Compare pros & cons.

[Tranona]

The moody seems to be a long keel & skeg, so yes not a full keel.
https://sailboatdata.com/sailboat/carbineer-44-moody

My question was in regard to the E37 & S40, which seem to have almost identical shapes below the waterline, but one flush decked similar to a Tradewind 35 considered by many on here to be an excellent seaboat, against the Salar 40 wheelhouse/prominent upperworks type. Yes it is a personal choice, but which would you feel more comfortable sailing offshore in heavy seas/weather?

Not trying to dodge your question, but what I think is irrelevant. The perceived wisdom is that flush deck or low coachroof boats are "better" in those situations, but it is a perception, although many people who deliberately sail in those sorts of conditions tend to use boats like that. On the other hand plenty of others don't and manage OK.

If I was on a limited budget and planning to sail (slowly and probably on my own!) in the unpleasant parts of the world then a Tradewind 35 would probably be top of the list, not necessarily because it is long keel or near flush deck, but because it would do the job and being seriously out of fashion it is possible to get a sound, well equipped one comparatively cheaply.

There is a danger of overthinking the issue. There is no "right" boat - if there was there would not be a choice. Boats come in and out of fashion. The types you are looking at were fashionable for only a relatively short period of time when they were considered the optimum solution. However, few have been built in the last 30 years as other better solutions have been found, or rather the pastime of ocean sailing has changed in character and the constraints of the old designs do not match the expectations of buyers.

Still the old boats are there and available at modest cost. Their characteristics and constraints are well known and it really is a subjective personal decision which you choose as there is no objective way of deciding which is "better".

Your last question is specifically asking for a subjective answer. My honest answer would be that I would be equally uncomfortable with either but confident that either boat would be capable of withstanding extreme weather. However, given my own limitations I would plan to never get into that situation in the first place!

 

[scotty123]

Not trying to dodge your question, but what I think is irrelevant. The perceived wisdom is that flush deck or low coachroof boats are "better" in those situations, but it is a perception, although many people who deliberately sail in those sorts of conditions tend to use boats like that. On the other hand plenty of others don't and manage OK.

If I was on a limited budget and planning to sail (slowly and probably on my own!) in the unpleasant parts of the world then a Tradewind 35 would probably be top of the list, not necessarily because it is long keel or near flush deck, but because it would do the job and being seriously out of fashion it is possible to get a sound, well equipped one comparatively cheaply.

There is a danger of overthinking the issue. There is no "right" boat - if there was there would not be a choice. Boats come in and out of fashion. The types you are looking at were fashionable for only a relatively short period of time when they were considered the optimum solution. However, few have been built in the last 30 years as other better solutions have been found, or rather the pastime of ocean sailing has changed in character and the constraints of the old designs do not match the expectations of buyers.

Still the old boats are there and available at modest cost. Their characteristics and constraints are well known and it really is a subjective personal decision which you choose as there is no objective way of deciding which is "better".

Your last question is specifically asking for a subjective answer. My honest answer would be that I would be equally uncomfortable with either but confident that either boat would be capable of withstanding extreme weather. However, given my own limitations I would plan to never get into that situation in the first place!

Not seen any T35's at prices similar to the E37 shown, which seems to have had a lot of money thrown at it ready for an ARC, which the owner had to miss, although it lacks any 'fridge' type storage & other luxuries such as hot water/bowthruster, which the S40 has. Yes "ocean sailing" has changed, but many don't want an AWB or a skimming dish.

 

[Tranona]

Not seen any T35's at prices similar to the E37 shown, which seems to have had a lot of money thrown at it ready for an ARC, which the owner had to miss, although it lacks any 'fridge' type storage & other luxuries such as hot water/bowthruster, which the S40 has. Yes "ocean sailing" has changed, but many don't want an AWB or a skimming dish.

Yes, the Endurance seems very cheap, but that is perhaps because it is even more out of "fashion". It was hardly popular when it was new as the GRP version only came in after demand for that sort of boat new had collapsed. It is not the buying price that is necessarily the key, but the total cost of getting the boat to the standard you want for your adventure.

Not sure why you are polarising the argument with your "skimming dish" comment, nor dismissing AWBs (however defined). There is a vast number of designs of boats that will handle ocean passages including the conditions you describe that are not old, heavy, slow long keelers. Problem for you and other buyers with limited budgets is that they tend to be more popular and therefore more expensive. Not sure that there are "many" that want a boat like this, otherwise it would have sold long ago or the price would be higher. In terms of the amount and quality of gear you get for your money (assuming it is all working and as good as it looks in the details) it is a bargain. To put it into perspective would guess a similar age and size more modern boat with the same type of gear would be asking at least twice the price.

 

[scotty123]

Yes, the Endurance seems very cheap, but that is perhaps because it is even more out of "fashion". It was hardly popular when it was new as the GRP version only came in after demand for that sort of boat new had collapsed. It is not the buying price that is necessarily the key, but the total cost of getting the boat to the standard you want for your adventure.

Not sure why you are polarising the argument with your "skimming dish" comment, nor dismissing AWBs (however defined). There is a vast number of designs of boats that will handle ocean passages including the conditions you describe that are not old, heavy, slow long keelers. Problem for you and other buyers with limited budgets is that they tend to be more popular and therefore more expensive. Not sure that there are "many" that want a boat like this, otherwise it would have sold long ago or the price would be higher. In terms of the amount and quality of gear you get for your money (assuming it is all working and as good as it looks in the details) it is a bargain. To put it into perspective would guess a similar age and size more modern boat with the same type of gear would be asking at least twice the price.

I started this thread, hoping for interesting comparisons of the pair of boats mentioned in the OP.
What I have seen since, is opinion on a type, rather than specifically these. You also assume, that I, am looking at these somewhat deridedly because of "limited budget". You seem critical that I mention AWB & skimming dishes, as an alternative to these full or long keel types.

 

[duncan99210]

As Tranona points out, the boats you seek opinions on are old and only ever produced in very small numbers, so the chance of finding people on here that have actually sailed them is small. He has sailed a very similar one and offered his take on that, which is that it was fine in its way but wouldn’t be his choice.
This is in many ways a tired argument. When GRP was introduced, builders didn’t understand its capabilities fully and, understandably, tried to translate their wooden boat building experience into the new material. That led to boats which mirrored the wooden designs and therefore shared similar sailing characteristics. Over time, designers came to understand GRP better and how they could best exploit the material. This led to fin and skeg and then fin and blade rudders because GRP can support this structure in a way that wood could not. Builders also learnt that you don’t need massively thick hulls but can selectively strengthen parts of the hull in different, lighter ways.
That produces a whole new set of hull shapes and characteristics, which show no signs of stopping their development.

So what? The boats the OP seeks to discuss are a snapshot of a particular moment in the development of Northern European boats. When they were built, they represented a particular approach to a particular type of sailing. They clearly weren’t terrifically popular as is reflected in the fairly small numbers produced. So any discussion about their merits has to be set against that background: for some people they will be exactly what they’re looking for, others will dismiss them for reasons of their own.
My take is that I’d prefer a boat that sails well, copes with long passages, has comfortable accommodation below but plenty of room on deck and in the cockpit. I’d also seek to have it easily handled in marinas, so an ability to steer it in reverse is actually quite high on the list as in the Med you’ll either need to reverse into a berth or cope with climbing over the pulpit. Finally, lodge somewhere in the back of your mind that you’ll actually spend much more time at anchor or in a marina than you will sailing, no matter how many open ocean passages you’re planning; look carefully at how you’ll live on board as a factor in that.

 

[Tranona]

I started this thread, hoping for interesting comparisons of the pair of boats mentioned in the OP.
What I have seen since, is opinion on a type, rather than specifically these. You also assume, that I, am looking at these somewhat deridedly because of "limited budget". You seem critical that I mention AWB & skimming dishes, as an alternative to these full or long keel types.

You have had some opinions based on experience, but as I indicated they really are of very little use. The handling and performance characteristics of these boats are well known and those who have sailed them will confirm it. However few (if any) will be in a position to compare one against another and advise which is "better". That is for you to decide, just like the choice between big coachroofs and flush decks. You can construct arguments for and against these features - there is nothing "magic" about the arguments. It is up to you to assess them against what you perceive as your requirement.

As to the comments about AWBs, I am only saying the same as Duncan. You may not think you like them, but you give no guide as to how you formed this opinion, just as you have not said what your plans are, nor your budget. So in responding one has to make some assumptions from what you have said if trying to provide useful feedback.

Just to emphasise the point, the type of boats you are looking at are a tiny minority of those used for ocean voyaging, but feature large in the rhetoric because they dominated for a short period when ocean cruising started to become popular. The type was used because they were the type that was available, but within a few years other designs which now dominate came along which are superior for most peoples' needs.

There is an element of romanticism attached to these boats deriving from what some call the "outward bound" school of ocean voyaging. You can stay in this style, but have to accept the boat will be slow, the rig complicated, accommodation poor for size, ponderous handling at low speeds etc. On the plus side the boat will be more comfortable in heavy weather - but this only represents a tiny proportion of your time on the boat and the other 362 days of the year you have to live with the negatives.

Looking at it from this perspective you can see why boats (around40') like HRs, Malo, Contest, Moody, Westerly, Bowman, Victoria etc are popular - and increasingly both modern mass production boats and catamarans etc have proved very satisfactory.

 

[dom]

There is an element of romanticism attached to these boats deriving from what some call the "outward bound" school of ocean voyaging. You can stay in this style, but have to accept the boat will be slow, the rig complicated, accommodation poor for size, ponderous handling at low speeds etc. On the plus side the boat will be more comfortable in heavy weather - but this only represents a tiny proportion of your time on the boat and the other 362 days of the year you have to live with the negatives.

I think you and Duncan describe the situation very well. Though having sailed big Swans in classic series I can tell you these old vessels are as hairy as you like downhill in a blow!

In comparison to modern offshore yachts they are way trickier as one pushes displacement speeds downwind, almost certainly why drogues were so much more a feature back in the day. Modern vessels just surf off in much better control.

FWIW a friend of mine got knocked down sailing an old Ron Holland Swan 65 from Oslo in a F7/8 about 150m west of Cuxhaven sailing through the aftermath of a big storm.

 

[scotty123]

You have had some opinions based on experience, but as I indicated they really are of very little use. The handling and performance characteristics of these boats are well known and those who have sailed them will confirm it. However few (if any) will be in a position to compare one against another and advise which is "better". That is for you to decide, just like the choice between big coachroofs and flush decks. You can construct arguments for and against these features - there is nothing "magic" about the arguments. It is up to you to assess them against what you perceive as your requirement.

As to the comments about AWBs, I am only saying the same as Duncan. You may not think you like them, but you give no guide as to how you formed this opinion, just as you have not said what your plans are, nor your budget. So in responding one has to make some assumptions from what you have said if trying to provide useful feedback.

Just to emphasise the point, the type of boats you are looking at are a tiny minority of those used for ocean voyaging, but feature large in the rhetoric because they dominated for a short period when ocean cruising started to become popular. The type was used because they were the type that was available, but within a few years other designs which now dominate came along which are superior for most peoples' needs.

There is an element of romanticism attached to these boats deriving from what some call the "outward bound" school of ocean voyaging. You can stay in this style, but have to accept the boat will be slow, the rig complicated, accommodation poor for size, ponderous handling at low speeds etc. On the plus side the boat will be more comfortable in heavy weather - but this only represents a tiny proportion of your time on the boat and the other 362 days of the year you have to live with the negatives.

Looking at it from this perspective you can see why boats (around40') like HRs, Malo, Contest, Moody, Westerly, Bowman, Victoria etc are popular - and increasingly both modern mass production boats and catamarans etc have proved very satisfactory.

"You may not think you like them, ", again you assume.

 

[scotty123]

I think you and Duncan describe the situation very well. Though having sailed big Swans in classic series I can tell you these old vessels are as hairy as you like downhill in a blow!

In comparison to modern offshore yachts they are way trickier as one pushes displacement speeds downwind, almost certainly why drogues were so much more a feature back in the day. Modern vessels just surf off in much better control.

FWIW a friend of mine got knocked down sailing an old Ron Holland Swan 65 from Oslo in a F7/8 about 150m west of Cuxhaven sailing through the aftermath of a big storm.

What keel did it have?

 

[dom]

What keel did it have?

I think a fin which has got be be approaching 15 tons with a near 3m draft. Vast resistance to being knocked down, but breaking waves possess an even vaster power. That's why the ability to run away is so important and an LWL of barely 47' doesn't help here

Beautiful boats though and apparently A1 fantastic upwind.

 

[scotty123]

I think a fin which has got be be approaching 15 tons with a near 3m draft. Vast resistance to being knocked down, but breaking waves possess an even vaster power. That's why the ability to run away is so important and an LWL of barely 47' doesn't help here

Beautiful boats though and apparently A1 fantastic upwind.

Seems to confirm the difficulty in controlling high aspect fin keels downwind, suggested here.


"http://www.kastenmarine.com/gaff_rig.htm

Keel Profile

If the rig is tall and the keel deep, the lever arm will be relatively longer from the center of lateral resistance to the center of effort of the sails, therefore the amount of horizontal lead of the CE forward of the CLR must be proportionately greater to compensate. If on the other hand, the rig is kept fairly low, there will be less draft, and the ideal amount of lead will be much less, even though sail area and stiffness are not reduced.
For the best steering and course keeping behavior, and for the greatest overall structural strength, a long full keel offers the most benefit to the long distance cruising sailor. This type of long and relatively shoal draft keel is ideally suited to the lower aspect sail rigs, say up to an aspect ratio of around 3.5.
An example is my design Redpath, having relatively shoal draft and generous sail area, yet good sail carrying ability (stiffness). Other examples with similar A/R and keel configuration are Benrogin, Lucille 42, Lucille 50, Grace, Zephyr, and Shiraz designs.
For the ketch Shiraz, the rig height was limited to 60' off the water for convenience while traveling the ICW along the East Coast, and the draft was limited to 5' - 6" for sailing in the Bahamas. Since Shiraz is an aluminum vessel, there is actually greater sail carrying ability than necessary, so we have the option to give her more sail area, or we may on the other hand choose to keep the rig as-is and assume there will be an extra margin of safety when flying a mule or a spinnaker.
Taking the Shiraz a bit further in the direction of windward performance, we might increase the aspect ratio of the mains'l and mizzen, and deepen the keel. At that point, it might be desirable to consider splitting the keel into a deeper portion to contain the ballast, then a shallow portion to contain the shaft alley, then another deeper portion to act as a skeg for the rudder. This would allow a very efficient foil shaped "cruising fin" type of keel, and a similarly efficient combination skeg / rudder combination, while also limiting wetted surface.
When the aspect ratio of the sails becomes greater than around 3.5, this kind of long "cruising fin" and skeg hung rudder will usually be preferred. Primarily this choice will be made in order to deepen the keel (and the ballast) but to avoid extra wetted surface. For quick maneuvering, this kind of keel will always be a bit more responsive. The "cruising fin" keel, having a higher aspect ratio and therefore greater lift vs. drag, will naturally have better windward performance than a long and relatively shoal full keel. If not carried to extremes, this will not materially degrade course keeping ability nor the strength of the keel and rudder.
Of course when the rig becomes very tall, the keel will become still deeper. Windward performance will be improved, but performance on other points of sail will be degraded, as will course keeping ability. Taken to its logical extreme with deep fin keel and spade rudder, when running in a sea of any size attention to the helm will be critical. This is especially so with fast high aspect sea-going sleds having very fine entries and broad flat sections aft, where lack of attention to the helm may result in an instant broach. While there is no question that this is exhilarating sailing, it can hardly be recommended for safe family cruising...
For long passages with the helm unattended, a long and relatively shoal full keel will always be more steady than any other type. For long distance cruising, a longer keel will "track" somewhat more like it is on rails. In harbor, maneuvering turns will have a larger radius. The tactic in that situation is to use a bit of reverse gear to take headway off the boat, then give it a burst in forward gear with the helm over, then another burst in reverse, etc. With that, any full keel boat can be pivoted in her own length.
Rather than there being any right or wrong choice, the type if keel profile is a matter of preference, usually based on the type of sailing that is planned. During the design process, once the preferred keel configuration and rig type are chosen, it is simply a matter of balancing them against each other in order to obtain the required lead for the sail area vs the lateral area, and to place the ballast where required for proper trim.
Regardless of whether a design is given a long full keel or a "cruising fin" keel, it will benefit performance both on and off the wind to make use of an efficient NACA foil shape. The particular choice of foil type will depend on the keel profile in order to maximize lift, and minimize drag. "

 

[scotty123]

Seems to confirm the difficulty in controlling high aspect fin keels downwind, suggested here.


"http://www.kastenmarine.com/gaff_rig.htm

Keel Profile

If the rig is tall and the keel deep, the lever arm will be relatively longer from the center of lateral resistance to the center of effort of the sails, therefore the amount of horizontal lead of the CE forward of the CLR must be proportionately greater to compensate. If on the other hand, the rig is kept fairly low, there will be less draft, and the ideal amount of lead will be much less, even though sail area and stiffness are not reduced.
For the best steering and course keeping behavior, and for the greatest overall structural strength, a long full keel offers the most benefit to the long distance cruising sailor. This type of long and relatively shoal draft keel is ideally suited to the lower aspect sail rigs, say up to an aspect ratio of around 3.5.
An example is my design Redpath, having relatively shoal draft and generous sail area, yet good sail carrying ability (stiffness). Other examples with similar A/R and keel configuration are Benrogin, Lucille 42, Lucille 50, Grace, Zephyr, and Shiraz designs.
For the ketch Shiraz, the rig height was limited to 60' off the water for convenience while traveling the ICW along the East Coast, and the draft was limited to 5' - 6" for sailing in the Bahamas. Since Shiraz is an aluminum vessel, there is actually greater sail carrying ability than necessary, so we have the option to give her more sail area, or we may on the other hand choose to keep the rig as-is and assume there will be an extra margin of safety when flying a mule or a spinnaker.
Taking the Shiraz a bit further in the direction of windward performance, we might increase the aspect ratio of the mains'l and mizzen, and deepen the keel. At that point, it might be desirable to consider splitting the keel into a deeper portion to contain the ballast, then a shallow portion to contain the shaft alley, then another deeper portion to act as a skeg for the rudder. This would allow a very efficient foil shaped "cruising fin" type of keel, and a similarly efficient combination skeg / rudder combination, while also limiting wetted surface.
When the aspect ratio of the sails becomes greater than around 3.5, this kind of long "cruising fin" and skeg hung rudder will usually be preferred. Primarily this choice will be made in order to deepen the keel (and the ballast) but to avoid extra wetted surface. For quick maneuvering, this kind of keel will always be a bit more responsive. The "cruising fin" keel, having a higher aspect ratio and therefore greater lift vs. drag, will naturally have better windward performance than a long and relatively shoal full keel. If not carried to extremes, this will not materially degrade course keeping ability nor the strength of the keel and rudder.
Of course when the rig becomes very tall, the keel will become still deeper. Windward performance will be improved, but performance on other points of sail will be degraded, as will course keeping ability. Taken to its logical extreme with deep fin keel and spade rudder, when running in a sea of any size attention to the helm will be critical. This is especially so with fast high aspect sea-going sleds having very fine entries and broad flat sections aft, where lack of attention to the helm may result in an instant broach. While there is no question that this is exhilarating sailing, it can hardly be recommended for safe family cruising...
For long passages with the helm unattended, a long and relatively shoal full keel will always be more steady than any other type. For long distance cruising, a longer keel will "track" somewhat more like it is on rails. In harbor, maneuvering turns will have a larger radius. The tactic in that situation is to use a bit of reverse gear to take headway off the boat, then give it a burst in forward gear with the helm over, then another burst in reverse, etc. With that, any full keel boat can be pivoted in her own length.
Rather than there being any right or wrong choice, the type if keel profile is a matter of preference, usually based on the type of sailing that is planned. During the design process, once the preferred keel configuration and rig type are chosen, it is simply a matter of balancing them against each other in order to obtain the required lead for the sail area vs the lateral area, and to place the ballast where required for proper trim.
Regardless of whether a design is given a long full keel or a "cruising fin" keel, it will benefit performance both on and off the wind to make use of an efficient NACA foil shape. The particular choice of foil type will depend on the keel profile in order to maximize lift, and minimize drag. "

Further to the above, seems like the S40 has a ballast/displacement ratio of about 33% & is much heavier than the E37, which has a much lower ballast/displacement ratio of only 24% (Saildata). Not sure why such a difference on similar hulls. The S40 ballast is also lead, while the E37 is cast iron.

PS on another site, E37 ballast/displacement ratio seems to be mor like 36%+, very confusing.

 

[geem]

Seems to confirm the difficulty in controlling high aspect fin keels downwind, suggested here.


"http://www.kastenmarine.com/gaff_rig.htm

Keel Profile

If the rig is tall and the keel deep, the lever arm will be relatively longer from the center of lateral resistance to the center of effort of the sails, therefore the amount of horizontal lead of the CE forward of the CLR must be proportionately greater to compensate. If on the other hand, the rig is kept fairly low, there will be less draft, and the ideal amount of lead will be much less, even though sail area and stiffness are not reduced.
For the best steering and course keeping behavior, and for the greatest overall structural strength, a long full keel offers the most benefit to the long distance cruising sailor. This type of long and relatively shoal draft keel is ideally suited to the lower aspect sail rigs, say up to an aspect ratio of around 3.5.
An example is my design Redpath, having relatively shoal draft and generous sail area, yet good sail carrying ability (stiffness). Other examples with similar A/R and keel configuration are Benrogin, Lucille 42, Lucille 50, Grace, Zephyr, and Shiraz designs.
For the ketch Shiraz, the rig height was limited to 60' off the water for convenience while traveling the ICW along the East Coast, and the draft was limited to 5' - 6" for sailing in the Bahamas. Since Shiraz is an aluminum vessel, there is actually greater sail carrying ability than necessary, so we have the option to give her more sail area, or we may on the other hand choose to keep the rig as-is and assume there will be an extra margin of safety when flying a mule or a spinnaker.
Taking the Shiraz a bit further in the direction of windward performance, we might increase the aspect ratio of the mains'l and mizzen, and deepen the keel. At that point, it might be desirable to consider splitting the keel into a deeper portion to contain the ballast, then a shallow portion to contain the shaft alley, then another deeper portion to act as a skeg for the rudder. This would allow a very efficient foil shaped "cruising fin" type of keel, and a similarly efficient combination skeg / rudder combination, while also limiting wetted surface.
When the aspect ratio of the sails becomes greater than around 3.5, this kind of long "cruising fin" and skeg hung rudder will usually be preferred. Primarily this choice will be made in order to deepen the keel (and the ballast) but to avoid extra wetted surface. For quick maneuvering, this kind of keel will always be a bit more responsive. The "cruising fin" keel, having a higher aspect ratio and therefore greater lift vs. drag, will naturally have better windward performance than a long and relatively shoal full keel. If not carried to extremes, this will not materially degrade course keeping ability nor the strength of the keel and rudder.
Of course when the rig becomes very tall, the keel will become still deeper. Windward performance will be improved, but performance on other points of sail will be degraded, as will course keeping ability. Taken to its logical extreme with deep fin keel and spade rudder, when running in a sea of any size attention to the helm will be critical. This is especially so with fast high aspect sea-going sleds having very fine entries and broad flat sections aft, where lack of attention to the helm may result in an instant broach. While there is no question that this is exhilarating sailing, it can hardly be recommended for safe family cruising...
For long passages with the helm unattended, a long and relatively shoal full keel will always be more steady than any other type. For long distance cruising, a longer keel will "track" somewhat more like it is on rails. In harbor, maneuvering turns will have a larger radius. The tactic in that situation is to use a bit of reverse gear to take headway off the boat, then give it a burst in forward gear with the helm over, then another burst in reverse, etc. With that, any full keel boat can be pivoted in her own length.
Rather than there being any right or wrong choice, the type if keel profile is a matter of preference, usually based on the type of sailing that is planned. During the design process, once the preferred keel configuration and rig type are chosen, it is simply a matter of balancing them against each other in order to obtain the required lead for the sail area vs the lateral area, and to place the ballast where required for proper trim.
Regardless of whether a design is given a long full keel or a "cruising fin" keel, it will benefit performance both on and off the wind to make use of an efficient NACA foil shape. The particular choice of foil type will depend on the keel profile in order to maximize lift, and minimize drag. "

We met some guys who had done a bumpy transat in their Ben 473. They say they experienced 5m waves. It was enough to get them surfing wildly such that they didnt feel in control of the boat down wind. They opted to tow lines as they didnt have a series drogue. Light flat bottomed modern cruisers may be popular but most people dont sail them like this. If you do you tend to find the weaknesses in the design.