Pilothouse Variations -- Boreal

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by reed1v

Dinky keel, twin rudders, light displacement, and shallow cockpit makes for a rough and potentially dangerous ride if used for long distance cruising. Doable but risky. One hits a lot of stuff out there in the oceans. Conservative sailors would want the keel to be an extension of the hull, not some phallic symbol hanging off the bottom.

The JPK 38 was designed by and for people who sail boats around the world in difficult circumstances for a living. They might know a few things as well, that the average "conservative sailor" doesn't...

For example that light and fast is a lot of fun...

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

One type of hull form does not suit all uses, and there are different directions in hull form evolution.

Design is always a compromise, and I find designs that push the compromise in a different direction quite interesting.

And interesting French Naval Architect is Patrick Balta. He does have his own ideas about what makes the ideal cruising boat. His motto is, long, narrow and light. And this least to designs like this, a 12m yacht, that only weighs 4 tons...

[malbert73]

Agree. And I think for the few production builders that are actually turning out light, high tech boats- that is a great niche. A planing fast cruiser seems like a really great way to cruise, but you'll have to cover it with solar to power the watermaker on long passages since you can't afford the weight of large tankage or generators and keep them fast.

The mistake is assuming that the hull designs that work for light and high tech, like volvo boats, or some of the boats recently cited on this blog- are naturally the best design for heavier, low-tech production boats.
the broad transom, wedge shaped hull design works fabulously on these racer/hi tech cruisers like the JPK38 but you better not load up on food, water, fuel, and gear because they won't perform then. Payload is a much higher % of displacement. And you will likely pound upwind. But for many getting there fast is worth the tradeoff in motion comfort and payload.
But putting these same designs on low tech build production boats like jeanneau, bene, bavaria, etc- really just makes them look like the modern fast boats- but with iron keels, low ballast/displacement, and cruising displacement, these boats aren't planing. (Sort of like the spoiler and wide rims on a 4 cylinder sedan)
So you get boats with larger interiors (a big plus for buyers) that sometimes struggle in light air due to wetted surface, and that sometimes feel a bit weird sailing at high angles of heel in breeze (like aerating the rudder unexpectedly in my experience). Of course they heel in big breeze because they don't have the deep draft high tech bulb keels to keep them upright.

So that's my point in my responses above. Polux, apologize for attack, but your snarky insults and inability to acknowledge compromise in price point production boats wears on many of us on forum, and it's tedious to read the same thing over and over.

Overall, designs need to match build parameters, and all have their compromises- price, performance, interior, speed, seakindliness. My "dated" S&S designed sailboat matches my needs perfectly, and sails as fast and more comfortably than any "modern" production boat I have chartered (beneteau, bavaria). With cored construction it's lighter and stiffer than many of it's peers, and it can carry a good payload. But it has a relatively smaller interior and cockpit. I am content with the compromise, as others may or may not be. IMHO, flat, broad beamed cruisers need to be lightweight and hitech, as well as deep draft- to work...


Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[Polux]

Originally Posted by malbert73

....
The mistake is assuming that the hull designs that work for light and high tech, like volvo boats, or some of the boats recently cited on this blog- are naturally the best design for heavier, low-tech production boats.
the broad transom, wedge shaped hull design works fabulously on these racer/hi tech cruisers like the JPK38 but you better not load up on food, water, fuel, and gear because they won't perform then. Payload is a much higher % of displacement. And you will likely pound upwind. But for many getting there fast is worth the tradeoff in motion comfort and payload.
But putting these same designs on low tech build production boats like jeanneau, bene, bavaria, etc- really just makes them look like the modern fast boats- but with iron keels, low ballast/displacement, and cruising displacement, these boats aren't planing. (Sort of like the spoiler and wide rims on a 4 cylinder sedan)
So you get boats with larger interiors (a big plus for buyers) that sometimes struggle in light air due to wetted surface, and that sometimes feel a bit weird sailing at high angles of heel in breeze (like aerating the rudder unexpectedly in my experience). Of course they heel in big breeze because they don't have the deep draft high tech bulb keels to keep them upright.
...

It is not a question to be the best designed. The best design depends on the type of sailing one wants to do but if the objective is to have a boat that sails with little heel that has a big stability (big hull form stability plus stability from ballast), that is powerful and therefore fast, that rolls very little downwind that has a big interior for the length and a very good loading capacity than those type of hulls are the best answer and that is why they are used by most builders of cruising boats, from Boreal to Garcia, Amel, passing by Bavaria, Hanse or Oceanis.

If you want a boat maximized for upwind sailing or a better boat in very light winds the answer can be different but you lose the little heel while sailing, a very considerable amount of stability, a superior easiness handling the boat, a lot of interior volume and most of all you have a diminished load ability (for modern light boats).

The much narrower boat will sink on its water line a lot more than the beamier boat for the same load and it will have its sailability more compromised than the beamier boat.

Yes, there are many types of hulls for many different purposes but it seems to me that you did not understand why beamier hulls, with almost all beam pulled aft, are by far the more common in what regards contemporary cruising boats. The reason is simple: those types of hulls are not the more adequate for the needs of all cruisers but they are certainly the more adequate for the vast majority of cruisers, from voyage boats to general purpose cruising boats.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

Design is always a compromise, and I find designs that push the compromise in a different direction quite interesting.

And interesting French Naval Architect is Patrick Balta. He does have his own ideas about what makes the ideal cruising boat. His motto is, long, narrow and light. And this least to designs like this, a 12m yacht, that only weighs 4 tons...

I love that boat- I guess you read French so here an article about a guy that built one (9 years work). That is a boat for people that really like to sail and that most of all like to sail upwind. The big problem is that you will end up with a boat with 12m with the interior size of a boat with 9m (Beam 3.16m), with an intermediate stability for about the same price.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x36...magazine_sport

L'Enfant perdu et l'homme heureux - Mon VOILE MAG






I remember many years ago Balta proposed a different boat for the vendee Globe, this one:

A narrow boat but nobody was interested and for good reason because the boat would not be competitive on the conditions that we will find on a circumnavigation race.

At about the same time Sponberg (an American NA) was convinced that a narrower boat, (even if not so narrow as the one from Balta) would be competitive and convinced a racer to built one. It was a deception, not only the boat was not fast enough as it proved to be too hard to be solo sailed, ketch rigged and all.

[Juho]

Originally Posted by Polux

The much narrower boat will sink on its water line a lot more than the beamier boat for the same load and it will have its sailability more compromised than the beamier boat.

My understanding is that the OP wants to solve the loading capacity and speed related requirements by ordering a boat with sufficient LWL. That means that he would put more emphasis (and his money) on length rather than on breadth.

He had one particular wish for efficiency. The boat should be quite good at pointing upwind, since he needs those capabilities quite often.

I think traditional cruiser style boats should work quite fine for him. Or do you think there are some reasons to move towards a shorter and beamier boat?

[reed1v]

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

Because the veiw from the dome is significantly better than the veiw out the windows. It is also higher, so I can see over the dinghy that will be lashed down fwd of the mast. It also gives headroom in an otherwise low pilothouse.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Makes sense. Am use to pilothouses where folks can stand up inside, like the Fisher 37.

[reed1v]

Originally Posted by Juho

My understanding is that the OP wants to solve the loading capacity and speed related requirements by ordering a boat with sufficient LWL. That means that he would put more emphasis (and his money) on length rather than on breadth.

He had one particular wish for efficiency. The boat should be quite good at pointing upwind, since he needs those capabilities quite often.

I think traditional cruiser style boats should work quite fine for him. Or do you think there are some reasons to move towards a shorter and beamier boat?

Holding LWL constant, the wider the beam, the higher the boat will ride, the lessening of windward ability, and the stiffer the boat(may or may not be a good thing). Keeping LWL constant and increasing the load factor, increasing the beam will allow greater load carrying, but at less ultimate stability and comfort.
Another factor that needs to be controlled is how high does one carry the additional loadings. And so on. The old style English sailing trawlers were about 9 foot on the beam and up to 12 feet in draft. So deep and narrow. Virtually unsinkable at sea and very comfy. Think a famous mountaineer found this design preferable for long distance sailing.

[Juho]

Originally Posted by reed1v

Holding LWL constant, the wider the beam, the higher the boat will ride, the lessening of windward ability, and the stiffer the boat(may or may not be a good thing). Keeping LWL constant and increasing the load factor, increasing the beam will allow greater load carrying, but at less ultimate stability and comfort.
Another factor that needs to be controlled is how high does one carry the additional loadings. And so on. The old style English sailing trawlers were about 9 foot on the beam and up to 12 feet in draft. So deep and narrow. Virtually unsinkable at sea and very comfy. Think a famous mountaineer found this design preferable for long distance sailing.

That sounds to me like the traditional cruiser style could be a good approach for the OP. The LWL need not be constant, so the best way to meet the OP requirements could be to just increase LWL and LOA as much as needed, and keep the breadth moderate.

My understanding is that the OP is looking for a comfortable ride in all kind of weather, so he may well prefer a deep hull to a flat hull (while still maintaining good sailing capabilities).

I'd say the traditional (rather heavy) cruiser format has many benefits if one wants a safe boat that can handle all seas and all weather, and offer a stable and comfortable ride. There are reasons why it has been and is so popular among cruisers.

[Snowpetrel]

Originally Posted by reed1v

Makes sense. Am use to pilothouses where folks can stand up inside, like the Fisher 37.

Yeah, very different type to what I am invisaging, even then they sometimes have raised seats for helming.

My grandfathers pilothouse yacht had a hatch above the inside steering position that you could open and stand in with your head poked out of and look all around. In rough conditions it was shut and it made it hard to see the sails or astern. Or even if well heeled difficult to see to windward or leeward depending on which way the boat was heeled.

A dome on that hatch would have been fantastic.

That is one area I think the Boreal style pilothouse does right. Due to the big window and small size the view from inside should be good. Even with a dinghy on the foredeck. Or well heeled.

A lot of pilothouse boats have a sleek low pilothouse that I think in real world conditions would be hard to really look out all around from. So you end up having to go outside regularly and peer around the pilothouse, hopefully not getting a face full of spray! A dome would significantly improve the veiw.

[reed1v]

If we had to do it all over again, would put some Go-Pro type cams on the mizzen mast to get a 360 cam view, then feed the view into the nav station so one can monitor without the risk of going outside. Acquaintance set up something like that with several night scope/cams so he could monitor night happenings. Said it worked well in dark conditions.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Juho

My understanding is that the OP wants to solve the loading capacity and speed related requirements by ordering a boat with sufficient LWL. That means that he would put more emphasis (and his money) on length rather than on breadth.

He had one particular wish for efficiency. The boat should be quite good at pointing upwind, since he needs those capabilities quite often.

I think traditional cruiser style boats should work quite fine for him. Or do you think there are some reasons to move towards a shorter and beamier boat?

I don't understand what you mean. This thread is about the Boreal and Pilot house boats. The Boreal, that the OP seems to like, is a beamy boat with almost all beam pulled aft.

It seems to me that the thread is mostly about design and the several options regarding a cruising boat. Even if most designers opt for beamy boats (for the reasons I explained) there are on the market contemporarily designed relatively narrow boats even if in small number, corresponding to the small number of sailors that want and prefer those boats as cruising boats. Most of them are cruiser-racers.

Regarding preferences it is a personal thing but what is not personal is the fact that for having the same loading ability, the same stability and the same interior volume a really narrow boat needing to be considerably bigger, costing substantially more and paying more on many marinas.

Personally I have nothing against narrow boats but my wife has due to heel. One of the boats I considered for me (and tested) was a narrow boat, a Luffe, a beautiful boat that goes upwind like a dart...but with lots of heel (here the 40 fter).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TshqOqbuzb0

By the way Luffe has a gorgeous Deck saloon with raised chart table, unfortunately using the hull of the 43 that is an already old hull. That Deck Saloon on the 45 hull would make a trully awesome boat (if you don't mind sailing with considerable more heel):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cl32McIXRV8

[Juho]

Originally Posted by Polux

I don't understand what you mean. This thread is about the Boreal and Pilot house boats. The Boreal, that the OP seems to like, is a beamy boat with almost all beam pulled aft.

It seems to me that the thread is mostly about design and the several options regarding a cruising boat. Even if most designers opt for beamy boats (for the reasons I explained) there are on the market contemporarily designed relatively narrower boats even if in small number, corresponding to the small number of sailors that want nd prefere those boats. Most of them are cruiser-racers.

Regarding preferences it is a personal thing but what is not personal is the fact that for having the same loading ability, the same stability and the same interior volume a really narrow boat needing to be considerably bigger, costing substantially more and paying more on many marinas.

Personally I have nothing against narrow boats but my wife has due to heel. One of the boats I considered for me (and tested) was a narrow boat, a Luffe, a beautiful boat that goes upwind like a dart...but with lots of heel (here the 40 fter).

By the way Luffe has a gorgeous Deck saloon with raised chart table, unfortunately using the hull of the 43 that is an already old hull. That Deck Saloon on the 45 would make an awesome boat:

The OP expressed some interest in the doghouse of the Boreal (and the aluminium structure and few other things), not necessarily its hull format.

There are many hull designs as you say. I think the OP said that he doesn't like the "plumb bow and fat, flat aft sections" of Adventure 55.

If you want to maximize the loading ability, then a half sphere or a bath tub could be the solution. But all boats are of course compromises that aim also e.g. at speed and seaworthiness. The planned 50'+ LWL could be the key solution to providing the required speed and loading ability (in addition to the important upwind capabilities).

I have no way of knowing what the OP wants, but my guess was that a traditional cruiser format could be close to what he needs, for the reasons that I mentioned.

[Snowpetrel]

Originally Posted by Polux

A narrow boat but nobody was interested and for good reason because the boat would not be competitive on the conditions that we will find on a circumnavigation race.

At about the same time Sponberg (an American NA) was convinced that a narrower boat, (even if not so narrow as the one from Balta) would be competitive and convinced a racer to built one. It was a deception, not only the boat was not fast enough as it proved to be too hard to be solo sailed, ketch rigged and all.

Polux, your understanding of the complexities of yacht design and racing rules is very simplistic. There are a number of factors in the open class rules that drive them towards wide boats, that simply are not relevant to cruising.

The real issues with Project Amazon were weight related. She was estimated to be around 19 tonnes. Far too heavy to be competitive against much lighter boats.

The ketch rig is not intrisicaly harder to handle than any other rig. In some cases it can be easier.

If you want to see how a narrow boat went ocean planet makes a better example, she placed respectably, for an older design built on a shoestring.

Absolute top speeds surfing are not a priority for most cruisers. I actually dont want boat to surf. It plays havoc with my windvane. And stresses the rudder and boat more than I am comfortable with for ocean crossing where I pay the bills for fixing any breakages.

Anyway, I think we are not going to get much more from this line of discussion than an endless repetition of the same points.

I will leave you with a video my brother made of his wide sterned sunfast 3600. It will keep you happy I am sure I am keen to see how he goes in the RNI two handed race.

He likes the boat but says she is a bit sticky in the light. He is a damned good sailer and makes it look easy

https://m.youtube.com/user/BooBooNZ?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SE3KbMfzpb4

This is a 35 foot canting keeler in a bit of wind.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B_kdKU...gOT7mOKj9wE%3D

[IdoraKeeper]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Indeed. Bow vs. Wave is a battle fought in different situations, most terrifyingly while surfing downwind at the edge of a broach.

The bow on my present boat looks like the one on your boat in your avatar --

mildly raked and no flare.

I would like for the next boat to have a bit of flare in addition to a mild rake.

The flare has another advantage, a serious one, of giving a bit more deck space there where you are handling ground tackle, working on furlers, dropping sails, climbing on and off the bow when moored Baltic-style.

My present boat has rudimentary bulwarks which I really like. I think the bulwarks might be a bit higher at the bow. This might cost a bit of windage, or then again maybe not -- it could be that properly shaped bulwarks could smooth the air flow over the deck and reduce the net windage forces. Air doesn't like to flow over randomly shaped objects.



I guess you didn't have a GoPro with you when you tried that U-Boat maneuver? Would be pretty cool to watch.

First, I would like to say its great fun helping DH spend his hard earned boat bucks. My contribution is regarding the effect of the shape of the bow while at anchor. Idora has a fisherman's bow like a New England fishing schooner...she sailed on the hook like crazy...putting up a bit of mizzen sail just shortened her tacks and caused jerking. Surprise! When I added a safety
net below the bowsprit, it disrupted the airflow around the lee side of the hull and greatly reduced the hunting and sailing on the hook.