Older Southerly rudder configuration

[Greenheart]

It is not the builders that are the "problem" - but those nasty customers who tend to buy what suits their requirements rather than what others think they ought to have.

Many builders have produced variable depth keel boats, usually drop keel of some sort, often as an option to deep keels or twin keels. They rarely sell in any numbers, even when the boat itself is very popular (think Fulmar and Sadlers as examples) for the simple reason that for most people draft (within reason) is not an issue and therefore the "benefits" are not worth the premium required to pay for the extra complexity.

Where they have been successful is in boats like the Southerly and Ovni where the keel arrangement is central to the design philosophy and results in a distinctly different boat that appeals to a small number of people who are prepared to pay the cost.

That's mostly very cogent, but I'm not convinced. Self-levelling market-forces don't adequately answer the question, "why are so many boats which are routinely used in shallow tidal waters, so unsuitable for that environment?"

I wonder whether many deep-keelers' enjoyment of their boats isn't considerably marred (in a way which they resignedly regard as unavoidable) by the obligation to moor here, or to stick to a deep water channel there, and disregard vast potential anchorages.

Deep keels add to the expertise of seamanship required in shallows, and so are seen as character, rather than simply as a nuisance. The small proportion of centreboarders out there perpetuates the accepted necessity of the deep-keeler's circumspect navigation style.

And since cost is an issue, and while centreboarders remain relatively rare, those who park and sail in shallow waters seem largely to accept their boat is on the mud ten hours out of twelve, because their budget (or searches) didn't run to a centreboarder. Seems crazy.

I'm not slating deep keels - I'm wondering whether the lifting-keel is by definition, fatally deficient at sea, relative to the same hull with fin/twin arrangement. That would explain centreboarders' rarity - if inshore convenience comes at inevitable regrettable cost, offshore.

I don't believe everyone has exactly the boat they wanted, and that that explains why most are in deep keel AWBs.

 

[Greenheart]

The centreboard as you put it is actually a ballasted keel with 1/3 of the ballast with the remaining 2/3rds within a cast iron grounding plate. The grounding plate means the boat is stable both on the ground or with the keel up motoring into shallow waters.

When you say do they ever tilt backwards I presume you mean the lifting rudder models?

E39mad, you answer my ponderings very completely. I was supposing that circumstances might arise in which the Southerly's flattish bottom left the rudder or rudders very close to the ground - near enough for the yacht's weight to snap them off...

...but the centring of her displacement in the grounding plate must keep her upright, discounting very uneven ground.

I suppose Mr Tranona's point, that the inconvenience of deeper keels is actually preferred by yacht-buyers, is a widespread assumption, sustained and fuelled largely by the popularity of marinas...which provide homes for vulnerable and awkward deep-keelers...

...perhaps in the same way that paved roads permit the majority of our vehicles to be incapable of off-road use...who needs a 4x4, when everywhere you might ever want to go, is thoughtfully covered in tarmac? (Hmm...why are there so many 4x4s? )

If deep-keel yachtsmen really never wish they could nose-up on a fabulous sandy beach, or let their passengers walk ashore dryshod in a remote spot, or wait at a quayside still afloat till low water, or escape going aground by drawing up the keel...then it's their loss.

But, I'm a dinghy-sailor...I always enjoy the freedom of minimal draft. The deep-keeler's obligation to locate dredged berthing locations then dance to whatever financial tune the marina-owner likes to play, must be the least appealing aspect of yacht-owning, today.

 

[Barbican]

And since cost is an issue, and while centreboarders remain relatively rare, those who park and sail in shallow waters seem largely to accept their boat is on the mud ten hours out of twelve, because their budget (or searches) didn't run to a centreboarder. Seems crazy.

I'm not slating deep keels - I'm wondering whether the lifting-keel is by definition, fatally deficient at sea, relative to the same hull with fin/twin arrangement. That would explain centreboarders' rarity - if inshore convenience comes at inevitable regrettable cost, offshore.

I don't believe everyone has exactly the boat they wanted, and that that explains why most are in deep keel AWBs.

I have had a long keeled boat with a centreboard that took the draught from 4 to 8 feet. It was a simple plate of mild steel, and whilst it made some difference to windward in terms of leeway, it must also have created some drag. Buying the same boat again I would not bother with the board.

More recently comparing boats of 40ft ish, I was struck by the low draught of Southerly/Ovni when compared to the 6-7 feet on conventional keeled boats. I notice that Oyster Sirius Gunfleet and Nordship all offer lifting plates or keels in some areas of their range, so not rare. What seemed to separate Southerly was the arrangement is a proper keel that retracts, not just a plate, and there is provision for grounding on the massive shoe, as well as a central bustle to protect the rudders (and prop when underway).

The downside is obviously cost and complexity, plus the impact on accommodation, however without the ability to test a fixed keel Southerly (or any of the others) against a lifter I have no idea what the true performance impact is, nor do I care if performance is OK. With the experience of a limited test sail I was happy with her performance in the light winds prevailing that day. The keel is not a simple plate, it is a foil in section, so I guess it was having more impact than the simple plate I was used to.

On this boat I guess the only other comment would be that the steering in reverse was very similar to the long keelers I have had in the distant past and requires 1-2 knots over the rudders, but I can get used to that.

So with SWMBO prefering to anchor close in in sheltered water, and go up creeks etc, and given the performance (from test sail, and owners comments - and I gotta trust Stephen Jones) is very acceptable/creditable for a cruiser, I have stumped up the extra dosh, and in a year or so will let you know if it was worth it

 

[Gelfie]

I'm the owner of a 115 and have read all the comments and agree with some but not all. I bought a southerly for the kind off cruising that as a family we enjoy, that's cross channel cruising and creek hopping to shallow and quiet anchorages.

The shallow rudder can be a bit of a problem in a big following sea but have never had a problem on the wind, porbably due to sensible sail areas and the heavy deep keel with weight in the right place.

To allow for close quarter manovering, like a lot of owners I fitted a bow thruster and have a electric lifting keel. This gets me out of most tight places although I agree astern can be a problem probably due to large prop and 42 hp. Of course this makes for fast and economical motoring.

If you want mor info on Southerly boats search for the SOA site, there's loads of useful info there and you don't have to be an owner to join just someone interested in the boats.

 

[Tranona]

I don't believe everyone has exactly the boat they wanted, and that that explains why most are in deep keel AWBs.

Of course they don't - that is what the word "compromise" is about. People are not forced to buy fixed (deep) keel boats - they do it through choice because they sail in deep waters and value the performance advantages and simplicity of fixed keels. They know what they might be missing because of the limitations of draft but are quite prepared to accept it, or for many it is not even a choice as they only sail in deeper waters.

On the other hand some people like the ability to navigate in shallow waters, so may be prepared to accept the compromises of a variable depth keel, but they are clearly in a minority. I have two shallow draft boats, neither variable keel, but one used to be significantly shallower than it is now. Although I boat in Poole Harbour, I discovered pretty quickly that the amount of time I spent in shallow waters was minimal compared with deep water, and I got a deep water mooring - so it is now nearly a foot deeper than it used to be and the bilge plates are about to be recycled onto another boat owned by somebody who really does benefit from shallow draft where he boats. The other boat is shallow to get through the French canals, but suffers from poorer performance at sea.

So, as with many of the things you query, it is the buyer that decides. Most individuals are capable of recognising the potential benefits of alternatives, but equally capable of deciding for themselves what is of value to them when making their choice of what to buy.

 

[Greenheart]

My reckoning only relates to inshore sailors on the UK's Channel coast...this being a Southerly post, and the marque being based in Itchenor's muddy locale. Of course, yachtsmen near Mediterranean or Atlantic shorelines naturally prefer deep-keels, because, why not?

As a dinghy-sailor, I've seen deep-keelers embarrassed and frustrated so often in areas that are dark blue on the chart, I'm inclined to wonder if we've really looked hard enough at retractable keels. At present it seems they're a compromise. Must that be 'end of story'?

Having enjoyed the option to go anywhere where there's 30" of water, when I can afford a yacht, I'll be reluctant to join that convoy which must follow narrow channels to expensive berths simply because the boats weren't designed with shallower water in mind.

I doubt I'm alone in thinking that.

 

[Tranona]

I doubt I'm alone in thinking that.

You are not alone in thinking that - just that boating in that sort of environment with the size of boat being discussed here is a minority interest - which explains why there are so few boats of this type sold. Southerlies, Ovnis etc mainly sell to blue water passage makers who want the ability to get into shallow waters such as behind coral reefs etc when they get to the other end - not nose up muddy creeks on the south or east coast - plenty of boats around to do that for less than the £2-300k these boats cost. You could for example buy one of the super-dooper Anderson 22s and Seajet will be your mate for life! or help Zagato out by buying his Drascombe, already to go in Chichester.

 

[Seajet]

Tranona,

thanks for the vote, must add 'Tranona says they're sooper dooper' to the website !

I'd point out a huge though simple difference between the Southerlies with tiny rudder and consequent rather predictable problems, compared to the rightly highly respected Ovni 'sailors' boat'; the Ovni has a part lifting rudder, allowing proper grip in lowered form.

Actually the whole thing about 'crawling up creeks' is a myth applied to lift keelers oh so often, doesn't apply to Andersons or Southerly / Ovnis, the shoal draft is for moorings and general harbour access, after all it's pushing one's luck over a bottom of anything but known soft mud ( with no old mooring sinkers or tesco trolleys ) to judge depth / draft to a margin of 2' in any waves at all, and 2' is about the gain a lifted keel has over a fin one.

There are two further problems with the larger boats, a fully retacting keel and flush bottom leaves the hull horribly vulnerable to even small pointy things on the seabed if drying out; of course this applies to boats like E-Boats and Evolutions too.

Lift keels tend not to work so well on larger boats over say 26' because lifting the whole ballast weight becomes a serious engineering exercise, both to build and to use.

So the Anderson 22 has the ballast in the right place on the end of the keel, and benefits from it ( the ballast bulb seems to give an 'end plate' effect too).

The Anderson 26 had to put 95% of the ballast in a long shallow fixed stub, with just a simple plate going through it for windward grip; less effective ballast, and this configuration usually gives rather hard mouthed steering as shown a little on the A26 & moreso on the Seal 28.

Incidentally Dan, thinking of your musings about fishers, the A26 is a narrow design as it was designed with the results of the 1979 Fastnet Report in mind, but is still fast and stiff thanks to lots of ballast and sail and 6' draft keel down.

The Southerly and Ovni both have excellent big boy engineering keel lift systems, but their prices reflect this.

 

[Tranona]

Tranona,

thanks for the vote, must add 'Tranona says they're sooper dooper' to the website !

Please don't take it as a seal of approval. Just thought you and Dan Crane would get on well together.

 

[Seajet]

Please don't take it as a seal of approval. Just thought you and Dan Crane would get on well together.

Yes Dan does have good taste in boats.

Please don't think I'd ever value your approval let alone publish it, I was most assuredly joking !

 

[Tranona]

Yes Dan does have good taste in boats.

Please don't think I'd ever value your approval let alone publish it, I was most assuredly joking !

Yes, I rather thought your whole post was a bit of a joke - agreement at last!

 

[Seajet]

Yes, I rather thought your whole post was a bit of a joke - agreement at last!

Unlikely. Sorry you found it tricky to understand, I'll try to spell things out more clearly for people without experience of lift keels ( and a strange idea of outboard wells ) in future.

OK Tranona we don't get on, that is established; now for everyone elses' sake try to restrain yourself and I'll do the same.

 

[Greenheart]

Actually the whole thing about 'crawling up creeks' is a myth applied to lift keelers oh so often, doesn't apply to Andersons or Southerly / Ovnis, the shoal draft is for moorings and general harbour access, after all it's pushing one's luck over a bottom of anything but known soft mud ( with no old mooring sinkers or tesco trolleys ) to judge depth / draft to a margin of 2' in any waves at all, and 2' is about the gain a lifted keel has over a fin one...

Very good point. I was dreamily superimposing dinghy-versatility onto bigger brethren, but as you say, centreboard access to shallow water doesn't mean those places are safe and suitable for parking a yacht.

A Southerly 28 was moored at the top of Bosham Channel in the 1980s...mostly soft mud up there, but also some old iron & broken timber. I suppose a centreboarder, whose whole hull may be in touch with the ground, is actually at greater risk than, say, a bilge-keeler.

Not certain I know where that leaves us! Perhaps I'll go mad for catamarans, next...

 

[Seajet]

Catamarans are worse, they don't even sink neatly when holed, have to go all lopsided and make a drama out of it first.

 

[Barbican]

Very good point. I was dreamily superimposing dinghy-versatility onto bigger brethren, but as you say, centreboard access to shallow water doesn't mean those places are safe and suitable for parking a yacht.

A Southerly 28 was moored at the top of Bosham Channel in the 1980s...mostly soft mud up there, but also some old iron & broken timber. I suppose a centreboarder, whose whole hull may be in touch with the ground, is actually at greater risk than, say, a bilge-keeler.

Not certain I know where that leaves us! Perhaps I'll go mad for catamarans, next...

Yes even with a 10ft by 4ft cast iron shoe under the hull I would want to know what I was going to sit on, be it a sandy beach or muddy creek, but still think that a 3ft saving in depth is a benefit when going up some rivers, unless of course there is a 3ft swell! Same issue with cats I guess.

 

[Seajet]

The main time I get a great benefit from my lift keel - apart from the drying mooring which is delightful compared to a deep water job - is getting into marinas with sills or shallow entrances, greatly increases the arrival and departure window.

 

[Barbican]

The main time I get a great benefit from my lift keel - apart from the drying mooring which is delightful compared to a deep water job - is getting into marinas with sills or shallow entrances, greatly increases the arrival and departure window.

Yep good point - I hope it will make one of my favourite places viable, still got to check that!

 

[Tranona]

Unlikely. Sorry you found it tricky to understand, I'll try to spell things out more clearly for people without experience of lift keels ( and a strange idea of outboard wells ) in future.

OK Tranona we don't get on, that is established; now for everyone elses' sake try to restrain yourself and I'll do the same.

Just wondered why you were rambling on when the subject of the original thread was about the small rudder on older Southerleys which was answered earlier on, but got hijacked by Dan Crane with his usual question wanting to know why there were not more boats of that type about. Not sure you added to either of those points. Seemed to serve only to confuse, not improve on the previous answers to the original question, nor to Dan's supplementary.

But there you go, what do I know?

 

[Mistroma]

Yes even with a 10ft by 4ft cast iron shoe under the hull I would want to know what I was going to sit on, be it a sandy beach or muddy creek, but still think that a 3ft saving in depth is a benefit when going up some rivers, unless of course there is a 3ft swell! Same issue with cats I guess.

The S28 is a completely different beast and is more of a triple keeler with a centreboard. I can't remember exact details but seem to remember that the lifting part wasn't a proper keel (i.e a much lighter plate) and I don't think it had a grounding plate either. So the hull tended to sit clear of rocks in a similar fashion to bilge keel boats.

Drying out was never a problem in 23 years or so with S95 as I could almost always see the bottom long before contact was made (draft 1'10""). Only had problems with weight coming on to rudder once or twice. I mentioned earlier that this can bend the rudder swivel but it doesn't cause huge problems and is simple to fix.

Southerlies tend to dry out without any list even if on a slope. However, they do sit slightly nose up or down when that happens.

Far more comfortable than a friend's Anderson 22 when he first launched it. It was at a place called Blackness and it was a windless night. Jim sent to sleep early and the tide went out leaving the boat perfectly balanced with the heel bulb sitting in the mud. He rolled over in the bunk around 03:00 and after a few seconds was hurled across the boat.

No harm done and I don't think it ever happened again. I think it was an unlikely combination of perfect balance, calm water and thick mud with stones underneath. I think he loaded her to sit slightly to one side after that just to be safe.

I think that the S95s rudder arrangement is less likely to be damaged than the later twin rudder models. They aren't supported by skegs, there are twice as many, they are at an angle etc. So OP shouldn't worry too much about later Southerlies being above budget as earlier models with single lifting rudders are excellent boats (S95 and some S105s).

 

[Seajet]

Just wondered why you were rambling on when the subject of the original thread was about the small rudder on older Southerleys which was answered earlier on, but got hijacked by Dan Crane with his usual question wanting to know why there were not more boats of that type about. Not sure you added to either of those points. Seemed to serve only to confuse, not improve on the previous answers to the original question, nor to Dan's supplementary.

But there you go, what do I know?

Tranona,

at last you've hit the nail on the head; you don't know a fraction of what you seem to think you do.

Tell me again what your experience with lifting keels and rudders is, and throw in your experience with outboard wells, would you ?

If you bothered to read my posts instead of rushing for the reply button you might have noticed comparisons with Ovni rudders for a start.

I don't know Dancrane personally but he always asks good questions and has shown a knowledge of and attraction to good sailors' boats ( and I don't mean Anderson 22's in this case); asking about what might politely be termed 'others' seems fair enough to me.

Strange how several posters before you replied 'good point' after my 'ramblings'...