# What are your favorite modern cruising boats?



## emcentar (Apr 28, 2009)

I have a 30 year old boat. Everyone I know has a 20-40 year old boat. I feel like I have a decent handle on the relative qualities of many 80's-era production boats (I don't claim to be an expert). But I know very little about modern boat builders. I'd like to be a little less ignorant.

I won't ask you what you don't like, as I'm not interested in bashing other people's boats. But what modern boats do you like? Who do you think is building good boats right now? What would you buy if you could?


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

I got to recently take a look at an HH50 catamaran. This is about the nicest, well-thought out cruising catamaran being made right now. It is also very expensive. Dialing price back the Balance 526 is my next favorite. The Balance 482 looks like it will be a similarly good smaller sister to the 526 at a lower price. In the same price ballpark as the Balance 526 is the Seawind 1600, which I like a lot. The new Outremers are good boats, but they don't appeal to me as much as these others. There are several bespoke catamaran designs made in small numbers that are nice.

Otherwise, the newest offerings of production catamarans are truly horrible in almost every way. If I couldn't afford the above, I'd get a used boat of a better design and performance.

If I had to get a monohull, I like the Pogo cruising boats like the 36, 44, and 50. 

If cruising was defined as coastal or weekending/vacationing, there are other boats I like for that.

Mark


----------



## emcentar (Apr 28, 2009)

I intended cruising to include boats for off-shore passages as well as boats for coastal cruising exclusively. I was just not as interested in modern racing designs.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

I understood that. I meant my statement to say if cruising was defined as ONLY coastal or weekend/vacation, then other boats would fall into my preferences.

Mark


----------



## cb32863 (Oct 5, 2009)

I have liked the Pogo's for quite some time as well. The new Bene Oceanis 30 is a sweet little boat too. If I had the $$ I would go that route. Tiller, 2 cabin layout, one out in CA for about $170K. Been fond of the X Yachts as well.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

Sorry, I can't contribute, but there are not any.


----------



## 508422 (Aug 26, 2018)

Shannon or Pacific SeaCraft, 38 feet is large enough.


----------



## BarryL (Aug 21, 2003)

Hi,

I'll bite!

For me personally, I want a boat that sails very well - fast, comfortable, able to get around the race course in all conditions. It also must be comfortable. Have a good interior, a functional galley, a head with shower. Something in the 38-42 that can be sailed with a crew of 4-6 or cruised comfortably by two for a month or two. This means a traditional main, a sloop rig, a deep keel.

Boat I like a lot are make by X Yachts (the XP38 or XC38 series), Elan E5, Dehler 42 or 38 and Salona 41 or 38. 

If I had the money I would buy the XC38 (but I don't); I am seriously considering the Salona 38. Salona is little know in the USA. Their hulls are vacuum epoxy laminate, steel structural grid to handle rig loads, watertight collision bulkheads bow and stern, lead bulb on an iron / lead keel. 

In the US I also like Tartan boats. Real nice, REAL expensive.

Barry


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

MaxForce said:


> Shannon or Pacific SeaCraft, 38 feet is large enough.


My impression was the thread was about modern boats, which I took to mean currently available. Are Shannon and Pacific Seacraft still making new sailboats?

Mark


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

Unless one works for a sailing magazine reviewing sailboats how could you possibly answer the question?


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

To me, anything newer than 1985 IS modern and new .


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Don L said:


> Unless one works for a sailing magazine reviewing sailboats how could you possibly answer the question?


Precisely... I no longer go to boat shows.... and when I did I didn't look at any new boats. I do see boats in the anchorage and at docks. I don't go below and don't study the deck layout, rig and what I can see from a distance. I don't "walk the docks" as I am not interested in a new boat. I am interested in enjoying and caring for mine!
I do see the trends... wide sterns, dual steering stations, less wood and sleeker profiles. I liked a few boats I saw in the anchorage.... but have forgotten the maker / model if I even knew it.

I would rather this question be multiple choice. ;-)


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

BarryL said:


> Hi,
> 
> I'll bite!
> 
> ...


You have similar tastes to me it seems! Unfortunately the ones that really catch my eye are way out of our price range.

If I was looking at a serious offshore cruiser the new Halbert Rasseys look pretty nice!

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## jb cruzan (May 24, 2015)

colemj said:


> My impression was the thread was about modern boats, which I took to mean currently available. Are Shannon and Pacific Seacraft still making new sailboats?
> 
> Mark


I would think you misunderstood. The op clearly said modern not new.


----------



## 508422 (Aug 26, 2018)

colemj said:


> My impression was the thread was about modern boats, which I took to mean currently available. Are Shannon and Pacific Seacraft still making new sailboats?
> 
> Mark


Pacific Seacraft are or were last year, Shannon my have stopped in the last few years. I would still consider them modern even though I think they still look like a proper sailing vessel.....that I can't afford if I want to retire soon. Dennis


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

jb cruzan said:


> I would think you misunderstood. The op clearly said modern not new.


OK. I guess I don't understand how "modern" and "currently available" are different, nor do I see how 20yr+ old designs are considered "modern".

Mark


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I'm never all that good at these queries, as I think every boat is a compromise and depends on what one wants to do with it. I'm also not a detailed student of all boats out there. I do enjoy seeing innovation on new boats, at the shows, whether I'm in the market or not.

Reading the opening post, one might think they are asking for boats <20 years old. However, many, including ours, are no longer made, despite that window. The manufacturer has new versions.

Ours was the most popular sailboat ever built, over 50 ft, during it's production run from 2004-2008. I still think it represents one of the best values in its range. I think better suited for coastal cruising, particularly given it's fuel capacity, but many of it's breed have commonly crossed oceans and made the New England - Caribbean snowbird transit multiple times. Many were used for charter, which probably put some serious wear and tear on the comps, but many in the US were not. 

So, what is modern?


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

No offense to the OP... this is somewhat of a stupid and confusing thread.

Why does it matter what a SN member likes as far as the vague notion of a "modern boat"?

Each sailor will be in a particular location, race, or cruise or whatever... have different personal experiences... boats they have sailed on enough to comment, budget and so on.

When I write about topics such as this.... I write about my boat, its features... one I have owned for 35 yrs....I don't write about other boats nor am I interested. 

Some people have a bit of experience with different boats... or perhaps are designers or brokers... etc. They have a different type of contribution.

A general marker might be number of hulls built and still in use... that is if demand means anything.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

emcentar said:


> But what modern boats do you like? Who do you think is building good boats right now? What would you buy if you could?


I thought this was a fun and light-hearted topic. I like it. Sailnet here mostly focuses on old designs and old boats - many of whose designers and manufacturers are long gone. Few here seldom discuss what boat they would have if there were no unreasonable hindrance to obtaining it (I'm thinking that not having an extra $100k is reasonable, but not having an extra $1billion is not).

One doesn't need to minutely examine each boat nor work for a magazine dedicated to evaluating them in order to see modern trends that they appreciate (or not). For example, I personally like the simpler, lighter, airier Ikea-like interiors on many modern designs (be aware that I've never seen an Ikea store so don't know what it is really like, and use that term only because others apply it to these interiors). Additionally, I've sailed enough different cruising boat hull designs in both monohulls and catamarans to understand which features relate to certain performance and comfort aspects.

It seems like some think they are expected to provide the correct answer, or even a complete answer, when there isn't any such thing. Nobody has to be interested in changing their existing boat to discuss other boats or design features they find interesting.

Just for perspective, most here applaud JeffH when he outlines differences between old and new designs, so I don't understand the negativity when simply asked directly what one likes of the new designs.

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Minnewaska said:


> So, what is modern?


I would say that yours is "modernish" and the direct precursor through only slight evolution to a "modern" boat. It is a complete revolution away from the older designs. Ours is the same.

Manufacturers drop models for new ones every couple of years, but they do not change the underlying designs much. Those type of changes only occur in longer periods.

Right now is one of those revolution periods where major design elements, materials, and construction techniques from more extreme boats are making their way into cruising boats for good reasons.

I suspect if this topic is revisited in 5-10yrs, both of our boats will be considered old designs then.

Mark


----------



## skills4lou (Aug 23, 2018)

SanderO said:


> No offense to the OP... this is somewhat of a stupid and confusing thread.
> 
> Why does it matter what a SN member likes as far as the vague notion of a "modern boat"?
> 
> ...


Wow. This from the guy complaining about loud motorcycles and pickups, on a sailing forum. I thought it was a great idea for a thread. Have you never dreamt of a shiny new ( insert item of interest here)??

I don't get a chance to see any new sail boats where I live. River rafts and drift boats, sure. My dreaming about a new boat is limited to the interwebs. So let the thread go where it will, and how about posting some links or pictures to go with?!

Sent from my Moto E (4) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

I suspect the old look of dark wood interiors is not going to be seen much again. Light woods and wood trim may be the look of today's boat interiors. This can be very successfully done.
Monos are moving toward wide sterns and dual helm stations.. and it seems more fractional rigs... more flush decks with ports in the hull as opposed to a raised coach roof.
Things like "solar arches" may be OEM design features.


----------



## emcentar (Apr 28, 2009)

Yes - this was intended to be a light-hearted topic!

I'm trying to distract myself <gestures at everything> by dreaming about my retirement boat and where I will sail her. But retirement is 10-15 years away, and it occurs to me I know almost nothing about the boats being built today. So I just thought I'd see what other sailors thought about the current generation of boat builders, and see if there were any builders I'm currently unfamiliar with that I should keep my eye on.

I'm already learning things - I'd never even heard of Pogo before.


----------



## flee27 (Jan 16, 2018)

I also like hearing other opinions and reference this a a general opinion question. I vote to keep hearing the responses. If modern is newer than 1985 than my pick was/is a 1987 Sabre 42. To me they are beautiful boats, seaworthy, and have good sailing attributes-even for the race course. 

Foster.


----------



## capttb (Dec 13, 2003)

Deck Salons, A catamaran like cabin with good side decks, A friend and I sailed miles out of our way just to follow a Moody 45 and watch it under sail. I think Capta might even see some advantages to the design in his business.




And for little known dreamboats, my wife wants me to sell EVERYTHING and get her a Sirius.
Sirius 35 DS


----------



## emcentar (Apr 28, 2009)

That Moody definitely has dream-worthy 'I want the light and spacious deck of a catamaran but in a monohull' boat vibes.


----------



## 508422 (Aug 26, 2018)

colemj said:


> OK. I guess I don't understand how "modern" and "currently available" are different, nor do I see how 20yr+ old designs are considered "modern".
> 
> Mark


I though this was fun also, better than hot topics like full keel vs fin. So back to it. So you kind of say two things. The Pacific Seacraft is still available new but you would consider it not modern because it is still pointy, low in the water and has no sugar scoop.

So would a Southerly, still available be considered modern? Would it be considered modern if compared to the new cup boats?

Here is Webster for modern. "of, relating to, or characteristic of the present or the immediate past"

Same for Immediate "occurring, acting, or accomplished without loss or interval of time"

So both the Southerly and Pacific Seacraft are still made, so one can not say it is not modern. Both are in the present. Modern electronics, modern sails and modern finish.

But your definition is, I think..... Modern: cutting edge, futuristic, non conventional design, innovative. I have no Idea what that boat would even be for me to want one. LOL


----------



## emcentar (Apr 28, 2009)

I'm quite happy to read a spirited debate on what distinguishes a modern cruising boat from a traditional cruising boat - anything to distract from the latest from CDC - but I think all I intended by 'modern' boat builders was 'building boats in this century'. No reason to stick even to that!


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

emcentar said:


> I'm quite happy to read a spirited debate on what distinguishes a modern cruising boat from a traditional cruising boat - anything to distract from the latest from CDC - but I think all I intended by 'modern' boat builders was 'building boats in this century'. No reason to stick even to that!


Damn, you mean boats built since 2000? Well, that leaves me, and most people here, out. As the recent survey thread shows, the vast, _vast_ majority of boats here are more than 30 years old, with nearly 1/2 being 40+ years. Only about 20% of respondents say they own boats built in this century.

BTW, I'm not taking this to be a serious or heavy discussion 😀.


----------



## BarryL (Aug 21, 2003)

Hello,

I like this topic. It's a great way to learn from fellow sailors and not from a magazine review where every boat is the 'best ever'. It's also winter, my boat is stored, I can't sail, so this keeps me focusing on sailing and sail boats.

If you want to read about 'interesting boats' there is a great blog here




__





Interesting Sailboats


a blog about Interesting sailboats, sail boat design, cruising, sail racing, sailboat tests, sail boat reviews and sail stories.




interestingsailboats.blogspot.com





The owner, Paulo, used to be a frequent contributor here. I don't know why he stopped.

Barry


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

MaxForce said:


> But your definition is, I think..... Modern: cutting edge, futuristic, non conventional design, innovative. I have no Idea what that boat would even be for me to want one. LOL


The Pacific Seacraft 37 was designed in 1978, and a design that I don't consider modern anymore. All of their other models are last century design too that stick very close to the 1978 ones. I wonder how many of them they have made since 2015? I would place PS as a bespoke manufacturer of essentially one-offs now.

I don't define modern cruising boats as cutting edge, futuristic, or non-conventional. Innovative, yes - but all new boats should have some innovation or we would still be in dugout canoes. I recognize the other attributes in racing and extreme boats, but don't define modern cruising boats as needing such. I do define modern cruising boats as having design features that take advantage of more current mass-produced materials and common engineering. For example, we needed new sails, and I was pleased to find out that weren't limited to canvas anymore, and that there were advanced materials and methods of sail manufacturing available that are suitable for cruising boats and which simply didn't exist at all just 10yrs ago.



MikeOReilly said:


> Damn, you mean boats built since 2000? Well, that leaves me, and most people here, out. As the recent survey thread shows, the vast, _vast_ majority of boats here are more than 30 years old, with nearly 1/2 being 40+ years. Only about 20% of respondents say they own boats built in this century.
> 
> BTW, I'm not taking this to be a serious or heavy discussion 😀.


I don't see how the OP's questions left anyone out. This is a thread about what boats being made today you like, regardless of being able to buy them or even want them. The part implying not being able to afford them is about the most inclusive thing written on Sailnet...

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

BarryL said:


> Hello,
> 
> I like this topic. It's a great way to learn from fellow sailors and not from a magazine review where every boat is the 'best ever'. It's also winter, my boat is stored, I can't sail, so this keeps me focusing on sailing and sail boats.
> 
> ...


I forgot about that site. It is basically this thread, and was always a good read. Changed my mind about a lot of this stuff.

Mark


----------



## emcentar (Apr 28, 2009)

Here's my current fantasy boat. Unfortunately I've never sailed one, so _big_ caveat, but I sat on it for at least 30 minutes at two different boat shows and had to be pried off the boat each time. I just love the way everything leads to the helm, and the guests are out of the way in a spacious layout. Not a retirement boat, but if Jeff Bezos decided to buy me a boat right now, this is the one I might ask for.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

My favorite "modern" design that I would buy in a heartbeat if I had the cash: the Seaward 32RK. Traditional looks above the waterline, retractable bulb keel below for performance and flexibility. I used to go to boat shows just to see it in person and wander its decks and cabin, and to daydream.

I was going to include a link to the boat on the manufacturer's website, but....

A few years ago, Hake Yachts, the maker of Seaward Yachts, and IP decided to join forces and build IP yachts at the Hake factory to cut costs for both. Apparently, that wasn't enough to save IP, and the company looked like it was about to go bust. But Hake bought Island Packet Yachts when IP was circling the drain, and the new combined company continued to build both kinds of boats at the Hake facility. Soon after that, an IP dealer bought the whole kit and kaboodle from Hake. For awhile, the company was maintaining two separate websites, one for IP and one for Seaward. But when I went to get the Seaward 32RK link just now, I was redirected to the IP site. There doesn't seem to be a Seaward Yachts website anymore, nor is there any mention of them on the IP site. Can it be that IPY has decided to shelve the Seawards?


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

colemj said:


> I don't see how the OP's questions left anyone out. This is a thread about what boats being made today you like, regardless of being able to buy them or even want them. The part implying not being able to afford them is about the most inclusive thing written on Sailnet...


I think you missed the part where I said I wasn't taking this discussion all that seriously .

But I was also pointing out to the fellow (was that you?) who was complaining about all the discussion of older designs, that it makes sense given the apparent fleet makeup. We are a bunch of people with generally older boats. So as a group, we probably don't know all that much about newer designs.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

BarryL said:


> Hello,
> 
> I like this topic. It's a great way to learn from fellow sailors and not from a magazine review where every boat is the 'best ever'. It's also winter, my boat is stored, I can't sail, so this keeps me focusing on sailing and sail boats.
> 
> ...


I would be interested in reading a detailed review with pics of ANY boat... modern or from the 20th century. And the review to interest me should explain WHY the author finds the feature good or bad,, maybe comparing it to previous "art". I am interested in comfort and livability and less so... "performance" without a lot of work. How much faster does one need to go? Aren't boat speeds constrained by LWL. Of course there are performance differences and if there is a benchmark that would be of interest.
I don't race... I never will... I local cruise and live aboard. That is my filter.

While I can't sail in winter... I still have to deal with boat stuff... and I can always watch the well produced videos now available,


----------



## 508422 (Aug 26, 2018)

emcentar said:


> Yes - this was intended to be a light-hearted topic!
> 
> I'm trying to distract myself <gestures at everything> by dreaming about my retirement boat and where I will sail her. But retirement is 10-15 years away, and it occurs to me I know almost nothing about the boats being built today. So I just thought I'd see what other sailors thought about the current generation of boat builders, and see if there were any builders I'm currently unfamiliar with that I should keep my eye on.
> 
> I'm already learning things - I'd never even heard of Pogo before.


I know an old guy.....he told me one day at work that he was going to look at new cars this weekend. I said, wow Charlie, you going to buy a new car. He said, Heavens no I just going to see what I may be interested in in 10 or 15 years.


----------



## Telesail (Dec 28, 2011)

Assuming we are allowed to throw a few ideas out there without being judged....If we are talking about modern design then I would plump for the current Hugo Boss (actually I would take the old one as well) - currently leading the Vendee Globe..🙂

We tested a lot of boats about 4 years ago and so have some favorites. Of course, my absolute love is the Alubat Cigale - voted with my wallet after all. But for my type of sailing, I also like the García Expedition or the new Alubat Ovni or Allures.

Among GRPs, X yachts sail really well and the same with the Dehlers. The new Southerly is an excellent boat and, as an ugly boat but great for coastal cruising, the Moody DS45 is a valid choice.


----------



## emcentar (Apr 28, 2009)

MaxForce said:


> I know an old guy.....he told me one day at work that he was going to look at new cars this weekend. I said, wow Charlie, you going to buy a new car. He said, Heavens no I just going to see what I may be interested in in 10 or 15 years.




It's true I have the (boat) seven year itch. But I've decided to invest in some upgrades on my current boat instead. Fortunately a new boat is much more expensive than a new car, and much harder to impulse buy.


----------



## contrarian (Sep 14, 2011)

> My favorite "modern" design that I would buy in a heartbeat if I had the cash: the Seaward 32RK.


 I have met other people that like that boat but for the life of me I can't see why. I find it to be absolutely Hideous. Definitely different strokes for different folks. I like the more modern open transom, twin wheel, wide beam carried well aft, hard chine boats. I doubt that one of those is in my future but I could see myself buying a new Astus trimaran.


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

When I think of "modern" I think of boats that were built at least this century! I don't think boats designed in the '80s can be considered modern, although cruising design does seem to evolve slower than racing designs. I used to race on a late '80s Davidson 40, and at the time everything about it was state of the art. Recently I found myself tied up next to that same boat, and it looked downright ancient! Everything about it was completely obsolete. It certainly wouldn't stand a chance against it's modern day equivalent!

At 10 years old my boat definitely qualifies as modern, although it is already 2 generations out of date. The subsequent designs have changed esthetically, but overall hull designs are still pretty similar. There have been a few innovations since my boat was built, but whether they were improvements or not could be debated. Even after going to boat shows and looking at new boats we come away perfectly happy with what we have, and in many ways preferring it.

Now, if we are talking about dream boats...there are plenty of high end monohull cruising boats that I could drool over. We only see a tiny fraction of the offerings put out by boutique builders around the world. One day I would love to go to the Duesseldorf Boat Show!

If I had stupid money to spend on a boat, there is one modern cruising boat that comes to mind...a Gunboat! Imagine a comfortable cruising catamaran that can sail at over 20kts! Yes please!






Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## LLCoolDave (Sep 20, 2015)

I saw this boat at anchor and stopped by to ask what it was. JPK 38 fast cruiser. They are now making a 45ft version.














JPK 38FC


a blog about Interesting sailboats, sail boat design, cruising, sail racing, sailboat tests, sail boat reviews and sail stories.




interestingsailboats.blogspot.com





JPK has done extremely well with their double-handed boats winning their classes in the Fastest race the last ten years.

I really like the cabin top. It's contemporary but not the low cut sliver of windows that most Euro boats have. Love the twin tiller and how much cockpit room there is at anchor. Only thing I'm not a fan of is the line galley.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

While my boat is from this century, it's still out of date in many ways. The new trend to carry beam all the way to the transom, creates a fast boat, as well as an extraordinarily large cockpit for size (aft staterooms too). 

I'm certain many don't need to actually own a more modern boat, to have some knowledge or experience to share. We, for example, have bareboated these 2- 3 yr old pizza pie shaped boats, but don't own one. I've sailed on modern Jeanneaues and Benneteaus. Fast and comfortable monos, but built to compete economically. Not all build quality of the most modern versions is as good as older generations, IMO. Still, great fun boats.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

After 10 years i still like my boat. At 20 years old now i don't know if it could be called "modern" anymore. Things I like:

sails well and is easy to balance
doesn't need a lot of heel to do it
comfort under sail and port
systems are laid out well and are reasonably easy to work on.
has a full queen aft berth with a real mattress (a huge plus)
good tankage and storage
fold down helm seat and easy access swim ladder which is a huge plus if you are going cruise and come/go while on anchor/mooring

Sailboats for cruisers are more than boats to sail.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

I like the Norseboat 215 cabin model.

Unstayed carbon fibre mast, sleeping accomodations, bimini. Big thing for me is the boat is designed to be rowed. No outboard, or inboard required. Although I can't imagine rowing it more than a few miles would be a lot of fun. This would be for Coastal Cruising only. The mid size 17.5 ft norseboat has cruised the Northwest Passage.

Here are articles from Practical Sailor and Cruising World.








Boat Review: Norseboat 21.5 - Practical Sailor


Since 1974, Practical Sailor’s independent testing has taken the guesswork out of boat and gear buying.




www.practical-sailor.com




NorseBoat 21.5 Open and Cornish Crabber's Adventure Series: Big Fun In Small Packages


----------



## Interlude (Jun 16, 2016)

capta said:


> Sorry, I can't contribute, but there are not any.


I absolutely love watching the evolution of sailboats built for speed (currently following the Vendee Globe race and can't wait for the Americas Cup) and also the changes to improve livability (was at the last Annapolis Boat Show 2019) but must say that I agree with Capta's post. It has been noted that Pacific Seacraft has been making the same designs for up to 40 years with evolution within the design parameters but relatively unchanged for as their statement says,

_"Pacific Seacraft Yachts are built for the seas. *The basics of the design have stayed the same because the demands of the seas haven't changed"*_

WIB Crealock, the architect and also a cruiser himself, designed the first of the line for himself and not a price point or demographic. All of his subsequent designs over the next 20 years simply were evolutions of the same design.










Now if you consider the number of centuries folks have been sailing then heck anything in the last 100 years might be considered 'modern'!

clearly biased and respectfully submitted,
Interlude


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Interlude said:


> _*The basics of the design have stayed the same because the demands of the seas haven't changed"*_


But the materials and engineering have advanced dramatically. These allow designs that meet the same demands in better ways. Otherwise, those Vendee Globe boats, and other extreme condition racing designs, wouldn't last a day.

Compare a state of the art 1978 design (the Crealock era) for this race (then the Whitbread RTW) with a 2020 design (now the Ocean Race):

Mark


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

My take away.... engineering seems to have been asleep until recently. 
Looks like smarter designs than the last century.


----------



## Interlude (Jun 16, 2016)

SanderO said:


> My take away.... engineering seems to have been asleep until recently.
> Looks like smarter designs than the last century.


Well....let's see...FG construction around mid-century, reliable auxiliary second half of century, extruded aluminum also around the half century mark, synthetic material for sheets, halyards, lines, sails, etc. on-going since last half of century, use of carbon fiber and kevlar (which the newer PSC's make use of) last couple decades, improved electronics and navigational assists on-going since last half of century (remember when Loran was the cat's meow!?), foiling boats (not cruisers) in the last decade. I did start with the disclaimer that I LOVE the changes in boat technology for racers just as automotive technology has evolved, but the Vendee Globe boats are purpose built and are NOT modern cruising designs. The Volvo Race uses advanced design, also not cruisers, and ALL of the boats are identical so it is the crew that wins, not the boat. These are ALL built for speed, not living aboard or cruising. I LOVE the creature comforts on the latest recreational designs, not sure they translate into being more seaworthy, hopefully not unseaworthy or they would never be used. Finally beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, no right answers there, but if you do not turn around to look at your boat when you leave her, you will end up having an affair and getting yet again another girlfriend to sail. There are also many more modern designs than my wife of 42 years and I certainly appreciate them, but as far as she-kindly and she-worthy, there are no modern designs I would choose. Ditto for the boat.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

My point was that what Crealock considered basic design elements that never change because the sea never changes, is historically incorrect. Yes, if one chooses to build a boat using old engineering, old materials, and old techniques, then one should stay with an old design meant to take advantage of them.

FWIW, Crealock's designs were radically different than those from preceding generations that also were designed for the same unchanged sea demands. The difference is he had access to new materials, techniques, and engineering, and took advantage of that.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

colemj said:


> My point was that what Crealock considered basic design elements that never change because the sea never changes, is historically incorrect. Yes, if one chooses to build a boat using old engineering, old materials, and old techniques, then one should stay with an old design meant to take advantage of them.
> 
> FWIW, Crealock's designs were radically different than those from preceding generations that also were designed for the same unchanged sea demands. The difference is he had access to new materials, techniques, and engineering, and took advantage of that.


Recreational.... ie non commercial vessels are in a world apart.
Carbon fiber is a 21st century material I believe... but alum and extrusions are 20th century technology.
There may have been development of fiber glass full manufacture and maybe stronger laminates... same for sail materials.
There may have been more computer aided design/engineering in the last 20 years.
Has fluid dynamics engineering changed from the 90s?
Seems to me that MOST of the difference is aesthetics... not all... but most. Just a guess.

Take the wide stern pizza slice shaped hulls. What did engineers learn in the last 20 years to now promote this hull form? Were / are designers in a rut and not being creative? If so why?

Perhaps there is a strong element of tradition... if it ain't broke don't fix it thinking... is the sailing community (cruising) resistant to design changes?


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

contrarian said:


> I have met other people that like that boat but for the life of me I can't see why. I find it to be absolutely Hideous. Definitely different strokes for different folks. I like the more modern open transom, twin wheel, wide beam carried well aft, hard chine boats. I doubt that one of those is in my future but I could see myself buying a new Astus trimaran.


Not just hideous, but Hideous! With a capital H. Ouch. Does this mean you won't be attending the launch party?


----------



## contrarian (Sep 14, 2011)

No, I would attend, I'm not one to miss a train wreck.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

SanderO said:


> Recreational.... ie non commercial vessels are in a world apart.
> Carbon fiber is a 21st century material I believe... but alum and extrusions are 20th century technology.
> There may have been development of fiber glass full manufacture and maybe stronger laminates... same for sail materials.
> There may have been more computer aided design/engineering in the last 20 years.
> ...


While the sea has not changed, our scientific understanding of the sea and its impact on yacht design has changed enormously. Ignoring the advances in science and technology of yacht design is akin to saying, "the sun and the moon have not changed so why do we need electronic navigation?", or "light has not changed so why would anyone want to use electric lamps vs kerosene lamps, or LED's vs incandescent bulbs?" .

In my lifetime there has been enormous advances in understanding the science behind yacht design science, boat building materials, and the design tools used by designers. These advances have allowed tremendous improvements in the motion comfort, ease of handling, seaworthiness, and performance of modern cruising boats, The design tools have allowed the types of sophisticated analysis that was almost impossible before the computers ability to perform the types of complex evaluations that are critical to validating the science and incorporating the science into practical applications. There is hardly an aspect of boat design and building which have not benefitted greatly from these more sophisticated design tools and better technologies. Even when it appears that the materials are virtually the same as back in the 'good old days'; they are not. Take something like simple 'polyester resin reinforced fiberglass fabric'. The resin used in modern boats have much greater ductility and resistance to fatigue than the resins used until the 1990's The resin is mixed with a greater precision. The resin to cloth ratios are carefully controlled to produce stronger, stiffer, less fatigue and puncture prone laminate. The fiberglass itself has longer fibers with less defects in the surface of the individual fibers, and cloth handling has improved so that the reinforcing is substantially stronger, and further contributes to being stiffer, less fatigue and puncture prone laminate. In the 21st century, manufacturers have come to understand the role of non-directional fabrics in the loss of initial strength of the original laminate and non-directional fabric's role in accelerating the loss of strength of the laminate over time. As a result modern boat laminate greatly reduce proportion of non-directional fabric within the laminate. The net result is hulls that are way stronger, stiffer, and more durable than boats built before the 21st century. The improvement has been progressive but has the curve has bent dramatically towards the better in recent years.

But the improved science, design tools, and materials have changed boats in ways that very tangible. Take motion comfort for example. While the basics of motion comfort were reasonably well known in the period leading up to the 1970's, designers did not understand the extent to which damping, roll and pitch moments of inertia, and the sudden vs progressively shifting of the buoyancy distribution played a controlling role in determining motion comfort until sometime in the early 1990's. But even as the there was a increased understanding about the controlling role of these factors, without computer modeling it would have been very difficult to produce hull forms, keels and rigs which effectively utilized the information

The science would have directed designers towards the 'pizza slice' hull forms to improve motion comfort and performance, but before computer modeling, it would have been very difficult to produce modern hull forms that did not change trim, and balance with heel angle. Below is a plot of a modern hull pizza slice hull showing the hull shape and dynamic loads on the hull. You can see that at a roughly 15 degree heel angle the forces are reasonably balanced, suggesting that unlike earlier and more traditional forms. the hull of this boat is not adding to weather helm and is helping the boat to track straighter.
italia-immersed Hall 11-98-05

The same science that was used to improve hull forms and rig proportions, now explains why the cylindrical cross sections on favored by Crealock tended to roll excessively and have an uncomfortable motion in a chop compared to boats that had finer bows, more bearing in the stern, and more elliptical hull sections. So while the adage that the sea has not changed, is right, using our knowledge and better design tools to improve motion comfort has come along way. And is only just another example of the thousands of small and larger improvements in newer boats.

Lunch over...I really want to discuss the main topic, I don't have time right now.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## chowdan (Nov 11, 2015)

For me a "modern" boat is one that I can't afford. Personally if i could afford one, if I went with fiberglass, I'd look at a Sirius yacht, or a second best - Outbound yachts. If i went metal I'd look towards something like a Garcia Exploration or a Kanter yacht.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

colemj said:


> But the materials and engineering have advanced dramatically. These allow designs that meet the same demands in better ways. Otherwise, those Vendee Globe boats, and other extreme condition racing designs, wouldn't last a day.
> 
> Compare a state of the art 1978 design (the Crealock era) for this race (then the Whitbread RTW) with a 2020 design (now the Ocean Race):
> 
> Mark


One more thing- I will add this image. This image is of the 'Disque d Or' that was designed for the same owner 8 years after the 'Disque d Or in the photo above (and which eventually became 'Maiden'.) 








The later Disque D Or was ten feet shorter, took 2/3's of the crew to sail, the crew described her as being way more forgiving to sail and cut days off the passage time of the earlier namesake.

Jeff


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Jeff_H said:


> While the sea has not changed, our scientific understanding of the sea and its impact on yacht design has changed enormously. Ignoring the advances in science and technology of yacht design is akin to saying, "the sun and the moon have not changed so why do we need electronic navigation?", or "light has not changed so why would anyone want to use electric lamps vs kerosene lamps, or LED's vs incandescent bulbs?" .
> 
> In my lifetime there has been enormous advances in understanding the science behind yacht design science, boat building materials, and the design tools used by designers. These advances have allowed tremendous improvements in the motion comfort, ease of handling, seaworthiness, and performance of modern cruising boats, The design tools have allowed the types of sophisticated analysis that was almost impossible before the computers ability to perform the types of complex evaluations that are critical to validating the science and incorporating the science into practical applications. There is hardly an aspect of boat design and building which have not benefitted greatly from these more sophisticated design tools and better technologies. Even when it appears that the materials are virtually the same as back in the 'good old days'; they are not. Take something like simple 'polyester resin reinforced fiberglass fabric'. The resin used in modern boats have much greater ductility and resistance to fatigue than the resins used until the 1990's The resin is mixed with a greater precision. The resin to cloth ratios are carefully controlled to produce stronger, stiffer, less fatigue and puncture prone laminate. The fiberglass itself has longer fibers with less defects in the surface of the individual fibers, and cloth handling has improved so that the reinforcing is substantially stronger, and further contributes to being stiffer, less fatigue and puncture prone laminate. In the 21st century, manufacturers have come to understand the role of non-directional fabrics in the loss of initial strength of the original laminate and non-directional fabric's role in accelerating the loss of strength of the laminate over time. As a result modern boat laminate greatly reduce proportion of non-directional fabric within the laminate. The net result is hulls that are way stronger, stiffer, and more durable than boats built before the 21st century. The improvement has been progressive but has the curve has bent dramatically towards the better in recent years.
> 
> ...


Thank you! My point is not that engineering has advanced but more WHEN were those advances taking place. Personal computers became available in the mid 80s.... CAD appeared by the mid 80s. I would have assumed that the impact of these powerful tools began with CAD. If this marks modern... and it is directly related to computers I would place the modern era in the 90s. The analysis used for fluid dynamic problems must have greatly benefited from the enormous power of computers and this perhaps enabled designers to "test" hull form performance virtually. I think this is evident in the race boats which use foils for example... and may have led to pizza designs... which as has been mentioned provided improved interiors as well as improved performance.


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

SanderO said:


> Thank you! My point is not that engineering has advanced but more WHEN were those advances taking place. Personal computers became available in the mid 80s.... CAD appeared by the mid 80s. I would have assumed that the impact of these powerful tools began with CAD. If this marks modern... and it is directly related to computers I would place the modern era in the 90s. The analysis used for fluid dynamic problems must have greatly benefited from the enormous power of computers and this perhaps enabled designers to "test" hull form performance virtually. I think this is evident in the race boats which use foils for example... and may have led to pizza designs... which as has been mentioned provided improved interiors as well as improved performance.


I can see CAD being a game changer for designers, drawing electronically, but I wonder how good those early programs were. Computers were still very primitive by today's standards, and the CAD programs were probably still early in their development stages. I suspect the even bigger game changers would have been the development of computer simulations to test hull designs without having to build scale models and physically test them in tanks. That kind of software would have needed far more processing power than CAD, and likely would have been beyond the capabilities of early desktop computers. I can still remember watching videos about race boat development in the '90s where they were tank testing hulls and using wind tunnels for sails. More powerful 21st century computers made that kind of testing unnecessary. I wonder how much computer prediction modeling drastically accelerated design progress and reduced costs.

Perhaps JeffH can recall when that transition happened in his industry.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

SchockT said:


> I can see CAD being a game changer for designers, drawing electronically, but I wonder how good those early programs were. Computers were still very primitive by today's standards, and the CAD programs were probably still early in their development stages. I suspect the even bigger game changers would have been the development of computer simulations to test hull designs without having to build scale models and physically test them in tanks. That kind of software would have needed far more processing power than CAD, and likely would have been beyond the capabilities of early desktop computers. I can still remember watching videos about race boat development in the '90s where they were tank testing hulls and using wind tunnels for sails. More powerful 21st century computers made that kind of testing unnecessary. I wonder how much computer prediction modeling drastically accelerated design progress and reduced costs.
> 
> Perhaps JeffH can recall when that transition happened in his industry.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


YES! CAD at first was basically a drafting tool... But it quickly evolved to include databases and 3D objects. As PCs became more powerful they could handle memory hungry programs. But engineering schools for example used larger computers than "desk tops" and had serious computing power which could do 3D modeling and time motion modeling. Buildings are static... while boats are subject to dynamics forces of wind and waves... which is much more demanding than the loads a typical building experiences.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

SanderO said:


> Thank you! My point is not that engineering has advanced but more WHEN were those advances taking place. Personal computers became available in the mid 80s.... CAD appeared by the mid 80s. I would have assumed that the impact of these powerful tools began with CAD. If this marks modern... and it is directly related to computers I would place the modern era in the 90s. The analysis used for fluid dynamic problems must have greatly benefited from the enormous power of computers and this perhaps enabled designers to "test" hull form performance virtually. I think this is evident in the race boats which use foils for example... and may have led to pizza designs... which as has been mentioned provided improved interiors as well as improved performance.


The improvements have been evolutionary rather then revolutionary. (That was my point in posting the picture in post #56) Before the 1970's, it could take a 3-4 fast designers weeks to generate a stability curve for a single design and it would not be terribly accurate since it did not include the impact in stability that resulted from changes in trim. The first reasonably successful Velocity Prediction Program (VPP) came out of the work of Jerry Milgram and George Hazen at some point in the early 1970's and filtered into the yacht design world at some point in the early 1980's

But the computers of the day were slow and so the analysis results were not especially detailed, granular or accurate. I remember hearing that a mini-computer could be set up to run and would run over night and into the next day, but could produce stability curves and a VP. That seemed miraculous.

Since then there has been a vast amount of research on developing more accurate calculation methods and validating the data produced. (Validation in this case is comparing real world measured values to computer simulated values, and incrementally improving the accuracy of the computer simulations.) The research has certainly looked a being able to quantify performance oriented characteristics such as lift to drag, and load paths for real world forces. But it also has looked a motion as well. The ability to quickly compare the impact on motion from perhaps moving a battery bank or making the stern a little fuller is a pretty recent tool (I would think less than 5-10 or so years) and can be done in minutes and not days on a laptop computer, so the designer can tweak to their hearts out, until they have the best design that they are willing to keep looking for.

But its not just about computers since there are other non-computer driven innovations. As these newer boats, within a boat's normal usable service range, have greatly increased stability and reduced drag (as compared to similar displacement older designs) , sail plans have gotten much more efficient allowing smaller sails to accomplish the same thing as larger sails and in turn be much easier to handle across a much wider wind range. Better sail handling gear has added to the making sail handling easier as well.

In other words, there is no one point in time that there was a sudden change, and it is not one single thing that suddenly changed, it has been a slow and steady improvement, incremental improvement to hundreds of smaller components that make up a boat.

I will add this one last example. You and I sail boats that are roughly the same age, and while the hull forms are very different and your boat is nearly 50% heavier than mine, the rigs are very similar. Our fractional rigs were state of the art rigs in the 1980's for performance cruising boats. Compared to modern fractional rigged performance cruising boats, they were pretty small fraction (7/8 or so) rigs as compared to 15/16th or 16/17th rigs of today. So what changed? When our boats were designed, performance cruising boats only used panel-cut broad seemed Dacron sails. There was a limit to the aspect ratio before leech stretch made those sails ineffective, That meant that there was a limit to the aspect ratio of both the mainsail and jib, and as the foot of the mainsail became bigger, and the foot of the jib became smaller on a fractional rig, the luff of the jib became smaller relative to the height of the mainsail.

At some point better stress mapping in the sails allowed the fiber orientation to be rotated on panel cut dacron so that there was less leech stretch and that allowed the jib's aspect ratio to increase and the fraction to get bigger. At the same time small improvements in the fabric itself reduced stretch so the forestay crept further up the mast. Then cruising laminates came on the scene and once again the aspect ratios increased. That increased aspect ratio required more stability, and coincidentally stability was increasing during this same period as well. And in combination these changes produced boats that were wildly easier to sail, much more forgiving in changing conditions, cheaper to own, faster, and so on. And that is just one small slice of the myriad changes going on behind our collective backs.

Jeff


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Jeff_H said:


> The improvements have been evolutionary rather then revolutionary. (That was my point in posting the picture in post #56) Before the 1970's, it could take a 3-4 fast designers weeks to generate a stability curve for a single design and it would not be terribly accurate since it did not include the impact in stability that resulted from changes in trim. The first reasonably successful Velocity Prediction Program (VPP) came out of the work of Jerry Milgram and George Hazen at some point in the early 1970's and filtered into the yacht design world at some point in the early 1980's
> 
> But the computers of the day were slow and so the analysis results were not especially detailed, granular or accurate. I remember hearing that a mini-computer could be set up to run and would run over night and into the next day, but could produce stability curves and a VP. That seemed miraculous.
> 
> ...


OK...
So what is the year of "modern designs" if this was... and I accept and agree an evolutionary process. I am not an observer of production yachts... so my impression is mostly what I see where I moor my boat and pass close enough to see the "design"... sailing somewhat... but I don't get a close look. Can a date be fixed for the beginning of the modern cruising yacht design?


----------



## 508422 (Aug 26, 2018)

emcentar said:


> I have a 30 year old boat. Everyone I know has a 20-40 year old boat. I feel like I have a decent handle on the relative qualities of many 80's-era production boats (I don't claim to be an expert). But I know very little about modern boat builders. I'd like to be a little less ignorant.
> 
> I won't ask you what you don't like, as I'm not interested in bashing other people's boats. But what modern boats do you like? Who do you think is building good boats right now? What would you buy if you could?


I enjoyed this for a while but I think it went askew somewhere. Could you start another one, since it is yours and ask what would be your next boat if money was no object. Dennis


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

SanderO said:


> OK...
> So what is the year of "modern designs" if this was... and I accept and agree an evolutionary process. I am not an observer of production yachts... so my impression is mostly what I see where I moor my boat and pass close enough to see the "design"... sailing somewhat... but I don't get a close look. Can a date be fixed for the beginning of the modern cruising yacht design?


I would unequivocally say that any boat designed after 10:39 a.m. EST on May 3rd 2012 is modern, and anything that precedes that date and time is obviously old and obsolete.

Okay, seriously, I would suggest that modern is in the mind of the beholder and can't be boiled down to one universal right year of demarcation. If I read the original question, it is asking each of us to describe what we each think of as our favorite modern cruising boat(s).

But what is modern for one person, say Pacific Seacraft, might seem hopelessly dated for someone else. But also, there are boats whose design principals span a broad spectrum of ideas from different periods and intended for different purposes. Those boats may be seen as very modern for their purpose, but not exactly leading edge. For example, I think the most recent Hallberg Rasseys and Amel are modern, slightly conservative, distance cruising designs, but the hull forms and rig proportions are basically early IMS derived and so could have been designed in the late 1990's.

Jeff


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

contrarian said:


> No, I would attend, I'm not one to miss a train wreck.


Ok. You can bring the beer.


----------



## contrarian (Sep 14, 2011)

Beer???? I was thinking that would be a George Dickel Black Label occasion !!!


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

contrarian said:


> Beer???? I was thinking that would be a George Dickel Black Label occasion !!!


Quite right. And maybe some Appleton rum? Don't forget the little umbrellas for the drinks.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Modern = ice maker aboard.


----------



## Interlude (Jun 16, 2016)

Jeff_H said:


> I would unequivocally say that any boat designed after 10:39 a.m. EST on May 3rd 2012 is modern, and anything that precedes that date and time is obviously old and obsolete.
> 
> Okay, seriously, I would suggest that modern is in the mind of the beholder and can't be boiled down to one universal right year of demarcation. If I read the original question, it is asking each of us to describe what we each think of as our favorite modern cruising boat(s).
> 
> ...


Imma thinking it was at 10;41 a.m.!

maybe we should call them newer designs, kinda like a newer house vs an older one. More modern materials, better infrastructure but the basic purpose unchanged.

One of the things I left the Annapolis Boatshow with last year (first one since we first gave up sailing in 1989) was the rise of the multi-hull and simultaneously the rise of the newer mono-hulls with commodious cockpits, and much improved livability below decks secondary to the flatter hull designs, higher freeboard and much of the beam moved aft. Along with that comes a faster hull with much initial stability, not unlike the multihulls. Must admit was pretty impressed! I cannot begin to have the same wealth of knowledge the many here have (Jeff in particular) but am very aware that for every design change comes a new set of compromises as ALL designs are compromises for something. In the intervening years between 1989 and when we took up sailing again (2016) I did much white water paddling (actually got paid to teach it!). In those years boat materials and design also changed much with a shift from displacement hulls to planing hulls. Each had it's own benefit and challenges. I still own many (more than my wonderful wife would like to see) boats from that period with the latest a 21rst century design. Here's what I know for a fact, my favorite boat (a displacement hull) is a Dagger RPM, considered radical when introduced well over two decades ago (*R*adical *P*erformance *M*achine) but eventually replaced by the new planning hull boats which gave much initial stability, easier ability to surf, play, and maneuver. This all came with a price, they were not suited to changeable conditions as much nor as able to get the paddler downstream as effectively. Inna a nutshell, they were not 'cruisers'. OBTW...Dagger re-introduced the RPM for it's anniversary just a few years back, it sold out immediately.

Now we jump to yacht design and the 'newer' designs we saw at the boat show. Some parallels can be drawn. I have included a link to a Practical Sailor article (since I am not a subscriber anymore the diagrams and pics are missing but the content is still there) that did a very good job helping me understand the newer designs vis a vie the older designs. Hopefully everyone will take the time to read it as it does not laud one over the other and only hopes to explain.









Practical Sailor Takes a Look at Trends in Modern Boat Design - Practical Sailor


Since 1974, Practical Sailor’s independent testing has taken the guesswork out of boat and gear buying.




www.practical-sailor.com





Hope this helps explain why 'better or worse' is not the appropriate way to describe any design over another unless you are choosing only certain parameters, which are personal choices.

Interlude


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

Interlude said:


> Imma thinking it was at 10;41 a.m.!
> 
> maybe we should call them newer designs, kinda like a newer house vs an older one. More modern materials, better infrastructure but the basic purpose unchanged.
> 
> ...


That is an interesting article. Most of us don't have the benefit of being able to compare so many different boats. The author does make some pretty sweeping generalizations; it would be more interesting if he had examined a few examples of specific boats that he found handled in the way he describes.

I think it is also a matter of perspective and expectations. My last boat was a racer/cruiser designed in the '70s and it was a lot of work to sail in gusty, rough conditions. My current boat is the epitome of a modern cruising boat design, and in those same conditions it handles like a dream! It is downright relaxing to sail! Sure, you have to counter increased weather helm when a big gust hits, but it is not difficult or concerning, it is just normal helming.

I suppose if you are coming from old-school cruising boats and stepping onto a modern design you might find it disconcerting. When a friend of mine who has an old pilot house cruising boat came for a sail with me I gave him the helm, and the first time he tacked he was startled by how fast the boat turned. He is used to a boat with a heavy helm that takes a lot of steering input to change course. I will take the responsiveness of a modern boat every time!

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## 508422 (Aug 26, 2018)

Interlude said:


> Imma thinking it was at 10;41 a.m.!
> 
> maybe we should call them newer designs, kinda like a newer house vs an older one. More modern materials, better infrastructure but the basic purpose unchanged.
> 
> ...


So we will keep our narrow little CD30, sits low in the water with a lot of lead down low. I can sit and see over the cabin top. We have notice in lite air larger lighter boats blast by us but when the wind picks up and we heel to 25 or 30 degrees we pass these same boats. Don't know why, they should be faster but it is our experience. Dennis


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

25-30 degrees sounds like a lot of heel.

Mark


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

I keep the heel on Shiva to 15°


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I have wanted to respond to this thread ever since it popped up. I think that this is a great topic, but as I thought about it, I could see how my answer to the question that is the title could have no more relevance that the question, "What is your favorite color?" and my answer being 'green'.

As I contemplated my response I concluded that this is not a problem with the original post. I think that the questions "What modern boats do you like? Who do you think is building good boats right now? What would you buy if you could?" do a nice job of setting this up as a worthwhile discussion.

But as I thought about my response I wanted my answer to be placed in context rather than to be a simple preference taken as an abstraction. And while I have not sailed on most of these boats, I have had a chance to see them under sail and been board most of them.

I will also note that the article from Practical Sailor is very poorly written and way out of date in terms of defining what is a modern boat and/or how they are designed. In all time frames there are better and worse designs, the article seemingly is based on the Tartan 3400, which is a really poor design that was outdated before it ever went on sale. And yes, the article is right that it is an ill-mannered design but where the article goes wrong is that the Tartan 34 is not representative of the current crop of designs that are designed and evaluated by means of computational fluid analysis so that the boat remains balanced and under control up to very high heel angles even if the newer cruising designs are intended to be sailed much flatter than more historical designs. But it also fails to understand that much of what shapes these modern performance cruisers have little to nothing to do with more speed. That is in many ways a byproduct of the advances rather than the driving force and mission statement that has shaped the current design concept.

What the article in Practical Sailor does not say is that the current crop of advanced designed yachts are much more difficult to design, and that without use of modern design tools and the modern science that was used to develop those tools, it is impossible to design a boat with using the current design concepts that sails well across a broad range of conditions and which is easy to sail. But those tools exist and by employing those tools, the resultant designs are way easier to sail, way more forgiving, way more stable, and way more seaworthy than the older designs.

I will say that there is no stock design out there that I truly would want to own. If money were no object I would probably collaborate with Farr Yacht Design to on a custom 40 footer that employed the DSS system. I will explain why there are no stock designs that I would want to own later in this post. But to go back to the original question&#8230;..

If I had to pick just one stock design, my first choice would probably be the Xp38 by X-yachts. I would pick this boat for a variety of reasons, none of which have anything to do with bleeding edge design considerations. Frankly, designed in 2013, these are not the most advanced designs, nor the fastest. But they are well rounded designs that sail well in a broad range of conditions. From talking to an owner who took one offshore, they apparently have no bad habits. X-yachts build quality and engineering is impressive. The interior of the cabin layout is about perfect for my tastes. The ergonomics on deck are appear to be well thought thru would work well as a full crewed boat or short-handed. My sense is that these are tough, go anywhere (that is deep enough) designs.

I also like the Italia 11.98, for many of the same reasons as the Xp-38. I am not convinced that the Italia is as robust as the X-yacht but it seems well engineered. I also think that the ergonomics would not work as well for short-handed sailing. But these seem to be boats that handle a broad range of conditions well, and should be easy to sail. The cabin layout is less appealing to me than the X-Boat. I would rather have one aft cabin, one head and a larger galley.

Some other also ran's,
I have not seen a Dehler 38 sq in real life but the sound like a really nice design. Also I am not sure what I think about square head mainsails on cruising boats.

I would include the J-112. These seem to be well designed and well-rounded boats.

Similarly I like the looks of the Elan E5, but I have no direct experience. I have seen a prior generation Elan and thought that the workmanship looked good, and the ergonomics seemed well thought through. The E5 seems to be more gimmicky than that earlier design. It is also surprisingly heavy, which is not a good thing in my book.

If this were biased more towards performance, I really like the looks of the JPK line. They seem be extremely well thought thru and constructed. I particularly like the JPK 1010. I also like the Pogo 36 and Pogo 12.5. I have seen the older Pogo 40 up close and thought it was a very well done design, and conceptually liked the swing keel.

But back to why I would not buy any stock design that is out there. Disqualifiers would be:

Tee Keels. I know that they are very efficient, but they are also not practical enough for this old sailor.

Outdrives: I had one and don't want one ever again. Give me a straight drive prop shaft any day.

Wide open cockpits: They look good on paper or with big race crews, they are too much real estate to cross short-handed.

Chines: While chines work really well on very light, high speed race boats, they are a dumb idea on a cruising boats. They do nothing useful for motion comfort or performance on boats that are displacement cruisers.

Wave piercing bows: They look sexy but do nothing good for a cruising boat. They bring a lot of water onto the fore deck and toss it quite far aft. Any theoretical advantage of not having as much weight from a plumb or slightly raked bow is quickly lost from the weight of water on the deck.

Plumb topsides: The theory is that the topsides ideally never touch the water, but all cruisers eventually end up heeled over more than ideal at some point. When you heel over a plumb topside until they touch the water, that results in a notch in the stability curve and that notch impacts motion comfort and stability. But more significantly, a slight flare (especially in the bow area) keeps water off of the deck and so makes the boat drier and safer to sail.

Too much complexity: Modern cruisers have way to much stuff on them. I am a keep it simple kind of guy.

Too much weight: This one gets me. I sail 38 foot boat that was designed as a performance cruiser 41 years ago. The dry weight on that design was around 10,500 lbs. (Fully loaded they are closer to 13,500 lbs.) When I look at new 38 footers their dry weight on all of them ispretty much 2,000-3,000 lbs heavier. I get that they have considerably longer water line lengths (similar D/L), and I get that they have way more sail area (and bigger SA/D's) but I don't get why they are so heavy. To me more than anything else, more displacement translates to more cost to built and maintain, and more work to sail. I just don't get it.

But hopefully, this puts my answer in context.
Jeff


----------



## 508422 (Aug 26, 2018)

colemj said:


> 25-30 degrees sounds like a lot of heel.
> 
> Mark


No, she is very comfortable at that. 15 to 20 knots of wind and a reef in the main. 15 degrees is very quick. Dennis


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

MaxForce said:


> So we will keep our narrow little CD30, sits low in the water with a lot of lead down low. I can sit and see over the cabin top. We have notice in lite air larger lighter boats blast by us but when the wind picks up and we heel to 25 or 30 degrees we pass these same boats. Don't know why, they should be faster but it is our experience. Dennis


I don't know why you might have an impression that you are faster than more modern boats of a similar size in heavier winds, but if you compare the CD 30 to similar displacement modern designs, the speed advantage of more modern designs is readily evident in light winds but a modern designed performance cruiser would have a wildly faster speed advantage in heavier conditions over a CD 30. and would be sailing flatter and with a more comfortable motion.(less roll and pitch at a slower roll and pitch rate)

For example, my boat isn't all that modern, but it does have roughly the same displacement and ballast as the Cape Dory 30. Last week I was sailing in 25 to 32 knots of wind, Close reaching into a big chop, we were moving at a pretty steady speed range around 7.5 to 8 knots. Once we bore away, most of the time we were maintaining speeds in the 8-8.5 knot range with bursts of sustained speeds into the mid-9 range and a high speed of 10.5 knots. And more modern designs would be way faster than my boat in those conditions. While the Cape Dory 30 has a lot of virtues, I am sorry, those are not speeds that a CD- 30 can hit let alone sustain.

Even if you compare boats by length, a modern design, say something like a Dehler 30, would be wildly faster than the CD-30 (or my boat for that matter) in heavy air on all points of sail.

Now then, there was a time when a boat like the CD 30 was faster than newer race boat designs. The Cape Dory is a 45 year old design (35 if yours is a Mk II) but it's design is based on race boat design principles from the 1940's thru 1960's. If by modern designs you are comparing the speed of a CD 30 to (1970's - 1980's) IOR era derived designs, then yes, your are probably correct that you can stick with them in heavy air, especially reaching, and you would not need to reef as early.

Regarding 25-30 degrees of heel, you might want to experiment to see if that really is faster. Even these older shorter waterline boats were generally faster at flatter heel angles than that, and made way less leeway when sailed flatter resulting in much better VMG's. One way to do that is set your GPS to go to some point that is vaguely upwind and then try sailing the boat a number of cycles a various heel angles. Watch the arrival time at that mark and not the speed over bottom. Sooner or later arrival time will give you the best sense of your VMG. Try that again close and broad reaching as well. I would think that less heel will prove to have a faster VMG, require less tacks, and may be more comfortable even if it does not seem as fast.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## 508422 (Aug 26, 2018)

Jeff_H said:


> I don't know why you might have an impression that you are faster than more modern boats of a similar size, but if you compare the CD 30 to similar displacement modern designs, the speed advantage of more modern designs is readily evident in in light winds but a modern designed performance cruiser would have a wildly faster speed advantage in heavier conditions over a CD 30. and would be sailed flatter and with a more comfortable motion.(less roll and pitch at a slower roll and pitch rate)
> 
> For example, my boat isn't all that modern, but it does have roughly the same displacement and ballast as the Cape Dory 30. Last week I was sailing in 25 to 32 knots of wind, Close reaching into a big chop, we were moving at a pretty steady range around 7.5 to 8 knots. Once we bore away, most of the time we were maintaining speeds in the 8-8.5 knot range with bursts into the mid-9 range and a high speed of 10.5 knots. And more modern designs would be way faster than my boat in those conditions. While the Cape Dory 30 has a lot of virtues, I am sorry, those are not speeds that a CD- 30 can hit let alone sustain.
> 
> ...


I think we are faster when the wind picks up because the modern flat bottom fin keels with a transom as wide as a Basheba Butt (one of the butt sisters) get uncomfortable and bare off the wind. I KNOW we should not be as fast but that's the way it works out more often than not. Obviously I can't exceed my 6.5 or so hull speed and come anywhere near 10 knots even surfing down waves. No sure where you were going with that. And I did give the disclaimer that I know I should not be faster. Dennis


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

So much of it is more or less theoretical. A couple years ago I absolutely blew the doors off a 40 something foot Manta catamaran that was motoring with my 16 foot beach cat in semi rough conditions in the GOM. He should have been so much faster than us in those conditions, raising his sails would have been a good start. There are a lot of boats out there not being sailed to their potential.


----------



## 508422 (Aug 26, 2018)

Jeff_H said:


> I don't know why you might have an impression that you are faster than more modern boats of a similar size in heavier winds, but if you compare the CD 30 to similar displacement modern designs, the speed advantage of more modern designs is readily evident in light winds but a modern designed performance cruiser would have a wildly faster speed advantage in heavier conditions over a CD 30. and would be sailing flatter and with a more comfortable motion.(less roll and pitch at a slower roll and pitch rate)
> 
> For example, my boat isn't all that modern, but it does have roughly the same displacement and ballast as the Cape Dory 30. Last week I was sailing in 25 to 32 knots of wind, Close reaching into a big chop, we were moving at a pretty steady speed range around 7.5 to 8 knots. Once we bore away, most of the time we were maintaining speeds in the 8-8.5 knot range with bursts of sustained speeds into the mid-9 range and a high speed of 10.5 knots. And more modern designs would be way faster than my boat in those conditions. While the Cape Dory 30 has a lot of virtues, I am sorry, those are not speeds that a CD- 30 can hit let alone sustain.
> 
> ...


I just looked at SailData for your boat. These are approximate numbers. You are 8 feet longer, your draft is 2 feet more, you are 3 feet wider and the boats displacement is almost the same. Your water line is longer than my boat. Just thought it was interesting. We sail the lower bay in some pretty rough conditions, probably far more than you get in the upper bay on a regular basis and I don't notice a lot of pitch and roll. Wet at times in a 4 or 5 foot chop but very comfortable. The steep heel angles are going close hauled they are much less when we bare off the wind, probably 15 to 20. Thank you for all the feed back. Dennis


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

MaxForce said:


> I just looked at SailData for your boat. These are approximate numbers. You are 8 feet longer, your draft is 2 feet more, you are 3 feet wider and the boats displacement is almost the same. Your water line is longer than my boat. Just thought it was interesting. We sail the lower bay in some pretty rough conditions, probably far more than you get in the upper bay on a regular basis and I don't notice a lot of pitch and roll. Wet at times in a 4 or 5 foot chop but very comfortable. The steep heel angles are going close hauled they are much less when we bare off the wind, probably 15 to 20. Thank you for all the feed back. Dennis


Dennis,
You are correct that my boat, let alone any other more modern boat than mine that had the same displacement and ballast would be roughly 6-8 feet longer, roughly 1-2 feet deeper, and would have a much longer waterline than your boat. The hull form and buoyancy distribution would be very different as well, so that there would be much higher stability and much better damping as well. Those are some of what has improved to make modern boats more seaworthy and more comfortable than the older boats. The net result is that what you think of as rough conditions might not seem like particularly rough conditions on one of these boats.

But I will acknowledge that you are correct that the Southern Bay can get some pretty rough going a larger percentage of the time. I noticed that when I have sailed my own boat down there. The short chop really isn't any worse than up here; its just more frequent, so it really places a premium on motion comfort. Last spring, I did a delivery on an older design down there and was amazed at the difference in motion between that older hull form and more modern boats. By comparison the modern boats rode like a Cadillac.

Jeff


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

MaxForce said:


> I think we are faster when the wind picks up because the modern flat bottom fin keels with a transom as wide as a Basheba Butt (one of the butt sisters) get uncomfortable and bare off the wind. I KNOW we should not be as fast but that's the way it works out more often than not. Obviously I can't exceed my 6.5 or so hull speed and come anywhere near 10 knots even surfing down waves. No sure where you were going with that. And I did give the disclaimer that I know I should not be faster. Dennis


I think your assumptions are incorrect. It is very unlikely that the modern boats are bearing off because they are uncomfortable. Indeed, they are likely far more comfortable than a skinny old boat that is heeling excessively. (Yes, I think heeling over 30° is excessive!)

On older boats such as your Cape Dory there is little room in the cockpit, and the coamings are skinny and uncomfortable to sit on, so your only option is to stand behind the wheel or sit on the bench with a vertical backrest and brace yourself on the leeward seat. Modern beamy boats have plenty of space to allow for nice wide coamings that make very comfortable seats when sailing to windward. Many of them are curved so that when the boat heels there is always a level surface to plant your butt on. Believe me, the ergonomics of modern boats is light years beyond boats designed in the '60s.

The thing about comparing your speed to other boats on the water is that unless both boats know you are racing it doesn't really mean much!

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## Interlude (Jun 16, 2016)

Wow! We might as well throw in keel design questions....NOT!

In my first post on this thread i commented how impressed I was with the newer designs we saw at the 2019 Annapolis Boat Show.

"One of the things I left the Annapolis Boatshow with last year (first one since we first gave up sailing in 1989) was the rise of the multi-hull and simultaneously the rise of the newer mono-hulls with commodious cockpits, and much improved livability below decks secondary to the flatter hull designs, higher freeboard and much of the beam moved aft. Along with that comes a faster hull with much initial stability, not unlike the multihulls. Must admit was pretty impressed!"

This observation may be unique to many on this forum secondary to our almost 30 year hiatus from sailing. The last Annapolis Boat show we had been to before that was when we gave up sailing in 1989 and our boat was a 'new design". We had a snapshot of the changes, which for many who had continued to sail was an evolution, to us it was a revolution. I had kept up a subscriptions to CW and PS for many of those years so at least could follow the industry but seeing them up close end personal was eye opening! We tend to be a less is more kinda family and actually prefer our older vehicles more for many reasons not the least of which is their simplicity, not to mention less ownership costs. I LOVE to drive the new stuff with all their creature comforts just don't want to own it. Don't get me wrong, I also LOVE the advances made in autos up through the late 90's into early 2000's but beyond that...nope. They don't drive any better, cost a ton more to acquire and own, and are hugely complex. (we have family in the car business so this is not just a personal opinion)

This translates into our boat preferences as well. Can't begin to afford the new stuff nor can I fathom their complexity. Heck had enough trouble redoing the steering quadrant with just one helm! I guess we are simply 'less is more' kinda folks. That doesn't make folks who like 'more' wrong or the reverse. We had dreams of cruising the world and though our current boat is quite capable of this and was designed for such, we know those opportunities have come and gone. We are good with that as we are also good with the life we did choose. We still prefer to be 'off grid' kinda folks and our travels reflect this. It is this choice that made the thought of a complex yacht somewhere needing to be dealt with in a remote location scary. I know, it is my limitations, but they are real. So...my favorite modern cruising yacht remains the 'new' design from Crealock and built by Pacific Seacraft we first stepped aboard in 1989. Hopefully everyone should feel that way about their boats!

I do love to follow the advances in sailboat design and love the enhanced creature comforts. Added a few more links for your viewing pleasure.

Comparing Design Ratios -helpful deciphering all those values

Sailboat Design Evolution -good review of the improvements

MODERN SAILBOAT DESIGN: Ballast Stability - Wave Train - an in depth review of ballast

https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/98503/Zanella_MR_T_2020.pdf?sequence=1 - and if you really wanna appreciate what goes into modern sailboat design (guaranteed to leave you bleary eyed)

It's all good, see ya out there!

Interlude


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Interlude said:


> We had a snapshot of the changes, which for many who had continued to sail was an evolution, to us it was a revolution.


This is a good perspective point. I've used the terms evolution and revolution in this discussion, but those are relative perspectives, as shown by JeffH's posts where from his viewpoint everything is evolution.

Not being intimately involved in the field, I see longer periods of not much advancement, followed by a bolus of advancement, and think the latter is a revolution. But obviously, when pointed out, one can see the evolution of their origins.

Maybe it is more precise to say that cruising boat design goes through periods of accelerated evolution, followed by periods of slower or stagnated evolution?

Mark


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

So... have we consensus that the "evolution" or the "revolution" was basically driven by advance engineering tools such as the computer.

Land architecture has benefited from computers.... but it seems not as much as nautical design. Performance considerations seem to "frame" or drive the changes in accommodation plans and aesthetics. The use of wood in sail boats is interesting. Veneer plywood is a great material for cabinets and so it continues to be used for soles, joinery and I suppose bulkheads. But the use of "legacy" teak seems to have been replaced by wood species formerly not used... maple or cherry for example. And details like trim and fiddles seem to be make sense in wood. But we see other materials such as starboard and corian/solid surface....
Interiors seem to be slowly embracing new aesthetics and materials... And this becomes "modern" as well as hull form and advanced fluid engineering.


----------



## 508422 (Aug 26, 2018)

Interlude said:


> Wow! We might as well throw in keel design questions....NOT!
> 
> In my first post on this thread i commented how impressed I was with the newer designs we saw at the 2019 Annapolis Boat Show.
> 
> ...


I have been reading the article on the design of "modern" boats and it is fantastic reading. Thank you for sharing. It basically relates to my own personal experience with the kind sea motion of a heavy narrow boat. If I may this was a couple of paragraphs from that article that you link above. Jeff, this author seem to contradict your reply to me. Unless I completely misunderstand your reply. Dennis

"Boats that rely primarily on ballast for stability tend to be narrow and deep. In the past they also often had a great deal of deadrise in their hulls, though this is less true now. Narrow, heavily ballasted boats, particularly those with lots of deadrise, usually are tender and quickly heel to *significant angles when pressed by even a moderate breeze.* But this does not make them "unstable." When pressed to extremes, they* are usually more stable than stiffer boats that rely more on form stability to stay upright.* Unlike form stability, which increases a boat's initial stability, ballast stability increases what is known as ultimate or reserve stability, which is what helps a boat recover and roll upright again-just like the punching clown-after it has been knocked flat or even capsized.

Tender boats, like stiff boats, can be both comfortable and uncomfortable. Their tendency to heel easily often makes inexperienced crew feel nervous and uncomfortable, and even for experienced sailors, working at severe angles for extended periods of time can be taxing. *But when the sea gets rough a tender boat normally has a smoother motion than a stiff one. It rolls to greater angles, but does so more slowly, without the vicious snapping and jerking that characterizes the motion of a stiff boat.* *Sailing to weather in a strong breeze a tender boat's lee rail will be buried much of the time, and the crew on deck will get wet, but the boat will not pound as violently as a stiff boat."*


----------



## 508422 (Aug 26, 2018)

Interlude said:


> Imma thinking it was at 10;41 a.m.!
> 
> maybe we should call them newer designs, kinda like a newer house vs an older one. More modern materials, better infrastructure but the basic purpose unchanged.
> 
> ...


Ok this is another good article written by Darrell on *modern boat design*. Thanks for posting. I will admit my Cape Dory and if I could buy what ever boats, the PSC and Shannon are not modern boats. *Thank goodness! *Dennis


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

For someone who only has sailed on boat (1985) for decades in every imaginable condition.... I have nothing to compare it to.

Displacement/Length RATIO285Screening FACTOR183Sail Area/Displacement RATIO21.8Motion Comfort RATIO29.8


What are your numbers?


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

MaxForce said:


> "Boats that rely primarily on ballast for stability tend to be narrow and deep. In the past they also often had a great deal of deadrise in their hulls, though this is less true now. Narrow, heavily ballasted boats, particularly those with lots of deadrise, usually are tender and quickly heel to *significant angles when pressed by even a moderate breeze.* But this does not make them "unstable." When pressed to extremes, they* are usually more stable than stiffer boats that rely more on form stability to stay upright.* Unlike form stability, which increases a boat's initial stability, ballast stability increases what is known as ultimate or reserve stability, which is what helps a boat recover and roll upright again-just like the punching clown-after it has been knocked flat or even capsized.
> 
> Tender boats, like stiff boats, can be both comfortable and uncomfortable. Their tendency to heel easily often makes inexperienced crew feel nervous and uncomfortable, and even for experienced sailors, working at severe angles for extended periods of time can be taxing. *But when the sea gets rough a tender boat normally has a smoother motion than a stiff one. It rolls to greater angles, but does so more slowly, without the vicious snapping and jerking that characterizes the motion of a stiff boat.* *Sailing to weather in a strong breeze a tender boat's lee rail will be buried much of the time, and the crew on deck will get wet, but the boat will not pound as violently as a stiff boat."*


It is important to put that quote in perspective. In the past, 'stiff' boats (think catboats and racing dinghies) developed significantly higher stability in a very narrow range of heel angles, (maybe 15 degrees). Because the stability increased in such a narrow range, the stability curve spiked upwards very quickly. As a result, the motion would jerk as the stability suddenly spiked upwards during the outer angles of a roll. An even more disturbing aspect of that stability curve was that the stability curve would quickly go almost flat and the maximum stability and the limit of positive stability would be reached at a very low angle of heel.
Starting in the mid 1990's, a huge amount of research was focused on motion and stability. This was driven by an unexpected mix of divergent motivations and funding sources.
Much of the research came out of the racing community. As rating rules shift to Velocity Prediction Program driven ratings, designers began looking for 'unrated' design features. Very quickly attention focused on motion. By that time, designers understood that the wider the angle of roll and pitch, and the more violent the acceleration and deceleration, the more it interupted the flow of air on the sails, and water over the keel. Those interupted flows generated residual drag, and diminished lift.
Around the same time, research groups were looking at seakindliness in the wake of the results of earlier inquiries into the two major racing disasters.
Lastly, also in that same time frame, study groups were looking at issues of stability since they were developing the RCD for the CE.
What came out of that research was a fire hose of new information that greatly expanded the scientific understanding of motion and stability.
The list of clarifications and new knowledge that came out of this research would be very long but the big take aways impacting motion had to do with tweaking the roll and pitch curves to avoid humps and a much better understanding of the role that damping and roll and pitch moments of inertia plays in both the roll and pitch angle and roll and pitch rates.
And by the late 1990's and early years of the 21st century, designers began to shape boats to take advantage of the new knowledge. The changes were aimed at minimizing the forces causing pitch and roll, avoiding sudden changes the pitch and roll stability curves due to surge and roll forces, increasing damping, and increasing roll moment of inertia without reducing stability.
Most of these strategies are pretty easy to understand. For example, to minimize pitch, waterline lengths were greatly increased and bows were made finer. This meant that the impact with each wave occurred over a longer distance on the boat, and over a longer period of time. The net result was less deceleration on each wave and a smaller slower pitch rotation due to less pronounced impact with each wave.
Damping is a little harder to understand. Damping are forces that work counter to the rotational forces. The most easily visualized is that the pressure of water on the rotating keel and air on the rotating sails creates a resistance to rotation.
But the other form of damping comes from shifting the center of buoyancy in ways that resist motion.
Going back to minimizing pitch and making it more comfortable. While the finer bow reduced the pitch angle and acceleration, the boat will still will pitch.
To further slow and minimize pitch angle and accelerations, designers began increasing displacement in the stern by shortening overhangs, flattening the run and widening the stern of the boat. The result of that is that damping forces progressively increase as the stern rotates into the water.
The same thing happens in roll. As buoyancy shifts to one side of the boat to another. Initially this was done by flattening the bottom of the boat. The problem with that is that the stability curve spikes quickly and creates a jerky motion and can cause the boat to round up suddenly.
The Tartan 3400 mentioned above is the perfect of why that is a bad idea.
One of the issues with this approach is not only did that form of stability and damping produce a jerky motion, it also resulted in an asymmetrical heeled hull form that contributed to the round up.
And that is where computer modeling came in. By the middle of the first decade of the 21st century, the data from the research on motion and stability had been embedded in the rapidly increasingly sophisticated software becoming available to the design world. While the new boats are beamy their static waterline and heeled waterline are surprisingly narrow and symmetrical. What computer analytics permit is designs which shift buoyancy to leeward developing a lot of form stability, but not creating bumps in the stability curve or asymmetrical heeled hull forms.
So while historically, stiffness meant a bouncy ride, these days computer modeled hull forms makes that is no longer the case.
Jeff


----------



## 508422 (Aug 26, 2018)

SanderO said:


> For someone who only has sailed on boat (1985) for decades in every imaginable condition.... I have nothing to compare it to.
> 
> Displacement/Length RATIO285Screening FACTOR183Sail Area/Displacement RATIO21.8Motion Comfort RATIO29.8
> 
> ...


Me? I'm 60 years old, 6-2 190 pounds.


Jeff_H said:


> It is important to put that quote in perspective. In the past, 'stiff' boats (think catboats and racing dinghies) developed significantly higher stability in a very narrow range of heel angles, (maybe 15 degrees). Because the stability increased in such a narrow range, the stability curve spiked upwards very quickly. As a result, the motion would jerk as the stability suddenly spiked upwards during the outer angles of a roll. An even more disturbing aspect of that stability curve was that the stability curve would quickly go almost flat and the maximum stability and the limit of positive stability would be reached at a very low angle of heel.
> Starting in the mid 1990's, a huge amount of research was focused on motion and stability. This was driven by an unexpected mix of divergent motivations and funding sources.
> Much of the research came out of the racing community. As rating rules shift to Velocity Prediction Program driven ratings, designers began looking for 'unrated' design features. Very quickly attention focused on motion. By that time, designers understood that the wider the angle of roll and pitch, and the more violent the acceleration and deceleration, the more it interupted the flow of air on the sails, and water over the keel. Those interupted flows generated residual drag, and diminished lift.
> Around the same time, research groups were looking at seakindliness in the wake of the results of earlier inquiries into the two major racing disasters.
> ...


I'm an industrial electrician not a naval arciteke, Heck I can't even spell it. You got me there, not sure where there is but you must be right with all those words. Dennis


----------



## 508422 (Aug 26, 2018)

SanderO said:


> For someone who only has sailed on boat (1985) for decades in every imaginable condition.... I have nothing to compare it to.
> 
> Displacement/Length RATIO285Screening FACTOR183Sail Area/Displacement RATIO21.8Motion Comfort RATIO29.8
> 
> ...


For a CD30?
DL 275.18 Heavy
Capsize 1.67 BETTER THAN YOU BY A LITTLE
SA/D 15.11 GOOD PROFORMER
Comfort 33.06 OFF SHORE CAPABLE

FARR 38 
DL 156 LIGHT
CAP SIZE 2.19 
SA/D 22 EXTREAM PROFORMANCE
COMFORT 17.98 TENDER


----------



## contrarian (Sep 14, 2011)

Verbosity Rules.......


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

SanderO said:


> So... have we consensus that the "evolution" or the "revolution" was basically driven by advance engineering tools such as the computer.


I don't think one can discount advances in materials and production techniques as driving forces.

Mark


----------



## 508422 (Aug 26, 2018)

MaxForce said:


> For a CD30?
> DL 275.18 Heavy
> Capsize 1.67 BETTER THAN YOU BY A LITTLE
> SA/D 15.11 GOOD PROFORMER
> ...


Explanation on Beyond Sail follows
DL obvious, higher the heavier
Capsize, the lower the better
SA/D, power to weigh in moderate to high wind conditions. CD 30 would be much lower if this was lite wind
Comfort, the lower the number the more likely to cause sea sickness.

Not sure how much faith is put into the formulas, but my wife use to get sick on our Pearson 30 at 24 and does not on our CD30 at 33.


----------



## 508422 (Aug 26, 2018)

Now can we talk about our favorite fantasy boat if money was no object. What would you buy!


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

A quick comment on the'verbosity' of my posts. I agree that my posts are quite long, and often responding to a specific post. But my posts often are trying to explain often complex concepts that can't be explained in a few words. And while I understand that there are members who don't care to learn about or understand these topics on a granular level, for other members it is helpful to have a better understanding of the topics under discussion. 
Jeff


----------



## 508422 (Aug 26, 2018)

You are correct, some are helpful, so are just your opinion, some are not correct when compared to my opinion or when compared to another author (expert or drip under pressure) and some are just so long I get lost in the mire because it is too many words or acronyms to look up. But opinions are just that, what color glasses we view the world through and typically no one can change my opinion. Fact can tell me i'm wrong and I understand but my heart and gut won't always agree. Dennis


----------



## 508422 (Aug 26, 2018)

MaxForce said:


> Now can we talk about our favorite fantasy boat if money was no object. What would you buy!


Well Jeff, you win again. Not sure how you stated my new topic was the same as this one since we have over 80 post on what is modern vs not modern instead of what the OP originally wanted. You win again, I don't under stand but at least it only took a couple of lines for an explanation. Dennis


----------



## contrarian (Sep 14, 2011)

A quick comment on the 'verbosity' of my posts. 

Jeff, 
I think you may have taken my post entirely wrong. It was meant in good humor although unfortunately it obviously didn't come across that way to you. It was more of a reaction to the post concerning "all those words". but Sanders post appeared moments before I hit the reply button which tended to dilute the cohesion of my post in the flow of the conversation. Please accept my apologies, I frankly admire your willingness to spend the time to explain your position in thoughtful and eloquent terms and I don't find them to be verbose.


----------



## 508422 (Aug 26, 2018)

97 post, approximately 15 boats mentioned, a discussion on beer, cad drawings, what's wrong with someone else's choices, difference between evolution and revolution and a grand discussion on what is modern and the OP just wanted to know what new boat you would buy if you could. Such a simple question. Dennis


----------



## 508422 (Aug 26, 2018)

and I really do like your post, you are so smart. Please forgive me I meant every word I said.🤮🤮Dennis logging out.


----------



## rbrasi (Mar 21, 2011)

So... to recenter the discussion a bit, I second the vote for the Sirius 35DS. This is my 'grail' boat (to use an Orology term). It's only available in Europe, but they are trying to expand their footprint here in the states. It's going to take a while and I want to get a used one anyway, so it'll have to wait. I like the functionality of the layout and storage. I also appreciate the almost waterline saloon. How does it sail? IDK. I guess I'll have to take a trip to Holland to find out!


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

rbrasi said:


> So... to recenter the discussion a bit, I second the vote for the Sirius 35DS. This is my 'grail' boat (to use an Orology term). It's only available in Europe, but they are trying to expand their footprint here in the states. It's going to take a while and I want to get a used one anyway, so it'll have to wait. I like the functionality of the layout and storage. I also appreciate the almost waterline saloon. How does it sail? IDK. I guess I'll have to take a trip to Holland to find out!


Very innovative boat.. WOW... well done Sirius!
As few take aways from their web based materials...
You really have to crawl in and over to use their berths. This is not something I would want.
They really make clever use of the volume / space and seem to have thought of everything.
The drawers, doors and hardware are excellent.
Vision is very good
As everything has been thought out.... there seems almost no room for owner's touch. The design reminds me of a space ship's interior's use of space.


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

MaxForce said:


> For a CD30?
> DL 275.18 Heavy
> Capsize 1.67 BETTER THAN YOU BY A LITTLE
> SA/D 15.11 GOOD PROFORMER
> ...


I know some people are trying to steer the conversation back towards the original topic, but I think that the thread has drifted in an interesting direction...not only what constitutes a "modern" boat, but what those modern boats bring to the table.

Since we are comparing numbers, here are the numbers for my 2011 Jeanneau 39i:

S.A./Disp.: 16.83

Bal./Disp.: 31.10

Disp./Length: 166.12

Comfort Ratio: 23.25

Capsize Screening Formula: 2.02

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

I am not sure what we can get from looking at these screening formula. I cruise with my Bay Hen, so as far as I am concerned it is a cruising boat, but when I look at my numbers they are more in line with what I would expect from a modern sport boat, except for Ballast/displacement. The boat has been out of production since late 90s, so definitely not modern.

Sail Area/Displacement: 30.09
Displacement length: 66.1
Comfort Ratio: 6.34
Capsize screening: 2.59


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Arcb said:


> I am not sure what we can get from looking at these screening formula.


They also have no relevance to cruising multihulls. Our SA/D is 24.1, if that is interesting. However, it is not anywhere close to a racing machine that number would indicate for a monohull. It isn't even a particularly large number for catamarans.

Mark


----------



## Telesail (Dec 28, 2011)

Jeff_H said:


> If I had to pick just one stock design, my first choice would probably be the Xp38 by X-yachts. I would pick this boat for a variety of reasons, none of which have anything to do with bleeding edge design considerations. Frankly, designed in 2013, these are not the most advanced designs, nor the fastest. But they are well rounded designs that sail well in a broad range of conditions. From talking to an owner who took one offshore, they apparently have no bad habits. X-yachts build quality and engineering is impressive. The interior of the cabin layout is about perfect for my tastes. The ergonomics on deck are appear to be well thought thru would work well as a full crewed boat or short-handed. My sense is that these are tough, go anywhere (that is deep enough) designs.
> 
> I also like the Italia 11.98, for many of the same reasons as the Xp-38. I am not convinced that the Italia is as robust as the X-yacht but it seems well engineered. I also think that the ergonomics would not work as well for short-handed sailing. But these seem to be boats that handle a broad range of conditions well, and should be easy to sail. The cabin layout is less appealing to me than the X-Boat. I would rather have one aft cabin, one head and a larger galley.
> 
> ...


reading this was a roller coaster - aside from my unhealthy preference for Aluminum boats, I felt validated by Jeff's liking of X-Boats and Dehlers and then he dumped me back down with is skepticism about square head mains on cruising boats ?

More seriously though, I really appreciate the time you take to make complex marine architecture accessible to lapsed engineers like me...


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

Telesail said:


> reading this was a roller coaster - aside from my unhealthy preference for Aluminum boats, I felt validated by Jeff's liking of X-Boats and Dehlers and then he dumped me back down with is skepticism about square head mains on cruising boats
> 
> More seriously though, I really appreciate the time you take to make complex marine architecture accessible to lapsed engineers like me...


I was on board an XP44 this summer, and it truly was a very nice boat. It is solidly on the performance side of the equation but it was also very cruise-able. I particularly liked the cockpit table that dropped down into it's own storage compartment built into the cockpit sole, and the traveller recessed into the cockpit sole so it isn't a tripping hazard. (I bet it is a pain in the butt to clean though!) . And then there is the huge sail locker just aft of the chain locker...that would be a nice thing to have.

The owner was cruising with his family, but also plans on racing it in Vic Maui and Transpac. I have no doubt it will do just as well on the race course as it does family cruising!





__





Xp 44 |







www.x-yachts.com





Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Jeff_H said:


> Also I am not sure what I think about square head mainsails on cruising boats.


They do make a performance difference on most cruising boat designs that would consider getting one (not talking Pacific Seacraft and Shannon here). The aspect ratio and twist profile is much better, although it gets more difficult to close the leach. The only real tradeoff is accommodating the gaff batten. It is a real pain to connect and disconnect the sail from the car every time, and the various means of using a jack line to solve that problem presents the problem of the sail head catching lazy jacks during raising before the jack line comes into play, and with the head getting loose and twisting off against the rigging as the halyard is slacked when trying to reef off the wind. I sailed a boat recently with the Anomoly headcar that solves all of these problems brilliantly - at a whopping cost (could probably buy a new jib on many boats for the price of the headcar alone).

And, of course, getting a square head cross cut dacron sail is just silly and a waste of money, even though many are doing this. I guess for looks, or just to say they have one, but they aren't getting any advantage out of it.

We recently bought new sails and had to make this choice. We agonized over it, but in the end worked with the sailmaker to get a fat elliptical roach head that gave up only a tiny amount of sail area, had close to the same twist and leech profile, but used horizontal battens and didn't require the headcar to be disconnected. It has two small partial leech battens in the head to support the planform and extra roach there. When it came down to the tradeoff of simplicity to a little extra performance gain, cruising favors the simplicity for us.

Mark


----------



## Zemurray (Oct 28, 2018)

rbrasi said:


> So... to recenter the discussion a bit, I second the vote for the Sirius 35DS. This is my 'grail' boat (to use an Orology term). It's only available in Europe, but they are trying to expand their footprint here in the states. It's going to take a while and I want to get a used one anyway, so it'll have to wait. I like the functionality of the layout and storage. I also appreciate the almost waterline saloon. How does it sail? IDK. I guess I'll have to take a trip to Holland to find out!


The 35DS or 40DS (if we can save enough.. LOL) is definitely at the top of our list.

FWIW, they are in Germany. There is one 35DS in Toronto, and there is a 40DS on the north pacific coast. You can get a boat in the US, they will sell worldwide. I doubt a used one will come up in the US since there arent any over here.


----------



## Interlude (Jun 16, 2016)

SchockT said:


> I know some people are trying to steer the conversation back towards the original topic, but I think that the thread has drifted in an interesting direction...not only what constitutes a "modern" boat, but what those modern boats bring to the table.
> 
> Since we are comparing numbers, here are the numbers for my 2011 Jeanneau 39i:
> 
> ...


FWIW here is a link to Interlude's numbers:


https://sailboatdata.com/sailboat/pacific-seacraft-31


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Several posts refer to the Capsize Screen Formula and the Motion Comfort Index. Within the yacht science and yacht design community, these formulas have largely been deemed to provide no useful information. By and large these surrogate formulas do not include most of the critical factors that impact motion comfort or the likelihood of capsize (such as damping, horizontal nd vertical buoyancy and weight distribution, waterline plane, the extent to which the beam of the boat is carried fore and aft, and roll and pitch moments of inertia) and in the case of the impact of beam, both have beam as a negative while the current science suggests that beam is helpful in resisting capsize and that waterline beam is more critical for motion comfort. The net result is that these formulas tell almost nothing about the reality of a boat's likelihood of capsize or its motion comfort. In fact they provide so little indication of a boat's behavior that to rely on them in any way borders on the dangerous.

To explain, both of these formulas were developed at a time when boats were a lot more similar to each other than they are today. The formulas were intended to provide quick and easy to calculate rules of thumbs based on the hull forms, weight distributions and rig proportions of the day. The half century old Motion Comfort Index and the 40 plus year old Capsize Index preceded the many decades of research and the resultant scientific understanding that has occurred since they were penned. As a result, at best, these formulas have limited utility in comparing boats other than those which are very similar in weight and buoyancy distribution to each other.

The reason that it is useless to apply these formulas to compare boats with differing hull forms is that both formulas over emphasize displacement, which turns out to play a minor role in either motion or capsize likelihood. And both treat beam overly simply, and in the case of the capsize screening formula has beam as a negative rather than a positive it is now understood to be. Neither formula contains almost any of the real factors that control motion comfort, the likelihood of capsize, or seaworthiness. Neither formula contains such factors as the vertical center of gravity or buoyancy, neither contains weight or buoyancy distribution (of the hull both below and above the waterline), the extent to which the beam of the boat is carried fore and aft, and neither contains any data on dampening, all of which really are the major factors that control motion comfort or the likelihood of capsize.

The disconnect between these formulas and real life in large part results from the way that they were derived. The data used to create these formulas were based on the hull forms that existed at the time, which in large part were traditional heavy displacement for their length cruisers, CCA era race rule beaters, and IOR race rule beaters. The inventors of the formulas tried to boil down the easily measured characteristics of these three hull forms, noting that the traditional heavy displacement for their length cruisers had the smallest chance of capsize and the most comfortable motions, and IOR boats the worst behavior with CCA era boats somewhere in between. They interpolated the results of a few easily measure factors and that became the formulas. In the days before computer simulations and real life documentation, that approach made sense as a stop gap. It no longer does.

I typically give this example to explain just how useless and dangerously misleading these formulas can be. If we had two boats that were virtually identical except that one had a 500 pound weight at the top of the mast. (Yes, I know that no one would install a 500 lb weight at the top of the mast.) The boat with the weight up its mast would appear to be less prone to capsize under the capsize screen formula, and would appear to be more comfortable under the Motion Comfort ratio. Nothing would be further than the truth.

And while this example would clearly appear to be so extreme as to be worthy of dismissal, in reality, it may not be that for off. For example, if you compared two boats, the first has a very heavy interior, shoal draft, its beam carried towards the ends of the boat near the deck line, a heavy deck and cabin, perhaps with traditional teak decks and bulwarks, a heavy rig, heavy deck hardware, a hard bottomed dingy stored on its cabin top, and the resultant comparatively small ballast ratio made up of lower density ballast. And if we compare that to a boat that is lighter overall, but it has a deep draft keel, with a higher ballast ratio, the bulk of the ballast carried in a bulb, its maximum beam carried to a single point in the deck so that there was less deck area near the maximum beam, a narrower waterline beam, a lighter weight hull, deck and interior as well as a lighter, but taller rig, it would be easy to see that the second boat would potentially have less of a likelihood of being capsized, and it is likely that the second boat would roll and pitch through a smaller angle, and would probably have better dampening and so roll and pitch at a similar rate to the heavier boat, in other words offer a better motion comfort....And yet, under the Capsize Screen Formula and the Motion Comfort Index it would appear that the first boat would be less prone to capsize and have a better motion when obviously this would not be the case.

There are some better indicators of a vessel's likelihood of capsize. The EU developed their own stability index called STIX, a series of formulas which considered a wide range of factors and provides a reasonable sense of how a boat might perform in extreme conditions. Unfortunately meaningful results require a lot more information than most folks have access to for any specific design. The Offshore Committee of US Sailing developed the following simplified formula for estimating the Angle of Vanishing Stability (Sometimes referred to as the 'AVS', 'limit of positive stability', 'LPS', or 'Latent Stability Angle' ):

_Screening Stability Value ( SSV ) = ( Beam 2 ) / ( BR * HD * DV 1/3 )
Where; 
BR: Ballast Ratio ( Keel Weight / Total Weight )
HD: Hull Draft 
DV: The Displacement Volume in cubic meters. DV is entered as pounds of displacement on the webpage and converted to cubic meters by the formula: 
Displacement Volume in Cubic Meters = ( Weight in Pounds / 64 )*0.0283168
The Beam and Hull Draft in this formula are in meters. These values are entered in feet on the webpage and are converted to meters before SSV calculation.

Angle of Vanishing Stability approximately equals 110 + ( 400 / (SSV-10) )_

It should be noted that the AVS is only one indicator in evaluating the likelihood of capsize, meaning it only predicts the point at which the vessel wants to turn turtle. It does not predict the amount of force that would be required to heel the vessel to that limit, nor does it predict how the shape of the boat might encourage wave action to roll the boat closer to the angle at which it no longer wants to return. It also does not include the impact of the freeboard of the boat, the change in pitch and buoyancy distribution due to heel, the positive and negative buoyancy due to the cabin structure of the cockpit.

Jeff


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

colemj said:


> They do make a performance difference on most cruising boat designs that would consider getting one (not talking Pacific Seacraft and Shannon here). The aspect ratio and twist profile is much better, although it gets more difficult to close the leach. The only real tradeoff is accommodating the gaff batten. It is a real pain to connect and disconnect the sail from the car every time, and the various means of using a jack line to solve that problem presents the problem of the sail head catching lazy jacks during raising before the jack line comes into play, and with the head getting loose and twisting off against the rigging as the halyard is slacked when trying to reef off the wind. I sailed a boat recently with the Anomoly headcar that solves all of these problems brilliantly - at a whopping cost (could probably buy a new jib on many boats for the price of the headcar alone).
> 
> And, of course, getting a square head cross cut dacron sail is just silly and a waste of money, even though many are doing this. I guess for looks, or just to say they have one, but they aren't getting any advantage out of it.
> 
> ...


There is no doubt that square head mainsails add a lot of performance especially when reaching. They are at their best on boats which are capable of higher performance and for which heeling moments can become critical since they lower the center of effort relative to drive. I get that part.
My reservation is that they add complexity in order to work well. I am a keep it simple kind of a guy so for me personally, the jury is out on whether I personally would want a square head main on my own cruising boat.

Jeff


----------



## hpeer (May 14, 2005)

Don L said:


> After 10 years i still like my boat. At 20 years old now i don't know if it could be called "modern" anymore. Things I like:
> 
> sails well and is easy to balance
> doesn't need a lot of heel to do it
> ...


----------



## hpeer (May 14, 2005)

Last spring sitting in quarantine in Dominica and being bored I spent a lot of time looking for a “modern” (2000 or newer) boat to replace ours. Not that I have the money but I was curious.

I did not find any boat that I liked more than ours and was under something like $300,000.

I am a lot like DolL, I like the old boat we have. She is not perfect but she fits our needs well.

I can single hand her
She is big enough for 2
Has tremendous storage capacity
190 gallins if fuel
190 gallons of water
Nice aft cabin
Really simple so less **** to break
The layout is really well executed to make her comfortable
She is tough as all get out

Have sine issues sailingher but I think those are more “me” problems than “boat” lriblems. I want to learn how to sail the boat better and am making headway.

In part because of my realization that there is no other boat I pine for I just spent a bunch of money on upgrades and necessary maintenance. Makes a good boat better and last longer. A whole bunch cheaper than buying a new boat.

Frankly I just did not like most of the newer boats I saw. They had too many gee-gaws, and didnt have the room we have. I would have needed to go up to like 48’. And then single handing becimes more of an issue. We are 44’ but 49’ with the sprit. So one could argue I already sail a 49’ boat. But then also the cost goes way up.

We have dropped hull insurance because our boat value is low. And because she is a pretty darn safe boat. So our operating costs are low. And not having to be in a panic about risking our life savings is a big plus for is. Can’t do that in a modern boat.

I. Summary our old tub aint perfect, but she fits our needs really well.


----------



## Jay Flynn (Dec 29, 2015)

emcentar said:


> I have a 30 year old boat. Everyone I know has a 20-40 year old boat. I feel like I have a decent handle on the relative qualities of many 80's-era production boats (I don't claim to be an expert). But I know very little about modern boat builders. I'd like to be a little less ignorant.
> 
> I won't ask you what you don't like, as I'm not interested in bashing other people's boats. But what modern boats do you like? Who do you think is building good boats right now? What would you buy if you could?


I have a Sabre 362 that I'm rather find of.


----------



## s_ruffner (Aug 5, 2019)

I for one appreciate the lengthy posts - they are exactly the kind of information I'm here for.


----------



## s_ruffner (Aug 5, 2019)

So, to answer the original thread: what would I get if suddenly cost were of no concern? I would order myself a Wauquiez Centurion 57 with a shoal draft immediately. If money were no object in the purchase of the boat, it would mean I would have time to undertake some of the longer voyages/passages I aspire to. I'd take on crew and fly the family to the calm cruising spots.

At the moment, I'm more confined to closer coastal places, and if I could get "any boat" without concern for cost, I'd be looking at a Beneteau or Jeanneau with a lifting keel - I am now searching for an Oceanis 411, 381 or 361 with a shoal keel, because I probably really need to remain below $75k, and they tick the most boxes.

This brings me to this discussion...



Jeff_H said:


> Several posts refer to the Capsize Screen Formula and the Motion Comfort Index. Within the yacht science and yacht design community, these formulas have largely been deemed to provide no useful information. By and large these surrogate formulas do not include most of the critical factors that impact motion comfort or the likelihood of capsize (such as damping, horizontal nd vertical buoyancy and weight distribution, waterline plane, the extent to which the beam of the boat is carried fore and aft, and roll and pitch moments of inertia) and in the case of the impact of beam, both have beam as a negative while the current science suggests that beam is helpful in resisting capsize and that waterline beam is more critical for motion comfort. The net result is that these formulas tell almost nothing about the reality of a boat's likelihood of capsize or its motion comfort. In fact they provide so little indication of a boat's behavior that to rely on them in any way borders on the dangerous.


So, I'm definitely guilty as charged because I've been using sailboatdata.com as a way of evaluating different boats I'm considering. Among the most important considerations are these two: capsize resistance and motion comfort. Third in line is spaciousness. The newer pizza wedge boats seem to all be evolution/refinement moving in this direction. It seems beam-ey stern is about more than just a roomy cockpit and wide swim platform (though both are extremely nice and high on the desirability list).



Jeff_H said:


> both formulas over emphasize displacement, which turns out to play a minor role in either motion or capsize likelihood. And both treat beam overly simply, and in the case of the capsize screening formula has beam as a negative rather than a positive it is now understood to be


So, the examples you offered really were quite instructive (and intuitive, once pointed out). The stability from beam is of major interest for my family (I'm really the only one with a solid stomach or sea legs) - rolling induces a lot of fear; intellectually understanding that even a rolly boat is unlikely to capsize due to ballast doesn't seem to help. I'm taking an acclimation approach, hoping that we can work our way up with time. I've long thought the strategic placement of wing/bulbs with the ballast quite low made great sense.

In the meantime: yes, the CSF in particular has been a point of concern, and I'd assumed a degree of tradeoff between cruising comfort and heavy weather seaworthiness which isn't really needed for mild coastal conditions. I was ok with this because right now, it's unlikely I'll ever get my family out in anything over 3' + 25kt conditions - 10-15kt and 2' seas are about it. It's great to learn that for many of these newer hull forms, this number really isn't reliable. But the discussion is re-affirming my suspicion that the tradeoff in comfort and commodious is well worth the added expense of a more modern hull design.

Overall: given what boats cost, it's been very hard to imagine that the entire industry would move away from a safer/more stable form solely in the interest of adding space or building better marina queens. I often get the feeling that many of the arguments against the newer forms are more in defense of older boats - kind of like arguing that your '69 911 - as wonderful as it was - still handles better than a 2020 Honda Odyssey (demonstrably not true). To tie in with another thread: I've got a much-beloved 600cc sport bike from the 80s, and I honestly just keep it for reasons of nostalgia. I ride it only to ensure it gets run occasionally because it's clearly eclipsed on every metric I can think of by my modern "ADV"/standard bike (ie, a bike not intended for pure performance), the product of 30 years of iterative refinement. I get great pleasure out of my '82 Prindle, and it is "sporty" but was also eclipsed long, long ago by F18 (and F16) boats.


----------

