A Full Keel Blue Water Cruiser Worthy of Living Aboard

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by sneuman

Look at Carib 1500. I've been watching it for years and sort of perfunctorily crunching the numbers. My theory holds up pretty well.

See this earlier thread (and others similar): http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...a-71211-2.html

Well if one looks at Division A in the cruisers division, one seems that the heavier designs did an awful lot of motoring, and in general , note in general , the lightweight modern sloops seem to have far lower motoring hours.


Its a fact of hydrodynamic systems , that larger wetted areas slow the boat, thats a given, the rest is up to the crew, condition of sails etc.
dave

[sneuman]

Well, look at corrected time then: In 2012, for example: A J/42 and a Sabre 426 led the pack. But a full-keel Shannon Ketch was third by only 2 hours on a 1,500 mile race. An Island Packet was 4th, which finished 5 hours (corrected) ahead of an Oyster. So, of the top 5 finishers, 2 were full or fullish keels. Farther back were some fin-keeled Beneteaus and Jenneaus, as well as a fin-and-skeg Valiant, and a couple of full-keel Gozzards.

http://www.worldcruising.com/content...20Division.pdf

I'm not saying it all comes out in the wash, but a lot of it does.

[neilpride]

At the end, its all about quality of construction from a reputable builder, fin keels boats are terrific if they are properly designed and build it, same for a full keel boat....

[Mike OReilly]

I've not yet crossed an ocean so maybe my attitude will change, but as a cruiser I don't understand this fixation with speed. If I wanted speed I'd buy a plane ticket.

Sure, one boat is faster than another, but in the end all yachts travel pretty slow.

And forgive my ignorance, but isn't speed largely a factor of LWL? Assuming the rig is sufficient for the wetted surface and mass (IOW, a properly designed boat), and one is carrying adequate sails, isn't the boat speed for a displacement craft largely determined by waterline length?

I have a full-keel, heavy displacement cruiser. It's theoretical boat speed is around 7 knots. It's not that hard to get her up to that speed. I travel as fast as most other non-planing hulls of similar LWL.

What am i missing?

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by sneuman

Well, look at corrected time then: In 2012, for example: A J/42 and a Sabre 426 led the pack. But a full-keel Shannon Ketch was third by only 2 hours on a 1,500 mile race. An Island Packet was 4th, which finished 5 hours (corrected) ahead of an Oyster. So, of the top 5 finishers, 2 were full or fullish keels. Farther back were some fin-keeled Beneteaus and Jenneaus, as well as a fin-and-skeg Valiant, and a couple of full-keel Gozzards.

http://www.worldcruising.com/content...20Division.pdf

I'm not saying it all comes out in the wash, but a lot of it does.

You cannot really compare these numbers, because a form of handicap is being used. If you look at elapsed time, and discount those with high engine hours then take vessels of similar length, by and large the faster designs are modern, short keels. ( well almost everything there is a short keel)

dave

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

What am i missing?

Bouncy ride and four heads

[JK n Smitty]

Originally Posted by sneuman

Well, look at corrected time then: In 2012, for example: A J/42 and a Sabre 426 led the pack. But a full-keel Shannon Ketch was third by only 2 hours on a 1,500 mile race. An Island Packet was 4th, which finished 5 hours (corrected) ahead of an Oyster. So, of the top 5 finishers, 2 were full or fullish keels. Farther back were some fin-keeled Beneteaus and Jenneaus, as well as a fin-and-skeg Valiant, and a couple of full-keel Gozzards.

http://www.worldcruising.com/content...20Division.pdf

I'm not saying it all comes out in the wash, but a lot of it does.

Wait? What? Why would you care about corrected times of a handicapped race? Look at actual real time. The Shannon Ketch finished 16 hours after the Jeanneau Sun Odyssey 54 that came in 12th. The Oyster actually finished 13 hours ahead of the Shannon Ketch. Given that the total duration of the race was a little over 8 days for most of the boats that means the Jeanneau and the Oyster were about 8% and 6% faster, respectively. So we are not talking about a big difference. Which gets back to the point made earlier that the speed difference is probably over blown.

[Mpricer]

Originally Posted by zboss

NO NO NO Too HOT and HUMID! They will NEVER get a boat then!

Wait till October.

Been to Annapolis in August. Remember I'm a retired Naval Officer. lol

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by JK n Smitty

Wait? What? Why would you care about corrected times of a handicapped race? Look at actual real time. The Shannon Ketch finished 16 hours after the Jeanneau Sun Odyssey 54 that came in 12th. The Oyster actually finished 13 hours ahead of the Shannon Ketch. Given that the total duration of the race was a little over 8 days for most of the boats that means the Jeanneau and the Oyster were about 8% and 6% faster, respectively. So we are not talking about a big difference. Which gets back to the point made earlier that the speed difference is probably over blown.

The previous poster was taking umbrage with engine hours, so I invited him to make a different comparison. In any case, I agree with you.

The point I'm making is not an extreme one. Fast boats are fast, slower boats are slower. But with (typically) double-handed crew over a (fairly typical for say, a circumnavigation) passage, the differences are just not that great.

I don't have time to do it this moment, but if you took finish time and add in motoring time, you'd have a better comparison. My hunch is that comparison would substantially bear out what we're saying.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by JK n Smitty

Wait? What? Why would you care about corrected times of a handicapped race? Look at actual real time. The Shannon Ketch finished 16 hours after the Jeanneau Sun Odyssey 54 that came in 12th. The Oyster actually finished 13 hours ahead of the Shannon Ketch. Given that the total duration of the race was a little over 8 days for most of the boats that means the Jeanneau and the Oyster were about 8% and 6% faster, respectively. So we are not talking about a big difference. Which gets back to the point made earlier that the speed difference is probably over blown.

yes but look closer at the numbers in general, a gain of anything upto 24 hours is visible, then factor out the high engine hours people. That gain on a three week atlantic run is very valuable.

Furthermore that 1500 is not known for its light airs !

Dave

[Terra Nova]

The original Freya, upon which Terra Nova was patterned, was the overall winner (not corrected time) of the Sydney-Hobart race, 3 years in a row, having averaged 8 knots, in one of them. This was in 1963-1965. Freya cruisers often experience 200+ mile days. Must have a very modern underbody, huh?

sistership

[goboatingnow]

The original Freya, upon which Terra Nova was patterned, was the overall winner (not corrected time) of the Sydney-Hobart race, 3 years in a row, having averaged 8 knots, in one of them. This was in 1963-1965. Freya cruisers often experience 200 mile days. Must have a very modern underbody, huh?

No its was 1963, we didn't know any better, be interesting to look at the same race with elapsed times today !.

[Jim Cate]

G'Day all,

There are factors beyond sheer speed that enter into the realities of cruising. Light air performance is frequently ignored in these discussions, and in our ~140,000 miles of cruising, we've spent far more hours in light airs than in even F7, let alone F8+. And one must face facts: boats with long keels and heavy displacement have more wetted area than lighter, fin keeled vessels of similar size... and that, as any NA will tell you, is a big disadvantage in light air. Motoring is one way of dealing with the situation, and one does see folks motoring when others are sailing. For long ocean passages (such as the OP envisions) fuel limitations can curtail that activity! For us, the ability to ghost along at three or four knots in glassy conditions is important and satisfying. YMMV.

Secondly, there is the issue of maneuverability. We recently had the opportunity to crew on a 45 ft LOD Herreschoff Mobjack ketch. This was in the classic races at the Cygnet Regatta's 150th anniversary. It was a good experience -- a gorgeous boat on a gorgeous day, and our very first sail on a ketch. I was surprised how much work it was! Everything was way harder than on our slightly larger fin keeled modern-ish boat, and everything happened so much slower. Tacking took around a minute to accomplish, with a crew of four flailing away at sheets, anxiously awaiting the bow to come through the wind. The evolution covered a surprising distance through the water. Seemed a bit awkward to me that day.

The next day, with more breeze, a different crew and a race which included modern race boats, a situation developed. Approaching a mark were 4 classic long keel boats on port tack, more or less in line and on their layline. When close to the mark, a race boat on starboard appeared and demanded right of way. All four classics began to tack away as required. The leading boat (a "'Couta boat" which is smaller and somewhat lighter than the Mobjack) succeeded, placing her directly across the bow of the Mobjack, which was plowing along at about 6 knots, slowly coming about. The skipper of the Mobjack called for the engine, and with a great roaring in reverse, the collision was barely averted. Besides the cloud of diesel smoke, the air was full of profanity seasoned with terror. There was minor contact, perhaps a few bruises, and in the end, no hard feelings. I was nearby driving the official photographer around in our dinghy, and was a horrified spectator to the event!

Of course, not everybody will want to race their cruising long keeler as these folks do here in Tassie. But there are other situations where the ability to maneuver rapidly may save your bacon, and perhaps your dignity. I would never be happy sailing such a cumbersome vessel. Again, YMMV as different things are important to different folks.

Oh, BTW, all of those thousands of cruising miles have been in fin keel skeg rudder boats, one of which was a dreaded IOR race boat (retired). I can not think of any time where I would have been happier in a more traditional boat.

Cheers,

Jim

[neilpride]

Between 5 and 10 knts everyone jump on the yanmar unless your boat weight 2 tons, 10 to 15 make the diference but no idea why a full keel is asociated with heavy and slow, with a good sailplan and modern sails a decent full keel can move at 5 knts in light winds, a pig its a pig but not all the full keels out there are slow boats, above 20 is where the fun start for a full keel boat , many people prefer the easy seaway motion in this boats compared with a more lively and fast light boat....Just saying.

[Cap Erict3]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

G'Day all,



Of course, not everybody will want to race their cruising long keeler as these folks do here in Tassie. But there are other situations where the ability to maneuver rapidly may save your bacon, and perhaps your dignity. I would never be happy sailing such a cumbersome vessel. Again, YMMV as different things are important to different folks.

Oh, BTW, all of those thousands of cruising miles have been in fin keel skeg rudder boats, one of which was a dreaded IOR race boat (retired). I can not think of any time where I would have been happier in a more traditional boat.

Cheers,

Jim

I have to agree.

There are plenty of situations that I find it prudent to avoid due to my lack of maneuverability going slow or in reverse. Watching someone with a spade rudder maneuver does inspire a bit of envy. Inshore.


A 15 ton, 14 foot wide, full keel keel boat is a different beast in tight quarters. Toyed with the thought of a bow thruster on more than one occasion.