boat brands - prejudice or reality

[barca nova]

I’m afraid that I am something of a purist in this regard, and I tend to think that designers should design boats fit for their purpose, and that owners should be using skills rather than short cuts. It’s a bit as if we all had self-parking cars and that there was no one left who could parallel park.

I would disagree with both you and tranona. For me, a boat has a bow thruster when it is a poor design with too much above the water and poor underwater appendages . For example, I once drove a Vancouver 38 Pilot which despite its long keel needed a thruster both going forwards and astern when parking. I had a bilge keeler with a very similar issue but no thruster and very high topsides. Against that a Starlight with the deep fin could be parked anywhere with ease as could my old Prout cat with the saildrive leg. Latter took a bit of learning mind you.

 

[dunedin]

…
Don't confuse the ability to steer straight, light helm or responsiveness with fundamental directional stability. Sirius Yachts supply a range of keels, this is what they say about their longer chord choice:

"........ While this (greater length fore and aft ) gives the boat better directional stability, it does make her a little less responsive and a little slower to manoeuvre."

Sirius make some lovely boats - though Geem won’t like them due to their huge hull windows.
But the vast majority I have seen have been bilge keeled. So not sure I would treat Sirius as top design authority on fin keel designs.

 

[Tranona]

Here is someone else who is no doubt wrong:

Don't confuse the ability to steer straight, light helm or responsiveness with fundamental directional stability. Sirius Yachts supply a range of keels, this is what they say about their longer chord choice:

"........ While this (greater length fore and aft ) gives the boat better directional stability, it does make her a little less responsive and a little slower to manoeuvre."

.

A splendid example of what happens when Zealots get 12 uninterrupted minutes of airtime to present their own prejudice posing as theory. They choose only that which fits their theory ignoring anything that does not. Exactly what Karl Popper warns against, but is ignored by many.

The title is misleading. Not once does he say that poor handling of modern boats is caused by twin rudders, but quite correctly it is the result of wide stern sections that might lead to unbalanced waterline planes when the boat heels, upsetting the balance between CE and CLR plus on some causing the rudder to come out of the water leading to aeration and loss of power. So far, so good - he has read pages 1,2,and 3 of the basic introductory chapter on the forces that affect sailing boats. In fact he explicitly states that his objective is to explain how these forces interact.

The rest is just hyperbole or just plain wrong. Twin rudders are part of the solution to the negative aspects of wide sterns. They do not come out of the water - that is the whole point of having a rudder on either side. The rudder on the leeward side is always deep in the water (again listen to Chris Rassy). Fortunately designers and builders have also read the introductory chapter and look for ways of restoring balance inter alia by changing the forward sections of the boat to improve the basic hull balance when heeled, chines to control the water flow from the transom, moving the rudder post forward on single rudder boats, sometimes raking it backwards to keep the working part of the rudder as far aft as possible, chines at the bow, rigs that do not rely on overlapping headsails and of course twin rudders.

As to evidence that such boats perform negatively in the way he claims he offers none. He simply states that they will perform badly, but you may have to go to Patagonia to find out. Despite claiming a lifetime of ocean sailing he is unable to offer a single shred of first hand (or even second hand) evidence of this negative behaviour. No "I have just sailed one of these boats in testing conditions and struggled to keep control and it wore out the autopilot" or even "I met a bloke in a bar the other day. He had just delivered one of these boats and told me how awful it was". He does not need to go to Patagonia to find out how these boats behave. I was on the Cobb in Lyme Regis yesterday. There was a brisk SE wind making it a lee shore with a long fetch. Nice white topped waves rolling in and bashing against the sea wall. A west-east passage across Lyme Bay particularly against a spring ebb would tell him all he needs to know about heavy weather handling.

It is pointless trying to compare boats designed in this way to older style boats as they are fundamentally different. As I explained earlier I have owned boats from 3 design generations, The old long keel Griffiths designs, a wide stern J&J from the early days and a Farr design from just before the latest chined/twin rudder iteration. Unfortunately I missed out on the 70/90s fin and skeg loved by many as clearly they were a vast improvement on the long keel types in most ways, but I bought the Bavaria 37 rather than the Moody 376 I lusted after until I actually tried one after sailing a Bavaria 42. The Bavaria did indeed exhibit some of the negative characteristics described earlier. It was not helped by having a shallow keel and rudder plus lots of top hamper with a bimini and a large overlapping 135% genoa. So just as our youtube friend says it rounded up as it became unbalanced when heeled and the rudder lost control. Solution was to reduce sail area and keep the boat more upright. Owners of sisterships with the standard deep keel and rudder and reduced headsail size to 110% report none of this. The 33 with its mainsail orientated fractional rig, fuller forward sections, even wider stern and aft raked rudder had none of the negative characteristics of the 37.

Development of cruising boats goes in cycles with a step change every 15-20 years or so. Easy from the preceding paragraph to identify those step changes - 1970s, 1990s 2010. At each step change the new design direction shows flaws which get progressively eliminated. The latest super wide bodied boats which have become dominant in the last 10 years or so have followed the same pattern as designers have learned partly from racing how to eliminate the negative features of the fundamental architecture while retaining the non sailing features that buyers enjoy.

 

[dunedin]

I would disagree with both you and tranona. For me, a boat has a bow thruster when it is a poor design with too much above the water and poor underwater appendages . …

Each to their own, but I want a boat with underwater profile to give good sailing performance. I don’t believe that you can accuse Arcona, X Yachts, Maxi, HR etc of “poor design” yet most will have (probably retractable) bow thrusters above about 35 feet, and nowadays possibly stern thruster also above 40 foot.
You could argue that being “purist” should not have a bow thruster - but by same argument should not have engine, and be sailing on and off anchor and moorings (no such purist would surely approve of a marina pontoon).
Meanwhile I prefer to use tools to de-stress manoeuvres

 

[potentillaCO32]

Each to their own, but I want a boat with underwater profile to give good sailing performance. I don’t believe that you can accuse Arcona, X Yachts, Maxi, HR etc of “poor design” yet most will have (probably retractable) bow thrusters above about 35 feet, and nowadays possibly stern thruster also above 40 foot.
You could argue that being “purist” should not have a bow thruster - but by same argument should not have engine, and be sailing on and off anchor and moorings (no such purist would surely approve of a marina pontoon).
Meanwhile I prefer to use tools to de-stress manoeuvres

I regularly sail a friend's southerly 110 with twin rudders.
The bow thruster makes marina berthing a doddle and makes the boat fingertip controlable.
It is too heavy to ever be considered a fast sailing boat but the twin rudders certainly help when heeled over.
It is rare to see a boat over 34 foot without a bow thruster and you can see why.

P.s. i can see why the more modern twin rudder southerleys have a bit of a cult following.

 

[Chiara’s slave]

Each to their own, but I want a boat with underwater profile to give good sailing performance. I don’t believe that you can accuse Arcona, X Yachts, Maxi, HR etc of “poor design” yet most will have (probably retractable) bow thrusters above about 35 feet, and nowadays possibly stern thruster also above 40 foot.
You could argue that being “purist” should not have a bow thruster - but by same argument should not have engine, and be sailing on and off anchor and moorings (no such purist would surely approve of a marina pontoon).
Meanwhile I prefer to use tools to de-stress manoeuvres

Seems to me to be analagous to power steering and automatic gearboxes in cars. They used to be a bit nasty. Power steering destroyed feel, auto gearboxes were slow, clunky and sapped power. But wider tryes and heavier cars really needed power steering, and a certain famous rally car with a diminutive but highly talented French lady behind the wheel was probably the tipping point. Hers obviously worked. Gearboxes, led by increased number of ratios are more recent. Same car manufacturer showed the way (Odd considering they’re usually up your backside) Auto boxes are universal, slick, and who’d want an 8 speed manual? I’d love a retracting bow thruster, my boat is a pig in a cross wind. We have our strategies, but a thruster just makes it easy. Just like power steering, why struggle when you can go the easy way. If you want to show off, you do it tidily, a couple of well judged bursts, it’s still a real skill. It just doesn’t involve your crew flinging themselves onto the pontoon to get a line around a cleat before you clobber someone, and swigging the lines to bring you alongside. They just step off and make fast with no fuss. More drinking time, less stress, what's not to like?

 

[doug748]

I would disagree with both you and tranona. For me, a boat has a bow thruster when it is a poor design with too much above the water and poor underwater appendages . For example, I once drove a Vancouver 38 Pilot which despite its long keel needed a thruster both going forwards and astern when parking. I had a bilge keeler with a very similar issue but no thruster and very high topsides. Against that a Starlight with the deep fin could be parked anywhere with ease as could my old Prout cat with the saildrive leg. Latter took a bit of learning mind you.

Not quite perhaps bad design but a sticking plaster. With twin rudders many are happier with a second sticking plaster in the form of a stern thruster.

Plumb bows are a great way to extend the water line and save expense in a marina, except the anchor hits the topsides so you fix a bowsprit, there goes the marina savings. Another sticking plaster but at least the sprit can be used to fix the off wind performance lost with a small or self tacking jib, fit an expensive furling downwind code sail - another sticking plaster.

Twin rudders are a sticking plaster in the first place as are twin wheels. We can fix anything with first aid but it all adds complication, weight and expense.

Of course these boats are great in many ways but If you don't have a quarter or a million £ plus and want to be self sufficient in setting offshore the consensus is smaller, simpler. With as little draught as you can get away with, the minimum of bulbs, rudders and legs sticking below the boat. Find a boat with one rudder and a skeg + only complications that earn their keep; what you don't have can't break.

Apologies for posting this again but here is our old friend Martin Daldrop. He took his Bavaria 34 half way around the world, was dismasted one time and then later lost the boat.
In 2024 his spade rudder broke and fell off in the South Atlantic, the boat rapidly sank. Daldrop took to his liferaft and thought about a new boat, something:
"Stronger
Much more robust
An older design........
With a skeg"

.

 

[Tranona]

BENETEAU, JEANNEAU, DUFOUR, BAVARIA, HANSE: BUILDING AND DESIGN

An interesting and informative review of different ways of building boats. No problems with that. However just like the piece in post#85 it is full of prejudice. He starts of by saying he does not normally write about such things as they are not "interesting" to him. Bias or what?

Nothing wrong with his descriptive material as most of it is taken from what the builders say themselves. However he then goes on to make unsubstantiated claims about performance and longevity of boats that he does not find interesting. He clearly has a thing about keel stepped masts and ballast ratios despite the fact that lower ballast ratios have been a trend for 30 years, replaced by deeper keels with bulbed ballast and deck stepped masts are commonplace.

It would be useful if he provided real life examples of masts coming down, boats being overwhelmed by conditions, hulls breaking up, boats being unable to reach their destinations in adverse conditions and so on. I have no doubt he could find some if he tried but equally he may well find such examples are not restricted to boats of particular types or methods of construction.

 

[benjenbav]

I can be guilty of that. However, I recognise it and try and correct myself. Is it a symptom of old age grumpiness, or irritation grown by experience a life lived? Maybe folks have too much time on their hands, the devil makes work for idle hands, sort of thing. I don't know. My experience is that on a whole, this is a good forum filled with helpful advice.

I’m also guilty.

 

[Chiara’s slave]

Increased performance can often lead to reaching your destination before bad conditions, or certainly opening up your routing options. Anyone who was watching Sodebo’s Jules Verne record has seen that in action recently

 

[Tranona]

Apologies for posting this again but here is our old friend Martin Daldrop. He took his Bavaria 34 half way around the world, was dismasted one time and then later lost the boat.
In 2024 his spade rudder broke and fell off in the South Atlantic, the boat rapidly sank. Daldrop took to his liferaft and thought about a new boat, something:
"Stronger
Much more robust
An older design........
With a skeg"

.

Remember though that this is an ex charter boat that took him 40000 miles across oceans of 10 years. A boat considered by some (from their armchairs) unsuitable for such use.

 

[geem]

..

Remember though that this is an ex charter boat that took him 40000 miles across oceans of 10 years. A boat considered by some (from their armchairs) unsuitable for such use.

I guess that would be your armchair

 

[Tranona]

..

I guess that would be your armchair

Not from my armchair - I am not saying that the boat is not suitable when the owner clearly thought it was and proved it.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

Not from my armchair - I am not saying that the boat is not suitable when the owner clearly thought it was and proved it.

Until it sank

 

[Tranona]

Until it sank

Indeed - but that does not invalidate the satisfactory performance over the previous 10 years and 40000 miles.

You might care to reflect on the high number of structural failures and a total loss in the last Golden Globe event - all designs revered by some a the only type suitable for ocean sailing.

Meanwhile the majority go on sailing happily around the world in their modest production boats.

 

[barca nova]

Seems to me to be analagous to power steering and automatic gearboxes in cars. They used to be a bit nasty. Power steering destroyed feel, auto gearboxes were slow, clunky and sapped power. But wider tryes and heavier cars really needed power steering, and a certain famous rally car with a diminutive but highly talented French lady behind the wheel was probably the tipping point. Hers obviously worked. Gearboxes, led by increased number of ratios are more recent. Same car manufacturer showed the way (Odd considering they’re usually up your backside) Auto boxes are universal, slick, and who’d want an 8 speed manual? I’d love a retracting bow thruster, my boat is a pig in a cross wind. We have our strategies, but a thruster just makes it easy. Just like power steering, why struggle when you can go the easy way. If you want to show off, you do it tidily, a couple of well judged bursts, it’s still a real skill. It just doesn’t involve your crew flinging themselves onto the pontoon to get a line around a cleat before you clobber someone, and swigging the lines to bring you alongside. They just step off and make fast with no fuss. More drinking time, less stress, what's not to like?

I am sure then that you would approve of the skipper of a 45ft steel mobo I watched come alongide the pontoon in a Norwegian Fjord. Not only sis he have twin screws and both bow and stern thrusters, but to make life even easier, he had a remote control for then all so he stood on the side deck and used both engines and thrusters to bring the boat alongside !
Impressive technology but sailing isnt about using technology to get somewhere is it? If you just wanted to get somewhere easily and fast you might use a mobo or even a helicopter if you were flush. Sailors pride themselves on sailing skill and I have frequently both anchored and come alongside a pontoon under sail alone. The old boys did it.