What do you mean "Modern yacht designs are uncomfortable"?

Re: What do you mean \"Modern yacht designs are uncomfortable\"?

The space advantages are really coming out with the experience of you lot.
"Tranona" Has a very good point in chartering, I never considered UK which could be more convenient in time and lower cost, the general impression I get is that Bav’s and your SO’s are amongst the most popular of them, Must admit that the possibility of some time in the future venturing much further is helped when these types have done it.

We looked into the Legend as I quite like the main build and SWMBO liked the space, now I must admit I would not get a boat that is unproven so I think our charter is likely to be a SO – We may have a chance of crewing on a Bav of a friend of a friend.
 
Re: What do you mean \"Modern yacht designs are uncomfortable\"?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the only boating people I know personally have heavy boats

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe they know something you don't (yet) /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
SWMBO said my Dad'll turn in his grave, I said buying a plastic boat would do that - with what were planning he'll be spinning. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
Re: What do you mean \"Modern yacht designs are uncomfortable\"?

Considered a cat, looked at a Prout, was frightend off mainly with the marina costs, but also they look so big (I have a hard enough job with just one Bow and Stern let alone two).
SWMBO hasn't been on one yet thank god or this decision would take too long.
 
Re: What do you mean \"Modern yacht designs are uncomfortable\"?

If you are sailing for two to three days then you are within a fairly accurate weather forecast. As such, IMO, a lightweight boat is fine.

We've sailed lots of different Beneteaus (First and Oceanis), Jenneaus and Gibseas and, frankly, didn't like them. All flat bottom fin keel boats slam going upwind, they all broach and they are all skittish.

Some get into deep trouble. For example some good friends of ours were delivering a Jeanneau 42 from the BVIs to Antigua in a near gale and it was slamming big time. It sank NW of Antigua in short order and the sinking was put down to hull failure or a water tank in the bows breaking free and puncturing the hull..

However most owners of such boats (with obvious exceptions on this forum) don't go out in such conditions, so going light shouldn't be a problem.
 
Re: What do you mean \"Modern yacht designs are uncomfortable\"?

I think it would be more helpful to me and the OP if you could give us the benefit of your experiences with your preferred kind of boat rather than making dismissive statements about other types.

This thread unlike many on this topic has been positive and helpful in the advice given to the OP who wanted to know about experiences with modern boats. And if you read them all you will find many use them successfully in the kind of conditions you describe. Something in the same vein from a different perspective would indeed be useful.

Look forward to hearing from you
 
Re: What do you mean \"Modern yacht designs are uncomfortable\"?

I've got a 40' Oceanis.....

i've sailed it in upto 40kts of wind, and large seas, and it handles them without any real concern at all...

Yes, we've had a bit of slamming when motoring upwind into large seas, but even then, a good helm can reduce the slamming significantly.

Never once have I worried about hull strength or integrity.

I would happily (and indeed intend to) cross oceans in her.

We too can echo the comments above... in perhaps 20kts of wind, we are trucking along, and can often overtake many heavier boats who are busy pushing the waves out of the way rather than going over them!...
 
Re: What do you mean \"Modern yacht designs are uncomfortable\"?

[ QUOTE ]
in perhaps 20kts of wind, we are trucking along, and can often overtake many heavier boats who are busy pushing the waves out of the way rather than going over them!...

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like a challenge to me /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Care to put your money where your mouth is? How about 50p? /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Sails at dawn!
 
Re: What do you mean \"Modern yacht designs are uncomfortable\"?

>I think it would be more helpful to me and the OP if you could give us the benefit of your experiences with your preferred kind of boat rather than making dismissive statements about other types.

Actually I'm a fan of all boats provided they are used for purpose - I certainly didn't mean to dismiss boats, even Hunters have their place.

For example it is possible to day sail from England to Turkey with just a few overnights. A lightweight boat can do that easily with no problems. Go the straight over Biscay route and you risk facing severe weather. So I'd choose a different boat for that type of sailing.

Specifically, if I was doing daysails and weekends (even long total distances as mentioned) I'd choose a lightweight boat (although I don't particularly enjoy sailing them), they are cheaper.

For offshore long distances I'd choose either a long fin and full skeg, encapsulated keel and straight spreaders or a long keel with cutaway forefoot.

In terms of going the lightweight route for short passages and heavier built/more seaworhty for long passages that's exactly what we did over the years. We now own a long keeler which we are very happy with.

Certainly the lightweights are faster but I'll give an example of why I wouldn't want one in certain conditions. We were in a force seven for twenty four hours, peaking at eight for an hour. Seas were about fifteen feet, wind from the east, there was a northerly swell of four to five feet and a south easterly swell of two to three feet, going downwind. So the sea and wind conditions were unpleasant but not severe. However the boat wasn't rolling it was corkscrewing violently. In such conditions spade rudders and keel bolts can fail - and do fairly often.

As I said, horses for courses.
 
Re: What do you mean \"Modern yacht designs are uncomfortable\"?

Many thanks for your explanation. I would, however take up a couple of issues.

I suppose, firstly there is growing empirical evidence that many people make ocean passages in boats that do not have long keels or skeg hung rudders.

Secondly the reference to "lightweight", which I am not sure whether the reference is to the construction or the displacement - in which case it needs to be related to some other characteristic such as length. Weight per se is largely irrelevant, it is how it is used as I pointed out in an earlier post. Simply having a lot of weight in ballast does not necessarily make a boat more seaworthy. Indeed the first consequence is heavier (but not necessarily stronger) construction and heavier gear to deal with the larger sail area and bigger motor to move the weight. As to strength of construction, modern boats use materials in an engineered way, rather than just adding more in the hope that the structure will be stronger.

Thirdly, keels and rudders do not fail with the frequency you suggest. The three recent reported keel failures, one in South Africa and two in the English channel were all extreme racing boats (at least one with a fundamental design and construction fault, the reports on the other two are not out yet). Of the two recent reported failures of rudders, one was a composite stock of a type that is rarely used in cruising boats. The other, well investigated by the Irish authoriities involved a mass produced German yacht. Its aluminium stock was made by a company that supplies most of the major European boat builders. Not only could the exhaustive investigation by a German metallurgical consulting firm not find a definitive cause of the failure, but there are no other reported failures of this design, even though thousands are in service all over the world. Incidentally the yacht in question was a commercial sail training boat and had successfully crossed the Atlantic both ways without any problems.

This does not mean to say, of course that there are not failures, and in the early days of "modern" boat design and construction a lot was learned, but a statement such as your last line "spade rudders and keel bolts can fail - and do so fairly often" is an "urban myth" that is not supported by any credible evidence. Such statements gain credence if they are made and not challenged as they take on the appearance of a "truth". If you are going to make such statements support them by documented independent evidence.

I am pleased you like your heavy displacement steel boat - there was a time when I hankered after just such a beast. However the world has moved on and as many other posters have said in this thread, based on their own experience modern boats are quite capable of doing more than "day sails and a few overnights".

Happy sailing in the boat of your choice!
 
Re: What do you mean \"Modern yacht designs are uncomfortable\"?

I really take exception to the word 'often' in the Kellys Eye's post, firstly its not true and secondly its scaremongering. The word infers a common occurence and it is not. Yes some rudders have failed on the ARC etc I am not aware of any keel bolts however. They normally fail becasue some clot has rammed the keel into something hard and clots are not only to be found in modern AWBs. I seem to recall at least two rigging failures in recent months in 'stronger boats' yet no-one is going about saying there is a design failure endemic to these types. Bearing in mind the number of miles all boats do there are bound to be failures in all types, I get fed up with people focusing on ones that seem to mitigate against modern designs. I feel totally safe in my flat bottomed plastic, easily manoeverable, fast and comfortable modern boat.!!
 
Re: What do you mean \"Modern yacht designs are uncomfortable\"?

Just out of interest and mentioning no names, we met a couple this year in Guadaloupe who had done the ARC in the epitome of the heavy traditional steel 'offshore' boat. They went home early quite fed up with lack of room and modern facilities. Oh and they felt the crossing had been really uncomfortable despite being able to 'cleave' the seas. Having seen the 'opposition' I would not be surprised to see them next year in a spade ruddered narrow keeled AWB.
 
Re: What do you mean \"Modern yacht designs are uncomfortable\"?

Re; "old heavy traditional steel off shore boat" has anyone heard of a full length keel droping off one of them ?..... /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
 
Re: What do you mean \"Modern yacht designs are uncomfortable\"?

>I suppose, firstly there is growing empirical evidence that many people make ocean passages in boats that do not have long keels or skeg hung rudders.

Yes they do and most have no problems, it's simply I would prefer to reduce the odds of rudder/keel problems.

>Secondly the reference to "lightweight", which I am not sure whether the reference is to the construction...

I meant construction. If you strip the interior linings out of many lightly constructed boats you can see daylight through the hull. If people are comfortable with that in a gale it's fine by me but again it would worry me. Also I remember seeing a four month old Bavaria that had been lightly used and already one of the bulkheads had parted from the hull. To me that was scary.

>Thirdly, keels and rudders do not fail with the frequency you suggest..."spade rudders and keel bolts can fail - and do so fairly often" is an "urban myth" that is not supported by any credible evidence.

I wish there was a worldwide database of all rudder/keel etc failures I suspect it would open a few eyes. I can only speak about what I've seen and somebody mentioned the ARC. We've done the finish line twice and seen the damaged boats come in. Understandably it's not something the ARC publicises but I can assure you that both years boats were coming in with keel bolt problems and rudder problems/failure. Some boats were abandoned. Out of interest, goosenecks are another regular point of failure (people don't tie the boom down properly). Looking around the yards in Trinidad a month or so ago there were at least half a dozen sloops having their keel bolts repaired. There was also a cat that was being delivered SA to USA and the 'bulkhead' on the main beam had fractured. It's sister ship disappeared and was never found. I could go on but wouldn't claim any statistical accuracy it's just what I see.

>I am pleased you like your heavy displacement steel boat - there was a time when I hankered after just such a beast. However the world has moved on and as many other posters have said in this thread, based on their own experience modern boats are quite capable of doing more than "day sails and a few overnights".

Yes indeed, it's just not something I would want to do. Everyone to their own I think.

> Happy sailing in the boat of your choice!

And to you!
 
Re: What do you mean \"Modern yacht designs are uncomfortable\"?

Come on hlb, why don't you tell us what you think of Island Packets?

I've manouvred mine around backwards in marinas and spun her around in her own length in a few tight spots, all without a bow thruster.

Haven't found much shortage of space aboard either come to think of it.

Speed? Well, I go cruising to enjoy the sea experience as well, not just race from one wine bar to the next (mobo bestest for this purpose shorely?)

So, in summary, yes I support the argument that modern cruising yacht designs like Island Packets are in fact supremely comfortable, with a sea kindly motion and lots of accomodation /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Boat choice is personal, especially with family involved when all must feel safe and comfortable with the choice. Some will like to fly around on the hairy edge, others won't. All emotional, subjective, with rationales like this for one's own decision mostly argued after the fact.

All imho of course /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 
Re: What do you mean \"Modern yacht designs are uncomfortable\"?

Well I am a fan of the AWB and have crossed the Atlantic twice in two. GRP is translucent and you can ALWAYS see daylight through it unless it is painted. Our previous boat fell during a hurricane and two bulkheads were cracked, we were told by the surveryor and repair yard, it didn't matter as they were not structural, the repair was simple. We know of a beautiful looking steel boat that sailed to USA and was hauled for anti-fouling when the owners discovered that they could push a screwdriver through the hull. To their horror they were able to do this all over the hull and ended up abandoning the boat. Crossing the Atlantic downwind we had a 50kt storm for 10 hours our boat handled the 6m waves with no problems and was steered by our windvane steering, we were scared but the boat was fine. Looking around at the cruising boats most are GRP and production built. Bennies were the majority boat in last year's ARC and I believe all of them made it. No boat is bomb proof, even a long keeled, steel one, there are plenty of hulks on reefs everywhere. There was one in Martinique last year that you could see straight through into the heads, by the time they had stripped it back to good steel most of the hull was gone.
 
Re: What do you mean \"Modern yacht designs are uncomfortable\"?

Once again you are basing your observations on hearsay. For example, in a Bavaria the bulkheads are not normally bonded to the hull structure, so how can you say that it has parted from the hull. Being able to see through a GRP hull is not a measure of strength. I ccould see through the hull of a "heavily constructed" 1970s boat that I sailed on regularly - but this is simply because the grp layup (which was nearly 1 inch thick), was transluscent. I used to lie in the forecabin watching the water rush by! Would pigmenting them black so you could not see reassure you?

Please, please look carefully at where the materials are used in the construction of boats. A hull does not have to be thick to be adequate for its main role - keeping water out. It does however, need to be strong in the parts that take the loads of rigging and keel. It should also be made such that it has high impact resistance in vulnerable areas which is why Bavarias, Jenneaus and no doubt others have Kevlar in the laminate in the bow section.

In an earlier post I compared my Bav 37 with an HR 36 on the weight issue. If you take out the ballast weight and the extra weight of the heavier equipment to drive the higher displacement of the HR you will find that the weight of materials in the basic hull/superstructure are not very different. What is different is that Bavaria can give you more volume because it uses the material in a different way.

Keel damage is almost always (by observation) the result of hitting something such as a rock, not from loads under sail. This is indeed a weak point of fin keel design. Therefore if one were planning to sail in areas where contact with rocks or coral was expected you might want to choose a different design. I remember Nigel Calder writing an eloquent article on this very topic. However, most cruisers never go near this sort of situation, so have no need to accept the compromises in design to cope with something they won't encounter.

I could not agree more about the paucity of information about failures. However, we have statutory bodies that are required to investigate incidents that result in foundering or loss of life, and they are the primary source of independent data on failures. We are also living in a world where consumers have no compunction about pursuing manufacturers that produce substandard product. By definition people who buy yachts worth many thousands or hundreds of thousands of pounds, dollars or euros know the price of fish. If there was a serious problem with substandard products, the yachting community would know about it.

Instead, as these fora show, you find more praise than complaint. The major manufacturers in Europe produce between them close on 10000 yachtsof 30 ft plus a year, probably more than the total number of "traditional" yachts of similar size in use at any one time!

As to your last comment, I could not agree more, but please don't rubbish other peoples' choices to support yours!
 
Re: What do you mean \"Modern yacht designs are uncomfortable\"?

Thank you for your helpful and frank views.

So I don't end up with my 1000th post in one thread forgive me for adding things you didn't comment on.

From a strength point I personally think that the modern construction is very good for bad seas as they flex (even if the bulkheads don’t), some abandoned boats have gone on to sail the oceans.

The lightweight comments on build I have heard before, are relating to equipment, I have to say as an engineer I understand some of this on a few boats I've seen, but in the most IMO it is of a very good quality and very fit for purpose.
On both old and new boats I have also on occasion winced at under rated or badly placed/fitted gear.

I have heard a lot of friends comments regarding the problems of keel failures, but most appear to be talking about the same few instances, some of which are design issues (one I remember was re-worked against the designers recommendations), the Keel I think is a potential problem - if you run into anything, the long fin is likely to be better off, I tend to take the position if unsure either navigate clear or fit wheels.

The blade rudder is another Issue, I know of a full keel hung rudder type coming to grief and sinking because of rudder failure and seen the pic last week of a Hunter on the beach because the rudder fell out (both maintainance issues), I would prefer not venture too far in any boat without a backup rudder, thing is, does a blade effect the stability or comfort factor during normal conditions.

The light displacement boat floating over the waves compared to the heavy ploughing through them gives me a variation of comfort, while I see which one would be drier, I also see one cutting a groove, my opinion of the modern design is for what we as a family want, the better boat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

ari
What is your lifejacket policy?
3 4 5
Replies
86
Views
2K
Greg2
Greg2

Share this page

Top