Are modern yachts designed wrong?

To say all fin keelers are unsafe because keels can fall off is about as sensible as saying all multihulls are unsafe because they can capsize but people still say it. They are mostly the same people who say no manufacturer has improved on the CQR anchor.

They probably aren't too happy about biplanes going out of fashion.
 
30boat said:
It's a traditional ,conservative shape with a long fin and narrow after sections.I would have expected a skeg though.It's a good,safe offshore design of moderate peformance.INMO of course.
Click to expand...

Hi

The rear isn't quite as narrow as some of the same early eighties era

It is quite a nice boat to sai, doesn't to appear to have any bad habbits and it doesn't seem to be a bad compromise between a traditional long keel and a short fin keel

Regards Don
 

Attachments

  • stern.jpg
    stern.jpg
    24.8 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Don107 said:
Hi

The rear isn't quite as narrow as some of the same early eighties era

It is quite a nice boat to sai, doesn't to appear to have any bad habbits and it doesn't seem to be a bad compromise between a traditional long keel and a short fin keel

Regards Don
Click to expand...
Yes you're right,the rear is wide enough to stabilize the boat on a run.I appears to be a very sensible design capable of fast ofshore passages.
 
pmagowan said:
I like it.
Click to expand...

Yep i do too (but i am probably a bit biased)

It is a Australian boat called a Sailmaster 845 (8.45 meters) designed by a chap called Khan Walker in the early eighties

He also built a glass version of a H28 (known as a Walker H28) and the Sailmaster 845 was (he believed) a quicker and more maneuverable version

I think it looks ok both in and out of the water

I dont think it is as fast as a modern design but it is a pleasure to sail

Regards Don
 

Attachments

  • N'Skips__0026_1web (1).jpg
    N'Skips__0026_1web (1).jpg
    100 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
This has been a very interesting discussion and I think it is important to note that just because you think that one design better represents your needs does not mean you are saying that the other ones are carp. I think I am moving away from the idea of a full long keel towards a sturdy fin keel design with strong skeg. This perhaps gets back some of the performance losses associated with long keel without losing the stability and strength characteristics that make them good for rugged ocean sailing. Of course there is an element of aesthetic preference in much of this discussion but we are all different and so there is room for many different styles. I think it is obvious that the long keel has lost the competition when it comes to racing performance and the modern designs have developed off the back of racing innovation. I still question whether they have not moved too much in that direction for the average cruiser but it seems that is what the average cruiser wants irrespective if it is the best thing for them. My style means I like to get into places where a slow grounding might occur and I don't want to worry about an aggressive exposed keel. Also I like the relative security against pot lines etc that a long keel provides. I think as the boat size increases t here is maybe a need to make a compromise toward these newer styles for the sake of performance.

I would be interested in any other design features that people think are essential or redundant in boats today.
 
>http://johnvigor.blogspot.dk/2012/06...out-spray.html

Spray wasn't seaworthy in the first place as it said in the article.

>Loads of them - how long have you got. The original Jester for example.

That the first one, I've got as long as you want so please give your list of loads of them.

>Why do you have so much difficulty accepting that ocean sailing (indeed all sailing) is potentially dangerous and casualties are not limited to one particular type of boat? Or do you imagine having a long keeled boat makes you immune from sinking?

I don't have any difficulty in accepting that ocean sailing is potentially dangerous particularly if no effort is made to avoid bad weather or to ensure all safety measures, including kit for weather forecasts, are in place. What I don't accept is that strongly built heavy displacement boats, long keelers included, have the same inherent risk as lightweight boats when ocean sailing. The recent Beneteau sinking is an example of a lightweight boat that probably wasn't getting weather forecasts because it didn't have an SSB radio or Inmarsat kit or satphone, hit bad weather and lost it's keel.
 
KellysEye said:
>http://johnvigor.blogspot.dk/2012/06...out-spray.html

Spray wasn't seaworthy in the first place as it said in the article.

>Loads of them - how long have you got. The original Jester for example.

That the first one, I've got as long as you want so please give your list of loads of them.

>Why do you have so much difficulty accepting that ocean sailing (indeed all sailing) is potentially dangerous and casualties are not limited to one particular type of boat? Or do you imagine having a long keeled boat makes you immune from sinking?

I don't have any difficulty in accepting that ocean sailing is potentially dangerous particularly if no effort is made to avoid bad weather or to ensure all safety measures, including kit for weather forecasts, are in place. What I don't accept is that strongly built heavy displacement boats, long keelers included, have the same inherent risk as lightweight boats when ocean sailing. The recent Beneteau sinking is an example of a lightweight boat that probably wasn't getting weather forecasts because it didn't have an SSB radio or Inmarsat kit or satphone, hit bad weather and lost it's keel.
Click to expand...

But that is not what you said, nor do I think (in just the same way as you form your opinion) that there is any consistent evidence to support your view. It may be an opinion, and it may well represent many peoples' preferences, but don't think you could find solid evidence (as opposed to selective observation) to support it.

BTW there was obviously far more to the recent incident than is so far known, and maybe it is better to wait for the report before blaming it one one factor. That is the difference between selective observation and solid evidence.
 
>Well given that they called the boss of the company I guess that's probably rubbish.

If that was the case why did they sail into a storm, did he not warn them? Or was it they called too late when they started taking on water. From what you say they did have a sat phone but obviously didn't use it to check the weather.
 
KellysEye said:
>Well given that they called the boss of the company I guess that's probably rubbish.

If that was the case why did they sail into a storm, did he not warn them? Or was it they called too late when they started taking on water. From what you say they did have a sat phone but obviously didn't use it to check the weather.
Click to expand...

I rather think you may be jumping to unwarranted conclusions. They almost certainly were monitoring weather, one way or another. But an Atlantic storm is not something you can choose to avoid, sailing at six or seven knots.
 
KellysEye said:
>Well given that they called the boss of the company I guess that's probably rubbish.

If that was the case why did they sail into a storm, did he not warn them? Or was it they called too late when they started taking on water. From what you say they did have a sat phone but obviously didn't use it to check the weather.
Click to expand...

Please wait for the report before you jump to conclusions. The skipper was in regular contact with his base, but the details of the exchanges have not been put in the public domain. Right from the start when Doug posted about the loss it was known that there had been contact, so maybe you should make yourself familiar with the background before spouting off.
 
pmagowan said:
Yes, I have never had that problem and it would be the least of my worries :). You could always whitewash it if abroad.
Click to expand...

I've never had that problem either. My teak-decked boat never got further south than the town end of P pontoon at Cherbourg.

However, it doesn't take much to visualise hot teak in a Med or Caribbean climate doing a good job of heating up the cabins, thus necessitating extra cooling and ventilation or a lightly roasted crew.
 
Tranona said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree: I have been on Shindig and Andrew always refers to her exemplary sailing qualities.

doug748 said:
I have drawn attention to this beauty before:

http://www.yachtsnet.co.uk/boats/o41111/o41111.htm

You would need to have a heart fabricated from tinplate not to love it.


Alas all non-mainstream construction seems to take a cold shower on the used market, 70k is a fraction of it's rebuild cost.
Click to expand...

Well I've got a heart of tinplate then. The outside looks ok but I don't like the interior. In nearly every shot I find myself making a mental list of modifications that would be necessary to take the boat offshore. e.g. no fiddles in any of the galley area.

snowleopard said:
To say all fin keelers are unsafe because keels can fall off is about as sensible as saying all multihulls are unsafe because they can capsize but people still say it. They are mostly the same people who say no manufacturer has improved on the CQR anchor.

They probably aren't too happy about biplanes going out of fashion.
Click to expand...
Sort of sums up my feelings exactly.

I started a thread about long keels (and why the fascination with them?) a while ago and it was resurrected quite recently. My conclusion was that there are very few if any advantages of a long keel over a well built long fin with a rudder on a skeg.

Too many people read the old books where the old sailors trot out their love of their old long keel boats and buy into the myth. You should think for yourself and realise that times have moved on.

In the early 1960's the motoring press was full of indignant articles about these new fangled flashing indicators. People argued that they would distract drivers and cause accidents. The flip out solenoid operated traffic indicators were the 'proper thing' or drivers should stick to arm signals.
 
Twister_Ken said:
However, it doesn't take much to visualise hot teak in a Med or Caribbean climate doing a good job of heating up the cabins, thus necessitating extra cooling and ventilation or a lightly roasted crew.
Click to expand...
I have to keep a pair of deck shoes in the doghouse for when I need to go on deck where barefoot tends to result in cat-on-hot-tin-roof syndrome. Cabin temperatures later in the day will nudge 40°C with lockers under the teak side decks acting like pizza-ovens.

"The market has been brought up to believe that teak means tradition. Nothing is further from the truth. Everybody talks about a teak deck as the ultimate. Before the war a teak deck was unheard of except on a sampan. A builder like Herreshoff or Nevins would never use a teak deck - it's far too heavy for decking."
George Cuthbertson, yacht designer and co-founder of the Canadian yacht designers and builders C&C.​

Not just too heavy but too hot for lower latitudes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top