Modern Production Cruisers at Sea

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by thomm225

You may not want to do much driving after being up for umpteen hours. With a boat that has tons of wetted surface, you can go below etc after setting the ole windvane and know it will hold it's line.

That's what they have crews for! The single hander will have an AP (they would have a windvane, but their boats are sailed just too fast).

Either boat will do fine as long as she is sailed by a driver who knows how to sail her.

Go fast (not too fast) in the fast boat; go slow (not too slow) in the slow one.

The point is that one can slow down a fast boat but one can not make a pig fly. Offset somewhat by the fact that many heavier cruising boats will take heavy weather pounding much better than many lighter cruising boats.

b.

[barnakiel]

I think it is worth noticing that boatyards that have been around awhile have also moved by now into the less displacement / finer appendages area. Just look at new HRs, Oysters, Rustlers, Morris.

Are they all wrong too?

b.

[JK n Smitty]

Originally Posted by Thackaringa

When I crossed the Pacific I noticed that the further I got from the mainland continents the less of the modern designed boats I saw at island anchorages. They were still there but in much smaller numbers that what I saw of them in mainland marinas. The majority of the boats that were doing a Pacific crossing were purposely designed cruising boats, mostly hybrids with lenticular shaped hulls but with shorter keels. e.g. Island Packets etc. Most of these people seam to find a design that they like and then get somebody to build it for them to the standard and layout that they require.

This is probably much more of an artifact of who gets out there and who is still chained to a desk working. The same greying Americans that argue that modern designs are bad at sea and therefor buy IPs at 3 times the cost of Catalinas, Bennies or Other modem designs are the ones that are out there. Those of us that have faith in modem designs are still trying to get out there. It's much harder to get "further away from the main land" in a 2-3 week vacation.

You always have to remember that correlation does not equal causation.

[Thackaringa]

Lets be honest. We all know that there are a lot of modern designed boats out there it doesn't matter what country it is from or the age of the sailors. There are a lot of them in New Zealand and in Australia, but lets face it 99% of them don't go anywhere. They are weekend coastal cruisers. Usually the only boat they have ever owned before was a "Sabot" when they were a kid. Now that they are going through their midlife crisis, they buy a yacht so that they can sip Chardonnay in the cockpit with their friends. We get a lot of boats here from New Zealand and they are not modern flying wedges. These boats are popular because that is all you see available on the showroom floors or at boat shows. Their wife loves it because it has 2 heads, a big bed, a shower a microwave, a walk in wardrobe, a big cockpit a comfortable lounge a mini bar and a mirrored disco ball. I think what most sailors that resent them don't like most about them is that they are not built up to a standard, but down to a minimum requirement. Believe me when I say, if I only wanted to cruise costal I may buy one, but I doubt it I would probably buy a multihull, that way I can have a pool table and a spar bath.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by Thackaringa

Lets be honest. We all know that there are a lot of modern designed boats out there it doesn't matter what country it is from or the age of the sailors. There are a lot of them in New Zealand and in Australia, but lets face it 99% of them don't go anywhere. They are weekend coastal cruisers. Usually the only boat they have ever owned before was a "Sabot" when they were a kid. Now that they are going through their midlife crisis, they buy a yacht so that they can sip Chardonnay in the cockpit with their friends. We get a lot of boats here from New Zealand and they are not modern flying wedges. These boats are popular because that is all you see available on the showroom floors or at boat shows. Their wife loves it because it has 2 heads, a big bed, a shower a microwave, a walk in wardrobe, a big cockpit a comfortable lounge a mini bar and a mirrored disco ball. I think what most sailors that resent them don't like most about them is that they are not built up to a standard, but down to a minimum requirement. Believe me when I say, if I only wanted to cruise costal I may buy one, but I doubt it I would probably buy a multihull, that way I can have a pool table and a spar bath.

Oh...you're such a purist...tisk...tisk

[Thackaringa]

Yes, I think that is a very valid point.

[JK n Smitty]

Originally Posted by thomm225

Look at the ballast/disp ratio. (29%) It's pretty bad. You may actually want to read the book on Seaworthiness that you claim to own. Plus the boat has very little wetted surface. But if he sails it in the local bay or lake it will be fine.

Sailing by the numbers only is just plain stupid.

For instance, focusing on ballast to displacement ratio ignores that fact that as you go to a more "favorable" ratio your pounds per inch of immersion goes down. So those boats with good ratios can carry less safety gear. The proper application of safety gear could easily offset the B/D ratio.

By the way, the Maltese Falcon has a B/D ratio less than 5%. Is that also a poor choice in which to go to sea?

My point is that those numbers and ratios can be an OK guide but you can't blindly follow them. Have you ever read what Ted Brewer has to say about looking at the numbers too closely? He doesn't even really consider B/D ratio on his own website.

[Bash]

Originally Posted by Don L

seems just a troll overall

I like the Urban Dictionary's definition of a troll: "A person whose sole purpose in life is to seek out people to argue with on the internet over extremely trivial issues."

Trivial? Let's remember how the OP was signed off: "These are just my musings, I'm not about to buy one of the yachts above but I'm interested to hear other members experiences and thoughts."

[JK n Smitty]

Originally Posted by Thackaringa

Lets be honest. We all know that there are a lot of modern designed boats out there it doesn't matter what country it is from or the age of the sailors. There are a lot of them in New Zealand and in Australia, but lets face it 99% of them don't go anywhere. They are weekend coastal cruisers. Usually the only boat they have ever owned before was a "Sabot" when they were a kid. Now that they are going through their midlife crisis, they buy a yacht so that they can sip Chardonnay in the cockpit with their friends. We get a lot of boats here from New Zealand and they are not modern flying wedges. These boats are popular because that is all you see available on the showroom floors or at boat shows. Their wife loves it because it has 2 heads, a big bed, a shower a microwave, a walk in wardrobe, a big cockpit a comfortable lounge a mini bar and a mirrored disco ball. I think what most sailors that resent them don't like most about them is that they are not built up to a standard, but down to a minimum requirement. Believe me when I say, if I only wanted to cruise costal I may buy one, but I doubt it I would probably buy a multihull, that way I can have a pool table and a spar bath.

Yes and thanks to those wine sippers there will be used boats for young/adventurous people to buy in 10-20 years to sail and cruise on while we complain that the new boats are too different from what we sailed or that we don't trust wings for sails or adjustable Dana rigs or twin rudders, etc.

As I have already said in this post correlation does not equal causation. Just because the boats sit there doesn't mean that they are not capable sailing vessels.

[Paul Elliott]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

To advance an argument that nothing built after 1980 or costing under 750K can't bring you around the world is simply nonsense . Its also disproved by looking out the window.

Dave, this is a straw-man argument. I've seen no such statements here.

And don't claim that extreme fin keels and rudders have no impact on sailing performance. They improve speed through lower wetted surface and improved hydrodynamic shape, but do exhibit a narrower "groove". They stall more easily and have little lateral resistance at very low speed. They also are more likely to catch kelp and lines. Most of the boats we sail, even the modern ones being discussed, have foils that aren't particulary extreme, but there is certainly a range of design, and a range of characteristics.

By the way, this narrow groove is one of the reasons that some "new" boats require different sailing styles than the "older" boats. Dead downwind a skinny blade keel has little pressure on it and less directional stability. Head up a few degrees and you now have pressure, attached flow, and control. Good thing or bad? That's up to you.

[Matt Johnson]

Originally Posted by Thackaringa

I think what most sailors that resent them don't like most about them is that they are not built up to a standard, but down to a minimum requirement.

So Cheoy Lee was building "up" to a standard when they installed that cheap cast stainless above and below their boats? How about the deck core of scrap wood from around their yard? Come on, modern boats do not have the monopoly on cost cutting measures. When was accounting invented? That is when boats started going down hill!

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Paul Elliott

Dave, this is a straw-man argument. I've seen no such statements here.

And don't claim that extreme fin keels and rudders have no impact on sailing performance. They improve speed through lower wetted surface and improved hydrodynamic shape, but do exhibit a narrower "groove". They stall more easily and have little lateral resistance at very low speed. They also are more likely to catch kelp and lines. Most of the boats we sail, even the modern ones being discussed, have foils that aren't particulary extreme, but there is certainly a range of design, and a range of characteristics.

By the way, this narrow groove is one of the reasons that some "new" boats require different sailing styles than the "older" boats. Dead downwind a skinny blade keel has little pressure on it and less directional stability. Head up a few degrees and you now have pressure, attached flow, and control. Good thing or bad? That's up to you.

I wasn't arguing for extreme designs ( well the Pogo maybe ). But today's mid market cruiser are not sold with extreme foils ( as u point out).


Dave

[robert sailor]

One of the endearing benefits of a quality boat is that it ages very well. Yes its true that they tend to get looked after better but by and large they just age better. When you compare a cheaper boat built 25 years ago to a more expensive boat you can really see the difference. Now this goes for everything made, simply put you get what you pay for in life. If you buy quality, you only cry once!

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

One of the endearing benefits of a quality boat is that it ages very well. Yes its true that they tend to get looked after better but by and large they just age better. When you compare a cheaper boat built 25 years ago to a more expensive boat you can really see the difference. Now this goes for everything made, simply put you get what you pay for in life. If you buy quality, you only cry once!

Yes but its all degrees , I've sailed several 1980s vintage Beneteaus, those that were looked after were almost like new.

That's the point what your money went into isn't necessarily on the boat.

Many would say a BMW or Mercedes is a "quality car " doesn't seem to last longer then your average VW. Quality in itself is not a precursor to long life , for a boat , I'd say maintenance is.

Dave

[hoppy]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Yes but its all degrees , I've sailed several 1980s vintage Beneteaus, those that were looked after were almost like new.

That's the point what your money went into isn't necessarily on the boat.

Many would say a BMW or Mercedes is a "quality car " doesn't seem to last longer then your average VW. Quality in itself is not a precursor to long life , for a boat , I'd say maintenance is.

Dave

I have 2 cars from 2002. An Audi A4 Avant Quattro v6 with 160,000km and a Merc SL55AMG with 40,000.

The Merc would have cost perhaps 6 times as much as the Audi when new (owned them 3 & 2 years)

The condition of both cars reflects their mileage.

I expect that the merc will be around for a long time to come whilst the Audi will eventually get scrapped.

Is my prediction for my cars future based on the build quality? Yes and no.....

For logical reasons the Merc has been "babied" and the Audi just used. If the Audi was treated the same, then it too could live on just as long.

Btw the Audi has been way more reliable

So, so what Dave says