Modern Production Cruisers at Sea

[Thackaringa]

My boat is 42ft long lenticular shaped hull with a full keel and ketch rigged. I have never been at sea for long periods of time on a modern boat. I'm referring to the flat bottomed flying wedges with dagger keels and dance hall interiors. Therefore my opinion is slightly one eyed. What I do know is this. Other sailers that have been to sea with me can't believe how comfortable my boat is at sea. They often comment on how 3 days ago we set the sails, set the wind vane and haven't touched it since. It sails itself, so sit back and find a good book. It rolls gracefully with the swell and stays on coarse with no banging bashing or jarring. It has six internal bulkheads and the fibreglass is about 1 to 2 inches thick. It doesn't bend and flex with kreaky internal furniture. I would like to hear from somebody who owns an aged flying wedge and share their experiences with us all on how the wedge handled long periods at sea. There appears to be a lot of them out there and they appear to be doing it OK. Or are these sailers also like me and only have long term experience at sea with one type of boat design and therefore don't have a fair comparison to go by?

[thomm225]

Originally Posted by defjef

Please define modern...what is and what isn't modern? Is there a date or is this a hull style?

Modern is when they started building boats similar to the racing boats of the 70's with fin keel and unprotected rudder also being quite beamy and having a low ballast/displ ratio . These boats tend to have less wetted surface than a more narrow, longer keel, more seaworthy boat built back in the day.

[MarkJ]

I did 13 days upwind early this year from Key West to St Martin, solo.
It was fine.
What can one say, but if I had wanted and old boat I could have bought one, but I have sailed and raced on boats all my life and the newer boats have always been getting better.
I was on a 50 foot catamaran today in 17 knots and saw an oldie trying to motor into that 17 knots in a two foot sea and he couldn't double a headland. He was pitching something severe and it would have been hell on wheels and still hadn't moved an inch from when we passed him till we were anchored. But it was a ketch.... Wow man, it must have been better!
I've had no problem in comfort in 35,000nms on this boat incl lots of upwind work, Red Sea, etc. but of course a bigger boat will always be more comfortable, but newer will be better.
Anyway sailing comfort is only part of it. I remember racing offshore and every old boat meant I slept in a wet pilot berth. No sex possible just wet and cold, dank, musty smelling. Then there's the comfort of having two propper heads with toilets instead of doing it in a bucket.

If the OP didnt like a Beneteau 46 2009 model he would hate anything older!

[thomm225]

Originally Posted by MarkJ

I did 13 days upwind early this year from Key West to St Martin, solo.
It was fine.
What can one say, but if I had wanted and old boat I could have bought one, but I have sailed and raced on boats all my life and the newer boats have always been getting better.
I was on a 50 foot catamaran today in 17 knots and saw an oldie trying to motor into that 17 knots in a two foot sea and he couldn't double a headland. He was pitching something severe and it would have been hell on wheels and still hadn't moved an inch from when we passed him till we were anchored. But it was a ketch.... Wow man, it must have been better!
I've had no problem in comfort in 35,000nms on this boat incl lots of upwind work, Red Sea, etc. but of course a bigger boat will always be more comfortable, but newer will be better.
Anyway sailing comfort is only part of it. I remember racing offshore and every old boat meant I slept in a wet pilot berth. No sex possible just wet and cold, dank, musty smelling. Then there's the comfort of having two propper heads with toilets instead of doing it in a bucket.

If the OP didnt like a Beneteau 46 2009 model he would hate anything older!

No doubt the newer boats point better and are faster (in some conditions), but according to the experts, they are not as seaworthy (and have less stability) than the more narrow, older boats with more underwater wetted surface as in a full or longer keel with a higher Ballast/displ. ratio.

The Fastnet 1979 race was a good example. Many of those boat had to stop, were dismasted, or were knocked down and didn't recover. A Contessa 32 was knocked down twice once below horizontal and recovered both times with only minor damage. (and completed the race)

https://www.google.com/search?q=fast...w=1067&bih=511

http://www.yachtingworld.com/fastnet79

The Contessa 32 doesn't have a full keel but it has a lot of keel (underwater surface) and it has a Ballast/Displacement ratio of around 47% which is really high. Many of the boats built by say Beneteau are in the 20-30% range. (in bal/disp ratio)

http://sailboatdata.com/viewrecord.asp?class_id=1414

[Paul Elliott]

Be careful with drawing hard conclusions from the Fastnet storm. Certainly some principles were illustrated, but there were also "old fashioned" boats that got into trouble, and some "new design" boats came through well enough.

I wish I had experience at sea on a modern wedge-style hull. My own boat is definitely of the old-school (but with a beefy fin keel and a skeg-hung rudder). We've sailed through some uncomfortable stuff to and from Hawaii (five times), and my crew always comments on how great the ride is. We're not particularly fast, but we don't feel like we're inside a washing machine. Sometimes I wonder if we've sailed on the same ocean as some of the other boats in these races. I hear stories from other boats, describing huge waves bashing the tar out of the crew, when we were within a few miles of them and were reasonably comfortable.

I think the basic principles are pretty well understood, but there is a huge range of implementation, conditions, and crew. Some "wedge" boats are solidly built, and others are designed for calmer waters. Boats from the same manufacturer also evolve, where the early deficiencies of construction are improved. And sometimes cost-cutting goes too far.

You need to look at the specific boat.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by thomm225

No doubt the newer boats point better and are faster (in some conditions), but according to the experts, they are not as seaworthy (and have less stability) than the more narrow, older boats with more underwater wetted surface as in a full or longer keel with a higher Ballast/displ. ratio.

The "experts"

You mean people who are trying to sell books to people like you so that you can comment on things you have no experience with?

Or do you mean the people who design boats, but who you don't feel know more that you?

[Sabbatical II]

I own a new boat built to one of the "old designs" - meant for comfort in heavy weather if that's actually possible. However, wifey makes me look very hard at the weather forcasts before we leave to make sure there will not be too much wind or big scary waves. In reality this means we do a lot of sailing in light conditions. All these modern boats get into port before me. I smell for diesel fumes as they pass me but these modern motors don't emit nasties anymore, or just maybe they sail better in the actual conditions that we go out in.

[goboatingnow]

These boats are faster than a tradition design so may get you away from bad weather faster. Less time at sea means less exposure to bad weather. I think you can use many of cat vers mono arguments at this point. For ocean sailing my big concern is once on their back they will stay on their back. (I have been rolled to 130 degrees at sea and we came back very quickly and continued on in a traditional design.) On the other hand I bet they are fun to sail in a good breeze with smaller waves. Like many things time will tell and it is all a compromise.

Most modern production cruisers have AVSs of 120-130, with a few at 140. Or you could buy a Moody 45DS ( all that glass) and have no AVS, yes all the curve is above the line!.

AVS play only a small part in survivability at sea, OVNIS oft regarded as 4x4 of the ocean have AVS below 110.

Dynamic factors have far larger roles to play, roll inertia etc, the effect of the cabin top is relation to buoyancy and recovery ( not taken into account for AVS calculations etc).


Ive sailed a lot of different boats, some over longer some over shorther distances , many around teh Northern European coastline in bad weather, Ive been pigs that had a old long keel designs , good sea boats that had modern appendages. You cant generalise like the OP.

I do know that a lot of sailors want "fast" and boats designers respond.

pejorative words like "bendy" really annoy me as they are close to just trolling for an argument.

dave

[Snore]

First thanks... This is a very informative thread as I am dealing with 4-6 foot-itis.

I did some research and found this 2002 review by Perry http://www.sailingmagazine.net/boats...393-perry.html

To quote the relevant sections of the review, "...and the boat is a bit on the beamy side with an L/B of 3.00...." "The beam will make this boat initially stiff, but shoal draft combined with wide beam can make for a boat with a low limit of positive stability. Using the dreaded book Desirable and Undesirable Characteristics of Offshore Yachts and turning to its formula for a “simple capsize screening formula” I get 2.0269 for the 393. The book says any number under 2.00 is okay. This formula is far too simplistic to be always accurate, but it is one of the currently popular ways to look at a boat’s offshore suitability."

But in fairness this was a design review by Perry. As such, he did not sail the boat. And there is proof that the boat can do many miles.

However, if the design has not changed, if one gives credence to Perry's review, then it would seem to argue for the older design.

[Snore]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Most modern production cruisers have AVSs of 120-130, with a few at 140. Or you could buy a Moody 45DS ( all that glass) and have no AVS, yes all the curve is above the line!.

AVS play only a small part in survivability at sea, OVNIS oft regarded as 4x4 of the ocean have AVS below 110.


dave

HELP!!! For those of us on the learning curve, what is AVS?

Thanks

[thomm225]

Originally Posted by Don L

The "experts"

You mean people who are trying to sell books to people like you so that you can comment on things you have no experience with?

Or do you mean the people who design boats, but who you don't feel know more that you?

I don't see a problem learning from books. And if you get the math and understand, the book Seaworthiness, the Forgotten Factor is enjoyable.

Seaworthiness : The Forgotten Factor: C. A. Marchaj: 9781888671094: Amazon.com: Books

A review:

This book is an absolute must for anyone who loves boats more than they have good sense. If you are a cruiser or a racer or a bar stool sealawyer who has any experience at sea, reading this book will lead you step by step from prejudice and intuition into solid insights into the behavior and performance of the different hull shapes in the real world of "at sea" in difficult situations. There is no substitute for "the experience" except the experience to recognise and avoid the experience and this book is every bit as important in picking a boat for your use or applying good seamanship to a boat that is on the edge of it's design envelope. The book contains the fundimental information that should be in any serious sailor's kit. It reads easily and the insights emphasise the seaworthiness vs speed delemma in yacht design.



My experience is 10 years on power boats (mainly Chesapeake Bay; plywood Chincoteague Scows etc) and 20 years on sailboats. But that tells you little. We raced almost 10 months out of the year in Florida. Hundreds of races so you do learn a lot about what a sailboat will do. We also raced the small catamrans offshore some.

I'm now experimenting with monohulls. Its nice on these big boats when you are hit with a huge gust to have do no more than head up some. No worries about flipping or pitchpoling. At least not on my present boat.

I'm now looking at an old Peterson 34 phrf 117. It's displacement is only 10,400 but has 5,100 ballast. The draft is 6.25', Bal/disp 47.21, LWL 28.25 so I'll continue to experiment and read.........

In todays world though, we have really good communication. You can most likely run from approaching weather on a decently fast boat so that is something to remember. It would be nice to have a bit of both worlds though like the Peterson which is it seems lightly built for it's length but has a bal/disp ratio of around 47%.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by Snore

HELP!!! For those of us on the learning curve, what is AVS?

Thanks

Angle of Vanishing Stability.

[MarkJ]

The Fastnet race has no bearing on modern cruising boats whatever.
Not only was the race in 1979 but there was a strong move to ULDBs.

Modern cruising boats are not, nor ever have been ULDBs.

1979 was old tech compared to 2009.

[thomm225]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Angle of Vanishing Stability.

It's the maximum angle a particular boat can heel and still right itself. Some narrow boats with a high Bal/disp ratio can go 120 degrees or better off vertical and still right themselves.............

Here's an AVS graph for the Contessa 32 and a regular fin keel boat. The Contessa can go beyond 150 degrees and still recover, but the fin keel boat shown is quite a bit less than 120 degrees.

https://www.google.com/search?q=angl...e7%3B509%3B462

[goboatingnow]

I don't see a problem learning from books. And if you get the math and understand, the book Seaworthiness, the Forgotten Factor is enjoyable.

Seaworthiness : The Forgotten Factor: C. A. Marchaj: 9781888671094: Amazon.com: Books

A review:

This book is an absolute must for anyone who loves boats more than they have good sense. If you are a cruiser or a racer or a bar stool sealawyer who has any experience at sea, reading this book will lead you step by step from prejudice and intuition into solid insights into the behavior and performance of the different hull shapes in the real world of "at sea" in difficult situations.

I have this book for many years, while good , it is definitely dated.

Using the dreaded book Desirable and Undesirable Characteristics of Offshore Yachts and turning to its formula for a “simple capsize screening formula” I get 2.0269 for the 393. The book says any number under 2.00 is okay. This formula is far too simplistic to be always accurate, but it is one of the currently popular ways to look at a boat’s offshore suitability."

The use of "magic numbers" to determine boat performance is a travesty. to say a boat with 1.9 is ok and one with 2.02 isnt. Equally the application of these numbers, the compromises in their calculation, the differences between loaded, half loaded, owner modifications etc. can make it all nonsense.

Dave