Pilothouse Variations -- Boreal

[barnakiel]

@ Panope

Very well done. She looks very sweet.

b.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Does it have a pilot house at all? I thought Garcia were raised salon style.

The one I saw here (40 something, maybe 45) did not have a proper pilot house, even the dodger looked 'short'ish'.

If I were to judge by what is visible externally, Garcia is not an alternative to Boreal. They look way different.

Boats are so very personal. I would buy a Boreal, if I could afford one, I would never buy a Garcia though.

b.

No, the boats are similar in many aspects only the interior layout is different.

The Garcia 52 has a comfortable steering station on the forward part of the saloon with full view forward and around. Neither of them make my style but I have to say that if I lived permanently on a boat a Garcia 52 would make sense. The option to incorporate the nav/pilot station on the main living space contributes to an apparently bigger interior and is socially more agreeable.



Besides having an interior pilot station look for the cockpit protection of the Garcia 52:





Look at the interior Nav/pilot station:

[Polux]

Originally Posted by aqu4tro

Hi,

I recently discovered this German builder Sirius. It was the firs deck saloon that made sense for me. Perfect place to enjoy the ocean, with twin keels & beachable.

And the thing for me is really enjoyment.
Even though I completely understand the upgraded safety of a serious aluminum expedition boat with a pilot house there is one issue. Neither me or my wife would deliberately ever put ourselves in a sea state that would require the expedition boat. I think I would never put to use all the upgraded expeditions characteristic's because I just wouldn´t want to be in that position to have to use them.
It´s like one expedition truck. Would I like to cross one continent in one? Sure!
Would I like to visit Paris or Rome in it? Never!
They are to specific - It´s something I would rent but I wouldn´t own.

If I lived in Alaska.....maybe

A4

Yes I agree with that and even if the Sirius have an incredible detailed interior with super high quality I would maybe prefer a Nordship, that seems to be a more all around better performer. Here the 430:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub22bhf3TYo

But regarding deck saloons/pilot houses my preference goes to CR that is the one that makes very good sailing boats, fast and enjoyable boats to sail also with a high quality interior. Here the 480:





They are making a new 440Ds:

[barnakiel]

Must admit Garcia 52 looks fine in the pictures. Hope to see one later this year.

b.

[Terra Nova]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Must admit Garcia 52 looks fine in the pictures. Hope to see one later this year.

b.

Just a horrible name for a yacht.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by hoppy

Dockhead,

Since you like your alu yachts and have an irrational love affair with Scandinavia, have you seen the Adventure 55?

Adventure 55 | Adventure Yachts

The hull is made in Germany and shipped to Orust for fitting out.

"This particular model acts as a foundation and a base, from where we will design your unique yacht according to your preferences and desires."

I've been at sea and have lost the plot a bit on this thread. Now in Copenhagen after crossing the North Sea and cruising a bit in the Danish islands.

That boat is pretty far from my ideal. That keel design, while great for performance, is not nearly robust enough for my purposes. Nor do I like the hull form at all, which resembles a Hanse with the plumb bow (no extra buoyancy) and fat, flat aft sections. There is no pilothouse or even dog house. That is not at all a high latitude boat, even if it's alu and even if it's made in Sverige.

Dinghy storage looks good, but I prefer the dinghy garage setup on the HR64, where the dinghy garage is not under an aft cockpit, but under the afterdeck of a center cockpit boat, which gives it height enough to make into an excellent deck storage space as well as place for the dinghy. This also works well with the idea of separate watertight compartments, with all that space separated from the rest of the boat.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Polux

No, the boats are similar in many aspects only the interior layout is different.

The Garcia 52 has a comfortable steering station on the forward part of the saloon with full view forward and around. Neither of them make my style but I have to say that if I lived permanently on a boat a Garcia 52 would make sense. The option to incorporate the nav/pilot station on the main living space contributes to an apparently bigger interior and is socially more agreeable.



Besides having an interior pilot station look for the cockpit protection of the Garcia 52:





Look at the interior Nav/pilot station:

That Garcia has some very nice features -- like the proper watertight door instead of washboards.

But I really hate the nav station which is formed out of the end of a salon settee! Ick! That's the way it's done on mini boats like the HR32 and the small Catalinas.

For my taste, and habits, the nav station is a serious working space which should be entirely dedicated to the purpose. Not a corner of the salon with turning seat like a camper van, ick!

My ideal nav station, which I will probably never have and am not even trying to implement on this next boat, would have a good sized normal nav table with all instrumentation and switchgear around it, with a 360 view out and quick access to the cockpit -- just like the Boreal so far. But besides the nav table, there should be a counter-height chart table which can be used from a standing position for chart work, and with drawers underneath for charts. Decent book shelves even if I've moved most paper documentation to electronic form.


I am actually fairly happy with the nav station on my Moody except only that it is sunken below (!) rather than raised above, the main salon, so has no view out, although I can see the sails and windex by looking up. I have a large forward facing chart table with lots of space for instruments and switches, with a high res monitor mounted ahead and plotter and other instruments around and along the side. Dedicated drawer for laptop and good drawer space for chartwork tools etc. Bookshelves, even if not enough.

The crucial thing missing is the view out, so that proper watches could be stood here.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Juho

Yes, there are many styles, some sleeker than others. A one person size doghouse could be the sleekest option for the OP. But he expressed also some interest in having a sizeable pilothouse that would allow also other people than the helmsman to enjoy the views. I guess the target is a large (50'+ category) boat with full size living quarters, with an inside steering station, low windage, and maybe a 360° view pilothouse. A flat and sleek pilothouse could be one way to achieve all that. I was wondering if also the benefits of a doghouse (easy access, close to cockpit) could be included in that approach.

Yes, I am thinking just along these lines.

I don't think I can really go too much further with these ideas without serious design work being done.

Windage is a complicated aerodynamic question which involves a lot more than just the volume of deckhouse space -- it's also very much about the shape of it and how it's placed.

In my opinion, the old idea that even dodgers should be taken away is surely wrong -- a big open cockpit with people in it and without even a windshield will create huge amounts of turbulence and probably much more wind resistance than you would have with an aerodynamically shaped windshield and dodger shaping the airflow over the cockpit.


A good solution providing deckhouse space -- whether it's just a small doghouse like the Boreal or whether a more substantial pilothouse can be worked into it -- requires serious engineering work, to show what is possible, with low windage.

What is certain is that arches, solar panels, davits, and the other kind of junk piles which many cruisers hang all over their boats is dreadful for windage, and I want to avoid all of that for sure.


I just did a hundred-odd miles upwind, including some tacking towards waypoints dead upwind, and really enjoyed being able to do it under sail just making miles and not struggling. I've now gotten my dinghy off the transom and downsized my davits, and I can really feel the difference in how the boat goes upwind. Of course the new carbon laminate sails also help a bit

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by UNCIVILIZED

Preface: Some of this is written for CF readers in general, & not just Dockhead.
And my apoligies for the poor paragraph spacing, ergo, readability. The forum isn't interfacing well with my computer this morning.



Hope that that helps. And there's of course, more , but the bulk of it is stuff which you need to learn & decide for yourself. A good bit of it on your own, with guidance from others.
With a nod to a good project manager. Again, read Skip's book, re; this.

And Have Fun!



Not a full pilothouse, but a small doghouse enclosing the companionway and a nav table with 360 degree view out. Separated from the cockpit by a strong watertight door..
The WT door is ancient (& good) news, going back a dozen generations. And have been the standard on most solo RTW boats for decades, even the composite ones.

ALL of them have them between Every compartment down below, along with Serious WT bulkheads, AND positive built in floatation in many/most, depending upon the class. Especially if you count their water ballast tanks as being able to be used for floatation.
It's a belt & suspenders+ (aka, multi-layered defense) kind of thing, especially with the trouble which they can run into in the Southern Ocean.


On pilothouses (PH's), it makes sense to me for a high/low latitudes only boat. But otherwise, unless the boat is Big, it chops up the cockpit a lot. Cutting down on how much room you have to hang out, & or play in.

And for me at least, isolates me too much, from the weather. While instruments are fine for telling you numbers, there's a lot that they can't do.
Like smell, for example. As if you've got an attuned nose, you can pick up on things, hundreds & even thousands of miles away. And often they're the kinds of things which are critical to choosing your route, avoiding systems, finding fish or a Port (home & other places have distinctive smells & sounds), or landmark, etc. In the dark, from quite a distance (like leagues, or sometimes 3-4 digit nm)... And, of course, good food.
- Ditto on hearing.
- Also sight as well. For even the most perfect optical glass still blocks out a lot of light, sometimes in especially critical bandwidths. Plus at night. And you're going to want some tint anyway, so that you don't get too much of a hothouse/greenhouse thing going on.


Me, I'm a fan of the hard dodgers. The extended kind, which you can sit Under. Akin to those used by/on some of the other professionally designed & used vessels. Including by a famous member or three of this forum.

And if soft curtains at the back of such hard dodger/PH's aren't enough, it's easy enough to design them so that you can fit removable. light weight (composite) hard panels. With sliding/opening, Lexan windows. And including a (hard, WT) door, or canvas flap (with or sans zipper) to their back ends. So that then they're "convertibles" as it were. IE; Sometimes hard dodgers, & in colder places, PH's.


I've given my spiel on hard dodgers a dozen plus times on here, & if you need it LMK. But they should be an option on any & every boat. As you can build/have'em built for less than a canvas on frame one. For less money, with many, many more features, at the same weight (or less).


Also, with the back of a hard dodger being wide open, you don't break up the flow of things to down below so much, as tends to happen with a PH. The latter can become choke points when entertaining, especially when it's warmer.
Plus they can also choke down natural ventilation if not done well.
--> Just a "think" (or 3) <--

The salon is a raised one with decent views.

So this is an interesting compromise, without the windage of a full pilothouse (and compromise of the deck layout), but with an absolutely perfect indoor helm/watchkeeping station.
If you go with one of these, consider this as well too. With an open end at the back of your PH/hard dodger, you can still do much of the trimming, & other chores while "inside", out of the weather. This is trickier to integrate with a PH.
And to do so with the latter, usually you wind up with several feet of overhanging roofline & (hard) side curtains anyway, which are pretty much what an extended hard dodger is to begin with.

It'd be worth going for sails on both styles of boats. And also, an easy way to see it, is to track down the VHS footage from the video which came with the Dashew's first Cruising Encyclopedia. It shows the perks of 95% of what I've mentioned above quite well.
And from the little I've watched of them, on the Delos video series on YouTube, some of this is demonstrated via their Amel, also.

But then again, it's been quite a while since I've toured a boat with a PH, given the limit on my Visa. Plus, me, I Need all of my senses, all of the time.
I mean, yeah, submarines are fun (quite a lot of it, Truly). But you miss out on seeing/interacting with everything. Even/especially hearing a whale breech 10m from you on a calm, dark night.

Looking at the strong watertight door made me want to never see a normal companionway scuttle and washboards ever again. Ick!
I'm with you on this. Study hard on the IMOCA/OPEN Class racers. Both their hard dodger setups, & their WT doors, & compartmentalization setups. Even the door on Hawk is pretty damned nice, & trick, too. With that Dutch Door feature.

One version of PINDAR, an OPEN 60 has a 15' wide lid on her "hard dodger" which slides fore & aft by a good 1.5m, in order to best use it to suit conditions, as well as the task of the moment.

And in one of the more recent significant solo races in that class, much of the credit given to the winner, he attributed to it's hard dodger design. Which kept him out of the elements so much of the time, but in tune with things. And yet it allowed him to trim any of the 5 dozen control lines, while viewing what he was trimming, & still be out of the weather.
The latter point, obviously being key.


ALL of the French shorthanded racing boats & classes have features setup with a nod towards this. To the point where on some, even 30'er's, have part of the aft section of the coach house's roof, build out of Lexan. And the see through "roof" extends back over the cockpit as an integrated hard dodger.
So that from both inside & out, every critical system is visible to the skipper/crew.
Look at the various Pogo's (size wise, & generations), the Figaro's, & others. Also, a few of the Class/Open 40's. www.Class40.org

Yeah, you guys give me crap for keeping a finger in the racing world, but with such advantages, literally built right into the boats, I'd be a fool not to. And a few notable figures on here do so too, quite in depth.

I also loved the aluminum deck with everything strongly welded to it.

Here is the perfect mast arrangement -- a deck-stepped mast with no compromises since the alu deck is incompressible. With a stout bulkhead underneath. So different from the case of my boat, with the mast base occupying a lot of space below, and deluges of rain water coming down the mast into the bilge every time it rains.
This "problem" is fixable, the rainwater one. And has been for a while.

And decks are only as incompressible under the spar, as the weakest link in the boat's structure, on down to her keel; regardless of material. For it's not uncommon for the vertical load on some spars to run twice the weight of the boat (or more) depending upon the design. So there's no free lunch here.

Given the choice, go WAY overboard on the structural specs for; the ring frame(s) around the spar (& other load points), the keel floors (the Dashew's suggest 4x ABS on these), your WT bulkheads & doors, & the rudder. Especially it's post.
And don't be shy about mixing materials. To both improve strength, & save on weight & cost.

Chain plates welded into the deck (and tied into bulkheads below) -- so simple, strong, perfect. Stanchion bases just welded on -- mangle one and you just cut it off and weld on a new one, which is just a bit of alu pipe -- simples.

I know that you have the Dashew's book, but perhaps it's time to fully read it again, cover to cover.
And to make a copy with one page of it per page of regular paper, but so that there's plenty of empty margin on each page of the Xeroxed copy for you to scribble notes into.

Ditto when you get copies of all of the literature on Amels, & all of these other boats. Yes, you'll be a bit of a butterfly for a while, flitting from one to another... without being a pest.
And keep each vessel's literature, systems info, & your notes et. all, in separate binders. So that you can add relavent articles, pages of your own notes, pictures, etc.

That, or do something similar with a tablet/laptop. So that you can put in pictures, video, & audio as well. Including audio notes that you take; when driving, sailing, walking the docks, at work, etc.
See the linked post below.


On the binder thing. I'm still a bit old school, in that at times. As the only way for me to be able to process all of what I want to see/look at at once, is to spread it all out on a gigantic table, or the living room floor, together.

So as to be able to; compare & contrast things, play "cut & paste" with various pics & documents from different sections, etc.
Which I'm not up to speed on how to do on a computer screen, as you have to be able to keep a bit much data in your head, for me anyway.

Though I know that there are systems which let you do such/specialize in it. Just haven't worked with them.

Too, for more on this concept, see both this post, & read the thread What's the best boat you've ever owned?

The Borealis also had ground tackle handling arrangements like Dashew's Sundeer -- the chain locker is located at the base of the mast, with the windlass under a hatch. The chain is led aft from the bow roller through a spurling pipe. I didn't like the inaccessibility of the horizontal windlass under the hatch, but that's a detail. This 44' boat carries 100 meters of 12mm chain -- the same as what I have on a much larger vessel, and the same 100# Spade anchor I have.

Separating the chain/ground tackle from the living space only makes sense. And leading it aft, again, is an old "trick".
One important thing to it though, is to be able to easily access the chain locker, physically, WHILE you're handling the anchor/anchoring. In case of any issues. Or if you need to swap rodes, etc.
For you should have at least your 2 primary ones right there, next to each other. Both operable from the same location on deck, & windlass.

Which is likely why the Dashew's, & many others, have their tackle setup so that it's well back from the bow, but inside of the forward WT section of the vessel. Within arm's reach from a deck hatch/right there when you go below via said deck hatch.
Here's another example of such Cetacea | Rodger Martin Design

If this mass is 3-4m minimum, back from the bow, & the hull's designed properly, with plenty of buoyancy forward. You don't have to pull the chain all of the way back to the boat's mid-point. And you retain the advantages of it being much more accessible when anchoring.

Plus, me, I'm a fan on some/many ("smaller") boats, of mounting the windlass just aft of the chain locker. So that the motor & electrics are out of the wet, completely. With the chain going through a separate hawse, down into the chain locker. Just forward of where the windlass is located.
So long, that is, as the breaker for the windlass is easily reachable via another deck hatch.
But I reckon you'll be going with a hydraulic setup anyway, or should consider it heavily.

Too, wherever you locate such a stowage setup for your chain, it'll need multiple drain pumps. Each capable of "digesting" all of the crap & crud which comes onboard with the chain. So, some type of macerator system in them.
Plus, & this is common sense, if the chain is in the middle of the boat, you'll have to sound isolate it's stowage structure. To include batter boards inside of the locker. And sound, plus thermal insulation on it's outside. Along with big, WT access hatches for it, belowdecks.

AND, you'll have to decide how you plan to deal with the mess you'll have, inside of the living space,with a centrally located locker. When you have to open it up for; maintenance, to clear a snag, change or change out/inspect rodes, etc. As your primary & 2ndary will both be in there, albeit, seperated.
So, "the where" is something not to be decided upon lightly.
But then again, if your boat's to be a tuned version of a proven design, then these things should already have well been worked out.

Stout samson post.

The stringers do not touch the hull skin -- they are let into the frames and bulkheads. The owner explain that this is to prevent structural damage in case of being bashed and dented. He said that the boat is designed to be grounded repeatedly on rocks at hull speed without compromising integrity of the hull.
Can you please describe this in another way? For as written, it doesn't fully make sense to me.
Stringers (& frames) are meant to reinforce the hull plating. And assist with mitigating damage to the hull should you strike something.
At least in my experience.

On heavily built working boats, extra stringers, oversized ones, are added, just for this reason. To support the hull plating, & have everything working as an integrated structure.
Otherwise, the hull plating would have to be insanely thick. To the point of making a vessel overly heavy. Even when built in aluminum.

Read about this in the design/build of the boat "Kiwi Roa".

Here is another interesting and unusual thing about this boat -- the underwater appendages. The keel is a ballasted stub with a daggerboard. The owner said that the reason, besides shoal draft when you need it, is so that in very bad weather you can retract the daggerboard and prevent any tripping over your keel in large breaking seas. Never heard that theory before, but it sounds reasonable to me, and interesting.
Yep, an old principle. And one present in/reasons behind the flush decked/high topsided, full keelers. And also discussed a good bit by the Dashew's. And several other notable sailors/authors.
It's something integral to many of the Dashew's designs.

When you have a shallower keel, & high topsides, & you Really get nailed by a wave, the boat leans over on her uber buoyant topsides, as the keel comes free (at a shallower angle of heel) & the energy of the wave is dissipated as you slide/skid sideways on your topsides. And with this, a rounded (large radiused) deck edge is a big aid in preventig further tripping, once heeled over that far. Whereas a hard/sharp deck edge will dig in, & grip the water.
Obviously, getting knocked around this much is a rare thing in a big boat, big meaning 20m+, but the design idea's a proven one, carried over from ages past.

You do, however, need to have a sufficiently high vanishing moment of stability (SIC), with or without a retractable board. In order to prevent going past 90 deg, or turtling/rolling over.
So it takes a good designer to pull this off if there's a lot of weight in the board. But it's more than doable.

And here is the weirdest thing I saw on this boat -- it had small retractable fins fwd of the rudder, set at an angle, which you let down through the hull into the water when beating, to reduce leeway. What??? Never heard of such a thing and don't understand the principle. Maybe someone on here has some knowledge or insight.
Probably the term you'll hear, is Canards. Though others use different terms. And the angle is so that the lift which they provide as compared to their surface area, is enhanced.
This can also be done, or further improved upon by making their foil shapes asymmetrical. And it's why they're angled, too.

Ever notice the daggerboards on the big racers of the last 20yrs. As in twin, usually asymmetric ones. Same idea.
And with either, the depth to which they're lowered, is variable, so that they can be used to trim the boat's balance, by altering her CLR.
They help with all kinds of other things too: Reducing the amount of helm required, letting you carry more sail when needed, especially if you have to punch through seas in a powerful system...

Many boats also use their centerboards in the same way. Even my old Searunner.
And ages ago, an OPEN 60, Holger Danske, designed by Dave Gerr had such a setup. With a small centerboard, for trim adjustment, that fully retracted into the hull. In between the keel & the rudder.

You might also look into trim tabs on the trailing edge of the keel. As were prominent on the 12 meters. And found favor on one of Paul Bieker's boat's, Dark Star, designed for/with US sailing Olympian, McKee.
Riptide 44

They act to hydrodynamically give your primary keel an (adjustable for conditions) asymmetric shape. Thus enhancing it's lift. And again, can also be use to balance (trim, hence the name) boat.

I didn't like the layout below -- forward master cabin and quarterberths -- but that's what you get with an aft cockpit. I don't know if I will have to resign to that for my own boat -- a question for the designer I guess.
A big question that you'll need to answer, is whether you plan to start with a blank sheet of paper, or to customize a proven design. And the former is much harder to do, well, especially the first time.

It's why racing teams like to have several generations of boats to play with, & then a pair of "trial horses", before settling on the final one which they'll use to race with. Be it a buoy racer/the America's Cup, or a RTW racer.
Much of this can be done on a computer, & in tow tanks.
But naught beats live, especially when it comes to both liveability factors, & systems design & layout. Including for longevity though intelligent design, & ease of access for maintenance.
"Little things matter greatly".

Plus which, given that this is your first custom, you can't know exactly what you want, as many of your ideas for her, are as yet untested. And haven't gone through any process(es)/generations of evolution as yet.
If you read the Dashews, especially several generations of their books, you'll see more of how they've done the same thing(s) over time. Improving most everything onboard, with each new generation of boat/design.

Such is pretty common/common knowledge in the world of custom boats, & those who deal in them. And it's where you should listen to/lean on the designer a good bit. As you're paying for his expertise.
And if he's any good, on many things, he'll make me seem like an advanced High Schooler, compared to a Post-Doctoral Professor.

One tip though, & not to purposefully put you on the spot. But working with someone like that, on a serious project, you can't get into the endless vacilations about things, like happens at times on here.
You'll have to work out the majority of the answers to many things on your time, so that he can know what you want, & get to work on it.
Otherwise, at best, you'll be playing at, the design game, for years.
Yes, he's there to educate you to some degree, but it's not hs primary job.

And this applies during the construction too. You give the experts the prints, & let your project manager do the vast majority of the interfacing.
As at that point during the build, you're then paying or his expertise.
And I am categorically NOT saying that you shouldn't be checking up on things during the build. More along the lines that it makes the yard manager's life a hell, if he's getting build dictums, continually, from 2 different guys. Especially if the owner is continually wanting to change, or tweak things.

Read Around the World, One Watch At A Time by Skip Novak. It covers a lot of how the "juggling act" works when a custom boat's being built.
And also, you'd be wise to view & read everything which you can scare up on him & his boats. Both on YouTube, & via text. With signing on for an expeditionary cruise or two with him, prior to planning your boat, being a Really, Really smart investment. Especially if you were to also speak to him, prior to booking, about what you're planning, & ask to contract for some of his time & expertise.
Skip Novak's Pelagic Expeditions Antarctica, Greenland, South Georgia, Cape Horn, Southern Ocean -- charter sailing yacht Pelagic, photographs, articles

Ah, & I mention him, as when I was learning the trade, he was one of those, who at 17 & 19, you look up to. Plus, he's a mate of several of my old mates/sailing friends. Though I don't know him personally, nor have any pull/favors, there.

He's managed more projects than he has fingers & toes, including multiple RTW races. And specializes in expeditions, & expeditionary sailing, down at the bottom of the world, in Chile & Antarctica. With his 2, purpose built, custom designed, shoal draft, metal boats.

Also, I know that you have a penchant for fancy things. Nothing at all wrong with that. But with any & all of these kinds of boats, the better ones are designed, first as work(ing) boats, with cruising amenities added into them/integrated into said theme.
And simple, reliable, redundant, easily fixable, is a commonality with they all share. Just as in military vessels, which too, are working boats.

The fancy is added in after that's been accomplished. Such as in Beth & Evans's Hawk for example. She was built sans many of the things which are the norm on today's cruising boats, for good reason.

Also, you can add in "fancy", & toys later. Not so much with structure, or function as part of the design. Doing that is Far pricier, & involves a lot of yard time; de-building, doing the mod', re-assembly, & then, finish work.

If there was any doubt at all about whether my next boat will be metal or not, I think it's gone now.

And the pilothouse arrangement is something to think about

Quite a dissertation! Lots of interesting things to think about here.

Concerning hard dodgers vs doghouses vs pilothouses --

For long distances in all weather even at this latitude (above 55N at the moment!), a hard dodger is not enough. I have a fixed installed windshield and long overhanging dodger now -- and I love it -- but it's just not enough when it's pouring down rain and +2 C and you have 500 miles left to go.

I have a full cockpit enclosure and I have put THAT up in conditions like that. I was actually surprised that it's possible to sail with that thing up, but you can. Leave the companionway open and central heat on full blast and it's some kind of refuge.



Sure you want to be close to the winches and so forth when sailing actively, but in some weather you really, really need to trim conservatively and just get out of the weather. It's just totally different when you spend most of the year on your boat, sail thousands of miles, and at these latitudes, compared to more usual ways of using a sailboat.



Concerning the centrally located chain locker -- yes, I'm well aware of the complications, but this idea has been successfully implemented on a number of boats including Dashew's Sundeers and the Boreal. If you want a whole lot of heavy chain, and you don't want the bow loaded down, you don't really have much choice. Dashew likes to specify lighter but G70 chain, but I prefer for the chain to have some meat on it. So I think the central chain locker is the right compromise for me.

Good tip about keeping the windlass motor out of the wet, a flaw of my present boat. And keeping multiple rodes and other gear handy. My present chain locker is divided into two sections. I can't stand up in it, but can crawl around in it pretty well. I keep two rodes, my Fortress kedge, fenders, Baltic bow ladder, and so forth in it. The new locker will need to be no less handy and accessible.

Obviously if you mount it anywhere back from the bow, whether you go as far back as the mast or not, it will have to have its own bilge, pump, and water tight access door to clean it out, or at least very good access from above. The good news is that, properly designed, it's one more watertight compartment, unlike the normal type of chain locker which is above the waterline and with holes in it.


Concerning keel- versus deck-stepped mast -- if the designer says that he can't design a deck-stepped mast without structural compromises, then I will reconsider keel-stepped ones. I'm not a professional engineer, but I don't see why a deck-stepped mast on a metal boat, bolted to a massively strong deck over a massively strong bulkhead and/or compression post, tied in structurally to the shroud chainplates via massive frames, couldn't be perfectly satisfactory, but I will defer to the designer. An exceptionally high degree of structural integrity will be part of the design brief in any case. It is my belief that most cruising boats are seriously underbuilt, at least for the kind of sailing I do. My present boat has different pros and cons, but one of the big pros is that it is finally, after a lifetime of sailing different boats, strong enough under all circumstances. She is ridiculously overbuilt, with chainplates more massive than on a Swan 90, through-bolted bulkheads, massive frames and stringers, etc., which means she is just right for my taste -- finally a boat with a hull which doesn't "work" in a seaway in storm conditions. The next boat must be at least this strong.



Concerning the stringers and frames on the Boreal -- the stringers do not touch the hull; they are tied into the frames, with a little gap to the hull. I have no opinion on whether or not it's a good idea.



Concerning keel design -- I really don't know what the best way for this is. It seems impossible to get everything you might want so some big compromise or another will be necessary. Unfortunately when you get up to over 60', the depth of the fixed keel needed for decent performance upwind gives you a draft unfeasible for many places you might want to go. In the Baltic, 2.5m is maximum for a large proportion of yacht harbors. With more than that, you will very often have to stay outside at anchor or go to the fishing or commercial harbor, and even many of those won't accommodate a 3m (or more) draft. I have fairly serious problems with my present boat's draft, in the Baltic, already.

And yet movable keels are, it seems to me, a huge weak point in a place where you absolutely don't want a weak point, on a boat to be sailed far from civilization. And on top of that, it's hard to get the ballast down where it needs to be, with a movable keel.

A swing keel might be ok structurally, but how do you integrate that with a decent stub with ballast in it. A daggerboard keel just looks like trouble to me -- I remember how many times I broke the daggerboard trunk on the dinghy I sailed as a teenager, and nearly sank, every time the daggerboard touched the bottom. All that lever arm, operating on that area in case of a grounding -- I just don't think it can be made sufficiently strong. Same reason I wouldn't want a torpedo keel on a thin, deep, high aspect keel, on a high latitude boat, as great as that would be for upwind sailing.


I really don't know how to deal with this and I guess the designer will have to help me.


Concerning "tripping" on the keel -- I have been knocked down in my present boat, in my present sailing grounds!! So this is absolutely not a theoretical problem, for someone who sails in different weather and different seasons, up here, much less up higher where I want to go someday. So this will also be part of the design brief, and maybe it's another reason for a movable keel. I do not -- repeat DO NOT -- want to ever be rolled. *shudder*, and actually one knock-down on a large cruising boat is quite enough for me, and I will try very hard to avoid repeating it. But if you mess around up here, up in the Arctic, Barents Sea, or especially the Southern Ocean, the risk can't be completely avoided. I very much like the idea of the boat's being designed to mitigate these conditions, and it's actually news to me that there are these tricks. It's very interesting.



As to clean sheet of paper designing -- obviously I want to avoid this if at all possible. My current profession involves designing stuff from clean sheets of paper using large teams of architects and engineers, and I am all too familiar with the complexity of the process, not to mention the risks, expense, etc. If there's anything fun about it, I get quite enough of it in my day job and don't really aspire to spending a couple of years doing it for my hobby.

But I've never seen a boat which came even close to doing what I need a boat to do, so I decided to think it through very, very thoroughly first, as if I had a clean sheet of paper, and prepare a really good, really thorough design brief -- something I know how to do, from my day job. Then when I get closer to being able to actually start the project, show the design brief to different designers and see what ideas they come up with. I will be delighted if I find something which can be adapted to my needs, even if this requires a lot of compromises.

I actually want to look at a Boreal 52 in person -- it lacks a number of things I think I need, but does tick a surprising lot of boxes. Maybe it could work with some custom modifications. The best part is that it costs something like 1/4 or even 1/5 of what I think a custom build will cost me, so could greatly accelerate realization of this project.

[Dockhead]

Concerning center vs aft cockpit --

I forgot who questioned this here, but I strongly prefer center cockpits for several reasons.

First of all, the after deck is by far the most useful deck space on a sailboat, whether for working or for recreation. I just can't imagine not having an after deck. An aft cockpit boat is just like a boat without any deck, as far as I'm concerned, since other parts of the deck are hardly usable for anything much.

Second, the volume under the after deck is the best part of the boat's interior volume. I greatly prefer an aft master cabin.

Third, the space under a center cockpit is ideal for a proper engine room (and I have noted in the back of my mind the permanent access from above to the engine space on Amels -- very cute trick).

Obviously center cockpits have a few disadvantages, but for me these advantages are overwhelming. It would be a big compromise for me to go with an aft cockpit design.

[IdoraKeeper]

Thanks for this thread DH. You have stimulated a huge outpouring of excellent boat porn. Here's to hoping this years cruise is rock free.

[UNCIVILIZED]

Just thought I'd add a few thoughts on modern design features. As a good number of them are (mostly) changes for the better.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

That boat is pretty far from my ideal. That keel design, while great for performance, is not nearly robust enough for my purposes. Nor do I like the hull form at all, which resembles a Hanse with the plumb bow (no extra buoyancy) and fat, flat aft sections. There is no pilothouse or even dog house. That is not at all a high latitude boat, even if it's alu and even if it's made in Sverige.

When you're looking at a feature, such as a keel, from first appearances, your comments may be correct. But it's the "how" behind the design, & construction which matter. Including how strongly they overdesign/overbuild it.
As in, they literally do the math behind what level of collisions will or won't cause damage. And also what level(s) of damage.

I'm not saying that this boat would or wouldn't work for you, but... If you want to understand some of what I'm talking about, read about the boat below, & her design process (Keel included). As the math which I'm talking about above, is described in simple detail. Plus, she likely has some features that you'll want to incorporate.
Technical Details | The new Adventures of s/v Rocket Science
The full version of the article is in a back issue of Professional Boatbuilder. And she was designed by Paul Bieker, as seen here Riptide 55
Plus, IIRC, she now sports a hard dodger, as seen over on Sailing Anarchy Forums.


Plumb bows make it easier to design in More buoyancy forward. As compared to designing in enough with a raked one. Because you've got a bunch of extra feet of hull up front, in the water (read volume, AKA buoyancy). Where, with a raked stem, you have none/nothing in the same area.
Plus, you get that much more space to add in segemented crash compartments, in the most critical location in the boat.

Not to mention the extra WL that you get with one. There's a reason that they're popular now, & have been, almost exclusively for the last 2 decades+. Ditto on working sailboats, a century or two ago.

Look at the Dashew's various designs, & their comments on buoyancy forward, & WL. They say, & follow the same dictums.
The longer your canoe body is, for a given LOA, the more bouyancy you'll have.


Fat, flat aft sections, properly designed, offer:
- More effective WL length
- Give you more room on deck & below
- Help the boat to generate & use more power when under sail. Often they to the same for stability as well, in a good hull form.
- Promote planing & surfing off of the wind, & increase control when doing so.


Hard dodger (or more), are pretty easy to add to such a design (& most designs). And I'd be Very surprised if this boat's designers don't have several versions of such in their computers. If not on boats already out there sailing with them.

Dinghy storage looks good, but I prefer the dinghy garage setup on the HR64, where the dinghy garage is not under an aft cockpit, but under the afterdeck of a center cockpit boat, which gives it height enough to make into an excellent deck storage space as well as place for the dinghy. This also works well with the idea of separate watertight compartments, with all that space separated from the rest of the boat.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I've been at sea and have lost the plot a bit on this thread. Now in Copenhagen after crossing the North Sea and cruising a bit in the Danish islands.

That boat is pretty far from my ideal. That keel design, while great for performance, is not nearly robust enough for my purposes. Nor do I like the hull form at all, which resembles a Hanse with the plumb bow (no extra buoyancy) and fat, flat aft sections. There is no pilothouse or even dog house. That is not at all a high latitude boat, even if it's alu and even if it's made in Sverige.

Dinghy storage looks good, but I prefer the dinghy garage setup on the HR64, where the dinghy garage is not under an aft cockpit, but under the afterdeck of a center cockpit boat, which gives it height enough to make into an excellent deck storage space as well as place for the dinghy. This also works well with the idea of separate watertight compartments, with all that space separated from the rest of the boat.

I would only comment on the plumb bow and if I understood rightly lesser buoyancy. It is the opposite, for the same LOA a plumb will provide not only a bigger LWL as also a big buoyancy (due to a bigger volume).

I don't like the interior but regarding hull shape the boat presents very fine entries and a fast well designed hull with a moderate beam.

[Littlechay]

keel design:

Just a comment but it's a significant one in terms of keel design. A bulb keel, especially one that projects forward as well as aft of the fin is a recipe for disaster when sailing anywhere with kelp, or indeed unmarked fishing lines and crab pots. Unless you like diving in cold water to clear the stuff that's wrapped around the keel.

I've even seen an anchor chain wrapped around one after a boat that sails so badly on anchor managed to sail itself forward of the chain and achieve a wrap, or at least a hang up on the bulb. It was fresh and that boat was tacking back and forth and repeatedly sailing up ahead of the anchor. Aerorig!

[TeddyDiver]

Plumb bows make it easier to design in More buoyancy forward. As compared to designing in enough with a raked one. Because you've got a bunch of extra feet of hull up front, in the water (read volume, AKA buoyancy). Where, with a raked stem, you have none/nothing in the same area.
Plus, you get that much more space to add in segemented crash compartments, in the most critical location in the boat.

Not so simple.. That is true only if the criterion has been LOA and deck area, if the criterion were LWL the deck area would be larger with raked stem and the result would be just the opposite.

BR Teddy