# Pros and cons for a double ender/Canoe Stern



## Sam (Jul 5, 2014)

I have started the long process of buying my first sailboat. I'm trying to get it right on the first try. Yeah, I know it will not be perfect but I would like to get something that I don't dread looking at 6 months down the road. I recently found a "Top 10 Favorite Affordable Bluewater Sailboats" list. I'm sure the author of this list has his own opinions but one thing that I noticed from the list is that
a lot of the boats shared a common design, they were 
Double Enders or Canoe Sterns. Could I get some opinions from some of you with experience concerning these designs versus a wider stern? If there has already been a thread like this that one can refer me to, please do so. A search didn't show anything. Thank-you in advance for any helpful advise you can give me.


----------



## night0wl (Mar 20, 2006)

They look beautiful. But beyond that, I'm not sure there are really any advantages of a canoe stern/double-ender. Recall reading posts from Bob Perry asserting as much.

A *huge* cone is the loss of massive amounts of space in the stern area below and a much tighter/smaller cockpit. Especially compared to modern designs that have a tendency to have a very huge stern beam and open areas of the cockpit to allow water to flow out if a wave hits ya. Canoe stern, well, I think you're relying on scuppers draining and/or downflooding the living spaces!


----------



## Seena (Aug 6, 2014)

Good Luck with your boat hunting. There are a lot of parameters that you need to decide upon rather than just the Double Enders or Canoe Sterns. 
You would want to share a pic with us of your new boat


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Double enders have very small cockpits. They get pooped more often i.e. Waves over the back, the are old designs.

There isnt much going for them as a cruiser.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

I am cruising with a double ender. Never been pooped so I'd love to see facts on that one Mark. Smaller cockpits, absolutely ... Just like you want in a sea going boat. Not nocking modern designs. Open transoms would drain fast, but the main reason for that design is to hold all the dock parties most of these boats do most of the time (Mark not included). 

Double enders are safe, secure and sensible sea boats. Best of all, they look good -- not like some motorboat wannabe ;-)


----------



## bblument (Oct 22, 2012)

My friend has a canoe stern, and he was extolling the virtues of that design to me at some point. I, of course, promptly forgot what they were because his boat's WAY out of my financial and experiential leagues so the info didn't stick into my admittedly "Need-to-know" based brain. I'll probably talk to him today while we're out on the water and I'll ask him again. May have had something to do with comfort with following seas? 

Barry


----------



## JomsViking (Apr 28, 2007)

A canoe stern is not just a canoe stern. Some of them do not have much volume aft, and might be pooped more easily than the ones with a wider behind. From reading "Yacht Design According to Perry", you'll learn that he tried giving the Valiant 40 a large a s s to ensure there was enough volume. So a Valiant probably wouldn't be pooped where a Westsail would?
Other than that any boat can probably get pooped, I've certainly experienced a wave in the cockpit in confused seas in Norway.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I apologize in advance that this is quite long and I worte it for another purpose but it is a detailed discussion of double enders which starts with a bit of history.

When you look at really old double enders (Egyptian passenger barges, Viking ship, canoes, Skerry traders) you see some things in common. As a broad generality, for their era, these vessels all tended to be quite light and fast and intended to be propelled at pretty high speeds with comparatively little power. The traditional (up until the late 19th century) double ender actually had very fine ends and a burdensome mid-section. This shape was evolved for speed and seaworthiness in low powered (low stability), low volume vessels. 

This fine-ended double ender was a great shape for rough sea conditions. In theory, when a boat is running before breaking waves its own wake can disturb the waves astern and cause them to break. These fine-ended double enders threw smaller wakes and so were less likely to cause waves too break on them from astern. If a wave did break, the wave did not collide with the flat surface of a transom. (That is also the same reason that the transoms on traditional boats had as much rake as they did.) 

That all works well for light weight working craft with minimal sources of power. As these boats became more burdensome, they began to have a different set of problems. One of the key problems with the more heavily loaded fine ended double enders were that they did not have as much reserve buoyancy as transom sterned boats and waves might not break in their wake but they would get pooped (flooded from astern by overtaking wave). 

The Roman and medieval cargo ships, which are well known to researchers, were all double enders below and above the waterline but light displacement they most certainly were not - the cogs, shuyts and fluyts of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance were capacious, slow, cargo carriers. 

The reasons that these ships, and most European fishing boats until recently, be they Norwegian, Scottish, Danish, Dutch, Spanish, Maltese or Greek, are double enders are twofold; One is that this type of stern is easy, reliable, and nearly as cheap to build in wood. 

Another reason for the early use of double ends is that these working vessels had/have to lie alongside each other in close proximity in artificial harbors. The double ender is less likely to suffer damage from boats alongside. In such circumstances you find double enders. 

Elsewhere, like the Breton coast of France or the East Coast of England, where the sea conditions are just as bad, but there are natural harbors, estuaries, etc. you find transom sterns and counter sterns. The transom stern gives more buoyancy aft and is better suited to a high displacement hull, while being nearly equally cheap to build. The counter stern gives a drier after deck (important in sailing ships, which were conned from the poop) and more space for handling sails (and nets, on fishing boats) 

It is at that point in the 1800's that Colin Archer comes along in the search for a way to make boats that would not cause waves to break but that would also have sufficient reserve buoyancy in the ends. When you study the lines of a Colin Archer design they were really amazing. These were not delicate boats by any stretch of the imagination. They were truly beefy. They had to be. They were rescue boats and pilot boats that had to be able to stand station in the worst the North Seas had to offer and still make a rendezvous. They needed to be able to sail in light air, and they had to be able to lie against a stranded ship and take the pounding while rescuing people and property. They earned a reputation for their seaworthiness and ability to withstand the worst nature had to offer. 

Archer was a theorist and was looking for a way to design powerful boats with powerful rigs that would still remain balanced. Archer also had a tremendous ability to model the lines of these heavy boats so that they had a fairness of line and fineness of water line that is not readily apparent at first glance. They are deceptive boats in many ways. For all of their weight they were reasonably easily driven boats. They were capable of spreading really huge sail plans or being snugged down to a handkerchief 

By all descriptions that I have ever read these were not easy boats to sail. These were not the “sailed by a man and a boy” fine ended double ender epitomized by boats like the Tancock Whalers popularized in the fisheries off of Nova Scotia. They took large crews and a lot of brute strength to sail and to some extent they also survived on the iron wills of their crew. 

Then along comes Atkins, who takes the Colin Archer rescue boats and adapts them into yachts. Atkins like Archer is a master of the carefully modeled hull form and in many ways his “Ingrid” is the definitive example of a successful Colin Archer type yacht. Comparatively fine yet buoyant and burdensome, the 'Ingrid's are a masterful example of the art of yacht design with the emphasis on art. I keep hearing people refer to these boats as fast. They are fast for what they are, but in a relative sense, even in heavy going, they are not fast when compared to more modern designs. 

They also reputedly have very comfortable motions in a seaway. I suspect that that is more a product of their round bottom, and wine glass sections more than their double ends. The 'Ingrid's and 'Eric's did wonders for instilling the idea that double ended yachts represent some kind of ideal for distance cruising. This notion of the ideal was further embedded by the ubiquitous Hanna Tahiti and Gulfweed Ketches. 

By the late 1960’s double enders began to be viewed as relics of the past. Well-modeled double enders are not easy to mould in fiberglass since there was often some tumblehome in the stern making it hard to removed them from a single part mould. 

It probably would have stayed like that if the character boat craze had not gotten started in the early 1970’s. At the time the whole character boat thing was hard to fathom. After decades, suddenly bowsprits and molded in plank seams were getting popular. (If you actually owned a wooden boat you went to great lengths to conceal the seams and make the topsides look “just like fiberglass” but suddenly fiberglass boats were being built showing 'seams'.) 

Emerging in the early days of that period of looking backwards, the Westsail 32 came on the scene. The Westsail 32 is a fiberglass version of the Atkins ‘Eric’ altered to supply more room down below and be easier to mold in glass. The Westsail pretty quickly became an icon for the “serious Blue water cruising boat”. Derided as heavy, slow and wet, with many were bought by posers and wannabes, in reality the Westsails have proven to be enduring boats with an admirable cruising record. 

What the Westsails and boats like them did was to bring a focus on the growing gap between “cruiser-racers” and purpose built offshore boats. It was about that time that a young Bob Perry happened on the scene. I have always believed that Bob’s goal in designing the Valiant 40 was to design a boat that bridged this gap. Seen today the Valiant 40 seems very solid and conservative but in its day the Valiant 40 was revolutionary. If you look at the sections and underbody waterlines of the Valiant, they were remarkably far more similar to the early Sparkman and Stephens designed IOR boats (like the Tartan 41) than to anything that Colin Archer designed. Obviously a bit more burdensome, the Valiant 40 dared to be a moderate displacement (for the time) boat with a fin keel/ spade rudder intended for serious offshore cruising.

I also suspect form articles that I have seen over the years that the trunk cabin and canoe stern were chosen not for some inherent obvious sailing or seakeeping advantage but as a clear statement that the Valiant 40 was and is intended as a serious offshore boat. If you look carefully at the stern of a Valiant 40 it in no ways really resembles the traditional canoe stern chosen for low wave making and low drag. This is a very powerful stern consistent with the Valiant's more modern lines and underbody. 

Of course for every brilliant design idea there are a bunch of bone headed copies. Having drawn a few double enders in my day, I really think that they take more skill than any other hull form to get right. Poorly done they are awkward in appearance and offer few of the advantages with all of the disadvantages of a double ender. Perry got it right, (to my eye, perhaps more so on the 37 foot Esprit), but a lot of designers never did. Designers like Garden, Benford, and Crealock have designed many a fine double ender, but I think Bob Perry was there at the right time with a design that really understood the problem and looked good doing it.

So back to the original question, “What are the advantages and disadvantages of a double ender?”

If the stern is not carefully modeled and matched to the other properties of the design, there are not any inherent advantages to a double ender; none at all. Properly designed in the fine-ended model, they offer a lower resistance at slow speeds, less wave making and a cleaner wake less likely to cause waves to break astern. Properly modeled in canoe stern model, they offer a lot of reserve buoyancy in the ends with a minimum stern overhang for reduced hobby horsing. They also offer less corners for lines to foul on which was far more important in the days of Gaff Rigs with booms that over hung the transom. 

The disadvantage is that a double enders tend top have quite a bit less room aft for their length than a transom stern boat. This means a more cramped cockpit (or aft cabin). In terms of sailing performance, with modern rigs and underbodies it is harder to get a canoe stern boat to work with modern underbodies which are designed to surf and sometimes plane. This means that they are not suitable to today’s lighter faster design principles. Its not an issue if your interest is in a heavier, more burdensome, long range cruiser but if your goal is coastal cruising or performance offshore cruising, where speed becomes more important than carrying a lot of ‘stuff’ in a short sailing length, then a canoe stern might not make sense. Canoe stern boats can be a bit more expensive to manufacture in glass as they often require special molds to handle the tumblehome in the stern. 

From a sailing standpoint, most double endere give away some initial stability which translates to reduced sail carrying capability and with that, the need to reduce sail sooner. Unless long and narrow, they lack the 'bearing' to achieve decent reaching and motoring speeds without the stern squatting and greatly increasing drag and fuel consumption. 

But also there are practical issues with a canoe stern. In a practical sense, the pinchjed ends make it harder to carry a dinghy in davits or install the type of solar arrays that are becoming increasingly popular. The loss of volume aft, makes it more difficult to carry the weight of a full sized dinghy when davits are installed. The reduction in useful deck area and interior volume result in boats which are small for their length, and are the equivillent of perhaps a 15-20% smaller boat in terms of useful space and sailing ability. 

At this point in time, I view the most recent crop of double enders mostly as a fashion statement. Most of us, sail the boats that we bought because we like them. We like them for all kinds of reasons, not the least of which may simply be that we like the way they look. I think that today’s double enders often carry with them a variety of features that attract a certain kind of sailor (or someone who wants to be that type of sailor).

But in the end, to me, in prioitizing the criteria for choosing a long range cruising boat, the most serious consideration needs to be the practical and functional aspects of the boat in question. Aesthetics may play a role, but if the plan is to go offshore for long periods of time, that role needs be secondary. And so from that point of view, I would consider a double end a liability rather than an asset. 

Respectfully
Jeff


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

First off probably more circumnavigations have been made in "double enders" than any other hull form. The Valiant-40 followed by the Tayana-37 and 'their cousins' are still the all time leaders in this respect.

Pros.
• Because of the symmetrical hull form you can heel a canoe stern over onto its beam ends and have very little change in helm pressure - (good for less strain and wear & tear on the autohelm or wind vane steering.) 
• Most of the modern double enders (Perry, Harris et al designs) have quite adequate reserve buoyancy in the stern. 
• That pinched stern, mostly a stylistic form addition, cant be loaded with lots of extra weight.
• Since most Double enders are cutter rigged you can meet and match wind and seastate conditions more easily than a sloop. 
• Since the masts on cutter rigged boats are located more closer to 40-50% LOA they can easily be sailed with 'just' a large genoa instead of reefing the main, and still 'point' reasonably well ... a good way to go tacking down wind, especially with the staysail on a clubfoot pulled out to the weather side. Cutters excel at beam reaching and broad reaching. Sloops are for 'pointing'; who the hell in their right mind intentionally goes 'pointing' in the tradewinds????
• Cockpits are quite small ... the small volume wont take on a lot of water weight and then plunge/squat and then struggle to recover from a boarding wave from astern.
• Usually quite deep in the water hull forms ... they dont POUND, thus are more 'sea-kindly'. 
• VERY well behaved boats in F8 and above wind/wave conditions. 
• Immersion factor (how deep these boat sinks into the water when heavily loaded with stores, is surprisingly good) - 1200 to 1400 lb./inch of immersion. 
• Usually have immense stowage capacity already inbuilt. 
• Heavy weight equates to MOMENTUM - good when bashing headlong into large waves.

Cons
• Cant be easily docked stern-to nor with use of passerel type stern boarding ramps -- as is customarily done in the Med on seawalls, etc. 
•*Cockpits are small, ... makes for poor dockside entertainment centers. 
• Such boats can be extremely heavy weight; but, built to adequate scantlings and safety factors of a true 'blue water' design ... but were designed in an age when composite construction was not optimized, thus 'heavier' than 'modern'. 
• Usually quite deep in the water hull forms ... slow boats if sail plan not trimmed and tweaked to absolute perfection. 
• Cutter rigs sail plans are very difficult to optimize, tweak, etc.; the transition from sloop to cutter rig has a _very_ high learning curve. Complexity of rig and sail plan is not 'easy' to learn, nor tweak/adjust for optimum performance output (virtually nothing is written on this subject, either)
• Headsail/Staysail combo is a nightmare in varying wind strengths .... the interplay of headstay/forestay loading and the variable headstay/forestay wire stretch + sagging caused by different windstrengths ... is enough to make a grown man cry - requires more than backstay tension to 'tweak' for optimum performance output - complexity is incredible: backstay + running backstay (or intermediate shrouds) + independent forestay!!! tensions all need constant adjustment; with a sloop its usually 'just' simple backstay tension.
• Below ~6-7 kts. a staysail flown under a topsail is detractive aerodynamically when on a close reach or above - IMO. 
• You reef 'back to front' on a cutter rig, because the combined CE is usually in the staysail - not really a con, unless you dont know this. 
• Usually low internal volume and narrow beam in comparison to more modern designs ... not good for 'entertaining' (but a real plus in a heavy seaway as grab-holds are ALWAYS close at hand.) 
• Folks who are terrorized of heeling probably should not own one. (My Ty37 'absolutely loves' 25-30° over .... but, Im a scow sailor where 25° of heel is 'the starting point')
• Due to large mass/weight, they do not accelerate well out a tack, especially in heavy seas - at least the ones with large powerful bow angles (less bow 'sharpness').
• Massive heavy masts make them 'slow rollers' - generally are 'top heavy'. (Id love to put a Carbon stick on mine; but, I really _like_ a slow rolling boat as I dont like power-puking into bilges looking for my loosened dental fillings ... ;-). )

These boats are generally 'sea-kindly'; no use being 'beat up' on a long passage and then have to rest-up for several day because of the 'beating and pounding you took' to get there 10% 'faster', especially when long distance cruising is mostly spent at anchor.

Rx: That 'bustle' on a double ender is usually nothing but 'style' and that 'stern protrusion' really neither adds nor detracts from performance as its usually never IN the water (unless youre sailing stern-to all the time). If you realistically consider that most 'pinched stern' protuberances are just 'stylistic' then that extra 2 ft. should be deducted from your imaginary LOA when comparing to other designs ..... but what the hell, my double ended Perryboat is vastly 'prettier' and more 'eye pleasing' as well as 'more mannerly' than your average light-weight fat-assed sterned vomit comet.

;-)

Just imagine a Valiant or Passport 40 built with a cored hull and a Carbon Fiber mast and built to modern lightweight optimized composite structure ..... would absolutely ROAR. OK, that pinched stern ... make it 'flippable' so you can open it and use it as a 'garage' for your dink.


----------



## copacabana (Oct 1, 2007)

Just a quick thought on some double-ender cockpits. On your boat, you'll spend most of your time in the cockpit, especially in warm climates. A small cockpit will be uncomfortable and crowded when entertaining guests. Some of those double-enders like the Westsail 32 have tiny cockpits and no comfortable back rests when you're sitting in the cockpit. I'd opt for a big cockpit with comfortable seating (long enough to sleep on), a good-sized table for dining (4 to 6 people) and high backrests for sitting comfortably and then work on modifying it to drain quickly if flooded. One can always add more or enlarge existing drains or improve the companionway to prevent downflooding, but there is not much you can do with a small uncomfortable cockpit (besides change boats!). Just my 2 centavos..


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

My biggest complaint about some double enders is their proclivity to hobby horse. I first noticed this when a friend purchased a 1930's Atkins Ingrid, a boat I'd always admired for her lovely lines. Not being a sailor at all, he asked me to teach him about the strings and things and some basic sailing stuff.
As we got the sails up in Mamala Bay, we sheeted in and set off for Diamond Head. Sitting at the helm, I could not believe how uncomfortable the motion in the cockpit was. We eased the sheets and she settled down some, but there was still considerably more motion than I was used to on my transom boat (a 1909 Wm. Hand, gaff ketch).
Over the years, in many anchorages throughout the would, I have noticed double enders hobby horsing at anchor. Some more than others, to be sure, but all, more than a wide stern, transom boat. Therefor, I would have to question the comfort, as a liveaboard boat, of some double enders versus a transom boat.
Of course, some boats with transoms and long overhangs or that are fine in the stern underwater, will hobby horse as well, so it's not quite as cut and dry as double enders versus transom boats in the hobby horsing department.
There are a lot of things to consider if one is seeking a good cruising boat that is also a good liveaboard. I know quite a few people with great looking sail boats, that sail well, but are generally less comfortable liveaboards than the boat would seem, just by looking a it.


----------



## Westsailforever (Jul 9, 2014)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Double enders have very small cockpits. They get pooped more often i.e. Waves over the back, the are old designs.
> 
> There isnt much going for them as a cruiser.


Tell that to Gary Burton .


----------



## Westsailforever (Jul 9, 2014)

My boat a Westsail 28 actually has a rather large cockpit , with a small foot well . The W32's have less seating in the cockpit because the boomkin is mounted in the cockpit as opposed to outside on the hull, also the the lazarette is raised 3" from seat level . But really if your looking for a off shore cruiser I wouldn't think your priorities wouldn't be entertainment space . So Sam what boats catch your eye ?


----------



## copacabana (Oct 1, 2007)

Except that as a cruiser you spend so little time at sea and soooo much time on the hook with a drink in hand and friends in the cockpit...

BTW, I'm not knocking Westsails. I think they're nice boats, but the lack of support for your back in the cockpit would drive me nuts.


----------



## Westsailforever (Jul 9, 2014)

Hi Mr. Bana, I know your not knocking Westies and good point about being on the hook with friends . But really I don't see the back support problem, we use those folding type chairs with the back rest .True there is no combing (I have seen some where they made them out of teak ) talk about cutting down the seating . I probably sound like a Westsail salesman , truth is these boats are only for a few . However they are a well kept secret as far as price . Look at the 32's the most expensive is only $59,500 . WESTSAIL - CRUISING BOATS FOR SALE


----------



## deniseO30 (Nov 27, 2006)

Y'all may have missed or overlooked the OP's first sentence.

_*"I have started the long process of buying my first sailboat. " *_

This would, imho create a large ? mark about where and how the OP will sail, and amount of experience he/she may have.

Aesthetics and function would be the best reasons to chose such boats for the new to sailing type. Few, if any of us are ever going to "test" such boats in the kind of conditions that separate the pinch from the squared. (OK here's your cue single hand circumnavigators to tell your tales!)

Personally, I like a "wine glass" stern on a boat. typically seen in smaller boats. I've seen a few large boats with transoms that look almost like that. but really not. Also the Wine glass shape can be narrowed to look more like a champagne or tulip glass.. (don't get me started on my love of boats!)



















No, that's not me in my younger days LOL sitting on the "sugar scoop" which seems to be the choice of many newer designs.


----------



## mad_machine (Dec 16, 2012)

I am fond of Double enders. I have to say my favourite is really about 3different boats... but all the same boat. The Morris Frances 26. Also known as the Victoria Frances and the Victoria 800.. depending cabin design. They came as a cramped flush deck, a boxy trunk cabin, and a full length Cabin. They were also one of the most seaworthy boats for 26 feet with the majority of her weight (51%) in the keel as ballest. They might get pooped easier due to their diminutive size, but they are hard to knock over and come up quickly if they do.

A veteran of the Circumnavigation fleet


----------



## Sam (Jul 5, 2014)

night0wl said:


> They look beautiful. But beyond that, I'm not sure there are really any advantages of a canoe stern/double-ender. Recall reading posts from Bob Perry asserting as much.
> 
> A *huge* cone is the loss of massive amounts of space in the stern area below and a much tighter/smaller cockpit. Especially compared to modern designs that have a tendency to have a very huge stern beam and open areas of the cockpit to allow water to flow out if a wave hits ya. Canoe stern, well, I think you're relying on scuppers draining and/or downflooding the living spaces!


Thanks for the post.. You are dead on speaking of Bob Perry. This same website that I found the 10 affordable Bluewater Sailboats list on also had an interview with Bob Perry. He designed a few but still seemed to wonder why someone would want a boat to sail in reverse. In my opinion he mainly said it was a marketing issue. Having a "dry" , safe and stable boat would be among my top priorities. Once again, Thank-You.


----------



## Sam (Jul 5, 2014)

bblument said:


> My friend has a canoe stern, and he was extolling the virtues of that design to me at some point. I, of course, promptly forgot what they were because his boat's WAY out of my financial and experiential leagues so the info didn't stick into my admittedly "Need-to-know" based brain. I'll probably talk to him today while we're out on the water and I'll ask him again. May have had something to do with comfort with following seas?
> 
> Barry


Thanks for your input. I too had read that following seas were more easily dealt with. But I was concerned with stability and how much stability might be lost with a canoe stern. Thank-You- Sam


----------



## Rhapsody-NS27 (Apr 8, 2012)

My boat comes in two versions. Aft cockpit (what I have) and Aft Cabin. Mine has a nice rounded stern and a large cockpit. If I had the right setup, I could lay down in the cockpit with room to spare (I'm 6'5"). I've seen one Aft Cabin version and it is smaller so I wouldn't be able to lay down comfortably in the cockpit. It's got a good shape to it. I do have aft storage that has some good space, at least big enough I could fit down into it as I have a few times for doing some work. It works for my needs. Can't comment on how it handles in large seas but other owners have crossed oceans frequently on this type of boat and feel completely safe.

I love my little Nor'sea 27.


----------



## Sam (Jul 5, 2014)

Jeff, let me just say thank-you for the brief but detailed history overview of the stern designs. It was very informative and a well worth read. I do have many factors to consider in my search to get it right. Cosmetic appearance is not that high on the list. Safety, stability are the first two. Once again, thanks - sam


----------



## Sam (Jul 5, 2014)

Thanks for the post. Beautiful picture! Right now I'm still doing research on what I like
Within a hundred miles of me there is a reasonably priced 1981 Hunter Cherubini. I have also looked at Hans Christian, Westsail 32
Pacific Seacraft Mariah 31. to name a few. The only ones that do not appeal to me are the ones with a pilot house, I prefer open cockpit. Once again, Thank-You!


----------



## Sam (Jul 5, 2014)

Westsailforever said:


> Hi Mr. Bana, I know your not knocking Westies and good point about being on the hook with friends . But really I don't see the back support problem, we use those folding type chairs with the back rest .True there is no combing (I have seen some where they made them out of teak ) talk about cutting down the seating . I probably sound like a Westsail salesman , truth is these boats are only for a few . However they are a well kept secret as far as price . Look at the 32's the most expensive is only $59,500 . WESTSAIL - CRUISING BOATS FOR SALE


Reference was made in the movie Perfect Storm about a boat that was found still floating after the crew had abandoned it during the storm. This was supposed to have happened in real life. The boat in question was a 
Westsail 32..


----------



## JomsViking (Apr 28, 2007)

Sam said:


> Reference was made in the movie Perfect Storm about a boat that was found still floating after the crew had abandoned it during the storm. This was supposed to have happened in real life. The boat in question was a
> Westsail 32..


It's a rugged survivor, no doubt, but so many boats have been abandoned and found floating after months and even years on their own.
Looking at the numbers today I'm pretty sure that more bluewater miles have been done in modern designs than in the "traditional designs".
Just look at the ARC and ARC World rallies and different blogs, you'll find more wide-arsed fin-keelers than traditional boats (at least outside the US).

One example of a modern circumnavigator: Gunvør XL


----------



## Westsailforever (Jul 9, 2014)

In the hollywood movie Perfect Storm the sailboat they depicted was (is) a Westsail 32 named Satori , that still sails today . IMO they missed a good scene, Satori still floating at the end . But what really happened was she washed up on a beach . The only Westsail that was lost was the one they cut length wise in half so they could film inside !


----------



## Rhapsody-NS27 (Apr 8, 2012)

Westsailforever said:


> The only Westsail that was lost was the one they cut length wise in half so they could film inside !


Oh the Horror!


----------



## mad_machine (Dec 16, 2012)

Maybe it is just me.. but I consider Canoe Sterns as being different from Double Enders.

IMHO a Double Ender needs to have an outboard rudder like a Westsail32, Ingrid, or a Frances 26.. and a Canoe stern is like a Herreshoff Rozinante with it's shorter keel length and under-slung rudder.

I do not have much experience with Canoe sterns other than to note they are not really all that different in behavior than an older Full keeled CCA cruiser like my own Sea Sprite 23. They just have even more hull overhanging the water doing nothing.

Double Enders in the Archer/Atkins vein tend to have a long full keel and a waterline length not much shorter than their deck length. these are generally very seaworthy boats and the stern tends to act much like a rear facing bow when in a following sea


----------



## Sam (Jul 5, 2014)

JomsViking said:


> It's a rugged survivor, no doubt, but so many boats have been abandoned and found floating after months and even years on their own.
> Looking at the numbers today I'm pretty sure that more bluewater miles have been done in modern designs than in the "traditional designs".
> Just look at the ARC and ARC World rallies and different blogs, you'll find more wide-arsed fin-keelers than traditional boats (at least outside the US).
> 
> One example of a modern circumnavigator: Gunvør XL


Thank you so much for your post. I have wondered how many other sailboats have had the same fate to have no crew and survived the elements only to be found later. You have made it official for me that the Westsail 32 doesn't hold a patent on it! Once again, Thank-You!


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

The intuitive advantage of a double-ender or CCA era full keel boat is its diminished exposure of surface area to a following sea. Having breaking waves slip under the stern with minimal offset to COG seems to be a big advantage. The most challenging and tedious (to the helmsman) attitude of a sailboat IMO is in a heavy following sea. I would like to see actual comparison data in a following sea between a modern, wide, fin-keeled boat and a traditional deep keeled, narrow transom, overhung design. 

I really like the way waves slip under the stern of my old 60s design boat but have no experience on modern sailboats in the same situations. I have had powerboats with wide transoms that really got knocked around uncomfortably in a following sea if that's any indicator.


----------



## downeast450 (Jan 16, 2008)

Next to the female form, canoes, double enders are the most appealing shape I know of. 

I have a "collection" of canoes. A wide variety for a variety of uses. Amazing craft! Capable, efficient, comfortable...

I am almost finished building a scale model of our Islander-28. One of Bob Perry's favorite designs. He has described it as a double ender. I consider it one, too. 

For me (and apparently, Bob) the double ender is defined at the waterline. Tundra Down's ends both come together at the waterline. Seems correct to me. That is where the boat is being a boat. The rest of the "platform" isn't about the hull's shape. By "hull" I am referring to the part of the boat that interacts directly with the water.


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

smurphny said:


> The intuitive advantage of a double-ender or CCA era full keel boat is its diminished exposure of surface area to a following sea. Having breaking waves slip under the stern with minimal offset to COG seems to be a big advantage. The most challenging and tedious (to the helmsman) attitude of a sailboat IMO is in a heavy following sea. I would like to see actual comparison data in a following sea between a modern, wide, fin-keeled boat and a traditional deep keeled, narrow transom, overhung design.
> 
> I really like the way waves slip under the stern of my old 60s design boat but have no experience on modern sailboats in the same situations. I have had powerboats with wide transoms that really got knocked around uncomfortably in a following sea if that's any indicator.


that has been my experience too with a couple of cca era boats...

I like the motion in following waves, however they do exhibit some cases of extreme hobbyhorsing in certain conditions too...

Ive always said that the skipper should always adjust to the design of the boat and sail the boat accordingly and where it shines

it would be foolish to sail a flat sterned boat the same way as a very small waterline with huge overhangs boat, or a sugar scoop versus a double ender etc...

x2 on the canoe stern and double ender differntiation mentioned a couple of posts back

they are not the same and too many confuse them...


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

The comment re the islander 28 as being a double ender. MANY IOR boats of the 70's in reality are double enders. While they have a transom per say, the flat part is a foot or so above the WL, and if you look at JUST the WL, you will see a double ender with the upper part of the rudder being out of the water. 

Myself, while some double/canoe sterns are pretty, I prefer the look of the newer designs that are generally speaking, can be a bit faster due to planing ability down wind etc. BUT, ANY properly built boat can and should survive the end intended useage if the person is up to it. 

One thing not mentioned by the OP. ARE you sailing around the world? or are you sailing say puget sound/san juans up to the mid BC area east of Vancouver island, or some other what I would call reasonably protected area. A puget sound boat would be different than a world cruiser boat in how you want it designed. Here the BIG cockpit to entertain in, sit in etc would be better than a smaller cockpit boat. Even here, many like pilot house boats so they can sail in the drizzly winter months in the dry. 

I guess what I am saying, there is NOT a perfect boat per say. BUT, many perfect boats depending upon the how you use your boat. A westsail for weeknight racing, weekend cruising, needing to be somewhat speedy as you only have soo much time, does not work as well for me as one of the newer designed style boat. This is not to say a westsail is an improper boat for someone in a different useage. The boat design useage should match your end use! 

Marty


----------



## Jiminri (Aug 26, 2012)

Sam said:


> Thank you so much for your post. I have wondered how many other sailboats have had the same fate to have no crew and survived the elements only to be found later. You have made it official for me that the Westsail 32 doesn't hold a patent on it! Once again, Thank-You!


I suspect quite a few boats of all types. Two 30 foot Nonsuches (that I know of) were abandoned at sea, but later found and are currently sailing again (years later). One was abandoned in the Atlantic, drifted for several hundreds of miles to the coast of Venezuela where it was towed into port by a local fisherman. It was then reclaimed (purchased) by the original owner and shipped back to Canada. The other was abandoned in the Pacific, where it was lmuch later found and picked up by a freighter and carried to Japan. There it was sold to a sailor who shipped it back to Canada. (I do not know what is more amazing to me...the story of these two boats, or that someone would actually take a Nonsuch bluewater sailing.)


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

there are 2 nonsuchs down here....one I beleive is from canada


----------



## downeast450 (Jan 16, 2008)

blt2ski said:


> The comment re the islander 28 as being a double ender. MANY IOR boats of the 70's in reality are double enders. While they have a transom per say, the flat part is a foot or so above the WL, and if you look at JUST the WL, you will see a double ender with the upper part of the rudder being out of the water.
> 
> Myself, while some double/canoe sterns are pretty, I prefer the look of the newer designs that are generally speaking, can be a bit faster due to planing ability down wind etc. BUT, ANY properly built boat can and should survive the end intended useage if the person is up to it.
> 
> Marty


Agreed Marty,

If and when we go to a larger boat the newer designs will be our direction. The argument for performance, even for non racers, is hard to ignore.

Down


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

Nice post by Jeff_H. He danced on the edge of something that is important to recognize.



Jeff_H said:


> The reasons that these ships, and most European fishing boats until recently, be they Norwegian, Scottish, Danish, Dutch, Spanish, Maltese or Greek, are double enders are twofold; One is that this type of stern is easy, reliable, and nearly as cheap to build in wood.


Think about what it would take to build various kinds of shapes in wood when fasteners are wooden pegs and bending the planks is done with draft animals. Metal fasteners and steam boxes provided a lot of additional flexibility. Metal castings were another big help. Fiberglass was a boon to creativity, just as the ready availability of stainless steel for major components like keel bolts.

We saw similar advances over time in large commercial and military shipping with the advent of metal rolling, welding, and automated welding.

Add to these factors the reality that run of the mill naval architects (like me) tend to be very conservative and slow to accept change. People like Bob Perry who is now associated with "tradition" were in fact creative risk-takers. The market for ships and to some extent boats also tends to be conservative and change is relatively slow to be taken up. Just look at how many people continue to espouse the benefits of full keels when in fact they exist because that was about all that could be built for a very long time.

Other technology advanced in parallel, particularly in the last 50 years. Computers made a big difference. Heck as recently as the late 80s the very first deterministic damage stability analysis of an aircraft carrier was done by ... well ... me. Suddenly we had tools to model performance on paper where it is cheap. Model still had, and has, its place but scaling is much more challenging than most people realize.



Jeff_H said:


> Properly designed in the fine-ended model, they offer a lower resistance at slow speeds, less wave making and a cleaner wake less likely to cause waves to break astern.


True as far as it goes. It must be remembered that we are looking at a three-dimensional object with six degrees of freedom that operates over the boundary between a compressible and incompressible fluid with a boundary surface that can only be modeled stochastically. Forgive me for all the vocabulary - my point is that this is very complicated stuff and intuition can suck you into design mistakes very quickly.



RichH said:


> {in part}
> Pros
> • Heavy weight equates to MOMENTUM - good when bashing headlong into large waves.
> 
> ...


Choice of ketch, cutter, or sloop rig is not relevant to a discussion of general hull form, nor is the degree of rig control.

I strongly disagree with your observation about momentum. First weight is not necessarily correlated to relatively minor hull form characteristics like stern shape. Second one must consider the hull form as a three-dimensional entity. Power craft are difficult enough. Sailboats simply must be considered as a whole. You won't get much value from just looking at waterlines. We draw waterlines, sections, buttocks, and diagonals iteratively because of the dynamics and interrelationships (absent a nice solid modeling tool).

The Tayana 37 for example is one of the most frustrating boats I have sailed offshore. Sure they power through the first few waves but each takes some speed off and before you know it you're creeping along because the boat simply doesn't have time to accelerate before another wave catches it and slows it down. The energy the hull extracts from the waves is more than the energy the sails can pull from the wind in heavy seas until equilibrium is reached at a pretty low boat speed.



smurphny said:


> The intuitive advantage of a double-ender or CCA era full keel boat is its diminished exposure of surface area to a following sea.


Again intuition is a trap. By the time you are in truly heavy seas stern shape doesn't make much difference. If anything, the broader sectioned sterns are lifted by the leading slope of the wave while the rounded sections simply have to absorb the impact. 10' seas aren't going to "slip under the stern."

Somewhere in this thread was a comment to the effect that no one would beat into the trades. I must be no one then, and I know I'm not alone. The world has truly changed. Certainly there are still a lot of people who follow the milk run. Improved performance to windward has greatly expanded the routing flexibility of cruisers. There was a time that windward performance drove decisions to take one route or the other in places like the South Pacific. Some people circumnavigated a second time simply to pick up the places they missed the first time. In more modern craft people run back and forth across the South Pacific in all kinds of directions that only the stoutest of will would once of taken. Similarly, the classic West to East route across the Atlantic went pretty far North and early season storms caused damage to boats and morale. Today cruisers in a range of production boats follow the Great Circle between Bermuda and the Azores - closer wind angles at good boat speed and reliable fuel efficient engines provide flexibility that wasn't practical before.

Especially in the tropics and even temperate summers a close reach often has advantages over a broad reach or a run. Wind over the deck is a good thing. Beating too much work? Crack off a little, build boat speed, and tack next Tuesday. I love flying spinnakers so there is always a soft spot for sailing downwind. If I were to plan an Atlantic circle I'll be looking for wind before the beam.


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

basically pick your poison...

I disagree and agree on many things said by those in the know here...in the end I always fall to the designers notes on said boat and then those with true experience on said boats versus whatever info you can get from "established sources"...

the reality is all boats dont do everything perfect...and excell in certain circumstances and fall flat in others

overall I would venture to guess that boat designs today perform better than older similar rivals...HOWEVER its not as extreme and fantastic and or great a difference as to render older designs bad or non offshore capable etc...

anywhoo

regarding waves, yes 10, 20, 30 foot waves can slip under you regardless of stern shape...its *the ones that break* that show you the difference between stern types and which shape is better, not to mention the speed they are travelling at and what your speed is.

just read a couple of moitessiers book(havent we all) on how to handle big waves from behind...his notes on this type of sailing are golden standards to this day.

anywhoo

last tidbit I had an old wooden h28 with a nice flat transom inwards like many old designs...with an outboard hung rudder of course and a really nice long full keel

I could most definetely fill the incredible lift and steadiness this type of transom offers in following seas...because its flat it offered a steady motion, slow lift...and not much wash, something which canoe sterns, some cca boats and some double enders dont have.

while wet to windward, on a beam or broad reach and even ddw it was a dream to sail..."on rails"


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Have had two of seven boats meeting issue under discussion. A PSC - a canoe stern and Tayana - a double ender. Both were excellent sea boats by two different designers. Think it more important that it is a great design that is well executed. There are many beautiful seaworthy canoe/ double enders but also poor ones. Same for transom sterns. Think issue of usable volume and ease of servicing the vessel are important. Had opportunity to buy a V50 fully found in great shape . But after realizing what this concern meant when you would be living aboard passed. Looked closely at the pizza pie slice boats. Some how the motion and sail ability was unpleasant to both me and the bride. Given you give up nothing in seaworthiness with a well executed transom stern and if done in moderation the comfort quotient is quite favorable so decided on our current boat. 
Two friends have V40s. Thet have both seen some stuff. Both boats are quite actively cruised. They are phenomenal boats. But to get a genset in one is apparently torture. And basic servicing requires more yoga classes then I can afford.
We cruise 2 or 4. Not all days are storms. Setting up the cockpit table to eat on a light air day but still having the cockpit seats close together enough you can sit on one and brace with your feet when it blows on the other is great. The walk through stern is great convenience. My favorite seat at anchor is the sugar scoop. Having ability to lie down clipped in and sleep in the cockpit to be that immediate second pair of hands when there is a tough night watch gives security. The list goes on. For most cruisers think if it is a good design the transom stern makes more sense. That is not to say there aren't great Canute stern boats. 
The hit on running under engine I think is unwarranted. Up to Maine saw a 50' launch a 80+ y.o. Couple ran up form Conn. Thing was maybe 10' wide. Gentleman said boat was exceptionably manageable and had great mpg running a slow turning screw. Front looked like the back.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

Since, in my experience, one does not sail ddw when in "really big stuff", the shape of the stern to disrupt or break waves, seems rather a moot point. At any rate, once a sea has broken, quite often it is the white water that overtakes the boat and the amount of buoyancy aft is very critical in white water.
I believe most double ender designs are originally from inland seas, such as the Baltic and Mediterranean, where waves tend to be much steeper and shorter than on an ocean, so as much as simplicity of construction, the areas sailed, were a factor.
Dhows and Junks were designed for monsoon sailing, on oceans, and were generally transomed boats. Unlike the early double enders, these designs were sailed in waters where cyclones were common, perhaps another reason to have a broader, more buoyant stern.


----------



## John Casey (Mar 3, 2014)

Great thread.

More than I'll ever need to know about double enders/canoe sterns.

Especially for Jeff H and RichH taking the time with their posts.

Likely as much emotional opinion as scientific basis and/or experience out there.

I Googled, "double end sailboat advantage" and the first page is full of forum discussion on the subject.

Kind of like asking for opinions on anchors...


----------



## mad_machine (Dec 16, 2012)

One of the things I like about the Frances 26.. is it is the boat that Chuck Paine Designed for himself. While one of his early designs, it was everything he knew (at the time) on how to make a small, cheap, and very seaworthy boat that he could take on long trips up and down the coast and to the islands with for as cheaply as he could.. for months at a time.

For what it is worth.

Line drawing of the William Fife III "Ellad:










Atkins "Inga"










As you can see.. the Ellad has more in common with deep hulled cruisers and racers from a century ago.. she just has a "canoe" stern instead of a transom

Inga is a lot more like the long keeled pilot boats from that era and before.

Something said before about Double Enders. Many if not most are from the Baltic and Med regions, areas known for sharp tall seas.. not the place you want to get pooped on


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

people often forget that the inga for example were derived from LIFEBOATS not from a traditional long full keel designs...

the big plus for these boats was that they always righted...so along those lines the processes and thoughts were passed on to these "full keel boats"

there is a massive draft difference between an inga and say a full keeled westsail 32 or an h28 or something similar.

boats like the inga will be tender, roll easily but right just as easily, they also have notorious short rigs...

if you look at the fife above it has almost the exact same shape as the swedish and nordic folkboats except for the canoe stern.

it would be interesting to me to see a side by side comparison of say a folkboat and a frances or the fife above in following seas sailing side by side...hopefully with a couple of breaking white water to see how the sterns handle differently if any.

good thread btw!


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

mad machine here are some pics of a restored canoe fife...
Classic Boat Magazine


----------



## ccriders (Jul 8, 2006)

Watch the video in the BFS thread post 2845. This is probably apples to oranges, but if the pointy stern is the be all for following seas, then wouldn't a catamaran be the opposite? Yet in this video it appears its aft buoyancy performs at least as well as the wave splitting canoe stern. Also, don't storm tactics (towing a drogue) make this a moot discussion?
John


----------



## mad_machine (Dec 16, 2012)

for all their overall width, Cats do not have wide "sterns" when it comes down to waterline, They tend to have two narrow hulls in the water. They are also usually "higher" than a monohull (as most of the superstructure is supported above the hulls) but suffer from an odd movement on waves coming from the stern "quarters".

Drogues can only slow a vessel (as the waves are trying to accelerate it) and keep her stern to.. a transom stern (or worse a reverse or sugarscoop) will take the brunt of the waves fury while a double ender will more cleanly slice through the wave. You will still take water into the cockpit in a breaking sea, but a double ender should be less likely to broach or take a pounding from all the water crashing into her most vulnerable spot


As for the Fife that was posted yes, that is Ellad, whose plans I posted above. Been watching her reconstruction on Classic Sailing Mag.. neat stuff that gave me a lot of ide


----------



## FirstCandC (Mar 26, 2013)

They sure are beautiful. I know you only have to do this once in a blue moon, but has anyone ever pulled the prop shaft on one? Seems like it would be a nightmare.


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

mad_machine said:


> for all their overall width, Cats do not have wide "sterns" when it comes down to waterline, They tend to have two narrow hulls in the water. They are also usually "higher" than a monohull (as most of the superstructure is supported above the hulls) but suffer from an odd movement on waves coming from the stern "quarters".
> 
> Drogues can only slow a vessel (as the waves are trying to accelerate it) and keep her stern to.. a transom stern (or worse a reverse or sugarscoop) will take the brunt of the waves fury while a double ender will more cleanly slice through the wave. You will still take water into the cockpit in a breaking sea*, but a double ender should be less likely to broach or take a pounding from all the water crashing into her most vulnerable spot*
> 
> As for the Fife that was posted yes, that is Ellad, whose plans I posted above. Been watching her reconstruction on Classic Sailing Mag.. neat stuff that gave me a lot of ide


in bold, in reality some whip to a side or the other

without sounding like a broken record moitissier wrote at length on how to deal with this in his books...for his type of boats.

and also his tacics or drogues and or warps etc...his method of dealing with breaking waves downwind(not necessarily ddw) in monster winds and latitudes was to give a cheek or the other(depending on wind angle) so the wave would break first and the rumble, would slide under pushing boat as one with wave at an angle to the wave if that makes sense...

with his boat if he steered ddw when giving rudder input as the waves reached him and hit the stern his boat would whip violently as it "sliced" the wave, broach badly and cause much more damage then letting it hit and slide each cheek...

again design is one thing...real life is another...


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

ccriders said:


> Watch the video in the BFS thread post 2845. This is probably apples to oranges, but if the pointy stern is the be all for following seas, then wouldn't a catamaran be the opposite? Yet in this video it appears its aft buoyancy performs at least as well as the wave splitting canoe stern. Also, don't storm tactics (towing a drogue) make this a moot discussion?
> John


not really...storm tactis and wether to drogue or not is dependant on boat and the likes and dislikes of the skippers...not all boats handle well with a drogue deployed and not all boats fare better with them

not all boats heave to niceley either, or lay a hull or go bare to name just a few tactics

thats why sometimes its funny to see people buy all the *must buy* lists some offer in catalogs or whatot disregarding the most important point of all

HOW DOES MY BOAT HANDLE in these conditions...?


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

mad_machine said:


> Line drawing of the William Fife III "Ellad:


That is not a line drawing. There is a centerline buttock and the singularly not useful deck "waterline" (which may be useful for hardware layout but not for hull form analysis.



mad_machine said:


> Atkins "Inga"


_That_ is a line drawing, although the designer chose not to include diagonals.

You may well know more about those boats than presented above, but on the basis of that data you really cannot make meaningfull hull form comparisons. Not enough information.

You can build a hull from the a set of lines. You cannot from the marketing products of "Ellad" above.


----------



## Sam (Jul 5, 2014)

Well it seems that I hit the "Mother Lode" of knowledge when I started this thread. It will take some time to digest it all. I have more than enough data and information than I could have ever imagined. You guys know your stuff and the real world learned experiences that have been shared are priceless. Thanks to Christian.Hess, Your quote "again design is one thing...real life is another..."says it all. Congratulations on the "New Dad" status. Thanks to everyone who has contributed, a lot of time and effort went in to your posts. I humbly appreciate it all. -Sam


----------



## ccriders (Jul 8, 2006)

mad_machine said:


> for all their overall width, Cats do not have wide "sterns" when it comes down to waterline, They tend to have two narrow hulls in the water. They are also usually "higher" than a monohull (as most of the superstructure is supported above the hulls) but suffer from an odd movement on waves coming from the stern "quarters".
> 
> Drogues can only slow a vessel (as the waves are trying to accelerate it) and keep her stern to.. a transom stern (or worse a reverse or sugarscoop) will take the brunt of the waves fury while a double ender will more cleanly slice through the wave. You will still take water into the cockpit in a breaking sea, but a double ender should be less likely to broach or take a pounding from all the water crashing into her most vulnerable spot


I know Sam seems to have closed this thread, but I've been thinking about your comments and then I watched the video "Germans Like It Wet" and feel a need to expand on my observations.
First, while I was dinking by several rather large cats, in the 40 foot range, in the BVI I saw that they have pretty spacious sugar scoop sterns. It appeared that their hulls carried their beam fully aft and created a sugar scoop that two people could easily sit in. Now I don't know if this applies to the cat in the video, but clearly some cats have very large (surface area) sterns and therefore a lot of buoyancy aft, which I think would help them rise with a passing wave higher that a canoe stern could achieve. So, buoyancy aft seems to be an important design feature.
Watching the Germans in their some form of canoe stern I noticed when the waves were coming in from aft to aft quarter, they took a lot of water over the back, and (and this is probably more important) the helmsman was working like a devil to keep control of (keep from broaching?) the boat. Their boat was pretty wet on all points of sail, yet probably fits some peoples ideal cruising boat, long, narrow, double ended, long overhangs, etc.
In both videos, the sailors appeared confident and seemed to be enjoying rather robust conditions and seemed to have confidence in themselves and their boats. Hope they weren't just good actors. They were young.
Bottom line, I don't think you can say just one categorical thing about any given boat type and for this discussion, maybe you shouldn't include "canoe stern" as a deciding factor on your decision tree.
John


----------



## mad_machine (Dec 16, 2012)

well, now you hit upon a different issue with Canoe sterns. When is the last time you saw a brand new one? As noted in a previous posting in this thread, Fife's "Ellad" is basically a Swedish folkboat without a transom. This means she is narrow of beam and does not have enough freeboard to keep her dry.

Modern boats, as you pointed out, are widest through the stern and most of them have significant freeboard. Of course they are going to be more buoyant and more dry than something 20, 30, or even many years older.

You simply cannot compare them. You would have to go back and compare like designs to get the best factual based opinion on them.. or find a designer to build you a modern version of the Canoe stern to compare it to all the new boats out there now.


----------



## Sam (Jul 5, 2014)

"I know Sam seems to have closed this thread," Not really, I enjoy reading every reply. I learn something new with every one. Just got plenty to digest, that's for sure! Thanks to all and keep 'em coming as long as you like!


----------



## sandy stone (Jan 14, 2014)

mad_machine said:


> ... or find a designer to build you a modern version of the Canoe stern to compare it to all the new boats out there now.


Hmmm... Wasn't a new Bob Perry designed double ender launched just this year?


----------



## mad_machine (Dec 16, 2012)

Bob Perry had a Canoe sterned boat launched. a 62 footer with a beam of only 10 feet. Remember, there is a serious difference between Canoe stern and double ender


----------



## sneuman (Jan 28, 2003)

night0wl said:


> They look beautiful. But beyond that, I'm not sure there are really any advantages of a canoe stern/double-ender. Recall reading posts from Bob Perry asserting as much.
> 
> A *huge* cone is the loss of massive amounts of space in the stern area below and a much tighter/smaller cockpit. Especially compared to modern designs that have a tendency to have a very huge stern beam and open areas of the cockpit to allow water to flow out if a wave hits ya. Canoe stern, well, I think you're relying on scuppers draining and/or downflooding the living spaces!


I own a canoe-transomed Tayana 37 and I'd have to agree. Aside from aesthetics, no real advantages I can think of other than less tendency to "slap" than the reverse sugar scoops that are popular today -- but that kind of transom has some other advantages.


----------



## sneuman (Jan 28, 2003)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Double enders have very small cockpits. They get pooped more often i.e. Waves over the back, the are old designs.
> 
> There isnt much going for them as a cruiser.


Smaller cockpits, true. "Pooped more often?" B.S. There's absolutely no evidence to support that claim. The difference in reserve buoyancy is minimal at best. And if they do get pooped, the smaller cockpit will drain quickly and not destabilize the boat.

I don't consider that much of an advantage, however.


----------



## mad_machine (Dec 16, 2012)

in a storm.. having a smaller cockpit that drains quickly is a blessing. Coastal Cruisers might not see the advantage, but passage makers will


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

I am not so sure that small cockpits always drain quickly...

I once sat in the cockpit of an Alajuela 38 that was on the hard. The cockpit was full with rain water and melted snow. Someone had closed the seacocks for the cockpit drains.
The drains were lead via the engine room to thru hulls that were closed.

I went below and opened the seacocks.

Watching the water drain from the cockpit was like watching paint dry. It took forever.

I think I would prefer an open transom and a quick drain.


----------



## sneuman (Jan 28, 2003)

jorgenl said:


> I am not so sure that small cockpits always drain quickly...
> 
> I once sat in the cockpit of an Alajuela 38 that was on the hard. The cockpit was full with rain water and melted snow. Someone had closed the seacocks for the cockpit drains.
> The drains were lead via the engine room to thru hulls that were closed.
> ...


Of course there are other factors, namely how large the scuppers are. But, from a volume standpoint, it's simple physics.


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

sneuman said:


> Of course there are other factors, namely how large the scuppers are. But, from a volume standpoint, it's simple physics.


Yes - it is simple physics.

An open transom has a larger sectional area than any scuppers.

I just wonder how many of the "small cockpit, quick drain" proponents have ever had their cockpit pooped and waited for it to drain?


----------



## sneuman (Jan 28, 2003)

jorgenl said:


> Yes - it is simple physics.
> 
> An open transom has a larger sectional area than any scuppers.
> 
> I just wonder how many of the "small cockpit, quick drain" proponents have ever had their cockpit pooped and waited for it to drain?


As a matter of fact, I have in Force 10 conditions in the South China Sea. The quick draining cockpit in my (then) Taipan 28 was pooped about half a dozen times. It was a God send to see that the water disappeared quickly and thanks to the small volume of the cockpit, seemed to make little difference in stability.


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

sneuman said:


> As a matter of fact, I have in Force 10 conditions in the South China Sea. The quick draining cockpit in my (then) Taipan 28 was pooped about half a dozen times. It was a God send to see that the water disappeared quickly and thanks to the small volume of the cockpit, seemed to make little difference in stability.


I do realize that you probably were not exactly using a stop watch (in F10) at the time, but roughly how long would you say it took for the cockpit to drain?

Maybe the Alajuela was the exception? It must have taken 5-10 minutes to drain. Everything looked quite normal on the boat at the time, scuppers, hoses, thru hulls etc. I know it surprised me how slow it drained.


----------



## sneuman (Jan 28, 2003)

jorgenl said:


> I do realize that you probably were not exactly using a stop watch (in F10) at the time, but roughly how long would you say it took for the cockpit to drain?
> 
> Maybe the Alajuela was the exception? It must have taken 5-10 minutes to drain. Everything looked quite normal on the boat at the time, scuppers, hoses, thru hulls etc. I know it surprised me how slow it drained.


Hmmm. It's been nearly 10 years ago now, but I'd have to say that it was at most only a few minutes, probably less -- typically before the next wave train became a threat.


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

Ive been pooped twice during ~F9-10 in my Ty37. The cockpit footwell capacity is probably only in the range of ~450 gallons when totally flooded. The cockpit foot well is only about ~50-60 cu. ft. = about 450 gallons = ~3300 lbs. of water. With four 1-1/2"Ø cockpit drains, I estimate the drainage took only about 3+ minutes; but, the boat's stern was pitching up and down at the time, so only really draining ~50% of the time due to the dynamics of the draining. This is a 'low back' (Mk-1) version of the Ty37 and the water above the footwell simply shipped off the boat's stern during the next 'pitch'.

For an open stern boat of the same approximate dimensions it would be easy to guesstimate a cockpit load of water weighing ~30,000lb. and at 2"/1000 lb. of immersion (considering the moment value of that added weight - Force X distance, about the center of buoyancy) at the stern could easily sink that stern by 4-5 FEET until the water totally ships off the stern. If the bow is down and the boat is surfing along on the front of the next wave, Id say such a boat would be 'struggling' during such a forced 'squat'. Back calculating my pooping, Id say my stern immersed only an extra 6± inches with that foot well flooded (my _static_ immersion factor is ~1200lb./in); there is lots of hull volume under that cockpit (as Bob Perry calls it - a "full _fanny_").

My slow rolling, slow pitching Ty37 is VERY sea-kindly, IMO; definitely is not a 'vomit comet'.


----------



## sneuman (Jan 28, 2003)

RichH said:


> Ive been pooped twice during ~F9-10 in my Ty37. The cockpit footwell capacity is probably only in the range of ~450 gallons when totally flooded. The cockpit foot well is only about ~50-60 cu. ft. = about 450 gallons = ~3300 lbs. of water. With four 1-1/2"Ø cockpit drains, I estimate the drainage took only about 3+ minutes; but, the boat's stern was pitching up and down at the time, so only really draining ~50% of the time due to the dynamics of the draining. This is a 'low back' (Mk-1) version of the Ty37 and the water above the footwell simply shipped off the boat's stern during the next 'pitch'.
> 
> For an open stern boat of the same approximate dimensions it would be easy to guesstimate a cockpit load of water weighing ~30,000lb. and at 2"/1000 lb. of immersion (considering the moment value of that added weight - Force X distance, about the center of buoyancy) at the stern could easily sink that stern by 4-5 FEET until the water totally ships off the stern. If the bow is down and the boat is surfing along on the front of the next wave, Id say such a boat would be 'struggling' during such a forced 'squat'. Back calculating my pooping, Id say my stern immersed only an extra 6± inches with that foot well flooded (my _static_ immersion factor is ~1200lb./in); there is lots of hull volume under that cockpit (as Bob Perry calls it - a "full _fanny_").


Rich - I'd be interested to hear more about that story. PM me if you wish.


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

The details were written up in the TOG forum about ~2002-3. An unpredicted 'blue-hole' weather bomb opened on top of me just north of C. Hatteras and followed me well into the Lower Ches.


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

from memory the Alajuela only had 2 cockpit drains towards the front of the cockpit. It also seemed like the cockpit was larger than that of a Tayana 37.
Otherwise a pretty cool boat with fullest full keel I have ever seen and the opposite of a fine entry ;-)


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

its that which makes it pillowy in rough seas...or at least prevent any sort of slapping waves...jajaja

I wont add much to the scupper draining math being shown here with great oomph but I remember posting on another thread that I once intentionally flooded my folkboats cockpit to test the scuppers rate and how the boat handled...

yes in water(could of sunk)

since folkboats have a very very low cockipt relative to the waterline the scuppers in fact can become syphons...as I found out quickly that as the level got wthin and inch or so of the seats seawater started syphoning in

my stern was heavily squatted about a foot when the syphoning started I guess there was around 50-60 galons of water in by that time

so for offshore sailing in extreme conditions I heard some folkboat sailors would shut off their scuppers and installed a manual external gusher pump to avoid any complications from pooping


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Had a T37 and now a Outbound 46 with open stern under the folding helm seat. That spot under the helm seat can be closed off with what amounts to duck boards that slide into a groove molded into the glass. 
I also have two cockpit drains forward just by the companionway. I've wondered when the fecal matter hits the rotating blade am I better off to leave the aft duck boards out or put them in and would appreciate opinions. The cockpit has a very slight bias aft. Green water drains aft and only through cockpit drains as the boat rocks.
Comparing drainage of boarding seas there is no question the Outbound with the wide opening under the helm seat drains much faster then the T37 ever did. Going to Bermuda once had occasion for the T37 to disappear with only the top of the mast boot showing repetitively. Kept praying for the boat to rise. It did every time but cockpit never drained completely before the next submersion. Remember part of this equation is how high the sole of the cockpit is relative to the waterline. If as the boat works the sole is at or below the current waterline neither design will drain. As said having a big hole in the back means faster drainage.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

sorry CH- I was writing as your post came up. I support what you said and please view above as a another example of the reality you refer to.


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

outbound said:


> sorry CH- I was writing as your post came up. I support what you said and please view above as a another example of the reality you refer to.


the way I SEE big boat open transoms these days are just like I see and sail racing dinghies, say a 505 or one of the new skiffs, or whatever

they absolutely positively drain faster once pooped by logic....especially if you are planing or surfing(can you say volvo ocean boats) the issue with some designs is that it can and or make downwing sailing in following seas very uncomfortable...

again not all, not every open transom boat, but yes some.

I sailed 2 oceans on a steel 37 footer with a french open transom....but it was a dog speed wise...while extremely ofshore capable and strong unless you barricaded the open part with jerry cans or whatever it was always wet, sloshing in, and well uncomfortable

however once or twice getting big greens over the quarter we never ever doubted or thought about being in danger "drainage capacity wise"

there was another thread where this was talked about, I beleive the sense 50 thread were people were going off on the fact that said boat could not be sailed in the southern seas because of the "open" transom...in fact I think I said it wouldnt be ideal...but wasnt trashing the boat for that really as it was designed for other sailing scenarios really.

the issue with that boat was no bridgdeck to stop the water from going into the salon and smashing the sliding doors and whatnot and flooding the cabin...not just "cockpit"

oh not to mention the flap gate they say works as a transom sealer. which kind of looked flimsy, a big wave could easily break away that transom flap.

anyways

seems we agree on these points outbound...

one very common modification that used to be done on racer cruisers boats and simple designs back then was to dramatically enlarge the scuppers and add 2 more if the boat only had 2.

going from say half inch size scuppers to 1.5 or bigger, that some boats have is almost an obligatory mod even for extreme rainfall! jajajajaja(if you have these small small scupper type boats and cockpits, but it applies to any small scuppered boat really)

I to agree some scuppers are PAINFULLY slow to drain, its wise to periodically clean and rinse them with bleach or something.

peace


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

outbound said:


> ..... As said having a big hole in the back means faster drainage.


I dont know about you but I cant walk across a Class IV rapids without getting myself knocked down on my butt due to mass of water rushing by. Less water volume unshipping usually means longer 'still standing on your own two feet time'. An open stern usually tends to be lower to 'the ocean' in comparison to a boat that has its cockpit much higher than its static water line. ;-)


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

true...


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Have taken to putting in duck boards when that's a concern but leaving them out when concern is green water from sea washing the deck which to date is a more likely occurrence. Would note I'm on a cruising boat not an Open. Even heeled the cockpit sole is several feet above the water line. Very much agree the current boats with very wide sterns can have an unusual motion when running or even broad reaching in moderate let alone extreme seas. The bride put them on the NO list along with multi hulls for this reason as well as others. Said she could do anything down below as couldn't time her motions and they seem to make me look green.
Would be interest in guidance about what others do who have both duck boards (or equivalence) and fully or partially open sterns.


----------



## christian.hess (Sep 18, 2013)

we had jerry cans tied together and then a wood board made fast to eyes on the stern...this blocked 95 percent of any green water and was in tight

some of the water was also stopped by the addition(by the owner) of a teack swim platform, so efectively it was a pseudo sucarscoop open transom boat, jajaja but NOT.


----------



## mad_machine (Dec 16, 2012)

having never been pooped on (except by my bird) I cannot say how long my Sea Sprite would take to drain out in the ocean. I can say this, during the past winter the drains became clogged with pine needles. Once I ran a wire through them, the very full cockpit (Close to spilling into the cabin) emptied in a matter of minutes and the force was enough to dig a couple of deep holes in the dirt beneath the boat


----------

