Current design trends

[DoubleEnder]

I was looking at a boat currently on sale, Beneteau Oceanis 30.1. It is a Finot/Conq hull, square top main, no backstays. Main sheet is on a bridle, not a track, so I guess you’d use the vang to try and flatten the mainsail??. But my big question is about the ballast ratio which is of the order of 25% for the deep iron fin keel. That is lightship, no crew, gear etc.
The shape is very modern, full length chines. Lots of form stability. And the boat is firmly pitched as being suited for limited cruising, which is I’m pretty sure exactly how it will be used. There is a spacious bright interior which would perhaps be a bit difficult if the boat were in a lively sea, not the main use case but perhaps a consideration.
But the ballast ratio! It really seems low, no? Some good magazine reviews hmmm.

Anyone got any thoughts? Or indeed experience?
Oceanis 30.1 | BENETEAU

 

[Ingwe]

Given the form stability it looks to have and the fact its not exactly a lightweight boat I don't see the ballast ratio being a problem, yes compared to an old style boat it would initially heel more but then it would settle onto the chine the form stability kicks in and it would be pretty stable.

 

[dunedin]

Ballast ratio isn’t a great metric on its own. Weight in a bulb at the bottom of a deep keel is much more effective than in a shallow keel, or even the internal ballast often used back in the days. Righting lever is more relevant, but rarely measured/quoted.
But this is clearly aimed at the sporty side of the market, and many French buyers in particular alike boats that are more performance oriented than caravan oriented - witness the number of Pogo’s etc seen cruising under French flags.

 

[Tranona]

The big difference between modern boats and say 1970/80s as built in the UK is draft and concentration of ballast at the bottom of the keel which together with the form stability from the wider and flatter hull shape give righting moments and therefore stability comparable with older boats with much higher ballast ratios an older 30' design would likely have a draft of 1.4m (compared with closer to 2m) and the ballast would be higher up in the keel.

This boat is Cat B which is coastal, not offshore. Whereas buyers 40 years ago would see a 30' boat as a serious offshore cruiser few would look at this type of boat for that sort of use

 

[flaming]

Looks pretty suitable for the use to me. Coastal cruising.

Balast ratio is not the be all and end all of how a boat stands up to its canvas, especially when you are comparing boats of different eras.

 

[Lightwave395]

'Slightly' different boat, but an interesting article in Seahorse magazine from Gurit on the design strength of the current IMOCA's:

'It also prompted a change in build regulations, a new requirement mandating that a boat needs to be able to withstand 6G should it come to an abrupt stop with the bulb colliding with an obstacle. Add to this the fact that the keel bearing needs to be able to cope with a longitudinal force of 100 tonnes, which equates to about 10 times the boat’s weight. '

Stronger and smarter - Seahorse Magazine

 

[B27]

The features which I'm dubious of are the 'square top main' and the permanent bow sprit thingy.

Square top main, what does that do for a boat like this?
Make it look like a skiff?
Maximise sail area within a rating rule?
Create a sail that automatically depowers at design windstrength?
Allow the use of a shorter, cheaper mast?
There may be some gains, but for a cruising boat, I think this kind of sail planform can result in short sail life, there is a lot of stress around the top batten.
Any sailmaker can make a decent main with modest roach. How well will this sail work over a range of conditons through its life? How well has the rig/sail combo been designed?
Is the mast just a dumb heavy metal pole?

I'm a little sceptical of a big kite and no backstays. Without a complex rig, it requires a heavy mast and weight aloft is bad.

The hull has a vertical bow. Modern like a 100 year old pilot cutter.
It fits the maximum lwl into the length on deck, a good move if you want the best performance out of something which fits in a 30ft marina berth.
So why make the boat 2 feet longer with this appendage?
Would a raked bow with the same 'total length' give a better boat overall?

 

[flaming]

Square tops are reasonably well understood, and yes they do allow for a slightly shorter mast for the area, but also a slightly more efficient sail. Your points about sail life etc are valid, however I do think that it would be an unusual user of this boat who would notice the difference. Remember the use profile is more likely to be coastal cruising in good weather, not ocean crossing...

Backstayless rigs have been around a long time. What's interesting about this boat is that buried in the description is that the mast is rotating.... What that means in practice I have no idea!

The vertical bow and bowsprit... If you filled in the area with a raked bow then you have made the boat a little bit heavier and also not vertical bow, which is now the fashion....

There is also a difference to how bowsprits are treated in terms of berthing and taxation in various countries which might make a difference. And of course hanging off a mooring buoy it's definitely a 30 foot boat....

 

[DoubleEnder]

Looks pretty suitable for the use to me. Coastal cruising.

Balast ratio is not the be all and end all of how a boat stands up to its canvas, especially when you are comparing boats of different eras.

Yes I think this is the essence of it. It's a boat designed and marketed for quite limited cruising. The RCD rating is B.
In the past small cruising yachts were more heavily built, and ballasted, and designed quite differently. So a 30 foot design from 1970s ,80s, were probably 'better' long distance cruisers even if that was not their main purpose.
I saw the suggestion somewhere that one (not the only one) of the reasons for the change is better weather forecasting. If you're going for a weekend sail in European or N American waters you can have a lot of confidence in the forecast. Fifty years ago that wasn't the case so your weekned cruiser had to be capable in a much wider range of conditions.

 

[dunedin]

Yes I think this is the essence of it. It's a boat designed and marketed for quite limited cruising. The RCD rating is B.
In the past small cruising yachts were more heavily built, and ballasted, and designed quite differently. So a 30 foot design from 1970s ,80s, were probably 'better' long distance cruisers even if that was not their main purpose.
I saw the suggestion somewhere that one (not the only one) of the reasons for the change is better weather forecasting. If you're going for a weekend sail in European or N American waters you can have a lot of confidence in the forecast. Fifty years ago that wasn't the case so your weekned cruiser had to be capable in a much wider range of conditions.

Your point about the better weather forecasts is definitely correct - and an important factor.

Your supposition that older boats were better long distance cruisers is an assertion that may not hold any basis. Deep fin keel, plumb bow and fathead mainsail are not things that would limit offshore ability.
Many older 30 foot boats were not very suitable for long distance cruising - though with skilled skipper could and did go a long way. Masses of modern boats with the design features you referred to cruise and race successfully across oceans.

 

[flaming]

What I think the main difference in designs now, and designs of "yesteryear" is that there is a lot more acceptance that a lot of boats will not be used to cross oceans or sail offshore in bad weather. And that therefore it makes sense to design boats that, whilst they certainly could cope with quite a lot, are better suited to moderate conditions and lazy days living aboard and making progress in relatively light conditions.

 

[Tranona]

What I think the main difference in designs now, and designs of "yesteryear" is that there is a lot more acceptance that a lot of boats will not be used to cross oceans or sail offshore in bad weather. And that therefore it makes sense to design boats that, whilst they certainly could cope with quite a lot, are better suited to moderate conditions and lazy days living aboard and making progress in relatively light conditions.

I think that sums it up. The sector of the market buying boats like this would would have likely been buying boats like Caprices in the 1970s - that is entry level coastal cruisers with no aspirations to go offshore and serious offshore cruisers would start at, say 27' comparable to 36 footers today. Of course many modern boats of that size and up follow the same deign principles and as in post#10 are fine as offshore cruisers.

 

[r_h]

I tested the Oceanis 30.1 for PBO when it was first launched: www.pbo.co.uk/boats/big-new-small-yacht-beneteau-oceanis-30-1-tested-64447

As others have said the low ballast ratio alone isn't a reliable metric. This line from the test is relevant to your question:
Compared to older boats of this size it’s amazingly stable, thanks to a combination of the high level of form stability and the deep bulb keel.

It's also much larger inside and out, as well as much faster, than 30-footers of even a couple of decades ago - more comparable to many older 34-35 footers.

 

[doug748]

I was looking at a boat currently on sale, Beneteau Oceanis 30.1. It is a Finot/Conq hull, square top main, no backstays. Main sheet is on a bridle, not a track, so I guess you’d use the vang to try and flatten the mainsail??. But my big question is about the ballast ratio which is of the order of 25% for the deep iron fin keel. That is lightship, no crew, gear etc.
But the ballast ratio! It really seems low, no? Some good magazine reviews hmmm.

Anyone got any thoughts? Or indeed experience?
Oceanis 30.1 | BENETEAU

To be fair many magazine reviews would have something good to say about going to sea in a barrel. I think it could do with more ballast and less draught esp in a coastal boat aimed at newcomers.

.

 

[r_h]

To be fair many magazine reviews would have something good to say about going to sea in a barrel. I think it could do with more ballast and less draught esp in a coastal boat aimed at newcomers.

.

There's also a version with a 1.3m draught that adds additional ballast to maintain stability

 

[dunedin]

There's also a version with a 1.3m draught that adds additional ballast to maintain stability

Don’t spoil somebody’s forum rant by using facts

 

[doug748]

Anyone got any thoughts? Or indeed experience?
Oceanis 30.1 | BENETEAU

I have just recalled that I sailed alongside a new one when they first appeared. It was going very well indeed, and pointing high, hard upwind. Just outside Salcombe in flat water and a fresh NW breeze.
It's beam is similar to a Rival 32, though carried aft of course, so you won't get maximum accommodation but maybe other advantages like the road transport factor.

Consider the draught though, there are many places where anything over 1.5m starts to become an issue.

.

 

[Tranona]

I have just recalled that I sailed alongside a new one when they first appeared. It was going very well indeed, and pointing high, hard upwind. Just outside Salcombe in flat water and a fresh NW breeze.
It's beam is similar to a Rival 32, though carried aft of course, so you won't get maximum accommodation but maybe other advantages like the road transport factor.

Consider the draught though, there are many places where anything over 1.5m starts to become an issue.

.

Beam is nothing to do with road transport as it is way over the trailer limit. Not sure that any comparison with a Rival 32 has any validity. Doubt the two boats will ever be on the same short list.

If you fancy less draft then choose either the shallow draft version with lifting keel or the swing keel performance version with 2.3m draft keel down. All needs catered for!

 

[doug748]

Beam is nothing to do with road transport as it is way over the trailer limit. Not sure that any comparison with a Rival 32 has any validity. Doubt the two boats will ever be on the same short list.

If you fancy less draft then choose either the shallow draft version with lifting keel or the swing keel performance version with 2.3m draft keel down. All needs catered for!

"Beam is nothing to do with road transport."
From the company website:

"With an overall size of under 9x3 metres and a weight of less than 4 tonnes, the Oceanis 30.1 can be trailed by road by a professional, without the issues of an extra-wide load. "


"Not sure that any comparison with a Rival 32 has any validity. Doubt the two boats will ever be on the same short list".

I am pointing out that by modern standards the beam is modest, not suggesting anything about short lists


"If you fancy less draft then choose either the shallow draft version with lifting keel or the swing keel performance version with 2.3m draft keel down. All needs catered for!"

Good point, already made by r_h.
gdallas has already told us he is specifically considering a "deep iron fin keel. "


.

 

[Tranona]

"Beam is nothing to do with road transport."
From the company website:

"With an overall size of under 9x3 metres and a weight of less than 4 tonnes, the Oceanis 30.1 can be trailed by road by a professional, without the issues of an extra-wide load. "



.

Thanks for that. However, not sure that being able to transport by road without an escort would have been high in the design brief. Might save around £1k on the typical £4-5k initial delivery charge - not a lot on a boat that will be £120k+ in typical spec.