# Blue Jacket 40 (new racer/cruiser)



## kwaltersmi

Blue Jacket Yachts was recently formed as a collaboration between Bob Johnson from Island Packet and Tim Jacket, formerly of Tartan and C&C. Their first design is a new "performance cruiser" called the Blue Jacket 40. I've personally never been a big fan of these compromised hybrid designs, but I think the story is compelling given Bob & Tim's partnership and experience.

I recently posted about the project on my blog, including an interview borrowed from Blue Jacket featuring both Bob and Tim's perspectives on the new design and company. You can read it here.

Any opinions on Blue Jacket Yachts?


----------



## jsaronson

IP boat building skills married to TJ's designs seems like a good combination. I'm not sold on twin wheels on a boat of this size, but that's another issue.


----------



## night0wl

Tough market to break into. The performance cruiser market is crowded with the high-end being owned by J-boat, and the volume leader/value play being Beneteau First Series. However, if they start winning distance races/rallys or being competitive in PHRF racing, then I'll get excited about this partnership. 

Jacket's old company (Tartan/C&C) could have been considered part of the performance cruiser market too. But we all know how that story ended when they pushed the envelope too far on engineering methods.


----------



## night0wl

If I were an Island Packet owner, this line would send me scurrying for the hills:

"Different manufacturing technologies (infused composite hulls and decks, carbon fiber components, etc.) introduced with the Blue Jacket line may eventually find their way into Island Packet construction if deemed appropriate"


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

It looks so much like a Beneteau that if I didn't know its for real I'd think it was a joke.

Have they produced one yet?


----------



## jsaronson

Blue Jacket 40 (BJ40) Performance Sailing Yacht | BlueJacketYachts.com
Take a look from the side. It looks nothing like a Bennie and will probably sail circles around one. This is not a floating condo!


----------



## Faster

Here's PCP's original post on the boat:



PCP said:


> Big surprise: Island packet is going to launch a series of performance cruisers. They will be called Blue Jacket line and will be designed by Tim Jackett (ex-President and Chief Designer at Tartan and C&C) in collaboration with Bob Johnson (CEO and Chief Designer at Island Packet).
> 
> The first one is already on its way to production and even if in what regards cabin design I find the boat too classic, not to say old fashioned, in what regards hull design and technical characteristics I love the boat.
> 
> Well, the keel could be more modern and efficient (it is similar to the one on my boat) but in what regards all the rest it looks perfect to me. In fact it is very close to the Comet 41s in what regards weight, ballast and hull design. It fits on the Italian way of looking to performance cruisers.
> 
> A relatively narrow boat with a good B/D a deep draft (2.30) and a big stability that is the opposite in design conception of the also new Tartan(and the CC121). I like a lot more this one.
> 
> Well, there are some things I don't like: The traveler over the cabin and only one winch on each side of the cockpit that will have to be used for the mainsail and the genoa, but I believe that could be changed if clients ask otherwise.
> 
> Technical Characteristics
> LOA: 39' 10" (12.14 m)
> LWL: 35' 0" (10.67 m)
> BEAM: 12' 4" (3.76 m)
> DRAFT: 7' 5" (2.29 m) deep
> 5' 2" (1.56 m) shoal
> DISP: 16, 500 lbs (7,484 kg)
> BALLAST: 6, 100 lbs (2,767 kg) deep
> SAIL AREA: 883 sq ft (82.03 sq m) (100% FT)
> MAST HEIGHT: 62' 6" (19.05 m)
> POWER: 40 HP (30 kW)
> FUEL: 40 US gal (151 l)
> WATER: 110 US gal (417 l)
> WASTE: 25 US gal (80 l)
> SA/D: 21.8
> D/L: 172
> DESIGNER: Tim Jackett w/Bob Johnson, N.A.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They say about the boat:
> 
> *Sailplan and rig:
> The large sailplan is a further refinement of the Solent style rig featuring standard double head sails with a working jib and a lightweight 150% reacher that mounts on the integral bow prod, both furled with Harken® systems. The working jib is fitted with a carbon fiber Hoyt Boom® that is self-tending and improves performance with its close sheeting and self-vanging feature while the large reacher boosts performance in light air or when off the wind. The fully battened mainsail is equipped with a standard electric halyard winch and a low friction Battcar system and drops easily into a carbon fiber pocket boom with an integral cover and lazy jack system.
> 
> This easily managed rig has ample horsepower and versatility for optimizing performance in a wide range of conditions. All sheets lead to the cockpit near the helm and primary winches for short-handed convenience.
> On deck:
> On deck, anchor handling has been simplified and made especially convenient with a cleverly designed roller recessed in the bow prod providing secure stowage of the anchor and directing the rode to the anchor locker with a (optional) below deck electric windlass that keeps the deck and profile uncluttered. A deck hatch gives access to this area. Wide side decks with full length raised bulwarks, double lifelines, bow and stern rails and cabin top handrails provide security on deck.
> 
> The large cockpit has deep coamings, long seats and twin helm stations with great visibility and ready access to all sail control lines. Seat hatches provide access to storage areas and a (optional) central drop-leaf table makes for a great social area. Hinged transom doors open to the integral stern platform with a retractable swim ladder under a central hatch.
> 
> Materials used:
> The Blue Jacket's hull and deck are made with a state of the art vacuum infusion process utilizing 100% vinylester resin, quadraxial knitted E-glass reinforcements and a structural foam core. The end result is superior strength and stiffness with significantly reduced weight compared to conventional laminates. &#8230;
> 
> The use of premium structural foam coring produces better interlaminar bond properties with freedom from potential core deterioration compared to other choices and allows for an industry-best extended hull and deck warranty. *
> 
> http://www.bluejacketyachts.com/
> 
> ..


----------



## night0wl

jsaronson said:


> Blue Jacket 40 (BJ40) Performance Sailing Yacht | BlueJacketYachts.com
> Take a look from the side. It looks nothing like a Bennie and will probably sail circles around one. This is not a floating condo!


You're kidding right? Beneteau's may be a lot of things, but *NO ONE* calls the First line "slow". First series Beneteaus bring home hardware.

This...looks like a porky island packet that put on a mask (a plumb bow) and some new shoes (a bulb deep keel) and now is going to go to the ball as a speed demon...doesn't make sense to me.

Self tacking jib...and is that a boom furler? (*EDIT* - I stand corrected - its a batt-car/lazyjack system) Not many true performance cruisers would go with that equipment. Even with fancy sails and the new underwater profile, this is going to be slow unless those epoxy vacuuming methods of manufacture really really reduce weight. It may be faster than an Island Packet, but an Island Packet 420, by comparison has a base rating in the mid-140s (thats slow for >40 feet of waterline).

I do have to commend them for not cramming a second head into the boat. Although instead of a 3rd cabin, I'd like to have seen more storage/lazarette space. Racing means sail changes/wet sails...who wants to store that in a sleeping cabin and get the upholstery all wet/moldy!


----------



## night0wl

Anyone know the pricing range yet? Base and sail-away?


----------



## chef2sail

> Tough market to break into. The performance cruiser market is crowded with the high-end being owned by J-boat, and the volume leader/value play being Beneteau First Series. However, if they start winning distance races/rallys or being competitive in PHRF racing, then I'll get excited about this partnership.
> 
> Jacket's old company (Tartan/C&C) could have been considered part of the performance cruiser market too. But we all know how that story ended when they pushed the envelope too far on engineering methods


.

Never considered a Tartan a racing cruiser. Thats a Jacket wannabe.( I am not denigratuing tartans as they are standup boats now, and were before Jacket was involved with running the company)

There are racer ( performance) cruisers...and there are cruisers
PHRF for 40 footer

J120- 48
C&C121- 63
Sabre40- 69
BeneFirst12m 69
*Tartan40 102 *

While this Blue Jackett will probably address Island Packets notorious slower boats image and certainly be an improvment as long as their are no quality issues, I still wouldnt put it in a category as a racer cruiser. Great attempt to reincarnate/ rehabilitate Jacketts image by having him paired with a reputable name like Island Packet. Lets hope they marginalize him out of the customer service aspects of the company so they dont follow his previous lead at Tartan which almost ruined a very repurtable brand.

I concur with Paulos commments and would add, Placement of the jib tracks outboard and the hoyt self tacking jib are nolt seen on asny other racer cruiser I know. Dont think the solent system is etiher. C&C is a masthead rig...this blue jacket isnt to windward


----------



## bjung

night0wl said:


> Anyone know the pricing range yet? Base and sail-away?


About 380k sailaway with basic wind/speed package.


----------



## PCP

night0wl said:


> You're kidding right? Beneteau's may be a lot of things, but *NO ONE* calls the First line "slow". First series Beneteaus bring home hardware.
> 
> This...looks like a porky island packet that put on a mask (a plumb bow) and some new shoes (a bulb deep keel) and now is going to go to the ball as a speed demon...doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> Self tacking jib...and is that a boom furler? (*EDIT* - I stand corrected - its a batt-car/lazyjack system) Not many true performance cruisers would go with that equipment. Even with fancy sails and the new underwater profile, this is going to be slow unless those epoxy vacuuming methods of manufacture really really reduce weight. It may be faster than an Island Packet, but an Island Packet 420, by comparison has a base rating in the mid-140s (thats slow for >40 feet of waterline).
> 
> I do have to commend them for not cramming a second head into the boat. Although instead of a 3rd cabin, I'd like to have seen more storage/lazarette space. Racing means sail changes/wet sails...who wants to store that in a sleeping cabin and get the upholstery all wet/moldy!


Slow is a relative concept. I agree with you that this is not a cruiser/racer in a sense nobody will buy this boat if it is going to be used mainly for racing like someone could buy a J 122 or a First 40. Regarding those two, there is a big difference between a J122 and a First 40 and not only in price. The first one would be competitive from the start while the First standard boat, the CR is not even a cored boat. You would have to talk with Benetau to have a really competitive racer like the ones that are winning races or can race at the same levell with a J122. The Blue jacket would not be even be bought by someone that uses the boat in a balanced way, for cruising and for club racing.

However I agree that even the First CR standard would be a much more adapted boat for club racing (regarding the Bluejacket) and it will be a faster boat. The boat is more powerful than a Bluejacket with a bigger RM (bigger B/D ratio) and most of all much better equipped to trim better the sails and that is indispensable for racing.

The Bluejacket has a better interior for cruising, a bigger tankage and I guess that it will have a decent anchor locker that is one of the weak points of the First. It will be a relatively fast boat and not much slower then a First, if we consider cruising and not racing and in what regards to call it a performance cruiser....well, if compared with a IP certainly is

By European standards I guess that could be called a fast cruiser but not a performance cruiser, but this are only words. What the boat is not definitively is a cruiser-racer and that not in account of the hull design but in what refers that heavy system for self taking the front sail, the number of winches, and the position/size of the traveler.

Tim Jackett says about the design brief: *The design challenge presented was to create a yacht with a performance pedigree, one that could compete effectively in around-the-buoy and offshore races yet provide a level of comfort, build quality and ease of use that would gratify the entire family. *

I don't think that the boat as it is adequate or effective to *"compete effectively in around-the-buoy and offshore races"* but I don't see as very difficult a more sportive version of this boat, one that could be qualified as a performance boat or even a cruiser racer. It will not race at the same levelly of a J122 but it will be more adapted to cruising, particularly long range cruising, than the J122.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## kwaltersmi

For those arguing the BJ40 isn't a "racer-cruiser", I'd argue that the proper term is probably "performance cruiser". The Solent rig and Hoyt boom are there for ease of sailing, which is generally a cruiser priority, IMO. While it _could_ race, I suspect it will appeal mostly to the cruising crowd looking for a bit more speed than than more traditional cruisers (IP full foil keel boats, etc.) can provide.

All of this is interesting in the context of Island Packet's own philosophy statement: "We understand that the definition of 'performance' in the cruising context goes well beyond boat speed and must include safe, simple, predictable, and seakindly handling as well."


----------



## PCP

kwaltersmi said:


> For those arguing the BJ40 isn't a "racer-cruiser", I'd argue that the proper term is probably "performance cruiser". The Solent rig and Hoyt boom are there for ease of sailing, which is generally a cruiser priority, IMO. While it _could_ race, I suspect it will appeal mostly to the cruising crowd looking for a bit more speed than than more traditional cruisers (IP full foil keel boats, etc.) can provide.
> 
> All of this is interesting in the context of Island Packet's own philosophy statement: "We understand that the definition of 'performance' in the cruising context goes well beyond boat speed and must include safe, simple, predictable, and seakindly handling as well."


It is, certainly not a racer-cruiser even if on the brief program Tim Jackett says that he is doing that kind of boat. Performance cruiser is a more vague description and the Bluejacket would not qualify as that in Europe.

A performance cruiser by European standards will include a rigging that will permit to sail the boat with a perfect trim of the sails and that includes on a standard boat a backstay adjuster, a big travell on the back of the boat, 6 winches (if the boat has not a direct main), four of them on the cockpit, one for the Genoa/spinnaker/Code 0 or Spinnaker, the other to the main and in most of the cases German sheeting.

An European main market mass production boat like the Jeanneau 409, not considered as a performance cruiser, has a very similar rigging a not very different weight and in its performance version (still not a performance boat) will be faster than the Bluejacket.

The Jeanneau 409, like the Bluejacket 40 are fast cruising boats. To be called a performance cruising boat depends on the definition.

In Europe anyone that is looking for a performance boat will be looking for the means to have a complete control on sail trim, controls that are nonexistent on the Bluejacket and therefore it would not be called here a performance boat. It see that in America they call performance boats to a lot of slower boats that in Europe would not have that qualification, like the Tartan or the Catalina. Maybe the Bluejacket is a performance boat by American standards

Many American say that a J122 or a First 40 or a Salona 41 are not cruising boats but racing boats. For those the Bluejacket will be a performance cruiser, even a cruiser racer.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Anyway you look at it this thread has been up for two days and there's only 15 posts... With no one screaming "I'm buying one!"

So it will be interesting to see how they go. I think Island Packet are trying to enter into a very competitive area of the market. You would think the boat will have to be very good and at a very good price to make inroads....

Does anyone here think a current IP owner will change to the Blue JAcket?
So who will be the market? Young pre-ip people? Sort of old but not old enough


----------



## blt2ski

Not as slow looking as the original designs, but still looks slow enough! Many of the C&C designs by TJ had a hard time sailing to there ratings. so even if this boat was a cruise racer, it would probably have a hard time sailing to the ratings also. Not on my list of boats if I had what will probably be $.5 mil out the door ready to race/sail etc!

Marty


----------



## Jeff_H

When I read the descriptions of the Blue Jacket 40, I think to myself, this ought to be a boat that I really like. I think, that we have been through several decades of improvement in our understanding of performance, motion comfort, hardware and rig design, structural load paths and structural and material design technology that should be filtering into the world of cruising yachts, and producing boats which clearly are improvements of the performance cruising boats of past generations. 

When I look at boats like the Morris Ocean series, or the latest Hallberg Rasseys, Najads, XC 38, I see the genetic influence of the improvements in yacht design science. And while these are wildly expensive boats to buy, their designs show an intent that begins to suggest an improvement to the breed that ideally will filter down into less expensive versions. And infact, to one degree or another, that same thinking has filtered down into less expensive and less offshore oriented models, such as some of the latest Beneteaus, Dufours, and even Catalinas. 

And from an arm chair point of view, my sense is that someone like Tim Jackett should have the skill to develop an American, mass market oriented version of the boats produced in Europe or our own custom market, but this alliance between Tim Jackett and Island Packet has resulted in the proverbial ‘Camel: a horse designed by committee’. 

As much as I want to like the Blue Jacket, as much as I am staunch advocate for performance cruising boats, as much as I applaud Island Packet for leaving their traditional comfort zone, when I look at the Blue Jacket in detail, I come away wondering “what the heck were they thinking?” Both Tim Jacket and Island Packet should have known better. To me this is a gimmicky version of what this boat should have been. The annoying part is if you read what they wanted to accomplish, it sounds so good... so right. The tragedy in my mind is that they did not come closer to their own mark. And the tragedy is that in these difficult times for boat builders, they identified a market they they uniquely could have dominated if the did it right, but instead they appear to have missed their mark. And while they may sell a bunch of these solely on name recognition, the shame on them is that they should have produced a boat which sold because it was a superb design well executed. 

What they call this, racer-cruiser, performance cruiser, offshore passage maker, is besides the point. What this is vs what it could be, is where my disappointment lies. 

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## night0wl

bjung said:


> About 380k sailaway with basic wind/speed package.


Ooph, that's almost double a reasonably equipped Beneteua First 40...with a suite of sails and electronics.


----------



## rugosa

It's got carpet in the aft cabins


----------



## MarkCK

rugosa said:


> It's got carpet in the aft cabins


That's the deal breaker for me...Actually I really want to like this boat, but like everyone else I just can't. Then again I have only seen 3D renderings of the boat so it might look a little different in person. Of course I am not in the market for a $380,000 boat so obviously the designer didnt have me in mind when he designed it.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Weird thing about Island Packet yachts... And they are not my sort of boat, but....
Why do they only go up to 48 feet when all other makers have been getting larger and larger?

Oyster now has boats over 100 feet and their median must be now 55 or 57
Swan is the same, Beneteau, Jenneau etc are 68 and 64 respectively.

But IP, Hunter and Catalina are all stuck in the 40s or a 50 for Hunter.

What's the go?

If you were into IPs you wouldn't want a Blue Jacket but you may well like a IP 60 pr IP 65 .... With a jacuzzi.... Double reinforced and made from titanium to be safe, of course....


----------



## jameso

why wouldn't this boat be fast?


----------



## PCP

jameso said:


> why wouldn't this boat be fast?


This boat will be fast for a cruiser if we compare it for instance with a Catalina or a Hunter. It has a well designed hull/keel/rudder and is not much heavy.

They announce it as a dual purpose boat, for racing and performance cruising, for that the boat lacks all controls that can give a better control over the sail shape and that way maximize performance. About that see post 14 on this thread.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Cruisingdad

Here's PCP's original post on the boat:



PCP said:


> Big surprise: Island packet is going to launch a series of performance cruisers. They will be called Blue Jacket line and will be designed by Tim Jackett (ex-President and Chief Designer at Tartan and C&C) in collaboration with Bob Johnson (CEO and Chief Designer at Island Packet).
> 
> The first one is already on its way to production and even if in what regards cabin design I find the boat too classic, not to say old fashioned, in what regards hull design and technical characteristics I love the boat.
> 
> Well, the keel could be more modern and efficient (it is similar to the one on my boat) but in what regards all the rest it looks perfect to me. In fact it is very close to the Comet 41s in what regards weight, ballast and hull design. It fits on the Italian way of looking to performance cruisers.
> 
> A relatively narrow boat with a good B/D a deep draft (2.30) and a big stability that is the opposite in design conception of the also new Tartan(and the CC121). I like a lot more this one.
> 
> Well, there are some things I don't like: The traveler over the cabin and only one winch on each side of the cockpit that will have to be used for the mainsail and the genoa, but I believe that could be changed if clients ask otherwise.
> 
> Technical Characteristics
> LOA: 39' 10" (12.14 m)
> LWL: 35' 0" (10.67 m)
> BEAM: 12' 4" (3.76 m)
> DRAFT: 7' 5" (2.29 m) deep
> 5' 2" (1.56 m) shoal
> DISP: 16, 500 lbs (7,484 kg)
> BALLAST: 6, 100 lbs (2,767 kg) deep
> SAIL AREA: 883 sq ft (82.03 sq m) (100% FT)
> MAST HEIGHT: 62' 6" (19.05 m)
> POWER: 40 HP (30 kW)
> FUEL: 40 US gal (151 l)
> WATER: 110 US gal (417 l)
> WASTE: 25 US gal (80 l)
> SA/D: 21.8
> D/L: 172
> DESIGNER: Tim Jackett w/Bob Johnson, N.A.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They say about the boat:
> 
> *Sailplan and rig:
> The large sailplan is a further refinement of the Solent style rig featuring standard double head sails with a working jib and a lightweight 150% reacher that mounts on the integral bow prod, both furled with Harken® systems. The working jib is fitted with a carbon fiber Hoyt Boom® that is self-tending and improves performance with its close sheeting and self-vanging feature while the large reacher boosts performance in light air or when off the wind. The fully battened mainsail is equipped with a standard electric halyard winch and a low friction Battcar system and drops easily into a carbon fiber pocket boom with an integral cover and lazy jack system.
> 
> This easily managed rig has ample horsepower and versatility for optimizing performance in a wide range of conditions. All sheets lead to the cockpit near the helm and primary winches for short-handed convenience.
> On deck:
> On deck, anchor handling has been simplified and made especially convenient with a cleverly designed roller recessed in the bow prod providing secure stowage of the anchor and directing the rode to the anchor locker with a (optional) below deck electric windlass that keeps the deck and profile uncluttered. A deck hatch gives access to this area. Wide side decks with full length raised bulwarks, double lifelines, bow and stern rails and cabin top handrails provide security on deck.
> 
> The large cockpit has deep coamings, long seats and twin helm stations with great visibility and ready access to all sail control lines. Seat hatches provide access to storage areas and a (optional) central drop-leaf table makes for a great social area. Hinged transom doors open to the integral stern platform with a retractable swim ladder under a central hatch.
> 
> Materials used:
> The Blue Jacket's hull and deck are made with a state of the art vacuum infusion process utilizing 100% vinylester resin, quadraxial knitted E-glass reinforcements and a structural foam core. The end result is superior strength and stiffness with significantly reduced weight compared to conventional laminates. &#8230;
> 
> The use of premium structural foam coring produces better interlaminar bond properties with freedom from potential core deterioration compared to other choices and allows for an industry-best extended hull and deck warranty. *
> 
> Blue Jacket Yachts - Performance Cruising Sailboats | BlueJacketYachts.com
> 
> ..


Well, here's my take from someone who cruises FT on a performance cruiser...

Where do you put your feet when sitting in the cockpit seats? THat span is probably to wide for most people so you will be sliding off the seat.

Where do you put the chartplotter? Working a CP (and seeing it) from across the cockpit is very difficult, especially when navigating unfamiliar waters and in bad weather.

Why not put some seats on the transom to make use of the open space? Maybe a couple of propane lockers? Wasted space withg minimal weight impact.

The stern seats are not angled, and it does not look like the coamings are either. Sure will make for a long, sliding day while you are behind the wheel at sea, especially under a good heal.

A three cabin boat under 40 feet is rediculous. I suspect that the third cabin is a converted workshop... at least I hope so.

Curved settees on a "offshore" boat? Really? Where do you sleep off watch??? I am shocked manufacturers would still consider this.

HERE IS THE KILLER (and why I would completely write this boat off): A forward head on a performance boat SUCKS! When the seas break about 6-8 feet, a forward head becomes almost unuseable. I know this from experience. WHen you are jumping off the seas, your will literally go airborne when you are that far forward. You have to hold yourself down to the toilet seat. Don't even bother trying to stand up unless you want to write your name on the walls. Plus, when you come down, you will be tracking all kinds of salt water and wet gear right through the cabin which undoubtedly makes the floor slick and the whole cabin uncomfortable. As such, I think this would be fine for beer can racing, but not great for offshore distance racing. I also don't think it would be a great cruiser.

Diesel tankage sucks.

Designed weight sounds really low to me unless they really do incorporate a lot of CF. I assume this is a cored hull (not my favorite for cruising)? I bet that boat comes in (realistically) at 20000. The 426 is Designed weight of 24,000 and my boat is about that too. Remember, NEVER confuse designed weight with real displacement. I doubt they are ever the same. I find most designers are woefully optimistic to increase their SA/D numbers. My boat has a designed displacement of 19,500. Realistic is around 24000, and outfitted I am running right about 27000-28000. Now, this is a cruising boat... but dry and empty this boat doesn't weigh its designed weight.

Also, my opinion here, but if your draft is 5'2, you have to really put a lot of lead in that keel. If not, you will have a seriously tender boat (and you may anyways) and tender boats SUCK for cruising. Been there, done that. My boat's draft with its wing keel is right about 6 feet. I would also wonder about that boats pointing abilities at 5'2. For example, we have on HN 317 and above a true 5'4 draft. Everything else is the same, though they modified the keel and hull to do this. The late model HN's do not point as well as the perdecessors and mine is all round a better performer except when running where the draft and hull mods make less of an impact. But I can tell you from a cruisers perspective, you are ALWAYS going to weather. Always. I don't even pull out a map anymore, I just point the boat into the wind cuz somehow mother nature knows thats which way I am heading.

How deep is that bilge? If you draw 5'2, I would be very concerned that would be a shallow bilge... but I am just guessing.

She is too narrow on the beam. Even Sabre has a beam 13.5 at 42 feet. I am 13.5 at 42 feet. That narrow beam will make for a tighter boat to cruise on, reminding me much of a First Series which also would be a great boat for distance racing and beer cans, but not ideal for cruising. My opinion.

I think I would take that boat back to the drawing board. I do applaud IP for trying to get away from the notoriously slow boats they have made. But they do have a lot of competition. For 400k or so (which is realistically what you are going to pay if not more), why not buy a Catalina 445, a Sabre 426, an X yacht, a j44, a First Series, or several other used boats I can think of which ROCK and are really good performance cruisers? Problem is that I'm not sure this boat will be either a good cruiser or a good performer, which basically makes one ask: What's the point???

Brian


----------



## kwaltersmi

Wow Brian, that's a comprehensive breakdown of the Blue Jacket. While I obviously haven't sailed one myself (no one has!) and it is not necessarily my kind of boat, I do feel obliged to take a shot a few of your critiques.

"Where do you put the chartplotter?" - How about on the steering pedestals like many other cruising boats? This puts the screen within easy reach and view of the helmsmen.

"The stern seats are not angled, and it does not look like the coamings are either." - The seat bottoms look angled, which would keep you held back against the coaming.

"A three cabin boat under 40 feet is rediculous. I suspect that the third cabin is a converted workshop... at least I hope so." - Per the literature from BJ: _An optional interior plan may be selected with two cabins in lieu of the standard plan's three. This arrangement deletes the enclosed starboard aft cabin, extends the galley counter, cabinetry and slip resistant sole and creates a large cockpit locker that's accessible from either the interior or deck._ And let's not forget that the C400 was also available w/ a 3-cabin layout.

"Curved settees on a "offshore" boat? Really? Where do you sleep off watch???" - You don't think the port settee would serve as a seaberth w/ some lee cloths installed? Hard to say without knowing the actual dimensions.

"...but if your draft is 5'2, you have to really put a lot of lead in that keel. If not, you will have a seriously tender boat (and you may anyways) and tender boats SUCK for cruising." - Shoal draft version is 5'2", *deep draft version* is 7'5". The b/d ratio for the BJ40 is .369, while the C400 is a very similar .365 (both deep draft versions). If you believe b/d is a strong indicator of stiffness, these two boats would be similar.

"I think I would take that boat back to the drawing board." - Wow, that's a bold statement considering literally no one has sailed or stepped foot aboard this boat yet. Let's at least wait for the introduction at Strictly Sail Chicago in January. I'll be there to take some photos and give a better first hand impression, but until then I'm reserving judgement.

However, I do agree or am indifferent to a few of your critiques:

"Diesel tankage sucks." - Agreed, 40 gallons isn't enough for big passages. And again just to be fair, doesn't the C400 only hold 35 gallons?

"A forward head on a performance boat SUCKS!" - Agreed, but I'd argue it's no fun to visit *any* head in 6'-8' breaking seas.


----------



## Cruisingdad

kwaltersmi said:


> Wow Brian, that's a comprehensive breakdown of the Blue Jacket. While I obviously haven't sailed one myself (no one has!) and it is not necessarily my kind of boat, I do feel obliged to take a shot a few of your critiques.
> 
> "Where do you put the chartplotter?" - How about on the steering pedestals like many other cruising boats? This puts the screen within easy reach and view of the helmsmen.


Putting the chartplotter on the pedestal is about the only place you can put it unless on the cabintop. However, what happens when you are at the other wheel? Or do you put two charplotters up there? When steering down a unfamiliar waterway, or watching the radar, you are put behind only one wheel. And does the leads from the lazarette and chain have runs for that much cabeling? THat is why many boats have a combo table in the middle of the cockpit. Other than acting as a table, you can use it as a foot rest and put your CP/Radar there. Let me point out another real problem with mounting the CP's there: when under way at sea for long periods of time, you stretch out along the seats in the cockpit. When you have a CP that is behind where you stretch out, you cannot see the radar or the CP. to see them requires getting up and standing behind the wheel. In this case, only one of the wheels even.

I am not saying you cannot make this work on the Bluejacket. I am saying it is not ideal and is a turnoff for cruising.

What I do like on a lot of race boats is the LACK of a table. It allows the crew to run a tack or jibe quickly without dodging the table in the middle. You can even have the same person blow the sheets and pull in the other. I can do this (and do have to do this) on my boat, but it is a real pita especially when it is howling. Some boats, a B49/50 I saw, have a removeable table for that purpose. But this is a Performance Cruiser, not a racer. Right? If we are talking about a straight racer, this is a different discussion.



kwaltersmi said:


> "The stern seats are not angled, and it does not look like the coamings are either." - The seat bottoms look angled, which would keep you held back against the coaming.


The seats FORWARD of the wheels are likely angled in, but having a place to put your feet when rolling at sea is a HUGE plus. Otherwise, you end up having to hang on to the coaming or other gear which gets very tiring. In order to counteract 15-20 degrees of heel (not to mention the rolls), you would have to have at least that or more on the seats forward of the helms. Propping your feet against something to keep from sliding out is a great benefit.

Now, the seats behind the helms show zero angling nor do the coaming beside them. Or course, this has a great cosmetic look to it and gives the boats pretty lines (think Hunter 460), but at sea, the man behind the wheel will always be standing up or slipping off the seats. Look at the drawings/renderings behind the wheel. Both the coamings and seats are flat - very like the Hunter and some of the Jeauneaus that have come out. That is terrible for long distance stuff, but sure looks pretty at the boat show.



kwaltersmi said:


> "A three cabin boat under 40 feet is rediculous. I suspect that the third cabin is a converted workshop... at least I hope so." - Per the literature from BJ: _An optional interior plan may be selected with two cabins in lieu of the standard plan's three. This arrangement deletes the enclosed starboard aft cabin, extends the galley counter, cabinetry and slip resistant sole and creates a large cockpit locker that's accessible from either the interior or deck._ And let's not forget that the C400 was also available w/ a 3-cabin layout.


The LOA on the C400 is actually over 40 feet (just don't tell the marina). I think it is around 41.3 feet... don't remember for sure. It is true that the C400 was offered in 3 cabin versions. It is also true they didn't sell very many of them. I realize there may only be a couple of 2-3 feet difference between the boats, and I realize the BJ has a plumb bow and skinny transom, but her beam is also pretty skinny. Adding that into the above would make for a tight three cabin boat. I am not surprised that the third cabin can be a workshop. That was my immediate thought too which was why I wrote that.



kwaltersmi said:


> "Curved settees on a "offshore" boat? Really? Where do you sleep off watch???" - You don't think the port settee would serve as a seaberth w/ some lee cloths installed? Hard to say without knowing the actual dimensions.


The salon setttes are curved. Salon settees should be straight for sea berths. THe C42 also has curved settees, and that is a real drawback in my opinion and was one of the principle reasons we didn't buy one (the C42 was even cheaper). Having a straight settee that you can lay across and get some sleep without having to make some contortion to fit the curve of the settees is critical for me. Those that don't mind sleeping cockeyed, different story. But there is a reason most offshore boats have straight settes or a dedicated sea berth down below.



kwaltersmi said:


> "...but if your draft is 5'2, you have to really put a lot of lead in that keel. If not, you will have a seriously tender boat (and you may anyways) and tender boats SUCK for cruising." - Shoal draft version is 5'2", *deep draft version* is 7'5". The b/d ratio for the BJ40 is .369, while the C400 is a very similar .365 (both deep draft versions). If you believe b/d is a strong indicator of stiffness, these two boats would be similar.
> 
> "I think I would take that boat back to the drawing board." - Wow, that's a bold statement considering literally no one has sailed or stepped foot aboard this boat yet. Let's at least wait for the introduction at Strictly Sail Chicago in January. I'll be there to take some photos and give a better first hand impression, but until then I'm reserving judgement.


The C400 is one of the stiffest boat I have ever been on. But remember, my shoal draft is 6 feet. it is NOT the listed 5'4. So how do you compensate for that leverage difference? Its not just displacement, it is the keel acting as a lever to overcome the force. Can you do that in 5'2? I guess. But how much lead will you have to put in that keel to do it? If you don't have the same draft, but the same lead in the keel, won't that boat be more tender? Well no, not if you make it very flat on the bottom (hard chimed). Catalina changed the C400's around HN 317 to accomodate that shallower draft which was in the specs. THe did it by making the bilge a lot skinnier which I think was a mistake.

I might be wrong in all of the above. We won't know until she has a sea trial and a one-one comparrison can be made. I am making a lot of assumptions based upon what I see in the specs and rendering. But there's no free lunchs on boats. Everything has tradeoffs. Otherwise, everyone would make a 5 foot draft boat that had a deep bilge, was fast, sure footed, and cheap. Finding the right balance is what is critical. My balance may be very different from others.

Fun discussing this stuff. I am sure others will have a very different opinion of mine. I guess my opinion for Jakcet/IP is that if you are going to break into a market that already has a lot of good performance boats in it, come out with a boat that is considerably better. Make it really good at one aspect or the other and those who buy it will overlook the shortcomings. But in my opinion, especially in this market, you have to really knock the socks off of the competition to carve a name and niche for yourself. Instead, I see this boat as a "nahh, well, (shrug-shrug), ok I guess."

Are you going to sell a lot of boats doing that? THat is especially true with what I see are critical deficiencies from MY Perspective. Others may not care about any of that.

Brian


----------



## PCP

Jesus Guys, I am impressed. It seems that nobody likes that boat. I wonder if the guys from Island Packet have not done any market research before doing that boat. 

Actually among the American cruising boats, personally, if I had to chose one I would chose the J 122 (and I like it a lot) but taking that one out this one would be a second choice. Off course there are a lot of things to modify but nothing basic (hull, Keel, rudder are OK) and I guess that they would be glad to satisfy my requests (for a price). Off course, the boat is already expensive, that would make the boat a lot more expensive and I don't think that would be justifiable face to other European performance cruisers that come already with all I want and are less expensive.

Cruisingdad, I understand what you mean but regarding beam the J 122 for instance has less beam that this boat and is a hell of a performance cruiser.

I guess that you, considering the Catalina 40 a performance boat, expect this boat to offer the same as a Catalina. People and manufacturers can call their boats what they want but a Catalina 40 would not be called in Europe a performance boat. See what I mean on post 14.

A sailor that is interested in a Catalina 40 would not be interested in this boat and vice verse. This boat is, according with the design brief a performance boat that could race with success offshore or around the cans and also can provide conditions for comfortable cruising. That is not the design brief for a Catalina.

The design brief of the BlueJacket is very similar to the one of the J122, the difference is that the J122 deliver and this boat would not. I don't mean in what regards cruising but in what regards performance cruising or racing. In what regards performance cruising that has to do basically with the lack of adequate controls to control perfectly the sail shape.

I guess that what this boat should be was a kind of more luxurious and comfortable J122. Well, it ain't 

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Cruisingdad

PCP said:


> Jesus Guys, I am impressed. It seems that nobody likes that boat. I wonder if the guys from Island Packet have not done any market research before doing that boat.
> 
> Actually among the American cruising boats, personally, if I had to chose one I would chose the J 122 (and I like it a lot) but taking that one out this one would be a second choice. Off course there are a lot of things to modify but nothing basic (hull, Keel, rudder are OK) and I guess that they would be glad to satisfy my requests (for a price). Off course, the boat is already expensive, that would make the boat a lot more expensive and I don't think that would be justifiable face to other European performance cruisers that come already with all I want and are less expensive.
> 
> Cruisingdad, I understand what you mean but regarding beam the J 122 for instance has less beam that this boat and is a hell of a performance cruiser.
> 
> I guess that you, considering the Catalina 40 a performance boat, expect this boat to offer the same as a Catalina. People and manufacturers can call their boats what they want but a Catalina 40 would not be called in Europe a performance boat. See what I mean on post 14.
> 
> A sailor that is interested in a Catalina 40 would not be interested in this boat and vice verse. This boat is, according with the design brief a performance boat that could race with success offshore or around the cans and also can provide conditions for comfortable cruising. That is not the design brief for a Catalina.
> 
> The design brief of the BlueJacket is very similar to the one of the J122, the difference is that the J122 deliver and this boat would not. I don't mean in what regards cruising but in what regards performance cruising or racing. In what regards performance cruising that has to do basically with the lack of adequate controls to control perfectly the sail shape.
> 
> I guess that what this boat should be was a kind of more luxurious and comfortable J122. Well, it ain't
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


My description of a performance cruiser is a boat that runs close to its hull speed, and under good conditions, can exceed it comfortably. More important, the boat has to be a good cruising boat and suitable for cruising. It needs to have a comfortable motion at sea, sure footed, and the space and setup for systems below to make cruising possible AND reasonably comfortable as a live aboard.

Catalina CERTAINLY is not the only boat that does this. It does it well (for the price) but there are other boats that I like lot that do it better... Sabre, X, J, and some beneteaus to name a few off my head that I have been on and like.

I have been on and raced a 122. I assume you have too? I loved that boat for what it was - a race boat. No offense, but there is no way I would take that boat cruising. But I would have to think a real long time before I took a First cruising either, and it was better suited. My compromise is somewhere in the middle where you are comfortable down below and have a lot of space for storage and systems. The 122 I was on was a carbon fire, stripped down racing machine. SHe was rocking fast, but for a cruising boat?? No way! I don't know that I would want too much CF on my boat as a cruising boat. Of course, there is the other extreme (the Tayanas and IP's of the world) where to heck with speed. It is very focused on being a liveaboard and slower than CHristmas. As long as I can plan on 7ish knots, sometimes 7.5 for my SOG trip planning, I am happy with my 40 foot boat. Hey, soimetimes I exceed it. Sometimes I don't. But there are few points when I canot turn on my motor and go well over 7 knots at a reasonable RPM and reasonable fuel useage. And THAT is a performance cruiser to me.

My definition anyays.

Brian


----------



## PCP

*Catalina 40/J122*



Cruisingdad said:


> My description of a performance cruiser is a boat that runs close to its hull speed, and under good conditions, can exceed it comfortably. More important, the boat has to be a good cruising boat and suitable for cruising. It needs to have a comfortable motion at sea, sure footed, and the space and setup for systems below to make cruising possible AND reasonably comfortable as a live aboard.
> 
> Catalina CERTAINLY is not the only boat that does this. It does it well (for the price) but there are other boats that I like lot that do it better... Sabre, X, J, and some beneteaus to name a few off my head that I have been on and like.


Brian, I don't doubt that is your opinion about what is a performance cruiser to you. I only said in Europe, where there is a bigger variety of boats and a bigger market, a Catalina does not qualify has a performance boat the same way an Oceanis or a Benetau does not qualify. Here we call those boats family cruisers, if we accept the definition that is given for the European boat of the year contest.

I have already explained that the difference that has to do mainly to the ability to be competitive in club racing at a medium level and also have an interior that allows cruising. One thing that all performance cruisers have in common is that they are faster than family cruising boats but also have the ability to have a better control of the sails through adequate rigging. On post 14 I explain better the difference.



Cruisingdad said:


> I have been on and raced a 122. I assume you have too? I loved that boat for what it was - a race boat. No offense, but there is no way I would take that boat cruising. ....The 122 I was on was a carbon fire, stripped down racing machine. SHe was rocking fast, but for a cruising boat?? No way! I don't know that I would want too much CF on my boat as a cruising boat. Of course, there is the other extreme (the Tayanas and IP's of the world) where to heck with speed. ...


No, I have never raced a J122 but I have been inside them several times and if the one you raced was a *"was a carbon fire, stripped down racing machine"* then it was not a standard J122 but a racing machine made out of a J122. The J122 is not a carbon fiber boat neither a stripped down boat. It has a good cruising interior even if what one consider good depends on the type of sailor. I would say that it is adequate for me.

The designer and shipyard says about the J122:

*J/122 is a versatile 40 foot performance sailboat with comfortable live-aboard accommodations, a refined deck layout, low VCG keel with a moderate 7.2' draft.

...An IRC-friendly cruiser/racer, J/122 offers a completely furnished interior, a simple to manage balanced sail plan, head turning sailing performance and great looks-- perhaps the ultimate 40' day sailing, weekending, racing and cruising sailboat...

...The J/122 hull is not extreme in any particular dimension and will have a forgiving and predictable motion in a wide variety of wind and seas conditions...

Construction: J/122 is built by J/Europe of Les Sables d'Olonne in France, an area rich with sailing history and experienced boat builders. She is CE certified category A, and hull & deck are SCRIMP molded with e-glass and vinylester resin with balsa and foam core materials respectively. An extensive SCRIMP molded structural grid supports the keel and mast loads as well as the interior components. 
*

Take a look at some interior photos:























































Regarding motion comfort I don't think you are right when you think that the Catalina 40 has an easier motion. The Catalina 40 is a much more beamier boat with less fine entries and therefore will have a much bigger wave drag. That will be reflected in a less easier motion through the waves, particularly upwind, I mean if the boats sail at the same speed.

Brian I hope that you understand that I am not saying bad things about the Catalina 40. I am just saying that is not the same type of boat and that a J122 is not a race boat, but a performance cruiser.

Both type of boats have their "clients" in what regards cruising and racing. I have not any doubt that you would prefer the Catalina but give me the credit to say that I know enough about sailboats to say that I without any doubt would prefer the J122 and not for racing but for cruising.

This does not mean that the J122 is a better cruising boat than the Catalina 40. I am a big adept of relativism in what regards cruising preferences and I guess that if you look to the European market you will see clearly that different sailors prefer different types of cruising boats.

In fact one of the hottest success in the market of the performance cruisers was the Pogo 12.50 (there is a member of this forum that has one and another one considering having one to live aboard), a performance cruiser that has a interior more clean and naked than the one from the J122, but functional and very practical. The Pogo 12.50 Was the elected by European journalists of main sailing magazines as the 2012 European performance cruiser and is a boat thought for performance cruising and long range voyaging.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## zz4gta

If the J122 is a stripped out boat...









Don't look at the Farr 400









A Ker 40 

















Or any real race boats.


----------



## zz4gta

The blue jacket is nothing new. It'll be faster than an IP, but so is molassas in december. Plenty of other options out there for 1/2 the price.


----------



## Cruisingdad

*Re: Catalina 40/J122*



PCP said:


> Brian, I don't doubt that is your opinion about what is a performance cruiser to you. I only said in Europe, where there is a bigger variety of boats and a bigger market, a Catalina does not qualify has a performance boat the same way an Oceanis or a Benetau does not qualify. Here we call those boats family cruisers, if we accept the definition that is given for the European boat of the year contest.
> 
> I have already explained that the difference that has to do mainly to the ability to be competitive in club racing at a medium level and also have an interior that allows cruising. One thing that all performance cruisers have in common is that they are faster than family cruising boats but also have the ability to have a better control of the sails through adequate rigging. On post 14 I explain better the difference.
> 
> No, I have never raced a J122 but I have been inside them several times and if the one you raced was a *"was a carbon fire, stripped down racing machine"* then it was not a standard J122 but a racing machine made out of a J122. The J122 is not a carbon fiber boat neither a stripped down boat. It has a good cruising interior even if what one consider good depends on the type of sailor. I would say that it is adequate for me.
> 
> The designer and shipyard says about the J122:
> 
> *J/122 is a versatile 40 foot performance sailboat with comfortable live-aboard accommodations, a refined deck layout, low VCG keel with a moderate 7.2' draft.
> 
> ...An IRC-friendly cruiser/racer, J/122 offers a completely furnished interior, a simple to manage balanced sail plan, head turning sailing performance and great looks-- perhaps the ultimate 40' day sailing, weekending, racing and cruising sailboat...
> 
> ...The J/122 hull is not extreme in any particular dimension and will have a forgiving and predictable motion in a wide variety of wind and seas conditions...
> 
> Construction: J/122 is built by J/Europe of Les Sables d'Olonne in France, an area rich with sailing history and experienced boat builders. She is CE certified category A, and hull & deck are SCRIMP molded with e-glass and vinylester resin with balsa and foam core materials respectively. An extensive SCRIMP molded structural grid supports the keel and mast loads as well as the interior components.
> *
> 
> Take a look at some interior photos:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding motion comfort I don't think you are right when you think that the Catalina 40 has an easier motion. The Catalina 40 is a much more beamier boat with less fine entries and therefore will have a much bigger wave drag. That will be reflected in a less easier motion through the waves, particularly upwind, I mean if the boats sail at the same speed.
> 
> Brian I hope that you understand that I am not saying bad things about the Catalina 40. I am just saying that is not the same type of boat and that a J122 is not a race boat, but a performance cruiser.
> 
> Both type of boats have their "clients" in what regards cruising and racing. I have not any doubt that you would prefer the Catalina but give me the credit to say that I know enough about sailboats to say that I without any doubt would prefer the J122 and not for racing but for cruising.
> 
> This does not mean that the J122 is a better cruising boat than the Catalina 40. I am a big adept of relativism in what regards cruising preferences and I guess that if you look to the European market you will see clearly that different sailors prefer different types of cruising boats.
> 
> In fact one of the hottest success in the market of the performance cruisers was the Pogo 12.50 (there is a member of this forum that has one and another one considering having one to live aboard), a performance cruiser that has a interior more clean and naked than the one from the J122, but functional and very practical. The Pogo 12.50 Was the elected by European journalists of main sailing magazines as the 2012 European performance cruiser and is a boat thought for performance cruising and long range voyaging.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Hey Paulo! No need to explain. I like you, you know that. SO that being said, let me shoot back at your J122 and why I think it would be a TERRIBLE cruising boat.

First, is the tankage. You have a 42 gallon water tank. SO, since you will average about 5 (some say 8) gallons/day, you reasonably have 5-8 days without needing water... assuming you are alone! Add a spouse or friend, you just cut that in half. Have we even discussed showers? Now you will say, but Brian, I can add a watermaker. Well, let's hope so. But I have been on that boat and I don't remember it just flowing with extra space everywhere. But, assuming you do, now you will be eating up diesel. You have a 35g diesel tank. Now 35 g for a good performing boat is good, but not great for distance cruising. And don't forget, you will be putting a lot of your diesel into making water and charging your batteries. to do this, you need a diesel generator or a Honda type generator which burns gas. THe Honda generators are relatively cheap and effiecient, but they are not real small and they do eat gas. Both the cruising boats that run with us kept them. THey kept more gerry cans of gas than they did diesel. Where are you going to put that generator and gas? When you strat strapping on a bunch of Gerry cans on that low freeboard, not only do you throw off your balance, you also make the decks tighter and risk losing them in a storm offshore. I know. Been there. And here is the kicker: 15 gallon holding tank for waste. 15 gallons?? Really? You will go through about 2-3 gallons a day in waste/person. That is five-7 days before you you are stuffed full and trying to find a marina or heading offshore to pumpout. Reality is that you are closer to 5. In addition, you need a place to put all that food, extra tools, extra parts, clothing, books, etc, etc. You will find that boat is filled up really quick and many of the performance benefits you found out of it have dissapeared.

Now the exception is if cruising mean marina hopping. For some it does. Cruising for me is trying to get away from the cities and the marinas and spending lots of time on the hook.

In my mind, the J122 is a awesome boat for its design. It is fast and fun to sail. With the right crew, it will do well in distance races and even beer cans. And when you are all done, you can relax below in a comfortable setting and spend the night at the marina with your friends in some "luxury". But a cruiser? Nah. Not unless you are marina hopping. And by the way, the numbers I gave above assume only one person. Add 2 or three, and multiply the numbers as such. Put a couple of kids on there, and that boat will be dry in the water tank and busting at the holding in a couple of days.

Last thing, Beneteau and Catalina both have a performance line. It is the First series for Bene and the 400 and 445 for Catalina. These boats have very different designs. I realize you may not consider even these types of boats as performance boats, as we do in the US, but if you don't like the speed of my 400... try stepping on a 380!! I owned one of those too and 5 knots, maybe 5.5 was the best I could plan for on long distances. Yikes!!!

Take care Paulo. Always enjoy your take.

Brian


----------



## PCP

*Re: Catalina 40/J122*



Cruisingdad said:


> Hey Paulo! No need to explain. I like you, you know that. SO that being said, let me shoot back at your J122 and why I think it would be a TERRIBLE cruising boat.
> 
> ...
> Take care Paulo. Always enjoy your take.
> 
> Brian


Brian the feeling is reciprocaland the fact that I disagree, not with your choice, but with your thinking that what you like or style of cruising, applies to all, does not change that.

I know you think the J 122 is a terrible boat for cruising and on the other hand, I that don't race, some years back when the boat come to the market, did not only bought the boat because I had not the money.

Believe me, I am a cruiser, I cruise a lot, live several months for year on my sailing boat, have tried and sailed many types of sailboats and now pretty well what *I* want as a sailboat and it is a boat like the J122. The boat that I finally had choose (an used boat) is much more close to the J122 than to your boat, this one:

Yachts and Yachting Magazine

This year was the first I had cruised the boat and the average time between going to a marina for water was three weeks. For diesel maybe the double, I mean more than a month.

I know that this boat (or the J 122) would not suit you the same way the Catalina would not suit me. You have said why the J122 would not suit you and I can tell you why the Catalina or a family boat would not suit me: Boring in what regards sailing and with a insufficient capacity of sailing in light winds.

Off course I know this is not your opinion but that's why you can find in the market many different types of cruising boats for different types of cruisers that sail and cruise in different styles. They have almost all a thing in common:

All consider that his boat is the right one to cruise. From the ones that only consider very heavy steel boats, passing for the ones that only consider heavy fiberglass boats, to the ones to whom the offer of the predominant mass production builders (like Catalina) and ending up in the ones that prefer lighter and faster boats, being them monohull or multihull.

People are different as well as the cruising style or the importance they give to enjoy the boat while sailing and that's why there are so many types of cruising boats.

Regarding the J122 I can tell you (because I asked) that the standard water tankage (45G) can be raised to about the double if you want, and I think any cruiser that don't use the boat only locally will want that. The original diesel tankage is enough (35G) for that type of boat.

You have to consider that these type of boats needs about half the wind your boat needs to make some speed over the water. In fact with very weak winds these bots make wind and are faster than the wind so you have to take that in consideration in what regards needs of fuel or motoring.

Take a look at the boat Polar speed:

http://www.jowners.org/docs/J122 Polar Chart.pdf

The boat with 6K wind can make 7K speed but most of all with weaker winds where your boat would almost not move, these boats can make speeds over the wind and they are proportionally bigger regarding weaker winds (the weaker the wind the bigger the boat speed over the wind speed).

This means that that this type of sailboats can be sailed with 3 or 4K winds and even so make an acceptable speed. The typical owners of these boats rarely use the engine except to charge batteries and to enter and leave ports because what they really like is sailing and cruising and not in a much bigger proportion, cruising.

I am not saying you don't like sailing, I am sure you do, what I am saying is that the owners of these type of boats like it more, so more that they will gladly give away some interior comfort while cruising to be able to enjoy a better sailing performance. That's why these boats are called performance sailing cruisers.

Each cruising boat that has a significant market demand has builders doing them and that is the case of the Catalina, that has not a better performance than for instance a Hanse or a Jeanneau, and that in European terms would be classified as a family boat, or the J122 that would be classified as a performance cruising boat.

Have a look at the nominees for the 2013 European boat on the year on its diverse categories. On the first movie you will have Luxury cruisers and Family cruisers. On that category you have: Hanse 415; Bavaria Vision 46, Delphia 31; RM 1260; Sun Odyssey 469

Europas Yachten des Jahres - Teil 1 - Yacht TV - Segel Videos von Europas größtem Yacht Magazin

Regarding the category of performance cruisers, the one that would include the J122, you have: Grand Soleil 39, Dufour 36 performance, Mc 34 Patton, Sly 38 and XP 50.

Europas Yachten des Jahres

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Cruisingdad

*Re: Catalina 40/J122*



PCP said:


> Brian the feeling is reciprocaland the fact that I disagree, not with your choice, but with your thinking that what you like or style of cruising, applies to all, does not change that.
> 
> I know you think the J 122 is a terrible boat for cruising and on the other hand, I that don't race, some years back when the boat come to the market, did not only bought the boat because I had not the money.
> 
> Believe me, I am a cruiser, I cruise a lot, live several months for year on my sailing boat, have tried and sailed many types of sailboats and now pretty well what *I* want as a sailboat and it is a boat like the J122. The boat that I finally had choose (an used boat) is much more close to the J122 than to your boat, this one:
> 
> Yachts and Yachting Magazine
> 
> This year was the first I had cruised the boat and the average time between going to a marina for water was three weeks. For diesel maybe the double, I mean more than a month.
> 
> I know that this boat (or the J 122) would not suit you the same way the Catalina would not suit me. You have said why the J122 would not suit you and I can tell you why the Catalina or a family boat would not suit me: Boring in what regards sailing and with a insufficient capacity of sailing in light winds.
> 
> Off course I know this is not your opinion but that's why you can find in the market many different types of cruising boats for different types of cruisers that sail and cruise in different styles. They have almost all a thing in common:
> 
> All consider that his boat is the right one to cruise. From the ones that only consider very heavy steel boats, passing for the ones that only consider heavy fiberglass boats, to the ones to whom the offer of the predominant mass production builders (like Catalina) and ending up in the ones that prefer lighter and faster boats, being them monohull or multihull.
> 
> People are different as well as the cruising style or the importance they give to enjoy the boat while sailing and that's why there are so many types of cruising boats.
> 
> Regarding the J122 I can tell you (because I asked) that the standard water tankage (45G) can be raised to about the double if you want, and I think any cruiser that don't use the boat only locally will want that. The original diesel tankage is enough (35G) for that type of boat.
> 
> You have to consider that these type of boats needs about half the wind your boat needs to make some speed over the water. In fact with very weak winds these bots make wind and are faster than the wind so you have to take that in consideration in what regards needs of fuel or motoring.
> 
> Take a look at the boat Polar speed:
> 
> http://www.jowners.org/docs/J122 Polar Chart.pdf
> 
> The boat with 6K wind can make 7K speed but most of all with weaker winds where your boat would almost not move, these boats can make speeds over the wind and they are proportionally bigger regarding weaker winds (the weaker the wind the bigger the boat speed over the wind speed).
> 
> This means that that this type of sailboats can be sailed with 3 or 4K winds and even so make an acceptable speed. The typical owners of these boats rarely use the engine except to charge batteries and to enter and leave ports because what they really like is sailing and cruising and not in a much bigger proportion, cruising.
> 
> I am not saying you don't like sailing, I am sure you do, what I am saying is that the owners of these type of boats like it more, so more that they will gladly give away some interior comfort while cruising to be able to enjoy a better sailing performance. That's why these boats are called performance sailing cruisers.
> 
> Each cruising boat that has a significant market demand has builders doing them and that is the case of the Catalina, that has not a better performance than for instance a Hanse or a Jeanneau, and that in European terms would be classified as a family boat, or the J122 that would be classified as a performance cruising boat.
> 
> Have a look at the nominees for the 2013 European boat on the year on its diverse categories. On the first movie you will have Luxury cruisers and Family cruisers. On that category you have: Hanse 415; Bavaria Vision 46, Delphia 31; RM 1260; Sun Odyssey 469
> 
> Europas Yachten des Jahres - Teil 1 - Yacht TV - Segel Videos von Europas größtem Yacht Magazin
> 
> Regarding the category of performance cruisers, the one that would include the J122, you have: Grand Soleil 39, Dufour 36 performance, Mc 34 Patton, Sly 38 and XP 50.
> 
> Europas Yachten des Jahres
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Agree Paulo! Not saying you are making the wrong decision at all. I am saying why I would not take that boat. That is why there is a different seat for every ***. Well, you know the phrase. Hey, if we all had the same likes and dislikes, there would only be one boat and life would be boring. Of course, that one boat would be a catalina 400 (HEHEHE... just kidding!!!).

Take care. Always appreciate your input.

Brian


----------



## night0wl

Brian - I admire you tremendously since you're out there "doing it", but respectfully I have to disagree about Catalina has a true dedicated performance line. Both of those models (when the 400 was in production) had roller furling mains, compression posts, fancy wing keels, winches that were a bit undersized, etc. When the 400 was in production, I believe its accepted PHRF rating was generally 110-120. Whereas a Beneteau First 40 is 60. I will say I commend Catalina to sticking with Lead keels, so the boats were definitely less "tender" than Beneteaus I've sailed on length for length...but racers love putting a rail in the water. 

I will say I've read some statements from Catalina about their recent models aiming to bring performance back to their models, but 445 and 400 are squarely cruisers. I will say that I was surprised to see the C400 have a lower rating than the Beneteau Oceanis 40 (120 vs 130 something) since around here, Beneteau's generally compete in more competitive classes here than Catalina here in SE Florida. 

But nowhere close to First series performance on an equivalent waterline.


----------



## PCP

night0wl said:


> Brian - ... I will say I commend Catalina to sticking with Lead keels, so the boats were definitely less "tender" than Beneteaus I've sailed on length for length...but racers love putting a rail in the water.
> 
> ...


Just a side comment to say that a lead keel means not necessarily that a boat is more or less tender. Lead is a great material to keels, specially if it used only in the bulb but there are much more factors: Draft, B/D, type of keel and beam are the more important.

A First 40 or a J122 will be more stiff than a Catalina 400 simply because they need to be more stiff to carry more sail and going faster. That does not mean that a First 40 will not put a rail in the water faster than a Catalina. That depends of the amount of sail area that is carried. Some boats, especially the narrower ones are designed to sail with more heel than a Catalina, but that does not make them necessarily more tender.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

J122 is not your fathers Oldsmobile and is definately a fast cruising boat. We race on one a friend of mine has and it isnt like the smaller or older J which were all stripped out weight wise for speed with very little comfort. Stiff and moved in the light air of the Chesapeake in the summer where most other boats have turned on their engines. Inside accompanyments are more than adequate fot crusing

Brian I appreciate you and admire you cruising style and in many ways, but I have to tell you I never condidered the Catalina 40s even cruising racers. They are well made comfortable boats for cruising. Faster than many other of the heavy cruisers. Never the last in the harbor, but definately lagging behind say a Sabre 402. Good sea motion. They are a great all round boat. Especially for a family or with 5-6 people on board. My definition of the average cruiser is not a family though, It is a couple. So there is no need for those huge water tanks when we go cruising. No need for 2 heads. I admire you as you reasearched your choice well and got the boat which really gave you the best comfort/ speed/ tankage for the type of cruising you are doing. And you are living the dream too. I only hope I get to do half of what you are doing. And your proud of your boat...like we all are.

Like you said the reason their are so many varieties of cruisers is that there as so many different types. You have the massive 40,000 lb center cockpits to the lighter quicker 24,000 performers that kick ass in lighter winds and actually go to windward with precision. You have people whose boats are built like tanks to survive the big storms and the the peopke who make 25-30 miles more passage a day and are in before the storm arrives. You have people who want multiple berths and bunks like you because they have more people on board, then you have a lot of couples who dont need that sleeping space, but want storage space. So many different kinds of cruisers lead to so many different kinds of cruising boats.

Along with the J122s I would say the Sabre 40 footers is what my definition of a performance cruisers should look like. Tremendous quality fit and finish interiors. Sneaky quick. I dont get to see too many of the European boats like Paulo talks about so I have no way of comparing it to them.

As far as the Island packet Blue Jacket shedding the image of what the traditional Island Packet is, I would have to see it in action to beleive they are quick and can keep up with the Js, Sabres, Benne Firsts. I wish the C&Cs would get into this size range again. When you step down to the 38 foot range they are hard to beat and cruise well.

As a complete amateur in sailing when someone mentioned Island Packet and performance cruiser to me , my first though was oxymoron. The day I see a IP sail by inside a Sabre, Benne, J, C&C oing to windward I will be a beleiver.

It funny because Donna and I are looking for our last boat...a cruiser in the 40-43 range. And so unlike my past boat which has been a racer/ cruiser ( C&C 35 MKIII) which could keep up with the Js and the Sabres and Bennes ( Not JeffHs Farr though), we have narrowed it down to Masons ( 43/44), Bristol (41.1/45.5) or a Hans Christian Christina 43. We are looking for a tank...with tankage. 

Dave


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> J122 is not your fathers Oldsmobile and is definately a fast cruising boat. We race on one a friend of mine has and it isnt like the smaller or older J which were all stripped out weight wise for speed with very little comfort. Stiff and moved in the light air of the Chesapeake in the summer where most other boats have turned on their engines. Inside accompanyments are more than adequate fot crusing
> 
> Brian I appreciate you and admire you cruising style and in many ways, but I have to tell you I never condidered the Catalina 40s even cruising racers. They are well made comfortable boats for cruising. Faster than many other of the heavy cruisers. Never the last in the harbor, but definately lagging behind say a Sabre 402. ...
> 
> Along with the J122s I would say the Sabre 40 footers is what my definition of a performance cruisers should look like. ...


Dave, I don't understand what you mean when you say that a Sabre 402 being considerable faster than a Catalina 400 or a Sabre 402 being a performance cruiser and the Catalina not. It seems to me that both boats have a very similar performance.

I looked at the numbers and ratios of both boats with the wing keel configuration, that is what Brian boat has and the numbers indicate a very similar performance and none of them as nothing to do with a performance of a J122 or any other real performance cruiser.

Here are the numbers:

*SA/D* :

Catalina 400-17.3......Sabre 402-17.9........J122-23

*Displ/lenght *:

Catalina 400-188.2 ......Sabre 402-227.2........J122-161

So if the Sail area displacement ratio is marginally better for the Sabre, is very close and both boats very far away from the J122.

Regarding the Displacement lenght ratio, it is substantially better on the Catalina and even so the one of Catalina is far away from the one of the J122.

Basically what is much better on the Catalina regarding the Sabre is the LWL. The Sabre is an older design and shows it clearly on the hull. Probably, even if both boats have a similar beam, the Catalina has a bigger hull form stability due to its more modern hull design (beam carried aft and a larger transom).

Considering that both boats have a very similar weight, RM is very important in what regards the boat power, or for other words the ability to carry more or less sail area. In that regard, as I have said both boats have approximately the same beam but probably the more modern Catalina hull can generate a bit more hull stability.

In what regards ballast the Catalina has a 39% B/D ratio and the Sabre 40% but has the Catalina has a bigger draft (5'4'' to 4'11'') probably the RM generated by both keels is very similar, I mean the boats probably have a CG very close one from the other.

All in all these boats should have a very similar performance and if I had to bet I would bet on a very marginal better performance from the Catalina due to his more modern hull design and bigger LWL.

Nobody has the ratings of both boats? Marty?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## jsaronson

J122 has a phrf rating of 33
Sabre 40 is 75
Catalina 400 is 103
Case closed


----------



## PCP

jsaronson said:


> J122 has a phrf rating of 33
> Sabre 40 is 75
> Catalina 400 is 103
> Case closed


The Sabre 40 is the 402?
and the Catalina 400 is the MKII?

I would say that if it is the case the Catalina has a very favorable rating and the Sabre 402 a very bad one

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

PCP said:


> Dave, I don't understand what you mean when you say that a Sabre 402 being considerable faster than a Catalina 400 or a Sabre 402 being a performance cruiser and the Catalina not. It seems to me that both boats have a very similar performance.
> 
> I looked at the numbers and ratios of both boats with the wing keel configuration, that is what Brian boat has and the numbers indicate a very similar performance and none of them as nothing to do with a performance of a J122 or any other real performance cruiser.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


You seem to disagree with me in almost every post I make so no suprise..

Here is the phrf data which is fact, not opinion. This data makes the Sabre clearly a faster baot. It also clearly shows in terms of this data that the Catalina 400 would receive th same handicap to the Sabre as the Sabre would to the J 122 which you stated was a faster lightwind boat. t



> J 122- 30
> 
> SABRE 40- 75
> 
> CATALINA 400 WK- 120
> 
> From the US Sailing Website


Also from the US Sailing Website



> Performance Handicap Racing Fleet (PHRF) handicaps are based on the speed potential of the boat, determined as far as possible on observations of previous racing experiences. For new boats, handicappers typically compare the new boat to others that they are familiar with and references, if available, to designer's predictions, IMS or MORC handicaps. They look for boats of the same type, based on sail area to displacement ratios and then make adjustments based on the differences. In addition handicappers generally look to see if the boat has raced in another PHRF group. If using measurement rules such as MORC or IMS, care must be taken as measurement rules are type forming. If the boat wasn't designed to the rule, then the handicap likely will not be representative of the boat's potential. Since measurement rules evolve over the years, the age in the rule must also be considered.


http://offshore.ussailing.org/PHRF.htm
The first database, High/Low/Mean PHRF Handicaps as determined by USPHRF Affiliated Fleets

Then of course theres the practical knowledge and first hand experience, which I mentioned I have racing on one. The Sabre 40 windward performance angle is superior to the Catalinas and rivals the J Boats, in my experoience with both. One factor may be due to the extreme inboard jib tracks on the Sabre vs the Catalina. Sabres in the Unted States in opinions I have heard from others who race a fair amount are general considered racer/ cruisers.

Dave


----------



## PCP

Dave, I was talking about the Sabre 402, the one that you compared with the Catalina 400. The ratios and numbers refers to those two boats. Obviously the Sabre 40 is a different boat from the 402, and a much faster one even if much more slower than the J122.

After some research I have find a file for the *Sabre 402* that gives a PHRF of *102*.

http://www.phrfsef.com/pages/2009/Endurance_28077.pdf

After looking specifically for the Catalina *400 MKII* I found a PHRF of *117*.

http://www.yachtscoring.com/boatdetail.cfm?Yacht_ID=31499

And for a *J 122* a PHRF of *30*

http://www.yachtscoring.com/boatdetail.cfm?Yacht_ID=27755

The PHRF of the Catalina 400MKII and the one from Sabre 402 are not very distant and have nothing to do with the one of the J 122 that is in a completely different level.

I have to say however that if these PHRF ratings have a close correspondence with boat performance, I am surprised. I would have expected an even more close performance, regarding Catalina 400 and Sabre 402.

Off course, numbers don't say it all, hull design is important and you don't see that on two dimensions, only the overall shape.

...


----------



## night0wl

Just remember folks, ratings are for the applicable PHRF authority for your region. There is no "master" rating...it all depends on basic statistics of the boat, but then these ratings are changed/altered based on performance results. People do appeal their ratings all the time and can get adjustments.


----------



## chef2sail

night0wl said:


> Just remember folks, ratings are for the applicable PHRF authority for your region. There is no "master" rating...it all depends on basic statistics of the boat, but then these ratings are changed/altered based on performance results. People do appeal their ratings all the time and can get adjustments.


So true. The US sailing aasociation PHRF ratings are the combination of all the sailing fleets in the US and it gives a high, low and mean rating ( which is the one i go by)

PHRF


----------



## chef2sail

PCP said:


> Dave, I was talking about the* Sabre 402*, the one that you compared with the Catalina 400. The ratios and numbers refers to those two boats. Obviously the* Sabre 40 *is a different boat from the 402, and a much faster one even if much more slower than the J122.
> 
> Dave, I don't understand what you mean when you say that a Sabre 402 being considerable faster than a Catalina 400 or a Sabre 402 being a performance cruiser and the Catalina not. It seems to me that both boats have a very similar performance.
> 
> I looked at the numbers and ratios of both boats with the wing keel configuration, that is what Brian boat has and the numbers indicate a very similar performance and none of them as nothing to do with a performance of a J122 or any other real performance cruiser.
> ...


Do you think you can find me a picture or a listing of a Sabre 40 which is different from a 402. I dont remember Sabre making a 40 other than the 402 which I beleive it started production in 2003. I rememberr going on Sabre 402 Hull#1 at the Annapolis Boat Show. Up to that time they only made the 34, 36, 38 and 42. So possibly you made a mistake here.

*The data you posted on the 102 PHRF rating is very suspect *and is only accurate for the one boat Endurance in the SE region. As Nightowl posted these can change.

The data I posted was from the US Sailing Association and the data I posted is a *combination of all the PHRF sailing fleets all over the United States and it gives a low, high as well as the mean score, which is universally used as the correct score. * The scores in this list are the ones recognized as the true PHRF ratings and are the base levels and combination of many boats of the same size with and all with the same equipment on them.

PHRF

There are many things which an affect the ratings such as keel, sails, bl;ades on prop, etc in an individual race such as the data you posted from. The probablility exhists that the 1 boat you used, the Endurance was penalized due to some of these factors. I see it has a feathering prop and a 140% headsail for instance
http://www.phrfsef.com/pages/2009/Endurance_28077.pdf

*Your data therefore is not a correct representation of most Sabre 402's PHRF rating and can not be used for purposes of comparison here. The Sabre 402 PHRF rating of 75 which I provided is the correct number.*

A rating of PHRF 75 for the Sabre 402 while not nearly as fast as a J122 PHRF of 30, it is substantially faster than the Catalinas 400 PHRF of 120. This Sabre is rated as a true performance cruiser.

PHRF ratings are base on 1 second per point per mile. So a difference of 45 between the Sabre 402 and the Catalina would equate to a 45 second differential every mile. If you have a cruising day of lets say just 100 miles 
The Sabre would finish 1 hour and 15 minutes ahead. Only a 12 mile triangular course ,,, a nine minute advantage. ( this of course is with similar crews sailing a simlar course)

I understand PHRF ratings are just one small tool to compare boat speed, and that is only one part of a performance cruiser designation, there are other factors which can be used also, but it is one of the most important factors.

Here are other comporable 40 footers PHRF ratings
Pearson 40- 117
Oday 40- 120
Newport 41- 114
Jenneau Sun Odessey 40- 114
Hunter 40- 120
Cal 40-117
Bennetau Oceanus 120
CS 40- 90
Hanse 400- 81
C&C 40-93

So you can see the Sabre 402 is not your normal cruiser.


----------



## PalmettoSailor

chef2sail said:


> Do you think you can find me a picture or a listing of a Sabre 40 which is different from a 402. I dont remember Sabre making a 40 other than the 402 which I beleive it started production in 2003. I rememberr going on Sabre 402 Hull#1 at the Annapolis Boat Show. Up to that time they only made the 34, 36, 38 and 42. So possibly you made a mistake here.
> 
> *The data you posted on the 102 PHRF rating is very suspect *and is only accurate for the one boat Endurance in the SE region. As Nightowl posted these can change.
> 
> The data I posted was from the US Sailing Association and the data I posted is a *combination of all the PHRF sailing fleets all over the United States and it gives a low, high as well as the mean score, which is universally used as the correct score. * The scores in this list are the ones recognized as the true PHRF ratings and are the base levels and combination of many boats of the same size with and all with the same equipment on them.
> 
> PHRF
> 
> There are many things which an affect the ratings such as keel, sails, bl;ades on prop, etc in an individual race such as the data you posted from. The probablility exhists that the 1 boat you used, the Endurance was penalized due to some of these factors. I see it has a feathering prop and a 140% headsail for instance
> http://www.phrfsef.com/pages/2009/Endurance_28077.pdf
> 
> *Your data therefore is not a correct representation of most Sabre 402's PHRF rating and can not be used for purposes of comparison here. The Sabre 402 PHRF rating of 75 which I provided is the correct number.*
> 
> A rating of PHRF 75 for the Sabre 402 while not nearly as fast as a J122 PHRF of 30, it is substantially faster than the Catalinas 400 PHRF of 120. This Sabre is rated as a true performance cruiser.
> 
> PHRF ratings are base on 1 second per point per mile. So a difference of 45 between the Sabre 402 and the Catalina would equate to a 45 second differential every mile. If you have a cruising day of lets say just 100 miles
> The Sabre would finish 1 hour and 15 minutes ahead. Only a 12 mile triangular course ,,, a nine minute advantage. ( this of course is with similar crews sailing a simlar course)
> 
> I understand PHRF ratings are just one small tool to compare boat speed, and that is only one part of a performance cruiser designation, there are other factors which can be used also, but it is one of the most important factors.
> 
> Here are other comporable 40 footers PHRF ratings
> Pearson 40- 117
> Oday 40- 120
> Newport 41- 114
> Jenneau Sun Odessey 40- 114
> Hunter 40- 120
> Cal 40-117
> Bennetau Oceanus 120
> CS 40- 90
> Hanse 400- 81
> C&C 40-93
> 
> So you can see the Sabre 402 is not your normal cruiser.


I don't for a minute believe a Sabre 402 will sail anywhere close to a 75 rating. That's the same base rating as a shoal draft C&C 121 which I have little doubt would do a horizon job on a Sabre 402.

I bet in the real world a Sabre 402 would fight to sail to a rating in the low 100's. That said, its a boat I would LOVE, love, love to own, but if beggers were choosers I'd take the 121 which to me is the correct balance of performance and cruising amenities.


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> ....
> 
> *The data you posted on the 102 PHRF rating is very suspect *and is only accurate for the one boat Endurance in the SE region. As Nightowl posted these can change.
> 
> ...
> There are many things which an affect the ratings such as keel, sails, bl;ades on prop, etc in an individual race such as the data you posted from. The probablility exhists that the 1 boat you used, the Endurance was penalized due to some of these factors. I see it has a feathering prop and a 140% headsail for instance
> http://www.phrfsef.com/pages/2009/Endurance_28077.pdf
> 
> *Your data therefore is not a correct representation of most Sabre 402's PHRF rating and can not be used for purposes of comparison here. The Sabre 402 PHRF rating of 75 which I provided is the correct number.*
> 
> A rating of PHRF 75 for the Sabre 402 while not nearly as fast as a J122 PHRF of 30, it is substantially faster than the Catalinas 400 PHRF of 120. This Sabre is rated as a true performance cruiser.
> 
> ..


The PHRF I had posted was from a boat with a low draft and a wing keel that was the boat I was comparing with Brian's Catalina 400 that has the same type of keel and the comparison is only valid to those two specific models with those keels.

http://www.phrfsef.com/pages/2009/Endurance_28077.pdf

It seems that the PHRF of the Sabre 402 can be very different since the boat could have a low draft wing keel (the boat I was talking about) and also a racing keel with a 3.3m draft. I found also keels with 2.6m Draft even if, by far, the most current is a cruising keel is the one with 1.7m draft.

BLOW'N AWAY 1997

ANEMONE 1998

Boat Directory SABRE CORPORATION, 40 feet

That explains the huge disparities of PHRF on the Sabrer 402.

Probably the lower handicap corresponds to a very deep racing keel while others correspond to cruising keels with a reasonable draft for cruising.

Here you have a more on the same site two diferent PHRF for a Sabre 402:

1 -Qing Long: With Spi - 95.....without Spi - 114

2 -Banshee: With Spi - 77.....without Spi - 97

PHRF-NB Ratings List 2000

Qing Long has a 1.7m keel

QING LONG 1999

Banshee is not on that directory but it has a deep keel keels otherwise the big difference in rating to the other Sabre 402 would not make sense.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

PCP said:


> The PHRF I had posted was from a boat with a low draft and a wing keel that was the boat I was comparing with Brian's Catalina 400 that has the same type of keel and the comparison is only valid to those two specific models with those keels.
> 
> http://www.phrfsef.com/pages/2009/Endurance_28077.pdf
> 
> It seems that the PHRF of the Sabre 402 can be very different since the boat could have a low draft wing keel (the boat I was talking about) and also a racing keel with a 3.3m draft. I found also keels with 2.6m Draft even if, by far, the most current is a cruising keel is the one with 1.7m draft.
> 
> BLOW'N AWAY 1997
> 
> ANEMONE 1998
> 
> Boat Directory SABRE CORPORATION, 40 feet
> 
> That explains the huge disparities of PHRF on the Sabrer 402.
> 
> Probably the lower handicap corresponds to a very deep racing keel while others correspond to cruising keels with a reasonable draft for cruising.
> 
> Here you have a more on the same site two diferent PHRF for a Sabre 402:
> 
> 1 -Qing Long: With Spi - 95.....without Spi - 114
> 
> 2 -Banshee: With Spi - 77.....without Spi - 97
> 
> PHRF-NB Ratings List 2000
> 
> Qing Long has a 1.7m keel
> 
> QING LONG 1999
> 
> Banshee is not on that directory but it has a deep keel keels otherwise the big difference in rating to the other Sabre 402 would not make sense.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Thats why using the US Sailing PHRF figures as I did is more accurate. It takes this all into account as the figure used there for PHRF is not some one solitary boat, it is the mean of all of the 402 which are in all of the PHRF regional races in all of the United States.

It is the mean of many Sabre 402 sail boats vs the rating of one specific one. This takes into the account the anomolies of all of the boats. It works the same way for the Catalina 400 raing. There are some where its PHRF was 132, but in the averaging in The US sailing figures that was lost and a truer rating established.

When we race in a sanctioned event there are usually some penalty point accessed for add ons like folding props, etc.

* Probably the lower handicap corresponds to a very deep racing keel while others correspond to cruising keels with a reasonable draft for cruising.-PCP *

This is factored out as you are taking the mean of many boats The Sabre deep keel is 75 and the Sabre winged keel is 84. If any of the boats you are mentioning are sailing in a US Sailing PHRF fleet their data is averaged in and part of the data base to make up these figures.

*It seems that the PHRF of the Sabre 402 can be very different since the boat could have a low draft wing keel (the boat I was talking about) and also a racing keel with a 3.3m draft. I found also keels with 2.6m Draft even if, by far, the most current is a cruising keel is the one with 1.7m draft.-PCP*

Of course because every boat is duifferent. Thats why its important use a data base which includes all the PHRF ratings vs each individual boat.

Anyone who has done racing or even club racing knows the Sabres are much quicker all crews being equal than Catalinas in almost all wind speeds. Thats all I am saying. And this is what seperates them in the cruising class form the others like (Catalina, Hunter,Pearson, Cal, Etc.). They are a cut faster and then there is the J122 which is another cut faster and almost in a class by itself in cobining cmfort and speed.

None of this is meant to denigrate the Cataline 400 which is a great all round cruiser, well built and certainly quicker than many of the traditional cruisers out there. Dollar for dollar it is a great value in this size boat. Catalinas have great customer loyalty and their resale value amongst production boats is maintained better than most other. Yacht World has a Sabre 402, 2000 listed for $259,000 a similar year Catalina 400 2000 is listed at $160,000.

The topic here was performance cruisers and whether the Blue Jacket was one of them. I doubt it will be a J122, I doubt whether it will be a Sabre 402It would be a great feat for an IP it to even come in as well as previous Tim Jackett designed Tartan 40 which was PHRF rated at 108 or the new Tim Jackett designed Tartan 400 which launched last year as posted below. Interestingly Tim Jackett is the co designer of this Blue Jacket

Boat Review: Tartan 40 | Cruising Compass

This market will be a very difficult one for IP to break into with the Established quality performance cruisers already with good previous credentials and the traditional great build quality which IP has always bought matched against similar or even great build qualities of the two American built cruisers the Sabre 402 and the Tartan 400.


----------



## PCP

chef2sail said:


> ...
> 
> It is the mean of many Sabre 402 sail boats vs the rating of one specific one. This takes into the account the anomolies of all of the boats. It works the same way for the Catalina 400 raing. There are some where its PHRF was 132, but in the averaging in The US sailing figures that was lost and a truer rating established.
> 
> ...
> Anyone who has done racing or even club racing knows the Sabres are much quicker all crews being equal than Catalinas in almost all wind speeds. Thats all I am saying. And this is what seperates them in the cruising class form the others like (Catalina, Hunter,Pearson, Cal, Etc.). They are a cut faster and then there is the J122 which is another cut faster and almost in a class by itself in cobining cmfort and speed.
> 
> ....
> *The topic here was performance cruisers* and whether the Blue Jacket was one of them. I doubt it will be a J122, I doubt whether it will be a Sabre 402It would be a great feat for an IP it to even come in as well as previous Tim Jackett designed Tartan 40 which was PHRF rated at 108 or the new Tim Jackett designed Tartan 400 which launched last year as posted below. ....


Yes the point is that you were saying that the Catalina 400MKII is not a performance cruiser while the Sabre 402 is for you "*.. the Sabre 40 footers is what my definition of a performance cruisers should look like*" meaning that the Catalina 400MkII is not a performance cruiser and the Sabre 40.2 is a model in what regards performance cruisers. I don't agree with that, if, like I said, I am considering European standards.

After seeing the data I agree that the Sabre 40.2 is faster than the Catalina, but that difference even if meaningful does not make it a performance cruiser. From the beginning I was saying that I don't understand very well what in the US is called a performance cruiser since all modern boats seem to deserve that qualification. From the beginning I said that I was using European standards were the Catalina 400mkII or the Sabre 402 would not be called performance cruisers but family boats.

Take for instance the Hanse 400 that with spinnaker can have a PHRF lower than the lower one you found for the Sabre 40:

Hanse 400 PHRF - 69

On the same race there is racing a Sabre 402 with a 105 PHRF.

2010 Yachts & Participants | Lake Ontario 300

This is a faster boat than the Sabre 402, at least in this configuration, but that does not make it a performance cruiser by European Standards. In fact, the boat than substitutes the Hanse 400, the 415 is one of the nominated boats for the family cruising category (not on the performance cruising category).

*That is what I am saying from the beginning and my only point: Neither the Catalina 400mkII or the Sabre 402 will qualify as performance cruisers by European Standards and their sailing performance is not very different (if compared with a true performance cruiser like the J122).*

Regarding more accurate information about PHRF that seems to be a lot less precise than ORCI ratings these site is the one that seems to me to offer the better information.

http://www.sailingjoy.com/phrf

A Catalina 400 will have according US sailing source this PHRF ratings:

High -123...Low-102...Average-111

If it is a wing keel mode the PHRF will be 120

For a Sabre 402 they give different PHRF all having as source Us sailing:

SABRE 40-2 DK...	High 63....Low 74....Average 69

and for the wing keel:

SABRE 40-2 WK...High 87....Low 81....Average 84

that in fact make a substantial difference for the Catalina but if the lowest configuration is 87 why can I find so many PHRF for the boat on the 104 area? All this seems pretty arbitrary.

As well as for the Hanse 400. They give :

HANSE 400-- High90...	Low78....Average 81

and then have one racing with a 64 PHRF????

This does not make any sense. Anyone with a credible explanation?

Anyway the boats that in Europe are called performance cruisers have PHRF lower than the Hanse or the Sabre:

BENETEAU First 40....	36....	36...	36

Archambault A40RC Bulb Keel...36...	36...36

That data base has very few new boats so I cannot find any recent boats like Dehler 41 or the new Grand Soleil 39, Salona 41 or the Elan 410. I can only find some boats of the previous generation like the Elan 40:

ELAN 40...66....66.....66

It Is good to remember that the Elan 40 was replaced by the 410 and that one is going to be replaced this year by the Elan 400 and each one was faster than the predecessor.

I guess that when the Sabre 402 was designed, 16 years ago, deserved the domination of performance cruiser (always using European standards) not anymore.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

> PHRF handicaps are locally derived and may be different in other areas. There are several reasons why your boat would rate differently throughout the country. The difference may reflect real differences in relative boat speed (because of local sailing conditions) or merely reflect a difference in local sailing skills or in perception of the local handicappers. Variations to consider include sailing conditions like average wind speed and type of water sailed upon (i.e. ocean vs. lake) as well as the general make up of the local fleet. Since the handicaps of boats are adjusted to other boats within the same area, comparisons to other areas may not be relevant. Relative differences between boats typically provide a more accurate reflection than the absolute handicap assigned. In general, most areas tend to keep within the national handicap extremes but if a particular handicap does not seem correct for local conditions (such as a sport boat in mostly reaching conditions), remember that local PHRF organizations rate boats independently.US sailing Site


There are many factors that go into the PHRF ratings thats why the numbers are so diferent ( different by small degrees though). Thats why its important to take the mean average that the US Sailing site shows. ( It shows the high and low also). It is a far fairer way to ascertain the speed rating than taking one boat ourt of the crowd and assigning it a rating. The ratings are established also by racing. This is as fair a way as any of establishing the rating and fairer than taking any one boat out of the crowd.

I understand what you are saying about the Hanse.

The OP was concerning the Blue Jacket and how it would compete not really meant to compete with the European market, but comparitively against what is in exhistance in the American market.

The Sabre 402 has been replaced by the 426 with a similar PHRF for the winged keel of 81. In the US this is one of the most cmopetitive performance cruisers and exactley what the Blue Jacket from IP will be competing against as well as the Tartan 400.

Similarly the chief other modern competitors here in the US will be such as Caliber, Catalina, Tartan, Nennetau, Jennau,Hunter and Sabre. The price points will be wildly different with IP, Tartan, Calber and Sabre at least 40% more costly new and even eventually in the used market. The Catalina will rank next in terms of price and resale value. Personally I think IP will have a difficult time competeing with this particular model. It has a niche in the market already. And it isnt the performance cruiser.

Dave


----------



## BryceGTX

PCP said:


> A First 40 or a J122 will be more stiff than a Catalina 400 simply because they need to be more stiff to carry more sail and going faster. That does not mean that a First 40 will not put a rail in the water faster than a Catalina.


The 400 will get to 8 knots with a heel angle of 7-8 degrees. The First will get to 8 knots with a heel angle of 15-20 degrees. By most any measure the Catalina will be more stiff than a First 40.

Given the Catalina is almost a foot wider, gives it 13% more righting moment for the same weight. However, it is also 3000 pounds heavier adding to the RM. The winged Lead keel is 700 pounds heavier and gains another 400 pounds of effective weight due to the higher density of lead. The keel CG is placed considerably lower in the water as it is attached to a fiberglass skeg that extends almost a foot below the hull. It is doubtful, the CG of the First is lower, so if we assume the CGs to be 1 foot below WL, the Catalina has 3000 ftlbs more mass righting moment. All and all, I expect the Catalina 400 to have about 25% more righting moment.

The reason a light performance hull heels more is because at low heel angles, the hull design focuses on reducing drag rather than creating moment. This can only be acomplished by reducing weight and wetted surface. This creates exactly a hull that is not stiff because the lowest wetted surface is cylindrical rather than flat.

On the other hand, cruisers invariably demand boats that do not heel much. Such boats are much more comfortable, but are slower in light wind because they have more drag.

It is well documented that *LESS STIFF* boats require more sail area because the force on the sails goes as the cosine squared of the heel angle. So the First will have only cos(20)^2 or 88% force at a heel angle of 20 degrees. The Catalina 400 will have cos(8)^2 or 98% of the wind force at 8 degrees. The Catalina can get by with 10% less sail area for the same force. The 100% SA is 808 for the Catalina and 848 for the First.

I think this stuff is well known and proven out by Catalina owners.
Bryce


----------



## PCP

BryceGTX said:


> ... By most any measure the Catalina will be more stiff than a First 40.
> ....
> It is well documented that *LESS STIFF* boats require more sail area ...
> 
> ...Bryce


I will not even try to discuss that. Anybody that does not see that is an absurd statement will not deserve my time or effort.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## zz4gta

+1, makes me wonder if the 'experts' have ever sailed a bene First 40.7.

There's a lot more to it than just the numbers Bryce is posting.


----------



## BryceGTX

zz4gta said:


> +1, makes me wonder if the 'experts' have ever sailed a bene First 40.7.
> 
> There's a lot more to it than just the numbers Bryce is posting.


Could be.. performance boats tend to carry more sail. On the other hand.. stiffness is not the design criteria for sail area.. rather RM is pretty much the design criteria for sail area. However, to say that a more stiff boat requires more sail area is absurd. Rather a less stiff boat requires more sail to achieve the same drive.

If we look at the Lagoon 380 which has similar weight and LWL as the First, it only has 883 square foot of sail. However, no doubt it is considerably stiffer, yet carries less sail. So stiffness clearly is not the design criteria for sail area.



PCP said:


> I will not even try to discuss that. Anybody that does not see that is an absurd statement will not deserve my time or effort.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Anyone who thinks otherwise deserves my attention. However, you can easily prove me wrong by producing the RM diagrams for a First 40 and a Catalina 40. It would be interesting to see who is absurd.

From a yacht design book:
"The true reason for giving a crusing yacht more beam: In the first place more initial stability... It is very desirable for comfort that a crusing yacht should be kept as upright as possible.."

For those that don't know the term "initial stability" translates to stiffness at low angles of heel. The end result is that cruising boats are more stiff than performance boats at low angles of heel.

So then the question becomes, why are performance boats more tender at low angle of heel. It seems the performance boat manufacturers do not subscribe to the same design philosophy that Paulo is expecting.

The reason is quite simple, the design goal of a performance boat at low angle of heel is the reduction of drag, not high stiffness.

This intuitively makes sense because low angle of heel with high speed occurs during down wind sailing. Or similar in light wind. You can only get high boat speed in light wing with minimal drag. Minimal drag is light weight and minimal wetted surface. So as expected, performance boats are light weight.

When sailing broad reach with a performance boat, heeling is required to create righting moment. So stiffness only increases as a means to create righting moment at some heeling angle.

So we can have two different boats, Catalina 40 with high initial stiffness to reduce initial heeling angle. Then the First 40 with low initial stiffness for reduced drag at low angles of heel. Then both boats producing the same heeling moment at 15 degrees, where the First may be more stiff.

Probably at 25 degrees both boats have the same stiffness. Whenever we discuss stiffness, we need to be careful how we present it. Given this scenario which boat is more stiff?
Bryce


----------



## PCP

BryceGTX said:


> ...
> 
> Anyone who thinks otherwise deserves my attention. However, you can easily prove me wrong by producing the RM diagrams for a First 40 and a Catalina 40. It would be interesting to see who is absurd.
> ....
> Bryce


Still not interested in discussing this with you but just not to confuse people:

To access a sailboat stiffness through a stability curve the one that should be used is a GZ curve (length of Arm) not a RM curve (righting moment) simply because a RM is obtained multiplying the displacement of the boat for all values of a GZ curve at different angles of heel. The values to be considered will be the ones till the MAX GZ with special incidence till 45º.

Two boats can have similar RM values till 45º and therefore have similar RM curves on that segment but one can weight almost the double. In that case the lighter boat would be much more stiff. It will be the case when we compare for instance a 40 class racer (or a First 40) with a Catalina 40:

A Catalina 40 weights about the double so for identical values on the GZ curve the RM at those points will be the double on the Catalina 40 regarding the racer, but the Class 40 racer will have a GZ curve 60% better, so even if the RM is smaller its Stiffness is much bigger because It needs a lot less sail to go at the same speed.

For the ones that these curves means little: The RM is the force that is making force at a given angle of hell to put a boat vertical and that is opposed by the wind force on the sails. If a boat weights half it will not only be needed less force to right itself up because it weights less but most of all, as it has a much smaller wet surface, it will need a lot less sail area to sail at the same speed of the heavier boat so the force made on the sails will be a lot smaller and it will be needed a much lesser RM to oppose that force.

That's why it is not the sail area that counts for a boat performance but the SA/Displ ratio. The same thing happens with stiffness that has not to do with RM directly but with the sail area the boat needs to sail at a given speed and the available RM. Of course, comparing boats with the same length.

Anyway, as I have said already, anybody that has sailed a race sailboat, or even a performance cruiser will know that the stiffness is bigger than in a cruising boat. For knowing that is not necessary to know a lot about theory, is evident to all with sailing experience in different type of boats.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## svHyLyte

It is a pleasant change to see an extensive discussion/debate on matters pertaining to sailing on a Sailing Forum rather than politics. Both informative and educational. For my part I am not impressed with the BJ40, at all, and suspect it was merely an effort to broaden IP's market somewhat. Perhaps it will. Perhaps not. Good try in any case. (Of course, if one wanted a really good, affordable, performance cruiser, one would stick with a mid-'80's era Beneteau First 42--if one was fortunate enough to be able to find one, eh?)


----------



## kwaltersmi

svHyLyte said:


> For my part I am not impressed with the BJ40, at all, and suspect it was merely an effort to broaden IP's market somewhat. Perhaps it will. Perhaps not. Good try in any case.


I'm still reserving judgement until I see the BJ40's official introduction at the upcoming Strictly Sail in Chicago. I'm holding out hope that she's got the "it" feel and look in person.


----------



## BryceGTX

PCP said:


> Still not interested in discussing this with you but just not to confuse people:
> 
> To access a sailboat stiffness through a stability curve the one that should be used is a GZ curve (length of Arm) not a RM curve (righting moment) simply because a RM is obtained multiplying the displacement of the boat for all values of a GZ curve at different angles of heel. The values to be considered will be the ones till the MAX GZ with special incidence till 45º.


You are looking at this way too simplistically. The GZ curve can only be used to compare two boats if they have the same mass. Clearly the Catalina 40 weighs 3000 pounds more so the use of a GZ curve is useless.

On the other hand, since you can't provide the RM curves for the two boats, its not likely you can provide the GZ curves. So your discussion is not particularly useful.



> A Catalina 40 weights about the double so for identical values on the GZ curve the RM at those points will be the double on the Catalina 40 regarding the racer, but the Class 40 racer will have a GZ curve 60% better, so even if the RM is smaller its Stiffness is much bigger because It needs a lot less sail to go at the same speed.


Who cares about a class 40 sailboat... we are comparing two very specific boats the Catalina 40 and the First 40 (2012). Class 40 wasn't in the discussion..

Clearly a Catalina 40 is not double the weight of the First 40.. so not sure where you are going with this discussion about Class 40.

You keep saying the First 40 is more stiff than the Catalina 40. Clearly no numbers support your opinion. And you provide no RM diagrams to support your opinion. Even boat designers do not agree with you.

On the other hand.. my Catalina 40 runs at half the heel angle as a First 40 at 8 knots. And you suggest the First is more stiff?
Bryce


----------



## PCP

BryceGTX said:


> On the other hand.. my Catalina 40 runs at half the heel angle as a First 40 at 8 knots. And you suggest the First is more stiff?


I don't suggest, I say it is absurd to say that a Catalina 40 is more stiff than a First 40. That would be evident for someone that sailed both types of boats even if he does not understand a thing about GZ or RM stability curves.

The stiffness of a boat is not measured by the smaller or bigger heel angle that is needed for a sailboat to sail at a given speed. Anybody knows that narrower boats will need more heel angle to sail than beamier boats but that does not mean that the beamier boat would be more stiff. It depends on the type of keel and draft (regarding maximizing ballast) and the B/D ratio of both boats. Also it depends on drag and upwind, on wave drag. The beamier boat will need more sail than the narrower boat for the same speed.

Stifness in a sailboat equals boat power. A boat with more sail area will not be necessarily faster. Power in this case it is a relation between the sail area the boat can fly and the drag it has to overcome. Of course heavier boats and beamier boats produce a lot more drag and therefore need a lot more sail area to go at the same speed

The Catalina 40 (assuming you are talking about the 400MKII) has a beam of 4.11m, 9299 kgs and 75.06 m2 of sail area.

The First 40 has a beam of 3.98, 7536 kgs of weight and 98 m2 of sail area.

The First 40, because is lighter and has less beam (less wet surface) needs less sail are to go at the same speed compared with the Catalina and obviously can have more sail up so evidently is a more stiff boat.

This all subject is ridiculous, I am not posting for you (I don't care what you think) but because it may be of some help to other members regarding understanding better the concept of stiffness on a sailboat.

Generally mass production cruisers as the Catalina are less stiff then performance cruisers and performance cruisers less stiff then race boats. That is about the same to say that cruisers are less powerful than performance cruisers and this one less than racers.

The First 40 is a particularly stiff boat among performance cruisers. One of the situations were you need a stiffer boat is to go upwind with waves and bad weather. The First 40 is the most used performance cruiser on the Sydney- Hobart race, a race that is well known by upwind sailing in bad conditions and they are the most popular because they are the ones that performed better, having already won the race in compensated time and finishing in real time among much bigger boats.



BryceGTX said:


> You are looking at this way too simplistically. The GZ curve can only be used to compare two boats if they have the same mass. Clearly the Catalina 40 weighs 3000 pounds more so the use of a GZ curve is useless.
> 
> On the other hand, since you can't provide the RM curves for the two boats, its not likely you can provide the GZ curves. So your discussion is not particularly useful.


I am not discussing this with you and who says that I cannot provide the curves? It is just not worth it.

In what concerns comparing boats the GZ and RM curves are used to compare different things and it all depends on what you are comparing. To compare the energy that is needed to capsize a boat you use a RM curve, to see if a boat is well designed and have an idea of its performance, namely stiffness, you use a GZ curve.

When you design a boat you only use GZ curves. what you want is the lighter boat for a given robustness and one with the better possible GZ curve that, in what regards the part that has to do with sailing, means the steepest you can get and with the bigger possible values till 35º of heel and that means normally a big Max GZ. The weight of the boat is a consequence of the weight needed to get the desired strength and the ballast needed to obtain that curve.

RM curves are also more important in what regards static stability and GZ curves in what regards dynamic stability (the AVS point is the same).

It is because dynamic stability is more important for a boat stability than static stability that there is not a direct proportionality regarding boat seaworthiness and the amount of energy that is needed to capsize a boat and that's the reason why boats with a big GZ curve can be more seaworthy than boats that theoretically need more energy to be capsized ( represented by the area under the positive part of the RM curve).

That is obviously the case with a 40 class racer (regarding much heavier boats with the same size) and that's why I have talked about it, just because it is a more extreme example and therefore it is easier to understand even if the principle is true to all boats. But, off course, that would also be the case of a First 40, a very seaworthy and stiff boat, in my opinion more than any main market mass production cruiser.

By the way, the Blue Jacket 40 is going to be also a considerably more stiff boat than the Catalina 400.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## BryceGTX

PCP said:


> The stiffness of a boat is not measured by the smaller or bigger heel angle that is needed for a sailboat to sail at a given speed.


Really??

Two boats of similar size at the same speed in the same wind clearly gives an indication of stiffness. The stiffer boat heels less. In the example given, the Catalina requires more power to run the same speed because it has more drag. All else equal, we would expect the First 40 to heel less. Not sure how you could argue otherwise.



PCP said:


> Anybody knows that narrower boats will need more heel angle to sail than beamier boats but that does not mean that the beamier boat would be more stiff.


Here is the problem with your argument, the Catalina 40 is not just beamier, it is longer at the water line and fuller in the fore and aft body. And its got a hull design remarkably similar to the First 40 below the water line. Perhaps if you had ever seen these two boats out of the water, you would understand.

And of course the Catalina 40 is heavier. Not sure how you could argue a First is stiffer. Perhaps you should look at the RM diagrams to convince yourself.
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX

PCP said:


> Stifness in a sailboat equals boat power.
> 
> Paulo


Stiffness has nothing to do with power. Perhaps this is your misunderstanding. Stiffness is simply a characteristic of the RM diagram.

The amount of sail area is related to the RM value not the stiffness. For 200 years, that has been the case and it will remain for the next 200 years.

Different types of boats have different stiffness at different points in the RM curve. One of the reasons the Catalina 40 is more stiff is that it has a significantly higher RM value than the First 40. All else being equal this simply produces a stiffer boat.
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX

PCP said:


> The First 40, because is lighter and has less beam (less wet surface) needs less sail are to go at the same speed compared with the Catalina and obviously can have more sail up so evidently is a more stiff boat.
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Performance boats will always have more sail area for the simple reason, that to go faster in light wind requires more sail. This to me is a no brainer and is widely known in the literature.

Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX

PCP said:


> I am not discussing this with you and who says that I cannot provide the curves? It is just not worth it.
> 
> Paulo


LOL.. good plan.. you would hate to prove yourself wrong eh??
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX

PCP said:


> Generally mass production cruisers as the Catalina are less stiff then performance cruisers and performance cruisers less stiff then race boats. That is about the same to say that cruisers are less powerful than performance cruisers and this one less than racers.


For a given generation of boats, the cruisers always tend to be more stiff at low angle of heel because the most important person in our lives does not like to walk around on a deck that is not level.

My wife does not like the boat to heel above 10 degrees. Fortunately, our Catalina 40 is already doing 8 knots before this. If our Catalina 40 is heeling at 15 degrees, its because the boat is traveling at 10 knots.

Now looking at the polar diagram and heeling listing for the First 40, it is only downwind the First will not be 15-20 degrees doing 8 knots.

So you say the cruiser is less powerful at 8 knots??? Doesn't make sense, the Beneteau First 40 is lighter and less drag. So by definition, it will requires less power, not more power to run at 8 knots.

So since it requires less power, to go the same speed, but it heels more.. then by your definition of more power meaning more stiff, the First 40 must be less stiff.

Perhaps you would like to reformulate your definition of more power being more stiff.
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX

PCP said:


> To compare the energy that is needed to capsize a boat you use a RM curve, to see if a boat is well designed and have an idea of its performance, namely stiffness, you use a GZ curve.
> 
> Paulo


Stiffness is not usually used as a metric for performance. And clearly, the GZ diagram is not used at a criteria for stiffness. Perhaps this is why you are confused.

A GZ diagram is simply a moment arm length. You might never tell the difference between a 1000 Ton boat and a 2 ton boat by looking at the GZ diagram. So you would mistakenly think the 2 ton boat is stiffer.

Let see you put the 1000 tone sails on the 2 ton boat because the 2 ton boat has a longer moment arm.

Clearly, the GZ curve is useless as a measure of stiffness.
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX

PCP said:


> RM curves are also more important in what regards static stability and GZ curves in what regards dynamic stability (the AVS point is the same).
> 
> Paulo


ROG... I would love to hear this discussion.

Both curves are static curves. Perhaps someone else would like to explain to Paulo the relationship of these two curves. 

Clearly neither curve can illustrate dynamics because neither curve embodies a value of inertia or damping. These are two characteristics required to define the dynamic motion of anything.
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX

PCP said:


> When you design a boat you only use GZ curves. what you want is the lighter boat for a given robustness and one with the better possible GZ curve that, in what regards the part that has to do with sailing, means the steepest you can get and with the bigger possible values till 35º of heel and that means normally a big Max GZ. The weight of the boat is a consequence of the weight needed to get the desired strength and the ballast needed to obtain that curve.
> Paulo


Now there's is a mouthful..

Clearly GZ curves are not the design criteria for any sailboat. If it were, all 40 foot boats sailboats would be 40 feet wide. Making a very stiff boat. Similar to a Missisippi River Barge.

I have to question the words "the steepest you can get and with the bigger possible values". So you are saying the steepest the curve, with the highest value of the curve correct? Then it clearly is the 40 foot beam in a 40 foot boat. Such a boat results in this characteristic.

Do we want such a boat?? Clearly not. So what other criteria are used to design the boat? Well.. there are a multitude of conflicting criteria. Drag, weight, sail area, cost and most of all: *racing boat rules* .

Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX

PCP said:


> It is because dynamic stability is more important for a boat stability than static stability that there is not a direct proportionality regarding boat seaworthiness and the amount of energy that is needed to capsize a boat and that's the reason why boats with a big GZ curve can be more seaworthy than boats that theoretically need more energy to be capsized ( represented by the area under the positive part of the RM curve).
> Paulo


LOL.. another mouthful.. how do you get to a discussion about dynamic stability from a simple comparison of two specific boats stiffness??

How does this have anything to do with the stiffness of a Catalina 40 to a First 40? You need to stay on track with the discussion..
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX

PCP said:


> That is obviously the case with a 40 class racer (regarding much heavier boats with the same size) and that's why I have talked about it, just because it is a more extreme example and therefore it is easier to understand even if the principle is true to all boats.
> Paulo


Clearly, the most extreme case would be to compare the USS Aircraft Carrier Enterprise with a Beneteau First 40.. On the other hand, such a comparison does not get us anywhere closer to comparing the stiffness of a Catalina 40 to a First 40 anymore than your discussion of the Class 40.
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX

PCP said:


> By the way, the Blue Jacket 40 is going to be also a considerably more stiff boat than the Catalina 400.
> 
> Paulo


I am going to guess that you somewhat confused about the stifness of the Catalina 40 and how it compares to a First 40. So lets just put it into laymans terms.

To get a First 40 to the stiffness of the Catalina 40, you need to duck tape 6 sea kayaks to the side of the First 40 at the waterline to get its beam, fullness and LWL the right dimension. Next, you need to drive a VW Beetle into the Salon of the First 40 to get the weight of the Catalina 40.

Perhaps now you understand how much stiffer the First 40 will become.
Bryce

BTW.. oddly enough.. I might be in a good position to discuss the BJ-40, First 40 and the Tartan 40 because my wife and I have actually seen these boats. And we know a bit about the Catalina 40.


----------



## PCP

BryceGTX said:


> Really??
> ...
> Here is the problem with your argument, the Catalina 40 is not just beamier, *it is longer at the water line* and fuller in the fore and aft body. *And its got a hull design remarkably similar to the First 40*. Perhaps if you had ever seen these two boats out of the water, you would understand.
> 
> And of course the Catalina 40 is heavier. Not sure how you could argue a First is stiffer. Perhaps you should look at the RM disgrams to convince yourself.
> .....
> *The amount of sail area is related to the RM value not the stiffness.*
> 
> *One of the reasons the Catalina 40 is more stiff is that it has a significantly higher RM value than the First 40. All else being equal this simply produces a stiffer boat.*
> Bryce


Jesus

So as you say :*" the Catalina 40 ..got a hull design remarkably similar to the First 40"*

Sure, very similar:



































They look similar to you?

and you say: "the Catalina 40 is not just beamier, *it is longer at the water line*.." .Why don't you check before sayng nonsense. The Catalina 400 LWL is *9.30m*. The First 40 LWL is *10.67*.

CATALINA 400 Mk II sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com
http://sailboatdata.com/viewrecord.asp?class_id=6068
http://l-36.com/boat_dimensions_boa...&py=&ey=&sail=&draft=6.75&disp=18000&wll=34.8

I know that you where mislead by the data Catalina posted but they are not very rigorous and this is not the first mistake on that site. If you know something about hulls, bows, sterns and waterlines would see that the boat with that bow type cannot have a hull with 12.34m and a LWL with 11.11m. you will find the correct data on the net (see the posted links).

Of course, the amount of sail area as to do with the boat righting moment but the stiffness is not directly related to that but with the relation between weight (wet surface) and the Righting moment.

You have said: *One of the reasons the Catalina 40 is more stiff is that it has a significantly higher RM value than the First 40. All else being equal this simply produces a stiffer boat.*

But of course, all things are not equal and the Catalina 400 is a much heavier boat with a GZ curve worse than the one of the First 40.

I have explained this several times and I will explain one more: If we have two boats one with the double of the weight of another and with the same RM, the lighter boat would be massively more stiff.

That is the case between your boat and a 40class racer. I am using the 40class racer example just because it is easier for understanding that the Stiffness has not to do with RM but with the relation between RM and the weight of the boat (wet surface). The same in a lesser extent is valid with the First 40 that would be not be massively more stiff than your boat, just a lot more stiff

The only reason that leads me not to post the Catalina 400 curve is just respect to other Catalina 400 owners. It was posted already (not by me) on another thread as an example of a not particularly very good stability curve.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## BryceGTX

PCP said:


> They look similar to you?


Yep.. and when you see them for real.. not just pictures.. it becomes even more convincing.
However, in a discussion of stiffness in respect to heeling, not sure why you are showing a side view of the waterline. A front on view would be more useful.



PCP said:


> and you say: "the Catalina 40 is not just beamier, *it is longer at the water line*.." .Why don't you check before sayng nonsense. The Catalina 400 LWL is *9.30m*. The First 40 LWL is *10.67*.
> Paulo


Perhaps you should look at the data from Catalina. The LWL is *11.11 meters* which puts it about one and a half foot longer than the First 40. If we assume the Catalina data is wrong, should we also assume that the Beneteau data is also wrong?

What is even more amusing is the LWL you list for the Catalina 400 is almost the same as the Catalina 355.. are you serious???



> If you know something about hulls, bows, sterns and waterlines would see that the boat with that bow type cannot have a hull with 12.34m and a LWL with 11.11m.


So it cannot be over 3 feet shorter at the water line... for what reason???

Your first line does not list the LWL for the Catalina 400, and the LOA is short by a foot. So who's wrong?

So yes, it is longer at the water line.
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX

PCP said:


> But of course, all things are not equal and the Catalina 400 is a much heavier boat with a GZ curve worse than the one of the First 40.
> Paulo


Again.. where is this GZ curve you mention??
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX

PCP said:


> I have explained this several times and I will explain one more: If we have two boats one with the double of the weight of another and with the same RM, the lighter boat would be massively more stiff.
> 
> Paulo


Clearly.. the Catalina 400 has a higher RM and it has more mass.. and it has more beam.. fuller body.. similar flat hull.. and it has more LWL.. But you are convinced the lighter boat is stiffer?

From this thread:
http://www.sailnet.com/forums/cruising-liveaboard-forum/83221-full-fin-keel-55.html



PCP said:


> There are two ways of increasing stiffness in a sail boat: increasing beam and lowering the CG (increasing ballast or bigger draft).


You are now arguing with yourself.. perhaps you should come to an agreement with yourself prior to arguing with me.
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX

PCP said:


> Stiffness has not to do with RM but with the relation between RM and the weight of the boat (wet surface).


Stiffness is the *derivative of the RM*. So it has everthing to do with RM.



PCP said:


> The only reason that leads me not to post the Catalina 400 curve is just respect to other Catalina 400 owners. It was posted already (not by me) on another thread as an example of a not particularly very good stability curve.
> 
> Paulo


Oh I think we are a hardy bunch of souls and can take it.. 
Bryce


----------



## PCP

BryceGTX said:


> Yep.. and when you see them for real.. not just pictures.. it becomes even more convincing.


and you insist I had not showed a side view but a side view and a top view. With that two views you can have a pretty good idea how different are those hulls. It is absolutely incredible that you cannot see that.



BryceGTX said:


> Perhaps you should look at the data from Catalina. The LWL is *11.11 meters* which puts it about one and a half foot longer than the First 40. If we assume the Catalina data is wrong, should we also assume that the Beneteau data is also wrong?
> 
> What is even more amusing is the LWL you list for the Catalina 400 is almost the same as the Catalina 355.. are you serious???
> 
> So it cannot be over 3 feet shorter at the water line... for what reason???
> 
> Your first line does not list the LWL for the Catalina 400, and the LOA is short by a foot. So who's wrong?
> 
> So yes, it is longer at the water line.
> Bryce


Not understanding why the Catalina 400 has a smaller LWL than the First 40 even if the overall hull length is slightly smaller (12.24m to 12.34m) is not understanding why modern hulls have a much bigger LWL. It has to do with bows much more vertical and with transoms finishing almost at the water line.

The hull of the Catalina 400 is an old one since the MkII has the same hull as the MKI and even so is already slightly better in what regards LWL than the even older hull from the Catalina 42 even if that one was a LOA 42cms bigger, that has a LWL of 36' 0" when you claim the 400 has 36' 6".

I don't know if the LWL of the First 40 is right or not but I do no that by considering that the deference in max length of both hulls is just 10cm, the LWL of the First has to big bigger due to a more modern desing of the bow and transom. You only need to look at the side views to understand that:

The last picture is from a Catalina 42, on the middle the 400, on top the first 40.




























CATALINA 42 sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com
CATALINA 42 sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com
CATALINA 400 Mk II sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com
CATALINA YACHTS - C400
First 40 CR / First / Sailing Yachts - BENETEAU



BryceGTX said:


> Clearly.. the Catalina 400 has a higher RM and it has more mass.. and it has more beam.. fuller body.. similar flat hull.. and it has more LWL.. But you are convinced the lighter boat is stiffer?


Regarding stiffness the hull design is only part of the equation, the B/D ratio, the type of the keel and the draft are also decisive factors as well as the boat weight and wet surface since is that what mainly determines the amount of sail needed on the two boats to sail at the same speed.

Even considering only righting moment do you have considered how much more RM that modern big draft keel will provide comparing with the Catalina one, knowing that the First has a bigger B/D ratio than the Catalina?

Regarding making Righting moment as the determining factor in what regards stiffness, independently of the boat weight, that would mean that a considerable bigger and heavier boat would be always more stiff than a lighter one and that is ridiculous.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Cruisingdad

PCP said:


> and you insist I had not showed a side view but a side view and a top view. With that two views you can have a pretty good idea how different are those hulls. It is absolutely incredible that you cannot see that.
> 
> Not understanding why the Catalina 400 has a smaller LWL than the First 40 even if the overall hull length is slightly smaller (12.24m to 12.34m) is not understanding why modern hulls have a much bigger LWL. It has to do with bows much more vertical and with transoms finishing almost at the water line.
> 
> The hull of the Catalina 400 is an old one since the MkII has the same hull as the MKI and even so is already slightly better in what regards LWL than the even older hull from the Catalina 42 even if that one was a LOA 42cms bigger, that has a LWL of 36' 0" when you claim the 400 has 36' 6".
> 
> I don't know if the LWL of the First 40 is right or not but I do no that by considering that the deference in max length of both hulls is just 10cm, the LWL of the First has to big bigger due to a more modern desing of the bow and transom. You only need to look at the side views to understand that:
> 
> The last picture is from a Catalina 42, on the middle the 400, on top the first 40.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CATALINA 42 sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com
> CATALINA 42 sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com
> CATALINA 400 Mk II sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com
> CATALINA YACHTS - C400
> First 40 CR / First / Sailing Yachts - BENETEAU
> 
> Regarding stiffness the hull design is only part of the equation, the B/D ratio, the type of the keel and the draft are also decisive factors as well as the boat weight and wet surface since is that what mainly determines the amount of sail needed on the two boats to sail at the same speed.
> 
> Even considering only righting moment do you have considered how much more RM that modern big draft keel will provide comparing with the Catalina one, knowing that the First has a bigger B/D ratio than the Catalina?
> 
> Regarding making Righting moment as the determining factor in what regards stiffness, independently of the boat weight, that would mean that a considerable bigger and heavier boat would be always more stiff than a lighter one and that is ridiculous.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Wow!!! I am trying to read back through all of this and get a grip on all the information. However, as a C400 owner, the technical editor, and someone who knows this boat better than most, let me set a few things straight...

First, the LWL on the boat is not the 30.5 feet or whatever that is stated in Sailboatdata. That is not the first time I have seen an error there. The LWL is 38.5. I know because I just pulled a tape measure across it so that we have an exact.

Second, the draft on the boat is completely inaccurate. The shoal draft version (wing keel) is NOT 5'4 as Catalina states, and certainly is not 5 feet. The dry draft on this boat is 5'10, and realistically 6 feet when loaded. I have pics somewhere of me standing beside it if you need me to prove it (I am 5'10 and the waterline is taller than me). Now, there is an exception here: after HN 307 ish, Catalina modified the hull/stinger/keel setup. I don't know what all they did. It seems a mystery. But the post 307ish C400's did come in closer to the 5'4. However, they have a much shallower bilge and do not point as well. I know this because I raced against one. To find out for certain which boat you have, just check the bilge.

Third, the displacement that you read about is DESIGNED displacement. My last pull was either 26 or 28000 lbs. I cannot remember. Now, this includes all my liveaboard junk, but even new I was nowhere near the 20,500 stated. You cannot put on 8000 pounds of pots and pans. Well, maybe you can but that is another story!!!!

I have raced and saild a large variety of boats. I have never been on a stiffer boat than the C400. It is sure footed and slow to heel. The hull of this boat is nothing like the c42 (which I have also sailed). This is a realtively flat bottom boat, and is almost identical to the new Beneteau 40. I saw one side by side and could not tell the difference. Of course, there are differences, but I am giving you naked eye stuff.

THis boat sails very flat and even large gusts of wind do not knock her rail in the water. I have had water hitting the portlights that are under the rub rail, but have never put the rail in the water... even when crossing the gulf in a strong gale.

THis boat will not, as setup, outrun a First 40. I think we could give a stock FIirst a run for its money, but this boat needs to shave off a few thousand pounds. But doesn't that boat have like a 7 or 8 foot draft?? That would rule out almost all of SW FLorida and most of the places I like to go. THe First has a narrower beam and I think a longer waterline. I can't remember. I think the First is a great boat for what it is, but no offense, it would be near the bottom of the list of boats I would ever consider cruising on. Paulo dissagres, and that is fine. His tastes and mine are very different but I have a lot of reasons for not liking that boat to cruise on. Are we talking about a club racer? Sure, it is a great boat. But if you are just doing a club racer, why not just get a Farr or Melges or Tiger.. of J122????

I have, and regularly do, exceed hull speed on my boat (and this is with it being a fully loaded cruising boat with two kids, wife, and fat bulldog). It is a very comfortable and safe long distance cruising vessel. It performs well, and I will outrun most other cruising vessels I come across. There are exceptions, but none of them begin with Val or end with ayana. I do believe this is the best boat Catalina has ever built, with the possible exception being the new 445. But since I wouldn't pay 400,000 US for a Catalina, I guess I will stick with my comment that this is the best boat Catalina has built.

My only comments here are to be careful what data you pull off the internet and NEVER trust the pamplets put out by manufacturers. I think many of them have a tendency to be overly optimistic. Get on the boats yourself and bring a tape measure. Sail them. Talk to owners.

My opinions (but the data I quoted is fact).

Brian


----------



## Cruisingdad

BTW, I am in the middle of a project so cannot participate in this thread as much as I would like. Excuse my absence (or enjoy it!!!).

Brian


----------



## PCP

Cruisingdad said:


> ...
> 
> First, the LWL on the boat is not the 30.5 feet or whatever that is stated in Sailboatdata. That is not the first time I have seen an error there. The LWL is 38.5. I know because I just pulled a tape measure across it so that we have an exact.....


Yes there are several LWL for the Catalina 400 from several sources and Beneteau does not even give the LWL from the First 40. That is probable that the number that we find on the net for the First 40 is inaccurate and the error may be there. The point is that being the First hull length only about 10cms shorter and given the more modern hull, with a much more vertical bow and the a much loger waterline on the transom is impossible that the LWL of the Catalina 400 to be bigger than the one of the First 40.



















You have just to use your eyes regarding the hull LWL, bow shape and transom shape to see that the difference will be more than 10cms regarding the gains.



Cruisingdad said:


> ...
> I have raced and saild a large variety of boats. I have never been on a stiffer boat than the C400.


Without all respect Brian, but or you did not sailed the right kind of boats or there is something wrong with what you think it is stifness in a sailboat.

Here is what *Rodney S. Johnstone*, a very good NA says about it:

Where does performance come from? ...

*A cruising sailboat's performance also depends on stability, or "stiffness"-the ability of the boat to resist the heeling force of the sails.* Good all-around speed is possible only if the boat is stiff; a stiff boat can carry more sail and heel less in a breeze than a tender boat. Stiffness can be achieved through a wide beam at the waterline or through a low vertical center of gravity (VCG). If stiffness comes from a wide waterline beam, the boat's motion tends to be bouncy and abrupt in waves; as soon as this type of boat heels, it usually exhibits excessive weather helm and may be difficult to steer. ..
The most important characteristic of a performance cruiser is that its stiffness be derived from a low center of gravity. This is indicated by a simple ratio of righting moment (RM) at 1 degree of heel to the cube of the greatest beam at the waterline (B). The RM/B^3 ratio indicates whether the boat derives its stability more from its low VCG (RM) or from its large beam, or waterplane inertia (B^3). The greater the number yielded by this ratio, the greater the stability, seakindliness, sail-carrying ability, and potential performance of the boat.* Boats with a high RM/B^3 tend to be longer, narrower, and faster than boats with a lower RM/B^3.* ...

*A high or low rating on this index is independent of a boat's displacement/length (D/L) ratio.* ...

The preponderance of heavy-displacement boats ... reflects a modern trend in cruising sailboats toward increased accommodations and decreased ballast/displacement ratios-a trend that has raised the height of the center of gravity of this type of boat. ...

.. Whether light or heavy, a narrow boat with a low center of gravity will have a rock solid feel, an easy motion, and positive control-the unmistakable aura of power, stability, and passagemaking speed.

Stiffness in a sailboat is related with speed. A stiff boat does not mean necessarily that it heels not much but relates directly with the sail area the boat needs for a given speed. Modern beamy boats heel very little they use basically hull form stability but they have to reef as soon and many times sooner than a more narrow boat that sails always with more heel. Stiffness is not related with a boat being designed to sail with more or less heel but with the amount of sail they can carry in proportion with their wet surface/weight.

That's why many times a boat is refereed as powerful meaning a very stiff sailboat. For instance, America's cup last monohulls where incredibly stiff and powerful boats but also boats that sailed upwind always with a lot of heel.

A slow boat can be stiff but a fast boat has always to be stiff otherwise it would not be able to carry the sail area, that in proportion with its weight, made it a fast boat.



Cruisingdad said:


> It is sure footed and slow to heel. ... This is a realtively flat bottom boat, and is almost identical to the new Beneteau 40. I saw one side by side and could not tell the difference. Of course, there are differences, but I am giving you naked eye stuff.


I hope that you don't consider it a fact because in fact both hulls are very different, on the wet surface, on the overall shape, on the type of bow on the transom, on beam/Lenght ratio, on the type of keel and even on the way RM is provided, regarding the proportion that comes from hull form and the proportion that comes from Keel/Ballast. The only thing were there are some similitude is in what regards rocker.

A simple look of a trained eye should be enough to see the many differences, much more than similitude.





































Cruisingdad said:


> THis boat sails very flat and even large gusts of wind do not knock her rail in the water. I have had water hitting the portlights that are under the rub rail, but have never put the rail in the water... even when crossing the gulf in a strong gale.


Brian, any boat, even the stiffest of racing boats will put the rail on the water in a gale and even capsize if he carries too much sail. the stiffness regards the amount of sail a boat can carry, specially upwind, in proportion with its wet surface. This means that we can see mostly the stiffness of a boat sailing upwind, specially with waves and there are not much cruisers that can do that better at that than a First 40, and certainly not a Catalina 400, not by a huge margin.



Cruisingdad said:


> This boat will not, as setup, outrun a First 40. I think we could give a stock FIirst a run for its money, but this boat needs to shave off a few thousand pounds.
> 
> I have, and regularly do, exceed hull speed on my boat (and this is with it being a fully loaded cruising boat with two kids, wife, and fat bulldog). .. It performs well, and I will outrun most other cruising vessels I come across.


Brian, we are talking about stiffness not about the depth of the keel and regarding speed the First is a fast boat even among today's performance cruisers and one of the best upwind.

The Catalina 400, compared with modern mass production European boats is slow, I mean I guess that is slower than them all, I mean Bavaria 40, Jeanneau 409, Hanse 415, Oceanis 41, Dufour 405 and much slower in some cases. And I am not talking about performance cruisers like the First or many others, all considerably faster than any European mass production cruiser.

On another thread I was comparing (with Chef) the performance of a Catalina 40 with an older 40ft Sabre and I found out that the boat was really slow, specially with the wing keel. I was surprised at his bad PHRF, even compared with the older Sabre. I was not expecting it.

Just for you to get you an idea of how Fast the Firs 40 can be just look at its race record, just this year and we are not talking about club racing but racing at the highest level:

2012	Massilia Cup 2012	FR	IRC2	1st
2012	Royal Peth Yacht Club	AUS	IRC	1st
2012	Semaine internationale de Marseille	FR	IRC2	1st
2012	Hyeres Series	FR	IRC2	1st
2012	Semaine de Porquerolles	FR	IRC2	1st
2012	BMW Sailing Fest	TR	IRC	1st & 3rd
2012	Fahir Çelikbaş Cup	TR	IRC	1st
2012	Morgan Cup	UK	IRC2	1st
2012	Ice Breaker Cup	UK	IRC1	1st
2012	North Sea Race	NED	IRC2	1st
2012	Around Tjörn Race	SU	ORC	1er, 2nd, 4th and 9th
2012	Audi Hamilton Race Week	AUS	IRC2	2nd and 4th
2012	Cherbourg Race	UK	IRC2	1st
2012	Championnat IRC Médiiterranée	FR	IRC	1st
2012	Rolex Sydney Hobart 2012	AUS	IRC3	1st

I can only guess that most of the boats sailing in US waters are old and slow and that almost any newer model it will be faster, that's the only way I can explain your idea that the Catalina 400 is a fast sailingboat.



Cruisingdad said:


> It is a .. safe long distance cruising vessel.


Regarding this, I have not a great faith on its low AVS, I mean 114º, specially if one uses in mast furling and a radar on the mast and charge the boat...how low can that AVS become?

well, not saying that if it was the only boat around I would not cross oceans on it but that AVS is only similar to the one on the Benetau Oceanis 41. All other modern European boats have better ones, some much better and they all are close or superior to 120º and some well over it.

The big ballast on the Catalina can be misleading in what regards final stability. A lower draft and an old designed keel with a high CG are the responsible.



Cruisingdad said:


> My only comments here are to be careful what data you pull off the internet and NEVER trust the pamplets put out by manufacturers. I think many of them have a tendency to be overly optimistic. ...


Yes, as some reputation that some boats have regarding others.

Someone had posted on this thread regarding the superior stiffness of the Benetau 40.7. For about the same weight the First 40 has about 25% more RM. It is how stiff that boat is.

Regarding this thread and others I guess that I have run out of patient. One thing is discussing things in an informed way other is having to explain basic things and even so have to "discuss" obvious nonsense.

I know that this is internet but even so how it is possible to even be discussing this, I mean that a Catalina 400 is more stiff than a First 40?

I will not continue this "discussion" and I will take this opportunity to take some vacations from Sailnet.

Best regards to you Brain and to all.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Cruisingdad

Paulo,

You know I like you, but really? Really!!??

I did not discredit anything you said. I told you facts. The problem is that many of _your_ facts are pulled off the internet, and are incorrect. I explained to you the facts you had wrong about the C400. That is a fact. If you do not believe me, tomorrow I will shoot pics with my tape measure. Before you jump into a discussion about the C400, I would highly encourage you discussing it with me first since I represent the boats as the tech editor. And if that isn't good enough, I will see if we can get Gerry Douglas on this discussion!

The rest of that stuff you and everyone else is talking about I have no interest in engaging in. For Heavens sakes, this was a good discussion up to that point. Why can't everyone just see that we all have different appreciations for what is and what isn't??? I don't like brown cars, he doesn't like white. Doesn't make his opinion or mine wrong. For Gawd's sakes!??

Brian


----------



## BryceGTX

PCP said:


> Not understanding why the Catalina 400 has a smaller LWL than the First 40 even if the overall hull length is slightly smaller (12.24m to 12.34m) is not understanding why modern hulls have a much bigger LWL. It has to do with bows much more vertical and with transoms finishing almost at the water line.
> 
> The hull of the Catalina 400 is an old one since the MkII has the same hull as the MKI and even so is already slightly better in what regards LWL than the even older hull from the Catalina 42 even if that one was a LOA 42cms bigger, that has a LWL of 36' 0" when you claim the 400 has 36' 6".
> Paulo


Since our boat is on the hard for winter storage, this morning I went to our boat and measured the LWL. I dropped plumb bobs from the water mark at the bow and then at the stern. I measured the distance between the two points as 38 feet. That just about 11.6 m.

The way I see it, the Catalina specification of 36.5 feet is a dry weight. Loaded down, the actual LWL is longer. Sounds to me that Catalina is right on the mark with its LWL.

Perhaps somtimes you need to actually go look at these boats out of the water rather simply look at pictures from the web.. it will give you a biit different perspective.
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX

PCP said:


> Even considering only righting moment do you have considered how much more RM that modern big draft keel will provide comparing with the Catalina one, knowing that the First has a bigger B/D ratio than the Catalina?
> Paulo


We are comparing the shoal draft boats.. that means the First is only a foot deeper. As I said earlier.. it is doubtful the First produces any more RM with the keel because the Catalina gains 700 pounds in the weight plus another 400 pounds in the use of lead. Clearly the Catalina keel COM is well below the hull and arguably lower than the First.

Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX

PCP said:


> Regarding making Righting moment as the determining factor in what regards stiffness, independently of the boat weight, that would mean that a considerable bigger and heavier boat would be always more stiff than a lighter one and that is ridiculous.
> 
> Paulo


Keep in mind that the Catalina 400 was marketed as a racer cruiser when it came out in 1995. It has a radically different hull than the 387 and quite a bit different hull than the 42.

It represented a full bodied, wide beam hull that focused the hull mass deep in the center of the hull.

The First 40 as I pointed out earlier focuses on low drag at low angles of heel rather than stiffness. We see this in the side view of the hull as the depth of the hull is relatively flat. Such a design combined with a narrower waterline beam attempts to minimize the wetted surface. This would become clear if you had ever compared the front views.

On the other hand, the Catalina hull side view concentrates the depth of the hull near the midship. This lowers the CG. Clearly the combination of lower CG and large water line area results in a very stiff boat at low angles of heel.

The First hull sides have deadrise that creates an increasinly larger RM once the boat starts to heel beyond perhaps 15 degrees.

On the other hand, the Catalina 400 hull sides are more rounded resulting in a more progressive and easier to manage increase in RM.

So we see, it is not really the weight of the Catalina 400 that results in its stiffness at low heel angles, but more so its hull design.

The Catalina 400 is nothing like the hull you are apparently expecting. I encourage you to see these two boats out of the water to get a better understanding.
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX

PCP said:


> I know that this is internet but even so how it is possible to even be discussing this, I mean that a Catalina 400 is more stiff than a First 40?
> Paulo


I have yet to hear a convincing argument from you that states otherwise. You need to keep in mind that the Catalina 400 is not your run of the mill deep-v rough water boat.

Clearly your top view shows the Catalina 400 much more full bodied than the First 40 (ignoring for the moment this does not represent waterline area). Such a boat creates more righting moment.
Bryce


----------



## Rezz

I was enjoying this thread, and then it turned into _The Bryce Show_ with six posts in a row. Interest lost.


----------



## chef2sail

BryceGTX said:


> I have yet to hear a convincing argument from you that states otherwise. You need to keep in mind that the Catalina 400 is not your run of the mill deep-v rough water boat.
> 
> Clearly your top view shows the Catalina 400 much more full bodied than the First 40 (ignoring for the moment this does not represent waterline area). Such a boat creates more righting moment.
> Bryce


Come on guys...Catalina..Racer/ Cruiser

They are good boats, but racer cruisers. The 40 Cat has a difficult time with our C&C 235MKIII let alone an older 40 C&C or a newer C&C115. It lags behind a Sabre 38 and a J122. And compared to a Farr 40 give me a break.

These are actual on the water races and comparisons not some mock drawing, specs in a book, or bragging by the manufacturer or measurements on the hard.

Cat 40 are good family cruising boats which are not slow. They are better made than most production boats and retain their value. They are racers compared to Hunters, Tayanas, and IPS, but lets not fool ourselves here.

I am in no way denigrating them and pride of what we own is imprtant afterall thats why we chose it.

I have never met a Catalina which could out point us a J122 or a Sabre 40 or 38.


----------



## Cruisingdad

chef2sail said:


> Come on guys...Catalina..Racer/ Cruiser
> 
> They are good boats, but racer cruisers. The 40 Cat has a difficult time with our C&C 235MKIII let alone an older 40 C&C or a newer C&C115. It lags behind a Sabre 38 and a J122. And compared to a Farr 40 give me a break.
> 
> These are actual on the water races and comparisons not some mock drawing, specs in a book, or bragging by the manufacturer or measurements on the hard.
> 
> Cat 40 are good family cruising boats which are not slow. They are better made than most production boats and retain their value. They are racers compared to Hunters, Tayanas, and IPS, but lets not fool ourselves here.
> 
> I am in no way denigrating them and pride of what we own is imprtant afterall thats why we chose it.
> 
> I have never met a Catalina which could out point us a J122 or a Sabre 40 or 38.


Agree for the most part. I certainly would not call this boat a racer. She does well. SHe regularly gets over hull speed (even us as loaded down cruisers). SHe is the most sure footed boat I have ever sailed. It is comfortable down below with a nice proportion of space and lots of teak, etc. But a racer? Nah. Not in my perception. My issue is that for what I consider a racer (and the Sabre does not fall into that either or the C&C), I would't cruise on it. Too narrow beam, too modest accomodations, I often don't like the way the cockpit lines are run, etc. It's a different animal. I guess some might consider cruising on a J122 or some of the Firsts, but I wouldn't. But those are my opinions, and i understand that others have a completely different view of what is ideal. But I will tell you this as a long time live aboard and cruiser, the boats I see being used the most (and live aboards for sure) are the Hunters, Benes, and Catalinas. It's not just because they are the most populous of boats, it is because the boats are COMFORTABLE. I often see the Valiants ready to go around the world and never leave the dock, or come back and the owners go off to their homes to stretch out. The Tayana 42 really is a pretty comfortable boat, but cripes that thing is slower than molasses. I think the C&C's are ok, but for our type of cruising, I think the C400 is the best. If I was going to trade up out of this boat and keep it under 300k, I would probably look at a Sabre. It would be pretty high on my list. But I have a LOT of the same issues with the Sabre as I do the Benehuntalinas. Over 300-500k, I would probably be looking hard at a HR (my wife's favorite) or a Hylas 54 (mine). Over 500k, I am not sure I would get a sailboat at all. I would probably get a Nordhavn, which I think are some of the finest vessels in the world. If I stuck to sail, it would likely be a Taswell (a boat I have spent some time on too).

But geez, if money is not an object, these boats are great to talk about. But I don't know a lot of people that have that kind of disposable income sitting around. Instead, with only a few exceptions, these boats are bought by people with well-paying jobs and they sit in a marina except for the weekends or they have to save most of their lives and cannot enjoy them until they are 6x/7x years old. I could do that, and almost did, actually. Now I am glad it didn't work out or I might still be in my f/t career wishing I could see my perfect yacht instead of being 41 YO, cruising with my kids, on a great boat that will go anywhere I want to (AND OUTRUNNING _MOST_ OF YOU DOING IT!!!!)

HEHE!

Brian


----------



## zz4gta

PHRF rating for NE. 
PHRF New England - Handicapping - Base Handicaps

Catalina 400 = 102
Bene First 40 = 36

End of discussion.


----------



## PCP

zz4gta said:


> PHRF rating for NE.
> PHRF New England - Handicapping - Base Handicaps
> 
> Catalina 400 = 102
> Bene First 40 = 36
> 
> End of discussion.


No my friend, you are not correct. We are talking about a wing keel version so it will be:

Catalina 400WK - 120

Bene First - 36

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

Cruisingdad said:


> Agree for the most part. I certainly would not call this boat a racer. She does well. SHe regularly gets over hull speed (even us as loaded down cruisers). SHe is the most sure footed boat I have ever sailed. It is comfortable down below with a nice proportion of space and lots of teak, etc. But a racer? Nah. Not in my perception. My issue is that for what I consider a racer (and the Sabre does not fall into that either or the C&C), I would't cruise on it. Too narrow beam, too modest accomodations, I often don't like the way the cockpit lines are run, etc. It's a different animal. I guess some might consider cruising on a J122 or some of the Firsts, but I wouldn't. But those are my opinions, and i understand that others have a completely different view of what is ideal. But I will tell you this as a long time live aboard and cruiser, the boats I see being used the most (and live aboards for sure) are the Hunters, Benes, and Catalinas. It's not just because they are the most populous of boats, it is because the boats are COMFORTABLE. I often see the Valiants ready to go around the world and never leave the dock, or come back and the owners go off to their homes to stretch out. The Tayana 42 really is a pretty comfortable boat, but cripes that thing is slower than molasses. I think the C&C's are ok, but for our type of cruising, I think the C400 is the best. If I was going to trade up out of this boat and keep it under 300k, I would probably look at a Sabre. It would be pretty high on my list. But I have a LOT of the same issues with the Sabre as I do the Benehuntalinas. Over 300-500k, I would probably be looking hard at a HR (my wife's favorite) or a Hylas 54 (mine). Over 500k, I am not sure I would get a sailboat at all. I would probably get a Nordhavn, which I think are some of the finest vessels in the world. If I stuck to sail, it would likely be a Taswell (a boat I have spent some time on too).
> 
> But geez, if money is not an object, these boats are great to talk about. But I don't know a lot of people that have that kind of disposable income sitting around. Instead, with only a few exceptions, these boats are bought by people with well-paying jobs and they sit in a marina except for the weekends or they have to save most of their lives and cannot enjoy them until they are 6x/7x years old. I could do that, and almost did, actually. Now I am glad it didn't work out or I might still be in my f/t career wishing I could see my perfect yacht instead of being 41 YO, cruising with my kids, on a great boat that will go anywhere I want to (AND OUTRUNNING _MOST_ OF YOU DOING IT!!!!)
> 
> HEHE!
> 
> Brian


Yes I think your boat is a perfect cruiser for a family. It has the large amount of room in the cabin areas, and cockpit which are necessary for a group of people to be comfortable. It reflects in how you chooose a vessel when you are looking to carry 5 people comdortably then if there are only 2 most of the time.

Thats probably where most of the difference is in what you and I view when we are looking at cruising boats. Multiple berthing areas as well as heads are something which is not necessary to start. Storage is much more important.

When you look at the Moodys, Masons, HRs thats one of the appartent difference IMHO. Ample tankage. Large areas to work on the engine etc.

Like you I love the Hylas, Taswell, Moodys and some of them are as affordable yet a little older than a Newer Catalina, Hunter, or Bene 
Thats where you ave to decide whether the tradeoff is worth it. The Cat/ Hunter/ Benne designs are not what I look for as volume is not important to me. Nice rich teak and mahongany wood and joinery work, replace laminate.

The modern C&C and J122 is a great boat for 2, but probaly doesnt envison your crew of 5. They are more racers also as are some of the boats Paulo often mentioned. You Cat is more in the middle, a comfortable, quick cruiser which is built to accomadate a family. We havent even looked at boats like the Pacific Seacrafy and others similar which are bulletprooof for real long range cruising, but not built for straight line speed.

If I had a family and wanted to cruise comfortably and safely I probably would choose as you did. I admire you teaching them and taking them. They are getting quite and education. You are not the normal profile of a cruuiser though. Most are parties of two I think.

We are different and my kids are grown and not comming. I may represent more of what the majority of the cruisers look like. Thats why you may see such a disparity of vessels cruising and the same disparity in what people want in their vessel. It seems as though seakindness is the priooity as opposed to speed. Storage and tankage is important, Well made accessable systems are important. Weight seems to be important due to the areas you sail in. Sail configuations seems to be important as you need to be able to sail in the trades for long periods. Open space gives way to safe space both above and below deck. Safe gunwhales are a factor.

My question is if it was just you and your wife at 55 getting you final boat which you expected to last 25 years and you were going cruising, but not selling your land based home to live aboard, how would that affect what you buy and you had $250,000 total to spend. ( Maybe I should start a new thread)

dave


----------



## Cruisingdad

zz4gta said:


> PHRF rating for NE.
> PHRF New England - Handicapping - Base Handicaps
> 
> Catalina 400 = 102
> Bene First 40 = 36
> 
> End of discussion.


I think they are arguiing which boat would be stiffer, the C400 or the BF40. I actually think the C400 is, but I am steering clear of that debate.

As for which boat is faster, hands down, the BF40.

As for which one is a better cruising boat, the C400.

My opinions.

By the way, can I ask a question here: How many people arguiing this have actually been on a C400 AND a First 40? I have. I am a bit miffed we are even having this conversation. THey are very different boats and accomodations. They are both performance cruisers, but the First is definitely at or close to the racing side of the performance scale while the C400 is more in the middle, if not on the lower end. And if strictly performance with minimal accomodations is the preference, no offense, but the First would not even enter the picture.

Brian


----------



## blt2ski

The First 40 is what I would call a race-cruiser, the C400 a cruiser. In between would be the cruise-racer and performance cruiser. Some of the faster boats in what I would call a given division, "may" fall speed wise into the next higher slow group of boats. ALA the C400 may by some accounts be a performance cruiser, but it would be on the slower end, or the faster end of a cruiser. If you want to throw in a FAST race cruiser to slower race 40'ish foot boat, look at a club swan 42. I would have to look up PHRF, but IIRC in the -20 to -50 range, leaving both the B40 and C400 in its tracks! 

The first 40 is a reasonably fast race cruise, to a slow racer. A true race boat would be a figaro from Beneteau or a mumm/farr 30, melges 32......even a the old americas cup 12m boats racers. Altho on the slow end of todays boats for boats of that size.

As far as which boat is stiffer, not sure, have not been aboard either the B40 or the C400. I have seen a C400 next to a C420, for my useage, the C420 looks like a better boat for around puget sound frankly. But for how I use a boat, the B 1st 40 would be the better one for the amount of around the cans plus a few cruises here and there. Stiffness be danged, as I can reduce sail to keep the boat on its feet if it is just the spouse and I. With a crew of 5-7 racing, you reduce when you heel more than you keep gaining speed going upwind, down wind, everything up when you can! generally speaking.......

Marty


----------



## Cruisingdad

chef2sail said:


> Yes I think your boat is a perfect cruiser for a family. It has the large amount of room in the cabin areas, and cockpit which are necessary for a group of people to be comfortable. It reflects in how you chooose a vessel when you are looking to carry 5 people comdortably then if there are only 2 most of the time.
> 
> Thats probably where most of the difference is in what you and I view when we are looking at cruising boats. Multiple berthing areas as well as heads are something which is not necessary to start. Storage is much more important.
> 
> When you look at the Moodys, Masons, HRs thats one of the appartent difference IMHO. Ample tankage. Large areas to work on the engine etc.
> 
> Like you I love the Hylas, Taswell, Moodys and some of them are as affordable yet a little older than a Newer Catalina, Hunter, or Bene
> Thats where you ave to decide whether the tradeoff is worth it. The Cat/ Hunter/ Benne designs are not what I look for as volume is not important to me. Nice rich teak and mahongany wood and joinery work, replace laminate.
> 
> The modern C&C and J122 is a great boat for 2, but probaly doesnt envison your crew of 5. They are more racers also as are some of the boats Paulo often mentioned. You Cat is more in the middle, a comfortable, quick cruiser which is built to accomadate a family. We havent even looked at boats like the Pacific Seacrafy and others similar which are bulletprooof for real long range cruising, but not built for straight line speed.
> 
> If I had a family and wanted to cruise comfortably and safely I probably would choose as you did. I admire you teaching them and taking them. They are getting quite and education. You are not the normal profile of a cruuiser though. Most are parties of two I think.
> 
> We are different and my kids are grown and not comming. I may represent more of what the majority of the cruisers look like. Thats why you may see such a disparity of vessels cruising and the same disparity in what people want in their vessel. It seems as though seakindness is the priooity as opposed to speed. Storage and tankage is important, Well made accessable systems are important. Weight seems to be important due to the areas you sail in. Sail configuations seems to be important as you need to be able to sail in the trades for long periods. Open space gives way to safe space both above and below deck. Safe gunwhales are a factor.
> 
> My question is if it was just you and your wife at 55 getting you final boat which you expected to last 25 years and you were going cruising, but not selling your land based home to live aboard, how would that affect what you buy and you had $250,000 total to spend. ( Maybe I should start a new thread)
> 
> dave


Now hang on Dave... don't you dare mention family of 5! Family of 4! That's it. THat's all, period!!! You ever seen a grown man cry??

Some of the Benes have great joinery work. Ever been on a 2002 Bene 473? Fast boat and beautiful lines.

BTW, just so you know, the only lamainate on the MK II C400 is 4 doors on the owners cabin beside the berth, and the three opening hatches in the galley. Every other door is solid teak, including the large hanging locker doors and and salon doors. THe galley cabinets are wrapped in sold teak, just have a plywood (2sided teak) center. I was told that for some time, the C400 was the most expensive boat Catalina made untilo the 470 came out. The c400 came out of the Morgan plant from the beginning, not transfered there from CA. Have you been on a Mark II C400, Dave? Ever sailed one? You might like it.

Now, to your question:

250k? Cruising? Is cruising crossing the pond(s) or this hemisphere? If I were going to cross either pond, with 250k, I would probably look into a heavier boat that was sea kindly. Maybe a Caliber LRC, maybe a Valiant 42, maybe a PSC, maybe a Tayana 42, Cabo Rico. SOmthing like that I suspect. Of all of them, the Tayana 42 is probably the best match between comfort and long distance cruising. You would like it: lots of solid teak and vast storage amounts. You can crawl under the sink in the aft cockipt Vancouver model (that is what mom and dad have and I obviously know it quite well).

We started discussing this in a different thread, and I stand by what I said, but when talking about speed, it is only good for weather forecasts up to about a week. Right? After that, it gets pretty iffy. SO when talking about taking a boat like the C400 across the pond, while it would make it, and would likely make it faster, the boat will end up being a lot more uncomfortable I suspect. You will simply have to deal with storms or seas that otherwise you might avoid (and would be right to avoid) when under a 7 day window. My issue with these long distance cruisers is that they are horrendously slow, in general. THey are overbuilt and made to take a beating and have good motion at sea, but they suck when you get there. aNd the PSC and V42, for example, are much smaller than my boat inside. I would put them at the C36 level or smaller.

Now, for this hemisphere, assuming you are going to go cruising and you are going to keep your house, I would get a boat with zero outside maintenance (teak). For the most part, that is a production boat. And for staying around here, that boat will not only be fine, it will be ideal. WHere the V42 and PsC often discourage large hatches or a multitude of them, many of the production boats are loaded with them. THey have lots of portlights to let in light, making the boat bright and airy feeling, while a Tayana 42 has none and uses deck prisms instead which don't come close to the same amount of light or bright feeling. Many of the things that make the Tayana a great long distance cruiser are the very same thing that make it a bad cruiser for what we do here.

So unless I was 100% sure I was taking off across the pond, I would personally opt away from those types of boats. And another option is to get the comfortable boat or production boat (sabre, Catalina, Beneteau, etc) and just ship it across on DOckwise. Save yourself the trip and heartache.

I am not saying production boats cannot cross the ponds. THey have, do, and can. They just simply would not be my first choice to do it in. I think the boats built for that type of long distance are better. But those same boats are why they are not the right boat for many if island hopping or staying in or around this hemisphere.

I would not own a j122 or first for any of what i consider cruising. I would be horribly uncofortable on those boats, even just the two of us, for cruising. THere is also a big tankage issue and storage issue. I would own one of those boats for club racing or the peroidical taking off for a week or two.

Just my opinions.

Brian


----------



## Cruisingdad

blt2ski said:


> The First 40 is what I would call a race-cruiser, the C400 a cruiser. In between would be the cruise-racer and performance cruiser. Some of the faster boats in what I would call a given division, "may" fall speed wise into the next higher slow group of boats. ALA the C400 may by some accounts be a performance cruiser, but it would be on the slower end, or the faster end of a cruiser. If you want to throw in a FAST race cruiser to slower race 40'ish foot boat, look at a club swan 42. I would have to look up PHRF, but IIRC in the -20 to -50 range, leaving both the B40 and C400 in its tracks!
> 
> The first 40 is a reasonably fast race cruise, to a slow racer. A true race boat would be a figaro from Beneteau or a mumm/farr 30, melges 32......even a the old americas cup 12m boats racers. Altho on the slow end of todays boats for boats of that size.
> 
> As far as which boat is stiffer, not sure, have not been aboard either the B40 or the C400. I have seen a C400 next to a C420, for my useage, the C420 looks like a better boat for around puget sound frankly. But for how I use a boat, the B 1st 40 would be the better one for the amount of around the cans plus a few cruises here and there. Stiffness be danged, as I can reduce sail to keep the boat on its feet if it is just the spouse and I. With a crew of 5-7 racing, you reduce when you heel more than you keep gaining speed going upwind, down wind, everything up when you can! generally speaking.......
> 
> Marty


You see, I would call any cruising boat that can get over hull speed (or very close to under normal circumstances) a performance cruiser. I would call a boat that has to go on the back of a truck to get to hull speed in normal circumstances, a cruiser. I have owned both.

It would be interesting to see how some of these higher end performace cruisers worked if equally loaded up as we are. Can they still get to hull speed? Beyond? Or would the weight seriously effect their ability. I really don't know. I know it would seriously effect a cat.

BTW, Marty, my experience on the sound is that the man with the most diesel and biggest engine wins the race. I rarely saw any winds and a one foot swell was about as high as it got. It was like a giant lake... but a gorgeous lake. I am not putting it down, just the summer seemed awfully devoid of any wind. Down here, we plan on trips by the weather. Up there, you plan them by the tides!

Brian


----------



## zz4gta

Brian, I've delivered a Bene 40.7 back from bermuda to annapolis. I'm sure the C400 is a great cruising boat, probably much better than the Bene, but crossing the stream in the Bene w/ a reef and the #3 was just fine. For me, the bene's have enough below to be great cruising boats. The Catalina's have even more room and cool stuff, but sacrifice some speed. I don't think we need 10 pages of discussion to determine that.


----------



## PCP

*Stiffness*



zz4gta said:


> Brian, I've delivered a Bene 40.7 back from bermuda to annapolis. I'm sure the C400 is a great cruising boat, probably much better than the Bene, but crossing the stream in the Bene w/ a reef and the #3 was just fine. For me, the bene's have enough below to be great cruising boats. The Catalina's have even more room and cool stuff, but sacrifice some speed. I don't think we need 10 pages of discussion to determine that.


What was being argued from the beginning was the stiffness of both boats, nothing else. Regarding cruising, what makes a great cruising boat for some would make a boring and less safe boat for others. The First 40, or the First 40.7 can make a great cruising boat, even as a good bluewater boat, if the crew is small and enjoy simple life and fast sailing. I have posted about a couple that have been cruising Antarctica on one and are now somewhere in the Pacific.

By this I don't want to say that the Caralina 40 or any other boat is better as a cruising boat than the First 40 or any other boat. As I have said that discussion does not make sense for me even if I am quite sure that most would prefer the bigger interior of the Catalina, that comes with the disadvantage of being a not so good sailing boat, not only in what regards speed but also stability (including AVS and final stability). Compromises, it's what cruising boats are about.

Regarding the First 40.7 the First 40 is a considerable stiffer boat having for about the same weight more 25% RM.

Regarding stiffness I maintain that it makes no sense to compare the one from the First 40 with the one from the Catalina. That difference of PHRF gives a good idea about that difference. Stiffness is directly connected with power in a sail boat, meaning the amount of RM available for a given wet area (that has to do mostly with weight). That's why normally a racer is more stiff than a performance cruiser (like the First 40) and a performance cruiser is more stiff than a mass production cruiser like the Catalina 40 or the Benetau Oceanis.

This means that normally a race boat is more powerful than a performance cruiser and a performance cruiser is more powerful than a mass production cruiser.

I guess that Brian is confusing initial stability (that has to do with beam) with stiffness. That is not the same thing.

A narrow boat can have a huge stiffness and a low initial stability. A good example are the monohulls from the AC.










Regards

Paulo


----------



## Cruisingdad

Hey Paulo,

Glad to have you back.

Well, my definition of a stiff boat is a boat that sails, even in relatively high winds, relatively flat.

This pic was shot in a strong gale off the northern coast of florida. I do not know the exact winds at this moment, but we got to 35-45 sustained, much higher gusts. Look how flat this boat is. At this time, I think were sailing with a second reef in the main and the jib was in IIRC:










This pic was shot in what I beleive were 15-20 kts wind. This was in a lake (lake Texoma, where they made the Valiants). This boat is sailing flat, more or less.



















A boat I would NOT consider stiff (I have a lot), would be a Catalina 380. I owned one and cruised it for years. This boat sailed more like a traditional "bluewater" boat. She would quickly drop to 15-20 degrees, rail in the water, then stick there. It would take a very bad blow to get my boat to do that.

One key difference is that I drop in a first reef after 20. I have no interest in putting my gear through that much of a beating. I don't need a blown out sail.

My experience with most racing boats is that they like to drop their rail in the water, then stop. We try to counteract that with shifting weight around the boat (rail meat) to make the boat flatter. However, one of the IOR boats I race on (a bene 10m), actually likes to be sitting on her side a good bit. SHe sails faster.

In my opinion, and please share with me where I am wrong, but I find most racing boats have a narrow beam and a finer entry. THis maxizes their wetted area (LWL) but minimizes their drag. Because of their narrow beams, they counteract this with a deep, narrow keel. THis provides their opposing righting moment. THese boats also minimize all weight, especially weight above the waterline as their abaility to right themselves becomes compromised with more weight above the water. This is often done with loads of carbon fiber, super high tech blocks, minimal furnishings down below, etc. In essense, they create a race car with the sails being the engine and the super lightweight hull being the chasis.

Because of this narrow beam, I have found most race boats inital stability pretty low. I would call this a tender boat - especially one that is quick to fall to its ideal sailing spot (sweet spot). THat is the spot where any more heeling and she slows down, any less and you are not maximizes what you have.

I am not a racing expert. I enjoy it (on other peoples boats). I especially enjoy it on boats that are fun and fast to sail. I would never own one to cruise on. I like a slow to heel, relatively flat sailing boat. I call this a stiff and sure footed boat. Where are my definitions different than yours?

Now, here is a more important question: Our discussion is what is a good performance cruising boats. THe boats you and ZZ chose are what I consider more of a club racer. It is not to say you could not take one of those boats cruising. THere is a guy here living on his Catalina 22. However, when you get that boat ready for cruising, including increasing the tankage (water, diesel, and holding which is especially a problem on the BF40 and J122), how muh have you altered the benefits of that boat? In essense, once you drop thousands of pounds of gear on that boat, will she still be a good sailing boat?

I actually do not know the answer. I can tell you that your C400 can weight in around 28500 lbs, and you can exceed hull speed. That is a full decked out cruising boat, with a solar arch, tender, 4 solar panels, carrying 65 gallons of diesel, some of it above the waterline, etc. So when you outfit your BF40, are you still going to leave me behind in the dust, or are you going to be like that catamaran that is over loaded and cannot get out of its way?

Brian


----------



## PCP

Cruisingdad said:


> Hey Paulo,
> ...
> 
> Well, my definition of a stiff boat is a boat that sails, even in relatively high winds, relatively flat.


It all depends on what you call stiffness.

For instance the NA that for many years designs the J boats says about stiffness:

*"stiffness* (is) *the ability of the boat to resist the heeling force of the sails"*

and it is a pretty accurate definition.

You are associating stiffness with boats with an initial high stability, beamy boats with a lot of hull form but as I have said some boats with a high initial stability (beamy boats) are stiff boats, other have just a big initial stability and are not stiff boats. A stiff boat is a boat that has a big ability to resist the heeling forces of the sails. Some are designed to do that with less heel (beamy hulls) other are designed to resist that force heeling more (narrower hulls with a bigger ballast/draft/more efficient keel).

If we have two boats with the same wet surface the one that can carry more sail with the same wind will be the stiffer and more powerful boat.

A beamy one will carry it with less heel a narrow one with a big bulb at the end of a big draft will carry it with more heel but, depending on design, it is possible that the narrow one can carry more sail then the beamier boat and in that case it is a stiffer and more powerful boat. The beamier one has only more initial stability but will be less stiff.

If stiffness and initial stability were the same thing, these boats would not be considered stiff and that of course is ridiculous. Just look at the sail area they can carry.












Cruisingdad said:


> My experience with most racing boats is that they like to drop their rail in the water, then stop. We try to counteract that with shifting weight around the boat (rail meat) to make the boat flatter. However, one of the IOR boats I race on (a bene 10m), actually likes to be sitting on her side a good bit. SHe sails faster.
> 
> In my opinion, and please share with me where I am wrong, but I find most racing boats have a narrow beam and a finer entry. THis maxizes their wetted area (LWL) but minimizes their drag. Because of their narrow beams, they counteract this with a deep, narrow keel. THis provides their opposing righting moment. THese boats also minimize all weight, especially weight above the waterline as their abaility to right themselves becomes compromised with more weight above the water. This is often done with loads of carbon fiber, super high tech blocks, minimal furnishings down below, etc. In essense, they create a race car with the sails being the engine and the super lightweight hull being the chasis.
> 
> Because of this narrow beam, I have found most race boats inital stability pretty low. I would call this a tender boat - especially one that is quick to fall to its ideal sailing spot (sweet spot). THat is the spot where any more heeling and she slows down, any less and you are not maximizes what you have.
> 
> I am not a racing expert. I enjoy it (on other peoples boats). I especially enjoy it on boats that are fun and fast to sail. I would never own one to cruise on. I like a slow to heel, relatively flat sailing boat. I call this a stiff and sure footed boat. *Where are my definitions different than yours?*
> 
> ...


The answer to that question is above.

You are generalizing and in fact the only thing all true race boats has in common is *stiffness*. The beamy ones are designed to sail with less heel and the narrow ones designed to sail with more heel.

As an example of narrow stiff racing boats look to the photo above, as example of beamy racing boats look at this movie:





Vendee Globe _por Sponsorshop_

Your idea of race boats seems to be cruising-racers, mostly old, that race on handicap. That is not what I was talking about, on handicap a slow boat can win. I am talking about pure performance and boats designed to achieve that. Designed to race only. Regarding those and real performance, stiffness equals power, with more or less heel depending on sailboat design. PHRF numbers are also an indication of the boat power when they refer to boats with the same length. The Catalina 40 Wk has a PHRF of 120, the First 40 was a PHRF of 36. I am not saying that the Catalina is not stiff to a mass production cruiser, just saying that the First 40 is incomparably more, but then it is not a mass production cruiser but a mass production performance cruiser.

I found little on the internet about stiffness except on this patent regarding movable ballast:

.." "stiffness", - the ability of the sailboat to resist the heeling force of the sails. The stiffness, as it will be called in the following, is afforded by the righting moment. Enhancing the stiffness brings significant extra power to the sails and, furthermore, increases the equilibrium and the safety of boats in general. Good stiffness enables a ship to have all sails set wind abeam, *whilst maintaining the boat at angles of about a normal heeling (the first 30 degrees of heeling)*. The greater the stiffness (or righting ability) of the boat, the more powerful the sails can be and the faster the boat can be."

EP 2197734 A1

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail

Brian,

I am not trying to argue with you, but i really dont understand 

Americas Cups boats and for that matter my boat when we race are never sailing flat, especially to windward. What does sailing flat have to do with stiffness.

I undertand about over heeling a boat, so it pushes and slows down so we dont have to go into that. 

I am not a brochure person or will not get into the numbers, righting ratios, even though I do uindertand them basically.

I can only go on what I see from a practicality first hand actual sailing experience. Why dont we see more Catalinas racing in the races in Annapolis, Newport or wherever. There are lots of other boats represented and there are plenty of Catalinas?

Again this is not meant to deigrate them in any way or to say I would not purchase one or it isnt good for a family of 4 ( the five included the hound and he takes as much room up as your kids////BTW kids grow up and leave....dogs dont)

I can look at at Catalina as a quick cruiser....but I can not put them in same class as the Farr, Sabre, C&C, some Bennes and other racer cruisers that Paulo has mentioned from Europe like Hanse, X Yachts. They do not compete and they do not point to windward the same. They arent designed to. Seems to me if they were they would be in these races. 

Dave


----------



## blt2ski

Brian, yes we do plan trips on tides, otherwise you hit them in the 6-8 knot range, with a 4ksb....well, you go backwards! LOLOL

Hence why also many of us like lighter, lower gallonage race/cruise style boats, so when the wind does hit over 5 knots, we can actually sail! vs then heavier sometimes/sometimes not full/shoal or equal keeled boats. The higher the SA/disp, the better you are when it comes to sailing. 

Of course, now we have these inversion thingies around here, no wind, along with local air forecast! yucko can we say!
...AIR STAGNATION ADVISORY IN EFFECT FROM 10 PM THIS EVENING TO
NOON PST FRIDAY...

THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN SEATTLE HAS ISSUED AN AIR
STAGNATION ADVISORY...WHICH IS IN EFFECT FROM 10 PM THIS EVENING
TO NOON PST FRIDAY.


* IMPACTS...STAGNANT CONDITIONS IN THE LOWER ATMOSPHERE WILL ALLOW
POLLUTANTS...SUCH AS WOOD SMOKE AND CARBON MONOXIDE...TO
INCREASE NEAR THE SURFACE.

* RESTRICTIONS/BURN BANS...CHECK WITH YOUR LOCAL AIR QUALITY
AGENCY FOR ANY RESTRICTIONS IN YOUR AREA.

PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...

AN AIR STAGNATION ADVISORY MEANS THAT LIMITED MOVEMENT OF THE AIR
MASS OVER THE ADVISORY AREA WILL ALLOW POLLUTION TO INCREASE TO
DANGEROUS LEVELS. PERSONS WITH RESPIRATORY ILLNESS SHOULD FOLLOW
THEIR PHYSICIANS ADVICE FOR DEALING WITH HIGH LEVELS OF AIR
POLLUTION.

Hope we get some wind sooner or later!

Marty


----------



## chef2sail

It just dawned on me also tha Brian you may be talking about straight line speed. That by itself doesnt make a boat a performance cruiser or racer cruiser. Angle of attack to windward makes a diffeence also.

I have never seen a Hunter, Catalina, or even most modern Benes point near as close to the wind as the Farrs, Sabres, C&Cs J's or even the older Persons for that matter. Maybe thats another reason people generally dont race with them. 

Dave


----------



## bjung

Maybe it's time to start a new thread on stability and stiffness and ask for some "professional help" (bobperry comes to mind) sorting out the various "opinions".
But, at the very least, let the discussion return to the Blue Jacket 40, somewhere on page 3.
Talk about hijack....


----------



## PCP

bjung said:


> Maybe it's time to start a new thread on stability and stiffness and ask for some "professional help" (bobperry comes to mind) sorting out the various "opinions".
> But, at the very least, let the discussion return to the Blue Jacket 40, somewhere on page 3.
> Talk about hijack....


Ok,the Bluejacket it will be a stiff boat. A lot more than the Catalina 40, but less than a First 40 or a J122. That's where that stiffness discussion had begun.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Cruisingdad

bjung said:


> Maybe it's time to start a new thread on stability and stiffness and ask for some "professional help" (bobperry comes to mind) sorting out the various "opinions".
> But, at the very least, let the discussion return to the Blue Jacket 40, somewhere on page 3.
> Talk about hijack....


I am happy to start a new thread, but I was under the assumption that for once we all agreed on the BJ and the discussion was closed: kinda like, eehh, its ok (shrug), but I wouldn't buy it.

Brian


----------



## Cruisingdad

PCP said:


> Ok,the Bluejacket it will be a stiff boat. A lot more than the Catalina 40, but less than a First 40 or a J122. That'w where that stiffness discussion had begun.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Hey Paulo, where did you come up with your data on the C400? DId you calculate it?

Brian


----------



## PCP

Cruisingdad said:


> Hey Paulo, where did you come up with your data on the C400? DId you calculate it?
> 
> Brian


You mean the relatively low AVS? It was posted by another poster and taken from a Calder book (that I have too).

I remember having looked at a Catalina 42 stability curve, many years ago, and be confused with the low AVS (105º, a lot worse then the one from the 40) and the relatively high B/D but I guess that has to do with the keel design without bulb and a relatively low draft.

Comparatively a First 40.7 has a much bigger AVS (126º) and for the technical characteristics a First 40 would have probably one close but probably bigger than that.

You can see some AVS here and also an interesting but simplified explanation on stability. Just download the items on the left about stability:

RYA Technical department issues new yacht stability listings | News | News & Events | RYA

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Cruisingdad

chef2sail said:


> Brian,
> 
> I am not trying to argue with you, but i really dont understand
> 
> Americas Cups boats and for that matter my boat when we race are never sailing flat, especially to windward. What does sailing flat have to do with stiffness.
> 
> I undertand about over heeling a boat, so it pushes and slows down so we dont have to go into that.
> 
> I am not a brochure person or will not get into the numbers, righting ratios, even though I do uindertand them basically.
> 
> I can only go on what I see from a practicality first hand actual sailing experience. Why dont we see more Catalinas racing in the races in Annapolis, Newport or wherever. There are lots of other boats represented and there are plenty of Catalinas?
> 
> Again this is not meant to deigrate them in any way or to say I would not purchase one or it isnt good for a family of 4 ( the five included the hound and he takes as much room up as your kids////BTW kids grow up and leave....dogs dont)
> 
> I can look at at Catalina as a quick cruiser....but I can not put them in same class as the Farr, Sabre, C&C, some Bennes and other racer cruisers that Paulo has mentioned from Europe like Hanse, X Yachts. They do not compete and they do not point to windward the same. They arent designed to. Seems to me if they were they would be in these races.
> 
> Dave


Hey Dave,

TO be clear, as I have said several times now, the C400 is NOT as fast as a J122 or a First as stock. No way. Corrected, I might give them a run for their money (I think that PHRF is too high, but I certainly wouldn't argue that before the race!!). Also, you mentioned why sailing flat was important? It is a piece of the puzzle. As a boat heels, the wind spills. If you have two C&C's, one has your keel and the other has a 30 foot keel, I suspect the 30 foot keel will outrun you (assuming they keep it narrow, weight at bottom, etc). Why, because they are able to maximize the same wind that you would be spilling. THis is why a sailboat does not easily turtle: as it heels, the wind forces decrease. These forces decrease until the force pushing the mast down equal the forces pulling it up. Right? That is why sailing flat (ON SOME BOATS... not all) is beneficial. That is why a stiff boat is beneficial. Using your example, the AC boats don't sail flat. Heck no. They have enormous masts and sail areas. THey are making the ideal compromise between how much forward force they want and balancing that against sailing flat. I bet if they could keep enough weight on the rail to make that boat flat, they would. The problem is that when they turn to run or beam reach, where these heeling forces are minimized, these huge masts and SA really kick in. Also, we have won races against boats that are over powered. If you have too much sail out, and your boat is heeled too much, you will actually go slower than having the correct sail are out to find your sweet spot. That sweet spot changes, depending on boats. I find many of the IOR boats like a good bit of heel. I find many of the mo modern, flat bottom boats, like to sail more flat. And since they have to finish the race with all the crew (don't laugh, you have to... funny story I can share with crew jumping off to win), its a balance.

If stiffness is defined as a boat ability to withstand the wind forces, and my boat has a higher resistance to those forces than a different boat, then doesn't that make my boat a stiffer boat? For example (extreme example): If you take two america's cup boats. They are exactly the same in every way except one has a 10sf of sail area, the other has 5000 sf of sail area, which boat would be the stiffer boat? I would say the boat with 10sf. Its ability, as set, because it has very little force opposing the RM (keel), makes it a very stiff boat. Their initial stability would likely be the same, though. Is that correct?

Note, this does not mean the 10sf boat is faster, just because it is stiffer. The 10sf AC boat is going to get smoked by the other. But the 10sf's ability to withstand the wind forces, because of a rediculously small mast and force, is much higher. It's a stiffer boat.

If I were to put the mast of that AC boat on my boat, would my boat be stiffer than the AC or less stiff? It would be a million times less stiff (assuming it didn't simply tip over)!! But with my mast, and my vastly lower sail area, can my boat, "resist the wind forces" more than an AC, and thus be a stiffer boat? If I did not have a mast at all, wouldn't my boat be a stiffer boat than an AC boat because my ability to withstand the wind foreces would be vastly higher? I simply have no force pushing it over.

THat is my issue with this discussion and what I do not understand. Paulo, I think you gave an excellent example and great explanation earlier. Thank you. I am simply saying that stiffer does not always mean faster. My boat might be stiffer than a J122 (I am not saying that it is), but it certainly is not faster. Stiffness to me seems only to be one piece of many pieces of a puzzle. I completely agree with you that if have two of the same boats, one that is stiffer than the other, the stiffer boat should be faster if everything else stays equal.

Brian


----------



## Cruisingdad

PCP said:


> You mean the relatively low AVS? It was posted by another poster and taken from a Calder book (that I have too).
> 
> I remember having looked at a Catalina 42 stability curve, many years ago, and be confused with the low AVS (105º, a lot worse then the one from the 40) and the relatively high B/D but I guess that has to do with the keel design without bulb and a relatively low draft.
> 
> Comparatively a First 40.7 has a much bigger AVS (126º) and for the technical characteristics a First 40 would have probably one close but probably bigger than that.
> 
> You can see some AVS here and also an interesting but simplified explanation on stability. Just download the items on the left about stability:
> 
> RYA Technical department issues new yacht stability listings | News | News & Events | RYA
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


I will have to check what data they used to calculate. THe data online and published by Catalina is INCORRECT. This is well known for those of us that have these boats and have been well documented in Mainsheet and the owners forums. The correct data is:

Draft MK2: 5'10-6 feet.

Displacement: Well over 19500, dry.

LWL: 38-38.5

If they pulled the Catalina literature and used their numbers, they are wrong. I got the pictures to prove it!!

Brian


----------



## Cruisingdad

Onto the performance cruising debate:

If we are going to do apples:apples, lets make sure we all have the same definitions...

Let's take racing out of the discussion between the boats (and yes, I understand very well pointing... I do and have raced). This whole thing started with what is a good performance cruiser? I guess it all comes down to what your definition of a performance cruiser is. My definition is a boat that in normal conditions will meet or exceed hull speed while FULLY LOADED with cruising gear. It does not mean it has to have a negative PHRF or outrun a TP 52. WHat is your definition of a performance cruiser? Because if it is simply the fastest boat that you _could_ cruise on, a First or J122 wouldn't even make the list. Lets start talking about trimarans, racing cats, or others. And before you say I am going overboard, just so you know, I have regularly seen people "camping out" in these (saw some this last trip to FMB). Are they cruising? I certainly don't think so, but they spent some days there in the mooring field.

So, what is cruising for you? TO me, cruising is Fulltime living aboard and travelling on a boat for year(s) at a time... and certainly not less than six months at a time. It is going to different places, anchoring out and adventuring. It is a combination of marinas, mooring fields, and sitting on the hook (with a fair amount of being on the hook). I do not feel that cruising is taking a weekend and sailing down to the next marina. THat is weekending. I do not feel cruising is taken several weeks or a couple of months to sail to a few different places and then returning to your house. That is vacationing. So that is my definition. Again, what is yours?

So here is my issue with the J122 and the First and similar boats: they have major tankage issues. Hey if you are a single person, you might can make it work or deal with it. But many of us actually travel with a companion, many of them I think would quickly nix any thought of cruising on the sparse conditions of a First. Now Paulo mentioned this couple that is in the Antarctica on their First. Was that their boat of choice, or was it what they had and fit their price and them made do? I can certainlty think of a lot of better boats to go to ANtarctica with... I bet they can too. ALso, is it a stock boat? Doubtful. I suspect, like ALL cruising boats, they are loaded to the brim with clothes, pots and pans, gas tanks, diesel tanks, extra water jugs, solar panels, a generator, many weeks (we do over a month) of food stocks, etc. Now, when they are done with that boat, does it still look like and perform like a stock J or First? Heck no. We wouldn't expect it to. But now my question is: How fast is that boat really now? WHat is its true RM now with all that crap all over the deck and above the waterline? How long can they go without having to pump out... or do they dump in the bay? How far can they motor continuously without wind (not even counting charging their batteries)? My guess is that this boat may end up being a much more tender boat and lose a whole lot of its RM, because of all the stuff that more traditional cruisers can stick below the waterline or store in cabinets (as they are made for), cannot all fit in this boat. TO load this boat up with cabinetry, make it beamier to accomodate more space, add tankage and drawers, etc... you then lose much of the benefits these boats offer. I could almost argue that these boats may become less safe if these items are being forced to store above the waterline where other boats can get them below. As everyone who cruises knows, getting weight below the waterline and balancing the boat is critical. When we go to Costco or Sams, we can spend half a day properly stowing goods.

These are the REAL issues we deal with, everyday. And I will give you one of the truest of all statistics when cruising or being a mobile live-aboard. It is too often forgotten that we spend 1% of our time moving, and 99% of our time anchored/moored/docked. So what are you willing to give up to go cruising on a boat like a First, so that you can be the first to the anchorage, then spend the next week(s) in a boat that is cramped below at best? You will have stuff on that boat jammed into every crevice because it simply lacks the storage of a larger, beamier, boat that is filled with cabinetry and drawers and deep bilges for stores, etc. I also question how well that boat performs when loaded down with cruising gear, davits, solar arch, tender, extra batteries, etc... pound for pound, suddenly outrunning a Catalina 400, or a beneteau 40, or a Beneteau 473, might be more of a challenge. I am not saying they wouldn't, but they have made a huge sacrifice to get there.

I understand that for some, this compromise is worth it. For those that it is, do you and have you cruised on this boat? How long? How many people? Where did you go? How much time did you spend on the hook? I suspect they will end up like the Millionaires that buy the V42, outfit it to go around the world, spend a few weeks at the dock, then suddenly realize they are cramped and uncomfortable and the boat sits empty more than used. THey end up paying captains to deliver their boats because they don't want to go to the trouble and conditions. Before long, it is the nicest boat in the brokerage, marketed as a true blue water boat to take you anywhere. Problem is that few of them ever do. THat being said, if I was going to go around the world, I would definitely choose the V42 over my boat... in a heartbeat. For doing my type of cruising and the cruising typical of the vast majority of people, no way.

Anyways, this is a fun discission and I hope no one gets frustrated by it. I certainly am not. I am enjoying it. It is conversations like these that make Sailnet fun.


----------



## PCP

Cruisingdad said:


> I will have to check what data they used to calculate. THe data online and published by Catalina is INCORRECT. This is well known for those of us that have these boats and have been well documented in Mainsheet and the owners forums. The correct data is:
> 
> Draft MK2: 5'10-6 feet.
> 
> Displacement: Well over 19500, dry.
> 
> LWL: 38-38.5
> 
> If they pulled the Catalina literature and used their numbers, they are wrong. I got the pictures to prove it!!
> 
> Brian


Brian, they did not pull anything. They have asked to Catalina Yachts stability curves regarding the boats they have tested.

Those stability curves were provided by Catalina. The AVS were taken from the delivered curves.

Do you mean that the Catalina designers don't know how to do the stability curves of their own designs?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## johnnyquest37

This discussion between Brian and Paulo has been very interesting. In a way they might both be right. At great personal risk of getting caught in the cross fire, allow me to reference this web site: Understanding monohull sailboat stability curves | M.B. Marsh Design by Matthew Marsh (boat designer).

Marsh defines tenderness/stiffness as the *slope of the stability curve at low angles of heel*. At low angles of heel, a stiff boat has a steep slope and a tender boat has a shallow slope. Initial stability, therefore, is the key to the difference between stiff and tender. Stabilty and stiffness, however, are not the same thing. A tender boat will likely have a higher ultimate stability than a stiff boat that derives her stiffness from beam.

According to Marsh, sail carrying capacity is a function of righting moment in the 15-30 degrees of heel portion of the curve, since this is the area where most sailing occurs. The more righting moment one has in this region, the more sail a boat can typically carry. Righting moment, by the way equals GZ x displacement, so there is no difference between RM and GZ when it comes to determining stiffeness/tenderness and stability (unless you start considering the added dispalcement associated with flooding).

So regarding the Catalina 400 versus the First 40.7. Would have to see the stability curves to be sure, but likely the Benateau has a higher ultimate stabilty, but is more tender than the Catalina 400. The answer lies in the slope of the stabilty curves at low angles of heel (less than 15 degrees, I'd say). Whichever boat has steeper slope is the stiffer boat, by definition. My guess - the Catalina based on my experience. Whichever has the highest angle vanishing stability (where G=Z) is the more stable boat. I'd surmise the First 40, since her stabilty does not come from her beam.

Anyone have reliable curves? That would settle the debate as long the definitions that Marsh are acceptable to everyone.


----------



## Cruisingdad

PCP said:


> Brian, they did not pull anything. They have asked to Catalina Yachts stability curves regarding the boats they have tested.
> 
> Those stability curves were provided by Catalina. The AVS were taken from the delivered curves.
> 
> Do you mean that the Catalina designers don't know how to do the stability curves of their own designs?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Well, given my previous statements about inconsistencies in the data, do you really want me to answer that!!? I guess I could ask Gerry. I am just not sure I want to get in his crosshair if we get into a dissagreement on it! If it came from the published C400 data, it may very well be incorrect. But that would only make the stability curve better.

BTW, I am not accussing in any way gerry of doing anything wrong. Gerry is a class act and has to be one of the most owner-driven designers ever. I am simply telling you that the data is incorrect. My boat draws nigh on 6 feet.

Brian

PS You're sure Catalina provided that information? I was not aware they were required to do so. I know there are some basic formulas out there, but I don't think they really take everything into account.


----------



## Cruisingdad

johnnyquest37 said:


> This discussion between Brian and Paulo has been very interesting. In a way they might both be right. At great personal risk of getting caught in the cross fire, allow me to reference this web site: Understanding monohull sailboat stability curves | M.B. Marsh Design by Matthew Marsh (boat designer).
> 
> Marsh defines tenderness/stiffness as the *slope of the stability curve at low angles of heel*. At low angles of heel, a stiff boat has a steep slope and a tender boat has a shallow slope. Initial stability, therefore, is the key to the difference between stiff and tender. Stabilty and stiffness, however, are not the same thing. A tender boat will likely have a higher ultimate stability than a stiff boat that derives her stiffness from beam.
> 
> According to Marsh, sail carrying capacity is a function of righting moment in the 15-30 degrees of heel portion of the curve, since this is the area where most sailing occurs. The more righting moment one has in this region, the more sail a boat can typically carry. Righting moment, by the way equals GZ x displacement, so there is no difference between RM and GZ when it comes to determining stiffeness/tenderness and stability (unless you start considering the added dispalcement associated with flooding).
> 
> So regarding the Catalina 400 versus the First 40.7. Would have to see the stability curves to be sure, but likely the Benateau has a higher ultimate stabilty, but is more tender than the Catalina 400. The answer lies in the slope of the stabilty curves at low angles of heel (less than 15 degrees, I'd say). Whichever boat has steeper slope is the stiffer boat, by definition. My guess - the Catalina based on my experience. Whichever has the highest angle vanishing stability (where G=Z) is the more stable boat. I'd surmise the First 40, since her stabilty does not come from her beam.
> 
> Anyone have reliable curves? That would settle the debate as long the definitions that Marsh are acceptable to everyone.


I think the interesting thing will be getting the good curves. But great post and welcome to the debate.

Now, Paulo, put him in your crosshairs!! Ill take the other side. (snicker)

Brian


----------



## PCP

johnnyquest37 said:


> ... allow me to reference this web site: Understanding monohull sailboat stability curves | M.B. Marsh Design by *Matthew Marsh (boat designer)*.
> 
> Marsh defines tenderness/stiffness as the *slope of the stability curve at low angles of heel*. At low angles of heel, a stiff boat has a steep slope and a tender boat has a shallow slope. Initial stability, therefore, is the key to the difference between stiff and tender. ....
> .... That would settle the debate as long the definitions that Marsh are acceptable to everyone.


Jesus, I believe you didn't make it deliberately but that is quite frustrating. You should have a look at who is the one you quote on that definition of stiffness:

"Matthew is an engineering physicist, with interests and expertise spanning many fields. He has played key roles in two NASC/WSC solar car projects and has experience with composite materials design, solar power systems, construction industry QA/QC, building envelope design/testing, and LEED program implementation. He is an avid boater and boat builder, mainly in small power craft, and has extensive knowledge of small boat design and construction.

Matthew holds two engineering physics degrees from Queen's University (M.A.Sc. in medical physics, class of 2012, and B.Sc.E in engineering physics / mechanical, class of 2009). He is currently conducting research in radiographic image reconstruction and Co-60 radiotherapy at Queen's University and the Cancer Centre of Southeastern Ontario.

A Few Recent Projects
Computed tomography / digital tomosynthesis imaging system for cobalt-60 radiotherapy
Experimental cobalt-60 intensity modulated radiotherapy system
Hardware upgrades, software enhancements, data centre migration and user support for a 100+ core distributed computing cluster
Non-destructive testing of radiation shielding concrete using megavoltage CT imaging
Parametric array for nonlinear ultrasound-to-audio demodulation
Quality assurance program training, implementation and auditing on eight major construction projects
Composite aeroshell and hybrid carbon/spaceframe chassis for the solar cars Aurum and Ultraviolet"

I have quoted on the subject one of the greates contemporary American NA,
Rodney S. Johnstone, the designer of Jboats:

Where does performance come from? ...

*A cruising sailboat's performance also depends on stability, or "stiffness"-the ability of the boat to resist the heeling force of the sails. *Good all-around speed is possible only if the boat is stiff; a stiff boat can carry more sail... If stiffness comes from a wide waterline beam, the boat's motion tends to be bouncy and abrupt in waves; as soon as this type of boat heels, it usually exhibits excessive weather helm and may be difficult to steer. ..
The most important characteristic of a performance cruiser is that its stiffness be derived from a low center of gravity. ...

The preponderance of heavy-displacement boats ... reflects a modern trend in cruising sailboats toward increased accommodations and decreased ballast/displacement ratios-a trend that has raised the height of the center of gravity of this type of boat. ...

.. Whether light or heavy, a narrow boat with a low center of gravity will have a rock solid feel, an easy motion, and positive control-the unmistakable aura of power, stability, and passagemaking speed.

Who do you think it deserves more credibility?

For the ones that want to understand this subject better a good way is to run this article on a translator, I mean for the ones that cannot read French. It makes also very clear why the GZ curve is a basic instrument to access boat stiffness.






I will translate the first paragraph:

*"La Raideur à la toile est la capacité du voilier à porter de la toile"
*
*Stifness in a sailboat is its ability to carry sail area.*

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

Cruisingdad said:


> Well, given my previous statements about inconsistencies in the data, do you really want me to answer that!!? I guess I could ask Gerry. I am just not sure I want to get in his crosshair if we get into a dissagreement on it! If it came from the published C400 data, it may very well be incorrect. But that would only make the stability curve better.
> 
> BTW, I am not accussing in any way gerry of doing anything wrong. Gerry is a class act and has to be one of the most owner-driven designers ever. I am simply telling you that the data is incorrect. My boat draws nigh on 6 feet.
> 
> Brian
> 
> PS You're sure Catalina provided that information? I was not aware they were required to do so. I know there are some basic formulas out there, but I don't think they really take everything into account.


Yes, I am sure.

One thing is a typo error regarding measures but that is impossible with a stability curve. A stability curve is a basic instrument that is used to design the boat and to be sure he has a good performance and stability. Stability curves are not made by the boat builder but by the designer and are necessary for the boat CE certification.

I doubt very much that a NA would make a wrong stability curve while designing a boat. I would rather not say what that would mean.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

Cruisingdad said:


> .. I guess it all comes down to what your definition of a performance cruiser is. My definition is a boat that in normal conditions will meet or exceed hull speed while FULLY LOADED with cruising gear. ... Because if it is simply the fastest boat that you _could_ cruise on, a First or J122 wouldn't even make the list. ...
> 
> So, what is cruising for you? TO me, cruising is Fulltime living aboard and travelling on a boat for year(s) at a time... and certainly not less than six months at a time. It is going to different places, anchoring out and adventuring. It is a combination of marinas, mooring fields, and sitting on the hook (with a fair amount of being on the hook). I do not feel that cruising is taking a weekend and sailing down to the next marina. THat is weekending. I do not feel cruising is taken several weeks or a couple of months to sail to a few different places and then returning to your house. That is vacationing. So that is my definition. Again, what is yours?
> 
> ... Now Paulo mentioned this couple that is in the Antarctica on their First. Was that their boat of choice, or was it what they had and fit their price and them made do? I can certainlty think of a lot of better boats to go to ANtarctica with... I bet they can too. ALso, is it a stock boat? Doubtful. I suspect, like ALL cruising boats, they are loaded to the brim with clothes, pots and pans, gas tanks, diesel tanks, extra water jugs, solar panels, a generator, many weeks (we do over a month) of food stocks, etc. Now, when they are done with that boat, does it still look like and perform like a stock J or First? Heck no. We wouldn't expect it to. But now my question is: How fast is that boat really now? WHat is its true RM now with all that crap all over the deck and above the waterline? How long can they go without having to pump out... or do they dump in the bay? ....


Yes, that First 40.7 is their boat of choice and yes it is a fast boat and yes they travel light and yes, they are circumnavigating.

You insist in not understanding that other sailors can have an idea different of yours in what regards a cruising boat. Yes there are many sailors to whom sailing pleasure is a very important part of cruising.

What I think or not is irrelevant to the way other sailors like to cruise and the sailboat they chose according with that. Believe me like you I know very well the boat I want and you can be sure that is not the boat you would want and vice-verse. There is not a perfect cruising boat but many different types of cruising boats for cruisers with different tastes, even for circumnavigating.

You prefer to sail a relatively slow boat (by modern standards) full of stuff inside. Ok, that's your type of pleasure, your type of cruising but I am amazed at your incapacity to understand that some would prefer a slower and heavier boat (some would even prefer an heavy old design) but others will prefer a faster and more enjoyable boat to sail.

On the interesting sailboat we have been following the circumnavigation of Capado, a small and very light cruiser boat. The crew is a young couple, they are top sailors, much better than you or I and I am quite sure that was the boat they wanted. They have the hull made and finish the rest but for the money they spend on a new boat they would have enough money to buy a used 40ft Catalina.

I am quite sure if I would suggest such a boat to them they would laugh at me, the same way you would laugh if I had suggested such boat to you for doing a circumnavigation.

Here some pictures of their boat:



















Regards

Paulo


----------



## benesailor

My dock mate has a C400 WK; i have the Bene 400. The Cat is definitely more cruiser friendly. We ride each other's boats and run against each other all the time. The PHRF is the same and his boat does feel "stiffer"; but, i definitely feel that my Bene is more manurveable and more under control. I just don't feel the pointing ability in the C400. 
The First 40 is fast and beautifull; but, as a cruiser it's a compromise. The C400 is much nicer, but no where near as fast. Not even in the same league for speed. Would i take a C400 over my Bene400, don't think so. Mines less beamy, shorter, easier to manuever and i believe faster over the long haul. 

Back to the OP.

I like the looks of the new Blue Jacket, but, it doesn't stand out enough to make me want one. Fast? I doubt it. It needs a little Juan K. to break it into the 21st century. I think there are a lot better boats out there for the money. The Europeans i think are on the right track for boat design and pushy the envelop for cruisers. IP, Cat and hunter need to do some serious review of there rivals before they get swallowed up.


----------



## PCP

benesailor said:


> ..
> I like the looks of the new Blue Jacket, but, it doesn't stand out enough to make me want one. Fast? I doubt it...


Fast is a relative concept. Yes much faster than your boat or the Catalina 40 but less faster than a First 40 or J122. I like fast performance cruisers and I would not mind to have one of those, provided they would modify the rigging, nothing difficult but expensive. The boat will be fast for a cruiser and those modifications would be related with a better control of the sail shape and they will not be important to most cruisers. Fact is that only performance cruisers have them, not mainstream cruisers.

I like the hull, rudder, keel, B/D and even the global look of the boat, a bit to classic for me but with good quality in what regards design. Take a look at that beautiful hull:

Blue Jacket 40 360° View | BlueJacketYachts.com

Regarding what is called in Europe the luxury cruiser segment, the bluejacket is the American design I like more. Personally I would prefer a J122 but that is more of a performance cruiser that supposedly has a less luxurious interior, one that will be enough for me. Well, we have only saw the designs we have to see if the Bluejacket will be delivering that or not.

The Bluejacket will not be on the same market sector of the Catalina or Benetau, neither on the one of the First or J122, it will be on the market that in Europe is called "Luxury cruisers" that includes fast and less fast cruisers but all with luxurious interiors and off course, very expensive boats. The only American modern design that could be competing with the Bluejacket is the Tartan 4100, even if they are very different boats. I would clearly prefer the Bluejacket but I am not sure that will be the case for most cruisers and they are really not the same type of boat nor do I think they will be addressed to the same public, except in what regards money.

I guess the boat will be competing with the Arcona 410 and Swedestar 415, for instance:

http://www.arconayachts.com/images/410/410b.jpg

http://www.arconayachts.com/images/410/Arcona_410_sail_plan.gif






The question will be at what price and if America has a market for that type of boat. Europe has but it is a small market and in Europe the sailing market is much bigger than the American one (new boats).

Anybody knows if they are really making the boat and when will the first one hit the water?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Mobnets

Haven't read the whole string of posts here, so this may have been mentioned earlier, but anybody heading to Strictly Sail Chicago may be able to see one of these close up and personal. We're headed there next week and in checking out the website to see what boats are going to be on display I believe I saw the Bluejacket listed as the sole boat IP was exhibiting there this year.

Mobnets
1973 Paceship Chance 32/28 Westwind


----------



## johnnyquest37

PCP said:


> Who do you think it deserves more credibility?
> 
> For the ones that want to understand this subject better a good way is to run this article on a translator, I mean for the ones that cannot read French. It makes also very clear why the GZ curve is a basic instrument to access boat stiffness.
> 
> Raideur à la toile - Wikipédia
> 
> I will translate the first paragraph:
> 
> *"La Raideur à la toile est la capacité du voilier à porter de la toile"
> *
> *Stifness in a sailboat is its ability to carry sail area.*
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Paulo - no question that the stability curve describes a boat's tenderness or stiffness. I still say that both of you may be correct. You are saying the ultimate stability describes stiffness. Marsh, Dave, and most boat owners I know consider stiffness to be related to initial stability and describes boat motion at lower levels of heel.

You (and others with credibility) have your definition of stiffness and others have equally acceptable, but different, definitions of stiffness. Regardless, it is clear that ultimate stability is the criterion that sail area is based upon. As I understand it, the area under the postive part of the curve defines this.


----------



## PCP

johnnyquest37;977111... said:


> You are saying the ultimate stability describes stiffness. ... Regardless, it is clear that ultimate stability is the criterion that sail area is based upon. As I understand it, the area under the postive part of the curve defines this.


Hi Johnny,

No, what is called ultimate stability is the one that is not used for sailing but for boat safety. The area under the positive RM stability curve defines the energy needed to capsize the boat.

Stiffness in what regards a stability curve (a GZ one) regards only the part that is used to sail, till the first 30º of heel. This guy explains it well:

" *"stiffness", - the ability of the sailboat to resist the heeling force of the sails.* The stiffness, as it will be called in the following, is afforded by the righting moment. Enhancing the stiffness brings significant extra power to the sails and, furthermore, increases the equilibrium and the safety of boats in general. *Good stiffness enables a ship to have all sails set wind abeam, whilst maintaining the boat at angles of about a normal heeling (the first 30 degrees of heeling)*. The greater the stiffness (or righting ability) of the boat, the more powerful the sails can be and the faster the boat can be."

EP 2197734 A1

If you read the French article on wikipedia you will see they are talking about the GZ and not the RM. That is just because if you have an heavier boat with a bigger RM, and a lighter one with a smaller RM (both boats with the same lenght) the less heavy one can be more stiff because it needs to carry less sail. The Stiffness is related with that relation between wet surface and available RM. The GZ curve is a good indication of that while the RM curve will not take in consideration that difference in weight (and wet surface) between the two boats.

Of course you can call stiffness to what you want. I am referring only to a technical use of the term in what refers sailing boats and naval architecture.

By your definition a racing America's cup monohull would have to be considered a tender boat and that will not make any sense in what regards NA.

Stiffness is directly related with power to carry sails in a sailboat, in proportion with its wet surface. It is directly related with boat speed. That's why I am saying from the beginning that it makes no sense to compare the stiffness of a First 40 with the one of the Catalina. Their difference will be almost as big as their difference of PHRF.

What you call stiffness is just initial stability (that will be bigger on the Catalina 40) and should not be confused with stiffness.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Jeff_H

I have been dipping into this thread from time to time, and have noted this debate about the terms 'Stiff' and tender. I think that the problem in this case is one of lingusitics. Term 'stiff' has a very specific meaning as used in North American English speaking naval architectural jargon. I understand that this term of use does not translate literally into the terms used on other language naval architectural jargon, which may in part be complicating the discussion here. Compounding the issue further is historic useage and colloquial usage. In this case, the disagreement seems to be about a difference in definitions. 

I hope this is helpful, but as used within the world of ship and yacht design, stiffness is very narrowly defined as initial stability (i.e. form stability). A boat which is stiff has a lot of form stability. The opposite to stiff is tender, and again, this is solely about the lack of form stability. 

But as a boat heels, ultimate stability (also sometimes called secondary stability, gravitational stability, or weight distribution stability) becomes increasingly effective taking over as form stability eventually begins to decrease. 

The combination of the form stability and ultimate stability are what describes the overall stability behavior of the vessel and stability is evaluated absent of heeling forces. 

As does seemed to be agreed upon here, the statically calculated force required to overturn a vessel at any angle of heel is the righting moment, and this can be plotted over all heeling angles to get the righting moment curve which is a pretty good indicator of a boat's resistance to heel, but not a complete indicator of whether the boat is likely to heel or be rolled since it does not account for overturning forces. 

Ultimate stability often gets confused with angle of vanishing stability (AVS) or the term I prefer LPS (limit of positive stability) which is the heel angle at which a boat would rather turn turtle than right itself. This is a tough one to generalize on because it is often said that a boat with a lot of form stability will also have a small angle vanishing stability, or a boat with a wide beam would have a small LPS. That is not necessarily true. There is a whole lot more to it than that.

AVS is also sometimes confused with the angle of maximum stability, AKA the limit of increasing stability. There is a point at which any boat hits its maximum stability. After that point the amount of stability starts to decrease, but the boat still has positive stability and wants to right itself until it reaches its LPS and no longer does want to stand right side up. On some boats the decrease is very rapid and so the boat can seem very stable one moment and seemingly have no stability the next. 

LPS is very hard to calculate since you need to model the entire volume of the hull, deck and rig and all weights and their positions. There are simplied calculations for the hull only, but in reality, the cabin trunk and cockpit is usually in the water before a boat reaches its LPS, these contribute or detract from stability by moving the center of buoyancy further from or nearer to the center of gravity at large heel angles, thereby increasing or decreasing the angle of vanishing stability. The higher the freeboard, and bigger the volume of the cabin, coamings and the like, and the smaller the cockpit, the larger the LPS. 

Of course increasing the height of the cabin and freeboard decreases stability in the normal sailing angle range, but that is another story for another day. 

When Brian (Cruisingdad) talks about using a single term for the tendency for a boat to heel, Brian is referring way more than simple stability. The tendency for a boat toward large heel angles is created by a whole range of factors; 

• The side force of the sails as a product of overall sail area, rig proportion (high vs. low aspect mainly) and sail shape (full vs. flat)
• Drag- since the ability of a boat to accelerate allows some of the force of the wind to be disbursed as greater speed.
• Stability- since the simple ability of the boat to withstand rotating under any given side force is obviously very important.
• Lateral resistance, since the side forces can be in part disbursed through sliding sidewards and creating leeway.

Now then, it is not uncommon to hear someone in common 'layperson' type usage refer to a boat as stiff or tender by which they mean the boat heels easily or not. And that colloquial useage is what often confuses these conversations. 

As to the America's Cup mono-hulls, these boats have a huge amount of stability, really huge, but they are also tender under the classic yacht design definition of tender, which I know sounds like a contridiction in terms. 

Jeff


----------



## Cruisingdad

PCP said:


> Yes, that First 40.7 is their boat of choice and yes it is a fast boat and yes they travel light and yes, they are circumnavigating.
> 
> You insist in not understanding that other sailors can have an idea different of yours in what regards a cruising boat. Yes there are many sailors to whom sailing pleasure is a very important part of cruising.
> 
> What I think or not is irrelevant to the way other sailors like to cruise and the sailboat they chose according with that. Believe me like you I know very well the boat I want and you can be sure that is not the boat you would want and vice-verse. There is not a perfect cruising boat but many different types of cruising boats for cruisers with different tastes, even for circumnavigating.
> 
> You prefer to sail a relatively slow boat (by modern standards) full of stuff inside. Ok, that's your type of pleasure, your type of cruising but I am amazed at your incapacity to understand that some would prefer a slower and heavier boat (some would even prefer an heavy old design) but others will prefer a faster and more enjoyable boat to sail.
> 
> On the interesting sailboat we have been following the circumnavigation of Capado, a small and very light cruiser boat. The crew is a young couple, they are top sailors, much better than you or I and I am quite sure that was the boat they wanted. They have the hull made and finish the rest but for the money they spend on a new boat they would have enough money to buy a used 40ft Catalina.
> 
> I am quite sure if I would suggest such a boat to them they would laugh at me, the same way you would laugh if I had suggested such boat to you for doing a circumnavigation.
> 
> Here some pictures of their boat:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Paulo, my friend, with all due respect, I wonder if we are having a translational issue here. To be perfectly clear, I understand (completely) that what I consider to be a good ccruising boat and wht others like may be very different. On that, we most certainly boat agree. What we do not seem to be communicating well on is that a J122, or First, or similar boat will have what I consider considerable issues for long distance cruising.

I will go back to reality. Here is reality:

In order for a person to live, they must breathe, eat, drink, and crap. Period. You don't do one of those for a long enough period of time and you will die. I don't care if you are in a Tayana, a First, a TP52, a Catalina, etc. Anything outside of that is luxury.

A person will create, with MINIMAL flushing, 1-3 gallons of waste a day. I know because I am measuring all of these for our book on living aboard. Now there are ways to decrease this (pee off the side, bucket, go to town, etc), but there are also a lot of ways to increase this (sea sick, bad food, too much beer, etc). Let's just say the typical, cautious cruiser will go through 2 gallons on average a day/person. The holding tanks of many of these boats are what... 18g or 22? I cannot remember. They may be less that that, but that seems about right. So two people on that boat have maybe 5 days (if they are lucky) before they have a full tank. Where does that go? Now if you are offshore, you can dump. But in the US, it is 7 miles off in the gulf, no discharge in the keys at all, and no discharge in many other areas (and none anywhere withing 3 miles). That is a real restriction with these boats. Can you increase tankage? Yes. But as we have both bween on these boats, where are you going to put it and at what cost in space? It is alreaedy at a premium.

Where do you put the gas cans on this boat?

Where do you put the tender or do you swim to shore? Without a tender, how do you do laundry in port, refill your water, get groceries, spare parts, etc? In many areas, you have to go via tender to do this.

WHat is the draft on these boats? Any boat with a draft over 6' on the west coast of FL will have to be very careful. at 7', you will likely have entire coves and entrances you cannot get into. I bumped on the ICW (in the channel) at 6. Anything over 7 is rediculous for this area at least, much of the keys, and many other areas I have sailed.

The J122 for example has a 45g water tank and a 35g fuel tank. I think you can increase the water, but where and at what cost in space?



PCP said:


> You prefer to sail a relatively slow boat (by modern standards) full of stuff inside.


You have no idea what I have on my boat, but let me tell you. Now I will leave off the toys and children's related stuff. That is unfair to the discussion. But here is a list of some of the "full of stuff" I carry:

Tools and spare parts:

I carry a full complement of tools, including a wide variety of electrical, screw drivers, jig saw, drill, bolt cuttters, plumbing, etc. I have a complete list (yes, complete) I wrote for my book. It is very long. Everything (everything) in that tool kit has been used at one time or another. When you have done this for as long as I have (cruising since circa 2000), you learn things you should have and the ones you can make do without and leave along the way.

I also carry a wide variety of filters, extra belts, strainers, hoses, lots of extra clamps, spare pumps, etc. I can list thouse out too. It is not nearly as long as my other list, but hopefully extensive enough.

I assume you agree that cruising without a full complement of tools and spare parts is foolish? You must be self sufficient. In fact, the reason I am just now writing to you is that my bilge pump swith failed yesterday (and I blew a valve on my propane tank) - both of which are immediate fixes. It just happens. That's why you carry spares or have a variety of other things for emergency break-fix.

All these items take space. On my boat, stuffed and tightly fitting, they take up a 5x2x3 space. In reality, they take larger than that as some things (like a wet vac) are too large to fit in my tool compartment. All these things must go below the waterline, but not in the bilge. Where are you going to put them on that boat? Well, under the settee, of course. You just lost that space for other things.

My other settee is filled with a pressure cooker, rice, vacuseal machine, lots of galley stuff (flour, sugar, etc). It is also where I put my large and heavy cast iron skillet - to keep weight low.

In the bilge I keep my canned goods (lots of veges, soups, tuna, etc) which are heavy. THis also takes up the rest of my low dry storage. WIth that, my boat is filled below the waterline. We keep enough reserves for a comfortable month. We do not drink colas, incidentally, but I do enjoy beer which is having to be tapered because of space.

THe galley is filled with pots and pans, toaster, plates, glassware, and my dry storage is completely filled with dry goods (pasta, beans, some breads, etc).

THe salon and nav station is filled with charts and all navigational items. The salon is filled with paper items (paper towels, some paper plates, kleenex, etc). I do carry DVD's and a PS3 for the kids that takes up a cabinet, but outside of that, everything we have is what we need for basic living.

In each stateroom, all we have are clothes and many paper items (USCG docs, technical parts information, Yanmar manual, personal checking items), a small printer/scanner, a very small radio, several marine related books that are critical to me for reference, my guitar and a keyboard. THat's it.

I have a complete list of every item on this boat for the book. I wrote all of these out because I felt it was important for others to know what we carry, what works, and what doesn't. THe concept of going lean and mean just isn't reality because most people will look at my list and say, "well, I never thought about that and I will have to make a spot for it." This is information I have gathered over doing this since 1995, and cruising on/off since 2000 (really 1999). I would LOVE to know which of these things you feel is "all this stuff" that you are going to do without?

All these items take up space. Where are you going to put them on these boats? I will tell you: YOu will fill up every crevice, you will toss them into the quarter berths, and you will stuff that boat from bow to stern. Have you ever been on a F/T cruisers, liveaboard boat? Not a weekender or a vacationer - a fulltime cruisers boat? They are typically spilling over with all this junk. Believe me, as live aboards, we dump everything we can that is not essential (within reason)!!!! WHat you consider a performance cruiser (and I consider a weekend racer) simple is very short on cabinetry and places to stuff these things. That is for a good thing for a racing boat (your performance cruiser): it takes up weight and costs momey where most people would not use it. You fill a BF40 with the same cabinetry as a Tayana, for example, I bet you just lost a LOT of its compeitivness. But quite candidly, that is a silly discussion because that much cabinetry would never even fit on a BF40.

Now, once again, am I saying you cannot make a j122 or BF40 work as a cruiser? Absolutely not. You most certainly can MAKE it work. But unless cruising is marina hopping and short jaunts, to populated areas, these are the realities you have to deal with. You CAN make a J122 work... but it comes at a cost. And when you have loaded that boat "with all that stuff", you may find the great sailing charachteristics you bought that boat for are quickly lost. You may find your first storm offshore that those things that are not in cabinets are flying around like bullets (or you are slipping on them). How stiff is that boat now? WHat is its NEW RM? Because everyone of those items you stick above the waterline decreases it AVS, if not countered with an equally heavy item below.

You CAN make those boats work. Your friends in Antarctica are a prime example. There was a family I think that sailed on their First 40 around the world, IIRC. You CAN make it work. But, for the reasons I explained, I believe there are better boats for that use.

My opinions.

Brian


----------



## chef2sail

Cruisingdad said:


> Paulo, my friend, with all due respect, I wonder if we are having a translational issue here. To be perfectly clear, I understand (completely) that what I consider to be a good ccruising boat and wht others like may be very different. On that, we most certainly boat agree. What we do not seem to be communicating well on is that a J122, or First, or similar boat will have what I consider considerable issues for long distance cruising.
> 
> I will go back to reality. Here is reality:
> 
> In order for a person to live, they must breathe, eat, drink, and crap. Period. You don't do one of those for a long enough period of time and you will die. I don't care if you are in a Tayana, a First, a TP52, a Catalina, etc. Anything outside of that is luxury.
> 
> A person will create, with MINIMAL flushing, 1-3 gallons of waste a day. I know because I am measuring all of these for our book on living aboard. Now there are ways to decrease this (pee off the side, bucket, go to town, etc), but there are also a lot of ways to increase this (sea sick, bad food, too much beer, etc). Let's just say the typical, cautious cruiser will go through 2 gallons on average a day/person. The holding tanks of many of these boats are what... 18g or 22? I cannot remember. They may be less that that, but that seems about right. So two people on that boat have maybe 5 days (if they are lucky) before they have a full tank. Where does that go? Now if you are offshore, you can dump. But in the US, it is 7 miles off in the gulf, no discharge in the keys at all, and no discharge in many other areas (and none anywhere withing 3 miles). That is a real restriction with these boats. Can you increase tankage? Yes. But as we have both bween on these boats, where are you going to put it and at what cost in space? It is alreaedy at a premium.
> 
> Where do you put the gas cans on this boat?
> 
> Where do you put the tender or do you swim to shore? Without a tender, how do you do laundry in port, refill your water, get groceries, spare parts, etc? In many areas, you have to go via tender to do this.
> 
> WHat is the draft on these boats? Any boat with a draft over 6' on the west coast of FL will have to be very careful. at 7', you will likely have entire coves and entrances you cannot get into. I bumped on the ICW (in the channel) at 6. Anything over 7 is rediculous for this area at least, much of the keys, and many other areas I have sailed.
> 
> The J122 for example has a 45g water tank and a 35g fuel tank. I think you can increase the water, but where and at what cost in space?
> 
> You have no idea what I have on my boat, but let me tell you. Now I will leave off the toys and children's related stuff. That is unfair to the discussion. But here is a list of some of the "full of stuff" I carry:
> 
> Tools and spare parts:
> 
> I carry a full complement of tools, including a wide variety of electrical, screw drivers, jig saw, drill, bolt cuttters, plumbing, etc. I have a complete list (yes, complete) I wrote for my book. It is very long. Everything (everything) in that tool kit has been used at one time or another. When you have done this for as long as I have (cruising since circa 2000), you learn things you should have and the ones you can make do without and leave along the way.
> 
> I also carry a wide variety of filters, extra belts, strainers, hoses, lots of extra clamps, spare pumps, etc. I can list thouse out too. It is not nearly as long as my other list, but hopefully extensive enough.
> 
> I assume you agree that cruising without a full complement of tools and spare parts is foolish? You must be self sufficient. In fact, the reason I am just now writing to you is that my bilge pump swith failed yesterday (and I blew a valve on my propane tank) - both of which are immediate fixes. It just happens. That's why you carry spares or have a variety of other things for emergency break-fix.
> 
> All these items take space. On my boat, stuffed and tightly fitting, they take up a 5x2x3 space. In reality, they take larger than that as some things (like a wet vac) are too large to fit in my tool compartment. All these things must go below the waterline, but not in the bilge. Where are you going to put them on that boat? Well, under the settee, of course. You just lost that space for other things.
> 
> My other settee is filled with a pressure cooker, rice, vacuseal machine, lots of galley stuff (flour, sugar, etc). It is also where I put my large and heavy cast iron skillet - to keep weight low.
> 
> In the bilge I keep my canned goods (lots of veges, soups, tuna, etc) which are heavy. THis also takes up the rest of my low dry storage. WIth that, my boat is filled below the waterline. We keep enough reserves for a comfortable month. We do not drink colas, incidentally, but I do enjoy beer which is having to be tapered because of space.
> 
> THe galley is filled with pots and pans, toaster, plates, glassware, and my dry storage is completely filled with dry goods (pasta, beans, some breads, etc).
> 
> THe salon and nav station is filled with charts and all navigational items. The salon is filled with paper items (paper towels, some paper plates, kleenex, etc). I do carry DVD's and a PS3 for the kids that takes up a cabinet, but outside of that, everything we have is what we need for basic living.
> 
> In each stateroom, all we have are clothes and many paper items (USCG docs, technical parts information, Yanmar manual, personal checking items), a small printer/scanner, a very small radio, several marine related books that are critical to me for reference, my guitar and a keyboard. THat's it.
> 
> I have a complete list of every item on this boat for the book. I wrote all of these out because I felt it was important for others to know what we carry, what works, and what doesn't. THe concept of going lean and mean just isn't reality because most people will look at my list and say, "well, I never thought about that and I will have to make a spot for it." This is information I have gathered over doing this since 1995, and cruising on/off since 2000 (really 1999). I would LOVE to know which of these things you feel is "all this stuff" that you are going to do without?
> 
> All these items take up space. Where are you going to put them on these boats? I will tell you: YOu will fill up every crevice, you will toss them into the quarter berths, and you will stuff that boat from bow to stern. Have you ever been on a F/T cruisers, liveaboard boat? Not a weekender or a vacationer - a fulltime cruisers boat? They are typically spilling over with all this junk. Believe me, as live aboards, we dump everything we can that is not essential (within reason)!!!! WHat you consider a performance cruiser (and I consider a weekend racer) simple is very short on cabinetry and places to stuff these things. That is for a good thing for a racing boat (your performance cruiser): it takes up weight and costs momey where most people would not use it. You fill a BF40 with the same cabinetry as a Tayana, for example, I bet you just lost a LOT of its compeitivness. But quite candidly, that is a silly discussion because that much cabinetry would never even fit on a BF40.
> 
> Now, once again, am I saying you cannot make a j122 or BF40 work as a cruiser? Absolutely not. You most certainly can MAKE it work. But unless cruising is marina hopping and short jaunts, to populated areas, these are the realities you have to deal with. You CAN make a J122 work... but it comes at a cost. And when you have loaded that boat "with all that stuff", you may find the great sailing charachteristics you bought that boat for are quickly lost. You may find your first storm offshore that those things that are not in cabinets are flying around like bullets (or you are slipping on them). How stiff is that boat now? WHat is its NEW RM? Because everyone of those items you stick above the waterline decreases it AVS, if not countered with an equally heavy item below.
> 
> You CAN make those boats work. Your friends in Antarctica are a prime example. There was a family I think that sailed on their First 40 around the world, IIRC. You CAN make it work. But, for the reasons I explained, I believe there are better boats for that use.
> 
> My opinions.
> 
> Brian


Without getting in the crossfire here, because I think I have a foot in both your worlds, I am wondering about your list.

I would love to see it compared to a similar list of lets say Cinderella ( Wingnwing/Dan) who also went crusing as a couple for 6 months and do it every year. They have far less volume in tankage in thier CSY 33, but have incrediable storage space. They go in relative comfort knowing them and are not minimalists.

I wonder what their requirements are in terms of fuel. water waste etc.

The argument about which boat you want for a cruising boat will be a forever one and a lot has to do with personal tastes as well as how you sail your boat also.

Some cruisers I know will never go underway when the wind pipes up to 25+...their philosophy is we can just sit and wait till the weather improves, we are retired and dont want to stress our boat. Whats the rush

Others of our friends will look at 25+ and say wee hhee...and go somewhere at breakneack speed enjoying the elements safely and get to their destination quickly, anchor and enjoy where they are in a new place.

We are of the second variety. Safety rules of course, but I dont want to buy a boat that will get stressed repeating days of winds 20+ over time. This I see as my biggest factor,

So where do you go to figure that out. Where do you figure the longevity of a boat out, afterall I want my last boat to last another 25 years without falling apart/ cracking etc. till i am 82 anyway. And at that point I dont want it to be worth nothing becaused I have used it up.

Where I go to look for this is not a scientific as speed, RM, etc. I look online at the boats that have already stood the test of time. The boats that right now were built 25 yeras ago and stiil have some worth left to them or are not beat to crap because of usage. To me this is the best indicator of the build quality of a manufacturer and thier philosphy in building a boat. All boats look great and shiney in the first 10 years, but I am not trading it away in 10 years. To me this is the biggest comparison in buying my last boat and has been all along. You wonder why people bought Tartans, Sabres, C&Cs, Calbers, Irwins in the 80s over the production boats and why they cost more and do you want to pay more for them, look how many are still aorund sailing percentage wise to the number produced and look at their sale value 25 years later to the production boats. Theres you answer. You can laugh, but of the 90 C&C MKIII produced. Well over 70 are still sailed obviously. ( I did a seach on the onwer forum for owners.) My boat is 3
years old this year. I know 2 other on this forum of SN who have the exact same model ( Hillnme and JSAronson). 80% of this model with very little research are still active. Wonder what the % of Hunters/ Bene/ Catalinas are? This is an important point to me in terms of build quality....longevity

Lets undertand that I am in no way denigrating or putting down the production boats at all. People sail them and have a great time on them and can do many of the same things we can do and even more. But will they be aorund in 25 years and in what condition. This uis a factor in buying. Many are willing and want to replace their boats before 25 more years. Maybe on of the reasons I like the teak, interiors is that in 25 years I think they will still look similar where the laminate will not. The white will fade and scratch and the teak will just need some polish.

When I see people question why would you spend almost twice as much for the same size Tartan, Sabre than corresponding Hunter. Catalina, Beneteau, thats the reason. The Tartan Sabre owers may be keeping those boats longer, and when the resell, would get less of a % devaluation than the others.

Do you want the space and obviously better cost point today, knowing you wont keep it 15 years when it wont be worth as much, or do you go a little more expensive, older, less bling and get something which will hold its value a little better. The figures on YW dont lie...compare them.

The reason a Sabre costs more than a Catalina, Hynter, Benetau is not some contrived figure. Same with a larger cruiser like a Moody, HR, Caliber, Taswell, etc.

Does one sail better and faster than the other. To a small degree probably, but which one will be sailing the same way in 30 years?

Dave


----------



## blt2ski

Got my February?!?!? issue of Sailing in the mail the other day, The maestro did review of the bluejacket 40. Not sure if it is on the sailing website as of yet. He did a good ob os reviewing it as normal. Altho personally, not sure he was enamored with it. A Hunter 40 on the page before seemed to get better remarks on how well it might do etc. 

I'm still trying to figure out how he considers the BJ40 narrow, where as the Hunter was wide being 2" narrower! Granted the Hunter was literally 2' less in length....not sure 12'2" vs 12'4" is a big deal on a 40'ish foot boat! 

Worth a gamble read for those that get the rag, and look up BP's reviews on the site when it is put on there.

Marty


----------



## PCP

Jeff_H said:


> .. I think that the problem in this case is one of lingusitics. Term 'stiff' has a very specific meaning as used in North American English speaking naval architectural jargon. I understand that this term of use does not translate literally into the terms used on other language naval architectural jargon, which may in part be complicating the discussion here. Compounding the issue further is historic useage and colloquial usage. In this case, the disagreement seems to be about a difference in definitions.


Hi Jeff. I agree on that. Things are what we call them and it seems that on colloquial terms the term Stiff in the US is used concerning a boat that sails with little heel (like a beamy boat compared with a narrow boat). But what matters to us is the proper use of the term in technical language. In fact in Europe there is no divergence in the colloquial use of the term and the technical meaning.



Jeff_H said:


> I hope this is helpful, but as used within the world of ship and yacht design, stiffness is very narrowly defined as initial stability (i.e. form stability). A boat which is stiff has a lot of form stability. The opposite to stiff is tender, and again, this is solely about the lack of form stability.
> 
> But as a boat heels, ultimate stability (also sometimes called secondary stability, gravitational stability, or weight distribution stability) becomes increasingly effective taking over as form stability eventually begins to decrease.
> 
> The combination of the form stability and ultimate stability are what describes the overall stability behavior of the vessel and stability is evaluated absent of heeling forces.
> &#8230;.
> Ultimate stability often gets confused with angle of vanishing stability (AVS) or the term I prefer LPS (limit of positive stability) which is the heel angle at which a boat would rather turn turtle than right itself. ..


I guess you are talking about ships were initial stability has probably another meaning. I am talking only about sailing boats that probably have a different definition of initial stability since the boats use heeling as a mean to increase the GZ (arm) and to make the ballast effective. Not any heeling but one that is smaller than 30º.

*That part of the stability curve, the one that is used for sailing is the one that is called initial stability on a sailing boat.*

That initial stability can come from two ways: From form stability (that is more important at lower angles of heel and where beam is a major factor) and from stability that is generated by the ballast/Draft (with heeling) providing a lower CG to the boat.

The initial stability on a sailing boat is determined basically by the addition of those two factors. Boats that are narrower have to rely more on ballast (and have or a bigger B/D ratio, or a more efficient keel or more draft and many times the three factors together), beamier boats can rely more on form stability and have the above factors more reduced.

*Anyway on beamy or narrow monohul sailboats initial stability is always the addiction of the RM provided by the two factors.*

Beamier boats tend to sail with less heel, narrower boats tend to sail with more heel (they need to have more heel to put the ballast working) but that does not mean that a narrow boat, even a very narrow one like the last monohul from the America's cup is less stiff than a beamier boat, in fact those America's cup monohuls are massively stiff.

Stiffness in a sailboat has not to do with the heel the boat is designed to sail to (that in some beamy boats can be really small and in some narrow sailing boats can go to 30º) but with the resistance the boat provides to heeling, in proportion with its wet surface and not only on the first degrees but on all heeling that is used for sailing (30º)

The better definition that I know is from Finot that says simply (quoting freely):

*Between two sailboats with the same wet surface the stiffest boat is the one that can carry more sail.*

As all the good definitions it is very simple and accurate. The RM to carry the sail can come from two sides: Hull form and ballast. On a multihull it comes only from hull form on a sailboat will come always from two sides: Hull form and Ballast, in different proportions on beamy boats and narrower boats.

Only one more word about stiffness in a sailboat:

We can consider Stiffness in absolute terms, meaning the sail area that the boat can carry regarding its wet surface and in relative terms, meaning the sail area the boat effectively carries regarding its RM.

I was obviously talking about the first one. A sailboat can be relatively tender in absolute terms and be relatively stiff regarding the proportion of sail it carries regarding its RM. For that it is only needed that the sail area that he carries is a small one regarding the wet surface. That of course means also that the boat is slow.

Stiffness in absolute terms means power in a sailboat and that's why I said that the PHRF from the Catalina (WK 120) and the First (36) is a good indication of the huge difference in stiffness between the two boats.

Regarding stiffness meaning different things in what regards sailing Naval Architecture in Europe and US I don't think so and I can find the same meaning on the use of Stiffness as defined by reference sailing US Naval Architects.

Referring *ultimate stability* also called reserve stability it is simply the one that it is not used for sailing but needed for safety purposes (over 30º).

As I have said previously it is the one that will bring the boat back from a knock down and it is as important as the initial stability (for safety) even if does not reflect itself directly on the boat performance.

The same thing I have being saying referring initial stability and ultimate stability on the words of some reference American sailing Naval Architects:

*David Gerr*:
Director of the Westlawn Institute of Marine Technology Board of Directors

*Initial stability or sail-carryng power, the stability that directly affects performance*.

The initial stability can be thought of as sail-carrying power and thus performance. The greater the initial stability the more sail a boat can fly upwind in heavier air with a taller rig and the faster the boat can go. This is so important that *initial stability is sometimes just termed "power&#8230;Initial stability is also termed "stiffness"*.

There's a great deal of misinformation about initial stability. In fact initial stability is generated by the boat's water plane area, combined with how far above or below the waterplane the boat's center of gravity is.

*Reserve or ultimate stability is every bit of essential, but for safety*.

Journal of the Westlawn Institute of Marine Technology, 2007.

*Rodney S. Johnstone*, the long time designer of Jboats:

Where does performance come from? ...

*A cruising sailboat's performance also depends on stability, or "stiffness"-the ability of the boat to resist the heeling force of the sails. *Good all-around speed is possible only if the boat is stiff; a stiff boat can carry more sail... If stiffness comes from a wide waterline beam, the boat's motion tends to be bouncy and abrupt in waves; as soon as this type of boat heels, it usually exhibits excessive weather helm and may be difficult to steer. ..
The most important characteristic of a performance cruiser is that its stiffness be derived from a low center of gravity. ...

The preponderance of heavy-displacement boats ... reflects a modern trend in cruising sailboats toward increased accommodations and decreased ballast/displacement ratios-a trend that has raised the height of the center of gravity of this type of boat. ...

.. Whether light or heavy, a narrow boat with a low center of gravity will have a rock solid feel, an easy motion, and positive control-the unmistakable aura of power, stability, and passagemaking speed.

*Michael Kasten* from Kasten Marine

*Initial stability, or the power to carry sail*&#8230;

.. more ballast lowers the center of gravity, and &#8230; it is obvious that for sail carrying, more ballast is beneficial.&#8230;.A light weight vessel having a large concentration of ballast will have* greater stiffness (initial stability)*

In a completely separate category is a vessel's ultimate stability. .. *Ultimate stability, i.e. the ability to resist or to recover from a large angle roll*, ordinarily is enhanced by the addition of ballast.

http://www.kastenyachtdesign.com/
http://www.kastenmarine.com/



Jeff_H said:


> As to the America's Cup mono-hulls, these boats have a huge amount of stability, really huge, but they are also tender under the classic yacht design definition of tender, which I know sounds like a contridiction in terms.
> Jeff


Of course the America's cup monohuls would only be tender if we applied the definition of stiffness that probably is used on ships (I know very little about it), if we use the one that is used technically in Naval Architecture regarding sailboats, the boats will be massively stiff.

You have talked about contradiction of terms and you are right. Just imagine an Open 60 that has lost its keel. Nothing new, last Vendee edition Marc crossed the Atlantic sailing without one. Some days ago, on this edition, Jean-Pierre Dick had just lost his keel, has not abandoned the race and he is trying to sail the boat back to the finish line.

If we apply that Ship definition of initial stability, then his boat is as stiff as before and still hugely more stiff than an America cup monohul and that makes no sense at all.

In fact he is sailing now a very tender boat and a boat that will only be capable of carrying reefed sails, a fraction of what was able to carry before when to the actual hull form stability was added the stability provided by the canting keel and ballast, making it a very stiff boat.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Jeff_H

PCP said:


> I guess you are talking about ships were initial stability has probably another meaning. I am talking only about sailing boats that probably have a different definition of initial stability since the boats use heeling as a mean to increase the GZ (arm) and to make the ballast effective. Not any heeling but one that is smaller than 30º.
> 
> [Regards
> 
> Paulo


We are somewhat in agreement but not fully. To have been more accurate in my earlier post, I probably should have said that the definition for 'stiff' is vertually the same in all texts whether you are talking about ships or yachts. And that definition of stiffness in any vessel applies to the range of angles at which form stability is the primary righting moment with secondary stability being less of the source of stability. That angle with vary from design to design. As a practical matter 30 degrees of heel would certainly fall within the range of initial stability on most boats.

Whether a boat is stiff or not is not defined by GZ alone since displacement is the other key component in determining the righting moment curve for any vessel, and stiffness as it is used in Naval Architecture applies to the relative stability of the vessel through the the range the form stability is the primary source of stability.

The quotes about importance of stiffness to a sailboat are mostly accurate in that the greater the stiffness of a vessel the greater the sail area a boat can carry, but there have been designs like the old English lead mine cutters which have very little initial stability, in other words are not very stiff, but which can carry a huge amount of sail because they do have a huge amount of ballasted stability.

The difference in the PHRF ratings between a Catalina 400 and the First 40 is the result of a wide range of factors, relative drag, rig and foil efficiency, and relative drag to stability certainly come to mind.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## PCP

Jeff_H said:


> ...
> Whether a boat is stiff or not is not defined by GZ alone since displacement is the other key component in determining the righting moment curve for any vessel, and stiffness as it is used in Naval Architecture applies to the relative stability of the vessel through the the range the form stability is the primary source of stability.
> 
> The quotes about importance of stiffness to a sailboat are mostly accurate in that the greater the stiffness of a vessel the greater the sail area a boat can carry, but there have been designs like the old English lead mine cutters which have very little initial stability, in other words are not very stiff, but which can carry a huge amount of sail because they do have a huge amount of ballasted stability.
> 
> ...


Exchanging opinions in this way is not the best way to reach quickly an agreement. My dificulty in explaining complex things in English does not help either. I hope you read French. They explain it well and they are talking about the GZ curve.






Why?
Because if you have a very heavy boat you will have necessarily a big righting moment since the RM is the mass multiplied by the GZ but if you have a low GZ curve you will have a tender boat.

Why?
Because that heavy boat will have a big wet surface and on account of that it will be needed a big sail area to get a decent performance out of it. The RM will be big, but the needed sail area can be even bigger in proportion to the RM and if that is the case the boat will be tender.

The indication if the needed sailing area will be easily supported by the available RM (stiff boat) or not (tender boat) is given by the GZ values because the weight that you are multiplying by the GZ values to obtain the RM values, in a well designed boat relates, with the wet surface.

Take again a look at Finot definition of stiffness that is very accurate and simple:

*Between two sailboats with the same wet surface the stiffest boat is the one that can carry more sail.*

If both boats have different weights then they will have different wet surfaces and as the weight is proportional to the wet surface (on well designed boats) you can take the weight away and remain with the GZ values that will give you a pretty good idea of the stiffness of each boats meaning the proportion of sail area available for a given wet surface.

That is why David Gerr says that* "power&#8230;... is also termed "stiffness"* and is not the only one. Normally we refer to powerful boats as stiff.

The power in a sailboat is the relation between the wet surface and the sail carried by the boat and that is why you can make a relation between the boat power or stiffness and its speed.

That's why those PHRF values on the Catalina and the First are a pretty good indication between the difference in stiffness (or power) between the two boats.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## GeorgeB

R' = 610-8.36*(SA/Disp^.333)+0.0000511*(SA^2)-55*(P/(J+E)) -30.8*(LWL^.5)-602*(DR^2/SA)


Guys, quit using the PFRF formula incorrectly. As you can see, the only variables are sail area, displacement, the P,J and E dimensions, waterline length and draft. You need Beam and Ballast if you want to calculate something like the stability index. If you want to do an interesting exercise, set up this formula in your computer, load it with the initial values for your own boat, then “tweak” them to see what you have to do to get a faster boat (hint: displacement). The one thing not mentioned is what the builders do to come up with their initial PHRF numbers. Builders of race boats (like Johnson) are pretty good at building boats at or close to their designed displacements – after all, they would go out of business pretty quickly if their boats couldn’t sail to their rating. Builders of cruising boats aren’t so careful as they know their business isn’t dependent upon winning races but rather, the perceived notion that they have a “fast” boat. They do this by understating the displacement by weighing a prototype boat without interiors, deck hardware or other furnishings. I know this as I’ve been personally involved in appealing a PHRF base rating based on an understated displacement number.


----------



## johnnyquest37

It all has to do with your definition of stiffness. Define the terms "fine entry" or "salty." It is fairly easy to say this one is "finer" or "saltier" than that one, but it is not easy to define these terms on their own. Sometimes universally accepted objective definitions of some terms are not available.

It is clear to me that the definition Paulo is using to define stiffness (i.e. stiffness = stability), even though shared by many persons of note, is not the only acceptable definition. Paulo, however, is unable to accept that others can have different defintions for the term.

I read the link provided for "_Raideur a la toile_." This definition of stiffness is mathematically described as the ratio between heeling moment (or is it "capsizing" moment? - my French is not that good) and RM. Also, it states that by definition, the _Raideur a la toile _changes with the angle of heel (_Par définition, la raideur à la toile évolue suivant la gîte.)_, which makes sense, since GZ (and therefore RM) changes as a function of heel angle. Heeling moment would also change, although capsize moment would be fixed at the point of vanishing stability.

So, if this definition of stiffness is used, what heel angles are we talking about? Low angles of heel? Angles above 30? Angles approaching 90? Capsize angles of around 130? In all cases, the ratio of the heel angle to RM changes for any given boat.

So, it is clear that stability is the factor that determines maximum sail area. The designer limits the sail area so that force in the sails alone will not capsize the boat. Greater ultimate stability results in that design being able to carry more sail. But does stability equal stiffness. Not by the definition that I chose to use.


----------



## Jeff_H

I am not sure that we are reading the same quotes and arriving at the same understanding of what is being said. And unfortunately I do not read French.

But the good news is that you and I agree on a whole lot of points here. For example, the more stability that a boat has for its drag, the more performance it will have, since it can carry more sail area at any given heel angle.

Where we are getting into problems is in the interpretation of specific sentences. For example, take the Finot quote:

"Between two sailboats with the same wet surface the stiffest boat is the one that can carry more sail."

I would interpret this sentence to mean, _if we are comparing two sail boats, and both happen to have equal drag, the stiffest boat of the two, would be able to carry more sail area_. I would not interpret that sentence to mean that the term 'stiffness' would be defined as meaning a boat literally mean that the definition of the term 'stiffest' directly means the boat which can carry more sail area. And I would agree 100% with the interpretation that I am coming away with, because the net effect is that a boat with increased stiffness (initial stability) is the boat which is capable of carrying more side force which can be in the form of a powered up saul or more sail area for any given angle of heel.

Similarly, the Dave Gerr quote " power&#8230;... is also termed "stiffness" " translates to in English naval architectural jargon as meaning, "There is a term 'powerful' used yacht design discussions which refers to a hull form that has a lot of initial stability". When a naval architect says that hull form has a lot of 'power', it means that a boat has a lot of form stability and as such it is synonymous with the term "stiff" which also means that a boat has a lot of form stability.

Power in this case does not refer to 'drive', implying that the boat has a lot of sail area. All that the term 'power' as used to describe a hull form does mean is that that hull has enough initial stability to stand up to a lot of sail area without heeling as much.

And again, while the power (meaning the stiffness of the hull which simply means the initial stability of the boat) is an important factor in a PHRF rating, so is the sail area of the boat, its drag, the efficiency of its rig, keel and rudder, and so on. It is possible to have a tender, low drag boat that has a very fast rating. A good example of that would be the Olsen 29/30 or the Hobie 33.

So I still say, our difference is in the interpretation of the terms, but not in the way that boats behave.

Jeff


----------



## sailortjk1

FYI, Hull No. 1 is currently on display at Strictly Sail Chicago.
Overall it is a good looking boat and the interior fit and finish is very high quality as you you expect from IP. Deck and Hull construction is infused and vacuum bagged, no balsa core. 
Personally I believe they are going to sell quite a few of these babies.
I will try and get some photos today.


----------



## PCP

sailortjk1 said:


> FYI, Hull No. 1 is currently on display at Strictly Sail Chicago.
> Overall it is a good looking boat and the interior fit and finish is very high quality as you you expect from IP. Deck and Hull construction is infused and vacuum bagged, no balsa core.
> Personally I believe they are going to sell quite a few of these babies.
> I will try and get some photos today.


So what do you think about the boat as a cruising boat? How about storage?

i have looked for movies or photos about the boat on the net and I found not anything of value. That is a bit odd for a boat presentation.

all I could find was this movie where we see the boat in a glance:

http://www.nbcchicago.com/video/#!/news/local/Set-Sail-For-Navy-Pier/188296621

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Jeff_H

Paulo- I see what you mean. The design looks a little better in the video that in the earlier renderings. To me there are some pretty strange details like the strange mounting for the Hoyt jib boom. I just don't get it. 

The boat still strikes me as a gryphon, a odd amalgamation of goals and parts that neither fllies like an eagle or prowls with the ferrosity of a lion. 

But maybe that is just me.


----------



## JulieMor

We toured the boat yesterday at Strictly Sail. Both Tim Jackett and Bob Johnson were on board. There was about a 15-20 min. wait as there was a "sentry" at the top of the steps monitoring the number of people on board at one time.

Strictly Sail Chicago is an out of water show and many boats didn't have their mast stepped. This one had a cut off mast, just above the boom.

Walking up to the boat it looked pretty enough. Once on board, I spoke briefly with Jackett asking about the mainsail setup. I was curious how much work would have to be done dropping the sail. They use lazyjacks and that V-shaped boom that's supposed to catch the sail as it drops. Jackett said you have to train the sail to flake properly until the stiffness is worked out at the folds and then it's just a matter of letting the main drop into the boom. He agreed a system like the Dutchman was better than lazyjacks.

Once below I was impressed with the build quality. It reminded me mostly of the Tartans we saw at Annapolis. Bob Johnson was below talking to the Larsen Marine sales guy so I started probing around.

I went to the starboard aft cabin and opened an access panel to the engine. Too dark to see much. The opening was roughly 20" square. I then went to the port cabin and tried to open that panel but couldn't. I made some noise trying to open it. 

I walked out of the cabin and into the galley and was looking at the layout. It has drawers for the refrigeration and freezer (one each) and they just slide out. I was about to ask about the drawers sliding out when underway when I saw a slide lever that locked both drawers closed. Don't forget to do that after each use!

Johnson asked me if I had any questions and I told him I had just answered my question then he said he noticed me banging at the engine access panel in the port cabin. I told him I was unable to open that one. He said it must be stuck.

He walked back to open it for me and had the same experience then added a little more _oomph_ than I did and finally opened it. The panel has the push-pop-open buttons and the new foam insulation was keeping the button lock from releasing.

I asked if there was a light in there and he said "Yes". He started reaching for the switch and I went to the starboard side and opened that panel and by then he had turned on the light but was back in the saloon so I couldn't ask him the questions I had planned. I also would have asked to open the stair access to get a better idea of what is where in the engine compartment and how easy or difficult it is to access for maintenance but people were coming and going.

So I just asked Bob about ease of access for oil changes, etc. Bob's went through a number of locations (oil filter, etc.) and I felt comfortable they didn't bury anything.

I thought the cabin wood was cherry but Bob said it was sapele. I have a nice slab of figured sapele sitting in my shop waiting to become something beautiful one day. But the sapele they use is straight grained. I've never worked with straight grained sapele but I know it's about the same cost as cherry or mahogany and cheaper than teak. Bob talked about book-matching the veneer of sapele being easier than other marine friendly woods.

As I walked forward I opened the door to the head and found it sticky. I intentionally opened and closed it a few times so Bob could hear the rubbing sound and he came over and we talked some more. The boat was so new all the wood had not fully stabilized.

After checking out the forward cabin I found, overall, that I was impressed by the quality of the boat. As I was walking out of the forward cabin I sat down on one of the faux leather setees. I asked Bob what material it was (I thought it was leather). He told me (I don't remember the name) and said their experience with real leather on a boat and this material told them this was the best choice.

Bob sat down next to me and asked me a few questions about myself (probably because not many women poke around in engine rooms) and I mentioned I'm a retired electrician. He then enthusiastically told me he would love to show me the wiring at the panel and how every wire is numbered at each end for identification and how neatly the wiring install is done. He really lit up when he said that and I could tell he was proud of the quality. When I said, "Show me," he said he can't because the A/C was on and he'd have to shut down the power. I didn't tell him we electricians often work things live. :laugher

Had there not been so many people waiting to see the boat I would have spent a lot longer checking out the boat but I thanked Bob for his time and went topside. Before I left I talked to Tim for a couple of minutes asking him about the rigging. It's a solent rig and has a jib boom like the Island Packett. I don't care for the jib boom because I like the foredeck clear 'cuz that's my favorite place when under way but I didn't tell Tim that.

I'm not crazy about the head or the location. While I heard many showgoers complain when an aft cabin was used for storage or utility, I like that. Putting three cabins in a 40' boat doesn't appeal to me. I would have designed a different cabin layout more friendly to cruising. But I think a lot of buyers today want 3+ bedrooms and 2+ bathrooms. 

Having done my fair share of cruising, the boat didn't call to me. I liked it better then the IP but not quite as much as the T4000. But to give any critical analysis of the boat I'd have to spend a lot more time on it. I really appreciated the fact Jackett and Johnson were on board. If I had more time I'm sure I would have learned a lot more.

The boat is a looker, both inside and out. It seems well built and reasonably priced for a boat of that quality (MSRP $389,950) and you wouldn't have to spend a lot more to get it ready for a bluewater sail.

I really think anyone who wants to know more about the boat could e-mail Bob or Tim and I would think they would get back to you. Bob seemed very willing to help, Tim was a bit quieter.


----------



## PCP

Jeff_H said:


> Paulo- I see what you mean. The design looks a little better in the video that in the earlier renderings. To me there are some pretty strange details like the strange mounting for the Hoyt jib boom. I just don't get it.
> 
> ...


I agree, but nothing that would not be solved by the shipyard at the costumers request. This is an essentially sound boat (hull and sail area) with some inadequate details in what regards a performance cruiser. I guess this will be a semi-custom boat and they will be more than happy to accommodate a client.

I guess that the real deal breaker will be the price that it will cost over an already expensive boat. Of course this is not, as advertised by them, a top offshore cruiser racer but a luxurious performance cruiser like for instance the Arcona 410.






Off course, this one has none of the strange details you mention

Regards

Paulo


----------



## kwaltersmi

I too viewed the BJ40 at Strictly Sail. I really wanted to be impressed because I mostly like Island Packets and Bob's prior work. I also like most of what Tim did while at C&C. However, I have to say that the BJ40 was a bit underwhelming in person.

I was put off by the gelcoat imperfections I noticed while waiting in line to board. The dark blue hull had several "smudges" near the bow and the white boot stripe lines had areas where the blue from above was creeping in. Once on board, I found several small details such as fiberglass/epoxy dust in the ports that made me believe they rushed this boat from the factory to the show.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think this is a poor quality boat overall, but I had higher expectations given IP's reputation. I also understand that this is hull #1, so things should improve, but you would think that a "world debut" showing would have the boat in tip-top shape.

Without having any knowledge of how this boat sails yet, I'd probably take my money elsewhere if I had $350k-$400k to spend on a 40-ish foot cruiser.

I've got a few pictures showing some of the deck, cockpit and cabin details that I can post later if anyone is interested.


----------



## sailortjk1

PCP said:


> So what do you think about the boat as a cruising boat? How about storage?


Guys, I never made it back on board, I was not willing to stand in line for twenty - thirty minutes with the rest of the crowd on Saturday.
No boat is worth that aggravation for me. 
I probably spent about 15 minutes total looking around on Friday. It's a boat as far as I am concerned.
The two others here have written more in depth accounts of their time on board. My biggest thumbs up comes from the piece of deck core I found laying on the galley counter. 
Like I said earlier, I believe they will find buyers who are willing to over spend.
People with more money than they know what to do with will love this boat.

The more impressive boat for me at the show was the Polish Built Delphia. Other than the in-line Galley I liked most things about this boat.


----------



## PCP

JulieMor said:


> ...
> Having done my fair share of cruising, the boat didn't call to me. I liked it better then the IP but not quite as much as the T4000. But to give any critical analysis of the boat I'd have to spend a lot more time on it. I really appreciated the fact Jackett and Johnson were on board. If I had more time I'm sure I would have learned a lot more.
> 
> ..


Nice job

Regarding comparing the Tartan 4000 with the BJ40 and if you talk only about the interior it is natural that the Tartan appeals more to cruising since it had a much bigger interior volume and has more space for everything.

The Tartan is a beamy boat with a smaller B/D ratio. The BJ is a moderately beam boat relying more on ballast than the Tartan in what regards stability.

This makes for two different boat in what regards sailing: The Tartan 4000 will sail with less heel and should be very steady running downwind. The BJ will point much better and will have a better performance upwind it will be more comfortable in a seaway (specially upwind) and will not be as stable going downwind even if the hull transom design will make it a lot more stable than older designs with narrow transoms.

I guess that one will chose the BJ over the Tartan not by the interior but because appreciates what the boat has to offer in what regards sailing and is willing to exchange that for a less voluminous interior, that even so, by your description, is a good cruising interior.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JulieMor

sailortjk1 said:


> The more impressive boat for me at the show was the Polish Built Delphia. Other than the in-line Galley I liked most things about this boat.


I knew nothing about Delphia and was pleasantly surprised too when we boarded her. At 47', she was the largest boat we boarded (I think the largest there) and I'm sure that added to the wow factor. And I can't forget to mention LED lighting in every closet and storage area. Nice feature for older eyes.


----------



## blt2ski

There have been a few Delphia's here in the NW for a couple of years, I have to say, been pretty impressed with them from the get go. have nto sold like I think they should......then again, this area of the world does not seem to go for new boats like one would think they should! A lot of folks seem to think old shoes are the way to go, ie anything from the IOR era and older!

Marty


----------



## blt2ski

HERE is Bob Perry's review of the BJ40. Not sure what to say about this review, and the Hunter 40. IIRC the H40 is narrower than the BJ, yet Bob calls the H40 a beamy boat, and the BJ normal width........

I am having a hard time figuring out of BP was liking or just doing a normal review trying not to be too harsh on it.

marty


----------



## fallard

The comparison of the Blue Jacket 40 to an IP 420 is apples to oranges. The displacement of the BJ40 is 16,5000 lbs vs 30,000 lbs for the IP420.


----------



## kwaltersmi

Here's a few BJ40 details I shot at the Chicago debut:


_Mast plate/hardware_


_Cockpit propane locker_


_Starboard aft stateroom_


----------



## Greyhound37

Should be a quick design compared to a Island Packet. Performance Cruiser not a racer/cruiser. The foils and bottom look good but otherwise very much a cruiser


----------



## PCP

kwaltersmi said:


> Here's a few BJ40 details I shot at the Chicago debut:
> 
> 
> _Mast plate/hardware_
> 
> 
> _Cockpit propane locker_
> 
> 
> _Starboard aft stateroom_


Nice details and quality material. Did not understand also that Bob Perry review neither it's opinion about the boat. He says the boat is too light to be a serious cruiser but 7.500Kg is just average among performance cruisers and even some mass production cruisers like the Jeanneau 409.

http://www.sailingmagazine.net/boats/3-perry-on-design/1338-blue-jacket-40

I hope the boat is a success. It is certainly better than the average US production and as a fast cruiser I see potential in the boat. Not as an offshore racer, as they also claim the boat to be designed for and that mostly on the account of the rigging.

No more photos?

I found this video and photos:

but not a form to embed it so you will have to look here:

http://www.sailmagazine.com/boat-news/blue-jacket-40

*According to Johnson, the boat is designed to provide sparkling performance combined with the necessary sea-keeping qualities for safe, comfortable offshore passagemaking. The result is a boat that looks sturdy and fast, and is drop-dead gorgeous.*



















I have said that I like the hull and even more on this photo. As expected this is a boat that can take heel upwind and that hull is designed to provide max hull form stability at some substantial heel angle. That angle will also provide the biggest contribution from ballast. This boat is going to be a fast upwind boat.

Cheers

Paulo


----------



## sweetsailing

Just saw the BJ40 at Larsen Marine in IL. My non-technical opinion was that as a "performance cruiser" it seems like it perhaps doesn't do either of those very well. As a cruiser, this boat has VERY little storage. The cockpit storage is so non-existance that I am not sure you could even store more than 2 fenders on this boat. Down below is not much better, the area behind the saloon seat cushions is about 6" deep (from seat back to hull). As a performance boat, I won't get into the conversation about technical specifications, and leave that to all of you who are way more schooled on that topic than I, however the cockpit of this boat is enormous. There is no where to brace yourself whether racing or in a seaway. Might be ok for lounging at anchor but I can't imagine sailing hard with that huge of a cockpit. 

So, bottom line for me, it appears that this boat has a bit of an identity crisis, not sure what it wants to be and doesn't seem to do either very well.


----------



## PCP

I don't get that story of a huge cockpit. By modern standards that cockpit is not even big since this is a not a very beamy boat. The cockpit of 40ft Catalina, Hunter or Tartan are much bigger not to mention European boats even performance ones. Or we are comparing this boat with older and less performant designs? That does not make sense.

Regarding space this boat should be a two cabin only boat. With two cabins it will have plenty space (with a large cockpit locker) as the galley could be extended a bit (and it would gain a lot with it).


----------



## kwaltersmi

FYI - Larsen Marine in Illinois now has a BJ40 for sale with an asking price of $430k. Anyone got a deposit down yet?


----------



## manhattan08

Wow - that's a little chunk of change. Glad we are out of the recession.


----------



## PCP

kwaltersmi said:


> FYI - Larsen Marine in Illinois now has a BJ40 for sale with an asking price of $430k. Anyone got a deposit down yet?


That is just what I was afraid of. The competition, even with Swedish top quality costs almost $100K less

http://www.arconayachts.fi/410/Test_YW_Nov_2011/YW_A410_Nov_2011.pdf

Regards

Paulo


----------



## SecondWindNC

I don't see anything on Arcona's website about a U.S. dealer.


----------



## PCP

SecondWindNC said:


> I don't see anything on Arcona's website about a U.S. dealer.


USA - Arcona Yachts

http://www.yachtworld.com/gys/

http://www.arconayachts.se/modell/410?Modell=410&Info=10

That difference in price regards the boat out of the shipyard. Probably that difference will be smaller if the boat is imported to the US.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## bjung

PCP said:


> That is just what I was afraid of. The competition, even with Swedish top quality costs almost $100K less
> 
> http://www.arconayachts.fi/410/Test_YW_Nov_2011/YW_A410_Nov_2011.pdf
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


I understand only the Arcona 430 and 460 are built in Sweden, all smaller models are now built in Estonia. Any input on build quality differrences?


----------



## PCP

bjung said:


> I understand only the Arcona 430 and 460 are built in Sweden, all smaller models are now built in Estonia. Any input on build quality differrences?


Didn't notice any difference and I have not heard nobody complying. Estonia is not china, it is a Baltic country closed connected in tradition, history and even genetically with the other Scandinavian countries. They were occupied by the Russians and are recovering economically from that.

Lots of Nordic boats being built there to take advantage of the cheaper labor and skilled workmanship.

Regards

Paulo


----------

