Can't Wrap my Mind Around this "Bluewater" Thing!

[goboatingnow]

Does the recent trend in monohull design towards extreme beam, relatively flat underbodies, minimal bilges, huge portlights, huge windage, no sea berths, sharp-edged joinerwork improve comfort/safety if the going gets rough underway? Of course not. This is not to say, however, that one cannot make a safe offshore passage in most such designs. Still, if the going gets really rough, I know which type of design I would rather be in.

This is an interesting comment , because it shows how thinking has not actually kept up with modern nautical engineering and the materials used.

for example

"extreme beam,"
Leaving aside the fact that IOR style yachts of the 70s were accused of this, Beam contributes to stability and less heeling , resulting in lower wetted area and faster speeds. The trend can clearly be seen in ocean going racing yachts. There is no evidence that narrow beam is better. ( its different )

"relatively flat underbodies, minimal bilges,"

Again a trend to make the boat lighter and faster. Bilges in themselves are a function of wooden design, as they were needed to trap leaks, today most bilges have dust in them ( or should ). Having done several ocean crossings and many Nortehrn European heavy weather journeys, I have on occasion seen some small issues with small bilges in modern yachts but Its a small issue.

huge portlights

Most port lights today are stronger then the hull they are attached too. The days of storm boards are really over. Polycarbonate is incredibly strong. I once dropped a big wrench from the first spreaders onto the upwards facing laminated windows of a Beneteau, It simply bounced 4 feet into the air ( and over the side)

"huge windage",
I see no particular trend in significant windage, other then that added by sailors themselves, many modern designs, outside of specific designs are quite sleek.


"no sea berths"
Any modern yacht can have lee clothes etc added. The provision of dedicated pilot berths has gone the predicable way of the do do bird, as its a terrible use of space.


"sharp-edged joinerwork improve comfort/safety"

Boards have always followed interior design trends, curves are out and corners are in. Having said that there are an awful lot of sharp corners on a 1980 HR 40. Ive been in many modern interiors, I don't see too many issues at all.

Having said that boats depend 80% of the time stopped, so given the 80-20 rule, you need to optimise for that, for those heavy weather ocean crossings, sleep on the sole!.

till, if the going gets really rough, I know which type of design I would rather be in

How would you know, I mean your profile says you sail a cat.
dave

[Terra Nova]

Rubbish!

[weavis]

Originally Posted by Terra Nova

Rubbish!

NO NO NO............!!

You cannot say rubbish with 6 million statements in front of your comment!

We need need to know which of the 6 million statements is rubbish and why.

Id hate to think that your Rubbish! statement was not towards the same post as I thought was Rubbish! because then that would make your Rubbish! statement Rubbish!

In my view anyway..

Do Continue.....

[exMaggieDrum]

Originally Posted by Southern Star

I'm in complete agreement - newer cruising monohulls are much better in every respect. OK, sure, the move towards wider beam has increased inverse stability - but who cares? Interior volume is more important. Sure, the flat sections aft and the lack of rocker can lead to pounding and a less sea-kindly motion - but again, who cares? Comfort at the dock is far more important for the offshore sailor. The huge portlights that are currently in vogue may be unsafe in heavy seas - but who cares? A bright interior is far more important when offshore. Plumb bows may lead to a wet foredeck and to problems with the anchor striking the topsides, but who cares? They look sexy and increase the waterline.

Spade rudders may be far more susceptible to damage than ones on skegs/partial skegs/mounted aft of the keel, but who cares about that in a cruising boat? There is a performance advantage and that is all that matters. Relatively flat underbodies may produce minimal bilges, but who cares? What boat will ever take on water when underway? Things like proper sea-berths are a waste of space - who needs to be secure when heeling or in heavy seas? No, huge doubles are the way to go!

Large dedicated nav stations? A ridiculous waste of space. Proper wet lockers near the companionway? Ditto. Manual pumps (even as a back-up) for the galley? Come on, when do electrical systems ever fail?

I'm in total agreement. There is absolutely nothing to commend any aspect of the design of older cruising boats.

Brad

Having been a certified (not necessarily better) marine electrician I can say that I have yet to find anything on a boat that cannot break, especially the electrical bits. Care and maintenance definitely reduce the risk but do not take it away. This applies to engines, materials, etc. as well.

The most important issue with any blue water (or inshore) boat is design and build for the conditions in which the boat will be sailed. Some old boats were poorly designed and/or poorly built. Ditto for new boats. If going offshore I would want a boat that held together, sails well in smooth and rough conditions, and is comfortable both on passage and moored. Yes - most of the time cruisers sit in marinas or anchorages. Most any boat is OK there. But you have to get there and not keep getting scared to death doing it. Tired and cranky sailors are not the safest bunch to be with on a boat in a rough seaway with gale winds. And that is when the boat bits are most likely to fail.

I have seen many new production boats of high quality and stout. I have also seen new production boats with rudders dropped out or bent with only a touch of a grounding, or without any grounding at all. There are also very good new boats that could take most groundings without any damage (other than pride). New Island Packets, Pacific Seacrafts, and many others are notable for their offshore safety, design, and durability. There are many, many others which are not. New does not equate to better. But water pumps fail, autopilots fail, windlasses fail, genets fail, etc. etc.

I have chosen older boats because I can't afford a new boat. I can, and have, added the critical and nice-to-have bits on older and newer boats. They can all fail. Bilge pumps will always fail at some point - one of the most failure parts on any boat. My old boat had new ones but I carried spares too.

The big thing I really don't like about some newer production boats is the difficulty is getting to items on the boat - such as pumps, wiring and other essential gear. Not all but many. A real nightmare to troubleshoot sometimes and replace or add bits.

Starting out with all new components is better than starting out with workout components but often the quality of new is not up to the quality of some older. Newer electrical/electronic/motor/lines/rigging/portlights/etc. is always better for the same quality though. But the new stuff can fail right out of the box too. Making the right choice involves a lot more than whether a boat is old or new.

[Andrew Troup]

A time-worn topic, indeed, but this particular thread has flushed out some issues I find interesting.

A handful of them I've recently been working to solve in what I think of as seamanlike ways, because I value the advantages

1) Strong rudders, (without a skeg), which survive unreasonable loading from as many directions as possible without failing, and beyond that, fail as gracefully as possible (eg: NOT jamming on full lock)

2) Ports through the topsides (Opening, no less! at least, after a fashion ... )

3) A low sill to the companionway (at least, in harbour, but without the inconvenience of any of the removable bridge deck options I've encountered)

4) A large opening to the companionway (again, at least in harbour)


Interesting comment about sharp-edged joinery. My first yacht was jointly owned with a good friend, who is an architect, and was implacable on this single point. So it's something that comes in and out of fashion (this was late 70s).

Having zero patience for fashion, even in clothing, I guess it's no surprise that our sole topic for irreconcilable disagreement was on that same point, when making changes to the interior.

At the time I didn't have more than gut feeling and a few rectilinear bruises on my side, so he won the point.

I've subsequently woken from slumber a considerable distance from my bunk on several occasions on bigger boats. Having once thrown my skipper completely over a partition from a standing start (without him touching it) between nav area and galley (whose sink he ended up comfortably occupying), I'm implacably in the opposite camp. I don't ever want to see the distinctive reverse imprint of a bench corner deep in a shipmate's skull or cheekbone.

For the extreme offshore end of the spectrum, like, say, an expedition yacht, I personally think even rounded corners are not sufficient, in frequented areas.

Padding is the new black.

[Terra Nova]

Originally Posted by Andrew Troup

...working to solve in...seamanlike ways...
1) Strong rudders, (without a skeg), which survive unreasonable loading from as many directions as possible without failing, and beyond that, fail as gracefully as possible (eg: NOT jamming on full lock)

2) Ports through the topsides (Opening, no less! at least, after a fashion ... )

3) A low sill to the companionway (at least, in harbour, but without the inconvenience of any of the removable bridge deck options I've encountered)

4) A large opening to the companionway (again, at least in harbour)

...
I've subsequently woken from slumber a considerable distance from my bunk...
For the extreme offshore end of the spectrum, like, say, an expedition yacht, I personally think even rounded corners are not sufficient, in frequented areas.

Padding is the new black.

Padding is very good; rounded corners, essential. Not just for expedition class but for all vessels.

No open sea berth is safe without a lee cloth. This is elementary. And easy to do.

1--Why not have the strongest rudder practicable?

2--Seaworthy opening ports are easy. TN has Newfound Metals cast stainless units. Way good.

3--A bottom drop-board(s) which can be secured in place.

4--Just not realistic on a seaworthy vessel--a serious compromise. And simply not needed, providing there are adequate hatches and dorade's to ventilate and admit light.

[Andrew Troup]

Terra Nova:

I didn't say I didn't have a lee cloth. It just didn't go all the way to the deckhead. In one case is was a deep leeboard, in the other an extra-long leecloth, fastened only at the ends.

Nor was I thrown out of the bunk, on at least one of those occasions: Provided it is some distance from the centre of mass, it is possible for a given locality in a boat to simultaneously accelerate downwards faster than gravity, and move sideways some distance.


You only ask one question,

1--Why not have the strongest rudder practicable?

to which my answer is: Indeed!

(But I don't know what lies behind your question, if anything)

[Terra Nova]

It sounded to me like you were insisting on the very type of rudder least protected and most likely to jam if struck...a spade rudder.

[Andrew Troup]

Originally Posted by Terra Nova

It sounded to me like you were insisting on the very type of rudder least protected and most likely to jam if struck...a spade rudder.

OK, now I understand your question, but I'm mystified how my words led you to that conclusion. Are you sure you're not programmed to see spade rudders lurking in every dark recess?

There are two ways I know of surviving force majeure;

A) to be strong and monolithic and immovable, or

B) to be capable of being pushed out of position, and then back.

The lower limbs of downhill skiers once had to attempt the first option, being strapped via the boot to the ski, (a few racers tried bolting them on, to save all the fussing with straps) but they seem to do better since the advent of shock-absorbing release bindings.

OK, they don't normally come back from a really severe overload, but now that I think of it, there was, briefly, a release binding (Burt, IIRC) which would reattach the ski when the excess load was relieved.
You could catch a tip on the lip of a cornice and "lose" a ski, but it would be back on your foot before you had to deal with re-entry to the snow.

I can't think of any ways of achieving the option A monolithic result within my weight budget. Especially given I have two rudders. So that leaves the option "float like a Butterfly, sting like a B"

Briefly, I've come up with a fairly simple way of protecting a transom hung, dagger rudder from almost all load situations and directions.

And at the same time, semi-balancing a blade of plain planform, while retaining the ability to fully withdraw it.


Twin rudders puts protection a premium, because they're not in line with the keel. (Which in any case is not always there, given it's going to be a swing keeler with no stub keel)

Obviously a dagger rudder is protected from vertical up, and it's relatively easy to cope with in-plane forces from ahead, and it's not hugely difficult to do that in a way which copes with in-plane forces from aft, but side forces, from slewing while grounding, are much trickier.

This is the fatal weakness of every deep skeg I've ever seen. Even on metal boats, it's difficult to make them wide enough at the root to withstand slewing while grounding, without compromising the performance of the rudder and the boat.

The inability to offer that protection doesn't matter much in places where the "land" implied by "grounding" implies "repair facilities", but that implication does not hold in some places I want to sail.

My blades are deep draught. This means the lateral bending moments from yawing loads in heavy seas will be high (the balancing, and the high aspect ratio, greatly reduce steering loads, but not lateral bending loads), so it will be tricky segregating them from potentially rudder-bending loads. (Hollow aluminium foils, hence unlikely to break).

I haven't done the analysis, because the detail has not firmed up, but I think I have a concept which could work.

And I think I have a fallback plan if the lateral protection proves too difficult.

[deluxe68]

Originally Posted by Southern Star

I'm in complete agreement - newer cruising monohulls are much better in every respect. OK, sure, the move towards wider beam has increased inverse stability - but who cares? Interior volume is more important. Sure, the flat sections aft and the lack of rocker can lead to pounding and a less sea-kindly motion - but again, who cares? Comfort at the dock is far more important for the offshore sailor. The huge portlights that are currently in vogue may be unsafe in heavy seas - but who cares? A bright interior is far more important when offshore. Plumb bows may lead to a wet foredeck and to problems with the anchor striking the topsides, but who cares? They look sexy and increase the waterline.

Spade rudders may be far more susceptible to damage than ones on skegs/partial skegs/mounted aft of the keel, but who cares about that in a cruising boat? There is a performance advantage and that is all that matters. Relatively flat underbodies may produce minimal bilges, but who cares? What boat will ever take on water when underway? Things like proper sea-berths are a waste of space - who needs to be secure when heeling or in heavy seas? No, huge doubles are the way to go!

Large dedicated nav stations? A ridiculous waste of space. Proper wet lockers near the companionway? Ditto. Manual pumps (even as a back-up) for the galley? Come on, when do electrical systems ever fail?

I'm in total agreement. There is absolutely nothing to commend any aspect of the design of older cruising boats.

Brad

We just sold our "modern" bendy-toy and are looking for something bigger and more robust. Well said!!!!

[deluxe68]

Originally Posted by Kevin84

I'd agree with that. I think what's been happening, especially over the last 10-15 years, is people are demanding lower prices so to accommodate them, builders no longer overbuild their boats. Less interior woodwork, more plastic. Making hulls only as thick as they absolutely have to. Using self tapping screws instead of through bolting hardware where they can. Using gate valves instead of proper seacocks on through hulls. Acrylic instead of metal for ports. Its not that builders are trying to be cheap, its that they're trying to remain profitable while meeting customers demands for reduced prices.

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

Don't forget about using cheaper brass thru-hulls over the expensive bronze ones. Nothing to worry about there!

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by deluxe68

Don't forget about using cheaper brass thru-hulls over the expensive bronze ones. Nothing to worry about there!

Do you have any direct links to boat builders using brass hull fittings?

[Jon Eisberg]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

Do you have any direct links to boat builders using brass hull fittings?

Seems to be primarily a Euro problem:

Seacocks disintegrate on 5 year old Bene [Archive] - Yachting and Boating World Forums

Yachting Monthly is campaigning for tougher rules on seacocks, which currently only have to last five years, according to a European directive.

Our whistleblower surveyor Paul Stevens, 58, a founding member of British Marine Surveyors Europe, blew the lid on the directive after finding a worrying number of yachts fitted with brass seacocks designed for domestic plumbing systems, instead of the longer-lasting bronze or marine brass.

The European Community's Recreational Craft Directive (RCD) of 1988 introduced an ISO standard for through-hull fittings stating they should be corrosion-resistant for a service life of just five years.

Read more at Essential Seacock Checks | Yachting Monthly

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ble-90886.html

Nigel Calder has been on a bit of a campaign to alert sailors on this side of the pond to the problem... I seem to recall he did a piece for SAIL not too long ago, but I'm not able to produce a link...

Scary stuff, indeed...

[TeddyDiver]

The regs actually says something like "show no detectable degration" during that time period and a brass seacock wont meet that requirement, never. So this is major violation IMHO.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Jon Eisberg

Seems to be primarily a Euro problem:

Seacocks disintegrate on 5 year old Bene [Archive] - Yachting and Boating World Forums






http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ble-90886.html

Nigel Calder has been on a bit of a campaign to alert sailors on this side of the pond to the problem... I seem to recall he did a piece for SAIL not too long ago, but I'm not able to produce a link...

Scary stuff, indeed...

French Bene.. or a USA Bene...