Are modern yachts designed wrong?

[pmagowan]

Just a thought I was having as pondering how I would design a 40 foot sloop. The modern designs seem to be based on racing related innovations when, in fact, most people are cruisers. You have the modern keels which are aggressive designs but which are vulnerable to rope snagging, impact and are poor at taking the ground. The same goes for rudders which can get jammed by rope etc. Then you have cockpits taken up with double wheels. With the ability to have bow thrusters why are there not more long keelers being built. They offer stability and strength while being almost impervious to the problems above. Also why don't more boats have some form of doghouse to get out of the weather. I think the marginal improvements in racing performance that modern designs allow may be outweighed by the fact that very few people race their boats and actually want comfort (even if they don't know it). Do people simply like a racey boat even if they never see the benefit of it? What does the panel think

 

[Seajet]

I think a lot of it is that people mostly sprint from port to port rather than spend weeks at sea.

So a boat that is rewarding to sail with good helm response and can usually get in before bad weather is attractive rather than a plodder, for the average man & wife team.

 

[Joker]

Modern boat design is dominated by what is best for the charter market.

 

[awol]

Unless you have the money to design (or have designed) your perfect boat you are lumbered with what is on the market. Lots of money and the Halberg Rassys, Malmos etc. beckon, otherwise it's the fat-arsed soap dishes with toys like electric swim platforms, in-mast pretend sails, saloons that double as a pinball machine in rough weather - you pays your money and takes your choice.

 

[prv]

Modern boat design is dominated by what is best for the charter market.

+1, certainly at the BenJenBav end, anyway.

Nobody buys Malos or Rustlers for a charter fleet, so boats from these and other more expensive builders tend more towards northern european cruising needs.

Pete

 

[Sailfree]

Modern boat design is dominated by what is best for the charter market.

Modern boat design is dominated by what the manufacture can best sell

Corrected that for you

I would point out that at one time jeanneau used the same hull with different layouts, keel and rigs eg Sunfast/Sun Odyssey/Deck Saloon in both 40' & 43' length. All could have an internal layout to suit the buyer eg owners version 2 cabin or a 3 cabin or a 4 cabin.

Jeanneau then changed and Deck saloons are only available as owners 2 cabin versions. I believe this was done to give separation between possible charter boats and owners boats and enhance prestige/sales of the owner versions.

Jeanneau do no different to any other mass built manufacturer and that's to try to make boats more desirable than their competitors and that they can sell.

Its only the experts on here, not in boat building, that know better than the manufactures. A lot of the features people ask for are available but at a cost and frankly I think that peoples ability to specify the exact boat to suit them is inversely proportional to their ability to afford a new boat.

Regarding the specific point of long keels - they are available Rustlers and Island Packet - price and possibly design means they are not much in demand.

 

[Twister_Ken]

It's an interesting question. I've known both ends of the spectrum - a Twister and an Arcona 340. I've also sailed a few boats in the middle - the long fin and skeg variety typified by the S&S Swans.

Leaving aside the question of which appendage is best, and relative performance, it seems to me the primary benefit of the modern shape is accommodation, which translates into comfort aboard, especially when parked (which is, apparently, where most cruisers spend most of the time). Comparing my 340 with a boat from the 80's (the Peterson designed, Rogers built OOD 34, with virtually identical hull LOA and beam, which i sailed extensively) the Arcona is airier, more comfortable, with a habitable aft cabin rather than a single quarter berth and a better heads, by virtue of the beam being carried much further aft. The Arcona is also faster and closer winded, both desirable characteristics, and the rig is easier to handle.

The question is then, could the benefits of modern hull shapes (comfort, speed, pointing - through wide sections, flattish runs and efficient foils) be combined with a more traditional keel and hull shape? Perhaps they could by a clever naval architect, but I don't see how, myself. If you wanted to revert to long keels, you'd inevitably increase the wetted surface area, increasing drag and slowing the boat down. You might also need to put more power in the rig to compensate, making sail handling more of a chore. You might also require a more powerful engine to push it along (OOD34 30 hp, Arcona 340 20hp).

Wheel houses, or some form of hard shelter, I'm with you, at least for Northern European use. Comfort at sea - I think there's probably no clear cut advantage either way.

There is, of course, another way of skinning the cat, and the answer might be a cat. Drying ability, deck space, wheel house, room below, less rolling at anchor, higher speeds.

 

[pmagowan]

I think a lot of it is that people mostly sprint from port to port rather than spend weeks at sea.

So a boat that is rewarding to sail with good helm response and can usually get in before bad weather is attractive rather than a plodder, for the average man & wife team.

Do you really think a long keeler is going to be all that much behind these modern things. I don't think people race from port to port, I think they cruise. This normally involves whatever is a comfortable speed either under sail or motor. I can get about 7 Knots in my 28' long keeler under engine (oversized beta 20hp) if I don't care about fuel consumption but even if I was to settle for 5 knots I can get everywhere I want in reasonable time. I don't think I am significantly slower than a comparable fin keeler except if we really are both at it racing to the mark.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Do you really think a long keeler is going to be all that much behind these modern things. I don't think people race from port to port, I think they cruise. This normally involves whatever is a comfortable speed either under sail or motor. I can get about 7 Knots in my 28' long keeler under engine (oversized beta 20hp) if I don't care about fuel consumption but even if I was to settle for 5 knots I can get everywhere I want in reasonable time. I don't think I am significantly slower than a comparable fin keeler except if we really are both at it racing to the mark.

The liberation of being able to sail, drama-free and 7 or 8 kts, rather than 5, has to be experienced to be appreciated!

 

[Sailfree]

The liberation of being able to sail, drama-free and 7 or 8 kts, rather than 5, has to be experienced to be appreciated!

Especially if you have to work or have a busy agenda. I know of a few sailors that are forced due to time constraints to own motor boats.

 

[Greenheart]

Modern boat design is dominated by what the manufacture can best sell...I think that people's ability to specify the exact boat to suit them is inversely proportional to their ability to afford a new boat.

I wish I didn't believe you are right. But...the one compensation about not being able to afford a new boat, is that there are almost NO new designs I'd ever want!

I echo the OP's question, and am saddened to be entirely convinced by the responses offered so far above.

I realised recently how absurd my approach to this question has always been..."why don't these new boats have this, or that, or look like they used to?"

Mine is simply a super-low-budget outlook, based on things that have depreciated so far, their original prestige is hardly distinguishable...there are very cheap boats out there, and very cheap cars, and when either get old enough, it's easy to begin wondering, why for so little money, anyone would ever have preferred to pay for a Kia instead of a BMW.

New products appeal for cost and novelty; compared with the quality equivalents of the past, they often look cheap and nasty, but being new, they convince that day's market.

Damned shame they have to look the way they do...grumble, grumble...

On the wheel-shelter theme, I reckon a huge collective daftness afflicts UK yacht-buyers...we actually prefer to buy a boat whose open-cockpit requires us to wear oilskins and thermal layers, just in order to slightly improve upwind speed and pointing, despite habits of use which would benefit far more from a covered cockpit or indoor helm.

 

[prv]

The liberation of being able to sail, drama-free and 7 or 8 kts, rather than 5, has to be experienced to be appreciated!

Agree!

A practical Channel crossing is at least 80 miles. I know it's only 60 from Cherbourg to the Needles, but few of us store our boats moored to the Bridge buoy, and Cherbourg rapidly loses its appeal as a destination (the phrase "French Basingstoke on sea" appeared during our last cruise). At 5 knots that's 16 hours, at 7.5kt it's 10 hours and 40 minutes. One gets you in in good time for a wash and brush-up and then dinner ashore, the other is a late-night arrival, "thank god we made it" drink aboard, and bed. The two feel very different.

Pete

 

[pmagowan]

The liberation of being able to sail, drama-free and 7 or 8 kts, rather than 5, has to be experienced to be appreciated!

Yes, but my point is that my boat is restricted in speed due to hull length not fancy keels. I have been on larger yachts up to 70 odd feet but it seems that you reach a happy medium about 40 feet. I don't know that a 40' long keeler would be slower than a 40' fin keeler except in race conditions. I think the limiting factor is normally the skipper and crew rather than the shape of the keel and since most people are cruising at a speed they think is comfortable then I suspect that they will average out about the same.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Damned shame they have to look the way they do...grumble, grumble...

Dan, at one time I'd have been the first to agree with you. Not any longer. Form follows function, and if the function is admirable, then so is the form.

 

[Sailfree]

Could start a new thread in the lounge.

Are there dreamers like Dancrane (no offence intended as he is openly honest about his views) that can draw up boat specifications (that tend to reflect old designs) but can never afford a new boat.

The others are practical people that get out there and earn the money, appreciate the features of new boats and buy one!!

Remember those buying new boats have the option of buying old designs secondhand.

 

[Greenheart]

Form follows function, and if the function is admirable, then so is the form.

You mean, handsome is as handsome does. It's a noble thought Ken, but I don't think for a moment that it's echoed by any aesthetic reasoning...

...although...if we stop to think what designers like Pininfarina did with boxy 'practical' hatchback shapes, I expect a bit of deft Italian design could do much for AWB aesthetics.

 

[pmagowan]

I wish I didn't believe you are right. But...the one compensation about not being able to afford a new boat, is that there are almost NO new designs I'd ever want!

I echo the OP's question, and am saddened to be entirely convinced by the responses offered so far above.

I realised recently how absurd my approach to this question has always been..."why don't these new boats have this, or that, or look like they used to?"

Mine is simply a super-low-budget outlook, based on things that have depreciated so far, their original prestige is hardly distinguishable...there are very cheap boats out there, and very cheap cars, and when either get old enough, it's easy to begin wondering, why for so little money, anyone would ever have preferred to pay for a Kia instead of a BMW.

New products appeal for cost and novelty; compared with the quality equivalents of the past, they often look cheap and nasty, but being new, they convince that day's market.

Damned shame they have to look the way they do...grumble, grumble...

On the wheel-shelter theme, I reckon a huge collective daftness afflicts UK yacht-buyers...we actually prefer to buy a boat whose open-cockpit requires us to wear oilskins and thermal layers, just in order to slightly improve upwind speed and pointing, despite habits of use which would benefit far more from a covered cockpit or indoor helm.

We are on the same hymm sheet there. My ridiculous plan is to design and build my own boat, around the 40 foot mark. This is one of the reasons I am asking the questions. I want to know what reason I have not thought about prevents the designs I like being put into one boat. I have a lot of work to do on the learning how to be a naval architect bit !

I have just looked at the Rustlers and they are very close to what I like. I want a cruising boat that is strong and sturdy. It needs to be able to cross the Atlantic even if it never does. I like tillers and I like long keels.

 

[jwilson]

Remember those buying new boats have the option of buying old designs secondhand.

Yes, and having had a heavy bulletproof long-keeler I now have a modern lightweight AWB. Nice to sail in the conditions I mostly want to be sailing in, though I have slammed it to windward deep-reefed in bad weather when I had to to meet a deadline, and it got there fine, though I may have had a few loose fillings in my teeth. And the AWB is much more civilised when moored.

 

[Sailfree]

I have just looked at the Rustlers and they are very close to what I like. I want a cruising boat that is strong and sturdy. It needs to be able to cross the Atlantic even if it never does. I like tillers and I like long keels.

At the time I bought my first new boat a Dufour 36 in 1998 a close friend bought an immaculate second hand Rustler 36. He sold it about 10yrs later at a profit.

I put my boats out to charter and have lost lots in resale value (now on 3rd boat) and UK charter costs v charter income (thanks UK IR !).

So I have just shot myself in the foot wrt practical people who earn the money and can afford new boats!! I must stick to my own profession to earn money.

Start again - anyone who loves sailing pays heavily for their pleasure!!

As JWilson says a AWB is comfortable. just renovating my 43 now for our sole use - taken it out of charter.

Another big advantage of AWB's are that wives are happier and still go sailing - small MAB's tend to be owned by single/divorced men .

OK that lot is controversial enough to get everyone going!

 

[Twister_Ken]

Yes, but my point is that my boat is restricted in speed due to hull length not fancy keels. I have been on larger yachts up to 70 odd feet but it seems that you reach a happy medium about 40 feet. I don't know that a 40' long keeler would be slower than a 40' fin keeler except in race conditions. I think the limiting factor is normally the skipper and crew rather than the shape of the keel and since most people are cruising at a speed they think is comfortable then I suspect that they will average out about the same.

Perhaps speeds would be similar in stronger winds (although I doubt it), but in lighter airs a modern fin keeler would romp away from a long keeler, unless the latter had a cloud of sail, and a crew to fly it.

I've said in the past that my modern 34 footer is faster in almost all conditions than the heavier, longer keel and skeg Swan 411 I used to race aboard. The Arcona is usually sailed two-up, the Swan required at least four and was raced with a minimum of eight.