Moody 33, Westerly 33, or Westerly Discus

BurnitBlue said:
Thanks for the replies. I understand that most boats are capable of Ocean cruising from Shane's Caprice to that 19 foot flimsy JOG boat Sopranino. However a professionally designed and built cruising yacht turned upside down and sank. And I agree, that could happen to anybody and that is what bothers me. Not the risk I can accept that. In fact it is part of the challenge. J Wilson is a well respected yacht broker unless I have the wrong Wilson) and he stated that the boats in question were not designed for ocean. I was curious if he saw something in the design. He did answer with AVS and that I agree with 100%.

Tranona in an earlier post mentioned ballast ratio and that is the same thing and gives AVS (I think) I know that any yacht which is stable upside down is inherently at risk. The capsize ratio is published for many boats as good below a figure of below 2.0 for the parameters used in the formula. The Moody 33 and 34 and 346 are above that number. Lots of boats are well below the 2.0 estimate for capsize. I believe the Westerly boats a just below that number.

You do not have to sail Ocean to meet the conditions Angus Primrose sailed into. He was USA coastal I believe. Perhaps a day sail or two from a USA marina. How about the Portland race in the wrong time.

It seems I am making a big deal of this but I got my answer and I thank you sincerely. The answer is simply AVS from Ballast ratio and depth of ballast. The old designs were around 50% and 2 metres deep the new are around 35%. and 1.8 metres deep. Something had to pay for all that internal space, it did not come free.

Sorry to Hi-jack the thread. It was almost on topic though. Thanks again we agree (I think) that the ballast arrangement defines the yacht.
Click to expand...

I agree with you in principle, that many boats have not been designed to meet current ocean criteria requirements; but people have been crossing oceans for centuries on all kinds of crafts; technological improvements gives us the opportunity to produce more suitable designs for harsh environment, able to sustain more punishment and to produce deterministic designs rather than probabilistic and therefore determine where the risk is and to reduce it.

On paper, the Discus has better ratios making it more suitable for ocean crossing, however, we all agree that just a good design is not enough, judgement and handling are equally as important. The Moodys have an excellent safety record, but if I had to choose a boat to go out in force 10, I would probably choose a more robust and fit for purpose design.

I much appreciate all replies and I hope to get more discussions on the designs and to hear from others who have used the Moody 33 and the Westerly Discus in difficult and challenging sea conditions.
 
Last edited:
I'm also biased - I've a 1979 Moody 33 mk2 - never had an issue with it, an excellent although mine is fin keel. The mk2 is better than the mk1(in my opinion). Clarke & Carter at Suffolk Yacht Harbour have a 1981 M33 mk2 at 18k, but it is a fin keel. Sounds good, although not familiar with this particular boat. A few bilge keel versions were made but the majority were fin.
I didn't know that Angus Primrose died in a M33, but he did come 2nd in the first M33 in the AZAB race, a few days after being launched.
 
PetiteFleur said:
I'm also biased - I've a 1979 Moody 33 mk2 - never had an issue with it, an excellent although mine is fin keel. The mk2 is better than the mk1(in my opinion). Clarke & Carter at Suffolk Yacht Harbour have a 1981 M33 mk2 at 18k, but it is a fin keel. Sounds good, although not familiar with this particular boat. A few bilge keel versions were made but the majority were fin.
I didn't know that Angus Primrose died in a M33, but he did come 2nd in the first M33 in the AZAB race, a few days after being launched.
Click to expand...

It is certainly difficult to find a bilge keel Moody 33; I have a bilge keel boat at present and sailing in the Bristol channel, a bilge keel is desirable.
 
BurnitBlue said:
Sorry to Hi-jack the thread. It was almost on topic though. Thanks again we agree (I think) that the ballast arrangement defines the yacht.
Click to expand...

They might have done in the past, but the connection is nowhere near as direct now. The 33 ballast ratio is the norm now. There are very few boats designed now that have ballast ratios approaching the 40% of the 346 for simple reasons. Hull design relies far more on form stability - wider beams, harder bilges and even chines - just like the 33 which as I said earlier was a pioneer of modern design. crucially though the biggest difference is in the USE of ballast rather than its amount. Older boats have poorly shaped keel - look at a 1980s keel and you will see it is wider at the top and narrow at the bottom leading to a high centre of gravity, plus draft will be significantly less than modern keels. This is partly the influence of the IOR which penalised stability and partly difficulty of casting more complex shapes and partly securely attaching them to the hull. The solution to the last problem was long mating faces again favouring a keel shape that is heavy at the top.

A modern boat uses far less ballast weight, typically under 35% yet can achieve the same AVS or more likely exceed the more heavily ballasted boat. This is because keels are generally deeper, often over 2m and ballast concentrated at the bottom so lowering the centre of gravity. This leads to greater righting moment and boats that sail at flatter angles, usually under 20 degrees rather than 30. AVS is not just a function of ballast ratio but is influenced by beam and buoyancy of coachroof.

So, perhaps you are being naive to hang onto the belief that a higher ballast ratio equals "better" - it is not as simple as that. High ballast ratios came about in the sixties because of the preference for narrow deep hulls with low form stability. Look at the prewar and early postwar trend setters, particularly from the US that had wider shallower hulls with lower ballast ratios which were very successful in ocean racing, and may be the Golden Hinds I referred to earlier which also had ballast ratios in the mid 30s.

In my view it is equally naive to suppose that Angus would have survived if he had been in a boat like a Nic 32. You might care to read Miles Smeeton's account of being pitchpoled, not once but twice in Tzu Hang, his traditional long keeled deep draft boat. There comes a point where sea conditions are such that no small boat can survive and the huge breaking seas in the shallow waters of the Carolina coast create just the sort of conditions that lead to this kind of outcome.

The trick is to avoid such conditions as almost everybody does. I honestly believe that your current moody is overall a far better ocean cruising boat than an old narrow deep kel boat. it is boats like the Moody, Westerly, HRs etc that made ocean voyaging attainable in relative comfort for "ordinary" people rather than the spartan adventurer type.

Sorry for thread drift.
 
Tranona said:
They might have done in the past, but the connection is nowhere near as direct now. The 33 ballast ratio is the norm now. There are very few boats designed now that have ballast ratios approaching the 40% of the 346 for simple reasons. Hull design relies far more on form stability - wider beams, harder bilges and even chines - just like the 33 which as I said earlier was a pioneer of modern design. crucially though the biggest difference is in the USE of ballast rather than its amount. Older boats have poorly shaped keel - look at a 1980s keel and you will see it is wider at the top and narrow at the bottom leading to a high centre of gravity, plus draft will be significantly less than modern keels. This is partly the influence of the IOR which penalised stability and partly difficulty of casting more complex shapes and partly securely attaching them to the hull. The solution to the last problem was long mating faces again favouring a keel shape that is heavy at the top.

A modern boat uses far less ballast weight, typically under 35% yet can achieve the same AVS or more likely exceed the more heavily ballasted boat. This is because keels are generally deeper, often over 2m and ballast concentrated at the bottom so lowering the centre of gravity. This leads to greater righting moment and boats that sail at flatter angles, usually under 20 degrees rather than 30. AVS is not just a function of ballast ratio but is influenced by beam and buoyancy of coachroof.

So, perhaps you are being naive to hang onto the belief that a higher ballast ratio equals "better" - it is not as simple as that. High ballast ratios came about in the sixties because of the preference for narrow deep hulls with low form stability. Look at the prewar and early postwar trend setters, particularly from the US that had wider shallower hulls with lower ballast ratios which were very successful in ocean racing, and may be the Golden Hinds I referred to earlier which also had ballast ratios in the mid 30s.

In my view it is equally naive to suppose that Angus would have survived if he had been in a boat like a Nic 32. You might care to read Miles Smeeton's account of being pitchpoled, not once but twice in Tzu Hang, his traditional long keeled deep draft boat. There comes a point where sea conditions are such that no small boat can survive and the huge breaking seas in the shallow waters of the Carolina coast create just the sort of conditions that lead to this kind of outcome.

The trick is to avoid such conditions as almost everybody does. I honestly believe that your current moody is overall a far better ocean cruising boat than an old narrow deep kel boat. it is boats like the Moody, Westerly, HRs etc that made ocean voyaging attainable in relative comfort for "ordinary" people rather than the spartan adventurer type.

Sorry for thread drift.
Click to expand...

Your script is great and it provides justification to support the contribution of wide beams to righting moment and buoyancy in modern hull forms.

This is an interesting picture of hulls that maximise beam for the purpose of stability. https://penarthnews.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/volvo-l2r.jpg
 
CAPTAIN FANTASTIC said:
Your script is great and it provides justification to support the contribution of wide beams to righting moment and buoyancy in modern hull forms. ...... ]
Click to expand...


But sadly the usual naïve half truths and wobbly justifications. The reality is far more complex.

First off is the usual, out of focus, implication that all "modern" boats are the same. That a Ker 40 is essentially the same thing as a Bavaria. They are not the same, a design may well be lightly ballasted to encourage planing and downwind performance but a boat with an eye on all round speed will, in fact, have a healthy ballast ratio, partly because fast sailors, on inshore courses, do like to hang onto sail and hate to reef.
Modern boats, designed for all round speed, generally have strong ballast ratios, it is one of the key reasons for all that weight saving in the hull. One of the reasons the hull will be low to the water and accommodation conservative and biased towards the middle of the boat. The modern cruising boat, of the type we all know, has a low ballast ratio because its structure is large, blinking heavy and loaded with accessories. If you gave it a 40% ballast ratio it would struggle to move in light airs.

Bulbs have been added to keels since the days of Victorian pond yachts. a good thin, deep keel with weight at the bottom is a grand idea, except on a slow cruising yacht. It presents structural difficulties, berthing problems, catches lines in the water which then become doubly tricky to remove. It also promotes slow speed stalling under engine; the next time someone says "my new boat is brilliant, of course I fitted a bow thruster" you will know one reason, another one being the huge windage of exaggerated topsides.

On the run of the mill white boat keels may have become deeper and bulbier for two reasons:

- To keep iffy stability figures on the right side of the ledger.
- To ape real performance boats

On the water, differences in performance between a simple fin keel and a bulb are of a quantum only significant in racing designs. The fin is more efficient at cruising boat speeds but lacks the superior righting moment of the bulb.
The substitution of lead for cast iron, would cancel this disadvantage and improve a lot of compromised designs into the bargain.
 
Last edited:
doug748 said:
But sadly the usual naïve half truths and wobbly justifications. The reality is far more complex.

First off is the usual, out of focus, implication that all "modern" boats are the same. That a Ker 40 is essentially the same thing as a Bavaria. They are not the same, a design may well be lightly ballasted to encourage planing and downwind performance but a boat with an eye on all round speed will, in fact, have a healthy ballast ratio, partly because fast sailors, on inshore courses, do like to hang onto sail and hate to reef.
Modern boats, designed for all round speed, generally have strong ballast ratios, it is one of the key reasons for all that weight saving in the hull. One of the reasons the hull will be low to the water and accommodation conservative and biased towards the middle of the boat. The modern cruising boat, of the type we all know, has a low ballast ratio because its structure is large, blinking heavy and loaded with accessories. If you gave it a 40% ballast ratio it would struggle to move in light airs.

Bulbs have been added to keels since the days of Victorian pond yachts. a good thin, deep keel with weight at the bottom is a grand idea, except on a slow cruising yacht. It presents structural difficulties, berthing problems, catches lines in the water which then become doubly tricky to remove. It also promotes slow speed stalling under engine; the next time someone says "my new boat is brilliant, of course I fitted a bow thruster" you will know one reason, another one being the huge windage of exaggerated topsides.

On the run of the mill white boat keels may have become deeper and bulbier for two reasons:

- To keep iffy stability figures on the right side of the ledger.
- To ape real performance boats

On the water, differences in performance between a simple fin keel and a bulb are of a quantum only significant in racing designs. The fin is more efficient at cruising boat speeds but lacks the superior righting moment of the bulb.
The substitution of lead for cast iron, would cancel this disadvantage and improve a lot of compromised designs into the bargain.
Click to expand...

One of the reasons I make myself a nuisance blabbing on about the Nich 32, rustler 31, folkboat etc is because of the point you have made regarding the effect of the bulb compromise. This is achieved , as you wrote by a bulb at the bottom of the fin to get the stability numbers on the good side. An encapsulated keel effectively does the same thing by loading the bottom of the encapsulated "shell" with a few tons of lead. On the drawings for the folkboat (which I have) it can readily be seen that the deep hull, with deep bilge together put ALL the ballast quite a way below the waterline. This system to get the ballast placed low down and also protected from grounding and net snagging make them the preferred choice for Ocean cruising not forgetting the advantages of a deep bilge.
 
Last edited:
At ordinary sailing heel angles I fully agree that hull shape is an acceptable substitute for high ballast ratio for mass-production coastal cruising boats. It's a lot cheaper to build them that way. Race boats often have higher ballast ratios, but that means more stability so stronger rigs, hull structures etc needed for the extra stresses so the cost goes up.

Most modern AWBs including mine with a ballast ratio in the low 30s (mine is 31%) could easily be extremely stable once totally inverted until a lot of water found its way below to reduce inverted stability (free surface effect). I like my boat the way it is (the right way up) and have no intention of being in or on it inverted off Iceland in a storm. If I intended to do that (again) I'd be in a different boat.

I really like many modern production AWBs: I just don't regard them as suitable for unlimited heavy weather sailing. By making careful weather dependent passages many do though cover long distances.
 
BurnitBlue said:
One of the reasons I make myself a nuisance blabbing on about the Nich 32, rustler 31, folkboat etc is because of the point you have made regarding the effect of the bulb compromise. This is achieved , as you wrote by a bulb at the bottom of the fin to get the stability numbers on the good side. An encapsulated keel effectively does the same thing by loading the bottom of the encapsulated "shell" with a few tons of lead. On the drawings for the folkboat (which I have) it can readily be seen that the deep hull, with deep bilge together put ALL the ballast quite a way below the waterline. This system to get the ballast placed low down and also protected from grounding and net snagging make them the preferred choice for Ocean cruising not forgetting the advantages of a deep bilge.
Click to expand...

While you are correct that a folkboat has its ballast low down (and a lot of it) that is not necessarily true of all encapsulated keel GRP boats, which don't have heavy lead ballast at the bottom - so you need to look at the specifics of each individual design. Just the same as damning all bulb keels as "weed catchers" when the vast majority are not the torpeedo shape that could be described as such. Most are exactly the same form as you have described for your encapsulated keel - bulbous (as the description implies) at the bottom as opposed to the older style fin keels that are wider at the top than the bottom. If you look at virtually all the recent designs of boats aimed at the long distance cruising market - Discovery, Oyster, HR, Najad for example they all use relatively long bulbed keels, as do some of the more conservative mass production designs, particularly in their shallow draft options.

Don't know how you can claim that encapsulated long keeled boats are the "preferred choice for ocean cruising" when virtually none have been built for over 30 years - and even then the numbers built between roughly 1960 and late 80s were tiny with the possible exception of some of the very popular small classes. So, they have been and always will the preferred choice of a minority. While one can understand why that minority makes the choice as there are many other factors that influence choices it is difficult to accept that they are any "safer" than other types given the ample empirical evidence of the many types which have successfully completed ocean voyages and have survived extreme conditions.

BTW Despite what some people might say, I am not advocating AWBs as particularly suitable for ocean voyaging, even though hundreds of owners think otherwise, just trying to explain that a high ballast ratio is not a sound basis on its own for choosing one boat type rather than another. It is the same with AVS which is a helpful calculation, but the same figure can be achieved with very different design philosophies. Even then, on its own it is not a definitive descriptor of how a boat will behave in extreme conditions.

In practice it is very difficult to use calculated stability figures in the sort of comparison you would like to make as figures for the old designs are simply not available. I suspect that if they were (complete with full GZ curves) you might well get some surprises that would question your gut feeling. Much of our thinking in this area is heavily influenced by the Contessa 32 which does have a high AVS and is used an an example of what can be achieved. However that is not the same as saying all long keeled boat would achieve the same!
 
alant said:
Is this going to develope into a multihull thread drift?;)
Click to expand...

Floating outriggers may sort out some stability problems but it create new ones. :ambivalence:

The reality is that hull designs have changed drastically over the last 30 years; mass production yacht companies such as Moody and Westerlys (later models) have revolutionised yacht designs by using hull forms to provide comfort as well as contributing extensively towards stability and therefore reducing ballast.

We only need to have a look at the latest yacht hull designs to see the trend; computerised simulation modelling have created huge opportunities to optimise designs, prove and to demonstrated before manufacturing the actual yacht.

In the mean time I am looking for a Moody 33 or Westerly Discus, bilge keel that is out there gathering dust in some boatyard.
 
I would choose the yacht you feel will be most comfortable to live on, after all you are going to be in a marina or at anchor 6 days week.
 
Pete7 said:
I would choose the yacht you feel will be most comfortable to live on, after all you are going to be in a marina or at anchor 6 days week.
Click to expand...

I wished I had the time to be on the yacht 6 days per week or even a few weeks at a time. But you are right, being comfortable on a boat and able to relax with a glass or even a bottle of red wine, on the mooring, is equally as important and as far as SWMBO conerns, the later is even more important.
 
Last edited:
I had a Angus Primrose designed Moody 36 called Bambola in which I sailed around the world including up the intracoastal waterway to Washington DC. Brilliant Boat. So comfortable to be in. Great party boat. Really easy to handle when single handed and when it gets horrid - gale conditions then a secure safe seaworthy vessel.
I think it is important to have a boat that is fun and comfortable to be in. The problem with Nics, Rustlers and Folkboats is that they are all a bit 'outward bound course' boats. Good sea boats but from a generation long gone. Westerlys and Moodys both managed to combine seaworthyness with comfort and fun.
I am selling my Westerly Ocean 43 because she is too big to handle when parking in a strong cross wind single handed, and I am getting older, but I will be buying another Westerly or Moody in a smaller size... And I have owned 7 previous
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top