Interesting Day on a Swan 60

[Polux]

Originally Posted by 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:



Attachment 125539

Attachment 125540

Attachment 125541

Attachment 125544


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.

Dockhead, I did not said all, said most, maybe I should have particularize American cruisers that were always more conservative.

When the Valiant 40 was launched back in 1973 was considered by most traditional cruisers revolutionary, too light and dangerous:
"The boat's design was considered revolutionary at that time by bringing aspects of racing design into open ocean cruising yachts which up to then meant heavy and slow traditional boats.The Valiant 40 is credited with birthing the category of the "performance cruiser".."

Now compare it with the 1975 S&S swan 47:

and see the huge difference in what regards design evolution towards the solutions that become the norm some decades later.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by 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???

For a basic price of about 275 000 dollars plus taxes there would be a lot of boats I would prefer to be than on a Contessa 32, a Salona 38, a Dehler 38 and many others. I bet you did not know that making a Contessa was so expensive

Yes they are still made, at that price and there are some crazy guys that still bought them, but very few:
Contessa 32 New Build | Jeremy Rogers Limited
and there are some guys that think that modern boats are wet If on my boat I sometime get waves over the side on a Contessa 32 with those seas and that little freeboard it should be like going half the time underwater.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yes there are some boats with a 180º AVS, most of them due to big dog houses but some traditional ones that just have it that day.

For instance almost all the Fisher motorsailors have a 180º AVS as well as some Nauticats and not all from the motorsailor line.

From the others, traditional designs, the Vancouver 28 has 170º and I remember a beautiful Dutch boat (33ft) that I fall in love with (quite irrationally I admit) based on a folk boat and with a gorgeous interior that had a 180º AVS. I have at home the prospect but it was many years ago and I can't remember the name.

Edit: I remember: Marieholm 33

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by Polux

For a basic price of about 275 000 dollars plus taxes there would be a lot of boats I would prefer to be than on a Contessa 32, a Salona 38, a Dehler 38 and many others. I bet you did not know that making a Contessa was so expensive

Yes they are still made, at that price and there are some crazy guys that still bought them, but very few:
Contessa 32 New Build | Jeremy Rogers Limited
and there are some guys that think that modern boats are wet If on my boat I sometime get waves over the side on a Contessa 32 with those seas and that little freeboard it should be like going half the time underwater.

Good pic but you avoided my question, I asked you what other "32" foot boat you'd sail around the horn

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by Polux

(...) and I remember a beautiful Dutch boat (33ft) that I fall in love with (quite irrationally I admit) based on a folk boat and with a gorgeous interior that had a 180º AVS. I have at home the prospect but it was many years ago and I can't remember the name.

Edit: I remember: Marieholm 33

Next time anyone starts posting blasphemies, I will step in, be rude and cut any further speculations short. ;-)

Not Dutch but Swedish (Dutch build now, formerly made and sold as Marieholm 32). And neither the original Folkboat (the Nordic, wooden one) nor the plastic one (the IF) had AVS 180. Let alone a Marieholm.

Marieholm 33 AVS could be anything closer to 120-140 if she were alike other LO Norlin boats.

Back to Swans though ... C32 is indeed somewhat like older Swans, while this Marieholm is like you said more like an oversize IF - a smaller sister to Rustler 36, of sorts.

Surprisingly C32 seems to have none of the negative sailing properties of early S&S boats. Off course M33 is a completely "" different hull and drives as if on rails. Two fingers on the tiller and one hand for the skipper.

Cheers,
b.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Good pic but you avoided my question, I asked you what other "32" foot boat you'd sail around the horn

I did not avoid your question I thought you had understood. Prices of boats are the real comparative measure. Old designs were heavier and more expensive, new designs are lighter and less expensive to built, so a smaller older boat corresponds to a bigger modern boat.

The Contessa was not the only case, you had for instance the Vancouver line for Southerly of small seaworthy heavy boats and in the end they finished with the line since they did not sell any boats and for good reason:

Why the hell would someone want to buy a smaller heavy offshore boat if with the same price one could buy a bigger offshore boat, as seaworthy or more than the smaller one, with a bigger load ability, a much bigger interior and a much faster boat?

That is the case with the Contessa 32: For 275 000 dollar you can just buy a better boat. Why the hell would someone want to sail on a Contessa 32 instead of in a Dehler 38? That is the reason Dehler is selling a lot of 38 fters and Contessa sales are very very marginal.

Other thing is recovering old boats that are sold cheap but that is a tricky business and I would not sail an old boat around the horn unless it was in pristine condition and that is very expensive.

I had here on the shipyard a renewed 2002 Grand Soleil 46.6:


The boat has classic lines and the restoration was really well made almost to new condition. The work had been made here, not a particularly expensive shipyard and I was curious about the price: 114 000 dollars on a boat that had a value of 150 000 dollars. A great boat for 264 000 dollars providing you want to keep the boat because if you sold it you would lose a lot of money.

We are talking about a 14 year old boat, recovering a 30 year older Contessa 32 would be proportionally more expensive....but if that is what you want, go ahead, the Contessa 32 is a good old little boat and a beauty in its own way.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Polux

I did not avoid your question I thought you had understood. Prices of boats are the real comparative measure. Old designs were heavier and more expensive, new designs are lighter and less expensive to built, so a smaller older boat corresponds to a bigger modern boat.

The Contessa was not the only case, you had for instance the Vancouver line for Southerly of small seaworthy heavy boats and in the end they finished with the line since they did not sell any boats and for good reason:

Why the hell would someone want to buy a smaller heavy offshore boat if with the same price one could buy a bigger offshore boat, as seaworthy or more than the smaller one, with a bigger load ability, a much bigger interior and a much faster boat?

That is the case with the Contessa 32: For 275 000 dollar you can just buy a better boat. Why the hell would someone want to sail on a Contessa 32 instead of in a Dehler 38? That is the reason Dehler is selling a lot of 38 fters and Contessa sales are very very marginal.

Other thing is recovering old boats that are sold cheap but that is a tricky business and I would not sail an old boat around the horn unless it was in pristine condition and that is very expensive.

I had here on the shipyard a renewed 2002 Grand Soleil 46.6:


The boat has classic lines and the restoration was really well made almost to new condition. The work had been made here, not a particularly expensive shipyard and I was curious about the price: 114 000 dollars on a boat that had a value of 150 000 dollars. A great boat for 264 000 dollars providing you want to keep the boat because if you sold it you would lose a lot of money.

We are talking about a 14 year old boat, recovering a 30 year older Contessa 32 would be proportionally more expensive....but if that is what you want, go ahead, the Contessa 32 is a good old little boat and a beauty in its own way.

The moon must be blue has hell, but I am in complete agreement with Polux on this (narrow) point.

Why compare boats length for length? This is irrelevant, compared to price for price. It is genuine progress when you take the same tonnage of GRP from a Contessa and spread it out into a longer, faster boat which is no less seaworthy. I would prefer a 43 foot Beneteau, to a 32' Contessa, for the Horn, although the Contessa is an absolutely beautiful and admirable boat. To either, I would prefer my own boat, of course

[neilpride]

I guess they are C32 in the used market, where it come from those 2000000$$$ something if you can buy it in pristine condition used.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Next time anyone starts posting blasphemies, I will step in, be rude and cut any further speculations short. ;-)

Not Dutch but Swedish (Dutch build now, formerly made and sold as Marieholm 32). And neither the original Folkboat (the Nordic, wooden one) nor the plastic one (the IF) had AVS 180. Let alone a Marieholm.

Marieholm 33 AVS could be anything closer to 120-140 if she were alike other LO Norlin boats.

Back to Swans though ... C32 is indeed somewhat like older Swans, while this Marieholm is like you said more like an oversize IF - a smaller sister to Rustler 36, of sorts.

Surprisingly C32 seems to have none of the negative sailing properties of early S&S boats. Off course M33 is a completely "" different hull and drives as if on rails. Two fingers on the tiller and one hand for the skipper.

Cheers,
b.

The boat I was talking about and the one in the photo is a Marieholm 33 production built in Netherlands and the AVS was 180º., this boat (look atr the interior):
https://vimeo.com/59567379
I saw the stability curve and even if it is not on the net anymore you can still find references about it:
Pocket cruising boats [Archive] - Boat Design Forums

As I said I find the boat so cute that I took some information about it (at Dusseldorf boat show many years ago) I think I still have that stability curve at home.

Regarding other previous versions of the Marieholm (I think smaller boats) made in Sweden I do not have information regarding the AVS.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Polux

Dockhead, I did not said all, said most, maybe I should have particularize American cruisers that were always more conservative.

When the Valiant 40 was launched back in 1973 was considered by most traditional cruisers revolutionary, too light and dangerous:
"The boat's design was considered revolutionary at that time by bringing aspects of racing design into open ocean cruising yachts which up to then meant heavy and slow traditional boats.The Valiant 40 is credited with birthing the category of the "performance cruiser".."

Now compare it with the 1975 S&S swan 47:

and see the huge difference in what regards design evolution towards the solutions that become the norm some decades later.

Not understanding your point here. Valiant is actually the lighter and wider boat with more sail area (relatively of course) here resembling more 'modern' designs. Or is it only the looks?

BR Teddy,

[Polux]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Not understanding your point here. Valiant is actually the lighter and wider boat with more sail area (relatively of course) here resembling more 'modern' designs. Or is it only the looks?

BR Teddy,

No, it is the boat design: the hull, keel and rudder design.

If you think that a valiant 40 is more close to a modern design that the Swan 47, there is something wrong with your eyes or your knowledge on boat design. Hearing what you say one would think that you are saying that the Valiant 40 is a more efficient (faster) sailboat, but you do not mean that do you?

[robert sailor]

Polux you still are avoiding my question, which 32 ft modern entry level boat would you sail the southern ocean in?? Or would you rather be in a C 32? Never mind the money, assume the C 32 is in great condition......answer??

[robert sailor]

[QUOTE=Dockhead;2137861]The moon must be blue has hell, but I am in complete agreement with Polux on this (narrow) point.

Why compare boats length for length? This is irrelevant, compared to price for price. It is genuine progress when you take the same tonnage of GRP from a Contessa and spread it out into a longer, faster boat which is no less seaworthy. I would prefer a 43 foot Beneteau, to a 32' Contessa, for the Horn, although the Contessa is an absolutely beautiful and admirable boat. To either, I would prefer my own boat, of course [/QUOT

Well we have different opinions, which is fine. Yes I agree that the newer boats are bigger and more liveable and faster but I disagree on seaworthiness. I would not trust one of the newer boats that are 32 ft in length in the southern ocean. I'm not saying you couldn't sail it but it would be you, not me. Even the CE ratings and STIX don't approve most of them, they are not designed for those conditions. Sure you could take a Beneteau 43 offshore in the southern ocean but you better have the rudder assembly strengthend because a lot of the money and materials that were saved building some of these boats didn't go into higher quality.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Polux

No, it is the boat design: the hull, keel and rudder design.

If you think that a valiant 40 is more close to a modern design that the Swan 47, there is something wrong with your eyes or your knowledge on boat design. Hearing what you say one would think that you are saying that the Valiant 40 is a more efficient (faster) sailboat, but you do not mean that do you?

You are a bit sloppy using the word effiency way too generally.. The boat's are different size and the Swan is faster no doupt, but is the one making a hole in the ocean. Valiant is closer to the properties you've been promoting so much, flatter underbody, wider and lighter with more sails. The appendices are around but as I said not the hulls. Look the numbers

BR Teddy

[Dockhead]

[QUOTE=robert sailor;2137973]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The moon must be blue has hell, but I am in complete agreement with Polux on this (narrow) point.

Why compare boats length for length? This is irrelevant, compared to price for price. It is genuine progress when you take the same tonnage of GRP from a Contessa and spread it out into a longer, faster boat which is no less seaworthy. I would prefer a 43 foot Beneteau, to a 32' Contessa, for the Horn, although the Contessa is an absolutely beautiful and admirable boat. To either, I would prefer my own boat, of course [/QUOT

Well we have different opinions, which is fine. Yes I agree that the newer boats are bigger and more liveable and faster but I disagree on seaworthiness. I would not trust one of the newer boats that are 32 ft in length in the southern ocean. I'm not saying you couldn't sail it but it would be you, not me. Even the CE ratings and STIX don't approve most of them, they are not designed for those conditions. Sure you could take a Beneteau 43 offshore in the southern ocean but you better have the rudder assembly strengthend because a lot of the money and materials that were saved building some of these boats didn't go into higher quality.

Yes, but I specifically said a LARGER boat with the same tonnage as the Contessa. I completely agree with you on recent production 32' boats, and I would no more take one of those down there than you would.

As to the 40-odd foot recent production boats -- as I posted my previous, I though "I should have wrote, provided the rudder system has been thoroughly checked and corrected as necessary" .

And I guess that highlights a different issue -- the Contessa is a quality boat built with plenty of strength for any conditions. Don't need to worry about its rudder, keel, or anything other part of the structure, even if the boat is decades old. The 40-odd foot recent production boat is theoretically equal in seaworthiness, but any engineering failure in an appendage or other structural element will negate that.

So I guess as usual its complicated. But the point is that a boat can afford to have lighter D/L if it is longer, with no loss of seaworthiness, and will be much faster since it's both lighter AND has a longer waterline. The Contessa's big minus for the Horn is that although the boat is surprisingly fast for her size, the key phrase here is "for her size". I would not want to hanging around Cape Horn trying to slowly get around it, while the next low pressure system comes screaming around the Southern Ocean -- I would want to make miles and get around. Speed is not irrelevant at all. So as I said, give me in fact neither of these choices, but my own boat, or something bigger, please, for Cape Horn duty.