Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 10-12-2014, 11:08   #796
cruiser

Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,132
Re: The Yard Guys

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Cate View Post
But it ain't offshore by most folks ideas, and it surely isn't "bluewater" cruising... a subject that seems to have crept into this thread repeatedly. The rigors of such sailing are a bit less than in what I, and apparently others as well, consider to exist in offshore, long range cruising, and failures in such applications were the subject of this thread as I understood it.
I'll leave the nametag debate and hurt feelings to you guys (I think this whole "name-calling" thing is WAY overused). But I wanted to make clear that this thread IS geared toward how boats hold up in bluewater cruising - not small hops.
__________________

__________________
smackdaddy is offline  
Old 10-12-2014, 11:16   #797
cruiser

Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,132
Re: The Yard Guys

Quote:
Originally Posted by minaret View Post
You seem to be leaving out the boats ability to spend time comfortably at anchor. What if you are making an offshore passage or just cruising to a destination with no (or very few) marinas or boatyards, with the intent of spending as long as possible with a crew of at least four, requiring fuel for generator, solar (oh no, windage!), at least one proper tender, some water toys such as kayaks or surf boards, fishing gear, frozen food and the power to keep it that way (batteries are heavy!), fresh water and/or the power to make it, and a long list of other stuff that comes before the finer points of "performance" for most cruisers? Understand the need for some compromises yet?
I think that's pretty self-evident...and not a great argument.

The general difference is this: The modern production boat has the ability to go fast and enjoy the benefits of doing so as laid out by Polux above. The heavy bluewater boat does not...ever.

So, in this regard it is a temporary and controllable compromise on the production boat versus a permanent "disability" on the bluewater boat.
__________________

__________________
smackdaddy is offline  
Old 10-12-2014, 11:24   #798
cruiser

Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,132
Re: The Yard Guys

Quote:
Originally Posted by minaret View Post
Those of you who know what you're looking at will be entertained. I'm sure smack and Pollux will explain to us why this method is superior.
Only if it is actually "superior"*.

(*Superior to what?)
__________________
smackdaddy is offline  
Old 10-12-2014, 11:26   #799
Registered User
 
Polux's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Portugal/Med
Boat: Comet 41s
Posts: 5,765
Re: The Yard Guys

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zach View Post
That boat sure hobby horses a lot tied to the dock for the water to be that glassy!

Zach
Can't you see that is a new boat on a promotion movie?
Polux is offline  
Old 10-12-2014, 11:49   #800
Registered User
 
Island Time O25's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 2,019
Re: The Yard Guys

Quote:
Originally Posted by colemj View Post
I will take a broad-sterned, shallow bilge, new design boat steadily running downwind in the trades any day over death-rolling while tossing my cookies in a traditional "bluewater" boat.

Actually, just give me a multihull.

How do you define "motion comfort"?

Mark
I actually don't have a traditional "bluewater" design so I couldn't say. Mine is a compromise of sorts. IOR but not too "IOR", 5ft draft with moderately deep bilge, 36 footer displacing 17,000-18,000lbs with about 40% displ/balast ration. My friend's 46 footer is also IOR but is only 22,000lbs displacement with tall rig (I believe his bridge clearance is 70+) and 8' keel. Motion wise being on his boat feels like I felt when I had a 27 footer. And - surprise surprise - motion comfort formula lists both his 46footer and my 27 footer at low 20s.

Motion comfort formula is better described here:
Motion Comfort Ratio
__________________
Island Time O25 is offline  
Old 10-12-2014, 11:49   #801
cruiser

Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,132
Re: The Yard Guys

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilpride View Post
You see, link old boats with crappy projects is just again ignorance, same as link old boats with tiranosaurus full keel doublé ended slow bricks,...
Of course it's ignorance. That's exactly why things need to be more clearly (and fairly) presented to newbs asking about this stuff. Because as newbs, ignorance is all they have. That's why they are asking.
__________________
smackdaddy is offline  
Old 10-12-2014, 12:03   #802
cruiser

Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,132
Re: The Yard Guys

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zach View Post
That boat sure hobby horses a lot tied to the dock for the water to be that glassy!

Zach
Yep. He should have bought a Luders with a 20' overhang on the stern. Much more stable when Med moored at the dock. Heh.
__________________
smackdaddy is offline  
Old 10-12-2014, 12:16   #803
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 2,961
Re: The Yard Guys

Quote:
Originally Posted by Island Time O25 View Post
I actually don't have a traditional "bluewater" design so I couldn't say. Mine is a compromise of sorts. IOR but not too "IOR", 5ft draft with moderately deep bilge, 36 footer displacing 17,000-18,000lbs with about 40% displ/balast ration. My friend's 46 footer is also IOR but is only 22,000lbs displacement with tall rig (I believe his bridge clearance is 70+) and 8' keel. Motion wise being on his boat feels like I felt when I had a 27 footer. And - surprise surprise - motion comfort formula lists both his 46footer and my 27 footer at low 20s.

Motion comfort formula is better described here:
Motion Comfort Ratio
I just plugged my boat's numbers into this calculator and it came back with 43.32 for "motion comfort." Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but generally speaking don't overhangs and sharper-angled bows of traditional designs -- along with displacement obviously -- contribute to overall seakindliness?

Conversely, do not the plumb bows & wide, flush sterns common on modern boats (at all levels it seems) contribute to overall speed (increased waterline) but at a cost to comfort/seakindliness? As Mark points out, the exception may be in downwind conditions where a wide stern prevents a lot of the "death roll" he describes. I know little about catamarans, but from the limited feedback I've heard they may share similar sorts of pros & cons, but maybe for different reasons.

Must curious for more info on what the trade-offs are when it comes to speed vs. comfort b'twn more traditional & so-called modern designs.
__________________
Exile is offline  
Old 10-12-2014, 12:22   #804
Registered User
 
neilpride's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: in the world
Boat: csy 44 tall rig.
Posts: 3,099
Re: The Yard Guys

Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
Of course it's ignorance. That's exactly why things need to be more clearly (and fairly) presented to newbs asking about this stuff. Because as newbs, ignorance is all they have. That's why they are asking.
I dont think anyone is going to choose a boat based in fórum opinions, sure they can have a preliminar picture, but in the end people jump to their own decisions....
__________________
neilpride is offline  
Old 10-12-2014, 12:29   #805
Registered User
 
Island Time O25's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 2,019
Re: The Yard Guys

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
I just plugged my boat's numbers into this calculator and it came back with 43.32 for "motion comfort." Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but generally speaking don't overhangs and sharper-angled bows of traditional designs -- along with displacement obviously -- contribute to overall seakindliness?

Conversely, do not the plumb bows & wide, flush sterns common on modern boats (at all levels it seems) contribute to overall speed (increased waterline) but at a cost to comfort/seakindliness? As Mark points out, the exception may be in downwind conditions where a wide stern prevents a lot of the "death roll" he describes. I know little about catamarans, but from the limited feedback I've heard they may share similar sorts of pros & cons, but maybe for different reasons.

Must curious for more info on what the trade-offs are when it comes to speed vs. comfort b'twn more traditional & so-called modern designs.
You're absolutely right. SailCalc ( Sail Calculator Pro v3.54 - 2800+ boats ) shows your Bristol 47.7 as very substantial and comfy boat indeed. And basically motion comfort is not eased by very modern light displ. wide squat flat stern designs. Quite the opposite. But they do get there sooner. If that's the goal then great. Personally, I am sailing not to be somewhere quickly, otherwise I would have driven or flew there.

BTW, according to SailCalc, my 36footer is very similar in stats to Bristol 35.5. I suspected as much when I bought a used gennie off of a guy who sold his B35.5. ))
__________________
Island Time O25 is offline  
Old 10-12-2014, 12:36   #806
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 2,961
Re: The Yard Guys

Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
I think that's pretty self-evident...and not a great argument.

The general difference is this: The modern production boat has the ability to go fast and enjoy the benefits of doing so as laid out by Polux above. The heavy bluewater boat does not...ever.

So, in this regard it is a temporary and controllable compromise on the production boat versus a permanent "disability" on the bluewater boat.
I wouldn't agree it is "self-evident" what may be desirable in a boat for the type of cruising that encompasses extended time at anchorages where there is no ability to re-supply (or hit a restaurant). You might benefit from hearing from people who have the actual experience vs. making inexperienced assumptions.

As far as "going fast" (whatever that means), there are vast, obvious differences between "heavy" bluewater boats as has already been pointed out. As b'twn. traditional & modern boats, there are many trade-offs. Not so easy to paint in broad strokes, unless you are pursuing an agenda.
__________________
Exile is offline  
Old 10-12-2014, 12:58   #807
cruiser

Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,132
Re: The Yard Guys

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
I wouldn't agree it is "self-evident" what may be desirable in a boat for the type of cruising that encompasses extended time at anchorages where there is no ability to re-supply (or hit a restaurant). You might benefit from hearing from people who have the actual experience vs. making inexperienced assumptions.
Okay. Let me explain it this way: You can load down both a modern production boat or an old bluewater boat with...

"fuel for generator, solar (oh no, windage!), at least one proper tender, some water toys such as kayaks or surf boards, fishing gear, frozen food and the power to keep it that way (batteries are heavy!), fresh water and/or the power to make it, and a long list of other stuff"

Performance in both boats will take a hit. Yet, the modern production boats we're talking about will STILL sail circles around the old bluewater boats (we've seen that over and over again in the ARC). AND they will be more spacious and comfortable at anchor (with AC and genset and watermakers if you're into that kind of thing).

So, like I said, not a great argument. Like always it comes down to EXACTLY what you think you need in your boat for your purposes. Minaret seems to think that the above list is ONLY doable for his family in an older, heavier boat. That's fine. It's his preference. But it's certainly not gospel.
__________________
smackdaddy is offline  
Old 10-12-2014, 13:06   #808
Senior Cruiser
 
Cheechako's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Skagit City, WA
Posts: 19,363
Re: The Yard Guys

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
I just plugged my boat's numbers into this calculator and it came back with 43.32 for "motion comfort." Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but generally speaking don't overhangs and sharper-angled bows of traditional designs -- along with displacement obviously -- contribute to overall seakindliness?

Conversely, do not the plumb bows & wide, flush sterns common on modern boats (at all levels it seems) contribute to overall speed (increased waterline) but at a cost to comfort/seakindliness? As Mark points out, the exception may be in downwind conditions where a wide stern prevents a lot of the "death roll" he describes. I know little about catamarans, but from the limited feedback I've heard they may share similar sorts of pros & cons, but maybe for different reasons.

Must curious for more info on what the trade-offs are when it comes to speed vs. comfort b'twn more traditional & so-called modern designs.
Older boats tend to have other things than overhangs that make a difference... so I think it is real hard to compare apples and apples on any given feature. But overhangs generally mean pitching and hobby horsing. I wouldn't call that "seakindliness". and yes.. the death roll exists! with fine stern at the waterline. One way to avoid much of this in comparison is to compare boats not on OAL, but on waterline length.
What I don't understand, in this whole discussion... is why someone out there boatbuilding doesn't recognize that they could build a modern shape hull, with heavier scantlings and longer keel/protected rudder. I mean after all... why are so many people buying old boats to cruise? They want those features, but many would readily accept the nice long waterline, modern accomodations and beam carried aft of the modern design.
I know it would be a Niche' market, but there is a lot of competition out there in the "plastic fantastic condo boat "market also...
__________________
"I spent most of my money on Booze, Broads and Boats. The rest I wasted" - Elmore Leonard











Cheechako is online now  
Old 10-12-2014, 13:54   #809
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 2,961
Re: The Yard Guys

Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
I wanted to make clear that this thread IS geared toward how boats hold up in bluewater cruising - not small hops.
OK, since you're the OP and this thread has been all over the place it's helpful to have some more defined limits. The primary sub-themes have generally been interesting & informative, but really involve entirely distinct issues that seem to get muddled together. Since we might now be finally getting back on track, this is how I'm reading it, fwiw (the labels may or may not fit but serve at least as a way to distinguish):

1. Whether modern, mass-produced boats which cost less for a mfg. to produce and thus less for a consumer to buy, are as structurally sound as more expensively produced boats (old & new).

So this is the "cheap* vs. expensive**" debate, regardless of age, and goes to whether the former are "unfairly maligned."

*("Cheap" in the sense of costing less to produce & buy, not necessarily in the perjorative sense. You're welcome, Smack).

**("Expensive" in the sense of what they would have cost new compared to "cheaper" boats from the same era. So even though a new Hunter of comparable size now costs more to buy than my 28-year old Bristol in 2014, a new Hunter would undoubtedly be the "cheaper" boat to buy in 1986. Sorry for re-stating the obvious, but this is where this thread seems to fly off-track).

2. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the construction of the cheaper boats may not be as "robust," an offshoot of the above debate seems to be whether it really matters. The clearest example of this might be Mark's (ColemJ) interesting point (for me, anyway) that the thick, often non-cored hulls on traditionally constructed boats (mostly old like mine but some new) are no longer necessary given modern composite materials & lay-up techniques.

I'll call this one the "cheaper but just as good" debate.

3. Then there's the "performance debate", thanks mainly to Polux's instigation. Is it compatible with the type of long-distance bluewater cruising that many do or would like to do. This discussion seems to focus on the trade-offs, whether speed matters, and whether slow & heavy can be offset by buying larger boats (Dockhead's approach, for e.g.).

Again, FWIW . . . .
__________________
Exile is offline  
Old 10-12-2014, 13:57   #810
Senior Cruiser
 
colemj's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Presently on US East Coast
Boat: Manta 40 "Reach"
Posts: 10,049
Images: 12
Re: The Yard Guys

Quote:
Originally Posted by Island Time O25 View Post
My friend's 46 footer is also IOR
The IOR designs are from the 70's - hardly a "new" design at all, and in no way comparable to actual new designs. Not to mention they are about the worse sea-boats ever made in terms of handling and comfort. I don't think there is a single aspect of the IOR design that was intended for anything other than rule-breaking in ratings. Some of them are down-right dangerous boats, and you don't see any of their features in either previous or later designs. Olin Stephens considered these boats real design travesties and worked hard to get rid of them.

If you have not sailed much on real "new" designs, you may want to hold your opinion on "comfort" until you do.

Mark
__________________

__________________
www.svreach.com

You do not need a parachute to skydive. You only need a parachute to skydive twice.
colemj is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hey, Diesel Guys ! ssullivan General Sailing Forum 20 26-08-2010 06:38
Do you guys really have insurance??? starfish62 Liveaboard's Forum 48 05-07-2007 08:17
OK Florida guys and gals, Who and where is this yard? MNDWGZ Multihull Sailboats 12 20-12-2006 09:25



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:34.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.