Full Keel to Fin Keel.

[HeinSdL]

Originally Posted by wingssail

"One of them is you need full attention helming a deep narrow fin boat. This tends to get many full keel trained sailors by surprise."


I really don't accept the premise of this statement. A fin keel spade rudder boat does not take more attention on the helm. A fin keel spade rudder boat responds to the smallest of rudder inputs. One can steer this type of boat with a finger tip. But they balance well, and will sail for hours without steering inputs, particularly with the wind forward of the beam. Under autopilot or wind vane the steering inputs are less significant and either device can easily handle them.

Contrarily, take a full keel boat with an unbalanced rudder and a small wheel, which may take several turns to move the rudder and...

Look, on one boat you'll ne finger tipping a wheel or tiller, almost without a thought. On the other you be spinning a wheel back and forth trying to avoid oversteering.

...anyhow, I fail to see how these boats require less attention to the helm. And I've sailed both types, many miles and in many conditions.

I was thinking the same thing. On my fin keel boat steering is fairly effortless and on the AP the wheel only starts moving (a bit) in a fairly significant swell. (Annoyingly the AP steers noticeably better than I manage, in any case in terms of steering inputs. And speed too....) I am also a fan of performance/rapid passage making. I grew up in the 80's relying on 5 to 6 knots average speeds, to now being able to plan with 7 on a slightly larger boat. In terms of performance I do like the modern fin keel.

[double u]

if time is no object disregard the following.
The advantage of buying a “young“ boat:
we bought our present boat in July 2018 in France, left at the aequinox- & arrived in the Marquesas beginning of March 2019. When we bought her the boat was 7 years old & had been used as a weekender, no “bluewater“ equipment (selfsteering, pantryfootpump, AIS, Bimini, maststeps,...) whatsoever. But because of the “young“ age there were no hatchlenses, engineoverhauls, standing rigging, stove, furlers, electronics to be taken care of. If we had insisted on a long keeled boat we'd still be in Europe: the search for a suitable canditadate would probably still be going on, not to speak of the extensive refit it would have needed.
Now we- 63 & 61 - are in French Polynesia again & are very happy to have gone the way of “young boat“, despite all the compromises that entailed (the fin keel NOT being one of them), after all: how much longer have we got?

[thomm225]

So I was out day sailing today. It was blowing around 22 knots.

I sailed downwind for a while then headed back. Most boat were coming in while a few of us headed out. me to test.

I used my one and only reef point with 100% jib unfurled.

I was near land so I sailed in close before tacking and used the land effect to make my upwind return sail doable on my old full keel Bristol 27 that otherwise will not point.

I wonder how it would have been on the C&C 36 singlehanded?

https://www.yachtworld.com/boats/198...fSource=browse listing

Other fin boats that size were on the same course as I was but possibly not in close enough to get the full effect of the land with the offshore breeze. I was able to point as close as they did for this short 5 mile return sail

Would be nice though to have a 6' fin keel in this situation and 27-28 feet of waterline

[JPA Cate]

If the OP is finding a yearning to go offshore, and sail to different anchorages, rather than always coming "home" to the same place, it is not the old fin keel vs. full keel argument that needs to be resolved--circumnavigations and long term cruises having long been done in both kinds of boats--but rather, what particular boat that he is considering is strong enough to see him through and also makes his heart go pitty-pat. His love of sailing, and being on the water, his appreciation of a beautiful or scary day, those will stay pretty much the same. But if he wants a somewhat bigger boat, with its somewhat faster days' runs, then that's a different discussion. Once the technical issues are resolved, it is the emotional ones that require commitment.

It is about figuring out your criteria, then finding an example that you could love. Imho, either could work for the OP. I will comment, though, based on observation where we on our fin keeled first Insatiable were in the same anchorage as some friends on a [full keeled] Westsail 32, they were rolling gunwhale to gunwhale, and we were not. So, that very round hull shape yields easily to even small seas. I was apalled, I couldn't have tolerated that much rolling.

Ann

[a64pilot]

I keep hearing that full keels are tender, but don’t understand why people think that.
I believe what they are seeing is old narrow beam boats with a very round hull design, and that is what makes them tender, not the length of the keel.
We aren’t tender at all, and roll very little in an anchorage. I’ve tried to determine what makes boats so rolly, unsuccessfully. I’ve sat on my boat and watched larger, pretty sure heavier boats roll their guts out while we don’t.
A lot of it I believe has to do with the wave period matching the roll frequency of that particular boat.
Think of pushing a kid in a swing, if your pushes don’t correspond to the time when the kid is at or near the peak of the swing, they don’t swing very far.
As far as being tender, this is us with a LOT of sail up, close to a beam reach and approaching hull speed, maybe a half kt off computed hull speed, but notice how tender our 5’ depth full keel is.

[thomm225]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

If the OP is finding a yearning to go offshore, and sail to different anchorages, rather than always coming "home" to the same place, it is not the old fin keel vs. full keel argument that needs to be resolved--circumnavigations and long term cruises having long been done in both kinds of boats--but rather, what particular boat that he is considering is strong enough to see him through and also makes his heart go pitty-pat. His love of sailing, and being on the water, his appreciation of a beautiful or scary day, those will stay pretty much the same. But if he wants a somewhat bigger boat, with its somewhat faster days' runs, then that's a different discussion. Once the technical issues are resolved, it is the emotional ones that require commitment.

It is about figuring out your criteria, then finding an example that you could love. Imho, either could work for the OP. I will comment, though, based on observation where we on our fin keeled first Insatiable were in the same anchorage as some friends on a [full keeled] Westsail 32, they were rolling gunwhale to gunwhale, and we were not. So, that very round hull shape yields easily to even small seas. I was apalled, I couldn't have tolerated that much rolling.

Ann

Good information. Thanks.

I hate when my boat rolls at anchor when the tide changes in the middle of the night and my boat with it's 8' beam can do some rolling when the wind is up.

That C&C 36 I've been speaking of gets as wide as 11.5 feet or so which probably allows it to roll less. Plus it has a 6' fin keel

Tom

[double u]

regarding roll: S&S 34 - fin keel & roller
the old Swan 65, S&S too was supposed to be very rolly on deep reaches.
IMHO more something to do with the “slackness“ or otherwise of the bilges than with the length of the keel.
Westsail 32 BTW famous for hobby horsing too...

[Don C L]

Oh, I think there is something called "sea-kindliness," not sure exactly how to measure it, but I knows it when I feels it. Everyone ought to test-drive their prospect by sleeping in the bow going upwind in steep seas for a week or so
My long keel with its attached, rounded rudder, balances pretty well for me. But I have the correct rake in the mast, don't overpower it, don't overload the boat and I try to keep as much weight out of the overhangs as possible, and my overhangs ain't that much compared to her contemporaries. I too have seen heavy boats roll and I have pondered where all their weight is distributed. We might assume that the majority is deep in the keel for many stout boats, but they can (especially when outfitted for long voyages) have a lot of weight that is not so low. So if you look at the weight distributed above and below the pivot point, along with the hull's resonant frequency, and with a not-so-deep keel, it's easy to imagine why even a big heavy boat can roll like crazy.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by thomm225

So I was out day sailing today. It was blowing around 22 knots.

I sailed downwind for a while then headed back. Most boat were coming in while a few of us headed out. me to test.

I used my one and only reef point with 100% jib unfurled.

I was near land so I sailed in close before tacking and used the land effect to make my upwind return sail doable on my old full keel Bristol 27 that otherwise will not point.

I wonder how it would have been on the C&C 36 singlehanded?

https://www.yachtworld.com/boats/198...fSource=browse listing

Other fin boats that size were on the same course as I was but possibly not in close enough to get the full effect of the land with the offshore breeze. I was able to point as close as they did for this short 5 mile return sail

Would be nice though to have a 6' fin keel in this situation and 27-28 feet of waterline

thomm225, we've been reading your posts for a while now. It is clear you have the joy of sailing, and the skills it takes to get the most out of the boat you are sailing, which, by the way, is not a full keel cruising boat.

Your Bristol 27 has a short keel (lengthwise) with a cut away fore front. Your rudder is well ahead of the transom, not hung on pintels and gudgeons at the back of the boat. Your boat is narrow and sweet. Don't kid yourself, you have a boat with some performance designed in. Regarding some previous posts, it is more like a miniature version of a 1930's J-Boat, than a Westsail 32.

Yes, a boat with a 6' fin keel might be nice, but don't wish for anything different about your boat, it's fine, enjoy it.

And if you're beating the modern boats, it's because of the sailor, not the boat.

And...You're always "out day sailing" good on you.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

And what might that modern fast cruiser happen to be what's so much faster? Take two boats about the same value or size.

I don't understand what you are saying here. Are you asking for models of performance cruising boats? Just look at various boats PHRF ratings for a quick comparison.
Value, what does this have to do with the sailing performance on passage?
Size, that one is a tough one to do comparisons with, as the design of the boat and the design rules it may have been designed to have a large affect. Take a Westsail 32 that is 32feet on deck, 27 feet at the waterline, yet fits in a 40 foot berth.

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

It's also a bit funny how many folks on "modern fast cruiser" tend to wait two months for a weather window and afterwards brag how fast they made the passage..

So are you advocating not waiting for a weather window, just plow out and take what you get? In my experience every passage maker takes significant time to watch the weather and pick a window. It's just that a faster boat needs a smaller window.

[slap]

Originally Posted by thomm225

The J/32 appears to be an awesome boat, but it does have a capsize screening formula above 2.0

I thought I had read where after Fastnet 79 all the race boats at least in large sanctioned races like that had to have a capsize screening formula below 2.0

Pearson Wander Capsize Screening Formula is 1.75

I guess it all depends on what type sailing you plan to do as to which boat you buy

The capsize screening formula was at best relevant for IOR boats from around that time. The formula is Beam / ((Displacement/64.2) ^1/3). Notice that it leaves out draft, how much ballast, and the location of the center of gravity, among other things. The formula has a chance at limited accuracy if you are dealing with somewhat similar boats with similar center of gravity positions. Typical IOR boats around 1979 carried their ballast much higher than modern boats since the IOR rule at that time encouraged a high center of gravity. Modern boats have a lower center of gravity, and often carry much of the ballast in bulbs, wings, or a widened out bottom shape of the keel.

You could take a Pearson Wanderer and add a 500 lb weight to the top of the mast. The capsize screening formula would then be reduced from 1.75 to 1.72.

The capsize screening formula is flawed, and I would never use it when looking at boats.

[wingssail]

OK folks, Here is what it comes down to.

Do we really have to argue for years about these two boats?

You decides what is good for you, and it's one of the other, and there you go.

[bobnlesley]

Originally Posted by thomm225

...love our old full keel boats, but if sailing upwind for hours on end in heavy wind, it might be nice not be sailing on your ear the whole time

Whatever you choose will be a compromise, but based on our experience, if you're comfortable with using and 'like' the boat that you already have and know well, then I'd go with that; there's a 'learning curve' to both sailing and perhaps more significantly maintaining/repairing a new boat, which at the very least adds a little more stress to any given passage. Besides which if you 'like' the boat you already have, then you'll forgive it the odd failure along the way, but should similar problems occur on the 'new & better' boat which you've just spent a shed-load of money on buying and preparing, then you won't be so tolerant. - more stress.

It depends on where you plan cruising to, if you're going to be making extended offshore passages, then I've found that our and I suspect most full keeled yachts are actually far more comfortable 'sailing upwind for hours on end' than the similarly sized fin keelers. That additional space you crave is created by constructing a wider/flatter hull which 'slams' in heavy head seas far more than the more traditionally shaped full keel yachts.
Similarly, whilst in light airs/flat-water we can't point as well to windward as a more modern flat-hulled/deep-fin keeled yacht, once the wind and more particularly the seas get lively, we've often found that we're the one pointing better. But hey, if you're going cruising then it's irrelevant; if your destination's more than four hours to windward, then you're going the wrong way, instead go somewhere else or wait until tomorrow/next week and go then.

I saw elsewhere that you're singlehanding and using an autohelm for much of the steering duties. The autohelm unit will have a far easier life - so last longer and be able to cope with much heavier weather - steering the long keeler than the fin keeler.

Again worthy of particular consideration for singlehanding: When the weather's got beyond your autohelm's capabilities and/or you're fed up with the game, then as a generalisation, the full keeled yacht will heave to far more easily and comfortably than the fin keeled equivalent.

Speed depends on how far you're going, based on experience rather than sat on a yacht club bar stool, I can advise that a 'comfortable 16-day' ocean passage will usually feel much quicker/shorter than a 'fast 14-day' passage.

[wingssail]

I don't think these truths are self evident:

Originally Posted by bobnlesley

...I suspect most full keeled yachts are actually far more comfortable 'sailing upwind for hours on end' than the similarly sized fin keelers… Having sailed both, I don't find that to be true, further, sailing upwind for hours on end is not productive on a full keel boat, that's why they turn on the motor.

That additional space you crave is created by constructing a wider/flatter hull which 'slams' in heavy head seas far more than the more traditionally shaped full keel yachts. Possibly, although I don't find that to be true, but I do note that burying the bow into each wave and nearly stopping is not comfortable either

...we've often found that we're the one pointing better... I don't think that is EVER the case.

... if your destination's more than four hours to windward, then you're going the wrong way..And if you are 4 days into a passage from Fiji to New Zealand and the wind turns against you... What then?.

I saw elsewhere that you're singlehanding and using an autohelm for much of the steering duties. The autohelm unit will have a far easier life - so last longer and be able to cope with much heavier weather - steering the long keeler than the fin keeler.You mean that pushing that unbalanced rudder on the full keeler is easier than nudging the balanced spade on the fin keel boat? I don't think so.

... the full keeled yacht will heave to far more easily and comfortably than the fin keeled equivalent....A myth

Speed depends on how far you're going, based on experience rather than sat on a yacht club bar stool, I can advise that a 'comfortable 16-day' ocean passage will usually feel much quicker/shorter than a 'fast 14-day' passage.
Well, we've had some pretty comfortable 10 passages and spent the next 6 days waiting for the full keel boats to come in, and some never did

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by wingssail

OK folks, Here is what it comes down to.

Do we really have to argue for years about these two boats?

You decides what is good for you, and it's one of the other, and there you go.

Wait, what? Those are our two choices? (I think I would have chosen something like a Dreadnought 32 myself for the heavy full keel extreme, but I guess the IP will work.)
I still say my boat is a graceful third option!
sorry, love these fights...
meet me at the rudder room, I'll buy the beer...