Long keel 28/32 ft?

[BC Mike]

If it is a full kell what happened to the front part and the back part. It is stretching to say it is a full keel with a cutaway forefoot and a cutaway stern section. If the rudder was not in the wrong place it would be a fin keel, so it is a fin keel with an attached rudder. Just my opinion.
Michael

[ssullivan]

I have been looking around for boats for a long... long time now (just found one!).

If you are planning to purchase the boat in another country and sail a great distance back to Italia, why not look in NZ? Wheels (Alan Wheeler) has mentioned some incredible deals in his area.

I would have looked there, but it was too far for me to go at this point... I'm not ready for that type of journey quite yet in anything but a plane.

It seems that a lot of people get as far as NZ after a long Pacific passage and just give up. There are plenty of boats there just waiting to be purchased by foreign owners who want out now.

Just a thought....

[Alan Wheeler]

Hey Sean, chat to me via Email. I think under my name, that detail is switched on, but let me know if it ain't.

Mike and Jeff, my thinking is, and I guess now, question is, where exactly does the Keel "start" on a design like the one photo'd. I would have thought (and thus my era) that the keel on such a design was the hulll below water line. Surely the front V of the hull is a continuation of keel. A true Fin keel, is usually on a flatter/rounder hull and tends to start and stop abrubtly, be more verticle and also as a result of less hull coverage, be deeper in draft.

[delmarrey]

IMHO I would call it a heavy fin with attached rudder. But I must say it looks like it is the strongest of all fins out there. The geometry of the hull has very nice contures and IS pleasing to the eye. I dare say a piece of art. But the reason for reduced speed is the amount of hull in the water rather then on the surface, drag. A bit like the old J boats.

[Jeff H]

Whels,

In yacht design terminology, there is distinction between the 'canoe body' and the 'keel', but in actual fact, on boats like the Alberg 37, it is next to imposible to pinpoint the exact point at which the keel begins and the canoe body ends. Most boats have some kind of radius (fillet) between the keel and the canoe body. On modern boats the fillet is so small as to be nearly non-existent. On boats of the era of the Alberg 37 the fillet gets to be so large that it effectively becomes a part of the canoe body and results in a 'wineglass' hull section. Still and all, whether or not the exact extent of the keel can be determined on a boat like the Alberg 37, it is still possible to distinguish the keel from the canoe body at least in a general sense and it is that manner than it becomes pretty easy to distiguish a fin keeler from a long keel from a full keel.

I also should note that like many sailing terms (the term cutter being another term that has bandied about pretty inaccurately), these terms had clear definition when I began sailing in the 1960's but the clear definitions have slowly been dropped or altered in common usage. It is funny that boats like the Alberg 30 and Alberg 37 were advertized as being modern fin keels when new but are now often (mistakenly by traditional definitions) referred to as full keels today. The problem with referring to them as full keels is that full keels have a number of very functional vertues which these fins with attached rudders do not exhibit.

Jeff

[Starbuck]

Jeff,

Just before you post, take a look to the left, under that box full of dancin' smiley faces: Attach file is what you're looking for. It opens up the usual dialog box that lets one choose from the contents of his own hard drive for a pic to upload.

Hope is Helpful

CJ

P.S.— you are far from the worst speller among posters on the various sailing sites. The only word I notice you have any trouble with at all is spinnaker.

Now, if I only had a boat that heals in the wind, like Gord has, I'd be able to put away my resin and glass mat forever…

[wrevans]

Well I am weeks away from launching my newish boat for the first time. And she is definitely one of those “fin keels with attached rudders that have all of the negatives of both a fin keel and full keel with almost none of the virtues” that Jeff speak off.

But a little help here Jeff. I don’t think people buying old boats with old technology are doing it solely because they are drawn to the esthetic or romance of old boats. Some of us simply can’t afford the newer technology. So we go shopping and try to find value. In the value boat shopping world there are folks restoring old Tritons, Albergs, Ariels etc. to like new condition that eventually end up on the market for pennies on the dollar.

Jeff, I absolutely love to read you posts. I have learned more about boat design philosophy from you than I ever thought I would know. I typically agree with much of what you say but I would love if you could provide us with a few examples of alternatives to these old CCA boats

[Talbot]

Contessa 32, Victoria 34, Albin Vega, Westerly GK34, and a host of other similar craft are available and would make acceptable blue water cruisers, the trouble is the size of the budget. You will need to purchase a craft that has already been prepared for extended cruising, as fitting out from a basic craft will take a sizable chunk of your budget., and I dont think it would be possible to get such a craft on your budget.

I reckon that the only way you will be able to manage is to purchase a ferro boat that has been cruised. Prices of these in Europe are very low for what you get, but be careful with the purchase of one of these, as some of the home built ones are not good.

Find one that has had at least the hull professionally completed , and get a good survey from someone who has expertise with ferro.

[BC Mike]

Read Marchaj book on seaworthiness and you will feel better about older boats with attached rudders and deep hulls.
Michael

[Jeff H]

Sorry to post and run. I have been off cruising and trying to get things in the office in order so that I could take time to slip off. Anyway, I am back now. To comment on some of the items that came up.

Low cost options to the CCA era boats:

I am not sure it is fair of me to advocate newer technology without consideration of the cost implications but in any era, and in any price range, there are boats that are better than the average. Some are better because they are constructed a little better than most. Some have advanced designs that are years ahead of their time, and other simply represent the best of their breed. Most of these boats are priced similarly to a Triton or Alberg in decent shape. Depending on your goals for purchasing a boat, each of the boats below should offer significant advantages over the run of the mill typical CCA era boat.:


Bristol 29 (late 1960's to mid 1970's):
Bristol 28:
Cal 29:
C&C Corvette 31:
Ericson Independence 31:
Galaxy 32:
Herreshoff H-28:
Pearson 323:
Sabre 28 (mk 1)
Seafarer Rhodes Ranger:
Seawind Ketch (Mk 1)
Southern Cross 31
Soverel 30 (late 1970's)
Tartan 30:
Tartan 27:

Marchaj on fin keels with attached rudders:
While Marchaj was reasonably favorable about full keel boats and fin keel boats with skeg rudders (like the Contessa 32), he was very hard on short keels with attached rudders citing the concernes that I mentioned.

More another time.
Jeff

[boredinthecity]

For my education - this is steel, 37' beam 9'6'' draft 6' what is the most accurate description of hull, keel & rudder and how is it likely to handle bad seas??


[IMG]http://cruisersforum.com/photopost/data/2/1220My_Girl1.jpg[/IMG
Which steel boat would be an option as a blue water craft?

Paul

[Jeff H]

It is hard to answer your question definitively from the one single photo you have posted, but in a general sense that is precisely as graphic a case of a fin keel with an attached rudder as I have seen in a cruising yacht.

In a general sense, with her short waterline, I would expect that boat to track very poorly, pitch miserably in a chop and be quite slow by any absolute standard. With her high vertical center of gravity relative to her vertical center of buoyancy, and narrow beam, I would espect her to be quite tender, be a hard boat to sail in any breeze or seaway, and have a miserable motion from a roll angle standpoint. With her comparatively hard bilges she could also have a pretty quick roll motion in shorter seas.

In other words this appears to be an older RORC or CCA era race boat. The high vertical center of gravity relative to her vertcial center of buoyancy would be a good thing if you are trying to beat one of these older racing rules but a miserable choice in bad conditions. To me this would be an interesting boat to sail from a nostalgia standpoint, but the wrong choice if you are looking for a boat that sails well in offshore conditions or for distance cruising.

With regards to the second part of your question, 'Which steel boat would be an option as a blue water craft?' I tend to think that steel is a miserable choice for a small (under 40 feet or so) offshore vessel. Steel tends to produce comparatively heavy boats with its weight in exactly the wrong place.

As I have said on this BB many times, in and of itself, weight does nothing good for a boat; weight does not make a boat stronger, it does not make it more stable, weight does not give a boat a more comfortable motion, and it does not make a boat more seakindly. Weight simply increases the stresses on the parts of a boat and makes it slower. Weight means larger sails and so greater sailing effort for the crew, and higher maintenance costs. When weight comes in the form of a heavy hull and interior components, weight robs the boat of some combination of carrying capacity, adequate ballasting, stability and motion comfort. That combination means a boat that is less than ideal for both heavy and light conditions and which makes a less than ideal long distance cruising platform. Steel boats tend to the poster children for what is wrong with overweight boats.

The frequently cited reason for using steel is 'strength or abrasion resistance'. To me this is total nonsense. On a pound for pound basis, steel is one of the weaker boat building materials that is out there.

So when you ask, 'Which steel boat would be an option as a blue water craft?' there are a lot of steel boats out there that might be an option, but none that would be an ideal option, and few that would even be a good option, to my way of thinking. Certainly, to my way of thinking, an extremely narrow, short waterline, fin keel with attached rudder, steel boat like the one in your photo would be the antithesis of the boat that I would chose to go offshore on.

Respectfully,
Jeff

[roverhi]

A fin keel boat has a separate fin keel and a detached rudder. There are short fins and long fins but the rudder ain't attached in a fin keel boat.

On full keel boats the rudder is attached to the keel. You can have boats with cutaway fore foots and/or stern posts but they are still full keel boats. You can also have boats like the old plumb bow boats where the keel typically runs from the bow all the way to the stern or lesser models like the Atkins design all the way to the extreme racing boats of the '20s-'30s that had so much of the keel cut away that it was essentially a fin keel boat with the rudder attached.

The keels were cut away to cut down on wetted surface. Even though fin keel boats were designed and built in the 19th Century, Old Nat himself designed a couple, they weren't considered structurally sound. Given the typical wood construction methods of the time, they probably weren't able to build a truly seaworthy structure with a fin keel. So the racing boats from the J-boats on down cut down on the keel as much as possible while still having an attached rudder.

Cutting away the forefoot affects directional stability somewhat. Not necessarily all that much, however if the hull is relatively balanced. cruiser/raicing full keel boats like the Alberg's, S&S, Hood, Alden, etc. up to the early '60s have cutaway forefoots without giving up much in directional stability.

These designers all knew that they could get better boat speed in light air if they cut down on wetted surface, however. They also knew that they couldn't cut away the forefoots much more and maintain directional stability.

To maintain structural integrity, that left shortening the afterpart of the keel. The problem with that is shorter the aft part of the keel in relation to the center of effort, the closer the rudder was to the CE. They knew from outright racing boats designs that the rudders became less effective as the rudders got closer to the CE. With full keel, the shorter the keel aft of the CE, the less stable, and worse, the less controllable they became.

About this time, lightweight metal and fiberglass came into the boating world. These construction methods made the solution to the wetted surface conundrum possible. Voila, a short keel at the CE and separate rudder placed well aft so it had a long moment arm. Ah, the best of all worlds. Actually not quite. Many boats with fin keels have little if any directional stability and it can be relatively easy to stall out the rudder resulting in total loss of control. The Columbia 26 Mark II is an example of this interesting control problem.

Fortunately, most of the fin keel boats have excellent rudder control. Many also have good directional stability so they don't have to be driven, constantly.

So for a cruising boat, long keel vice fin keel is not a clear cut preference. Some fin keel boats are easy to single hand and steer with an autopilot or self steering vane while some long keel boats don't have such great rudder control or directional stability so can be a chore to steer.

The big advantage of a full keel boat is the strength of the rudder. Being attached to the keel, it won't come adrift as long as the gudgeons and pintles don't give up the ghost. You will virtually have to tear off the aft part of the keel to lose the rudder. Not necessarily the case with a spade rudder or even a skeg hung rudder.

Also the full keel boat will withstand a gounding much better than a fin keel boat. There only two types of cruisers, those that have run aground again and those that are going to run b6aground.

First, with the rudder attached to the keel, it will take a tremendous beating and still function. Unlike a separate rudder that can be bent or broken off entirely.

It is also possible to twist a fin keel in a grounding. Sailed on a Chance 3030 that had a twisted keel. Mother would outpoint every body on one tack but slipped hopelessly away to leeward on the other.


The keel on a long keel boat is tremendously strongly attached. Even with an external keel, it's virtually impossible to tear off the keel without taking the rest of the boat with it. Not necessarily the case with a fin keel. Look at the structural stress on a hull with a fin keel. All the force of the grounding is taken over a relatively small area of the hull where the keel attaches. In racing boats, there has been a recent rash of keels just dropping off becase the hull or keel fails just from the dynamics of sailing. Take a boat sailing at hull speed and stop the keel instantly and think what the strain will be A whole bunch of grounding where the hull continued on without the keel. Makes it real hard to control heeling angle with the stick, let alone sails, up.

Another advantage of full keel boats is they don't snag everything they run over. A big deal if you sail in 'Pot' country or accidentally run over a ghost net at sea. Untangling a snag turns into a life threatening situation, real quick, when the water temperature is under 70 degrees.

Last but not least, the modern flat bottomed fin keel boats have no bilge sump. Any water that finds it way below will not be contained in a sump but slosh around everywhere from the gunnels on down. Nothing in the boat is safe from even a small amount of water. I'd never think of even coastal cruising in a 'no bilge' boat.

As far as performance on a full keel boat, you give up ultimate light air sailing ability. You can still sail in light air, not just as fast as as a fin keeler. You may gain that back when winds are stronger however. The usually easier motion of the full keel boats allows you to carry on when it starts to dust up. There is a difference between enduring a bit of discomfort thrashing to windward for an hour in a buoy race to beating into 6-10 foot seas for days on end. Usually the boat can handle it but the crew can't. Incidentally, that's why windward ability is not such a big deal for a cruiser. Only DF's go hard on the wind when the seas are kicking up. Anyway, the easier motion quite often allows the 'cruiser' to sail at optimal velocity while the racer type is merely trying to survive.

What does it mean out in the real world. Full keel boats tend to be moderately heavy to very heavy displacment. You can add a few thousand pounds, and you will, without affecting sailing speed. The lighter boats suffer performance degradation disproportionate to the added weight. You'll be able to maintain optimal speed under more conditions than a lighter boat. When you add up the speed through the water over thousands of miles, the fat, full cruiser often gets there just as fast and, certainly, with a crew in better shape.

Our own experience with our Westsail 32 was 118 nm per day for over 15,000 miles. Not bad for a boat with a design displacement of 20,000 pounds but 6" down on her lines as sailed and only 32' long. We did not motor except in and out of harbor and to charge the batteries. That total mileage average included one day we did a whopping 15nm and 6 days in which we covered 900 miles. With the right wind and point of sail, we smoked a world champion 1/2 ton 37 footer and most every other boat under 50' we sailed against. The boat would sail in very light airs, however, and the Aries would sail the boat if the boat would sail.

We gave up the ability to go to weather in light air and a chop without the engine. We could crack off a few degrees and comfortably sail along for days, however. The boat wouldn't set any records with winds under 10 knots tough it would still sail.

Would I have another Westsail if I was thinking of primarily coastal sailing, no way. They are ponderous creatures built for comfort and survival on the open ocean. Except with a following sea and 20 knots of wind, they just aren't exhilerating to sail. In coastal cruising, you often don't have the luxury of sailing on the best point of sail for the boat. Since I hate engines, would want a boat that would sail on any point of sail. I would also want a livelier boat. In coastal cruising the passages are short so I'd want to pack in the sensory pleasure of sailing. I'd give up the comfort, room and carrying capacity of the ultra heavy boat for a more exciting moderate boat.

Still want a full keel, though. Just had too many bad sailing days on fin keel boats that were simply too much work to sail efficiently or grabbed a pot. I'm driven when it comes to sailing at optimum speed and the fin keel boats I've sailed on just weren't 'fun' for more than a day sail.

BTW, a long narrow foil is more efficent at creating lift than a wide short one. Fin keel boats are more efficient to windward because of this. Of course, the deeper keel makes some cruising areas not accessable. Also, having a deeper keel increases the righting moment. That can make for very abrupt and tiresome motion at sea as the boat constantly tries to jerk itself upright. It's especially abrupt in the flat bottomed designs so prevalent nowadays.

[Starbuck]

Well, Roger/Richard/Rupert,

I see you've settled in quickly.

Heh.

[Jeff H]

roverhi;

With all due respect, you probably need to review your post as it is very full of misinformation.

For example: "A fin keel boat has a separate fin keel and a detached rudder. There are short fins and long fins but the rudder ain't attached in a fin keel boat."

That really is inconsistent with any traditional definition of a fin keel. I know of no definition of a fin keel that required the rudder to be detached except yours. Nat Herreshoff designed fin keeled boats with attached rudders and with spade rudders. In the early 20th century texts both were described as fin keeled boats. The original 1960's era literature for the Alberg 30 accurately referred to it as having a modern fin keel and attached rudder.

Or: "You can have boats with cutaway fore foots and/or stern posts but they are still full keel boats"

If they have a cut away fore foot and stern posts you might call these long keeled boats, but they are not full keel boats either.

Or:" Even though fin keel boats were designed and built in the 19th Century, Old Nat himself designed a couple, they weren't considered structurally sound. "

Who didn't consider fin keelers structurally sound? Nat Herreshoff's and Nicholson's fin keelers had huge rigs and were pushed hard and quite a few still exist today. There are nearly 100 year old Star boats that are still out there sailing.

Or:"Alberg's, S&S, Hood, Alden, etc. up to the early '60s have cutaway forefoots without giving up much in directional stability."

Have you ever actually sailed designs by these folks. They tracked miserably. Far worse than the full keeled boats that preceded them and far worse than later fin keel skeg hung rudder boats that followed them. The move to a separated rudder was intended to improve the poor tracking ability of these old girls.

or: "The keel on a long keel boat is tremendously strongly attached. Even with an external keel, it's virtually impossible to tear off the keel without taking the rest of the boat with it. " and "Also the full keel boat will withstand a gounding much better than a fin keel boat. "

That was true for traditional full keel construction where the ballast keel was bolted on and rang most of the length of the keel bottom (like a Folkboat). But when you talk about most fiberglass full keel boats where the ballast is typically concentrated at the forward edge of the keel void, there is pretty much equal forces exerted on the top of the encapsulation membrane and none of the internal structure that one would expect in a properly designed fin keel.

Or:
"having a deeper keel increases the righting moment. That can make for very abrupt and tiresome motion at sea as the boat constantly tries to jerk itself upright. It's especially abrupt in the flat bottomed designs so prevalent nowadays."

A deeper keel provides better dampening and a larger roll moment of inertia and so actually offers a more gentle ride rather than a more jerky motion. It is the high form stability often employed on early fin keeled boats that gave them a jerkier motion.

Jeff