traditional long-keeled yachts are the most intrinsically seaworthy.

Is there any scientific facts used in the article or is it just old foggies spouting old prejudice?

Contrary facts include much higher drop out, and total loss , rates in Golden Globe old long keelers than Vendee Globe carbon swing keel and centreboard boats. Perhaps going too slow risks more rollovers - and deep keels more prone to trip and flip when caught side on, whereas thin keel boats stall and slide sideways.

And entry and completion lists of ARC and World ARC suggest differently
 
Dunedin - I think you would need to show some results and evidence. Also there is a big difference between some long keeled yachts and others, just as between fin keelers.

I think that comparison with light weight carbon fibre fully crewed yachts for example isnt relevant simply because I think this discussion is usually about couples or families wishing to blue water cruise and what works in this type of mixed fleet. Of course you would buy a fin keeler to romp across the Atlantic with 8 beefy blokes, you would expect you might break a carbon light weight racer if you push it hard, and you would expect a modern light weight fin keeler to potentially scare a typical couple if you throw enough weather at it. So, again it is all about compromise. The evidence is you will find it very very difficult to break an IP for example whatever you do to it. In fact I would go as far as to say it is almost impossible. The same is true of a Vancouver and many others. Beneteaus are great boats but again the evidence is they are less tolerant and it is not impossible to break them.
 
Last edited:
dunedin said:
Is there any scientific facts used in the article or is it just old foggies spouting old prejudice?

Contrary facts include much higher drop out, and total loss , rates in Golden Globe old long keelers than Vendee Globe carbon swing keel and centreboard boats. Perhaps going too slow risks more rollovers - and deep keels more prone to trip and flip when caught side on, whereas thin keel boats stall and slide sideways.

And entry and completion lists of ARC and World ARC suggest differently
Click to expand...

Ah, but I think there is an important difference: it is well within the means of quite a lot of people to buy and run a 40 year old long keel boat. Even when one considers the costs of re-rigging, installing a wind vane, and a new suit of white sails, the outlay involved is not an unimaginable figure for the typical yachtsman. By contrast, I think I'm right in saying that most carbon fibre race boats in the Vendee or similar efforts are well up in the high hundreds of thousands or millions of pounds.

They are therefore usually sponsored—possibly with some exceptions. The selection pressure involved means that a lot of very highly skilled and competitive sailors, most of them relatively youthful and very physically fit, end up racing. By contrast, though I don't know the average age of the GGR entrants, I wouldn't be surprised if it was over 60.

I will hypothesise that this year has been (even) worse than average for weather in this sort of race, and use this to justify a bit of shameless cherry picking.

VG 1992-3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendée_Globe#1992–1993 7 finishers, 7 DNF, 1 DNS (fatal). Two deaths due to bad weather overcoming boats in this race; problems included rigging, loss of rudder.

VG 2008-9: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendée_Globe#2008–2009 12 finishers, including one who was dismasted; 18 DNF due to structural failure, broken bones, rigging failure, rudder failure, keel failure (x2 including capsize without recovery near Cape Horn), failed laminate mainsail, faulty autopilot.

VG 2016-7: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendée_Globe#2016–2017 18 finishers, 11 DNF due to dismasting, foil failure, UFO, rigging failure, keel damage/failure.

By this metric, GGR 2018: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Golden_Globe_Race#The_race
(still in progress—they are certainly slower...)
5 in running still/finished. 1 DNS. 11 DNF, of which 3 retired for personal reasons/"fouling growth on hull" (once again probably not a problem in the Vendee). 1x stopped but now in the running again.
Wiig: dismasted, sailed to Cape Town under jury rig. McGuckin: abandoned. Tomy: rolled, dismasted, seriously injured. Abandoned. Goodall: dismasted, abandoned. Lepage: rigging failure, abandoned.
(so 4 dismasted, 3 due to rolls). 3 broken wind vane/other retirements, all under their own steam.

I don't think it is fair given these figures to claim a "much higher drop out and total loss" rate—not sure about total loss in a hull sense, but one must also bear in mind the relatively much lower value of GGR boats from an insurance perspective if that's what you mean by total loss.

Of course, one could argue that in all these cases the crews were racing, so this is not reflective of cruising sailing—but if one is going for a frank assessment of seaworthiness in often extreme conditions, I am not entirely convinced that there's a massive case either way. The modern yachts can evade heavy weather better with their superior speed and weather routing, but of course the GGR boats were not using weather routing in the modern sense anyway—so perhaps it's not a fair comparison. Given that effectively the ratio of retirements due to the boat giving up (as distinct from the crew getting fed up—fair as that might be) in the GGR is about the same as has been seen historically in the VG, one is tempted to ask whether a short-handed (e.g. couple or s/h) cruising boat is not better off with a more classical design of boat, which almost everyone seems to agree will behave better when sailed passively in heavy weather.

If asked whether I would rather circumnavigate with a hearty and reasonably youthful crew in a fast fin keeler or a slow long keeler, I would probably favour the former, my own curious inclinations about aesthetics notwithstanding. In reality, though, I'm not sure this scenario fits many people who have this discussion. I sail pretty much exclusively fin + bilge or fin+bulb keeled yachts in a coastal/light offshore setting, but on, say, an F40.7—a medium-displacement cruiser/racer, one is aware that going upwind for an extended period in a F7 might take two people on the helm, and another ready to dump the traveller. In a more traditional boat? Set the wind vane, reef well down, and pop the kettle on. You'll be going significantly slower and not pointing as well, but if you avoid making mistakes due to fatigue, it might just be safer. However, if most of your sailing is done in F2-6 and is coastal/light offshore, how often is this going to happen vs getting in dog tired because you've been sailing at 4kn instead of 8 all day?

I suppose my second point is that sailing round the world non-stop single-handed is not without its hazards, pretty much whatever boat you pick... the fast boats seem to manage a similar accident rate in a third of the time, but of course if you've done the job in that time, so be it!

Sorry, that became a very long post: I thought this was an obvious red rag when I first saw it, and I was right!

Regards
William
 
Last edited:
Yeah hopefully we are all the swain’s of what we buy. I have however at least tried to be balanced in my comments.it works for me for my intended sailing for now, on another occasion for a different mission it wouldnt work. I would have hoped that came across and sorry to put you to sleep ��
 
weustace said:
Ah, but I think there is an important difference: it is well within the means of quite a lot of people to buy and run a 40 year old long keel boat. Even when one considers the costs of re-rigging, installing a wind vane, and a new suit of white sails, the outlay involved is not an unimaginable figure for the typical yachtsman. By contrast, I think I'm right in saying that most carbon fibre race boats in the Vendee or similar efforts are well up in the high hundreds of thousands or millions of pounds.

They are therefore usually sponsored—possibly with some exceptions. The selection pressure involved means that a lot of very highly skilled and competitive sailors, most of them relatively youthful and very physically fit, end up racing. By contrast, though I don't know the average age of the GGR entrants, I wouldn't be surprised if it was over 60.

I will hypothesise that this year has been (even) worse than average for weather in this sort of race, and use this to justify a bit of shameless cherry picking.

VG 1992-3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendée_Globe#1992–1993 7 finishers, 7 DNF, 1 DNS (fatal). Two deaths due to bad weather overcoming boats in this race; problems included rigging, loss of rudder.

VG 2008-9: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendée_Globe#2008–2009 12 finishers, including one who was dismasted; 18 DNF due to structural failure, broken bones, rigging failure, rudder failure, keel failure (x2 including capsize without recovery near Cape Horn), failed laminate mainsail, faulty autopilot.

VG 2016-7: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendée_Globe#2016–2017 18 finishers, 11 DNF due to dismasting, foil failure, UFO, rigging failure, keel damage/failure.

By this metric, GGR 2018: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Golden_Globe_Race#The_race
(still in progress—they are certainly slower...)
5 in running still/finished. 1 DNS. 11 DNF, of which 3 retired for personal reasons/"fouling growth on hull" (once again probably not a problem in the Vendee). 1x stopped but now in the running again.
Wiig: dismasted, sailed to Cape Town under jury rig. McGuckin: abandoned. Tomy: rolled, dismasted, seriously injured. Abandoned. Goodall: dismasted, abandoned. Lepage: rigging failure, abandoned.
(so 4 dismasted, 3 due to rolls). 3 broken wind vane/other retirements, all under their own steam.

I don't think it is fair given these figures to claim a "much higher drop out and total loss" rate—not sure about total loss in a hull sense, but one must also bear in mind the relatively much lower value of GGR boats from an insurance perspective if that's what you mean by total loss.

Of course, one could argue that in all these cases the crews were racing, so this is not reflective of cruising sailing—but if one is going for a frank assessment of seaworthiness in often extreme conditions, I am not entirely convinced that there's a massive case either way. The modern yachts can evade heavy weather better with their superior speed and weather routing, but of course the GGR boats were not using weather routing in the modern sense anyway—so perhaps it's not a fair comparison. Given that effectively the ratio of retirements due to the boat giving up (as distinct from the crew getting fed up—fair as that might be) in the GGR is about the same as has been seen historically in the VG, one is tempted to ask whether a short-handed (e.g. couple or s/h) cruising boat is not better off with a more classical design of boat, which almost everyone seems to agree will behave better when sailed passively in heavy weather.

If asked whether I would rather circumnavigate with a hearty and reasonably youthful crew in a fast fin keeler or a slow long keeler, I would probably favour the former, my own curious inclinations about aesthetics notwithstanding. In reality, though, I'm not sure this scenario fits many people who have this discussion. I sail pretty much exclusively fin + bilge or fin+bulb keeled yachts in a coastal/light offshore setting, but on, say, an F40.7—a medium-displacement cruiser/racer, one is aware that going upwind for an extended period in a F7 might take two people on the helm, and another ready to dump the traveller. In a more traditional boat? Set the wind vane, reef well down, and pop the kettle on. You'll be going significantly slower and not pointing as well, but if you avoid making mistakes due to fatigue, it might just be safer. However, if most of your sailing is done in F2-6 and is coastal/light offshore, how often is this going to happen vs getting in dog tired because you've been sailing at 4kn instead of 8 all day?

I suppose my second point is that sailing round the world non-stop single-handed is not without its hazards, pretty much whatever boat you pick... the fast boats seem to manage a similar accident rate in a third of the time, but of course if you've done the job in that time, so be it!

Sorry, that became a very long post: I thought this was an obvious red rag when I first saw it, and I was right!

Regards
William
Click to expand...
To be far to the IP or any other long keeler, its not a racing yacht. It doesnt need eight hairy arsed sailors to cross an ocean. Its a cruising boat. In the same F7 where you would have two on the helm and somebody to dump the main. The IP would have a husband and wife. Thats what cruising boats are for so making comparisons about what you would do with your 7 hairy arsed mates is of little relevance.
 
I think the phrase being missed here - as far as my skip-reading can tell - is ' seakindliness '.

For survival at sea a light, fast fin keeler can respond better to waves, and indeed if practical get to port much faster before bad weather hits.

However she will need a lot more attention and effort to sail, so really needs a large-ish crew.

A long keeler will look after her crew of one or two, stressing them less.

It has long been obvious that the Colin Archer school of ' built like a tank ' does not really work in severe conditions;

see ' Tzu Hang ' in the classic Once Is Enough by Miles Smeeton - a big, lovely boat but they got very nearly sunk twice.

Nowadays Volvo racers skim round Cape Horn at 20 knots plus.

Snag is the racers have big, fit crews to stand watches.

So for a man and wife blue water crew the long keeler still seems the better choice, not ' more seaworthy ' just ' more suitable '.
 
Last edited:
>The trouble with the OP is the definition-or lack of-the term "Seaworthy"

Having sailed a heavy displacement steel ketch with a long keel and a cutaway forefoot it didn't turn into wind in a gust, broach or surf. Also with a strong wind gust it would start to heel then stand up so we never got the toe rail anywhere near the water, I would call all that seaworthy. Other boats can do all of that.
 
KellysEye said:
>The trouble with the OP is the definition-or lack of-the term "Seaworthy"

Having sailed a heavy displacement steel ketch with a long keel and a cutaway forefoot it didn't turn into wind in a gust, broach or surf. Also with a strong wind gust it would start to heel then stand up so we never got the toe rail anywhere near the water, I would call all that seaworthy. Other boats can do all of that.
Click to expand...
I would call that under canvassed.....
 
geem said:
I would call that under canvassed.....
Click to expand...


What was often referred to as a boats stability or ability to stand up to its sail plan was a 20:20 boat ie it carried all plain sail in 20Knts of true wind and heeled 20°. That effectively described my Vancouver 34.
 
geem said:
To be far to the IP or any other long keeler, its not a racing yacht. It doesnt need eight hairy arsed sailors to cross an ocean. Its a cruising boat. In the same F7 where you would have two on the helm and somebody to dump the main. The IP would have a husband and wife. Thats what cruising boats are for so making comparisons about what you would do with your 7 hairy arsed mates is of little relevance.
Click to expand...

I think that was exactly what I said: the more traditional boat is probably easier to sail in heavy weather. That was not necessarily the point of the discussion, though: I replied to a post which claimed to make a comparison of the Vendee and the GGR, one in state-of-the-art ocean racers, one in aged cruisers, and both with the same number of crew. Given that each yacht crossing the finish line in these races has covered tens of thousands of miles of ocean sailing, we can hope that they have been exposed to a realistic blend of ocean conditions. The result appears to be that the loss rates are not that different—so if one is talking merely about survival rates, maybe there isn't as much in it as certain people would have us think :)
 
weustace said:
I think that was exactly what I said: the more traditional boat is probably easier to sail in heavy weather. That was not necessarily the point of the discussion, though: I replied to a post which claimed to make a comparison of the Vendee and the GGR, one in state-of-the-art ocean racers, one in aged cruisers, and both with the same number of crew. Given that each yacht crossing the finish line in these races has covered tens of thousands of miles of ocean sailing, we can hope that they have been exposed to a realistic blend of ocean conditions. The result appears to be that the loss rates are not that different—so if one is talking merely about survival rates, maybe there isn't as much in it as certain people would have us think :)
Click to expand...
I think issue on this post is that people interpret it as my lightweight AWB is every bit as good a long keel boat for ocean sailing. I might be wrong. My view is that I dont think that it the case. I dont have a long keel boat but I have sailed on them. I dont have a lightweight fin keel boat but I have sailed on many. Given a full gale 1000nm from land I would choose the heavy long keel boat over the lightweight fin and spade rudder boat simply for comfort. A gale can be very uncomfortable but a kindly sea motion will see you better rested, better fed, less stressed amd better able to deal with issues as they arise. I sail a heavy displacement deep fin and skeg yacht that I beleive offers similar benefits in terms of sea motion to a longkeel design but also ensures we have good windward performance. Having our c of g lower than a full keel design means we carry a taller mast and we can stand up to our canvas better. Every boat is a compromise and people choose them for their own reasons and intended use. We chose ours and have never regreted it
 
Resolution said:
I started sailing with a Folkboat with an inboard engine, about forty years ago. With your outboard, what speed to windward can you manage in a short choppy sea?
Click to expand...

I've an inboard also, it's a boot and braces set-up that I've gone for. I've a 6hp inboard, that really needs all of the help that it can get from the Honda, so we can do 4.5kts in calm sea, and haven't been troubled into a chop when mooring for example. The Honda has had an 'extra' section added to the shaft, which was already the long shaft version to prevent cavitation. With the Honda alone on the flat she'll do 3.8kts, but struggles in any sea or wind.
 
geem said:
Every boat is a compromise and people choose them for their own reasons and intended use. We chose ours and have never regreted it
Click to expand...



And there you have it-a perfect reply.

Brent Swain has sailed for 40 years in his home made origami steel boat and never required a refrigerator.

I would not get First Mate aboard without one. And the washing machine-have I mentioned the washing machine...................................
 
rotrax said:
And there you have it-a perfect reply.

Brent Swain has sailed for 40 years in his home made origami steel boat and never required a refrigerator.

I would not get First Mate aboard without one. And the washing machine-have I mentioned the washing machine...................................
Click to expand...

Haha, yes. We have just purchased a second refrigerator. We took the washing machine out but we do have a high speed spinner,
 
rotrax said:
And there you have it-a perfect reply.

Brent Swain has sailed for 40 years in his home made origami steel boat and never required a refrigerator.

I would not get First Mate aboard without one. And the washing machine-have I mentioned the washing machine...................................
Click to expand...

Perfect:encouragement::D
 
Just_sayin' said:
ip485.

The Brent Swain of his marque of boat :sleeping:
Click to expand...

I dont very often say this but that is the most pointless comment I have read in sometime.

It is a shame when threads dont flow with relevant contributions and digress to rather pointless digs. I do like my yacht, but, as I said, I like and have sailed everthing from 505s, Boss, Fireballs 49ers, Moths (that one was real fun) to pedigree Ocean racers. I dont say that as a boast, just to point out that I have enjoyed the experience of everyone in a different way.

So please lets not get involved in stupid digs.

Please forgive me for being so blunt and I am sure you didnt mean to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top