The Perfect 60' to 65' Cruising Boat

[K_V_B]

Beowulf and an FPB hooked up, and had a baby.

That's what she looks like:



AT 70' a tad above 20m, but very interesting:

Berckemeyer Yacht Design | plans for modern and classic sailing yachts

[accomplice]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

If you can motor 5 knots dead upwind against 30 knots (a F7) in the typical F7 sea state, my hat's off to your boat. I've never seen a sailboat which could do this. My boat, with 100 horsepower, cannot.

To punch through F7 seas, you need a lot of power, which you can generally only get from sails, other than perhaps some very powerful motor sailers.

In trying to get nearly 1500 miles upwind last month, I tried everything in the book. Best VMG to windward occurred, in F6-F7, by motorsailing with tightly sheeted main, traveler up to weather, about 17 to 20 degrees off the apparent wind. Like that I could make about 6 knots of boat speed so something less than 5 knots VMG. Burned a lot of fuel AND still had to tack Got me across, but it was not fun.

We motor into 30knots at anywhere between 6 and 7 knots, depending on sea state. (160hp). But I wouldn't want to and generally try to avoid it.

On a long passage, I find it better not to push for maximal VMG in unfavorable conditions, to spare the boat and especially crew, and hopefully make it up when the conditions turn favorable.

Like you, I find maximal VMG to windward is motorsailing with pinched sails. But maximal VMG is rarely my only goal. If I only cared about getting there, I'd fly.

A few pages back, someone made the comment that it was easier to sail a smaller boat and that larger boats spent more of their time motoring. I think the truth is a bit more complicated. I usually find sailing our 58' boat easier than sailing my former 28'er. In boom furling, electric winches, and lines led aft make light work of it. My wife tells me that it is less work to sail the 58.

On the other hand, there are often times I won't put out the sails on the 58 that I would on the 28. Tacking back and forth across the bay is one of them. The deeper draft means I stay farther from the shore. Since we go faster, we hit the other shore sooner. The cutter rig likes the genoa furled when tacking. Add it up and we'll just have completed one tack when we ready to begin the next. I suppose if we were racing we'd carry a large crew and get through tacks faster. Been there, done that -- I don't need the stress.

Overall I figure I spend about the same percentage of the time under motor in each boat (33-50%). The difference is that I take more, longer trips with the bigger boat. Ideally, we set the sails and there are only minor tweaks for days.

As for crew size on larger boats, I can (and do) sail the boat myself. The crew is there so I can sleep. Having extra hands at the ready makes coming up to a dock less frenzied too. Crew's quarters would be a must-have, though, if I planned to charter her out (crewed-charter).

As for dinghy storage, what is wrong with a set of strong and high-off-the water davits? I take the motor off an put it on the stern rail.

As for boat weight, I think heavier is generally better. The problem is that as the boat gets heavier, everything becomes bigger and more expensive. The sails, the standing rigging, the running rigging, the winches, the ground tackle, etc. At a certain point (and we're past it), human strength is past its limits and you rely on mechanical aids for everything. Even raising the sail.

When we bought our boat, we also looked closely at a 64. At time time, it seemed huge, almost unmanageable. Now, not so. But it also seems unnecessary. We've found we can comfortably accommodate us, our 5 kids, and one my in-laws, when coastal cruising.

I agree whole-heartedly, dockhead, with your request for a walk-in engine room. I have spent too many hours contorted in uncomfortable poses to perform simple repairs.

[DoubleWhisky]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

All very sensible. The only thing I would disagree about is the necessity of having spare electric motors for your winches. They are extremely reliable, and besides that, they can be operated by hand (built in backup), and besides that, if you have a decent number of winches, they can substitute for one another in case of a problem.

I thought about motors for furlers. For 65 ft boat You will probably end with powered furlers, and You can not substitute it by winch. Manual override is not very safe to use, as You need to go to the bow each time

[DoubleWhisky]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

Beowulf and an FPB hooked up, and had a baby.


AT 70' a tad above 20m, but very interesting:

Berckemeyer Yacht Design | plans for modern and classic sailing yachts

Really interesting boats.
I do not understand the tendency to put owners cabin forward...
Make sense for Mediterranean, but for long range cruiser???

[DoubleWhisky]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

My boat has 8 winches in the cockpit and 2 on the mast, and in my opinion, that's only barely enough for a cutter rigged boat of this size, and only because the running rigging is exceptionally well organized.

We have 7 alltogether for a single forestay sloop and two more would be a good idea. Still thinking where to accomodate them sensibly

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by weavis

The main reason for smaller is.......... cost. On every front its cheaper to go smaller.
..

In addition to the maintenance overhead, and the challenge of flying light air sails (usually the motor is used instead) there is also a concern with fitting "big boats" in small harbors.

Dashew often has to go to commercial docks when we go to more pleasant yachting docks. He had trouble fitting into a Mexican cove (anchoring) that we had no trouble with. Up in Greenland he would have had some trouble fitting into some of the small town harbors (and it was really deep with limited protection for anchoring off). In this sail boats he would not have got under the wires into set peters (Nova Scotia). It's not a knock-out for "big boats" but the options are more limited.

If you love sailing and exploring, I honestly think Hawk's size is about perfect for expedition work - able to actually use light air sails, able to fit in most everywhere, able to maintain the boat without much work. And for slightly less "adventurous" use I think a bit smaller (with less draft and mast height) might be preferred. But you do have to accept and adapt to a "seaman's" life on boats this size and not try to bring the suburban life and comforts to sea.

As an aside I will disagree with dockhead and suggest it is perfectly feasable to work on deck in a f9 on a 30'er. Do remember that a 30'er used to be (1970's) viewed as a pretty big boat, perfectly suited to a circumnavigation.

[weavis]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

In addition to the maintenance overhead, and the challenge of flying light air sails (usually the motor is used instead) there is also a concern with fitting "big boats" in small harbors.

Dashew often has to go to commercial docks when we go to more pleasant yachting docks. He had trouble fitting into a Mexican cove (anchoring) that we had no trouble with. Up in Greenland he would have had some trouble fitting into some of the small town harbors (and it was really deep with limited protection for anchoring off). In this sail boats he would not have got under the wires into set peters (Nova Scotia). It's not a knock-out for "big boats" but the options are more limited.

Funny how big boats can fit into places where money is no object... Like Monaco etc........ anywhere else, they dont cater for them simply because they can fit more smaller units in and dont have to go to the trouble of facilitating larger vessels with ensuing issues of access and larger channels required.....

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

In addition to the maintenance overhead, and the challenge of flying light air sails (usually the motor is used instead) there is also a concern with fitting "big boats" in small harbors.

Dashew often has to go to commercial docks when we go to more pleasant yachting docks. He had trouble fitting into a Mexican cove (anchoring) that we had no trouble with. Up in Greenland he would have had some trouble fitting into some of the small town harbors (and it was really deep with limited protection for anchoring off). In this sail boats he would not have got under the wires into set peters (Nova Scotia). It's not a knock-out for "big boats" but the options are more limited.

Yes, this is a very serious consideration.

At 54' on deck (bit less than 60' LOA), there are quite a few places I can't get into, particularly in the Baltic. I have not found it to be an oppressive limitation. Over 60 feet I think it gets still much worse. I would really not want anything over 20 meters -- I think that's already an entirely different category, from berthing standpoint as well as legally.

I did a bit of cruising with a friend on his 90' Swan. He generally used commercial harbors, or just anchored off and took the tender in, leaving the pro crew on board on anchor watch. That also works ok -- not as bad as you might think. Keep in mind that the bigger the boat is, the easier it will lie at anchor, so despite deeper draft, you may actually have a much bigger choice of places to anchor.

[DoubleWhisky]

One more thing about going to windward, Dockhead

After rereading Your posts I think You mean VMG as a figure displayed by Your on-board instruments.

It is somewhat artificial and unreal. It is based on the set of three data, processed by Your black-box:

1. Speed through the water
2. Heading
3. True wind direction

The systems known to me do not use the COG to compute VMG.


Going to the windward there are three variables influencing Your COG (tides and currents aside):

1. Leeway
2. Wave forces on the hull
3. Flow of surface water to the windward

Leeway is reduced with increase of speed, so it pay to sail fast
Wave forces are different and are to be assessed each time separately, choosing the best angle for the given boat.

Surface flow is something what can not be influenced


Real speed of progress toward the windward is lower than VMG shown on instruments. I think the difference may be as much as about 10 % by average and even more with steep waves.


When going to windward I have always Heading and COG lines displayed on the plotter and try to find the angle to the wind to keep speed steady and high, keeping Heading and COG lines as close as possible at the same time.


It is also necessary to remember that fast sailing very close hauled demand hand steering most of the time and it is not practicable when short handed on longer passages.


When I was questioning Your demand for 5 VMG I was rather thinking of possibility of making average day runs of 120 miles when sailing upwind in broad range of conditions and still I think You need quite racy boat with quite large crew to achieve this. On the other hand it look You are not against more numerous crew, and You think about quite racy overall design...

[DoubleWhisky]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Yes, this is a very serious consideration.

At 54' on deck (bit less than 60' LOA), there are quite a few places I can't get into, particularly in the Baltic. I have not found it to be an oppressive limitation. Over 60 feet I think it gets still much worse. I would really not want anything over 20 meters -- I think that's already an entirely different category, from berthing standpoint as well as legally.

Legally the border is at 80 ft of "summer load waterline" or 24 m of "registration length" (vary from country to country) what make for about 85 ft of LOD (for average design) - see Oyster 885

But You are completely right that 20 m of LOD is probably the point where size of boat make for severe limitation, in some areas (like GB) it is probably even less.

The draft itself is another limitation, as You need a (full load) draft of some 15 % of the LOD to go really effectively to windward.
For 60 + ft boat some kind of variable draft arrangement can be a sensible compromise - like on Gunfleet yachts...

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by accomplice

We motor into 30knots at anywhere between 6 and 7 knots, depending on sea state. (160hp). But I wouldn't want to and generally try to avoid it.

That's what waterline length and 160hp can do. I should have conditioned my remark with the phrase at a sustainable power level. If I'm willing to run my engine up to 3600 rpm and burn huge amounts of fuel, I can also get up more meaningful speeds against wind and sea, but 2800 RPM is just about the limit of what I'm willing to run my engine for more than brief periods. And even that doesn't really feel sustainable and uses several liters per mile, compared to a liter or less per mile at 2200 in calm conditions.

It feels much better and much more efficient to motor sail.

By the way, one thing I noticed which could be helpful to others is that RPM vs speed when bashing upwind is not always linear. I found that there is often a minimum power setting setting, below which the seas frequently knock your way off, and above which you can usually keep up momentum. So you might get double the average speed at 200 rpm more.

Originally Posted by accomplice

On a long passage, I find it better not to push for maximal VMG in unfavorable conditions, to spare the boat and especially crew, and hopefully make it up when the conditions turn favorable.

Like you, I find maximal VMG to windward is motorsailing with pinched sails. But maximal VMG is rarely my only goal. If I only cared about getting there, I'd fly.

Well, sometimes you really need to get there, for whatever reason (weather window, just to name one example). When your VMG to whereever you're going fall below 5 knots, you start to simply not get anywhere. And sometimes -- for whatever reason -- you can't afford to just bob around for days waiting for the wind to change.

I've just been through this in real life, and so I am maybe a little oversensitized to the issue, but for me it's a key goal to be able to get upwind under sail in a wide range of conditions.

Originally Posted by accomplice

On the other hand, there are often times I won't put out the sails on the 58 that I would on the 28. Tacking back and forth across the bay is one of them. The deeper draft means I stay farther from the shore. Since we go faster, we hit the other shore sooner. The cutter rig likes the genoa furled when tacking. Add it up and we'll just have completed one tack when we ready to begin the next. I suppose if we were racing we'd carry a large crew and get through tacks faster. Been there, done that -- I don't need the stress.

It depends on how your boat is rigged. My boat short-tacks like a dream. The high-cut yankee gets across the inner forestay without furling and without any problem. The powered winches greatly reduce the labor involved. And the boat holds her speed through the tack much better than smaller boats I've owned previously. I love short tacking up channels and into harbors.

Originally Posted by accomplice

Overall I figure I spend about the same percentage of the time under motor in each boat (33-50%). The difference is that I take more, longer trips with the bigger boat. Ideally, we set the sails and there are only minor tweaks for days.

Originally Posted by accomplice

As for crew size on larger boats, I can (and do) sail the boat myself. The crew is there so I can sleep. Having extra hands at the ready makes coming up to a dock less frenzied too. Crew's quarters would be a must-have, though, if I planned to charter her out (crewed-charter).

Originally Posted by accomplice

As for dinghy storage, what is wrong with a set of strong and high-off-the water davits? I take the motor off an put it on the stern rail.

Ugly, troublesome, adds a lot of windage, adds weight in the worst place, adds weight high up (reducing stability), increases LOA, interferes with docking stern-to, interferes with wind vane mounting, creates risk of bashing the dinghy into things in harbor, shall I go on? I have strong and high-off-the-water davits now, and hate them.

Originally Posted by accomplice

As for boat weight, I think heavier is generally better. The problem is that as the boat gets heavier, everything becomes bigger and more expensive.

Here we'll have to disagree. More weight adds to stability, if it's well distributed, at least, but that's the only good thing. Everything else is bad.

But more weight is slower. Because every kilogram of weight has to be buoyed up by a certain volume underwater -- has to displace that amount of water. That means more wetted surface and more energy to drive the boat. Plus more energy to accelerate the boat.

To make up for it, you need a larger rig, larger sails, etc., all of which go up in cost in a non-linear fashion.

In my experience, boats in this size class with more aggressive D/L ratios really feel much better, much more lively, and can get away with more modest SA/D ratio. In this size class, you don't need to sacrifice performance for stability to the same extent that smaller boats must.

Originally Posted by accomplice

When we bought our boat, we also looked closely at a 64. At time time, it seemed huge, almost unmanageable. Now, not so. But it also seems unnecessary. We've found we can comfortably accommodate us, our 5 kids, and one my in-laws, when coastal cruising.

Same here! When I bought my boat, I thought her to be huge and unmanageable. Then I got used to her, and gradually realized that I wouldn't want anything smaller, ever. And now I started thinking about 65-ers!

[accomplice]

In some places, I find LOA/LOD to be the limitation (mooring in St. John's Nat'l parks, 60'; mooring in Cuttyhunk, 50'), but more often I find that draft or air-draft is a greater limitation.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

As an aside I will disagree with dockhead and suggest it is perfectly feasable to work on deck in a f9 on a 30'er. Do remember that a 30'er used to be (1970's) viewed as a pretty big boat, perfectly suited to a circumnavigation.

Depends on the size of your testicles! Evans' are clearly much bigger than mine!


But I doubt that he will disagree that everyone, if given a choice, would rather be on the foredeck of a 60-er, than of a 30-er, in a blow!

[StuM]

Originally Posted by DoubleWhisky

...After rereading Your posts I think You mean VMG as a figure displayed by Your on-board instruments.

It is somewhat artificial and unreal. It is based on the set of three data, processed by Your black-box:

1. Speed through the water
2. Heading
3. True wind direction

The systems known to me do not use the COG to compute VMG.


Going to the windward there are three variables influencing Your COG (tides and currents aside):

1. Leeway
2. Wave forces on the hull
3. Flow of surface water to the windward

Leeway is reduced with increase of speed, so it pay to sail fast
Wave forces are different and are to be assessed each time separately, choosing the best angle for the given boat.

Surface flow is something what can not be influenced


Real speed of progress toward the windward is lower than VMG shown on instruments. I think the difference may be as much as about 10 % by average and even more with steep waves....

VMG from a GPS, which is what many of us use, doesn't know any of your "three data" variables.

It is computed on distance/bearing between successive GPS fixes averaged over a specific time interval. It is real speed of progress towards your destination.

[DoubleWhisky]

Originally Posted by StuM

VMG from a GPS, which is what many of us use, doesn't know any of your "three data" variables.

It is computed on distance/bearing between successive GPS fixes averaged over a specific time interval. It is real speed of progress towards your destination.

At least on my Raymarine plotters it has a drawback of being displayed in very tiny fonts
And it really differ (in minus) from calculated VMG available on instrument display in easily readable fonts!

Anyway for me it is easier to steer using COG and heading lines, than checking the VMG number all the time - specifically the number on the plotter

On the other hand Dockhead has a Zeus plotters, and these can be better for this - I do not know!