Modern Production Cruisers at Sea

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by 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 Beneteau 393

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.

And if you sat down with a beer with Perry he'd sing the praises of modern designs and fast boats for offshore work and for cruising. He's the one that started the whole Performance Cruiser category with the Valiant 40. He is very far from stuck in the 1970's (or 1890's) design world.

[sailorboy1]

Books and ratio "rules" written 30 years ago mean you are basing your boat decisions on boats built 45 years ago, and the dated opinion of a writer.

And making claims about modern boats when you have not sailed them makes you an idiot.

Many boat designers have been around 40+ years and the boats they currently design are the modern type. Are some here saying they have lost their minds or sold out?

I have a "newer" boat, but no experience on the type of boat the OP asked about (which he said he wouldn't buy anyway so what is the point, other than it rhymes with roll). I would bet anyone here with a less than 5 year old boat than that meets the original question knows that it isn't worth getting into "discussion" with the "experts".

[S/V Illusion]

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?

This forum is infamous for being the only one in which the subject comes up repeatedly. Obviously, all the Internet experts congregate here.

[DefinitelyMe]

I've sailed a large range of boats with a variety of hull shapes and displacements. I'm going to discount the boats that don't really fit into one of the two categories:

1) Narrow-beamed, long-keeled, heavy displacement (let's call this 'old')
2) Wide beam (especially aft), fin keel, light displacement (let's call this 'new')

In general, this has been my experience:
- 'Old' boats have a more comfortable motion in a seaway.
- 'New' boats sail higher and faster.
- New boats don't need to carry as much sail to make good way into a sea.
- 'Old' boats pitch more when going upwind, which can be distinctly uncomfortable. Having said that, 'new' boats pound more.
- 'Old' boats have wetter decks.
- 'Old' boats heel more.

I'm sure there's lots of other stuff that i can't think of right now.

A friend of mine has an old (early 80's i think.....) Beneteau 375 that is very solidly-built and handles a sea very well indeed. Then, i was at sea last year on a brand new 30-foot beneteau and hated it. A 30-foot boat with a 12-foot beam. It was like trying to sail a brick. 3 knots upwind was good-going. It slammed into the tiniest little swell and stopped dead every time, taking forever to build up speed again. It did motor very well though!

[thomm225]

[QUOTE=goboatingnow;1290783]I have this book for many years, while good , it is definitely dated.


Yep, the book Seaworthiness The Forgotten Factor is dated but it appears his conclusions hold true to this day.

Again because we are in the age of communication, we can avoid having to find out most times just how seaworhty a particular design is. Also, with the speed of the newer designs it can usually run from a storm or bad weather.

A few years ago there was a maxi catamaran race. They were covering on average 450 miles plus per day. They cirumnavigated and avoid bad weather the whole way.

[Bash]

Originally Posted by Hugh Walker

In enclosed waters it was a joy, fast and spacious, at sea though (especially a quartering sea) it would lurch and wallow most uncomfortably. The beam felt too wide, displacement too light and the rudder too small.

The fact that the OP found the rudder too small reveals something about how he sails, and suggests why modern designs might not be right for his particular style of sailing.

It takes a bit of skill to balance a fin-keel sloop sailing off the wind. It's only when the sails are out of balance that the rudder will feel too small. Get the boat in its proper trim and very little rudder will be required, even in quartering seas.

On my own boat, also a 46' fin-keel sloop, there are times when it really wants the gennaker up in quartering seas so that it has adequate power to clip along at the speed of the swell. In essence, the boat wants to be sailed differently than were it a full-keel ketch; it's more stable downwind at nine knots than four.

I think it's a mistake, however, to lump all modern production boats together, as the original question wants us to do. I've sailed all the major production boats in the 46-47' range, since these boats were priced and marketed to go up against each other, each being within a couple thousand dollars of each other's base prices when purchased new. The feel of the helm of these boats are as drastically different as could be, especially when you move from single-wheel to the double-wheel boats.

It invokes seriously bad boat karma to claim to have circumnavigated a boat and then to get on the internet and call it a pig, whether having sold it or not. That's a bit of a head-scratcher for me. The OP had to circle the globe to discover that he'd rather do it in an old fashioned design? Huh? That claim somehow lacks authenticity.

[goboatingnow]

It seems like some seriously bad boat karma to claim to have circumnavigated a boat and then to get on the internet and call it a pig, whether having sold it or not. That's a bit of a head-scratcher for me.

see Chichester clark

[S/V Alchemy]

Originally Posted by defjef

How many sailors have off shore experience in a number of different hull forms, materials and so forth to provide any real comparative analysis?

My experience of 40K miles is mostly with my hull and a few others. The discussion is mostly theoretical for naval architects I would think. YMMV

That's not the case if you've done deliveries and/or had both modern and more traditional keel designs out in short, steep waves in squalls.

Then it's not theoretical at all...

The modern production boat hull form leans, IMO and in most cases, toward the "speed over seakindliness" and "loads of interior volume" end of the scale. This is natural as most people are fair-weather sailors in protected or benign waters who want creature comforts and light generally in short supply in comparatively narrow boats with handholds and loads of stowage under proper seaberths.

Not many new boats are built these days under 45 feet with ocean-crossing in mind. Ocean racing, sure, but then you trade comfort for raw speed in that equation.

You can have both in higher-end boats, of course. Swans, Sagas, Oysters, Moodys and so on are fast and, by comparision, seakindly compared to high-sided, light displacement Beneteaus, Catalinas, Hanses and the like.

But I have to wonder who doesn't know this these days. If you want to see if a boat is for you, offer to crew on a 400 NM or better delivery with the promise of snotty weather. All that is good...and sub-par...about a boat will tend to be revealed thereby.

[Celestialsailor]

For me, I think everyone here is talking extremes. No reason to compare a Colin Archer boat to a Plastifast 45. There are literally 1000's of boat in between. What get's me and seems to be a phenomena in the last few decades is when I hear that you have to re-align your engine shaft coupling after the boat is put back in the water from a haul out because the boat moves around. This is due to a boat apparently not being stiff enough to retain it's hull strength/integrity. I personally do not want a vessel like this. So that's why I stated earlier about 1000's of boats in between. My Ingrid 38 (Colin Archer) was a pig to maneuver in a harbor, especially if it was blowing. In big wind and seas, it did great. But it tended to be a maintenance headache. My HR has 3 set of F/G stringers integral to the hull, full length. The stringers are of a box design 3" X 4"s and 3/8" thick. My hull does not flex and retains it's shape in or out of the water...yes, I have checked. There is no perfect boat. Secretly, any owner of any boat will harbor some point they do not like about their boat. Mine is an aft cabin on a 35 ft. boat...really stupid if you ask me. I would rather have an aft cockpit and larger head and hanging lockers in the boat. Ultimately the manufacturers are holding on by the skin of their teeth and want curb appeal to potential buyers. They know that it is easier to sell a boat with a condo interior where the owners spend 98% of their time as opposed to a tighter interior with ample grab rails.
Mark J had mentioned a boat struggling with entering a harbor in 17kts of wind. In my opinion, the boat was under powered. Sure, hull design determines how easily it can slip through the water but come on...if you have enough ponies, you can push through anything. My Ingrid 38 (25,000 lbs.) came with a Volvo MD II (24hp.). It was a joke. I dropped in a Yanmar 4JH (45hp.) and it was barely adequate. A 60hp. would have been better.

[S/V Alchemy]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

For me, I think everyone here is talking extremes. No reason to compare a Colin Archer boat to a Plastifast 45. There are literally 1000's of boat in between. What get's me and seems to be a phenomena in the last few decades is when I hear that you have to re-align your engine shaft coupling after the boat is put back in the water from a haul out because the boat moves around. This is due to a boat apparently not being stiff enough to retain it's hull strength/integrity. I personally do not want a vessel like this. So that's why I stated earlier about 1000's of boats in between. My Ingrid 38 (Colin Archer) was a pig to maneuver in a harbor, especially if it was blowing. In big wind and seas, it did great. But it tended to be a maintenance headache. My HR has 3 set of F/G stringers integral to the hull, full length. The stringers are of a box design 3" X 4"s and 3/8" thick. My hull does not flex and retains it's shape in or out of the water...yes, I have checked. There is no perfect boat. Secretly, any owner of any boat will harbor some point they do not like about their boat. Mine is an aft cabin on a 35 ft. boat...really stupid if you ask me. I would rather have an aft cockpit and larger head and hanging lockers in the boat. Ultimately the manufacturers are holding on by the skin of their teeth and want curb appeal to potential buyers. They know that it is easier to sell a boat with a condo interior where the owners spend 98% of their time as opposed to a tighter interior with ample grab rails.
Mark J had mentioned a boat struggling with entering a harbor in 17kts of wind. In my opinion, the boat was under powered. Sure, hull design determines how easily it can slip through the water but come on...if you have enough ponies, you can push through anything. My Ingrid 38 (25,000 lbs.) came with a Volvo MD II (24hp.). It was a joke. I dropped in a Yanmar 4JH (45hp.) and it was barely adequate. A 60hp. would have been better.

I think small engines are present in a lot of production boats for reasons of economy, range and size...not because it's anticipated that you might need to drive the thing through a tidal current or waves at a harbour bar or something.

I went to a 60 hp on a similarly sized boat and threw in a four-bladed feathering prop for good measure. If I need to use the engine in earnest, I need torque, not speed. I like the Ingrid 38, but the thought of it being driven by a 24 HP engine is, I agree, farcical.

[SailPenelope]

I just looked at an ad for a Catalina 30 - a boat I know well. Mine (original, stock from the factory 1984) had a 23 hp diesel that served us well. In this ad, the engine had been replaced - with an 11 hp engine! Wonder what the reasoning was........can't help wondering if there were size issues. We replaced the engine on our CT41 - volvo Penta to Yanmar - both 75 hp (a bit of overkill.....most are 50 hp Perkins which do just fine) - anyway, the Yanmar was taller and required some cabinetry changes (had to move a drawer - sure wasn't going to give it up entirely!)

[goboatingnow]

To suggest an oyster is more seaworthy then s beneteau is to fundamentally mix up interior quality with seaworthiness

The primary reason brands like hR and oyster are expensive is the manual labour and expensive wooden finishes that go into these yachts.

Fundamentally the underwater shapes are virtually identical and motion comfort and sea keeping are not dissimilar.

Comfort is a personal preference. I know many sailors that prefer speed and dynamic response rather then some mud -plugging long keeled disaster. The French for example tend to think that way as do the New Zealanders and their boat design reflect that

Look at the Pogo 12,5 for example these ate offshore boats.

Americans are stranded in the past when it come to sailing

Dave

[Cheechako]

Originally Posted by DefinitelyMe

I've sailed a large range of boats with a variety of hull shapes and displacements. I'm going to discount the boats that don't really fit into one of the two categories:

1) Narrow-beamed, long-keeled, heavy displacement (let's call this 'old')
2) Wide beam (especially aft), fin keel, light displacement (let's call this 'new')

In general, this has been my experience:
- 'Old' boats have a more comfortable motion in a seaway.
- 'New' boats sail higher and faster.
- New boats don't need to carry as much sail to make good way into a sea.
- 'Old' boats pitch more when going upwind, which can be distinctly uncomfortable. Having said that, 'new' boats pound more.
- 'Old' boats have wetter decks.
- 'Old' boats heel more.

I'm sure there's lots of other stuff that i can't think of right now.

A friend of mine has an old (early 80's i think.....) Beneteau 375 that is very solidly-built and handles a sea very well indeed. Then, i was at sea last year on a brand new 30-foot beneteau and hated it. A 30-foot boat with a 12-foot beam. It was like trying to sail a brick. 3 knots upwind was good-going. It slammed into the tiniest little swell and stopped dead every time, taking forever to build up speed again. It did motor very well though!

I think this is pretty "right on".
I might not agree about old boats being more comfortable in a seaway though. I dislike the rolling, wallowing and pitching even more than I dislike the "jerk" of a more modern design. To each his own .....

[Cheechako]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

To suggest an oyster is more seaworthy then s beneteau is to fundamentally mix up interior quality with seaworthiness

The primary reason brands like hR and oyster are expensive is the manual labour and expensive wooden finishes that go into these yachts.

Fundamentally the underwater shapes are virtually identical and motion comfort and sea keeping are not dissimilar.

Comfort is a personal preference. I know many sailors that prefer speed and dynamic response rather then some mud -plugging long keeled disaster. The French for example tend to think that way as do the New Zealanders and their boat design reflect that

Look at the Pogo 12,5 for example these ate offshore boats.

Americans are stranded in the past when it come to sailing

Dave

Doesnt it also depend on how much of the money went into a stronger hull/deck/rig? Are you saying a bene is built like an oyster? Frankly I think the Bene furniture is great, but I would guess (and it's only a guess) that the bene hull is far thinner, and the floor pan is slapped in there with some modern glue and considered "stuck".

[SailPenelope]

"I dislike the rolling, wallowing and pitching even more than I dislike the "jerk" of a more modern design. To each his own ....."

Yup. I bought an old boat because I liked the looks and apparent comfort. (CT41 ketch) And yes, I do love her. But in light air and large swells......all the above is true.....plus....there is stress on the rigging......

Don't know what the answer is other than to keep on sailing!