# Fat Ass Sterns of New Boats



## Denr (Feb 7, 2001)

What the hell are those designers thinking of when they make the stern of the boat so wide? Buying one of these new boats eliminates any possibility of sitting on the leeward coaming to watch the trim of the headsail and steer. Wandering around the marina this weekend I noticed new boats made by Jeaneau, Benehuntalina, C & C all the same. Your arm would have to be 6 feet long to sit on the cockpit coaming and reach the wheel! Sure there''s enough room in the aft cabin for a multi-person orgy but what about sailing the damn thing! Do the sailors buying these boats even care about sailing them or are these boats bought to be used as marina queens meant to live in and entertain on the weekends? When heeled over does the fat ass stern have any adverse affect on the stability of the boat? The new designs are pathetic! I am more convinced than ever that the people that design and build these boats have never sailed one of their creations. I feel better now that I have that off my chest!


----------



## SailorMitch (Nov 18, 2005)

Hey Denr,

I think the only thing you need right now is a good sail. You know the answer to your own question of course. All that "beam carried well aft" means more volume on the inside, probably a nice wide sugar scoop stern for swimming and getting into the dink, or in general -- making the missus happy, etc. Sailboats are meant to sail?

You will note that dual wheels are becoming more common to handle that pesky issue of 6-foot long arms. Used to be you''d only find that set up in racing boats, but no more.

Talk to some of the old-time designers, and they all hate the wide sterns. Those wide sterns have to decrease performance.

BTW, my boats in the water. Yesterday I went out into the Patapsco River to watch the Volvo Ocean Boats head to Annapolis for the weekend and the start of the next leg of that race on Sunday. Awesome sight yesterday! Talk about some serious racing geat, it boggles the mind.

Glad you feel better. Now go sailing.


----------



## tsenator (Nov 6, 2000)

I don''t know what boats you were looking at but I find my ''99 Cataina 36MKII more than easy to steer from the coaming. No I do not have 6 foot arms (Far from it ! I''m only 5''7"). The wheel is right there ! and its comfy resting my back on the lifelines.

You shouldn''t be so quick to make broad statements that are not accurate. If you noticed something it would make more sense to note "Make Models and years".

Take a look at this picture of the New Catalina 350 which has a very wide stern ! (Go here http://www.catalinayachts.com/main.phtml )

As you can see the helsman can *easily* steer the boat from either coaming. I guess the extra large wheel''s on the newer boats help. Also note that the Jenny Winch''s are right there where the Helmsman can easily adjust if he wants to, which would make singlehandling a bit easier. Traditional boats have the winches about 4 feet forward which means that the helmsman needs 6 foot arms or a crew to do the constant trimming (or like most people do, turn on the autopilot and go forward)

So I think you just like to trash anything that does not fit into your idea of what a boat should be....Which sounds like Ultra traditional. Hey I like traditional too, but there are some new innovations that are not bad.

As far as what effects a wide stern has on sailing I will leave it up to the others. I know some high end boats (Hylas for one) are widening their stern. From what I have read there are pro''s and con''s. I have read that some of those "pinched off" canoe type sterns are not quite as efficient a sailing design as first though, something to do with turbulance in the aft end, etc, etc. plus a wide stern can add to bouyancy of the stern which can be a good thing. I''d be less concerned with the wide sterns on some boats, than the "ever increasing" freeboard you see on some of those newer boats (Think wedding cake). In high winds and large breaking seas I might be a little more concerned with all the exposed hull above the water line. And That is where all the room in the aft cabin is from, not the width, but the height. 
I feel if you need stairs to walk off the dock into the cockpit then the freeboard is too high.

I recall the early days of roller furling headsails and all the traditionalists trashed them too.

ps...I sail my boat all the time and she sails great and I love sailing her.....I''ve been out the last three weekends and that''s pretty early for up here. So I also appreciate some more modern features like a walk thru transom, Not having to carry the dog or lift the children over the side when cruising is a god send......Its all in how its designed. The devil is in the details.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Denr: 
I think that you have walked off the end of the earth on this one. Actually those of us who buy boats with powerful stern sections do so expressly because we do care about sailing ability. 

The broader sterns that you are referring to in many cases is there to improve speed and exists because these designers care about sailing ability rather than the other way around. Bringing the center of bouyancy aft allows a finer bow for better upwind performance a more surface area through the run for better surfing and planning ability. It also allows some increased form stability without paying the snap roll penalty normally associated with form stability. 

While wide sterns used cause a problem with pushing the boat''s bow down ,and jacking the rudder up out of the water, thereby causing wipe outs,a better understanding modeling of the hull form nor results minimizes changes in trim and steering issues. 

I am more convinced more than ever that the people who criticize these designs have never sailed on a decent performing boat. 

Jeff


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

On the being able to see issue, one thing that has happened is that wheels have gotten larger in diameter (mine is 64") and that actually allows you sit on the coaming and have a better view of the jib. It also allows for less gearing to achieve the necessary mechanical advantage so that some of these newer steering systems begin to have close to the feel of a tiller. 

Jeff


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Well put as usual Jeff.

The wheel on my new boat (2000 First 40.7) is large too - and I have no trouble seeing the headsail from either side and controlling the boat. With a max beam of 12''4" I wouldn''t call her fat, but you can definitely see the aft falreout in the design.

A 40'' boat with a PHRF of 54 that can hit 8-9 knots with little difficulty is probably not suffering too intensely from having some extra beam aft.

Take the removable lockers out of the cockpit for races, and the crew has tons of room to work.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Sailing my wide-afted Beneteau is easy, but thanks for your concern.

What really makes me wonder is the divisive nature of man. Anyone who spends a weekend wandering his marina and getting upset about other people''s afts is a perfect example. In reality, pointing out the perceived flaws of others is just a way of saying "Look at me, I''m so much better." Sure, you may own a Sabre, and thus want the world to know that you have a better boat. 

It doesn''t really matter what the subject is, religion, race, politics, automobiles or lawn mowing. We inherently try to divide ''them'' from ''us'' with the expressed concern that the world knows that ''they'' are inferior to ''we.''

Sad to see it in the sailing world, but the Bene/hunter haters are there. More of the same. I think it''s great to define ourselves by our choices, I think it''s sad to define ourselves by our opinion of other people''s choices. 

Feel free to continue to get upset over those of us who buy these less expensive, inferior (but incredibly wonderful to experience) sailboats. As I leisurely stroll into my dink off my own private dock (swim platform), relax in my beach-side cabana (cockpit) or stretch out in my double bed (aft berth) I shall ponder these thoughts. I won''t be in a marina though, I never spend more time there than to load or unload my boat. I''ll be out there, somewhere, suffering in my ignorance and enjoying a really nice sail.

Don


----------



## henryvand (May 2, 2000)

I find it odd that someone would suggest that the wide sterns would result in a drop in performance. It seems when ever I watch the big boats in the top level races I see the same wide sterns - I guess they don''t know they are slow ..... -))


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Very well put, Don. 

Regards,
Jamie

Ps. Are you still at Beach Marine?


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Somehow you must have missed all the fat asses on those slow "Harbor Queen" Volvo boats. I know they put a high premium on luxurious aft cabins.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

For the moment, yes I''m still at Beach Marine. Next week it''s north again to the St. Simons area where I''ll call home for the next two months, at least. Perhaps longer. We''ll see.

We did have a great time in the St. Augustine area, anchored out except one night at the city dock. The holding ground north of the bridge of lions was much better than I thought (than I had heard) it would be. I was concerned when I dropped hook, there were 50 boats anchored south of the bridge and 5 north. We averaged 2 knot currents, but didn''t drag an inch. 

Don


----------



## Denr (Feb 7, 2001)

My comments originated by observing the vessels in the marina. It was Jeff who put his mouth (fingers) in gear without engaging his brain by making the leap from ergonomics on a cruising boat to the professional racing boats. I don’t know if he’s seen any of these racing sleds so I’ll assume that his comment was from an uninformed perspective. I’m also assuming (careful using this word to often) that most of you believe that the design of the wide sterns on production boats are for the enhancement of speed. Isn’t that what they said of the wing keels once they stared showing up on all of the production boats shortly after a winged keel boat won the Americas Cup? It is my opinion that the wide sterns found on the boats built today are there for only one reason, that is to sell the boats with huge aft cabins because this is what people want. Did I type that? I suspect that the reason the boats are designed with the FA sterns are for living quarters rather than hydrodynamic performance of the vessel but, I have no proof. No need to get personal with your “snob” comments, I’m not trashing the people that buy these boats only the production boats themselves! I have an average boat but I live in a mobile home, or as they say a “manufactured home”. No comments about “tornado magnets” or you’ll hurt my feelings.


----------



## tsenator (Nov 6, 2000)

Denr you said "Jeff who put his mouth(fingers) in gear without engaging his brain by making the leap from ergonomics on a cruising boat to the professional racing boats"

What !? 
Hmmm Denr, I think he WAS talking about sailing characteristics of cruising boats, not ergonomics. Those were YOUR words and comments not his. ''Methinks'' he knows alot more about the hydrodynamics of boats than you do. He came up with facts and knowledge on the subject, all you came up with is a "conspiracy speculation"

" It is my opinion that the wide sterns found on the boats built today are there for only one reason"

Thats just it your ''opinion''. Sorry, but like they say about opinions. Everyone has one. But yours has NO basis in fact. The relatively straight hull form from the maximum beam at midpoint to the stern of most boats creates a better flow of the stern wave which translates to speed. I will research the book that I have read that has empirical data on different boats with different types sterns and how a pinched off sterns are a detriment to speed.


----------



## maiden (Mar 9, 2002)

I was wondering of off shore cruising in a following sea with the wide flat transom...I was under the impression that a round stern, or double-ender type made for a safer ride. Also in regards to two wheels in the cockpit, I chartered a 51'' Beneteau with such, the engine controls were only on the starboard wheel, it was next to impossible to see forward to try to grab a mooring, and couldn''t change over to the other wheel because of no controls.


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

According to Robert Perry, probably the most prolific designer of ''double enders'' there nothing magical about a double ender; certainly nothing about a "moses effect" in parting the oncoming seas!. All double enders are not the same, with the tumblehome canoe body (typical Perry design) better at heeling without change in adverse helm unlike the ColinArcher/Westsail genre. If you look at the typical Perry or Creighlock designed boats you will find that they are quite fat in the fanny. 

The disadvantage with a wide assed transom is that the heeled waterline can get extremely asymmetrical; hence, developing possible radical changes in helm vs. angle of heel .....helm balance. 

Originally the double ender was an easy method of constructing wooden lapstrake boats - no transom needed! Otherwise a ''double ender'' is simply an aesthetic "preference" - just looks right to some; unless you plan on doing a long passage by sailing backwards.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Sorry to run two quotes from the same ''source'', but the first posting asked...

"Do the sailors buying these boats even care about sailing them or are these boats bought to be used as marina queens meant to live in and entertain on the weekends? "

after a rebuttle, the second posting said...

"I’m not trashing the people that buy these boats only the production boats themselves!"

Gee, don''t know how I could have mistaken that. For a second there I thought you were refering to the buyers. Oh wait. You were.

And so the reply was (and is): YES, WE CARE ABOUT SAILING THEM, THEY''RE GREAT AND WE LOVE THE PUPPIES.

Glad to straighten that out. Nothing personal at all. 

ps. a wise man once said EVERYTHING is personal.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Isn''t boating a trade-off? you get something... you give something.
You have a FA transom...you get a large aft cabin. You gain speed(a tiny bit)... you get a narrow vee birth..you loose forward buoyancy... you get a wetter ride, you also loose the safety of being able to safely singlehand or shorthand in rough weather for extended periods without becoming fatigued early? Isn''t fatigue the number one cause of death at sea?
Isn''t it characteristic of a fine entry to plow into seas and bury the bow provoking an end over end roll?
Denr made a statement that is bias.It''s not the first time that has happened on this MB. I''ve come to the realization that us Trads are the minority.
How many of the performance sailers walk down the dock... look at the trads.and say ''she''s a pig'' ,''she couldn''t get out of her own way'' etc, etc. I''ve heard this many times.Us Trad. sailers hear this alot and were probably just venting.
Myself?... I don''t dislike any boat. Power included. Lets just remember...boating is a trade-off.
For everything you get... you give something. Nobody should act like their boat is better than anybody elses. Right?

Dennis


----------



## tsenator (Nov 6, 2000)

"Isn''t fatigue the number one cause of death at sea?"

I don''t think so. Very few die at sea as compared to coastal sailing. (Within United States jurisdiction Coast Guard Studies show #1 cause is alchohol related. ) So in effect Coastal sailing is more dangerous. Its does have a lot more hazards to navigation than the open ocean. 

"Isn''t it characteristic of a fine entry to plow into seas and bury the bow provoking an end over end roll?"

Geez....I don''t think so, but maybe you are right, I think I better tell Steve Dashew he''s doing something wrong in his offshore designs. How he ever got that many miles in his boats is beyond me.. BTW when was the last time you heard of a decent sized sailboat doing an "end over end" roll. That wasn''t even the issues or problems with the Sydney Hobart boats.

You guys are being defensive alright ! "us Trads are the minority. ......sailers walk down the dock... look at the trads.and say ''she''s a pig'' .....,''she couldn''t get out of her own way'' etc, etc".

Excuse me !? Did anyone say that on this list? Geez....I don''t recall that! In fact I like traditional boats, I really do. You talk about fatigue and blah, blah, blah. But the reality is 95% of us sailboaters are Coastal cruising and weekend sailing with a week or two trips when we can during the summer. When I decide to ''Sail Around The World'' I will buy a Gozzard or some other heavy D/L boat. But until then I will continue using my *awesome* sailing Coastal cruising boat (that I can singlehand in a storm for hours on end.....never tried it for days on end )

Both you guys.....send us all a post card from Cape Horn. That seems like the only kind of sailing you do.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

I always thought FO/FO was the leading cause of boating death (fell overboard, fly open). I guess that can fall under the alcohol related category.

Sure, traditional boats are great. I used to own one. Looked wonderful out on the water, sailed great too. But that was then and this is now. Bottom line is I''m enjoying my time on the water and on the hook now a great deal more than I did before.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

NJciscokid,
Man!...wow! Jeez!...Take a chill pill will ya... wow! Talk about defensive! Talk about ''conspiracy speculation''.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

One (or two) minor point(s), properly designed, you don''t loose bouyancy with a finer bow, you just stretch it out. Typically,the bouyancy is still there. Modern fine bows take that bouyance and stretch it further forward by moving the point of entry closer to the stem. By actually pulling bouyancy forward on the hull, tendancy for the bow to have hard collisions with each wave is reduced while still maintaining enough buoyancy to keep from submarining if sailed with reasonable prudence. By that I mean, modern boats are often judged harshly by things that happen to the more extreme version being pushed to the limit. Sailing at over close to 20 knots and often above, a lot of really ugly stuff can and does happen. But throttled back even just a little bit these boats make great cruisers. The careful modeling of the hull, and placement of weight and buoyancy results in boats that are remarkably dry, and with less pitching and smaller roll angles and so they tend to be less fatiquing than the traditional boats that I used to sail. While I am not sure that fatigue is the number one killer offshore, I agree that fatigue certainly can be a major cause of accidents and bad judgement. That is one reason that I no longer sail traditional boats. The heavy loadings on helm and control lines, and the larger pitch and roll angles really wore me down. As much as I still really love sailing genuine traditional boats (in a breeze), I have gotten too old to sail them regularly without really coming off the water feeling beaten up. 

Good night all,
Jeff


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Denr:

I just caught your response to my original response to your original post that started this thread. In your original post you started off saying, "What the hell are those designers thinking of when they make the stern of the boat so wide?" I tried to answer that question by explaining the hydrodynamic reasons for that. This aftward shift in center of buoyancy (which has resulted in the more powerful stern sections that you mentioned) has filtered down off of the racecourse and its associated tank testing. When you have highly respected race boat designers like Bruce Farr and Groupe Finot, designing the Beneteaus, and Glen Henderson designing recent hulls for Hunter, and Tim Jackett designing C&C''s, of course the hull forms will derive from race boats and will push the envelope a bit toward better speed and handling characteristics. (I don''t know why Catalina has gone to wider stern sections.)

While the shape of the hull will alter the accomodations plan, making the vee berth narrower or moving it aft a bit and perhaps make a rommier aft cabin, looking at the boats and designers that I mention above, I firmly believe that the change derives from performance and not ergonomics and that the ergonomics have been adjusted to accomodate the sailing characteristics and not the other way around. 

That said, none of these boats appear to be derived from sleds. They appear to be more closely derived from the IMS typeform. I don’t know if you''re familiar with the difference between racing sleds and IMS type forms so I’ll assume that your comments were from an uninformed perspective. In either case I never did make a leap from ergonomics on a cruising boat to the professional racing boats. I simply attempted to answer your original question about what designers were possibly thinking when they designed more powerful stern sections.

You went on to ask,"When heeled over does the fat ass stern have any adverse affect on the stability of the boat?" 
Again, I tried to answer your question by explaining that more powerful sections, when properly modeled do not have a negative effect on stability and properly done can help with stability while not hurting motion comfort adversely. 

You end with "I am more convinced than ever that the people that design and build these boats have never sailed one of their creations." 

You may be convinced of that but when you look at the sailing credentials of the current crop of designers named above, these are all serious offshore sailors albeit mostly on racing yachts. Bruce Farr, who I know best in this esteemed grouping, personally owned for many years a Farr 1020 (a New Zealand built boat with very powerful stern sections for a 34 footer) that he sailed and cruised out of Annapolis. He certainly has spent time on his boats. Henderson, and Jacketts are no strangers to sailing their boats as well. 

I am not sure what your point you are trying to make by mentioning wing keels, but wing keels were introduced in 12 meters to improve windward performance in a boat that from a pure speed stand point wanted to be deeper. They worked well on the 12''s and were introduced in cruising yachts as a way to improve the performance of a shoal draft keel. They actually accomplished that goal pretty well. Obviously, all other things being equal, they do not sail as well as a deeper fin keel or fin and bulb. 

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

maybe sailboats with fat rear ends are designed that way...because we have fatter rear ends???


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Dehnr: After reading your post and all the delightful feedback, I decided to add my own. I think you may be focusing on the wrong thing. With cars, boats, motorcycles, and even homes, we are a diverse nation. We all look for different attributes in the goods we purchase. I ride a Goldwing Motorcycle and detest the crotch rockets and loud Harleys. However, I feel a certain kinship with most of the people who ride those things. Its what they enjoy. I live in a brick home but do not think any less of those folks who choose to live in Manufactured Homes. In fact, I praise them for they have put food on my table and boats in my slips for the past 22 years as I work for a major M/H manufacturer. We build what people want. PERIOD. If you don''t, you don''t stay in business. I sail a 22 year old Helms 30. I love my boat and think it is the prettiest boat on the lake. It has a narrow stern and at times I am jealous of those others who can get 6 or 7 people in their cockpit. My is full with 4. The guy next to me is a great guy, 3 kids and a wife who enjoy sailing in my boat. They sail a 28'' bucaneer. UGLY boat. But that is my opinion. They love their boat and it is what gets them on the water. I certainly do not think less of them for owning a Buc. I guess what I''m trying to say is that I would rather focus on my relationship with my fellow sailors than trying to understand WHY they purchased whatever they are on the water in. There''s another guy down the dock that sails a Mac 26, I wonder if he would let me sail with him.....mmmmm

Randy


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Just saw this thread for the first time. I have an older Cal, with a narrow beam and stern. That said, I too noticed that more and more, beams are huge at the stern. However, I have read, as Jeff points out, that it is for sailing ability. I just went to the Hylas website. (I care nothing about Hylas, but my upside down magazine on the desk is showing an ad) I know that they are very pricy, respected boats. Anyway, the first thing discussed is "Designed by internationally renowned, German Frer who plumbed the bow and carried the beam aft on the Hylas 46 to offer a longer water line and the highest performance." I think it has to do with performance first. The nice thing is that it also allows for a kicking master cabin, which should be in the stern anyway. I know, as I am crammed in my vee berth. My .02

Matt F


----------



## harvh (Mar 12, 2001)

I have a C&C 34+, (big fat transom). It has a large wheel to match and can be steered from any place in the cockpit. Down bellow I have a queen size birth that I can actually sleep with my wife in. First time in 15 years of sailing we could do that for more than just an amorus moment. Nope you got it wrong... the wide transoms bring alot to the party above and bellow deck.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Oh, Bporter,

I sailed Beneteaus for years for charter delivery mostly, but also for racing, and on private yachts, and a new friend here on the internet has told me about all the wonderful features of the 40.7. I am so happy to hear you love your''s too. I knew great things were coming from the Madame bringing the bigger hulls to the US from France. She still has some great (i.e. Bruce Farr) designers with her. Again, from many years of experience with Beneteaus, I am so glad to hear of those happy with their boats. I have nothing to do with it, really. I don''t work for Beneteau or anything like that. Heck, I don''t hardly get to the coast to sail anymore, maybe once a year, but anyway.

You have fun, and win races, and take up for your "fat ass stern boat".

Best of wind,
MaryBeth


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Well said, Don.

Have spent many a wonderful, happy evening on the fat ass stern of a Beneteau. But, as far as your comments on the marina mentality - have to say I profited from that. One year the owner of a boat I was employed on heard that a guy in the marina on Lake Erie had a taller mast, so I was paid to disstep the mast then step a taller mast. Even that two feet made him happy, and I made about 400 bucks. So, though it does seem silly, there are those who cannot live without the biggest, even though it means almost nothing in the performance of the boat. Just made 2 more feet for me to have to dangle from to replace a light when it went out just before the july 4th festivities that year.

Best wishes,
MaryBeth


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Isn''t it true that these fat ass transoms come about because of the change from I.O.R.rules to the I.M.S.?

Dennis


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Its not that simple. IOR over penalized the minimal differences in the girths, encouraging pinched in sterns and bows. IOR era modern designed boats that were not designed to any rule generally carried more powerful stern sections (For example the J-35, Farr 38 and Express 37). When the IMS rule came in it was a VPP based rating and so designers were able to design boats shaped by sailing conditions and not by some artificial attempt to beat some rule. In an effort to achieve faster speeds both upwind and downwind, coupled with an easier motion to permit less disturbance to sail shape and more comfort for the crew, IMS boats adopted a hull form with a finer bow and a more powerful run. So I would not precisely say "that these wider transoms came about because of the change from I.O.R.rules to the I.M.S." but that they came about to improve performance and motion. They were permitted by the less restrictive nature of the IMS. Really broad transoms do not occur under IMS as much as MORC and Open class boats.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Jeff,
I''m confused here...If powreful stearn sections improve upwind performance, why don''t America''s cup boats have them?
When a boat with a wide stearn at hull speed sits in the void between bow and stearn waves, doesn''t she create turbulence by her transom by digging in to her stearn wave thus creating the tendency to round up due to weather helm? Wouldn''t this slow the boat down?
The I.M.S eased the penalties toward wide transoms and allowed people with these boats to be able to compete against other I.O.R.rated boats even though wide transom boats were slower to weather, and this is why wide stearn sections became popular...because now you could have a huge aft cabin and a large cockpit and still compete.
Can this be true???

Dennis


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

http://www.hauraki-news.com/LatestNews/ClassAmerica-LN.htm

The Rated Length equation Girth (beam) components in it. You aren''t penalized for girths up to a certain size. Beyond that you are. It is not an advantage within that design rule to go to a real large beam.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

The Rated Length equation has Girth (beam) components in it.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

The differencial girth measurement issue was under IOR 1 and II and to a lesser extent under IOR III. It sounds like you are quoting from the IACC rule which of course is very different. 

Jeff


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

The rule may be different from IOR. I wouldn''t know because I''ve never read the IOR rule or have any reason to. 

However the IACC rule has a penalty if the girths exceed certain amounts. ---> There is a penalty if the boat gets to beamy. That is what Dennis was asking. Why we don''t see IACC boats with really wide beams.

L = LM * (1.01 * (LM-21.2)^8) + FP + DP + WP +BP

L = Length 
BP = Beam Penalty
LM = Measured Length = LBG + G
G = Girth = FGC + AGC
FGC = Forward Girth Correction
AGC = Aft Girth Correction

If either forward girth or rear girth exceed certain values your FGC and AGC get larger which makes LM larger therefore making L larger.

If Beam exceeds 5 meters then BP gets larger.

Because the overall rule is an Length + Sail area + Displacement can''t exceed 24 meters. 

Therefore the design rule does not encourage one to make a boat with a really large beam since you have to tradeoff either length, sailarea or increase displacement to do it.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Ryan,
So, am I correct in believing that the reason IACC(America Cup)boats don''t have the wide transoms is because they would be penalized for it? And if that is true, is it true that if they DID have the wide transoms, like we see on the BOC boats, they would sail to weather better?

Dennis


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

We wouldn''t have an IACC boat then because we would not be following the design rule. Perhaps you would have a faster boat upwind with a wider beam if you didn''t have to lose sail area/length/displacement to add more beam. If the designers just merely had a length requirement and no restrictions on beam, draft, displacement, sail area, then the boats probably would like quite a bit different.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

There are a lot of reasons that AACC boats look the way they do and Open class boats look the way the do. Open Class boats (what I believe is what you mean by BOC boats) carry movable ballast, one man crews and spend their lives reaching with minimal upwind or downwind work in their anticipated repetoir. They have no next to no restictions in the usual rating rule sense. 

The AACC boats are designed to a ''box'' rule that severely limits what the outside limits of the boat can be. Draft, weight, length, sail area are all interelated in the formulas and limited in many cases by mins and maxs. AACC boats are sailed with small crews and no moveable ballast, but most significantly raced in a narrow windspeed range and on predominantly windward and leeward courses. This puts a premium on stability and low drag. Different problem, different solution. 

Both are specialized types of racing and in many ways offer less filter down to cruisers or even club racers. MORC, IMS, and Volvo (Whitbread) really requires boats that perform well over a wider range of conditions and IMHO offer a much greater opportunity for advancements to trickle down to the rest of us. With the exception of MORC boats which have an older rule, these boats have finer bows and broader sterns than boats from earlier periods of design. They are not as extreme as the Open Class boats. 

Jeff


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

To answer Dennis''s inquiry: "And if that is true, is it true that if they DID have the wide transoms, like we see on the BOC boats, they would sail to weather better?" 

This is not a cut and dry question. Powerful stern sections like you see on Open Class boats (BOC) provide a lot of form stability but in the case of the Open Class boats they also mean a lot of wetted surface. To over come that drag requires a lot of sail area. Lots of sail area requires a lot of stability and Open class Boats with their excessive beam and moveable water ballast have enormous stability at low angles of heel. That combination is not so great upwind but is spectacular on a reach. The Around alone is primarily a reaching race. It is very interesting to compare the Open Class boats to the Volvo Boats (nee Whitbread) with their comparatively narrower hull forms and well rounded sailing capabilities. 

Jeff


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Thank you Ryan and Jeff,
I was trying to get to the bottom of some things I was wondering about.
I''d like to say more but I have to pick up my 18 wheeler and go see the country for a month.
Type to ya later,

Dennis


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Boy, do you guys whine alot. Why do you care so much about how you perceive what others feel about the way your boat looks structurally as opposed to just taking care of the boat that you do own and sailing it for the pure joy of sailing? Next thing you know you''ll all go off on a tangent about full keels vs. centerboards. Damn! Me and my big mouth.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Actually I thought it was a very productive discussion that was comparatively free of whining, except for the whiny post about whining. 8^)

Jeff


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

We have one of those wide ass sterns and on top of that it''s a center cockpit. We think it sails great, is very stable and have had many,many compliments on the appearance. And, the fun only begins there, we can actually walk on either side of our island bed (standing up I might add). There are lockers, drawers and cubbys that you can use without being a contortionist. On deck there are stern seats and when we''re anchored or in a slip we pull out two of those oversized, comfy folding chairs, set them up on the deck area in back of the cockpit, mix a refreshing adult beverage, prop up our feet and watch the sun set. We can slide our dink right down the davit braces into the water, take 3 steps down our wide, fat stern and jump right in. I guess it''s each to their own but but we feel the pluses outweigh any perceived negatives.


----------



## jparker11 (Jul 8, 2000)

Great thread, people!!! A lot of useful information to consider in this lengthy thread and here is some more.

I have not seen the name Carl Schumacher in this thread. He is probably the father of the FA sterns. And he didn''t care RA (rat''s ass) for the double wide berth that was created, just wanted to go fast. Used in conjunction with his lightweight hull designs and fine entries (Jeff) he only created a half dozen Boat of the Year winners through his recent passing. Latest being the Synergy 1000 (no queen sized aft berth here!!)

Quoted from a tribute article on his passing "In 1973, he moved north to work for Gary Mull, spending four years in that Oakland office before growing weary of Mull''s philosophy of heavy boats, big rigs, and pinched sterns." 

His thinking was with his lightweight hulls he could surf off wind, and, the FA sterns coupled with powerful elliptical rudders afforded more stability in these conditions. This design element showed up in 1977!!

So, I would have to say, the late Mr. Schumacher gave us FA sterns and the mass and limited production builders are only recently exploiting the extra space!!

Check out the Express line, Olson 911 and Synergy designs.

Sorry Denr......Form does follow "sailing" function on this one.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I would have to agree completely about Carl Schumaker. Carl''s Express 34, 37 and Lightwave 39 were some of the best all around sailing boats of that era. (The 37 was number two on my list when I was boat shopping)

Jeff


----------

