Sailing in F5/6

[geem]

I love this thread. One of the first honest threads in a long time (so far)?

 

[dunedin]

I guess one cold get some interesting feedback from the boats who did the recent Fastnet Race, which sounds like it was quite a tough and lengthy beat from Cowes to Lands End.
I doubt it was comfortable on any of the boats - sitting for 36 hours on the windward rail of anything wouldn’t be nice (although at least on the more modern boats the crew would be higher above the water - would need snorkels on a Contessa methinks).

In terms of sheer efficiency in getting to windward against brisk wind and waves, the fact that a modern French design, the JPK 11.80, again won IRC overall suggests modern hullshapes do make ground to windward quickly. And others on here would be better placed to sift through the detailed results, but I haven’t seen any signs that older designs did better than usual on handicap due to the long tough beat.

 

[capnsensible]

I guess I must be one of the few who have had both a contessa 32 and a pogo 2.

All the stereotypes totally true - contessa virtually never slams (but no faster in bad chop than the pogo).
Pogo slams badly upwind but blisteringly fast as soon as you drop away on the angles. And awful for accommodation

The only option is to own several boats to cope with all situations !

When we owned two yachts, we lived aboard our Moody 33 ocean crosser and we used our Jenneau 36.2 as our sailing school yacht, brilliant giant dinghy. ??

 

[Deleted member 36384]

My limited experience of a Bavaria Cruiser 44 beating to windward was that it needed power and had to be worked over waves in a short chop, but not in a normal sea, for the same wind strength.

I learned this beating from Loch Sween to Port Ellen, into about F4/5. There is a shelf at this area from 100m to 20m and you get the short chop on the shallow bit, and the normal waves in the deeper water. Initially we we were under canvassed and the slap was significant and then when a reef in the main was shaken out, the boat started to respond normally.

In the short chop the boat had to be worked like a dinghy, luffing up and bearing away to prevent slap. In the big seas she just sailed through the waves, with no slapping.

 

[Iliade]

I find beating to windward absolutely fine in F6. But that's because my 1981 Evasion34 has the rig of a 28' boat and points to windward like a lead compass. ?

Hence the iron topsail has just been used almost all of the way from and to the IoS with headwinds all the way both ways. At 30kt over the deck it was getting a little moist in the cockpit from time to time, but not enough to force us to retire into the wheelhouse. Dead into wind under power is very unpleasant in F6 despite a fairly softly rounded hull, especially if you allow the speed to creep up.

 

[DJE]

Don't understand why people are talking about motoring directly into the wind. Surely a well reefed main sheeted in hard and motor-sailing at 30 degrees to the wind would be much more comfortable in any boat.

 

[geem]

Don't understand why people are talking about motoring directly into the wind. Surely a well reefed main sheeted in hard and motor-sailing at 30 degrees to the wind would be much more comfortable in any boat.

You don't even need to be 30degs off the wind. Motoring with a hard sheeted main at 20degs vastly improved comfort?

 

[johnalison]

You don't even need to be 30degs off the wind. Motoring with a hard sheeted main at 20degs vastly improved comfort?

My preference is about 20 degrees to the true wind, with the main reefed to keep the angle of heel to below the 15 maximum that my engine allows. There are occasions where this is not possible though, as when we met an un-forecast blow when coming out of the Roompot and only a relatively narrow channel with 3-4 knots current under us. Sometimes you just have to soldier on.

 

[Laminar Flow]

Don't understand why people are talking about motoring directly into the wind. Surely a well reefed main sheeted in hard and motor-sailing at 30 degrees to the wind would be much more comfortable in any boat.

Mostly, because I can.

Quick example. We left Guernsey for Brehat/Trieux, some 50 miles to the entrance. Winds forcast fresh that morning to be F4 gusting 5 and from the South West; we would be close hauled. The winds turned out to be somewhat less than that, but we are happily plugging along at 5kts on a flat sea, when 15 - 16 miles out from Brehat we get a securite call over the radio: "storm force winds imminent". What is imminent we thought looking at a sunny clear sky? 15min later the wind shifted more easterly and in minutes I had gone through our entire reefing protocol with the gusts now well into a F9 and beyond. Even though the wind was blowing offshore and the fetch was quite short, within half an hour we had continuously breaking and two meter high lines of waves coming at us right from where we were heading.
Now I suppose one could have done the heroic thing and try tod slog our way there under sail ( at this point we were under stay'sl only, 1/7th of our SA) or, alternatively, heave to. On top of this it would be getting dark soon.

Instead we started the engine, struck all sail except for tiny bit of genny, the size of a beach towel, and motored straight into it. I assured my wife that the seas would diminish the closer we got to shore, or so I thought, but we were still being slapped silly when we were already well into the Trieux estuary. It was pitch dark by the time we reached the mid river ponton at Lezardriuex; the other boats tied up there were heeling some 30 degr. under bare rig.

We had some similar experiences during a late summer/fall adventure to the Baltic. To be able do that requires certain qualities in a boat: High, buoyant bows (ours are1.85m with some considerable flare), a deep forefoot to avoid pounding, a bit of weight to give you some inertia (8.5t) and a decent engine with about 6hp per ton (6.8hp/t).

 

[DoubleEnder]

I do think this is interesting.
I guess I was hoping that clever modern design would have addressed the issue: how can lighter more voluminous boats go to windward in disturbed seas? But from what everyone has said, that’s not really the case. The higher volume builders are making boats that are optimised for sunshine and light winds, but don’t go well to weather in anything other than smooth water. The high performance boats can win races, but probably by cracking off a bit and speeding up, and they require a lot of crew input.
It makes sense I guess. Physics is physics.

And people’s expectations are probably different, for a lot of different reasons.

Also, we do have much better weather forecasts these days, mostly. So the chances of getting caught out are less.

I think Tranona is right, there is limited demand for boats that can sail well in more demanding conditions so they aren’t built very much and the ones that are being built are probably not massively different from designs that date back decades.

hey ho.

what do you think? Nicholson 31, 32 or 35 hehehe?

 

[Nom de plume]

Going back to the OP's original question, I think that there are many more variables to be taken into account than just wind speed.
We have two sailing boats which, on the face of it, are chalk and cheese, and (to a degree) represent the two ends of the spectrum that the OP describes.
One is a 4.5 ton, open transom, 33' cruiser racer (when built 20 years ago) fin bulb keel, spade rudder. The other is a 62', 33 Ton, very fine entry classic that has never, ever slammed in the 11 years we have owned her (even in an 8 off Ushant).
But both have a range of operating states that can be deployed depending on circumstances - the lighter boat is usually better if kept moving with enough speed to 'skim' the wave tops when possible which not only reduces slamming but also stops the horribly inefficient stop/start combined with being blown off the wind, then back on, then off etc. Uncomfortable and slow! But of course there are limits to how hard you can push.
The bigger boat just goes through a 6/7 without so much as a bye-your-leave - sea spray yes but no green water on deck. But then it is often more efficient to just bang the donk on and do 9 knots straight into it without messing around with 30 Deg off intended course. It all depends on whether we are 'out for a sail' or wish to 'make progress'.
No right or wrong way, sailing, motor sailing, or pure motoring are all perfectly acceptable methods of propulsion - but I would hate to have my choices limited for me before I even set off - way too many variables to be taken into account before making hasty generalisations like that imho.

 

[Stemar]

What is this "sailing to windward" of which you speak?

Owner of a Snapdragon 24 with 28HP for 18 years, and now owner of a Catalac with twin diesels

More seriously, suitably reefed main and just far enough off the wind for the main to be happy was the best option on the Snapdragon. Progress under sail to windward in anything more than about 20 knots just wasn't going to happen.

 

[johnalison]

I do think this is interesting.
I guess I was hoping that clever modern design would have addressed the issue: how can lighter more voluminous boats go to windward in disturbed seas? But from what everyone has said, that’s not really the case. The higher volume builders are making boats that are optimised for sunshine and light winds, but don’t go well to weather in anything other than smooth water. The high performance boats can win races, but probably by cracking off a bit and speeding up, and they require a lot of crew input.
It makes sense I guess. Physics is physics.

And people’s expectations are probably different, for a lot of different reasons.

Also, we do have much better weather forecasts these days, mostly. So the chances of getting caught out are less.

I think Tranona is right, there is limited demand for boats that can sail well in more demanding conditions so they aren’t built very much and the ones that are being built are probably not massively different from designs that date back decades.

hey ho.

what do you think? Nicholson 31, 32 or 35 hehehe?

The later generation of boats have much finer entries that those of 20 yrs ago. Whatever their other failings, this is a great advantage when going to windward, under power or sail or both. Many of them seem to sit 'on' the water rather than 'in' it and in brisk conditions this can be remarkably effective as they seem to brush the waves aside rather than plough through them, as far as my observations of them go.

 

[geem]

The later generation of boats have much finer entries that those of 20 yrs ago. Whatever their other failings, this is a great advantage when going to windward, under power or sail or both. Many of them seem to sit 'on' the water rather than 'in' it and in brisk conditions this can be remarkably effective as they seem to brush the waves aside rather than plough through them, as far as my observations of them go.

Not sure I would agree on modern boats have finer entries. They certainly have a flatter. Forefoot than older designs. They slam instead of pitch.
The entry on our Van de Stadt is fine and fairly common on a Van de Stadt as they have always been a more performance oriented design house.
Our most memorable recent foray to windward was last June crossing the pond West to East with 48 hrs of headwinds over 20kts True, gusting up to 28kts. Two reefs in the main and full working jib. Not pleasant at all. No slamming but a lot of wave impact on the hull sides as we were well healed in about a 2-2.5m chop.
No option to motorsail so you just get on with it.
Hard to sleep but when you get tired enough in it does happen.

 

[Laminar Flow]

While entrance angles are influenced much by the flavour of the day, it is a fact that the divergent wave system leaves the hull at an angle of 19degr 28'.
Notably, my tub, which according to the design brief had her entry angles refined, has the same entrance angle as a Sagitta 35 (SS 34) which is 19 1/3 degr.

I sailed a R. Clark 43 some 1500 miles to windward upon leaving the Hawaiian Islands and while she did not slam, she did sail at startling angles of heel which made living aboard, well, interesting. Her waterlines at the bow were remarkably blunt, in the old British cod's head mackerel tail tradition, yet the long bow overhang kept most of the wet of the decks. It should be noted that the length beam ratios at the time of her conception were much higher than they currently are and this provides a lot less frontal projection and, given the displacements at the time, a much higher water plane loading, which in turn equates to comfort.

Also, the IOR creations had extremely pinched ends, fostered by the rules which led to very fine bows and narrow sterns with fat bellies (eagerly adopted by the cruising crowd) and bred a whole crop of boats with poor behaviour, especially downwind.

If one were to simply extend the current wedge shapes to have a more "traditional" form, I suspect one would find that entry angles are no finer than what one is used to and one could argue that the current variants just have more bow in relationship to their length/beam.

Meanwhile, now that we have given up optimizing windward performance, we have ocean-going blunt-ended racing scows that must just be hell going to weather in anything of a chop and for those who like sailing with a tooth guard and a helmet, the French now offer cruising versions, lauded for their remarkable interior volume in any given length.
Traditional Dutch working craft have super bluff bows and these boats, gaff rig, lee boards and generous displacement not withstanding, will happily put to shame, and on any point of sail, many of their pointy ended, modern sisters... in flat water that is.

 

[geem]

While entrance angles are influenced much by the flavour of the day, it is a fact that the divergent wave system leaves the hull at an angle of 19degr 28'.
Notably, my tub, which according to the design brief had her entry angles refined, has the same entrance angle as a Sagitta 35 (SS 34) which is 19 1/3 degr.

I sailed a R. Clark 43 some 1500 miles to windward upon leaving the Hawaiian Islands and while she did not slam, she did sail at startling angles of heel which made living aboard, well, interesting. Her waterlines at the bow were remarkably blunt, in the old British cod's head mackerel tail tradition, yet the long bow overhang kept most of the wet of the decks. It should be noted that the length beam ratios at the time of her conception were much higher than they currently are and this provides a lot less frontal projection and, given the displacements at the time, a much higher water plane loading, which in turn equates to comfort.

Also, the IOR creations had extremely pinched ends, fostered by the rules which led to very fine bows and narrow sterns with fat bellies (eagerly adopted by the cruising crowd) and bred a whole crop of boats with poor behaviour, especially downwind.

If one were to simply extend the current wedge shapes to have a more "traditional" form, I suspect one would find that entry angles are no finer than what one is used to and one could argue that the current variants just have more bow in relationship to their length/beam.

Meanwhile, now that we have given up optimizing windward performance, we have ocean-going blunt-ended racing scows that must just be hell going to weather in anything of a chop and for those who like sailing with a tooth guard and a helmet, the French now offer cruising versions, lauded for their remarkable interior volume in any given length.
Traditional Dutch working craft have super bluff bows and these boats, gaff rig, lee boards and generous displacement not withstanding, will happily put to shame, and on any point of sail, many of their pointy ended, modern sisters... in flat water that is.

Interesting. My yacht designer friend says that modern vertical stem designs tend to have move volume in their bow area to compensate for the lack of reserve buoyancy that is common on older designs with large overhangs.

 

[Nom de plume]

While entrance angles are influenced much by the flavour of the day, it is a fact that the divergent wave system leaves the hull at an angle of 19degr 28'.
Notably, my tub, which according to the design brief had her entry angles refined, has the same entrance angle as a Sagitta 35 (SS 34) which is 19 1/3 degr.

I sailed a R. Clark 43 some 1500 miles to windward upon leaving the Hawaiian Islands and while she did not slam, she did sail at startling angles of heel which made living aboard, well, interesting. Her waterlines at the bow were remarkably blunt, in the old British cod's head mackerel tail tradition, yet the long bow overhang kept most of the wet of the decks. It should be noted that the length beam ratios at the time of her conception were much higher than they currently are and this provides a lot less frontal projection and, given the displacements at the time, a much higher water plane loading, which in turn equates to comfort.

Also, the IOR creations had extremely pinched ends, fostered by the rules which led to very fine bows and narrow sterns with fat bellies (eagerly adopted by the cruising crowd) and bred a whole crop of boats with poor behaviour, especially downwind.

If one were to simply extend the current wedge shapes to have a more "traditional" form, I suspect one would find that entry angles are no finer than what one is used to and one could argue that the current variants just have more bow in relationship to their length/beam.

Meanwhile, now that we have given up optimizing windward performance, we have ocean-going blunt-ended racing scows that must just be hell going to weather in anything of a chop and for those who like sailing with a tooth guard and a helmet, the French now offer cruising versions, lauded for their remarkable interior volume in any given length.
Traditional Dutch working craft have super bluff bows and these boats, gaff rig, lee boards and generous displacement not withstanding, will happily put to shame, and on any point of sail, many of their pointy ended, modern sisters... in flat water that is.

I'd be interested to hear why you chose the boat (hull) that you did - perhaps 5 main reasons or so??

 

[Laminar Flow]

I'd be interested to hear why you chose the boat (hull) that you did - perhaps 5 main reasons or so??

Well. to be fair, in much the same way as one might end up with a child when expecting it the least, but you still learn to love it and bring it up to be a balanced and well performing adult.

We had really been looking for a boat to simply get us a cross the Channel and into the nearest French canal. A roof over our heads seemed a sensible solution at the time, as did the ability to motor against river currents, combined with shallow draft and sufficient displacement to comfortably carry the amount of junk and tools we tend to collect.

Alas, ambitions change and we decided we still liked sailing too much and to postpone the canal business to a later date and explore the European coast line instead.

Unfortunately, as designed our CW didn't really sail all that well even though ours already had 1/3 more SA than the standard model. Her worst feature was by far her steering which under sail could be most charitably described as sluggish and unreliable in as much as the rudder would stall out at the least provocation and leave us without steerage and, at times, dangerously so.

We could have sold her then, but by that time I had already invested a fair bit of effort into her and we loved the pilothouse. I have designed and built a number of boats, including a 50' o.D twin engine & rudder, lifting keel cruising cutter and have sailed and worked on a fair variety of other types. I was not ready to give up and I was sure I could, at the very least, improve her and this is exactly what we did.

So, while I can't say we chose her for specific qualities, I can say, and to some degree quantify in numbers, which of her evolved qualities I like or have grown to appreciate and how they compare to other types I have sailed.

1) Seaworthiness. She has to be the driest boat I have ever sailed on. I used to joke that the only way to get water on her decks was with a bucket, Having driven her into the face of a F8 with breaking seas, I'm ready to modify that statement somewhat to say we've never had solid water on deck. She has an extremely buoyant hull with high freeboard and tall flaired bows. The flair will increase resistance in high waves to slow us down, but we have never ever put her nose through a wave, which is more than I can say for any other type I have sailed on and not for want of trying either. We have really put her through the wringer on many occasions and she has never disappointed our trust or given us any concern. Her motion, due to her bouyancy can be a bit lively at times. Downwind however, she is remarkably stable and rolls very little, even when driven hard under spinnaker and at or above hull speed. I have sailed another, by a famous designer that would roll through a 100degr at the drop of a hat.

2) Shallow draft. I have to confess, I am a bit spoiled in this respect. My 50 footer drew 1.2m with the keel up - I took her through the French canals and visited harbours in the Baltic where the next largest boat was 26' long. At 1.34m with our current boat we were still able to revisit some of those places a couple of years ago. With a lateral plane of 12.9% of SA she still has enough area under water to ensure reasonable progress to weather. As lift is a function to the square of the speed, it helps to keep her moving briskly.

3) Stability. Compared to other motorsailers of her type she has rather firm bilges and lots of beam. Combined with a ballast ratio of 37% she can carry a, for a 31.5' footer, large SA up to a F6. AVS, providing the green house is still there when that happens and we managed to close the door, should be in the neighbourhood of 180 degr.

4) Directional stability. We have a traditional long keel with a fair degree of drag and a deep forefoot. She is directionaliy quite stable without requiring a lot of attention at the helm. Our ancient & somewhat lethargic first generation wheel pilot has no problem keeping course downwind and in a steep quartering sea. Having fairly well balanced ends with decent bouyancy and a centre of lateral plane that is slightly behind the CoG helps.

5)Speed. This may appear to be an oxymoron in context of a Colvic Watson, but we seem to do alright. We now have a SA/displ ratio of 17.8. and the boat has a prismatic coefficient of 0.6 which shows that her optimum relative speed is 1.25 or in our case about 6.6kts. The comparison to a more common CP of 0.54 shows that at this speed our resistance is about 15% less. In practice we have found that we frequently, average 6 kts on passage as indeed we did over 210 miles and even 6.8 kts over 70 miles. There is a penalty for a high CP, of course, and that is at low speeds and when going to weather with a blunt(er) nose.

6) Displacement ... is the real measure of the size of a boat and there is no doubt that weight provides the necessary inertia to counter the effects of the sea and to render them (more) benign. It also provides the volume to load her up for cruising. And of course, you get to pay for that in ultimate speed over and above traditional hull speed.

 

[johnalison]

Not sure I would agree on modern boats have finer entries. They certainly have a flatter. Forefoot than older designs. They slam instead of pitch.
The entry on our Van de Stadt is fine and fairly common on a Van de Stadt as they have always been a more performance oriented design house.
Our most memorable recent foray to windward was last June crossing the pond West to East with 48 hrs of headwinds over 20kts True, gusting up to 28kts. Two reefs in the main and full working jib. Not pleasant at all. No slamming but a lot of wave impact on the hull sides as we were well healed in about a 2-2.5m chop.
No option to motorsail so you just get on with it.
Hard to sleep but when you get tired enough in it does happen.

If you look at the current offerings, the entries are much finer than the Oceanis/Bavs of the early 2000s, where the forward sections were filled out for more accommodation. Other changes do include a shallow or absent forefoot, plumb bows and very wide sterns but at least the entries look kinder than of old.

 

[Nom de plume]

Well. to be fair, in much the same way as one might end up with a child when expecting it the least, but you still learn to love it and bring it up to be a balanced and well performing adult.

We had really been looking for a boat to simply get us a cross the Channel and into the nearest French canal. A roof over our heads seemed a sensible solution at the time, as did the ability to motor against river currents, combined with shallow draft and sufficient displacement to comfortably carry the amount of junk and tools we tend to collect.

Alas, ambitions change and we decided we still liked sailing too much and to postpone the canal business to a later date and explore the European coast line instead.

Unfortunately, as designed our CW didn't really sail all that well even though ours already had 1/3 more SA than the standard model. Her worst feature was by far her steering which under sail could be most charitably described as sluggish and unreliable in as much as the rudder would stall out at the least provocation and leave us without steerage and, at times, dangerously so.

We could have sold her then, but by that time I had already invested a fair bit of effort into her and we loved the pilothouse. I have designed and built a number of boats, including a 50' o.D twin engine & rudder, lifting keel cruising cutter and have sailed and worked on a fair variety of other types. I was not ready to give up and I was sure I could, at the very least, improve her and this is exactly what we did.

So, while I can't say we chose her for specific qualities, I can say, and to some degree quantify in numbers, which of her evolved qualities I like or have grown to appreciate and how they compare to other types I have sailed.

1) Seaworthiness. She has to be the driest boat I have ever sailed on. I used to joke that the only way to get water on her decks was with a bucket, Having driven her into the face of a F8 with breaking seas, I'm ready to modify that statement somewhat to say we've never had solid water on deck. She has an extremely buoyant hull with high freeboard and tall flaired bows. The flair will increase resistance in high waves to slow us down, but we have never ever put her nose through a wave, which is more than I can say for any other type I have sailed on and not for want of trying either. We have really put her through the wringer on many occasions and she has never disappointed our trust or given us any concern. Her motion, due to her bouyancy can be a bit lively at times. Downwind however, she is remarkably stable and rolls very little, even when driven hard under spinnaker and at or above hull speed. I have sailed another, by a famous designer that would roll through a 100degr at the drop of a hat.

2) Shallow draft. I have to confess, I am a bit spoiled in this respect. My 50 footer drew 1.2m with the keel up - I took her through the French canals and visited harbours in the Baltic where the next largest boat was 26' long. At 1.34m with our current boat we were still able to revisit some of those places a couple of years ago. With a lateral plane of 12.9% of SA she still has enough area under water to ensure reasonable progress to weather. As lift is a function to the square of the speed, it helps to keep her moving briskly.

3) Stability. Compared to other motorsailers of her type she has rather firm bilges and lots of beam. Combined with a ballast ratio of 37% she can carry a, for a 31.5' footer, large SA up to a F6. AVS, providing the green house is still there when that happens and we managed to close the door, should be in the neighbourhood of 180 degr.

4) Directional stability. We have a traditional long keel with a fair degree of drag and a deep forefoot. She is directionaliy quite stable without requiring a lot of attention at the helm. Our ancient & somewhat lethargic first generation wheel pilot has no problem keeping course downwind and in a steep quartering sea. Having fairly well balanced ends with decent bouyancy and a centre of lateral plane that is slightly behind the CoG helps.

5)Speed. This may appear to be an oxymoron in context of a Colvic Watson, but we seem to do alright. We now have a SA/displ ratio of 17.8. and the boat has a prismatic coefficient of 0.6 which shows that her optimum relative speed is 1.25 or in our case about 6.6kts. The comparison to a more common CP of 0.54 shows that at this speed our resistance is about 15% less. In practice we have found that we frequently, average 6 kts on passage as indeed we did over 210 miles and even 6.8 kts over 70 miles. There is a penalty for a high CP, of course, and that is at low speeds and when going to weather with a blunt(er) nose.

6) Displacement ... is the real measure of the size of a boat and there is no doubt that weight provides the necessary inertia to counter the effects of the sea and to render them (more) benign. It also provides the volume to load her up for cruising. And of course, you get to pay for that in ultimate speed over and above traditional hull speed.

I can empathise with much of what you say and your thought processes - we wrestle with many of the same issues.

We know that age will soon push us back towards the European canal system (and perhaps the US Great Loop) but we are trying to hang on for a few more years true sailing - as much for the exercise and keeping our bodies flexible as anything else.

Blue water stuff is probably in our wake now (though I do get the occasional pang) and issues like slamming, roll motion etc. are now more of an essential issue for us rather than the 'nice to have' issue that they were before.

We have done pretty much every French canal and river plus about 50% of the German system and once did a 7,000 mile great loop as far as Yugoslavia, Istanbul, and back up through France so I understand perfectly your comment about having sufficient power (we often stood still for hours at full throttle in the Seine / Rhone etc). Ditto shallow draft.

Our next big venture brings into play all of the points you raise - Up via the Irish Sea, Scotland and thence to the Lofoten Islas, back down through Norwegian Fjords (but with the inescapable offshore headlands to encounter) - then down to the Swedish canals and into the mainland European system. Probably our last hurrah.

Our existing offshore boat will munch the deep water bits (33 ton and 9 knots average) but at 2.85 m draft she isn't going into the canals!
I've bought an ex lifeboat (45.6 Watson) which with her 2 x diesels and I meter draft will do all of the trip - but do we want to motor all the way to Lofoten? (22 tons and watertight but she rolls like a pig).

Do we swap boats half way? A modern awb would be great in the fjords / inland passages with slamming not an issue.
I suppose I'd better make some decisions and get on with it - due to set off next May. I used to be decisive, honest.
(sorry for the slight thread drift).