# The HULL truth and nothing but.



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Being here for a few years I see recurring threads about what makes a BWB. I see arguments about old v new designs. I see discussions about appendages. I also follow Morgancloud.cloud. They recently had a series about balanced ends. In my view recent designs perhaps influenced by recent race boats or the desire for increased interior volume speak to needs not felt by cruisers. I believe there is a increasing schism between cruising designs v race boats or coastal use vessels. 
I’m quite curious about others opinions on this subject. I think it is the driver of much heat here and want light. There are new designs with balanced ends. There are voluminous boats with balanced ends. There are fast boats competitive except at the professional level with balanced ends. What are your thoughts?


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

My thought is, cruise on want makes you happy and sail the boat based on it's characteristics.

Far as old design and new design my thoughts are there are; old designs and new designs and all have their pros and cons.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

One often doesn't have the luxury of sailing lots of boats in different conditions. A sea trial is not much of a test in a sense. We rely on reputation, experts and emotion I suspect.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I think the average cruiser knows and cares about boat systems, but far less about boat design. Faster makes the modern consumer happy, followed by safer or more durable.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Minnie you maybe right. But you can replace boat systems. Much harder to replace the boat. I would think in all the courses people take spending a little time at each level discussing and showing the impact of boat design on function would be well spent. 
Example - two pier neighbors. An IP, a Bene, and myself within a foot loa of each other leave for Block at the same time. Light air in the bay but fresh breeze on the nose in Block Sound. Bene gets a few miles ahead going down East channel. IP lags. In the Sound Bene points well but gets beat up. I suppose due to ride they eventually roll the jib and the iron jib goes on. IP and us catch up. IP comfortably chugs along but vmg poor. We reef and get to New Harbor. Any understanding of basic design would predict this. You don’t need to sea trial multiple boats. Yes, it’s good to get on as many different boats as you can. Understanding your judgment about speed, comfort, ride, pointing ability, best heel angle, tracking and all the things that go into what boat is right for you is improved. Still, if possible I’d like the discussion to return to just one facet- balanced ends.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

outbound said:


> Still, if possible I'd like the discussion to return to just one facet- balanced ends.


You can't focus on one facet while using anecdotes of boats having completely different keel shapes, hull designs (outside of the ends), weights, sail areas, skipper/crew expectations and immediate desires, etc to support/refute arguments.

Frankly, your story about an afternoon sail to Block Island immediately led me to thinking that the owners of those boats had different opinions on how they wanted to spend the afternoon or how they approached sailing. I didn't see anything in it that touched on "balanced ends". Do you not think that the owners of that Bene would have done the same in an IP?

Discussing a single facet can be done in a few objective and descriptive bullet points - and then what? Can't draw any conclusions without getting into subjectives and purpose.

Mark


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Mark have a look at the discussion at morgancloud. Then come back to this thread. It seems many decisions are predicated on the the basic shape of the canoe body and the ends in some significant degree to predict the the middle as well as features you mentioned.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

The website goes straight into a paywall. There is no article that I can see.

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

However, if they are saying that the design choices made in the boat are predicated on those made on the ends, then that is simplistic. A boat hull is designed as a whole - it is just as valid to say that the design choice of the ends are predicated on all other decisions.

Except for the old IOR boats - they do seem to be put together using unrelated design "parts".

Mark


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

That article does not seem to understand that no matter how the boat may look statically, when you talk about the newer designs, when they are properly designed, the part of the boat that is in the water does have 'balanced ends' relative to the center of gravity of the boat. But that is a very broad generality and does not apply to all of the new designs. 

Here is what is not readily apparent to most people looking at the shape of a modern boat is they tend to think of what they see above the water as the shape in the water. But typically these boats are designed to remarkably balanced shapes in the water, which as they heel (up to a point) become even more balanced fore and aft as well as amidships. While it is true that these designs do tend to carry more buoyancy towards the stern than they do forward, and tend to have their centers of buoyancy a little further aft than some more traditional designs, this is offset because they also carry their center of gravity further aft as well. What is not understood is that the actual waterline beam on these boats is surprisingly very narrow, especially when they have a some heel angle. It may actually be narrower than more traditional designs of 20-30 years ago. 

Its important to understand that these wider hulls are modeled so that the center of buoyancy moves quickly to leeward with heel angle. Since the center of gravity does not move, they very quickly develop huge amounts of stability without the usual penalties associated with excessively beamy hulls. In order to prevent developing large amounts of weather helm due to the immersed hull shape, the hull shape is carefully modeled so that it results in a comparatively symmetrical immersed hull form (closer in shape to a multihull than a traditional monohull) that is balanced around an axis that starts at the bow but which rotates to leeward at the stern. While this hull form is not parallel to the center line of the hull, it is none the less parallel to the way that water is moving over the hull. (That shifted angle means that the hull in the water is actually pointing slightly upwind and helping to resist leeway) 

The article suggests that these boats tend to go bow down when surfing in big waves. While that is true on some of the early broader stern designs and boats like the 6.5 meter Mini TransAt boats, with their huge reaching and running sail plans flown over very short waterline lengths, that has not proven to be the case once these more modern designs get longer and with more normal SA/D's. What is not all that apparent when looking at these boats is that the bow at the deck line is typically a lot fuller then more traditional designs and so while the waterline at the bow might be pretty fine compared to traditional cruising boats. these boats have huge amounts of reserve buoyancy, which occurs further forward of the longitudinal axis of rotation (pitch axis) and therefore has a longer lever arm to dampen pitch angle than more traditional designs. Moving the point of entry of the bow forward allows the boats to experience the impact with waves more progressively and so do not have the sharper impacts that are in more traditional designs of the same displacement. The huge amounts of reserve buoyancy in the stern also helps to damp pitch as well and reduce the likelihood of being pooped. The net result is that these boats tend to pitch through much smaller angles than traditional hull forms and remain closer to parallel to the wave face than more traditional hull forms. 

Similarly, they tend to have much greater roll damping as well. The net result is that the non-planning versions of these hull forms generally have a more comfortable motion than something like an IP which transmits much greater wave impacts to the crew and boat, and which tends to pitch and roll through much greater angles. 

Designing boats that behave like that takes more care than more traditional designs. The hull shape above and below the waterline needs to be optimized to remain balanced within the intended sailing heel angle. Without computer design and the ability to precisely track hull shape and its effect on trim (all directions) at various heel angles, it would be almost impossible to produce boats that employed versions of these modern hull forms and yet which were still well behaved, 

And that gets back to the problem with citing anecdotal evidence. Since these modern designs require more sophisticated design analysis, and not all visually modern boats receive that level of care, its hard to cite any particular design as a case study for the general design principal. This is especially true since many of the production designs that are out there have adopted, "the look" with adopting the science. There is no doubt that these designs neither perform as well nor offer the motion comfort that a more carefully modeled hull will provide. Often 'the look' is employed as a way to cram in some additional accommodations or meet some other design parameter. And, as in many things in life, the pendulum may have swung too far and may need to swing back a little. 

As far as the schism between race boats and cruising boats, there is no doubt that race boats have taken a very different route than cruising boats, becoming wildly lighter and more stripped out, living with much greater form stability, and in many cases, employing movable ballast and foils to achieve speeds which would have been inconceivable a few decades ago. From a design standpoint, while they may look like the newer cruising designs above the waterline, they are operating on very different design principles, principals that I do not envision bleeding down into cruising designs unless people are willing to live with huge compromises. 

But that is the opposite of the direction that the cruising boats version of the wide body look are going. When I look at the current crop of modern looking 38 footers on the market, they are nearly 5,000 lbs heavier than my four decade old designed 38 foot performance cruiser, and roughly the same weight as a Pacific Seacraft of the same length. Similarly, a Sense 46 is roughly the same displacement as your Outbound. And while the Sense 46 has less ballast, it carries in a larger bulb lower below the canoe body and so probably has more initial stability, and probably a similar angle of positive stability (but with much larger area under both the positive and negative stability curves).

Alright, my lunch is over, I need to get back to work! 

Jeff


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Is there a direct link to the article, or am I going to the wrong website? Morganscloud.com just goes to a paywall for me.

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

The marketing and magazines have us believing foiling cruising boats are right around the corner, so the actual hull shape won't matter because it will all be above the water.

Mark


----------



## john61ct (Jan 23, 2017)

For me the BWB issues are 

Seaworthy: structural integrity, *designed for* survivability in the worst case scenarios, best possible safety for its occupants when the sea gets rough. Including safety around reefs

Also sea-kindly, with the least tiring motion. 

Ease of single-handing

Liveaboard space & "comfort", headroom, storage capacity.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

colemj said:


> Is there a direct link to the article, or am I going to the wrong website? Morganscloud.com just goes to a paywall for me.
> 
> Mark


There is a tab for 'Free Blog' which has an article on hull forms here https://www.morganscloud.com/2018/09/06/hull-design-torture-test/

Jeff


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

Is everybody sitting in a circle....and within in reach of one another......

This is one of those


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Jeff thanks for adding to my knowledge. Is there a way the average sailboat buyer can look at current designs and abstract if it’s “look” or substance if Mr. Perry isn’t available to consult? We’ve sailed with people on Pogos and the like. There’s no question they can go from point A to B through some pretty snotty stuff. 

Is it a fixed dichotomy you either go light, fast and wide or ascribe to the morgancloud point of view. While here Bob pointed out how helpful displacement is to the cruiser. As we unload stuff my bride has put on the boat to make room for stores would tend to agree.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

john61ct said:


> For me the BWB issues are
> 
> Seaworthy: structural integrity, *designed for* survivability in the worst case scenarios, best possible safety for its occupants when the sea gets rough. Including safety around reefs
> 
> ...


Cutting to the chase, from that description, (with the exception of safety around reefs, since no boat is truly safe around reefs) I have to assume that you are referring to some of the newer cruising designs from the better designers, rather than some rolly-pitchy derivative of some 100 year old hull and rig design concept evolved to meet the limitations of the materials and hardware that were available a century ago and the commercial purpose for which they were designed to perform.

After all these modern designs with their smaller weather helm loads and lighter sail loads are easier to sail and are easier on their crews, have sturdier hulls and framing than most of the so-called traditional fiberglass hulls, and of course they pitch and roll through smaller angles at slower speeds than traditional boats, and with their more efficient and easily depowered sail plans are way easier to single-hand.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Jeff on the motorboat front some of the most recent intriguing designs are reminiscent of Bobs Sliver. Extremely narrow and so easily driven 75hp can drive a 12m vessel at 10kts allowing ocean crossing range with significant reserve. Now even though Dashew has retired Al vessels of this ilk are commercially available in series runs down to 45’. The press write ups say with modern stabilization the ride is quite good and sea keeping excellent. Is there a reason beyond marketing that this isn’t occurring in the sailboat market? Few can afford Bob’s services for a one off. It seems a bit of a small revolution is occurring with motor voyagers but in the opposite direction. Less beam, balanced ends, less power, less fuel and more range.


----------



## john61ct (Jan 23, 2017)

Jeff_H said:


> Cutting to the chase, from that description, (with the exception of safety around reefs, since no boat is truly safe around reefs) I have to assume that you are referring to


No I was simply listing the factors I prioritize wtr passage making, trying to help the discussion along in a general way.

I can't afford much of anything under 35 years old myself, and unless I get very lucky, the BWB upfitting will likely cost 3-5x the (cheap) purchase price, and therefore would need to be done over time.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

outbound said:


> Jeff thanks for adding to my knowledge. Is there a way the average sailboat buyer can look at current designs and abstract if it's "look" or substance if Mr. Perry isn't available to consult? We've sailed with people on Pogos and the like. There's no question they can go from point A to B through some pretty snotty stuff.
> 
> Is it a fixed dichotomy you either go light, fast and wide or ascribe to the morgancloud point of view. While here Bob pointed out how helpful displacement is to the cruiser. As we unload stuff my bride has put on the boat to make room for stores would tend to agree.


Its not really a dichotomy of "go light, fast and wide or ascribe to the morgancloud point of view." That is only a poorly chosen binary choice that ignores the vast array of options out there, including your own boat which is revolutionary compared to the anachronistic view point that Morning Cloud is a poster child for.

And the choices do not require combining going light, fast, and wide, unless one chooses to define them as such. When your boat was designed it would have been considered bleeding edge light, fast and wide by the standards of the time for a cruising boat. Now, not so much. By the same token, the current crop of modern performance cruising oriented designs are not all that much lighter, and beamier, they just typically sail on a longer waterline, have more efficient rigs and foils, are designed for better damping of motions, have their displacement carried differently and incorporate more modern easier to handle rigs.

When your boat was designed it was one of the higher performance cruising oriented boats of its displacement (excluding purposefully higher performance cruising boats like Farr 55's of that era). It might therefore be useful to compare that to a more recent cruising oriented boat with a similar design brief and displacement but which incorporates more modern thinking. A good example would be to compare the Hallberg Rassey 44 to your boat. While the numbers are pretty similar, I would expect the Hallberg to have a lot more initial stability as well as ultimate stability, have a more comfortable motion due to more progressive damping, be easier to sail and probably faster as well, especially in light air, changing conditions, or heavier air.

But when you talk about a light boat, here's the thing, no matter how much displacement a boat has, you can always pile more stuff on-board until the boat struggles with the load. And this is where these discussions generally go off the rails, because most folks think of boat size as being its length. If you start from length then there is a tendency to think of a boat with a lot of displacement for its length as having more carrying capacity than a boat that has less displacement for a given length. But that is why starting with length is exactly backwards.

If you start with how much half load displacement you think you need to go cruising, then an equally well-designed longer waterline boat with that chosen displacement will typically have a better motion comfort, have a larger carrying capacity, be more seaworthy, have more space for accommodations, be easier to handle and easier on their crew, and offer much better performance than a shorter boat of that same displacement. And starting from displacement makes sense in a lot of other ways since displacement rather than length is a better predictor of initial construction and maintenance costs.

Boats like Morgan's Cloud while attractive to look at, but they are just plain physically harder to sail than a more modern design of the same displacement. Their relative lack of stability as compared to their drag makes a boat which requires more work to sail in pretty much all conditions. Their greater pitch and roll angles are harder on a crew. McCurdy was a very good designer, but his dedicated cruising designs look a lot closer like modern designs the Morgan's cloud design.



outbound said:


> Jeff on the motorboat front some of the most recent intriguing designs are reminiscent of Bobs Sliver. Extremely narrow and so easily driven 75hp can drive a 12m vessel at 10kts allowing ocean crossing range with significant reserve. Now even though Dashew has retired Al vessels of this ilk are commercially available in series runs down to 45'. The press write ups say with modern stabilization the ride is quite good and sea keeping excellent. Is there a reason beyond marketing that this isn't occurring in the sailboat market? Few can afford Bob's services for a one off. It seems a bit of a small revolution is occurring with motor voyagers but in the opposite direction. Less beam, balanced ends, less power, less fuel and more range.


So here's the deal, that type of low drag design is already being done in sailboats. Its just that sailboats need a lot more stability than powerboats to stand up their rigs. You just don't realize that the hull forms in the water on these boats are narrow beam, with truly balanced ends (rather than as put forth in the polemic put on that webpage) because the boat above the waterline appears wide in order to get the extra stability. But when these boats are sailing, especially when heeled over, the better of these modern designs are narrow beam, with balanced ends, that require less power and fuel and have better range. And when designed for better damping they don't need "modern stabilization" since the hull form provides its own stabilization.

Jeff


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Well Jeff you got me thinking again and thank you for that. Design truly isn’t static and I don’t think any NA sets out to make a bad boat. That “hog wash” is compelling however. I see HR, Hylas and other well thought of cruising boat manufacturers have reworked their canoe bodies in recent years to appear wider at deck level aft. I understand this visual appearance doesn’t reflect what’s going on at the waterline nor what’s submerged. What I don’t understand is how what’s above the water doesn’t impact on behavior when struck by a wave, when swatting a bit while surfing or during low speed maneuvers in a cross wind. 
I haven’t your skill set so perhaps express myself poorly. For the last few weeks been setting up for passage. We do everything wrong. We weigh down the ends. Dinghy engine goes off the rail and into the forepeak locker. Life raft goes under the helm seat and the locker beneath is filled with gallons of water. Jsd and it’s chain and weight goes to the top of the aft lazerette. In short the ends are weighted. Of course starting out our tanks are full. Fortunately no additional fluids are lashed on deck but others do what I think is a bad practice. With stores for four and before we work through all the spares for a season we aren’t showing any bottom paint like we usually do. Still the boat behaves well. I’ve looked at the HR44. It’s a beautiful thing and from the little I know would think it would behave just as well if not better in cruising mode. I don’t think morgancloud was referencing such a boat. The Gz curves are nearly identical but not as good as achieved by Bob’s CF cutters. 
HRs are thought of being purpose built for the cruising market as are Amel, passport, Hylas etc. all have had their shapes evolve in response to advances in design. I think the morgancloud discussion was aimed at the larger scale production builders. Again I ask “is the layman totally dependent on reputation and reviews in judging current designs or can you suggest an avenue to pursue that allows the layman to know when they are being fed “hogwash”?


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

I found the Morgans Cloud article a little bit awkward in that it used a 78 ft Dashew powerboat as an example. Sundeers have relatively narrow beams for their length, but at the end of the da, a Sundeer 64 still has a 15 ft beam for example. There is a bit of a disconnect between relative beam and actual beam when comparing boats of this size to boats most of us are using.

About 6 or 7 years ago was involved in modernising a couple of fleets of small passenger vessels to come into step with new damage stability regulations. Basically the regs required many older passenger vessels to increase initial stability, reserve bouyancy and compartmentalisation. Invariably the solution to the initial stability question was to increase waterline beam with sponsons. It was interesting working with the NA and watching initial stability and passenger count (therefor earning capacity) with each additional increment of beam.

One boat, a small triple decker was widened by 3 ft and lengthened by 12 with the resulting passenger capacity, which was based on stability, increase from 75 to 150. It doubled with 3 ft of extra beam and 12 feet of waterline length added. To compensate for the additional drag and mass, larger rudders and a thruster had to be added. It seems like adding beam to smaller vessels is a really easy way to work initial stability numbers and reserve bouyancy numbers but relative beam has less of an impact as waterline length increases.

Having said that, I still like fine lines and narrow sterns on my boats.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Interesting perspective A and thank you for it. Sponsons seem to be a viable solution when reworking an existing motor vessel but in the sailing world would think why not just go to a multi and avoid life on a slant. 
I must be thinking about this wrong. I understand Jeff to say the waterline footprint doesn’t change appreciable as the sailboat heels and may in fact decrease so although wide to the uneducated eye the effective immersed hull remains narrow. Still, one has a lot of boat above the waterline. I would think as wind waves strike it and as pitch varies fore and aft the boat would move around a bit. I would think this would be most evident broad reaching or running in big seas. This apparently isn’t the case but I don’t get why. I see increased reserve buoyancy both fore and aft would decrease this untoward behavior but cruising boats are commonly loaded to the gills with heavy stuff near or at the ends. Seems a lot of thought must go into this and I don’t see how the average joe would know if they got it right.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

At the risk of having this look like a Smackdaddy post:


outbound said:


> Sponsons seem to be a viable solution when reworking an existing motor vessel but in the sailing world would think why not just go to a multi and avoid life on a slant.


To some extent, it might help if you think of these boats as only being wide above a narrow waterline beam and in effect having hydrodynamically efficiently shaped sponsons.



outbound said:


> I understand Jeff to say the waterline footprint doesn't change appreciable as the sailboat heels and may in fact decrease so although wide to the uneducated eye the effective immersed hull remains narrow.


I would sooner phrase this as, "The waterline beam on these boats are much narrower than the boat above. As the boat heels the location of the water line beam moves quickly to leeward near the stern, but the width of the waterline beam does not increase, and may in fact get narrower as the chine gets closer to the water.

To visualize this, visualize a boat that is a cone in shape with the point of the cone the stem of the boat, and the flat of the cone as the transom. Assuming that less than half of the cone was in the water, then as the cone rotated around an axis from the point to the centroid if the flat, the waterline beam would remain constant. While the bottoms of these wide boats are not actually cones, the section at each location is essentially is conic with a small amount of decreasing radius near the edges to progressively improve roll damping. That sharper curve near the edges means that the bottom of the canoe body is deeper in the water and so the waterline beam gets narrower as the boat approaches the chines.



outbound said:


> Still, one has a lot of boat above the waterline. I would think as wind waves strike it and as pitch varies fore and aft the boat would move around a bit. I would think this would be most evident broad reaching or running in big seas.


It is partially true in that these boats do have a lot of windage which makes them harder to maneuver under engine. But under sail, they have a proportionately large amounts of stability and SA/D so that the windage is not apparent under sail.



outbound said:


> I see increased reserve buoyancy both fore and aft would decrease this untoward behavior but cruising boats are commonly loaded to the gills with heavy stuff near or at the ends.


 Weight in the ends of the boat does not impact these boats as much as it does boats with shorter waterlines. The reason that is true is that there is more buoyancy further pushed towards the ends of the boat to support that weight than there would be on a boat with a shorter waterline.



outbound said:


> Seems a lot of thought must go into this and I don't see how the average Joe would know if they got it right.


I understand, and I don't have a good answer on that one. In reality, I am a strong believer in more moderate designs, which will tolerate a little less sophisticated design methodologies, engineering and quality control.

Jeff


----------



## solarfry (Sep 6, 2008)

I am of the opinion that I'd rather sail a new design capable of 38 knots than an old design that wallows along at 4 knots. It is way easier to escape a storm when you can run off at at least 15 to 20knots. I think I'd rather have a fast cat. Working my way there. I really don't want to have to shorten sail and wait to get hit.

But to each his own..

:cut_out_animated_em


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

In the spirit of upcoming Halloween...

Is invoking Smack's name three times, akin to conjuring up Beetle-juice? Let's try it!

SMACKDADDY... SMACKDADDY... SMACKDADDY!

Anything?


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

S- sad to say your logic is flawed. Systems may be hundreds of miles. You may guess right and it goes left. You may between a land mass and the system. Multiple events maybe ongoing. Sail away from one and into another. Local pop up events aren’t predicted. The diligence, alertness and skills to sail at the speeds you suggest will require multiple skilled crew. You may not have the luxury of having them aboard when required if you are actually cruising. Friend is bringing a fast cat aimed at the ocean cruising couple to market. She’s most well thought out and quite remarkable. Save your pennies. Currently called “Razor Cat”. Probably just under $1m out the door and she is only partially CF.


----------



## Jammer Six (Apr 2, 2015)

Bob? No. Just no.

An Owens Cutter or a Hinkley. Don't care for canoes with masts on looks alone.


----------



## Jammer Six (Apr 2, 2015)

colemj said:


> The website goes straight into a paywall. There is no article that I can see.


It's not a paywall, it's just not a well designed site.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Jammer Six said:


> Bob? No. Just no.
> 
> An Owens Cutter or a Hinkley. Don't care for canoes with masts on looks alone.


What does that refer to and what exactly do you mean by that? Curious minds want to know.....


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

GeorgeB said:


> In the spirit of upcoming Halloween...
> 
> Is invoking Smack's name three times, akin to conjuring up Beetle-juice? Let's try it!
> 
> ...


You didn't put enough spin on it, so it only got so far...

https://www.sailnet.com/forums/gene...blet-navigation-backup-14.html#post2051556366

Mark


----------



## Jammer Six (Apr 2, 2015)

It means an Owens Cutter is my first choice, followed by some of the Hinckleys.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Jammer Six said:


> It means an Owens Cutter is my first choice, followed by some of the Hinckleys.


I see. Since the topic is about hull forms for offshore sailing, if you don't mind, can you please explain why you think that the hull form used on the Owens Cutter would be a good hull form for that purpose.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## Jammer Six (Apr 2, 2015)

Actually, my "joke" is one layer deeper than that.

The punchline is that because I like Hinckleys, I won't be going offshore.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Jammer Six said:


> Actually, my "joke" is one layer deeper than that.
> 
> The punchline is that because I like Hinckleys, I won't be going offshore.


Yes, that would explain it.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Jeff really appreciate your posts. You have tempered my thinking when reading morganscloud. Still the voices there are mostly from experienced ocean cruisers. Many not Americans with their ultra conservative bias and resistance to new thinking. Although my experience is limited I have been in weather. The feeling you remain in control of the boat is key in making that just a bump in the road. I remain uncertain where the hull torture test article and commentary goes wrong. I know you speak to your preference for more moderate designs. I suspect the HR and newer Hylas represent that. Are there other designs you think do or do not represent such thinking and execution.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

outbound said:


> Jeff really appreciate your posts. You have tempered my thinking when reading morganscloud. Still the voices there are mostly from experienced ocean cruisers. Many not Americans with their ultra conservative bias and resistance to new thinking. Although my experience is limited I have been in weather. The feeling you remain in control of the boat is key in making that just a bump in the road. I remain uncertain where the hull torture test article and commentary goes wrong. I know you speak to your preference for more moderate designs. I suspect the HR and newer Hylas represent that. Are there other designs you think do or do not represent such thinking and execution.


There seems to be several misunderstandings that blog that he states as facts. For example he says: 
"When pushing into waves, the stern must be able to immerse well into the back of the last wave so that it does not drive the bow hard down into the front of the next wave by lifting too much, and in so doing bring tons of potentially boat wrecking green water aboard."

That is where someone threw the switch, and at which the point that was being raised went off the tracks. To begin with, some of that conclusion was based on Dashew's video, but its important to understand power boats behave differently than a displacement sail boat in that power boats maintain speed in the trough whereas a sailboat tends to accelerate at the top of the wave and surfs down the back face of the wave, slows in the trough as the wind is decreased and it encounters the back of the next wave and starts to climb out of the trough. (Dashew says that he tries to use the throttle to mimic the speed changes that a sailboat does naturally) With a sailboat the quoted description from the blog would only occur in one of two situations, either the boat is going upwind into big seas, or else surfing down wind and moving faster than the waves and so potentially burying its bow in the wave ahead of it.

Going upwind you are colliding with the square face of the wave. He is right that the bow needs enough buoyancy to lift the forward end of the boat out of the wave. But the stern only needs to submerge enough provide enough buoyancy to support the weight of the boat equal to the buoyancy at the bow. The larger buoyancy keeps the stern from squatting so that essentially the boat is rotating around the stern rather than amidships on a more traditional design.

If there is enough buoyancy at the the ends of the boat, the ends of the boat will lift with the waves and essentially follow the average angle of face of the wave that the boat is encountering so that the bow and stern will sit deeper than usual and the center of the boat shallower. In large steep waves, the back side of the wave is reasonably flat so its only a matter of having the boat rotate and climb the wave. In those conditions if you are moving as fast as a power boat you can stick your bows, much the way that a fast moving catamaran will stick its windward bow into a steep high wave in those conditions, but in those conditions, if you are sticking your bow, its time to slow down (which still be at a higher speed than a shorter waterline boat would be going and would still take less water aboard as I will explain below)

Downwind, the boat may be moving slower or faster than the wave, but either way the relative speed between the wave and the boat is much smaller than going upwind, and so there isn't the kind of collision that appears to be happening here because there isn't the same short time period for the boat to respond. (i.e. Visualize a 10 knot boat hitting an 8 knot wave upwind which results in a relative speed of 18 knots between the two, while downwind it has only a 2 knot relative speed. To visualize what this means, upwind, it would take 1.33 seconds for the the full length of a 40 foot boat to pass a spot on the wave, while downwind, at those speeds, it would take over 12 seconds for the the full length of a 40 foot boat to pass a spot on the wave. The shorter deceleration distance is the difference between hitting a slightly padded steering wheel vs. getting hit by a safety airbag that can absorb the impact over a longer distance and time.)

The assumption that is being made in that sentence is based on the behavior of a boat with long overhangs where the bow at the deck is into the wave before the buoyancy at the waterline even hits the wave. The idea behind the plumb bow boats is that there is actually considerably more buoyancy in the bow than with boats with longer overhangs and that the buoyancy enters the wave sooner and increases more progressively. This attenuates the impact and provides more time for the boat to start to rotate. As the buoyancy in a plumb bow starts to lift in the wave, it does jack the middle of the boat upward some so that the middle of boat is bridging between the buoyancy at the bow and stern. It is the reason that displacement versions of these short overhang boats tend to be dryer than boats with longer overhangs.

But also the images on that video demonstrates that no matter how big a boat is, there will still be a wave length and steepness that will be tough to handle. In this case the pitch of the waves are too short for the 98 foot power boat to span multiple waves, and too tall and steep for the bow to lift completely clear at the speed that the boat was moving.

When people try to visualize how this works, all to often they they think of images showing what happens with high-speed raceboat versions of these hull forms. These raceboats often have wave piercing and semi wave piercing bows. To explain, one thing that saps speed on a boat is the impact between each wave and the bow. These are race boats so anything that is sapping speed is a really bad thing. If the bow is made finer, less slowing force is felt by the boat.

But as the bow becomes finer at some point it does not have the buoyancy to lift the bow out of the wave and so you end up piercing the wave partially or in the case of the reverse stems being popularized on multihulls and high-speed monohulls completely enter the wave, which makes for very dramatic GoPro footage, but is hard on the crew. (I don't know if Volvo boats still have this but in past generations the steering wheels had a hollow axle and had a hardpoint at the center of the wheel where the helmsman could clip into the hub to keep from being blown out the back of the boat by high speed waves coming over the deck and out through the transom.)

Anyway, I hope that all makes sense.

Jeff


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

A few more thoughts on Outbound's thoughtful questions:



outbound said:


> Still the voices there are mostly from experienced ocean cruisers. Many not Americans with their ultra conservative bias and resistance to new thinking.


As to the fact that the author of the blog is an experienced sailors, I can maybe explain it this way. Most of us like our boats. If we have gone through some tough stuff and come out the other side, we tend to think more highly of our boat's heavy weather capability. For better or worse, over time we tend find reasons why we like our boat even more than some other boat and perhaps increase the importance of our boat's particular virtues in our minds. I think most of us do that. I know that I do. And as easy as it is to emphasize the importance of our boat's virtues, it is equally hard to step back and look at the defects in our boats, finding it being much easier to downplay the importance of those liabilities to the way we use our boats. Obviously Morgan Cloud suits her owner well and has served him well, and there is value in hearing opinions that support why that particular experienced owner values their boat.

Where I think the article in question breaks down is in how the author extrapolates from his conclusions about his boat and applies it to boats that he seems to understand less. To a great extent that is understandable. That is especially true with the way that modern boats behave since in many ways they seem counter-intuitive and only begin to make more sense if you have seen the waterline shapes of these boats in an upright and a heeled condition and realize that they are not all that different than a more traditional design, except that they are longer for a length on deck and offset on an axis to leeward.

Perhaps this picture will help visualize how when heeled over these wider boats actually have a narrow and symmetrical waterline but that is rotated on an angle to the centerline of the boat. This is a lousy picture, and the boat in question is a poster child for how not to adjust sails on a breezy day and is heeled too far, but It does somewhat illustrates how the waterline gets narrower and balanced when heeled.





outbound said:


> I suspect the HR and newer Hylas represent that. Are there other designs you think do or do not represent such thinking and execution.


As fewer and fewer new boats are being designed and constructed, and with a tiny proportion of which being designed as performance long range cruisers, there are comparatively tiny number of new performance long range cruiser designs being designed and constructed. Some examples of performance long range cruising boats that reflect some of the newer hull forms would include the Amel 55, the cruising series of X-Yachts and Arcona, Najad has several newer designs, Lyman Morse's Farr designed LM FARR 63 (Kiwi Spirit 63), Morris's Ocean Series, and the Southern Wind 82 are at the big and expensive end of things, or perhaps something like the current crop of Elans, Comar Comet, Grand Soleils and Salonas. or more custom boats like Sweden Yachts, who had a 40 foot something design that they built a few years ago and to a lesser extent Malo also has couple newer designs.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

I read that list and my heart breaks noting the Scandinavian companies that have folded. Still, us Americans should be looking at the European boat of the year not what is commonly promoted here. Personally quite fond of the X yachts. Build quality seems good and crawling around they seem serviceable. Unfortunately I’d be a bit draft restricted. Have a friend with a ocean series Morris. He is quite pleased with everything but his yard bill. Remain curious how that line willl progress under Hinckley. Would like to see Ed Joy draw something for their next boat.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Jeff I continue to learn from you but the picture brings to mind the focus of my misunderstanding. Let’s say that boat is on a close reach. Apparent wind 60-70. Major wave train at 70-80 but secondary wave train at 110-130. Isn’t the secondary wave train going to slap under the starboard aft exposed portion of the hull? Now bear off so the boat is on a far reach and the winds have built significantly so the secondary wind waves have as well. I don’t understand why the back of the boat won’t try to get squirrelly. I understand the waterline profile remains balanced but appearances suggest the structure above the waterline and only periodically wet is not so would be effected by the secondary waves. Given these boats canoe bodies seem fairly flat aft how is it the one immersed small double rudder and very high aspect keel are sufficient to keep the boat tracking?


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

outbound said:


> Isn't the secondary wave train going to slap under the starboard aft exposed portion of the hull? Now bear off so the boat is on a far reach and the winds have built significantly so the secondary wind waves have as well. I don't understand why the back of the boat won't try to get squirrelly. I understand the waterline profile remains balanced but appearances suggest the structure above the waterline and only periodically wet is not so would be effected by the secondary waves. Given these boats canoe bodies seem fairly flat aft how is it the one immersed small double rudder and very high aspect keel are sufficient to keep the boat tracking?


But that is the thing, Pretty much any boat that is heeled will be exposing a larger flat surface to wave action. Its not better or worse on these newer boats than more 'traditional designs. Its hard to find similar low angle, transom shots for traditional boats, but here are three that somewhat illustrate how that looks. While the surface area is smaller, the incident angle is larger, as is the lever arm of the overhang. 






And while the double rudder is smaller in area, more of it is fully immersed and perpendicular to the side forces than a centerline rudder making them more effective despite the smaller area.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Have to ponder this. Pictures shown show a smaller curved surface to my uneducated eye with less surface potentially perpendicular to an oncoming wave. Have only day sailed some double ruddered wide sterned boats not yet mentioned but not in severe conditions. Did notice a slap in island trade winds conditions with reflected waves from shore. Particularly when leaving the lee of the island but no change in tracking. Still, was in only 2-4’. Agree the double rudders were most effective. Surprised how responsive to steering input they were.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Had a ripping sail today in a very skinny boat. I think Outbound had bigger boats in mind when he posted this, but thought I would share any way.

Conditions were reasonably rough, for the size of boat. 15 knots sustained, gusts to mid 20s, rain, fog, 8 Celsius. We felt both very safe and comfortable. Seas were about a meter, short period, some bigger.

Boat was light, slippery and fast. 21 feet, 95 lbs with a 3 foot beam. We were out for on the water for about 5.5 hours.

She was a Seaward Kayak equipped with downwind sail rig and we were making 6 knots against the current on the Ottawa River under sail. Seaward Kayas are considered quite capable coastal kayaks.

No real point to the post except to share a skinny, very modern boat doing well in tricky conditions.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Wow that looks like fun. Personally think there are a few rare but extremely well thought out old and new hull shapes that just plain work. I have cf sliding seat Whitehall dinghy I fish and row in all conditions. The design is archaic. The execution high tech. It just plain works. Bob Perry posted an ultra thin sliver. Breathtaking looks and after build apparently a very successful design. As you say many ways to skin the cat. Jeff helped me understand the newer hull shapes. I’m still a bit unclear about how to distinguish a good one from a bad. It’s such a big investment it’s hard to take it on faith. Occasionally I’ll crew for friends on passage. My motivation for this thread was to understand which boats to get on and which to just pass.


----------



## Jammer Six (Apr 2, 2015)

Huh. I thought Bob had been banned from here. Maybe that was cruiserforum.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

I rarely see sailing magazines anymore, but someone gave me one the other day. Don't know what year/month it was, but it focused on all the new boats available, and the whole issue was pretty much dedicated to them (more of an advertisement than anything).

Every single monohull it listed was designed like the type disparaged by Morganscloud. Sure, there were a lot of boats by Hanse, Jeanneau, etc, which would only engender argument here as to seaworthiness where they the only examples.

But what struck me was that Halberg Rassey, Hylas, and Amel are only making boats with these design attributes now.

Leads one to believe that either these designers and builders have lost their minds, or nobody buying new boats today plans on taking them out of protected waters, or that Morganscloud doesn't know what they are talking about in this regard.

Mark


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Jammer Six said:


> Huh. I thought Bob had been banned from here. Maybe that was cruiserforum.


Bob Perry was not banned. In fact he is sorely missed.

Jeff


----------



## Jammer Six (Apr 2, 2015)

Jeff_H said:


> Bob Perry was not banned. In fact he is sorely missed.


Not by everyone. Maybe I live too close to him.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Three very solid boats and highly desirable. The old joke was American buy Hylas, brits buy oyster everyone else buys HR except the francophones who buy Amel. By the way look at recent Amel. Saw one hauled today. A 55 . Real different canoe body than a super a.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

The Amel 55 is an old design. Here is what they are making now:

Mark


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Yup got the name wrong.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

outbound said:


> Wow that looks like fun. Personally think there are a few rare but extremely well thought out old and new hull shapes that just plain work. I have cf sliding seat Whitehall dinghy I fish and row in all conditions. The design is archaic. The execution high tech. It just plain works. Bob Perry posted an ultra thin sliver. Breathtaking looks and after build apparently a very successful design. As you say many ways to skin the cat. Jeff helped me understand the newer hull shapes. I'm still a bit unclear about how to distinguish a good one from a bad. It's such a big investment it's hard to take it on faith. Occasionally I'll crew for friends on passage. My motivation for this thread was to understand which boats to get on and which to just pass.


Too much fun. Its one of my brothers boats.

He also owns an Alberg, which I think might be the style of boat Morgans Cloud article was discussing. The Alberg is a pretty boat, but she would definitely not have been as fast as the kayak in those conditions. Not down wind, and not upwind, which was a doozy of an upwind paddle back home after that sail.

I agree with your assesment. Need to look at each boat on its individual merrits. Not individual design features which each independantly adds to the whole.


----------



## ImGary01 (Feb 8, 2018)

outbound said:


> Being here for a few years I see recurring threads about what makes a BWB. I see arguments about old v new designs. I see discussions about appendages. I also follow Morgancloud.cloud. They recently had a series about balanced ends. In my view recent designs perhaps influenced by recent race boats or the desire for increased interior volume speak to needs not felt by cruisers. I believe there is a increasing schism between cruising designs v race boats or coastal use vessels.
> I'm quite curious about others opinions on this subject. I think it is the driver of much heat here and want light. There are new designs with balanced ends. There are voluminous boats with balanced ends. There are fast boats competitive except at the professional level with balanced ends. What are your thoughts?


I may have missed it in this thread but can anyone explain what balanced ends are and how can you tell if a boat has them? What are the pros/cons? Thanx in advance.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

ImGary01 said:


> I may have missed it in this thread but can anyone explain what balanced ends are and how can you tell if a boat has them? What are the pros/cons? Thanx in advance.


Balanced ends is not really a thing. In fact, the term is a bit of a misnomer because in reality it is not only the ends that are actually balanced but the whole boat.

But here is the theory..... To begin with some background, when a boat is sitting static on its lines and is not heeled, there is a single point vertically, athwartships, and longitudinally that is the center of the buoyancy of the boat, as a boat heels that point moves. There is a similar single point vertically, athwartships, and longitudinally that is the center of the gravity of all of the weights in a boat, and that point does not move, except that it moves slightly as liquids in tanks shift and any gimballed items rotates. (The center of gravity also moves as crew hikes out but we will ignore that for the moment since we are talking about cruising boats.)

In order for a boat to sit on its lines, the center of gravity needs to be stacked vertically above or below the line of the center of buoyancy fore and aft and side to side. 
People who are not familiar with yacht design principals often assume that the center of gravity and center of buoyancy occur at the midpoint between the point of entry of the waterline at the bow and the aft most point at the stern. That is not the case except for an unusual design like a lifeboat, which is truly symmetrical about the mid-point of the boat. In the case of most traditional boats, the center of buoyancy and gravity are somewhere around 55% to 60% aft of the point of entry of the waterline. On more modern designs, the centers are further aft by another 5% or so.

As a boat heels the center of buoyancy typically moves to leeward, but the center of gravity remains where it is. The lever arm between the two creates the righting moment that keeps a boat from tipping over. But also, on many designs, as the boat heels the center of buoyancy moves longitudinally either fore or aft. So for example on many CCA era and Universal Rule derived designs, which had full bows and comparatively fine sterns, the center of buoyancy often moved forwards and since the center of gravity does not move, the boats would actually change trim so that the stern was down relative to the bow.

Similarly, historically poorly designed boats with full sterns, tended to push the center of buoyancy aft as they heel, so that the bow of the boat is pushed down as the boat heels.

In contrast, in the case of a boat that is said to have 'balanced ends' as the boat heels the longitudinal center of buoyancy remains in the same place so that the boat neither goes down in the bow nor down in the stern. In theory that is easier to achieve with a boat that is narrow and which has essentially cylindrical cross sections since there would be relatively little change in shape as the boat heeled.

The trouble that theory is that a boat that is narrow and which has essentially cylindrical cross sections will tend to roll a lot and tend to lack stability in the range of heel angles at which a boat preferably sails. But the other issue is that as the boat heels the two sides of the waterline become asymmetrical so that when seen in plan, they form a kind of curved wing shape that contributes to weather helm.

To get around that, modern boats are designed with elliptical cross sectional shapes so that they are narrow at the waterline when heeled at relatively small angles, and they are also designed so that the waterline remains relatively symmetrical and so that the longitudinal center of buoyancy remains in the same place as the boat heels. So while they may not appear to have 'balanced ends" they typically do, that is unless they are heeled at large angles at which point, in most cases, all bets are off. That said, have seen some of the race boats sailed at large heel angles and not develop uncontrollable weather helm, and I am not clear on how they are doing that.

There are also a variety of issues that this does not address which would include the behavior of the boat in waves and also the dynamic forces at play on a fast moving boat. But those are separate issues.

I hope this answers your question.

Jeff


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Excellent explanation. Part I still can’t get my head around is this makes perfect sense in the absence of waves with the boat holding basically the same static relationship to the surface of the water at a given angle of heel. However boats pitch,roll, corkscrew, surf, and get hit on their sides or even submersed on their ends. Although I haven’t been on a boat with any significant portion of the stern bottom paint out of the water I’ve had quite a bit of the front airborne and unsupported.

It seems really complicated. I know these boats are safe. They sail the Southern Ocean. I know they are fast. Just about all race boats are using variations of this theme. I don’t understand how they continue to track in a seaway as a loaded down cruising boat although they obviously do. On any boat I’ve been on the stern gets whacked one way then the other. But if it’s a good sea boat both tracks with little input but turns easily as well. 

I’ve seen boats that have this look and been told they’re great light air boats but not nice to be on offshore and others (I can’t pick up the difference visually even when hauled) that are just fine for any conditions. I don’t understand this enough to spot and see what makes the difference. There’s no reference materials to help with that I’m aware of. If you can share your understanding Jeff I think many here would appreciate it. Maybe just need to go to NA school but rather go cruising. Thanks again Jeff.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

You could also think of it as longitudinally symetrical. Meaning if you cut the boat in half, longitudinally, would the bow be a mirror image of the stern and if not, to what degree.

Life boats and the prospector canoe design are examples of boats that are very symetrical. Some sailing designs intended for use in heavy surf and for beach landings are fairly symetrical longitudinally as well. The Hobie 16 comes to mind.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Arcb said:


> You could also think of it as longitudinally symetrical. Meaning if you cut the boat in half, longitudinally, would the bow be a mirror image of the stern and if not, to what degree..


But that is thing...almost no boats that were actually intended to be sailboats were "longitudinally symmetrical'. Even boats that we think of as being "longitudinally symmetrical' typically weren't. This is even true of boats like the Colin Archer type rescue boats, or whale boats that most folks would think of as being essentially "longitudinally symmetrical". The Colin Archers were designed to a somewhat obsolete "Metacentric shelf theory" which while somewhat debunked in the form it was used in, was an effort to find a simplified way to keep the center of buoyancy from moving relative to the center of gravity in much the same way it is done but with computers today.



Arcb said:


> Its not necessarily that after rocker or fine sterns are fundamentally bad boat design, its more that, for the most part, it just isnt suitable for the keelboat cruising market, in my opinion.


Actually, with all due respect, rocker at the stern and fine sterns are fundamentally bad boat design, at least in terms of motion comfort, behavior in waves from astern, carrying capacity and performance.

Jeff


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Jeff, I dont think I am disagreeing with you. Deleted the last half of my post on consideration that it probably didnt apply to most sailing applications.

However, with respect to symetry, I do disagree that it is always poor boat design. 

An asymetrical Proa or Prostector could be problematic.

When looking at small boat designs, the Prospector might possiby be the most prolific boat in North America. 2 crew, paddle it forward, one crew paddles it baclwards.

I think I agree, that generally, most sailboats operate best going forward and benefit from a fuller hull aft. However, there are some exceptions to the rule that came to mind. I could only think of very small boat examples though.


----------



## Jammer Six (Apr 2, 2015)

Arcb said:


> Deleted the last half of my post on consideration that it probably didnt apply to most sailing applications.


I wish folks wouldn't do that.

Deleting portions of a discussion leaves a disjointed, hard-to-follow conversation when I'm dissecting, parsing and studying in-depth conversations about technical or semi-technical issues late at night when even the dog is asleep.


----------



## ImGary01 (Feb 8, 2018)

Jeff_H said:


> Balanced ends is not really a thing. In fact, the term is a bit of a misnomer because in reality it is not only the ends that are actually balanced but the whole boat. .......
> 
> I hope this answers your question.
> 
> Jeff


Jeff,

Thank you so much! When I read (even fiction), I create a visual picture in my mind which helps me understand the content. As I was reading your description I could picture the center of buoyancy and center of gravity as black dots plotted on an X-Y-Z axis and their relationship to each other as the boat was sitting upright. Then as the boat started to heel I could see the dots spatial relationship to each other change athwart ship. Add in pitch as the boat is riding up and down waves and I can picture the dots changing fore and aft. Makes sense to me now. You have the gift of explaining what could be complicated to the lay person in terms that even I can understand. Kudos to you sir.


----------



## Calmwater (Aug 5, 2018)

I think the detailed marine architecture discussion can go far here. There are a lot of details and factors to consider, but maybe the more important is the fact that the taste of the majority of sailors over the last 20-30 years has changed from seamanship to the most convenient life style possible. - and there is nothing bad with that - our world has changed. So for sure the newly designed boats are basically way more comfortable, usually lighter (new technologies also help here) and faster. But like our new cars, not always designed to survive for 50++ years or more... - although theoretically they could - the materials are generally more durable, less wood, steel to maintain and a lot of aluminum parts are replaced with composites or perfectly anodized fittings. And there is more...

The new means of collecting performance digital data from both racing boats and cruising boats and analyze it with computers help to design the optimal boats and components to fit the exact needs of any class of boat and sailor - including those that will stay docked for 99.999% of the time - e.g. the majority...


----------



## Jammer Six (Apr 2, 2015)

If the change is giving up seamanship for comfort, then it's not good.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

I agree the market has become more segmented. The average boat of 30 years ago was expected to deal with weather, and be durable but had nothing close for living comfort, performance and room per loa of current boats. 
To get the jump to long term seaworthiness requires a doubling in cost which isn’t justified unless you are routinely voyaging and not even then unless you want a very extended service life.
Very few brands and models are aimed at that market so few boats are available in the used market that make use of advance in design of recent years.


----------



## Calmwater (Aug 5, 2018)

It is all about the economics... there isn’t enough of a true market for pure bluewater cruisers. Most modern, serial production daysalers of 40’ plus with the right skipper and crew can go anywhere globally with minimal modifications/upgrades and with overall better comfort and safety. 

The segment of high-end cruisers may stay, but the prices will continue to rise as they can’t make any profit even with today’s prices meaning we’ll see less and less (most of these builders are already out of business or making their money from motor boats and other non marine products). 

We better look forward and while remembering “the good old boats” understand the new reality. For sure, the serial good production boats are cheaper in the client’s buying power than those in the 80’s and are better equipped - all making these accessible to larger sailing communities and we should all be happy seeing more boats on the water, even if some brought the plastics to a ridiculous design aesthetics- in my taste...


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

Since SmackDaddy is gone, somebody has to argue pointlessly&#8230;.. 



Calmwater said:


> So for sure the newly designed boats are basically way more comfortable, usually lighter (new technologies also help here) and faster. But like our new cars, not always designed to survive for 50++ years or more


New cars are *way* better than cars used to be! Back when I was in high school a car with a hundred thousand miles on it was considered a junker and would need constant maintenance.

Today I'm driving a twelve-year-old car with 115,000 miles on it and it's never needed more than the routine 5,000 mile oil and belt changes, and it still drives like a new car. I bet I'll get 200,000 miles out of it.



outbound said:


> The average boat of 30 years ago was expected to deal with weather, and be durable but had nothing close for living comfort, performance and room per loa of current boats.


What was the average boat in 1988? I would say the Catalina 36 would be a good candidate.

Was the Catalina 36 really a much better a boat than a modern Catalina?


----------



## Calmwater (Aug 5, 2018)

Speaking about Catalina (and alike). I had the pleasure to own a brand new Catalina 28 Mark II, tall rig, deep fin keel, upscaled Yanmar etc etc from 1995 to 2010. That was after I had an older Maxi 28 (a great Swedish racer cruiser) that was made to handle severe weather conditions much better of course - but spending 99.5% of the time docking, in the (huge) cockpit with friends and family and with day/weekend sailing, - Catalina made much more sense. 

So, the new Catalinas, Beneteaus and Jeanneaus are much better, way more comfortable on deck and below. And they perfectly serve their target audience! Which is the majority of sailors these days by allowing more quick day sailing time with more people to join and with much more fun. - more use of the deminishing value of our good money... 😞

Ocean cruisers are a small minority, weather services access, communication, nav, radars are by far better these days and this allows almost any boat with somewhat less of a pro sailor to sail their dreams and gain experience much faster than the most of us - and that’s what really important! 

And when there is a storm forecast - no matter what kind of a boat we have - wer’e not saling.


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

Calmwater said:


> I had an older Maxi 28 (a great Swedish racer cruiser) that was made to handle severe weather conditions


Was that ever considered an average boat? I'd say a boat like that was always an outlier.


----------



## Calmwater (Aug 5, 2018)

Minnesail said:


> Calmwater said:
> 
> 
> > I had an older Maxi 28 (a great Swedish racer cruiser) that was made to handle severe weather conditions
> ...


--- of course it wasn't the average boat (and that's why Maxi is another out of business great builder) with her strength and overall building quality. But, in the day to day sailing experience she just couldn't offer the comfort and amenities of her successor.

Again, my point is that for my needs and I think for most sailors, an upgrade (or downgrade ? a matter of taste...) made sense. I guess the new Catalina 28 or so today, is a better boat, at least for her targeted audience. This is why they could stay in business - plus a great production facilities, R&D and overall business management.

I'm no longer at that range, I have a Farr 40 for racing only and buying a 42-45' CC cruiser to enjoy an easy relaxing sailing with family and friends. So sure I can get a well used in a great condition Island Packet and alike for $400K or a Beneteau (and alike) for $120-150K. Yes, the IP will impress my neighboring sailors on the dock much more but I can decide if I want to devaluate my "investment" by $200K when I sell in 7-10 years or by $50K... 
The sailing experience on both would be very much the same at most to all times...


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Agree that’s exactly the point. I’m in NEB waiting weather. I’m leaving Sunday god willing. I expect 25-30 g 40-45 with 2-3m seas while going through the stream late Monday thru Tuesday. So 6-9 hours of misery is quite possible as we ride the stream east rather than beating through the stream. Boat two down is a hunter 46 deck saloon. It is huge inside compared to my boat. Bigger cockpit and bigger everything. He has decided to wait until Thursday. He says he may not leave this year. I thought of not leaving from here but rather going to Beaufort NC and waiting perhaps until December as windows up here so brief. This is a decision matrix most don’t make so not a concern. Silly to have it enter into your boat selection if it’s not a concern. 
By average boat I meant the Cherubini hunter or a cape dory 36 or a Bristol or the like. These weren’t Hinckleys, Swans, Morrises, Sweden’s or Baltics.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

That sounds like some seriously nasty weather. Look forward to hearing about your progress. Be careful.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

outbound said:


> Agree that's exactly the point. I'm in NEB waiting weather. I'm leaving Sunday god willing. I expect 25-30 g 40-45 with 2-3m seas while going through the stream late Monday thru Tuesday. So 6-9 hours of misery is quite possible as we ride the stream east rather than beating through the stream. Boat two down is a hunter 46 deck saloon. It is huge inside compared to my boat. Bigger cockpit and bigger everything. He has decided to wait until Thursday. He says he may not leave this year. I thought of not leaving from here but rather going to Beaufort NC and waiting perhaps until December as windows up here so brief. This is a decision matrix most don't make so not a concern. Silly to have it enter into your boat selection if it's not a concern.
> By average boat I meant the Cherubini hunter or a cape dory 36 or a Bristol or the like. These weren't Hinckleys, Swans, Morrises, Sweden's or Baltics.


Sunday night looks to have a bit of north to the wind and some nasty seas, but a Sunday departure looks doable. Not a cake walk, but doable, if the forecast holds.

All the best on your passage!


----------



## Calmwater (Aug 5, 2018)

outbound said:


> Agree that's exactly the point. I'm in NEB waiting weather. I'm leaving Sunday god willing. I expect 25-30 g 40-45 with 2-3m seas while going through the stream late Monday thru Tuesday. So 6-9 hours of misery is quite possible as we ride the stream east rather than beating through the stream. Boat two down is a hunter 46 deck saloon. It is huge inside compared to my boat. Bigger cockpit and bigger everything. He has decided to wait until Thursday. He says he may not leave this year. I thought of not leaving from here but rather going to Beaufort NC and waiting perhaps until December as windows up here so brief. This is a decision matrix most don't make so not a concern. Silly to have it enter into your boat selection if it's not a concern.
> By average boat I meant the Cherubini hunter or a cape dory 36 or a Bristol or the like. These weren't Hinckleys, Swans, Morrises, Sweden's or Baltics.


----
Hah.... just sailed last week out of NEB on a Bristol 47.7 at 20+ knots with a second reef on both sails... was quite wild run with a rather heavy helm, so although the boat is absolutely fantastic by all means, I'm not going for her... ?

Your cruising strategy sounds about right. (What boat? How many souls?) If you can spend the winter elsewhere why even think of staying? Unfortunately, my day job that need to support my sailing anarchy requires me to stick to Boston at most times...

As for a boat selection these were just examples. I think boats were more or less segmented to three groups. I have compared the lower end to the higher medium. I think these segments no longer exist, where most of the medium high players are gone... The high end you've mentioned are indeed fantastic and priced accordingly (it is all about the economics! I also enjoy Lasers... ). Please add Oysers to that list... ?

Last but not least to you and others in the pond: I have two boats on my short list. Very different by many means. My cruising ( not the brutal racing...) culture is runs from few hours out of Boston harbor, sometimes a weekend and maybe once a year 2-4 weeks Tortola, BVI etc... 
So the sloop candidates are:
• Beneteau (Bruce Farr design) 44CC, 2001 (a little neglected)
• Freedom (Gary Mull design) 45CC, 1989 (in a mint condition)

Thoughts?

Many thanks


----------



## Jammer Six (Apr 2, 2015)

Minnesail said:


> New cars are *way* better than cars used to be!


The other thing I've never understood about that argument was this: what they're usually measuring doesn't matter.

They say something like "this used to be heavy steel, and you hit something, and it wouldn't even bend."

Yeah. And you _died_.

Now things automotive are designed to shear off, crumple, disintegrate and generally implode, channeling energy away from the six airbags that are holding you in the car and protecting you. Sacrifice the car, save the people. It all costs massive amounts of money, and the _car_ isn't going to survive (like that old, solid-steel bumper that never even shows a scratch) but _you_ walk away with a broken arm and a few scratches.

Watching that since the 60s has taught me to look carefully at what's being measured, and compare the metrics to what is most important to me, either when we're sliding sideways on ice in the pitch dark at fifty miles an hour or when fifty knots of wind knocks us down for the second time.

If you're measuring repair costs, which happen the next day after everyone's had a nice dinner and a good night's sleep, I don't care. I usually only care about the number of souls that made it back to the dock alive.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

They say brits buy Oyster, Americans Hylas. There are so many good boats both old and brand spanking new. And you’re right it’s models not brands. I’ve been on stuff out of the Bene custom shop which is totally magnificent.


----------

