Beneteau oceanis 55

[Raven Odyssey]

Originally Posted by hoppy

A month ago I had a Dominos peri-peri pizza delivered to my boat in the marina. Very delicious

I think the only thing Polux eats is pizza. My palate is a bit more varied. Sometimes I feel like something with more substance, perhaps a steak.

[hoppy]

Originally Posted by Raven Odyssey

Modern, state-of-the-art, and no Parmesan required...

Attachment 139366

Attachment 1

Modern... what a joke, open your eyes

It's only modern if it capsizes.

It's retro, state-of-the-art.

[Raven Odyssey]

Originally Posted by hoppy

Modern... what a joke, open your eyes



It's only modern if it capsizes.



It's retro, state-of-the-art.

Have you sailed on one...or even seen one? I have had the pleasure, in Santa Cruz, and you are 100% incorrect.

State-of-the-art applies to much more than hull form.

Perhaps your eyes are open...you might want to think about broadening your intellect.

[hoppy]

Originally Posted by Raven Odyssey

Have you sailed on one...or even seen one? I have had the pleasure, in Santa Cruz, and you are 100% incorrect.

State-of-the-art applies to much more than hull form or racing performance.

Perhaps your eyes are open...you might want to think about broadening your intellect.

I agreed that it is state-of-the-art.... but it's retro, not modern.... Just like the PT Cruiser, and current Beetle, Mini, Fiat 500 and similar, although none of them are state-of-the-art.

[Raven Odyssey]

Originally Posted by hoppy

I agreed that it is state-of-the-art.... but it's retro, not modern.... Just like the PT Cruiser, and current Beetle, Mini, Fiat 500 and similar, although none of them are state-of-the-art.

Those comparisons are ludicrous! None of those cars use any state-of-the-art components, materials, or building techniques. Yes, they are retro, because they look like something from the past. Under the hood, the interior, and where the rubber hits the road, however, they are no different than the status-quo.

Spirit yachts are traditional in above-water styling, but that is where it ends. Modern technology is blended into these sophisticated yachts and the construction techniques used are pioneering the wood/epoxy manufacturing process. A quick look at the under-water profile should have illustrated my point. Instead, you told me to open my eyes.

So go ahead and criticize, by comparison, something you clearly know absolutely nothing about. I do the same thing sometimes and look almost as big a fool.

[hoppy]

Originally Posted by Raven Odyssey

Those comparisons are ludicrous! None of those cars use any state-of-the-art components, materials, or building techniques. Yes, they are retro, because they look like something from the past. Under the hood, the interior, and where the rubber hits the road, however, they are no different than the status-quo.

Spirit yachts are traditional in above-water styling, but that is where it ends. Modern technology is blended into these sophisticated yachts and the construction techniques used are pioneering the wood/epoxy manufacturing process. A quick look at the under-water profile should have illustrated my point. Instead, you told me to open my eyes.

So go ahead and criticize, by comparison, something you clearly know absolutely nothing about. I do the same thing sometimes and look almost as big a fool.

Style is just as important as technology when classifying anything as modern. Something that is "modern" will either be styled in a way that it conforms to the current norms or if it is "cutting edge" styling, then it is styled in the way modern is heading or it is setting the new standard for modern.

Looking back 100 years for styling is "retro".

That yacht is state-of-the-art high tech retro.

[Raven Odyssey]

Originally Posted by hoppy

Style is just as important as technology when classifying anything as modern. Something that is "modern" will either be styled in a way that it conforms to the current norms or if it is "cutting edge" styling, then it is styled in the way modern is heading or it is setting the new standard for modern.



Looking back 100 years for styling is "retro".



That yacht is state-of-the-art high tech retro.

I guess you are the authority...I keep forgetting to reference the "Hoppy Guide to Universally Supported Definitions and Baseless Fact."

[Polux]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Initial stability maybe but certainly not ultimate stability. Bigger for sure, less roll than many but everything rolls downwind in the trades unless your under spinaker on a bit of a reach. Many of the newer boats are slower in light air, especially downwind, lots of surface friction plus they are heavy. If your comparing the new boats to the narrow full keeled boats your right on all points, no debate there. The big question is why next to no trickle down effect on real world sailing performance? When I look at the Pogo it's easy to see the trickle down effect but a new Benni....not very much.

That is a common misconception, the one that the ultimate stability has to do with beam. The new boats have on average a better stability than 20 year old ones, for the simple reason the the RCD demands on stability had increased substantially on the last 10 years and the designers have to comply with it.

Regarding performance you have to see boat by boat, but even if the weight does not vary much the performance can be much better, if the boat is much more powerfull (more stability) for the same weight and that is the case with the boats with Pizza hull.

If we take for comparison the Oceanis 41 (2011) with the Oceanis 400 (1991) we can see clearly that the new boat is without any doubt much faster with a hugely superior SA/D and displacing less even if longer. Contrary to what you say the new boats are not heavier, at least on most cases.

Oceanis 400 (1991) 8701kg SA/D 14.6...........Oceanis 41 (2011) 8448kg SA/D 20.6

~


Regarding light wind sailing and what you call "lots of surface friction" you are assuming that the beam of the boat equals the boat footprint and that is wrong. The wet surface has to do with weight and the old Oceanis 400 (1991) displacing more will have more wet surface area than the much beamier Oceanis 41 and therefore more "surface friction", as you call it.

The much bigger SA/D to a smaller wet surface will give to the 41 a far better performance in light wind compared with the 1991 Oceanis 400.

But it is on a beam reach and downwind with a decent wind (over 10K) than these hulls chine and have a much better performance than the older hulls and even more with 20k or over. There, this type of hull is much faster offering with much more stability and a steady fast sailing without instability or roll.

Look at this Oceanis 38 designed by the same NA that designed the 41 and with a similar hull and see how easily he sails over hull speed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ1fj-ScSGQ

A 38ft going steady at 10k without surfing waves? I call it fast, certainly faster than previous Oceanis of this size or than older mass production boats with other type of hull.

That was regarding to this that this sail tester was talking about when he said:

... Having sailed the Oceanis 45 and 48, both of which have similar hull shapes, I also know that when things get a bit more brisk the energy that would otherwise go into heeling is transformed into forward momentum with this kind of hull form. Basically the boats just heel slightly, sit on that hard chine, find their groove and take off.
Boat Review: Beneteau Oceanis 38 - Sail Magazine

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Raven Odyssey

I think the only thing Polux eats is pizza. My palate is a bit more varied. Sometimes I feel like something with more substance, perhaps a steak.

No, you are the one that seem obsessed with Pizzas in such a way that you even see boats with shape of pizza

I only eat Pizza in Italy and that means about every year and I love them there but I am not that much time in Italy, so I don't eat much Pizza.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Raven Odyssey

...

Spirit yachts are traditional in above-water styling, but that is where it ends. Modern technology is blended into these sophisticated yachts and the construction techniques used are pioneering the wood/epoxy manufacturing process. A quick look at the under-water profile should have illustrated my point. Instead, you told me to open my eyes.

So go ahead and criticize, by comparison, something you clearly know absolutely nothing about. I do the same thing sometimes and look almost as big a fool.

Yes spirit yachts use a curious blend of new and old and the construction techniques are not old (even if I not state of the art) and the hull appendices are modern:



But that ends there. Those yachts for maintaining a classic look compromise on the hull significantly in what regards sail performance, with a very reduced water line and form stability for the length. Even on a narrow boat without the constraints created by the "look" that hull would be much different and much more efficient.

[Raven Odyssey]

Originally Posted by Polux

Yes spirit yachts use a curious blend of new and old and the construction techniques are not old (even if I not state of the art) and the hull appendices are modern:



But that ends there. Those yachts for maintaining a classic look compromise on the hull significantly in what regards sail performance, with a very reduced water line and form stability for the length. Even on a narrow boat without the constraints created by the "look" that hull would be much different and much more efficient.

Finally! We agree on something - at least mostly. I am, however, still in disagreement with the comparison that you ALWAYS infer, essentially, that racing performance and efficiency equal "modern" or "state-of-the-art". There are many criteria that define SOTA and modern. Performance and efficiency for a racing vessel, sure. In regard to cruising vessels, it may be something as simple as construction techniques that allow ease of engine maintenance or storage capacity, or even furling systems.

Everyone has a right to their own design aesthetic, some may prefer modern race-inspired outlines, others may tend to prefer modern classics. I, myself, prefer purely classic passage making vessels, or a blend of the two - whether SOTA, or not.

[robert sailor]

I can only give my opinions based on my personal experience so when you suggest that newer boats have more stability than older boats I look at an old boat like the Contessa 32. This little 32 has sailed around the horn against the winds and current and many have sailed around the world. It self righting ability is 156 degrees. My challenge to you Polux is to name me a new high production 32 ft sailboat that even comes close to this. If you like you can go right up to a 40 footer if you like.
We sailed across the Atlantic the same time as the ARC and we kept in touch via SSB with many of the boats and in my experience when these new high production cruisers are loaded right up they are really not very quick. If you removed half the gear and all the extra weight and had real good sailors they probably would have been faster but they didn't and they weren't. Speed on these new cruising boats is really over rated. We consistently sail faster in lighter airs than our friends in a newer longer Beneteau and because they are decent sailors I blame the wetted surface on the boat. Once the wind pipes up they do much better but with a heavy RIB and large outboard on davits plus a pile of gear stored aft their stern is always underwater. Of course it's about displacement and you can make it a heavy displacement by just loading it up. You can get utube showing 38 footers doing 10 knots surfing but load them up with all the cruising gear and see how fast they are. As a good friend used to tell me the easiest way to turn your cat into a dog is by overloading it, monos are not as weight sensitive but the additional cruising gear slows them down as well.

[SV Windrush II]

I am all for the new designs, but I am wondering if when loaded down for cruising if they are any faster than the yachts in the 80's and 90's. From what I can see with the Oceanis 55 in trial runs, they were pushing hard to get 10 knots out of her on fairly ideal conditions without being loaded down.
I don't need to search very far to find 80's and 90's 55'-60' performance cruisers like the Swans and Peterson's from the 80's that can match the same speeds with all the cruising gear on-board.
So if I want to be ready and loaded down for cruising, I wonder what design would sail better in all points of sail? in a gale?
I see comments like "when loaded with 250' of chain and 2 heavy anchors in the bow, the pizza boats sail like pigs"... not to mention 60 days worth of provisions, water, fuel loaded, extra sails, spares, etc. etc. just wondering

[Polux]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

I can only give my opinions based on my personal experience so when you suggest that newer boats have more stability than older boats I look at an old boat like the Contessa 32. ....

More stability when you join the huge stability of a beamy boat to the stability of the ballast put down at the end of a deep keel is a FACT not something that is worth to be discussed.

Regarding particular boats you have to take each case separately. Certainly the Contessa 32 is a very seaworthy boat, having almost 50% of its weight on ballast, even if not on an efficient modern way. That makes it a boat with a very good final stability but due to his narrow beam not a boat with a huge overall stability for the size.

Regarding fast modern boat of about that size there are several that have a great overall stability and a very good final stability, you can take for example the Django 980.
Django 980 - vidéo Dailymotion

Not many old boats are like the Contessa, with almost 50% of the ballast on the keel and having a considerable draft, not many modern boats like the Django 980 simply because the ones that want to sail far and away prefere to do it on a bigger boat.

Sure the Contessa will have a better final stability, meaning a bigger AVS but will have much less overall stability (a worse dynamic stability too) and will be more easily rolled by a wave, recovering faster (with the mast still on is another question).

The Django will be considerably more difficult to be rolled by a wave and if that happens will be able to recover easily due to a good AVS, but not as fast as the Contessa.

Pick your choice, they are both very seaworthy little boats, but off course, the Django will have a hugely bigger living interior and it would be incomparably faster, specially on a beam reach and downwind.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

...
We sailed across the Atlantic the same time as the ARC and we kept in touch via SSB with many of the boats and in my experience when these new high production cruisers are loaded right up they are really not very quick. If you removed half the gear and all the extra weight and had real good sailors they probably would have been faster but they didn't and they weren't. ....

If you want information about the performance of different types of boats on ARC go to my ARC thread were instead of a very partial information a single case can have you will have information regarding the comparison between hundreds of boats.