~13' wide. I seriously doubt that it will fit in a double finger 36' slip. You are probably looking at a 40' slip; maybe a 42' slip. My boat is 11.5' wide and it only has 1' of clearance on each side of a 40' slip. If you were paying slip fees here the price difference between a 35' boat and a 41' boat is only about 40 bucks per month. Slip fee costs for 20 years of ownership is only ~10k. BUT THE BOAT COSTS YOU 250K MORE (+INTEREST IF YOU FINANCE) UP FRONT!!



> So, if you consider either price, length or interior volume, the Pogo is a less expensive boat to have.


 Oh HELL NO... Look at the additional interest and/or property taxes alone; and it's probably WAY more than I pay in annual maintenance. And that's not including ongoing maintenance which even new boats require!



> Again, your notion of big seas puzzles me. Between 20 and 30K is what I had most of the time nearer the marina where I had my boat. I wonder what you call big seas


There is this thing called 'fetch' and that is the result of wind blowing across the open ocean creating large swell. Near shore wind conditions do not produce swell. Winds blowing across hundreds or thousand(s) of miles of open ocean do. Sustained 20-30kt winds on the open ocean can produce large swell; becoming steeper and taller when it approaches shore.



> Regarding your measures I really don´t understand what you mean. *I was talking about the best downwind speed on both boats and regarding that my numbers are correct*.


Best downwind speed is measured as "velocity made good" (VMG) it's the velocity you are making toward a waypoint that is directly downwind (DDW). As windspeeds increase the Newport 41 can sail closer to DDW to make it's best speed to the waypoint. Boats like the Pogo 10.5 need to sail higher reach angles (and gybe) as the wind increases to make the fastest downwind VMG. The true comparison of downwind "speed" is to compare the VMG of both boats at various windspeeds. If you do this (which I have done) you will see that the downwind VMG is not that great until you get to 25kts of wind; which is the point where the Pogo 10.5 (and boats like it) begin to plane. But to get it on a plane you have to have huge sail area, lots of wind, and be on a deep reach. These pre-requisites are only practical in relatively flat water (offshore wind or coastal pressure gradient winds).



> Downwind sailing is anything over 100º true wind and if you don't want to talk about max speed downwind then what matters is the performance of the boat in each point of sale on all those directions and not on a particular one.


I did talk about max downwind speed. That's what downwind VMG is. Please review my previous post. Look, you are talking about crossing oceans on trade winds; and sailing transats. Then you say downwind (or upwind VMG) does not matter when I analyze the info you posted. VMG is the most imprortant factor in comparing relative boat performance. You are the one posting boats like the Pogo 10.5, comparing them to the Newport 41 and then saying "you can't compare two boats that are different size, age, and price"; when I use *your numbers *to make valid points. MAKE UP YOUR MIND ON WHAT YOU WANT TO COMPARE!!

2.0 kts max is ... 2.5 mph. I can walk that fast. Yeah; it's a faster boat. I never said it was not. Am I gonna pay 250k more to go 2kts faster in most sailing conditions?? Absolutely not.



> Now, why are you talking of winds over + 25K? We were talking about 16K and 20K winds, but with 30K and with 150º downwind the difference in speed to your boat would be just awesome. The Newport you be making a huge wave bow, stressing all structures, buried in the water making about 10K while the Pogo, with much less sail would be effortless gliding at 16K.
> 
> These boats are fast enough for reeling on autopilot that are a lot more reliable than a wind vane and yes, with 20k wind the boat would be completely in control with autopilot.
> 
> You have to understand that these boats are not like the Newport. They don't roll . They are designed to do that and the large transom and the two rudders give them a stability that would be hard to believe without experiencing them.
> 
> These are boats designed for solo sailing or short crew sailing. Downwind with 20k wind on a transat when the night falls you just put the boat in autopilot and go to sleep
> 
> With 30K wind downwind this boat would not have any problem. Remember that you have 30K wind but only 16/17k apparent wind (while on the Newport you would have 22/23K). For the night and at that speed I would reduce sail for making about 12/13 K and I am sure I would not have any problem going to sleep on autopilot, in regular trade winds.


You know; this section speaks volumes. Have you ever sailed one of these boats you suggest in 30k sustained in the open ocean on a passage? I venture to say you have not. Have you ever sailed a Newport 41? How would you know what it sails like or what it's characteristics are when you have never set foot aboard the boat? Please, let's talk about things that we know a bit about here; not what we would like to think we know. I never said that I was an offshore passagemaking sailor. But I do know that in sustained 30kt winds you WILL experience big seas at some point. You only have to look at some wind/wave charts to know that. They come in all the time here along the California coast.


----------



## smackdaddy

Keel, I think you need to Google VMG. Your definition above is a little off and causing you unnecessary consternation.



> Best downwind speed is measured as "velocity made good" (VMG) it's the velocity you are making toward a waypoint that is directly downwind (DDW).


VMG, DW or otherwise, is not based solely on a "DDW" (or wind-centric) destination - but purely THE destination, wherever it lies in relation to the wind.

Be careful or you'll end up at one of the poles. Very quickly of course.


----------



## KeelHaulin

VMG *as reported on a polar chart* is to a waypoint either directly upwind or directly downwind. The reported downwind/upwind data for the various windspeeds is the OPTIMAL boat speed, wind angle, VMG to either a windward or leward mark for that windspeed.


----------



## smackdaddy

I'm just saying your argument above regarding speed and VMG is a little warped. If the actual waypoint/destination lies 140* off the wind, you're going to get seriously smoked...even if you pull out the polar diagrams to plead your case several hours/days later when you finally reach port.


----------



## mitiempo

Forget price! you cannot compare a 30 year old boat to a new one based on price. A new 2011 Catalina 355 lists for $224,000. Prices have gone up in the last 3 decades! A new Newport 41, were it still built would be well over $300,000 today.


----------



## smackdaddy

mitiempo said:


> Forget price! you cannot compare a 30 year old boat to a new one based on price.


Maybe YOU can't - Keel can.

He can compare a stethoscope to a petrified monkey turd. He's that good.


----------



## PCP

KeelHaulin said:


> So what SIZE slip will it fit in? It's ~13' wide. I seriously doubt that it will fit in a double finger 36' slip. You are probably looking at a 40' slip; maybe a 42' slip. My boat is 11.5' wide and it only has 1' of clearance on each side of a 40' slip. If you were paying slip fees here the price difference between a 35' boat and a 41' boat is only about 40 bucks per month. Slip fee costs for 20 years of ownership is only ~10k. BUT THE BOAT COSTS YOU 250K MORE (+INTEREST IF YOU FINANCE) UP FRONT!!


 I have tell you several times: it makes no sense to compare the price of a 40 year's old boat with a new boat. You can choose if you want an old boat, an old car or whatever but to compare you have to compare new boat with new boat. If you ask any shipyard to make you a new Newport 41 it would cost more than two times the price of a Pogo 10.50.

Regarding the slip I had a look at some american marinas and they normally charge for the feet length with no limitation of beam, except for multihulls. In the med the slips normally are between 10 /12m, 12/14m and so on with two sub categories regarding beam. For the 10/12m slip those sub categories are less than 4m beam and till 4.3m. The Pogo has 3.9m so it will fit in the less expensive category. Your boat will pay also the less expensive sub category but on the 12/14 class. On the Lagos marina, on the South coast of Portugal (that has prices similar to med marinas) the difference between a 10/12 slip and a 12/14 is, for the low season, about 1200€. For a full year would be about the double.

Rickenbacker Marina at Key Biscayne - Yatchs, Boats, Catamarans, Sailboats and Jet Skis
Miami Beach Marina - Dockage rates
Marina de Lagos - Tariffs



KeelHaulin said:


> There is this thing called 'fetch' and that is the result of wind blowing across the open ocean creating large swell. Near shore wind conditions do not produce swell. Winds blowing across hundreds or thousand(s) of miles of open ocean do. Sustained 20-30kt winds on the open ocean can produce large swell; becoming steeper and taller when it approaches shore.


Came on, I live on the Atlantic west coat, the dominant winds are from west and the nearest land mass is North America. I know what you are talking about but Beaufort 6 winds (21/26K) only produce 3 to 4m waves. That is very usual around here and most sailors love it. Beaufort 7 (27/33K) produces 4 to 4.5m waves. Conditions are not so agreeable if you go upwind but they are far from dangerous. Normally if I have a passage to make, if it is upwind I stay at the marina, if it is a downwind ride I will sail out and normally have a blast. I know that those conditions can escalate to Beaufort 8 (34/40K) but even that is not dangerous. You can have 5.5 to 7.5m waves but no breaking waves.

Beaufort scale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



KeelHaulin said:


> ...
> I did talk about max downwind speed. That's what downwind VMG is. Please review my previous post. Look, you are talking about crossing oceans on trade winds; and sailing transats. Then you say downwind (or upwind VMG) does not matter when I analyze the info you posted. ...


Sometimes you want to go dead upwind and dead downwind but most of the time you will go anywhere between those two courses, so what counts on a sailboat in what regards performance is the all around performance in all directions and not only dead upwind and dead downwind.



KeelHaulin said:


> 2.0 kts max is ... 2.5 mph. I can walk that fast. Yeah; it's a faster boat. I never said it was not. Am I gonna pay 250k more to go 2kts faster in most sailing conditions?? Absolutely not.


Now you are talking That's at least that on the trade winds, a 2K difference and you say it's nothing? Well, if you cross the Atlantic with a Pogo 10.50 you would probably take 12 days. Considering that 2K difference in speed that means that the Newport would be 576nm behind and would arrive about 3 days later.



KeelHaulin said:


> You know; this section speaks volumes. Have you ever sailed one of these boats you suggest in 30k sustained in the open ocean on a passage? I venture to say you have not. ..


No, but I have done that several times (downwind) on my old Bavaria 36, going between 8.5 and 11K. Once almost all day and all the night. Great fun, me and my 15 year old soon.

I know that the Pogo 10.50, comparing with the Bavaria 36 is not only a much faster boat but also a much easier and safer boat to sail downwind. With the Bavaria and that wind, because we were having fun and did not want to cut the speed, we had to made it all the way steering. On the Pogo I am quite sure we could have put it on autopilot. Well, we probably could but I am quite sure we wouldn't

And it is not only me, I remember another beautiful night with full moon, on passage from the Balearic Islands to Spain, with around 30K wind and 3 to 4 meter waves, downwind, surfing and with a friend staying two full shifts at the wheel, not because we didn't all want to have fun at the wheel but because it was his birthday and he asked us to have a double shift as birthday present. He says many times it was the better birthday present he ever received

Regards

Paulo


----------



## puddinlegs

Keel and PCP, perhaps you could both agree to disagree. Both arguments have merit and I don't think either will ever convince the other that they're 'right'. :0


----------



## smackdaddy

I will say that I've actually learned a lot from this thread. The back and forth between everyone has been really educational - and fun. The point seems to be that there is no "right" when it comes to selecting a boat...although the nuance of the pros and cons between the various boats/designs is a great thing to learn about. And 16K+ views of this thread shows I'm not the only one.

So, it's all good.


----------



## puddinlegs

smack, if you don't have one already, pick up a copy of Bob Perry's book. It's a good and very readable primer on yacht design that covers most all of what's been discussed here from Bob's point of view. It's a more rational discussion than has been going on here.


----------



## blt2ski

Not to through a monkey wrench into either Keels or PCP's moorage cost, "SOME" marinas do have different width slips, with in the same length category. so if one did need a wider slip per say, it does cost more, as at least at my marina, the cost is based on sq ft used. rates

I am not going to say ALL marinas are this way, but at least one that I know of, does do the coast on a length/width ratio. Another marina I was at initially, also had some slips that varied in width, also wider ones cost more than narrower ones.

BUT, it cost was not an object, I would take a newer rig over an older one personally. As the newer designs generally speaking, will go faster in lighter winds, along with faster overall and more fun in higher winds too.

marty


----------



## KeelHaulin

smackdaddy said:


> I'm just saying your argument above regarding speed and VMG is a little warped. If the actual waypoint/destination lies 140* off the wind, you're going to get seriously smoked...even if you pull out the polar diagrams to plead your case several hours/days later when you finally reach port.


Actually, it's not. VMG is the downwind component of your boat velocity. So if you are sailing at 10 kts at 135 true, your VMG is 7.07 kts. Boats that can sail faster than the true wind will always be much faster sailing downwind on a deep reach than sailing directly downwind. That's why the Oracle tri and Alinghi cat were sailing ~ 135 deg off of the wind on the downwind legs. It looked like they were tacking but they were actually sailing downwind. Boats like the Pogo 10.5 begin to sail fast enough to sail a higher angle and make better VMG when the true wind is above 20 kts. But in that much wind at sea you are looking at big swell, so might not be such a good idea to sail the polars in that situation.

I figure that I could do a total refit, replace every system for less than half the cost of a new boat. Valiant 42's are still being sold. My boat is every bit as well built as a new bullet-proof blue water boat, and it still has respectable performance. It is blue water tested, several are cruising the South Pacific as we speak. Do I care if I cross a body of water like the Pacific 3 days slower? Do I worry about the ability of my boat to stand up to heavy wind and seas? The answer is no to both.


----------



## kevlarpirate

puddin 

you are the one missing the point that both myself and keehaulin are making and that is the "huge" sacrifices made to get a "marginal" gain.

on the contrary, these boats can be easily compared, and (for cruising) one is the obvious winner, and that is the classic boats we are talking of. the only thing that makes the sport boat a winner is neophytes believing advertising brochures, remember , I have sailed not these but very similar boats

Sacrifices:

slamming upwind, 
pulling rudders or having to go to two rudders, 
thin noisy hulls under sail
slapping at anchor 
jerky movements
inability to carry excess weight 
keels which stall easily 

These are the sacrifices you make to get down wind speed
and only when it's blowing , and in that case , you have to be on your toes.

Again, the concept there are cruising boats is laughable 

Smack, My Newport easily sailed faster than true wind At that point of sail 
we did 6.5 in 6 kts of wind . That 105 degrees true will be around 70 degrees apparent. I made this statement earlier and 
called that upwind (meaning wind forward of the beam) 
but of course I was jumped on as if to have implied hard on the wind 
which was not the case .

regardless, these sport boats have little in no upwind speed potential 
advantage, certainly not worth the distorted hulls needed to get that down wind planing capability 

Now if you want it that bad, go buy it , but don't cry when you finally figure 
out what you ended up with


----------



## PCP

smackdaddy said:


> I will say that I've actually learned a lot from this thread. The back and forth between everyone has been really educational - and fun. *The point seems to be that there is no "right" when it comes to selecting a boat.*..although the nuance of the pros and cons between the various boats/designs is a great thing to learn about. And 16K+ views of this thread shows I'm not the only one.
> 
> ...


Absolutely, it is what I am saying from the beginning. I would also liked to say that I find the Newport 41 a very good boat and quite amazing in its close to the wind performance that is almost a match to the one from the Pogo 10.50.

Sometimes images are worth thousands of words. Regarding downwind performance look at this two:

So take a look at this two , an Ericson 46 and a JP 54 going downwind.



















You can see in flat seas the Ericson buried in the water making an huge wave. If you put more sail or add more wind the forces on the rig and on the boat will increase because the boat will be still buried in the water, pulling all that water around, except that the bow wave will be bigger and the boat will be pulling more water. Lots of drag. The forces over the boat would increase a lot but the boat will gain very little speed.

Now take a look at the JP 54 the boat is not going downwind but is already starting to plane. No bow wave, almost no wake, very little drag. Turn it downwind, put more sail or add more wind and the forces on the rig and on the boat would not increase much because the boat is not hold by a wall of water and will turn that extra power in speed, just coming more out of the water and reducing even more the drag.

The Ericson 46 has a 35ft LWL and that means that its hull speed is around 8K. He cannot really plane but he can go a bit over hull speed, with a huge force on the sails, rig and boat structure. Let's suppose that with 30K the boat will be making 12K. That means that the force on the rig will correspond to the apparent wind (21K).

The JP 54 speed has little to do with its LWL. With 30K wind downwind the boat would be making over 20K. Let's consider 22K and that means that the apparent wind would only be 11k and that's the force that is transmitted to the rig and boat structure. Thatt is less than half the force the Ericson is doing on its rig and structure for almost the double of the speed.

To see how effortless this is take a look at the wake of this 52 on the last Hobbart, with heavy seas. I know this is a racing boat but the principles and hull design are the same. They carry little sail (a small headsail) and go steady as a rock with no much work at the wheel and at an incredible speed with heavy seas. No rolling.

Max speed +27K, Max wind 45K, under storm jib and double reefed main:

YouTube - Sydney Hobart 2010 - Wot Eva surfing the Southerly

Smack, you once posted a video of an heavy boat going downwind with heavy seas...and rolling (viewed from the bow to the stern). I cannot find that video but if you can please post it. It will illustrate the difference in behavior downwind between the two types of boats.



puddinlegs said:


> Keel and PCP, perhaps you could both agree to disagree. Both arguments have merit and I don't think either will ever convince the other that they're 'right'. :0


But I don't want to convince nobody about the kind of boat that each sailor prefers to cruising. The one I prefer does not even is this kind of boat, I mean the ones that have as reference open boats. That has to do with the type of sailing I will do most of the time and with my personal likings and choices. Does not mean I am blind and cannot see the advantages of different kinds of cruising boats, including heavy boats.

The point here is that Kev and Keelhaulin are defending a type of cruising boat for all, as the perfect cruising boat for all, contrary of what I am defending: I will maintain that there are many types of boats suitable for cruising and that the choice will depend on each sailor needs, desires, personality, life style and cruising grounds. There is not a definition of cruising and different sailors will value differently different aspects of cruising including comfort, speed and fun while sailing.

I am also maintaining that for the ones that like to sail fast on the trade winds, crossing oceans on the right time, or just enjoy the pleasure of surfing fast and having fun and don't mind to trade that for comfort, carrying capacity and a more spartan lifestyle, relatively inexpensive and fast cruising boats like the Elan 350, the Pogo 10.50 and 12.50 makes a lot of sense. That's why they are selling like hot cookies

Regards

Paulo


----------



## SVAuspicious

KeelHaulin said:


> VMG is the downwind component of your boat velocity.


Velocity made good (VMG) is the vector component of your speed/course vector toward your goal. That may be upwind or down.


----------



## puddinlegs

kevlarpirate said:


> puddin
> 
> you are the one missing the point that both myself and keehaulin are making and that is the "huge" sacrifices made to get a "marginal" gain.
> 
> on the contrary, these boats can be easily compared, and (for cruising) one is the obvious winner, and that is the classic boats we are talking of. the only thing that makes the sport boat a winner is neophytes believing advertising brochures, remember , I have sailed not these but very similar boats


As I've said, I essentially agree with you. One of the reasons I'd love to restore an S&S swan 44 (or find one that's been restored) is it's robustness plus relatively good performance, especially upwind. I can live with it's relatively poor performance downwind. There is no boat on the market today, including any new Swan, that is built close to the same standards. Sure, we'd have to deal with tankage and other quirks, poor engine access, dealing with teak decks, but so be it. If I had a large budget, I'd call up Mark Mills and have him draw up something like an Outbound 46, cold mold it, then go.

Where I disagree is the general disregard you have for the boat buying publics' basic intelligence. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any neophyte sailor with their heart set on a design based on the Open racing classes. The example Paulo gives is a case in point. The sailor has thousands and thousands of miles in these type of designs and understands them well. THere's a reason Island Packets still sell well in the new boat world... They aren't great performers, but they're comfortable and easy to sail for a non-athletic sailor without the lifetime of experience one would draw on to sail an open design effectively.

The IP type of sailor will also NOT be looking for an Olson 40 or SC 40/50 to go cruising in. These boats are usually cruised by people who are very familiar with them through race experience and know well their strengths and weaknesses. A new cruiser with a dream looking for more performance than an IP might might look for something like a Nordic 44 or similar. A limited budget, and that Ericson 46, Newport 41, S&S Tartan 41 or 44, are fine choices. Coastal cruisers and weekend overnighters like their Catalina's, Hunters, and Beneteaus. That said, many have made successful passages in what are primarily intended as coastal boats. Such is the influence that better communications and weather information is having on sailing.

Europe is a very different market with different shore facilities and expectations, distance between anchorages and ports, etc... The Atlantic coast of France has a lot of depth related challenges. The med, affordable moorage. The French public is enamored with the Open class racing system and sees sailing as a more athletic pursuit than we might. The VMG info you're looking at is hull speeds without taking into account their ability to plane. They're voting with their Euros that this is the experience they want to have. If they figure out what they really wanted was an Island Packet, I'm sure they'll sell their boat and get one. And while that might seem silly and wasteful to you, it really doesn't matter. People eventually end up with a boat that suits their interests, use, and sailing styles. For some, that might take 2 or 3 boats to get it sorted out. I have no problem with that at all. It's just the self-awareness learning curve.


----------



## puddinlegs

SVAuspicious said:


> Velocity made good (VMG) is the vector component of your speed/course vector toward your goal. That may be upwind or down.


Thank you! If VMG is only 'downwind', grand prix, AC, and VOC tacticians would be out of work.


----------



## KeelHaulin

SVAuspicious said:


> Velocity made good (VMG) is the vector component of your speed/course vector toward your goal. That may be upwind or down.


I said that earlier in this thread... You took my sentence out of the context of the point I was trying to make about downwind sailing. I did not want to confuse the issue by referencing upwind VMG.


----------



## puddinlegs

KeelHaulin said:


> I said that earlier in this thread... You took my sentence out of the context of the point I was trying to make about downwind sailing. I did not want to confuse the issue by referencing upwind VMG.


 It's not out of context, it's just not clearly written. For example, "Paulo, the downwind VMG in your Pogo data.... ".


----------



## smackdaddy

KeelHaulin said:


> I said that earlier in this thread... You took my sentence out of the context of the point I was trying to make about downwind sailing. I did not want to confuse the issue by referencing upwind VMG.


Actually I have to say it's your statements regarding VMG that are confusing. Pud's and Ausp's are much more accurate and understandable.


----------



## smackdaddy

You know, after looking at these polars - and thinking about the "why" of design as regards the newer boats...one thing that's not been discussed is HOW AND WHERE people are sailing FROM/TO in their typical cruising....then also the WHEN.

For example, where do most US/Canadian cruisers go? South to the islands or to Mexico/Hawaii, etc. When? The colder months. Where are those destinations in relation to the prevailing wind patterns at that time? Downwind.

Thereafter, many just hire delivery skippers to bring their boats back up and deal with all the upwind discomfort everyone's complaining about. They don't typically deal with it.

Same basically goes for Europe and the Med.

See a pattern here?

Bottom line, the typical sailing done by a huge portion of the actual cruising market is downwind, no? Therefore, they want boats that do well in that regard. Hence the general design changes from the heavy, slow, skinny-ass boats, to the lighter, faster, fat-ass boats. Downwind is where the demand is.

Kind of makes sense to me....Keel?


----------



## puddinlegs

smack, you're talking about the top end crowd with the delivery skippers and crews. Most sail their boats back uphill as well. Look up Latitude 38 and 'Baha Bash'.


----------



## PCP

smackdaddy said:


> ....
> 
> Bottom line, the typical sailing done by a huge portion of the actual cruising market is downwind, no? Therefore, they want boats that do well in that regard. Hence the general design changes from the heavy, slow, *skinny-ass boats, to the lighter, faster, fat-ass boats. Downwind is where the demand is*.


It's all a question of balance between upwind and downwind sailing.

Look at this FAT ASS:










It is one of the new Volvo. They all have fat asses now and that does not make them slower, even upwind but make them easy to sail downwind.

And the reason that the solo open class boats are more beamy and with larger transoms than the Volvos is not speed. Actually the Volvos are faster. It is the need to make them easier to sail, more stable and more forgiving. Remember that they are designed to be sailed by a lonely guy while the Volvo have a crew of more than 10.

Get my drift, the reason why so many new fast cruisers are designed taking as reference solo open boats has not only to do with downwind sailing but mostly with small or solo crews that need easy and more forgiving boats with a huge stability, boats that are easy and safe to sail fast downwind by a lonely sailor and that does not mean necessarily that they are slow upwind.

Take a look at this video, this is the new J111 sailing fast planning downwind:

YouTube - J111 at speed

That's a hell of a boat, but for doing that on that boat you need a skilled crew, not one guy. With the Pogo 10.50 you will not go as fast, but you can go alone and don't need to be a very skilled sailor. Think about that and why many sailors want Pogo, Opium, Elan and fat assed boats

Regards

Paulo


----------



## puddinlegs

Paulo,
You're being rhetorical. You know full well that these boats are designed to go around the globe in a particular direction. If the race went the opposite, you know you'd see very different boats. You also know that these boats quite literally beat themselves to pieces on the leg to Qingdao as they're very difficult to slow down even upwind.

YouTube - Big trouble on the way to China - Volvo Ocean Race Redux

Ok guys, I'm out.


----------



## PCP

puddinlegs said:


> Paulo,
> You're being rhetorical. You know full well that these boats are designed to go around the globe in a particular direction. If the race went the opposite, you know you'd see very different boats. You also know that these boats quite literally beat themselves to pieces on the leg to Qingdao as they're very difficult to slow down even upwind.
> 
> YouTube - Big trouble on the way to China - Volvo Ocean Race Redux


I think you have misunderstood me. I am not saying that those boats are comfortable but obviously they are very resistant. They have to be for racing at that speed circumnavigating. The boat on the movie had hit a semi submerged object at speed and that, with the speed these boats sail has always nasty effects. It is a lot different to hit a submerged object doing 8k or doing 20K

But this is all irrelevant to what I have said. I have said that these boats are among the fastest sailing boats on the planet, upwind and downwind and I don't think that if the race was on the other way around they would be very different (not saying that they would not have small changes, but nothing big as you imply).

Ichi Ban an old Volvo 70, slower (downwind and upwind) than the new boats have been doing great on the Sydney-Hobart race against much bigger boats on a race that is mostly upwind.

Rolex Sydney Hobart Yacht Race 2010.. The Yachts

These boat are a kind of optimum balance between downwind and upwind sailing. They have large transoms but they are not beamy and they have incredible fine entries.










They are not properly easy to sail and need a large crew.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## puddinlegs

PCP said:


> I think you have misunderstood me. I am not saying that those boats are comfortable but obviously they are very resistant. They have to be for racing at that speed circumnavigating. The boat on the movie had hit a semi submerged object at speed and that, with the speed these boats sail has always nasty effects. It is a lot different to hit a submerged object doing 8k or doing 20K
> 
> But this is all irrelevant to what I have said. I have said that these boats are among the fastest sailing boats on the planet, upwind and downwind and I don't think that if the race was on the other way around they would be very different (not saying that they would not have small changes, but nothing big as you imply).
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Paulo, none of the boats survived the leg undamaged. And you really think they'd sail uphill in the southern ocean with the same front end design? I think you should look more carefully at the boats used for the reverse around the world records. If it could be easily broken with a VOC design, it'd be done. I'm not doubting that the Open boats go quickly upwind. Qingdao was an example of the boats slamming and not being able to slow down enough to both avoid damage and beating their crews into submission while going uphill in difficult conditions. I know you like your boats, and Kev/Keel like theirs. They're different creatures and serve different buyers/sailors. Again, I have no problem with either, but you're all comparing boats of very different eras against each other . Both have their strengths, but it seem you three are loath to admit the relative weaknesses of the boats you're trying to sell each other.


----------



## mgiguere

Man, you guys can't stop beating this thing up. My boat is a 1967 S&S Apache 37 designed after Intrepid. The concept was, minimum wetted surface, fin keel with a bulb on the bottom drawing nearly 6 ft, blade rudder (that should have been a little deeper), with 27 feet on the water line, but with CCA raised stern and bow, low free board, and displacement of 14,500 lbs and finally a relatively smaller foretriangle-but large main. It only has a 10ft beam, and sails more like an IOD (a sports car with rack & pinion steering) than the typical boat today.

One of the things I like about the boat is its light air performance. Now it doesn't go as fast in light air as a very light modern boat (as you typically see on the Chesapeake Bay), but it sails past everyone else who is motoring; and, when the wind pipes up over 20 knots, it puts its shoulder to the ground (water) and sails past almost anyone in a very comfortable motion no matter the chop...(as experienced in a recent Governor's Cup where we took 2nd place). Comfort-wise, it doesn't have the interior of a modern day 37 footer, but the compromise works for us since it's reasonably comfortable. Our budget doesn't match up with many boats discussed here since this boat in decent shape can be bought for 15-30k. But it has provided yeoman service for us over the last 25 years.

Moe

https://picasaweb.google.com/moe.gig/Sailing#


----------



## smackdaddy

Wow mg - very nice pics and video! She's a beauty. And congrats on the race!

Also I'm confident that no "Hot tourtiere pie..." is coming out of any VO70. No freakin' way! So you've got that going for you in comparing these two boats.


----------



## kevlarpirate

Puddin , My point is manufacturers, designers using the word "cruisers"
This is misrepresentation. Cruising implies a variety of comforts which the "paulo" boats avoid talking about. 

Take paulo himself, all I hear is speed, and then implied safety because you can outrun a storm? that's a joke. Even when a boat hits a submerged 
object, paulo has an answer for that, he excuses this flimsy boat and rationalizes that "of course you can expect this damage" 

Well in the real world all that happens and a smart cruiser will not chose 
a flimsy boat to do the job..
The smart cruiser will easily forfeit down wind speed for the safety and comforts needed for successful voyaging. One of the biggest objections I have is just how uncomfortable these boats are at anchor or on a mooring ball. Bouncing and slapping. But tell me why this very subject is avoided. 
Boats look great at shows nice and stable whether in a cradle or in a slip
but when you take one of these as example a 44 footer which weighs all of 17000
lbs out, a totally different animal.

And yes, you can see why I don't have great respect for peoples buying decisions. Here in Florida I have new boat dealer friends, who sell these hyped cruisers.
and they themselves are careful to avoid revealing the boats poor sailing 
qualities. Sea trials are carefully planned so as to not get the boat into a point of sail where it shows its weaknesses. 

The boats are primarily sold on eye appeal , interior volume, cockpit volume and amenities designed for entertainment. Competition is fierce. 

even the words "going down below" are forbidden at shows, you now walk inside. or go inside, we don't want to give thought to the possibility of sea sickness, we must have ports we can see out of even when sitting, 

Wives say , gee this is fun, it's like having a moveable condominium.
That is music to a salesman's ears...


----------



## kevlarpirate

and it would be nice if we wouldn't quibble about upwind and downwind VMG
everyone here knows there are both and if you don't go read a book 
jeesh or is it geesh,,OMG will I be corrected on my spelling?


----------



## PCP

puddinlegs said:


> *I think you should look more carefully at the boats used for the reverse around the world records.* If it could be easily broken with a VOC design, it'd be done. I'm not doubting that the Open boats go quickly upwind. Qingdao was an example of the boats slamming and not being able to slow down enough to both avoid damage and beating their crews into submission while going uphill in difficult conditions.
> 
> *And you really think they'd sail uphill in the southern ocean with the same front end design?*


*Yes*, I think that the design is up to it if they reinforce the boat in a proper way adapting it for the toughest conditions.

And I am not the only one that think that way. Some of the best sailors that know very well the boat think the same way. *"Next winter, Steve White will sail non stop and alone around the world the wrong way - Westabout - against the prevailing winds and currents in the Southern Ocean, which is one of the harshest and most remote environments on earth"*.

White Ocean Racing

Guess what is going to be the boat? *A volvo 70*, this one










The actual record, an old one is in the hands of Jean Luc Van Den Heede that in 2004 had managed to break an old record from Philippe Poupon (2000).

For that he used a much bigger boat, a 87ft boat against a 60ft boat and he needed 4 attempts.

this is the boat:
Vaton prototype tour du monde Adrien VDH










The boat was designed (2002) for racing and for maximizing upwind performance but never really proved well, taking into consideration the huge cost and the size (is made with aluminum).

The boat that held the previous record (2000) the one that needed 4 attempts to break in a much bigger boat supposedly designed specifically for those conditions, was an old Open 60 (1988) that when broke that record had already made three solo circumnavigations (Vendee Globe). This was the boat:










Now, I have no doubt that Adrien, VHD boat is more comfortable upwind than the Open 60 or the Volvo 70, but we were not talking about that, we were talking about pure performance upwind and I don't have any doubt that a new generation Volvo 70 is must faster than Adrien upwind. Remember that Adrien is an almost 90ft boat that had a lot of trouble to beat a really old and beaten (1988) 60ft Open 60.



puddinlegs said:


> I know you like your boats, and Kev/Keel like theirs. They're different creatures and serve different buyers/sailors. Again, I have no problem with either, but you're all comparing boats of very different eras against each other . Both have their strengths, but it seem you three are loath to admit the relative weaknesses of the boats you're trying to sell each other.


I like lot's of different kinds of boats. I have always said said that heavy displacement boats offer some advantages over lighter boats and I understand quite well that there are sailors that value those advantages to the point of prefer them for cruising.

The essence of my disagreement with Kev/Keel is that tey think that there is only type of boat that is ideally suitable for cruising (theirs) and that all sailors should stick to that kind of boat.

That does not make any sense to me.

There are a lot of different types of cruising sailboats that suit an equally different types of cruisers and cruising grounds.

I have already said to you and to all, that the type of cruising boats that are directly derived from the Open 60/40 sailboats are not even the ones that are more adapted to my cruising program but of course that does not make me blind and unable to understand their relative advantages and the type of cruising program to whom they suit best.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## kevlarpirate

Paulo

Truth be told, they have no significant advantage. To get best downwind VMG
they have to cover substantially more ocean as their greater speed opens up the included jibe angles. this added ocean they must travel increases likely hood of damage to their spindly under water appendages. They have to be over canvased to realize their potential. They need to be crewed with high level people which are not easy to get, Have you ever been on one of these when it blows up in a 3 foot chop . and gets dragged across the water like a styrofoam cup? 
If you were to overbuild them as you say to get them to go upwind without destroying themselves, then they become bad mannered displacement boats

You talk of the loads on the E-46 and pushing water .. So What ? 
all that weight adds to moment of inertia. which means comfort.
Do you understand the physics of this? if not look it up

The advantages you post don't justify the sacrifices We (I ) have listed many annoyances and you avoid these things, What Keel has pointed out chopped the legs out from under the speed thing with the VMG data he posted 
Smack points out the ONLY advantage is if your destination lies on tour max speed BAW. How often does your destination lie on that line ?

As example say that window is 10 degrees wide , well their are 36 -ten degree windows, so a one out of 36 probability would ball park it.

in the end , your constant huge posts of polar data is almost meaningless
you are hogging the post board with tables of data and meaningless pictures. 

Is this an attempt to bury posts like mine into back pages? 
perhaps the post board moderators might see a pattern with you.


----------



## smackdaddy

Okay - as the casual, perfectly objective reader...a few points if I may:

1. Don't cry to the mods. Win the debate. Much more manly.

2. K&K will make a statement, usually with little evidence to back it up, and PCP will respond with a substantial post citing several examples that challenge those statements (e.g. - "these fat-assers can't sail upwind, and are only designed for downwind...", blah). I'd say PCP is much more persuasive...even though I personally have no desire to cruise a VO70.

3. Keel misstates the definition of actual VMG to try to make his point, and Kev calls it quibbling when he's called out on it. When, in reality, the way he's talking about VMG is just as silly as Kev's defense of Keel's meaning. In other words, how often is your destination only DDW or DUW?

The only way to win a debate is to provide the evidence or specific first-hand experience to back up the opinion. Oh...and it helps if the presentation of that evidence is actually factual.

I think it's time for K&K to up their game.


----------



## PCP

smackdaddy said:


> ..even though I personally have no desire to cruise a VO70.
> ..


Well, not me either. That is a very difficult boat to handle and I guess that solo sail one even by one of the best sailors for a full circumnavigation is going to be quite a challenge.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## SVAuspicious

smackdaddy said:


> ... Where are those destinations in relation to the prevailing wind patterns at that time? Downwind.
> 
> Thereafter, many just hire delivery skippers to bring their boats back up and deal with all the upwind discomfort everyone's complaining about. They don't typically deal with it.





puddinlegs said:


> smack, you're talking about the top end crowd with the delivery skippers and crews. Most sail their boats back uphill as well. Look up Latitude 38 and 'Baha Bash'.


As a delivery skipper I think I can speak to this. My client base is very mid-market. They hire skippers for a number of reasons: someone is sick, they don't like offshore passages, or they have schedule limitations. A number just want someone with experience on board to mentor them for subsequent trips on their own.

I don't actually see many people offshore in either direction on the US East Coast. Most are driving the ICW and crossing the Gulf Stream from Florida to the Bahamas. Some are inlet hopping. Only a few really push offshore. Heck, there is a lot to be said for the Thorny Path and all the sights to see given enough time and flexibility. It's folks who still are working who want their boat in the Bahamas or Eastern Caribbean for the season while they fly in and out.


----------



## kevlarpirate

smack

whoa , dude , you need to start reading some books, pal you are lost 
you are not getting anything out of this, 
Crying to the mods ,,,,,, get real ,, you know nothing 

the one guy who has the patience to tell you what is going on is keelhaulin. and unfortunately you have the arrogance to tell your tale above his words
Both you and paulo ARE LOST and are babes in the woods 

GOOD LUCK AND GOOD BY I have no patience for your kind


----------



## smackdaddy

kevlarpirate said:


> smack
> 
> whoa , dude , you need to start reading some books, pal you are lost
> you are not getting anything out of this,
> Crying to the mods ,,,,,, get real ,, you know nothing
> 
> the one guy who has the patience to tell you what is going on is keelhaulin. and unfortunately you have the arrogance to tell your tale above his words
> Both you and paulo ARE LOST and are babes in the woods
> 
> GOOD LUCK AND GOOD BY I have no patience for your kind


Heh-heh. I am reading books! Everything I can get my hands on!

Don't get tizzied, KEV. I wouldn't say I'm/we're "lost", I just don't easily and fully buy the old "party line" regarding "cruising" boat design.

Look, seriously, what do you want me to say to you and Keel, Kev? "You're right, simply because you say it's so."? And if I don't I'm "arrogant"? Meh.

All I'm saying is that there is a very compelling reason (many of them) that companies aren't churning out Newport 41 designs anymore. True, you can still buy a brand new 2011 Tartan, Hinckley, etc. that fits that bill. But many of the newer production boats are undoubtedly incorporating the newer/faster hulls. And this is where the market is.

Surely that's got to tell you something, right? Yes - I know you call it all "hype" - but there's something more to it than that. And maybe that's just that cruising is changing. It no longer fits your definition. I think Ausp's post above underscores this.

Or maybe all these modern yacht builders and buyers are lost babes in the woods too?

PCP - Here's that vid you were talking about above:


----------



## puddinlegs

kevlarpirate said:


> smack
> 
> whoa , dude , you need to start reading some books, pal you are lost
> you are not getting anything out of this,
> Crying to the mods ,,,,,, get real ,, you know nothing
> 
> the one guy who has the patience to tell you what is going on is keelhaulin. and unfortunately you have the arrogance to tell your tale above his words
> Both you and paulo ARE LOST and are babes in the woods
> 
> GOOD LUCK AND GOOD BY I have no patience for your kind


Now this one is out of line. Smack asks a lot of questions because he's on a small lake and genuinely curious about other's experiences. I say keep asking, and you'll get there. One thing I know for sure is that there's no finite limit on what you can learn and experience in both life and sailing.


----------



## kevlarpirate

smack, you need to read more before and view these posts less seriously.
If there is one guy who is blinded and pushing his goods it is paulo. 
I take things for granted yes, I have been out there for 40 years, and i have the physics background to explain my observations, the one other guy here who does that and explains it better than me is keel, you should re read all his posts, they all make perfect sense. 

as for the video , what is special about it , the boat is reefed down and in control, likely short handed. if they were a sport boat they would be in the same mode. only bounced around a lot more


----------



## PCP

smackdaddy said:


> ...
> All I'm saying is that there is a very compelling reason (many of them) that companies aren't churning out Newport 41 designs anymore. True, you can still buy a brand new 2011 Tartan, Hinckley, etc. that fits that bill. But many of the newer production boats are undoubtedly incorporating the newer/faster hulls. And this is where the market is.


Smack they fit the bill, I mean the kind of program Kev and and KH are talking about but their hull design and their weight has nothing to do with 40 year old designs. Two of my favorite cruisers that fit that bill (that is not mine) are the Malo and the Southerly.

If you look at a 40 year's old Malo you will see that it is a full keel boat, the modern one has a fin bulbed keel and that the hull is completely different.

Regarding those two, they were the choices of two of the most knowledgeable cruisers on the planet, kind of guys that sail a lot all around the world. But that does not means that are not the only types for that program, there is another well known globetrotter that had chose an Ovni, another totally different kind of boat. These are all different kind of cruising boats to a sailing program that has many points in common.

Those sailors are all Americans and they all had once full keeled boats that they have changed for modern boats and they all say that the new boats offer many advantages over their old boats. I guess they know what they are talking about



smackdaddy said:


> PCP - Here's that vid you were talking about above:


Yes, Thanks for posting it. As kev says *"the boat is reefed down and in control, likely short handed"* and he is right. This is the best you can do on an old kind of hull.

You will have this constant kind of rolling that can be a amplified if in synchronism with the wave movement to a knock down as almost happens on the movie. The boat is much slower than the waves and these hit the boat from behind with speed increasing difficulties in controlling the boat.

You cannot have this boat on autopilot on these circumstances, you need to have an experienced hand at the Wheel to counteract the continuous rolling.

One of the reasons why modern designed boats, even when they are not the type of boats directly derived from Open designs, have large transoms is to prevent that rolling.

Also, if they are performance boats, they will plane downwind much faster than the speed of a displacement hull and therefore they will sail not very far from the speed of the waves and that makes them a lot less dangerous because the waves reach the boat almost with no power (almost same speed).

You can see on these movies that modern boats don't roll, they are steady and the wheels-man is having little trouble to control the boat. If adequately balanced and with the right speed they can even be left on autopilot.

Some of the movies are of racing boats (that's what I find on the net) but that's just the same principle and the same kind of hull, they are just pushed harder. If they went some 3 or 4 K slower they would even be a lot easier to control, and as you can see, even pushed that control is not difficult. Not any risk of a knock out as on the movie you have posted.

YouTube - Delivery

YouTube - Sailing Offshore in Class 40 Solo

YouTube - Rough Weather - Corentin Douguet Sailing crazy Figaro

Now, between modern performance boats take a look at the differences between the boats that are designed taking as reference the Open solo class boats and the boats that take as reference more classic racing classes (ORC, IMS, IRC).

Modern traditional racing boats:

YouTube - J111 at speed

YouTube - fast Sailing in 30 kts +

YouTube - Archambault 35 Skagen Race 2009 Dagny Sailing and Surfing

Open boats tradition:

YouTube - Pogo 2 NED633 Fast Downwind

YouTube - Akilaria Class 40 - Xmas regatta 2010 - Split, Croatia

YouTube - Le bongo de régional en entrainement

YouTube - Surfin Bird 2

You can see that for planning fast downwind the guys with Open type boats can go with short crew (or solo) and they don't need to make a lot of trimming on the sails. Sometimes they are on auto pilot while they go to the deck for adjusting the front sail. On the other kind of boats its different you need a good hand at the wheel and a good hand at the sails. More skill is needed and also a bigger crew.

That's why Open derived class boats are popular as cruising boats for guys that like to go fast and have fun as an important part of their cruising program : they are easy and more forgiving. With them you can go fast without a crew and without being an expert, just an experienced sailor

I hope this helps. I have yet a lot to learn and I love to learn, but I have learned already one or two things about boat design and performance and I like to share it. It make no sense to think that the best Naval Architects have done nothing right on the past 40 years. I just try to understand why they design the boats the way they do, assuming they know a lot more about that than I do.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## bjung

*Back to the threads intent*

I've been following this thread with great interrest, however it seems the thread has been renamed to "An ocean racer that might or might not fall apart." 
I think the OP had in mind discussing real blue water cruisers, and their ability to sail in light air.
Paolo keeps bringing up racing sleds, that most cruisers would not dare to take around the world. I also read, that these sleds are built so well, they will withstand any conditions, including hitting the occasional shipping container. Factcheck: Of the 31 boats that started at the 2008/09 Vendee Globe, only 11 finished, the rest lost keels, rudders, got dismasted etc. Looks like about 65% failure rate.... Anyone here ready to slip the lines with your family on board under these odds??
The only reason these boats are used is to be as fast as possible and win the race. In order to win the race many chances are taken that don't make sense for full time cruisers.
How about getting back to real blue water cruisers that make sense?
The speed diagram of a HR 40 looks pretty tolerable, and your chances of survival are better than 35%.....


----------



## SVAuspicious

bjung said:


> I think the OP had in mind discussing real blue water cruisers, and their ability to sail in light air.


Good point.

My Frers designed HR does nicely in light to very light air but takes some real attention.

So did the 25 year old Swan 47 I delivered earlier this year. Well offshore and low on fuel with four aboard we had one guy who could get the boat moving on a zephyr (not the most experienced on board and not me), two of us that could keep the boat moving in 3-5 kts, and one guy who could stop the boat dead even if the wind picked up over 5.

I think the sailor is more important than the boat.


----------



## PCP

bjung said:


> I've been following this thread with great interrest, however it seems the thread has been renamed to "An ocean racer that might or might not fall apart."
> I think the OP had in mind discussing real blue water cruisers, and their ability to sail in light air.
> Paolo keeps bringing up racing sleds, that most cruisers would not dare to take around the world. ....
> The only reason these boats are used is to be as fast as possible and win the race. In order to win the race many chances are taken that don't make sense for full time cruisers.
> How about getting back to real blue water cruisers that make sense?
> The speed diagram of a HR 40 looks pretty tolerable, and your chances of survival are better than 35%.....


I was talking about basic contemporary boat design principles. There are boats designed to cruise around the word under those principles, I mean the ones that take as a model Open solo racers. There is at least on member of this forum that ones one and that have said that the boat fulfills completely the cruising criteria that was in the base of its design program:Comfortable long range cruising at fast speed.

There are several boats built to do that but I am referring specifically to the Cigale:























































Regards

Paulo


----------



## puddinlegs

SVAuspicious said:


> Good point.
> 
> My Frers designed HR does nicely in light to very light air but takes some real attention.
> 
> So did the 25 year old Swan 47 I delivered earlier this year. Well offshore and low on fuel with four aboard we had one guy who could get the boat moving on a zephyr (not the most experienced on board and not me), two of us that could keep the boat moving in 3-5 kts, and one guy who could stop the boat dead even if the wind picked up over 5.
> 
> *I think the sailor is more important than the boat.*


Exactly!!!


----------



## mitiempo

Yes and no. However good the sailor, an old shoe can't keep up with a modern fast boat. In fairly equal boats the better sailor should be ahead, but we are not talking about equal boats.


----------



## puddinlegs

I'd add that physical fitness is an important component of being a 'sailor' especially short handing, both for performance, and safety.


----------



## PCP

SVAuspicious said:


> Good point.
> 
> My Frers designed HR does nicely in light to very light air but takes some real attention.
> 
> .....
> 
> I think the sailor is more important than the boat.


I guess that you guys have a different idea of what is light air. SV I am not picking on you but believe me that here the only HR that could be qualified as a good light air performer would be the new 372.

Everything is relative and the HR has been improving light air performance and if we compare the new ones with the generality of old cruisers they would not rate badly.

It is also true that the concept of light air has changed here on the last 10 or 15 years. Light air was between 9 and 11, now is more between 5 and 9K.

I agree with you about the importance of the sailor, providing the boat has the minimum requirements and most have and is properly equipped, but as the one responsibly for the way the boat is equipped is the skipper, you are twice right But I guess you are talking about seaworthiness, because in regard light wind performance I agree with Mitiempo.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

SVAuspicious said:


> So did the 25 year old Swan 47 I delivered earlier this year. Well offshore and low on fuel with four aboard we had one guy who could get the boat moving on a zephyr (not the most experienced on board and not me), two of us that could keep the boat moving in 3-5 kts, *and one guy who could stop the boat dead even if the wind picked up over 5.*


I'm THAT guy. I SUCK at light air sailing on my C27.


----------



## kevlarpirate

bjung , you have precipitated this thread to it's bear bones , and you are exactly right 
the arm chair sailors can quibble all day , but in the end , what boat do you
put your family on .

Are you a spun up adrenalin junkie intoxicated with marketing hype, or 
do you require experimental data to verify theory and apply prudence

Hey , the Swan 47 is a good story, My N41 easily exceeded VTW
up to 7 kts as well as my E-46, with 1064 feet of sail at 100% at 33000 lbs
The tea cup junkies think this under 5 kt camp is only for them, little do they know it's all about keeping the boat in the slot. 

I see keelhaulin has given up as well as myself , but our resident armchair
sailor plows on , here is one of his now famous dis-informed statements:

"This is the best you can do on an old kind of hull. "

Paulo conveniently left out the next sentence which was being short handed 
the modern boat would be in the same reefed down mode , only with a lot 
more jerky motion........


----------



## kevlarpirate

BTW , to bjung
my second statement/ question was rhetorical, certainly not personal

As for paulo, I admire your enthusiasm , but that is where it ends.
These spindly boats are time bombs. They provide all the downwind go fast providing they are well crewed and it is blowing hard

Up wind they are quite uncomfortable, at anchor they are quite unpleasant
As for puncture resistant , they fail. 

their keels stall when you need it the most. Their low roll moment of inertia
sets them up for snap rolls slamming the back sides of passing waves.

they are under engineered and things break, and of course that is 
very expensive to say the least. 

but if that's what you like , grab the checkbook
Your next problem will be convincing the wife this will be fun


----------



## PCP

kevlarpirate said:


> ....
> I see keelhaulin has given up as well as myself , but our resident armchair
> sailor plows on , here is one of his now famous dis-informed statements:
> 
> "This is the best you can do on an old kind of hull. "
> 
> Paulo conveniently left out the next sentence which was being short handed
> the *modern boat would be in the same reefed down mode , only with a lot
> more jerky motion*........


Again I agree with you, not with the kind of impolite treatment you give to all that don't agree with you but about what you say regarding boats:

Yes, I would even say that the contemporary boat would be a lot more reefed, it would need much less sail to go at much more speed and the motion would be more jerky, but not much because as you know speed increases stability. I never said that a modern lighter boat has not a more fast motion, that was not the point.

*The point is that, downwind, the faster motion on a contemporary boat is not a rolling heavy dangerous motion as the one on the heavier boat. On the heavy boat the inertia can make it a slow and "comfortable" movement but it is a dangerous movement that can knock the boat down if in synchronism with big waves*.

As all can see very well on the posted movies (for the ones that had not already noticed that sailing) old boats with skinny asses roll a lot downwind and that movement increase with bad weather and big waves to the point of a possible knock-down, or being caught by a breaker with the boat heavily heeled and with little stability left.

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/boat-...-blue-water-sailer-can-go-light-winds-32.html

When I have said: *"This is the best you can do on an old kind of hull*. " I was agreeing with you when you have said: *"the boat is reefed down and in control"*, meaning that the boat was being handled correctly, but that in regards to control the boat was almost knocked down by that heavy rolling movement and by a small top crest breaking wave and there was nothing the skipper could have done to prevent that.

Besides that rolling movement prevents the skipper to steer the boat the way he wants because he has to constantly counteract that rolling movement and that limits its options to steer the boat safely and also, because the boat is much slower regarding the speed of the waves, the waves hit the boat with a lot more power than in a fast boat that is sailing close to the speed of the waves.

This has to do with hull design and this is the reason that contemporary boats don't have slim asses and I am not talking particularly of the cruising boats that are derived from Open designs, but about the generality of cruising boats. Just compare the sterns (and hull design) of 40 year's old Halberg Rassy, Morris, Najad, Tartan, Swan and you are going to see that the stern is very different and that all have much broader sterns now. Naval Architects had learn one or two things in the las 40 Years .

Those movies were not about racing boats, but about hull shape, particularly stern shapes. I have posted those because there are a lot more movies of racing boats going with bad weather than movies of cruisers going in that kind of conditions (they are very rare), but the principles in what regards hull shape and rolling motion are just the same.

A cruising boat with the same hull shape would be more steady than those racing boats because they are being pushed to the limit while a cruising boat would be sailed in a more conservative way. I am not saying that fast performance cruisers are the boats more adapted for most cruising sailors, what I am saying is that even the ones that are (Halberg Rassy, Morris, Najad, Malo) have been increasing their sterns and modifying their hulls, incorporating knowledge that comes mostly trough racing, making their boats faster and safer. I was trying to explain why and for what reason, it seems that some has misunderstood my intention.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

kevlarpirate said:


> BTW , to bjung
> my second statement/ question was rhetorical, certainly not personal
> 
> As for paulo, I admire your enthusiasm , but that is where it ends.
> These spindly boats are time bombs. They provide all the downwind go fast providing they are well crewed and it is blowing hard
> 
> Up wind they are quite uncomfortable, at anchor they are quite unpleasant
> As for puncture resistant , they fail.
> 
> their keels stall when you need it the most. Their low roll moment of inertia
> sets them up for snap rolls slamming the back sides of passing waves.
> 
> they are under engineered and things break, and of course that is
> very expensive to say the least.
> 
> but if that's what you like , grab the checkbook
> Your next problem will be convincing the wife this will be fun


So what I'm hearing here Kev is that this boat is nothing but a spindly-death-trap-time-bomb-family-killer?




























Put me down in the "spun up adrenaline junkie" column Mr. Beneteau!


----------



## smackdaddy

Here's an old-school "blue water" 31' Cape George Cutter having a very, very uncomfortable time of it in the blue at 35 knots and _relatively_ "mellow" seas (can't embed):

YouTube - Hellish Gulf Stream -- April 2007



















Check out the comments below the movie. They probably could have made things a bit more comfortable in terms of sail area - but they were apparently hard on a course and not comfortable with their sea room.

(PS - Keep in mind this is Paul Exner...and he doesn't exactly suck at sailing)


----------



## blt2ski

I'll agree with smack, if $$ were not object, or were available etc, I would not be in my 85 Jeanneau or older boat. I'd take the Elan 350 for where I sail etc. or maybe a Jeanneau Sun Fast 3200, J109/111/97, X35 etc. Around here where the wind can be under 5 knots a lot, SA/Disp is where it is at to a degree, and having the correct sails trip etc to keep on moving. but if the boat is designed to move easily, this helps. Boats of this nature CAN be built to with stand punishment. The Volvo's as mentioned, just like Indy cars or equal that race around ovals, ask your self, how many do not finish 500 mile races as a %? probably on par with the Volvo boats or equal racers that are pushed to the breaking point!

Marty


----------



## Alegria110

*Look at a Pearson 34*

If you're looking for an older, solid boat look at a Pearson 34

I have been really, really happy with her performance - far better than I anticipated - sailing in MArblehead MA we deal with a lot of light air - she goes very well with the main & 135% genoa 
6'+ headroom - & a price we could afford - powerful enough Yanmar - there have been a few on the market ranging in price from $30's to$50's


----------



## KeelHaulin

So you think it would be easier sailing to weather in a boat that is light displacement and primarily designed to go downwind Smack? Personally I don't think those conditions shown in the video were that terribly bad; and I don't think that boat was having any sort of a 'rough go of it'. But you, being the inexperienced sailor you are understandably feel otherwise because you have never been out in it. Conditions like those shown are relatively 'normal' for offshore conditions. Weather systems WILL pass over you; and I don't care how fast your boat is; you better be on something that can deal with the pounding when it does come.

So you think it would be much safer SITTING ON THE RAIL to helm a Beneteau 50 in those offshore conditions? Better put a toilet seat on the pulpit back there because you'd be ****ting your pants the whole time. Why would you buy a beast like that with no place to sit but on the freakin rail??

I like the rationalization that "my boat can sail with the wind fast enough that the swells don't feel dangerous". Dude; get a clue. Your boat gets rounded or buries into the backside of a wave, or turned by a rouge wave, and then you are at THE MERCY of those waves with WAY TOO MUCH SAIL UP. Then the boat is lying on it's side because it was rolled beyond it's stability point and you can't figure out how to get the jib sheet released because it's under water (you know it's way out there on the rail where you can't get to it without going swimming). Better get Hugo to go and stand on the keel to right your 'offshore' boat that's built like a dinghy!!

Let me remind you all of one of the most popular racing designs; one that has had many, many famous sailors skipper them (Dennis Connor, Russell Couts, John Bertrand, Gary Jobson, etc). What boat am I talking of? The Etchells 30. When was it designed? In 1966. Still actively one design raced today. My point is that it does not matter much when a good design was developed. The Newport 41 was sold until some time in the late 1980's. That's over 20 years of production for it; and it can still fetch a win now and then on a race course! It's an amazing boat; I know, I own one.

To quote the Practical Sailor review:



Practical Sailor Magazine said:


> Sailors over the years have invested large sums and enlisted eminent designers in search of the "dual-purpose boat," that rare craft that rewards her owner equally with racing performance and cruising capabilities. Season after season the major builders snatch up the rights to prizewinners, conduct focus groups, and expend marketing dollars on racer/cruisers, and cruiser/racers, in hopes of making the twain of racing and cruising meet. When we checked with owners of the venerable Newport 41, we found her to be not only a widely traveled cruiser but a boat that, though designed in the '60s, can still gather some silver on the PHRF and Beer Can circuits.
> 
> *The Newport 41 is at her best upwind in a breeze. She tacks in 80 degrees and stands up well under full sail, chomping along on her sailing lines at about 25 degrees of heel. A cruising sailor who doesn't race his 41 says, "When other boats have to power to weather, I can sail and enjoy it."*
> 
> The N-41 makes an excellent case for the fact that a boat that was designed intelligently and built well in the first place has a good chance of standing the tests of time.
> 
> Speed and maneuverability are significant virtues in a cruising boat, and the N-41 has retained them. Sailors who enjoy racing but are less happy about the expense, discomfort, and "to the edge" design of today's racing boats will find the Newport 41 to their liking.


I did not say these things. A well respected sailing magazine wrote this in their review of the Newport 41. You can't tell me that my boat is not well designed. Clearly it was.


----------



## kevlarpirate

paulo
"impolite treatment" interesting you point your finger at me, but at least I don't insult a mans personal property as you have done to me. To call a mans boat ugly is on the same level as calling his mother ugly. I think YOU are the one who needs to learn some manners. 

As for your statement the designers have learned a thing or two , you are blind, Designers made dihngys way before our time and understood them well
Read Keelhaulins posts if you want to get educated. He has patience, I don't
The principle reason butts got wide was to get more owner stateroom size 
in production boats and to lighten keels. yes It helps for big air spinnaker work but it pays for that in other areas of the envelope. 

You can't address these issues and you won't because there is no defense, 
so you conveniently avoid the issues. 

Your argument about the rolling is a false notion, You can use the same argument for any wave period which falls close to ANY boats roll period
what ever kind of boat it is. What you don't have an answer on is moment of inertia, again conveniently avoiding the issue.

Smack, I had the opportunity to completely go through a new Benneteau 50 
3 weeks ago, the boat is /was being commissioned by my friends , they are the local dealer, It is a very interesting boat, looks more like a private jet down below, I got to see the bilges, wiring , how it distributes rigging loads etc. This is not the boats I am referring to but I can say With its very long waterline it will be a pounder and a slapper with no doubt. 

The winches are built really cheap, withe stamped self tailing tops instead of castings, and the hull thickness between the ribs and stringers seemed very thin, when bumping it , The keel is cast iron , rudder is good looking 

now come up with about 650,000 including taxes


----------



## kevlarpirate

one more observation , The video of the double reefed boat was in control, 
I have sailed this configuration many times with complete control
The boat seems a bit tender and so the deep reef , I probably would have had more sail area up before my rail was awash.
Any good boat can do that and is expected to go upwind in those conditions
I can't say these newer production boats could do that or if their designers even make that a consideration these days
However they were dialed in and the boat was doing very well taking occasional water and spray.

\Notice on the still picture of the Benneteau , the weather foredeck is soaked, 
note there is no sea state to speak of and what seems to be 10+ VTW

Wet foredecks are what you get with extended forward waterline, plumb bow
with little or no flair and sheer.


----------



## smackdaddy

Jeez KK you guys are serious fundamentalists. You make it sound like if I don't just shut up and buy a N41, I'll immediately die and go straight to hell.

You guys may be right in everything you are arguing (which I don't believe to be the case) - but your arguments really sound a little far-reaching and disjointed. For example...



KeelHaulin said:


> So you think it would be easier sailing to weather in a boat that is light displacement and primarily designed to go downwind Smack? Personally I don't think those conditions shown in the video were that terribly bad; and I don't think that boat was having any sort of a 'rough go of it'. But you, being the inexperienced sailor you are understandably feel otherwise because you have never been out in it.


I have to assume you didn't watch or listen to the video, or read my comments. I agree that the conditions "looked" farily "mellow" - that's what I said in my post. But then you have Paul Exner (a farily accomplished sailor from what I've read) talking about not feeling well and not able to eat or drink anything...and another dude looking pretty sick in his berth (with no lee cloth by the way).

This flies in the face of everything you guys have been arguing for the past 34 pages. I mean, I know I'm "the inexperienced sailor" who doesn't understand how these guys aren't comfortable (are actually sick) in these "mellow" conditions and why the boat (with a full freaking keel) is pounding/slapping/etc to weather, thereby making them so...but that's not supposed to happen, right? Only new fatties do that.

Furthermore, I'll take your word that your offshore experience far outweighs Exner's and that it's his inexperience, like mine, that is causing all the trouble in that video not the boat or the conditions.



KeelHaulin said:


> I like the rationalization that "my boat can sail with the wind fast enough that the swells don't feel dangerous". Dude; get a clue.


Since opinion has to be backed up by experience according to you, please cite your experience on one of these modern racing boats that provides you this conclusion.



kevlarpirate said:


> As for your statement the designers have learned a thing or two , you are blind, Designers made dihngys way before our time and understood them well
> Read Keelhaulins posts if you want to get educated. He has patience, I don't
> The principle reason butts got wide was to get more owner stateroom size
> in production boats and to lighten keels. yes It helps for big air spinnaker work but it pays for that in other areas of the envelope.


Kev - in general, in this debate, I personally give your arguments a bit more credence than Keel's simply because of the experience and background you've stated. But, dude, the above is just silly. Are you saying the hull shape of an Open 60 (the form of which has migrated to cruising boats) was actually because the racers demanded a centerline king bed? Sorry, ain't buyin' it.

As for the new Bene Fitty - yeah I know it has its drawbacks. Every boat....yes even the vaunted, legendary master of the seas, the Newport 41, has its drawbacks. But it's an insanely sweet boat even though it was designed by blind naval architects.

Look, the whole point of the Exner video was to show REALITY - not hyperbole. And Keel, you've helped prove the point I was making: ANY boat...regardless of design...is going to be very uncomfortable in certain conditions. The fact that this heavy full-keeler is making their experienced crew sick in what you experienced sailors call fairly tame conditions says all that needs to be said.

The choice of a "blue water boat that can in light air or is fast and fun, etc." is about something other than solely the notion of "comfort".


----------



## PCP

kevlarpirate said:


> paulo
> "impolite treatment" interesting you point your finger at me, but at least I don't insult a mans personal property as you have done to me. To call a mans boat ugly is on the same level as calling his mother ugly. I think Y*OU are the one who needs to learn some manners. *


That is an unfair statement. This is a nice forum and I really try to be up to its standards even in what regards hot political divergences and I have never been accused of having bad manners.

When I said that I find the Ericson 46 ugly I was trying to be nice to you congratulating for having changed it for a what I find a much better looking boat, a Newport 41. I knew that some 6 months back you had an Ericson 46, but you were saying that now you had a Newport 41, so I thought you have sold the old Ericson 46 and bought a Newport 41.



kevlarpirate said:


> ...
> *As for light air performance, My Newport 41 does 6.5 knots upwind in 6 knots true and that's plenty good for light air performance. We're talking a 1968 design here over 40 years ago. *
> ...





PCP said:


> ...
> *but saying all this I have to congratulate you :
> 
> The Newport 41 is a fine and beautiful boat, a lot better than that ugly Ericson that you had some months back, a boat that should make proud its owner and as you have said, a fast boat in light weather, not so fast as a light modern one but much better than the average old cruiser.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo*


Only after that you have said that after all you had sold a Newport  and were restoring the Ericson 46:



kevlarpirate said:


> ..*.
> BTW paulo, I sold my 41, shipped my beautiful Ericson 46 , all 33,000 lbs, to Floridanow undergoing a complete cosmetic restoration , .......*.


I would never have tried to offend someone calling his boat ugly even if I really find that. When I understood that after all you didn't have a Newport 41 I posted saying that the beauty of a boat is in the eyes of the one that looks at it and that a boat can really look very ugly to someone and beautiful to another person.



PCP said:


> *Let me make it clear. I have nothing against older designs. Some look nice to me like the Newport, some look ugly like the Ericson but that has to be with each person tastes and it´s a personal choice as it is the kind of boat one prefers to sail and to cruise. I have horror to only one thing: to the kind of guys that want to impose their choices and personal tastes over others. Rest assured I am not one of those.&#8230;.*


So I really don't understand why you say that I needs to learn some manners



kevlarpirate said:


> ...
> Beneteau 50...The winches are built really cheap, withe stamped self tailing tops instead of castings, .....The keel is cast iron , ...now come up with about 650,000 including taxes


The keel is only cast iron if your friend chose to have one. The lead keel is an option that almost all buyers take, and that all should take.

The winches on the Benetau 50 are Harken H60 and H50 sta, top of the range winches in any part of the globe. Perhaps you think 40 year's old bronze winches are better or stronger?

Product Details

http://www.harken.com/pdf/MRW-01_60-2st.pdf

That is an incredible price specially because your taxes are lower then the ones in Europe. The basic standard price is without taxes 287 200€. Did your friend painted the boat with gold or what, since he didn't even take the lead keel?

First 50 / First / Sailing Yachts / Accueil - BENETEAU - Sailboats and motorboats - Official Website

http://www.harken.com/pdf/MRW-01_60-2st.pdf

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

smackdaddy said:


> ...
> 
> I have to assume you didn't watch or listen to the video, or read my comments. I agree that the conditions "looked" farily "mellow" - that's what I said in my post. But then you have Paul Exner (a farily accomplished sailor from what I've read) talking about not feeling well and not able to eat or drink anything...and another dude looking pretty sick in his berth (with no lee cloth by the way).
> 
> This flies in the face of everything you guys have been arguing for the past 34 pages. I mean, I know I'm "the inexperienced sailor" who doesn't understand how these guys aren't comfortable (are actually sick) in these "mellow" conditions and why the boat (with a full freaking keel) is pounding/slapping/etc to weather, thereby making them so...but that's not supposed to happen, right? Only new fatties do that.
> 
> Furthermore, I'll take your word that your offshore experience far outweighs Exner's and that it's his inexperience, like mine, that is causing all the trouble in that video not the boat or the conditions.....


Regarding that video and that boat (that I really like a lot and find very beautiful) I share the opinion of many that have commented that movie. The boat is unnecessarily hard pressed to the wind and with too much sail. That makes it more uncomfortable than what it could be, slamming on the waves.

The fact that a boat is deep offshore with a main without a third reef does not make the skipper look good, taking into account that the second reef that is used is not a big one (lot's of sail in the main).

The sea is not that bad, gale conditions with bigger waves 30ft wind normally produces. No breaking waves but uncomfortable conditions to go upwind, specially in 31ft boat.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

KeelHaulin said:


> So you think it would be easier sailing to weather in a boat that is light displacement and primarily designed to go downwind Smack? .....
> So you think it would be much safer SITTING ON THE RAIL to helm a Beneteau 50 in those offshore conditions? Better put a toilet seat on the pulpit back there because you'd be ****ting your pants the whole time. ...


You mean, you really think that in those conditions it would be easier to sail to weather in a small heavy 31ft than in an Beneteau First 50????

And you say that the Beneteau First 50 is primarily designed to go downwind????


Man, you sure can now a lot about the Newport but don't know much about other types of boats



KeelHaulin said:


> Dude; get a clue. Your boat gets rounded or buries into the backside of a wave, or turned by a rouge wave, and then you are at THE MERCY of those waves with WAY TOO MUCH SAIL UP. Then the boat is lying on it's side because it was rolled beyond it's stability point and you can't figure out how to get the jib sheet released because it's under water (you know it's way out there on the rail where you can't get to it without going swimming). Better get Hugo to go and stand on the keel to right your 'offshore' boat that's built like a dinghy!!


The line of Beneteau First from the 35 to the 50 was designed by Bruce Farr and a bit against the general trend chose to maximize those boats to upwind sailing potential.

The best racing results of those boats have been in upwind races, specially the ones that are raced with gale conditions and strong winds (much stronger than 30K). On the two last Sydney to Hobart races (a mostly upwind race with normally big seas and high winds) they have been performing in a most admirable way winning and beating much, much bigger boats.

On the last one that was particularly nasty, with winds up to 50K, Victoire, a First 45 (the little sister of the First 50) finished 21 overall (winning its class) in 3 days 15 hours and 41 minutes only 3 hours and 30 minutes behind a very famous and fast bigger old boat, the Swan 68 Titania of Cowes, leaving very far (15 hours) another bigger and famous boat, the SS 48 Spirit of Koomoloo (winner of the 1971 Fastnet). The SS48 was also beaten by 4 hours and a half by Paca, a First 40.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

PCP said:


> Regarding that video and that boat (that I really like a lot and find very beautiful) I share the opinion of many that have commented that movie. The boat is unnecessarily hard pressed to the wind and with too much sail. That makes it more uncomfortable than what it could be, slamming on the waves.


Agreed. My point was that the hyperbole of heavy old boats being inherently more comfortable in big seas and not being prone to pounding is a serious stretch. It may be a different kind of pounding, but that was pounding in that video - and it was not "comfortable" by any means.

Could it have been reduced by reefing down further or by changing the point of sail? Absolutely. But again, the same can be said for any boat in a cruising (not racing) situation where you have the luxury of time, searoom, and a focus on being as comfortable as possible. So this whole argument of discomfort and pounding and slapping and puking being inherent to one boat and not the other is just pretty specious.

Just sayin'.


----------



## kevlarpirate

good by guys , you had your chance to learn from the experts 
keel, keep sailing , all the best


----------



## KeelHaulin

The cape george 31 has a motion comfort index (MCI) of 42. My Newport 41 is 31.5. A Beneteau First 42s7 is 23 (see where I'm headed here?). A Pogo 10.5 has a *MOTION COMFORT OF 11.84* That's a rating of almost 1/4 of the Cape George 31 which *you say* is HAVING A ROUGH GO OF IT. How the heck do you think it would feel in a boat that is nearly 4x worse in motion comfort?? Yeah; those guys are seasick. You and I would probably be extremely seasick. But it's nothing compared to how you would feel in a boat that has an MCI of 12.

Oh, BTW a Beneteau First 50's MCI calculates out to 27.6; which is LOWER than both the Cape George 31; and my Newport 41. So you think it was rough on the 31; think about a slightly rougher feel while trying to control a 50' boat; getting it reefed, and helming it at the far stern with a rail seat and an open transom in those conditions.



sail calculator pro website said:


> Motion Comfort: Range will be from 5 to 60+ with a Whitby 42 at the mid 30's. The higher the number the more comfort in a sea. This figure of merit was developed by the Yacht designer Ted Brewer and is meant to compare the motion comfort of boats of similar size and types.


----------



## smackdaddy

KeelHaulin said:


> The cape george 31 has a motion comfort index (MCI) of 42. My Newport 41 is 31.5. A Beneteau First 42s7 is 23 (see where I'm headed here?). A Pogo 10.5 has a *MOTION COMFORT OF 11.84* That's a rating of almost 1/4 of the Cape George 31 which *you say* is HAVING A ROUGH GO OF IT. How the heck do you think it would feel in a boat that is nearly 4x worse in motion comfort?? Yeah; those guys are seasick. You and I would probably be extremely seasick. But it's nothing compared to how you would feel in a boat that has an MCI of 12.
> 
> Oh, BTW a Beneteau First 50's MCI calculates out to 27.6; which is LOWER than both the Cape George 31; and my Newport 41. So you think it was rough on the 31; think about a slightly rougher feel while trying to control a 50' boat; getting it reefed, and helming it at the far stern with a rail seat and an open transom in those conditions.


Sure, if everyone is sailing in exactly the same conditions, on exactly the same course, with exactly the same relative sail plan, etc.

I'm just saying that we're talking _degrees_ here dude. Not biblical truths like you and our dearly departed Kev want to frame them.

With a 42, that boat should be the antitheses of the modern slapper right? And yet people are still revisiting their garlic blintzes and Four Lokos. You can't get away from that fact - no matter how much you compare MCIs. Wether I projectile puke my guac 3 times 2 feet onto the starboard cushions, or 12 times 6 feet on the port cushions becomes rather irrelevant at some point.

As for the other 99% of the time that people cruise without being caught in the GS in a storm...I'd rather have a freakin' blast surfing downwind in a Fitty. Dig?


----------



## KeelHaulin

I'm not here to say that "my boat is better" Smack. I'm giving you my honest assessment of what boats are better suited and less well suited for blue-water cruising. There certainly are boats that are better suited than mine; and I just don't think it lies in boats that are ULDB in design (before adding cruising equipment) with wide stern sections. They may make great coastal and inland racer/cruisers, but they are not designed for crossing oceans or sailing long upwind slogs like the one you show. Yesterday was the DH Farallones race. Go over to SA and read about the conditions; then tell me it can't get gnarly out along the PNW coast on a regular basis.


----------



## KeelHaulin

smackdaddy said:


> With a 42, that boat should be the antitheses of the modern slapper right? And yet people are still revisiting their garlic blintzes and Four Lokos. You can't get away from that fact - no matter how much you compare MCIs.


It is not slapping. It is not even pounding. It's in rough weather; and it is doing fine. The people aboard are seasick because they are in heavy seas and riding it out below deck for safety. If you were in a Pogo 10.5 you would be bouncing off the cieling with every wave that it falls off of the backside of. Do you think that you are ALLOWED to sail downwind in every situation where the wind and seas become rough? Dude, the ENTIRE CONTINENTAL COAST of the Western United States and Canada is a LEE SHORE.



> Wether I projectile puke my guac 3 times 2 feet onto the starboard cushions, or 12 times 6 feet on the port cushions becomes rather irrelevant at some point.


It can mean the difference between life and death at sea if you can't control your boat and you can't get it reefed down (remember the carrying too much sail discussion) because the boat is slamming so hard that you cant get up to the main or stand upright enough to put in a reef. Heaven forbid that the furling system fails as they so often do in a blow and you have to crawl out to the bow to pull the sail down in that kind of wind.



> As for the other 99% of the time that people cruise without being caught in the GS in a storm...I'd rather have a freakin' blast surfing downwind in a Fitty. Dig?


See my earlier post about how often this sort of condition occurs. Destinations north of Pt Conception get the sort of wind/wave conditions that you described all the time. 2 years ago everyone got hammered going south in the Baja Ha-Ha with 18' seas and 30-40 kt winds. A J-120 sunk in it after striking a whale; ripped the rudder post out of the hull.


----------



## KeelHaulin

smackdaddy said:


> Sure, if everyone is sailing in exactly the same conditions, on exactly the same course, with exactly the same relative sail plan, etc.
> 
> I'm just saying that we're talking _degrees_ here dude. Not biblical truths like you and our dearly departed Kev want to frame them.


Degrees of what? Ass puckering? Brown shorting? Pant pissing?

No, an MCI rating is an OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE MOTION OF A BOAT IN A SEAWAY. You don't have to compare boats in 'exactly the same conditions' to know that a boat that rates 12 on the MCI is going to be rough as hell in anything but long period swell.


----------



## smackdaddy

KeelHaulin said:


> I'm not here to say that "my boat is better" Smack. I'm giving you my honest assessment of what boats are better suited and less well suited for blue-water cruising. There certainly are boats that are better suited than mine; and I just don't think it lies in boats that are ULDB in design (before adding cruising equipment) with wide stern sections. They may make great coastal and inland racer/cruisers, but they are not designed for crossing oceans or sailing long upwind slogs like the one you show. Yesterday was the DH Farallones race. Go over to SA and read about the conditions; then tell me it can't get gnarly out along the PNW coast on a regular basis.


Okay - Keel - you now have my attention...and respect...purely because this was a reasonable post. I KNOW it can get gnarly. That's all I've been reading about for 3 years!

My point earlier regarding "modern cruising" (the market demand driving design) is that it's primarily downwind (even typical Transats/Transpacs). You and Kev may not like that fact - but it is undeniably driving the design of boats. And to call those designers "blind" is a bit goofy.

I think the chasm between you guys and PCP is that your focus is squarely on upwind sailing, comfort, and performance. And his is on downwind sailing, comfort, and performance. (With degrees of squish in the middle). The primary difference between the two on a gnarly upwind leg is somewhat small (despite the MCI) as evidenced by the video. BUT the difference between the two on a _downwind_ leg (angle-dependent of course) is huge.

If we can all agree on this, then it's purely a matter of deciding which dice you want to roll more. Do you like going really fast downwind and are willing to clean the cushions on the upwind leg? Or are you willing to take 3 days more than the fleet to get into port on the downwind run - and still have to clean the cushions (just less puke) on the upwind slog?


----------



## smackdaddy

Doh! I just saw the other two posts. One post forward, two posts back.

I'm dyin' here Sal.










Although this is classic:



KeelHaulin said:


> Degrees of what? Ass puckering? Brown shorting? Pant pissing?


----------



## mitiempo

Ted Brewer's motion comfort ratio is meant, as you posted, to compare the relative comfort of similar size any type. 

Based on your theory, the Bristol Channel Cutter is a better seaboat than a Newport 41. Shown below.

Size has a great deal to do with motion comfort. A larger light boat will be almost as comfortable, if not more so than the smaller heavier boat. Here's a comparison between the Newport 41 and a boat with a lower disp/length ratio which is interesting.


----------



## blt2ski

I'm recalling an article that Mr Brewer has mentioned, that his ratio was good for boats back then, but for todays boats, probably not worth the paper the ratio is written on. In other words, there is a BETTER way to measure comfort level, not that it has been brought out in a formula as such. So being as there is not other ratio, one must use the Brewer ratio, even tho he himself said it is no longer valid!

With this in mind.....on to other things for the night.

marty


----------



## mitiempo

Most ocean crossing courses are predominantly downwind. Anyone's boat should be able to make way to weather in reasonably rough conditions. But on a normal basis it isn't that necessary. When it really blows up, if cruising, you either bear off, heave to, or if a lee shore grin & bear it. Only a fool tries to make way to windward in a gale if he doesn't have to. Racing is a different kettle of fish.


----------



## smackdaddy

KeelHaulin said:


> \A J-120 sunk in it after striking a whale; ripped the rudder post out of the hull.


Bill Butler's _Siboney_ suffered the same fate. And she looked something like this (with a hell of a lot of keel and wood/metal/glass...I can't remember):



















And they spent 66 days in a raft. So what's your point?


----------



## KeelHaulin

My boat is parked right next to a Bristol Channel Cutter. I have a BCC on one side and an Olson 40 on the other side. While the motion comfort number is better for the BCC; the cockpit is extremely small (albeit safe) and the headsail is way out on a sprit. Control in heavy air is improved by the cutter rig (but my boat also has a cutter set-up); but I don't know if I would want to deal with the hank-on headsail that is on a sprit in the wind and waves. To me, the BCC seemingly would be a bit difficult to manage for heavy offshore conditions; but a much better suited boat for it than a Pogo 10.5 or 12.5. While a BCC would be slower to it's destination than my boat; I think the safety of the design is extremely high and well known/tested. IIRC the boat parked next door to me completed a Circumnav before she was sold to her current owner.

The displacement to LWL number is a bit higher for the Sundeer 60; it's ~110 because her displacement is closer to 50,000 lbs (reported on the ad for one in HI on Yachtworld). The Newport 41 is actually lower; because her waterline length is variable; it is only 30' while it is sitting at the dock. When under full sail the waterline extends to about 38' so her under-sail D/L ratio is closer to 150.


----------



## jrd22

Watching the video I thought the CG 31 was doing a beautiful job of blasting through some large, steep seas. And they were making good speed as well for a 31' boat. In those conditions short handed I would take a Cape George any day vs. a light displacement wide assed modern design no matter how fast they might go downwind. Several years ago I talked to a guy with a CG 36 off the west coast of Vancouver Island (Tofino) that went out into 45 knots of wind and 24+' breaking seas for a couple of hours, just for fun. He said it wasn't really fun, but not bad overall. I had just returned from going out in the same conditions and turned around as soon as I had the guts to try it and felt lucky to have made it back in in our 34' Northsea (the boat actually did fine, it was me that was intimidated). I've always had a deep respect for Cape Georges's ever since.


----------



## mitiempo

The designed displacement of the Sundeer 60 is wrong by a mile in that listing.


----------



## mitiempo

Smack
I think his point is if you are going whale hunting it better be in a Newport 41.


----------



## KeelHaulin

Funny how a 'number' like MCI can serve do define boats when it's convenient to prove your designs; and then when it becomes inconvenient to design to the number it is 'no longer useful or correct'.

Smack, I was commenting on the ability for a whale strike to sink a boat in minutes due to damage to a lightly constructed rudder post. While this can happen on almost any boat given the right impact I will mention that a boat with a skeg or or skeg shoe has much better -chances- of surviving a strike. Yesterday a J-105 had an upper rudder tube failure while in the rough conditions -outside- of the SF Bar. They were falling off of the backside of steep waves. They were lucky to make the return sail after aborting the race without losing the rudder and possibly getting rolled and sinking out there. I'm not saying J-boats are not offshore capable; just that they are lightly constructed and if there is a failure the light construction -may- be a contributing factor.


----------



## mitiempo

The MCI is not a useful way of measuring different types of boats, as noted by its creator Ted Brewer. What I was showing, and which most know, is that comfort has a lot to do with size. A large light boat can be as comfortable as a smaller heavy boat.


----------



## KeelHaulin

MCI takes dynamic roll (both longitudinal and transverse) into account IIRC. The factors that influence these things are LOA, Beam, Length and Displacement. That's why a bigger, lighter boat is not necessarily lower than a smaller, heavier boat. If 'the number' does not provide a tangible result then why is it that boats you would expect to have a more seakindly motion actually do have a higher MCI? I'm sure that there are variables that are not accounted for in the MCI number; but I can tell you that if you want a good 'ballpark' estimate of motion comfort it's a good place to get an idea of what to expect out of any hull.


----------



## mitiempo

I corrected my post to say "different types of boats", as I intended it to read.


----------



## KeelHaulin

I don't see how saying 'different types of boats' can make much difference that what you said previously. A boat with a super-low MCI is going to be less comfortable in a seaway than a boat with a moderate or high MCI. It's a measure of inertia forces and how well the boat resists the motion of the sea. I think the confusion in this is if the numbers are close and the boats are significantly different in type; you can't count on the MCI to say for sure which boat will be more 'comfortable'. One boat might pound because it's bottom is flat; the other might not. See my point?

On the issue of the Sundeer 60; does not matter too much if the D/L ratio is 80 or 110. One thing I'd like to know IF it only weighs 36,500 is how they shaved the weight out. The shoal draft keel (for it's LOA) and the relatively light keel weight are a concern to me; possibly low for her LOA. As for what a lower D/L ratio means; I'll refer to the sailcalc website again for the definition/interpretation:



sailcalc pro website said:


> Displacement to LWL: A medium value would be 200. 300 would be high (Heavy Cruising Boat) and 100 would be low (Ultra Light Displacement-ULDB). *Boats with low numbers are probably uncomfortable and difficult to sail.*


----------



## KeelHaulin

smackdaddy said:


> My point earlier regarding "modern cruising" (the market demand driving design) is that it's primarily downwind (even typical Transats/Transpacs). You and Kev may not like that fact - but it is undeniably driving the design of boats. And to call those designers "blind" is a bit goofy.
> 
> I think the chasm between you guys and PCP is that your focus is squarely on upwind sailing, comfort, and performance. And his is on downwind sailing, comfort, and performance. (With degrees of squish in the middle). The primary difference between the two on a gnarly upwind leg is somewhat small (despite the MCI) as evidenced by the video. BUT the difference between the two on a _downwind_ leg (angle-dependent of course) is huge.


Smack, even the design of my boat was race driven. All racer-cruisers back to the J-boats were driven by race course performance. But there are limits to which you can apply racing designs to the application of a blue-water boat. It's like saying I want to drive my F1 car on the streets of San Francisco. It's not gonna happen because of all the potholes, steep transitions and steep hills. The car is not designed for it. A more moderate car like a street legal Ferrari or Lambroghini would struggle but mostly be OK. Get my drift here?

There are design criteria for the blue-water boat which must be satisfied to be a comfortable and safe design. My boat is about the minimum of that criteria. OK; you could go lighter in construction; like coring the hull or going with a lighter rig and ballast, but overall you don't want an ULDB based hull for blue-water work; let alone a ULDB that also has a wide transom and no cockpit to speak of. RACERS can do it because their boats are specifically set up to catch storm cells _and sail in front of them_. When they don't achieve this the results are often tragic. That's why putting cruising weight into the design of one of the current ULDB hulls is a bad idea. They flat-out are not designed to be sailed to windward in a seaway. So you end up stuck with reaching, or running; and forget about heaving-to; it can't be done with a bulb keel.


----------



## mitiempo

The Sundeer 60 has a fully cored hull and deck. They were built by TPI using the SCRIMP system. All major weights are low, giving it a capsize ratio of 1.64 vs 1.72 for the Newport 41. Both numbers are well below 2, over which a vessel is considered less safe in rough weather. 

The displacement/length ratio isn't all that meaningful when you realize how it is derived. If the Sundeer 60 had a waterline of 50' it would have a higher DL ratio. By lengthening the waterline the boat is heavier by the materials required to do so, not lighter. 

By the same token if the waterline of a Newport 41 was 41' it would have a much lower DL ratio, but would be heavier in reality. 

Waterline equals both speed and longitudinal stability, which can do a lot for comfort at sea. The Sundeer, as with all of Steve Dashew's designs, has a very narrow entry, about 12 degrees at half angle. The forefoot is rounded, not V'ed so it doesn't slam. The hull is fair and easily driven by a smaller sailplan that is easy to handle.

I believe 24 were built, many have circumnavigated successfully, some several times around. Most are sailed by couples.

They have no issues with beating in rough weather. Or running. And racing rules had absolutely nothing to do with their design.


----------



## PCP

smackdaddy said:


> ...
> 
> I think the chasm between you guys and PCP is that your focus is squarely on upwind sailing, comfort, and performance. And his is on downwind sailing, comfort, and performance. (With degrees of squish in the middle). The primary difference between the two on a gnarly upwind leg is somewhat small (despite the MCI) as evidenced by the video. BUT the difference between the two on a _downwind_ leg (angle-dependent of course) is huge.
> 
> If we can all agree on this, then it's purely a matter of deciding which dice you want to roll more. Do you like going really fast downwind and are willing to clean the cushions on the upwind leg? Or are you willing to take 3 days more than the fleet to get into port on the downwind run - and still have to clean the cushions (just less puke) on the upwind slog?


Smack let me clarify this:

My personal choice, that has to do with the type of sailing I intend to do most, with comfort and with aesthetics lies not in what are the truly contemporary fast cruising boats optimized for downwind sailing, like the Pogo or the Elan 350 but in what are fast contemporary cruising boats optimized for upwind sailing like the First, the Salona and the new Dehler 41 or Xp38.

Of course this is my personal choice and that don't mean that I am unable to see the positive points of boats like the Pogo and understand very well why there are many cruiser that prefer them. If I was planing to sail a lot along trade winds, crossing the Atantic and back, I would than chose a Pogo or a similar boat. They were designed to do just that, solo, fast and safely, with not much comfort, but that is a personal choice.

Regarding the black horror painting that Haulin draws about the almost impossibility of sailing one of those boats in bad weather without being seasick I guess this has to do with each one physiology and the way each body adapts to motion. This is the kind of hull and boat are used for solo ocean racing and each year there are hundreds of solo sailors crossing the pond in them. I follow those races, they get frequently bad weather and I never heard of one complaining that he was stopping racing because he was seasick and could not stand the boat motion anymore. Some of those boats have a similar design and have only 22ft, so you can guess what would be that motion comfort index.

I have explained in another thread why the comfort index is pretty useless and is not used anymore. The example that Haulin gives, considering that a First 50 in a gale upwind would be a lot less comfortable than an heavy 31ft because it has a much bigger comfort index number is a good example of why that system only works with similar types of boats with similar types of hulls and with the same length.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## kevlarpirate

Smack. I said "production boats" were driven by owner stateroom. and I meant
to compliment that with how race boats ended up with fat butts, but I hit post without going back and completing that thought .

raceboats, went toward dihngy design to reduce keel weight, this means 
less wetted surface and ability to pop out of the displacement mode earlier in terms of building wind. Righting moment is provided by that wide transom and that is where the crew lives. When you race, to sail your rating, you have to get up to your maximum legal crew weight by recruiting rail meat who do nothing but shift from side to side when you tack and stay out of the way. 

The best ones are short legged and rather round, meaning each one weighs about 200, lbs, and has the body volume of 2 sacks of cement tied together. They can be found walking the dock holding a sixpack toward the owner of the boat they would like to sail on. After some races they get bored and do the six pack thing to another boat, with maybe some girls onboard. 

This is what racing has become. Also, offshore racing now is 3 miles offshore and you are at the bar by 5 or 6 to have your sundowner and 
start your bar tab. The days of the SORC and many other "real" offshore
are gone. I am happy the Miami Nassau race has been resurected but 
by large , now , you have to have an exotic down wind destination. The Whitney series we struggled with to keep a fleet going, people just don't want to slug it out to weather any more. It is really tough on these new boats. and the crews/owners don't like it. 

The driving force behind racing is laziness, fat out of shape sailors who drink too much, and lots of new money, you can add to that list, but I have been watching this game for 40 years.

In the SORC days, we slugged it out like on that video, and after it was all over, no one dare complained, and those who became seasick were not invited back. It seemed to me that sailor was hyping it up quite a but , 
infact he was an embarrassment to guys like myself. He obviously had the boat dialed in and rail awash at the 20% level which is the racing mode, and the boat liked it.
But for his commentary, I have to say shame on him. 

As for the comment on the Deerfoot, it is a slammer, the fact that the forefoot is round vs" "V" is in the noise. The major issue is how far it sticks out there, how long and slender it is , and just like the Benneteau the foredecks get soaked

The Benneteau has keel options, the one I was on drew about 8 feet and had a trailing bulb with a flat bottom. I will likely sail this boat in the next week or so, and going out the Lake Worth inlet with 15 kts East wind and an outgoing tide will set up some nasty 8 footers with about 30 feet between 
crests, A decade ago we pushed through that on a new 45 foot Morgan 
and slammed so hard, that some of the rib stringer grid popped free of the hull skin and had to be repaired. Ended up with a 1/4 inch separations 
down the centerline. This is what happens when the manufacturer just snots it in with resin and does not glass it over with cloth, expanding the footprint

As we all know, epoxies have tensile strengths in the 4000 psi range 
and we all know, once a tear starts, it propagates rapidly , so let's see what happens next.

Heck I wonder how they join the hull to the deck? hmmm

As for the forward bulb design , that's good for catching lobster pot lines
which seem to be all over LA Harbor entrance now right up to the red and green markers... oh, and then the kelp.. 

Paulo , I owned my 41 newport for 24 years , just sold it a month ago,
Shipped her to Florida and back to California in the 90's , made 12 Gulf Stream crossings went through plenty of rough stuff.
Six years ago , I bought the Ericson , now also trucked to Florida and near 
completing resto. 

Huge job, crew of 4 workers , 6 days a week, i am part of the crew and i work 7 days a week.. , and no worries about the ugly remark , I see where you got the wrong signals,


----------



## kevlarpirate

As for comfort ratio, it has plenty of value when comparing similar length boats
and of course mass and moment of inertia are the dominant variables. 
slight differences in numbers are likely not important

When a boat gets very long and skinny it starts to depart from this formula
as well as when transoms start to grow really wide, and now a psychological 
issue comes into play, A fast wide transom lightweight boat, due to its speed
may be way less uncomfortable than a heavier slow boat, The crew is 
more apt to get hurt and the boat is more likely to get damaged, putting abrupt ends to the fun factor. Take your choice. 

The long skinny boats are slammers, V or round entry, unimportant
and the irritation from this may be a factor in the psychological comfort, but again it is mostly an irritation, as is the rolling and slapping at anchor. 

Buyer beware, that's all, value all the facts 

Cruising is a lot of time at anchor, when sailors should be romancing their women with candlelight and wine, in a quiet restful cabin..... and NOT thinking of the next 16 knot shot off the face of a wave good luck


----------



## puddinlegs

KeelHaulin said:


> Smack, even the design of my boat was race driven.


An important point to make here, but your boat, as are most modern boat designs, is race *rule* driven. I think this is what you're trying to say, but it's important to be clear. How long did it take and what type of design finally beat the NY to SF sailing record? Even then, you could argue that they didn't as they weren't carrying cargo and paying passengers!


----------



## PCP

kevlarpirate said:


> Smack. I said "production boats" were driven by owner stateroom. and I meant to compliment that with how race boats ended up with fat butts, but I hit post without going back and completing that thought .
> 
> raceboats, went toward dihngy design to reduce keel weight, this means
> less wetted surface and ability to pop out of the displacement mode earlier in terms of building wind. Righting moment is provided by that wide transom and that is where the crew lives. *When you race, to sail your rating, you have to get up to your maximum legal crew weight by recruiting rail meat who do nothing but shift from side to side when you tack and stay out of the way.*
> 
> The best ones are short legged and rather round, meaning each one weighs about 200, lbs, and has the body volume of 2 sacks of cement tied together. They can be found walking the dock holding a sixpack toward the owner of the boat they would like to sail on. After some races they get bored and do the six pack thing to another boat, with maybe some girls onboard. ....


We agree on that I really hate boats that need to have a lot of guys hanging on the rail.

But you are dead wrong in thinking that had to do with boats like the Pogo or other boats that come from the Open class boat design tradition (like the Elan 350 or Pogo).

*The Open boats that are on the origin of the hull design of that type of cruisers are SOLO boats and they don't have any crew, except the skipper so obviously don't rely on rail meat to sail to its potential*.

Some boats have water ballast that is a way to get rid of those fat guys, some don't need it. That's the same with the cruising boats that are inspired on hull design by Open class boats.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

PCP said:


> We agree on that I really hate boats that need to have a lot of guys hanging on the rail.
> 
> But you are dead wrong in thinking that had to do with boats like the Pogo or other boats that come from the Open class boat design tradition (like the Elan 350 or Pogo).
> 
> *The Open boats that are on the origin of the hull design of that type of cruisers are SOLO boats and they don't have any crew, except the skipper so obviously don't rely on rail meat to sail to its potential*.
> 
> Some boats have water ballast that is a way to get rid of those fat guys, some don't need it. That's the same with the cruising boats that are inspired on hull design by Open class boats.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Yeah, but how many times have you scored some free beer from a water ballast tank? Zero. That's how many.

Short, fat guys have a very important purpose.


----------



## PCP

smackdaddy said:


> Yeah, but how many times have you scored some free beer from a water ballast tank? Zero. That's how many.
> 
> Short, fat guys have a very important purpose.


----------



## KeelHaulin

LOL!!!! Open class boats are NOT, I repeat *NOT* designed to sail *UPWIND*. The reason they don't need people on the rail is because you don't RACE open class boats singlehanded in upwind conditions!!! If you did; you would need as many people on the rail as possible! Did you watch the VOR two years ago when they tried to sail upwind to Qingdao? Half of them aborted to Taiwan for repairs. Several of them dropped out of the race entirely. One boat needed a section of the bow replaced. These were 70' boats with full crews!!

You can't make one of these hull designs 'cruisey'. It can't sail to weather and it can't out-run the weather like it would be able to do if it was a stripped out racer (which was the intent for the basic hull design). It's all marketing and eyewash to get people to drop 400k on one!!


----------



## puddinlegs

KeelHaulin said:


> LOL!!!! Open class boats are NOT, I repeat *NOT* designed to sail *UPWIND*. The reason they don't need people on the rail is because *you don't RACE open class boats singlehanded in upwind conditions!*!!


Actually Keelhaulin, yes, they do. You really need to follow all the Transat type qualifying races that happen off the coast of France and Spain, in the English channel, etc... These races are largely out and back affairs, so part of the race is almost always going to have to deal with upwind conditions. Even the Transat itself can have upwind work in the first third of the race. I think you're arguing without really following or understanding what the Open classes are doing and how they're sailed. You can go over to Sailing anarchy and ask the guys who sail them directly about the conditions they race in. A friend locally has done the Mini Transat and the qualifiers and I know for a fact and have seen the photos of the boats racing upwind single and double handed. Same goes for the larger class open boats (30's, 40's) . And yes, while they're optimized for downwind and reaching, they certainly do find themselves going upwind. Not comfortably mind you, and no one is saying they're a hull type that is as comfortable as many more 'standard' time tested designs like yours, but they DO race upwind as well as down.


----------



## puddinlegs

kevlarpirate said:


> This is what racing has become. Also, offshore racing now is 3 miles offshore and you are at the bar by 5 or 6 to have your sundowner and
> start your bar tab. The days of the SORC and many other "real" offshore
> are gone. I am happy the Miami Nassau race has been resurected but
> by large , now , you have to have an exotic down wind destination. The Whitney series we struggled with to keep a fleet going, people just don't want to slug it out to weather any more. It is really tough on these new boats. and the crews/owners don't like it.
> 
> The driving force behind racing is laziness, fat out of shape sailors who drink too much, and lots of new money, you can add to that list, but I have been watching this game for 40 years.


...and this is the beauty of what the open classes are bring back to sailboat racing. The men and women who sail these boats ARE NOT fat and lazy. They don't carry a case of beer on board. They're great sailors and genuine athletes. These men and women are racing long distance, both coastal _(and more than 3 miles off shore and most certainly NOT at the bar by 5)_ and crossing. The 6.5, 30, and 40 classes are racing on all points of sail dbl and single handed. The majority of truly competitive off shore events world wide are now done in these boats. N. America is an exception, and as such, it's no surprise that someone like yourself who's been there and done that might be unaware of this while rightfully lamenting the demise of crewed offshore ocean racing into local short distance PHRF events. I have huge respect for the folks who battled it out in the IOR days, but ocean racing has evolved and the US is arguably no longer the driver of or developments in offshore racing.


----------



## PCP

KeelHaulin said:


> LOL!!!! Open class boats are NOT, I repeat *NOT* designed to sail *UPWIND*. *The reason they don't need people on the rail is because you don't RACE open class boats singlehanded in upwind conditions!!! If you did; you would need as many people on the rail as possible!* Did you watch the VOR two years ago when they tried to sail upwind to Qingdao? Half of them aborted to Taiwan for repairs. Several of them dropped out of the race entirely. One boat needed a section of the bow replaced. These were 70' boats with full crews!!
> ....


Pogos, Elan 350, Sunfast 32 don't take as model Volvos but the beamier Solo Open classes (mini, class40, open60). Class 40's and Open60's do circumnavigation races. Do you think they go downwind all the time?

The Volvos are even better going upwind and they are very fast. If you go too fast you can broke the boat you have to control speed in a gale.

The boat Steve white has chosen to beat the *circumnavigation record against the prevailing winds is a VOLVO class boat*. *And he has not a crew to sit on the rail. He is going to do it solo*.

This statement makes no sense: "Open class boats are NOT, I repeat *NOT* designed to sail *UPWIND*. "

Steve White is a top and very experienced sailor and certainly knows what is the right boat for the job.

I think you have missed this post:



PCP said:


> *Yes*, I think that the design (VOLVO CLASS) is up to it (circumnavigate against the prevailing winds) if they reinforce the boat in a proper way adapting it for the toughest conditions.
> 
> And I am not the only one that think that way. Some of the best sailors that know very well the boat think the same way. *"Next winter, Steve White will sail non stop and alone around the world the wrong way - Westabout - against the prevailing winds and currents in the Southern Ocean, which is one of the harshest and most remote environments on earth"*.
> 
> White Ocean Racing
> 
> Guess what is going to be the boat? *A volvo 70*, this one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The actual record, an old one is in the hands of Jean Luc Van Den Heede that in 2004 had managed to break an old record from Philippe Poupon (2000).
> 
> For that he used a much bigger boat, a 87ft boat against a 60ft boat and he needed 4 attempts.
> 
> this is the boat:
> Vaton prototype tour du monde Adrien VDH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The boat was designed (2002) for racing and for maximizing upwind performance but never really proved well, taking into consideration the huge cost and the size (is made with aluminum).
> 
> The boat that held the previous record (2000) the one that needed 4 attempts to break in a much bigger boat supposedly designed specifically for those conditions, was an old Open 60 (1988) that when broke that record had already made three solo circumnavigations (Vendee Globe). This was the boat:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I have no doubt that Adrien, VHD boat is more comfortable upwind than the Open 60 or the Volvo 70, but we were not talking about that, we were talking about pure performance upwind and I don't have any doubt that a new generation Volvo 70 is must faster than Adrien upwind. Remember that Adrien is an almost 90ft boat that had a lot of trouble to beat a really old and beaten (1988) 60ft Open 60.


Regards

Paulo


----------



## KeelHaulin

You said it in your first sentence. MODIFIED VOLVO OPEN 70. You can't SCALE DOWN ONE OF THESE AND EXPECT IT TO GO WINDWARD OVER HEAVY SWELL. We are talking about 70'-80' boats for cruisers now?? I thought that started getting a little silly when you guys brought the Beneteau 50 into the argument let alone the Sundeer 60.

A west to east circumnav is over 90% downwind. The boats were primarily designed to do downwind sailing.


----------



## PCP

puddinlegs said:


> ...and this is the beauty of what the open classes are bring back to sailboat racing. The men and women who sail these boats ARE NOT fat and lazy. They don't carry a case of beer on board. They're great sailors and genuine athletes. These men and women are racing long distance, both coastal _(and more than 3 miles off shore and most certainly NOT at the bar by 5)_ and crossing. The 6.5, 30, and 40 classes are racing on all points of sail dbl and single handed. The majority of truly competitive off shore events world wide are now done in these boats. N. America is an exception, and as such, it's no surprise that someone like yourself who's been there and done that might be unaware of this while rightfully lamenting the demise of crewed offshore ocean racing into local short distance PHRF events. I have huge respect for the folks who battled it out in the IOR days, but ocean racing has evolved and the US is arguably no longer the driver of or developments in offshore racing.


Puddinlegs and all :There is one of those races going on right now, a solo Transatlantic one raced on the 33ft Beneteau Figaro:

Figaro BENETEAU II / One-design / Sailing Yachts / Accueil - BENETEAU - Sailboats and motorboats - Official Website

This is the race site:
Site Officiel de la Transat Benodet Martinique 2011

Click on Carthographie and you can follow the race in almost real time on the map. Right know they are going downwind at 9K.

Follow the race and you are going to see that they will sail plenty upwind even if they are following the trade winds, as will do everybody that wants to cross the Atlantic.

Regards

Paulo

For the ones that


----------



## KeelHaulin

This is what happens when you push on of these wide-stern boats too hard in heavy air with too much sail up and get into trouble. In this case it looks like an uncontrolled gybe.


----------



## PCP

KeelHaulin said:


> You said it in your first sentence. MODIFIED VOLVO OPEN 70. You can't SCALE DOWN ONE OF THESE AND EXPECT IT TO GO WINDWARD OVER HEAVY SWELL. We are talking about 70'-80' boats for cruisers now?? I thought that started getting a little silly when you guys brought the Beneteau 50 into the argument let alone the Sundeer 60.
> 
> A west to east circumnav is over 90% downwind. The boats were primarily designed to do downwind sailing.


What are you talking about? You have said that "*Open class boats are NOT, I repeat NOT designed to sail UPWIND*. *The reason they don't need people on the rail is because you don't RACE open class boats singlehanded in upwind conditions!!!* *If you did; you would need as many people on the rail as possible! Did you watch the VOR...*.

I have said that is simply not true and that a VOLVO is going to be *raced solo* by Steve White circumnavigating mostly against the wind.

*He is not going to circumnavigate from West to East but on the opposite direction, against the prevailing winds.
*
Yes the boat is going to be modified but not on the hull or keel. What is going to be modified is the running rigging that is going to be modified for solo sailing. I don't know if they are reinforce the boat but that has nothing to do with sail performance upwind.

So regarding what you have said, no, it is not true that a VOLVO cannot be raced upwind without a crew seated on the rails and that is also not true for any open class boat, including mini class 40class and Open60's.

If you read the post I had reposted about the Circumnavigation record against prevailing winds you will see that record was held for more than 4 years by an old Open60. one of those boats that you say that cannot be sailed against the wind without a big crew on the rails, and that makes no sense because that boat beat that record circumnavigating against the wind with a solo sailor.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

KeelHaulin said:


> This is what happens when you push on of these wide-stern boats too hard in heavy air with too much sail up and get into trouble. In this case it looks like an uncontrolled gybe.
> 
> ...


I don't know if you understand what happens there. They are pushing the boat to the limit and they have made a big mistake. This is a Canting keel boat and they accidentally gibed letting the keel on the wrong side of the boat. These boats are not for amateurs and are very demanding boats. The situation is not dangerous they just have to move the keel to the right side of the boat as they had eventually done, re-righting the boat.

That's why the cruising boats that take as model Open boats are based on solo boats, like the Open60 and the 40class racers. They are a lot more forgiving.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## puddinlegs

KeelHaulin said:


> This is what happens when you push on of these wide-stern boats too hard in heavy air with too much sail up and get into trouble. In this case it looks like an uncontrolled gybe.


Look. *No one is saying these boats are comfortable*
I love old IOR boats, but they're NOT the current state, or future of racing. Do you actually know or have talked to anyone who's sailed in any Open class events? Honestly, I think you're too busy shouting to listen to simple statements of fact about their race schedules. It's as silly as using the '79 Fastnet as evidence damning IOR all boats. And we haven't even talked about multihulls yet. But at this point, I'm beginning to think you're enjoying the trolling more than the content.


----------



## KeelHaulin

puddinlegs said:


> *No one is saying these boats are comfortable*


*YES, PCP (Paulo) IS. HAVE YOU NOT READ THIS THREAD? HAVE YOU NOT TAKEN A LOOK AT THE THREAD ON 'INTERESTING BOATS' WHICH I HAVE YET TO POST TO? WHY DO YOU THINK I AM -TRYING- TO BRING SOME RATIONAL THOUGHT ABOUT A WHAT COMFORTABLE BLUE-WATER BOAT IS TO THIS DISCUSSION?? IT'S NOT A BOAT THAT HAS AN MCI OF 12, AND HULL FORM WAS PRIMARILY DESIGNED TO SAIL DOWNWIND.
*


----------



## puddinlegs

*Oh my, your caps are bigger than mine! *


----------



## KeelHaulin

puddinlegs said:


> *Oh my, your caps are bigger than mine! *


lol... You know; it works both ways. There are endless arguments to these discussions as to what the 'right' boat is for cruising, or racing, or... It comes down to personal choice. But the prevailing opinion of what makes a blue-water boat a good boat for such work is found in looking at the boats that have been-there and done-that. Not at boats that are one-off racing boats, not at boats that are racer-only designed. Time will tell if these newer hulls can stand up to it. I just don't want to hear about instances of people expecting their boat to be bullet proof who ended up dead because the boat they took on an ocean crossing was not up to the task; or another Fastnet type disaster only on designs that follow the Open class hulls.

On every argument I have presented that clearly demonstrates that these boats are not -much- faster in real world conditions, or less stable in extreme conditions, or not as comfortable, I have been told that my arguments are not valid for one outlandish reason or another. Well I've said enough here; I'll let people reading this thread or others who come across it decide if they want to listen to people who want to twist reality into what they believe to be true or those like myself and Kev who know in both experience (on his part) and analysis (on my part) where the truth lies.


----------



## PCP

puddinlegs said:


> Look. *No one is saying these boats are comfortable*
> ...





KeelHaulin said:


> *YES, PCP (Paulo) IS. HAVE YOU NOT READ THIS THREAD? ...
> *


*Perhaps you don't mind to post what lead you to that conclusion?*

What I say is that are cruising sailors that would trade comfort for a more enjoyable fast and fun sailing and I have said this many times. What I have said is that there are not a single perfect cruising boat for all the sailors, but several types of cruising boats for different kinds of cruising sailors.

You and Kev are defending that a cruising sailboat is a stereotype that should fit all sailors and the stereotype you are choosing is just the one you see fit to yourself. I repeat again that does not make sense.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

KeelHaulin said:


> *YES, PCP (Paulo) IS. HAVE YOU NOT READ THIS THREAD? HAVE YOU NOT TAKEN A LOOK AT THE THREAD ON 'INTERESTING BOATS' WHICH I HAVE YET TO POST TO? WHY DO YOU THINK I AM -TRYING- TO BRING SOME RATIONAL THOUGHT ABOUT A WHAT COMFORTABLE BLUE-WATER BOAT IS TO THIS DISCUSSION?? IT'S NOT A BOAT THAT HAS AN MCI OF 12, AND HULL FORM WAS PRIMARILY DESIGNED TO SAIL DOWNWIND.
> *


Ooohhhh. Bold move.


----------



## blt2ski

ah yes, 

Go off to work for the day, and such fun times occur on SN!LOL some yelling ie BIG BOLD CAPS! some oh my's, ie caps are bigger than mine.... oh my!

you all need to go sailing instead of sitting around a puter typing......that includes me!

pudding, have a race sunday, want to come up?

Marty


----------



## puddinlegs

I'd love to, but I have to be up in the mountains one day, possibly both this coming weekend. If I have one day free, we need to get out on our boat and do some dbl handed practice for RTTS. What night are your beer cans this summer?


----------



## blt2ski

Ours are Wed eve at 6:30, schedule at cycedmonds.org
Start May 11 thru June 22, Get a hold of Reinhard. If you need an email let me know.

We also have an RTTS equal the last weekend in June to Port Ludlow too. If you want another to practice per say if you are doing the tri whatever STYC has.


----------



## kevlarpirate

This discussion has fragmented into pieces defended by advocates from individual camps. Paulo you use the term enjoyable. Does that include 
bouncing and slapping at anchor anytime a boat passes. You are consumed by the aspect of sailing on a point of sail which is most enjoyable, which excludes upwind or at anchor which you won't talk about.

You guys accuse me and keel of pushing one kind of boat and you are right,
and keel and me have been there. 

puddin , you make good points, yes there are excellent sailors out there , but club racing is where people like us end up, not on ocean racers. 
Ocean racer are for a different breed, and the boats themselves are designed primarily for downwind efficiency and are deficient in upwind ability.

I am not saying they are designed wrong, If racing went the other direction
then a different boat would evolve. It is sailors choice which dictates which direction a race is run. 

Ask yourself why there is no return race for the Transpac? Why do you hire a delivery captain to bring the boat back? 

The argument that these downwind boats make good upwind boats has no legs,

Yes, any boat can be forced to go upwind, and without rail meat, That argument has no legs either. Any boat will do better with rail meat.
but if you give a downwind boat a rating, you are then stuck with finding rail meat or you might as well stay at the dock. 

You can't get the righting moment to carry sail upwind and sail your rating without rail meat. 

Racing boats are for racing and the term "cruising" does not apply.
If you want to convince the wife you will be swimming upstream
If you are buying the boat for yourself, then go for it. You will be buying a throwaway boat which likely will have no recovery value 30 years later.

My Newport was 38 years old when I sold her and is every bit as solid as the day it was built. In fact aside from regular maintenance, the only thing I had to replace were some chain plates
and standing rigging and it probably didn't even need that.


----------



## kevlarpirate

I suppose what I am trying to say is the evolution of these boats whether it be 
racing or production is downwind. 
Racing boats are designed for downwind speed and strong enough to hold together upwind. Many fail structurally, and so that is the risk taken
Production guys are of the same mindset because speed sells, and since you
have more fun and speed potential downwind, then that is where you target.

Back in the 80's the seed kernel was aft stateroom size, boats were displacement , then designers made butts even wider and crammed double staterooms aft and created the ideal charter boat shared by three couples
splitting the cost. Boats now are really lightweight , low keel weight and all that righting moment from the transom quarters. Win Win , 
But the stability curves look dreadful , skin thicknesses are under one centimeter. One buyers wife stated it's better than our condo , because we can move it to a different marina and have a new view.




BTW paulo, the standard winches are undersized and when you feel under the top piece , you can see it is a stamped piece 1/16 thickness, and has rather sharp edges which will in time chew up lines. They have had damage issues because people don't take enough raps so the load on the self tailer is too high 

When I say they are cheap, I mean they are cheap.


----------



## PCP

kevlarpirate said:


> This discussion has fragmented into pieces defended by advocates from individual camps. *Paulo you use the term enjoyable. Does that include bouncing and slapping at anchor anytime a boat passes. You are consumed by the aspect of sailing on a point of sail which is most enjoyable, which excludes upwind or at anchor which you won't talk about*.
> 
> You guys accuse me and keel of pushing one kind of boat and you are right,
> and keel and me have been there. ...


I don't push any particular type of boat for cruising. If you go to the interesting sailboat thread you will find posts about almost all types of cruising sailboats, including classical boats. That means that I find them all interesting and good cruising boats adapted to different forms of enjoying cruising.

I have already said several times that the kind of boats maximized for downwind sailing that take as reference in the design Open class boats are not even the ones I favor for my sailing cruising program and that I prefer (for me) boats with a maximized upwind performance even if that makes me not blind to the advantages or the ones that are maximized for downwind and that are also good upwind boats, even if less comfortable.

Yes, I use the term enjoyable, *but it is convenient not to take away from its contest* what I have said was:

*What I say is that are cruising sailors that would trade comfort for a more enjoyable fast and fun sailing and I have said this many times. What I have said is that there are not a single perfect cruising boat for all the sailors, but several types of cruising boats for different kinds of cruising sailors.
*

I am not talking about being at the marina or at anchor I am talking about *enjoying sail pleasure and fun*.

There are some that enjoy the motion and the sailing tranquility of an heavy and slower boat, there are others that are just bored with it and prefer a faster boat, a more nervous boat that demands a lot more attention to sail tunning and give a much more thrilling ride.

Some enjoy not only that but also the pleasure of sharing that with their familiar crew, kids included. In my case I know they would hate a boring comfortable boat so much that I would have trouble in convincing them to share their holidays with us, if I choose one of those.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## bb74

At this point the debate has really run it's course. Some like cruising on heavy, stable platforms that can't plane but go well in the chop, some like the thrill of planing at 13+ kts and taking an occassional beating in the chop. I don't really care what K&K have to say as it pertains to their preferences. They have some good points but those don't fit my needs and sailing grounds so enough of the endless haggling.

These guys would have you piss into the wind on the reasoning you can see on the oncoming waves. Good riddance to this empty debate of the deaf.


----------



## jorgenl

OK,

I have read the entire thread and am convinced;

I am selling my boat and buying a Newport 41!

At the same time I am going to sell my car, buy a 1975 Chevy, get rid of my LED Flat screen TV and buy an old black and white, toss my laptop in the bin and get a typewriter. The Iphone is going and will be replaced by:










Much sturdier!


----------



## smackdaddy

jorgenl said:


> OK,
> 
> I have read the entire thread and am convinced;
> 
> I am selling my boat and buying a Newport 41!
> 
> At the same time I am going to sell my car, buy a 1975 Chevy, get rid of my LED Flat screen TV and buy an old black and white, toss my laptop in the bin and get a typewriter. The Iphone is going and will be replaced by:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Much sturdier!


Finally! Someone sees the light!

Sweet phone dude. But it's a pig downwind.


----------



## blt2ski

Sorry, 

I had one of them phones, while reasonably non destructible, there are some current phones that are more so, waterproof etc. Verizons Rock for one! Son's have the upgrade with a full keypad......

As far as boats go........If'n I could afford something more recent than my 85 rig, I would! in a CHEBBY heartbeat!

Marty


----------



## tomperanteau

jorgenl said:


> OK,
> 
> I have read the entire thread and am convinced;


If you want to buy American, that is what you have to do these days.


----------



## KeelHaulin

jorgenl said:


> OK,
> 
> I have read the entire thread and am convinced;
> 
> I am selling my boat and buying a Newport 41!


Maybe you should, you could recoup 100k of whatever you paid for your Cat 400 (oh sorry, your mortgage is underwater on it; forget that statement).

Is this a careened Catalina 400 or a bottle of bleach (you be the judge):


----------



## smackdaddy

Ouch Keel! Wasn't your mate Kev crying foul thinking PCP had harshed his ride?

And now you're slamming jorg's boat? Poor form, old chap, poor form.


----------



## jorgenl

Dude,

No mortgage.

No teak.

No cry. 

Sails circles around old shoes


----------



## blt2ski

smackdaddy said:


> Ouch Keel! Wasn't your mate Kev crying foul thinking PCP had harshed his ride?
> 
> And now you're slamming jorg's boat? Poor form, old chap, poor form.


With a pic WAY too wide for my LT screen to boot! Can a mod reduce it? or can keel reduce it. Not sure what it is showing frankly.............


----------



## smackdaddy

jorgenl said:


> No mortgage.
> 
> No teak.


Isn't that a Bob Marley tune?


----------



## jorgenl

KeelHaulin said:


> Maybe you should, you could recoup 100k of whatever you paid for your Cat 400 (oh sorry, your mortgage is underwater on it; forget that statement).
> 
> Is this a careened Catalina 400 or a bottle of bleach (you be the judge):


Actually, that's not a bad looking bottle. Looks quite fast as a matter of fact but probably won't go to windwards as well as a Newport 41... All other points of sail on the other hand....;-)


----------



## KeelHaulin

jorgenl said:


> Dude,
> 
> No mortgage.
> 
> No teak.
> 
> Sails circles around old shoes


OK, so you could save 100k; have a boat with a floor to cieling teak interior, and OH BTW, the N-41 PHRF rates nearly the same (102 vs.108) as your Chlorox 400!!


----------



## KeelHaulin

jorgenl said:


> Actually, that's not a bad looking bottle. Looks quite fast as a matter of fact but probably won't go to windwards as well as a Newport 41... All other points of sail on the other hand....;-)


So you DO like the BLEACH BOTTLE!!! I thought I had picked one that was a close match for you!!

Don't forget.... Your boat is only rates better by 6s/mi; but I doubt that it's any faster.


----------



## KeelHaulin

smackdaddy said:


> Ouch Keel! Wasn't your mate Kev crying foul thinking PCP had harshed his ride?
> 
> And now you're slamming jorg's boat? Poor form, old chap, poor form.


YOU of all people are calling foul?? If you'll recall jorgenl was the one who started it by dissing the Newport 41. Unfortunately it does not work so well when your boat looks worse; and does not rate as a much faster boat...


----------



## Faster

OK boys and boys..... let's get this back to a modicum of civility.


----------



## jorgenl

KeelHaulin said:


> OK, so you could save 100k; have a boat with a floor to cieling teak interior, and OH BTW, the N-41 PHRF rates nearly the same (102 vs.108) as your Chlorox 400!!


Keel, you are way to sensitive about your ship, dude.

The chlorox 400 actually has plenty of teak on the inside, where it belongs.

It does also have a chartplotter and other modern stuff, fridge, tv and bad ass lewmar 58 primary thingos.


----------



## KeelHaulin

You put a post up like that and you don't expect a double-barrel shotgun response??



jorgenl said:


> Lewmar 58 primary thingos


Spoken like a true slip sailor   Are they big enough on top for your drink glass to balance well when you set it on there? The modern conveniences were simple updates on my boat, they certainly did not cost 100k more.


----------



## jorgenl

Keel,

Relax, it's only money.

And yes, the chlorox 400, with it's fat ass has lot of initial form stability ( refer previous 100 posts on subject) hence no worries about drinks spilling while sailing down wind in slip.

Now, going up hill is when one needs the 58's to properly balance the tumbler.


----------



## KeelHaulin

Actually, I think the 55ST's on my boat are bigger than the newer, less heavily built, 58's. Sorry Jorgen but they just don't make 'em like they used to.


----------



## blt2ski

Faster said:


> CHILDREN!..... let's get this back to a modicum of civility.


Fixed it for ya!:laugher:laugher:laugher


----------



## blt2ski

Keel,

Ya needs to do something about them pic links you use.....or I needs a new Laptop! can only see part of the pic......

I would also agree, that older winches for the rating were larger in the past. Be that good or bad......I' sure that could be debated to both sides of the coin too! To me, lighter in wt is better, as long as the overall strength is still there, along with overall ability to pull to the ratings.

marty


----------



## KeelHaulin

I made the Chlorox 400 pic smaller (its 640x480 now); the picture of my boat fits onto my laptop screen; but it's probably slightly higher resolution than yours at 1280x800. I'll edit the link...

Fixed the photos on pg 20 also; look better without the watermark to boot!


----------



## PCP

KeelHaulin said:


> So you DO like the BLEACH BOTTLE!!! I thought I had picked one that was a close match for you!!
> 
> Don't forget.... Your boat is only rates better by 6s/mi; but I doubt that it's any faster.


Came on Keel, the choosing of a boat for cruising is a personal choice depending on what is each one cruising program, his idea of cruising (what gives him pleasure will cruising) and each one financial condition.

Saying that a boat is better than another one because it is less expensive makes no sense unless you don't have the money to buy the better boat. It even makes less sense to compare a 40 year's old boat with a new boat in terms of money.

Regarding speed you have this idea that all is relative. 6s in a 60s means the Catalina is 10% faster and that is a substantial difference in what regards sailboats. It means that if the Catalina cross the Atlantic in 16 days, you will be one day and 6 hours behind.

It is alright to say that you don't care about that, but you should not keep saying that the Newport 41 is a fast boat compared with modern boats. After all the Catalina 40 is just a good modern cruiser not really a performance cruiser.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## kevlarpirate

Paulo , you give your self away again

"have the money to buy the better boat. "

you say better boat ,,,, get it ? .... "better" BULL SH>>>T

This is where you fall down. You don't have the experience to differentiate
why? because you haven't been there , All you are is a mouthpiece for the marketing crew. You need to read more and listen to technical sailors


----------



## JomsViking

Stupid me - I read (or tried to) most of this thread ;(
It's funny how some people try to convince other by using bold letters, conjecture, and praising themselves as extremely knowledgeable - especially when they consider 20 knots “heavy weather” and belittles other sailors, which MUST have a lot of competence due to the laws in their countries (you have to pass pretty rigorous real-life tests to be allowed to sail in Portugal). I know the Portuguese coast from years ago, and even as a really gung-ho young sailor (then) I understood how dangerous it can be. Also referring to other peoples boats as Clorox bottles is rather rude, when the same people cannot state their honest impression of the Ericsson 35/Newport 41 or whatever others are sailing.
Currently I own and sail an older type of vessel, but skipper or crew modern types, and I have to agree with Paulo – there’s been a LOT of development so newer boats are often way better boats in terms of both performance and comfort in heavy going, and I’d be happy to own one if I could afford it.
I’d say that most proponents of under rigged heavy long-keelers have never had the benefit of trying a longer passage in something more modern – most of the time you need MORE sail area than less when cruising, simply because most of us choose to go in the right seasons and the right places – so we need easily driven hulls and plenty of sail area (that should be easy to make smaller quickly and securely). E.g. I’d hate to be in an IP or Westsail in heavy going compared to a more modern hull.
Just my 2 € cents, no offence meant!

Respectfully,
JomsViking


----------



## PCP

kevlarpirate said:


> Paulo , you give your self away again
> 
> *"have the money to buy the better boat. "*
> 
> you say better boat ,,,, get it ? .... "better" BULL SH>>>T
> 
> This is where you fall down. You don't have the experience to differentiate
> why? because you haven't been there , All you are is a mouthpiece for the marketing crew. *You need to read more and listen to technical sailors*


 I was not talking specifically regarding the Newport 41, nor comparing it with any other used or new boat, but generically, for example in my case:

If I had the money I would not be choosing between an Elan and a Salona, I would buy a Luffe or a Xp because they are better boats. If someone is choosing between a Bavaria and a Oceanis, probably if money was not a problem, would be choosing between a Malo or an Halberg-Rassy, because they are better boats. That was what I was meaning.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## kevlarpirate

Paulo Why is it you have trouble getting the point. My statements have nothing to do with my boats, ex boats. It has everything to do with YOU sitting reading sales brochures, and hearing only what you want to hear. 

The term "better" is in your own mind. You actually don't know what better is, because you haven't done it. If you don't want to listen to me , I don't really care, but at least talk to someone who has sailed a lot of differently designed boats in offshore conditions. I have sailed maybe 50 differently designed big boats. I will be sailing Titan soon, as I have a friend onboard, I don't even know what it is , I think Reichel/Pugh 78? the red one. anyway , even with my 
technical background, I can't have an opinion until I have been out there


----------



## smackdaddy

KeelHaulin said:


> You put a post up like that and you don't expect a double-barrel shotgun response??
> 
> Spoken like a true slip sailor   Are they big enough on top for your drink glass to balance well when you set it on there? The modern conveniences were simple updates on my boat, they certainly did not cost 100k more.


Are you sure your username didn't used to be Surfesq? You've definitely got some FightClub in you dude. Not as good as me, of course, but you do show promise.



kevlarpirate said:


> You need to read more and listen to technical sailors


Where can I find these?


----------



## smackdaddy

JomsViking said:


> Stupid me - I read (or tried to) most of this thread ;(
> It's funny how some people try to convince other by using bold letters, conjecture, and praising themselves as extremely knowledgeable - especially when they consider 20 knots "heavy weather" and belittles other sailors, which MUST have a lot of competence due to the laws in their countries (you have to pass pretty rigorous real-life tests to be allowed to sail in Portugal). I know the Portuguese coast from years ago, and even as a really gung-ho young sailor (then) I understood how dangerous it can be. Also referring to other peoples boats as Clorox bottles is rather rude, when the same people cannot state their honest impression of the Ericsson 35/Newport 41 or whatever others are sailing.
> Currently I own and sail an older type of vessel, but skipper or crew modern types, and I have to agree with Paulo - there's been a LOT of development so newer boats are often way better boats in terms of both performance and comfort in heavy going, and I'd be happy to own one if I could afford it.
> I'd say that most proponents of under rigged heavy long-keelers have never had the benefit of trying a longer passage in something more modern - most of the time you need MORE sail area than less when cruising, simply because most of us choose to go in the right seasons and the right places - so we need easily driven hulls and plenty of sail area (that should be easy to make smaller quickly and securely). E.g. I'd hate to be in an IP or Westsail in heavy going compared to a more modern hull.
> Just my 2 € cents, no offence meant!
> 
> Respectfully,
> JomsViking


+100000000 €.

Very nice post Joms.

PS - Kev, never mind, I found one!


----------



## jorgenl

KeelHaulin said:


> Actually, I think the 55ST's on my boat are bigger than the newer, less heavily built, 58's. Sorry Jorgen but they just don't make 'em like they used to.


Not a bad looking Old Shoe 

Now, Keel, what kind of anchor do you have on that tub? do I spy with my little eye an *old **generation*, small and inadequate anchor on the bow? 

Get a Rocna, Dude


----------



## PCP

JomsViking said:


> ... MUST have a lot of competence due to the laws in their countries (you have to pass pretty rigorous real-life tests to be allowed to sail in Portugal). I know the Portuguese coast from years ago, and even as a really gung-ho young sailor (then) I understood how dangerous it can be. ..
> Respectfully,
> JomsViking


Nah, you are wrong about someone learning much in Portugal with the licences you need to sail at different land to sea distances. Yes there are some real-life tests but mostly is theory. However I have some experience: about some thousand miles in my old heavy displacement wooden boat and more than 5000 miles on a modern light weight boat, not counting the miles in friends boats, light and heavy. Many of those hours were made offshore and almost all on non protected waters. I also had my share of gales, not very strong I admit, but at least some with force 8/9.

But you are right about our coast. It is an open coast, has few shelters and it can be dangerous. Only this winter more than a dozen fisherman and a couple of good British sailors lost here their live.

I have a friend that crossed the Atlantic from Canada to Portugal and the worse part of the voyage has just when he was along the Portuguese coast and in XVI and XVII centuries there were a number of sailboats that made it safely till here from India and America only to be shipwrecked against the coast. Names like Cabo Carvoeiro (devil's cape) and Costa da Morte (Death coast) mean something

Regards

Paulo


----------



## KeelHaulin

JomsViking said:


> Stupid me - I read (or tried to) most of this thread ;(
> It's funny how some people try to convince other by using bold letters, conjecture, and praising themselves as extremely knowledgeable - especially when they consider 20 knots "heavy weather" and belittles other sailors, which MUST have a lot of competence due to the laws in their countries (you have to pass pretty rigorous real-life tests to be allowed to sail in Portugal). I know the Portuguese coast from years ago, and even as a really gung-ho young sailor (then) I understood how dangerous it can be. Also referring to other peoples boats as Clorox bottles is rather rude, when the same people cannot state their honest impression of the Ericsson 35/Newport 41 or whatever others are sailing.


You know; it's kinda rediculous to enter an argument and try and give a re-cap when you could not read the thread well enough to know who is talking about what. I never referred to 20kts as "heavy weather". I said that winds up above 20-25 are getting to the point where you will want to prepare for HEAVIER wind and waves. Don't believe me? Do some searching for last weekend's Farallones Race here out of SF. A J-105 snapped it's rudder tube in the heavy swell (and in winds that were only APPROACHING 30 kts). That was a COASTAL event here. Wanna talk about offshore conditions here to someone who went out in 30-40kt winds? Go ask SimonV on this forum. The guy was taking green showers for 3 days in an offshore gale. I don't know if the J-105 would have survived it (considering the rudder tube failure); but his Ericson 39 exited unscathed (nice choice of cruising boat BTW).

I put up that Chlorox bottle post as a retort to a post that WAS ALREADY MADE disrespecting my Newport 41 and older boats in general. IF YOU CANT TAKE THE HEAT THEN DONT PUT UP DISRESPECTFUL POSTS THAT WILL GET THE SAME IN RETURN. What's my HONEST impression of the Newport 41? Go back, re-read what I have written. It's not gonna win races in light air and it's definitely not a sport boat by todays standards. BUT; it is a GREAT racer/cruiser that can still win races in the right conditions and has EXCELLENT OFFSHORE PROPERTIES BOTH UPWIND AND DOWNWIND.



PCP said:


> Came on Keel, the choosing of a boat for cruising is a personal choice depending on what is each one cruising program, his idea of cruising (what gives him pleasure will cruising) and each one financial condition.
> 
> Saying that a boat is better than another one because it is less expensive makes no sense unless you don't have the money to buy the better boat. It even makes less sense to compare a 40 year's old boat with a new boat in terms of money.
> 
> Regarding speed you have this idea that all is relative. 6s in a 60s means the Catalina is 10% faster and that is a substantial difference in what regards sailboats. It means that if the Catalina cross the Atlantic in 16 days, you will be one day and 6 hours behind.
> 
> It is alright to say that you don't care about that, but you should not keep saying that the Newport 41 is a fast boat compared with modern boats. After all the Catalina 40 is just a good modern cruiser not really a performance cruiser.


OR; remember the saying "a fool and his money are easily separated"? Why pay more when you don't NEED to? My basis for the comparisons was the FACT that he called my boat obsolete; when he himself is sailing something that only "rates" slightly higher in terns of raw performance; and arguably is not as good looking!

Let's talk numbers Paulo. Recall that I said earlier that the Newport 41 won it's division on elapsed time in the '98 Vic-Maui. IT ALSO DID WAY MORE THAN THAT. It came in 5'TH OVERALL ON ELAPSED TIME (4'th overall on corrected time). It was only beaten by a SC-50, Andrews-70, S&S-57, and an IMX-38. It 'passed' all of the Class C fleet, and 3 boats in the Class B fleet in elapsed time, not corrected. The lowest rated boat it beat was a boat that had a base rating of 38. If that rating was bogus; it also stayed ahead of boats that had ratings of 76, 83, and 5 boats with ratings in the mid to high 90's. BOATS THAT HAVE RATINGS OF ONLY 6s/mi DIFFERENT ARE NOT SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT IN THEIR SPEEDS.

Go back, and re-read what I said about how my boat compares to the most modern go-fast racer/cruiser boats. I did not say it was as fast. I said that it is not much slower in downwind or upwind VMG in conditions below 20kts. 20kts and below BTW, are windspeeds that most sailors 'cruise' in.


----------



## KeelHaulin

jorgenl said:


> do I spy with my little eye an *old **generation*, small and inadequate anchor on the bow?


It's a 45 lb CQR. You know; the anchor that was designed and tested by the British Navy. I'll trust a Navy Spec any day over a marketing sheet.


----------



## jorgenl

KeelHaulin said:


> I put up that Chlorox bottle post as a retort to a post that WAS ALREADY MADE disrespecting my Newport 41 and older boats in general. IF YOU CANT TAKE THE HEAT THEN DONT PUT UP DISRESPECTFUL POSTS THAT WILL GET THE SAME IN RETURN.
> 
> OR; remember the saying "a fool and his money are easily separated"? Why pay more when you don't NEED to? My basis for the comparisons was the FACT that he called my boat obsolete; when he himself is sailing something that only "rates" slightly higher in terns of raw performance; and arguably is not as good looking!
> 
> .


Keel,

My post was not meant to be disrespectful to your particular vessel, it is your way of relentless arguing that I was trying to make a bit of fun of. Like all old stuff is automatically better and more stout. Dude, technology has come along way in most areas of life, including boats.

As far as taking the heat, I have no problem with that what so ever. I am comfortable with my choice of boat and do not mind jokes about it's lack of external wood carvings etc.

You and the other hand seem to be damn uptight about your tub. Time to pull the cork out.

"arguably is not as good looking" - well if you sailed a Passport, Hinckley, Swan, Mason or whatever, I would concede the point but..... you are not, far from.


----------



## JAndersB

I am spending appr. 50-70 nights every year at anchor in Sweden and Denmark (clay and sand bottoms). I have gone through some different types of anchors due to them coming with boats I have bought. CQR and Delta by far the worst, never setting and instead acting as their equivalent on the fiields of the farmers, turning up the soil, not staying in it.

Regards,
Anders


----------



## KeelHaulin

jorgenl said:


> Keel,
> 
> My post was not meant to be disrespectful to your particular vessel, it is your way of relentless arguing that I was trying to make a bit of fun of. Like all old stuff is automatically better and more stout. Dude, technology has come along way in most areas of life, including boats.


Relentless arguing? How about the other side? It takes TWO (or more) to argue. While I'm getting direct attacks by 3 or more here; and shots from the peanut gallery, you don't think I'm gonna be a bit defensive?



> As far as taking the heat, I have no problem with that what so ever. I am comfortable with my choice of boat and do not mind jokes about it's lack of external wood carvings etc.


Never said you did. I'm pointing to those who can't stand my retort; and don't understand why I posted it. Whether it's disrespectful to me or my boat does not matter. I did not want to post a response to it. I asked the Mods to pull your post down 9 hours earlier. That did not happen; so...



> You and the other hand seem to be damn uptight about your tub. Time to pull the cork out.


It's because I am completely sick of hearing about my boat being called everything from a broach coach to a boat that is slow, etc on these forums by people who know little to nothing about THIS PARTICULAR BOAT or boats that are very similar (CCA era boats with IOR rigs). The broach-coach hulls were late IOR era boats. Do I know which ones? No. Am I going to call your boat a broach coach? Not unless I KNOW it is. I've sailed Benetau 32's and Catalna 320's and believe me, if you don't reef it early they will want to round to windward. These boats were developed AFTER the IOR broach-coach era. So what do you -want- to believe about how a boat sails??



> "arguably is not as good looking" - well if you sailed a Passport, Hinckley, Swan, Mason or whatever, I would concede the point but..... you are not, far from.


Well; to that I'll just say this. Last year Cruising World Magazine thought it was as-good-looking as the boats you refer to here. How do I know this? Because MY BOAT was selected for a calendar photo. It's this one:


----------



## jorgenl

Keel,

I actually think your boat is quite good looking. Not sure about the yellow but sweet lines. Not bad for an Old Shoe 

Can't speak for the C320 but the Chlorox 400 stand up to 18-20 with no need to reef. Above 20 it is time to roll up the jib a couple of turns. Never sailed it above 35 so do not know how she handles in real heavy weather.

For the record, I would not prefer any of the modern designs for real long term cruising, not so much for their performance or seaworthiness but more so for general lack of tankage, storage and space to install systems (watermakers, battery banks etc).

I cruised the C400 for a year i D Islands and for that purpose and duration she did just fine.

Anyway, next boat will likely be a performance Catamaran, no teak but plenty of downwind speed.


----------



## puddinlegs

KeelHaulin said:


> :hothead
> 
> Well; to that I'll just say this. Last year Cruising World Magazine thought it was as-good-looking as the boats you refer to here. How do I know this? Because MY BOAT was selected for a calendar photo. It's this one:


I mean congratulations and all about Vic-Maui etc..., I even like boats like yours, but you're way too defensive, and more importantly, proud. I'm sure last year's results must have bothered you given that first to finish was a 35' boat was first to finish in only 11 days and that overall corrected was won by a, lord forbid, Beneteau.

Vic-Maui Yacht Race - Vic-Maui 2010 Wrap-Up Report

Vic-Maui Yacht Race - Line Honors To Terremoto!

_"Amazing performance, Scott, Susan, Alex and Skyler. ALL of the boas who have won line honors in the past with better times than Terremoto have been at least 65 feet long, compared to 35 feet for T-moto. Quite an accomplishment."_

More about the 35' er: Riptide 35

_" His design brief was for a high performance racer/cruiser capable of blistering speed on the race course (Jonathan is an Olympic gold medalist in the FD class and a silver medalist in the 49er class)."_

The Beneteau, bulb keel and all:

_"... KINETIC, has sailed in a number of long distance and ocean races including two Vic-Maui's, three Van Isle 360's and two Sydney Hobart's." _

The Bene was cruised to Aus by the family for their first Syd-Hbt. The Bieker 35? They're cruising Alaska this summer. And yes, the boat was sailed back to Seattle after the race last year. I don't think they've made a calendar, but it really is an amazing piece of modern design.


----------



## tdw

Now look good people ... really is there any need for all this shouting ?

I'm in a nice mellow mood this glorious autumn morn in Sydney Town. Sun's shining, bird's singing, shapely thighed lovelies jogging in the streets. A few hours of this and I'm off to the boat, won't be back except for a few hours here and there till Tuesday, then with a bit of luck I'm off again till JC has symbolically done his thing and likewise the Anzacs.

So please, be nice or I'll set Pollard onto you and you don't want that now do you ?

For the record the Womboat is a 20 year old steel multi chine. We out ugly the lot of you and what's more we are probably slower. Nyah nyah nyah.

Seriously peoples .. this is verging on the unacceptable so please please please. You have been warned.






ps - I was actually looking for Jack Nicholson's "Why Can't We All Just Get Along" speech but found this instead.


----------



## puddinlegs

Agreed tdw. I'm surprised it' been allowed to go this far. Cruising Anarchy is much more civil.


----------



## tdw

A bit of a PS to my last post .. quite frankly (and I don't care who says it or on what forum) I find the term 'old shoe' offensive. Please remember however that when a certain Portaloo once of this borough first used the remark it most certainly did not include designs like KeelHaulin's simply because they were a few years old and less than cutting edge under water. 

Personal abuse comes in many forms but there is little that is worse than insulting someone else's boat. Criticising or debating the pros and cons is one thing, outright abuse is another. Even when said in a jocular fashion there comes a point where the joke wears thin.


----------



## smackdaddy

Take it to FightClub you wankers.


----------



## tdw

puddinlegs said:


> Agreed tdw. I'm surprised it' been allowed to go this far. Cruising Anarchy is much more civil.


 

Puddin,
Surprisingly enough it is, really. I wouldn't say the same about Sailing or General A  but Cruising A is top class, a fine bunch of people and I'd gladly call any of them friends. Swearin' n cussin' n drinkin' n fornication ... but in the nicest possible way.


----------



## smackdaddy

KeelHaulin said:


> Relentless arguing? How about the other side? It takes TWO (or more) to argue. While I'm getting direct attacks by 3 or more here; and shots from the peanut gallery, you don't think I'm gonna be a bit defensive?
> 
> Never said you did. I'm pointing to those who can't stand my retort; and don't understand why I posted it. Whether it's disrespectful to me or my boat does not matter. I did not want to post a response to it. I asked the Mods to pull your post down 9 hours earlier. That did not happen; so...
> 
> It's because I am completely sick of hearing about my boat being called everything from a broach coach to a boat that is slow, etc on these forums by people who know little to nothing about THIS PARTICULAR BOAT or boats that are very similar (CCA era boats with IOR rigs). The broach-coach hulls were late IOR era boats. Do I know which ones? No. Am I going to call your boat a broach coach? Not unless I KNOW it is. I've sailed Benetau 32's and Catalna 320's and believe me, if you don't reef it early they will want to round to windward. These boats were developed AFTER the IOR broach-coach era. So what do you -want- to believe about how a boat sails??
> 
> Well; to that I'll just say this. Last year Cruising World Magazine thought it was as-good-looking as the boats you refer to here. How do I know this? Because MY BOAT was selected for a calendar photo. It's this one:


Nice bridge. What's it rate?


----------



## PCP

tdw said:


> ....
> For the record the Womboat is a 20 year old steel multi chine. We out ugly the lot of you and what's more we are probably slower. Nyah nyah nyah.
> .....


     
Now, came on Andrews I am sure your boat won a race somewhere and if you think its ugly, than you don't deserve it.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## puddinlegs

I mean, haven't we all had a mad crush on a lass that wasn't a 'standard beauty' ? I know I certainly have!


----------



## smackdaddy

puddinlegs said:


> I mean, haven't we all had a mad crush on a lass that wasn't a 'standard beauty' ? I know I certainly have!


Give it up for Betty White! Meow!






You gonna call her an old shoe? Hell no!


----------



## jorgenl

tdw said:


> A bit of a PS to my last post .. quite frankly (and I don't care who says it or on what forum) I find the term 'old shoe' offensive.n.


I guess I could find the term 'clorox bottle' offensive.... But I am not that sensitive and could care less.

As uncle chop chop said.... Grow a moustache...


----------



## GeorgeB

Last weekend was J-Fest and the 105’s were racing off StFYC and were not participating in DHF. The J that had the rudder issues was Double Trouble, a J125. Their problem was “losing” an upper rudder bearing. We had the exact same problem on the Nordic 44 during PacCup 08 and that boat’s rudder was skeg hung to boot! The only difference was we were a few hundred miles offshore so we had make a field repair to get us to Hawaii. If this happened to us, on DHF, we would have certainly pulled out and DNF’d ourselves.


----------



## chall03

tdw said:


> Now look good people ... really is there any need for all this shouting ?
> 
> I'm in a nice mellow mood this glorious autumn morn in Sydney Town. Sun's shining, bird's singing, shapely thighed lovelies jogging in the streets. A few hours of this and I'm off to the boat, won't be back except for a few hours here and there till Tuesday, then with a bit of luck I'm off again till JC has symbolically done his thing and likewise the Anzacs.


Which way you guys heading North/south??? or just pottering around the harbour?

Personally I find this discussion quite educational and a at least one giant step more interesting than 100 pages of folk debating anchor manufacturing.

Like most hotly debated topics, I reckon there be the two extremes here, with the truth probably lying somewhere in the middle


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> Personally I find this discussion quite educational and a at least one giant step more interesting than 100 pages of folk debating anchor manufacturing.
> 
> Like most hotly debated topics, I reckon there be the two extremes here, with the truth probably lying somewhere in the middle


+ freakin' 2!


----------



## blt2ski

I can agree with Chall and smacky on this one, somewhere in the middle of the extremes, the answer lies. That still does not keep me from wanting a fat assed boat like my fat assed dually pickumup! Oh yeah, said pickumup likes to chase rodents too, has not done that in awhile. it might need some practice catching them:laugher:laugher:laugher:laugher:laugher

marty


----------



## KeelHaulin

The last guy to post inflammatory comments is the first to "agree" to TDW's call for closure?? Good form there puddin....

Don't really care who the recent winners were; they earned it. Remember, it's a downwind race; favoring boats that do well off the wind. Never said that the designs such as open class boats were not well suited for downwind racing; that's what they were developed to do.

Yes, I'm proud of my boat and happy with it. I -thought- that's what this forum was about, to celebrate our boats and boating. Why should that torque you off? You have nothing to do with the back-forth that was going on between me and others; yet you had to put up that post calling foul at my -polite- response to another put-down. Thanks. Now back to the Giants game... :batter:


----------



## smackdaddy

KeelHaulin said:


> \Yes, I'm proud of my boat and happy with it. I -thought- that's what this forum was about...


Hell yeah it is! And it's also to joke with each other a bit. Why, haven't you picked on various issues illustrated within the various photographs of the world renown _S/V Smacktanic_?

You have to reflect on why the N41 became the representative boat for "blue water sailers" in the first place...just like a VO70 suddenly became to representative cruising choice of the blinded-hype-suckers.

So, I say we all agree that the new Bene First 50 is THE boat for seriously fun cruising in style - and lock the thread. Heh-heh.


----------



## blt2ski

Now smacky, we all know the BEST boat is this one HERE!

LOLOL


----------



## puddinlegs

KeelHaulin said:


> The last guy to post inflammatory comments is the first to "agree" to TDW's call for closure?? Good form there puddin....


Well there's your problem. You're not watching hockey! 

Just curious, but what was it about the _"... I even like boats like yours."_ that you found so offensive? Seriously, you had/have a nice boat, and not a damn thing wrong with it. I wasn't in the "it's a crappy broach coach" crowd, nor do I think it's any more of a clorox bottle than a Cal 40 (or my own boat for that matter), a classic boat that I love. Your boat's fine, it's your defensiveness about it that seems odd. Our boats don't need any defending. If someone doesn't dig our boats, it's their problem. I could care less. Inflammatory... inflammatory... hmmmm. Ok. Here you go:

Harden up, turn on some hockey, and chill!


----------



## puddinlegs

blt2ski said:


> Now smacky, we all know the BEST boat is this one HERE!
> 
> LOLOL


Hey, there's some guy out this way who has one of those things...


----------



## blt2ski

puddinlegs said:


> Hey, there's some guy out this way who has one of those things...


You think?!?!?!?! OUCH......dang nabbit, need to quit thinking again.....

You doing the SYC islands race series? I would assume on VC? if not, I can get you a ride on a boat like that one I linked!


----------



## tdw

chall03 said:


> Which way you guys heading North/south??? or just pottering around the harbour?
> 
> Personally I find this discussion quite educational and a at least one giant step more interesting than 100 pages of folk debating anchor manufacturing.
> 
> Like most hotly debated topics, I reckon there be the two extremes here, with the truth probably lying somewhere in the middle


Got stuck in the office didn't I ? Shoot !!

Today new dodger and bimini are going on. Won't get to see them now until tomorrow

when we

instal new water trap

then out of the water on Sunday for tub, bottom paint, new anodes and a bloody survey cos she is twenty years old and its five years now since the last one. (Insurer demands it)

splash Monday some time.

All going well, Wednesday shopping, Thursday out the heads turn left when we get to Port Stephens. Depending on weather we may or may not do it in hops and so stop off in Broken Bay and I guess Newcastle.

What are you guys up to over Easter ?


----------



## tdw

PCP said:


> Now, came on Andrews I am sure your boat won a race somewhere and if you think its ugly, than you don't deserve it.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


nah, I don't really think she's ugly, just kidding, but I doubt very much she has ever won a race.


----------



## PCP

smackdaddy said:


> Hell yeah it is! And it's also to joke with each other a bit. Why, haven't you picked on various issues illustrated within the various photographs of the world renown _S/V Smacktanic_?
> 
> You have to reflect on why the N41 became the representative boat for "blue water sailers" in the first place...just like a VO70 suddenly became to representative cruising choice of the blinded-hype-suckers.
> 
> So, I say we all agree that the new Bene First 50 is THE boat for seriously fun cruising in style - and lock the thread. Heh-heh.


Nah! the 50 is just an overkill. The First 45 has almost the same interior is not much slower and costs a lot less. Tell you what, you keep the 50 and I will keep the 45...if I can find someone that sells it to me for less 80 000€ than what they ask for it It is a lot of boat for the money, but even so, above my budget

First 45 / First / Sailing Yachts / Accueil - BENETEAU - Sailboats and motorboats - Official Website

First 45 / First / Sailing Yachts / Accueil - BENETEAU - Sailboats and motorboats - Official Website

First 45 / First / Sailing Yachts / Accueil - BENETEAU - Sailboats and motorboats - Official Website

But there are some other similar boats just a bit more expensive that are as beautiful and good and I would say that I would even prefer this one over the First 45, even considering price:

Video - Salona Yachts

http://www.salonayachts.com/documents/Yachting%20world-06-2010.pdf

Gallery - Salona Yachts

Well, if you have more money you could just try this one. It is not worse :

Dehler Yachts

also this one:

http://www.arconayachts.com/tests/430/Arcona_430_Test_YM.pdf

Arcona Yachts UK

this one:

Grand Soleil - Cantiere del Pardo

And my absolute favorite, the one I would own if I had no budget limitations:

- LUFFE YACHTS -

All these boats are fast blue water boats with excellent light wind performance, excellent upwind and very good downwind and mix style comfort and speed. Kind of perfect cruisers in what regards *my idea* of cruising and the pleasure that is associated.

Tell me which are you going to have and invite me for a test sail

Regards

Paulo

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

tdw said:


> A bit of a PS to my last post .. quite frankly (and I don't care who says it or on what forum) I find the term 'old shoe' offensive. Please remember however that when a certain Portaloo once of this borough first used the remark it most certainly did not include designs like KeelHaulin's simply because they were a few years old and less than cutting edge under water.
> 
> Personal abuse comes in many forms but there is little that is worse than insulting someone else's boat. Criticising or debating the pros and cons is one thing, outright abuse is another. Even when said in a jocular fashion there comes a point where the joke wears thin.


I agree with you about the term "old shoe" being offensive and I never have used it referring to old designs or boats. Fact is that I really love classical boats and in the "interesting sailing thread" there are some posts about them, meaning I find them interesting even if out of my budget (I mean if they are just new copies of older designs or if they are really classical boats with a total refit to bring them to the new condition again).

If price was not a factor I would seriously consider having one of those beauties, specially the ones with modern hull and overall classical design.

But I found another form of offense as annoying as the one you refer that is insulting someone implying that he don't know what is saying because he has no experience, without having the slightest idea if that person has experience or not.

I have being called many times in this thread "an armchair sailor" and someone has implied that what I know about sailing was what I have learned in the lessons needed to have licences for sailing in my country (and that is obviously in what concerns real experience next to nothing). This is not nice, and it is in my opinion even worse than to voice a negative opinion about someone's boat (that can even be true to that person and to the vast majority) because this is a lot more objective.

I have certainly not as much experience as some in this forum and I don't consider myself very experienced but I would say that I am certainly not an armchair sailor and my experience in heavy and light boats and technical knowledge is certainly enough to have an informed opinion about sailboats.

Regarding my experience I never counted nautical miles and most of the time I have sailed with the log off (out of service) going by the GPS and many times without log or GPS. I have said that I had made more than 5000 nm on the last 10 years and that's true but quite an understatement. That's because I really never thought about it (and I don't care) but now that some have questioned my experience I had a look at it:

My last boat had on its engine when I sold it 2400 hours. If 200 hours where for charging batteries or going slowly, about 2200 hours where used for cruising, sailing and motor-sailing. I never cruise or motor-sail under 6K and that means 13 200nm. If I consider (very conservatively) that I have sailed (without engine) 1/3 of those hours at 6K (when cruising to far away places, that is most of the time I motor sail if I am doing less than 5/5.5K) I will had more 4 400 nm. This is only what I have sailed in 9 years. I had own another boat for almost 10 years and I have no idea of the miles done, but certainly several thousands and I am not counting the miles done in charted boats and fried's boats. I am quite sure that I would have to add more some thousands (many of them made in an heavy two mast 18m steel sailboat).

All in all, now that I have looked at it, it should be well over 20 000nm, many of them solo sailing. Funny that I had no idea

I still don't consider myself a very experienced sailor but I know that I am many times the only sail in the horizon in places that have the biggest concentration of sailboats on the planet and that means that I have some experience

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JomsViking

Obviously an armchair sailor :laugher

I felt You were being too modest previously, and found it offensive too (not you being modest but the term armchair sailor - not least when it was obvious to me that you had to have at least some experience).



PCP said:


> I agree with you about the term "old shoe" being offensive and I never have used it referring to old designs or boats. Fact is that I really love classical boats and in the "interesting sailing thread" there are some posts about them, meaning I find them interesting even if out of my budget (I mean if they are just new copies of older designs or if they are really classical boats with a total refit to bring them to the new condition again).
> 
> If price was not a factor I would seriously consider having one of those beauties, specially the ones with modern hull and overall classical design.
> 
> But I found another form of offense as annoying as the one you refer that is insulting someone implying that he don't know what is saying because he has no experience, without having the slightest idea if that person has experience or not.
> 
> I have being called many times in this thread "an armchair sailor" and someone has implied that what I know about sailing was what I have learned in the lessons needed to have licences for sailing in my country (and that is obviously in what concerns real experience next to nothing). This is not nice, and it is in my opinion even worse than to voice a negative opinion about someone's boat (that can even be true to that person and to the vast majority) because this is a lot more objective.
> 
> I have certainly not as much experience as some in this forum and I don't consider myself very experienced but I would say that I am certainly not an armchair sailor and my experience in heavy and light boats and technical knowledge is certainly enough to have an informed opinion about sailboats.
> 
> Regarding my experience I never counted nautical miles and most of the time I have sailed with the log off (out of service) going by the GPS and many times without log or GPS. I have said that I had made more than 5000 nm on the last 10 years and that's true but quite an understatement. That's because I really never thought about it (and I don't care) but now that some have questioned my experience I had a look at it:
> 
> My last boat had on its engine when I sold it 2400 hours. If 200 hours where for charging batteries or going slowly, about 2200 hours where used for cruising, sailing and motor-sailing. I never cruise or motor-sail under 6K and that means 13 200nm. If I consider (very conservatively) that I have sailed (without engine) 1/3 of those hours at 6K (when cruising to far away places, that is most of the time I motor sail if I am doing less than 5/5.5K) I will had more 4 400 nm. This is only what I have sailed in 9 years. I had own another boat for almost 10 years and I have no idea of the miles done, but certainly several thousands and I am not counting the miles done in charted boats and fried's boats. I am quite sure that I would have to add more some thousands (many of them made in an heavy two mast 18m steel sailboat).
> 
> All in all, now that I have looked at it, it should be well over 20 000nm, many of them solo sailing. Funny that I had no idea
> 
> I still don't consider myself a very experienced sailor but I know that I am many times the only sail in the horizon in places that have the biggest concentration of sailboats on the planet and that means that I have some experience
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


----------



## JomsViking

Keel,

I specifically did not mention any names, trying NOT to offend anyone, but I guess that the quote "If you throw a stone into a pack of dogs, the one that barks, is the one that got hit!" is true then 
(Sorry I just couldn't help it, being called ridiculous apparently brings out the sarcasm in me - I owe you a beer or two  )

Funny thing is I like the Ericsson, and think that Simon chose a great boat for his intended cruising - I even sail an early IOR boat myself (albeit modified), and have cruised the Atlantic in high(ish) as well as low latitudes in old and new boats so - like Paulo - I have a little experience, not least some heavy weather experience in the North Atlantic.
Using the J-boat example is just not going to help your case - but actually detract from it, as another recent post has shown

*Hey, and I hope we can all still be friends - Peace and Love and all that? * You're always welcome at my home (then we can agree to disagree over a few beers)



KeelHaulin said:


> You know; it's kinda rediculous to enter an argument and try and give a re-cap when you could not read the thread well enough to know who is talking about what. I never referred to 20kts as "heavy weather". I said that winds up above 20-25 are getting to the point where you will want to prepare for HEAVIER wind and waves. Don't believe me? Do some searching for last weekend's Farallones Race here out of SF. A J-105 snapped it's rudder tube in the heavy swell (and in winds that were only APPROACHING 30 kts). That was a COASTAL event here. Wanna talk about offshore conditions here to someone who went out in 30-40kt winds? Go ask SimonV on this forum. The guy was taking green showers for 3 days in an offshore gale. I don't know if the J-105 would have survived it (considering the rudder tube failure); but his Ericson 39 exited unscathed (nice choice of cruising boat BTW).
> 
> I put up that Chlorox bottle post as a retort to a post that WAS ALREADY MADE disrespecting my Newport 41 and older boats in general. IF YOU CANT TAKE THE HEAT THEN DONT PUT UP DISRESPECTFUL POSTS THAT WILL GET THE SAME IN RETURN. What's my HONEST impression of the Newport 41? Go back, re-read what I have written. It's not gonna win races in light air and it's definitely not a sport boat by todays standards. BUT; it is a GREAT racer/cruiser that can still win races in the right conditions and has EXCELLENT OFFSHORE PROPERTIES BOTH UPWIND AND DOWNWIND.
> 
> OR; remember the saying "a fool and his money are easily separated"? Why pay more when you don't NEED to? My basis for the comparisons was the FACT that he called my boat obsolete; when he himself is sailing something that only "rates" slightly higher in terns of raw performance; and arguably is not as good looking!
> 
> Let's talk numbers Paulo. Recall that I said earlier that the Newport 41 won it's division on elapsed time in the '98 Vic-Maui. IT ALSO DID WAY MORE THAN THAT. It came in 5'TH OVERALL ON ELAPSED TIME (4'th overall on corrected time). It was only beaten by a SC-50, Andrews-70, S&S-57, and an IMX-38. It 'passed' all of the Class C fleet, and 3 boats in the Class B fleet in elapsed time, not corrected. The lowest rated boat it beat was a boat that had a base rating of 38. If that rating was bogus; it also stayed ahead of boats that had ratings of 76, 83, and 5 boats with ratings in the mid to high 90's. BOATS THAT HAVE RATINGS OF ONLY 6s/mi DIFFERENT ARE NOT SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT IN THEIR SPEEDS.
> 
> Go back, and re-read what I said about how my boat compares to the most modern go-fast racer/cruiser boats. I did not say it was as fast. I said that it is not much slower in downwind or upwind VMG in conditions below 20kts. 20kts and below BTW, are windspeeds that most sailors 'cruise' in.


----------



## PCP

JomsViking said:


> Obviously an armchair sailor :laugher
> 
> I felt You were being too modest previously, and found it offensive too (not you being modest but the term armchair sailor - not least when it was obvious to me that you had to have at least some experience).


Sorry, obviously I misunderstood your intentions regarding what you have said. I believe you really thought that in Portugal the qualifications and licences implied any appreciable sea experience. I have the highest that permits me to take any non commercial vessel of any size to anywhere but if on the theoretical side (rules, regulations, safety, procedures, navigation, use of radar, Sextant and other instruments) they are quite demanding on the practical side and regarding sailboat sea experience it is near to zero.

To my knowledge only the British take that seriously on the RYA licences even if I heard them complaining that they have become too easy and not really fit for what they pretend to accomplish. And as you know they have these courses but they don't legally need them to sail away with an inapropriate boat and it's soon school Atlas (we have rescued one of those some years back ).

Regards

Paulo


----------



## kevlarpirate

smack

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevlarpirate 
You need to read more and listen to technical sailors

you ask: Where can I find these?

Duh , you must be kidding, but instead of listening and learning 
you prefer to argue from the sidelines... good luck 
___


----------



## Don L

talk about a thread that has drifted way off the title topic that I clicked on to read about!


----------



## tomperanteau

So, how about those blue water boats?


----------



## puddinlegs

Well, I have to say it, I thought this was a more civil and adult place, but the lack of moderation is telling. Sailnet users, see you all later. I check into cruising anarchy from time to time if anyone wants to contact me. Cheers all!


----------



## smackdaddy

Well...I'm glad to see we finally got this all sorted out.

PCP - okay, I'll spot you the 5'. You're right anyway - Fitty's a bit much.

As for most of the other boats you mention - nice, but I'm not into teak decks. And although I really like the Grand Soleil the most of the bunch - I honestly would not know the significant differences between these and a Bene F45 without some significant research. And I'm sure the differences would have to be pretty significant to warrant the price difference in my significant mind.

Puddin - dude, bummer to see you go. You're actually one of those experienced sailors these whinging mooks were yearning for earlier in this thread. I have to disagree with you though on the moderation. The thing I like about SN is that it's allowed to go a bit more toward SA (unlike CF) as long as it doesn't get too nuclear. Gives it a bit of an edge. In that regard, I think the mods do a great job of balancing everything...even giving really irritating people a voice...and enough rope to hang themselves! See you at CA.


----------



## KeelHaulin

smackdaddy said:


> ...even giving really irritating people a voice...and enough rope to hang themselves!


Some are given much more more 'rope' than others... It's unfortunate and sad; because so many people with experience and good knowledge have ditched this forum because they are so sick of arguing with people like you and PCP. To see you use these words here is pretty much the biggest oxyMORON of this entire thread.


----------



## smackdaddy

KeelHaulin said:


> Some are given much more more 'rope' than others... It's unfortunate and sad; because so many people with experience and good knowledge have ditched this forum because they are so sick of arguing with people like you and PCP. To see you use these words here is pretty much the biggest oxyMORON of this entire thread.


Ahhh - so that's what it is. Okay.


----------



## puddinlegs

KeelHaulin said:


> Some are given much more more 'rope' than others... It's unfortunate and sad; because so many people with experience and good knowledge have ditched this forum because they are so sick of arguing with people like you and PCP. To see you use these words here is pretty much the biggest oxyMORON of this entire thread.


Last post... actually Keel, it's you and your name calling (oxy*MORON*? yeah, ok :hammer ). We're out. Marty, see you out there!


----------



## blt2ski

Enjoy the weekend on VC. 

I may have to bop over to CA, usually look in SA when I do!


----------



## KeelHaulin

puddinlegs said:


> Last post... actually Keel, it's you and your name calling (oxy*MORON*? yeah, ok :hammer ). We're out. Marty, see you out there!


I was not the guy doing nothing but interjecting snide remarks and innuendo THIS ENTIRE THREAD. I did it ONCE here at the end of it given the INNUENDO in his post; which I quoted; and I get slammed by you, yet another guy who has been circling this thread putting in meaningless inflammatory posts. Please, don't let the door hit you in the @ss.


----------



## kevlarpirate

keel

if you come to the east coast , you can catch a ride with me , and yes, you 
are right , these people are not worth the effort
if you are interested, i will message you with my contact info
otherwise keep sailing and don't share your info with jerks


----------



## smackdaddy

And they all lived happily ever after.

So, williamkiester, OP of this fine thread...after all the shouting and running mascara, the moral of this story seems to be...buy a Bene First series. It's hard to go wrong.

(PS - I'm joking of course. Personally I'm all over the Bene - but you need to be all over the boat that fits _your_ needs. You've gotten A LOT of great info out of this thread. So find the boat that works for you and, most importantly, go sailing! Even if it's a pig in light wind, upwind, downwind...it's still sailing!)


----------



## blt2ski

It also shows, some are willing to look at ALL options, others will only go with one, that is what they will stick with come hell or high water. When reality is, there is almost always more than one way to skin a cat, or differences in boat design that will allow better results or some such thing. Its tough to debate with the single mind set person, even if you agree to a point with there claim, but show a different approach that "MAY OR MIGHT" work better, you get slammed. Happens in politics and other ways and means of life too.

Reality is, there is more than one type and style of sailboat that one can cruise in, go well in light winds, handles heavy, points and goes down wind. We all can not have a Santa Maria, or Pinta, or newport 41, or a Bene first 45 or 50, when a 30 or 35 would do well in my world of sailing.......


marty


----------



## JAndersB

I totally agree. Without open mind and interest for development no evolution takes place. I agree with all of you that have tried to debate bringing forward facts and an open mind, not over reacting. For me personally the 99/1% rule discussed earlier dictates the boat I will buy next. A thrilling sail more important than the perhaps never occuring difficult storm (that I might outrun anyway).
Regards,
Anders


----------



## KeelHaulin

It's not that gang. Never said that I oppose racers going out and crossing oceans in the 'open' class hulls. But I heard something said by a guy who knows one hell of a lot more than I do about boats; Brion Toss this afternoon at a Strictly Sail seminar. He said: "racing sailing is incompatible with good seamanship practices". This is the point I am trying to get across to those who think a racing boat can have an interior dropped in it and become an ocean crossing cruiser. The boats that race cross ocean were built in a 'to the limit of strength' and do not have much (if any) safety factor designed into their construction. When you put a cruising interior and a cruising equipment load in one of these boats you drastically reduce the performance of the boat; while you increase the working loads on it. You -could- end up with a boat that neither can out-run a storm or squall (which are regular occurrences) as the hull was designed to do; and a boat that with the cruising load may not survive a storm because it was not designed heavily enough to ride one out either.

I'm not saying these boats have no place in the 'market' for sailboats. I am saying that a potential buyer should do their homework and make sure that they are buying a boat that can live up to the task that it may be asked to do. We get inquiries about blue water cruising a Newport 30 on our yahoo forum all the time. While there are known N-30's that have gone coastal cruising and a few who have crossed to Hawaii or further; generally we tell people considering it that the boat was not originally designed to do it. You -could- take one offshore but it would be ill advised. I consider a Newport-30 more heavily built than many of the current racer/cruiser designs BTW.

If your Jenneau is the one that base rates 156, blt2ski; I hardly think you should be throwing stones at a boat that rates ~50 sec/mi faster than yours (and was constructed at a similar time).


----------



## blt2ski

So now you are comparing a 30' boat to a 41'r?!?!?! lets make it even, compare my boat at 159 actually, to a newport 30 in the 190 range! 30 secs a mile faster, interior is just as nice etc. Reality is, I am probably more like a Newport 28 in size, so add another 10 secs a mile to how much quicker I am. 

It is frankly NOT worth comparing different sized boats. As the bigger ones SHOULD be faster. I also never claimed, nor would I claim you N41 to be faster than my Jeanneau. Which has gone across and is DESIGNED to go across oceans with the at the time European ocean level cert. I would guess that an N30 does not have that.

As I said earlier, some are willing to look at other options, some are so bent on there way is right, no one else is right, even if they agree on some items. Nor do I recall throwing stones at the N41, you are throwing them for ALL of us.


----------



## PCP

KeelHaulin said:


> It's not that gang. Never said that I oppose racers going out and crossing oceans in the 'open' class hulls. But I heard something said by a guy who knows one hell of a lot more than I do about boats; Brion Toss this afternoon at a Strictly Sail seminar. He said: "racing sailing is incompatible with good seamanship practices".


And he is right! Racing sailors push their boats to the limit, take risks that would be looked as foolish regarding what a cruising sailor would call "good seamanship practices". Cruising sailors would always aim to a much bigger safety threshold. A good cruising sailor would not push its boat to the limit. That would not be a good seamanship practice in what regards cruising.

But this has nothing to do with types of boats. Racing is done in all kinds of boats and it seems that also in the Newport 41. This is true for the Newport or true to any other kind of sailboat, regarding racing and cruising. What is acceptable while racing it is not many times acceptable or regarded as good seamanship practice while cruising.



KeelHaulin said:


> This is the point I am trying to get across to those who think a racing boat can have an interior dropped in it and become an ocean crossing cruiser. The boats that race cross ocean were built in a 'to the limit of strength' and do not have much (if any) safety factor designed into their construction.


This makes no sense. I mean you seem to think that a purposed built ocean racer is more fragile than a cruising boat and that they have a lower safety limit and it is just the opposite.

Ocean racers are built to resist not only those prudent cruising seamanship practices but to be abused over it and to be pushed 100% including over storms where any cruising sailor would have taken survival and comfort tactics. The efforts that these boats where designed to resist are much bigger than the ones a cruising boat is design to resist.

If a sailor use a racing boat as a cruising boat he would always be very far away from the limits that the boat was designed to meet. Some of these Ocean racing boats have done 3 or 4 circumnavigations, including some on the "bad" direction, dozens of Transats and 20 years after being built they are still racing and circumnavigating. There is no cruising boat that have made so many miles and suffered so much abuse, survived so many storms as any of these boats.

But Solo Ocean racers are not only more resistant to efforts than the standard cruiser boat, they have also incorporated safety features that are not normally including in cruisers, like strong crash boxes or sealed air compartments that will make them unthinkable, no matter what. Some of the cruisers that are derived from these boats (for instance the Pogo) have them also.



KeelHaulin said:


> When you put a cruising interior and a cruising equipment load in one of these boats you drastically reduce the performance of the boat; while you increase the working loads on it. You -could- end up with a boat that neither can out-run a storm or squall (which are regular occurrences) as the hull was designed to do; and a boat that with the cruising load may not survive a storm because it was not designed heavily enough to ride one out either.


I have already said that cruising in a contemporary light boat derived from the Open class solo ocean racers implies a different life style philosophy from the ones that like to cruise a condo or even less comfortable boats but you seem to assume that a solo ocean racer has not a considerable payload for a racing boat and it is quite the opposite.

Think of a mini racer (22ft) for example on their more famous Transat between France and Brazil: they have to carry all the provisions needed to sail from France to Brasil and they also carry much more sails than a cruising boat, and sails are heavy. That is a considerable load for such a small boat, but that is nothing compared with the initial load of one of those that an Italian guy had circumnavigated nonstop. Can you imagine the initial needed load in proportion to the size and weight of the boat?

You are right when you said that the boat would be faster in minimum charge condition but wrong when you say that the boat could be dangerous loaded because was not designed to ride a storm on a loaded condition. It was designed for that:

All boats have a minimum load and a maximum load that are stipulated by the designer and the boat are designed to be sailed safely in each condition and in between. Probably the boat would be safer loaded in between 2/3 and 3/4 of the max load, when the righting moment is bigger and the stability curve in what regards AVS is not much affected, not in its minimum sailing condition.

Open class solo boats were the boats chosen by designers as model to design fast ocean cruiser passage makers precisely because their beam and floatability permits them to carry a considerable load and because their huge initial stability and form stability makes them easy and forgiving boats to sail, even solo. After all they were designed for doing just that: Fast and easy solo sailing (or short crew sailing).

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

blt2ski said:


> Nor do I recall throwing stones at the N41, you are throwing them for ALL of us.


+1.

And Keel...the conclusions you draw about stuff make very little sense to me. For example:



KeelHaulin said:


> He said: "racing sailing is incompatible with good seamanship practices". This is the point I am trying to get across to those who think a racing boat can have an interior dropped in it and become an ocean crossing cruiser. The boats that race cross ocean were built in a 'to the limit of strength' and do not have much (if any) safety factor designed into their construction. When you put a cruising interior and a cruising equipment load in one of these boats you drastically reduce the performance of the boat; while you increase the working loads on it.


How does Toss' quote above equate to boat design? I can see his point as regards the way people sail not being "good seamanship"...primarily because racing is about going fast at all costs. You can say the same about F1 racing not being "safe driving" when compared to public highways. But to draw an immediate conclusion that this statement is about boat design is just as goofy as saying F1 race cars are inherently unsafe - when compared with your '79 Plymouth Station Wagon.

Racing boats, and F1 cars, are phenomenally safe when looked at through the lens of the function for which they are intended.



KeelHaulin said:


> The boats that race cross ocean were built in a 'to the limit of strength' and do not have much (if any) safety factor designed into their construction. When you put a cruising interior and a cruising equipment load in one of these boats you drastically reduce the performance of the boat; while you increase the working loads on it.


Your continued insistence in this thread on making the argument ONLY about the N41 (Station Wagon) OR the Open 60/70 (F1 car) is really, really missing the point - and is seriously misleading people that are looking for rational advice.

Do you honestly think that's what today's racer/cruiser yacht designers are doing? Just dropping a cruising interior into an Open 60? I thought you were the voice of rational experience in this thread. Jeez.

There are many, many modern racer/cruisers that have been highlighted in this thread that are perfectly suited to the task of blue water cruising with an emphasis on fun and fast.



KeelHaulin said:


> You -could- end up with a boat that neither can out-run a storm or squall (which are regular occurrences) as the hull was designed to do; and a boat that with the cruising load may not survive a storm because it was not designed heavily enough to ride one out either.


Sure, you _could_ end up in _any_ situation - even "crossing the t" on the toothy side of a hurricane because you're still at sea a day or two behind the faster boats who are already drinking rum at anchor.

Fear never wins debates.

If you're the kind of cruiser who obsesses and frets over the 1% bad storm chances, you should buy a heavy, old boat. If you're the kind of cruiser who makes decisions based on the other 99% of the time, buy something faster and more fun. Both cruisers will be watching the weather...and both will be very uncomfortable in that 1% storm anyway. It's really pretty simple....even after all these pages.


----------



## KeelHaulin

blt2ski said:


> So now you are comparing a 30' boat to a 41'r?!?!?!


I said that your boat rates higher than mine. Don't really care what size it is; it RATES as a slower boat. You keep bashing me for having a 41' LOA boat; when the LWL is shorter than your boat. In an overall sense the 41 is not much bigger in interior and 'size' than a 36' boat.



> As I said earlier, some are willing to look at other options, some are so bent on there way is right, no one else is right, even if they agree on some items. Nor do I recall throwing stones at the N41, you are throwing them for ALL of us.


You can look at other options all you want; but come back to the baseline that most all CRUISING sailors are sailing trans ocean are on boats that bear no resemblance to an Open class hull. And the Abby Sunderland result was not atypical for racing sailors in these hulls. I listened to a discussion by Etienne Giroire on Saturday about his Route du Rhum race on a ~50' Tri; which he ended up needing a rescue from. One mistake made; needing some rest/sleep after going aloft and the boat was flipped in a passing squall. Sound familiar? Kinda Abby-like eh? The message is simple. Don't discount the possibility of an intense storm or squall; and don't plan your voyage AS A CRUISER around something that is easily flipped or knocked down. To not do so is to turn your back on the very principles of good seamanship and personal responsibility to make sure you do not require rescue of any sort. The philosophy held by the Pardees (who sail a WOOD hull 24' sailboat all over the globe) is they don't carry an EPIRB because they would never require rescue; and if they ever did they would not want to put another life in jeopardy to save them. That's a little extreme; but they KNOW that their vessel is built to withstand almost anything that comes their way.

You are casting stones at the N-41 when you put it in the same sentence as the Nina and Pinta; which are boats that were 15'th century (500 years old; REALLY??). So if you are putting my boat in the class of something that is that old/slow; then how does your boat compare? It's 50% SLOWER than what I sail; so should we be putting your Jenneau in the same class as the Ancient Greek sailboats? Oh; and I think I can count on both hands and feet the number of times that you guys have made uncalled for snide jabs about my boat; so I don't think one or two little put-downs back at you should be such a big deal.


----------



## blt2ski

Lets see, a minute a mile is 50% slower?!?!?! so if you are doing 10 min miles, I am doing 11 minute miles, sounds closer to 10% at that rate, you would have to be doing 2 min miles with me at 3 minutes to be 50% slower......not sure that is happening......

Your water line per a post before is 30'. My OVERALL length is 29.5, deck is 28.5, WL is 24.5. So your WL is NOT shorter than my boat, frankly it is longer by half a foot.

If my Jeanneau is in the same class as an Ancient Greek sailboat, so be it, but last I checked, French and greek are not the same. 

with that I can see why Mark left the room........bye bye. I'll be glad to let the door hit me on the way out.

Marty


----------



## mitiempo

Keel

Do you really want us to believe that the design of fast, seaworthy, and safe sailboats hasn't advanced since the Newport 41? You are blind if so.


----------



## KeelHaulin

blt2ski said:


> Lets see, a minute a mile is 50% slower?!?!?! so if you are doing 10 min miles, I am doing 11 minute miles, sounds closer to 10% at that rate, you would have to be doing 2 min miles with me at 3 minutes to be 50% slower......not sure that is happening......
> 
> Your water line per a post before is 30'. My OVERALL length is 29.5, deck is 28.5, WL is 24.5. So your WL is NOT shorter than my boat, frankly it is longer by half a foot.
> 
> If my Jeanneau is in the same class as an Ancient Greek sailboat, so be it, but last I checked, French and greek are not the same.
> 
> with that I can see why Mark left the room........bye bye. I'll be glad to let the door hit me on the way out.
> 
> Marty


I meant 50% of the base rating; but again, as I said earlier, numbers like base ratings are arbitrary. It does not matter Marty; I was talking in terms of a 'put-down' and so were you with that comment about the N-41 being as slow as an ancient square rig. So let's just drop it and stop with the slowest boat to China arguments and put downs.



mitiempo said:


> Do you really want us to believe that the design of fast, seaworthy, and safe sailboats hasn't advanced since the Newport 41? You are blind if so.


Absolutely not. I never said it was the fastest, most seaworthy, most safe boat out there. I said it has performance in lighter winds that are within the realm of a modern racing hull, while being a heavier displacement boat, which in the opinion of many well known cruising sailors is a safer design (heavier displacement that is). Please look at my analysis and reasoning in that context. I provided evidence that upwind VMG and downwind VMG are not significantly higher at windspeeds below 20kts compared to the Pogo 10.5. I provided a data a point that shows the Newport 41 -CAN- out sail her rating and boats that have ratings as low as ~75 or so (in the context of a long offshore passage of equally prepared race boats from BC to HI). I have given you my personal perspective on how the boat sails and handles heavy air and that it can be easier to sail than a boat with a lightweight hull and rig. I talked about Motion Comfort Index and showed you that the MCI for the N-41 is reasonably high and about 2x higher than the Pogo 10.5. Kevlarpirate gave you his analysis of the boat after owning it for 24 years (and selling it). You don't get better info than that because if he hated the boat and the way it sailed while sailing on other racing hulls he would not have owned it for as long as he did; or give it a glowing review after having sold it.

These are all considerations in terms of what makes a boat an all around excellent performer. These are not arguments to make some sort of imaginary case that the boat is the fastest boat on earth (it would be silly for me to think that or for you to believe I was saying such). The point I was trying to get to was that the N-41 among other old racer-cruisers like the S&S designed Cat 38, the Ericson 39, and other old C&C hull designs are pretty close to optimal when it comes to an offshore CRUISING hull design that can still sail at a reasonable pace in lighter air. As racing hulls became lighter (and faster), beamier, and higher SA/D ratios they became more technical to sail and much more of a handfull in heavy wind and seas. It's fine if you are a crewed race boat, not so much if you are a cruising boat (I'm talking IOR era designs here). I'll talk more to Paulo's points tomorrow; it's late here and I had a long day checking out the boat show.


----------



## mitiempo

Not all modern fast boats are beamy. I personally would favor a narrower design. The Sundeer I posted about is one but there are some smaller boats that compare with moderate beam and good manners in all conditions. Bob Perry's Saga 35 and Saga 43 are fast in both light air and heavy air and designed for extensive sailing by a couple offshore, as many have shown. The Sage 43 is an interesting comparison to the Newport 42 as well. The Saga is 2000 lbs heavier, with a much longer waterline. And fast in both light and heavy going.


----------



## PCP

KeelHaulin said:


> .. The point I was trying to get to was that the N-41 among other old racer-cruisers like the S&S designed Cat 38, the Ericson 39, and other old C&C hull designs a*re pretty close to optimal when it comes to an offshore CRUISING hull design* ....


Well, that means you think*"that the design of fast, seaworthy, and safe sailboats hasn't advanced since the Newport 41"* at least in what concerns offshore cruising.



KeelHaulin said:


> As racing hulls became lighter (and faster), beamier, and higher SA/D ratios they became more technical to sail and much more of a handfull in heavy wind and seas. It's fine if *you are a crewed race boat*, not so much if you are a cruising boat (I'm talking IOR era designs here). I..


Again and again, the design that is on the base of boats like the Pogo is the Design of *SOLO* ocean racers. The reason that the design base is based on *SOLO* ocean racers is because they are designed to be *EASY* sailed fast and are *FORGIVING* boats.

sure to go fast in a car, in a motorcycle or in any vehicle you need to know more than to go slowly and it is never as comfortable as going at moderate speed.

These boats are not for beginners and the ones that buy them are experienced sailors but they are the easiest way to go fast and safe on an ocean crossing.

Again, I am not defending anything except the right to sailors choose the boat that suits more their cruising lifestyle, their sailing pleasure and their budget.



KeelHaulin said:


> I provided evidence that upwind VMG and downwind VMG are not significantly higher at windspeeds below 20kts compared to the Pogo 10.5.


Regarding the Pogo 10.50 I don't really know what you want to say or prove. Your boat was a fast boat 40 years ago. The Pogo 10.50 is a much smaller boat than the Newport 41 and yet it is incomparably faster. The Pogo 10.50 is a fast cruiser by today parameters. Your boat is significantly slower than a Catalina 400 that has pretty much the speed of a modern good cruiser, not even the speed of a modern performance boat.

I never understood what you wanted to prove with that upwind VMG and downwind VMG difference. You should be the only guy I know that only cruises directly upwind and directly downwind. All the others I know cruise in all directions and all points of sail depending of the course to the place they want to go.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

Hey Keel - why do you keep running off the experienced sailors from this forum?


----------



## GeorgeB

Keel, I think we were sitting in a couple of the same seminars on Saturday. I heard someone call out a N41 in Toss’, and thought, “hey I read about a N41 all the time on Sailnet”. Then later, in a downwind sailing seminar I heard it again and thought, “Man, there must be a lot of them still out there”. I think it was you. I was the Baja Bound Catalina 34 (and I’m proud of my Tupperware). 

I’ve taken a couple of classes from Biron (basic rigging and rig inspection). And I can tell you, he is certainly entertaining. Despite his embracing synthetic standing instead of wire, he is really “old school”. Come to think of it, the new stuff does use deadeyes instead of turnbuckles… When he describes himself as one of the “sailing Amish”, he is right on the mark. What? You’re not rigged with a solent stay? He is a great engineer and is one of the few of his type willing (and knowledgeable) to educate the sailing community about rigging which is so sorely lacking. He gets you thinking, and calculating. Fortunately, Gerry Douglas did all the right calculations on my lowly Catalina but I double checked his math anyways. I dare say the sport boat designers are just as good (if not better). They are just working much higher load factors and stresses. When we were having problems on the Areodyne I was sailing on. It’s designer was quick to the point that the boat should have been built with a carbon mast (went with Al to save on cost) and it should have had twin rudders (went with a single for maneuverability). The point being design in the end is a compromise and we all must make our own best decisions. Even with this experience, Mrs. B and I were at one point buying the A38 American Girl with the intent of cruising her. We have seen plenty other retired racers that have been gentrified and are doing quite nicely

Something that I find humorous in this thread is all the arm chair experts using ratios, PHRF numbers and target boat speeds in an oversimplified and sometimes outright wrong manner. Moses did not bring these numbers down along with the ten commandments. They are merely calculated numbers taken from relatively few data numbers. And as they say in the car ads, your mileage may differ. The sad fact is, the purpose built racers tend to sail closer (or exceeding) their numbers than us guys in the cheap seats. Trust me, no one likes to spend more money (or be more uncomfortable) than they have to, and if a N41 was a game changer, then everyone would be buying one. 

<OSo, I was over at Sail California and one of the guys was talking of his experience durng the DHF. “We have to work the boat to get her past 22kts (A-kite boat), but she starts to rattle above 25. However, she will surf on her own at 15kts and above”. This boat will do these speeds at 165 AWA which is one heck of VMG. This was the same race where a majority of the cruising boats dropped out before the windward mark.


----------



## PCP

I have read something that may be of interest to this thread: A French magazine published a story about 3 young couples (less than 30 year's old) that are going to circumnavigate on small budgets and (necessarily) small boats.

The choice of the boats is quite different as the strategies to limit budget.

Two opted by two old relatively inexpensive boats that they had recovered to shape. The choice was very different, a couple opted for a Contessa 26 another by an old racing boat reconverted in cruising boat: an half-tonner designed by Van De stadt.

The third one have opted by a more radical approach, they asked to a friend Naval Architect to modify one of its designs, a Class 950 ocean racing boat (Fox 9.0) to cruising. That originated the Fox 10.20, a fast cruiser in between the Pogo 10.50 and the RM 1060.

They had the hull deck and cockpit built on a shipyard and are going to build the rest themselves. The boat will cost them about 3 times more than what the other two are going to spend, but they will end up with a boat with a much bigger market value, a boat they are sure of selling for a good price when they come back.

Every body knows a Contessa 26 or an Half-tonner, but I bet that almost nobody knows a Fox 10.20 . Have a look:





































Would this boat be less safer than the other two? I don't think so, the one that chose this option is a very good sailor and the boat is adapted to the load they will carry.

From the three this is the only one that we can call a performance boat, in light winds or heavy winds. I thought interesting to post it here because some doubts have been raised about the possibility of these boats (Pogo 10.50, Elan 350, RM 1060) to carry a load compatible with long range cruising. Well, there is not bigger range than a circumnavigation and this guy is a very experienced sailor.

This don't means that this is a cruising boat for all, only for those that like to sail fast, enjoy the thrill of speed and that don't mind to have a more spartan live to enjoy the sailing pleasure a boat like this can provide.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## GeorgeB

Paulo, you ought to practice good bulletin board citizenship and stop hijacking this thread. This really belongs in your “Interesting Sailboats” thread.

As you know, with all the sailing magazines out there, publishing 12 times a year, there is a great need for content. And, boat designers need to keep their name in the press, so just like the car companies, they are continuously coming up with new concepts and the like (remember Bob Perry's "boat-in-a-shipping-container" concept?). Just like the concept cars, most of these boats will never get built and most will not even reach the design stage. All of these “artist conceptions” help sell magazines to the novices and armchair skippers. But we experienced sailors know the truth that most of these “designs” are more hype than reality.
<O
Paulo, have you found the glaring error in one of the drawings yet? (I caught it pretty early). Also, there are a number of issues shown in the drawings that will make this boat a poor cruiser and I’m sure someone with your experience will be able to point them out. Why don’t you give it a try and write back and we’ll discuss. Needless to say, I found several things in the drawings that would not work for practical cruising.


----------



## PCP

GeorgeB said:


> Paulo, you ought to practice good bulletin board citizenship and stop hijacking this thread. This really belongs in your "Interesting Sailboats" thread.
> 
> As you know, with all the sailing magazines out there, publishing 12 times a year, there is a great need for content. And, boat designers need to keep their name in the press, so just like the car companies, they are continuously coming up with new concepts and the like (remember Bob Perry's "boat-in-a-shipping-container" concept?). Just like the concept cars, *most of these boats will never get built and most will not even reach the design stage. All of these "artist conceptions" help sell magazines to the novices and armchair skippers. But we experienced sailors know the truth that most of these "designs" are more hype than reality.*
> <O
> Paulo, have you found the glaring error in one of the drawings yet? (I caught it pretty early). Also, there are a number of issues shown in the drawings that will make this boat a poor cruiser and I'm sure someone with your experience will be able to point them out. Why don't you give it a try and write back and we'll discuss. Needless to say, I found several things in the drawings that would not work for practical cruising.


Well, you know too much

The boat is already built. Take a look here:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/boat-review-purchase-forum/62341-interesting-sailboats-104.html

The guy that is going to sail it with is wife around the world know more about boats than me and probably than you. He is a Naval Architect and a professional sailor, racing, deliveries, cruising, the lot. He is young (30) but had already made 7 sail Tours de France among many other top events. That's high level ocean racing. I think he even won one of them. Take a look at the performance:

YouTube - Mumm 30 Tour de France a la Voile 2003 HQ

I know that he is not going to sail that way the Fox 10.20 and that's why he chose a boat derived from a SOLO ocean class, easy boat, fast boat not a boat that needs a crew to be sailed on the edge like the Mum

Certainly this NA and very experienced professional sailor has the knowledge to chose the boat he wants for circumnavigating with is wife, don't you think so? That is probably not the boat for everyone, but its certainly the right boat for him, and for others that share is tastes regarding sailing and cruising.

Now, why do you say I am hijacking this thread? This is certainly an ocean going boat with very good performance in light winds, a boat that fit the bill in what regards the object of this thread.

Someone had said that these boats had not the ability for long range cruising because they have not the needed load capacity ( referring to the Pogo 10.50 that is a slightly bigger boat). Well, this guy and his wife are going to circumnavigate on one and he certainly knows about boats and load needs.

The spartan life style would not suit to all, but as I have said, sailors have the right to chose the way they want to live and cruise and some will gladly live a simple live for the pleasure of sailing a nice and fast boat. The number of boats that are being sold that fit this kind of cruising (You have to wait three years for a Pogo) indicates that there are a significant number of cruisers that want to cruise this way, light, fast and fun.

I am curious about that "*glaring error*". What are you talking about?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## GeorgeB

Paulo, please do not direct me to another thread, if this boat does exist in real life, then can you post a picture (or two) of the boat “in real life”? I really don’t have that much spare time to go hunt for it. If the boat actually exists it will be interesting to see how the designer modified it from his original concept. I used to race ULDBs offshore so I am familiar with discomfort. What I am concerned about on this boat is lay-out issues like the tiller positions, companionway/engine, over use of lexan as well as some of the interior lay-out. There are other things that run against EU certification like no second egress from sleeping quarters. If this boat is a real one, can you post a drawing that shows the underwater areas as well as a spec sheet?


----------



## PCP

GeorgeB said:


> Paulo, please do not direct me to another thread, *if this boat does exist in real life*, then can you post a picture (or two) of the boat "in real life"? I really don't have that much spare time to go hunt for it. If the boat actually exists it will be interesting to see how the designer modified it from his original concept. I used to race ULDBs offshore so I am familiar with discomfort. What I am concerned about on this boat is lay-out issues like the tiller positions, companionway/engine, over use of lexan as well as some of the interior lay-out. *There are other things that run against EU certification like no second egress from sleeping quarters*. If this boat is a real one, can you post a drawing that shows the underwater areas as well as a spec sheet?


Well, I have said already that the boat is on the water, what reason have you to doubt? Not only exists as it will be circumnavigating soon.

Regarding rigging, tiller position you can be absolutely sure that this boat is spot on in what regards the needs of a solo or short crew sailing. The owner is an expert and the boat designer an even better expert. The one that supervises the shipyard knows at least as much. It is Bernard Mallaret. Have a look at is curriculum:

*"40 years of sailing and racing on most of oceans of this planet, 3 times winner of the famous 'Tour de France à la Voile', more than 10 national or european titles in one design series, many international podiums. He also raced the famous Solo Figaro race, the Route de Rhum and Transat Jacques Vabre and sailed thousands of miles cruising on mono and multihulls. 
Being also experienced in the field of boat building and surveying, Bernard holds a 28 years experience in sail making. Since 1978, he has owned the sail-loft DELTA Voiles in the south of France where he combines his sail design and managing skills."*

These guys know how to rig a boat, perhaps not for you, but they rig boats for some of the best sailors around and Adrien (the shipper) has an huge experience and I am sure the boat is exactly as he want it to be, his way

Regarding boat photos, I will post one here. On it the boat is subjected to inclining experiments needed to CE certification. As you know these can be made with just computer generated stability curves but these guys just want to have the real numbers, not an approximated computer simulation.

About the other pictures and data I will not post them here again. You have all information you asked, including 11 pictures and data information here:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/boat-review-purchase-forum/62341-interesting-sailboats-104.html










Regards

Paulo


----------



## mitiempo

George

Bob Perry's "Boat in a Box" wasn't a concept. It was a commission from a customer and is now in production. There is a review here:
Far Harbour 39: Thinking Inside the Box | Cruising World


----------



## GeorgeB

Did a quick internet search and I can't find any record of more than one of these being built which kind of argues my point regarding concept boats.


----------



## GeorgeB

Paulo, thanks for pointing me to the photos and data. Very interesting. Unfortunately, this boat isn't a cruising boat, it's a race boat. In fact, (even without the full spec sheet) it is safe to say this is categorized as a "sport boat" of which I am well familiar with. It is still a thread hijack and belongs in your "interesting boats' thread and not here. I will gladly meet you there to discuss this boat further. We ought to leave this thread to OP's original question and not run off more long time sail netters.


----------



## mitiempo

George

The original was designed and built for a client that wanted to cruise the Baltic. To ship his boat there would have been very expensive so Bob Perry and the client came up with a boat that would fit in a container. The genesis was detailed in Professional Boatbuilder August-September 2007. The client was Bernie Blum, a Washington State based sailor. 
A Florida company CONTAINER YACHTS, produces the boat for sale.

A bit more than a concept I think.


----------



## PCP

GeorgeB said:


> Paulo, thanks for pointing me to the photos and data. Very interesting. *Unfortunately, this boat isn't a cruising boat, it's a race boat.* In fact, (even without the full spec sheet) it is safe to say this is categorized as a "sport boat" of which I am well familiar with. *It is still a thread hijack* and belongs in your "interesting boats' thread and not here. I will gladly meet you there to discuss this boat further. We ought to leave this thread to OP's original question and not run off more long time sail netters.


 George,the important issue is: The Fox 10.20 is a race boat? It is designed for fast cruising or for racing? The sailors that buy that kind of boats use them for racing or for cruising? There are any significant number of cruisers buying boats like these? This type of boats are a trend on the cruising boat market?

If the Fox 10.20, or similar boats, are race boats, if they are designed for racing, if the sailors that buy these boats buy them for racing and not for cruising if there are not a significant number of sailors buying these boats and they don't represent a trend in what regards cruising sailors, than you are right and I am hijacking this thread.

But you are wrong, as I have been telling you these are cruising boats, bought by cruisers, boats that are not designed for racing. If you were more familiar with this growing market (and growing type of cruisers) you would know that I am right. If you want a Pogo performance cruiser you have a 3 year waiting list and the RM 1060 that appeared on the market some months back has already commands for 30 boats.

By the way, the Fox 10.20 is very similar to the RM 1060: Same building material, same hull lines (the Fox 10.20 has a twin keel version and the RM has a mono keel version). Being the same type of boat I would say that the Fox 10.20 is a more seaworthy boat. It has bigger Ballast/displacement ratio and a bulb at 2.4m and that would give it a very good final safety stability and an outstanding stability curve with small inverted stability and a high AVS.

Not saying that the RM 1060 is not safe and a great performance cruising boat, quite the opposite. The boat that it replaces, the RM 1050 (more than 100 boats sold) was a popular long range cruiser among the French and if it was not a relatively expensive boat, it would even have sold a lot more. The demand on the used market is huge and the boat has a very high value.

Some photos of the RM 1060. As you can see it is the same type of performance cruiser as the Fox 10.20:




























I don't want to convince you that this is a boat you would find appropriate for cruising, just showing you that there are many cruisers that think it is and that some even chose this type of boat to circumnavigate and in the case of the one that chose the Fox 10.20, it is a expert professional sailor and a Naval Architect that knows precisely why he has chosen that kind of boat over others.

There are several members of this forum that or have already made commands or are choosing between this type of boats and more think of them as their dream boat. Curiously I am not one of them, but that does not make me blind to reality or blind to the advantages of these type of boats for fast cruising.

Regards

Paulo

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JomsViking

I'd say that the Pogo's, Opium's, Fox's, and not least X-Yachts (one of my preferred) perfectly matches the OP's original request (Thread title: "A blue water sailer that can go in light winds").
So with no further ado, I give you another Bluewater cruiser that will make a number of people accuse me of thread-hijacking too 

Neue Boote: Reisen und rasen - YACHT-TV*|*YACHT.DE

Xc 42 · The new Future Cruising Range


----------



## PCP

That is a beautiful boat and one of the best offshore cruisers for the ones that like comfort with a reasonable turn of speed. It will not be as fast with light winds as a performance boat, for instance the line of performance cruisers from X - Yachts but it is surprisingly fast for its weight and faster than a HR or Malo and much faster than the typical heavy cruiser.

Do you know that some years ago a French magazine made a comparative test between the Xc 42, the benchmark in what regards main trend offshore cruising, and the Dufour 425 considered then by the French press as the better middle sized mass production main trend cruiser?

Both boats were at the water at the same time and the results were surprisingly similar. The Speed was about the same, the comfort in what regards passing waves also. Of course the interiors are different and the quality of the X yacht is much superior. Personally I prefer the layout of the X versus the "modern" Dufour layout.

Dailymotion - Teaser du match XC 42 / Dufour 425 - une vidéo Sports & Extreme

Of course, the X yacht has a better ballast/displacement ratio and that would be a bonus in really bad weather, giving it a better reserve stability and a better AVS.

I was so impressed with that comparative that I have charted a Dufour 425 to see if it was the boat that I wanted. It is a great boat, fast with light winds but too heavy to easily go over speed hull. Not really what I was looking but a great cruising boat that can take a lot of wind before reefing, very stable and certainly an offshore boat.

I would pick the Xc 42 anytime over the Dufour 425, but for the ones that cannot afford a Xc 42, the Dufour 42 is a kind of a poor men's version of the X 42

http://www.sdyachts.com/Images/dufour425/Dufour425_boat_test_B&Y_issue76.pdf
Dufour 425: Racy Looks on a Well-Built Hull | Cruising World

Regards

Paulo


----------



## KeelHaulin

GeorgeB said:


> Keel, I think we were sitting in a couple of the same seminars on Saturday. I heard someone call out a N41 in Toss', and thought, "hey I read about a N41 all the time on Sailnet". Then later, in a downwind sailing seminar I heard it again and thought, "Man, there must be a lot of them still out there". I think it was you. I was the Baja Bound Catalina 34 (and I'm proud of my Tupperware).


No, was not me. I was in the room for the rig seminar when the N41 was discussed but I did not make the inquiry.



> I've taken a couple of classes from Biron (basic rigging and rig inspection). And I can tell you, he is certainly entertaining. Despite his embracing synthetic standing instead of wire, he is really "old school". Come to think of it, the new stuff does use deadeyes instead of turnbuckles&#8230; When he describes himself as one of the "sailing Amish", he is right on the mark. What? You're not rigged with a solent stay? He is a great engineer and is one of the few of his type willing (and knowledgeable) to educate the sailing community about rigging which is so sorely lacking. He gets you thinking, and calculating.


I think he just knows his stuff. He always says not to 'over rig', thich means being reasonable about sizing your wire, halyards, and hardware. He also was saying that racing boats tend to make everything as close to the maximum allowable stress in design to save weight, which is great for speed, but not as reliable. It makes perfect sense because one would not want to give up a competitive edge to other racing boats.



> Fortunately, Gerry Douglas did all the right calculations on my lowly Catalina but I double checked his math anyways. I dare say the sport boat designers are just as good (if not better). They are just working much higher load factors and stresses. When we were having problems on the Areodyne I was sailing on. It's designer was quick to the point that the boat should have been built with a carbon mast (went with Al to save on cost) and it should have had twin rudders (went with a single for maneuverability). The point being design in the end is a compromise and we all must make our own best decisions. Even with this experience, Mrs. B and I were at one point buying the A38 American Girl with the intent of cruising her. We have seen plenty other retired racers that have been gentrified and are doing quite nicely


I don't consider Catalinas lowly vessels. Quite the opposite. Bang for the buck, the are one of the best out there. Solidly built, nice coastal boats with great customer service. My only complaint is the stock setup for single line reefing on some of them like the 320, and the propensity to round up in heavy air.

While racing boats may be more highly engineered, they are also built with lower levels of safety factor than a cruising design. A race boat may only have a 10% safety margin at maximum loads, while a cruising design may have 50-75%. Weight minimization is a key factor in racing designs, and loading a racing boat with cruising provisions is sure to reduce the performance drastically. While boats like the Olson 40, and the A38 can probably handle the added weight, I seriously question the ability for boats like the Pogo 10.5 to do the same and be a safe boat for blue water passages. That is why I am arguing this issue with Paulo here, not to say my boat is 'the best'. I have no problem with go fast sailboats, but I'm sure that I would not want to try and make one into a cruising boat because of the low motion comfort and the difficulty sailing upwind in a blow.



> Something that I find humorous in this thread is all the arm chair experts using ratios, PHRF numbers and target boat speeds in an oversimplified and sometimes outright wrong manner. Moses did not bring these numbers down along with the ten commandments. They are merely calculated numbers taken from relatively few data numbers. And as they say in the car ads, your mileage may differ. The sad fact is, the purpose built racers tend to sail closer (or exceeding) their numbers than us guys in the cheap seats. Trust me, no one likes to spend more money (or be more uncomfortable) than they have to, and if a N41 was a game changer, then everyone would be buying one.


Please, if I have used a 'number' incorrectly here, let me know. I never said the N41 was a boat that was anything more than a classic boat that can still win a race here and there. It was ahead of it's time when it was originally designed, but it is not a competitive racing hull in terms of current fast racing hulls. Its built like a brick ****house and has a decent PHRF rating (despite her heavy build), and good motion comfort. In my book, that is the makings of a great blue water cruiser.



> So, I was over at Sail California and one of the guys was talking of his experience durng the DHF. "We have to work the boat to get her past 22kts (A-kite boat), but she starts to rattle above 25. However, she will surf on her own at 15kts and above". This boat will do these speeds at 165 AWA which is one heck of VMG. This was the same race where a majority of the cruising boats dropped out before the windward mark.


Again, never said that these boats were not fast or capable RACERS. At AWA of 165, the true wind might be at 145 or higher, which is fine but your VMG is not what you might expect. Which boat was it? Many of the cruising boats in races like this are sailed by cruising sailors who are not up to the challenge or don't want to risk damage and repair expenses. I don't fault any skipper for the decision to withdraw due to the conditions out on the SF bar, and it does not reflect on the cruising class boats. The racing specific boats usually are crewed by the 'type A' personalities, and you know that they are less likely to back away from extreme conditions. Case in point being that a Moore 24 won the race, and was one of only two boats to fly a chute in those conditions.


----------



## smackdaddy

KeelHaulin said:


> Weight minimization is a key factor in racing designs, and loading a racing boat with cruising provisions is sure to reduce the performance drastically. While boats like the Olson 40, and the A38 can probably handle the added weight, I seriously question the ability for boats like the Pogo 10.5 to do the same and be a safe boat for blue water passages.


Keel, look, it's statements like this one that make it clear you really aren't quite with it on this whole debate. You "seriously question" whether the Pogo 10.5 "racing boat" can handle the added weight of cruising provisions? Are you serious?

Dude, the Pogo 10.5 has been _designed_ as a cruising boat - not a racing boat! Look at their website - please - before you keep making your point! I think it can handle a few cans of creamed corn and beer for a long jaunt without flipping over and sinking just beyond the seawall.

It's the _dragons_ we all really need to worry about out there.


----------



## JomsViking

smackdaddy said:


> Keel, look, it's statements like this one that make it clear you really aren't quite with it on this whole debate. You "seriously question" whether the Pogo 10.5 "racing boat" can handle the added weight of cruising provisions? Are you serious?
> 
> Dude, the Pogo 10.5 has been _designed_ as a cruising boat - not a racing boat! Look at their website - please - before you keep making your point! I think it can handle a few cans of creamed corn and beer for a long jaunt without flipping over and sinking just beyond the seawall.
> 
> It's the _dragons_ we all really need to worry about out there.


If based on the principle that if it's said enough times it must be true, the POGO is now a race boat 
But I totally agree with you (gasp) - You may like those boats or not, but definitely a Blue Water boat.
Funny enough, the CCA and IOR boats were originally considered unsafe for bluewater voyaging - IIRC Hal Roth were told that his first GRP boat would disintegrate within a year, at which time he were at sea  It just takes some people longer to change opinions and for myths to die.


----------



## puddinlegs

KeelHaulin said:


> It was ahead of it's time when it was originally designed, but it is not a competitive racing hull in terms of current fast racing hulls. Its built like a brick ****house and has a decent PHRF rating (despite her heavy build), and good motion comfort. In my book, that is the makings of a great blue water cruiser.


Many old 'race' boats make great cruisers... see loads of old C&C and S&S boats that have furlers, lazy jacks, etc... and are actively cruised. Not to pick too much of a bone, but I don't think I've ever heard the N-41 as ahead of it's time. I'd say it's a very nice example of a product very much _of _it's time. Ahead of it's time? The Cal 40 (Lapworth) is one that comes to mind, and probably the design that was the beginning of the end of CCA.

From the Cal 40.org website:

_"In February, *1964*, in the comparative infancy of stock fiberglass boats as ocean racers, a short-ended sloop of moderately light displacement came out of California to take the Southern Ocean Racing Conference (SORC) in the waters off of Florida. Named Conquistador, she was #2 of a stock line known as the Cal-40. Starting with that highly prizes and well-publicized title, an unprecedented string of victories in major ocean-racing events was chalked up by this design. The effect on the whole sport was profound, giving impetus to a "revolution" that is still going on. It also propelled the designer, C. William Lapworth, into front-rank prominence among the naval architects in yachting."_

Welcome to Cal40.com

Hull #1 is still raced in the PNW... flush deck like the Cal 25'... and yes the Cal 40, rates higher than yours, keel. 

Oh crap. I posted in this thread.


----------



## smackdaddy

puddinlegs said:


> Oh crap. I posted in this thread.


Hah! Sucka!!!!!


----------



## KeelHaulin

smackdaddy said:


> Keel, look, it's statements like this one that make it clear you really aren't quite with it on this whole debate. You "seriously question" whether the Pogo 10.5 "racing boat" can handle the added weight of cruising provisions? Are you serious?


It's no more a cruising boat than a j105 is. It's a racing hull with cruising provisions put inside of it. I never said it was a racing boat. If you take a current racing design and make it 'cruisy' you destroy the very properties that you wanted to build the flat bottom UlTRA LIGHT displacement planing hull for. So what's the reason to sell it? It's to make money off of customers who think they need one (no different from Ferrari selling street cars), and fuel the racing design program.

Was it any different back when my boat was designed? Not really. C&C wanted a bigger platform for their offshore racing boats so the sold the hull mold for the 41 to raise capital. If you care to read about the racing history of the C&C boats, go over to cncphotoalbum.com . I'm sure you will find it every bit as storied as the Cal 40. The Cal 40 is still winning races, and so is the Newport 41. Red Jacket squashed it's competition at nearly every event it entered (not a Redline 41 hull, but almost exactly the same in hull and keel form).



> In its heyday, Red Jacket won 11 of 13 races in her first season (1966), including the Freeman Cup and the Lake Ontario International. In the 1967 SORC race from St. Petersburg to Venic in Florida, Red Jacket finished first, and so began the spotlight on the boat.





> I think it can handle a few cans of creamed corn and beer for a long jaunt without flipping over and sinking just beyond the seawall.


When Simon set off for the Marquesas from SF his boat had several thousand pounds of extra provisions and equipment aboard. That is the kind of weight I am referring to. The basic design of the Pogo 10.5 is already a compromise, evidenced by the planing speed which does not occur until the boat is up above 20 kts windspeed.


----------



## smackdaddy

KeelHaulin said:


> It's no more a cruising boat than a j105 is. It's a racing hull with cruising provisions put inside of it. I never said it was a racing boat. If you take a current racing design and make it 'cruisy' you destroy the very properties that you wanted to build the flat bottom UlTRA LIGHT displacement planing hull for. So what's the reason to sell it? It's to make money off of customers who think they need one (no different from Ferrari selling street cars), and fuel the racing design program.
> 
> Was it any different back when my boat was designed? Not really. C&C wanted a bigger platform for their offshore racing boats so the sold the hull mold for the 41 to raise capital. If you care to read about the racing history of the C&C boats, go over to cncphotoalbum.com . I'm sure you will find it every bit as storied as the Cal 40. The Cal 40 is still winning races, and so is the Newport 41. Red Jacket squashed it's competition at every event it entered (not a Redline 41 hull, but almost exactly the same in hull and keel form).
> 
> When Simon set off for the Marquesas from SF his boat had several thousand pounds of extra provisions and equipment aboard. That is the kind of weight I am referring to. The basic design of the Pogo 10.5 is already a compromise, evidenced by the planing speed which does not occur until the boat is up above 20 kts windspeed.


Okay, Keel, whatever.

Here's to unstable "cruisy boats" packed with several thousand pounds of creamed corn and beer!

BTW - this thing is also still winning races...










...against one-legged ducks.


----------



## puddinlegs

KeelHaulin said:


> It's no more a cruising boat than a j105 is. It's a racing hull with cruising provisions put inside of it. I never said it was a racing boat. If you take a current racing design and make it 'cruisy' you destroy the very properties that you wanted to build the flat bottom UlTRA LIGHT displacement planing hull for. So what's the reason to sell it? It's to make money off of customers who think they need one (no different from Ferrari selling street cars), and fuel the racing design program.
> 
> Was it any different back when my boat was designed? Not really. C&C wanted a bigger platform for their offshore racing boats so the sold the hull mold for the 41 to raise capital. If you care to read about the racing history of the C&C boats, go over to cncphotoalbum.com . I'm sure you will find it every bit as storied as the Cal 40. The Cal 40 is still winning races, and so is the Newport 41. Red Jacket squashed it's competition at every event it entered (not a Redline 41 hull, but almost exactly the same in hull and keel form).
> 
> When Simon set off for the Marquesas from SF his boat had several thousand pounds of extra provisions and equipment aboard. That is the kind of weight I am referring to. The basic design of the Pogo 10.5 is already a compromise, evidenced by the planing speed which does not occur until the boat is up above 20 kts windspeed.


So when was the last Pac Cup that you had enough n-41's out for a one design class? Were there ever? You're boat isn't Red Jacket. It's just not. The j-35 and J-35c also share the same hull mold. Very different boats. And keel, I know well the history of C&C yachts. My father sailed on a 39' when it was new and killing everything local. I've sailed on several, and a friend ran a 61' program back in the day. Ask any yacht designer about what the Cal 40 was to yacht design vs. anything from C&C's board. I don't think there's any argument beyond the fact that you really dig your boat. I like mine too. I'd argue that there are few built in it's length that work as well, but I don't really care to argue. Like yourself, we enjoy our boat, and that's all that matters.


----------



## KeelHaulin

Can you see much difference here? Specs are pretty close to the same also aside from the LOA and the balsa coring in the hull of red jacket which only saved about 1000 lbs. I never said my boat was red jacket. The racing history of the Redline 41 was cut short by C&C in order to develop Sorcery the C&C 65'. That does not take away from it's pedigree and it did also have a long history of wins as the production racer/cruiser Newport 41 (as I outlined earlier). Why are we still picking nits over this stuff? We wouldn't be trolling, would we??


----------



## KeelHaulin

puddinlegs said:


> So when was the last Pac Cup that you had enough n-41's out for a one design class?


When did I say that the Newport 41 was a one design racer? I said that they make nice CRUISING boats for those who own them. There are less than 4-5 of them available on Yachtworld at any given time (in a production of about 190 hulls) because those who own them don't sell them (if that's any indication of how well liked they are). I know of at least 6 in SF bay and if there was interest we -could- form a one design fleet. No different than a one design fleet of Islander 36's. So what's your point??


----------



## puddinlegs

KeelHaulin said:


> Can you see much difference here? Specs are pretty close to the same also aside from the LOA and the balsa coring in the hull of red jacket which only saved about 1000 lbs. I never said my boat was red jacket. The racing history of the Redline 41 was cut short by C&C in order to develop Sorcery the C&C 65'. That does not take away from it's pedigree and it did also have a long history of wins as the production racer/cruiser Newport 41 (as I outlined earlier). Why are we still picking nits over this stuff? We wouldn't be trolling, would we??


My oh my... if you can't see the difference from the deck up, you just aren't going to get it. And the Cal 40 wasn't intended as a one design class. Just happens it's still incredibly popular. And Sorcery was a C&C 61. Sorry for yet another nit picky correction.


----------



## PCP

KeelHaulin said:


> It's no more a cruising boat than a j105 is. It's a racing hull with cruising provisions put inside of it. I never said it was a racing boat. If you take a current racing design and make it 'cruisy' you destroy the very properties that you wanted to build the flat bottom UlTRA LIGHT displacement planing hull for. So what's the reason to sell it? It's to make money off of customers who think they need one (no different from Ferrari selling street cars), and fuel the racing design program.
> 
> ...


You don't get it also in what regards the Ferrari . It is the opposite you say, Ferrari has a racing program to increase the sale of street cars and does not sale street cars to fuel its racing program. Their main business is not racing cars but selling street cars. I guess you would not also like to own a Ferrari as a street car

Regarding the Pogo 10,50 being no more of a cruising boat than the J105 I don't really understand what you mean. Sure the J 105 can be used as cruising boat but points to a different program. Furthermore the J105 was designed as a one design boat class racer :

*Introduced in 1992 as the first modern day keelboat with bow sprit and asymmetric spinnaker, J/105 today is the most successful one-design keelboat class over 30' in the USA with over 680 boats sailing worldwide. The class association is an owner managed organization with strict one-design rules, a world class web site, and offers the best and most active one-design racing in the USA today.*

J-105 One-Design: The Ultimate Sailboat For Sailors Who Love Sailing, Racing, Day-sailing or One-Design Sailing.

The Pogo 10.50 was designed specifically as a cruising boat and is not used for racing. Pogo has another line of racing boats, with more powerful rigs and water ballasts for the ones that want to race.

Regarding the intended use of both boats regarding cruising you have only to listen to what they say on their websites:

When your home is near the water, J/105 may be your ideal sailboat. *Count up the number of nights spent sleeping aboard and compare that to the number of picnic sails when you would have liked a larger, more comfortable cockpit. J/105 is the answer. Her large cockpit combined with simple 4 berth week-ending layout results in two significant owner benefits: (1) A savings of $50,000 in little-used furniture, systems and cabinetry needed for extended cruising, *and (2) A boat that's easier to handle, more comfortable in waves and more fun to sail for its size. J/105 has the stability, rig and sail controls to handle 15-20 knot winds without the need of reefing. It has the strength and seaworthiness for ocean going passages.

J-105 One-Design: The Ultimate Sailboat For Sailors Who Love Sailing, Racing, Day-sailing or One-Design Sailing.

Designed by Finot-Conq with interior design by Patrick Roseo, the Pogo 10.50 is seaworthy, fast, functional and comfortable, *perfect for lovers of *sensational coastal or *long-distance cruising*.

Equipped with a lifting keel, its variable draft allows you to explore the coast up close.

Like its bigger sisters, the Pogo 10.50 is built by vacuum infusion. This light boat comes with a carbon mast, and *the deck layout has been optimised for solo or short-handed sailing*.

The interior benefits from very good light and is comfortable: head with shower, fridge, 6 berths, *heater, technical compartment* etc

Pogo 10,50 - Presentation (technical specifications, drawings, etc.)

In what regards sailing offshore the boats share different philosophies. The Pogo is designed to be an easy solo boat that can be sailed fast by one solo sailor and that can surf downwind at over 13k on autopilot. The J 105 has a slightly better upwind performance (he can close more on the wind) but in what regards going downwind at the same speed of the Pogo, he need at least two guys and I don't think that going really fast downwind on bad weather, you could trust the boat on autopilot while going to the front of the boat to take care of the spinnaker, or to be inside the boat sleeping or eating.

Look at these images and I think you understand what I mean, this is not a Pogo, but a Beneteau Figaro II, this one is a racing 34ft boat, but like the Pogo a boat designed to be stable downwind and to be solo sailed. I don't think that guy could on a j 105, go safely at that speed and with that weather to the bow, working on the spinnaker, with the boat on autopilot.

YouTube - Francisco Lobato - Figaro 2010 - Regresso Nazaré Cascais 10 Nov

And even if that is a race boat that guy is not racing at that moment, just coming back home after a race.

The J-105 is a great sailing boat but it is a boat designed to be sailed with a crew, even if a short one, the Pogo 10.50 is designed to sail solo.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## puddinlegs

KeelHaulin said:


> When did I say that the Newport 41 was a one design racer? I said that they make nice CRUISING boats for those who own them. There are less than 4-5 of them available on Yachtworld at any given time (in a production of about 190 hulls) because those who own them don't sell them (if that's any indication of how well liked they are). I know of at least 6 in SF bay and if there was interest we -could- form a one design fleet. No different than a one design fleet of Islander 36's. So what's your point??


Neither was the Cal 40, or Islander 36. They've just been very popular boats over the years. My point is you are hugely overly sensitive to any comment made that says anything about your boat being anything less than it's the best damn boat afloat and anyone who doesn't agree can't possibly know what they're talking about. It's just as silly as Paulo and his hijacking of every thread telling everyone looking for a boat they should bust out $100k + for a new boat when it clearly has nothing to do with the question of which boat to buy with a $10-45k budget. Ok... twist into what you will. You're right. As always. You could go over to sailinganarchy and ask someone like Bob Perry, one of the Clark bros, or Mark Mills directly, but I'm sure you'd take them to task for their very informed and experience born opinions on boat design as well.

_(If it makes you feel better, I don't like J-105's at all, but plenty do. It's just not for me... not enough bang for the buck, nor a good cruiser for the type of stuff we do. But no matter. I'm sure they don't care about us either. )_


----------



## KeelHaulin

puddinlegs said:


> My oh my... if you can't see the difference from the deck up, you just aren't going to get it. And the Cal 40 wasn't intended as a one design class. Just happens it's still incredibly popular. And Sorcery was a C&C 61. Sorry for yet another nit picky correction.


My point was about THE HULL, not the rig. The rig was modified for the Newport 41 to give it a better IOR rating. Whether it has a masthead rig with a smaller main or a fractional rig with a longer boom makes little difference in the performance. Our sails wer spilled and reefed because we were getting 30 kt gusts, but you don't see it in the photos because the water is relatively flat.


----------



## KeelHaulin

puddinlegs said:


> Neither was the Cal 40, or Islander 36. They've just been very popular boats over the years. My point is you are hugely overly sensitive to any comment made that says anything about your boat being anything less than it's the best damn boat afloat and anyone who doesn't agree can't possibly know what they're talking about. It's just as silly as Paulo and his hijacking of every thread telling everyone looking for a boat they should bust out $100k + for a new boat when it clearly has nothing to do with the question of which boat to buy with a $10-45k budget. Ok... twist into what you will. You're right. As always. You could go over to sailinganarchy and ask someone like Bob Perry, one of the Clark bros, or Mark Mills directly, but I'm sure you'd take them to task for their very informed and experience born opinions on boat design as well.
> 
> _(If it makes you feel better, I don't like J-105's at all, but plenty do. It's just not for me... not enough bang for the buck, nor a good cruiser for the type of stuff we do. But no matter. I'm sure they don't care about us either. )_


Where did I say that the Newport 41 was 'the best damn boat afloat'? I like my boat, I'm sure those who own Cal 40's, E-38's, Cat 38's or I 36's do also. They are also great designs. My DEFENCE of the Newport 41 against the attacks that are coming left and right here are simply to make it clear that this particular boat is not as difficult to sail as say an end-era IOR boat, and it has REASONABLE performance. The comparisons and bashings of the 41 were being made BEFORE I entered this thread. If owners like myself and KP were not here to try and set the record straight, then who would?

Paulo, the only reason Enzo Ferrari ever made a street car was so that he could continue to fund development of the racing cars. He said this himself. The street cars and their exhorbadently priced parts were what kept Ferrari on the race track for many, many years until the production car division was able to get to the level of mass production (merging hand built techniques with assembly line processes).


----------



## smackdaddy

KeelHaulin said:


> If owners like myself and KP were not here to try and set the record straight, then who would?


Wait...which "record" are we talking about "setting straight" here? The subject of the OP's post (which you've not done a very good job of accomplishing)? Or the N41 defense (which I guess you've done alright on)?

Look, the reason eyes roll when you and KP wax poetic about how you're valiantly "setting the record straight" is because you guys aren't. Furthermore, _you can't_. And the reason for this is that, at the core, you guys have a very strict and narrow definition of "how a boat is supposed to perform/feel" in specific conditions. Anything that doesn't fit this definition is "not a good blue water cruiser" (with the N41 being the repeated example from you guys as "perfection"). Kind of a broad brush, eh?

The problem is that your whole premise here is _subjective_ - not empirical. And there's just WAY too much evidence out there that contradicts your premise. Especially when those conditions you hold forth make up such a small part of the cruising timeline. So there's no way you can set anything "straight" in this regard.

I think PCP, despite his many, many flaws (heh-heh) has done a good job leaving plenty of room for objectivity in his arguments and examples. You and KP? Not so much. If someone wants to opt for wide/fast/modern over skinny/heavy/old - you guys call them blind, and say the newer generation of designers are conspiratorially duping them all. Whaaaat....? (It's because they all hate the N41, right?)

Look, it's just hard to take you guys seriously...even though I try. I really do.


----------



## GBurton

smackdaddy said:


> Wait...which "record" are we talking about "setting straight" here? The subject of the OP's post (which you've not done a very good job of accomplishing)? Or the N41 defense (which I guess you've done alright on)?
> 
> Look, the reason eyes roll when you and KP wax poetic about how you're valiantly "setting the record straight" is because you guys aren't. Furthermore, _you can't_. And the reason for this is that, at the core, you guys have a very strict and narrow definition of "how a boat is supposed to perform/feel" in specific conditions. Anything that doesn't fit this definition is "not a good blue water cruiser" (with the N41 being the repeated example from you guys as "perfection"). Kind of a broad brush, eh?
> 
> The problem is that your whole premise here is _subjective_ - not empirical. And there's just WAY too much evidence out there that contradicts your premise. Especially when those conditions you hold forth make up such a small part of the cruising timeline. So there's no way you can set anything "straight" in this regard.
> 
> I think PCP, despite his many, many flaws (heh-heh) has done a good job leaving plenty of room for objectivity in his arguments and examples. You and KP? Not so much. If someone wants to opt for wide/fast/modern over skinny/heavy/old - you guys call them blind, and say the newer generation of designers are conspiratorially duping them all. Whaaaa....? (It's because they all hate the N41, right?)
> 
> Look, it's just hard to take you guys seriously...even though I try. I really do.


Is that you SD?


----------



## KeelHaulin

puddinlegs said:


> Bud, Redline was optimized for IOR. Your boat's rig was shortened to make it a better, more manageable cruiser a la cruiser/racer. C&C was more in the racer/cruiser market.
> 
> and again, I'll remind you that I like your boat. It's just not what you claim it to be.


No, the Redline 41 had a 17' boom and a 16' J dimension. Much closer to what you see on that photo of Red Jacket - _an end era *CCA*design_. The early Newport 41 hulls built by Enterprise also had the CCA rig. A shorter boom and a longer I and J was more favorable to IOR rating rules because mainsail area was penalized and oversized headsails were not. As it turns out the Newport 41 was well suited to this because it was already designed to carry 150+ headsails as standard light air inventory. So they chopped 3.5' off of the boom, moved the mast aft one foot and made the rig taller. The result was longer luff lengths on both the headsail and main, with the trade off of less downwind mainsail area (which is why bloopers were flown).

What do I claim it to be, other than a great cruising boat design with a great history as a racing boat with pedigree and wins to prove it? I did not claim it to be anything else.


----------



## KeelHaulin

smackdaddy said:


> Wait...which "record" are we talking about "setting straight" here? The subject of the OP's post (which you've not done a very good job of accomplishing)? Or the N41 defense (which I guess you've done alright on)?
> 
> The problem is that your whole premise here is _subjective_ - not empirical. And there's just WAY too much evidence out there that contradicts your premise. Especially when those conditions you hold forth make up such a small part of the cruising timeline. So there's no way you can set anything "straight" in this regard.


The record that makes boats like mine and the E-38 out to be something that they are not (lumped with the failed IOR designs), which were definitely NOT offshore capable, despite conformity to an offshore rating rulebook (get it?).

How can the advice of two owners, one of which has owned a N-41 for 24 years and raced on many newer boats, and myself, an owner for 5 years who sails in one of the windiest coastal places in the world, not be providing empirical evidence? I gave you evidence up the ying-yang about performance, and how this boat is not 'slow' given her displacement, and not much slower in sub 20 kt predicted up/down VMG than a Pogo 10.5. How much more empirical evidence do you need?? I'm not the guy who wrote the article on Practical Sailor which states that it is 'the perfect combination of cruising comfort and racing capability.'


----------



## PCP

KeelHaulin said:


> ..
> 
> Paulo, the only reason Enzo Ferrari ever made a street car was so that he could continue to fund development of the racing cars. He said this himself. The street cars and their exhorbadently priced parts were what kept Ferrari on the race track for many, many years until the production car division was able to get to the level of mass production (merging hand built techniques with assembly line processes).


You were not talking about the past, neither was I.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

KeelHaulin said:


> The record that makes boats like mine and the E-38 out to be something that they are not (lumped with the failed IOR designs), which were definitely NOT offshore capable, despite conformity to an offshore rating rulebook (get it?).
> 
> How can the advice of two owners, one of which has owned a N-41 for 24 years and raced on many newer boats, and myself, an owner for 5 years who sails in one of the windiest coastal places in the world, not be providing empirical evidence? I gave you evidence up the ying-yang about performance, and how this boat is not 'slow' given her displacement, and not much slower in sub 20 kt predicted up/down VMG than a Pogo 10.5. How much more empirical evidence do you need?? I'm not the guy who wrote the article on Practical Sailor which states that it is 'the perfect combination of cruising comfort and racing capability.'


Okay, Keel, so you ARE tunnel-visioned on the N41. Cool...we got that out of the way.

Look - let's try a different tack. The reason no one in this thread can agree is that we're all talking about different things. To wit:

1. The OP asked for _full-keel_ boats that go in light wind - with the presumed assumption that ONLY full-keel boats are REAL "blue water" cruisers.
-Simple answer...I assume...is...they don't exist. Full-keel boats are pigs in light air. Can we all agree on this?

- but this is where it got interesting...

2. Playing off this, the debate then shifted to the traditional "what is the REAL 'blue water cruiser'" angle...and older boats, that can go a little faster than full-keelers started coming into the mix (I think that's where the N41 made its debut). Now, even though the full-keeler crowd probably looks at the N41 as a horrible boat in "REAL" waves, you and KP extol its virtues as a TRUE "blue water" sailer that can blast through waves, yet, indeed, "go in light winds". So - here is yet another angle of the debate...taking the more "modern" designs like the N41 (when compared to full keelers from 1950, that is) and saying they're "better" - to the disapproving howls and cat-calls of the full-keelers.

3. Then comes PCP with the modern array of cruising boats that are WAY fatter and faster than any of the above. YET they are, indeed, "blue water" boats. Now, you and KP start with the disapproving howls and cat-calls, saying that no one, even the designers, even the market itself, knows what they're talking about. These boats are horrible in "REAL" waves. And the full-keelers chuckle.

4. Then comes the issue of how much time the typical cruiser is in such horrible conditions versus having a blast sailing really fast downwind. Do you want fast 99% of the time? Or do you want "comfortable" 1% of the time? (You guys dig that 1%...cool.)

5. Then come whacked-out cost comparisons of 30 year-old-boats to new, modern designs on the market, when the discussion was about the differences in design and capability between older and newer hulls (not cost). The classic dodge that gets us nowhere.

6. Then come the conspiracy theories of how the new boat marketers are duping the blind world of up-and-coming cruisers into going out and killing themselves because of too much canned corn in the non-existent bilge causing problems with stability while surfing toward Antigua under a kite at 22 knots.

So, see? We seem to be having a little trouble with focus in "setting the record straight" as it pertains to a "blue water sailer that can go in light winds".

None of this stuff is empirical. You just seem to think it is because it's your opinion.


----------



## RichH

:hammer .


----------



## GeorgeB

Smack, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

We could always meet on the field of honor and battle this out like men – SSS is half over so we have our choice of the “In the Bay”, “Vallejo 1-2” and “Half Moon Bay” races. HMB is notoriously light air being at the tail end of the season so we would get a good idea as to what is a good light air performer. Oh, I forgot, half of the people arguing here don’t even own boats or are pond sailors. 

Echo Oscar Tango.


----------



## smackdaddy

GeorgeB said:


> Smack, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
> 
> We could always meet on the field of honor and battle this out like men - SSS is half over so we have our choice of the "In the Bay", "Vallejo 1-2" and "Half Moon Bay" races. HMB is notoriously light air being at the tail end of the season so we would get a good idea as to what is a good light air performer. Oh, I forgot, half of the people arguing here don't even own boats or are pond sailors.
> 
> Echo Oscar Tango.


Yep - I'm in the pond sailor class...but I have a hell of a go-bag!

I'm just illustrating how this whole thing has been a ridiculous argument for quite a while now. It's all over the freakin' place and no one is making sense any more. At least PCP has tried to maintain some objectivity - acknowledging the fact that the choice is as much about personal taste as anything else.


----------



## KeelHaulin

Don't you just love Revisionist History?? You can twist it into whatever you want, but you can't come to terms with those of us here who know what they are talking about, because you can't see past your beer goggle visions of what most people looking at the new boats are also seeing (marketing). Then comes the free wine at the boat show dock to get you lubed up about signing the purchase contract, and the loan papers...


----------



## GeorgeB

Hey, hey, it wasn’t wine at Farallones, it was the Mai Tai’s at the Pacific Cup dock! And I did come perilously close to buying a sailing dinghy when they said I could get one with a red hull, however. What I’m still trying to figure out what Ferrari has to do with sailing? Are they getting into sponsorship?


----------



## smackdaddy

I'm just trying to figure out how I get beer goggles from drinking wine.


----------



## KeelHaulin

GeorgeB said:


> Hey, hey, it wasn't wine at Farallones, it was the Mai Tai's at the Pacific Cup dock! And I did come perilously close to buying a sailing dinghy when they said I could get one with a red hull, however. What I'm still trying to figure out what Ferrari has to do with sailing? Are they getting into sponsorship?


Damn... Missed out on that one... Guess I was too busy getting the pitch for synthetic rigging to notice the Mai Tai party 

The Ferrari comparison was mine in reference to the racing boat industry marketing 'cruising' versions to fund their racing development programs; much the same way Ferrari for most of its existence was in the street car market to fund their racing programs.


----------



## PCP

smackdaddy said:


> Okay, Keel, so you ARE tunnel-visioned on the N41. Cool...we got that out of the way.
> 
> Look - let's try a different tack. The reason no one in this thread can agree is that we're all talking about different things. To wit:
> 
> 1. The OP asked for _full-keel_ boats that go in light wind - with the presumed assumption that ONLY full-keel boats are REAL "blue water" cruisers.
> -Simple answer...I assume...is...they don't exist. Full-keel boats are pigs in light air. Can we all agree on this?
> 
> - but this is where it got interesting...
> 
> 2. Playing off this, the debate then shifted to the traditional "what is the REAL 'blue water cruiser'" angle...and older boats, that can go a little faster than full-keelers started coming into the mix (I think that's where the N41 made its debut). Now, even though the full-keeler crowd probably looks at the N41 as a horrible boat in "REAL" waves, you and KP extol its virtues as a TRUE "blue water" sailer that can blast through waves, yet, indeed, "go in light winds". So - here is yet another angle of the debate...taking the more "modern" designs like the N41 (when compared to full keelers from 1950, that is) and saying they're "better" - to the disapproving howls and cat-calls of the full-keelers.
> 
> 3. Then comes PCP with the modern array of cruising boats that are WAY fatter and faster than any of the above. YET they are, indeed, "blue water" boats. Now, you and KP start with the disapproving howls and cat-calls, saying that no one, even the designers, even the market itself, knows what they're talking about. These boats are horrible in "REAL" waves. And the full-keelers chuckle.
> 
> 4. Then comes the issue of how much time the typical cruiser is in such horrible conditions versus having a blast sailing really fast downwind. Do you want fast 99% of the time? Or do you want "comfortable" 1% of the time? (You guys dig that 1%...cool.)
> 
> 5. Then come whacked-out cost comparisons of 30 year-old-boats to new, modern designs on the market, when the discussion was about the differences in design and capability between older and newer hulls (not cost). The classic dodge that gets us nowhere.
> 
> 6. Then come the conspiracy theories of how the new boat marketers are duping the blind world of up-and-coming cruisers into going out and killing themselves because of too much canned corn in the non-existent bilge causing problems with stability while surfing toward Antigua under a kite at 22 knots.
> 
> So, see? We seem to be having a little trouble with focus in "setting the record straight" as it pertains to a "blue water sailer that can go in light winds".
> 
> None of this stuff is empirical. You just seem to think it is because it's your opinion.


Now, who would say that you could make an excellent resume of such a long thread. Funny too

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

Oh - I forgot this one...

7. You can *ONLY* sail directly into the wind *OR* DDW regardless of where your destination is - because that's VMG. And every boat, regardless of hull design acheives pretty much the same speed when in irons. Hence, the Newport 41 is superior.


----------



## michaelkent

I'm not too sure but that sounds like a heavenly vessel if you ask me .


----------



## smackdaddy

michaelkent said:


> I'm not too sure but that sounds like a heavenly vessel if you ask me .


Mikey, baby, just check with HerSailnet...the only heavenly vessel around here is mine. Heh-heh.


----------



## GBurton

I think a more accurate synopsis of the thread would be:

1. Some people think older design boats are all slow.

2. In order to be "cool" you must be willing to say that a surfboard with a 3' standing room cabin is a comfortable cruiser.

3. Smackdaddys real name is Smacktalker.


----------



## JomsViking

GBurton said:


> I think a more accurate synopsis of the thread would be:
> 
> 1. Some people think older design boats are all slow.


Or rather, some people realize that we have learned since the sixties and are happy to embrace the wonderful new boats that gives us. I love traditional vessels, including the old Colin Archer type boats, but laugh at the ridiculous interpretations in GRP - And we do have a lot of traditional vessels here in Scandinavia.



> 2. In order to be "cool" you must be willing to say that a surfboard with a 3' standing room cabin is a comfortable cruiser.


And some cannot be ar*ed to read about the actual cruisers being discussed and/or believe that repeating BS will make it true.



> 3. Smackdaddys real name is Smacktalker.


Well, You're on to something here - but 1 out of three is not good enough


----------



## GBurton

JomsViking said:


> Or rather, some people realize that we have learned since the sixties and are happy to embrace the wonderful new boats that gives us. I love traditional vessels, including the old Colin Archer type boats, but laugh at the ridiculous interpretations in GRP - And we do have a lot of traditional vessels here in Scandinavia.
> 
> And some cannot be ar*ed to read about the actual cruisers being discussed and/or believe that repeating BS will make it true.
> 
> Well, You're on to something here - but 1 out of three is not good enough


Way to miss the point again JV  I did read the whole thread BTW.
And the term "cruiser" here may be a tad um "interpretive", but each to his own.

At least we can agree on point 3


----------



## PCP

GBurton said:


> I think a more accurate synopsis of the thread would be:
> 
> ..
> 2. In order to be "cool" you must be willing to say that a surfboard with a 3' standing room cabin is a comfortable cruiser.


I am not small, almost 1.90m and I have standing room in the Elan 350 and in the Pogo 10.50. On many old 35ft I know that I don't have standing room.

Now, about those 0,94m standing room, I wonder what modern cruiser are you referring to?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JomsViking

GBurton said:


> Way to miss the point again JV  I did read the whole thread BTW.
> And the term "cruiser" here may be a tad um "interpretive", but each to his own.
> 
> At least we can agree on point 3


Nice strike back - Kinda proves my point.
And yes "Cruiser" might be open for interpretation but that is EXCATLY what some have tried to convey in this thread.
(If it's my English You're thrashing, it should be obvious that it is not my Native Tongue)

The irony of it all is that I own and cruise an older boat and have cruised wide and far in different types of vessels but realize that things have evolved, often - but not always - to the better, and most of the boats presented here (often by Paulo) would make WAAAAY better Blue-water cruisers than the "traditional longkeeled heavy and so on and so forth" boats of yesterday.
Colin Archer was ahead of his time, and I firmly believe that he would have built boats more similar to a Pogo if he had lived today.

I'd like for everyone to love their own boats and keep an open mind for new Blue Water Cruisers too - instead of just sticking to some old myths.

Hope that explains my somewhat tongue-in-cheek post above.

/Joms


----------



## GBurton

PCP said:


> I am not small, almost 1.90m and I have standing room in the Elan 350 and in the Pogo 10.50. On many old 35ft I know that I don't have standing room.
> 
> Now, about those 0,94m standing room, I wonder what modern cruiser are you referring to?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Why, this one of course: Goes like hell when the sail is raised. Cutting edge


----------



## JomsViking

*SmackDaddy*



GBurton said:


> Way to miss the point again JV  I did read the whole thread BTW.
> And the term "cruiser" here may be a tad um "interpretive", but each to his own.
> 
> At least we can agree on point 3


Actually, that was tongue in cheek - I actually think he contributed some good stuff here too - His "_style_" is not always to everyones taste, but he did some very good summaries, calling out a lot of discrepancies in this thread.
(I'm still OK with bashing him, though :laugher  )


----------



## blt2ski

Joms,

The issue with "WHAT" makes a good cruiser as I think you are implying, will depend upon a lot of factors, ie where you cruise, are you dock/marina hoping, going across a pond, be it literally 100 yds setting up a tent on the other side, or 100+ miles across a pond called the pacific, atlantic, Mediterranean, baltic or what ever sea or ocean or sound or __________

Hence where I am sure why some of us like one something, other slightly different.......all the above mentioned boats will cruise, its just where one will cruise them too. Just as my boat (article linked) while designed to ocean go, most probably would not take it across an Atlantic pond, but would the Med or salish sea where I am. 

what works in light airs......not a colin archer, been on some of them........

Marty


----------



## JomsViking

Blt2Ski,

I agree - I know what I would take, based on what I have learned doing it (albeit only in the Atlantic) - That's why I was defending several types of boats, and find that people should be more openminded to new boats.
Actually the Colin Archers CAN move in light air, because they had a decent amount of sail-area, some of the GRP copies are too heavy though, so make poorer sailers.


----------



## smackdaddy

JomsViking said:


> Actually, that was tongue in cheek - I actually think he contributed some good stuff here too - His "_style_" is not always to everyones taste, but he did some very good summaries, calling out a lot of discrepancies in this thread.
> (I'm still OK with bashing him, though :laugher  )


Everyone _loves_ my style. I can tell by all the pummeling I take.


----------



## Daily Alice

Wow, after reading this thread I feel both enlightened and confused -- confused as to what I've been enlightened about.

There is a message I get from the "new, awesome, fast fun, performance" clan that is depressing for me, because from them I realize all older boats are outmoded and pigs, and I need to spend something north of $100K and also get drunk at boat shows, neither of which are in my remit. So Paulo, for instance, what about some good used boats that are a good balance of factors, and under say $90K? I realize this may not be your interest, but can you indulge me?

Then there are those here who have a lot of experience with older boats and for instance the discussion of the Newport 41 and "CCA era boats with IOR rigs" is interesting. This is also because, as I consider boats to buy for a solo or short-handed Trans-Pacific voyage, in my budget, I investigated previous record-holding/young-person circumnavigating boats. I think you can find the S&S 34 (J. Sanders, D. Dicks, J. Martin, J. Watson: lately, "Ella's Pink Lady," 2010; thank you Australia!), Islander 36 (reinforced/modified "Intrepid") , Contessa 32 (etc.) in these record books, and recently. Because these groups did not have massive corporate/wealth sponsorship, I think the boats were chosen in part based on budget (a custom-built craft would have been too costly).

So, what exactly is the problem with these boats, compared to newer designs? What would have been a better choice within the budget I mentioned (cost is a big factor in the real world; I am asking for apples to apples here, not price-no-object theoretical comparisons)?

Of course, the boats I just mentioned are all older designs. Isn't the S&S 34 in some ways similar to the Newport 41? (Please enlighten me on similar/different design features?)

More info here (PDF, Patrick Matthiesen, 2003):
S&S 34 - A Classic Ocean Racer/Cruiser/Voyager

Okay so, are all these older boats 1) pigs/dogs/turtles, 2) incapable of sailing well a) upwind and/or b) in light wind, 3) bad at marinas, 4) not really more seaworthy than the new designs? 5) not easier to sail than newer designs solo/short-handed by say someone who cannot bench 200lbs. in a storm?

I am interested in purchasing a "balanced" boat, and one that is tough too. What do you think -- is there a "middle way"? Any recommendations?


----------



## smackdaddy

Hey Alice, welcome to SN. You should look at PCP's epic "Interesting Sailboats" thread here: http://www.sailnet.com/forums/boat-review-purchase-forum/62341-interesting-sailboats.html

In my limited knowledge from the research and discussions here, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with any of the boats you list.

At this point, for me, I like the Beneteau First series as an all-round fast, blue-water cruiser. And you can easily find used Firsts in the sub 100K range.

But, I also like Hunters...seriously. They really are a lot of "luxury" for the money, and are proving quite robust in blue-water as shown by our very own Sequitur.

I think it all really comes down to you, how you sail that boat, and what exactly you want out of it for the majority of time you're on it.

Hopefully PCP will come along and give you some options. Shoot him a PM if he doesn't see this thread.


----------



## Sailormon6

smackdaddy said:


> 1. The OP asked for _full-keel_ boats that go in light wind - with the presumed assumption that ONLY full-keel boats are REAL "blue water" cruisers.
> -Simple answer...I assume...is...they don't exist. Full-keel boats are pigs in light air. Can we all agree on this?


I don't agree. I'll grant you that there are some true, full-keel, light air pigs, but not all of them. Sailing in light air has a little to do with the boat and alot to do with knowing how to sail in light air. If you don't know how to keep a full keel boat moving in light air, you probably won't do much better with any other boat, because, the fundamental principles of sailing are exactly the same, whether you're on a full-keeler or a fin-keeler, and, if you can't keep one driving, you probably won't do very well with the other.

Almost anyone can sail a boat reasonably well in 10-12 kts of wind, because there is enough wind that you can afford to waste some of it and still sail reasonably well. The reason why light air sailing is so difficult is because you have barely enough moving air to move the boat, and you can't afford to waste any of it. Therefore, you have to not only maximize the amount of drive that you extract from the moving air with the sails, but you also have to minimize the amount of drag wherever you find it. Most people don't do either very well in light air.

I frequently crew on a friend's old Alberg designed full keeler, and we consider light air our chance to beat some of the modern fin keel racers, not just on handicap, but scratch. We don't beat them all, because there are always a few guys who really know how to sail in light air, but it's amazing how many modern racers drop out and start their engines just because they can't keep them moving.

You don't often hear a boat owner say "I have no skill at light air sailing." They usually say "My boat is a pig in light air."

Logic tells us that you ought to be able to spend lots of money and get a boat that performs better, but that only works for power boats. In sailing, it doesn't work that way. You still have to know how to make it go.


----------



## PCP

Sailormon6 said:


> I don't agree. I'll grant you that there are some true, full-keel, light air pigs, but not all of them. Sailing in light air has a little to do with the boat and alot to do with knowing how to sail in light air. If you don't know how to keep a full keel boat moving in light air, you probably won't do much better with any other boat, because, the fundamental principles of sailing are exactly the same, whether you're on a full-keeler or a fin-keeler, and, if you can't keep one driving, you probably won't do very well with the other.
> 
> ...
> 
> I frequently crew on a friend's old Alberg designed full keeler, and we consider light air our chance to beat some of the modern fin keel racers, not just on handicap, but scratch. We don't beat them all, because there are always a few guys who really know how to sail in light air, but it's amazing how many modern racers drop out and start their engines just because they can't keep them moving.
> 
> ....


 If you don't know how to sail you cannot move a sailboat but the difference between an old Alberg full keeler and a modern fast cruiser in light winds is *HUGE*, providing people know how to sail.

Just to give you an example and comparing an Alberg 30 with an Elan 31 sailing with 8K wind, *the Elan is about 2 times faster*.

More precisely, considering true wind:

at 40º the Alberg is making *3.1K*; the Elan is making *5.2K*.

at 60º the Alberg is makig *3.2K*; the Elan is making *6.5K*.

at 90º the Alberg is makig *3.0K*; the Elan is making *6.7k*.

at 130º the Alberg is makig *2.7K*; the Elan is making *6.5k*.

The Elan is a good cruising boat with a great interior and a very good stability. If we compare the Alberg 30 with an offshore cruiser more race oriented like the A31, those differences would be bigger.



















Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

Daily Alice said:


> Wow, after reading this thread I feel both enlightened and confused -- confused as to what I've been enlightened about.
> 
> There is a message I get from the "new, awesome, fast fun, performance" clan that is depressing for me, because from them I realize all older boats are outmoded and pigs, and I need to spend something north of $100K and also get drunk at boat shows, neither of which are in my remit. So Paulo, for instance, what about some good used boats that are a good balance of factors, and under say $90K? I realize this may not be your interest, but can you indulge me?
> 
> ...


I am sorry if I gave you that impression I mean that all old boats are pigs. Believe me I don't think that. I believe that modern boats are overall better than older boats but that does not mean that old boats are pigs.

Some where very advanced for their time and are still good boats, like the Vailant 40 or the Farr 38, just to give you examples of two different types of boats. Off course if you compare the Farr 38 to a modern Xp 38 or a Grand Soleil 39 I would have to say the modern boat is better, the same if you compare a Vailant with a Najad 410. That is natural, many years separates those designs and in meantime the materials and the design knowledge have evolved.

You ask me to give you an opinion. That is a tricky thing to do because as you have understood there are very different opinions about what is a boat that has a "good balance of factors" for about 100K.

I would point you two boats from the same designer both remarkably good and modern boats for their design time, an older one from 1988, the Benetau 411 and a more modern one, the Benetau 37, from 2007.

The Benetau 37 you can only have them from 2007 but one thing is the asking price other the sell price. I guess with time you can get one by about 100K.

2006 Beneteau (Sail) Boats For Sale

The Beneteau 411 will be easier to get by that money.

http://www.yachtworld.co.uk/core/li...ncyid=100&city=&pbsint=&boatsAddedSelected=-1

Of course this is my idea of an overall well balanced boat by that price. Others will have different ideas

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

Sailormon6 said:


> Therefore, you have to not only maximize the amount of drive that you extract from the moving air with the sails, *but you also have to minimize the amount of drag wherever you find it.*
> 
> You don't often hear a boat owner say "I have no skill at light air sailing."


Minimize drag. Like the drag of thousands of extra pounds of full keel maybe? Heh-heh.

I get your point, but you're really comparing sailors here, not boats. As the polars show, the Alberg, compared to the Elan, is a pig. No way around that. Sure, put a Tourette's-afflicted spastic monkey at the helm of the Elan and the Alberg might prevail...but that's because of the spastic monkey...not the performance of the Alberg.

As for your last sentence, absolutely true. However, I DO often hear "You have no skill at light air sailing."


----------



## Daily Alice

Thanks, Smackdaddy and Paulo, for your replies. I will consider these designs along with older designs. It's helpful to get an idea of what what be considered in newer designs, for the practical buyer (i.e. at an 'affordable' price point). 

Smack..: Different topic, but reading around online there are various horror stories about the quality of Hunters ...


----------



## smackdaddy

Daily Alice said:


> Smack..: Different topic, but reading around online there are various horror stories about the quality of Hunters ...


Yeah, there always have been. The issue is, I just don't buy most of them.

A member here, Michael, has a very, very respectable pedigree as a seaman...and he picked the Hunter 49 as his boat after a lot of research and deliberation. He just took _Sequitur_ around Cape Horn, then into an F10-11 that crossed his path. The boat did fine.

That's good enough "quality" for me...especially with the kind of sailing I plan to do for the next 10 years.

Sequitur

Oh, and here is another blue-water boat of questionable quality that did 4 knots in light winds using blankets as a sail...and it was a stinkpot:

Jesús Vidaña - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## mitiempo

Smack

Sequitur is a 49' Hunter, near or at the top of their line. The largest or most expensive of any product line is usually the best built and most featured, whether it is a sailboat, car, or toaster. Good on the crew of Sequitur but it is as representative of the rest of the Hunter line as a Ford F350 truck is of their least expensive car, or a Catalina 22 compared to their biggest and best. 

Horror stories don't start out of thin air - there is usually some basis of fact involved.


----------



## smackdaddy

mitiempo said:


> Smack
> 
> Sequitur is a 49' Hunter, near or at the top of their line. The largest or most expensive of any product line is usually the best built and most featured, whether it is a sailboat, car, or toaster. Good on the crew of Sequitur but it is as representative of the rest of the Hunter line as a Ford F350 truck is of their least expensive car, or a Catalina 22 compared to their biggest and best.
> 
> Horror stories don't start out of thin air - there is usually some basis of fact involved.


True miti. But I still think most of the Hunter bashing is sailor-nerd hysteria. Why else would Beneteau adopt the much-maligned arch technology?










There is, without doubt, SOME basis of fact involved as you say. I just think that for the sailing most of us will ever do, the other 99% of fact involved shows that most any boat will handle the conditions she's sailed into by a competent sailor. It's WAY more about the sailor than it is about the gear.


----------



## mitiempo

smackdaddy said:


> True miti. But I still think most of the Hunter bashing is sailor-nerd hysteria. Why else would Beneteau adopt the much-maligned arch technology?
> 
> There is, without doubt, SOME basis of fact involved as you say. I just think that for the sailing most of us will ever do, the other 99% of fact involved shows that most any boat will handle the conditions she's sailed into by a competent sailor. It's WAY more about the sailor than it is about the gear.


Ideas that are used by one builder, if thought successful, are often copied by other builders. That is in many ways more marketing than build quality.

Hunter - and Catalina - are not designed and built to be offshore boats and I think neither Warren Luhrs or Frank Butler would overbuild a boat designed for coastal/weekend use with additional materials - it's not a cost effective plan - they are built well enough for their intended purpose.

Beneteau in my opinion is a better built boat. I think the European attitude is different for one thing. But as I work on many boats I get to see how they are put together, and I see the parts some owners never get to. My big complaint of Beneteau is access, not lack of strength. This is due to the liner and grid that seems to cover the entire interior. When you look at all the hidden corners of a Beneteau what you see is an incredible simplicity of construction tailored to a mass production level. The wood is well done but there are as few pieces as possible. There is never a rough edge of fiberglass or evidence of sloppy work in the most hard to get to corner. Both Hunter and to a lesser extent Catalina have some rough edges. The equipment layout on a Beneteau is well thought out and easy to access. I was on a 36' Hunter a few weeks ago and I can't say the same about it. Important items like pumps were hard to access and a nightmare to replace. I would definitely regard Beneteau as more refined.

Here is a link to an interesting interview with Jim Bohart of Hunter. It is well worth reading. HunterOwners.com - Hunter Q&A He gets asked a lot of tough questions about items that are never mentioned in magazine reviews.


----------



## smackdaddy

mitiempo said:


> Ideas that are used by one builder, if thought successful, are often copied by other builders. That is in many ways more marketing than build quality.
> 
> Hunter - and Catalina - are not designed and built to be offshore boats and I think neither Warren Luhrs or Frank Butler would overbuild a boat designed for coastal/weekend use with additional materials - it's not a cost effective plan - they are built well enough for their intended purpose.
> 
> Beneteau in my opinion is a better built boat. I think the European attitude is different for one thing. But as I work on many boats I get to see how they are put together, and I see the parts some owners never get to. My big complaint of Beneteau is access, not lack of strength. This is due to the liner and grid that seems to cover the entire interior. When you look at all the hidden corners of a Beneteau what you see is an incredible simplicity of construction tailored to a mass production level. The wood is well done but there are as few pieces as possible. There is never a rough edge of fiberglass or evidence of sloppy work in the most hard to get to corner. Both Hunter and to a lesser extent Catalina have some rough edges. The equipment layout on a Beneteau is well thought out and easy to access. I was on a 36' Hunter a few weeks ago and I can't say the same about it. Important items like pumps were hard to access and a nightmare to replace. I would definitely regard Beneteau as more refined.
> 
> Here is a link to an interesting interview with Jim Bohart of Hunter. It is well worth reading. HunterOwners.com - Hunter Q&A He gets asked a lot of tough questions about items that are never mentioned in magazine reviews.


I've read that interview and linked it here several times as well. It was actually conducted by our very own Jeff_H. Great stuff.

As for Hunters not being designed and built as an off-shore boat....



> *CWBB* It has been pointed out that Hunter has received the highest level of the EU's new seaworthiness ratings. This rating category indicates that the vessel is designed to withstand conditions of approximately 40 knot. winds and 12-foot seas. Hunter's ads, however seem to suggest that the rating implies that the boats are designed to take anything that they might encounter in open ocean cruising. Are Hunters designed for the kind of conditions they might encounter in some of the nastier areas of the world, such as the major Capes or a North Atlantic passage?
> 
> *JB* All current Hunter boats 34' and larger built for European delivery are certified by IMCI to be in compliance with the relevant parts of the Recreational Craft Directive 94/25/CE. The CE mark means that the craft meets or exceeds all current standards and directives of the International Organization for Standardization in effect at the time of construction. All Hunters 34' and larger comply with the CE A design category. Those built for US delivery would have to have a serial number change that is not accepted by the US Coast Guard documentation service and lack various safety placards, stove shielding, and VHF radio specs required by the IMCI. Otherwise the construction is identical. _*The specific language used by the IMCI is: "Category A Ocean: Craft designed for extended voyages where conditions experienced may exceed wind force 8 and include significant wave heights of 4m, for vessels that are largely self sufficient." The key you're missing is the word "exceed." Yes, we believe the boats capable of rounding the major capes and of North Atlantic passage; several have. *_All our boats delivered over the past 5-6 years to our Cape Town South Africa dealer have been on their own bottoms. The skill of the captain and crew, proper preparation, appropriate safety equipment are of course essential to safe sailing and are not included when the boat leaves our plant but can be added.


Though I definitely respect the fact that you actually work on these boats, I'm just saying there's plenty of evidence out there that contradicts your position. Like you I prefer Benes. But I have nothing against and even like the Hunters, even though they, like any other boat, will have their flaws.


----------



## mitiempo

Here is a post made by Jeff a few years ago discussing exactly what "Category A Ocean" may mean - it is not necessarily what you think.


----------



## bjung

smackdaddy said:


> True miti. But I still think most of the Hunter bashing is sailor-nerd hysteria. Why else would Beneteau adopt the much-maligned arch technology?


Smacky, they didn't! The Bene still has a backstay...... You could say they stole the idea from Malo, but forgot the traveller.


----------



## PCP

mitiempo said:


> Here is a post made by Jeff a few years ago discussing exactly what "Category A Ocean" may mean - it is not necessarily what you think.


Category A does not mean a boat is designed for offshore work it stands for a *minimum* of requisites and stability that are judged as necessary to sail offshore. Those minimums without being perfect result of the work of many reputable architects of several nationalities and the requirements are not a closed book. The rules have been perfected and improved with the years trying to obtain more adjusted results. I guess that even myself could make some suggestions to improve that rule not in what regards the minimums but in what regards results control.

Good small boats with good overall stability like the Elan 310 make it as a class A boat and I remember that some years ago a Dehler 29 had also make it but that is about as close as you can get in size, at least regarding modern light boats. It is not easy a boat of that size to pass the criteria to make it to class A and it has to be a very well designed and seaworthy boat for its size.

Saying this, that is a minimum. It is obvious that a Hunter 49 a Bavaria 36 and a Elan 310, all class A boats have different levels of seaworthiness. This off course does not mean that you cannot safely cross the Atlantic in an Elan 310. Similar types of boats and probably the Elan 310 do that in large numbers on the Transquadra, racing solo or duo and I don't remember of any that has been capsized.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chall03

Look, I am going to get in trouble for saying this, but what is it about Americans, well actually all of the western world come to think of it Australia included, that we require a certificate, or stamp of some kind of 'standard' to tell us whether we can sail a certain boat across an ocean or not??? 

If a bunch of geeks on a panel tell me a boat is 'certified' category A then I guess I can just hop right on board and sail off into the blue yonder with my family trusting all is good?? If I could just get the geeks to programme the waypoints into my GPS and then get some weather geeks to model the weather and then I won't have to think for myself at all 

I think if you need any kind of standard to determine for YOU whether your boat is or is not suitable to cross an ocean than you really have no business crossing oceans.


----------



## PCP

chall03 said:


> Look, I am going to get in trouble for saying this, but what is it about Americans, well actually all of the western world come to think of it Australia included, that we require a certificate, or stamp of some kind of 'standard' to tell us whether we can sail a certain boat across an ocean or not???
> 
> If a bunch of geeks on panel tell me a boat is 'certified' category A then I guess I can just hop right on board and sail off into the blue yonder with my family trusting all is good?? If I could just get the geeks to programme the waypoints into my GPS and then get some weather geeks to model the weather and then I won't have to think for myself at all
> 
> I think if you need any kind of standard to determine for YOU whether your boat is or is not suitable to cross an ocean than you really have no business crossing oceans.


I am not saying that standard should be mandatory. That is another discussion. The purpose of the RCD is to give information to not knowledgeable consumers about boat stability and seaworthiness.

Those minimum requirements while disputable were set by a large body of NA and it will provide some valuable information to the ones that know nothing about boat stability or boat seaworthiness.

It is up to the consumer to set their one rules about what he considers the minimum requirements in what regards a boat to go offshore...at his own risk, even if the insurance companies will probably refuse to insure for offshore a boat that has not been classified as class A by the RCD.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chall03

PCP said:


> I am not saying that standard should be mandatory. That is another discussion. The purpose of the RCD is to give information to not knowledgeable consumers about boat stability and seaworthiness.
> 
> Those minimum requirements while disputable were set by a large body of NA and it will provide some valuable information to the ones that know nothing about boat stability or boat seaworthiness.
> 
> It is up to the consumer to set their one rules about what he considers the minimum requirements in what regards a boat to go offshore...at his own risk, even if the insurance companies will probably refuse to insure for offshore a boat that has not been classified as class A by the RCD.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


I agree Paulo,

It is useful for sure, as is the stability curve, Displacement to Length ratio, what the guy at the end of the bar thinks and any and all other information out there. In fact A category A Ocean rating is a great indicator that a boat is a suitable contender for bluewater sailing. It just seems some folk want it to be a guarantee that a boat is capable of doing something that is inherently a risk taking venture.

My issue is philosophical, surely if you are going to round a cape, then being able to understand and comprehend yacht design for oneself, and make a decision about what kind of craft you would consider appropriate and how to sail that boat in all conditions is something to figure out for oneself. Offshore sailing is about being self reliant and making self assessments and judgements without someone telling you what to do.


----------



## Daily Alice

Found the thread here -- the CE EU link is still live here -- but there is no list of boats?

The same thing as
"CE certification by Lloyd's Register Quality Assurance for Category A (Ocean)"?

All sorts of problematic issues and oversights are reported, doing a search of forums, concerning the comprehensiveness of the specifications. Still, could be there's useful information, nonetheless, to consider, within limits.



mitiempo said:


> Here is a post made by Jeff a few years ago discussing exactly what "Category A Ocean" may mean - it is not necessarily what you think.


----------



## smurphny

PCP said:


> If you don't know how to sail you cannot move a sailboat but the difference between an old Alberg full keeler and a modern fast cruiser in light winds is *HUGE*, providing people know how to sail.
> 
> Just to give you an example and comparing an Alberg 30 with an Elan 31 sailing with 8K wind, *the Elan is about 2 times faster*.
> 
> More precisely, considering true wind:
> 
> at 40º the Alberg is making *3.1K*; the Elan is making *5.2K*.
> 
> at 60º the Alberg is makig *3.2K*; the Elan is making *6.5K*.
> 
> at 90º the Alberg is makig *3.0K*; the Elan is making *6.7k*.
> 
> at 130º the Alberg is makig *2.7K*; the Elan is making *6.5k*.
> 
> The Elan is a good cruising boat with a great interior and a very good stability. If we compare the Alberg 30 with an offshore cruiser more race oriented like the A31, those differences would be bigger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


 I don't know where these polars came from or who was at the wheel or what sail configuration was used but I can tell you my A35 (very similar to the A30 in design) goes a hell of a lot faster than 3 knots with 8 knots of wind on a beam reach. With 160 genny and full main, I am doing closer to 6 knots, still relatively slow when compared to modern hull designs but not THAT slow.


----------



## PCP

chall03 said:


> ...
> 
> My issue is philosophical, surely if you are going to round a cape, then being able to understand and comprehend yacht design for oneself, and make a decision about what kind of craft you would consider appropriate and how to sail that boat in all conditions is something to figure out for oneself. Offshore sailing is about being self reliant and making self assessments and judgements without someone telling you what to do.


That's my time to agree

Even if I would gladly take an Elan 310 on a duo racing tarnsat (because I like the idea and the race gives a warranty of a quick help if something goes wrong) I would not have one for doing extensive blue water sailing. For doing that I consider that among the modern cruisers the right size is between 38 and 45 ft (if you sail mostly solo). Not saying that you cannot do it with a good security margin on a 36ft but that is just what I would prefer.

As important as the boat size is the boat condition and equipment. Boats are not different than cars, if you have an older one, even with good maintenance you are more prone that something goes wrong. It can never happen, just a statistic possibility. Insurance companies understand that very well. Have a look at the premiums increase as the boat go older.

But most of all the knowledge and experience of the sailor is paramount to the boat safety.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Sailormon6

Of course the modern designs are capable of pointing higher and footing faster than the old Albergs. I never said they weren't. But they can't do it all by themselves. The modern designs still need someone who knows how to maximize their boatspeed and minimize their drag. Giving such a boat to a guy who lacks the skill to sail it is like giving an Indy racer to a high school hot rodder. He won't know what to do with it. It makes more sense to first learn how to sail a boat in light air, and then buy a boat that will allow him to make the most of his skills. If he doesn't know how to maximize the boat's potential, then he's wasting it's potential.

Maybe I am misconstruing this thread, but it sounds an awful lot like the OP is asking what kind of boat will make him a good light air sailor. If so, the answer is "No boat will do that." He would do better to ask "How can I become a good light air sailor?" But, he doesn't even need to do that. He can just search the archives for some of Jeff_H's discussions of the subject. Jeff knows how to sail in light air, and explains it clearly.

Too many people think all they need to sail in light air is a light air sailboat, and all they need to hit long, straight golf shots is a fine set of clubs. It doesn't work that way. Too bad, because I could be a great golfer if only I had a great set of clubs.


----------



## PCP

Daily Alice said:


> Found the thread here -- the CE EU link is still live here -- but there is no list of boats?
> 
> The same thing as
> "CE certification by Lloyd's Register Quality Assurance for Category A (Ocean)"?
> 
> All sorts of problematic issues and oversights are reported, doing a search of forums, concerning the comprehensiveness of the specifications. Still, could be there's useful information, nonetheless, to consider, within limits.


Alice, this is a relative new thing so a 20 year old boat would not be rated not meaning they are not seaworthy, just that they were not certified. They stated to be certified in 1998.

As I have said some 30ft boats are certified as A category, most 34ft are and practically all 36ft pass the requirements.

A list is pretty much unnecessary unless you want to buy a 30ft modern boat.

If you want some sort of list this is a better one since on some boats they give the AVS. However those AVS can differ slightly with the computer program that was used to generate them. For comparison purposes is better to use the ones on the ORCI certificates, when available. Those are all taken the same way and directly comparable between them but not with the computer generated ones.

Google: *RYA stability list*

and download the XLS document (second on the list).

Regards

Paulo


----------



## ama_elan34

It's been interesting reading, almost used half of my Sunday for the whole tread , what du you think about salona 45 for sale here 

http://www.yachtworld.dk/baade/2003/Salona-45-1727495/country.kroatien
for 74000 eur you can not go wrong, put for instance 20 k more and you have perfect blue water boat which is modern design, big enough, I know it is former charter boat but at this price it is almost unbeatable!


----------



## PCP

ama_elan34 said:


> It's been interesting reading, almost used half of my Sunday for the whole tread , what du you think about salona 45 for sale here
> 
> 2003 Salona 45 Sejl Båd til salg - www.yachtworld.dk
> for 74000 eur you can not go wrong, put for instance 20 k more and you have perfect blue water boat which is modern design, big enough, I know it is former charter boat but at this price it is almost unbeatable!


Yes I agree and even if that interior is a lot less nicer than the ones from the new Salonas the boat has a great price and it will make a good offshore boat with the right equipment.

Here you can see the same boat for a lot more money

Salona 45 - Salona Yachts

That charter company is directly run by the factory so they can put there the boats at factory cost and that is a big advantage for them in what regards price. Now they want to change the 45 on charter by the newer 44 and they want it for the next charter season so they want to sell it fast. As you can see the boat was at a very different price.

Buying to them has another advantage: if you want to change something on the boat or make a small alteration or add equipment it would be made by the factory (that is few kms away) providing you don't ask them in the summer

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Geoff54

PCP said:


> Google: *RYA stability list*
> 
> and download the XLS document (second on the list).


That link does not return the latest list. The most recent version can be found at Stability Data | Regulations & Safety | Information & Advice | RYA
Look under "downloads" on the right side of the page.

It must be about due for another update.


----------



## ama_elan34

just want to leave a short reply. I used to windsurf a lot and when you have big waves you need to go surfing very fast, and evrything becomes easier, no drag anymore and you have speed enough to go above white tops etc. So even though it can not be directly compared to sailing boats, I do understand your points concernig those new designs. the only question is if it is possible to maintain those high surfing speed and how much effort you need to put into it. Anyway I just want to say that I understand your points from windsurf angle. On the other side I own elan 34 from 1997 And I do find it a bit scary when in big waves and once it start surfing, so I hope that those new designs feel much more stable under heavy seas or it would be a very long trip across the dam


----------



## PCP

ama_elan34 said:


> just want to leave a short reply. I used to windsurf a lot and when you have big waves you need to go surfing very fast, and evrything becomes easier, no drag anymore and you have speed enough to go above white tops etc. So even though it can not be directly compared to sailing boats, I do understand your points concernig those new designs. the only question is if it is possible to maintain those high surfing speed and how much effort you need to put into it. Anyway I just want to say that I understand your points from windsurf angle. On the other side I own elan 34 from 1997 And I do find it a bit scary when in big waves and once it start surfing, so I hope that those new designs feel much more stable under heavy seas or it would be a very long trip across the dam


That was not what I meant to say. You don´t need to go to high surfing speeds, you just need to keep the boat sailing. You don't need to go very fast on a modern boat to take advantage of its dynamic stability properties.

That was not what I said but it works also the way you say on very light and sportive cruisers and the Elan 350 or the Pogo 10.50 are good examples of that kind of boat. Here you have a very light racing 35ft sailed solo in extreme conditions. I don't mean the weather but the sail the boat carries.






He would be a lot safer and not doing much less speed with a bit less sail.

You can see that the guy is confident enough on his boat to leave the boat on autopilot and go forward to put a spinnaker&#8230;.now that was really too much abuse and the boat could not take it, I mean not going safely downwind on autopilot with full main and jib but the spinnaker.

Not a problem to recover the boat and get going again&#8230;with no spinnaker but at a fantastic speed.

I am not telling you that this is cruising, even if it is certainly having fun, but with some less sail and some less speed he would be cruising on autopilot doing double figures in all safety.

Similar boats got last night, on a Transat that is going on, 45K winds. All keep racing, none went for defensive sailing and none had a problem with seaworthiness.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

Great vid PCP. I love how it looks like the spinnaker is going to fly that boat at 1:12. Wow.


----------



## therapy23

smackdaddy said:


> Great vid PCP. I love how it looks like the spinnaker is going to fly that boat at 1:12. Wow.


It seems that he might have put the spin up just for the photo shoot. Then after the broach he took it down?


----------



## ama_elan34

paulo, I agree, what I wanted to say is that once windsurf board is up and surfing, not necceserely at high speeds just surfing, than everything is easier, it is easier to steer, no drag at all, rig is lighter to hold, it is easier to come above white tops etc... just saying that there are some similarities...


----------



## PCP

therapy23 said:


> It seems that he might have put the spin up just for the photo shoot. Then after the broach he took it down?


Yes I guess that it was that. Obviously sailing the boat on those conditions with a full sail and a big spinnaker is quite mad and no wonder the boat suffers occasional broaches. The thing to retain is that the guy is out there alone and he knows that with a modern boat with good stability recovering from a broach is not a problem. After taking the spinnaker the boat seems rock stable.

Here you have another guy, same boat (Beneteau Figaro II) on even worse conditions. Off course the spinnaker is too much and broaches are too be expected if someone is using it with that kind of wind, especially alone. Even full sail, I mean main and jib with 40 to 50 K winds is crazy. Only a very good solo racer showing off or sailing at 110% trying to win a race would try that stunt.


----------



## Oregonian

This thread starts out asking about "Blue Water" boats in "Light airs". That usually implies certain requirements. The thread ended showing a nice video of a race boat in heavy air. I see no dinghy on that boat or an anchor. It also probably does not have 70 gallons of water aboard nor 3000#s of stuff. But, thanks anyway Paulo.
This thread also took the common route from good advice to some ridiculously poor information. Thanks to RichH and a few others we heard the truth. The poor information, as usual, comes from the theorist. 
Once again the Westsail 32 was mentioned as a boat to stay away from. Jeff H says "the Westsail 32 is useless as a sailboat in winds under 8k". Many of you jumped in to agree. GeorgeB being just one. The "Proof" is the wetted surface and the "High drag". How high is that drag? I don't believe any of you actually mentioned how many pounds of drag there is in a 32' full keel vs. a 32' fin keel when both keels are very smooth.
There are a number of explanations as to why all of you have usually seen W-32s sailing around slowly. The number one reason, by far, is the boat owner. Many boat owners have completely different priorities than you do and their boat performance reflects that. In most cases you attribute that slowness to other aspects of the boat. In my opinion, the wrong aspects. As just one example: if you see a Hans Christian sailing slowly are you thinking about the fixed 3 bladed propeller the boat might be dragging or the 200+ books aboard the boat?
I can respectfully acknowledge that one's opinions and convictions are determined by their own experiences as are ones world views; thus the differences in people are far greater than in those between boats. 
How slow is a W-32 in light winds? The following event was well documented and tracked by hundreds, if not thousands, of people. Days 4 through 7 (or so) of the 2010 SHTP (single handed trans pac) were in extremely light winds. Head winds and following winds occurred, often less than 4k. It was during this time that the W-32 made its biggest gains against all the other boats. Valiant 40, Olson 34, Islander 36, Martin 32, Express 27, just to name a few. The W-32 had all of the theoretical strikes against it yet it still was able to sail equally, Boat for Boat, to any of the other boats (that had propellers in the water). There is a real world explanation, but make up your own conclusions if you will. You cannot get the proper explanation from a theorist. The only real truth is that boats like a W-32 are quite a bit better sail boats than our experts want you to believe. I must question their agenda. Our experts, Paulo included, grossly exaggerate the benefits of the modern design.
The accompanying photos show a W-32 off the coast of Washington. The TRUE wind is approximately 3.1k. Does anyone here really believe that a Farr 38, Elan, or Figaro 35 would be able to do a lot better? Do you think that your boat could do a lot better? And, don't forget to put that dinghy and the anchors, and 70 gallons of water, and the 3000#s of stuff aboard when you make that test.
Quote: Jeff H; "Calling a spade a spade is not denigrating anyone's boat. Its just simple honesty"
Thanks for listening


----------



## puddinlegs

Not that I have any dog in this thread, but Oregonian, you know well that ISAF race rules (and PIYA) require two anchors and ground tackle appropriate to the length and displacement of the boat. There's no need to tell us what a race boat 'doesn't' have when in fact it's required. That includes both fuel and water for the journey. Hot showers? A dishwasher? No. I'm glad you love your Westsail and that you sail it well, but yes, I do believe many boats will do better in light air including my own. You corrected out if I remember, which means you sailed very well for your rating. You didn't sail faster boat for boat. But do correct me if I'm wrong. No worries though. My opinion isn't all that important, and congrats! Honestly, you sail the hell out of your boat. Your results are nothing short of amazing. It's scary to imagine what might happen if you were sailing something lighter and faster.


----------



## GBurton

puddinlegs said:


> Not that I have any dog in this thread, but Oregonian, you know well that ISAF race rules (and PIYA) require two anchors and ground tackle appropriate to the length and displacement of the boat. There's no need to tell us what a race boat 'doesn't' have when in fact it's required. That includes both fuel and water for the journey. Hot showers? A dishwasher? No. I'm glad you love your Westsail and that you sail it well, but yes, I do believe many boats will do better in light air including my own. You corrected out if I remember, which means you sailed very well for your rating. You didn't sail faster boat for boat. But do correct me if I'm wrong. No worries though. My opinion isn't all that important, and congrats!


What boat do you have puddinglegs?


----------



## souljour2000

Oregonian said:


> This thread starts out asking about "Blue Water" boats in "Light airs". That usually implies certain requirements. The thread ended showing a nice video of a race boat in heavy air. I see no dinghy on that boat or an anchor. It also probably does not have 70 gallons of water aboard nor 3000#s of stuff. But, thanks anyway Paulo.
> This thread also took the common route from good advice to some ridiculously poor information. Thanks to RichH and a few others we heard the truth. The poor information, as usual, comes from the theorist.
> Once again the Westsail 32 was mentioned as a boat to stay away from. Jeff H says "the Westsail 32 is useless as a sailboat in winds under 8k". Many of you jumped in to agree. GeorgeB being just one. The "Proof" is the wetted surface and the "High drag". How high is that drag? I don't believe any of you actually mentioned how many pounds of drag there is in a 32' full keel vs. a 32' fin keel when both keels are very smooth.
> There are a number of explanations as to why all of you have usually seen W-32s sailing around slowly. The number one reason, by far, is the boat owner. Many boat owners have completely different priorities than you do and their boat performance reflects that. In most cases you attribute that slowness to other aspects of the boat. In my opinion, the wrong aspects. As just one example: if you see a Hans Christian sailing slowly are you thinking about the fixed 3 bladed propeller the boat might be dragging or the 200+ books aboard the boat?
> I can respectfully acknowledge that one's opinions and convictions are determined by their own experiences as are ones world views; thus the differences in people are far greater than in those between boats.
> How slow is a W-32 in light winds? The following event was well documented and tracked by hundreds, if not thousands, of people. Days 4 through 7 (or so) of the 2010 SHTP (single handed trans pac) were in extremely light winds. Head winds and following winds occurred, often less than 4k. It was during this time that the W-32 made its biggest gains against all the other boats. Valiant 40, Olson 34, Islander 36, Martin 32, Express 27, just to name a few. The W-32 had all of the theoretical strikes against it yet it still was able to sail equally, Boat for Boat, to any of the other boats (that had propellers in the water). There is a real world explanation, but make up your own conclusions if you will. You cannot get the proper explanation from a theorist. The only real truth is that boats like a W-32 are quite a bit better sail boats can our experts want you to believe. I must question their agenda. Our experts, Paulo included, grossly exaggerate the benefits of the modern design.
> The accompanying photos show a W-32 off the coast of Washington. The TRUE wind is approximately 3.1k. Does anyone here really believe that a Farr 38, Elan, or Figaro 35 would be able to do a lot better? Do you think that your boat could do a lot better? And, don't forget to put that dinghy and the anchors, and 70 gallons of water, and the 3000#s of stuff aboard when you make that test.
> Quote: Jeff H; "Calling a spade a spade is not denigrating anyone's boat. Its just simple honesty"
> Thanks for listening


I really like what you said about differences in people being greater than differences in types of boats...I'm still working on the 200+ books aboard the ship's library but now that i got a bigger boat just give me some time...200 is a bit more than I'd hope to have..maybe would settle for four score and seven...lol..someday or around that number... probably only have about a dozen books on sailing/boating in my boat right now...but I definitely will have the 3000 lbs of gear after I get the stuff out of the laundry room and onto the boat soon...and I do got the 70 gal water tank and am working on installing a good side-loading washer and dryer set maybe...
btw....good post and the thread certainly needed to be brought back to topic...score +1 one for oregonian!


----------



## Oregonian

Puddinglegs, I do not like to correct someone but I am going for accuracy here as many errors have already been made on this thread and this forum. Your opinion DOES matter to me. I appreciate your posting and your many responses to this forum.
My earlier post stated BOAT FOR BOAT performance during the light airs of that event. I do not concern myself with corrected performance. The documented tracks as shown on the internet and posted by the race committee clearly show the Westsail-32 out running all the boats mentioned (and others) during the most extreme light winds of the race.
The biggest regret of the race was when the Olson 34 passed, within sight, on the very last day. The Bozo at the helm of the Westsail allowed a nasty gybe to occur while talking to his wife on the computer. Yes, the wife was to blame. The last 600 miles were sailed with a big reef and a broken boom. The Olson 34 beat the Westsail 32 to Hawaii by one hour 12 minutes - after 17 days. 
Another correction of an error made on this thread: regarding “that widely quoted Pacific race” This is the FACT; Yes the W-32 was the last boat to finish in the PHRF class. It was NOT the last boat to finish the race as there was an IOR class also. The last boat to finish that race was a C&C31. If a person is not comfortable naming a boat, as I am not, then it may simply be said that the 31’ fin keel boat was slower than the 32’ full keel boat in what was in fact a “light wind” year. (It was not light wind as we normally define it as it was actually over 8k most of the time)
Souljour2000. Thanks for that. Let me know if you’re ever in the area.


----------



## souljour2000

RXBOT said:


> You know that Luders hull speed is about 6.5 knots because she has about 9 feet of overhangs so about 24 feet at waterline. Jeffs Farr 38 is bigger,lighter, larger sail area and longer on the waterline. His hullspeed is about 7.5 knots. So if they both did hull speed for 10 hours the Luders is only 10 nautical miles back or 24 for a full 24 hour sail.


Let's go way back,back,back....into the 4th or 5th page of this thread for a minute...where we were comparing the Luders 33 of the OP to jeff's farr 38....yes, the farr does 7.5 hullspeed theoretical while the Luders is chugging along at substantially less....etc.etc, Question for debate: The Luders is showing a motion comfort rating of 34+...twice that of the farr 38 that comes in around 17 and change...what does this mean minus all the formula variabilities...and then is it a yacht delivery...or a single-hander or cruising couple who is aboard...So many variables. I know there is alot of vagaries in connection to sailprocalc or other sites numbers and they have to be taken with a grain a salt..but TWICE the motion comfort? Sure the farr is way out ahead likely in light air...but...but what? A million other factors or scenarios....weather, crew, experience of crew, area of ocean where sailing...these would seem to affect things way more than the actual boat differences...that we always seem get get hung up on...and then there's that sea comfort rating disparity... between the farr 38 and the Luder 33... a boat 5 feet shorter and a ton heavier...what to think...the only thing certain is that in light air..anywhere..you want to be on the Farr....but there's a million other considerations when buying a boat..that the original question by OP cannot be answered...ever..at least in this thread...so instead the thread becomes another "old boas are better vs. new boats are better" thread....


----------



## smackdaddy

I'll stick with the modern, fast boat that's got a spacious, comfy interior. And I'll save some warm beer for you full-keelers at the finish.

That's just how I roll.

(Oh yeah, we just won our class and were 3rd overall a few weeks ago in an amply-keeled Pearson 365 ketch...among a fleet including J-Boats, Benes, and even a MacG 65. But I still want a pimpin' fat-assed sled.)


----------



## puddinlegs

souljour, Not Jeff's 11.6, but I've sail on a Farr 1220. I can say unequivocally that it's a boat I wouldn't hesitate to set out on for a world cruise.


----------



## GBurton

smackdaddy said:


> I'll stick with the modern, fast boat that's got a spacious, comfy interior. And I'll save some warm beer for you full-keelers at the finish.
> 
> That's just how I roll.
> 
> (Oh yeah, we just won our class and were 3rd overall a few weeks ago in an amply-keeled Pearson 365 ketch...among a fleet including J-Boats, Benes, and even a MacG 65. But I still want a pimpin' fat-assed sled.)


Aaahh ... so its about the _image_ hahaha

Did you hand warm beer to the finkeelers when they came in?


----------

