Reasons to stay "Monohull"

[accomplice]

Originally Posted by Polux

...
This all started with you saying that your boat was optimized for doing fast passages and with me disagreeing. I was thinking about sailing passages, not motoring passages.

That is your bias and interpretation, not mine. I said it was a cruising boat optimized for making fast passages. I stand by that statement.

To reiterate, the rules of cruising allow motoring with no penalty. Your race (and rally) rules may be different, but those rules are not representative of cruising.

A sailing boat is not a motor boat optimized for doing fast passages motoring. In what regards that a cat is a much better option, regarding sailing boats.

Other things being equal, I far prefer to sail than to motor. Unless we're talking about a racing boat under racing circumstances, a sailboat that has larger motoring range will generally make faster passages. Preferring to sail is very different than having no option but to attempt to sail.

I do not understand your point about a cat being a better option. Do you mean to say that a cat has a larger motoring range than the boats you identified as representing faster offshore passage makers? Please clarify. (I do believe that for many people, in many circumstances, a cat may be a better option -- but not for that reason!)

And if the passage is big (crossing oceans) no way a sailboat will have tankage to do that, not even for doing a substantial part of the passage and for using the engine for a long time the sailboat will have to do adopt an economic motor cruising speed, a slower speed.

You could not be more wrong on this point. My boat (which I believe is not exceptional in this way) has tankage to motor 1500nm @7kn (farther at lower speed, shorter at higher speed). With sailing 50-60% of the time, that is a cruising range (3000-3750nm) which covers the majority of cruising routes, including crossing almost any ocean on this planet. Although you can find some passages which are longer (e.g. Perth to Durban is slightly longer at 4250nm; cruisers usually stop elsewhere, such as Mauritius, or take in the many great cruising grounds north of there instead of doing a straight shot. Most of us go cruising to visit beautiful, fun and interesting places.) While some would consider 58' LOA large, and to others it is small, it doesn't take a sailboat any larger than ours to have sufficient tankage to be able to cross oceans with a mix of motoring and sailing. Even a Caliber 40LRC, a much smaller sailboat, has almost the same cruising range under power (although with smaller tankage).

The boats designed to do what you are talking about are motor sailors and very few have autonomy to cross Oceans, but some have, like the Nordhavn.

I think there is no sharp line between a cruising boat and a motor sailor optimized for cruising.

My boat, which also is not exceptional in this way, covers most of its miles on passages powered by the wind alone. To me, that makes it a sailboat more than a motor sailor. That it regularly sails within 1 knot of hullspeed, including in significant seas, would tend to put it squarely in the category of sailboat. With a D/L of 248 and an SA/D of 19.2, it is not the fastest boat in the bay for light air, but it is certainly not a motorsailor by most definitions.

The most efficient way of moving a boat or a ship is motoring that is way the Dashews passed to motorboats and that's why ships don't use sails anymore. I am not contesting that.

Personally, I would have been very happy with one of Dashew's Sundeer designs, but my wife was not enamored of them. That, too, is a boat designed for fast cruising passages. As for his power boats, they might be perfect for many people, but I am not one of them as I enjoy sailing.

But most on this forum sail and they sail because they like it or because they don't want to spend a lot of money in diesel or because they don't want to have an engine doing many hours and having more maintenance or because they don't like to use the engine.

Like you, I enjoy sailing too. (Shall we debate who loves sailing more, really? Do I prove my love by getting to my destination later? By being more uncomfortable? Really? )

As far as spending money on diesel, I already spend much more on sails than I do on diesel. (Are sails for that Cigale less than about $0.70/mile? I doubt it). I cannot imagine that sailing a Cigale or Pogo would change that.

As far as maintenance, I have personally spent more time and money maintaining the "sailing" part of my sailboat than the "motoring" part of my sailboat. I do not know if this is representative of others' experience. From my experience, maintaining aspects/systems of the boat related to neither form of propulsion consumes more time and money than maintaining both propulsion means combined.

Is your argument that ours is not a cruising boat optimized for fast passages relying on the argument that fuel and maintenance of auxiliary propulsion is more expensive than using wind alone?

Or are you asserting that most readers or contributors on this forum would be unwilling to turn on their auxilliary if becalmed and they had on board abundant fuel? (While it might be true on SA, I suspect it is not true here).

The only thing I said and it is a fact, is that the sailboats that made faster passages on the ARC, on the many that I followed, never were the ones that used more the engine and that most of the ones that used more the engine were the ones that made slower passages. It is a fact that you can check out. Why is that so? I tried to find an explanation, one that you can accept or not, but more important that any explanation is the fact itself.

I recognize ARC results, but I have no reason to believe they are representative of cruising, and I have several reasons to believe they are NOT representative of cruising. I've spoken to those reasons several times already and my arguments on that issue have gone uncontested. I can go over it again if you wish, but I imagine others are tired of hearing it.

There are a few facts I think you're neglecting.

* A fast passage is about getting from A to B in less time, not about having faster peak speeds, or a greater %age of time under sail. You may be thinking about "sailing passages" vs simply "passages" that include a mix of motoring and sailing -- but the real world imposes no such limits.

* Passaging while cruising involves very different tradeoffs than passaging during a race (or rally -- effectively the same thing).

[TheThunderbird]

Two tips:

Threads overreaching the 20th page should explode and blow out, like a light spi in a storm

You MUST chose someone to add to Your IGNORE LIST

Please do so, as I did either..... :-)... and the Winner is...... :-)

[DumnMad]

Originally Posted by Polux

I still don't understand your point regarding sailing at higher latitudes. I have already told you that a boat like a X yachts is not less seaworthy than a boat like an Halberg Rassy.

I think you are not on the same page regarding the word "seaworthy."

Some people would define "seaworthy" as a boat that won't sink.

Others who sail heavy weather might define it as one that doesn't throw you around the cabin. - Especially relevant to older folk.

At my age I would not consider ocean crossing in boats you might avidly promote as "seaworthy."

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by DumnMad

I think you are not on the same page regarding the word "seaworthy."

Some people would define "seaworthy" as a boat that won't sink.

Others who sail heavy weather might define it as one that doesn't throw you around the cabin. - Especially relevant to older folk.

At my age I would not consider ocean crossing in boats you might avidly promote as "seaworthy."

Nor would I, and I'm still quite fit.

There is no "one size fits all" in boat design. And latitude is a key aspect of what qualities are needed. Teddy Diver, from Norway, said it best:

"Might be north for you but I'm around 70N and was just on a holiday in south, in Iceland, so saying Azores being north is a joke. So you see it's relative and so are also most things regarding boats. To gain in one aspect you loose in on another and there's nothing nobody can do about it. Fast and fun boat to sail in the med can be wet, uncomfortable and slow in somewhere else or in 'wrong' weather. It's what you prefer you pick but there's no perfect boat for everywhere or everyone, not even close."


And Polux thinks it only boils down to a single criterion -- seaworthiness. It's a shame he won't be sailing with me around the Fastnet Rock -- 600 miles in the Irish Sea in October, or even better yet up where Teddy sails, would open his eyes to a few things.

"Fast and fun boat to sail in the med can be wet, uncomfortable and slow in somewhere else or in 'wrong' weather" -- exactly. This is particularly true of two different things -- boat motion, and rig size. Anyone who doubts that latitude changes everything should just pick up a N Atlantic pilot atlas and look at the mean wind speeds. In June, from memory, it's F6 in the North Sea, and F3 in the Western Med. It's totally different. In average F3 conditions you are 90% of the time wishing for more wind, and the more sail you can get up, the better. In average F6, you are 90% with more than enough wind, and you are trying to minimize drag to get upwind, and trying to keep the boat under control. The rig which is optimized for one job will be totally wrong for the other job. And you can't "just reef", because your headsail shape is screwed, you'll wear it out from the stretching at the reef point, and you've got all the windage.

Likewise with boat motion -- in mild latitudes, with predominance of mild weather and sea conditions, a very light boat can feel fun and responsive. That same boat can beat you to death in the average weather in a place like the North Sea, Bass Strait, etc. It doesn't mean it can't be sailed -- an athletic crew sailing competitively can manage all kinds of things. But a 40 foot racer-cruiser with D/L of 150 or less is really uncomfortable in ocean conditions of F7, F8 etc., and will wear out a short-handed crew. So much so, that quite a few sailors at higher latitudes are willing to throw sailing performance right out the window and go for a heavy long keeled boat with a "seakindly" motion. That's who were buying Island Packets and Rustlers up here, and that's the continuing popularity of classics like the Westerly Sealord etc. If you made me choose for sailing shorthanded to Iceland between a Salona 45 (a great boat I used to charter often in the Med) and a Westerly Sealord, I wouldn't hesitate to choose the Westerly, although that's a far slower and cramped boat. For a cruise of the Aegean, again, no hesitation -- give me the Salona and forget the tubby Westerly.

Horses for courses. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

[robert sailor]

It's pretty much like all misunderstandings, you have to walk a mile in the other persons shoes and until you do you just don't understand. It wasn't that long ago I was debating with other members here and said that in my experience I found sailing in sustained winds of 40 knots gusting to 45 on a beam reach to be at the very edge of my tolerance level as in our neck of the woods it generates very high seas after a day or so while the other person suggested that they just found those conditions to be exhilarating. Ok I'm not a young person anymore and maybe that might be affecting my judgment but I doubt it. I'm with you, if I'm going upwind for a long period at sea in 30+ knots give me a sea kindly boat, don't care about speed, looking for comfort.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

My point, aspects favourable in one condition are a liability in other conditions. If you optimise for light winds you loose in high. ...

It depends on the boat bit not necessarily. For light winds you need basically a light boat with lots of sail. For strong winds you need a boat with a big relation between stability and weight: a heavier boat will fly more sail,a lighter boat will fly less for the same speed and that can be an advantage.

I agree that mass production boats (most of them) have that low wind sailing potential but not the power required to give them good sailing potential in bad weather, particularly upwind. True performance boats are powerful boats and have that potential.

Upwind boats with moderated beam like X-yachts will have the upper hand regarding beamy boats like Pogo, downwind it will be the opposite.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Polux

It depends on the boat bit not necessarily. For light winds you need basically a light boat with lots of sail. For strong winds you need a boat with a big relation between stability and weight: a heavier boat will fly more sail,a lighter boat will fly less for the same speed and that can be an advantage.
Right, just the advantage a lighter boat could have in strong winds is only down wind and only inside a limited range of wind speeds and sea states

I agree that mass production boats (most of them) have that low wind sailing potential but not the power required to give them good sailing potential in bad weather, particularly upwind. True performance boats are powerful boats and have that potential.
True performance boat exhausts shorthanded crew easily. Potential loss it's merely becouse of the drag of the rig, not so much about power of sails

Upwind boats with moderated beam like X-yachts will have the upper hand regarding beamy boats like Pogo, downwind it will be the opposite.
Agree

There are a lot of other aspects too considering the sailing abilities, and I'm not going into seaworthiness and comfort.

BR Teddy

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Nor would I, and I'm still quite fit.

There is no "one size fits all" in boat design. And latitude is a key aspect of what qualities are needed. Teddy Diver, from Norway, said it best:

"Might be north for you but I'm around 70N and was just on a holiday in south, in Iceland, so saying Azores being north is a joke. So you see it's relative and so are also most things regarding boats. To gain in one aspect you loose in on another and there's nothing nobody can do about it. Fast and fun boat to sail in the med can be wet, uncomfortable and slow in somewhere else or in 'wrong' weather. It's what you prefer you pick but there's no perfect boat for everywhere or everyone, not even close."


And Polux thinks it only boils down to a single criterion -- seaworthiness. It's a shame he won't be sailing with me around the Fastnet Rock -- 600 miles in the Irish Sea in October, or even better yet up where Teddy sails, would open his eyes to a few things.

"Fast and fun boat to sail in the med can be wet, uncomfortable and slow in somewhere else or in 'wrong' weather" -- exactly. ...

You call to everything that is fast "Med boats", including Swans (modern ones), X yachts, Arconas, Finngulf and the lot, all Nordic boats and similar to many boats (in weight, B/D ratio, type of Keel, hull design, built techniques and materials) built on the med.

There is no significant difference between a X yacht a Grand Soleil a Comet and an Arcona. Saying that all performance cruisers even being them designed, built and used on Scandinavia are "med" boat makes no senses and has not any logic.

The same way you decided to call wedgies to all beamy boats (that are almost all cruising boats these days) you decided to call med boats to all performance cruisers. That makes no sense and show your bias for a given type of boat in detriment of all others.

I agree that seaworthiness is the main characteristic regarding an offshore boat and for instance Pogo, a very light boat takes their characteristics from well known all weather solo offshore racers. The hull is basically the same, the rig detuned, the stability the same (huge) as the seaworthiness.

Some years ago Class 40 (similar on hull regarding Pogo 12.50) doing a circumnavigation race with only a duo crew got extreme conditions on the Austral seas and many feared the worst but all boats survived with flying colors. An your notion that they are slower than heavy boats in bad weather is just plain wrong as the facts show.

These boats are particularly fast with bad weather and lots of wind, in fact the biggest problem is to reduce speed. Not as comfortable upwind with bad weather, I agree, than a medium displacement cruisers, but more comfortable downwind: they can sail comfortably at almost wave speed doing long surfs. Here some videos of that race. You can see that the boats go very fast even with not much sail on really bad weather.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERwKZcacG0Q

A cruising Pogo 12.50 with less sail and the same stability would only do that with less speed and more safety.

You obviously think I don't know what I am talking about even if I know from the experience of many sailors that sail on these boats that they are very seaworthy and we are just talking about a 40 ft boat, I would agree that a Pogo 50 (or the Cigale 16 or the JPK45) are much more seaworthy and able to face with even a bigger degree of safety extreme weather.

I remember to discuss this with Bob Perry and with him thinking these boats were not proper cruising boats, suited only for racers, but it seems he have changed of opinion (maybe he has sailed one?).

I have fun reading his review of the Pogo 36 (that is the new version of the Pogo 10,50) a smaller boat than the Pogo 12,50, an offshore boat, able to circumnavigate with fair weather, but obviously a less seaworthy boat than the bigger 12.50 and much less then the 50. Some passages of that review:

"This is a boat designed by Finot-Conq to appeal to the cruiser who wants true racer performance coupled with the convenience of variable draft. I love this design. For my style of sailing in the Pacific Northwest, I think this would be the ideal boat for me.. It is spectacularly good looking in a contemporary style... I have a very picky eye but there is nothing about the look of this boat I would change.

The square-top-main rig is huge with a SA/D around 32. Compare that SA/D to the sub 20 SA/Ds of most cruising boats. Spreaders are swept, I’d guess to 30 degrees, so there will be none of that silly dead down wind stuff on this boat; you will always be reaching. ...

It’s a reflex for me to review each boat like it was designed for me. Most of the time the fit leaves a lot to be desired. Not this time. The Pogo 36 appears to fit like a glove. "


http://sailingmagazine.net/article-1709-pogo-36-sailboat-design-review.html

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by TheThunderbird

(...)

... and the Winner is...... :-)

I think I know where you are going.

I will volunteer. Nothing like becoming yet another crucified messiah to boost my fb visits count. Have none.

Social media are so much about talking, so little about listening.

We are in Spain now, a most social country, I know what I am talking about ... ;-) ARE YOU LISTENING? NOOOOOO? Ok, who cares! ;-)

Living in Spain is a good reason to stay monohull: many marinas charge you by your LOA x Beam. A fine Nordic skerry chaser wins hands down.

Cheers,
b.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Polux

You call to everything that is fast "Med boats", including Swans (modern ones), X yachts, Arconas, Finngulf and the lot, all Nordic boats and similar to many boats (in weight, B/D ratio, type of Keel, hull design, built techniques and materials) on the med.

There is no significant difference in a X yacht a Grand Soleil a Comet and an Arcona. Saying that all performance cruisers even being them designed, built and used on Scandinavia med boat makes no senses and has not any logic.

The same way you decided to call wedgies to all beamy boats (that are almost all cruising boats these days) you decided to call med boats to all performance cruisers. That makes no sense and show your bias for a given type of boat in detriment of all others.

I agree that seaworthiness is the main characteristic and for instance Pogo, a very light boat takes their characteristics from well known all weather solo.offshore racers. The hull is basically the same, the rig detuned, the stability the same (huge) as the seaworthiness.

Some years ago small Class 40 (similar on hull regarding Pogo 12.50) doing a circumnavigation race with only a duo race got extreme conditions on the Austral seas and many feared the worst but all boats survived with flying colors. An your notion that they are slower than heavy boats in bad weather is just plain wrong as the facts show.

These boats are particularly fast with bad weather and lots of wind, in fact the biggest problem is to reduce speed. Not as comfortable upwind with bad weather I agree than a medium displacement cruisers, but more comfortable downwind: they can sail comfortably at almost wave speed doing long surfs. Here some videos of that race. You can see that the boats go very fast even with not much sail.

A cruising Pogo 12.50 with less sail and the same stability would only do that with less speed and more safety.

You obviously think I don't know what I am talking about even if I know from the experience of many sailors that do that that these boats are very seaworthy and we are just talking about a 40 ft boat, I would agree that a Pogo 50 (or the Cigale 16 or the JPK45) are much more seaworthy and able to face with even a bigger degree of safety extreme weather.

I remember to discuss this with Bob Perry and with him thinking these boats were not proper cruising boats, but it seems he have changed of opinion (maybe he has sailed one?). I have fun reading his review of the Pogo 36 (that is the new version of the Pogo 10,50) a smaller boat than the Pogo 12,50, an offshore boat, able to circumnavigate with fair weather but obviously a less seaworthy boat than the bigger 12.50 and even less then the 50. Some passages:

"This is a boat designed by Finot-Conq to appeal to the cruiser who wants true racer performance coupled with the convenience of variable draft. I love this design. For my style of sailing in the Pacific Northwest, I think this would be the ideal boat for me.. It is spectacularly good looking in a contemporary style... I have a very picky eye but there is nothing about the look of this boat I would change.

The square-top-main rig is huge with a SA/D around 32. Compare that SA/D to the sub 20 SA/Ds of most cruising boats. Spreaders are swept, I’d guess to 30 degrees, so there will be none of that silly dead down wind stuff on this boat; you will always be reaching. ...

It’s a reflex for me to review each boat like it was designed for me. Most of the time the fit leaves a lot to be desired. Not this time. The Pogo 36 appears to fit like a glove. "


http://sailingmagazine.net/article-1709-pogo-36-sailboat-design-review.html

"You obviously think I don't know what I am talking about . . . "

Well, I'd prefer not to answer that question.


But you have some very fundamental confusions. I don't have much hope that you will actually learn anything from the several different higher latitude sailors who have all told you the same things, but here goes.

* Do not confuse with where a boat is made, with where and how it's used. Hylas, Ta Shing, and Queen Long boats don't tell us anything about what kind of sailing is done in Taiwan. Likewise, X Yachts does not tell us much about sailing in Denmark, particularly up in the Kattegut. You don't have the figures about where and to whom X Yachts are sold and how many are used where. I do.


* Do not confuse what boat is good for competitive ocean racing, or hard race-like sailing, with long distance blue water cruising. These are entirely different endeavors, and what is good for one is not for the other. You talk about Pogos being used successfully in ocean conditions -- definitely they can be -- also Open 60's are sailed single handed around the Southern Ocean. That does not tell you anything about short handed cruising. You obviously have no idea what sailing in these kinds of conditions is like. Yes -- an athletic and intense person can manage it, on a performance boat, but approximately zero percent of cruisers, with experience and knowledge of these waters, would choose a high strung cruiser racer, for high latitude ocean conditions, for the reasons which several people with actual experience have told you. To deal successfully with such conditions, short handed cruisers focus on conserving strength and energy, and for this boat motion is crucially important, and windage. For this light performance boats with large rigs (and high SA/D) are terrible -- they beat you to death and wear out the short-handed crew. And all the windage of a reefed-down large rig makes it difficult to get upwind. Even getting on to the foredeck of a light performance boat in big ocean conditions is a life-threatening and exhausting deed. Yes, it can be done, by athletic and intense crews, but that does not mean that it ought to be done by everyone.


* You have not listened to what several people have told you about the relevance of seaworthiness to sailing in hard ocean conditions. The first order of seaworthiness, namely stability, is of course sine qua non, and performance boats all have this, but it's not enough by itself. You also need a powerful rudder which is resistant to stalling -- and some performance boats might have powerful rudders, high aspect and efficient rudders, but a rudder with a large area, not necessarily the most efficient, but the most resistant to stalling, will actually be better in these specific conditions. Then you have tracking and resistance to broaching -- ditto -- a light boat with a very thin high aspect keel will not track as well in big sea conditions -- that is why some ocean sailors (not me, but some) are willing to go all the way to a full keel boat, for these specific conditions. Then there's pounding -- a certain amount is acceptable in milder latitudes, but on a passage with days of big sea conditions, this can kill the boat, or the crew, or both. But the king quality is motion -- and for that you need either displacement, or size, preferably both. Here is where big boats really shine -- you can afford a lighter D/L, which gives you overall better sailing performance, without getting into the terrible motion that light and smaller boats have in big conditions.

Then you have the question of how dry the boat is, whether you will be getting green water sweeping the decks or not, which is extremely dangerous, and also slows you down. In big sea conditions and strong winds, the usual performance boat solution with somewhat higher freeboard doesn't work very well, because the freeboard kills you in a light boat, trying to go upwind in strong conditions. Combined with the plumb or plumbish bow which many performance boats today have, this is a terrible combination in those conditions.

A very light boat with a bit of freeboard and then also a reefed down large rig, creating lots of windage aloft as well, is just terrible in these conditions. Here's concept for you -- SA/D is a key measure of how much power a boat has, in conditions up till the point where that boat needs to be reefed. But Windage/D is an absolutely analogous measure -- but it's all bad. The high W/D of racer/cruiser boats is a huge disadvantage in big ocean conditions. As you reef down a large rig, the proportion between drag and lift goes to hell, and light boats are very sensitive to this. This is why heavier boats start to shine in such conditions -- if they have a lower rig and besides that higher D/L, then windage affects them much less. Remember not just force of the wind on your sails, but also the force of the wind acting in a bad way on your boat's windage, goes up with the cube of the wind speed. Think about that for a moment, when you think about going out into a F8 and fully developed wave train, in the North Atlantic, in a reefed down ultralight racer/cruiser.

In these conditions, even some truly obsolete boats, like say the Westerly Sealord, actually start to shine with their low freeboard but plenty of buoancy in the bow, and a low spare rig creating little windage, and high D/L. If you're going to be in a 40' boat in such conditions, you could do worse. Of course I'd rather be on a 60' boat, or better a 70' one -- size makes an enormous difference in strong ocean conditions.


So -- one size does not fit all, and the fact that it's possible to sail a performance boat in strong ocean conditions, doesn't mean it's the right tool for the job. For a shorthanded cruising crew -- it definitely is not the right tool for the job, which is why they are rarely used in real life for that job.

As many people have been telling you -- there is a big difference in choice of type of boat, depending on latitude, at least talking about the oceans (the Baltic ought to be a good place for performance cruisers, even if they haven't caught on much yet). Horses for courses. As Teddy said so well, a boat optimized for one set of conditions, will be less than optimal for others. Different conditions demand different sets of compromises.


Like Bob Perry, I love the Pogo. At least based on what I've read (I've never actually sailed one). It would be a blast to sail, and might be ok even for very short, exhilarating, intense passages in stronger conditions. If I could afford to keep a second boat, this would be right at the top of my list. But this is a totally different use, from what long distance blue water cruisers do. You would never set out in a Pogo for a summer cruising in the Barents Sea, Greenland, Iceland etc. -- it would be absolutely terrible for that. It would be like doing a Sahara Desert crossing plus road tour of Africa, in a Lotus Seven. Is it possible -- certainly! But that doesn't mean it would be good, fun, or even safe!

[Polux]

Final post, not because I am not having fun, but because my arm chair sailor days ended for now and I am going to sail away. I will be back in October.

Nice armchair discussions to all and fair winds for the ones that will be sailing.

Last comment regarding this thread. To have good reasons to stay monohull is needed to know the other options and regarding to know the last designs nothing like this:

It starts tomorrow and one of the more interesting new cats regarding price/performance/interior space is going to be presented, the Nautitech 46 made by Bavaria:

If I had the money for the extra maintenance, extra marina charges and extra price of the boat (regarding a monohull with the same seaworthiness) I would be very interested in a test sail.

My wife that saw the Nautitech 40 on the Dusseldorf boats show said to me that she preferred it (in what regards interior space) to this beauty that we visited after:

If she saw the Nautitech 46 I am afraid she would fall in love with the boat
Not me however, even if the Ice 52 costed just a bit more than the Nautitech 40. It has a dinghy garage and a good interior but a long explanation about how the boat was built (by the builder) left me really interested and I can tell you the guy new very well what he was talking about.

Curiously he was of the opinion that some med boats, particularly big luxury very light performance cruisers, are not really built for heavy weather, but this one is and I will add that it is not the only one

Dockhead can you see the difference? It is still a beautiful looking performance boat but the difference is not on the looks, that is the only thing you seem to consider when you call to all performance cruisers med boats.
ICE 52 - Ice Yachts

The guy invited me for a test sail in May but I don't think I will be able to attend, even if I liked.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Like Bob Perry, I love the Pogo....

The Pogo is the Wedgie of the wedgies If you love it maybe it is time to stop to call boats you love wedgies and you can take the opportunity to stop calling all performance cruisers med boats

[accomplice]

Originally Posted by Polux

It’s a reflex for me to review each boat like it was designed for me. Most of the time the fit leaves a lot to be desired. Not this time. The Pogo 36 appears to fit like a glove. "

[/COLOR]http://sailingmagazine.net/article-1709-pogo-36-sailboat-design-review.html

A glowing magazine review ... it must therefore be a great boat?

I'm not arguing it isn't, and I certainly respect Bob Perry as a cruising boat designer, but I question the impartiality of the process. If I were employed by a magazine to review boats, and the magazine received advertising revenues, I would make very sure not to say anything negative about any boat, or to balance it with strong praise for some aspect, or to point out why boats of this type always are challenged by X, etc. I haven't read all of his reviews, but reading the subtitles, it is clear that he is looking for the positive and the strengths in any design he reviews (A fine characteristic in a human, to see the good in other). How many magazine reviews are, on balance, negative? Or are we all simply the beneficiaries of an industry where every product is above average? I suggest, then, that magazine reviews are ways to identify the relative strengths of different designs, not as a rating.

I am in no way maligning Perry -- to his credit, he always seems to be able to find something nice to say -- and he has designed many beautiful and functional cruising sailboats. IMHO, he has deftly navigated the line between retaining credibility and not biting the hand that feeds. But one should not interpret his kind words about a boat to mean that it is the right boat for every cruiser.

[accomplice]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I don't have much hope that you will actually learn anything from the several different higher latitude sailors who have all told you the same things, but here goes.

[...]

I agree with everything you said, Dockhead, and would like to add that just as cruisers within different geographies make different trade-offs (not simply based on lattitude, btw) -- that cruisers which span latitudes make compromises between the different traits which would be best for one area. This is particularly important in a boat used for cruising longer distances. For example, the boat best suited to cruising both the Baltic and the Med might be different from the boat best suited to cruising either of those places.

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by Polux

I doubt that in any time it was offered so much for the money regarding sailboats, as it is now.

I disagree with that. The cost of even "entry level" boats are prohibitive these days, in part because entry level size has gone up and the cost of all appurtenances is much higher than it used to be. Our 34 footers were $106K to $125K when they stopped producing them in 2007 or 8. The "new" 34 footer from the same manufacturer is now near $200K. There is not that much difference in the boats (same layout with a marginally larger aft head with a separate shower - big deal). Changes include some kevlar in the forward part of the hull and a V berth with a raising electric pillow area. Twice the price in 10 years?

Back then 34 was a big boat. These days???

Can you identify some products that are so much for the money?