Pilothouse Variations -- Boreal

[Polux]

Originally Posted by malbert73

Yawn. Same posts over and over with pictures of beamy boats in strong wind. Show me a picture of a beamy cruising boat sailing well in light air.

...

I will show you two:




These boats can go with 4K wind way over wind speed and with 6K wind still over wind speed. I guess your's cannot do that?

And these two are particularly beamy boats. Not saying that modern well designed narrower boat cannot do slightly better, if they are as light and powerful, but your statements regarding the lack of performance of beamy boats in light winds is really a wild overstatement.

Besides there is a wide tendency to confound beamy boats with boats with all beam pulled aft (or almost) and that is not the same thing neither beam pulled aft, on a well designed boat, is significantly detrimental to light wind performance (and it is certainly an advantage in downwind sailing).

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

No one disputed that such designs exist. What was disputed was that there is only one "state of the art" and only one direction, only one "modern" and "not modern" hull form, and you have not made a case that there is. Nor could you make such a case, because this idea is false. One type of hull form does not suit all uses, and there are different directions in hull form evolution. Why even among the boats you posted, there are very different types of hull form, and not a unified "modern" movement.
...

I never said that there is a single type of modern hull form, quite the contrary. It is you that keep saying that I say that

What I said and say is that for each type of sailing program and type of hull there is a state of the art that represents the best that can be done today in what regards sail efficiency.

Yes, those boats that I posted have very different types of hulls for different sailing programs and that was purposely but it seems that you missed the point: All those hulls, regarding the hull of your boat, show some common characteristics: They all have significantly more plumb bows and they all have the point of max beam pulled aft, even if they are from very different directions of contemporary yacht design.

Those are the more visible characteristics as well as differences on the rudder and keel.

Fact is that someone experienced in Yacht design would have identified the hull of the Moody 54 as a design from the 90's and would also identify any of the hulls I have posted as posterior to 2007. There is a reason for that and that's Yacht design evolution, not only regarding a type of boat but all types of sailboats.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Polux

There is a reason for that and that's Yacht design evolution, not only regarding a type of boat but all types of sailboats.

But the reason is bit more mundane than you think. Money.. If a simple shoebox could sail that's what they would lookalike, as they allmost do..
It's the most interior space with the least amount of money, wide and flat to need so little ballast as possible becouse lead costs, full grid liner becouse it's cheap to do... and so on..

BR Teddy

[Snowpetrel]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

Which is why one designer came up with this:

I think these racing scows are fascinating. I can see the racing rules being tweaked to discourage them as being "undesirable". But I suspect they won't become popular anyway because they just look funny, regardless of how well they do. I hope I am wrong and the concept thrives. I love diversity in yacht design.

I suspect modern racing boats would go tunnel hull scows given half a chance. But the rules generally prohibit tunnel hulls.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[malbert73]

Originally Posted by Polux

I will show you two:




These boats can go with 4K wind way over wind speed and with 6K wind still over wind speed. I guess your's cannot do that?

And these two are particularly beamy boats. Not saying that modern well designed narrower boat cannot do slightly better, if they are as light and powerful, but your statements regarding the lack of performance of beamy boats in light winds is really a wild overstatement.

Besides there is a wide tendency to confound beamy boats with boats with all beam pulled aft (or almost) and that is not the same thing neither beam pulled aft, on a well designed boat, is significantly detrimental to light wind performance (and it is certainly an advantage in downwind sailing).

No need to slag my boat polux. I will extend you same courtesy.

Anyway, you show race boats flying chutes.

When I fly my chute on a broad reach I can sail wind speed and greater in light stuff also. With generator, gear, fuel, etc.

I do appreciate you actually admitted that moderate beamed boats will be faster in some conditions. Major concession toward truth 😀


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[TheThunderbird]

This thread is going to be epic, someway..

[Polux]

Originally Posted by malbert73

No need to slag my boat polux. I will extend you same courtesy.

Anyway, you show race boats flying chutes.

When I fly my chute on a broad reach I can sail wind speed and greater in light stuff also. With generator, gear, fuel, etc.

I do appreciate you actually admitted that moderate beamed boats will be faster in some conditions. Major concession toward truth ��
...

Not any intention to slag your boat but it is not comparable in performance with any of those two, light wind or otherwise. They are not race boats, not even cruiser racers (not designed to be competitive in any handicap race) they are performance cruisers pointing to long range ocean fast cruising.

Here one of them (the one on 2th photo):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Sor7XrqySY

It is obvious that moderate beamed boats of similar weight can be faster on some conditions and narrower ones on others. What matters is the overall compromise in what regards cruising and that is why beamier boats are by far the option more utilized on contemporary design: They offer more stability, sail with less heel, are easier to sail (specially downwind) and offer more interior volume.

Not even my choice in what regards personal tastes but that does not alter facts
Contrary to what some say I stick to facts and there is nothing wrong in somebody diverging from the majority and wanting a different type of boat, more upwind optimized and more dificult to sail (needing a crew to go really fast).

Diversity is what makes sailboats interesting. I was only responding to your comment regarding beamy boats having a bad performance on light winds. That it will depend mostly on the boat. Many beamy boats are very light and have a very small wet surface.

It is a misconception to think that a beamy boat has a big water plane. That depends mostly on the weight and modern boats, even if beamier tend to be lighter than older ones and therefore tend to have a better light wind performance.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

I think these racing scows are fascinating. I can see the racing rules being tweaked to discourage them as being "undesirable". But I suspect they won't become popular anyway because they just look funny, regardless of how well they do. I hope I am wrong and the concept thrives. I love diversity in yacht design.

I suspect modern racing boats would go tunnel hull scows given half a chance. But the rules generally prohibit tunnel hulls.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

That is an aluminium cruising boat, not a race boat at all and one that uses not only that concept (bow) to have more power and stability but also to offer an incredible interior volume for the size of the boat.

Just look at the size of this 29ft boat:


I find it kind of odd but not unattractive:


I agree with you in what regards extreme bows like that one, that have some disadvantages going upwind in nasty weather (to say the least) but you will find less extreme rounded bows in a very near future as a tendency in what regards cruising sailboats: They offer more advantages than disadvantages.

[Snowpetrel]

Ahh, at last Polux you seem to be using the words compromise, and advantages and disadvantages. Which is what good design is all about. Once you start to understand the tradeoffs then you start to understand the design.

[malbert73]

[QUOTE=Polux;2124684]"Not any intention to slag your boat but it is not comparable in performance with any of those two, light wind or otherwise. "

And how exactly do you know that? You ever sail my boat? (Hint I know your answer. It's because my boat isn't a new modern amazing better than all before design. And please insert some more pictures especially of downwind planing conditions)

I will agree on the boat that appears to be 50 feet long though. I probably can't keep up with that one. I have actually sailed 2 modern wide sterned cruisers in charter. Beneteau 46 and Bavaria 46. Downwind in 20 knots and waves in BVI- and surprise, no surfing. Same speeds I would get in my boat. Don't see the fuss. Waterline length is waterline length. Cruising boats aren't planing around anywhere I see


😂wait I just got caught up in a Polux circular debate, after reading 100s of his posts that say the same and swearing I'd never get stuck in one.





Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Polux

I never said that there is a single type of modern hull form, quite the contrary. It is you that keep saying that I say that

What I said and say is that for each type of sailing program and type of hull there is a state of the art that represents the best that can be done today in what regards sail efficiency.

That is indeed not what you've been saying, at least, not in any post of yours I saw. And I think you've specifically denied that there is any specific "sailing program" at all for people sailing in high latitudes and strong weather, which is different from sailing in the Med -- in fact I think you specifically recommended light cruiser racers for Alaska cruising, didn't you?

This formulation of your position is much clearer, and much more interesting. It is much easier to engage with it, which makes this conversation suddenly more interesting. Thanks for that.

So I have a couple of things to say to it:

1. "Sail efficiency" is NOT indeed the only criterion, in hull design. It is only one of several important design criteria, which are unfortunately mostly in tension with each other. Boat design is a ferocious balancing act.

2. Other really important criteria are how the hull performs in different sea conditions, and different solutions have really, really different results.

3. And the elephant in the room in balancing all the different design goals, are three things having nothing to do with sailing: (a) cheapness; and (b) fashionableness; and (c) accommodation volume. Any one of these taken separately, is going to be more important than "sailing efficiency", to most volume boat producers.


Since other than in the case of pure performance boats, boat design is not directed towards a single design goal, there is no such thing as the "state of the art" -- there are different compromises and sometimes new directions (like enormous increases in interior volumes, for a given boat length). There has not been a design breakthrough since the introduction of keel bulbs which was so clearly progress, that it was better for almost every use profile and quickly became nearly universal. And that was 25 years ago.

And that is precisely why hull forms do not become obsolete overnight. And it is why 90% of the latest Oysters, HR's, Contests, Discoverys, etc., etc., and many other top cruising boats, still use the same hull form, sometimes exactly the same hull form, that similar boat were using in 2000. They do not have vertical topsides, plumb bows, thin keels with torpedos, razor thin rudders as long as the keel, transoms as wide as max beam, etc. NOT because the designers are stupid, old fashioned, ignorant, etc. They don't have these features because these features do not represent any kind of unambigous progress, just different compromises, plus the relentless pursuit of hull volume, cheapness and fashion.


Because some of these design features, resembles the design features of current racing boats, does not mean that they bring the same benefits or work the same way as they do on cruising boats. The advertisers would like you to think so, but in most cases it's just not true. Reverse bows, for example, are useless, or worse than useless on a cruising boat. They look cool on the America's Cup foiling cats, don't they? Well that has as much to do with how they work on an Alpha 42, as tail fins on a Cadillac work, just because they look cool on rockets. (I stole that analogy, from a professional yacht designer by the way). And relentless progress, with boat design better every year, is a marketing myth just like General Motors in the 1960's. In both cases, 90% of the engineering effort is expended towards the things which directly affect the bottom line -- cost, accommodation, and style. "Sailing efficiency" is not even in the top 5, probably, any more than cornering performance was important to GM.

[poiu]

I'm surprised how slow and how little progress is made with boat design. Nothing like the progress in car technology, where the progress is outstanding. Car tech piggy backs mainly off electronics progress, which as we all see is truly amazing. Boats don't use electronics so much.

They are still building replica J boats, albeit in aluminium instead of wood and they are still very quick boats. A 100 year old design. Full keelers too, of all horrors.

The waterline length and speed relationship can only be tinkered with and a light boat will always be much quicker, as will a boat that can plane. They have been planing dinghies since the dark ages and adopted for racing yachts more recently. Plus ca change...

[Snowpetrel]

Its interesting to see stuff like the early bulbed fin keelers with spade rudder from around the 1890's, sharpies were another early planing design.

I think a lot of the evolution in yacht design has really stemmed from advances in engineering and material science. Better sailcloth, lighter masts, lighter and far stronger hulls have all enabled boats to go to sea that with old planked construction would likley have broken up in a real blow.

http://chevaliertaglang.blogspot.com...-designs.html?

[TheThunderbird]

Yes, materials technology first.

Hydrodinamics happen to be the same since ever :-) , and fluidodinamics is some 80year old.

Trial pools were in use since then. Hydrofoils were already on in the 50s, and with light composite materials now, they are deployable on some extreme yachts...

Nothing new really

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

Ahh, at last Polux you seem to be using the words compromise, and advantages and disadvantages. Which is what good design is all about. Once you start to understand the tradeoffs then you start to understand the design.

Maybe you should read a popular post on my blog between the trade offs of two different kinds of hulls on two boats pointing to the same market: "On design: Saphire 27 versus Seascape 27".

The post has been viewed over 5000 times and it will show you that I do acknowledge, understand and help to understand those differences.

The two boats in question, being very different (one narrow another beamy) have very similar performances but in what regards cruising the beamy one wins hands down, simply because offering similar performances offer also a much bigger interior (for a similar price).

Now, in what regards sailing fun every sail will have their different preferences and those two are very different in sailing sensations, both offering lots of sailing pleasure.