Very engaging Youtube interview with Dick Beaumont on what makes a Bluewater boat

[Kelpie]

Actually the Oyster one was well above the transition between materials - the GRP to keel joint was lower down and looked to be fully intact, albeit sadly no longer attached.

But on your other point, not sure how easy or indeed safe it would be to engineer a keel to survive any grounding impact - without very serious injuries to crew and the rest of the boat. Like a car, which is designed to deform to protect the occupants.
Hitting granite with a solid keel at even 2 knots is a huge deceleration -throwing crew off their feet (ask me how I know !). Hitting granite at 10 knots, which most decent sized cruising boats can do, results in the crew being flung everywhere inside and outside the boat - and generally interior structures getting busted, as well as underwater stuff. Just watch a few of the Tjorn Runt videos, of boats hitting Swedish rocks with spinnakers up to get a sense of it.
Some Swedish boats have crash / crumple zones on their keels, like old Volvos, to try to reduce the damage in slow impacts. But these need repair afterwards, just cheaper repair.

But any serious rock impacts will usually need to be a lift and repair, which is fair enough. (Very different in the gentle transition between muddy water and watery mud in some softer, literally, locations.)

I hit a rock whilst trying to cut a mark in a round the cans race, 6kt+, in my little Vega. Had to get the gelcoat filler out that winter but no other damage.

There's a famous video of a Dehler being driven at speed in to rocks by the manufacturer as a promo to show how tough it was.

It's perfectly possible to design and built boats which will withstand a full speed impact.

 

[Barnacle Bill]

Great interview, I was hooked and watched the whole thing.

(I'm surprised he wasn't asked about the anchor though ...?)

 

[Sandy]

(I'm surprised he wasn't asked about the anchor though ...?)

I suspect he would say a big rock on some old tarred twine would do.

 

[Laminar Flow]

I hit a rock whilst trying to cut a mark in a round the cans race, 6kt+, in my little Vega. Had to get the gelcoat filler out that winter but no other damage.

There's a famous video of a Dehler being driven at speed in to rocks by the manufacturer as a promo to show how tough it was.

It's perfectly possible to design and built boats which will withstand a full speed impact.

I agree that it is and should be possible to design a boat that will withstand a grounding within it's speed and load parametres.

The Dehler test was done by the German magazine Die Yacht. The only realistic and relevant event of the test was when they did actually run the boat onto the rocks and at hull speed. That was 20 years ago and the boat model at the time was some ten years old at least. By current definition it was a MAB, Yet, while we are assured that contemporary designs have greatly evolved and are better engineered, I do not see any current manufacturers rushing to emulate this test.

 

[Kelpie]

I agree that it is and should be possible to design a boat that will withstand a grounding within it's speed and load parametres.

The Dehler test was done by the German magazine Die Yacht. The only realistic and relevant event of the test was when they did actually run the boat onto the rocks and at hull speed. That was 20 years ago and the boat model at the time was some ten years old at least. By current definition it was a MAB, Yet, while we are assured that contemporary designs have greatly evolved and are better engineered, I do not see any current manufacturers rushing to emulate this test.

Yes after I posted that, I looked up the video and I stand corrected.

I think the idea that hitting a solid object with the keel causes instantaneous deceleration is flawed. In practice the boat will pivot as it trips on its keel, and the bow will dip. The water will absorb a good chunk of this motion and thus spread out the time taken to fully stop.
In my little incident I just rose up and scraped over the top of the rock, so not much actual loss of speed. I'm not advocating it as a racing tactic though ?

 

[zoidberg]

I guess it depends on the buyers risk assessment regarding intended use. .

I found the discussion genuinely interesting and many of the points resonated with me.

I listed Dick Beaumont's 7 essential - and very interesting - points, and discovered I have 8 out of 10 of them in my little ol' Cutlass 27. I can't do the centre cockpit, nor the keel stepped mast. Come to think of it, I can't do the big gen-set either....

But, I should have well over £1,000,000 left over for mai-tais and cuba libres!

 

[Koeketiene]

I listed Dick Beaumont's 7 essential - and very interesting - points, and discovered I have 8 out of 10 of them in my little ol' Cutlass 27.

 

[zoidberg]

Consider the title of the Y'tube video, then watch it and count/list all the 'Essential Points' he makes.... as I did.

I was paying close attention.... but you knew that, didn't you?

 

[flaming]

I agree that it is and should be possible to design a boat that will withstand a grounding within it's speed and load parametres.

To a point...

If your boat is going to sail around at hull speed or less, then yes it should be quite possible to design something to withstand a full stop from hull speed. But once you want your boat to sail really well, the loads of a full stop will shoot up. But at the same time weight becomes your biggest enemy.

This is of course partly why yards such as Pogo often specify swing keels, as this allows them to engineer in crash mitigation to the swinging mechanism, as well as helping to tackle the other compromise with greater performance - that of draft...

The reality is that the vast majority of AWBs have what I would call a pretty low aspect ratio, rather stubby, keel and would probably shrug off a grounding from hull speed. I know my Dad's old Dufour 40 did for example... But when you have a high aspect ratio keel, it is not a zero maintenance item, as unfortunately they are often treated as.

 

[lustyd]

But, I should have well over £1,000,000 left over for mai-tais and cuba libres!

Sorry but by 2022 you're going to have to choose between a mai-tai and cuba libre if all you have is £1.000.000...

 

[Laminar Flow]

To a point...

If your boat is going to sail around at hull speed or less, then yes it should be quite possible to design something to withstand a full stop from hull speed. But once you want your boat to sail really well, the loads of a full stop will shoot up. But at the same time weight becomes your biggest enemy.

This is of course partly why yards such as Pogo often specify swing keels, as this allows them to engineer in crash mitigation to the swinging mechanism, as well as helping to tackle the other compromise with greater performance - that of draft...

The reality is that the vast majority of AWBs have what I would call a pretty low aspect ratio, rather stubby, keel and would probably shrug off a grounding from hull speed. I know my Dad's old Dufour 40 did for example... But when you have a high aspect ratio keel, it is not a zero maintenance item, as unfortunately they are often treated as.

For a boat to be capable of achieving speeds above "hull speed" and with any kind of consistency, it needs to be light. To be able to plane in any kind of normal weather, it needs to be very light. Of course, the lighter the boat the less the impact energy.

Firstly, that takes most active cruising boats out of the equation. Secondly, and in this context, I'm quite happy to exclude racing craft from the equation, since, for all intents and purposes, they are specialty craft. The argument that racing craft too can run aground is much like contending that a formula 1 racer might get into trouble by taking a short cut over the grass meridian.

It is an unnecessary affectation of cruising designs, during which activity goundings are far more likely to occur, to emulate performance features of racing craft. Shorter roots on deep keels are an engineering challenge. I would hardly call it a "maintenance" issue when a cruiser with such "aspirational" features hits the bottom and knocks the entire reinforcement grid loose to the tune of tens of thousands of pounds.

As this thread revolves around the Kraken concept, or at least was initiated by it, and in the context of a 45t, 60 odd footer, we are definitely not talking about racing craft, never mind ones that plane.

 

[zoidberg]

Consider the title of the Y'tube video, then watch it and count/list all the 'Essential Points' he makes.... as I did.

I was paying close attention.... but you knew that, didn't you?

As mentioned, I listed each of the points Dick Beaumont stressed during his 2-part interview. I found them interesting.....
Some 'essentials' I readily could agree. Others, not so. Here's what I noted, in rough precis form.

1. Integral keel, not bolted on
2. Robust protected rudder
3. No gas on board
4. Thick hull layup
5. Deep protected centre cockpit
6. All sail-handling from cockpit
7. Concave toerails for bracing against
8. Keel stepped mast
9. Excellent right moment/AVS
10. Ability to heave-to easily

I keep in mind that these reflect Dick's 'essentials' for an optimum blue-water boat. You and I might list more, less or other priorities.
Of course, views will vary. What are yours?

 

[Kelpie]

Did he discuss drive type at all? I was situated not to see shaft drive with moulded log on that list.
Also crash bulkheads, but that's been mentioned already.

Btw I just watched the latest Millennial Falcon video from onboard the yacht. It certainly goes very nicely. The detailing around the deck fillers was pretty clever. If that attention to detail is carried on through the whole boat I am certainly warming to it

 

[dom]

As mentioned, I listed each of the points Dick Beaumont stressed during his 2-part interview. I found them interesting.....

9. Excellent right moment/AVS

What are yours?

As a matter of interest what is the AVS for their 50', 58', and 65' yachts?

Not a trick question,

Edit: comparing the Kracken to similar boats, I'd guess the AVS to be in the perfectly acceptable - but par for the course - 125 - 130 degree range.
Would nevertheless be interesting to know.

 

[flaming]

It is an unnecessary affectation of cruising designs, during which activity goundings are far more likely to occur, to emulate performance features of racing craft. Shorter roots on deep keels are an engineering challenge. I would hardly call it a "maintenance" issue when a cruiser with such "aspirational" features hits the bottom and knocks the entire reinforcement grid loose to the tune of tens of thousands of pounds.

Ah see, what you're doing there is taking how you like to go cruising, and then extrapolating to assume that all people who like to go cruising like to go cruising the same way you do....

There are currently in production a surprisingly large number of boats that have been specifically designed for Ocean cruising which are quite capable of planing. They are immensely popular, to the point where the wait to get a build slot for a Pogo, which is by far the most well known name in this sphere, is several years. So quite clearly not everyone who wants to cross oceans by sail for fun wants to do so at hull speed. If I had the money and desire to take off long distance sailing, it's to this sort of boat that I'd be looking, I've sailed enough miles in fast boats to be aware of the drawbacks as well as the positives of such a boat.

Which is the only real issue I have with the video in the OP, it's a pretty good list if what you want is a big heavy boat, as following that list is going to lead to a big heavy boat... Something like that Kraken funnily enough! And I actually agree entirely that if you're going the big heavy route, you might as well go for the encapsulated keel etc for full peace of mind. A bolt on keel in a boat with an all up weight of an elephant driving a steam roller is a little pointless. Except of course that it's quite a lot cheaper to build a boat that way.... How much is an encapsulated keel really worth to the customers? You're not going into volume production with a keel like that....

The list is however a bit redundant if you want to sail a different way with a lighter boat, lower loads, higher speeds and less "stuff".

But, if you do choose the light displacement way, and especially with a fairly high aspect ratio fixed keel, you need to understand that heavy groundings are serious events. That doesn't make the boat unsuitable for cruising, at least for the vast majority of the planet, it just makes the approach different. And I think the vast majority of people choosing these boats understand and accept that, as with any part of yacht design it is a compromise. And interestingly most of this type of boat are being designed with swing keels as standard, which can help a lot in groundings, both in helping to avoid them in the first place whilst entering indifferently charted shallow ports and using the hydraulics to mitigate damage for the even more unplanned ones....

It's the middle ground, occupied by the vast majority of today's production cruisers that my comment about the keel not being a maintenance free item really referred to though. Far, far too many people who own boats with bolt on keels have never touched them or inspected them after a heavy grounding.
The performance gains by having such a keel below a medium displacement AWB are not trivial compared to a pretty full encapsulated keel on the same boat. And neither is the cost differential. And to be honest, as I said before, the keel hanging below the latest Bavaria or Oceanis is not anything I'd call high aspect ratio. I'd call it pretty dumpy. And as such I'd expect such boats to survive pretty hard groundings basically unscathed, and frankly to be engineered to do so.
But, the idea that after a "full stop" grounding the boat does not need to be inspected very carefully is worrying.

 

[Laminar Flow]

Judging by your comments, I must assume that both your ocean sailing and cruising experiences are limited. Besides, and in my experience, the edges of the oceans are much more dangerous.

I too would expect an average boat to walk away from a grounding, apparently that is not a given and I never suggested not to investigate the structure if one does.

Any one who suggests that a lifting keel presents some form of immunity to grounding damage or has a better chance of surviving an impact has simply no clue as to the technical challenges of lifting keel design, never mind the rather delicate nature of the lifting mechanisms, hydraulic or otherwise. I was involved in the design of a 5t hydraulic lifting keel for a 50' boat.
There has been at least one Pogo that sunk when their swing keel failed and dropped out of the bottom.

To think that you can load up a Pogo 30 for cruising , have a crew, sufficient supplies and water with a margin for safety, relevant survival gear and personal effects and then plane the thing across an ocean is simply naive for it's lack of realism.
Whatever my idea of cruising may be, making an ocean passage is the smallest part of it and most folk are not into the asceticism of perennial camping when they arrive at the other side and when the actual part of cruising begins.

 

[dom]

Judging by your comments, I must assume that both your ocean sailing and cruising experiences are limited. Besides, and in my experience, the edges of the oceans are much more dangerous.

I too would expect an average boat to walk away from a grounding, apparently that is not a given and I never suggested not to investigate the structure if one does.

Any one who suggests that a lifting keel presents some form of immunity to grounding damage or has a better chance of surviving an impact has simply no clue as to the technical challenges of lifting keel design, never mind the rather delicate nature of the lifting mechanisms, hydraulic or otherwise. I was involved in the design of a 5t hydraulic lifting keel for a 50' boat.
There has been at least one Pogo that sunk when their swing keel failed and dropped out of the bottom.

To think that you can load up a Pogo 30 for cruising , have a crew, sufficient supplies and water with a margin for safety, relevant survival gear and personal effects and then plane the thing across an ocean is simply naive for it's lack of realism.
Whatever my idea of cruising may be, making an ocean passage is the smallest part of it and most folk are not into the asceticism of perennial camping when they arrive at the other side and when the actual part of cruising begins.

Only you mentioned a Pogo 30 in this context; Flaming may have been referring to a Pogo 50 for all you know.

Either way, afraid you went straight for the man there not the ball LF, while creating an imaginary strawman to attack.

What was the point of that?

 

[flaming]

Judging by your comments, I must assume that both your ocean sailing and cruising experiences are limited. Besides, and in my experience, the edges of the oceans are much more dangerous.

I too would expect an average boat to walk away from a grounding, apparently that is not a given and I never suggested not to investigate the structure if one does.

Any one who suggests that a lifting keel presents some form of immunity to grounding damage or has a better chance of surviving an impact has simply no clue as to the technical challenges of lifting keel design, never mind the rather delicate nature of the lifting mechanisms, hydraulic or otherwise. I was involved in the design of a 5t hydraulic lifting keel for a 50' boat.
There has been at least one Pogo that sunk when their swing keel failed and dropped out of the bottom.

To think that you can load up a Pogo 30 for cruising , have a crew, sufficient supplies and water with a margin for safety, relevant survival gear and personal effects and then plane the thing across an ocean is simply naive for it's lack of realism.
Whatever my idea of cruising may be, making an ocean passage is the smallest part of it and most folk are not into the asceticism of perennial camping when they arrive at the other side and when the actual part of cruising begins.

I really hope you have a beard, a big bushy grey one. I picture you with a captain birdseye beard tutting at lightly built boats and naive sailors.

You'd be right that my Ocean crossing experience is limited, but my living aboard for months at a time cruising experience certainly isn't. It's only in the last 10 years or so that the amount of racing I do outweighed the cruising.
Dom is quite correct that I certainly don't consider a Pogo 30 as an Ocean cruiser, although I am aware of plenty that have in fact crossed oceans. Here's one that crossed the Atlantic at an average speed of 6.5 knots, and would you look at that footage of them planing at 15 knots. And then sitting at between 8 and 9.3 knots (on a boat with a hull speed a shade under 7 knots) on what looks like a pretty smooth sea.... (5 min mark, and no I don't like the music either) And recording a 24 hour run at an average of 7.9 knots. But no, you said it can't happen, so it's obviously fake.

The 1250 is more what I had in mind when thinking about long distance cruising in this sort of boat. You know, the one that I showed you a video before that showed an Atlantic crossing at an average VMG (not bsp) of about 7 knots, despite calm periods. The 50 does look amazing though.

These people enjoyed their Atlantic crossing in a 1250. I don't think too many Kraken boats will do 12 knots downwind in 13 knots of breeze.... Note the loaded displacement of 7500kg.
World Cruising Club
Or these guys (second article)
Five very different Atlantic crossing experiences - Yachting World
Now I fully, fully understand that there are plenty of people who will read the description of how they sailed the boat and think"nope, not for me". And that is fine. It's more than fine, it's great! Sailing is such an incredibly broad church. But equally there are people (like me) who read descriptions of twin headsails and good daily runs of 120 miles in a 40 footer and think, "God, how dull".
And of course once you get to the other side, another beauty of these boats is quite how much deck space and interior space they have for their length. Which, if I recall my cruising days correctly, is largely considered to be a bonus when it comes to the comfort of living on board.

I honestly have no idea whatsoever why the very existence of boats like this seems to exercise you so much. Or why my comments do. The only reason I even came into this thread was to point out that if you design boats like this, then you cannot expect them to shrug off collisions like others will, and that this is part of the compromise - but that the Kraken man's list is only one definition of what makes a good long distance cruising boat, and a good number of people are looking at the options and choosing fast boats, not big heavy things.
Happily, people who like heavy, sturdy, solid boats have companies like Kraken to build them boats, and people who like light, simple, fast boats have companies like Pogo and JPK etc to build them. Win win.

 

[dunedin]

As mentioned, I listed each of the points Dick Beaumont stressed during his 2-part interview. I found them interesting.....
Some 'essentials' I readily could agree. Others, not so. Here's what I noted, in rough precis form.

5. Deep protected centre cockpit

I keep in mind that these reflect Dick's 'essentials' for an optimum blue-water boat. You and I might list more, less or other priorities.
Of course, views will vary. What are yours?

Many of these “essentials” are of course just his preferences. Centre cockpit is a classic example of this.

Whilst many people like them (often due to the larger stern cabin as a result on smaller boats), others dislike them for equally valid reasons.
Certainly it is difficult to make a case for why centre cockpit would make a safer blue water yacht, compared to a well designed stern cockpit. Arguments against a centre cockpit include
- higher up can make motion worse
- on smaller boats, difficult to make deep enough so often more exposed
- poorer visibility forward underneath the genoa
- closer to the bows so may get more solid water
- more windage higher up, especially if got bimini
- further to climb down getting into dinghy or going swimming from stern
- often more cramped, limiting living and entertaining options at anchor
Clearly a well designed centre cockpit boat can be a suitable blue water boat - but very debatable whether centre is better let alone safer than a well designed so.

 

[geem]

One of the drawbacks for me with lightweight boats for ocean cruising is their inability to carry gear. Take a family intending to do an Atlantic circuit. Guys, wife and two teenage kids. Kids need entertaining. They want toys. You need a decent dinghy in the Caribbean. The waters warm. Its a water babies paradise. The kids likes windsurfing or kite surfing. The wife likes diving. You have your dream holiday of a lifetime, but wait, the Pogo 1250 can't take the weight of all this gear. Forget the folding bikes and sewing machine, the Dad wants a fast trip across the Atlantic and everybody else wants toys. What do you do? You take no toys. Just the weight of provisions is enough and four people. You broad reach across the Atlantic because it's the faster point of sail. The winds from the East so you gybe your way across doing lots and lots of extra miles.
You arrive in the Caribbean and Dad is a bit disappointed how long the passage took. You left all the toys at home and you have a small rubber dinghy and egg whist to get around in.
This is reality for an Irish family we met in Grenada.
I am not having a dig at Pogo style boats. If I wasn't sailing long distances we would likely have something similar. For us the two bikes, two full sets of dive gear, two sewing machines, five kites, two boards, two paddleboard, a hard dinghy, sailing rig and 15hp engine are reality. We are currently in the Algarve using all these toys. When we get to the Caribbean we will be using them as well. The sailing is only part of living on a boat.