Rudder Failures

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

But is it not feasible that since most (if not all) of that mass (production boat) hysteria is spread thru some cruising forums, (which are hardly ever respected by people looking to get into cruising), that this kind of hype will actually have next to nil influence on which boats they buy and why?

Sure - it's feasible.

But in reality, many new sailors turn to forums for information when they start out (I certainly did). When you start researching the whole sailing thing on The Google, most of the links take you to one forum or another. You don't yet know what magazines to buy - what books to read - you're just getting started. And there's A LOT to learn.

So, actually, the forums have a great deal of influence on newbs. As I said in my blog post about my own evolving reasoning for buying my Hunter - I certainly started out completely buying into the bluewater hype. It's hard to disagree with the idea (misguided though it may be) of "being safer" - especially when you don't know any better.

Originally Posted by barnakiel

And is it not feasible that since they found a forum on the world wide web, they will also find other, alternative, sources of information? And use whatever fits THEIR vision of which boat they want to buy.

If both sides are being fairly represented. They're not for the most part. Maybe that will change. I'm giving that a bit a twirl anyway. So, yes, it's a becoming more feasible as we speak.

Originally Posted by barnakiel

And is it not feasible that new sailors should start at the beginning and, if they do, then they will have heaps of experience before they buy an offshore capable boat and take it offshore?

Your beginning is not everyone's beginning. So, sure, it's feasible - but usually not the way things work for the broader market. And in any case, if that newb buys said production boat - they will have an offshore capable boat. Where they choose to sail it is another matter.

Originally Posted by barnakiel

I think we are overdoing it here.

Is it not feasible that we are not?

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Sure - it's feasible.

But in reality, many new sailors turn to forums for information when they start out (I certainly did).

I've been a CF member for about 2 years more than I've been a sailor. It was part of my research on whether I could/wanted to consider sailboat cruising.

The knowledge I had to unlearn It only cost me me around $20k, which is the main reason I try to run counter to the the forum group think on "production" boats in case a newbie is reading as research.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

...
I don't know whether the "you" here is directed at me, but I actually have a thousand miles or more in Salona 45's. Great boat! But not superior to the Benes I've sailed in any striking way.

And all of them much less performance than the boat I have now -- which is largely a function simply of waterline length.

I find odd you comparing a Salona 45 in what regards performance with a Beneteau oceanis 421. There is no possible comparison in what regards speed or pointing ability. The Salona 45 has a IRC rating of 1.103 about the same that a First 47.7. Both boats would smoke the poor Oceanis 421.

Yes, waterline length counts but that is really important on similar type boats. A performance cruiser boat with a smaller waterline can be much faster then a much bigger heavy and relatively slow boat (for the size), like a Moody 54.

I believe with good reason that a Salona 45 or a First 47.7 will be considerably faster then a Moody 52 in most conditions.

If we compare the PHRF of a not much smaller Moody, the 47, we can see that the PHRF is only 102 while the PHRF of a Beneteau 423 is between 93 and 102. Compared with that the PHRF of a First 44.7 show a incomparably faster sailing boat (between 33 and 39) and the Salona 45 is about as fast as the First 44.7.

From 102 to 33/39 goes a huge difference and I don't believe that a Moody 52 would be incomparably faster than the more modern Moody 47.

Regarding smaller boats with a much smaller LWL being much faster on ocean conditions than a much bigger boat look at the time a Pogo 30 took to cross the Atlantic and compare it with the time of some other much bigger but also much heavier cruisers:

"On the last edition, on the Cruising division a much smaller Pogo 30 had done the crossing in 13 days and 14 hours (it was a bad year) while a Beneteau Oceanis 473 took 18 days 06 hours, another one 18days 14 hours, an Halberg Rassy 19 14d 15h, an Island Packet 15days 11 hours, a Moddy 422 19 days 00h, a Trintella 57 19days 20 hours ....Yes, it can be more uncomfortable but also much more fun, if you like sailing and ...almost more a week at the sea is also not very comfortable.
Take into account that the bigger boats motored a lot, having big diesel tanks while tanks, while the little Pogo only wasted 33L on the crossing, probably mostly to charge the batteries."

[malbert73]

Polux, what you write of speed differences certainly is the case when you look at full keelers and older double enders.

Your example of the older HR and the newer HR may be flawed. There are a lot of boats designed in the 80s-90s with much more moderate lines, which many (including myself) think makes them more seakindly. And they are as fast as todays beamy "pizza wedges." I agree they don't have the same sized cockpits and aft cabins. I guarantee the reason so many builders are going to this for cruisers has 95+% to do with keeping up with current trends, which is to add accomodation space for a given length. Less than 5% is about sailing.

Here are a couple of examples. Look at the PHRF rating of the J42. Regardless of opinions on the build quality, it is a moderate displacement cruising boat designed some time ago. It rates faster than most 42 foot production cruisers and has very proportioned lines. i am told by those who have sailed it that it is very easy to steer, even in nasty stuff.
My current boat, a 80s designed Tartan 40, designed fully as a cruiser, rates the same or faster (around 105-110 depending on which database you look at) as most "new style" wide sterned cruisers. But luckily it doesn't get all squirrely in gusts when it heels over.
The big advances in cruising boat speed happened way before the new beam craze. Ocean racers with canting keels- a different matter.


Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

(...)

Is it not feasible that we are not?

Absolutely!

There are valid reasons why we think about the new world vs. the old one. Here (EU side of the pond) there seems to be far more attention being paid (and assumed value found) in retrospective. True? Well... read on.

Of all (many) sailors asked which forums/blogs/websites they followed, only ONE said he did. Of a dozen or more YOUNG sailors asked which forums / sailing blogs / etc they followed NONE answered they did! It seems the new generation uses the newest technology only to chat and consume, not to search for answers. And it is not the technology at fault: they are not searching for answers because they are not asking questions.

IMHO we are living in most interesting times when, to paraphrase: "never before so much was feasible to so many, and yet so little was being actually done, by so few". This is, at least, the picture here. I understand the young generation in Singapore, Seoul or Beijin may have a different attitude, and so they will inherit the earth (damn, sounds quoting again).

And finally, on the rudder note, in actual use, given how the vast majority of boat users use their boats, the differences are so inconsequential that I say get whatever rudder YOU want. There sure are enough strong rudders and enough information on them for any lover of strong rudders to get one.

Off course, I would rather see the strong rudder to survive and win: as this one creates need for good engineering, good building and fosters the environment for survival of meaningful skills and attitudes. A lightly built rudder in six colours of choice designed by an interior designer and built by a mobile home outfitter is just that. And why worry if here comes Friday night and we will have a fine barbecue party!

Love,
b.

[barnakiel]

"On the last edition, on the Cruising division a much smaller Pogo 30 had done the crossing in 13 days and 14 hours (it was a bad year) while a Beneteau Oceanis 473 took 18 days 06 hours, another one 18days 14 hours, an Halberg Rassy 19 14d 15h, an Island Packet 15days 11 hours, a Moddy 422 19 days 00h, a Trintella 57 19days 20 hours ....

Yes, it can be more uncomfortable but also much more fun, if you like sailing and ...almost more a week at the sea is also not very comfortable. (...)

It is a (most of the time) downwind down-swells highway. Completely useless for comparisons other than all downwind sailing.

I doubt if sailing a Pogo 30 would be any fun for anyone sailing an Island Packet. That's why they are sailing their Island Packet, because sure they could afford a Pogo, or two.

Not?

Let alone the fact that most cruisers lack skills required to drive a Pogo in anything but easy day-sail conditions.

b.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Absolutely!

There are valid reasons why we think about the new world vs. the old one. Here (EU side of the pond) there seems to be far more attention being paid (and assumed value found) in retrospective. True? Well... read on.

Of all (many) sailors asked which forums/blogs/websites they followed, only ONE said he did. Of a dozen or more YOUNG sailors asked which forums / sailing blogs / etc they followed NONE answered they did! It seems the new generation uses the newest technology only to chat and consume, not to search for answers. And it is not the technology at fault: they are not searching for answers because they are not asking questions.

IMHO we are living in most interesting times when, to paraphrase: "never before so much was feasible to so many, and yet so little was being actually done, by so few". This is, at least, the picture here. I understand the young generation in Singapore, Seoul or Beijin may have a different attitude, and so they will inherit the earth (damn, sounds quoting again).

Well - a few things. On the many-young-sailor/blog/forum/website thing - you're obviously talking to the wrong people. Have you ever heard of Sailing Anarchy? Did you see the crowd mix at the last AC in SF?

On the European Retrospective thing - if that's the case, why are all the newest, coolest yacht designs coming out of Europe?

So, your prose is impressive, but not very accurate.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

I doubt if sailing a Pogo 30 would be any fun for anyone sailing an Island Packet.

Let alone the fact that most cruisers lack skills required to drive a Pogo in anything but easy day-sail conditions.

b.

Now this is actually a great point. In a few posts in this and other threads where a dude complains about "how poorly" these newer, faster boats sail based on his chartering one for a week, etc....it's becoming evident that the dude just didn't know how to sail it.

And it's always easier to blame the boat than your own ignorance. Very few boats post in forums.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

It is a (most of the time) downwind down-swells highway. Completely useless for comparisons other than all downwind sailing.

I doubt if sailing a Pogo 30 would be any fun for anyone sailing an Island Packet. That's why they are sailing their Island Packet, because sure they could afford a Pogo, or two.

Not?

Let alone the fact that most cruisers lack skills required to drive a Pogo in anything but easy day-sail conditions.

b.

Trade winds are trade winds and when you travel around the world you are crazy if you don't follow the trade winds and that means downwind sailing.

Contrary to what you may think a Pogo is easy to sail. It is designed to be sailed on autopilot. On Solo races that type of boat has to go on while the only sailor is sleeping and go on at speed. probably the easiest type of boats to sail on autopilot.

[neilpride]

Pogo 30, more likely a racer cruiser with racing on mind , i cant call it a cruising boat, that cockpit call for be clipped on all the time, without mention keel design , good and excelent for racing not for cruising...

[avb3]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Pogo 30, more likely a racer cruiser with racing on mind , i cant call it a cruising boat, that cockpit call for be clipped on all the time, without mention keel design , good and excelent for racing not for cruising...

Those were exactly my thoughts. Nowhere can one find out how heavy the keel is.. which I find interesting.

[robert sailor]

Guys I think one of the problems in communication here is that Polux is a Med sailor and Med sailors are not cruisers the way we think of cruisers in say the South Pacific. In the Med you do see lots of boats like Polux posts pic's of, deep bulb keels,double rudders and all the other high performance goodies. Most Med sailors (Except for Kenomac and his buddies) go from marina to marina with the odd night anchored out. They motor more than they sail, hence the nick name "Motorterranean".There are tons of well equipped chandeliers and workmen in every port so its a completely different environment from having no marinas in most areas and every night on the hook and long multi day passages in between ports.
You need a boat that has been time tested and something that can be easily hauled without the complications of super deep bulb keels.
The Med is an area of great wealth and many boaters there have more money tied up in a high end inflatable than half the sailing visitors have in their boat fully equipped. Before you think I'm loosing it I have seen inflatables that are well over $150,000.00 The sailors in the south Pacific have to be much more self sufficient and it pays to have a simple boat with simple systems. While the Med is indeed filled with the many examples that Polux posts you would be lucky to see even one in the South Pacific.
And as far as using any stats from the ARC remember many of those boats load up to their eye teeth with diesel and motor anytime the boat speed gets below 5 knots. So you have a new production cruiser who motors half the time compared to an older boat that sails the whole distance. Using stats from the ARC is a complete waste. Using stats from a "real race" is a different thing altogether.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by malbert73

Polux, what you write of speed differences certainly is the case when you look at full keelers and older double enders.

Absolutely not. The speed potential of sailboats varies hugely. That Moody 47 I was talking about is not a double ender, it is just a nice sailboat:


But one thing is to be nice and other is to be fast. That boat has a performance similar to boats of the same type and a PHRF of about 100 that is not bad for that type of boat.

Boats like the Salona 45 or the newer 44 have a PHRF between 24 and 40. They are smaller but much, much faster. They are performance cruisers while the Moody is just an older heavier main market cruiser.
Many performance cruisers have good cruising interiors and that's the case with the First 45 and the Salona 44. Have a look:

Salona 44 boat test with Yachting World - YouTube

Originally Posted by malbert73

Your example of the older HR and the newer HR may be flawed. There are a lot of boats designed in the 80s-90s with much more moderate lines, which many (including myself) think makes them more seakindly. And they are as fast as todays beamy "pizza wedges." I agree they don't have the same sized cockpits and aft cabins.

Now a modern Halberg Rassy is a "pizza wedge" Maybe you should change your boat by a full keeler. Some say that those were much more seakindly
Today's Halberg rassy are much better the 30 year old Halberg rassies, by design. Contrary to their older ancestors they even sail relativelly well, not to mention that they have much better interiors. The main reason why the guy wanted to recover an old Rassy was because he thought it would be less expensive.

Originally Posted by malbert73

I guarantee the reason so many builders are going to this for cruisers has 95+% to do with keeping up with current trends, which is to add accomodation space for a given length. Less than 5% is about sailing.

And how do you warranty that? I thought it was just your not informed opinion? Your opinion goes to the opinion of the Naval Architects, the best, the leading ones that are responsible on the advance of sailboat NA.

Originally Posted by malbert73

Here are a couple of examples. Look at the PHRF rating of the J42. Regardless of opinions on the build quality, it is a moderate displacement cruising boat designed some time ago. It rates faster than most 42 foot production cruisers and has very proportioned lines. i am told by those who have sailed it that it is very easy to steer, even in nasty stuff.
My current boat, a 80s designed Tartan 40, designed fully as a cruiser, rates the same or faster (around 105-110 depending on which database you look at) as most "new style" wide sterned cruisers. But luckily it doesn't get all squirrely in gusts when it heels over.
The big advances in cruising boat speed happened way before the new beam craze. Ocean racers with canting keels- a different matter.

The solo type hull's that is now used on the cruising sailboats has not to do with absolute speed but with good performances on a easier driven boat. That's why that type of hull was used on the solo racers in first place: easy, with less heel, less roll and more stable. Those are characteristics that are fundamental on a cruising boat, As a bonus you have more space and a bigger cockpit and that's great.

If you think that sail boat development and better sailboats stopped when your boat was designed think again. It never stops. once in a forum I found a guy that truly believed that sailboat design was stopped at the begging of the XX century

Your sailboat was described at the time as a performance sailboat. Look at a similar concept among today's boats and if you want to stay in America look at the Bluejacket PHRF if you want a better boat with a great interior look to the one of the Arcona 410. I did not saw them but I would say that they would be easily 35 to 50 points below your boat's PHRF and that means way faster and as comfortable.

[robert sailor]

Fellows when Polux gives you PHRF ratings and uses them to compare offshore boat speeds in the trades make sure to turn your skeptic meter up a little. PHRF ratings are based on a triangular course and everyone knows in those races they are won and lost on the windward leg. So a racer/cruiser that can point high with a deep fin keel and tight sheeting on head sails and a big roach main is going to kick the ass of the Moody on the windward leg and it will have a rating to compensate for that rocket ship upwind performance "however" running downwind in the trades is a different game. You might just find that the Moody might be hanging right in there. Remember that when the idiots who rated the race to Hawaii out of California gave a Westsail 32 the PHRF rating it would normally get in a triangle course it kicked everyone's ass and won the event. So when folks start throwing these ratings around remember what it really means.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Pogo 30, more likely a racer cruiser with racing on mind , i cant call it a cruising boat, that cockpit call for be clipped on all the time, without mention keel design , good and excelent for racing not for cruising...

NP, I have to agree in part with this sentiment. But, people go "cruising" in the most unsuitable boats (sailing dinghies, canoes, old race boats (us) and so on) and manage to have a good time. It just doesn't fit my current definition of cruising, which includes creature comforts, lots of personal gear (actually all of our worldly possessions) and stores/fuel/water for extended periods of independence. The Pogo type vessel, while a screamer to sail, would be sorely burdened by this sort of lading, and so to me, not a cruiser.

But boy, it would be fun to sail!

Jim