Full keel vs fin keel for offshore?

[steve yates]

I did say generally, I know there are some bolted on long keels.
Perhaps a better phrasing on my part would have been, I would get a boat whose keel is not bolted on.

Yes, I have a long fin too, she seems a very comfortable seaboat. I would happily sail her anywhere, but if buying for the purpose, would get a keel that's integral to the hull. I see the keel bolts and the spade rudder as being her most serious weaknesses for ocean sailing, if I ever do any.

 

[grumpy_o_g]

One advantage of long keels is that they tend to protect prop from pots, nets, ropes, etc. because the prop is usually in an aperture and has the keel close to and below it. A saildrive is both more vulnerable and more expensive to repair (and possibly more life-threatening if there is serious damage). On the other hand thousands, possibly millions of boats with saildrives actually spend more time in dangerous inshore waters than passage makers who are usually well away from rocks, flotsam, pots, etc. in mid-ocean.

Personally I'd pick the boat based on it's handling characteristics, etc. and then look at it's structural attributes. You don't get to see the keel that much anyway (hopefully) so I'm not too worried about how it looks or what shape it is, just how the boat sails.

 

[Kelpie]

Regardless of how it's attached to the hull, simple intuition tells you that a full keel is far less likely to fall off than a fin- especially a narrow chord one. Of even more importance, a full keel means a fully supported and protected rudder.
On a small budget it is worth considering looking for a boat that that inherent strengths as provided by these sorts of features. Of course you can cross an ocean in something with a skinny bolt on keel, spade rudder, a saildrive, a wheel, in mast furling, lightweight fractional rig, etc etc, but only if you know that the maintenance has been kept up to scratch with no history of groundings etc.

If I wntex something that was close to bombproof, it would have a full encapsulated keel, shaft drive, dumpy masthead rig. So an Albin Vega would be on the list. You could also argue for a transom hung rudder and a keel stepped mast, which it doesn't have.

Just remembered one other useful feature of the Vega- the chainplates comprise a simple alu channel section running underneath the deck, to which are bolted three U bolts. Nothing glassed over, and very easy to check, cheap to replace if needed.

 

[BrianH]

Thanks for the welcome.

I'm definitely used to small accommodations. I currently have a tiny Grampian 23. She is only used for great lakes sailing out of Ontario but she has seen the coast twice. It's a good little boat still well maintained and in good shape. Originally I was going to outfit and beef her up in an attempt to get to Hawaii. I was talked out of this because of her size and design and the fact she really isn't meant to be an offshore or even coastal vessel. She also has a very light displacement and keel so packing gear would prove to be a struggle for such a long trip.

Since then I've been scrimmaging through Atoms list and also trying to see what's available within a distance I can reasonably tow from. I've found a lovely looking Columbia 26 but it's the MK II which has the fin keel instead of the full keel the original Columbia 26 had. Needless to say I've been getting a lot of "that isn't the boat for this voyage". But no explanation as to why.

In any event I appreciate the insight. I wish I wasn't on a budget and could afford to throw 20-30k into a newer or even bigger boat. Unfortunately I'm limited to around $5-7k if I intend on having the money to properly outfit her with what she'll need in additional to being able to float. Also if I want to spend a fair amount of time there. In any event I appreciate any advice or insight given to help me understand better what I should be looking at.

As someone who has lived in both Ontario and BC I find your logistics as interesting as your choice of boat. I infer you live and sail in Ontario and plan to buy there and tow to the west coast having done that with your present boat. No doubt you intend to make all seagoing preparations locally for launching on the west coast (BC or a US state). However, I would submit that towing something equivalent to a Columbia 26 compared to your 1.5 tonne Grampian 23 over the great divide introduces some significant challenges.

Unless I have misunderstood, wouldn't buying something already out west be a more practicable solution? There would be a lot more choice of suitable craft too, I think.

 

[KellysEye]

Our choice for long distance sailing was a heavy displacement long keel with a cutaway forefoot. The reason is they don't broach, they don't turn into wind in a gust and they don't surf. What we found was it didn't matter how strong the gust was on the beam was the boat would start to stand up as the gust was still going through. We never came close to having the toe rail in the water and they also have a better sea motion.

 

[Tidjian]

As someone who has lived in both Ontario and BC I find your logistics as interesting as your choice of boat. I infer you live and sail in Ontario and plan to buy there and tow to the west coast having done that with your present boat. No doubt you intend to make all seagoing preparations locally for launching on the west coast (BC or a US state). However, I would submit that towing something equivalent to a Columbia 26 compared to your 1.5 tonne Grampian 23 over the great divide introduces some significant challenges.

Unless I have misunderstood, wouldn't buying something already out west be a more practicable solution? There would be a lot more choice of suitable craft too, I think.

I'm not opposed to it and I've considered it greatly. Towing across county does concern me. I would need to really make sure that trailer is properly equipped for the haul. My only issue with purchasing out west or even southwest, San Francisco area for example, is I won't have any time with her. I don't really like the idea of having to fly out there to look at boats then return here. Then I would need to make all my preparations without actually being with the boat. I suppose I could drive out there a month early so I could sail the harbour and get acquainted with her. I just figured it would be easier doing that here. Drop her in a lake and get acquainted as well as see what she might need or be lacking on.

 

[Tidjian]

What's available to me within reasonable distance and my budget at this time;

Columbia 26 MK II (fin keel)
Ericson 27 (fin keel)
Catalina 25 (fin keel I believe)
Aloha 28 (fin keel)

The Catalina is a little light but I could probably work with it. She's a nice boat and a popular model. The Aloha 28 is very nice for a heavy displacement boat from what I can tell. The downside is she has over a 9' beam which if I'm right means permit towing across the country. I think the limit is 8.5 but I'm not positive. The Ericson is also nice and reminds me a little of the Vega just with a fin keel. It's a little pricey but the guy seems to really love his boat and it's very well maintained. Lastly the MK II looks like she's seen a bit of neglect. I would need to do a thorough inspection but if she panned out she is the cheapest and closest of them all.

There is a Vega available in Quebec (quite a drive) but whether the owner speaks English is one thing. The other thing is if it has a trailer and if not will it fit my trailer for my 23. Towing would be costly. It looks like it's in impeccable condition however it's also listed a little over $10k. That's eating into my overall budget in a big way. Plus the drive up and the tow back. There is another one in Michigan I believe which is closer but it looked like it had seen a lot of neglect. I don't recall the price.

 

[BrianH]

I'm not opposed to it and I've considered it greatly. Towing across county does concern me. I would need to really make sure that trailer is properly equipped for the haul. My only issue with purchasing out west or even southwest, San Francisco area for example, is I won't have any time with her. I don't really like the idea of having to fly out there to look at boats then return here. Then I would need to make all my preparations without actually being with the boat. I suppose I could drive out there a month early so I could sail the harbour and get acquainted with her. I just figured it would be easier doing that here. Drop her in a lake and get acquainted as well as see what she might need or be lacking on.

Your planned itinerary is a relatively long one - transpacific via Hawaii then over 6 months cruising in the Philippines. I personally think it a no-brainer to plan on buying and preparing afloat on the west coast at the start of your Odyssey, after communicating with some potential sellers and drawing up a list of the best possibilities to view.

I write as someone who once drove from Comox on Vancouver Island to Clinton Ontario and the distance was vast and went on for ever. The thought of towing something in the nature of three tonnes on the TCH would freak me out ... and I appreciate you have already done that with a smaller load, if I interpret "She is only used for great lakes sailing out of Ontario but she has seen the coast twice" correctly - then kudos for that.

.

 

[Tranona]

I'm not opposed to it and I've considered it greatly. Towing across county does concern me. I would need to really make sure that trailer is properly equipped for the haul. My only issue with purchasing out west or even southwest, San Francisco area for example, is I won't have any time with her. I don't really like the idea of having to fly out there to look at boats then return here. Then I would need to make all my preparations without actually being with the boat. I suppose I could drive out there a month early so I could sail the harbour and get acquainted with her. I just figured it would be easier doing that here. Drop her in a lake and get acquainted as well as see what she might need or be lacking on.

Suspect you need a reality check here. Do you have any experience of sailing in the ocean or navigating out of the sight of land, or preparing a boat for such a passage? If not then you are going to have a rude awakening when you discover what is required - and your $7k budget will be nowhere near enough even to get started. You will of course read stories of people that have undertaken such passages with no money in small cheap boats but these are the exception and you don't here about the people who tried and failed - mostly before they got out of the sight of land as they appreciate how unrealistic their plans were.

The Columbia boats you mention are not something we come across this side of the pond, although somewhat similar boats were built here in the period. If you google the boats you will find some material describing how people have tried to make them suitable for ocean sailing - they were not designed for this purpose and then you will realise the task that faces you (as I suggested in my first post). They look like, and indeed are shrunken versions of bigger boats of the time that were intended for more ambitious sailing, but in fact were intended for coastal cruising and weekending. So, they look the part, but at over 40 years old are not a good starting point for such a project.

Success in such a project is more to do with your skills at sailing and operating the boat including your preparation as the actual boat you use. However, the boat has to be fundamentally sound and well prepared and you are unlikely to meet this basic requirement with the boats you are considering. So, suggest you do some reading of the many books written by people who have undertaken ocean passages. Identify the key things you need to know and do to prepare. Assess these requirements against yourself and look at ways to fill the gaps. Then save up and buy a more substantial boat and get some serious seatime before setting off.

There are people who will say just buy a boat and go, and of course some do this and learn along the way. However what they don't tell you about are those who fail (some becoming statistics in the rescue reports) but most ending up with broken dreams and abandoned boats rotting away in yards.

 

[Nina Lucia]

Vancouver's are long keel sailing boats made for comfortable cruising, and when we are in the rush we use the airplane.
Anything long keel, smaller than Vancouver 27 will be even much slower and they don't have much space for such voyage, forget about standing height, say like Cutllas 27, or even little Bowman 26, I even heard from the Bowman 26 owner that they are not really Seaworthy boats, one of them sunk at the Jester Challenge, but that its his opinion....
Its all about the skipper, I guess...

Vancouver 27 is a nice boat, bit on the slow side though, even for a long keeler.

 

[STOL71]

Vancouver's are long keel sailing boats made for comfortable cruising, and when we are in the rush we use the airplane.
Anything long keel, smaller than Vancouver 27 will be even much slower and they don't have much space for such voyage, forget about standing height, say like Cutllas 27, or even little Bowman 26, I even heard from the Bowman 26 owner that they are not really Seaworthy boats, one of them sunk at the Jester Challenge, but that its his opinion....
Its all about the skipper, I guess...

Just happen to come across the Round the Island Race results from 2017. There was one Vancouver 27 competing, she came almost last in her class, all the Bowman 26’s and Cutlass 27’s came ahead of her. The Same boat retired in 2016 due to the weather.

That may be down to her skipper, not the boat. Who knows...

 

[Nina Lucia]

Just happen to come across the Round the Island Race results from 2017. There was one Vancouver 27 competing, she came almost last in her class, all the Bowman 26’s and Cutlass 27’s came ahead of her. The Same boat retired in 2016 due to the weather.

That may be down to her skipper, not the boat. Who knows...

Hahaha, We will talk about that at the club next Tuesday Mr STO71

 

[{151760}]

No one seems to have mentioned the, for me, crucial difference between them.
A fin keel is bolted onto the hull. It can be torn off or badly compromised on hitting anything or grounding unintentionally.
A full keel is generally part and parcel of the structure of the boat. It cannot be detached.

I have a fin keel boat. If I was crossing oceans, and I was on a budget, I would buy a full keel boat. Cheaper boats will have all sorts of maintenance issues, one of which may be problems with the fin keel at its attachment points.

The number of boats endangered or lost through fin keel problems is minuscule compared to the number of boats endangered or lost through mast loss, which is in itself a small number.
If you hit a reef or sandbar hard it matters little what keel configuration you have, you're in trouble.

 

[RupertW]

The number of boats endangered or lost through fin keel problems is minuscule compared to the number of boats endangered or lost through mast loss, which is in itself a small number.
If you hit a reef or sandbar hard it matters little what keel configuration you have, you're in trouble.

Agree with you on likelihood but not on the impact side - we used to have a triple keeler with a long 9 inch square long iron keel with a flat bottom to it. That landed on various hard things as we ditched crawled and mashed them or sat on them steadily. There is a damaged section of an underwater groyne at Littlehamton with a bent starboard post to testify to that. We also landed without hassle as the tide dropped on various anchors, rocks and wrecks in little harbours.

 

[steve yates]

If you hit a reef or sandbar hard it matters little what keel configuration you have, you're in trouble.

While i agree with the rest, I cant agree with that.

 

[Ceirwan]

While i agree with the rest, I cant agree with that.

All what ifs.

The chance of losing a fin keel is minuscule, especially if you stay away from the estoric designs and stick with the tried and tested. Thousands of fin keelers make safe passages every year, and I'd say there are a lot more of them about then long keelers.

Most fin keels will survive the odd running aground or hitting the bottom, sure you might do serious damage if you run it up on the rocks at 7 knots, or smash it on the bottom while surfing across a bar in too little water, but you'll be in trouble no matter what boat you do that in. If someone observes good seamanship and navigation that should never happen to them in the first place.

 

[{151760}]

While i agree with the rest, I cant agree with that.

Well, I would have thought that the main problem if you hit a rock hard enough is that you'd be holed, and if you hit a sandbar and stuck the boat would be pounded to destruction if there was any rough seas runnning. The keel has little to do with it. It's true that if you hit something hard with a fin keel it can cause ancillary damage and even fall off, but these instances are very rare.
It might be good to consider other safety aspects as we're generalising so much. What about windward ability? That's a safety aspect of sailing, as is manoeuvrability, though less important mid-ocean perhaps. Good design, good build, good condition and the right level of good equipment seem to me to be the most important factors. Keel configuration comes way down the list.

 

[{151760}]

Agree with you on likelihood but not on the impact side - we used to have a triple keeler with a long 9 inch square long iron keel with a flat bottom to it. That landed on various hard things as we ditched crawled and mashed them or sat on them steadily. There is a damaged section of an underwater groyne at Littlehamton with a bent starboard post to testify to that. We also landed without hassle as the tide dropped on various anchors, rocks and wrecks in little harbours.

How do you know a fin-keeler wouldn't have survived the impact just as well?
The ability to take the ground is a different topic.

 

[RupertW]

How do you know a fin-keeler wouldn't have survived the impact just as well?
The ability to take the ground is a different topic.

I'm sure both would have survived but one with no damage and the other with potential damage to the bottom of the keel and to the frame and attachment to the hull. A 16 foot long square section keel has a lot of area to spread the shock and almost no leverage forces compared to a fin. It's simply a far more robust design but not I've ever gone for since as it was such a slow boat which was hopeless at going to windward.

 

[KellysEye]

There have been comments about long keelers being slow, for our boat it was slow up to 20 knots then we reached hull speed of 6.5 knots.