Interesting Day on a Swan 60

[deluxe68]

Originally Posted by sepeteus

Have to say.........
LOVE my Swan 57rs German Frers design. True ocean cruiser. Can cover 200 miles a day and does not exhaust the crew with banging and carry on!!

Our boat is a compromise between the old S&S classics and the new Frers models. I read on the S&S Swan forum, from a Swan employee, that the original boats were vastly overbuilt because they did not know how strong they had to be. Over the years they got better at load engineering and the boats got thinner and lighter, eventually being made out of carbon fiber. That Swan 45 is nice but I would not want to be on one crossing an ocean, just look at the open transom. Compare the new boats with the older ones, specifically the bow and keel entry angles. I would guess that hitting a container at 5 knots on an S&S Swan would not result in too much damage, the newer boats with the hear vertical bows/keels would not fare so well. The older boats have quite a few circumnavigations by couples or small families. The newer ones are not designed as liveaboards or cruising boats.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by deluxe68

... The older boats have quite a few circumnavigations by couples or small families. The newer ones are not designed as liveaboards or cruising boats.

The old ones when they were new were cruiser racers and used mostly to race, here a S&S designed 47 (1975):

Cruisers of that time sailed things like this:

and considered boats like the 1975 S&S Swan dangerous boats, light and not offering adequate protection, with inadequate keels and rudders for cruising.

I am pretty sure that in 20 years you will see couples circumnavigating on the Swan 45....when cruisers that like old boats got convinced that open transoms and plumb bow are not dangerous as they were convinced (with time) that fin keel boats are alright for cruising.

Also when the 45 reach a price that makes it affordable for most sailors that do circumnavigations Right now a 14 year old Swan 45 cost near 400 000 dollars.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by Polux

The old ones when they were new were cruiser racers and used mostly to race, here a S&S designed 47 (1975):

Cruisers of that time sailed things like this:

and considered boats like the 1975 S&S Swan dangerous boats, light and not offering adequate protection, with inadequate keels and rudders for cruising.

I am pretty sure that in 20 years you will see couples circumnavigating on the Swan 45....when cruisers that like old boats got convinced that open transoms and plumb bow are not dangerous as they were convinced (with time) that fin keel boats are alright for cruising.

Also when the 45 reach a price that makes it affordable for most sailors that do circumnavigations Right now a 14 year old Swan 45 cost near 400 000 dollars.

What a pile of dog **** mate, if the keels and rudders are not adequate for cruising then I don't know what to think with all of those plastic fantasys you post it in this forum over and over ,, really , probably Swans are one of those brands with more seamiles under their keels...a truly rolls Royce of the seas......

[robert sailor]

I'm not suggesting that a 32 ft boat can be compared to a 65 ft boat but I do know that the C 32 was the benchmark boat all others were measured against after the Fastnet disaster. There was a large fleet of those "little" boats in that race that all returned. It was sailed against the wind around Cape Horn before that leg was coastal sailed as it is today. What other modern boat even approaches 155 degrees? Yes a big beamy boat has a big righting moment but once it goes over it needs some help getting back, not that little Contessa.

[Dockhead]

We've heard this Hegelian trope before -- back in the Dark Ages, when cruising boats had long keels and racers had fins, and ignorant sailors had not heard of Progress. Then Moses came down off Mt. Sinai bringing 9 editions of Yacht and 3 Hanse brochures, and from then on, keels got narrower, and transoms got wider, furniture got squarer, and bottoms got flatter, every year, as grateful sailors traded in their obsolete 3-year old boats for the latest and greatest, every three years . . . .


Except that this is nonsense.


Fin keels have been around a long time, and designers heard about aspect ratios long before any of us was ever born. Cruisers were NOT all sailing long keel boats in the '70's -- there has been a great variety of hull forms available to suit different purposes, practically since the dawn of seafaring. Fin keels have been available on cruising boats since before WWII.

For example, this Moody 40 from the '70's by Angus Primrose:












Fin keel and hull form quite like many production cruising boats even up to the present day, except for the missing keel bulb (one of the extremely rare things which is a genuine advance of technology, where hull form is concerned), and the pointless vestigial skeg.


This is one of a series of boats Primrose designed for Moody starting in 1972 -- as Moody's project to sell larger volumes of boats to family cruisers, instead of the very expensive, hand made gentlemen's cruisers (many of them motor sailers) as previously made by Moody (the "gentlemen" clients having been impoverished by the long post-war economic crisis in the UK of that time).

Primrose made the boats fat and with high freeboard, and stuffed in accommodation in every nook and cranny, doing away with almost all deck storage and technical space. He made them light and gave them fin keels, making the hulls much cheaper to make than a long keel boat, and as an almost entirely accidental side effect, they sailed pretty well off the wind. They were ugly as sin, and Primrose himself called them "blocks of flats". They sold like hotcakes.

This formula is now the predominant design idea of cruising boats, and has been enhanced with sometimes prettier lines, efficient mass production, hull liners, and now with "styling" imitating planing ocean racers, changed frequently to give the illusion of rapid technical progress, like tail fins on Cadillacs in the '50's, to encourage frequent trade-ins and increased consumption.

It is not in any way "progress" -- it is just a certain set of compromises, addressed to a certain audience, with cheapness, accommodation volume, and style the main values, just like today's Hanses, Dehlers, Bavarias, etc. And nothing at all wrong with that -- I'm not criticizing at all -- that's what the average cruiser needs and is willing to pay for -- the market at work.

[barnakiel]

Yep.

Old and new Swans are different things. Old Swan hulls used to dig the hole. Not the easiest boats to sail fast downwind. Old S&S ones were sometimes said to have less than perfect amt of rudder and / or keel surface. I think the same happened to some S&S Tartans of the same era.

If I remember well, none was laid out for short crew either.

But the looks they had ...

b.

[robert sailor]

I owned a Tartan 44 designed by S&S and it was a lovely boat to sail. It would out point most new cruisers with ease. It also sailed fine off the wind and downwind and was easy to handle. The 44 had a deeper keel and a larger rudder than the 41 which is the boat that got the reputation of hard to handle downwind. When the original boats were raced in stronger winds with both spinaker and blooper (who remembers bloopers ) they required a real pro on the helm But if you used one for cruising they were easy peasy to sail on any point of sail. They were built very stout and I sailed that boat all through the South Pacific and North Pacific. On a sister ship (only 7 built) we raced Friday races in Tonga against Light weight Beneteau types and even a J boat and won the series quite easily so the design is no slouch even in lighter airs. These boats did their best work to windward and we're not as fast off the wind.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Yep.

Old and new Swans are different things. Old Swan hulls used to dig the hole. Not the easiest boats to sail fast downwind. Old S&S ones were sometimes said to have less than perfect amt of rudder and / or keel surface. I think the same happened to some S&S Tartans of the same era.

If I remember well, none was laid out for short crew either.

But the looks they had ...

b.

Yes you are correct, these boats were not set up for short handed sailing. Some work was needed to modify them. Layouts below worked well for offshore cruising. All these earlier designs were not designed for surfing and we're certainly not flat bottomed so yes they would dig a hole but no slamming upwind, very nice ride. The current high freeboard flat bottomed boats do have the ability to surf much easier but rarely do in my experience because the typical cruising couple are usually conservative and reef early so on long passages there is little time differences between the two.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by Polux

The old ones when they were new were cruiser racers and used mostly to race, here a S&S designed 47 (1975):

Cruisers of that time sailed things like this:

and considered boats like the 1975 S&S Swan dangerous boats, light and not offering adequate protection, with inadequate keels and rudders for cruising.

I am pretty sure that in 20 years you will see couples circumnavigating on the Swan 45....when cruisers that like old boats got convinced that open transoms and plumb bow are not dangerous as they were convinced (with time) that fin keel boats are alright for cruising.

Also when the 45 reach a price that makes it affordable for most sailors that do circumnavigations Right now a 14 year old Swan 45 cost near 400 000 dollars.

Dangerous you say, well not that many would share your opinion.
I really doubt that old/new Swans will be used for cruising in the future when the prices drop. The new boats are racers and day sailors. No proper anchor gear, lousy cockpits and lousy below deck layouts.
Tell me Polux, how are the Swans built these days, do they use liners and glued in bulkheads as is the fashion these days or do they still cling to the past with tabbed in bulkheads and reinforced hulls??

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Yep.

Old and new Swans are different things. Old Swan hulls used to dig the hole. Not the easiest boats to sail fast downwind. Old S&S ones were sometimes said to have less than perfect amt of rudder and / or keel surface. I think the same happened to some S&S Tartans of the same era.

If I remember well, none was laid out for short crew either.

But the looks they had ...

b.

I was once crewing a Swan 65 from Azores to east in a stormy november (how salty that sounds ) and I concur with you completely.. How much I missed a long keel..
And we needed 4 of the crew to reef the main.
This one was hull 002, Sayula was the next 003.

BR Teddy

Ps. Beating to wind it still wins most modern boats..

[Polux]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

I'm not suggesting that a 32 ft boat can be compared to a 65 ft boat but I do know that the C 32 was the benchmark boat all others were measured against after the Fastnet disaster. There was a large fleet of those "little" boats in that race that all returned. It was sailed against the wind around Cape Horn before that leg was coastal sailed as it is today. What other modern boat even approaches 155 degrees? Yes a big beamy boat has a big righting moment but once it goes over it needs some help getting back, not that little Contessa.

There are many sailboats with a 180º AVS, mostly old designs. That does not mean they are more seaworthy than other boats with a smaller AVS. AVS is just one of parameters of a stability curve, an important one but not the most important providing it is equal or over 120º. If you want to learn more about it I have several post on my blog about stability and stability curves.

I am not saying that the Contessa is not a seaworthy boat, clearly it is, but in what regards the Fastnet the problem was the IOR boats of the day that to be competitive in compensated could not have a lot of stability. There were many boats on that race with an AVS around 100º and that is dangerous and not allowed today on offshore racing.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Dangerous you say, well not that many would share your opinion.
I really doubt that old/new Swans will be used for cruising in the future when the prices drop. The new boats are racers and day sailors. No proper anchor gear, lousy cockpits and lousy below deck layouts.
Tell me Polux, how are the Swans built these days, do they use liners and glued in bulkheads as is the fashion these days or do they still cling to the past with tabbed in bulkheads and reinforced hulls??

It is not mine opinion. It was the generic opinion that most 1975 cruisers had at the time, many of them sailing heavy full keelers, regarding light and fast cruiser racers like the 1975 S&S Swan I posted.

Modern Swan are carbon boats and no they have nothing to do with past building techniques. Swans were always built with the most advanced and best building processes available.

The exception is the new Swan, an outdated boat that they are trying to make cheap to capitalize on all those that never liked the Swans of their time but after 30 years decided that after all they like them now, I mean, the old ones

[robert sailor]

I agree with you that some of those IOR boats were not that safe in the really heavy going, partly because the rule rewarded ballast that was higher up and they made up for it with rail meat.
But here's a question for you Polux, if you had to sail a 32 ft boat against the wind around Cape Horn the old fashioned way, ie: not coastal hopping and continue across the ocean , assuming both choices to be in seaworthy condition, your choices are the Contessa 32 or a new modern entry level boat of your choice....which would it be???

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by Polux

It is not mine opinion. It was the generic opinion that most 1975 cruisers had at the time, many of them sailing heavy full keelers, regarding light and fast cruiser racers like the 1975 S&S Swan I posted.

Modern Swan are carbon boats and no they have nothing to do with past building techniques. Swans were always built with the most advanced building processes available.

The exception is the new Swan, an outdated boat that they are trying to make cheap to capitalize on all those that never liked the Swans of their time but after 30 years decided that after all they like them now, I mean, the old ones

OK they are built with the most advanced construction available. I Google around and could not find exactly how they are built and I expect you know so please share it with me.

[Stumble]

Polux,

I am not aware of any sailboat with an AVS of 180 degrees. Other than some canting keel boats that can induce a roll over by shifting ballast. In fact the only boats I know with a true AVS of 180 are lifeboats. Do you have curves for any, I would be interested in checking them out.

But I don't disagree with the general thrust. AVS alone is of minimal importance. The shape of the entire curve is far more important, the area under the positive, the area under the negative, the shape of the two.