please help diagnose lee helm ocean voyager 26

[Tarnacc]

Originally Posted by Don C L

I think in this heavier double ender design the movement of CLR when weight is added aft is minor compared to the effect you might see from the added rake. I too wonder what happens when there is no headsail on a windy day. And maybe too the headsails are being sheeted in too tight?

What happens with no headsail on a windy day? On the wind you move forward kinda balanced with a whole bunch of leeway

I can give you a story of an extreme example... I had not had the boat long and had only been on it a couple times. I had not yet figured out the depth of the balance problem. We were sailing along and I saw a squall coming. I put in a single reef and just had the staysail forward. I underestimated the strength of the squall and it pretty much knocked us over. I wanted to come up in to the wind but the rudder was out of the water so of course that wasnt going to do anything for me. I was clinging there wondering why she wasnt rounding up so I let go the staysail. She stayed stubbornly on her rail. I eased the main until she came back on her feet but could do nothing to get her in to the wind. I dropped the staysail alltogether but still could not get up in to the wind and I very much wanted do as we were in very short order going to be layed up on a gas platform. Ultimately it was the motor that got us through the wind and away from the gas platform.

[Don C L]

OK, though I find it hard to believe a builder would let a boat out the door that is so poorly balanced, I think it may be time to think of moving the mast.

[Tarnacc]

Originally Posted by Don C L

OK, though I find it hard to believe a builder would let a boat out the door that is so poorly balanced, I think it may be time to think of moving the mast.

You are correct, it does not add up. Nothing is supposed to be this way. That is the whole point. I like you believed that no way could a boat be this poorly unbalanced by design but everything I see on the water insists that is in fact the case. My reticence in believing what was before my eyes is what lead me to ask the question of the ballast and underwater hull shape. My instinct was that the relationship between the CE and CLR was significantly miscalculated but that would mean that the builder/designer who know a bunch more then me really goofed.

In any event, I think my question has been answered and I am not crazy. My next step I believe is going to tow the boat midships as suggested and find with certainly the CLR. From there it is my hope to find the degree of mast rake required to get me close. I dont believe that mast rake will fix it but at this point my goal is "close enough to live with". Remaking a mast step is a cheap easy job and my rigging is such that really nothing would need to be changed apart from perhaps a toggle on the forestay.

Thank you all again for your patience and input. If I may I would like to ask one more question... With a deck stepped mast such as this, how much CAN I safely rake the mast? Currently the mast is set flush on the deck at 90% and that load is transferred straight down to the compression post. As I rake the mast and that angle on the deck juncture opens up, (or closes depending on your perspective) the heel of the mast will want to kick out forward. How much is too much?

[TrentePieds]

Tarnacc

Below is what I drafted this ayem before I got busy with work. I thot in light of your last post (#33 in the thread) I'd post it as is, since it addresses your express and implied questions in #33, and specifically your desire to get "close enuff to live with".

Mast rake ain't gonna do it any more than shifting ballast. "Towing sideways" is a bother and really unreliable. You can implement my "cut out and hang it on the wall" with far less bother, and with far greater resultant accuracy.

Anyway — here it is what I'd drafted:

Tarnacc:

Forgive me for piping up again :-)

Wingsail said : “Putting extra weight in the stern drops the stern and raises the bow. This brings the CLR aft! (which is the wrong direction).”

And that is precisely correct. As I suggested, shifting ballast simply won't do it for you. Shifting ballast will injure a boat's handling in some way or other. She has, in still water, to float to her design waterline IF AT ALL POSSIBLE. You may choose to deviate from that fundamental tenet, but you should not do so without understanding what the price is that you must pay, or if you are not willing to pay that price. So start with that as a departure point.

Please understand before we go any further that all I say, I say in the honest hope that it may be useful to you – I DON'T say it to beat up on your boat, and certainly not to beat up on you as the boat's owner. If you will accept that, then let's proceed :-):

Moving the mast is a major undertaking and I will go into detail below, but for now I wish to make the point that to fit the boat with a mizzenmast if far, far easier due to structural considerations. Doing so will correct the lee helm, and it will retain the driving force of the original sail plan with which nothing is wrong EXCEPT that it is wrongly positioned fore and aft.

One of the reasons it's wrongly positioned is that the designer got off to a really bad start (if SailboatData's arrangement plan is to be trusted) by attempting to fit four births in a “two birth hull”. “Quarter berths” (“Afterbirths” as a former shipmate (f) used to call them :-)!) are perfectly fine in a transom sterned “Winnebago hull” such as for example the Catalina 27, but attempting to fit them in a scowegian-inspired “spidsgatter” (double-ender) of a mere 26 Feet on deck indicates that the designer is a little weak on the fundamental concepts.

Now for moving the mast:

As far as I can discern from the SailboatData arrangement plan, even when I blow it up, there is NO structure to support the mast at the position where it needs to go. There is, so it looks, a “half bulkhead” twixt the head of the port-side quarter birth an the galley furniture. But that half-bulkhead does NOT extend to the centreline of the boat, and even it it did, it would not serve as a compression post. Thus a new, custom built compression post needs to be installed, and from the SailboatData plan we cannot know what modifications of the bilge will be required to accomplish that. However, I can see how that could be accomplished.

Moving the mast will require moving the chainplates. New ones can be through-bolted on the outboard side of the hull, and the old positions can be filled in in a suitable manner. Lots of work, and a PITA, but not an insurmountable obstacle. However, at the new position it would be extremely difficult to fit any kind of structure to counteract the forces transmitted the chainplates to the hull. These forces will tend to collapse the sides of the hull inwards. How significant that would be I cannot say without doing calculations. It IS something to be aware of.

HOWEVER: If you move the mast aft, the angle of the backstay at the top of the mast will be reduced and the leech (let alone roach) of the mainsail will not clear the backstay as you change tack. You must then reduce the area of the mainsail, which is something that you shouldn't do on a boat with an already inadequate SA/D ratio. You could replace the fixed backstay with “running” backstays, one on each side, and the consequently necessary Highfield levers which would permit you to tauten the weather backstay and slacken the lee one as you come on the other tack.

All the above would cost you more, I'll wager, than you paid for the boat in the first place.

However, were you to go as far as to rig running backstays, you'd be better off leaving the mast where it is and re-rigging with a gaff main. That would bring your CE aft to where it should be, give you a better SA/D ratio and an altogether better boat as far as handling is concerned.

Now: If you fit a mizzen (let's not argue in this case whether that would make her a ketch or a yawl) but leave the mast where it is, you could retain your existing ward-robe of sails. PROVIDED you have enough area in the new mizzen sail (“jigger” or “spanker”) to keep the boat balanced, you could certainly wear a lapping, deck sweeping genoa, and you could devise a reefing schedule that would keep you sailing happily right up to the end of Beaufort 6. Under “jib'n'jigger” maybe even higher, though you wouldn't make much way in such a hard blow with consequent highish waves.

If she were my boat, I should be able to fit 'er with a mizzen for less than $1K. I am therefore of the opinion that if the boat suits you in other ways, then rather than walk away from her with the financial loss that that would entail, you should make her a yawl/ketch and enjoy her! She will sail perfectly fine if you do that.

One more thing: A ship's or a boat's “end sails”, the ones that hang over the ends of the hull, have never been meant to be “drivers”. Their function is to afford the skipper the opportunity to BALANCE the boat to suit obtaining weather conditions. They are trimming devices! A half century ago untold numbers of new boat owners were inveigled into the emerging market for “cruiser/racers”, and centuries of accumulated knowledge of seafaring fell victim to the beguiling promises of entrepreneurs and “marketing men”. All sorts of designers jumped aboard the yacht design gravy train (I think your boat's designer may have been one of them), while at the same time “rules” such as the International Offshore Rule and the Pacific Handicap Racing Formula, to mention but two of them, had a most abusive effect on centuries of accumulated knowledge. Those rules had as their objective the handicapping of individual boats of diverse design so they could race “fairly” against each other, and cruising be damned! Designers' attempts to 'massage” and circumvent the rules in their designs led to the abandonment of hard won lessons in design, and to a drastic reduction in the quality of the “aggregate knowledge” of the new total population of yachtsmen because so many people that had no maritime tradition behind them came into the market for yachts. These people constituted a “market of ignorance”. Such a market has ever been, and ever shall be, the marketing man's delight!

Whichever way you go, the best of luck to you :-)

TrentePieds

[Cheechako]

I have to agree that a compression post is what to do, but ONLY IF mast placement is really your issue. Too long a thread to really ascertain everything. How much lee helm is there really? have you tried a mini headsail and the current main just to see what happens? Could you try the staysail on the headstay?
Personally I've had enough boats with terrible weather helm I'll take a slight lee helm any day.
The problem with moving the mast back much is all the chainplates are now wrong also.
What is the condition of the mainsail? Flat? full? worn out? If bad condition, hmmm, rake the mast, get a longer boom and use a lower longer footed main to move the CE back?
I wonder which is more trouble; Move the mast, compression post, and the chainplates?
vs
new mainsail and longer boom?
vs
Get rid of the bowsprit and make it a sloop with the headstay at the bow?
(This you could try with a headstay before changing anything else. From the pic you may even be able to do this with the current headstay depending on the turnbuckle etc.)

[Tarnacc]

Originally Posted by TrentePieds

Tarnacc

Below is what I drafted this ayem before I got busy with work. I thot in light of your last post (#33 in the thread) I'd post it as is, since it addresses your express and implied questions in #33, and specifically your desire to get "close enuff to live with".

Mast rake ain't gonna do it any more than shifting ballast. "Towing sideways" is a bother and really unreliable. You can implement my "cut out and hang it on the wall" with far less bother, and with far greater resultant accuracy.

Anyway — here it is what I'd drafted:

Tarnacc:

Forgive me for piping up again :-)

Wingsail said : “Putting extra weight in the stern drops the stern and raises the bow. This brings the CLR aft! (which is the wrong direction).”

And that is precisely correct. As I suggested, shifting ballast simply won't do it for you. Shifting ballast will injure a boat's handling in some way or other. She has, in still water, to float to her design waterline IF AT ALL POSSIBLE. You may choose to deviate from that fundamental tenet, but you should not do so without understanding what the price is that you must pay, or if you are not willing to pay that price. So start with that as a departure point.

Please understand before we go any further that all I say, I say in the honest hope that it may be useful to you – I DON'T say it to beat up on your boat, and certainly not to beat up on you as the boat's owner. If you will accept that, then let's proceed :-):

Moving the mast is a major undertaking and I will go into detail below, but for now I wish to make the point that to fit the boat with a mizzenmast if far, far easier due to structural considerations. Doing so will correct the lee helm, and it will retain the driving force of the original sail plan with which nothing is wrong EXCEPT that it is wrongly positioned fore and aft.

One of the reasons it's wrongly positioned is that the designer got off to a really bad start (if SailboatData's arrangement plan is to be trusted) by attempting to fit four births in a “two birth hull”. “Quarter berths” (“Afterbirths” as a former shipmate (f) used to call them :-)!) are perfectly fine in a transom sterned “Winnebago hull” such as for example the Catalina 27, but attempting to fit them in a scowegian-inspired “spidsgatter” (double-ender) of a mere 26 Feet on deck indicates that the designer is a little weak on the fundamental concepts.

Now for moving the mast:

As far as I can discern from the SailboatData arrangement plan, even when I blow it up, there is NO structure to support the mast at the position where it needs to go. There is, so it looks, a “half bulkhead” twixt the head of the port-side quarter birth an the galley furniture. But that half-bulkhead does NOT extend to the centreline of the boat, and even it it did, it would not serve as a compression post. Thus a new, custom built compression post needs to be installed, and from the SailboatData plan we cannot know what modifications of the bilge will be required to accomplish that. However, I can see how that could be accomplished.

Moving the mast will require moving the chainplates. New ones can be through-bolted on the outboard side of the hull, and the old positions can be filled in in a suitable manner. Lots of work, and a PITA, but not an insurmountable obstacle. However, at the new position it would be extremely difficult to fit any kind of structure to counteract the forces transmitted the chainplates to the hull. These forces will tend to collapse the sides of the hull inwards. How significant that would be I cannot say without doing calculations. It IS something to be aware of.

HOWEVER: If you move the mast aft, the angle of the backstay at the top of the mast will be reduced and the leech (let alone roach) of the mainsail will not clear the backstay as you change tack. You must then reduce the area of the mainsail, which is something that you shouldn't do on a boat with an already inadequate SA/D ratio. You could replace the fixed backstay with “running” backstays, one on each side, and the consequently necessary Highfield levers which would permit you to tauten the weather backstay and slacken the lee one as you come on the other tack.

All the above would cost you more, I'll wager, than you paid for the boat in the first place.

However, were you to go as far as to rig running backstays, you'd be better off leaving the mast where it is and re-rigging with a gaff main. That would bring your CE aft to where it should be, give you a better SA/D ratio and an altogether better boat as far as handling is concerned.

Now: If you fit a mizzen (let's not argue in this case whether that would make her a ketch or a yawl) but leave the mast where it is, you could retain your existing ward-robe of sails. PROVIDED you have enough area in the new mizzen sail (“jigger” or “spanker”) to keep the boat balanced, you could certainly wear a lapping, deck sweeping genoa, and you could devise a reefing schedule that would keep you sailing happily right up to the end of Beaufort 6. Under “jib'n'jigger” maybe even higher, though you wouldn't make much way in such a hard blow with consequent highish waves.

If she were my boat, I should be able to fit 'er with a mizzen for less than $1K. I am therefore of the opinion that if the boat suits you in other ways, then rather than walk away from her with the financial loss that that would entail, you should make her a yawl/ketch and enjoy her! She will sail perfectly fine if you do that.

One more thing: A ship's or a boat's “end sails”, the ones that hang over the ends of the hull, have never been meant to be “drivers”. Their function is to afford the skipper the opportunity to BALANCE the boat to suit obtaining weather conditions. They are trimming devices! A half century ago untold numbers of new boat owners were inveigled into the emerging market for “cruiser/racers”, and centuries of accumulated knowledge of seafaring fell victim to the beguiling promises of entrepreneurs and “marketing men”. All sorts of designers jumped aboard the yacht design gravy train (I think your boat's designer may have been one of them), while at the same time “rules” such as the International Offshore Rule and the Pacific Handicap Racing Formula, to mention but two of them, had a most abusive effect on centuries of accumulated knowledge. Those rules had as their objective the handicapping of individual boats of diverse design so they could race “fairly” against each other, and cruising be damned! Designers' attempts to 'massage” and circumvent the rules in their designs led to the abandonment of hard won lessons in design, and to a drastic reduction in the quality of the “aggregate knowledge” of the new total population of yachtsmen because so many people that had no maritime tradition behind them came into the market for yachts. These people constituted a “market of ignorance”. Such a market has ever been, and ever shall be, the marketing man's delight!

Whichever way you go, the best of luck to you :-)

TrentePieds

TrentePieds, thank you for your time and response. Quite a bit to cover here and I dont want to waste your time but I want to respond to your post.

Firstly, I hear what you are saying about the loss of maritime knowlage to the alure of marketing and the boom of the cruising industry.

With regards to moving "shifting" ballast and the waterline... I packed weight in the aft end as did a previous owner in an attempt to get TO the correct waterline. Early in this thread another poster talked about the "original" engine. The engine I pulled out was an 8hp yanmar with a dry weight of nearly 300lbs! I believe they not only got the placement of the mast wrong but the placement of the ballast as well and after sitting it in the water said "well crap..." and installed the heaviest engine they could get their hands on that would fit in the compartment in an effort to start to correct the problem. As mentioned, I removed that engine and replaced it with an even HEAVIER load of batteries to fuel the electric motor. This last week or so I packed in an additional load of nearly 400 lbs. This additional weight in the form of old chain and sand has brought the boat to its waterline (if you believe the boot stripe) and I can report from taking her out the other day HAS provided an improvement to sail balance.

With regards to the bulkhead and moving the mast... Your description of the bulkheads is accurate but they are not providing support to the mast as that job is done by a compression post. This post can actually be moved without too much fuss and would be the easiest part of moving the mast. I know this as I already changed it once during our initial refit. Your observation about providing support to resist the hull sides squeezing in frankly did not occur to me. I would have to look at it again with that in mind but I think a transverse beam would not be too hard. None of that solves the backstay, leech, boom problem... In short, I hate the idea of moving the mast and to be honest I dont see myself doing it. I CAN do it and if this were the only boat I was ever going to have and was planning on cruising it around the world then I would but as that is not the case, it is just not worth it.

Mizzen... I do not dispute your assessment but here is a nugget I have not mentioned so far... A mizzen would require relocating the solar panels which fuel the fore mentioned electric motor and there is not anywhere else on the boat to put them. BAH! Maybe I am just being defeatist and melancholy. I need to let the mizzen idea cook for a little while and see if I can work out a way to do it.

OK and this just occurred to me as I was staring at the screen. So this is a bit out there and I expect to be roundly clubbed about the head but... What if I increased the forefoot of the keel? Fiberglass and polyester resin are cheap and while no artist (there is a long list of things I am not) but I think maybe I could pull off a reasonable shape.

[Tarnacc]

Please disregard that rambling about extending the forefoot. I reviewed some video of launching and yeah... Thats not going to work.

[Montanan]

Recommend that you try moving your batteries far aft so as to level the boat.

Your bow down configuration is likely causing leeway drag.

The lead you removed apparently raised your stern

[Don C L]

There is something else. And you might take all this to a sailmaker too for ideas. But if you extend the boomkin, you could experiment with a longer boom and a mainsail with a longer foot, before moving the mast. Maybe you could get a used main that could be cut to use for the experiment. That wouldn't break the bank and wouldn't require running backs (yet.)

[Tarnacc]

Originally Posted by Don C L

There is something else. And you might take all this to a sailmaker too for ideas. But if you extend the boomkin, you could experiment with a longer boom and a mainsail with a longer foot, before moving the mast. Maybe you could get a used main that could be cut to use for the experiment. That wouldn't break the bank and wouldn't require running backs (yet.)

I had not thought about that... I kinda wanted to replace the boomkins anyway.

[skenn_ie]

I wonder if this boat was ever right, or whether the mast step should be further aft. To my inexperienced eye, the drawings of the boat look like they would be unbalanced if a staysail was hoisted from the bowsprit. I suspect that bow low will move CE forward more than CLR, thereby increasing lee helm.

[Cheechako]

Interestingly, the Westsail 32 and Voyager are pretty similar. This shows the W32 scaled down to Voyager length: Mast location almost identical

[rgleason]

I think the op should take the boat out, tie the rudder at centerline and learn how to steer with the sails. Then come back after awhile sailing normally and tell us about it.

[Viajero]

I’m afraid you have a serious design problem which can’t be easily solved. You can easily find your center of lateral resistance by transferring the shape of the underbody to a piece of stiff cardboard, cutting it out and finding the balance point. However, this point changes as soon as you start to heel, especially with a beamy double ender. You could try extending the boom, which would require a new sail and either a much longer boomkin or running backstays, (you don’t want the boom to contact the backstay no matter how high it swings) but If she currently has a lee helm with the headsails down I don’t think the results would be very satisfactory. Before doing anything I would take a complete set of lines to a good naval architect and get his advice.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by Viajero

I’m afraid you have a serious design problem which can’t be easily solved. You can easily find your center of lateral resistance by transferring the shape of the underbody to a piece of stiff cardboard, cutting it out and finding the balance point. However, this point changes as soon as you start to heel, especially with a beamy double ender. You could try extending the boom, which would require a new sail and either a much longer boomkin or running backstays, (you don’t want the boom to contact the backstay no matter how high it swings) but If she currently has a lee helm with the headsails down I don’t think the results would be very satisfactory. Before doing anything I would take a complete set of lines to a good naval architect and get his advice.

YES! Now you are talking. I like the long boomkin and bigger mainsail approach. It's the least investment for a boat with a low net value and easily accomplished.

However, get the lines plan to a naval architect for his assessment (Bob Perry does consulting for $500 I heard, and he knows of these designs.) Be sure you include your short narration of the day when you could not make the boat round up, that is information he will need.

Also get the lines to a sailmaker and let him propose a much bigger main. If you extend the mast crane as well as the boomkin you can bring the main leech way back and still clear the backstay. If you don't extend the mast crane, only the boomkin, you can add roach LOW on the sail (looks weird but that's where you want the added area: aft) and still clear the backstay. Also, don't worry if the leech of the sail hits the backstay. Even if it overlaps several inches you can still get it to tack through. Mine overlaps 1.5 feet.

Finally if you extend the boomkin be sure to engineer it to deal with the added force pulling it up. The stay which holds it down won't have as good an angle as before. The equivalent of a dolphin striker might be needed.