Modern Production Cruisers at Sea

[Hugh Walker]

Having sailed many 1000's of miles at sea, I place "comfort at sea" very high on my list of priorities. I completed a circumnavigation on a 2009 Oceanis 46 and while I loved that boat (now sold) it was a pig of a thing in a seaway. In enclosed waters it was a joy, fast and spacious, at sea though (especially a quartering sea) it would lurch and wallow most uncomfortably. The beam felt too wide, displacement too light and the rudder too small.

There's now a new bread of production cruisers with greater beam carried further aft and hard chines - features that increase stability and power (typified by yachts such as Beneteau Oceanis, Beaneteau Sense, Jeanneau SO, Hanse, Dufour etc). While I can see immediate benefits to these design features in flat water how do these hull shapes handle at sea? Is this increase in stability an asset or liability?

These are just my musings, I'm not about to buy one of the yachts above but I'm interested to hear other members experiences and thoughts.

[Zanshin]

I've got a Jeanenau 57 with a lot of beam carried very far aft (but no hard chines) and it does quite well with quartering or heavier seas, but a lot of that might be due to the LWL and weight of the bigger boat. It does remain a design tradeoff between spaciousness at anchor and comfort at sea, though.

[thomm225]

This book can answer many of your questions. He does like a lot of keel for one thing and a more narrow boat. He was mentioning aft width but I cannot remember the details:

Seaworthiness : The Forgotten Factor: C. A. Marchaj: 9781888671094: Amazon.com: Books

He does use the Contessa 32 several times to show an example of a seaworthy boat. It's ballast/disp ratio is around 47%, beam 9.5', and it has a rather long keel and rudder on skeg.

CONTESSA 32 sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com

Contessa 32 during 1979 Fastnet Disaster:

http://www.yachtingworld.com/fastnet79/winner

[Mystic38]

I completely agree..but don't expect this to be a popular view..

Originally Posted by Hugh Walker

Having sailed many 1000's of miles at sea, I place "comfort at sea" very high on my list of priorities. I completed a circumnavigation on a 2009 Oceanis 46 and while I loved that boat (now sold) it was a pig of a thing in a seaway. In enclosed waters it was a joy, fast and spacious, at sea though (especially a quartering sea) it would lurch and wallow most uncomfortably. The beam felt too wide, displacement too light and the rudder too small.

There's now a new bread of production cruisers with greater beam carried further aft and hard chines - features that increase stability and power (typified by yachts such as Beneteau Oceanis, Beaneteau Sense, Jeanneau SO, Hanse, Dufour etc). While I can see immediate benefits to these design features in flat water how do these hull shapes handle at sea? Is this increase in stability an asset or liability?

These are just my musings, I'm not about to buy one of the yachts above but I'm interested to hear other members experiences and thoughts.

[sailorboy1]

seems just a troll overall, there isn't anyway to answer the question other than to ask about a specific model of a boat

[thomm225]

Originally Posted by Don L

seems just a troll overall, there isn't anyway to answer the question other than to ask about a specific model of a boat

I think he pretty much named boats of a similar type "yachts such as Beneteau Oceanis, Beaneteau Sense, Jeanneau SO, Hanse, Dufour etc." Basically fin keel, beamy boats. Some of the Beneteaus have a Ballast/Disp ratio in the 20 percentile range for heaven sakes.............

[letsgetsailing3]

I think he provided insight into his thought pattern with the phrase "I'm not about to buy one of these..."

What's the point, then, other than brand trolling?

[MarkJ]

I wonder if the OP has sailed any other type of boat in those conditions for thousands of miles?

Ive done that trip he was... Greece to Australia on my B 39 and it was fine. I also done Israel to Argentina on a Swan 65 and it was more comfortable. The Queen Mary would be more comfortable than either.

[Mystic38]

If anyone considers this thread a troll, then they need to look to themselves and their sensitivities, rather than piling on the OP.

There is a valid point here and if you wish to discuss it, ie "the merits of modern mass production designs as a oceangoing vessel", then go ahead, otherwise, remember the "be nice" rule and find another thread.

[Sandero]

Valid but naval gazing... designs evolve addressing new and perhaps different requirements that older designs. All designs are compromises... you get sumphin and you give up sumphin else.

[SaucySailoress]

Guys, chill. The OP asked how bendy modern production boats handle in heavy weather. That's all. If you don't know, don't answer. If you're MarkJ, then you can answer.

[Sandero]

How many sailors have off shore experience in a number of different hull forms, materials and so forth to provide any real comparative analysis?

My experience of 40K miles is mostly with my hull and a few others. The discussion is mostly theoretical for naval architects I would think. YMMV

[Sandero]

Please define modern...what is and what isn't modern? Is there a date or is this a hull style?

[SaucySailoress]

I think there is a generally accepted sort of line between early fibre glass boats (70s and early 80s) built when they didn't really understand the strength of fibre glass, and tended to use lots of it, often with a cored hull; and more recent boats where the hulls seems to be made of a few mil of fibreglass only, and you can see the light through them..

Personally, having sailed on both, but only owned the former, I am happier on the former in heavy weather. I am happier on older boats when we hit stuff (and yes, we have done a few times) since they don't hole easily.

That said, newer boats do seem to have more space, mostly due to the beamier stern.

[sailvayu]

I looked at several of these boats at the last Annapolis boat show. I am not a navel architect but I have taken the Westlawn course (and stayed at a holiday inn) and been building and sailing boats most of my life. My first thought on these new designs is the stability curve must drop off very fast once past around 110 degrees. I would think much like a cat they would stay over once tipped. The salesman told me they want to reduce heel under sail. I call these boats single hulled cats. I am guessing these will not be as comfortable at sea as a more "traditional" boat. I am guessing they pound into a head sea and will have a jerkier (I do not think that is a real word) motion. Everything is a trade off though. These boats are faster than a tradition design so may get you away from bad weather faster. Less time at sea means less exposure to bad weather. I think you can use many of cat vers mono arguments at this point. For ocean sailing my big concern is once on their back they will stay on their back. (I have been rolled to 130 degrees at sea and we came back very quickly and continued on in a traditional design.) On the other hand I bet they are fun to sail in a good breeze with smaller waves. Like many things time will tell and it is all a compromise.