Are modern yachts designed wrong?

[TimBennet]

. . . .large unsupported panels will always be vulnerable to impact damage.

This again isn't necessarily true. Boat 'skins' that rely on framing can be a devil to keep structural intact when subject to impact blows. It's hard to blend the rigidity of the frame with the flexibility of the skin. Our efforts to design watertight bulkheads in early generation open class yachts and expedition boats showed the great athwartwise rigidity of these bulkheads were easily compromised in collisions as they behaved so differently to the hull skin.

Finding 'load paths' that will allow any impacts to dissipate harmlessly into the structure is what is necessary. Although the marketing department loves things like steel subframes to take keel loads because the 'buying public 'understands' how strong steel is', blending the characteristics of steel and grp is never going to give an ideal solution.

 

[Barr Avel]

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.

Yes Alubat is still trading, it has been under new ownership since December.

 

[Sybarite]

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...

...as I myself mentioned earlier in this thread!

I like the look, feel & reputation of long-keelers, but I'd probably want the practicality of a multi or centreboarder. Right up till the moment I'd go and buy a Salar 40 instead...

View attachment 42985 View attachment 42986

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

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.

If anyone's idly wondering why chaps like me admire old-timers more than new stuff, there's a good account of a Salar 40 here: http://www.condesa.org/about-my-boat/

I particularly like the horrifying account of the vessel being run down by a container ship...if you don't know it, read it, you won't be sorry: http://www.condesa.org/assorted-adventures/the-run-over-by-a-container-ship-story/

One line in particular stays with me; granted it's the skipper's opinion, but it's convincing:
"Thanks to 1967 insecurity with that newfangled boatbuilding material, fiberglass, Condesa bounced rather than broke. A lighter boat would have gone to the bottom."

The Salar has long been on my wish list for "the next one". I am already subscribed to the Condesa newsletter. Apart from the boat he is a good writer.

For many of the same reasons I like the Amel Sharki. It won't win many beauty competitions but it really is a quality boat and comfortable inside. Google Doug Le. They recount an Atlantic crossing where they arrived before a J105 which left at the same time, simply because the boat keeps going when there is bad weather.

 

[Tranona]

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.

Moulded wood is essentially no different in principle from a GRP composite. The wood is being used as a core and held by the resin in a stable shape. The core still, however has a propensity to rot if water gets into it, so great care is needed to keep water away, both in the design and construction. suggest you have a look at some of the earlier boats built with this method as many exhibit the negative consequences of water penetration. GRP seems to stand up to neglect better, one of the reasons for its popularity.

Wood is popular for your proposed project because it is easy to handle, does not require expensive tooling and permits flexibility in shape. The downsides are cost and time to convert large numbers of small pieces of wood into a boat shaped structure.

 

[Greenheart]

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.

That all sounds good sense. What we get is a market flooded with boats that can usually cross an ocean, but definitely were not primarily built with such ambitions in mind, because most companies' customers are happiest day-sailing from marina to marina...but by their sheer availability, inexpensive lightweight AWBs also end up as a long-distance option.

We often read here that the market only supplies what the market will consume...but it seems there are more would-be ocean-crossing skippers than boats built for their needs.

Funny, I doubt I'd buy a Snowgoose, Sun Fast, Salar or Southerly if I had the capital...I'd likely go for one of those terrible-looking bilge-keel Westerly motorsailers from the 80s...

...I'd enjoy the fact she could dry out upright, and that I could steer with the heater on, midwinter...but I'd never pretend she was just the boat on which to cross the pond.

 

[Sybarite]

Re Amel Sharki - I know Twister Ken doesn't like the false wooden decks. Tell me again how much it costs to redeck a 40 footer in teak?

 

[maby]

....

We often read here that the market only supplies what the market will consume...but it seems there are more would-be ocean-crossing skippers than boats built for their needs.

....

I guess there are still enough sea-worthy pre-AWBs around to keep up with the demand from the serious blue-water sailors.

 

[Twister_Ken]

This again isn't necessarily true. Boat 'skins' that rely on framing can be a devil to keep structural intact when subject to impact blows. It's hard to blend the rigidity of the frame with the flexibility of the skin. Our efforts to design watertight bulkheads in early generation open class yachts and expedition boats showed the great athwartwise rigidity of these bulkheads were easily compromised in collisions as they behaved so differently to the hull skin.

Finding 'load paths' that will allow any impacts to dissipate harmlessly into the structure is what is necessary.

I stand corrected, Tim, many thanks.

 

[flaming]

That all sounds good sense. What we get is a market flooded with boats that can usually cross an ocean, but definitely were not primarily built with such ambitions in mind, because most companies' customers are happiest day-sailing from marina to marina...but by their sheer availability, inexpensive lightweight AWBs also end up as a long-distance option.

If you want a boat like a Rustler, Island Packet, Hallberg Rassey etc, then there is actually quite a lot of choice for full time live aboard long distance cruisers in the new boat market.

However, boats like that simply cost more than the same sized AWB. So you're seeing another compromise in action - cost.

Many people who sail oceans but aren't millionaires may think "For my money I could have a Jen/Ben/Bav that is 15 feet longer than the Halberg Rassey or Rustler I could afford." And we all know that length is actually a significant factor in both comfort and storm survivability.

If money is no object and you were off world cruising - would you pick an AWB? Probably not. But if money is an issue the choice between a larger AWB and a smaller "quality" boat is not as straightforward as you might think.

 

[Greenheart]

I guess there are still enough sea-worthy pre-AWBs around to keep up with the demand from the serious blue-water sailors.

That's not a happy prospect for ocean-crossers of the future, as the old boats that were built particularly to endure tough oceanic conditions, decline in numbers...new and old crews necessarily adjusting to yachts that definitely weren't designed for that purpose, simply because the majority of new buyers stay inshore.

Maybe there'd be a marginal market for an "Oceanic" range, built by a mass-producer of AWBs...heavier layup, longer fin, demonstrably-improved resistance to impact damage from floating junk, bigger tankage, bolt-on hard spray dodger...and maybe a few trad options like ketch rig, allowing easy heaving-to? Plus, they wouldn't look so goddamned samey.

But perhaps the manufacturers would refuse to build anything which might suggest their existing, contemporary range wasn't already as good as it gets.

 

[Twister_Ken]

If money is no object and you were off world cruising - would you pick an AWB? Probably not. But if money is an issue the choice between a larger AWB and a smaller "quality" boat is not as straightforward as you might think.

Especially when you take in to account ownership costs. A smaller boat is cheaper to park, cheaper to re-equip, etc.

OTOH, if you do want to go bluewater, the smaller one may not have enough room for stuff like a generator, a watermaker, a decent mini-RIB as a tender, family and friends when they want to come out to 'paradise' and sail.

 

[Twister_Ken]

That's not a happy prospect for ocean-crossers of the future, as the old boats that were built particularly to endure tough oceanic conditions, decline in numbers

Why would they decline in numbers? You keep telling us they're indestructible!

 

[Greenheart]

I'm sure I never did, Ken. There are loads of hideously scruffy ones out there which hardly look worth the effort of cleaning up...

...and under the grime, doubtless there's osmosis and decades of other issues. That mightn't be as grave a matter as when it affects a light AWB, but it can't ever be good news.

It'd be fascinating to account for all the boats built since say, 1990, and see how many remain afloat, and what proportion of their original value and fitness for purpose remains.

 

[pmagowan]

Moulded wood is essentially no different in principle from a GRP composite. The wood is being used as a core and held by the resin in a stable shape. The core still, however has a propensity to rot if water gets into it, so great care is needed to keep water away, both in the design and construction. suggest you have a look at some of the earlier boats built with this method as many exhibit the negative consequences of water penetration. GRP seems to stand up to neglect better, one of the reasons for its popularity.

Wood is popular for your proposed project because it is easy to handle, does not require expensive tooling and permits flexibility in shape. The downsides are cost and time to convert large numbers of small pieces of wood into a boat shaped structure.

I think the wood is doing more than simply being a core, like in most modern GRP boats. On its own the wood, with the long fibres running in different directions, would make an incredibly strong boat. You then encapsulate the whole thing to prevent moisture ingress and thus do away with the major problem with wood, that of dimensional stability at different humidities. The outside skin gets extra glass fibre for wear resistance. So, overall you have a wood boat being protected by modern resins and glass fibre. Of course of it gets holed you need to repair it but that is not difficult. I would have thought such a construction would be prety indestructible out of the box and would only be at risk after decades of complete neglect. I do agree, however, that if it gets damaged it would be more difficult to fix.

I think many of the cold molded wooden boats have no requirment for frames or bulkheads for strength but of course you need them for molding and for interior furnishing. It is a very interesting technique which I think makes construction of a very 'modern' boat possible for a skilled amateur. I am even more mad than most, however, as I want to design it, build it and even cast the metal components for it. The trick is to enjoy that kind of thing! It would be much more sensible just to take out another mortgage on my house and buy a Rustler 42 but that would be boring. It is a dream, we will see if it becomes a reality. I have more pressing things to put my woodworking skills to at present, like making 30 odd sash windows and victorian internal shutters for my house1

 

[Tranona]

That's not a happy prospect for ocean-crossers of the future, as the old boats that were built particularly to endure tough oceanic conditions, decline in numbers...new and old crews necessarily adjusting to yachts that definitely weren't designed for that purpose, simply because the majority of new buyers stay inshore.

Maybe there'd be a marginal market for an "Oceanic" range, built by a mass-producer of AWBs...heavier layup, longer fin, demonstrably-improved resistance to impact damage from floating junk, bigger tankage, bolt-on hard spray dodger...and maybe a few trad options like ketch rig, allowing easy heaving-to? Plus, they wouldn't look so goddamned samey.

But perhaps the manufacturers would refuse to build anything which might suggest their existing, contemporary range wasn't already as good as it gets.

Most of the old boats were never designed for ocean crossing. People used them because that is what was available. Before the early GRP MABS came in the few that did cross oceans were invariably old workboat styles - lifeboats, pilot cutters, fishing boats etc because that is what they could afford. Just like now, if in 1964 you did not have much money you would choose an old wooden boat, not a spanking new Nic 32. Fast forward 25 years and the Nic 32 is down in the bargain basement and you would choose that in preference to a nice Moody 37 not because it was a better boat for the job, but because like its predecessor wooden boat it was affordable.

A tiny majority would buy a more specialised boat such as your beloved Tradewind 35 which was focused on a very specific style of ocean voyaging, even though very few of the 100 or so that were built were used in that way. Nothing has changed today. There are many designs focused on ocean voyaging that are built in very small quantities for those few who can afford them, but the vast majority of people buy either a mass production boat and customise it or more likely buy an "old" boat which will almost certainly be a more modern design than the "old" boat of 40 or 50 years ago. All of this for the same reasons - affordability and availability. Funnily enough all types happily go about their ocean voyaging without any problems.

You might care to read the article by Alistair Buchanan in this month's YM Blue Water supplement describing his first Atlantic circuit in a Hurley 20. That might help in understanding why the choice of boat is not so critical.

 

[Robin]

I think the wood is doing more than simply being a core, like in most modern GRP boats. On its own the wood, with the long fibres running in different directions, would make an incredibly strong boat. You then encapsulate the whole thing to prevent moisture ingress and thus do away with the major problem with wood, that of dimensional stability at different humidities. The outside skin gets extra glass fibre for wear resistance. So, overall you have a wood boat being protected by modern resins and glass fibre. Of course of it gets holed you need to repair it but that is not difficult. I would have thought such a construction would be prety indestructible out of the box and would only be at risk after decades of complete neglect. I do agree, however, that if it gets damaged it would be more difficult to fix.

I think many of the cold molded wooden boats have no requirment for frames or bulkheads for strength but of course you need them for molding and for interior furnishing. It is a very interesting technique which I think makes construction of a very 'modern' boat possible for a skilled amateur. I am even more mad than most, however, as I want to design it, build it and even cast the metal components for it. The trick is to enjoy that kind of thing! It would be much more sensible just to take out another mortgage on my house and buy a Rustler 42 but that would be boring. It is a dream, we will see if it becomes a reality. I have more pressing things to put my woodworking skills to at present, like making 30 odd sash windows and victorian internal shutters for my house1

We used to winter at Davis's Yard in Poole where Andrew Simpson a local yacht designer and surveyor was based who also worked with PBO for a time and had a book or two published. Andrew was a fan of cedar strip/epoxy construction and built a couple of boats that way in the yard, one for himself. Might be worth a bit more research?

 

[pmagowan]

We used to winter at Davis's Yard in Poole where Andrew Simpson a local yacht designer and surveyor was based who also worked with PBO for a time and had a book or two published. Andrew was a fan of cedar strip/epoxy construction and built a couple of boats that way in the yard, one for himself. Might be worth a bit more research?

The method I am looking at uses cedar strip as the base over which you laminate 3 layers of 3mm veneer running in different directions. The whole thing is stuck together with epoxy (mechanical fixings are used to keep it together until the epoxy goes off), a nd then enclosed in epoxy to protect the wood. It should end up light and strong.

 

[Robin]

We used to winter at Davis's Yard in Poole where Andrew Simpson a local yacht designer and surveyor was based who also worked with PBO for a time and had a book or two published. Andrew was a fan of cedar strip/epoxy construction and built a couple of boats that way in the yard, one for himself. Might be worth a bit more research?

see here http://www.books-for-sail.com/get-to-know-the-authors/38-andrew-simpson-marine-journalist-author-illustrator-yacht-designer-and-surveyor.html

 

[Tranona]

I think the wood is doing more than simply being a core, like in most modern GRP boats. On its own the wood, with the long fibres running in different directions, would make an incredibly strong boat. You then encapsulate the whole thing to prevent moisture ingress and thus do away with the major problem with wood, that of dimensional stability at different humidities. The outside skin gets extra glass fibre for wear resistance. So, overall you have a wood boat being protected by modern resins and glass fibre. Of course of it gets holed you need to repair it but that is not difficult. I would have thought such a construction would be prety indestructible out of the box and would only be at risk after decades of complete neglect. I do agree, however, that if it gets damaged it would be more difficult to fix.

I think many of the cold molded wooden boats have no requirment for frames or bulkheads for strength but of course you need them for molding and for interior furnishing.

What you are describing is exactly the same method as is used in composite boats using a variety of core materials encapsulated in resin - but not the same as "traditional" GRP. Wood does have the advantage that you can use its structural properties to design load bearing structures using the minimum materials. However, being a natural product the properties are more variable than a manufactured product such Kevlar or carbon fibre.

You are right that you can build a frameless structure but that needs a more sophisticated mould and techniques such as vacuum bagging or hot mould curing to be successful. This tends to take this method away from amateur constructors for anything but the smaller sizes of boat. Framed or semi framed construction is perhaps better as the framing can be the mould and it makes it easier to fit out the interior if some framing exists rather than bonding in the interior into a frameless shell.

Don't get me wrong. I am a great fan of wood epoxy and built boats using the method (although not moulded) over 30 years ago. However, over the years I have seen the potential downsides. Just as an example, I recently looked at a cold moulded boat built in the early 1990's by a builder who was one of the leading advocates of the method. It was an advanced design from a top designer and had many features that have since become mainstream. The cost at the time was about 3 times what a production boat of similar size would have been. Unfortunately a subsequent owner neglected it and failed to deal with leaks from deck fittings and the hull started to rot from the gunwhales downwards. All looked fine from the outside until the dark spots on the varnish and bubbles on the paint appeared. It has just had a major refit by the same people that built it who will hopefully have learned from the experience!

So before you get too carried away with the wonder material have a look at boats from the past to see how important good detail design and construction is if you want to build a durable boat.

ps Just seen Robin's reference to Andrew Simpson's boat. I watched that being built, but he is not an amateur in the strictest sense. The design is also nothing like you are considering, but light displacement, flat bottomed, deep fin keel and semi-balanced rudder hung on a short skeg. It does however, have a tiller and is by all accounts easy to sail, directionally stable and light on the helm.

 

[davidej]

We used to winter at Davis's Yard in Poole where Andrew Simpson a local yacht designer and surveyor was based who also worked with PBO for a time and had a book or two published. Andrew was a fan of cedar strip/epoxy construction and built a couple of boats that way in the yard, one for himself. Might be worth a bit more research?

It was featured in one of the mags - Yachting Monthly probably -and called the YM(?) 35 (36?).

I remember mooring up to a sister-ship in Veere in about 1998/99 and being very taken with it.

Ticked all my boxes except the budget