# J-40 for Long Distance Cruising ?



## TSOJOURNER

I haven''t seen much discussion on this forum re J40 and it''s long distance potential. I notice that "Gyrphon" is currently listed for sale after a fairly quick circumnavagation. My initial thinking is that J40s sail very well, should be well constructed but lack needed storage. The admidship head could be converted into wet locker/storage pantry while keeping the actual head for seagoing usage. Does anyone have experience with a J40 in a seaway. How is the motion, do they sail on their ears, do they pound up-wind, etc? Is there an issue with the rudder bearing? Would greatly appreciate any input on these issues as well as current thinking for a short handed boat in the 37 to 40 range that can sail yet hold up to the rigors of long distance cruising.


----------



## hamiam

not alot of help but i believe that there is a J-40 in this month''s Soundings Magazine that is for sale that has recently completed a multi-year cruise. You might want to speak with the owner regarding his/her experiences.


----------



## jack_patricia

D, GYRPHON is only one example of J40''s used for extended cruising. There''s a J40 website with some useful info on conversions and construction issues that I''m sure Google will produce; sorry that I don''t have the URL handy.

Still, it''s a relatively small volume hull and I think load carrying and storage issues, as you mention, would be one of its liabilities. E.g. we saw a J40 that was being cruised down in Bequia. Because the crew had decided that the boat absolutely had to have all the ''normal'' cruising gear (acres of canvas, solar panels, wind generator, wind surfer, on-deck jug farms due to its limited tankage, and oodles of other gear), it was down on its lines and looked like it had horrid windage. It seemed to me at the time the choice of the boat was made well before decisions about what the crew thought they needed from their boat.

Jack


----------



## Jeff_H

Since the introduction of the J-40 I have always viewed these boats with a mixed emotions. There is a whole lot about these boats that I really love. They sail well and have a very workable deck plan. They have a simple but nice interior layout. They are reasonably easy to handle in a wide range of conditions although I would prefer a fractional rig for offshore use. From my perspective, they represent a good compromise between performance and comfort. 

But if used for extended cruising they need to be pretty extensively adapted. As they came from the factory they lack adequate water supplies, seaberths and gorund tackle handling gear for example. 

Boats like the J-40 need to be viewed differently than is popular when thinking about distance cruisers. Extended cruising in a boat like the J-40 requires a very different mindset. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, if you size the J-40 by its a 16,700 lb displacement, this is a pretty small boat. In other words distance cruising in any 16,700 lb boat whether it is 32 feet or 40 feet is bound to be a little spartan. There is only so much payload weight in gear and supplies that a 16,700 lb boat can carry. You do not have the luxury of carrying anything that you might want to drag along. You do not have the luxury of carrying the kind of fuel supply to have ''all of the comforts of home''. It means that you have to be willing to limit the amount of gear and stores that you bring aboard. 

This is not so much a short-coming of the boat as it is a decision that one makes about what is important to them. The only other gripe that I have about the J-40 is that they just were not all that robust and I would want to beef up the rudder/rudder post, keel sump and transverse framing. 

Jeff


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Thanks for the feedback, especially so as from Jeff. My previous voyaging was on a heavy 32 footer, with about 40 gallons of water, sextant, timex quartz ch., 2 burner kerosene stove and small poorly insulated icebox. I can get by without most of the current goodies, but don''t know if I can leave the windsurf board behind.


----------



## jack_patricia

D, there''s another way we can look at the J40 if we''re willing to ignore the price issue. For a 9 ton boat (fully loaded, provisioned & equipped), it''s fast, easily sailed and with a functional layout that''s open, airy & suitable for a tropical environment. As Jeff suggests, when prospective buyers compare it with other 40 footers, they may find storage and tankage significantly smaller and they may wonder where they''ll be putting their huge collection of systems & add''l hardware. But when compared to most 8-9 ton boats, it''s probably a better performer while carrying the same load, and more comfortable as a home.

And so we once again get to the nub of the issue, which is more about you, what you want out of the boat (performance vs. systems/cabins/tankage), and where you intend to do your cruising. If you can live comfortably on 100 amp/hrs/day, avoid the 5 gal. shower and invest the time and effort to provision thoughtfully and without carrying along the butcher shop from back home, this boat is more than adequate to the task re: volume. It may just cost more than many 8-9 ton boats.

Jeff brings up a good question about the rudder and its bearing & structural set-up, and as I recall GYRPHON had to replace their bearing while in SoPac waters. All these boats with spade rudders can see a huge loading at sea in a blow. I''m not sure how feasible it is to strengthen that further, altho'' a call to TPI and/or J Boats would be a good idea if you get serious about this boat.

Jack


----------



## TSOJOURNER

The J-40 is a cruising option that has appealed to me as well. Jeff and Jack have both touched upon the subject of boat selection criteria, which is a multi-faceted equation that must be understood and calculated by each sailor individually.

Most of us view boats by length overall. No less an authority than Steve Dashew has recommended purchasing the longest boat you can afford, reasoning that waterline length has the most impact on speed and comfort as well as safety. The J-40 is demonstrably fast, relative to nearly any other cruiser its length. It has an easy to handle sail and deck plan which includes a large powerful mainsail with traveler and sheets located handily for the helms-person. It has an easily driven narrow beam hull form, which I suspect would contribute to reasonably comfortable motion characteristics, except for heel angle and tenderness which they have been accused of, especially in shoal draft versions.

Here the compromises of the selection process begin to arise. It has been rightfully pointed out that space for equipment and provisions is limited relative to boats with larger volume hull forms. Loading up this 17,000# sailboat will have greater impact on performance than it would on a heavier displacement vessel. If another boat is examined with a larger volume hull form, a wider beam and/or fuller sections will cause displacement to go up along with wetted surface area. In order to achieve anything like the performance of a J-40, sail area would then have to be vastly increased and handling of the greater loads will become a bigger chore. Ultimately, this vicious circle simply produces a bigger boat. Even if it remains 40’ LOA, it ends up 20,000#, or wherever you wish to call it quits.

It is a logical and preferable alternative to primarily select the displacement first of the sailboat one is comfortable handling, given individual crew constraints and sailing intentions. Considering all available 17,000# sailboats to take cruising, the J-40 must be considered near the top of the list in my view. Certainly there are numerous other factors to consider such as those pointed out by others, and it may be determined that a larger displacement vessel is needed to provide the desired comfort and capacity, but if the alternative is to choose a boat of shorter length at the same displacement it is doubtful that much increase in comfort or capacity will be achieved. 

There may well be more recent design developments that improve upon the sailing qualities, durability or accommodations of the J-40, but then the cost element is also introduced. Newer boats usually cost more. If they don’t then we must look hard to find out how they achieved cost savings, why they are less well regarded, and what are the other trade-offs. Here we must compare boats of a given price and displacement. Displacement has traditionally been considered to have a greater impact on price than length does anyway, though they are inseparably related. Ballast ratio, construction and hardware technology, power resources and tank capacity all literally weigh into this, making the value factor the most difficult element of the boat selection equation to calculate, especially as it is compounded by differences in individual priorities.

Sorry for the long winded commentary. Since I am no mathematician, this has probably resulted in no solution, but it’s a subject I’ve been thinking about as you see. I personally think the J-40 is a reasonable alternative if you like a boat for going places and sailing well too, which is all I needed to say in the first place. -Phil


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Hi there, 

we sailed our J-40 Argonaut from SF to Sydney in 2003. To make it short, I loved the boat. The rudder bearing did go out on us, and I had to replace it in Hawaii. Wasn''t fun (or cheap). She will outsail most anything you come up against, handles BIG seas fine, goes to weather very well (which we did much more than I ever expected). We did convert the fwd head into storage. Also, the lazarette holds oodles of stuff. We had 5 headsails and 3 chutes with us (no furler on purpose). If you dropped one or two of the headsails and 1 or two of the chutes, you''d have plenty of stowage. Having all these sails, though, permitted us to do the crossing with around 40 gallons of diesel, start to finish (the tank holds about 33 gallons). We had no gerry cans, so what was in the tank had to suffice. 

...Chris


----------



## jack_patricia

Chris, thanks for the first-hand comments...which are always more valuable than we arm-chair commentators. I''m hoping you could follow-up by offering your answers to two key questions raised in the other posts:
1. What was your boat''s actual fully-loaded/equipped displacement when making your passages, as compared with the 16,700# design displacment quoted above? And how did you find that add''l load affected her sailing abilities (when, how much - to give us a sense for how the boat dealt with the weight abuse, whatever it was)?
2. Along with the rudder bearing, were there other signs of structural issues with the boat? Or were your passages such that there really wasn''t any opportunity for those to show up?
Thanks for whatever (add''l) light you can shed on this discussion!

Phil, I liked how you expressed several of your points. My reaction is that Dashew''s expressed view that one should consider length as the ''primary criterion'' is pretty typical of what surfaces in an ''expert book'' when the writer ends up being theoretical more than realistic. The real world ''pimrary criterion'', and one Dashew probably wouldn''t quibble with except around the edges, would better be stated something like ''longest boat that meets minimum structural requirements for the money you have to spend''. This is as opposed to the most length you think you can handle, or the most features offered by the length, or the most systems that can be comfortably placed and serviced on the boat - all of which seem to end up being competing criteria by the boat-as-RV cruising contingent.

Good discussion.

Jack


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Hi Jack,

not sure how much we loaded her down - it was about 1'''' at the waterline. We were used to racing the boat (no furler, peels for sail changes), and the fingertip control of the absolutely phenomenal steering-setup the J40 has. This fingertip control, by the way, holds true as much in 35 or 40 knots of wind (and seas) as in 10-12 knots. If not, something''s wrong with the trim setup. Makes it of course easy for the autopilot. 

Now we went for a testsail after loading the boat completely the first time, and I just about broke down crying. Sluggish, difficult to keep in a groove (still better than most boats, but nothing close to her potential). We had 300'' of chain and a bruce 45 on the bow. So we cut the chain into 2x120 + 1x60 feet, spliced 3strand to the 60 feet, and kept that on the bow, while moving the 240'' amidships. It''s hard to describe the huge difference this made. So for every passage we''d switch to the short-chain version, and the connect a 120'' section in once we had made landfall. The one time we didn''t do this for a passage, I regretted it. 

BTW, I believe that LOTS of cruisers suffer from way to much weight in the bow. When we were making landfall in Australia (part of a loose ralley), we were in our 3rd front of the passage, and doing 7+ knots beating into the seas (~55 degrees apparent) in the high 20''s/low30''s windwise. The boat was well balanced (reefed, #4 jib), and I was having fun as we rode the waves. Now this other boat we passed very quickly would climb up a wave, then the bow would smash down the backside, submerge, the next wave washing over bow and deck, and pretty much completely stopping the boat. Then slowly, he''d gain speed again, just to climb up the next wave, crash/submerge/and stop again. This all under power, because with sails alone he didn''t have the strength to fight the seas. On the VHF he was wondering what kind of amazing engine we had ;-). 

So I think that weight distribution is maybe even more important than total weight. BTW, this guy it turns out had 500'' of chain in the bow. 

I guess a fundamental question to ask yourself is do you like to sail, or to hang out at anchorages with lots of stuff. The two are nearly incompatible, unless you are amazingly wealthy. Just know that you''ll have to trade off one for the other. 

In regards to structural strenght on the 40, we didn''t have any problems, despite repeatedly beating into nasty waves. Off Samoa we kept on launching off waves an crashing down so bad that everything just shook to the bones. In that case, we reduced sail and slowed down, which fixed the prob. But no structural stuff. Only creeks we had were under the staircase. I had re-located the batteries there from the lazarette to center the weight better, and should probably have strenghted the thin ply-wood a bit before doing that (that section just wasn''t conceived/built as a battery compartment - did help with the weight distribution though ;-). 

....Chris

P.S.: I''ll be giving a talk about our trip at a SF Bay area yacht club in January, so if anyone''s interested, mail me at [email protected]


----------



## Paul_L

Are you saying that you used 40 gals of fuel from SF to Sydney? How many days did you spend on this trip?
What did you use for self-steering/auto-pilot?

Paul


----------



## Jeff_H

I am not sure how relevant this is to your question, when I was researching my boat I exchanged email with a fellow who single-handed a Farr 11.6 (Farr 38) from South Africa to the Carribean (a much shorter trip). The boat was set up with a windvane and minimal electronics. He said he came up on one tank of fuel (something less than 17 gallons). Of course that kind of low fuel useage is only possible with the absense of refrigeration and electronic autopilots. He thought that his biggest draw was running his tricolor at night.

Regards,
Jeff


----------



## jack_patricia

Chris, thanks for the informative, lengthy reply. Neat info and a good reminder for those of us who prefer all-chain rodes, too.

Jack


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Great post Chris.

Many sailors forget the fact that boats behave quite differently when loaded and that the balance of the load out can be critical to her motion at sea. Carrying too much weight on the bow is typical and your example is very helpful. 

Recently was aboard a 36'' cat someone was cruising and living aboard. It was loaded up with so much that its waterline was 3 inches higher. That basically killed any performance gain. 

Higher displacement boats have a greater carrying capacity. That is one advantage. Given all the high tech gear we have today though ....smaller electronics, multifunction electronics, ultra light cold weather and foul weather gear, better designed ground tackle....cruisers who need to can lose a lot of the weight. It all adds up. 

Best

John
s/v Invictus
Hood 38


----------



## Jeff_H

John 

I think that is only partially true. In a general sense, I would think that the payload that any boat can carry in supplies and gear before it begins to lose performance is generally in a range somewhere around 15-20% of its overall displacement. That is true even of very light race boats which will often carry that much in crew and spare sails. (Think of a 14,000 lb 40 footer with a 9 man crew and all of their gear.)

If you compare a longer boat with the same displacement as a shorter boat, the longer boat will have much greater carrying capacity with smaller impact on performance than the shorter boat. Even if you compare equal length boats, the lighter boat may lose more of its ultimate speed advantage but it still may be faster than the heavier boat when each is carrying the same payload. 

Respectfully

Jeff


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Hi Jeff

Good point on boat length and performance. I agree. LOA and LWL being equal, the boat with the greater displacement should have a greater carrying capacity. Displacement being equal, the boat with the greater LOA or LWL should be able to carry more. 

I was really trying to address the issue of overloading. Many cruisers I have witnessed recently are carrying tremendous amounts of...just stuff. Every possible electronic, more ground tackle than the titanic as well as all the comforts of home with a nice heavy genset thrown in. The result is more and more boats being used as barges and not sailing vessals. I understand the reason for this, to each his own. But...in my mind, I think a lot of the ''stuff'' is needless and wasted. Much will hardly ever be used, much could be replaced perhaps even less expensively with more modern, lighter equivalents. 

I do think many of us in this forum in particular are alike. No matter whether we cruise or not, we got our boats because we want to sail them. I believe one can and should reasonably match the load out requirements to the performance parameters of the given vessal (not just take a given vessal and load it up without regard). People should give this thought to this as they do route planning etc. 

The J/40 issue might be a good exemplar. Here is a boat made for sailing. A pleasure to sail. It can be loaded out for reasonable cruising but overloaded, it becomes the leaded pig that any boat will. There are two more attractive alternatives. Either plan the fitting out and loading out with careful consideration as to weight carried. Or get a boat more suited to being loaded down. 

It is essentially the same thing as making an energy budget. Everything you could think of taking on a boat has specs you can look up. 

Look forward to chatting with you soon.

John


----------



## Jeff_H

I very much agree with you about the idea of picking a boat that will meet your needs in terms of what you personally need aboard. That is at the heart of my arguement for sellecting a boat by the displacement that you need. Weight only breeds more weight so unless you have an idea about how much weight needs to come aboard, it gets harder to achieve performance as more stuff creeps down below. Looked at another way, you pay a price for performance in terms of either going a little spartan for given length and lighter displacement, or else going longer to get the comfort and performance. There is nothing worse than sailing a boat that is way overloaded in terms of decreased motion comfort, seaworthiness and performance. I also like your point about the an energy budget. All to often you see boats that are compromised by the fuel cans lashed to the deck and bilges and lockers filled with spare tanks syndrome that comes with stuffing too many comforts of home into too small an envelope. 

Regards,
Jeff


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Yep, I am saying 40 gal for roughly 8000 miles and 9 months worth of cruising. Basically, with the tank holding 30 gallons (roughly 250 mile range), you don''t turn on the engine when you are becalmed on a 2000 mile passage, because it really wouldn''t help anyhow. So you use the engine to get into and out of anchorages. Even then, we tried often to sail in/out, just to keep in practice. Having light-air sails, and doing frequent changes, is part of the game though in this case. 

You might wonder why we did this. Here''s a short story to illustrate. We were loosely part of a HAM net. At one point, the engine of this particular boat died, while at anchor. So he is sitting there for days on end, and can''t get out, because its either blowing to hard and he''s worried about the reefs at the entrance, or it''s not blowing enough (and he''s worried about the reefs at the entrance). Now to make matters worth, when it''s blowing really hard, he gets injured (literally the coat-hook in the eye thing), and he still can''t get out. Finally, someone else sailed to the anchorage and towed him out. Then he caught a flight to Australia to have his eye looked after (the anchorage was, I think, in Papua New Gunea) - it all turned out well.

For me, this gets at two things: boat''s too heavy to sail in light air, and many sailors stay comfortable and don''t push themselves to the edge (my wife and I had more than one friendly argument about sailing into tight spaces, until this ham-net thing unfolded real-time for over a week with us watching)


----------



## jack_patricia

John, Jeff & the Group:

I sure wish the recent discussion you two are sharing on how a boat is equipped, energy budgets, and how it sails had a higher visibility in the long-term, long-distance cruising venue than it does. Simply put, it''s just very common to find overloaded boats in today''s anchorages, and I''m convinced that in most cases the owners/crews really don''t have any concrete notion of how their boat''s sailing qualities have been incrementally effected. And the issue isn''t just ''weight'', either. The windage inherent in a dodger, bimini, weather cloths, easy-drop mainsail cover, radar arch, solar panels and jug farm(s) looks to my eye like it not only spoils the inherent aesthetic appeal a boat may have (''tho many cruising boats seem to be built ugly) but this windage must surely retard sailing ability to windward significantly. (Jeff, have you ever seen any empirical data on this in your design work? It would be interesting to know if it were quantifiable in some way). I have noticed this incremental degradation in performance becomes noticable when Ma & Pa Kettle return from their Caribbean Thing, offload the boat to the point where it''s ready to be sold, and then they do a sea trail with a prospective buyer or daysail her for fun. Oh Lordy, are they surprised...

That SSCA Panel I was on this year, if I didn''t mention it before, was a real eye opener: 6 panel members representing 5 boats, all of whom had crossed at least one ocean and been out for some years now. The average boat, WHOOSH excluded, was 45'' LOA, between 16-20 tons (yet in each case, only 2 crew), ''needed'' 250-300 amp/hrs/day in DC consumption, had every system known to the CW advertising staff, had 2 dinks and 2 outboards (''one might break, you know...'') and of course every conceivable kind of canvas. Most had generators. As the panel began, I hadn''t thought of Patricia and I as the ''minimalists'' in the group; after all, we make big/clear/hard ice cubes, get real-time wx info and do email onboard, use lots of electronic thingies and have what we consider all the comforts of home. Hah! When I mentioned we used 70-80 amp/hrs/day and haven''t so far needed a water maker, eyes rolled and we might as well have been Lyn & Larry Pardey.

John''s caution about selecting a boat that''s not going to be *too* overburdened by a given crew, given each crew''s own tastes in systems and personal effects, is right on...but there are several reasons why I don''t think it occurs often. First, folks start out with little experience and so can''t imagine the loading issue being as significant as it is. Second, systems (and also sheer boat junque) are acquired incrementally, without a thought about their collective impact. Third, boats are viewed as RVs these days, with the entitlement notion that a boat really should provide all the comforts of a condo simply because it can. Fourth, I wonder how many of us actually like and seek out good sailing, when our motivations are often in other areas. And I suspect the biggest reason is represented in the old saying ''The best boat to go cruising in is the one you have'' and so folks make do with what they have, and just ''load her up''.

I remember when we were in the shopping mode that led us to WHOOSH (a Pearson 424 ketch), I used Dave Gerr''s Nature of Boats and estimated the #/inch immersion measurement for her - it was roughly 1 ton, which I liked. Even so, one of our winter projects while in our berth is to - once again - pull every single thing out of every locker and see what we can whittle down or eliminate altogether. (It felt very silly to be out sailing this past summer with a dehumidifer bubble-wrapped and tied down in the forward cabin). When flying home for the holidays, our bags were loaded with only one change of clothes but we sure had a lot of boat ''stuff'' in there. Without consistent effort, the weight just keeps getting added...much like what happens to all of us around the holidays. <g>

Jack


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Jack and Jeff, I think those were two very very important posts. Hope many will read carefully more than once. 

Jack - glad you are back. You raise many important points. Cruising boats have gotten larger...for a certain segment of the cruising world. It is something that is getting some press and enters into the long debated topic of what is the perfect boat. This in itself bears another topic thread for some lengthy discussion.

As Jeff points out, you pay for capacity one way or another. A larger boat means more expense, much much more work, heavier mainsail to haul, heavier ground tackle etc etc. A smaller boat can take less without encountering its own penalty. 

Case in point. I sailed a boat similar to mine in FLA once. The owner was a liveaboard and had fit the boat out for convenience at the dock and not sailing. He made up some monster davit/arch setup for the stern himself. Unreal. And then hung everything you can imagine off of it. RIB, outboard, TWO wind gens, solar panels and radar. Unreal. We sailed and the heeling moment of this boat was almost scary. I really felt that the owner had created a potentially dangerous situation for cruising. Sailing a sistership in Annap later that was set up for serious cruising...with sailing in mind...was a completely different experience. They could have been two different boats. It was a good lesson. 

The same boat with a rib on nicer lighter davits (which are also lower to the water), ob hung on the transom, two newer (lighter higher capacity) solar panels fitted to the bimini, no wind gen and radar off the backstay sailed just great. In fact, at the risk of being prideful, I will say that SAILING this boat ...for me at least...is the thing that adds joy to cruising (that and my new sea kayak :O). 

There is no perfect boat. There are plenty of choices, however. Each optimal for a different approach. 

Great discussion.

My best to all

John
s/v Invictus
Hood 38


----------



## PCP

Great forum. I am new here.

I agree with that.
Ocean crossing with a j40 certainly would be fast and uncomfortable, and you would have to travel light, even if the boat has an AVS that gives tranquility.
Not a family boat, or a living aboard, unless you live alone and are a sportsman.


----------



## Paul_L

I think that''s a pretty impressive feat - you must have been a real tight-wad on the engine use*g* You must not have had to use the engine to charge the batteries much. 
What type of wind vane steering did you use? How well did it drive down wind? I assume you had no refrigaration and didn''t use the auto-pilot much?

My J/37 has about 25 gals fuel (close to 290 miles) and currently has a larger holding tank than a fuel tank. I''ve been considering replacing some of the holding tank with a 2nd fuel tank to avoid having tank farms on the deck. Not sure how much fuel I really want to carry.

Paul


----------



## Paul_L

Have you ever sailed on a J/40? It isn''t spartan or uncomfortable.

Paul


----------



## TSOJOURNER

why is it that some folks always seem to generalize fast with uncomfortable.

I would rather miss some clutter on the boat and go full out ( whatever that means) than to sit like a duck with all the crap on board swinging in the waves ...

There are pages of pages very well written stuff in front of that post. And than comes something like this....... 

Thorsten
J 30


----------



## PCP

No, but I have sailed some cruiser-racers that are not very different in shape and performance.
Don''t get me wrong, I like the J40 a lot, and I even would have fun doing a fast and sporty oceancross in it, with a competent crew. 
But for cruising with the family it is another matter. I am sure I would have a lot of complaints, cause what is fun for me is (unfortunately) not fun for my family. I am talking not only about not having regularly fresh water baths, but also of a significant heel of the boat, of the fast pounding against the wind, with water flying around, I am talking about taking care alone of those big sails. Yes, like a lot of families, they are there for the sun and the beaches, I am there cause I like to sail, so they sit inside and read or play games, I take care of the boat and a cruiser-racer is not the easiest boat to handle alone, or with a very short crew, in an oceanpassage. It is in that sense that I say that it is uncomfortable.
About the water, my "family crew" wastes 300 liters of the stuff in around 4 days, so even being conservative and cutting that in half, I will need a lot more than the water carrying capacity of a J40, the same with the fuel, if I choose to use a watermaker.

Sorry if I didn''t make myself clear.

Paulo


----------



## Jeff_H

I think that Paulo''s answer is really in line with the topic as we have been discussing it. Paulo sounds like he understands the needs of his family and given those needs the limited tankage, etc would be a problem. It is exactly to the point that boats like the J-40 are not made for everyone and that they may only make sense for people who are willing to live with some trade-offs for a additional performance. 

That said, I am not sure that I agree with all of Paulo''s comments. For example "I am talking about taking care alone of those big sails." Handling a boat like a J-40 should actually be easier than handling a heavier displacement boat. While the J-40 has a lot of sail area for its weight, it does not have a lot of sail area for a 40 footer. A typical, heavier displacement 40 footer would normally have an even larger sail plan than the J- and would not have the high quality sail handling hardware that is typically found on boats like the J-40. J-40''s actually are designed to be great short/single-handers. 

The same thing applies to heel angles. While a J-40 with its full racing sail plan is indeed biased towards lighter air performance and so has a lot more sail than would be ideal as windspeeds build, in the big picture the easier driven hull of the J-40 allows it to get by with a smaller sail plan relative to stability when in cruising mode. More specifically the comparatively small need for sail area to over come drag combined with the J-40''s comparatively higher vertical center of buoyancy relative to its comparatively low center of gravity means that the J-40 in cruising mode may actually heel less than a heavier displacement cruiser. 

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## catamount

"Yep, I am saying 40 gal for roughly 8000 miles and 9 months worth of cruising. Basically, with the tank holding 30 gallons (roughly 250 mile range), you don''t turn on the engine when you are becalmed on a 2000 mile passage, because it really wouldn''t help anyhow."

In contrast, on our 2003 voyage to Newfoundland and back aboard my father''s Cape Dory 36 (perhaps of similar displacement to the J-40, although not of similar performance), we ran the engine for a total of about 350 hours (over five weeks, that averages about 10 hours per day!) Of course, Radar was a big energy hog, and we were often running the engine as much for power generation as for propulsion. With our longest passage at 750 miles, turning the engine on when we weren''t making as much progress as we''ld like clearly was an option. 

The Cape Dory 36 -- which many seem to think of as the quintessential cruising boat --seems like a polar opposite in nearly every aspect to a J Boat....

Myself, I fancy a J-109, but''s unlikely I''ll ever be able to afford one, so instead I''m considering something like a J-35 (not my father''s CD36) for my future voyaging (a possible year-long sabbatical cruise of a North Atlantic Circle, probably single-handed much of the way).

Regards,

Tim


----------



## Paul_L

I used to own an Alberg 35, not too distance a cousin from the Cape Dory 36. It was a good boat, but I won''t say it was a comfortable boat. She liked to lay on her rails, needed lots of wind to go and the deck layout and sails were a fair amount of work to run. And yes, we motored a lot. My J/37 is much easier to sail, doesn''t need to lay on its rail to go to weather, and is more comfortable in a big sea than the Alberg. I''m pretty sensitive to getting seasick and have to deal with it for at least 4 or 5 days before I settle in - and even then... I find the Js motion no worse and in a lot of ways more pleasant than the Alberg in the same type of blow.

Paul


----------



## PCP

After reading Jeff''s reply to my post I was a bit confused. He certainly seemed to know what he was talking about...but it didn''t make sense to me. So I did a little search on the J/boats website, and.. surprise..the only 40 footer I knew from Jboat was called 120, and looks like everybody was talking about the predecessor of the actual j42. 
Sorry guys, I was talking about a boat with 13900 pounds to 780sqf of sail, when everybody was talking about a boat with a displacement of 21000p to 733sqf of sail.

Obviously it is not the same thing, not by a long shot.

My only excuse is that I am an European, not very familiarized with the U.S. boats (but wishing to know more). I have to say also, that the designations of the J/boats are very strange: they call the boats by their length, but measure the cruising/racing line in metrical units (dm) and measure the cruising line in feet? That''s misleading at least for me...I haven''t even noticed that they have a cruising line.

Looking now at the right boat, she looks well conservative in weight and sail, by European standards. 
My own boat, a 36f cruiser, with 11463p of displacement and 678sqm of sail looks more extreme and I know people that have made several ocean crossings and even a world tour in it.
I would say that the only things that I don''t like in the j40 are the capacity of the fuel and water tanks (for family cruising), otherwise it looks like a great boat to sail anywhere single handed or by a couple.
The j42 looks close in performance and style to the Tartan 4100, one of the boats that I have taken in consideration to substitute my actual boat, in a near or not so near future, and I intend to do long distance cruising.
So it looks like I didn''t know what I was talking about.......

Sorry guys I will be more careful next time.

Paulo


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Hi guys,

a couple of comments on the J-40. She is actually very comfortable (some pics at www.ditzen.com), with a nice interior, etc.. Even in rough seas, I didn''t feel any more uncomfortable than other much heavier boats I''ve been on (e.g. PacCup on a Baltic 42). 

In regards to electricity: we used two 120watt adjustable kyocera panels mounted on self-designed lifeline mounts. We had no water maker, no fridge, (no liferaft ;-), a fold-a-boat, and a radar, which we hardly used (it was backstay mounted and didn''t give us much visibility), and then the nav-lights, HAM radio, etc.. The boat came with an alpha below-the-deck AP, which we mated to a nexus control (worked great). For a vane we used the sailomat. Because of the low-power requirements, we were typically fully charged by 11:00am. Only twice did we go into a second night not being fully charged, but we never had to run the engine to generate power. After a while the engine started to run rough, so I adjusted the valves and noticed a small bit of rust on the valve-stems etc.. So we started to run the engine at least once a week. 

Now this might seem extremely spartan, but it really didn''t/doesn''t feel that way. I think that as in land-life, one easily falls into the trap that more stuff is better. So we read reviews, articles, and read all the stuff we ''need''. Funny thing is, that when we moved off the boat, we still found stuff we hadn''t touched in over a year. 

...Chris

P.S.: maybe not the right place to put this, but here''s my list of the top 5 things we had with us (in order of priority):
1) A flat cut #4 sail. Wow, what a difference it makes, so much less heel, but still great drive.
2) A shy kite, asymmetrical, flown off a pole. 840 sqf instead of 1300 sqf for our full kite. We''d have this puppy up 24 hours a day, fly it through squalls, etc.. No prob. Just square it back and run deeper, and up to 25kn the AP could handle it, with up to 35kn with handsteering. In 15kn costs you 0.5kn boatspeed, but it''s safe in a squall!
3) Dremel tool & cordless drill
4) Windspeed instruments
5) carbon fiber spinny pole (this permitted us to do sail changes, set/take-downs single-handed - great to give your partner time off to sleep). 

Things that weren''t worth it:
1) Radar (esp. backstay mounted)
2) electronic charting (we had both paper and electronic for most part, and used paper always, with electronics as backup)
3) Full sized 1.5oz (heavy) kite. When it could stay full in a swell, it was too dangerous to keep up with just the two of us.


----------



## jack_patricia

Before this enjoyable thread drops off the board altogether, I thought I''d just put in a plug to visit Chris'' small, enjoyably readable website: www.ditzen.com

There are some useful nuggets there for folks who busily post questions about which boat to buy, or how to equip it. And then there''s the entertaining story about how Chris managed to lock himself in his own lazarette during the only period he was singlehanding his boat off the Oz coast. (Chris, you''d probably be surprised how often this happens - including among savvy sailors like Bill Seifert, who describes a similar experience in _Offshore Sailing_).

The main lesson I got - once again - out of reading Chris'' comments here and at www.ditzen.com is that we tend to talk about both boats and boat systems far too much in a vacuum, and forget far too often how both boat and systems are ''good'' or ''not so good'' based on the crew and the sailing to be done. E.g. when I listen to Chris praise the pleasure and functionality of their many hank-on headsails, I place this in the context of he and his wife''s youth, stature, love of mountain climbing and their racing background...rather than cinsidering it a vote against jib furling systems for everyone. Similarly, it wasn''t until I read his logs that I understood why we heard him say his 120 gallons of water was plenty. Unlike a conventional routing via the Maraquesas and Tuamotus to the Societies, which can take several months and place a boat in atolls with minimal water supplies, they sailed a route that promised reliable water supplies after each passage...and he seemed to speak pleastantly of salt-water showers.<g>

I can just picture some future visitor seeing the thread title and choosing to read it so s/he can check a box on whether a J-40 is a ''good'' choice or not for a Pacific cruise. I hope a lot of insight is exercised...

Jack


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Paul,
I know this great discussion of the J40 is in reference to offshore, but I am curious about the shallow draft versions of the J40 and the J37. Is your J37 deep draft? I really like both the J40 and the J37 but the deep draft versions would be a problem for me. I have seen at least one J40 listing with a modified keel in an attempt to cure tenderness, and I am wondering whether there is a design shortcoming with shallow draft J''s. Am hoping yours is a shallow draft so I can get your perspective.
Thanks
Doug


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Hi Jack,

thanks for the plug for the website. I am glad you enjoyed it. 

I am in complete agreement that there isn''t a "Right" answer. It''s all about tradeoffs. So the most important thing is to understand what one trades off for what else. 

A comment about the jib setup. My dreamboat would have twin headstays with twin furlers with a #2 and #4 on them (I am not addicted to changing sails ;-)

One other note: we didn''t actually use hank-on sails, but had a ''tough-luff'' system, which is basically a twin-grooved plastic foil on the headstay. This makes sail-changes (peels) much much easier. Assume you are sailing with sail ''a'', and want to change to ''b''
1) untie lazy sheet of ''a'' and tie to ''b''
2) attach tack of ''b'', as well as 2nd halyard
3) Hoist ''b'' on the inside of ''a''. Since ''a'' holds the load, you get little/no flapping
4) Tack over. ''b'' is now the active sail, take in it''s sheet so you are sailing
5) drop sail ''a''. Since it''s now on the inside, it''ll drop nicely on deck, to be flaked and tied to the toerail
6) undo the (lazy) sheet on ''a'' and attach to ''b''
7) tack back over

What I love about the above, is that it''s very controlled. Unless conditions are quite gnarly, it''s easily done single-handed. I''d say that 60-70% of the time just one of use would do the sail changes this way. 

...Chris


----------



## Paul_L

Doug,
My J/37 is a 5 1/2 ft shallow draft wing keel. It is an excellent sailing boat. If you are racing, you are going to see some difference in upwind pointing - that''s why they give you 12-15secs in rating adjustment. I club race the boat and can see other boats pointing a bit higher. But I don''t think its a valid comparison with my old sails vs. high techy stuff. I''ve been told that there are two versions of the shallow draft keel for the J/40 and that the first approach was not too good. As far as the wing on the J/37, if you are cruisng the boat, you won''t know the differnece.

Paul


----------



## Paul_L

Chris,
How small is your #4? 90%

Paul


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Paul,
What year is your J37?

Thanks
Doug


----------



## Paul_L

Doug,
1988. Info is up at www.jcruiser.org, look under J/37 and Jeorgia.

Paul


----------



## FrancoisP

One more question about this whole issue of displacement.

I am currently looking for a 38-40ft boat for ocean cruising (38-40 ft is what I feel I can easily handle single-handed if need be). My project involves in a few years time at least one passage through the roaring forties (from South-Africa to Australia). Winds up to 50 knts almost certainly a regular feature. 50-60 knts highly likely at least once. In the Vendée-Globe, one competitor already had 75 knts (that''s really scary!).

My instincts are also going towards light displacement for given length. One trade-off that has already been pointed out is the lower carrying capacity of a low-displacement boat. Given the specifics of my plans, this might not be insurmountable as far as I am concerned.

However, another trade-off that has not been mentioned is overall strength, really a key issue in my case. Compared to high-quality high-displacement cruising boats, do you think that lighter displacement boats such as the J''s (personally, I am looking more at X-yachts, such as X-382 or maybe X-412) are proportionally lighter because there are simply better built? Or because they are built to lower specs? Or maybe because they usually include less luxury equipment? 

Thanks for your take on this.


----------



## Jeff_H

"Do you think that lighter displacement boats.....are proportionally lighter because there are simply better built? Or because they are built to lower specs? Or maybe because they usually include less luxury equipment?"

To a great extent it depends on the specifics of the boat in question but in a general sense the lighter weight comes from a combination of all of those items. A boat that is long for its displacement, (or in other words light for its length) requires a much higher degree of care in its engineering and construction to achieve similar or equal strength to a heavier built boat. That said a lot of heavy displacement boats pick up their additional weight in a wide variety of ways (Heavy interior components, large amounts of gear, tankage and supplies, large quantities of low density ballast, etc) that add nothing to the strength or seaworthiness of the boat. In simple terms, a thick hull and a high displacement tells you nothing about the overall strength of the boat, any more than a light displacement tells you anything as well. 

To achieve high strength requires good materials and careful workmanship and in the case of a light weight boat, requires more hand labor or more expensive tooling. Structurally there is almost nothing worse than light weight boat built poorly. 

Beyond the structural issues, light weight boats are often lighter because they have lighter simplier interior layouts, smaller tankage, carry less ''luxury stuff'' (although I must say that the term luxury is very subjective as one person''s luxury is another''s necessity). 

Weight in and of itself does nothing good for a boat. It does not make it more seaworthy, strong, capacious, or comfortable. It does not add to motion comfort. Weight simply breeds the need for more weight. The design process for a boat is a cyclical process. So if you somehow find the need to add a some weight to a given design, it starts a cycle.....As the boat submerges deeper in the water, it will generate a more drag and so it would need more sail area. With increased sail area comes greater weight aloft. To stand up to that sail area and greater weight aloft, the boat needs a little more ballast, but that added ballast adds weight to the boat. The hull will need to be beefed up for the higher keel and rig loads and so a little more sail area is needed to compensate for drag of the greater ballast and that increased load. And with that increased drag, the fuel consumption rate goes up and so larger fuel tanks are needed and once again the cycle starts again. And now with the increased sail area, a threshold is reached where deck hardware and winches need to get larger and perhaps the increased displacement means heavier ground tackle and that means a heavier duty windlass. And perhaps with all of that weight the speed of the boat is hurt and so larger water tanks are needed to supply a particular length passage. And all of that kicks off the next cycle of weight breeding more weight. 

In any event, living in South Africa you should have access to extremely well constructed light weight boats. The New Zealanders, Australian and South African''s have a reputation for designing and building some of the best light weight cruisers that are out there. (My own boat was designed in NZ and built in South Africa and I have been extremely impressed with her structural design and build quality.) These regions seem to have a culture that produces very seaworthy light weight boats at very reasonable prices relative to the general world wide marketplace. In a general sense they tend to be more robust than many of the lighter weight North American and EU boats and certainly seem to be priced competitively. 

Jeff


----------



## PCP

FrancoisP, I am also looking to that kind of boat, even if I have found that the key factor is weight not lenght. 

Perhaps what Michael Kasten (a boat designer) says about the issue may put some light in the matter.

Paulo

2004, Michael Kasten 

"An Overview of a Few Common Misconceptions Regarding
Beam, Ballast & Displacement
As They Relate to Seakeeping

A relatively light weight vessel with a wide waterplane will naturally have a very active roll behavior on the water. In other words, such a vessel will react to the shape of the water''s surface very readily. This describes the majority of semi-displacement vessels and virtually all planing vessels. Adding ballast or making the water plane wider will only result in a more "harsh" roll motion. …..
We necessarily conclude from this that widening the water plane (increasing beam) will reduce comfort and degrade seakindliness. …..
DISPLACEMENT: Other factors being equal, greater displacement ordinarily equates to greater comfort; the quality of ''seakindliness'' we all seek. The reasons for this may not be so readily apparent. 
Displacement vessels (sail or power) will usually have a less aggressive roll motion, a longer roll period, and a more gentle "return" at the end of the roll than semi-displacement or planing types. This is primarily due to the displacement types having less wide waterplane and greater displacement. Comfort or seakindliness is therefore enhanced by keeping beam to the least amount necessary for initial stability and for sail carrying ability. ….
On the one hand, in a ''static'' sense, more ballast lowers the center of gravity, and should therefore be beneficial. It is obvious that for sail carrying, yes more ballast is beneficial. For comfort though, it is not. For resistance to being rolled in actual dynamic conditions, it is not. 
A light weight vessel having a large concentration of ballast will have a much lesser ''roll moment of inertia'' so will be much more easily put in motion and therefore will be more likely to experience large roll angles due to wave action. …
A/B RATIO: Popularized by Beebe in Voyaging Under Power, the A/B ratio was originally promoted as a quick way to judge a power boat''s seakeeping ability. It simply compares the Above water area to the Below water area. Small numbers are viewed favorably, large numbers not.
We are so frequently taunted with questions about the A/B ratio of power boats that we should be clear about one thing: The A/B ratio is very misleading, therefore obsolete and nearly useless. As a criterion of stability or sea keeping ability it is a gross oversimplification of the factors that should be considered. We have much better tools at our disposal for the analysis of stability and we should make use of them….
PRESENTLY: We now have much better stability analysis tools available, and we should insist on using them to their best advantage. Computer analysis has made possible a much more detailed picture of the various elements of stability and seakeeping ability than had been practical even as recently as two decades ago….
For any new design, after a thorough weight analysis is done in order to determine the VCG, a large angle stability analysis can then be done. "


----------



## FrancoisP

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for your answer. I am not based in South-Africa, but in Brussels, Belgium, Europe. The general plan looks as follows:
* Europe to Canary Islands around April
* Canary Islands to Brazil around July
* Brazil to South-Africa around January
* South-Africa to Australia one year later
* then New-Zealand
* then we will see.

Leave boat where it is for a few months. Go back to work between each leg. Will probably need 2 weeks during winter in South-Africa and in Australia for maintenance.

All this means that I want a relatively fast boat. Also, as I will not live aboard, I should need somewhat less stuff than those on a typical circumnavigation, and thus also less carrying capacity.

You were mentioning the quality of South-African/NZ/Austrialian yards. Could you specifically name some? By the way, what kind of boat do you have?

Francois


----------



## FrancoisP

Hi PCP,

You are probably right that displacement increases seakindliness. However, if you want more seakindliness, the way to go in my opinion is to have a bigger (and thus heavier) boat, not a high-displacement boat. Provided of course the boat is strong enough.

Personally, my experience is that comfort at sea depends heavily on the ability of the boat to sail well. A high-displacement boat that bobbles around in a normal ocean swell is probably less comfortable that a light-displacement boat surfing nicely on the same swell.

As far as I am concerned, I have set myself a limit of 40 feet because this is a size that I know I can handle single-handed in most conditions. Furthermore, I should be able to find second-hand boats of this size that fit my budget (including outfitting the boat). A bigger boat would not add anything to my pleasure, and would increase expenses at every level.

Francois


----------



## PCP

Hi, François...Don''t get me wrong...I agree with almost everything you have said, but...

That limit you have chosen (40ft), I would say, has more to do with the size of the sails and the weight of the boat. The boat you mentioned has 12,9m with a beam of 3,9m with a displacement of 7,4 ton and 105m2 of sail, and I don''t see why it should be more difficult to handle than the Wasa Atlantic, a boat with 15,5m with a beam of 3,3 a displacement of 7,5 ton and 82,7 m2 of sail. Both boats are very fast and probably the smaller beam and sail area will give an advantage to the Wasa, in what concerns handling single handed, not to mention probably a superior seakindliness.

About the criteria to chose the boat I would
consider mainly these points (assuming that it is a strong well built boat):

1-good capacity to resist capsizing :

A 40ft can easily be capsized if the sea turns really mean. As you know, the rigthing moment of the boat (the force resisting capsizing) is obtained by multiplying the rigthing arm by the displacement. So, with a 40ft, to have a better margin of security, I would prefer not to chose a very light cruiser/racer but something a little heavier, just to have a better righting moment.

2-AVS equal or superior to 135:

As I have said, a 40ft, given the right circunstances can be easily capsized. In that case, is very important the amount of time you stay upside down. I have read a study that states that a boat with an AVS of 120 will stay inverted about 3 to 5 minutes (with the kind of waves that were able to capsize the boat); a boat with an AVS of 135 will stay inverted around 1 minute and a boat with an AVS of 150 will stay inverted for some seconds.
If I remember well, the X-412 has an AVS around 120.

3-good loading capacity:

The x-412 cames with tanks for 220L of water and 120L of fuel. That suggests a boat that will not work properly if you put it under a much bigger load, and those numbers look a little skinny (to me) for the kind of cruising you want to do.

4-fast sailing:

There is no doubt about it, and I would say that it is also a very well built boat.

5-seakindliness:

The x-412 is a cruiser/racer and has an almost flat bottom to maximize planning. With heavy seas will not be a kind boat to the crew.

well, what kind of 40 ft boat will fulfill this criteria? 

Few, one of them is the Malo 39.

With a displacement of 8,9 ton, with a beam of 3,76, an AVS of 134 a STIX of 46,2 and carrying std 455l of water and 280l of fuel is a very safe boat for its size. With 85m2 of sail, it is not a racer but it is a fast boat, capable of more than 8 knots in a decent breeze.
Its underbody is much more resistant to shock (rudder, keel) than the one of the X-412, and has not such a flat bottom, giving it a more comfortable motion under heavy seas.

I will welcome any discussion on the matter.
I know that I have a lot to learn, and I hope to know more when the moment arrives to change my actual boat for the one that I intend to keep.

Paulo


----------



## jack_patricia

Francois:

"I am currently looking for a 38-40ft boat for ocean cruising (38-40 ft is what I feel I can easily handle single-handed if need be)."

Perhaps I''m just repeating a point made earlier, but I think you are looking at the wrong criterion - length - when determining ulitimate size for singlehanding. I would suggest it has much more to do with the rig and sail plan, and with the boat''s displacement (assuming apples-to-apples comparisons in other respects). Also, as always in these threads, it''s easy to zero in on one aspect of a design and overlook other, related implications. E.g. while ''longer'' for a given displacement might seem more desireable, it will also mean more costly berthing & storage charges at times, and it might make the boat more difficult to berth in some regions (e.g. in some harbors in the Baltic, to your north).

I was struck by your initial plan to depart Belgium in April for the Canaries. That is a bit early to be going down Channel and across Biscay...or for that matter along the Iberian Atlantic coast. Given a boat of the size you are considering, not to mention singlehanding it, you might want to review the coastal pilots and pilot charts for that stretch, if you haven''t already done so. It''s certainly possible, but your boat (and you) will need to be fully prepared for tough conditions right from the start.

Jack


----------



## FrancoisP

Hi Jack,

You are right about zeroing in on one criterion - length. 38-40 ft was just to give an idea for what kind of boat I am looking for. Much smaller and you usually get problems with carrying capacity, living space, but also speed. Much bigger and you usually get problems with ease of handling and costs (your example of berthing fees is to the point). Strength, sailing performance and good looks are other issues coming into the picture.

Europe-Canary Islands. April was just a general idea, because I can usually take 2-3 weeks of holidays around that period. I agree you need a bit of luck weather-wise to cross the gulf of Biscaye at that period of the year. Anyway, I am not going to break my head on this part of the trip as it can be easily adapted to suit needs: plenty of places to leave the boat, easy travel, etc. That''s much less true of the other passages.

Note that I rule out any long passage in Europe single-handed: there is simply too much traffic for that. I simply want to be able to handle the boat single-handed if need be. 

Francois


----------



## FrancoisP

Hi Paulo,

I didn''t know the Wasa Atlantic. Quite original and interesting (wasayachts.com). But the problem is that the boat and the yard are an unknown quantity to me. And also, as Woosh noted, some costs are purely related to length, so that this might be a bit too extreme for me.

I crossed the Atlantic (as crew) from the Canary Islands to La Guadeloupe on an Open 50 - 7.5t for 50 feet - a boat conceived from the outset for Transatlantic racing. The boat was too spartan below deck for me, but it was certainly great fun to sail (15knt surf in 12 knt wind). I did not find it uncomfortable to sail at all. Admittedly, apart from typical short-tempered squalls, we did not experience heavy weather (rather the contrary). I had liked to to see how the boat would have behaved.

As far as the AVS is concerned, I regard 120° as sufficient. In heavy weather, I would be as concerned with things breaking down or coming lose (such as steering system, windows, motor, batteries, inside joinery, etc in addition to obvious keel/mast/rudder) as with capsizing.

As far as the Malö''s are concerned, well I typically rank them among the high-quality high-displacement boats. They are really conceived for cruising. Boats such as the X''s and the J''s are clearly more performance oriented.

I also feel that I am putting more emphasis on sailing performance than on cruising comfort compared to you. That is a matter of personnal preference, and depends also on the specifics of your plan. If you look again at mine, you will understand that what I like for the time being is long-distance sailing, not necessarily cruising locally.

Francois


----------



## PCP

Salut François

Yes I love the Wasa 510. See here for pics:
http://www.wasayachts.de/wasa51b.html
the ones in the home site are very bad.
Of course you are right about marina prices, but on the other hand, that boat costs the price of a 40ft. See the site, they have two to sell.

About the Malo, it is not a heavy displacement boat, but a medium displacement boat and with a Sail/area displacement over 20, it is not a slow boat.
See the test of the Malo 41 in the Blue Water Magazine (The Malo 39 is not very far away, but a lot cheaper):
http://www.bwsailing.com/01articles/issue/0702/boattest.htm

You are wrong if you think I don''t like speed (I have raced motorcycles for 10 years), it''s only a question of safety.

Do you remember what happened in the spring to that Beneteau first 40? In a delivery trip with a full professional crew, somewhere in the golf of Biscay? They went out with a force 7 and a good forecast that proved inaccurate and it was not necessary more than a force 9 to 10 to roll the boat. The boat you are talking about has the same characteristics and you go to the 40s, in the Pacific.…Of course you can get lucky. I know a guy that has done that with a Bavaria 37 and get away only with a broken mast.

Me, I don’t believe in luck…

When you sail by the Portuguese coast, stop at Peniche. It’s a good port, and call me (935030008, I will take pleasure in buying you a dinner and have a look at your boat.

Paulo


----------



## FrancoisP

Hi Paulo,

Ho, ho, I never said you don''t like speed. From an earlier post, I understood you had some family constraints ... which I don''t have niark niark niark. ;-)

I checked some basic figures for the Malö 41. I come up indeed with a D/LWL ratio of 248, which is indeed considered high medium (Malö 39 is 268). Note that I think that this ratio tends to come down when the boat is bigger. SA on basis of the J I P E data is 77 m² (instead of advertised 99 m²). This reduces SA/D to 15.9, which is more in line with a typical cruising boat.

I don''t know what happened to the First. You indicated that it was rolled. Frankly, I find that quite surprising. I have sailed a few times in well-established 9bft and did not feel threatened. In fact, my best sails have all been in such weather (maybe this is why I want to have a run at the roaring forties?). Seems to me that it is a matter of having a well-prepared boat, especially appropriate storm sails, and running downwind (for comfort). By contrast, I have much less pleasant memories from beating hard to windward in 6bft in a short chop.

The Gulf of Biscaye is well-known for vicious waves at the end of the continental plate. Same situation in South-Africa by the way, with the added attraction of the Agulhas current running counter to prevailing winds. Research has shown that breaking waves with a height equivalent to 55% of LWL taken on the side can roll any boat. I read also that in really heavy weather, breaking waves can come from unpredictable directions (especially after the wind shift marking the passage of the depression), making them difficult to handle. You will start to have breaking waves in 9bft, but usually not that big and thus still manageable. From my readings, I understand that things can get problematic from 10 bft on, even with a well-prepared boat. 

Frankly, the Bavaria''s are not known to be build to the highest standards. So, I am not exactly surprised that they broke their mast. You will remember that my first intervention on this forum was about construction strength. The Malö''s would certainly pass the mark in this respect. I would like to find a more light-footed boat that pass the mark as well.

As far as the invitation to dinner is concerned, I take note but bear in mind that I am not that far yet. ;-) I return the invitation if you come to Brussels. Mobile: +32478454656

Francois


----------



## PCP

Olá François

I don''t think the Bavaria mast broke due to any problem with the boat. Bavaria''s masts are made by Selden (they are alright) and the boat was well prepared. The boat is light (less than 6T) has a low AVS (120) and was knocked down really hard. She didn''t roll but I think it got the sails under water and that was enough to break the mast, when another sea movement suddenly put the boat upright.
I still think that an AVS of 120 is a very slim margin for a 7,4T boat intended to go anywhere anytime. You have to remember that a boat with an AVS of 120 is making very little force to right itself up when it is knocked down and that with the weight of the radar and wet sails... can even not have the power to do so. A boat with an AVS of 135 is still making a lot of force to right herself up at 90º.

About the Malo, I am going to be at Dusseldorf, for the boat show, where they are going to show the new boat that is going to replace the 39. The new 40 (D/LWL of 223 and Sa/D of 21.1)a faster boat that given a good breeze will do more than 9 knots.

Have you considered the Eversail 40?
It is a fast boat with a good AVS, and it''s made near you (Holland). I am interested in a sail test with that boat. I will try to do that next spring. 
The boat is built of stipplanking, a material that provides strong, stiff and light boats.

Paulo


----------



## Jeff_H

I think that there is a tendancy to quote AVS numbers (I prefer the term LPS to AVS as more precisely describes what we are talking about) without the critical thinking that should be associated with published data. AVS/LPS numbers are calculated in a variety of manners and only tell a small piece of the story. 

For example, it is not usual to see the LPS of a performance boat, such as the X-boat, quoted from its IMS certificate. The IMS generated LPS is based on the boat with its rig, tanks empty, and does not adjust for the volumes of the cabin and cockpit. As a result, the limit of positive stability of a performance boat with a reasonably long cabin and short cockpit such as the X-Boat often has an additional 10 to 15 degrees greater LPS than is stated on its IMS certificate or in its ads. 

On the other hand, cruising boats will often use an LPS generated by a computer simulation that typically ignores the weight of the rig or items stored high in the hull. It ignores such factors as heavy ground tackle and the fact that a 300-400 lb chain rode of chain anchor rode will shift from the bilge to the headliner when inverted. So the cruising boat''s LPS will generally be overstated by 10-15 degrees. So, it is entirely possible and generally true that the performance boat with a published LPS of 120 degrees will actually have a higher LPS than a cruising boat with a published LPS of 135 degrees. 

Also LPS tells only a tiny piece of the puzzle. The area under the righting curve is much more important to the story as it tells you how much force it takes to overturn the boat in the first place and how much force it takes to right the boat again. It is posible to have an easily overturned boat that has a very high LPS angle. A very good example of this is traditional narrow hulled craft which typically have a very high limit of positive stability, but also have very little stability so that they reach that limit more quickly than a boat with a lower VCG and perhaps a bit more form stability. These narrow traditional boats may also produce a disproportionately high inverted righting moment resulting in comparatively high stability inverted because they have comparatively heavy rigs and their narrow beams mean that the float very low in the water when inverted. 

By the same token, performance boats with their deep keel weights and thier higher freeboards, tend to require a lot higher force to capsize and less force to right even though the actual Limit of Positive stability may be lower.

Similarly, the potential for downflooding can be far more critical to survival than the length of time that the vessel remains inverted. Many performance boats with thier minimal deck openings can remain inverted for a longer period with sinking than many cruisers with their large cockpit locker lids.

Jeff


----------



## jack_patricia

Jeff, I don''t think I''ve ever read LPS-related info such as you just offered here; I found it quite interesting (and a little surprising).

What would you suggest is the best source of determining the LPS of an out-of-production sailboat like our WHOOSH (a Pearson 424 ketch)? Preferably, it would be a method (formula, perhaps) that would allow a bit of adjusting to reflect the real-world nature of the boat when being cruised.

Hope the workload is lightening up for you as the Holidays arrive.

Jack


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Jeff''s analysis is right on. Compare published LPS numbers with those for the same boat with an IMS certificate and you''ll see the IMS numbers are much lower. A key reason is IMS assumes a flat deck at the sheer, no cabin volume. One way to tell if a stability curve includes the cabin (which does help raise the LPS) is to look for a hump in the curve as the cabin is immersed.

The other issue is real life versus predicted LPS numbers. Boats often come out heavier than designed, and the extra weight won''t be in the ballast. Then people pile stuff on board, gradually raising both the displacement and the vertical center of gravity. I suspect many cruisers would be shocked if they knew the real LPS of their boat as sailed. Some published numbers are much higher than reality.

If you want to know, do a simple inclining test like they do for IMS to get the Righting Moment for 1 degree heel. That helps establish the vertical center of gravity. If you have the lines of the boat then any naval architect (or amateur with an interest - there are a number of software packages that''ll do this) can plug in the lines and the RM and run a LPS analysis for you. You may not want to know the answer though


----------



## PCP

Hi Jeff

Nice post,

but in Europe AVS (and I am simplifying, it''s not only the AVS, but all data about the boat stability) is obtained the same way , defined by ISO 12217-2.

Since 1998, the European Union’s Recreational Craft Directive (RCD) has required that all new boats (except pure racing boats) sold in the EU must have been assessed for STIX/AVS by a Notified Body – an officially recognized assessment agency.

Those measures are not only computerized data, but begin with inclination tests of the boat in the water, being the boat in a very specified standard (sails, equipment etc.).
Those measures, good or bad have an important commercial value and all the manufacturers obviously try to obtain (and advertise) the best values they can obtain.

Those data has an increased commercial importance since the RYA (years ago) started to make a lot of noise about those figures not being made public by some of the boat builders (related with a lot of boats on the market with poor reserve stability and the fact that the A classification for Ocean Going Vessels was -and is- very...I would say optimistic).

Nowadays all the main British Magazines and most of the German sail magazines when they test a boat they publish the complete stability curve of the boat, and that gives very important information about stability that can not be tested in a sail test, mainly regarding reserve stability and negative stability.

The considerations that I have made about the Malo 39 and the X-412 (it is not a racer, but a cruiser/racer) has taken into consideration not only the AVS, but the entire stability curve and the force needed for capsizing both boats. I have talked only about AVS as a form of simplification.

I agree with what you have said about the AVS, but (without pretending to know much about the subject, having seen and analyzed a lot of stability curves)I have seen that a lot of racers or cruiser racers have a relatively low AVS. I think that happens because they maximize initial stability, the one that gives power to the boat, and that is not the way to obtain a good reserve stability, the one that is not used to power the boat, but the one used for recovering from a knockdown.

Respectfully

Paulo


----------



## TSOJOURNER

I just have to remark, this dialogue is fascinating! Keep it coming. It centers on the issues I have questioned most. It''s only the eighth round and countervailing positions have been established. I''m with you FrancoisP. I do not believe mass is essential to seaworthiness. -Phil


----------



## FrancoisP

Hi Paulo,

We don''t have all the details on what happended to the Bavaria, but I would like to make a few points in this regards.

* You have seen Jeff''s interesting comment on the AVS (I have learned something new today!). My own intuition was already that, whith a displacement of 5.4t, of which 33% ballast, and a draft of 1.8m, this boat is certainly easier to capsize than a X. I think that most blue-water cruisers would look for a ballast/displacement ratio of more than 40% (47% on the X-412, 43% on the X-382, 42% on the J-120).

* In an article in Yachting Monthly some time ago, Nigel Calder suggested to calculate all the ratios involving displacement with the payload included. This makes sense to me, and would probably have shown truly ugly figures for this Bavaria. With the high payload necessary for long passages, this method is generally not kind to light(-displacement) boats.

* I never had a knock-down, but I have read about many boats which had one (you don''t need a big storm: just a spinnaker and a somewhat boisterous wind and sea ...). Most did not break their mast, despite the tremendous shock-loads. My impression is that naval architects usually take the possibility of a knock-down into account when configuring the rig.

* The mast is only a part of a broader system. In a situation of excessive stress, schrouds (and to a lesser extent stays) tend to break first, because they act as a kind of fuse for other parts of the system. Better to break a schroud than having the mast moving through the deck. Better to break a schroud than ripping off a chainplate together with part of the hull.

In my opinion, capsizing is really just one aspect of the safety equation. In really heavy weather, pitchholing for example becomes another potential hazard. Even an AVS of 1 million (just kidding) will not help in that case. Of course, you will find boats with a lower risk of capsizing and/or pitchholing. But you will not eliminate all the risks. Furthermore, in really heavy weather, solely counting on your boat to help you out is illusory in my opinion. The behaviour of the crew will make as much difference. 

Finally, my personnal intuition is that the risk of capsizing and/or pitchholing is overwhelmed by the risk of breaking something that will cripple the boat. The passage from Cape Town to Freemantle is about 4800 NM. If you make 150 NM per day on average, you will need about 32 days. In the roaring forties, I suspect that a depression will pass over you every 3 days, 10-11 depressions thus during the whole trip. Even if each depression brings max 8-9 bft (most 30ft+ coastal cruisers would be able to handle that), the rapid repetition will represent a lot of stress and fatigue for the boat and for all the systems on board. And that can lead after a while to breakage, even without any heavy weather.

Francois


----------



## PCP

hi Phil

This is not a fight and I don''t doubt that jeff knows a lot more than me about boats.

About the contribution of weight to stability, giving the same center of gravity, go to the site of Malo (for them stability is very important) and read what they say about the issue:
http://www.maloyachts.se/Portals/0/STABILIT.PDF

You know, normally the stability curve that appears is the G-Z curve. That one don’t take the weight or the size of the boat in consideration. 

The Righting moment curve is the real thing, the one that show to you the real force that is necessary to capsize the boat.

To you all, have a nice Christmas.

Paulo


----------



## FrancoisP

I forgot to add this. The high-quality high-displacement boats, such as the Malö''s, HR, Najad, or earlier Wauquiez (which I am seriously considering), have a good reputation in terms of construction strength (and also longer term resistance).

By contrast, I do not have much of a feel for what lighter displacement boats such X''s or J''s can take. That is in fact the one aspect that really holds me back from lighter displacement boats.

Anyway, merry christmas everyone!

Francois


----------



## PCP

Hi François

The ballast ratio is sometimes misleading. 
What really counts is the position of the GC and the weight. Off course, with a lower CG you need less weight to have the same RM, but with identical GSs, the weight makes the difference.

You know, on a 40ft, when it is really bad, the crew doesn''t count. You take the sails out, drag a lot of ropes, close the boat and stay inside.

The risk of pitchpoling is a lot smaller than the risk of rolling.

About breaking things, the Malo is a lot stronger comparatively with the X-412.
The X-412 is a very good boat, but is a cruiser/racer, has to be light. The Malo is a Passage Maker, is built extra strongly for that.

About Nigel Calder, the guy knows a lot about boats, he had plans to build the perfect boat...Guess what? He bought a Malo 45. Now he says the Malo 45 is the perfect Passage Maker.

Good Christmas to you

Paulo


----------



## PCP

Hi Phil

About the importance of displacement regarding reserve stability in a 40ft boat 

look at this:

http://www.dickkoopmans.nl/ 

and this:

http://www.dickkoopmans.nl/


Those are a comparison of stability curves between 40ft boats designed by Dick Koopmans. Boats with different kind of keels and weights. 

Dick Koopmans his a Dutch designer responsible for a lot of boat plans, some used by know boat builders, like Victoire yachts or Hutting yachts. His boats are well known by its seaworthiness.

Comparing those graphs you can see that the cruiser racer has a much more inclined curve and a bigger righting arm and that at 25º, his righting moment (the force the boat makes resisting capsizing), is the biggest of them all.

You can see also that it is by far the one with worst curve regarding inverted stability. This means, the one that giving a capsizing will remain more time inverted.

That racer/cruiser curve, even if it shows the typical enhancement of initial stability versus reserve stability is exceptionally good in the amount of the reserve stability and AVS point and you have to considerer that the high value of the RM at 25º (5,5tm) is not only the result of that good curve but also of the relatively big displacement of that boat , for a 40ft cruiser/racer - 10T.

If we consider the displacement of the X-412 (7,4 ton) and consider the curve of the cruiser racer (that is actually a little worst than the one of the x-412 in initial stability and a lot better on reserve stability) we will see that the force that the X-412 can makes at 25º resisting capsizing (RM) will be only 4,1tm and that value is worse than the majority of the other boats considered in that example.

But the real difference between the cruiser/racer stability curve and the others concerns its reserve stability (the capacity to resist a knock down) and in the inverted stability, that is much bigger. About the inverted stability the curve is self explanatory. About the capacity to resist a severe knock down, let’s consider an angle of 100º:

At that angle, considering a boat with 7,4T and a stability curve like the one of the considered cruiser racer, the boat will have a RM (the force preventing capsizing) at 100º of 3,7tm. The heavy displacement 40ft long keel considered in the comparison will have at that angle a RM of 8.0tm. That is more than the double. Putting it in another way, I would say that the force necessary for capsizing a Cabo Rico 40 would be at least the double of the force needed to capsize a 40ft cruiser/racer like the x-412.

Because it is not necessary much to capsize a 7,4T 40ft cruiser/racer, I think that an oceangoing boat of that size and that displacement should have a relatively small negative stability (simplifying, an AVS of at least 135º). With that (if it is a strong boat) you will know that you don’t stay upside down for a long time (less than a minute) and you know that even if you are in the cockpit, providing you are clipped to the boat, you will survive it.

Safety and seaworthiness are relative parameters; the one that is not relative is the sea, that giving the right conditions is capable of sinking any small boat.

The choosing of a boat and the safety margin one wants for himself are a personal matter, and I am not talking about those (normal) conditions when you can control your boat but about those when your boat does all the work. Conditions so severe that you have no choice but to stay inside in a bare polled closed boat (may those never happen to us).

Paulo


----------



## Jeff_H

This seems to be the ''Energizer bunny'' of discussions. This thread seems to have picked up topics like lint sticking to rolling tar ball. At the moment this thread seems to be wrestling with the relationship of displacement to strength, carrying capacity, and the relationship of displacement relative to the various aspects of seaworthiness such as initial stability, knockdown resistance, limits of positive stability, motion comfort, and the relative righting moments inverted or right side up.

In a very broad general sense there is absolutely no inherent direct relationship between a boat''s length to displacement ratio and any of these items. It is true that in many cases, a boat that is long for its weight (or light for its length) may be inferior in all of these categories to an equal length boat of heavier displacement, but it is equally likely to be superior to an equal displacement boat of a shorter length in most if not all of these categories.

In all of the major studies on major storms and seaworthiness, displacement relative to length, or even simple relative displacement, has not proven to be a factor. The only factor consistently shown to affect seaworthiness is length, with longer waterline length consistently showing up as the single consistent factor in determining the likely survival in extreme conditions.

To me this discussion once again comes back to how we define a boat''s size. If we size the boat by its displacement, then the longer boat of equal displacement will generally be the superior boat in almost all ways but will require more careful engineering to achieve equal strength.

I also think that this thread has suffered a problem applying broad generalities to an otherwise specific set of issues in a way that somewhat corrupts the validity of the points being made. I think that talking about boat like the Malo vs the X-boat in such broad general ways really does not address the specifics of the individual boats capabilities and liabilities. Similarly the information contained on sites such as Dick Koopman''s site does not really apply because he is making very generalized observations that may or may not apply to the specific vessels in question.

In terms of the current undertsanding of knockdowns, there are a lot of factors involved, enough to fill a book, but in terms of a roll over, the only constistent factor in determining the likelihood of a roll over and rerighting has been found to be the relationship of the boat''s beam to wave height. Similarly the only consistent factor in determining the likelihood of a pitchpole is length in relationship to wave height. The forces involved in roll-overs and pitchpoles are so huge relative to the displacement of a yacht, that the weight of the boat in question has been shown to have next to no bearing at all on the likelihood of a roll over or pitchpole. (In fact in the Sidney Hobart Race disaster, the boats that suffered the worst roll overs, pitchpoles, and knock downs were at the heavier end of the displacment to length ratio spectrum.)

In the end, the validity of whether a specific lighter weight boat makes sense as a distance cruiser is dependent on the specifics of the boat involved, as well as being very dependent on the needs and abilities of individual''s who are cruising the boat in question, and the venues in which they are sailing. In and of themself, the numbers are of little bearing. [For example, looking at the numbers for my boat, which is a 38 footer with an IMS design weight of 10,600 lbs, and SA/D around 22, and an IMS LPS of 112 or so (sometimes listed as 108 but which equates to roughly 125 degrees fully loaded, including the displacement of cabin and cockpit in the calculation) you would never consider these to be offshore capable boats. Yet sisterships of my boat have made all kinds of long distant passages in all kinds of rugged sailing venues. They are routinely sailed out of Capetown and as of a couple years ago, as 20 year old boats, were still being raced in the replacement race for the brutal Capetown to Rio race]

Once again, the reality comes down to the specifics of how the boats are engineered, configured, and constructed as compared to the compromises that an owner is willing to put up with. In the end all boats are compromises, and we each chose our specific compromises based on our needs, tastes and fears.

Jeff


----------



## PCP

Hi Jeff

You have said:

“This thread seems to have picked up topics like lint sticking to rolling tar ball. At the moment this thread seems to be wrestling with the relationship of displacement to strength, carrying capacity, and the relationship of displacement relative to the various aspects of seaworthiness such as initial stability, knockdown resistance, limits of positive stability, motion comfort, and the relative righting moments inverted or right side up.”


I don’t see it that way. This thread was about the qualities and eventual limitations of a “J40 for long distance cruising” and François has extended the scoop of the thread to a more global perspective, including not only the J40, but that type of boat ( light displacement 40ft cruiser racer). All the subjects you have mentioned have to do with the limitations or advantages of that type of boat, comparing with what is considered a typical passage maker (the kind of boat that is widely used for that kind of travel).


Jeff said:
“In terms of the current understanding of knockdowns, there are a lot of factors involved, enough to fill a book, but in terms of a roll over, the only consistent factor in determining the likelihood of a roll over and rerighting has been found to be the relationship of the boat''s beam to wave height.”


This implies that it is as easy to capsize a Bavaria 40 as to capsize the BMW Oracle (America cup)….Both boats have the same beam (4m), or the famous Star and Stripes, versus the Bavaria 36 ( both 3,6m).

Of course this is ridiculous, the Bavaria 40 weighs 8,3T and has a ballast of 2.9T with a draught of 1,65 and the Oracle weights 24 T has a ballast of 20 T and a draught over 4m, and if you look at the dimension of those sails you know that the Oracle has to have a massive righting moment. 

I think that it fits better here what you have said about other thing:

Jeff said:
“I also think that this thread has suffered a problem applying broad generalities…… in a way that somewhat corrupts the validity of the points being made”.


Fact is that the forces necessary to produce a rollover in a determined boat can be measured very precisely as you can also measure precisely the force that a given boat will offer to being rolled. 

Quoting what Nigel Calder (in a very good article about boat stability, published in the September issue of “Yachting Monthly”:

“The area under the positive part of a rigtning moment curve is a measure of the total energy required to roll a boat, while the area under the negative part of the curve is a measure of how much energy it will take to roll it back again.”

Quoting Dave Gerr in a good article about boat stability published in the October issue of”Sail Magazine”:

“Stability curves can also be constructed using the Rightning Moment ( Rightning Moment = Rightning Arm x Displacement).
The curve will look the same, but you should use RM when plotting different boats on the same scale of comparison. This will immediately show the difference between boats with the same Rightning Arm (GZ) but dissimilar displacements. Note that the area under the stability curve is much larger for the 26.866 pound boat than for the 19.190 pound Gerr 44, even though the boats have the same RM at all angles of heel.
This is because it takes more energy to capsize the larger, heavier boat and it is why bigger boats are (broadly speaking) inherently safer offshore.”


The RM, namely the Area behind the positive part of the Righting moment curve is the measure of the resistance that the boat offers to capsize and............ 

RM = GZ x Displacement

This shows that Displacement is responsible in equal terms with GZ in originating the force that prevents capsizing (Rightning Moment).

The other half of the equation is GZ (Righting Arm). The GZ results of the lever created between the CG (Center of the Gravity) and the CB (Center of Buoyancy) when the boat heels.

Without wanting to be too much technical about it, I would say that the two main factors to increase GZ are lowering the center of Gravity and Increasing Beam.

But it is fair to remember that both factors together only contribute as much to the capacity of the boat in resisting rolling, as the factor weight, only by itself.

Jeff said :
“The forces involved in roll-overs … are so huge relative to the displacement of a yacht, that the weight of the boat in question has been shown to have next to no bearing at all on the likelihood of a roll over …”

I have said in a previous post:

“Safety and seaworthiness are relative parameters; the one that is not relative is the sea, that giving the right conditions is capable of sinking any small boat.”

And you seem to agree, but those are rare circumstances, the ones when size or weight don’t count.

In normal circumstances if, to capsize a boat, it is necessary the lateral force of a wave two times bigger than one capable of capsizing a lighter boat, then the first boat is (broadly speaking) a safer boat. If, to capsized a boat, it is necessary a wave three times bigger than the one needed to capsize the smaller boat, then this boat is safer than the one that is capsized by the wave two times bigger than the one that is capable of capsizing the lighter boat…... and so on.

Jeff said :
“In the end all boats are compromises, and we each chose our specific compromises based on our needs, tastes and fears”.


I agree with that, if you change FEARS to SECURITY MARGINS.

And those margins depend on a lot of conditions: people involved (family), your obligations to others ( again family) etc.

I Think that even with a well prepared light (27ft) typical small coastal boat you have very good probabilities to accomplish an ocean passage. After all last year a guy with a 18 foot Hobbie Cat crossed the Atlantic, and the first man to cross solo the Atlantic (East-west) has done that in a 5m open sailing Dory….But I also believe, quoting an old captain,” that the oceans are paved with the bones of the optimistic sailors”. 

Paulo


----------



## Jeff_H

In response to Paulo''s comments:

With regards to Paulo''s opening comments:

I did not say that I thought that it was a bad thing that this thread picked up a whole range of other topics, just that it had gone far beyond the original topic which was the suitability of a J-40 for distance cruising. It is the serendipitous wanderings that often make life more interesting and educational.

Paulo said:

"This implies that it is as easy to capsize a Bavaria 40 as to capsize the BMW Oracle (America cup)….Both boats have the same beam (4m), or the famous Star and Stripes, versus the Bavaria 36 ( both 3,6m).

Of course this is ridiculous, the Bavaria 40 weighs 8,3T and has a ballast of 2.9T with a draught of 1,65 and the Oracle weights 24 T has a ballast of 20 T and a draught over 4m, and if you look at the dimension of those sails you know that the Oracle has to have a massive righting moment."

My statement does not imply that it is as easy to capsize a Bavaria 40 as it is to capsize an America''s Cup Class or a 12 meter. My comment would imply that assuming a Bavaria 40 has the same beam as an America''s Cup Class and a 12 meter, these three are equally as likely to be rolled over by a wave that is large enough to roll any one of the three. It needs to be understood that a roll over is different from a capsize and my comments were in response to a comment on roll-overs. For fully ballasted boats, only wave action can cause a roll over, and the only significantly consistent factor in determining the likelihood of a roll over is the height of the wave relative to the beam of the boat. There are some secondary factors that come into play such as the depth of the keel which means that the America''s Cup Class and the 12 Meter are more slightly likely to be rolled over than the Bavaria due to their deeper keels.

Factors like the LPS, area under the righting moment curve (with the boat inverted and its gear in its actual position as inverted), downflooding, and the like are significant in determing whether the boat is likely to re-right and survive. There major differences in the design of these three boats which would result in the likelihood of differing re-righting and survival results. 

I do agree with Dave Gerr that when it comes to resistance to wind driven knock downs and the speed of re-righting, that the area under righting moment is critical. I would strongly disagree that "Displacement is responsible in equal terms with GZ in originating the force that prevents capsizing." While righting moment results from a calculation of the displacement times the righting lever arm far, in a practical sense, far and away, weight distribution relative to buoyancy distribution, is much more critical in determining the likelihood of a knocked down than a boat''s actual displacement. 

I can explain this by using the example that I generally cite to debunk the ''Capsize Screening Formula'', if you visualize two identical boats, except that one has a 1000 lbs of weight at the top of its mast, the boat with the 1000 lbs of weight at the top of its mast has a greater displacement but it is significantly more prone to being knocked down and far less likely to re-right because of its weight distribution.

While I cannot imagine that anyone would intentionally place 1000 lbs at the the top of their masts, if you look at the sources of the added displacement typically found in heavier weight cruisers, the added weight is typically found in locations that do not help stability such as heavier interior appointments, heavier deck and topside structures, heavier spars and rigging, heavier mast mounted electronic components, rigid cockpit shelters, higher davit mounted- heavier weight dingies and motors, and the like. Cumulatively these can add a lot of weight while at the same time reducing stability greatly.

The reality of this was borne out in the STIX research project where heavier displacement cruisers were often found to gave greater drag relative to their stability. This meant that these heavier displacement cruisers ended up needing to carry proportionately larger sail area relative to their stability, which in turn made them more prone(rather than less) prone to a knock down. 

Paulo said,

“The area under the positive part of a righting moment curve is a measure of the total energy required to roll a boat, while the area under the negative part of the curve is a measure of how much energy it will take to roll it back again.”

Here again, heavier displacement works against re-righting. With its greater moment of interia, and the fact that a heavier displacement boat is likely to float deeper in the water relative to its center of gravity requiring much greater energy to re-right, the heavier displacement boat is likely to require a longer period of time and more energy to re-right.


Paulo Said;
"In normal circumstances if, to capsize a boat, it is necessary the lateral force of a wave two times bigger than one capable of capsizing a lighter boat, then the first boat is (broadly speaking) a safer boat. If, to capsized a boat, it is necessary a wave three times bigger than the one needed to capsize the smaller boat, then this boat is safer than the one that is capsized by the wave two times bigger than the one that is capable of capsizing the lighter boat…... and so on." 

The reality of wave driven knock-downs and roll-overs is that the forces are enormous, many times the comparatively small differences in displacement between one boat and another. You are correct in assuming that it is possible for one boat to have several times the righting moment of another (although again this is more a product of weight distribution and buoyancy distribution than actual overall weight of the two boats. For example, comparing a specific lighter weight boat with equal but deeper placed ballast than on heavier boat, the lighter boat could easily develop much greater righting moment and require a lot less force to re-right). But in studies of wave driven capsizes and roll-overs righting moment plays a very small roll as the over turning moments grossly exceed the righting moments involved as the weight of water and force of gravity acting on the boat are just so enormous. Using the current coefficients for wave impact, the impact loads of a breaking wave on a typical 40 footer is hundreds of thousands of pounds, easily overwhelming the comparatively minor 12,000 lb difference in weight between a very light and a very heavy 40 footer.

So, whether they are called fears or security margins, they represent pretty much the same thing; the choice of a boat depends on how much of a risk you are willing to take. But no matter what your fears or security margins, in an of itself, weight does nothing good for a boat. It does not make it more seaworthy, sturdy, comfortable, easier to handle, or stable, just heavier. 

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Sorry for the long delay in responding. Was on vacation.

Anyhow, our #4 was tiny - I am hipshooting, but would say maybe 60% or so.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

excellent thread. I have no opinions on the J40 at all...
but....
before I began the journey of boat purchase and refitting for extended cruising I had compiled a list of what I thought I would need for such a task as long distance sailing for a year or two. by the time the boat was completed, my thought process was dfrastically changed, it was no longer ''how much I need'', but was ''how little I can get away with''.


----------



## Jrussell

*J-40 for long distance Cruising*

Hi
Does any body know of have completed installation of a cruising generator aboard a J-40


----------



## FarCry

Oh Mr. Dog where art thou??????

Welcome to Sailnet Jrussell. Shortly a most esteemed SN member by the screen name of Sailingdog will come along and help you get more out of this forum. He may come across in a less than friendly manner but ignore his tone and focus on his content.

In the future please note the age of the thread you are responding to...for example this one is three years old. It might be best to start a new thread asking your generator quesiton.


----------



## sailingdog

Jrussell-

First, you would probably be better served by starting a new thread regarding generators and J-40s, since that really isn't the topic of this one. Second, it is fairly unlikely that any of the posters, excepting Jeff H, will respond, since most are probably long gone from this forum.

I'd also highly recommend you read the *POST* in my signature to help you get the most out of your time here. It has tips on searching sailnet, writing a good post, etc..

Welcome to the Asylum...

BTW, this post was mainly written for the amusement of FarCry...


----------



## Benge

Displacement seems to be used to describe volume. Higher displacement does not equal higher volume. The construction of the J-40 creates low displacement for length and actually gives the ability to load it up more and have equal displacement of a heavier boat with a lighter load, volume being equal. 


Respectfully:
Benge


----------



## ThereYouAre

Thanks for resurrecting this Zombie thread. Lots of great info.


----------

