True blue water boat extinction a fait accompli?

[sailorboy1]

My first boat was a Cal-39 and now I have a 2001 Hunter 410. When I adjust the Cal-39s list price to 2001 to match the Hunter it was $192,800. The list price of the Hunter in 2001 was $174,000.

So yes the Cal was a more expensive boat and based on that some on the thread would say it means it was a better boat. But I can tell you that compared to the construction and quality of the Hunter the Cal was a piece of crap!

It is the nature of manufacturing that competition drives prices down while at the same time driving quality up.

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

My first boat was a Cal-39 and now I have a 2001 Hunter 410. When I adjust the Cal-39s list price to 2001 to match the Hunter it was $192,800. The list price of the Hunter in 2001 was $174,000.

So yes the Cal was a more expensive boat and based on that some on the thread would say it means it was a better boat. But I can tell you that compared to the construction and quality of the Hunter the Cal was a piece of crap!

It is the nature of manufacturing that competition drives prices down while at the same time driving quality up.

My 1963 Columbia is pretty strong, but as we know the 70s were not kind to the fiberglass boat world. So there was that dip in quality in general through the 70s. In fact I cannot think of any boat from that era with a good reputation. I'll have to think about it. Some models from some builders did survive... The Columbia 50 from the early 70s is said to have followed the early lay-up practices, but I haven't looked into the bilge of one. By they way, is $40,000 cheap for a well-made 29 footer? Maybe it is these days...

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by Don C L

My 1963 Columbia is pretty strong, but as we know the 70s were not kind to the fiberglass boat world. So there was that dip in quality in general through the 70s. In fact I cannot think of any boat from that era with a good reputation. I'll have to think about it. Some models from some builders did survive... The Columbia 50 from the early 70s is said to have followed the early lay-up practices, but I haven't looked into the bilge of one. By they way, is $40,000 cheap for a well-made 29 footer? Maybe it is these days...

Perhaps you need to broaden your boat horizons a bit before making such statements. I owned two different boats built in 1974: a Yankee 30 Mk III and a Palmer Johnson Standfast 36. Both were well built boats, neither ever had the pox, and the glass work in both was good to excellent.

Jim

[Kevin84]

Originally Posted by Don C L

So there was that dip in quality in general through the 70s. In fact I cannot think of any boat from that era with a good reputation. I'll have to think about it.

Really? Because I can think of several. Like the Tayana 37 or Kelly Peterson 44.


Sent from my SPH-L710 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

...
1. Whether or not wedgies are a "dominant tendency" or not remains to be seen. They are "in fashion" with certain (not all) makers, which does not mean that this is where most cruising boat designs are going, long term. It is good to see that Polux now acknowledges that they are not inherently best for all purposes. In my opinion, they are good for some things, but not so much for the kind of sailing I do. My guess is that they are in fashion with the very cheapest makers (Dehler and Bene) 99% percent because simply you get more hull volume out of a given LOA and weight of GRP, which is crowning criterion in selling large quantities of boats. And not for any other reason, not for speed, sailing qualities, or anything else. Just a guess, but I would put dollars down against doughnuts on it.
....

I believe you are being honest but you grossly mistake my take: I never said nor think that boats with hull influenced by solo open ocean racers had only advantages: they are the ones that offer more advantages in what regards solo, short crew sailing on ocean passages on the trade winds and in a general way are the hull form more adapted for the use most sailors give to their boats and that's why they are the dominant hull shape in what regards main market mass production sailboats. Almost all brands have those type of hulls with big beam and the beam pulled aft. As I said not only mass production main market sailboats are using them but also brands like Halberg Rassy and many voyage boats.

Regarding being dominant on the main market it easy to see now, having said more then 10 years ago that they will become dominant it was far more difficult and as you can imagine raised all kinds of funny comments at the time. Nobody believed me.

You make some confusion with Dehler sailboats, you should not call them wedgies since they will not fit your definition. They have the beam pulled aft (as almost all sailboat now, included narrow ones) but they are not beamy by wedgie standards, neither the hulls are mainly influenced by solo racers but by IRC racer's line of development (as my own sailboat).

The Dehler 38 has 11.30m Hull Length and a 3.75m Beam while the Oceanis 38 has 11.13m Hull Length and 3.99m of beam. Very different hulls:

Originally Posted by Dockhead

...
... Racing across oceans and cruising short handed across oceans are completely different things. This or that quality which makes a boat good for the former may be entirely irrelevant to the latter.
....

This is the central point. I am having lunch and I leave it for later. It deserves an explanation.

[contrail]

Originally Posted by Don C L

My 1963 Columbia is pretty strong, but as we know the 70s were not kind to the fiberglass boat world. So there was that dip in quality in general through the 70s. In fact I cannot think of any boat from that era with a good reputation. I'll have to think about it. Some models from some builders did survive... The Columbia 50 from the early 70s is said to have followed the early lay-up practices, but I haven't looked into the bilge of one. By they way, is $40,000 cheap for a well-made 29 footer? Maybe it is these days...

And, of course there were the Valiant 40, the Westsails, and many, many, others.

[Ericson38]

Originally Posted by Polux

I am very confused with tour notion of wedgies (Hanse 505) and your contradictory statement that the Boreal 44 has a ” fairly conservative hull”.

Looking at the submersed contact patches, on the wide stern boat (B2), the central line through the keel and rudder is at a 15 deg (?) angle to the centerline thorugh the contact patch longitudinal axis, the keel root is close to the surface, and the rudder upper end is close to the surface, with the low pressure (lift sides) just at the edge of the air/water interface, at the root. In a choppy sea, to windward, the air vortex that gets sucked down the leaded edge of the keel/rudder at each crest will cause a loss of lift, then the stall is recovered before the next cycle. I can see that windward is not the best conditions for B2, but on other points of sail, the handicap quickly changes sign (-- to ++).

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Ericson38

Looking at the submersed contact patches, on the wide stern boat (B2), the central line through the keel and rudder is at a 15 deg (?) angle to the centerline thorugh the contact patch longitudinal axis, the keel root is close to the surface, and the rudder upper end is close to the surface, with the low pressure (lift sides) just at the edge of the air/water interface, at the root. In a choppy sea, to windward, the air vortex that gets sucked down the leaded edge of the keel/rudder at each crest will cause a loss of lift, then the stall is recovered before the next cycle. I can see that windward is not the best conditions for B2, but on other points of sail, the handicap quickly changes sign (-- to ++).

Yes, on that type of beamy hulls derived from open boats the waterplanes are strongly asymmetrical and that is one of the reasons that a two rudder setup makes all the sense. As you see one of the rudders will be precisely on the center of the waterplane. Another advantages is that the diagonal water-plane increases the LWL.

Yes upwind sailing is not the strong point on these hulls but even so the absolute and solo record of a circumnavigation against the prevailing winds was detained by two Open 60 for more then a decade, so you can see that they are not properly useless against the prevailing winds The record was only beaten my a more appropriated boat (narrower) in 2004 but Adrien the boat that beat it was a much bigger sailboat (26m).

Vaton prototype tour du monde Adrien VDH

The Open 60 (18m) had done it in 151days, the 26m boat in 122 days but the times are not really comparable giving the big difference in boat size.

[westsail374]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

Interesting question..

Older doesn't equate to better by any measure, be it cars or boats.

The Jaguar XKE in your thumbnail shows your appreciation for the problems inherent in older cars - though that one in particular - and all Brit sports cars of the time - were infamous for their unreliability.

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by westsail374

The Jaguar XKE in your thumbnail shows your appreciation for the problems inherent in older cars - though that one in particular - and all Brit sports cars of the time - were infamous for their unreliability.

That's my point!

I like my XKE but the new F-type is far better designed and much more reliable albeit not quite as pretty. As far as reliability of the old XKEs, they require lots of maintenance, however, they were the proverbial "Swiss watch" compared with Fords and Triumphs of the era.

The metaphor here between cars and boats is a stretch but true nevertheless. This is nothing more than another thread among the usual seemingly ubiquitous self-professed internet experts on this forum regarding boat construction. Do these people even own a boat?

[carstenb]

Originally Posted by westsail374

The Jaguar XKE in your thumbnail shows your appreciation for the problems inherent in older cars - though that one in particular - and all Brit sports cars of the time - were infamous for their unreliability.

Having owned any number of british sports cars from the 50 & 60 I can only agree that they are all pieces of sh*t, in terms of reliabilitya nd maintenance.

OTOH - in terms of pure astetic pleasure - there has never been a car as beautiful as the 1967 XKE convertible closely followed by the drop head coupe

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

That's my point!

I like my XKE but the new F-type is far better designed and much more reliable albeit not quite as pretty. As far as reliability of the old XKEs, they require lots of maintenance, however, they were the proverbial "Swiss watch" compared with Fords and Triumphs of the era.

The metaphor here between cars and boats is a stretch but true nevertheless. This is nothing more than another thread among the usual seemingly ubiquitous self-professed internet experts on this forum regarding boat construction. Do these people even own a boat?

Actually I think you're making an excellent and very applicable metaphor.

People who wax on about "they don't make 'em like they used to" don't generally have accurate memories. And I love old cars. I own a 1970 Porsche 911S and a couple of MGA's. I was an apprentice in a Jag workshop when I was a teenager. These old cars are beautiful and pleasing, but for function, forget about it. Especially English cars with Lucas electrics, but Lucas (the Prince of Darkness!) was far from the only bad engineer in the British auto industry of the '50's and '60's. There has been a lot of progress in the auto industry, and I think what concerns boats as well.

[Julie Mor]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Sure, but what's really wrong with that, if that's the way the potential buyer intends to use the boat? Horses for courses.

Even circumnavigators spend 90% of their time at anchor or at a dock.

For those (like me) who care a whole lot about sailing, and sail thousands of miles a year, there are other boats on the market.

But even I care about how nice the galley is, how well suited the boat is to having a party on board, how comfortable the salon is for everyday living. I mostly live aboard, so I care very much about these things -- the boat's my home, on top of being my magic carpet to take me across great expanses of water.

I'm not saying anything is wrong with boat designs today. But if someone, such as a salesperson or broker or owner trying to sell the boat, says about a boat built to something like design category C, "This is an open-ocean passage maker," that IS wrong and can have catastrophic results.

There seems to be a lot of claims that if one boat of a particular design makes a long open-ocean passage that all boats of that design can do the same. That's like saying "The owner of this barrel survived Niagara Falls. It's Niagara Falls proven."

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Julie Mor

There seems to be a lot of claims that if one boat of a particular design makes a long open-ocean passage that all boats of that design can do the same. That's like saying "The owner of this barrel survived Niagara Falls. It's Niagara Falls proven."

In terms of proving a design, it's probably a better criteria than blogger opinions of boats.

[robert sailor]

British sport cars, we certainly had our share...thank god the Brits built sailboats much better than their cars. Seems to me that the new entry level boats were getting a little better each year for awhile and then it seems there was a race to the bottom for a few years and boats just got cheaper but now it seems they are back trying to build a little better product.