Moody 45 DS the missing link ?

[fastcat435]

The speed figures do not impress me at all sounds like a slow monohull.
the day before yesterday did a test sail with 16 knots of wind 90 degrees 9 to 10 knots of boat speed with a dirty bottom, pointing at 40 degrees same wind 7.5 knots and no heeling at all.
The only reason to by a monomaran like that is if you are short of a marina that can handle a catamaran.
Greetings
Gideon

[scarab]

This newcomer has much in common with a modern catamaran exept with more draught ( although she will be available with lift-keel ) instead of all that beam.
For people who keep their boats in popular locations it's easier
(or less expensive, or both ) to live with a 2m ( 6ft 7in ) draught than with the 6m (20ft) beam of a catamaran offering comparable living space. Concerning speed..In a way you can compare boats with cars:
6 knots is 60 mph, 8 knots is 80, 20 knots is 200 mph.
I prefer to cruise offshore at a 6 knot average rather than 9 because even 9 knots can be uncomfortabely fast when passage making because you are living on board and not just out for a day's sail. Sheer speed is not the main reason one goes sailing for if we really wanted to get somewhere in a hurry we'd use a powerboat.

Koen

[Factor]

Originally Posted by scarab

T if we really wanted to get somewhere in a hurry we'd use a powerboat.

Koen

Not strictly true, the round the world times for sail and power has sail in front.

[fastcat435]

I prefer a faster type of boat anytime and I am sure you do to , otherwise you would not have purchased a Hanse 371 , many other boats would have fitted the bill .
I have yet to see or meet the first sailor that does not start to fiddle with his ( or Her ) sails in order to get some extra speed out of the yacht.
Speed is also safety and when cruising an average of 14 knots + with the wind coming from 120 or 140 degrees it is by no means uncomfortable

[scarab]

If I'm sailing my Hanse 371 it's like driving an old car : I keep my foot on the gas all the time. When you're out cruising I wonder if it's such a good idea to search for the outer limits all the time. Why take the risk of breaking something because that's what's going to happen if you press it to it's limits ?

Koen

[Southern Star]

Scarab, it could be the worst of both worlds. A few points to ponder:

Firstly, consider the original Open 60's without canting keels - the extreme beam aft would increase the risk of inverse stability, especially if combined with a relatively flat underbody (which I suspect to be the case here in order to maximize the elevated interior accomodation). And yes, while modern cats also have inverse stability, at least they won't sink after they capsize.

Secondly, the cockpit looks as if it would laregely drain directly into the interior if pooped, whereas in most cats, there is an open transom (or some form of under bridgedeck drainage) without the raised transom of this boat. Further, in the photos the cockpit sole does not seem to be much higher than the waterline - certainly much less elevated than the bridgedeck clearance on any cat. I suspect that if you added davits and the weight of a flooded cockpit the aft end would drop below the waterline, sending virtually all of the water casacading into the interior! And has already been pointed out, the risk of pooping would be much greater due to the relative lack of bouyancy aft, the lower deck height, and the fact that the cockpit is placed directly at the transom (rather than inset as in most cats).

Thirdly, do you really want to have to stand up while at the helm? Otherwise, from the pictures here, it would be impossible to see over the house.

Fourthly, it does not have the advantage of twin engines in terms of both redundancy and maneuverability.

Sixth, the side decks look miniscule - virtually impassable.

Seventh, how does the crew see mainsail, let alone the jib (indeed, how does one see forward at all) from inside that cockpit. I mean, even if performance doesn't matter, its still nice to be able to have someone other than the helmsperson to trim the sails and help in navigation.

Eighth, she does point like some non-performance cats ( 6.8 knots at 45 degrees), but with less performance on a reach. In addition, there is no mention of downwind performance where she should be handily outrun by a cat. In this connection, unlike a cat she will also require a spinnaker pole - not that you'd be able to see a spinnaker from the confines of that cockpit.

Ninth, she has much less deck/cockpit space than most cats.

Tenth, even if the interior accomodation is similar, as has already been pointed out, she will not have the privacy afforded by two hulls separated by a bridgedeck. AND SHE IS STILL GOING TO HEEL.

Brad

[fastcat435]

Originally Posted by Southern Star

Scarab, it could be the worst of both worlds. A few points to ponder:

Firstly, consider the original Open 60's without canting keels - the extreme beam aft would increase the risk of inverse stability, especially if combined with a relatively flat underbody (which I suspect to be the case here in order to maximize the elevated interior accomodation). And yes, while modern cats also have inverse stability, at least they won't sink after they capsize.

Secondly, the cockpit looks as if it would laregely drain directly into the interior if pooped, whereas in most cats, there is an open transom (or some form of under bridgedeck drainage) without the raised transom of this boat. Further, in the photos the cockpit sole does not seem to be much higher than the waterline - certainly much less elevated than the bridgedeck clearance on any cat. I suspect that if you added davits and the weight of a flooded cockpit the aft end would drop below the waterline, sending virtually all of the water casacading into the interior! And has already been pointed out, the risk of pooping would be much greater due to the relative lack of bouyancy aft, the lower deck height, and the fact that the cockpit is placed directly at the transom (rather than inset as in most cats).

Thirdly, do you really want to have to stand up while at the helm? Otherwise, from the pictures here, it would be impossible to see over the house.

Fourthly, it does not have the advantage of twin engines in terms of both redundancy and maneuverability.

Sixth, the side decks look miniscule - virtually impassable.

Seventh, how does the crew see mainsail, let alone the jib (indeed, how does one see forward at all) from inside that cockpit. I mean, even if performance doesn't matter, its still nice to be able to have someone other than the helmsperson to trim the sails and help in navigation.

Eighth, she does point like some non-performance cats ( 6.8 knots at 45 degrees), but with less performance on a reach. In addition, there is no mention of downwind performance where she should be handily outrun by a cat. In this connection, unlike a cat she will also require a spinnaker pole - not that you'd be able to see a spinnaker from the confines of that cockpit.

Ninth, she has much less deck/cockpit space than most cats.

Tenth, even if the interior accomodation is similar, as has already been pointed out, she will not have the privacy afforded by two hulls separated by a bridgedeck. AND SHE IS STILL GOING TO HEEL.

Brad

Hallo Brad

what was point number 5 ?
Maybe the California king sized beds !!

Greetings
Gideon

[Southern Star]

Ooops!

Brad

[fastcat435]

Originally Posted by scarab

If I'm sailing my Hanse 371 it's like driving an old car : I keep my foot on the gas all the time. When you're out cruising I wonder if it's such a good idea to search for the outer limits all the time. Why take the risk of breaking something because that's what's going to happen if you press it to it's limits ?

Koen

Hallo Koen

It is not a matter of looking for limits , I do not but on the other hand it is nice to cross the Gulf of Biscaye in 26 hours instead of 3 days , especcially since the weather changes rapidly there and almost always for the worst.

Greetings

[scarab]

1) she has twin rudders = no prop wash
2) there is a integrated washboard just in front of the sliding doors which can be raised very quickly
the height of the cockpit sole seems sufficient to me



3) When sailing you sit in the corner and view forward along the side decks. There is a body-shaped curve incorporated in the stainless steel guardrail




4) a ( retractable ) bowthruster comes as standard and a stern thruster is an option.

5) there is a huge island bed in the bow




6) although not very wide but very secure with the high sides ( 30 cm / 11.8 inch ) and stainless steel guardrails.




7) the partial roof has an opening centre section



8) The performance figures are with the seltacking jib. As you well know this type of sail ( due to the twist that opens ) doesn't perform well on a broad reach. A overlapping genoa or gennaker would do wonders here.

9 - 10 ) This isn't a catamaran but a top class monohull ( Moody, remember ? )

Koen

[Southern Star]

Koen, thanks for the additional photos/info. You may be right about the height of the cockpit sole - from the earlier photos it looked as if it ran down to the bottom of the hinged section in the transom. That being said, for the reasons indicated, I still think that sliding doors on a monohull are even less safe than on a catamaran (less bouyancy and more weight dead astern plus a cockpit that runs back to the transom). While I can't see the sliding washboard, it would take some serious engineering in order for it to be watertight.

With respect to visiblity forward, I was referring to the crew and not helmsperson - I still don't believe that they will be able to see forward in order to assist in sail trim/navigation. And as to the helmsperson leaning out over the leeward rail (I did see that photo), it would get very uncomfortable very quickly. This is to say nothing of the fact that it would also leave a huge blind spot both dead ahead and to windward.

Twin rudders should assist in maneuverability, especially in reverse, but it will still not approach the ability of a twin-engined cat to turn within its own length (and of course, it will not have redundant power).

The side decks still seem extremely narrow to me - perhaps 30 cm.? Certainly not wide enough to permit walking with feet spaced apart for proper balance. Indeed, I suspect that they may not even be wide enough to permit one's feet to placed athwartship while holding on to the coachouse railing (at least not with sea boots on). This isn't merely an annoyance/inconvenience, it is an issue of safety that should not be encountered in any seaworthy boat, let alone one over 13 m. in length. I mean, what price are you willing to pay for the increased accomodation?

These photos also seem to show a couple of other issues: a real lack a foredeck space for anchoring etc. and substandard interior light/visibility anywhere except for the raised house. If I am not mistaken, at least some of the porlights look out only to the raised bulwarks.

Unlike some earlier posts, I don't think she is ugly - certainly she is 'untraditional', but that shouldn't bother someone who is also considering a catamaran. It just strikes me that at the price indicated, you can get a great deal more boat (and performance and convenience and for the reasons indicated, safety) in a catamaran. In essence, I think Gideon has it right: only if you want something approaching a catamaran in terms of space but are unable to find a marina to accomodate one, would this boat make sense.

Brad

[scarab]

Brad,

I haven't seen the Moody in real life. All I got is 2 test reports ( Yacht - Germany and Practical Boat Owner - England ) and Web info. I find it vary brave of an established boatbuilder like Moody to follow this path. It is a respons to what most people expect from a ship. Practical, easy to live with, quality finish. I suppose you hate it or love it. You'll probably see one for yourself at one of the coming boatshows. I suggest to get aboard and have a closer look.
The Moody people believe in this new concept because they plan to build them in the range from 36 to 60 Feet.

Koen

[ireaney]

Originally Posted by scarab

Brad,

I haven't seen the Moody in real life. All I got is 2 test reports ( Yacht - Germany and Practical Boat Owner - England ) and Web info. I find it vary brave of an established boatbuilder like Moody to follow this path. It is a respons to what most people expect from a ship. Practical, easy to live with, quality finish. I suppose you hate it or love it. You'll probably see one for yourself at one of the coming boatshows. I suggest to get aboard and have a closer look.
The Moody people believe in this new concept because they plan to build them in the range from 36 to 60 Feet.

Koen

Yachting Monthly gave it a good write up, with more pictures, basic price around £329,000, but then as long as it keeps the Moody well built tradition it should be a good boat, but personally for that money I would much prefer a similar size cat.

[Joli]

Personally this type of boat is not my cup of tea. Large windows are not something I'm comfortable with when things go pear shape. I do believe though that for the most part passage times will be dependent on water line length and a 45 foot boat will mostly sail like a 45 foot boat.

Gideon much as I like you and your boats the proof as they say will be in the pudding for passage times. I do not consider a factory transport or a speedo snapshot representative of real life passage times by cruisers.

Joli

[catty]

Originally Posted by fastcat435

I prefer a faster type of boat anytime and I am sure you do to , otherwise you would not have purchased a Hanse 371 , many other boats would have fitted the bill .
I have yet to see or meet the first sailor that does not start to fiddle with his ( or Her ) sails in order to get some extra speed out of the yacht.
Speed is also safety and when cruising an average of 14 knots + with the wind coming from 120 or 140 degrees it is by no means uncomfortable

Fastcat 435, Cruising at an average of 14knots ? Are you just dreaming out aloud? When race results in strong downwind conditions are showing 50 plus foot fully crewed race cats only just seeing these averages you are either joking or have a very large motor with nice soft foam padding on the inside of your boat to prevent crew injury. which is it? For a 14 knot average one would be constantly seeing busts over 20 on the speedo. Still comfortable??