The Yard Guys

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

But it ain't offshore by most folks ideas, and it surely isn't "bluewater" cruising... a subject that seems to have crept into this thread repeatedly. The rigors of such sailing are a bit less than in what I, and apparently others as well, consider to exist in offshore, long range cruising, and failures in such applications were the subject of this thread as I understood it.

I'll leave the nametag debate and hurt feelings to you guys (I think this whole "name-calling" thing is WAY overused). But I wanted to make clear that this thread IS geared toward how boats hold up in bluewater cruising - not small hops.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by minaret

You seem to be leaving out the boats ability to spend time comfortably at anchor. What if you are making an offshore passage or just cruising to a destination with no (or very few) marinas or boatyards, with the intent of spending as long as possible with a crew of at least four, requiring fuel for generator, solar (oh no, windage!), at least one proper tender, some water toys such as kayaks or surf boards, fishing gear, frozen food and the power to keep it that way (batteries are heavy!), fresh water and/or the power to make it, and a long list of other stuff that comes before the finer points of "performance" for most cruisers? Understand the need for some compromises yet?

I think that's pretty self-evident...and not a great argument.

The general difference is this: The modern production boat has the ability to go fast and enjoy the benefits of doing so as laid out by Polux above. The heavy bluewater boat does not...ever.

So, in this regard it is a temporary and controllable compromise on the production boat versus a permanent "disability" on the bluewater boat.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by minaret

Those of you who know what you're looking at will be entertained. I'm sure smack and Pollux will explain to us why this method is superior.

Only if it is actually "superior"*.

(*Superior to what?)

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Zach

That boat sure hobby horses a lot tied to the dock for the water to be that glassy!

Zach

Can't you see that is a new boat on a promotion movie?

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by colemj

I will take a broad-sterned, shallow bilge, new design boat steadily running downwind in the trades any day over death-rolling while tossing my cookies in a traditional "bluewater" boat.

Actually, just give me a multihull.

How do you define "motion comfort"?

Mark

I actually don't have a traditional "bluewater" design so I couldn't say. Mine is a compromise of sorts. IOR but not too "IOR", 5ft draft with moderately deep bilge, 36 footer displacing 17,000-18,000lbs with about 40% displ/balast ration. My friend's 46 footer is also IOR but is only 22,000lbs displacement with tall rig (I believe his bridge clearance is 70+) and 8' keel. Motion wise being on his boat feels like I felt when I had a 27 footer. And - surprise surprise - motion comfort formula lists both his 46footer and my 27 footer at low 20s.

Motion comfort formula is better described here:
Motion Comfort Ratio

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by neilpride

You see, link old boats with crappy projects is just again ignorance, same as link old boats with tiranosaurus full keel doublé ended slow bricks,...

Of course it's ignorance. That's exactly why things need to be more clearly (and fairly) presented to newbs asking about this stuff. Because as newbs, ignorance is all they have. That's why they are asking.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Zach

That boat sure hobby horses a lot tied to the dock for the water to be that glassy!

Zach

Yep. He should have bought a Luders with a 20' overhang on the stern. Much more stable when Med moored at the dock. Heh.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

I actually don't have a traditional "bluewater" design so I couldn't say. Mine is a compromise of sorts. IOR but not too "IOR", 5ft draft with moderately deep bilge, 36 footer displacing 17,000-18,000lbs with about 40% displ/balast ration. My friend's 46 footer is also IOR but is only 22,000lbs displacement with tall rig (I believe his bridge clearance is 70+) and 8' keel. Motion wise being on his boat feels like I felt when I had a 27 footer. And - surprise surprise - motion comfort formula lists both his 46footer and my 27 footer at low 20s.

Motion comfort formula is better described here:
Motion Comfort Ratio

I just plugged my boat's numbers into this calculator and it came back with 43.32 for "motion comfort." Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but generally speaking don't overhangs and sharper-angled bows of traditional designs -- along with displacement obviously -- contribute to overall seakindliness?

Conversely, do not the plumb bows & wide, flush sterns common on modern boats (at all levels it seems) contribute to overall speed (increased waterline) but at a cost to comfort/seakindliness? As Mark points out, the exception may be in downwind conditions where a wide stern prevents a lot of the "death roll" he describes. I know little about catamarans, but from the limited feedback I've heard they may share similar sorts of pros & cons, but maybe for different reasons.

Must curious for more info on what the trade-offs are when it comes to speed vs. comfort b'twn more traditional & so-called modern designs.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Of course it's ignorance. That's exactly why things need to be more clearly (and fairly) presented to newbs asking about this stuff. Because as newbs, ignorance is all they have. That's why they are asking.

I dont think anyone is going to choose a boat based in fórum opinions, sure they can have a preliminar picture, but in the end people jump to their own decisions....

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by Exile

I just plugged my boat's numbers into this calculator and it came back with 43.32 for "motion comfort." Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but generally speaking don't overhangs and sharper-angled bows of traditional designs -- along with displacement obviously -- contribute to overall seakindliness?

Conversely, do not the plumb bows & wide, flush sterns common on modern boats (at all levels it seems) contribute to overall speed (increased waterline) but at a cost to comfort/seakindliness? As Mark points out, the exception may be in downwind conditions where a wide stern prevents a lot of the "death roll" he describes. I know little about catamarans, but from the limited feedback I've heard they may share similar sorts of pros & cons, but maybe for different reasons.

Must curious for more info on what the trade-offs are when it comes to speed vs. comfort b'twn more traditional & so-called modern designs.

You're absolutely right. SailCalc ( Sail Calculator Pro v3.54 - 2800+ boats ) shows your Bristol 47.7 as very substantial and comfy boat indeed. And basically motion comfort is not eased by very modern light displ. wide squat flat stern designs. Quite the opposite. But they do get there sooner. If that's the goal then great. Personally, I am sailing not to be somewhere quickly, otherwise I would have driven or flew there.

BTW, according to SailCalc, my 36footer is very similar in stats to Bristol 35.5. I suspected as much when I bought a used gennie off of a guy who sold his B35.5. ))

[Exile]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

I think that's pretty self-evident...and not a great argument.

The general difference is this: The modern production boat has the ability to go fast and enjoy the benefits of doing so as laid out by Polux above. The heavy bluewater boat does not...ever.

So, in this regard it is a temporary and controllable compromise on the production boat versus a permanent "disability" on the bluewater boat.

I wouldn't agree it is "self-evident" what may be desirable in a boat for the type of cruising that encompasses extended time at anchorages where there is no ability to re-supply (or hit a restaurant). You might benefit from hearing from people who have the actual experience vs. making inexperienced assumptions.

As far as "going fast" (whatever that means), there are vast, obvious differences between "heavy" bluewater boats as has already been pointed out. As b'twn. traditional & modern boats, there are many trade-offs. Not so easy to paint in broad strokes, unless you are pursuing an agenda.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Exile

I wouldn't agree it is "self-evident" what may be desirable in a boat for the type of cruising that encompasses extended time at anchorages where there is no ability to re-supply (or hit a restaurant). You might benefit from hearing from people who have the actual experience vs. making inexperienced assumptions.

Okay. Let me explain it this way: You can load down both a modern production boat or an old bluewater boat with...

"fuel for generator, solar (oh no, windage!), at least one proper tender, some water toys such as kayaks or surf boards, fishing gear, frozen food and the power to keep it that way (batteries are heavy!), fresh water and/or the power to make it, and a long list of other stuff"

Performance in both boats will take a hit. Yet, the modern production boats we're talking about will STILL sail circles around the old bluewater boats (we've seen that over and over again in the ARC). AND they will be more spacious and comfortable at anchor (with AC and genset and watermakers if you're into that kind of thing).

So, like I said, not a great argument. Like always it comes down to EXACTLY what you think you need in your boat for your purposes. Minaret seems to think that the above list is ONLY doable for his family in an older, heavier boat. That's fine. It's his preference. But it's certainly not gospel.

[Cheechako]

Originally Posted by Exile

I just plugged my boat's numbers into this calculator and it came back with 43.32 for "motion comfort." Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but generally speaking don't overhangs and sharper-angled bows of traditional designs -- along with displacement obviously -- contribute to overall seakindliness?

Conversely, do not the plumb bows & wide, flush sterns common on modern boats (at all levels it seems) contribute to overall speed (increased waterline) but at a cost to comfort/seakindliness? As Mark points out, the exception may be in downwind conditions where a wide stern prevents a lot of the "death roll" he describes. I know little about catamarans, but from the limited feedback I've heard they may share similar sorts of pros & cons, but maybe for different reasons.

Must curious for more info on what the trade-offs are when it comes to speed vs. comfort b'twn more traditional & so-called modern designs.

Older boats tend to have other things than overhangs that make a difference... so I think it is real hard to compare apples and apples on any given feature. But overhangs generally mean pitching and hobby horsing. I wouldn't call that "seakindliness". and yes.. the death roll exists! with fine stern at the waterline. One way to avoid much of this in comparison is to compare boats not on OAL, but on waterline length.
What I don't understand, in this whole discussion... is why someone out there boatbuilding doesn't recognize that they could build a modern shape hull, with heavier scantlings and longer keel/protected rudder. I mean after all... why are so many people buying old boats to cruise? They want those features, but many would readily accept the nice long waterline, modern accomodations and beam carried aft of the modern design.
I know it would be a Niche' market, but there is a lot of competition out there in the "plastic fantastic condo boat "market also...

[Exile]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

I wanted to make clear that this thread IS geared toward how boats hold up in bluewater cruising - not small hops.

OK, since you're the OP and this thread has been all over the place it's helpful to have some more defined limits. The primary sub-themes have generally been interesting & informative, but really involve entirely distinct issues that seem to get muddled together. Since we might now be finally getting back on track, this is how I'm reading it, fwiw (the labels may or may not fit but serve at least as a way to distinguish):

1. Whether modern, mass-produced boats which cost less for a mfg. to produce and thus less for a consumer to buy, are as structurally sound as more expensively produced boats (old & new).

So this is the "cheap* vs. expensive**" debate, regardless of age, and goes to whether the former are "unfairly maligned."

*("Cheap" in the sense of costing less to produce & buy, not necessarily in the perjorative sense. You're welcome, Smack).

**("Expensive" in the sense of what they would have cost new compared to "cheaper" boats from the same era. So even though a new Hunter of comparable size now costs more to buy than my 28-year old Bristol in 2014, a new Hunter would undoubtedly be the "cheaper" boat to buy in 1986. Sorry for re-stating the obvious, but this is where this thread seems to fly off-track).

2. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the construction of the cheaper boats may not be as "robust," an offshoot of the above debate seems to be whether it really matters. The clearest example of this might be Mark's (ColemJ) interesting point (for me, anyway) that the thick, often non-cored hulls on traditionally constructed boats (mostly old like mine but some new) are no longer necessary given modern composite materials & lay-up techniques.

I'll call this one the "cheaper but just as good" debate.

3. Then there's the "performance debate", thanks mainly to Polux's instigation. Is it compatible with the type of long-distance bluewater cruising that many do or would like to do. This discussion seems to focus on the trade-offs, whether speed matters, and whether slow & heavy can be offset by buying larger boats (Dockhead's approach, for e.g.).

Again, FWIW . . . .

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

My friend's 46 footer is also IOR

The IOR designs are from the 70's - hardly a "new" design at all, and in no way comparable to actual new designs. Not to mention they are about the worse sea-boats ever made in terms of handling and comfort. I don't think there is a single aspect of the IOR design that was intended for anything other than rule-breaking in ratings. Some of them are down-right dangerous boats, and you don't see any of their features in either previous or later designs. Olin Stephens considered these boats real design travesties and worked hard to get rid of them.

If you have not sailed much on real "new" designs, you may want to hold your opinion on "comfort" until you do.

Mark