Why have keel preferences changed for cruising boats?

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by Greg K

Much enjoyed your spirited rebuttal, Fred. Considering that you sail a whiplash inducing rocket-ship IOR sled, it is not surprising that your strong opinion would be on the opposite end of the spectrum of mine. To be clear, my comment referred more to today’s mass manufactured, flat bottomed dock queens than late 70’s early 80’s custom or semi-custom built IOR ocean racers.
Still, you’re right, having sailed mostly traditional, full keel boats, my opinions are not supported by a lot of sea time on modern, mass production boats. Perhaps, after all, they don’t slam and pound in a seaway as badly as many have said, and perhaps they can be left on their own and keep their course while the helmsman jumps down below to make some tea. Perhaps their thinly skinned hulls and glued in structural keel support grids are actually stronger than a keel encapsulated in a couple of inches of solid fiberglass…etc, etc. Who knows, I might be wrong. It is just an opinion, and even though you may misconstrue it as authoritative, I assure you it is nothing more than gasbaggery on my part.
Your last comment regarding the inability of traditional boats to “ beat off of a lee shore, or make progress to windward in any condition ” is perhaps a bit of gasbaggery as well. Touche and peace

Greg, Thanks for your reply.

However, my boat is not a "whiplash inducing rocket-ship IOR sled".

It is an IOR boat (a rather old boat, 42 years). IOR boats are actually rather slow compared to modern boats, a result of a deep canoe body hull shape. It is not a sled. Sleds are long and narrow and made for planning. My boat does not plane, ever. It is a very good sailing boat with lots of good characteristics for a couple of old people to manage, plus it is a good racing boat under handicap systems, but nobody would call it a rocket ship.

But OK, I understand your point of view, it is not uncommon.

BUT, as to my claim that the traditional, long keel "blue water" boat cannot beat off a lee shore or make progress to weather in rough conditions...

This might be a bit of an exaggeration, but not much. And I know very few sailors on boats of this type that even try. When the wind is "on the nose" (meaning ahead of the beam) they just motor, and in tough conditions they don't make much progress motoring either. The most common quote from people coming into harbor here after trying to round Cabo Corrientes in typical traditional cruising boats is, "It took us four hours and it was terrible, we could barely go 2.5 knots, I hope I never have to do that again."

From then on they wait days or weeks for a weather window, meaning no wind.

My own experience rounding that cape (maybe 6 times) is that we went 6 knots, (4.5 VMG) and got around in about 1.5 hours. It was wet and there was some pounding, but nothing bad like happens to the boats that cannot sail to windward, and we have no dread of doing it again and we will go whenever we want to within limits (today it is howling in the mid 30's. We could do it but we wouldn't like it).

So I wouldn't call that "gaslighting".


Actually, all of my spirited rebuttals is just my attempt to get people more open to the possibilities that modern boats can make good cruising boats, and many of the anti fin keel views so often expressed is uninformed prejudice which has been repeated until it it taken to be fact.


Why do I do that? Because the true love of sailing brings me so much joy that I want others to feel that also but in my marina I am literally surrounded by full keel cruising boats which are NEVER sailed, only motored, with owners who have never experienced the joy of sailing and just can't be bothered since the boats they own just cannot deliver it.

[donradcliffe]

Originally Posted by Greg K

.
Your last comment regarding the inability of traditional boats to “ beat off of a lee shore, or make progress to windward in any condition ” is perhaps a bit of gasbaggery as well. Touche and peace

Let me try to explain it with another story. I was staying at the Trinidad Yacht Club and befriended a dockmate with a Westsail 32. He almost never went anywhere, but one day after a lot of planning and talking he left for Prickly Bay in Grenada.

The route is about 85 miles and pretty much due north across the tradewinds, but there is the North Equatorial Current, which bends around Trinidad and sets west at Grenada at about a knot. I did that trip at least a half dozen times in my Beneteau 456, and if I left Chagaramas at first light, I would get into Prickly Bay before dark.

My friend had to be rescued after 3 and a half days. He was swept past Grenada, couldn't get his engine started, and was unable to make any progress against the wind and current while sailing. They found him 60 miles west of Grenada, and he had lost 25 miles each day.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by wingssail

TeddyDiver, I didn't offer any proof, yes that is true, and to be honest, many of the attributes we're talking about are so subjective that it is hard to prove one way or the other (What is comfortable?).

However, I do have many years of ocean (and coastal) sailing experience, in a wide variety of boats, certainly including both heavy full keel "cruising" boats and high-end carbon fiber racers. but mostly in what I consider moderate modern boats. I just cannot justify the claims made about modern boats with my experiences. I don't know how come the boats I have sailed don't seem to pound yet they are said to pound. I don't know how come the boats I have sailed go in straight line, even in big seas, and can sail without someone on the helm every second yet that is the claim. I don't know how come the boats I have sailed on and seen after grounding and collisions didn't get destroyed any more than the heavy cruisers I've seen.

It goes on and on. People say that older, heavier, slower, boats are more comfortable, more directionally stable, stronger, and safer, without any objective proof, and I just haven't seen it.

It makes me skeptical. More than skeptical, I just reject it and wonder if it based on lack of experience.

In the first place I would buy no boat which does not have superlative sailing performance. That is number one for me. This is because I love sailing. I love the sailing part. I know what a really nice sailing boat feels like and I would never be happy with a boat that couldn't produce that feeling. So hull and keel are important to me. Next it must be a strong and safe boat because going out in the ocean you are playing for keeps. You said the interiors were similar so that leaves the price. I could not afford a $300,000 boat so I'd look for a boat which meets my needs (above) for a much lower price. Fortunately there are many many boats that do for very low prices. The potential cruiser people shun the performance boats so the ones I like are available very cheaply.

I do agree much what you said, just don't like judging generally certain type of boats. There are good and bad in all categories. My point here was the fact that the "old style" boat, if produced today would be way too expensive to be competetive on the market so even comparing something what's new vs something way over 50years old is not fair..

BTW the first boat is some Beneteau and the latter boat is the Dorade, which by the way has won race on this century too after her restoration.

[Joh.Ghurt]

Originally Posted by wingssail

When the wind is "on the nose" (meaning ahead of the beam) they just motor, and in tough conditions they don't make much progress motoring either. The most common quote from people coming into harbor here after trying to round Cabo Corrientes in typical traditional cruising boats is, "It took us four hours and it was terrible, we could barely go 2.5 knots, I hope I never have to do that again."

I have a boat of a typical 80ies ocean crossing design with semi-long keel. I like this boat very much and I'm happy with her, but rounding capes (my local one is a different Cabo) with wind on the nose is a pain. Motoring doesn't make it much better as she's a little under-motorised. Count me into that category.

Now I either wait for a better weather window or go quite a away off-shore, which doesn't make it quick either. When on more modern boats, the same cape isn't a problem at all.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

...BTW the first boat is some Beneteau and the latter boat is the Dorade, which by the way has won race on this century too after her restoration.

I should have recognized Dorade by the numbers.

Yes, Great boat and great racing record, and certainly a more traditional hull form. I know the boat well. One of my crew members was the custodian for the boat while it was in use in the San Juan Islands as a training vessel.

As nice as Dorade is, (and I love the boat) it is still winning because sailboats are "rated" in racing. The rating takes into account the boat's capabilities. It is unlikely that Dorade would beat the Beneteau boat for boat on very many courses.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

Let me try to explain it with another story. I was staying at the Trinidad Yacht Club and befriended a dockmate with a Westsail 32. He almost never went anywhere, but one day after a lot of planning and talking he left for Prickly Bay in Grenada.

The route is about 85 miles and pretty much due north across the tradewinds, but there is the North Equatorial Current, which bends around Trinidad and sets west at Grenada at about a knot. I did that trip at least a half dozen times in my Beneteau 456, and if I left Chagaramas at first light, I would get into Prickly Bay before dark.

My friend had to be rescued after 3 and a half days. He was swept past Grenada, couldn't get his engine started, and was unable to make any progress against the wind and current while sailing. They found him 60 miles west of Grenada, and he had lost 25 miles each day.

And I will add another story, also a true story.

In 2002 we planned to meet some friends of ours in Port Resolution on Tanna Island. We were on our 43' fin keel race boat leaving from Noumea, New Caledonia. They were on their gorgeous wooden Herreshoff 36' yawl and departing from Port Vila on an upwind course of about a distance of 125 (miles directly into the SE trades). Our course to Port Resolution was NE about 230 miles very much close hauled on stbd tack. We made Port Resolution in 32 hours on a rough over night passage. They sailed for 4 days but were unable to make it to Port Resolution. Eventually they made it exhausted to the leeward side of the island, to Lanakal. They had no choice of motoring because their "engine" was a 15hp Yamaha outboard in a well and it was not suitable for that type of a trip.

[skenn_ie]

Agreed. For cruising, comfort is more important than pointing high, and moving fast. Unfortunately, that isn't where the vast majority of demand is. Fun to sail, in fair weather, IS.

[jrau18]

Originally Posted by NevilleCat

Surely the market is for voluminous short-term charter boats and round the can fun boats. Fast light manoeuvrable and 'cheap'.
Not much market for slower comfortable passagemaking boats.

This is definitely a large driver of it, the vast majority of the market demand is more for day sail boats in protected waters or short term (say a week) charter boats in protected waters. Very few people do ocean crossings or sailing in even semi-rough locations/days. A flat bottom boat that carries a wide beam close to the bow has lots of interior space, large staterooms, multiple heads, and sails quickly from one point of interest to another hits the typical use perfectly.

The other difference is that materials and designs have advanced a lot. Some of these flat bottom boats may be uncomfortable in semi-rough weather, but with a few modifications and upgrades, they can be made to be just as "safe" (or nearly so) as a full keel boat from 50 or 60 years ago. As a result, many long distance cruisers are willing to buy them. This is really exemplified in the bleeding edge racing boats. Just look at what kind of conditions those big boats can handle for weeks at a time in the southern ocean. Yes, some of those boats are damaged and destroyed and lives lost, but 40 or 50 years ago, a boat like that couldn't even be imagined, the materials science and industry knowledge wasn't there yet.

Combine the above with improved weather tracking and forecasting and the ability to get those forecasts at sea, and a flatter faster boat actually has some chance of making routing decisions on the fly to avoid some weather.

So it starts to get into sailing philosophy (is a lighter, faster boat that can avoid weather better than a heavier, slower boat that can ride out worse weather?). People will come down on different sides of that question for extended global sailing. But the point is, its a valid debate to have, while many decades ago it wasn't.

[Joh.Ghurt]

Originally Posted by jrau18

So it starts to get into sailing philosophy (is a lighter, faster boat that can avoid weather better than a heavier, slower boat that can ride out worse weather?). People will come down on different sides of that question for extended global sailing. But the point is, its a valid debate to have, while many decades ago it wasn't.

The IMOCA 60 is proof that even if they don't outrun the weather (which is pretty hard in the southern oceans with a monohull), they deal a lot better with it than any of the full-keel boats of similar size you can come up with. And no, a Boreal isn't really a full keel boat, just in case you'd want to start with those.

Why else do you think that the likes of Skip Novak, who had themselves custom build expedition boats for arctic and antarctic seas, didn't order full-keel boats? Do you think they're clueless?

It's really high time those old myths have to prove their merit.

[Happ]

Originally Posted by Emoyeni

Well didn't people care about having fun in the 60's? Why didn't they build faster big boats previously? I don't understand why the shift has been so massive...

The answer is really rather simple. Technology in materials and construction have allowed designers to create much larger interiors that are lighter and less costly to build. 60% of the cost of a boat is in the interior. Look at the new boats. Great layouts but cheap materials. They are all built with veneers. No longer solid wood.

Most in the sailboat world do not go offshore and sail long distances. Most daysail and occasionally stay on their boat. So a faster more maneuverable boat is more popular. Builders are still trying to make money.

If you really like the older full keel designs find a good used boat. A good used 38’ can run better than 150k and need $20k-$30k to be ready to cruise. There are some full keel boats still being made such as Island Packet. Their latest 349 goes for around $400k when it’s truly ready to go long distance cruising.

[geoff3nebel]

It costs a lot more to build a long keel yacht - think about it... one heck of a lot more fibreglass

[Visarend]

...and have bolted on keels -irrk!

[jrau18]

Originally Posted by Joh.Ghurt

The IMOCA 60 is proof that even if they don't outrun the weather (which is pretty hard in the southern oceans with a monohull), they deal a lot better with it than any of the full-keel boats of similar size you can come up with. And no, a Boreal isn't really a full keel boat, just in case you'd want to start with those.

Why else do you think that the likes of Skip Novak, who had themselves custom build expedition boats for arctic and antarctic seas, didn't order full-keel boats? Do you think they're clueless?

It's really high time those old myths have to prove their merit.

The open 60s really are amazing. If you told a sailor from the whitbread days what weight and length they were, and what they could handle, nobody would believe you. They're the culmination of decades of people pushing the envelope with design, breaking stuff, redesigning, etc. I wouldn't want to sail one myself, obviously they trade some safety for speed, but they're still safer than anything of a few decades ago. I like to think about how they're bigger than many of the colonial era ships that crossed the atlantic, a many multiples safer, and can be controlled by one highly skilled person, and weigh 5% as much.

The funny thing about Skip Novak's pelagic series sailboats is that the hulls really aren't that high tech. Its not like aluminum didn't exist 50 years ago. Maybe they would have been hard to build in the 60s and 70s due to supply and quality control issues, but not impossible. Its really just improved knowledge plus the convenience of CAD. I think of the hull shape of his boats as sort of halfway between the modern cruiser/racers made by the big french companies and the racer/cruisers of the late 60s and 70s (cal, santa cruz, etc).

But I bet if you asked him, he would tell you that serviceability on his vessels is equally important to hull shape. The ability to prevent any failures and quickly and easily repair any that do happen seems to be a priority in his boats.

[JordanH]

I'm going to jump in here, not because I'm an expert, but because I have some free time...


Firstly, this discussion has been entertaining, like bar-room entertaining. From people comparing the properties of keels to shapes of hulls, old boats to new boats, and myths vs "facts", not to mention everyone trying to out experience the next guy... definitely a great bar room conversation at some yacht club.


So, to the original poster, all I can offer is my limited experience (not theories). I sale a Contessa 26 (modified full keel). I have experience racing a 'modern' Farr 30, sailing various small boats like J/24, Sharks, as well as frequently sailing a friends Beneteau Cottage-eanis errr, Oceanis 36.7.

Keel and hull shape matter for speed and comfort but maybe not in the way you think. Firstly, my modified full keel is truly enjoyable on longer passages as it tracks very well compared to the other boats mentioned above. The Farr was really 'touchy'. Slight movements changed direction drastically. The Beneteau is super maneuverable (when compared to my Contessa). In my view, the keel 'comfort' comes from the forgiveness that it allows me on long trips. It is certainly less 'comfortable' in tight quarters with other boats or at marinas. I can't say I prefer one or the other without knowing what purpose the boat will serve. I give love to my keel on long trips, I curse my keel when I need to tack in light winds. I love sailing my friend's Beneteau on day tirips, but I think the autohelm works too hard on longer passages.



As for comfort, I don't think that's a function of the keel, that's more hull shape... I sail in the Great Lakes which means, short, choppy waves and the vast majority of the time is spent sailing upwind since Great Lakes sailors usually return home. So sailing into chop is a BIG factor when I consider 'comfort' of a boat.


My Contessa 26 does a nice job of cutting through and riding over the top of chop. The J/24 and Sharks do better when I try to steer around the waves. And ughhhhh. I HATE being a bluff-bowed modern boats like the Farr 30 and Beneteau, pushing that square bow into chops. Slam. Slam. Slam. Slam. Around the cans is fine, but that really grows old quickly on longer trips. Again... that's the shape of the hull, not the keel.
From a beam perspective, my Contessa is very narrow and initially tender. We lock-in around 25 degrees and my life is spend sailing upwind heeled to leeward. This is not comfortable in itself. So + 1 for cutting into the waves -1 for being tender. The Beneteau is designed to sail much flatter; I'm not sure what the angle of heel is that's 'normal' because they often won't sail hard to windward... partially due to age of captain and crew, but also partly because it's uncomfortable for them. (*ahem* They often sail downwind to get some place but power back if the weather gets up.... that's the human factor, not the boat.) So Beneteau gets a +1 for sailing flat, but a -1 for the stupid bluff bow that clunks into every wave. With the Farr, well, it was only on race duty. So we were hiked out with a terrific skipper driving around every wave. Fast. But not comfortable. They get no points for comfort, but race cars don't have reclining seats and cushy upholstery either. The J/24 and Sharks are the worst of both worlds... J/24 was at least fun to sail, even if it breaks your back. Sharks are uncomfortable, slow, tender...



Point being is that there's no universal truth. There is just right tools for the job. I'd rather be in my Contessa in a storm than on the Farr 30, although Farr would be better at pointing high to get away from the rocks, you'd be beat to death while trying to do so. I'd rather be in the Beneteau on a light day on the lake with guests. I'd rather be in my Contessa on a heavy day on the lake without guests. Comfort is situational. It depends on hull shape, keel shape, and the shape of the human component. In my 20's, I wouldn't notice the discomfort of a J/24 and would love to own one. In my 40's, I couldn't live with the J/24 acrobatics... my back flares up in pain thinking about it. Comfort is based on the human component. Finally, comfort is also based on experience. When I was learning to sail on a Shark, it was very forgiving. You could make mistakes and still be 'comfortable'. When you make a mistake on a Farr 30, you are in discomfort very quickly. That's more than just keel shape, but the keel is a factor... you can make a mistake on a full(ish) keeled Contessa and it barely affects your course or stability. But when you make a mistake on a thin fin keel, the boat tells you immediately that you done screwed up. Your experience and attention to driving the boat also impacts the comfort based on the keel design.

Before you generalize, you have to look at each combination of keel, hull, human and situation.

.... and the final answer as to WHY preferences have changed. Because we want to go fast. Speed is relative and quantified by racing. Race rules set out guidelines, manufacturers design boats to maximize speed within those guidelines, and buyers buy the boats that win the most... and therefore, race rules directly impact what is on the market. In the old days, they didn't have super stiff, lightweight materials like carbon fiber to make super deep, thin blade ballasted keels and rudders. Try that with wood. So preferences change because the race market drives new technologies and innovations to go faster. People want to go faster. And that's why preferences change.

The real question is why don't both the comfort crowd and performance crowd both move to catamarans which are faster and more comfortable? Oh. right. Because one thing every sailor can agree on is that we're cheap. (where's my troll emoticon? )

[svHarbinger]

Revolutionary advances in weather awareness vis-a-vis satellite comms, grib files, and routing sw, etc. allow very fast boats that point well to windward to essentially outrun/out-maneuver dangerous weather. Before we had this level of situational awareness, the traditional, full-keel strategy reigned supreme as the answer to worse-case weather encounters.