Pilothouse Variations -- Boreal

[Matt Johnson]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

I'm sorry, but the first thought that came into my mind when I looked at the picture of the Berckemeyer... was Steven Job's boat "Venus," with sails.

I believe he was also into the fuctional beauty idea when he designed his duck.

Berckemeyer's looks a lot more like this:




Matt

[Kenomac]

Actually, I don't mind those angular designs. But they usually chop off the stern making it look like a ferry.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

I was unaware that Steve Jobs had designed a sailboat?

Berckemeyer Yacht Design | plans for modern and classic sailing yachts

I thought I was slow at wry humor. It appears not as slow as some?

[hoppy]

Originally Posted by funjohnson

Do you have a link?.... it's an odd design, but I want to see more

Nope, just saw it at the marina and spoke to the owners wife

[Juho]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The Berckemeyer is not a Swan, but looks to me to be quite a bit more sailing efficient than the Nauticat, which like most motor sailers has a longer fin keel and underbody built for motion comfort, not for foil efficiency.

That's the right direction for my use -- I want a good sailing boat. But the Berckemeyer has a lot of flat sections in the underbody and I reckon would be fairly uncomfortable, were it not for all that displacement.

I do like the way the Berckemeyer tries to push both sailing and motoring -- as if these capabilities are not contradictory. I like that very much. They've just gone a bit overboard towards motoring, compared to what I would have done.

Other boats which have this are the HR 64, with 300 hp and really big tanks, but intended as a sailboat with little compromise.

And the Sundeer, which is tilted more towards sailing, but with a large engine and good tanks.

The Sundeer, with long waterline, low and small rig, low windage, modest draft, narrow beam, small wetted surface, is probably my ideal for the sailing formula -- made to do effortless 200+ miles days. No extreme qualities anywhere -- made to make miles using very little sail power, which means very little heeling, little windage, little trouble. Totally opposite from these boats with wide beam, huge form stability and huge rigs, which need huge amounts of power to overcome all that drag and keep moving -- which is the worst thing in the world for long distance cruising, for me anyway.

The other thing about the Sundeer which is different from the Berckemeyer is that it is fairly light, which also makes it easier to move through the water, at the expense of some motion comfort, but that's a tradeoff I would make.

Nauticat 515 should maybe not be called a motor sailor since Nauticat makes also what they call traditional motorsailors (like Nauticat 441), and their hull shape is quite different form the hull shape of Nauticat 515. I think Nauticat 515 hull is pretty much a traditional cruiser hull - deep V, intended to be sleek under water, planned to pierce waves but not dive them (instead of putting lots of emphasis on large interior space as in the traditional motor sailors).

Nauticat 515 has a 8.2 ton lead keel, draught 2.2m. I could not find a picture, but my guess is that in 515 the keel doesn't have a major bulb (but the weight is more evenly spread). The Berckemeyer has a low fixed keel with a hinged centreboard (don't know how heavy).

The ideal Sundeer style seems to be a bit narrower, shallower and lighter than than the Nauticat 515 (traditional heavy cruiser) style. The lighter boat should be more efficient in light winds, at least with similar sails. I know that Nauticat 32 (a mini 515 with a bulb keel) likes heavy winds, maybe more so than light ones (I don't have any large sails though, have to do with the big genoa, or add a goose wing arrangement). I think also this kind of "heavy cruiser" style is good for long distance cruising because of the stability of the boat. I'm not an experienced ocean cruiser though, but waves can be nasty also at the Baltic sea.

I guess we are both talking about serious cruising boats with more or less emphasis on stability vs. light movement. I would need some more experience in varying conditions in high seas to make my final pick .

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Juho

Nauticat 515 should maybe not be called a motor sailor since Nauticat makes also what they call traditional motorsailors (like Nauticat 441), and their hull shape is quite different form the hull shape of Nauticat 515. I think Nauticat 515 hull is pretty much a traditional cruiser hull - deep V, intended to be sleek under water, planned to pierce waves but not dive them (instead of putting lots of emphasis on large interior space as in the traditional motor sailors).

Nauticat 515 has a 8.2 ton lead keel, draught 2.2m. I could not find a picture, but my guess is that in 515 the keel doesn't have a major bulb (but the weight is more evenly spread). The Berckemeyer has a low fixed keel with a hinged centreboard (don't know how heavy).

The ideal Sundeer style seems to be a bit narrower, shallower and lighter than than the Nauticat 515 (traditional heavy cruiser) style. The lighter boat should be more efficient in light winds, at least with similar sails. I know that Nauticat 32 (a mini 515 with a bulb keel) likes heavy winds, maybe more so than light ones (I don't have any large sails though, have to do with the big genoa, or add a goose wing arrangement). I think also this kind of "heavy cruiser" style is good for long distance cruising because of the stability of the boat. I'm not an experienced ocean cruiser though, but waves can be nasty also at the Baltic sea.

I guess we are both talking about serious cruising boats with more or less emphasis on stability vs. light movement. I would need some more experience in varying conditions in high seas to make my final pick .

The tradeoffs are a bit more complicated I think.

Lighter means less wetted surface (for the same hull form) and easier to move through the water. This is obviously good for light winds, but not only. It also means you can use a smaller rig with less windage.

The tradeoff is motion comfort -- less inertia means higher accelerations.

This can be compensated to some extent with size and especially length.

The Nauticat 515 has a long fin keel, skeg, and no bulb, and is a real heavyweight (24 tons over 40' waterline; compare to my boat 20 tons over 47'). It will have excellent motion comfort, and the idea here is that sailing efficiency is not that important because the motor is the predominant method of propulsion. This logic is sound in my opinion, except I would use a ketch rig (with large mizzen well separated from the main) which complements this set of values very well. One minus for motion comfort is weight in the bow.

The Sundeer is a sailing machine first of all, but with very, very good motoring capability if needed or desired. It has much longer waterline length -- 65' compared to Nauticat 515 only 40'. And weight is carefully kept out of the ends of the boat. This will all compensate to a significant degree the decrease in motion comfort from the rather light D/L.

The Sundeer is a very sophisticated, very interesting set of tradeoffs in hull form made for open ocean cruising under sail at high speed with low effort.

The Nauticat is a beautiful boat but a different set of compromises. I actually think that many sailors would be better off with a true motor sailer like this, than with boats which are nominally sailboats. It's hard to make significant distances under sail in small yachts, and expensive to have the capability. So 95% of our boats are really motor sailers anyway, just the designers don't invest as much as they should into the motoring part of the formula. So a boat like this would be great for many sailors. I don't like the short waterline, and I would prefer a lighter, longer boat, even in a motor sailer.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Doctor Frankenstein boat lol....
I bet you a Dollar that Polux is going to show up saying its a contemporary yacht!!!!

No I don't like it particularly but professionally I recognize quality in the design that in this case I don't think it has to do much with boats. The boat was not designed by Steve Jobs but by Steve Jobs and Philippe Starck. Starck Is one of the greatest designers of the past century and still goes on strongly. Not a boat designer, just a designer. He has designed all sorts of objects. I bet Steve Jobs said what was the basic idea and Starck designed it with quality.

On this movies you can see that the boat is not as bad ad it look on that photo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR8yqpeiGO4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNOYIQ8V6C8

Here a completely different Starck designed yacht:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbucJO3zDCE

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Juho

You mean, for the benefit of the older seaworthy design and less fancy fashion?

Regarding the Southerly versus the old designed Nauticat I am talking about the hull and appendices, not about the superstructures. Nothing fancy about that. Just efficiency in what regards sailing.

If you look at more modern designed Nauticats you will see that they are more similar to the Southerly than to the old designed Nauticat.

[Juho]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The tradeoffs are a bit more complicated I think.

Lighter means less wetted surface (for the same hull form) and easier to move through the water. This is obviously good for light winds, but not only. It also means you can use a smaller rig with less windage.

The tradeoff is motion comfort -- less inertia means higher accelerations.

This can be compensated to some extent with size and especially length.

The Nauticat 515 has a long fin keel, skeg, and no bulb, and is a real heavyweight (24 tons over 40' waterline; compare to my boat 20 tons over 47'). It will have excellent motion comfort, and the idea here is that sailing efficiency is not that important because the motor is the predominant method of propulsion. This logic is sound in my opinion, except I would use a ketch rig (with large mizzen well separated from the main) which complements this set of values very well. One minus for motion comfort is weight in the bow.

The Sundeer is a sailing machine first of all, but with very, very good motoring capability if needed or desired. It has much longer waterline length -- 65' compared to Nauticat 515 only 40'. And weight is carefully kept out of the ends of the boat. This will all compensate to a significant degree the decrease in motion comfort from the rather light D/L.

The Sundeer is a very sophisticated, very interesting set of tradeoffs in hull form made for open ocean cruising under sail at high speed with low effort.

The Nauticat is a beautiful boat but a different set of compromises. I actually think that many sailors would be better off with a true motor sailer like this, than with boats which are nominally sailboats. It's hard to make significant distances under sail in small yachts, and expensive to have the capability. So 95% of our boats are really motor sailers anyway, just the designers don't invest as much as they should into the motoring part of the formula. So a boat like this would be great for many sailors. I don't like the short waterline, and I would prefer a lighter, longer boat, even in a motor sailer.

Ok, that makes sense, except that I'm still a bit confused about your definition of term "motor sailer". Wikipedia defines it quite well, as usual (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorsailer), but softly, based on multiple criteria. You seemed to classify all (heavy? not narrow?) cruisers (with a pilot house?) as motor sailers.

[Juho]

Originally Posted by Polux

Regarding the Southerly versus the old designed Nauticat I am talking about the hull and appendices, not about the superstructures. Nothing fancy about that. Just efficiency in what regards sailing.

If you look at more modern designed Nauticats you will see that they are more similar to the Southerly than to the old designed Nauticat.

Hull appendices? Southerly 49 seems to have a lifting keel and no skeg. Nauticat 515 has a fixed fin keel and skeg. Nauticat 385 has a fixed fin keel and skeg. Nauticat 385 has less rake in the bow than 515, maybe a slightly flatter body, but maybe those are not appendices. Are you talking about efficiency of cruising or efficiency of racing / max speed?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Juho

Ok, that makes sense, except that I'm still a bit confused about your definition of term "motor sailer". Wikipedia defines it quite well, as usual (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorsailer), but softly, based on multiple criteria. You seemed to classify all (heavy? not narrow?) cruisers (with a pilot house?) as motor sailers.

Hah, that's an interesting question.

Wikipedia actually have a very broad definition of "motor sailer" which would cover 99% of all modern cruising boats -- sail and power used in equal measure.

My own definition of a "motor sailer" would be a boat which is capable of sailing but which is optimized for motoring, more for motoring, and not equal parts a la Wikipedia. Typically with a pilothouse, with a full keel or long fin keel, heavy displacement, low SA/D, and much greater fuel tankage than boats intended to be motivated mostly by sail.

I think the Nauticat is clearly a motor sailer according to both definitions, and not a "heavy cruiser" or a sailboat.

If you take Wiki's definition, most cruising boats are motor sailers. My boat, for example, with 700 liters of fuel tankage and 100 horsepower, is certainly intended to be suitable for extensive motoring if required or desired. But the underbody of my boat is optimized for sailing, not motoring, with bulb keel and semi-balanced rudder, and the displacement is light - under 200 SA/D. So according to my definition, this is not a motor sailer, but a sailboat, possibly a borderline performance cruiser.

As I wrote, there is no reason for a cruising boat not to be very good for motoring as well as very good for sailing. Dashew's Sundeer is one boat which is very good at both. I love to sail and try to make most of my long distance miles under sail, even upwind, but being realistic motoring ability is really important on modern cruising boats.

[Juho]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Hah, that's an interesting question.

Wikipedia actually have a very broad definition of "motor sailer" which would cover 99% of all modern cruising boats -- sail and power used in equal measure.

My own definition of a "motor sailer" would be a boat which is capable of sailing but which is optimized for motoring, more for motoring, and not equal parts a la Wikipedia. Typically with a pilothouse, with a full keel or long fin keel, heavy displacement, low SA/D, and much greater fuel tankage than boats intended to be motivated mostly by sail.

I think the Nauticat is clearly a motor sailer according to both definitions, and not a "heavy cruiser" or a sailboat.

Nauticat 515 looks to me like a boat that is intended for sailing. It is hard for me to see any "optimized for motoring" aspects there by just looking at it. "Heavy cruiser" and "sailboat" seem appropriate categories even if one would call it a "motor sailer" too.

Out of the technical aspects that you listed, the SA/D ratio might be the first one (apart from the obvious existence of a pilot house) to point in the direction of a motor sailer. The heavy keel (8.2 ton ballast) is however there for sailing oriented reasons (not for motoring). The sail area doesn't look visually small, so it is maybe the heavy keel (and other heavy materials) that make it a motor sailer in your eyes. Is also Nauticat 385 (maybe the lightest of the Nauticats) a motor sailer according to your definition?

If you take Wiki's definition, most cruising boats are motor sailers. My boat, for example, with 700 liters of fuel tankage and 100 horsepower, is certainly intended to be suitable for extensive motoring if required or desired. But the underbody of my boat is optimized for sailing, not motoring, with bulb keel and semi-balanced rudder, and the displacement is light - under 200 SA/D. So according to my definition, this is not a motor sailer, but a sailboat, possibly a borderline performance cruiser.

What is a motoring optimized underbody like?

Expression "under 200 SA/D" does not describe a _light_ displacement, right? Is it displacement per length or what?

"Performance cruiser" may be easier to define. Maybe one can simply refer to max speed (approaching racers).

As I wrote, there is no reason for a cruising boat not to be very good for motoring as well as very good for sailing. Dashew's Sundeer is one boat which is very good at both. I love to sail and try to make most of my long distance miles under sail, even upwind, but being realistic motoring ability is really important on modern cruising boats.

A good cruiser is good in both (in balance as defined by the owner), but also in balance with the rest of the key cruising requirements, like safety, stability, load carrying capacity, protection from the elements, comfort.

Good motoring ability is important for safety reasons (for motoring against tide, for motoring to safety before the storm arrives). It is important also for the modern busy sailors, whose flight will leave next day from the airport .

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Juho

Nauticat 515 looks to me like a boat that is intended for sailing. It is hard for me to see any "optimized for motoring" aspects there by just looking at it. "Heavy cruiser" and "sailboat" seem appropriate categories even if one would call it a "motor sailer" too.

Out of the technical aspects that you listed, the SA/D ratio might be the first one (apart from the obvious existence of a pilot house) to point in the direction of a motor sailer. The heavy keel (8.2 ton ballast) is however there for sailing oriented reasons (not for motoring). The sail area doesn't look visually small, so it is maybe the heavy keel (and other heavy materials) that make it a motor sailer in your eyes. Is also Nauticat 385 (maybe the lightest of the Nauticats) a motor sailer according to your definition?




What is a motoring optimized underbody like?

There is no authoritative definition of a "motor sailer", so you are free to think about these boats however you like. For me, all the Nauticats are absolutely typical, in fact iconic motor sailers, with better sailing properties than the formula of Fishers etc. (full keels) but with all of the classical motor sailer qualities including the pilot house. Motor sailers are so much identified with Nauticats that I think another definition of a motor sailer would be any boat which resembles a Nauticat


Motoring optimized underbody is heavy D/L and has plenty of wetted surface -- that is a tradeoff intended to gain motion comfort but with a sacrifice of sailing performance. Then on top of that you have a quite small sail plan. So the Nauticat 515 will be quite ponderous and slow under sail compared to most 50' sailboats, except in a good stiff sailing wind, but in return will be very seaworthy and have a really good motion, and will be able to carry sail in strong conditions. Those are typical motor sailer qualities, using the motoring capability to "buy" those qualities which would be hard to put up with if you were mostly sailing.

Look also at the aspect ratio of the keel -- this is very important. The Nauticat 515 has a very long fin keel. This is good for tracking and makes the boat sea-kindly, but it increases wetted surface -- increasing the power required to drive the boat -- and also the keel doesn't work as well as a foil, which hurts upwind performance -- actually hurts it a lot. Remember the keel and rudder are wings just like the sails are, and to get upwind you need lift from them. Both airfoils and hydrofoils generate more lift per quantum of area, the higher the aspect ratio is -- that is, the longer and thinner they are. So the Nauticat keel, like other aspects of the underbody shape, is not good for upwind sailing or altogether for speed, but is very good for motion comfort, tracking, and sea kindliness. That's the tradeoff made in choosing that keel shape, and that harmonizes with other tradeoffs made by the designers.

Originally Posted by Juho

Expression "under 200 SA/D" does not describe a _light_ displacement, right? Is it displacement per length or what?

"Performance cruiser" may be easier to define. Maybe one can simply refer to max speed (approaching racers).

Sorry, D/L was meant, not SA/D. Typo.

As to maximum speed -- this doesn't really tell you anything. Maximum speed of almost all boats is roughly defined by waterline length. Performance is how easily you can reach that speed and maintain it, and whether you can push up above it sometimes.

For the meaning of different D/L figures, the classical definition is that anything under 200 is a "cruiser racer", and over 300 is a "heavy cruiser". Boats have gotten lighter, however, and so a more relevant definition might be found here:

Comparing Design Ratios - Sail Magazine

Originally Posted by Juho

A good cruiser is good in both (in balance as defined by the owner), but also in balance with the rest of the key cruising requirements, like safety, stability, load carrying capacity, protection from the elements, comfort.

Good motoring ability is important for safety reasons (for motoring against tide, for motoring to safety before the storm arrives). It is important also for the modern busy sailors, whose flight will leave next day from the airport .

I agree completely. That is a very well formulated statement.

And another way to look at this is that, as I've written before, nearly all cruising sailboats these days are really used as motor sailers, making a large proportion of their miles using the motor or motor-sailing. One reason for that is the difficulty in getting a loaded down cruising sailboat to go upwind, and another is that if your boat motors well, as nearly all cruising sailboats these days do, there really isn't any reason to bob around waiting for better wind, when you could just put on the engine and continue towards your destination.

So if you were to intentionally sacrifice some upwind ability and light wind ability, gain some seaworthiness and motion comfort, and make up for that with more engine power and tankage -- isn't that just a very logical tradeoff? I think it is. I think quite a lot of people in normal cruising sailboats would actually be happier on something like a Nauticat (if they could afford it of course -- they are expensive), and probably wouldn't sail any less than they already do.

So I like motor sailers in general and Nauticats in particular, even if they aren't exactly what I want for my particular style of cruising. But then I'm just an old boat slut who likes nearly all boats for one reason or another, so my liking them may not mean very much.

[stillbuilding]

DH, take a look at his Bristol 61 design - that surely must catch most of your requirements.


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forums lily hhrn

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by stillbuilding

DH, take a look at his Bristol 61 design - that surely must catch most of your requirements.

Never heard of that boat. Links?