Australian Golden Globe Race entrant - yacht lost

[flaming]

That's bonkers IOR era thinking, nobody would design a boat with such a short LWL these days.
Achieving that speed with a short notional LWL (as defined by the rules of the day) doesn't make the old boat a good boat, it just makes it a boat designed around an arbitrary constraint.

That's a very good point.

 

[geem]

That's bonkers IOR era thinking, nobody would design a boat with such a short LWL these days.
Achieving that speed with a short notional LWL (as defined by the rules of the day) doesn't make the old boat a good boat, it just makes it a boat designed around an arbitrary constraint.

It's not even the real waterline length is it? The boat doesn't operate bolt upright with no wave around it.

You might wonder what modern knowledge and materials could produce, if the main design constraint was set to LWL again?
Or what modern boats might look like if the constraints neither punished nor promoted overhangs.
Say if the constraint was simply 500sqft of sail and any hull you like, or 3T all up, or whatever you can build for £100k.
Racing boats are driven by rule constraints, other boats are mostly driven by cost constraints in one way or another.

Likewise you could wonder what 50s and 60s evolution of yachts might have produced with the tech of the day and 21st century IRC and marina price lists.

I just looked up a nice article written by Ted Brewer about the history of yacht racing rules in the American publication Good Old Boat. The IOR wasn't simply defined by the waterline length. It was more complex. This complexity gave the IOR boats their stupid pinched sterns. They also got crazy light such that you had a poor hull shape, very light and a nightmare in storm conditions. Ted Brewer describes them as unseaworthy.
I wonder how he would describe the current crop of super wide transom boats? It seems we have moved from one extreme to another

 

[flaming]

I just looked up a nice article written by Ted Brewer about the history of yacht racing rules in the American publication Good Old Boat. The IOR wasn't simply defined by the waterline length. It was more complex. This complexity gave the IOR boats their stupid pinched sterns. They also got crazy light such that you had a poor hull shape, very light and a nightmare in storm conditions. Ted Brewer describes them as unseaworthy.
I wonder how he would describe the current crop of super wide transom boats? It seems we have moved from one extreme to another

Is there any actual evidence that modern wide sterned racing designs are as unseaworthy as the worst excesses of IOR, or is that just prejudice on your part?

 

[geem]

Is there any actual evidence that modern wide sterned racing designs are as unseaworthy as the worst excesses of IOR, or is that just prejudice on your part?

I didn't imply there was a problem. I said we had gone from one extreme to another. You are assuming things I didn't say. If you want to go fast down wind then you can't beat a wide arsed racing boat.
Since IOR is all about racing I think modern race boats are far superior to IOR race boats. The reality is that neither design makes the best cruising boat

 

[flaming]

I didn't imply there was a problem. I said we had gone from one extreme to another. You are assuming things I didn't say. If you want to go fast down wind then you can't beat a wide arsed racing boat.
Since IOR is all about racing I think modern race boats are far superior to IOR race boats. The reality is that neither design makes the best cruising boat

My apologies, it certainly did seem like you were implying they were just as bad.

And, as I seem to be saying a lot on these boards... They don't make the best cruising boats for the way you have decided to cruise. The way you have decided to cruise is not, however, the only way. For other people, who maybe come from a performance sailing background, then fast boats (e.g Pogo etc) make a great way to cruise. And heavy, slow, boats would be of limited use to them as they wouldn't enjoy the sailing enough to want to keep sailing them.
It takes all types, and it is always interesting how quick those who favour heavier boats are to dismiss light, wide, fast boats as poor cruising boats without, seemingly, stopping to wonder if for other people with different tastes and priorities they would be extremely well suited.

After all, Pogo, JPK etc all have full order books going out years for boats that are not going to be raced, and who's design purpose is "long distance, liveaboard cruising". Either there are plenty of people who are spending good money on "bad cruising boats" or, just perhaps, they see a value in what those boats offer that you don't?

 

[capnsensible]

From what I'm seeing here for this years class of transat cruisers, there is a big proportion of multi hulls crossing. So is that the modern compromise for speed and comfort?

 

[geem]

My apologies, it certainly did seem like you were implying they were just as bad.

And, as I seem to be saying a lot on these boards... They don't make the best cruising boats for the way you have decided to cruise. The way you have decided to cruise is not, however, the only way. For other people, who maybe come from a performance sailing background, then fast boats (e.g Pogo etc) make a great way to cruise. And heavy, slow, boats would be of limited use to them as they wouldn't enjoy the sailing enough to want to keep sailing them.
It takes all types, and it is always interesting how quick those who favour heavier boats are to dismiss light, wide, fast boats as poor cruising boats without, seemingly, stopping to wonder if for other people with different tastes and priorities they would be extremely well suited.

After all, Pogo, JPK etc all have full order books going out years for boats that are not going to be raced, and who's design purpose is "long distance, liveaboard cruising". Either there are plenty of people who are spending good money on "bad cruising boats" or, just perhaps, they see a value in what those boats offer that you don't?

Interesting that a Pogo 40 is neck and neck with a Najad 490 in the ARC+ at the moment. One extreme race oriented boat and another 'comfort ' oriented boat with kids onboard. I know these events aren't really races but my point is that a centre cockpit lead keel, skeg hung rudder boat doesn't have to be slow. Both boats are sailing long distance. Both boats are making the same speed. They will both get you there. One will likely be having showers each evening. The other will likely be on wet wipes.
Takes your choices. If you like camping you will love the Pogo. Long distance sailing is the leveller of performance cruising. No doubt the Pogo will be more exciting. You will get a better night's sleep in Najad?

 

[Wing Mark]

I just looked up a nice article written by Ted Brewer about the history of yacht racing rules in the American publication Good Old Boat. The IOR wasn't simply defined by the waterline length. It was more complex. This complexity gave the IOR boats their stupid pinched sterns. They also got crazy light such that you had a poor hull shape, very light and a nightmare in storm conditions. Ted Brewer describes them as unseaworthy.
I wonder how he would describe the current crop of super wide transom boats? It seems we have moved from one extreme to another

For sure the IOR (and lots of other rating systems) are not just about the static LWL, but it was a key driver being heavily 'taxed'.
To make a boat rate well, you kept the LWL floating upright atthe dock low, and the 'real sailing waterline' longer by making sure the boat leans over and puts more length in the water.
Same for every rating rule between 'pilot cutters' and 'sportsboats' more or less?

 

[Wing Mark]

From what I'm seeing here for this years class of transat cruisers, there is a big proportion of multi hulls crossing. So is that the modern compromise for speed and comfort?

Modern as in 'it the 70s again already?'?

 

[geem]

From what I'm seeing here for this years class of transat cruisers, there is a big proportion of multi hulls crossing. So is that the modern compromise for speed and comfort?

I have crossed in Catamaran. Hard to beat a cat down wind in an ocean. Super comfy. As I am sure you know, going up wind is a different story ?

 

[flaming]

Interesting that a Pogo 40 is neck and neck with a Najad 490 in the ARC+ at the moment. One extreme race oriented boat and another 'comfort ' oriented boat with kids onboard. I know these events aren't really races but my point is that a centre cockpit lead keel, skeg hung rudder boat doesn't have to be slow. Both boats are sailing long distance. Both boats are making the same speed. They will both get you there. One will likely be having showers each evening. The other will likely be on wet wipes.
Takes your choices. If you like camping you will love the Pogo. Long distance sailing is the leveller of performance cruising. No doubt the Pogo will be more exciting. You will get a better night's sleep in Najad?

That Najad is doing remarkably well. Both it and the Pogo, together with an Arcona 465, are about 50 miles clear of the main pack and ahead of an Oyster 72. Of course the Najad is nearly 10 feet longer, and currently going 2 knots slower.... If you rewind the tracker you can see that the Pogo shot off from the start, but took a hitch east that didn't pay. Check back in a few days to see progress I guess...

No idea why you think the pogo wouldn't be having showers though. It has quite a nice head, and they are normally equipped with a watermaker.

 

[capnsensible]

Modern as in 'it the 70s again already?'?

Don't think there were hundreds of catamarans crossing in that whole decade, let alone this season....

 

[capnsensible]

I have crossed in Catamaran. Hard to beat a cat down wind in an ocean. Super comfy. As I am sure you know, going up wind is a different story ?

The last one I did a west-east on, we nearly ran out of ice cream.

 

[Laminar Flow]

That's bonkers IOR era thinking, nobody would design a boat with such a short LWL these days.
Achieving that speed with a short notional LWL (as defined by the rules of the day) doesn't make the old boat a good boat, it just makes it a boat designed around an arbitrary constraint.

It's not even the real waterline length is it? The boat doesn't operate bolt upright with no wave around it.

You might wonder what modern knowledge and materials could produce, if the main design constraint was set to LWL again?
Or what modern boats might look like if the constraints neither punished nor promoted overhangs.
Say if the constraint was simply 500sqft of sail and any hull you like, or 3T all up, or whatever you can build for £100k.
Racing boats are driven by rule constraints, other boats are mostly driven by cost constraints in one way or another.

Likewise you could wonder what 50s and 60s evolution of yachts might have produced with the tech of the day and 21st century IRC and marina price lists.

I should like to see you explain to me how a Rustler 36, with a reverse raked stern and outboard rudder, increases her dynamic DWL when heeled.
She is not an IOR design either, for that matter.
I too think that, as racing boats, contemporary shapes are much superior to those built under IOR rule.
The extreme interpretation of the IOR rule essentially led to what amounted to a double ender with extremely steep buttock lines that had a tendency to suck up the stern wave, effectively preventing above displacement speeds. To provide stability to these very light boats, beam was added amidships. As speed increases, the developing amidships wave through would severely diminish such stability, which in turn promoted the famous death roll behavior when running hard under spinnaker.
As usual, racing success also bred a whole slew of cruising boats, including motorsailer/deckhouse designs, that mimicked typical IOR features.

In regards as to hull shapes, apart from foiling designs and even that is highly debatable, there is not much new under the sun and much of what is now heralded as cutting edge contemporary can be found in Great Lakes scows, 19 century sand baggers or skimming dishes, including twin rudders, asymmetric twin dagger boards, wide sterns, etc.
The biggest and most significant progress has been made in the application of new materials that now allow us to save (significant) weight while assuring such shapes stay stuck together, mostly anyway.

If you fancy to sail a boat with minimum rule restraints, get a Moth dinghy. Let us know how your cruising goes.

There is a strong tendency on this forum to compare apples and oranges. When someone points out that a 30' overall cruising boat with basic modcoms, as we have now come to expect, the power generating and storing infrastructure to support this, an engine to reach hull speed in full trim and adverse conditions, proper ground tackle to stay in place once you arrive and a set of bicycles for shore excursions, is not likely to plane, then some wag will post a pic of a 60' carbon sled that features a washer/dryer to prove that contemporary design is not only better, but faster.

 

[Kukri]

I should like to see you explain to me how a Rustler 36, with a reverse raked stern and outboard rudder, increases her dynamic DWL when heeled.
She is not an IOR design either, for that matter.
I too think that, as racing boats, contemporary shapes are much superior to those built under IOR rule.
The extreme interpretation of the IOR rule essentially led to what amounted to a double ender with extremely steep buttock lines that had a tendency to suck up the stern wave, effectively preventing above displacement speeds. To provide stability to these very light boats, beam was added amidships. As speed increases, the developing amidships wave through would severely diminish such stability, which in turn promoted the famous death roll behavior when running hard under spinnaker.
As usual, racing success also bred a whole slew of cruising boats, including motorsailer/deckhouse designs, that mimicked typical IOR features.

In regards as to hull shapes, apart from foiling designs and even that is highly debatable, there is not much new under the sun and much of what is now heralded as cutting edge contemporary can be found in Great Lakes scows, 19 century sand baggers or skimming dishes, including twin rudders, assymetric twin dagger boards, wide sterns, etc.
The biggest and most significant progress has been made in the application of new materials that now allow us to save (significant) weight while assuring such shapes stay stuck together, mostly anyway.

If you fancy to sail a boat with minimum rule restraints, get a Moth dinghy. Let us know how your cruising goes.

There is a strong tendency on this forum to compare apples and oranges. When someone points out that a 30' overall cruising boat with basic modcoms, as we have now come to expect, the power generating and storing infrastructure to support this, an engine to reach hull speed in full trim and adverse conditions, proper ground tackle to stay in place once you arrive and a set of bicycles for shoe excursions, is not likely to plane, then some wag will post a pic of a 60' carbon sled that features a washer/dryer to prove that contemporary design is not only better, but faster.

I agree with this post and would like to illustrate it:

1. Carbon sled with mod. cons:



2. Gold Medal winner, five ton class, Paris Olympics, 1906:



Early IOR, sometimes called late RORC:

 

[Resolution]

In regards as to hull shapes, apart from foiling designs and even that is highly debatable, there is not much new under the sun and much of what is now heralded as cutting edge contemporary can be found in Great Lakes scows, 19 century sand baggers or skimming dishes, including twin rudders, assymetric twin dagger boards, wide sterns, etc.

True what you say. If you have the opportunity, take a look at the Model Room in the RTYC at Knightsbridge. The walls are lined with half models of members' yachts over the ages, pretty much every shape that floats can be found there.

 

[geem]

That Najad is doing remarkably well. Both it and the Pogo, together with an Arcona 465, are about 50 miles clear of the main pack and ahead of an Oyster 72. Of course the Najad is nearly 10 feet longer, and currently going 2 knots slower.... If you rewind the tracker you can see that the Pogo shot off from the start, but took a hitch east that didn't pay. Check back in a few days to see progress I guess...

No idea why you think the pogo wouldn't be having showers though. It has quite a nice head, and they are normally equipped with a watermaker.

Well the Najad is now doing 5.2kts and the Pogo 5.6kts. is it really worth all that discomfort for 0.4kt? I don't think so. They are 4nm miles apart after 500nm. What the point of a Pogo on an Ocean passage?
Just remember that the boring lead keel, centre cockpit boat with Spade rudder, full teak interior weighting 18t light is ahead of many larger well respected boats such as an Oyster 72, Ben 58, X Yacht 50 and numerous cruising cats. It's not a proper race but I bet the Pogo crew are trying hard. Can you imagine the humiliation if a centre cockpit cruiser with kids on board beat them to the line?

 

[Kukri]

Why is the Pogo going so slowly? One suspects - “weight of stores and equipment”!

 

[Laminar Flow]

That Najad is doing remarkably well. Both it and the Pogo, together with an Arcona 465, are about 50 miles clear of the main pack and ahead of an Oyster 72. Of course the Najad is nearly 10 feet longer, and currently going 2 knots slower.... If you rewind the tracker you can see that the Pogo shot off from the start, but took a hitch east that didn't pay. Check back in a few days to see progress I guess...

No idea why you think the pogo wouldn't be having showers though. It has quite a nice head, and they are normally equipped with a watermaker.

Actually the Najad is only 2' longer on the DWL this would, theoretically, give her an advantage of 1.3%. This is countered by the fact that the Najad's nominal (empty?) displacement, sources vary, is between 17.5 t and 18t. The Pogo's displacement, if the sources are to believed is 5.5t empty (I mean really empty) and 7.5t in full cruising trim (this is with full tanks + crew with minimal effects and which alone take up half of the proposed load.

A similar line of thought was followed a while back when we were all encouraged to join the collective enthusiasm as a Pogo 12.50 managed to cross the Atlantic at an average speed of 7.5 kts. Well that equates to a relative speed of 1.1 based on her length of DWL. To be sure, I can cite several instances where this relative speed was considerably exceeded by bog-standard sailing craft including some with long keels.
I have no doubt that Pogos et all can greatly exceed the speeds of displacement craft, but, just as reaching or exceeding (nominal) hull speed for non-planing types requires a specific weather and wind window, so do planing types require the right conditions as well. Until the planing model can actually take off, both types are functioning within the same parametres, provided there is a fair parity in SA/D ratio.
In this context it should be noted that for each additional 500lbs (227kg) of load, one requires 1 additional HP to reach hull speed. In terms of a F4, a common wind strength on a East/West passage, the boat would require an additional 50sqft per 500lbs to reach hull speed.
Ironically, the Pogo's published speed predictions are based on the empty boat weight and without even a crew onboard. To reach her projected speeds, she would need an extra 440sqft of sail when fully loaded. While she may well still be able to reach critical velocity, even with this additional load and given sufficient wind, it will narrow her performance window considerably and may very well make an exceptionally fast passage impossible.

 

[roblpm]

Well the Najad is now doing 5.2kts and the Pogo 5.6kts. is it really worth all that discomfort for 0.4kt? I don't think so. They are 4nm miles apart after 500nm. What the point of a Pogo on an Ocean passage?
Just remember that the boring lead keel, centre cockpit boat with Spade rudder, full teak interior weighting 18t light is ahead of many larger well respected boats such as an Oyster 72, Ben 58, X Yacht 50 and numerous cruising cats. It's not a proper race but I bet the Pogo crew are trying hard. Can you imagine the humiliation if a centre cockpit cruiser with kids on board beat them to the line?

Najad 490 from 1999 on yachtworld for £239,000

Obviously being that comfortable is expensive! The other leaders must be even more expensive!

Sala, an Oceanis 40 is in 8th. One for sale in Rhu marina for £99,000. I think I will have to slum it on there.

There should be a cost adjusted result as well as the handicap results!