youen
Well-Known Member
Does anYbody know how quick is this boat in particular if you compare with a Hallberg 34 àr Storm 33
Najad 331
- Thread starter youen
- Start date
Tranona
Well-Known Member
PBO did a test on one a couple of years ago. Look it up on the boat test part of this site. Comparable boat to the HR but you could buy at least two Storms for the price of one Najad, which should tell you something - or not! depending on your perception of value for money.
matelot
Well-Known Member
best way of working this out is to look at racing handiocaps. On this basis, the sigma 33 is 927, the HR34 is 949 , the storm is 953 and the najad is 1000. So taking the average speed of the Storm as 100% , the najad is 95 the HR is just over 100 and the Sigma is 103
youen
Well-Known Member
Can you explain me where do you find these handicaps and how do you use them
Cantata
Well-Known Member
Matelot's numbers, which are 'Portsmouth yardstick' handicaps, have lower figures for faster boats.
So, if all other factors were equal, if the Najad took 1000 minutes to sail a set course, a Storm would take 953 minutes and the Halberg would take 949 minutes, so those two are faster but not by much. So although the Najad is the slowest, it's not by much at all.
The Sigma would take 927 minutes, so quite a bit faster.
If you're interested, more here: http://www.byronsoftware.org.uk/bycn/
So, if all other factors were equal, if the Najad took 1000 minutes to sail a set course, a Storm would take 953 minutes and the Halberg would take 949 minutes, so those two are faster but not by much. So although the Najad is the slowest, it's not by much at all.
The Sigma would take 927 minutes, so quite a bit faster.
If you're interested, more here: http://www.byronsoftware.org.uk/bycn/
youen
Well-Known Member
Thank you for your very clear explanations .We have not the same handicap system in France
wotayottie
Well-Known Member
Sorry - got delayed by my wife skyping her mother!
Cantat has explained what the numbers mean. Ideally they are collected from race results and therefore are accurate. Some of the Byron figures will have been calculated because the boat concerned is rarely raced. Thats likely to be the case with the Najad.
Dont agree that the difference is small. It amounts to more than an hour in a 24 hour sail. The reality is likely to be that you find the Najad sticky in light winds but performing better than handicap in stronger winds.
Cantat has explained what the numbers mean. Ideally they are collected from race results and therefore are accurate. Some of the Byron figures will have been calculated because the boat concerned is rarely raced. Thats likely to be the case with the Najad.
Dont agree that the difference is small. It amounts to more than an hour in a 24 hour sail. The reality is likely to be that you find the Najad sticky in light winds but performing better than handicap in stronger winds.
johnalison
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure the figures give the whole story. Although I like my HR 34 and prefer its features and accomodation, I understand the 331 sails well for her size in most conditions and would expect the speeds to be not very different in practice.
dt4134
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure the figures give the whole story. Although I like my HR 34 and prefer its features and accomodation, I understand the 331 sails well for her size in most conditions and would expect the speeds to be not very different in practice.
[/ QUOTE ]
As I understand Portsmouth Yardstick it takes into account past performaces. Where there aren't many boats of a particular type racing, one or two good or bad crews can bias the results, so I'd agree with you that the figures possibly don't give a true picture.
I've not sailed an HR34 but I really like the Najad 331 as a cruising boat. She sails well from a force 3-4 upwards and she really gives you confidence in a blow.
I'm not sure the figures give the whole story. Although I like my HR 34 and prefer its features and accomodation, I understand the 331 sails well for her size in most conditions and would expect the speeds to be not very different in practice.
[/ QUOTE ]
As I understand Portsmouth Yardstick it takes into account past performaces. Where there aren't many boats of a particular type racing, one or two good or bad crews can bias the results, so I'd agree with you that the figures possibly don't give a true picture.
I've not sailed an HR34 but I really like the Najad 331 as a cruising boat. She sails well from a force 3-4 upwards and she really gives you confidence in a blow.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
As others have said these figures are compiled from a mixture of empirical data and measurement and only indicate relative speed under racing conditions. They are used to handicap boats so that different boats can race against eachother. They do provide a good indication of the relative performance of boats when racing, but mostly the results are obvious. A performance orientated boat such as a Sigma or a Storm will inevitably be "faster" than a heavy long distance cruising boat such as an HR or Najad as that is what the designers intended.
You can get an equally good idea by looking at the raw data on the boat, particularly the displacement length and sail area displacement figures. The former is weight in relation to straight line speed and the latter the amount of power provided by the sails. How well this is translated into sailing performance is a function of hull design, sails and ability of the crew - plus of course the variability of the conditions.
At the end of the day, designers pitch their boats at a particular market and design them according to what that market values. The Storm was pitched at a very different market from the other 2, so comparisons are rather meaningless. As another example, I have just been looking at 4 42 ft cruising boats - Rustler, Bowman, HR, Malo all aimed at bluewater cruisers. All much the same in the key ratios except the Bowman is a bit lighter and has a higher SA/Disp ratio so might be quicker in light airs.
If on the other hand I was looking at another group of 42 footers from, say, Beneteau, Jeanneau, Dufor and Bavaria I would expect to see similarities among them, but big differences between them and the first group.
Hope this helps in your search for a boat
You can get an equally good idea by looking at the raw data on the boat, particularly the displacement length and sail area displacement figures. The former is weight in relation to straight line speed and the latter the amount of power provided by the sails. How well this is translated into sailing performance is a function of hull design, sails and ability of the crew - plus of course the variability of the conditions.
At the end of the day, designers pitch their boats at a particular market and design them according to what that market values. The Storm was pitched at a very different market from the other 2, so comparisons are rather meaningless. As another example, I have just been looking at 4 42 ft cruising boats - Rustler, Bowman, HR, Malo all aimed at bluewater cruisers. All much the same in the key ratios except the Bowman is a bit lighter and has a higher SA/Disp ratio so might be quicker in light airs.
If on the other hand I was looking at another group of 42 footers from, say, Beneteau, Jeanneau, Dufor and Bavaria I would expect to see similarities among them, but big differences between them and the first group.
Hope this helps in your search for a boat
