Which sub 37 ft yacht to cross the North Atlantic in?

[BabySharkDooDooDooDooDoo]

Oh dear.
All three of the boats that I mentioned above used to regularly and very consistently beat other boats (fin keel, similar length, non planing) over the line - and one of the reasons for this is that they were invariably sailed exceptionally well.

As to what is "stopping Archambault from building similar boats brand new?", the answer is simple - there is no demand for boats like this now.
Yes, people still want to win races, but they also want nice big ergonomic cockpits, swim platforms and other 'mod cons' - and the racing will be more fair if you are racing against other yachts that are similar to yours.
I used to crew on a quarter tonner many moons ago in races in the Solent - if the winds were light we would beat the Folkboats, and if the winds were strong they would beat us.
I appreciate that Stormy, Sunstone and Curlew were / are dinosaurs in comparison - and that they would not be able to compete now against similar length surfing sleds - but they could still give any of the older fin keel racing boats (non planing or surfing) a good run for their money when sailed very well.

I very much doubt somebody in the market for a Archambault or the like is going to be the slightest bit interested in swim platforms or other 'mod cons'

 

[Laminar Flow]

I don't think spade rudders are the devil either, they are an engineering problem, because they are designed around certain constraints, the biggest of which is the thickness of the profile.
The whole point of a spade is to reduce resistance. To achieve that the profile should not be too fat, this in term restricts the diametre of the stock. So you make the rudder profile just a bit longer; now you are increasing drag again and the "solid" stock is getting heavier, adding weight where you don't need it. You can make the stock hollow of course and save weight, but then again, you have to increase diametre and you get to start from the beginning. A "solid stock" is actually a very inefficient engineering choice. To save weight, some yards choose aluminium, which opens up a whole new can of worms, or carbon fibre, which is susceptible to shock loading.
To engineer something correctly, you have to know the correct loads. This is the real problem. Sure, we can calculate the forces due to speed, even a full stall at speed, and then add a bit of a safety margin to cover the unknown. How do you calculate the unknown, for floating containers or for the huge logs we have floating around our coast and for what speed? How about a pissed off orca? Not likely to happen? Don't know, I've certainly have hit logs, several times. At night, big enough to stop a thirty footer dead, so called dead heads during broad daylight (logs that have lost so much buoyancy that they are floating (barely) vertically and can easily put a hole through a hull or remove a rudder or propulsion gear. How about accidental groundings? Someone once told me that if you're not hitting bottom occasionally, you are not really cruising.
I know you can't design something to be indestructible and it is to each to decide how much of a risk one is willing to take and what the tradeoff or compromise is.
You take your pick.

To me the whole discussion is a bit like the free-standing mast discourse in the late seventies: remember the imminent end of stayed rigs and the airplanes don't use wire bracing anymore either arguments? Well, that didn't happen, because no matter what may be technically possible, it still may not be, for various reasons, the right choice.

 

[flaming]

If their shapes were that brilliant, what is stop Archambault from building similar boats brand new?

[Pithy comment mode] Because Archambault went bust.[/pithy comment mode]

 

[TernVI]

[Pithy comment mode] Because Archambault went bust.[/pithy comment mode]

They obviously missed the market for race-winning retro hull shapes.

 

[flaming]

I appreciate that Stormy, Sunstone and Curlew were / are dinosaurs in comparison - and that they would not be able to compete now against similar length surfing sleds - but they could still give any of the older fin keel racing boats (non planing or surfing) a good run for their money when sailed very well.

I can think of a couple of very good examples currently (or at least pre covid) racing in the Solent of more traditional boats that do extremely well on handicap. Both of which are however a lot slower than the last generation of displacement cruiser racers.

Whooper is a 1939 long keel classic wooden boat. It's won absolutely everything. Don't think they've failed to win their class at Cowes now for years. But... Here's the thing. It rates 0.922, and it's 39 foot long. The next largest boat in the class at cowes 2019 was a Sigma 33. The only vaguely modern boat I can see in the class was a Beneteau 31.7. And that owed Whooper time.
Winsome is a 1970s S&S 41. Longish keel and skeg hung rudder. Also very competitive on handicap. Rates 0.991. Was also at Cowes last year, and was also the largest boat in its class by a similar margin but just about the lowest rated. The more modern collection of 32-35 foot Archambaults, JPKs, Beneteau firsts etc all owed her time.

The last boat that I'd really call a displacement cruiser racer of about 40 foot was the First 40. They currently rate in the region of 1.080. And they also win a lot of things, they were 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th in their class at Cowes last year, which is not unusual.

For those of you who don't talk IRC numbers, that would mean a first 40 rating 1.080 would owe Whooper 568 seconds per hour of racing, and Windsome 320 seconds per hour of racing. This is an absolutely giant difference when you're talking about displacement hulls of similar sizes. It's over an hour in 12 hours for Winsome and nearly 2 for Whooper. Again, a whole host of offshore race results will show that these numbers seem about right. Those are not gift ratings for the older boats.

And we're not even talking about a modern design that's actually capable of planing.

So please can everyone continue to tell me how older boats are just as fast as their more modern cousins. I could do with a laugh.

 

[flaming]

One of the few who argues here with any kind of authority on the subject of modern boat design is Flaming and, I must say, I much appreciate his considered input, though I may not always agree. There are others, of course who have significant practical experience on the subject of ocean sailing and have as such, in their own right, much of value to contribute to the discussion. I very much enjoy this part of the conversation.

I only really tend to get involved in these types of discussions when someone tries to say that older designs are as fast as newer ones. Whatever keel or rudder(s) you want to hang below your boat is absolutely fine. It's just the laughable claims that are made about long keeled boats being as fast as new ones that I feel should probably be countered. If only so that if anyone was ever actually using one of these threads to make any actual buying decisions they were not labouring under false impressions of the compromises that are present in every aspect of yacht design.

 

[GHA]

One thought, who cares about how long it takes to cross an ocean?

Can't think of any actual long term cruisers I've shared a beer of 3 with in north/south atlantic. Often you'd hear something like, well she's not fast but safe and stable in a blow.

More often a measure of a good passage is how many things broke, not that you got there a day or 2 earlier.

 

[michael_w]

A few days off an ocean passage is always welcome. To quote Jimmy Buffett 'When women and fresh water are in short supply'.

 

[flaming]

One thought, who cares about how long it takes to cross an ocean?

Can't think of any actual long term cruisers I've shared a beer of 3 with in north/south atlantic. Often you'd hear something like, well she's not fast but safe and stable in a blow.

More often a measure of a good passage is how many things broke, not that you got there a day or 2 earlier.

Of course, there are many measures of what makes a good passage. There are also many options as to what style of cruising any individual owner would like to do.

I just think it's probably better to be honest about the pluses and minuses of each type of design rather than make absurd claims that (for example) older long keeled boats are just as fast as new boats.

 

[GHA]

Of course, there are many measures of what makes a good passage. There are also many options as to what style of cruising any individual owner would like to do.

I just think it's probably better to be honest about the pluses and minuses of each type of design rather than make absurd claims that (for example) older long keeled boats are just as fast as new boats.

Certainly agree, a long keel won't be fast or go backwards in the direction you'd like it to.
Both of which for many (probably most of the ones I know) long distance cruisers aren't massively important. Living on the hook and out running storms ain't going to happen in the real world unless you're dripping in cash enough to afford a super fast one, even then it's a gamble that you'll never get hammered betting that you'll be able to run away each and every time.

 

[flaming]

Certainly agree, a long keel won't be fast or go backwards in the direction you'd like it to.
Both of which for many (probably most of the ones I know) long distance cruisers aren't massively important. Living on the hook and out running storms ain't going to happen in the real world unless you're dripping in cash enough to afford a super fast one, even then it's a gamble that you'll never get hammered betting that you'll be able to run away each and every time.

Getting into the realms of rehashing old arguments, but it is a choice that you make to accept that you won't have the speed to get out of the way of weather vs having a boat that you expect to be able to take the worst of the weather. And it's absolutely true that having something fast enough (and that seems to be something capable of averaging in the double digits in reasonable conditions) is currently out of reach for a lot of cruisers.

But if you had the resources to afford such a craft but choose instead something slower but "more seaworthy" then you are also taking a gamble. The gamble that your boat will always see you through rough weather without anything major (rig, steering, portholes etc) failing. Or indeed causing any of your crew injuries in the process. Recent history (Golden Globe etc) suggests that this storm tactic is not as guaranteed to succeed as many would assume.
And it also makes the assumption that a well designed fast boat isn't actually as capable of surviving the worst weather if it does get caught. Which is something that has very few data points.

 

[GHA]

The gamble that your boat will always see you through rough weather without anything major (rig, steering, portholes etc) failing. Or indeed causing any of your crew injuries in the process. Recent history (Golden Globe etc) suggests that this storm tactic is not as guaranteed to succeed as many would assume.

Anyone going to sea takes that gambol. GGR is a complete red herring, the likes of Jeanne Socrates were down in the southern ocean at the same time and didn't get as smashed up just with having early gribs to miss the very worst of it. Very few cruisers venture down there.

 

[flaming]

Anyone going to sea takes that gambol. GGR is a complete red herring, the likes of Jeanne Socrates were down in the southern ocean at the same time and didn't get as smashed up just with having early gribs to miss the very worst of it. Very few cruisers venture down there.

Indeed there were other AWBs down there at the same time who avoided the worst of it too. But it's kind of my point, that time and time again with big storms we see that the best survival tactic is not to be in the worst part of the weather. This was true in 1979 and in 1998 for the Sydney Hobart. And it's still true today but forecasting (and crucially getting and interpreting that forecast on board) has changed out of all recognition.