There's no such thing as ... .

[Uisteach]

There\'s no such thing as ... .

Proposition:

There’s no such thing as an old-fashioned cruising boat.

When people say traditional designs are old-fashioned, what they really mean is that they are unfashionable. For most people today space is more important than sailing characteristics.

?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Evadne]

Re: There\'s no such thing as ... .

My old fashioned boat is a fairly heavyweight cruising boat today, but when she was built she was a modern, lightweight racing boat.
Bit like me, now I come to think of it.

I've always thought that fashions are things that make no material difference to the boat's abilities, but are preferred by the owner, as distinguished from innovations which make life better. "Old fashioned" indicates a dearth of both.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Uisteach]

Re: There\'s no such thing as ... .

I take your point, the thinking behind racing design changes rapidly as technology develops, but I was thinking more about cruising. Is it also true for cruising designs?

I've noticed that whenever questions are raised about cruising boats - such as the one about the Contessa 32 a few days ago, and others about Tradewind's and such - then very successful designs are frequently dismissed as "old-fashioned" on the basis of contemporary ideas about space, light wind performance, manoeuvrability under engine etc. If, instead, sea-keeping, comfort, sea-worthiness and strength are seen as important then do we need to look any further than Colin Archer and 18th century work boats?

So, the question was really about whether cruising boats being disregarded as being old-fashioned are really merely unfashionable?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ChrisE]

Re: There\'s no such thing as ... .

Ok, I'll rise to the challenge. I reckon that part of the reason we don't talk about modern cruisers and now I'm talking about world-girdlers not channel hoppers is that:

a. there aren't that many world-girdlers who subscribe to this board (most are out there w-g ing)
b. the modern designs that incorporate the innovations you talk of are way outside the pocket of most. Compare the cost of a modern 40 footer of channel hopping abilities, say a Bav, about £80k from memory with that of a new ocean going 40 footer, say a Bowman, a Najad or HR at about £250k.

So, we end up with talking about cruisers that are channel hoppers where arguably seaworthiness, tracking, resilience, etc is not as important as room down below and ease of marina parking, or MABs which we can afford and don't have many of the innovations.

This is not an attempt to wind up anybody, apart from jimi and his yoghourt pot, just my thoughts.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[snowleopard]

fashion...

or fitness for the purpose?

today's boats deliver a given amount of space in a smaller and lighter package. a traditional boat with the accommodation of today's 35 footers would be nearer 50 foot and 25 tons rather than 5, with all the massive gear to drive that amount of hardware through the water. it would take 3 or 4 fit men to work the gear, quite beyond the capabilities of a 'mature' husband & wife.

the older style will give a more comfortable ride though probably a lot wetter (low freeboard) in heavy weather offshore but how often will you need that for weekend sailing and the occasional cross-channel dash?

those who plan long distance cruises in high latitudes still choose heavy scantlings but what percentage of the sailing population are they?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Uisteach]

Re: fashion...

I take your points, but there's something else that's often missed. We learned in a typical modern 42 footer and it was a pig, but we didn't know it at the time. Slammed in any kind of sea and no matter how much sail was set any gust would have it rounding up into the wind, anything big then it was virtually unmangeable (reef down you say - then outside the gusts you'd hardly move - sails needed working with all the time). Others of the same type, just the same. When we bought our own we bought a traditional long keeler and couldn't believe the difference. It was child's play - like having suspension even in the biggest seas. And tracked like a dream and in gusts leaned over a bit more and then accelerated. It was more fun and much less tiring on long days.

I think that even for coastal cruising the traditional design has something to offer that may not be obvious to people new to sailing who when asking about, say, Contessa's may be too quickly discouraged from the obvious benefits by claims that they are cramped and old-fashioned.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Evadne]

Re: fashion...

People buy their boats for different reasons, but I think one way of looking at the design components puts them into two broad categories. One is "convenience", which is what the crew want from the boat in the way of accomodation, headroom, galley space etc.. The other I'd call something like the laws of hydrodynamics, or performance, which is making the boat do her job (of sailing) as well as possible. If you take either extreme then you don't get a boat that is very good for cruising.
Cruising design is about compromise, and a boat that has the perfect family accomodation but makes everyone so seasick that you have to motor everywhere, is as useless as the ocean greyhound that gets you there double-quick, but is so cramped that the family won't go sailing with you.
I agree that some people will often reject the older designs more out of prejudice than knowledge, but the loss is theirs. I'm also aware that most parents have to take their childrens' requirements into account, in order to get the family to sea at all.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Robin]

I\'m not going to answer.....

......someone who is so ashamed or embarassed by his (or her) own choice of boat that they have a blank bio.



<hr width=100% size=1><font size=1>Sermons from my pulpit are with tongue firmly in cheek and come with no warranty!</font size=1>

 

[sailorman]

Re: There\'s no such thing as ... .

<------------<<<<<<<<< Old Fasioned racing Boat
but she still "Turns Heads" entering harbour & will stand any weather
( dont push it too fast down-hill with spinnaker)
room of a modern 34 footer with small galley
u can keep yer soap dishes

<hr width=100% size=1>Nil iligitmo carborundum

 

[bbilly]

Re: There\'s no such thing as ... .

<<When people say traditional designs are old-fashioned>> do people say this?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Uisteach]

Re: There\'s no such thing as ... .

I thought everyone knew what my boat was.

And do they say that? Maybe only to me, and who could blame them - or in code about cramped, dated, slow, heavy, can't reverse it (not "marina friendly" to the English), comparative comments about "modern" designs.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[sailorman]

Re: There\'s no such thing as ... .

wot boat yer Bio just states " regular" regular @ wot time???.

<hr width=100% size=1>Nil iligitmo carborundum

 

[tome]

Re: There\'s no such thing as ... .

You're not a mad viking lady with a Colin Archer named Svelte are you?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Sybarite]

Re: There\'s no such thing as ... .

<< I thought everyone knew what my boat was. >>

See your profile...!

John

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[alec]

Re: I\'m not going to answer.....

Why is it so necessary to be so rude ?



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Robin]

Why is it rude.....

........to say I won't answer?

This is a post (troll?) designed to drag out all the old arguments and prejudices.

Uisteach has made similar posts before, under the guise of asking a question implying an interest in perhaps purchasing various boats and asking for opinions on them.

All this whilst remaining anonymous and without saying what boat he (or indeed she) owns himself (or indeed herself).

So why should it be rude to expect to hold a discussion on equal terms? My bio is pretty comprehensive, some like yours and Uisteach's are blank. For some posts the information is irrelevant to any reply, but in others, and this IMO is one, it is very relevant, so no info = no answer from me.



<hr width=100% size=1><font size=1>Sermons from my pulpit are with tongue firmly in cheek and come with no warranty!</font size=1>

 

[Uisteach]

Re: Why is it rude.....

Do I really want to reply to this, and get drawn into some meaningless exchange? No, it’s pointless. But, then again, you have me between a rock and a hard place; if I don’t say something then people may think you have a point.

Well, so be it. It doesn't really matter.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Robin]

Equal terms...

Why is it a pointless exchange (or in Alec's view rude) to ask to debate on equal terms? As I said to Alec, background information isn't relevant in order to respond to some posts but it is to some and IMO this is one of them.

All the people who have replied so far to your post, with the notable exceptions of yourself and Alec, have information in their bios about their boats.

<hr width=100% size=1><font size=1>Sermons from my pulpit are with tongue firmly in cheek and come with no warranty!</font size=1>

 

[charles_reed]

Re: Equal terms...

Well said Robin. And I'd suggest, going farther, those with incomplete bios should be prevented from initiating posts.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[snowleopard]

Re: empty profiles

there's a thread running on this topic on PBO.

i think we should respect those who are wary of giving identificatiable information about themselves on a public forum and the discussion would generally be the poorer if they were excluded from taiking part.

the rest of us on the other hand are entitled to treat their contributions with scepticism. it's not unreasonable to treat those with empty profiles who post links to commercial sites as spammers or those who are aggressive as trolls.

<hr width=100% size=1>