Displacement not an issue.

[Guest]

Why are the majority of modern boats like little light soap-dishes? I mean the sort of craft that one would not like to be caught out in a blow in? Even with modern weather forecasts it is important to buy a sea-worthy craft is it not?

 

[Guest]

Buy a classic! ;- ))

"Whoops... I'm falling in love with narrowboating..."

 

[chippie]

While I understand the point you are making, weight does not necessarily equate with seaworthiness nor lightness against it. It would seem that many modern production craft are made for what the manufacturers percieve as their market's needs:ie sailing from marina to marina. Voyaging boats are seen to be a different market segment, and may have hull forms that better suit those needs.
I dont like being caught out in a blow in any boat.
Modern composites can make an extremely strong boat that is also light.
All IMHO of course.

 

[Mirelle]

Cost. The cost of a yacht, unless she is built of exotic materials, is closely related to her displacement. This is not just a matter of more glass and resin in a heavier boat - the components need to be larger and stronger all round - chainplates, keel bolts, rudder fittings and so on and on - whilst the ligt boat can use smaller, cheaper, gear.

Ultra light boats or light but very strong boats using clever composites are much more expensive - yet experience with such very strong light boats is often used to argue in favour of the seaworthiness of all light displacement boats - which is nonsense!

Of course, it is not in the interest of the makers to say this too loudly - but you will see that heavy boats cost much more and are usually confined to specialist long distance cruisers.....

I definitely prefer bring caught out, if caught out I must be, in my 65 year old "heavy" (well actually medium) displacement boat.

 

[escape]

Re ....and in that crash on

the motorway driving home from the weekend I'd rather be in that heavy solid steel 30year old morris with no power steering,brakes or crumple zone...i think not.
IMHO most crew will fail long before a modern production yacht and i'd rather have a rig engine and hull i wasn't worried about because its 20 yrs old.
Yes i'll get told a diplacement hull will look after the crew better and need less attendance during a storm..maybe ..but i only got caught out cos its so bl**dy slow on passage and needs half a gale to get going.

 

[Mirelle]

Re: Re ....and in that crash on

In my case, and others may differ, but I reckon I an typical enough, my experience of heavy weather at sea has been due to one of two things:

1. Being on a long passage and well away from land and shelter anyway. This is the situation when you routinely expect heavy weather, of course, along with the far more trying calms.

2. "Chancing it", i.e. putting the best gloss on a weather forecast that I can, when setting off across the Channel or the North Sea - and being, indeed, "caught out", due to my own risk taking or bad judgment.

In neither case would a couple of extra knots of boat speed in good weather make any difference at all. And I don't know where this extra speed is coming from. In case 1 the boat is loaded down with long haul supplies so that a light boat will have lost her lightness anyway, and in case 2 a modern light boat will certainly get to windward faster in light to moderate winds, but she will not reach or run any faster.

Yes, my reason for preferring a moderately heavy boat in heavy weather is the quieter motion and her ability to cope without help from her crew. It is always the case, unless the boat is structurally weak, which we hope is not the case, that the boat will stand more than the crew, but the heavy gives her crew a better environment to start with, so the crew will stand more.

 

[Jeremy_W]

Re: Re ....and in that crash on

[IMHO most crew will fail long before a modern production yacht] - yes, but that depends on the motion of the yacht. Last season I raced a Ben 337 round the cans and cruised a Rival 34 and Seacracker 33. I know which I would rather have been aboard when the #### hit the fan.

[a diplacement hull will look after the crew better and need less attendance during a storm..maybe ..but i only got caught out cos its so bl**dy slow on passage and needs half a gale to get going] - untrue, and a beamy lightweight hull requires a lot more work and concentration upwind in any sort of chop. It's only a lot faster if you've stacked the rail with crew! Downwind lightweight beamy hulls can fly but again the concentration levels are high, so it's hardly looking after the crew.

 

[Sinbad1]

Re yes, you are right of course...

Well, this thread should get all the Benet. Bavaria, Jenneau owners at it!

The idea that a skittish light displacement boat will be able to run away from foul weather is nonsense. It will merely reach its hull speed sooner than a heavy displacement boat. Yes it will be able to surf (and thus go faster), but that will only apply if the wind is aft or on the quarter.

(No one in their right mind wants to be surfing down waves in a light displacement boat with a fin keel unless you have a large crew who know what they are doing.)

The difference between light and heavy displacement is not speed but comfort, and even this is relative when it gets nasty. Caught in Biscay a few years ago when Hurricane Bonny made an appearance through me, the boat and crew around like a cork. All of us were wedged in doorways with cushions to prevent harm.

Light displacement is for river and coastal cruising. It must be wonderful to be able to reverse and steer.....I can't, but when I'm half way across that brown mucky expanse called the North Sea and a 7 is forecast, we just roll in a reef and carry on.

 

[peterk]

hi ,
those 'soapdishes' can take almost anything thrown at them - and sail well!
see Volvo Ocean Race and
the Vendee Globe singlehanded Flyers

I soloed around the pumpkin in my heavy displacement 34 footer
and often wished I had a lighter, faster boat.

Later I put my body where my mouth is and singlehanded
a 1973-built 1/4 tonner - nowadays probably considered semi-light -
from Los Angeles to Chile
- 11.000 miles mostly open Pacific,
including Clipperton, Galapagos, and Robinson Crusoe Islands.
7000 of those miles were hard-on or against the wind.

I had a fighting good time -
give me the well-built lighter boat of MY choice
any day!

Try www.juprowa.com/kittel
go to
'news' for details fotos of the DM-22(S&S design)

and check the 'D&H open ocean ' contribution
on 'forum'

keep on truckin'!

...peter

 

[ponapay]

Displacement IS an issue

that is well worth debating long and hard.

Many in this thread have given excellent reasons for retention of 'old fashioned' designs over the modern lightweight horrors.

The lightweight horrors are designed for racing, not cruising or living aboard. They nearly always (and perhaps should always) have a full crew of highly competent individuals who race to live.

I don't need speed (even if it is possible in the lightweights in heavy weather) what I need is a boat that is comfortable, a crew that is capable and good sea room.

The only complaint I have had was from a crew member whose pacemaker wires were getting rather hot after 12 hours of force ten. He was sitting comfortably in the wheel house steering in the dry as we sailed gently down wind with scraps of headsails and mizzen.

On reaching harbour he was happy to have the peace and quiet of a days rest before we all set sail again. That was in a 38 foot classical design ketch, which cut into the sea rather than slid across the top.

ponapay

 

[andy_wilson]

Why are the majority of modern boats like little light soap-dishes? - They sell well.

I mean the sort of craft that one would not like to be caught out in a blow in? - I wouldn't.

Even with modern weather forecasts it is important to buy a sea-worthy craft is it not? - They are almost certainly sea-worthy, p'raps not so sea kindly.

Interesting comparison drawn in a recent magazine with lightweight ocean racers, which of course was as appropriate as comparing a Renault Espace with a F1 car. The vessel design, build, accomodation, and the crew bear no comparison.

If you aspire to sail in a variety of conditions one could easily be put off after a solid day aboard a light weight, especially if you have to cross an expanse of cabin to reach the heads.

From a speed perspective a heavier boat will carry it's canvas better, will punch a head sea without being pushed around so much, and will reach or even surf downwind (carrying it's canvas don't forget) to match a lightweight of similar LWL. At the same time will be much easier to handle. The lightweight design will accelerate better of course which is really useful when crossing the Western Approaches.

Put them in a tacking competion up a river and the wise helm on the heavier boat will gain far more advantage from a long luff during the turn (while the crew sheet in without resorting to winch handles) whilst a lighter boat is stopped in it's tracks and has to bear away to pick up speed again. We've all watched then on a brisk sunny Solent afternoon tacking through 180......

 

[escape]

Peter,
Couldn't agree more.
Of course the 'luddites' will throw up all these wonderfull arguments about boats looking after crew etc....what twaddle.
Reduce the period you are at risk by getting across the 'pond' quicker,with more comfort ,lighter loads on kit and crew and have some space to live in for the 70% of time you are in port.