Rudder Failures

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Polux

I don't know of what boat you are talking about but certainly not the Jeanneau 57 model that I am talking about. That one is a fast boat and is a boat able of sailing in 10k apparent wind and in cruising load will do 6/6.5K upwind on those conditions. Here is the polar speed chart where they give for 8K true wind at 45º off the real wind 7k speed. 10 apparent is a bit less than 8 real and the boat was in cruising condition so for what I saw the 6k speed or a bit over are perfectly in accordance with the polar sped, compensating for extra cruising load:
http://www.jeanneau.com/medias/CMS/b...0614122958.pdf

The Jeanneau 57 is a very recent model and the values you give regarding ratios has nothing to do with it. You give it 27tons for light displacement and the boat has 21.5T. You give it a D/L of 210 and the boat has 177. You give it a SA/D of under 15 and he has 19.2. As you say the Jeanneau has a considerable bigger LWL 15.35m and your boat 14.05m. The other ratios from your boat (Sailboat data) indicates also a much slower boat: SA/D 16.6 and D/L 201.4. Not a slow boat for that kind of boat but as I said the Jeanneau 57 is a fast boat and the much bigger draft of the Jeanneau will contribute to a better pointing ability : 2.5m to 1.8m (standard versions).
Sailboat Jeanneau Yachts, Jeanneau 57 - Jeanneau Yard
MOODY 54 sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com

That Jeanneau 57 had not a cuter rig since the two sails were not brought to different points of the mast and therefore could have a more simplified and easy to use rig, but the result is the same: A smaller sail for heavier weather. This was the boat, a brand new one.



By the way, you say your boat till 13k apparent will need to use a code 0, a sail that doesn't give a good pointing ability while on my boat with that wind I will be making well over 7K very close to the wind and well over 8K on the minimum angles you could use that code 0.



Yes, that one is a much faster than your boat, but if you really want a faster cruising boat of that size with top quality look at the New X6, to Gieffe yachts, to Comet, to Grand Soleil to Advanced yachts or even the new big Salona (even if the quality will be slightly less). If you light it heavier and slower, the Gunfleet is also relativelly fast.

I continue to say yours is a great boat, but not properly what we could call a fast cruiser for the size.

Sailboatdata are showing the shoal draft for the M54; the normal draft, like my boat, is 2.4.

This is what they show for the J57:

JEANNEAU 57 sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com

SA/D less than 15; D/L 209.43

I've actually sailed both -- not just read about them. I'm betting you've never been behind the helm of either one. The J57 is not faster. It's a nice boat -- very docile and easy to sail. The modest rig, more modest than mine, is an intelligent design point -- trading SA/D for sailability betting on the fact that most owners will be coming from smaller boats. The other reason for that is that the J57 is not all that rigid -- it would not stand up to more canvas than that. Which is all a well calculated compromise. The J57 will be faster than my boat during that range of wind speed where you don't have to reef in the J57, but I already have to reef. But over 30 knots, there's no comparison. The Jeanneau is flexing and wobbling, the bulkheads are squeaking, the forestay is sagging, the reefed genoa is spilling wind, and my boat, with her Brooklyn Bridge chainplates (I posted photos!), and all her Kevlar and balsa and through-bolted bulkheads is just hitting her stride!

There are of course many boats faster than mine. But to get more speed, you need either much more waterline length, or a more radical underbody design. The keel of my boat is much lower aspect than than that of a really high performance boat, and my rudder has a partial skeg. These are compromises in the name of more seaworthiness, better tracking, and a stronger rudder, which reduces the ultimate performance.

Paid for in waterline length.

But in other than the lightest of winds, no boat under 45', even a hot racer, can keep up with my modest cruising boat, even with the fat dinghy hung off davits!

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Where is that rating from, New England? If it is the base rate that I see for a Hunter Legend 40.5 is 117 which is an OK rating but certainly not fast.

Dude, you are seriously high-maintenance...

Let me google that for you

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Dude - that sounds like an incredible trip - but uphill both ways? Ouch.

Yes, and yes.

The result is that I have become obsessed with windward performance.

I am selling a 1970 Porsche 911S, which I have owned since the '80's, and which has suddenly become worth a lot of money, to finance this. Original paint! But first things first

First of all, I am ordering a whole new suit of sails, in this new Bainbridge carbon fiber laminate material, triradial construction, etc.

Then, for our peculiar conditions up at this latitude, where you have to go upwind in 20 to 30 knots true for days on end -- a blade jib, out of the same carbon material.

I'm doing exactly the same trip in 2015 -- I just dare the wind to be against me the whole way again like this year!

[goat]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Dude, you are seriously high-maintenance...

Let me google that for you

Now that ^^^^ was funny.

goat

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Dude, you are seriously high-maintenance...

Let me google that for you

Nothing there, the average for this boat in 6 areas in the USA is 115 except for Florida which was 99 I believe. Send me a link that works but from what I can see these are the ratings.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Nothing there, the average for this boat in 6 areas in the USA is 115 except for Florida which was 99 I believe. Send me a link that works but from what I can see these are the ratings.

I can't believe how nice I am to people:

PHRF-NE BASE HANDICAPS 5 September 2014

HUNTER 40 - 96

(It's 102 in NorCal/SoCal/ECSA, etc.)

Now if you still require assistance like actual links to all this stuff because you can't Work The Google, you'll need to pay my WTG Consulting rate of $650/hour. I've already met my Pro Bono requirements for the year.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

I can't believe now nice I am to people:

PHRF-NE BASE HANDICAPS 5 September 2014

HUNTER 40 - 96

(It's 102 in NorCal/SoCal/ECSA, etc.)

Now if you still require assistance like actual links to all this stuff because you can't Work The Google, you'll need to pay my WTG Consulting rate of $650/hour. I've already met my Pro Bono requirements for the year.

Well I used New England as I do for most boats I compare and its 117 there but yes I see in NE it does rate 96 which is the same speed as the Hunter 37.5...certainly faster than the boats you race on for sure. Considering that it is a faster rating than anywhere else in the States there must be someone that owns one in that region that can sail it, I'd like to think it might be you but.....nahh!

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Well I used New England as I do for most boats I compare and its 117 there but yes I see in NE it does rate 96 which is the same speed as the Hunter 37.5...certainly faster than the boats you race on for sure. Considering that it is a faster rating than anywhere else in the States there must be someone that owns one in that region that can sail it, I'd like to think it might be you but.....nahh!

Exactly what "New England" listing are you finding a 117 rating for this boat? The "NE" listing in which you see the 96 rating IS the 2014 New England PHRF base listing.

Would you WTG for me on that one?

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Exactly what "New England" listing are you finding a 117 rating for this boat? The "NE" listing in which you see the 96 rating IS the 2014 New England PHRF base listing.

Would you WTG for me on that one?

Mmm! My bad, seems the rating page was an old one that I have obviously used for a little to long, sorry about that.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Don't say; my father is still single-handing at 86

Good for you. Maybe that's a genetic thing Last year I sailed along with a British solo sailor (that become a friend), he was well over 70 and was remarkably fit (did not have a winch for the anchor) but what really blow my mind was him telling me that his mother with almost 100 still played golf, being very popular on the local Golf club

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

...
But in other than the lightest of winds, no boat under 45', even a hot racer, can keep up with my modest cruising boat, even with the fat dinghy hung off davits!

Of course, you are joking but talking about serious things, regarding this:

Originally Posted by Dockhead

...
For my purposes, a lighter displacement, achieved by coring the hull, using Kevlar, etc., and not just by making everything thinner, is very desirable. But light displacement boats become automatically less seaworthy. So to make up for that, the boat needs to be much bigger.
....

Well, that is no automatic As a general principle bigger boats are more seaworthy but that's assuming generically the same type of boat. I give you an example for understanding better this:

An Open 60 weights about 8000kg, that's about weight of my 41ft sailing boat but I am pretty sure than an Open 60 is more seaworthy than your boat. Basically this has to do how the stability is obtained. Regarding overall stability your boat and an Open 60 should not be far but while your obtain the stability with a small arm (GZ) and a big weight, the Open 60 obtains it by a small weigh and a huge arm. That gives about the same static stability to both but a hugely better dynamic stability to the the Open 60.

What that means? just an example regarding a single point: when your boat is knocked down is making the same RM to get up on its feet as a Open 60 but the difference is that the same force is trying to right a boat with 20 T while regarding the Open 60 the same force is trying to right 8 T. In fact even with the same RM, considering weight, the force on the lighter boat is 2.5 times more efficient.

Of course this only happens in different types of boats and that's why generically performance cruisers , even being lighter, but stiffer, are proportionally more seaworthy than "normal" heavier cruisers with the same weight, assuming they are well built and will not break

Regarding being well built and strong that's one of the reasons I have some distrust regarding inexpensive very light performance cruisers. For being lighter and strong they have to be better built and with more expensive techniques and materials then "normal" cruisers. A performance cruiser is for that reason always more expensive than a "normal" cruiser. If you have a look to all mass production cruisers that have performance cruisers and cruisers (Elan, Beneteau, Jeanneau, Hanse/Dehler) you are going to see that the performance cruisers are always substantially more expensive then the cruisers...even so if they are ultra light and not expensive I would not want one: I don't believe in miracles

[Polux]

Things are still a bit confusing about relative boat performance. I have already said that the Moody 54 was a relatively fast boat regarding that vintage and in fact I like the boat design, specially the hull ( not the keel or the ruder) even if we have to put things in perspective regarding when the boat was designed (and that was the norm then for that type of boats). The hull is advanced for its time in my opinion.

But when things get messy is with the comparison of the performance of older middle displacement boats with main market modern boats and even worse in what regards with performance cruisers. Bigger boats are faster then smaller boats if they belong to the same type, not necessarily if we talk about different types of boats.

Somebody had said with all justice that ratings regards boats with a minimum sailing load and not boats loading for cruising and that a big boat will be less affected then a small one, in what regards the loss, regarding the rating performance. Even if all don't voyage with the same load and the ones that have performance boats tend to be more spartan, that is obviously true. So some discount has to be given regarding that, but I think the numbers speak by themselves and I am talking about the IRC rating. For the ones that are not used to it, it is the opposed to PHRF, the bigger the number, the faster the boat.

First let's compare some of the best old performance boats with some modern performance cruisers. Let's start with older Swans, great performance boats on their day:

Swan 43 0.968
Swan 441 1.039 1.033
Swan 44 MKII 1.059 1.058
Swan 44 1.048
Swan 44 S&S 1.006
Swan 46 1.053
Swan 47 1.049 1.076
Swan 48 1.026 1.030
Swan 51 1.087
Swan 53 1.089 1.074
Swan 55 1.064

And let's compare them with the performance of modern Swans, not racing boats, but boats with a good cruising interior, as all Swans:

Swan 45 1.187 1.184
Swan 42 1.170
We see that even a 42fter is way faster than the old 50fters.
Other modern production performance cruisers with a good interior for a comparison with those old Swan:
XP 50 1.169
X50 1.149 1.130
X 46 1.114 1.123
Xp44 1.151 1.150
XP 38 1.081
X43 1.090
X40 1.077
First 50 1.158
First 45 1.117
First 40 1.087 1.078 1.082 1.075
Grand Soleil 56 1.164
Grand Soleil 54 1162
Grand Soleil 43 1.077
Grand Soleil 40 1.064
Dufour 44 1.096
Dufour 45e 1. 082
Elan 410 1.078
J133 1.119
J122 1.099 1.083 1.090
Salona 45 1.098 1.097
Salona 37 1.061
Arcona 410 1.071
Arcona 430 1.123
Comet 41s 1.098 1.086
Dehler 44 1.117
Finngulf 43 1.122
Gieffe GY51 1216
Dehler 34 1.008
First 33.7 1.010
Note that I am just talking about big production boats not about small series performance cruisers that are used almost only to race. The performance of those is far superior but they are very expensive (we could include the Swan 42 on this group):
Santa Cruz 37 1.140
Ker 39 1.120
King 40 1.117
Lets compare now the production performance cruisers with the performance of some British medium displacement high quality boats, famous ones, Oyster, Moody, Discovery and Bowman:
Oyster 62 1.126
Oyster 61 1.081 1.088
Oyster 56 1.056 1.078
Oyster 55 1.056
Oyster 54 1.078
Oyster 485 1.033
Oyster 49 1.017
Oyster 435 0.947
Moody 54 1.051 1.072
Moody 49 1.026
Moody 47 0.994 1.009 1.000
Moody 44 1.009 1.021 1.024 1.00
Bowman 42 1.004
Bowman 48 1.031
Bowman 46 1.010
Discovery 55 1.070
Hylas 47 0. 986
Trintella 45 1.029
Contest 48s 0.992
Island Packet 460 0.991
and finally let's compare the performance of these ones with the performance of main market mass production modern performance cruisers:
Hunter Legend 376 1.006 0.999
Hunter 37.5 1.008
Hunter Legend 466 1.014
Hunter 50 1.030
Bavaria 36 1.007
Bavaria 44 1.062 1.035
Bavaria 46 1.075 1.068 1.088
Bavaria 49 1.112
Bavaria 50 1.089 1.101
Jeanneau 49 1.051
Jeanneau 54 DS 1.129 1.106
Hanse 400e 1.049
Hanse 430e 1.080
Hanse 470 1.067
Hanse 531 1.105
Oceanis 473 1.051 1.071
Oceanis 50 1.075
Oceanis 523 1.140
I believe that with all this data each one can take their own conclusions. Remember IRC rating is very close to the real performance of the boats and if any type of boat had a favorable rating soon we would be seeing lots of sailors racing with that type of boat or model and winning all the races and that just doesn't happen. Normally the races, even in compensated, are won by some of the faster boats, almost all performance cruisers or pure racers.

[avb3]

Many of the posters here on this debate assume most sailors care about race ratings.

I suspect they don't. They care about some degree of comfort, reliability and safety. Affordability is in the mix some place also. Use for purpose will determine a lot of what people look for in a boat. Some boats inherent design means they will perform well for those intended purposes, and perform adequately for others.

It appears that construction methods in many boats have morphed to the point where they may be termed experimental. Proven, long term construction methods are often changed to facilitate cost savings in the manufacturing process at the cost of benefits that previously existed.

Just as another thread issues concerns about ECUs in common rail engines, this thread issues some concerns about manufacturing processes which may not be ideal 1500 miles from the nearest shore in F8-9. Both are legitimate concerns. Keeping it simple and proven works. Innovation is not necessarily ideal for all purposes.

[robert sailor]

Good points Avb3..actually many of the so called cruisers are in fact plenty quick enough for crossing oceans plus they are set up for doing that. You have proper sea berths, proper bilges, heavy construction, carry enough fuel and water and in many cases a good motion at sea.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by avb3

Many of the posters here on this debate assume most sailors care about race ratings.

I suspect they don't. They care about some degree of comfort, reliability and safety. .....

It is not about racing ratings but about potential boat speed. A rating is the better indicator of a boat speed potential. Yes many don't care about sailing speed, sailing pleasure and little about sailing since the pleasure of sailing is related to how well a boat sails. I agree that cruising is a different altogether thing as it is the ability to go from point A to B even if motoring a lot. Some like only sailing, some like sailing and cruising, some like cruising and are indifferent regarding sailing.

However a good part of the discussion here had to do with the sail performance of big boats regarding smaller boats, heavy expensive quality boats versus inexpensive light mass production main market cruisers and performance cruisers, older boats and new boats. Things in what regards that seemed a bit confused here. I believe the post with boat ratings will help to clarify all that and give valid information, regarding sail performance to the ones that are thinking in having a new boat and are interested in how well the boat will sail.

As you say, some care about how well his boat sails, some don't. Some value more comfort than speed. Regarding safety I would not touch that anymore but the subject regarding the safety of an old 30 year old boat regarding the one of a brand new mass production cruisers was already well debated and clarified and is debatable: very few maintain a 30 year old boat as new. Contrary to safety boat ratings are not debatable except on the point that a bigger boat will be less affected in what regards its speed with a cruising gear.