Are modern yachts designed wrong?

[KellysEye]

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

No. Modern designs came about when the manufacturers decided to target women in what was a predominantly male market. The large aft cabin in the AWB was the result and it worked really well, sales rocketed. Bavaria entered the market at a lower cost than the French boats Beneteau, Jeanneau and the more heavily built Dufour. The charter market also rocketed because the new boats could accommodate a family.

Cars also set out to attract women, with things such as mirrors on the sun flaps and space for storage of personal items. Again sales rocketed as women started buying cars.

BA sales took off when Saatchi and Saatchi told them they were flying people not planes which had always featured in the ads with a timetable.

There are endless stories of companies increasing sales when they find a way to enlarge their market by changing the product or ads. Also there are others who aren't able to see the changes needed and sales decline M&S is an example plus all the retailers who have gone bust.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Ah, Ovni. It's a pity that name doesn't roll off the tongue, because their combination of unusual features seems to set a high standard of adroit, enviable versatility...

Are there any deep-finners that are heavier than long-finners or long-keelers of similar approximate length and beam?

Ah Ovni. So desirable they went bankrupt. Like Southerly.

Deep-finners that are heavier than long-finners? Probably not, but deep finners do tend to have most of their weight where it does most good, at the bottom of the keel.

 

[Greenheart]

Ah Ovni. So desirable they went bankrupt. Like Southerly.

Deep-finners that are heavier than long-finners? Probably not, but deep finners do tend to have most of their weight where it does most good, at the bottom of the keel.

Good Gad! Ovni, gone? Dear me.

The point I was trying to make about keel type & displacement, is that a deeper, narrower keel seems usually to be worn by a vessel that is pretty lightly-dressed overall...

...and that if endurance is of primary importance to ocean-going yachtmen, surely really rugged construction is a safer bet than weight/cost-conscious AWB principles?

Maybe endurance isn't the primary concern of many modern ocean-going yachtsmen. Or, maybe they were persuaded by SWMBO to buy the big lightweight airy boat, so they just don't think too hard about the worst that might happen.

 

[MrB]

Ah Ovni. So desirable they went bankrupt. Like Southerly.

Southerly are still trading.

 

[flaming]

Good Gad! Ovni, gone? Dear me.

The point I was trying to make about keel type & displacement is that a deeper, narrower keel seems usually to be worn by a vessel that is pretty lightly-dressed overall...

...and that if endurance is of primary importance to ocean-going yachtmen, isn't really rugged construction a safer bet than weight/cost-conscious AWB principles?

I know I've said this before...

Yacht design is the ultimate in compromise. Every single variable compromises with something else. The key is to work out what you want your boat for, and what compromises to that main goal you are prepared to accept to ensure that it's good at your minor requirements.

For example, if you want a boat to cruise across oceans you might say "I want something that is tough, will sail through anything and carry me safely to the other side." And your favourite designer will come up with something. But then you might say "Well that's nice, but when I get to the other side I need to be able to live on it, so can you make the interior a little less geared to offshore and a little nicer to live on in the tropics..." Oh, and whilst you're at it I also want it to look like *insert name of your favourite looking boat here* and sail well, and by the way I only have this amount of money..." And all the time your ideal boat has moved away from a pure ocean going machine as the compromises take place.

 

[flaming]

View attachment 42985 View attachment 42986

...it's the sheltered helm that does it for me. Possibly for the OP, too?

I like the sheltered place to sit and keep watch, but I never really got the point of putting the helm in there. On passage the autopilot drives most of the time - especially when it's a bit nasty. And the time you do want to helm is when it's a lovely F4 and the sun is out. And when it's like that you don't want to be sat indoors!

 

[maby]

Southerly are still trading.

That probably should be "Southerly are trading again."

 

[Twister_Ken]

Southerly are still trading.

More accurately, a new Southerly is trading, the old Southerly having stuck its suppliers with all the debt it had run up.

I suspect there's a new Ovni (or rather, Alubat) too.

 

[TimBennet]

Yacht design is the ultimate in compromise.

Exactly right. When people say 'that is a perfect boat' all they mean is that the compromises that were made when designing it, are exactly the compromises they would would make if they had made the decisions.

Sadly, the people who I've seen make the most compromises in their boats, are those who have gone down the custom build route as a way of avoiding the 'compromises' they see being inherent in production boats. But too often they have the knowledge, resources, time or money to realise their dreams.

 

[Twister_Ken]

...and that if endurance is of primary importance to ocean-going yachtmen, surely really rugged construction is a safer bet than weight/cost-conscious AWB principles?

Time, I thnk, to quote Uffa Fox. Something along the lines of "The only place weight is any use is in a steamroller."

Strictly, the only jobs for the hull are to keep the inside dry, to persuade water to move past with the least resistance, and to impart stability. Good design can relieve the hull of much of its load-bearing role.

As for really rugged construction, ferro was that in spades, but never caught on, while steel and ali are minority tastes.

 

[Greenheart]

...you might say "I want something that is tough, will sail through anything and carry me safely to the other side." But then you might say "Well that's nice, but when I get to the other side I need to be able to live on it, so can you make the interior a little less geared to offshore and a little nicer to live on in the tropics..." And all the time your ideal boat has moved away from a pure ocean going machine as the compromises take place.

Exactly right, I'm certain.

The trouble seems to be that many who've understandably fallen for the charms of the compromised designs, are still keen to treat them as wholly suitable for ocean-crossing...

...I can understand their indignation at criticism, and even their readiness to take the chance - after all, one isn't very likely to meet containers, hurricanes or furious whales...

...but in terms of fitness for this particular purpose, I don't understand why lightweight, low-cost yachts built for marina-flitters, are constantly defended as equal or even better for ocean-crossing than the old heavy brigade, which, whatever their manifold drawbacks, have never been remembered for vital chunks falling off.

 

[[70521]]

Modern yachts as described by he OP actually exist:

http://www.voiliers-boreal.com/

but they are too expensive for yours truly... and do not come up on the second hand market. Pity they don't make a 35ft version...

Wonderful to see there is another UK fan of this fantastic French boat.

Just waiting for the Lotto winnings

 

[pmagowan]

Time, I thnk, to quote Uffa Fox. Something along the lines of "The only place weight is any use is in a steamroller."

Strictly, the only jobs for the hull are to keep the inside dry, to persuade water to move past with the least resistance, and to impart stability. Good design can relieve the hull of much of its load-bearing role.

As for really rugged construction, ferro was that in spades, but never caught on, while steel and ali are minority tastes.

I wouldn't have thought you could get much stronger than cold moulded wood. In the shape of a hull I would expect it to be able to take almost anything you throw at it. It should have no welds or other weak points and with the long protected fibres of wood and the light density it seems an ideal material to build a hull from.

 

[maby]

Good Gad! Ovni, gone? Dear me.

The point I was trying to make about keel type & displacement, is that a deeper, narrower keel seems usually to be worn by a vessel that is pretty lightly-dressed overall...

...and that if endurance is of primary importance to ocean-going yachtmen, surely really rugged construction is a safer bet than weight/cost-conscious AWB principles?

Maybe endurance isn't the primary concern of many modern ocean-going yachtsmen. Or, maybe they were persuaded by SWMBO to buy the big lightweight airy boat, so they just don't think too hard about the worst that might happen.

It is probably the case that the number of "modern ocean-going yachtsmen" is too small to register with the manufacturers of new boats. There's over 300 boats in our marina but I doubt that more than two or three stray more than a hundred miles off-shore each year - it's a very brave boatyard that bets the family silver on building exclusively blue water yachts costing half a million or more with that size of market.

 

[st599]

Wonderful to see there is another UK fan of this fantastic French boat.

Just waiting for the Lotto winnings

France seems to have a number of boat builders who build boats like this to order. This looks quite similar to the boat I linked to.

Wonder why there isn't a British manufacturer?

 

[TimBennet]

The trouble seems to be that many who've understandably fallen for the charms of the compromised designs, are still keen to treat them as wholly suitable for ocean-crossing...

Saying that all yacht design is a compromise isn't the same as saying some designed are 'compromised'.
There has never been any design that hasn't had to compromise in some areas.
Even 'money no object' projects still have to compromise - you just can't have everything in a boat. Something has to give.

 

[Twister_Ken]

I wouldn't have thought you could get much stronger than cold moulded wood. In the shape of a hull I would expect it to be able to take almost anything you throw at it. It should have no welds or other weak points and with the long protected fibres of wood and the light density it seems an ideal material to build a hull from.

I know little of cold-moulded, except that it seems popular for one-offs because of the relative ease of building. I suspect, combined with modern epoxies, it's pretty impermeable.

Robustosity might depend more on frame spacing than the inherent strength of the material - large unsupported panels will always be vulnerable to impact damage. If it's not sacrilege, there might be benefits to moulding in some Kevlar or similar in the more vulnerable areas.

 

[Tranona]

Isn't weight of construction an issue too? Are there any deep-finners that are heavier than long-finners or long-keelers of similar approximate length and beam? The impression I have is that every aspect of construction is much sturdier in doddery old long-keeled designs, than in AWBs with their translucent topsides.

Equating weight with either strength or stability is very misleading. Many of the older designs were heavy because the material used was heavy for its strength and because of the shape needed large amounts of ballast to keep it upright when sailing. If you just take weight as a measure, many modern designs weigh similar amounts to old designs of similar length overall. The big difference is that by using the structural characteristics of the material they are made to give much greater volume for a given length and the shape allows a much lower proportion of the weight to be in the form of ballast. Add to that the increase in waterline that results from not having long overhangs, the massive reduction in wetted surface area and improvements in rig design you can appreciate why such boats are more easily driven and offer superior sailing performance for less effort.

 

[pmagowan]

So, where are we?

The general consensus is that the modern designs give greater speed and maneuverability. The old designs are stronger, avoid ropes and help in heaving to.

So, like all these things we may need a compromise. I am begining to fall for the Rustler in most ways, it seems a very clever design, has a sturdy fin and skeg design which looks like it could take a bit of a beating and yet there is a lot less wetted surface than the full long keel. It might be a little more vulnerable to ropes but still a lot better than an aggressive bulb and spade rudder. It has a good compromise of looks, keeping the old bow and an acceptable stern (this would always be a compromise to carry the beam aft). Down below there is plenty of room and the layout is convenient with great access to the engine. I suspect that if I design my own it will look quite similar with a few tweaks.

Once again, and to keep everyones hat on, we are not criticising modern yachts and saying they are worse than old ones. I am just trying to get to the bottom of the pros and cons of the bottom! The modern design does have significant drawbacks and I wonder if they are the best compromise for many cruisers. In particular someone mentioned folding props. If you gain half a knot with one of these but lose half with a Rustler style keel maybe you get a good, below water profile that meets most requirements. Sturdy, stable, strong, safe and relatively speedy. Any 40 foot boat is going to be speedy in comparrison to my 28 footer.

 

[Robin]

Exactly right, I'm certain.

The trouble seems to be that many who've understandably fallen for the charms of the compromised designs, are still keen to treat them as wholly suitable for ocean-crossing...

...I can understand their indignation at criticism, and even their readiness to take the chance - after all, one isn't very likely to meet containers, hurricanes or furious whales...

...but in terms of fitness for this particular purpose, I don't understand why lightweight, low-cost yachts built for marina-flitters, are constantly defended as equal or even better for ocean-crossing than the old heavy brigade, which, whatever their manifold drawbacks, have never been remembered for vital chunks falling off.

You really have been brainwashed by reading the old books haven't you?. Maybe just consider buying a boat that is 'already where you want it to be and then board the 747 to get to it. Or buy a holiday home there and a boat to suit wherever 'there' is, still probably a cheaper and more effective method than trying to design/build 'your' perfect yacht.