Vancouver 28 vs 32 handling

[Tranona]

I am continuously amazed by folk with very strong opinions about long-keeled boats, regardless of the fact that they have obviously never sailed one.

That is simply not true. Many here have owned and sailed a variety of boats and speak from experience. If you are of mature years and started sailing early then almost certainly long keel boats will have featured in your sailing life simply because they were the norm 50 years ago.

It is not about having strong opinions, but about recognising the differences in characteristics in relation to the type of use . There is a reason why heavy displacement long keeled boats are no longer made and that is because later designs are almost always better according to buyers of new boats. This does not mean that old boats cannot be satisfactory for some people, but it is nonsense to claim that they are superior or even as some do that they are the only type suitable for particular types of usage.

 

[Laminar Flow]

To be clear, I have never claimed that long keels are invariably superior. The point I am making is that the sky is not falling if you own or fancy one, as others like to point out or that heavy boats are "always" slower. That is factually not true, in particular when the latter is provided with a respectable SA/D.

Perhaps we should initiate a survey, to ascertain who actually has some practical experience sailing a long-keel, traditional design? Surely, not everyone here is old enough to have been around when Noah launched the ark. I do seriously doubt that everyone on this forum and who has an opinion on long keels, whether neophyte or salt back, has actually sailed one, or sailed one long enough, far enough and in every weather to give some weight to their point of view.

People buy what the market offers, at a price they can afford and when the offering meets their immediate need. Not everyone wants/needs to cross an ocean and most boats currently built fit that bill.
People also sail with what is at hand, starting with good ol' Josh Slocum. Alas, decrepit, old oyster smacks are currently at a premium. However, run of the mill, flat-bottomed, sea-going dinghies with a short, barely stuck on keel ('cause they're cheaper to build that way, unless they hit a rock in the Baltic)) and a hull so flexible they pop out their windows in a storm, they are a-plenty.

The new breed of cruising boat are now the expedition types. In the "mini" version they measure some 40', are gimmick free, for the most part, and seek to combine comfort with seaworthiness and shallow draft. None are cheap and none are of light displacement. Koopman, a renowned Dutch designer made it clear: For a proper cruising boat you are looking at 1 ton per meter.

Fact is too, that the smaller the boat the greater the proportionate burden for cruising stores and equipment becomes.
When, as I recently saw on another forum, someone who claims to be a naval architect is plugging his 26' scow bow, plywood design, displacing a mere 1500 kg as a "mini" expedition yacht, it becomes clear that that such claims are complete BS.
Fact is, that the average load for long term or distance cruising for one or two people, is in the neighbourhood of 1.5t - 2t. when all is said and done. Most contemporary designs in and around the 30' mark would struggle with that kind of load: structurally, in hull and rig and, additionally, in terms of performance.

There are many reasons why changes in design are made, not all of them are for technical purpose, nor, and all too often, for any rational ones either. Such as when they stick "chines" on bread 'n' butter cruisers (because racers have 'em) and tell the customers it gives them "better grip" going to weather. Seriously.
One could also argue the worth, in practical terms, of a cruising design that requires a refit to the staggering tune of six figures when making ground contact at the modest speed of 3 kts. That is truly something a long keel is better at.

For those wanting a more sober view of purported progress, I can recommend a video by the German magazine "Die Yacht" where they compare tree generations of designs and their behavior in a seaway: a long keel Vindo 40, an older Halberg Rassy with a moderate keel and skeg rudder and, finally, a Sun Odyssey 29 with a proper flat bottom, wide stern, high aspect spade rudder and fin with a bulb.
Not to put too fine a point on it: the Sun Odyssey came out dead last on all points and courses steered. In fact, the semi professional yacht testers had trouble preventing the poor thing from rounding up uncontrollably and keeping it on course. Conclusion: moderation in all things and a long keel is definitely and by some margin not the worst. The video is in German, but the tenor is pretty self-explanatory and well within the language skills acquired by the geriatric consumers of "Dad's Army" or "Hogan's Heroes" (for our North American contingent).

Easy to confuse marketing with progress, I suppose.

 

[Chiara’s slave]

Yet that is not borne out in racing handicaps. Not that speed necessarily matters for long term cruisers, why the argument is ever made is confusing to me. My long keeler is a slug. I make no bones about it. You don’t buy a V to go fast, you buy it because it’s like your favourite old armchair, and because it’s a proven design. It will look after you as well as any boat can when the chips are down.

 

[geem]

Yet that is not borne out in racing handicaps. Not that speed necessarily matters for long term cruisers, why the argument is ever made is confusing to me. My long keeler is a slug. I make no bones about it. You don’t buy a V to go fast, you buy it because it’s like your favourite old armchair, and because it’s a proven design. It will look after you as well as any boat can when the chips are down.

Agreed. Speed in a long distance cruiser doesn't come at the top of the list for most people. Comfort, ease of handling and seaworthyness would be higher up the list than all out speed. For this reason, comparing a long distance cruiser with a race boat doesn't work. Modern cruiser design tries to emulate modern race boat design. It always has to some degree. Look at the likes of some boats from the 70s and 80s that copied the pinched transom of IOR race boats.
If you take a modern twin rudder, flat bottomed cruisers from any of the French builders and kit it out for long term ocean cruising, there are many short comings. Too many bunks and not enough storage. Too small fuel tankage so cans on deck. Too wide a cockpit so moving across it in foul weather is dangerous. Galley in the saloon so impossible to cook safely at sea in anything other than flat calm. Tankage under the bunks instead of under the floor so even less space for storage, swept back spreaders so trade wind sailing can't make good use of the main. Poor shelter in the cockpit. Twin steering wheels in the aft most corner of the boat so helmsman fully exposed to weather. Flat bottom hull shape pounds to weather.
When you choose these boats and load them up, they have such high wetted area that they lose any potential speed benefits. A couple of tonnes of kit or more on long distance cruising boats would not be uncommon.
Most people don't buy these modern boats to cruise long distance.
Some people harp on about them being OK because lots of people do it but they don't. There are vastly more people cruising on older boats than new ones. We have just left an anchorage on the west coast of La Gomera. There is no marina. 21 boats and not a single modern cruising yacht at anchor other than catamarans. It's just one example but why spend good money on a modern cruiser that is the perfect holiday boat but not ideal for long distance cruising.
The ARC is an exception. It encourage people with such boats to cross the pond in the nice direction. It's amazing how many get shipped back.

 

[Chiara’s slave]

Even our tri is comfortable and dry compared to some modern designs. And it’s a bullet, upwind. Not that I turn down an opportunity to sail a modern fat bottomed boat when it’s offered, I’d take that over a trip on our friends Vancouver any day, for a solent race, or just a blast. Personally I’d choose a multi for long term cruising, but I quite understand why others make different choices.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

One should look at the conception and evolution of the Vancouvers.
The 27 was designed by Robert Harris specifically for a trans pacific voyage for a couple from Canada to New Zealand ( might have been Australia). It proved successful and the plans were taken up by a number of builders notably Pheon in the UK who produced many and developed the 4 berth layout for the 274. They applied to Harris to use the name and basic design for the 32 and started to produce those. They were taken over by Northshore in the mid 80s and it was Northshore that stretched the 27 by adding an extra foot to the stern, the interior remained the same as did the cockpit. Northshore produced the 34 and 32 with pilot house version of the 34, I believe there was an attempt to convert a 32 to a pilot house but didn't progress. Then came the 36 which was a radical departure from the previous boats and for my money the best boat they produced. They reverted to the classic lines of the 32 /34 with the last of the line the 38 which again for my one was the worst of the line ( a bit of a dog)
They were all encapsulated keels initially lead but a few 32s and 34s were iron and dragged their stern so they reverted to lead and moved the ballast slightly forward.
Tankage is under the floors with the exception of the fuel tank which was stainless and under the cockpit floor.
Early yachts were fitted with Bukh engines later Yanmar, all came with a fixed prop which later owners changed when feathering props became reasonably priced like the Kiwi which was quite popular.
All had a proper hanging locker and either an icebox or fridge ( insulation was poor) The U shaped enclosed galley was to port and had plenty of work surface, handholds and stowage.
I don't agree with comments that the smaller ones were gloomy ( if you want gloomy look no further than the Rivals) The saloon was two settee/ berths some especially the 27s and 28s had pipe cots. From the 32 onwards there was a quarter berth behind the excellent chart table to starboard. The best berth on the boat.
Massive amounts of stowage either in the forepeak (27 128s) or under the berths / settees and galley.
Up to the 32 all had a transom hung rudder and carried a little weather helm ( no bad thing IMO) The 34 saw the introduction of wheel steering although a few were made with tillers mainly for Joint Services yachts. On the 34 the keel was extended to support the bottom of the rudder and full length skeg in a bronze or stainless shoe. Removing the propshaft can be difficult.
The rig is massive with fore and aft lowers negating the need for runners although some 27s and 28 had them. The chain plates pass through the deck with the opening covered by a stainless plate, anyone buying should look at these for water ingress and the plates themselves which are bolted to knees that are glassed into the hull ( at least one of these has been known to fail. Staining can sometimes be seen evidencing leaking through the chainplate holes in the deck. ( look for bodges with silicone)
The boats will generally carry all plain sail up to 20 knots of true wind forward of the beam, just beginning to dip the lee rail, the 27 and 28 were more tender than the 32 onwards yachts. They begin to get into their stride at 12 to 14 knots of true wind when they are a joy to sail behaving as if on rails. I used a Hydrovane on my 34 and it never had a problem. The 27 I had a GP 4000 tiller pilot with again no problem. The 34 onward was ideally suited to the Lewmar Mamba drive linking in with the Lewmar Mamba pedestal and rod linkage.

I could go on but you can guess that I liked the boats and still think they have a place in sailing.

 

[Supertramp]

They begin to get into their stride at 12 to 14 knots of true wind when they are a joy to sail behaving as if on rails.

This is very true and the biggest difference compared with lighter boats. In 9 knts of wind, my heavy, undercanvassed long keel is sluggish and easily outsailed. For each knt of wind between 10 and 15knts I gain at least 1/2knt of speed. Once at 15knts I am at 5-6 knts. I can carry full sail up to 25knts but there is little speed gain. Its a very forgiving way to sail, especially in gusty conditions, albeit at the expense of using more engine in light winds.

Great for longer, passage-type sails, not so good relative to other configurations for racing or day sailing.

Its a question of how you want to sail, not which is "best".

 

[Outlander]

btw. there is a Vancouver27 no 1 for sale, very unique layout I must admit.

https://yachts.apolloduck.co.uk/boat/vancouver-27-for-sale/800641

 

[steve yates]

There’s a rather attractive Vancouver 27 for sale here with windvane and a bow thruster for 20k.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

There is no need for a bow thruster on a 27, it would be embarrassing.

 

[Chiara’s slave]

There is no need for a bow thruster on a 27, it would be embarrassing.

For the 30 seconds when it might be useful, that’s a lot of drag to sail across an ocean with. There’s no need to make your Vancouver slower.

 

[Tranona]

For the 30 seconds when it might be useful, that’s a lot of drag to sail across an ocean with. There’s no need to make your Vancouver slower.

Fit a feathering propeller to more than offset any speed loss. However like most owners of Vancouvers and the like getting in and out of berths is far more important as they will never go serious long distance sailing.

 

[RobbieW]

Fit a feathering propeller to more than offset any speed loss. However like most owners of Vancouvers and the like getting in and out of berths is far more important as they will never go serious long distance sailing.

But they dream of it which is mostly the point. Having owned both a V28 and a Rival 41, the Vancouver is more manoeuvrable backwards.

 

[Laminar Flow]

the Vancouver is more manoeuvrable backwards.

Which is a result of the greater distance between the CLR of the rudder versus the keel's on the Vancouver. Which underlines the point that not all long keel boats are the same.
On the Vancouvers, the rudder, even though connected by a strut, is essentially a separate entity.

I have sailed on a V 27 and it didn't appear overly onerous to back her out of the tight slip, get her pointed in the right direction and all without sinking half the marina.

 

[Chiara’s slave]

Fit a feathering propeller to more than offset any speed loss. However like most owners of Vancouvers and the like getting in and out of berths is far more important as they will never go serious long distance sailing.

Cynical, but probably true. But you could fit the feathering propeller and not cut a horrible hole in the front of your boat.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

Fit a feathering propeller to more than offset any speed loss. However like most owners of Vancouvers and the like getting in and out of berths is far more important as they will never go serious long distance sailing.

Cynical, but probably true. But you could fit the feathering propeller and not cut a horrible hole in the front of your boat.

As I said earlier quite a few Vancouver owners started to fit feathering props when the Kiwi prop hit the market and was a reasonably priced option. It was more prompted by the small increase in speed than anything else.
A surprising number of original owners used to sail reasonable distances if not trans ocean certainly down to Spain and Portugal each year or North to the more remote parts of the UK and further.

 

[Chiara’s slave]

If I didn’t have a lifting outboard to power my boat, I would absolutely fit a feathering prop. We spent 4k on a code zero to go a bit quicker reaching, the prop would make as much difference probably..

 

[Tranona]

That may be true of some original owners who bought the boats specifically for that type of use just as around 35 people who bought GH31s in their heyday took them across the Atlantic but the majority have never ventured far away from UK and N European waters. Kiwi props are a bit old hat now and Featherstreams are arguably the best choice. I have never seen any real evidence that a bow thruster tunnel increases passage times under sail, but plenty that show a feathering prop reducing passage times by typically 10% as well as often improving motoring performance

 

[doug748]

For the 30 seconds when it might be useful, that’s a lot of drag to sail across an ocean with. There’s no need to make your Vancouver slower.

Quite so, people lumber small boats with all sort of hopeless stuff like gantries on the back, furling mainsails, excessive canvass work and then end up motoring about unless conditions are perfect.

 

[Tranona]

Quite so, people lumber small boats with all sort of hopeless stuff like gantries on the back, furling mainsails, excessive canvass work and then end up motoring about unless conditions are perfect.

Agree with much of that except adding furling mainsails as I don't think anybody does that with small boats now. They may have done 30 years ago, but furling mains are mostly now fitted as original in boats designed for them.