Your opinion of classic VS Modern Boat Design

[barnakiel]

And for those who think Pogo or J-Boats interiors suck and are NOT the proper cruising stuff I can offer only these pictures.

Image attributions:
finot-conq.com/en/content/pogo-1250
jboats.com/j122e
yachtworld.com

Cheers,
b.

[TJ D]

I'll take the clean, open interior over the teak cave any day as well.

[Sandero]

It can bean clean and teak.... I have no problem with modern design as long as it's functional... the wood species does not matter.

[TJ D]

Yes, of course. I should have stuck with 'open' and 'cave-like' for clarity's sake.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Stumble

...
I would not argue that the Pogo is going to be less, but by the time you option them out reasonably I don't think the price difference is going to be all that much. Reasonably outfitted the Pogo seems to be selling for around $300k, and the 41.1 for about $50k less.

The Pogo 12.50 will sell for about what you say if VAT is not considered and probably that 50K diference in euros, not dollars, would be about it but that is for a really top equipped Oceanis. If not so well equipped and even so less spartan than the Pogo, the diference will be more.

I would like it would be otherwise but believe me some few years ago I checked that with boats fully equipped and yes there is a considerable diference. In price the Pogo 12.50 is closer to a RM 12.70 or to a IRC based 40/42ft performance cruiser, like the Dehler 42 or the Salona 41, I would say even a bit superior in price, something like 10 000 euros more, but a bit less expensive than an Arcona 410.

Note that I am not saying that the Pogo 12.50 is expensive for what it offers, even if I find disagreeable not having doors. The new Django 12.70 seems to have a bit better interior, being the same type of boat, as well as the JPK 38.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by SV Windrush II

So if I was to get a Pogo, to have enough room for us to be happy with it we would need the Pogo 50 which I calculated out from their web site would cost me about $550,000 base price and I do not think it includes sails.

I found a new Jeanneau 50DS for $236,242 ready to go. Of course I would fit it out for offshore sailing so even if I throw in another $50k I'm still way under Pogo price, and yes I would be trading performance and quality, with livability and comfort.

2017 Jeanneau Sun Odyssey 50 DS Sail New and Used Boats for

How can you compare prices of used boats with prices of new boats? The fact is that Pogo 50 exists only from some years and the ones that have them keep them. You cannot see a single used one for sell.

Yes I agree, regarding not properly livability but in what regard a kind of "bourgeois" comfort, even if it is had to find a more practical interior in what regards use than the one of the Pogo 50, specially sailing. Besides that Pogo has that great cruising feature in what regards to be able to anchor in very shallow waters, having when sailing all the advantages of a very deep draft sailboat.

But Pogo is not alone on the market and I prefer the JPK 45 that even if it will not be as fast downwind is a more balanced boat, almost for sure, with a better performance upwind and probably a better interior. I only saw the interior of the JPK 38 and I was impressed. Off course, again you will not find any JPK 45 on the used market for at least 5 years from now, possibly more.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

The Pogo 40 could be loaded like any other 40 and it would then sail like any other 40 but if it's kept light then the boat has the ability to plane in winds as low as 15 knots. As it gets heavier it would need stronger and stronger winds in order to exceed it's hull speeds. Polux might have some numbers

Not really The Pogo 12.50 (the Pogo 40 is a racing class 40) could be overloaded (if the load is well distributed) better than a narrow cruising boat since because it is beamier the alteration on its water line would be smaller.

Yes, the capacity of the boat to plan will be affected but even if not planning it will still be a much lighter boat with a much bigger SA/D and will still sail much faster, needing much less wind to reach hull speed.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Sandero

Pogo 40 doesn't look the least bit like a cruising boat below decks. I don't care how fast it sails... not my idea of a cruising cabin...
No it can't... it doesn't appear to have the locker space...

I agree regarding the Pogo 40, but that one is a racer, the cruising boat is the Pogo 12.50 and that one has plenty of lockers on the interior and deep big ones since they go down till the hull (the beam of the boat allow that).

You can see here quite well the lockers and the nice interior:
https://vimeo.com/30756340

What the boat does not have are outside cockpit lockers under the seats and it is not the only one. They explained to me that it has to do with safety and with a superior stiffness of the boat. they have a small locker on the cockpit floor but is just enough for some flat fenders and the life raft.

For long range cruising the Pogo 12.50 is strictly a 2 cabin boats since one of the the back cabins (that are huge) has to be used for storage.

Regarding that the JPK 38 seems better with a bigger cockpit floor locker and the Django 12.70 even better, with a big cockpit floor locker and lots of interior storage:

[Stumble]

Originally Posted by Polux

Not really The Pogo 12.50 (the Pogo 40 is a racing class 40) could be overloaded (if the load is well distributed) better than a narrow cruising boat since because it is beamier the alteration on its water line would be smaller.

Yes, the capacity of the boat to plan will be affected but even if not planning it will still be a much lighter boat with a much bigger SA/D and will still sail much faster, needing much less wind to reach hull speed.

I couldn't find any design numbers just anecdotal information, but from lightship adding a bunch of stuff doesn't really hurt that much. Frankly this doesn't suprise me much. Her pounds/inch immersion must be huge, that transom just has a lot of volume, and pressing it down isn't going to be easy. It seems to slow down the transition to planing more than actually slow down the boat. Which makes sense, when loaded she will stick a bit more to the water, but once she I switched going the added RM probably offsets the added drag pretty well.

The following is an owner's quote about a delivery trip.

Speed difference. Ok. With the crew and in delivery mode, we had north of 1500kgs on board. (Plus) We had 300kgs of alcohol. Food, dinghy, raft, grabbags, outboard, spare fuel, spare clothes, blankets towels, 600kgs of water etc etc. This trip was 3 weeks on the boat and we didn’t suffer for anything.
Planing speed is usually at 14 kn true. Loaded up as we were you needed 15 knots of wind. Angles are still good, you can plane with the wind still forrard of the mast in 16-20 knots.

Go forward speed suffered in light airs, at 4knots it feels heavier, but it does normally anyway due to the beam,
The maximum speeds don’t change much, if you have the wind you have the speed. The maximum on this trip was 20+ knots under main and headsail when we got caught out in a little cell, I had too much sail up.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by Polux

Not really The Pogo 12.50 (the Pogo 40 is a racing class 40) could be overloaded (if the load is well distributed) better than a narrow cruising boat since because it is beamier the alteration on its water line would be smaller.

Yes, the capacity of the boat to plan will be affected but even if not planning it will still be a much lighter boat with a much bigger SA/D and will still sail much faster, needing much less wind to reach hull speed.

Polux, I have always been under the impression that overloading light displacement boats is more detrimental to their performance than overloading heavy displacement boats.. You seem to be saying the opposite or at least they are equal. Maybe you can explain this to me?

[Stumble]

Originally Posted by Polux

I agree regarding the Pogo 40, but that one is a racer, the cruising boat is the Pogo 12.50 and that one has plenty of lockers on the interior and deep big ones since they go down till the hull (the beam of the boat allow that).

You can see here quite well the lockers and the nice interior:

What the boat does not have are outside cockpit lockers under the seats and it is not the only one. They explained to me that it has to do with safety and with a superior stiffness of the boat. they have a small locker on the cockpit floor but is just enough for some flat fenders and the life raft.

For long range cruising the Pogo 12.50 is strictly a 2 cabin boats since one of the the back cabins (that are huge) has to be used for storage.

Regarding that the JPK 38 seems better with a bigger cockpit floor locker and the Django 12.70 even better, with a big cockpit floor locker and lots of interior storage.

I find I was in the market then the JPK, and Django would also be on my very short list. The final decision would probably come down to if it was just me and my wife going cruising or kids, how long we planned on staying out, probably even build time.

In reality my wife won't consider cruising without an AC as an option, so I am not sure any of these are in my future as an owner. I will have to stick to more traditional boats for cruising and a fast cat for fun.

[UNCIVILIZED]

I'd appreciate it if you guys could help me with something. It sounds as if some of you are wanting to take several tons of gear with you when cruising (on a 40'er +/-), & I'm having trouble conceptualizing what this might include. That & where one would put all of that equipment on such a boat? Does anyone have a list, with or without weights for said items? And a spread sheet would be superb.

As I can see 2t, perhaps a bit more, on a 40'er. Assuming lots of ground tackle, liquids, & food stores. But even this is a lot of stuff. Which, lots of spares, hardware, & tools get lumped into that 2t figure, given that I'm a huge fan of an onboard workshop/bench. But... I could use a little help please.

Also, what runs through my mind when looking to understand such massive loadouts, is the cost of such included gear, as well as the spares & such to support it. Since any more it's far, far too common to see boats that resemble floating ads for everything in the West Marine catalog. With all of such a boat's toys & systems tallying up to several times the value of the boat itself. Which equates to a huge amount of $, weight, & of course, time maintaining said widgets. Isn't cruising supposed to be about a simpler life?

I'm a big fan of keeping track of what's onboard, & also fully offloading everything regularly. Both to clean the boat properly, & to get rid of excess unneeded items. Yes, it's a tool borrowed from racing. One that makes a truly exceptional difference in keeping extraneous crap off of the boat. And in addition to lightening her (a truly refreshing feeling), it's a Feng Shui type of deal. So...

[Stumble]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Polux, I have always been under the impression that overloading light displacement boats is more detrimental to their performance than overloading heavy displacement boats.. You seem to be saying the opposite or at least they are equal. Maybe you can explain this to me?

Weight always hurts, and the same hull that is kept light will always be faster. But, as between hulls there is more at play than just weight.

The first sailboats where weight was really recognized as a massively speed brake were the early generations of ULDB's, like the Olson 30. Very long LWL very narrow beam, and a shallow underbody mean they suffer a lot from weight because for every pound added they sink a lot.

This is measured by PPI (Pounds per inch Immersion). To calculate PPI you need to know the Waterline Area which is just the area of the plane that's defines the water's peremiter around the hull.

Ted Brewer defines it as:
WATERLINE AREA: The area of the LWL, usually expressed in square feet. It is not always easily obtained but can be calculated roughly for a sailboat by the formula : .67 x LWL x Beam. It is more accurate if you have the Beam WL rather than the Beam(Max), of course. Knowing the LWL area is essential in working out the following calculations.

Multiply the WA above by 5.333 to get the PPI. So let's run some rough numbers. Finding Waterline Beam numbers is almost impossible so I used beamMax, and I couldn't allow for how far back the Pogo brings its beam versus the other two, but it's still instructive.

Olson 30 - .67 * 27.5 * 9.25 * 5.33 = 908.4ppi
Catalina 30 - .67 * 25.00* 10.83* 5.33=966.9ppi
Pogo 30 - .67 * 29.98 *. 12.1 * 5.33= 1295.5ppi

It's pretty easy to see that for the same load the Olson is going to sink substantially more than the Irwin, but the Pogo is in a whole different world. In reality it's even further apart, the Pogo has a much wider transom relative to its max beam, further increasingly its PPI.

What this means is she doesn't suffer as much from overloading as even the Catalina. The major issues are going to be in the additional loads applied to the rigging, and keel to absorb the extra weight. So she will be slower to get on a plane, and have a lower top speed, but I think won't kill her like it will the Olson.


So why did I use the 30's instead of the 40's we have been talking about... because I thought I finally found a load number for the Pogo 30. But I was wrong, it's actually the load numbers for the 12.50 hull and I don't want to redo the numbers

Pogo specs the max displacement of the 12.50 at 7.5 tons, or 2 tons over her lightship displacemen of 5.5 tons, which works out to a pretty incredible 36% load carrying capability.

That isn't an enormous amount of weight, but for a couple it should be more than sufficient, even for a family of four it isn't too bad. Certainly within the carry capacity of most cruising cats in this size range.

[robert sailor]

Interesting numbers Greg, thanks. I guess a lot of my old rules may be changing with some of the new designs. Never quit learning. Love those damn Pogo's.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Polux, I have always been under the impression that overloading light displacement boats is more detrimental to their performance than overloading heavy displacement boats.. You seem to be saying the opposite or at least they are equal. Maybe you can explain this to me?

No you are correct. Read again what I said.

Basically I was not talking about light displacement boats but between a beamy one and a narrow one. They can be both performance boats.

Regarding performance boats, specially planning boats like Pogo, yes, weight is more detrimental since their ability to plane is reduced but even so they are hugely faster than heavy boats that are almost as slow loaded or without load.

Originally Posted by Polux

Not really The Pogo 12.50 (the Pogo 40 is a racing class 40) could be overloaded (if the load is well distributed) better than a narrow cruising boat since because it is beamier the alteration on its water line would be smaller.

Yes, the capacity of the boat to plan will be affected but even if not planning it will still be a much lighter boat with a much bigger SA/D and will still sail much faster, needing much less wind to reach hull speed.

We are talking about speed but to be honest there is another factor in what regards load ability and safety and that is why a NA will establish a Max load.

When a boat is loaded its overall stability increases but its final stability and the AVS diminish so what should regulate the MAX load should not be if the boat sails faster or slower with a huge load but the load that is established as safe by the NA.

Regarding what I have saw performance boats do not have typically a max load very different from non performance boats.