Here's a guy with some firm views

john_morris_uk said:
I agree with nearly all the points you make except the issue of wide sterns and broaching. Fat wide sterned boats are demonstrably more prone to broaching than more conservative sterned ones.The problem can be mitigated with twin rudders but that has its own problems in boat handling at slow speeds. Maybe not a problem when crossing oceans but so called blue water yachts spend a tiny proportion of their life actually crossing oceans!

His dismissal of all bolt on keels is nonsensical.
Click to expand...
Somewhat out of date thinking here John...

When wide sterns were normally pared with fairly pointy bows then you could sort of make that case. With bows being pushed out, then the waterline plane remains far more even as the boat heels which resists broaching.

And to be honest, I really disagree with the idea that twin rudders are "mitigating" the problems of wide sterns etc. That really is taking a "pick a feature from a box" approach to designing a boat, and pretending that you can pick any set of features and put them on one boat. Reality isn't like that. If you are going to have a modern wide boat, then you are designing a boat that when it sails upwind the middle of the hull (from a port/starboard point of view) lifts out of the water. A single rudder at that point is going to have the top of it out of the water. Which will suck air down the blade and result in a loss of control. Which in reality was what happened with wide boats of old. You get a bit of heel on, the top of the rudder came out of the water, grip was lost and bang, round she goes. Not because of the width of the boat per se - but because of the mismatch between where the rudder is mounted and the shape of the boat when heeled. Simply put you can't think of boat design as "pick the features that you like and stick them on to get the boat you want". If you're swapping to a wide boat, then you need to change your entire philosophy, and then the design choices stem from that.

In direct contrast, wide sterns are actually MORE broach resistant. Simply because they resist heeling more. And when fitted with a rudder that does not come out of the water they are arguably superior to any other type of hull form in resisting broaching. I went from driving a traditional C/R to a wide twin rudder design. The old boat was very prone to a broach, and also spinning out sailing upwind. We simply don't broach any more. The last broach I can think of was the season before last. And was the result of a 35 knot gust with the big kite up on the 1st outing of the year... And spinning out sailing upwind is similarly not a thing that happens...
 
Baggywrinkle said:
Yes, was Hinsholmens Marina near Gothenburg in April 2022, lad in his dads car lost control and skidded into the propped up boats. Wasn't the Teslas fault, it was the nut behind the wheel.
Click to expand...
I’ve always been skeptical of glass roofs...that’s why I don’t trust a roof rack.....but luckily the headlights weren’t damaged...those things are pricey
 
I just watched the video in the OP.

It's such an odd rant. If he's right then he should have an order book that will take him well beyond retirement.

And his design criteria is only ever going to result in one type of boat. Whereas demonstrably there is more than one way to go sailing long distances. It's amazing that boats like the Kraken exist for those who want it. It's also amazing that boats like the Pure 42, or the JPK45 or..... exist for those who want them.

Claiming that boats from other manufacturers are "unsuitable for true bluewater cruising" is a bit of an odd claim when so many people are literally doing exactly that in them. If the dozens of youtube channels showing world cruising in anything from Kraken style heavy boats to, AWBs, to "how is that thing still floating" MABs, to high tech trimarans, to refitted IMOCAs show us anything it is surely that to cruise successfully the attitude of the sailor is far more important than the boat chosen.

And he's pretending that his chosen style doesn't come with any downsides. The first and most obvious is price. In 2019 a Kraken 50 as tested by YM was £800k. Can't be under a million now. The 58 that was in the YOTY shortlist was reported as 2.7m Euros.... In contrast A Pogo 50 was about £250k new in 2020.

And the current Oceanis 52 starts from about £400k.

Then weight. The Kraken 50 is a 19 tonne boat. The Oceanis is 14 tonnes and is over a metre longer. That weight means that everything needs to be bigger, the loads will be bigger etc.

Again, it's a perfectly valid approach. And the Kraken does look like a wonderful boat. But to pretend in 2026 that big and heavy is the only valid option is flying in the face of a lot of evidence of people out there having a marvelous time in lighter boats.
 
It's a concept that appeals to a relatively small number of people that can really afford it. It's similar to those who would buy a Mercedes E class over a Volkswagen Passat or similar from other manufacturers. They can both do the same things but the Mercedes delivers the experience in a different way. The Kraken is not the yacht for the sell up and sail away coupe it's for those that can buy it out of disposable income so price really doesn't enter into it although residuals will be better. As for the weight argument it boils down to which will deliver the better more comfortable ride a yacht that sits in the water or one that sits on the water, my preference is for the former.
His argument is for an ultra reliable yacht that can and will be very much an independent base that can sail on its own in remote areas not just the Caribbean and Pacific atolls often as part of fleets.
The last I heard Kraken had a 4 year order book, it won't be hundreds of yachts maybe a couple of dozen but that's his successful business model which is why he is still building yachts for a limited clientele and yes it's not the only way to cruise the world but it will certainly be a reliable and comfortable one much more so than a Pogo or Pure.
 
Fr J Hackett said:
It's a concept that appeals to a relatively small number of people that can really afford it. It's similar to those who would buy a Mercedes E class over a Volkswagen Passat or similar from other manufacturers. They can both do the same things but the Mercedes delivers the experience in a different way. The Kraken is not the yacht for the sell up and sail away coupe it's for those that can buy it out of disposable income so price really doesn't enter into it although residuals will be better. As for the weight argument it boils down to which will deliver the better more comfortable ride a yacht that sits in the water or one that sits on the water, my preference is for the former.
His argument is for an ultra reliable yacht that can and will be very much an independent base that can sail on its own in remote areas not just the Caribbean and Pacific atolls often as part of fleets.
The last I heard Kraken had a 4 year order book, it won't be hundreds of yachts maybe a couple of dozen but that's his successful business model which is why he is still building yachts for a limited clientele and yes it's not the only way to cruise the world but it will certainly be a reliable and comfortable one much more so than a Pogo or Pure.
Click to expand...
Sure. Can't argue with any of that. Options, and that's great.

Just weird that he has to leave his lane to badmouth the other options...
 
flaming said:
Sure. Can't argue with any of that. Options, and that's great.

Just weird that he has to leave his lane to badmouth the other options...
Click to expand...
I think he was given his view on what constitutes a "Bluewater" yacht somewhat irked to find the Pure 42 given the "Bluewater yacht of the year" award. It is really quite unstable for extended cruising.
 
Fr J Hackett said:
I think he was given his view on what constitutes a "Bluewater" yacht somewhat irked to find the Pure 42 given the "Bluewater yacht of the year" award. It is really quite unstable for extended cruising.
Click to expand...
In his opinion. And yours maybe.

Looks perfectly good for that role to me, and I strongly suspect a lot of others. An Aluminium cruiser with lift keel... Sounds like a good compromise in terms of strength, access to out of the way places etc. Displacement is moderate, sail plan on the standard version also looks good and flexible. That it doesn't look like a heavy boat from the 1980s doesn't mean it's unsuitable for the role.

I'm not in the market for an extended cruiser, but if I was (and had the budget) the Pure 42 would be far closer to what I would want than the Kraken.

Does that mean I know more than the Kraken guy? No, of course not. But it also doesn't make him the sole authority on what works as an extended cruiser.
 
flaming said:
In his opinion. And yours maybe.

Looks perfectly good for that role to me, and I strongly suspect a lot of others. An Aluminium cruiser with lift keel... Sounds like a good compromise in terms of strength, access to out of the way places etc. Displacement is moderate, sail plan on the standard version also looks good and flexible. That it doesn't look like a heavy boat from the 1980s doesn't mean it's unsuitable for the role.

I'm not in the market for an extended cruiser, but if I was (and had the budget) the Pure 42 would be far closer to what I would want than the Kraken.

Does that mean I know more than the Kraken guy? No, of course not. But it also doesn't make him the sole authority on what works as an extended cruiser.
Click to expand...
Looking at its performance sailing upwind and not even close hauled in winds under 12knots it had a significant amount of heel even though its construction with a hard chine gave some resistance. That would not make for a comfortable passage. There are far better aluminium lifting keel "expedition" / bluewater cruising yachts. There is far to much emphasis on performance which is why it would fit for you but long distance cruising whilst mostly and preferably is downwind there are extended upwind passages and whilst they are acceptable in racing they soon become undesirable when cruising.
You are correct there are other designers that produce and have produced extended cruising yachts. Current and long term favourite is the German Frers Hylas / Outbound 56 ( not an encapsulated keel) cheaper than a Kraken and would probably be my choice if I was in that market place.
 
This whole discussion feels like someone in cammo trousers complaininng that those in chinos will stand out in the jungle, while the people in chinos are confused at why cammo guy looks so daft in the city.
The very definition of blue water sailing is that your boat will be sub optimal for most of the places you're sailing, assuming you decide to buy and keep just one boat.
In reality, a tiny percentage of boats probably sail an ocean, and a tiny percentage of those that do ever leave the tropics or spend much time sailing upwind. Designing a yacht for the arctic "just in case" is very niche no matter how you look at it. I agree it's good that they built it, but also agree it's odd to attack boats with different design briefs.

Personally, if we ever get that far I want to sail downwind in the tropics with as comfortable a saloon and cockpit as possible with as many windows as is safe so I can enjoy the warm weather. Massive garage and swim platform too please. If that means it's uncomfortable for a month each year while moving continents then so be it :)
 
Fr J Hackett said:
Looking at its performance sailing upwind and not even close hauled in winds under 12knots it had a significant amount of heel even though its construction with a hard chine gave some resistance. That would not make for a comfortable passage. There are far better aluminium lifting keel "expedition" / bluewater cruising yachts. There is far to much emphasis on performance which is why it would fit for you but long distance cruising whilst mostly and preferably is downwind there are extended upwind passages and whilst they are acceptable in racing they soon become undesirable when cruising.
Click to expand...
See the other thread for why I disagree quite strongly on the suitability of chines for cruising. And I say that as someone who has been cruising, admittedly coastal, on my chined performance yacht.
 
dunedin said:
Actually there is a lot of evidence that wide sterned twin rudder boats are much less prone to broaching than old narrow sterned IOR boats with rudders further forward.
The Beken of Cowes and even early Rick Tomlinson calendars were full of pictures of spectacular spinnaker breaches, often death roll to windward.

Rock steady twin rudders and asymmetrics going at twice the speed downwind have forced them to look at more artistic photos instead.
Click to expand...
We know a guy that is a yacht surveyor who delivers a large Discovery yacht across the pond to Antigua. This one had twin rudders. He had a rough passage with large waves from astern. This boat was voted European yacht of the year. It makes a mockery of such awards.
He was scathing about the boat. He said that the boat would get picked up by waves constantly and surf. The boat would broach repeatedly. He would be sat in the nav station and spat out of his seat, ending up in the galley.
He said the rudders were too short and couldn't cope with the big seas. They simply lost grip and the boat repeatedly rounded up.
 
Tranona said:
Problem is that almost nobody else in the current boat designing/building/buying of bluewater yachts scene agrees with him. The test of robustness of a proposition (hesitate to call it a theory) is whether it can be disproved and on this score there is plenty of evidence in the form of maybe hundreds of boats with the characteristics he disapproves of are successfully sailing around the world. Almost none of them have had a keel drop off and of those tiny numbers that have there is usually a very sound explanation that has little to do with the fact that the keel was bolted on. He claims such boats are prone to broaching - again without any evidence. Surely people who spend somewhere between half a million and a million on such a boat for their round the world trip will have convinced themselves it will do the job and maybe make a bit of a stink if it did not. You never or rarely hear through magazine articles, forums, youtubes etc owners of such boats bitching about how conned they were - only non owners saying how awful boats that they don't actually own are in this respect.

He would be in good company on this forum because as we know there are several contributors who think the same as him, and in just the same way are unable to support their criticism with actual facts.

He does however have a point about T keels, but they are unusual on most boats aimed at the offshore market. He simplifies the issue of catching ropes and nets etc. Having spent 30 years involved with that issue I can say that all boats whatever the underwater arrangements are vulnerable in some way or another, including long keel and propellers in protected apertures. In fact what got me engaged in the subject was picking up a piece of net which hooked round the propeller of my long keel boat filled the aperture jammed the rudder and stopped the engine.. While pots are increasingly being used in deeper water, they are predominantly a coastal phenomenon and not high risk for world girdlers. Incidentally many (most) of the serious bluewater builders fit rope cutters to their boats to minimise the consequence of picking up a rope. Not foolproof - indeed did not help the second time I picked up a line between pots which wrapped around the keel, missed the saildrive and crossed over around the rudder. That was a relatively long fin keel with raked leading edge and a spade rudder, but a skeg would not have helped.

Telling that he suggests buying older boats rather than the latest designs because they conform to his prejudices, just as many poster here suggest. If that were indeed the way to go then none of these newer designs would exist and the old ones would still hold sway - but they don't and no matter how many scare stories people like him trot out the reality is that buyers/owners consider the new designs superior for their needs.
Click to expand...
The oceans are increasingly full of discarded fishing net gear. We used to tow a Duogen hydro generator. Twice we have had it damaged from discarded fishing nets mid Atlantic. This is one of the reasons why we no longer use one. If you are plowing across an ocean, the last thing you want is a T keel.
You really think the average production boat is superior to a Kranken🤣
Its about money. If everybody had infinite funds, there would be a lot more Kraken sail boats about and far less cheap production boats crossing ocean
 
geem said:
Its about money. If everybody had infinite funds, there would be a lot more Kraken sail boats about and far less cheap production boats crossing ocean
Click to expand...
Would there? Or would there be more JPK / POGO / Pegasus types?

Certainly the market for high quality, small yard, fast cruising boats seems a lot larger than the market for high quality, small yard, heavy cruising boats.
 
flaming said:
Would there? Or would there be more JPK / POGO / Pegasus types?

Certainly the market for high quality, small yard, fast cruising boats seems a lot larger than the market for high quality, small yard, heavy cruising boats.
Click to expand...
The market for very expensive folding trimarans is a lot larger than for heavy cruising boats. But then, 99% of sailors sail their entire lives without crossing an ocean. It’s hard, from either point of view, to define what people do with their boats from those numbers. I daresay a decent number of the heavy cruisers get bought be people whose plans change, or just want to sail about in a grossly over specified boat for their purpose. Just like people buy Range Rovers and Land Cruisers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top