The Yard Guys

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

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...

Thanks. This was informative on the issue of "seakindliness."

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by colemj

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

Fair point. But I do get to daysail once in a while on new boats at the sailing club where my friend works. Mostly on mid-size (35-42) Benes, Hunters, Bavarias, Hanses. And yes they all have LESS motion comfort than my 30+ year old 36footer. But they are also faster and have much better accomodations. And much less in way of tankage but that may be a function of them being ordered as club boats without much need for any serious tankage. However, when the need arises to fix something, such as replace or add a larger waste tank (original being 6 or 9 gal wihtout any room for expansion) my friend is very much p*ssed at newish boats' tendency not to have well designed components as everything is dictated by the liner or some such and not by ease of maintenance. But that can be said of most boats anyway.

So as far as creature comforts of course my old 36footer will have no more may be less than a new 32ft Bene. But I am more concerned for motion comfort which I get to compare all the time at my mooring when I follow the mast and hull motion of many neighboring boats and can tell you precisely which one I would not want to be in bad weather and which one is fine. One does not always need to sail a boat to see how tender it will be. It is enough just to follow its motion from a tender and compare it to the motion of my boat in the same circumstances. Very educational btw.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

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?

I don't think combining "modern shape hull", "heavy scantlings" and "longer keel/protected rudder" are possible to any meaningful extent. Some of those are mutually exclusive. Hull shape, scantlings, keels and rudders are not independent design elements at all - they are inter-related.

I can't imagine how bad a narrow plumb-bow, wide-stern boat heavily built with a slack-bilged long keel and protected rudder would handle. I would think it might be quite dangerous, actually. And what would be the point of a modern hull design if it wasn't given the efficient foils to drive and control it? It would be the other side of putting a high-aspect bulb keel on a Formosa.

Many people are buying old boats to cruise because: A) they are affordable, B) some of them are led to believe this is the "proper" type of boat.

Mark

[Exile]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

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.

I don't think this is correct, Smack. I think you need to look at whatever you load the boat up with as a percentage of that particular boat's displacement, not just assume that the boat that is lighter & faster unloaded will remain so. It obviously depends on how much weight you load it up with, but this goes back to having the experience to know what your needs & wants are when it comes to extended, remote anchoring.

Btw, when it comes to speed, isn't the outer limit for displacement vessels dictated by waterline length anyway? Maybe you should refine your comments to discussing, for example, light air performance or planing/surfing ability in downwind conditions? The drawback to the weight of my boat seems to be confined to under 10kts. true wind speed, but I could probably improve on that some with more experience. Over 10-12kts., it doesn't seem to have much trouble getting up close to theoretical max speed (approx. 8.2kts.). When it comes to "sailing circles" around bluewater boats, I suggest you be more specific.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

Fair point. But I do get to daysail once in a while on new boats at the sailing club where my friend works. Mostly on mid-size (35-42) Benes, Hunters, Bavarias, Hanses. And yes they all have LESS motion comfort than my 30+ year old 36footer. But they are also faster and have much better accomodations. And much less in way of tankage but that may be a function of them being ordered as club boats without much need for any serious tankage. However, when the need arises to fix something, such as replace or add a larger waste tank (original being 6 or 9 gal wihtout any room for expansion) my friend is very much p*ssed at newish boats' tendency not to have well designed components as everything is dictated by the liner or some such and not by ease of maintenance. But that can be said of most boats anyway.

So as far as creature comforts of course my old 36footer will have no more may be less than a new 32ft Bene. But I am more concerned for motion comfort which I get to compare all the time at my mooring when I follow the mast and hull motion of many neighboring boats and can tell you precisely which one I would not want to be in bad weather and which one is fine. One does not always need to sail a boat to see how tender it will be. It is enough just to follow its motion from a tender and compare it to the motion of my boat in the same circumstances. Very educational btw.

I don't think you can tell much about motion comfort underway from boats at anchor or on a mooring. Else-wise, you could only conclude that catamarans are the most comfortable sea boat imaginable.

A boat's motion at sea is derived from rigging, sail plans, draft, hull shape, ballast, etc. It is dynamic and requires all of these to be active and in their elements to judge between boats.

Again, how are the relative comfort levels when running downwind in largish seas between these IOR and newer design boats you are comparing? How is the relative stiffness of each when hard to wind in a good blow?

Motion comfort is relative and personal (don't believe any formula you may find). It is entirely valid that you may prefer to be heeled 30* and slowly sinking in and out of waves rather than being heeled 12* and riding over the top of them. You may also prefer rolling and wallowing over steady surfing and riding downwind. Others may prefer differently.

And it is all OK - which is why I argue against bringing "motion comfort" formulas forth to compare boats. For example, how do multihulls compare in these formulas to IOR boats? See? These formula are only relatively useful when comparing very similar boats. All monos are not similar boats (even though they look that way to us multi people!).

Mark

[Zach]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Here's a Luders 44 that sold for less than $3K at auction. Would you recommend this boat to newb for bluewater cruising?

Luders 44 Yawl Sail Boat - Government Liquidation

Cheap baby. And fine "bones" for sure.

How much do you think would have to go into it to bring it up to "ready to go" condition? $50K, $100K, maybe $250K like Minaret's boat?

Do you have some photos of common build issues with boats you see (production or blue)?

I saw that boat two days after the auction closed... Someone got a steal on a great boat.

With that said, I wouldn't recommend an old ocean racer for extended blue water cruising to a newb, any more than I'd recommend a new ocean racer for extended blue water cruising to a newb. Mostly for the same reasons...

Tankage and storage space. Having run out of fuel, much to close to a rock jetty in my formative years and steering the tide onto a sandbar, to hoist a jerry jug up... I'm a fan of having more than enough fuel. There isn't always wind.

Similarly, hoisting a jerry jug up on a pitching side deck to re-fill an 18 gallon tank on the third day out is not much fun. I won't buy any 6 gallon tanks moeller tanks again...

75k or so would be a good round number to shoot for, given she's a 44 footer everything is indeed bigger and with that comes cost. $16 clevis pins were a bit of a shock to me...

I had the pleasure of walking through Hawk - Beth and Evans Van Destadt Samoa at the Annapolis boat show this year. If I had to point someone toward a blue water boat, that would be it. My take away was a lot of great ideas, that I don't have room to carry.

I was originally looking at boats under 36 feet to replace my old 28 footer, that draw around 4-5 feet... The #2 boat in the running while I was looking at buying when I found my Luders was a Condor 40 trimaran. I'm a multi-hull sailor, so buying a keel boat was falling in love with the Luders hull!

That's the primary reason why I pointed out the Polars... In 10 knots, whats the difference between 5 and 6 knots boat speed when you could just as easily choose a boat that can do 10 or about 10... Between the choice of slow, and slower, if speed is the goal go multi-hull.

Zach

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by colemj

I don't think you can tell much about motion comfort underway from boats at anchor or on a mooring. Else-wise, you could only conclude that catamarans are the most comfortable sea boat imaginable.

A boat's motion at sea is derived from rigging, sail plans, draft, hull shape, ballast, etc. It is dynamic and requires all of these to be active and in their elements to judge between boats.

Again, how are the relative comfort levels when running downwind in largish seas between these IOR and newer design boats you are comparing? How is the relative stiffness of each when hard to wind in a good blow?

Motion comfort is relative and personal (don't believe any formula you may find). It is entirely valid that you may prefer to be heeled 30* and slowly sinking in and out of waves rather than being heeled 12* and riding over the top of them. You may also prefer rolling and wallowing over steady surfing and riding downwind. Others may prefer differently.

And it is all OK - which is why I argue against bringing "motion comfort" formulas forth to compare boats. For example, how do multihulls compare in these formulas to IOR boats? See? These formula are only relatively useful when comparing very similar boats. All monos are not similar boats (even though they look that way to us multi people!).

Mark

Hearing cat owners tell it they must be.

As my old history professor liked to say: "Generally speaking generalizations are generally true". Of course not in all situations, conditions, levels of sail trim, etc, etc. But generally speaking modern "on top of the waves" design is more of a cork on the water, while older "sea kind" design is more like a knife slicing through the water. And many designs in between, including my own boat.

And while it is not 100% perfect, and does not account all important factors MC formula is still a very good indicator overall of how the boat will behave relative to the person sailing it. Just as we know that, everything else being equal, a big couch like Caddy or Lincoln will make for a smoother ride than a stiff peppy Audi or Porsche. And each has its own admirers and detractors.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

But generally speaking modern "on top of the waves" design is more of a cork on the water, while older "sea kind" design is more like a knife slicing through the water.

Somebody should tell that to those people designing the wave-piercing bows on all the new boat designs.

And maybe you can explain to me the overhangs on old boats as they pertain to being a knife slicing through water?

The MC formulas are only generally useful when comparing very similar designs. For example, why do many people say they get much less sea-sick on catamarans than monos? It isn't because of their good MC formula numbers! Likewise, others have much less problem with stiff, light boats than heavy tender ones.

And MC formulas do not address at all downwind comfort in largish seas - they pretty much assume one would not sail in that direction.

Since most of us prefer downwind sailing, keeping this very high in one's considerations should be primary. Anyone can take a couple of hours or days bashing into weather - but a couple of days or weeks wallowing and rolling downwind gets real old, and probably has ended/changed many voyaging plans.

Mark

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Exile

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).

No. The question has always been are production boats suitable for bluewater cruising? Period. The comparison between builds is completely secondary to that question.

As you well know, the long-standing line from the BWC is that BeneHunterLinas are just coastal boats that don't really belong off-shore, despite the Category A rating.

Originally Posted by Exile

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.

Yes and no. Your example is a very good one regarding what "robust" really means. But, the other side of this that I think is even more interesting is the "long-term durability" of production boats versus old heavy boats. I think we all have the strong hunch that the more modern production boats are, in fact, built more lightly and, therefore, won't "last as long" as a Hinckley or whatever. The question is, does THAT really matter? And does the assumption that the older bluewater boats are "stronger" actually stand up (the cycles issue)?

Originally Posted by Exile

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.).

I think Polux pretty much has this one nailed. As long as everyone understands the trade-offs, which I think he and others are doing a very good job nailing down - there's no doubt there are many great benefits in better performance. As he said, the performance between older and newer Oysters, for example, is huge. So he's not saying anything that the industry itself is not backing up in reality.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by colemj

I don't think you can tell much about motion comfort underway from boats at anchor or on a mooring. Else-wise, you could only conclude that catamarans are the most comfortable sea boat imaginable.

A boat's motion at sea is derived from rigging, sail plans, draft, hull shape, ballast, etc. It is dynamic and requires all of these to be active and in their elements to judge between boats.

Again, how are the relative comfort levels when running downwind in largish seas between these IOR and newer design boats you are comparing? How is the relative stiffness of each when hard to wind in a good blow?

Motion comfort is relative and personal (don't believe any formula you may find). It is entirely valid that you may prefer to be heeled 30* and slowly sinking in and out of waves rather than being heeled 12* and riding over the top of them. You may also prefer rolling and wallowing over steady surfing and riding downwind. Others may prefer differently.

And it is all OK - which is why I argue against bringing "motion comfort" formulas forth to compare boats. For example, how do multihulls compare in these formulas to IOR boats? See? These formula are only relatively useful when comparing very similar boats. All monos are not similar boats (even though they look that way to us multi people!).

Mark

This was a highly educational post for me, Mark, and goes right along with your earlier comment that people shouldn't opine about, among many other things, the relative seakindliness of modern, plumb-bowed boats without having personally experienced them. In the case of these types of boats as well as cats, that'd be me, btw. Just like my particular boat doesn't seem to hobby-horse, death roll, or otherwise be anything but very stable despite 10' of total overhang, I'm sure not all the modern boats which maximize waterline length suffer from rough rides, relatively speaking. A good example might be Jimmy Cornell's new Garcia 45 Exploration, presumably designed for high latitude sailing. I must admit I still don't "get" the dual wheels, but what do I know?

The difficult part of the modern designs for me is trying to distinguish form from function. There is no doubt that maximizing interior space, along with making them fast and "look" like racing boats sells well, but hard to decipher reality from mere marketing. Quality control, of course, is another matter altogether and one which needs to be evaluated separately, at least in my mind.

Thanks again for the post.

[downunder]

Quote ''Originally Posted by Polux View Post
That makes some sense to me but I don't understand why do you want to take speed of sailing boats out of the equation, see:

The needed of tankage on a boat (and eventual needs of Jerrry cans) is on the inverse proportion of its sailing potential, so a very good sailing boat one that has not only a good offshore potential but a very good performance with very light winds will dispense not only the aditional jerry cans but almost all tankage and therefore by the so called Moellers law will have an outstanding sea keeping ability.

Look at the ARC, the first performance 40ft cruiser has already arrived while the heavy old boats with huge tankage, like a Mason 44, two Nauticats, an Island Packet and a Maramu are still at midway. Look at how much more food, water, not to mention fuel those boats will need, taking almost 50% more time for a crossing.

Whilst I agree totally with your view on jerry cans on deck I simply can't agree about tankage. Small tankage might be fine in the med where it is relatively easy to resupply with fuel but there are many areas where one does not want to be chasing potentially doggy fuel in drums.

Many custom built cruising vessels incorporate enough tankage in some cases to last them for up to a year only resupplying where quality and price is ideal. I know of several Crowther cats built to cruise the Pacific and Patagonia with up to 1400 liters capacity. With such tankage it does not always have to be full. There are many areas unfortunately that do require some motoring.

One of the valued very experienced cruisers on CF, Nick from s/v Jedi works on this principle - filling infrequently at your choosing re cost and quality avoiding lugging jerrycans.

Here on the east coast of Australia, there is not an issue with supply access or quality but venture offshore into the Pacific and Asia without good tankage and you could be seeking fuel in jerrycans.

[Cheechako]

Originally Posted by colemj

I don't think combining "modern shape hull", "heavy scantlings" and "longer keel/protected rudder" are possible to any meaningful extent. Some of those are mutually exclusive. Hull shape, scantlings, keels and rudders are not independent design elements at all - they are inter-related.

I can't imagine how bad a narrow plumb-bow, wide-stern boat heavily built with a slack-bilged long keel and protected rudder would handle. I would think it might be quite dangerous, actually. And what would be the point of a modern hull design if it wasn't given the efficient foils to drive and control it? It would be the other side of putting a high-aspect bulb keel on a Formosa.

Many people are buying old boats to cruise because: A) they are affordable, B) some of them are led to believe this is the "proper" type of boat.

Mark

I really don't think they are mutually exclusive... so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Modern Cruising design boats DO incorporate some of these things, just not enough of them!
Bob Perry and others are not designing cruising boats with long overhangs, narrow sterns etc etc

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by colemj

Many people are buying old boats to cruise because: A) they are affordable, B) some of them are led to believe this is the "proper" type of boat.

Bingo.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by colemj

why do many people say they get much less sea-sick on catamarans than monos? It isn't because of their good MC formula numbers!

Mark

Oddly enough, at least to me, I recently heard some long-time sailors complain how their first long passage on their newly purchased Lagoon 440 cat was so uncomfortable and had made them seasick. They had previously been long-time monohull owners, and the passage in question was their annual trek to the Caribbean from Norfolk in early Nov. As I recall, I think the worst portion for them was after they had completed their easting and were heading south in the trades on more or less of a beam reach. They attributed it to the fact that all of the energy that is dissipated via heeling on a mono is absorbed by the cat and its occupants. They said the motion was extremely abrupt & uncomfortable. This surprised me based on the little I know (but haven't experienced) about cats as being quite comfortable on any point of sail. Dunno, maybe it was more about the boat or the particular sea-state vs. cats in general. Btw, why don't cats have good MC numbers?

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Exile

It obviously depends on how much weight you load it up with, but this goes back to having the experience to know what your needs & wants are when it comes to extended, remote anchoring.

I think this debate is really centered on bluewater cruising. "Extreme anchoring" is another thread.