Reasons to stay "Monohull"

[accomplice]

Originally Posted by Stumble

Accomplice,

I really think you need to get some time on a modern performance hull. If you think motoring in 10kn of breeze is the only way to achieve reasonable passage times then you are just wrong. My fat Beneteau will clock six knots easy in 10kn true going close to DDW. A performance monohull is going to be closing in quickly on 10kn boat speed and probably 8kn vmg. There is the advantage of a performance boat, you put up the kite turn on the auto pilot and let the apparent wind start to clock forward.

I have spent years on a boat very similar to yours, if anything it sailed worse, but it simply is not representative of what a modern performance cruiser can do.

Thanks, Stumble. I would like to spend some time offshore on one of those boats -- not quite sure how to.

I still maintain that the evaluation scenarios for planing hulls are not representative of cruising. Even ARC, although billed as a rally for cruisers, is treated as a race by many. (even my insurer considers it a race).

In flat seas and a steady 10 knots, I'm sure a Cigale or other light displacement cruiser would be much, much faster than a performance cruiser like ours under sail. I am happy to hit 50% of true wind speed DDW on our boat. Maybe the Cigale would do 60% or even 70%? But the real world doesn't always have flat seas or steady winds. Instead of a steady 10 knots, one often gets a variable 5-10. Instead of flat seas, one often has the left over slop from the wind that blew days ago many miles away. I cannot have been the only cruiser to find it difficult to keep sails filled and productive in those conditions. Even on a hot-rod Cigale, though, that 70% (assuming they can make 70% while rolling in a sloppy sea) of 5-10knots is still less than 5knots. While 5knots VMG may be lovely for taking friends around the bay on a nice summer day, if I'm on a delivery passage and the best I can do is 5knots under sail, I'm probably putting on the iron genny to get to my destination. (I understand that different boats and skippers may have different motor-on thresholds). That my Tayana would only do 3-4 knots in those conditions doesn't change my conclusion -- in many conditions experienced during offshore passage, an auxiliary diesel will get you to your destination faster -- and that includes for a design that can plane under sail.

I think it would be great if hull designs advanced to the stage where mono's fitted for cruising could regularly and easily exceed their hull-speed. The pogo50 and Cigale represent steps in that direction, but coming from a cruising perspective, they are far closer to being ocean racing boats than long range cruisers. Aside from the subjective issue of aesthetics, and ignoring priorities such as comfort, cruising boats need to carry a lot of stuff. The tankage is a small issue -- another 1100L of fuel is only 2,000#. What happens to the performance of a 33,000# 60' Cigale when it is loaded with another 10,000 pounds of cruising gear on top of that?

Performance under sail is great -- no one would argue otherwise, but what price does one pay to get it? Even within traditional full-displacement hulls, hull-shape calls for tradeoffs in downwind vs upwind performance, form stability vs AVS and other factors, pointing ability vs draft, etc. It might be possible to design a boat that achieves the multiple, disparate ideals of a cruising boat, but every design I've seen involves trade-offs.

There have been long discussions here, often with more heat than light, on what makes a blue-water boat. Perhaps this is a similar discussion on what makes a cruising boat. I assert that there is no single hull shape (or count) that makes a good cruising boat, but certain aspects are vital to that categorization. Individual cruisers will vary in their priorities.

[arsenelupiga]

Originally Posted by accomplice

Thanks, Stumble. I would like to spend some time offshore on one of those boats -- not quite sure how to.

I still maintain that the evaluation scenarios for planing hulls are not representative of cruising. Even ARC, although billed as a rally for cruisers, is treated as a race by many. (even my insurer considers it a race).

In flat seas and a steady 10 knots, I'm sure a Cigale or other light displacement cruiser would be much, much faster than a performance cruiser like ours under sail. I am happy to hit 50% of true wind speed DDW on our boat. Maybe the Cigale would do 60% or even 70%? But the real world doesn't always have flat seas or steady winds. Instead of a steady 10 knots, one often gets a variable 5-10. Instead of flat seas, one often has the left over slop from the wind that blew days ago many miles away. I cannot have been the only cruiser to find it difficult to keep sails filled and productive in those conditions. Even on a hot-rod Cigale, though, that 70% (assuming they can make 70% while rolling in a sloppy sea) of 5-10knots is still less than 5knots. While 5knots VMG may be lovely for taking friends around the bay on a nice summer day, if I'm on a delivery passage and the best I can do is 5knots under sail, I'm probably putting on the iron genny to get to my destination. (I understand that different boats and skippers may have different motor-on thresholds). That my Tayana would only do 3-4 knots in those conditions doesn't change my conclusion -- in many conditions experienced during offshore passage, an auxiliary diesel will get you to your destination faster -- and that includes for a design that can plane under sail.

I think it would be great if hull designs advanced to the stage where mono's fitted for cruising could regularly and easily exceed their hull-speed. The pogo50 and Cigale represent steps in that direction, but coming from a cruising perspective, they are far closer to being ocean racing boats than long range cruisers. Aside from the subjective issue of aesthetics, and ignoring priorities such as comfort, cruising boats need to carry a lot of stuff. The tankage is a small issue -- another 1100L of fuel is only 2,000#. What happens to the performance of a 33,000# 60' Cigale when it is loaded with another 10,000 pounds of cruising gear on top of that?

Performance under sail is great -- no one would argue otherwise, but what price does one pay to get it? Even within traditional full-displacement hulls, hull-shape calls for tradeoffs in downwind vs upwind performance, form stability vs AVS and other factors, pointing ability vs draft, etc. It might be possible to design a boat that achieves the multiple, disparate ideals of a cruising boat, but every design I've seen involves trade-offs.

There have been long discussions here, often with more heat than light, on what makes a blue-water boat. Perhaps this is a similar discussion on what makes a cruising boat. I assert that there is no single hull shape (or count) that makes a good cruising boat, but certain aspects are vital to that categorization. Individual cruisers will vary in their priorities.

although we have very different boats, we have very similar approach to sailing

[accomplice]

Originally Posted by Polux

I get it, boats are limited by hull speed, except the exceptions and the exceptions are fast cruisers

Have a look again at the Cigale 16 Polar, another exception and remember that all this has to do with a owner of a Tayana 58 saying that his boat was maximized for fast passage making and me saying that it was not, that a boat like the Cigale or Pogo or Django are passagemakers maximized for fast passages.

Thanks for sharing the videos.

Yes, they are fast sailing boats.

But they do not meet most commonly accepted definitions of cruising boats, their polars are probably not recorded with 10,000# - 15,000# of gear, and none of the data you presented indicates real-world, long-term cruising performance.

Furthermore, a fast boat and a fast ocean passage are different things. A boat fitted for racing and a boat fitted for cruising are different things.

I think I simply have a different definition of cruising and passaging than you. If I don't have on-board the family car (dinghy) the toys and creature comforts, I'm not taking my family cruising -- I'm going sailing without them.

I have a passage coming up in two weeks from Puerto Rico to New England. The rhumb line is approx 1400nm, although I'm planning to run east of it, bending a course near Bermuda in case I need to stop (crew health, equipment failure, etc.), so I expect to cover closer to 1500nm. I'll be crossing the Sargasso Sea, known for its frequent light winds. There are centuries of reports of old sailing ships sitting there, becalmed for days or weeks. Hopefully we'll have good wind, but if we don't, I'll try to shoot some video for you and you can tell me how much faster a Cigale would be in those conditions.

So much about reading too much magazines. Maybe you should get a fast performance cruiser to understand better what I am talking about

I don't spend much time reading magazines, nor watching sailing videos. I do spend several weeks a year making ocean passages on a cruising boat, though. I recognize there are many with far more offshore experience than me, on far more boats than I have. All the data I've received from them matches my own experience, though.

Since I don't have a cruising boat capable of planing (yet), I'm hoping that others can put some serious cruising miles on them and report on their strengths and weaknesses. Other hull shapes have millions of miles under their hulls that indicate LWL is the best predictor of passaging speed. You still haven't presented any data on planing hulls that would lead me to believe that they'd be any faster at real-world cruising passages than their LWL would predict, nor that they offer any advantages in a cruising boat.

Note that I am not defending or promoting these fast passage makers, just saying that they obviously can do what I have said they can do: Sailing easely slightly over hull speed and some even get to real planing speeds with a stronger wind.

These are small passage makers and those are the ones optimised fast passage making. Probably you don't like them, some do, but that is not the point, the point is that a fast passage maker is way faster size by size compared with an heavy displacement monohull like a Tayana that is limited by hull speed.

Pointing to a few minutes of video in ideal conditions for the design is not, to me, evidence of sustained long-distance, long-term performance in cruising.

A Cigale 16 or a Pogo 50 are, like these smaller ones, cruisers maximized as fast passage makers. The Tayana 58 it is not and it is a much slower boat.

I do not consider the Cigale or the Pogo to be cruising boats. To me, they are ocean racing boats that some well-heeled, hearty souls choose to do cruise in.

I could post a photo of my wife's Porsche and my old truck and ask you which is faster, and you'd probably laugh. But if I were to then tell you the task of the day was to deliver a sofa to my in-laws who live at the end of a long dirt road, you might not have the same answer. The Porsche may be capable of 183mph at a racetrack -- almost double what the truck can do, but even lacking legal speed limits, its performance at this task would be inferior.

The difference is that the Cigale 16 and the Pogo 50 can go easily some knots over hull speed and given enough wind can go to planing speeds while the Tayana is limited to hull speed, not to mention the huge difference in what regards hull speed and the much lighter wind that is needed for the Pogo and the Cigale to reach close hull speed.

Both the Cigale and the Pogo can go over wind speed with 6k wind. It makes any sense to believe that the Tayana 58 is as fast or even close????

Yes, they CAN go faster -- I don't doubt that. But whether their long-term real-world passage making IS any faster is, at best, unproven.

The evidence you chose to give proves my point. If the best evidence of real world cruising performance that you can offer uses the boat designer, the boat builder, and two racers as the crew participating in a rally that they treat as a PR opportunity, it must mean that real-world cruising performance data is lacking. Cruising crews rarely include the boat designer and builder, unless the boat is home-made. ARC rules penalize boats for using their engines. The equipment and loading of the boat is unknown. And a single fast passage with a racing crew, a racing mind-set, and a strong PR objective does not constitute strong evidence of real-world cruising passage-making. Citing it as evidence of such weakens, rather than strengthens your case.

As for the other example you gave, average speed of 7.84kts for a pogo50 is good, but only supports the hypothesis that over the long haul, a cruising boat's passage-making performance can be most accurately predicted by LWL. That is very close to my average passage-making speed, and they have a couple more feet at the waterline. Your data actually refutes the argument that they make faster passages. Their position in the middle of the cruising class is respectable, and I'd enjoy the opportunity to buy the skipper a beer to congratulate him, but it hardly is data supporting the argument that the pogo50's design makes it a faster passagemaker than the average cruiser.

In looking at the ARC results, I also wonder if there were no motoring penalty (as there is none outside of rallies and races), if the those boats with larger tankage would have motored more and finished even faster. I suspect that would be the case. What do you think, Polux?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by accomplice

. . .
As for the other example you gave, average speed of 7.84kts for a pogo50 is good, but only supports the hypothesis that over the long haul, a cruising boat's passage-making performance can be most accurately predicted by LWL. That is very close to my average passage-making speed, and they have a couple more feet at the waterline. Your data actually refutes the argument that they make faster passages. Their position in the middle of the cruising class is respectable, and I'd enjoy the opportunity to buy the skipper a beer to congratulate him, but it hardly is data supporting the argument that the pogo50's design makes it a faster passagemaker than the average cruiser.

This.

My long term average speed, averaged over more than 50 English Channel crossings, is 8.3 knots.

Waterline length 47 feet. So that's just about exactly hull speed minus one knot.

Even switching to carbon sails, vastly better performing than the old Dacron ones, has not changed passage speeds. What it has changed is the ability to go much faster, especially upwind, if we try hard to go fast.


There's a kind of "wall" at hull speed minus one.

If you are light and have large sail area, and more and better sails for the conditions, you can get up to that "wall" sooner, and you can stay at the "wall" in a wider range of conditions. This can affect passage speeds a lot if you're at lower latitudes in long periods of light conditions, but otherwise not so much.

If you have a fast hull form and all of the above, you can climb up that wall more easily, and really hot boats in perfect conditions may climb over the wall completely -- while the crew works hard at it.

Note well that when we talk about ocean passage making, no discussion is complete without sea state. Ocean sea conditions are one more limitation to sailing for long periods up up on or over your boat's "wall" and are great equalizers, what concerns hot cruiser-racers, versus more conservative blue water cruisers.


Just look for example at passage speeds of Amel Maramus. According to Polux's criteria, this boat is nothing but a floating pork pie. But pork pie or not, Amels get across oceans just as fast as much hotter boats with the same waterline. Amels are set up for days and weeks of short handed passage making, and that's what they do. It does not take a radical hot boat to get up to your waterline length determined "wall". In fact, other qualities of the design may actually be better, for keeping your boat at that wall for weeks on end in ocean conditions, without stressing boat or crew.


Ocean passage making, and streaking from one Mediterranean port to another in sunny-weather day sails, maybe with a magazine photo shoot in between, are vastly different endeavors. What makes a boat superlative for one of those purposes, may be of surprising little use, for the other.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by accomplice

Thanks for sharing the videos.

Yes, they are fast sailing boats.

But they do not meet most commonly accepted definitions of cruising boats, their polars are probably not recorded with 10,000# - 15,000# of gear, and none of the data you presented indicates real-world, long-term cruising performance.

Furthermore, a fast boat and a fast ocean passage are different things. A boat fitted for racing and a boat fitted for cruising are different things.

I think I simply have a different definition of cruising and passaging than you. If I don't have on-board the family car (dinghy) the toys and creature comforts, I'm not taking my family cruising -- I'm going sailing without them.

I have a passage coming up in two weeks from Puerto Rico to New England. The rhumb line is approx 1400nm, although I'm planning to run east of it, bending a course near Bermuda in case I need to stop (crew health, equipment failure, etc.), so I expect to cover closer to 1500nm. I'll be crossing the Sargasso Sea, known for its frequent light winds. There are centuries of reports of old sailing ships sitting there, becalmed for days or weeks. Hopefully we'll have good wind, but if we don't, I'll try to shoot some video for you and you can tell me how much faster a Cigale would be in those conditions.



I don't spend much time reading magazines, nor watching sailing videos. I do spend several weeks a year making ocean passages on a cruising boat, though. I recognize there are many with far more offshore experience than me, on far more boats than I have. All the data I've received from them matches my own experience, though.

Since I don't have a cruising boat capable of planing (yet), I'm hoping that others can put some serious cruising miles on them and report on their strengths and weaknesses. Other hull shapes have millions of miles under their hulls that indicate LWL is the best predictor of passaging speed. You still haven't presented any data on planing hulls that would lead me to believe that they'd be any faster at real-world cruising passages than their LWL would predict, nor that they offer any advantages in a cruising boat.



Pointing to a few minutes of video in ideal conditions for the design is not, to me, evidence of sustained long-distance, long-term performance in cruising.



I do not consider the Cigale or the Pogo to be cruising boats. To me, they are ocean racing boats that some well-heeled, hearty souls choose to do cruise in.

I could post a photo of my wife's Porsche and my old truck and ask you which is faster, and you'd probably laugh. But if I were to then tell you the task of the day was to deliver a sofa to my in-laws who live at the end of a long dirt road, you might not have the same answer. The Porsche may be capable of 183mph at a racetrack -- almost double what the truck can do, but even lacking legal speed limits, its performance at this task would be inferior.




Yes, they CAN go faster -- I don't doubt that. But whether their long-term real-world passage making IS any faster is, at best, unproven.

The evidence you chose to give proves my point. If the best evidence of real world cruising performance that you can offer uses the boat designer, the boat builder, and two racers as the crew participating in a rally that they treat as a PR opportunity, it must mean that real-world cruising performance data is lacking. Cruising crews rarely include the boat designer and builder, unless the boat is home-made. ARC rules penalize boats for using their engines. The equipment and loading of the boat is unknown. And a single fast passage with a racing crew, a racing mind-set, and a strong PR objective does not constitute strong evidence of real-world cruising passage-making. Citing it as evidence of such weakens, rather than strengthens your case.

As for the other example you gave, average speed of 7.84kts for a pogo50 is good, but only supports the hypothesis that over the long haul, a cruising boat's passage-making performance can be most accurately predicted by LWL. That is very close to my average passage-making speed, and they have a couple more feet at the waterline. Your data actually refutes the argument that they make faster passages. Their position in the middle of the cruising class is respectable, and I'd enjoy the opportunity to buy the skipper a beer to congratulate him, but it hardly is data supporting the argument that the pogo50's design makes it a faster passagemaker than the average cruiser.

In looking at the ARC results, I also wonder if there were no motoring penalty (as there is none outside of rallies and races), if the those boats with larger tankage would have motored more and finished even faster. I suspect that would be the case. What do you think, Polux?

Well written post

[gjorgensen]

I thought the comments about the ARC were interesting, since there are a number of boats racing, and a number of other boats trying to show off speed. So I thought the Pacific Puddle Jump results might be a good alternative. It turns out that only a small number of the PPJ boats report results so they not be statistically meaningful. But here's 2015 for laughs.

The recaps for 2014 and earlier are available on the PPJ page, while 2015 was only in Latitude 38. Unfortunately they're just PDFs so I had to copy the table into Emacs and write some macros before I could inhale it into Excel. Here's a screen cap of the 2015 spreadsheet, with averages and boat types added. If someone wants to do this across more years I'd be happy to email them the spreadsheet.

[Paul J. Nolan]

Look, I hope you will forgive me for skipping over your entire seventeen page thread to simply address your original question. We get questions like yours every week or two, that is, along the lines of, "What boat should I buy?" or some such equipment-related query from someone who hasn't the faintest inkling about how to sail or even what the sport is about. The answer to your question is, "Learn to sail! Take a year or two to learn the most basic, fundamental tenets of the sport and the answers to your embarrassing question will be obvious."

Do that and let us hear from you several years hence.

Paul

[Polux]

Originally Posted by accomplice

...

Yes, they are fast sailing boats.

But they do not meet most commonly accepted definitions of cruising boats, ..

Furthermore, a fast boat and a fast ocean passage are different things. A boat fitted for racing and a boat fitted for cruising are different things.

I think I simply have a different definition of cruising and passaging than you. If I don't have on-board the family car (dinghy) the toys and creature comforts, I'm not taking my family cruising -- I'm going sailing without them....

I do not consider the Cigale or the Pogo to be cruising boats. To me, they are ocean racing boats that some well-heeled, hearty souls choose to do cruise in.

This is your problem and of many that have biased opinions due to his own personal perspectives: "The Cigale 16 and the Pogo 50 are not cruising boats because they don't fit my criteria regarding a cruising boat and I would not like to cruise in them".

Wrong biased perspective: What makes a cruising boat is the use that is given to the boat and the goal of its design. Neither the Pogo 50 neither the Cigale 16 were designed as racing boats neither they are used to race.

They are not even cruiser-racers given their not optimization in what regards IRC rating (that is a terrible one) they are not designed to race at all but to be what you say your boat is (and it is not): a long rage cruiser maximized for fast passage making. That is for what they were designed for and the use their owners give to them.

Given the boat you have it is obvious that you would hate to cruise on a boat like those but you can be sure that the sailors that would consider one of those boats for fast passage making, never would consider a heavy slow boat like yours and that, even if obvious, is a thing that is hard for you to understand. It seems that is even hard to understand that those are much faster boats than yours.

Both boats are advertised and sold as what they are designed to do, for the sailors that buy them. On the words of the Cigale 16 designer (one of the major NA):

"Featuring a modern chine hull, the CIGALE 16 has all the ingredients it needs making it an exceptionally fast cruiser at all speeds and on all seas. With a maximum waterline length, reduced wetted surface, a light but very powerful.. hull..cut out for both upwind speed and for long schedules in tradewinds.

The inside reproduces the typical CIGALE formula which is often praised by many clients whose program is generally life on board and offshore sailing. The large aft cabin with rear and side seaviews, the kitchen and navigation table, advanced cabins, the omnipresent light and ventilation that have all been studied with care are the ingredients that makes the CIGALE 16 a really suitable boat for both fast cruising or for voyaging with the best comfort. "

Do you see a single word about racing? The boast is described as a voyage fast cruiser and that's what their clients want and that is for what it is used for by them.

The Pogo 50 designer (another major NA) says about the Pogo 50:

"Like its siblings in the Pogo range, the Pogo 50 is tailored for fast cruising : it is light, wide, and features a deep (lifting !) draft and generous sail area. Its speed and its seaworthiness put far, far away shores within reach.

Its shallow draft, once the keel is up, allows access to all little paradisiac coves. Its lean deck plan and large cockpit make it the ideal boat at the mooring. Its interiors, like the other yachts from the Strutures shipyard, remain simple and light. They are functional and usable at sea."

Again do you see any mention to racing? Both boats are pointed to the same clientele, the ones that like fast passage makers and that don't like to use the engine while cruising.

Off course a sailor that likes to sail fast know that he cannot travel with a lot of stuff so these cruisers are also among the ones that enjoy life in a different way than the ones that sail with boats heavily loaded. The pleasure and fun of sailing are essential to them and they get the boats that maximize that sailing pleasure. Others are more focused not on sailing but mainly in cruising. Some even cruise in motor boats.

Originally Posted by accomplice

Yes, they CAN go faster -- I don't doubt that. But whether their long-term real-world passage making IS any faster is, at best, unproven.

As for the other example you gave, average speed of 7.84kts for a pogo50 is good, but only supports the hypothesis that over the long haul, a cruising boat's passage-making performance can be most accurately predicted by LWL. That is very close to my average passage-making speed, and they have a couple more feet at the waterline. Your data actually refutes the argument that they make faster passages.
....
Their position in the middle of the cruising class is respectable, and I'd enjoy the opportunity to buy the skipper a beer to congratulate him, but it hardly is data supporting the argument that the pogo50's design makes it a faster passagemaker than the average cruiser....

In looking at the ARC results, I also wonder if there were no motoring penalty (as there is none outside of rallies and races), if the those boats with larger tankage would have motored more and finished even faster. I suspect that would be the case. What do you think, Polux?

It seems you did not understood the classifications that are given on the ARC files: they have the real time and the compensated time. The real time is the only one that matters to me and the compensated time is the one that is obtained having in consideration the boat rating and the engine hours. Real time does not have any penalty to use of the engine, is just the time they took to make the passage.

Engine hours is irrelevant in what concerns real time and you can get another look at the classifications to notice a curiosity that will interest you: the slower boats in real time are the ones that used the engine for several hundreds of hours and the fastest did not used the engine at all. Why?

Because only slow sailboats need to use the engine on a transat and the difference regarding using the engine does not compensate regarding the difference of speed between a fast passage maker and a slow one. Don't believe me, check the numbers.

Regarding your boat not being slower than a Pogo 50 on that particular transat because you have made some passages with your boat averaging that speed (7.84K), using engine when the wind is not strong enough to move your boat at a decent speed, there is no logic in that.

Each passage has different sea and wind conditions and it is to them that the average speed refers, not to any other circumstances.

To see if you are right or not and since on that transat there were sailing boats of all types (two hundred) we can check out what were the boats that come immediately ahead and after that Pogo 50, (that as we have already seen on the compensated classification was only averaged sailed, far away than its sailing potential).

And most of all we can see what was the time of the best sailed medium weight cruiser among all the 200 boats and compare it with the time the Pogo 50 took to make the passage.

As I said the Pogo 50 arrived among the first boats and immediately ahead arrived 3 boats, a Baltic 56 (cruiser racer), a Oyster 48 (cruiser racer), the 1st of the two Outremer 51 (performance cat) and the Pogo 50.

All of this boats, except the Pogo 50 and the Outremer 51, were on the racing division, being raced with a full crew.

After the Pogo come a Baltic 64 (cruiser racer), then a Challenge 72 (racing boat), a Grand Soleil 46 (cruiser racer), a Oyster 625 (performance cruiser), a Oyster 825 (performance cruiser) and the 2th cat, a Pajot Salina 48 (cruising cat).

After the Fountain Pajot 48 come very close a big beautiful 75ft modern classic sailboat followed by an older Grand Soleil 52 (performance cruiser), a Grand Soleil 43 (cruiser racer) and a CNB 76 (performance cruiser).

At about 4 hours distance come the next group leaded by a Oyster 575 (performance cruiser), chased by a Luffe 37 (performance cruiser) and a Southern wind 72 (performance cruiser).

For the faster boat that is remotely anything similar to your boat, in what regards D/L, even if lighter, we would have to wait for the arrival of a modern designed Discovery 58, a faster boat comparing with yours, but a boat of the same type.

They made a surprisingly fast passage for the type of boat having a full crew on a very well sailed boat that made 10th overall, on compensated, while the poorly sailed Pogo 50 made only 52 on compensated.

The Pogo 50 arrived 37 hours ahead.

Note that this is unfair to the Pogo 50 since we are comparing the performance of a poorly sailed specific boat comparing it with the beat of all medium weight boats among several hundred boats and they were many, many better sailed than the Pogo 50 (with a better compensated position).

We could be talking about the fastest of the cruiser racers, a Knierim 49, a well sailed boat that arrived 3 days ahead but that would not be fair since that boat was on the racing division, even if I believe that the Discovery 58 to have made that time should not be far from having been raced.

But comparing the best medium weight boat with the best light weight boat on the cruising division would be a fairer comparison and then we would be comparing the performance of the Discover 58 with the performance of the X562 and that one arrived 2 days and a half before the Discover 58.

That is about the difference that should be expected on an Atlantic crossing regarding a good performance cruiser and a good medium weight boat on an Atlantic crossing with similarly competent and equivalent crews.

As you can see this numbers are consistent with that first calculation I made regarding the average differences of speed on passage on the trade winds between a light performance cruiser the size of your boat and a medium weight boat the type of the Tayana 58.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by gjorgensen

I thought the comments about the ARC were interesting, since there are a number of boats racing, and a number of other boats trying to show off speed. So I thought the Pacific Puddle Jump results might be a good alternative. It turns out that only a small number of the PPJ boats report results so they not be statistically meaningful. But here's 2015 for laughs.

The recaps for 2014 and earlier are available on the PPJ page, while 2015 was only in Latitude 38. Unfortunately they're just PDFs so I had to copy the table into Emacs and write some macros before I could inhale it into Excel. Here's a screen cap of the 2015 spreadsheet, with averages and boat types added. If someone wants to do this across more years I'd be happy to email them the spreadsheet.

Very interesting!

There aren't any real performance boats, so won't really answer one of the questions which has caused the most debate, but it's interesting to see the very high correlation between water line length and passage speed.

Note how the Bene First 47.7, a cruiser-racer, and the Discovery 55 did against each other.

The Bene has a much higher rating than the Discovery (which is almost identical to my boat in its main parameters -- SA/D, D/L, waterline length -- only its 10% heavier than my boat). The Bene has far more aggressive D/L and SA/D than the Discovery. The Bene also has 60cm deeper draft.


Polux would show us eye-popping polars for the cruiser-racer, and would tell us that the Bene will sail rings around the Discovery. Why, just look at those polars! And maybe it would in controlled racing conditions, light air, a Med day sail, etc. But the Bene has a waterline length of about 1.5 meters less, and this an ocean passage, not a Med day sail.

And so just as we would expect, both boats are averaging about 2 knots under their hull speed -- sailing right in their respective grooves -- so the Discovery, with her longer waterline, is making a faster passage.

Note also the Best 24 hours and Worst 24 hours:

Bene: 209 miles best 142 miles worst
Discovery:217 miles best 160 miles worst

In both cases, the best 24 hours is just under hull speed.

The high rating is not doing anything for the Bene in real ocean passage conditions.

Note that the Discovery is also faster than any of the catamarans, although there are some big ones. I believe that this will be because of the phenomenon which Polux pointed out -- cats being sailed more conservatively on ocean passages -- but also because to cross the whole Pacific you are going to have to have a load.

[gjorgensen]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Very interesting!

There aren't any real performance boats, so won't really answer one of the questions which has caused the most debate, but it's interesting to see the very high correlation between water line length and passage speed.

Note how the Bene First 47.7, a cruiser-racer, and the Discovery 55 did against each other.

The Bene has a much higher rating than the Discovery (which is almost identical to my boat in its main parameters -- SA/D, D/L, waterline length -- only its 10% heavier than my boat). The Bene has far more aggressive D/L and SA/D than the Discovery. The Bene also has 60cm deeper draft.


Polux would show us eye-popping polars for the cruiser-racer, and would tell us that the Bene will sail rings around the Discovery. Why, just look at those polars! And maybe it would in controlled racing conditions, light air, a Med day sail, etc. But the Bene has a waterline length of about 1.5 meters less, and this an ocean passage, not a Med day sail.

And so just as we would expect, both boats are averaging about 2 knots under their hull speed -- sailing right in their respective grooves -- so the Discovery, with her longer waterline, is making a faster passage.

Note also the Best 24 hours and Worst 24 hours:

Bene: 209 miles best 142 miles worst
Discovery:217 miles best 160 miles worst

In both cases, the best 24 hours is just under hull speed.

The high rating is not doing anything for the Bene in real ocean passage conditions.

Note that the Discovery is also faster than any of the catamarans, although there are some big ones. I believe that this will be because of the phenomenon which Polux pointed out -- cats being sailed more conservatively on ocean passages -- but also because to cross the whole Pacific you are going to have to have a load.

Excellent post.

I don't know anything about the Discovery (I've never even seen one - just read about them), but I'm good friends with the folks who own that 47.7 and I actually helped them pick out the boat and set it up. It's a 47.7 "standard" rig, which means it's a shorter mast and shorter keel than the racing version of the 47.7. The mast is about 6 feet shorter if I remember right. They purchased new Ullman hydronet sails before leaving in the 2013 HaHa. The boat does not have a generator, but does have davits with a large solar array above them forming the bimini, a Spectra watermaker, a dinghy & outboard, AC (dock side only), and all the normal cruising stuff. They did focus on going somewhat minimal and not overloading the boat. It's a husband and wife team who are both very good sailors. They previously owned a J105. Mark raced with me on my 40.7 for a number of years as a main trimmer, and likewise I did a number of races with him trimming spinny on the J, point being that they know how to make a boat go fast and tend to do so more than the average cruiser in my experience. They did the crossing with 3. They also started very late from the Galapagos and had very good consistent wind.

I point all that out as a comparison. If you took the average crew from that list and had them load the boat then do the crossing I'd guess it would average more than 16 days. A lot of sailors would include a generator and more weight, and many would be less focused on performance. 18-20 might be a more normal number. It does hint about what a good boat the 47.7 actually is for this use, and as of a couple months ago they were still very happy with the boat (last time I spoke with them). One great thing about it is that it can point and sail upwind without dishing out too much abuse to the crew. They made use of that sailing upwind about 800 miles back from Bora Bora to the Marquesas for the southern summer.

I found the catamaran numbers interesting as well. It's such a small number of boats that it's hard to tell if it's meaningful, and the Manta doing something weird really skewed the numbers. Take out the Manta and you get an average crossing time of 20.5 days and an average speed of 6.5, much better on average than the monos. I agree the cats will suffer more from the heavy loads in fuel, spares, and supplies needed for this crossing, but that's also why I thought the PPJ would be a more interesting test case.

Also, notice that there is a general trend of longest waterline lengths going faster. It's of course not strictly true due to any number of factors - wind speed and direction, performance of the boat, sail inventory, damage, sailing ability of the crew, and interest level of the crew in going fast vs. enjoying the crossing. But you can see the general trend.

I just wish more boats reported results.

[DumnMad]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

This.
Ocean passage making, and streaking from one Mediterranean port to another in sunny-weather day sails, maybe with a magazine photo shoot in between, are vastly different endeavors. What makes a boat superlative for one of those purposes, may be of surprising little use, for the other.

Nice summation Dockhead. I really appreciate your experience and perspective re Hull Speed -1 for ocean passages.
I suspect the OP might want to stick with mono if planning ocean passages but look at the cats if sticking to coastal sailing.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by gjorgensen

I thought the comments about the ARC were interesting, since there are a number of boats racing, and a number of other boats trying to show off speed. So I thought the Pacific Puddle Jump results might be a good alternative. It turns out that only a small number of the PPJ boats report results so they not be statistically meaningful. But here's 2015 for laughs.

The recaps for 2014 and earlier are available on the PPJ page, while 2015 was only in Latitude 38. Unfortunately they're just PDFs so I had to copy the table into Emacs and write some macros before I could inhale it into Excel. Here's a screen cap of the 2015 spreadsheet, with averages and boat types added. If someone wants to do this across more years I'd be happy to email them the spreadsheet.

Maybe if you can have more. On the ARC only in one year we got more than 200 and much more modern boats including many performance cruisers that are almost none there. We cannot take conclusions from only one of 2 boats of a given type that can be badly sailed or extremely well sailed and will not represent an average. A good number of boats of each type are necessary to take conclusions.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

.....
Just look for example at passage speeds of Amel Maramus. According to Polux's criteria, this boat is nothing but a floating pork pie. But pork pie or not, Amels get across oceans just as fast as much hotter boats with the same waterline. Amels are set up for days and weeks of short handed passage making, and that's what they do. It does not take a radical hot boat to get up to your waterline length determined "wall". In fact, other qualities of the design may actually be better, for keeping your boat at that wall for weeks on end in ocean conditions, without stressing boat or crew.


Ocean passage making, and streaking from one Mediterranean port to another in sunny-weather day sails, maybe with a magazine photo shoot in between, are vastly different endeavors. What makes a boat superlative for one of those purposes, may be of surprising little use, for the other.

I never said Amels were pigs. In fact the new ones, with modern hulls are pretty fast for medium displacement boats.

You are mistaken, all the data I have been posting regarding comparisons between the speed of medium displace cruisers and light performance cruisers are from Atlantic passages or passages on world circumnavigations, I never posted any example regarding the med.

Those examples show clearly that performance cruisers are considerably faster on extensive passages than medium weight cruisers and I don't understand what that has of extraordinary. Being them equally fast (or equally slow is what would have been strange.

Waterline is important to speed as well as sailarea/displacement and Length/Displacement and also the type of hull among other factors. This is common knowledge.

You certainly know the work of Dave Gerr to take that in consideration. He even has a formula that allows you to calculate different hull speeds depending on the Length/displacement of the boat, an approximated one since not all the factors can be taken into account, namely the fact that performance cruisers have much finer entries then medium weight cruisers making a much smaller bow wave.

That smaller bow wave is why cats with narrow hulls can have a superior hull speed than monohulls.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

...

Note how the Bene First 47.7, a cruiser-racer, and the Discovery 55 did against each other.

The Bene has a much higher rating than the Discovery (which is almost identical to my boat in its main parameters -- SA/D, D/L, waterline length -- only its 10% heavier than my boat). The Bene has far more aggressive D/L and SA/D than the Discovery. The Bene also has 60cm deeper draft.


Polux would show us eye-popping polars for the cruiser-racer, and would tell us that the Bene will sail rings around the Discovery. Why, just look at those polars! And maybe it would in controlled racing conditions, light air, a Med day sail, etc. But the Bene has a waterline length of about 1.5 meters less, and this an ocean passage, not a Med day sail.

And so just as we would expect, both boats are averaging about 2 knots under their hull speed -- sailing right in their respective grooves -- so the Discovery, with her longer waterline, is making a faster passage.

Note also the Best 24 hours and Worst 24 hours:

Bene: 209 miles best 142 miles worst
Discovery:217 miles best 160 miles worst

In both cases, the best 24 hours is just under hull speed.

The high rating is not doing anything for the Bene in real ocean passage conditions.

Note that the Discovery is also faster than any of the catamarans, although there are some big ones. I believe that this will be because of the phenomenon which Polux pointed out -- cats being sailed more conservatively on ocean passages -- but also because to cross the whole Pacific you are going to have to have a load.

What kind of statistically valid information do you hope to get comparing one single boat of each type, a modern medium weight cruiser (Discovery 55) and a single performance cruiser, not so modern (First 44.7)?

One of the boats can have been very poorly sailed and the other very well sailed or vice versa. A comparison between two single boats of different types will not provide you any valid statistic result and it is a waste of time.

Go to the several recent ARC, get the 10 best sailed performance cruisers (the fastest), get the 10 best sailed medium weight performance cruisers (the fastest) and compare the performances in what regards the LWL and you will have some statistically valid results since those 10 of each category are not the only 10 but the best 10 among many others.

That will give an idea of what a well sailed boat in each category is able to do excluding the poorly sailed boats. I have been doing that for years and the results are pretty clear: On an Atlantic crossing the average difference between those 10 best boats of each category is of about 2 days.

[robert sailor]

Personally I think Polux's points are well made as my personal experience is that the lighter weight boats with large sail areas do better in light air conditions and there is more than enough light air when passage making. We can do very well against even larger boats if we have a decent breeze but light air sailing offshore is not our boats strong point. All that said a day here or a day there doesn't amount to a heck of a lot in the whole scheme of things, especially if you have a boat that is really comfortable to both sail and live on.