What's the fascination with long keels?

[RobbieW]

I think the appearance of "Open" type boats on the cruising scene is far more interesting.

I'm not sure I'd want to use the twin ruddered Elans for long distance cruising, but I also confess that that is a conjectural opinion based on not having sailed one - but I have sailed other Elans (333 & 41).

I've seen a couple of French built aluminium cruisers which are very like the Open boats in concept. The ones I saw were much less beamy, one was hard chined iirc. They shared the same mast/boom configuration, cabin entry and twin rudders though. They also shared the 'easily driven' characteristic of the open boats. The owner I spoke to was talking about high averages for daily miles on long trips, c. 200 again iirc (this was 4/5 years ago), for a roughly 40 footer. One interesting point for the long keel traditionalist - the owner was not keen to manouver in tight spaces - having twin rudders means there is no propwash over them to give control at low speed

 

[flaming]

I'm not sure I'd want to use the twin ruddered Elans for long distance cruising, but I also confess that that is a conjectural opinion based on not having sailed one - but I have sailed other Elans (333 & 41).

I'm not suggesting those exact boats - just that hull type. There is of course much more to making a boat work for any given purpose than just hull type.

This first occured to me during the RTI last year, when a 350 took a lot out of us down the back of the island, with only 4 on board, making it look easy and non stressful, no rolling at all, tracking straight as a ruler and the helm looked relaxed - almost bored! That hull type just loves going downwind or reaching, and would still match a long keeler upwind - speed wise at least.

I was just wondering if any of the more experienced Ocean sailors hereabouts have any views on the suitability or otherwise?

 

[LouisBrowne]

That is of course assuming that the boat wasn't designed with that level of stability in mind and fitted with apropriate equipment. Which of course it would be.

It's an interesting concept, but not one that I would expect to become mainstream on cruising boats though. I think the appearance of "Open" type boats on the cruising scene is far more interesting.

I'm sorry, I expressed myself badly; by 'too stable' I meant a yacht whose stability or stiffness results in its being subjected to stresses it was not intended to cope with.

A designer of a yacht that is to be used for racing can make assumptions about stability-affecting factors such as crew weight and displacement with great accuracy; on a cruising yacht those factors are very variable and it must be harder for the designer to predict the loads especially when new technology like horizontal foils are involved.

The French seem to be embracing the concept of open-type cruising yachts enthusiastically; for example there is a Pogo 12.50 cruiser which seems to be derived from the Pogo 40.





As to

 

[snowleopard]

Fascinating thread this.

Throwing another question out there...

Does anyone have any experience of ocean crossing with twin rudders?

Yes, but probably not what you were driving at.

 

[snowleopard]

What about a monohull with the horizontal foil which stops heeling?

http://www.mysailing.com.au/news/dynamic-stability-systems-go-fast-gear

Looks like a very good idea as it generates dynamic lift as well as righting moment. The bit that worries me is how to arrange to move it from side to side without introducing a source of leaks. Obviously it would have to be well engineered but as the owner of a 50 foot unstayed mast that wouldn't worry me too much.

You could even fit the end of it with a big spike for racing in the Solent.

 

[Wandering Star]

Putting racing aside, considering speed of passage is a complete red herring IMO. Why on earth go sailing if you don't enjoy being out on the water? Sailing efficiently is one thing but buying a boat based on it's ability to make a faster passage is an oxymoron surely? If you don't enjoy the sail then catch a ferry, cruise liner or plane to the intended destination and save a shed load of money in the process.

The modern yacht profile wasn't developed to improve seaworthiness or comfort, it was developed to enable production boatbuilders to create hulls using one piece moulds, encapsulated keels and any form of tumble home or wineglass shape was impossible for mass production. The manufacturers then used PR to sell to the masses the idea these flat bottomed hulls with their bolted on fin keels were superior to the traditional designs. They did a good job and costs of boat ownership tumbled and over the years people have come believe the hype.

I've sailed all sorts and there's no question in my unscientific mind that the long keelers and long fin keelers, are far superior seaboats, far more comfortable and far more capable of eating up the miles than more modern fin keelers.

Cheers, Brian.

 

[snowleopard]

I'll say it again...

As I said before, most of the virtues attributed to long keels are actually benefits of heavy displacement rather than keel configuration. Likewise most of the faults attributed (by some) to fin keels are actually down to the high hull volume broad sterned lightweight AWB type.

p.s. nothing intrinsically wrong with light displacement, speaking as the owner of a 5 tonne 40 foot boat that has done a couple of ocean crossings.

 

[Conachair]

Putting racing aside, considering speed of passage is a complete red herring IMO. Why on earth go sailing if you don't enjoy being out on the water? .

Agree. But in mylimited experience it's not even to do with enjoying the sea, it's that you never know what a passage will be like so pointless to try and guess. Take it as it comes, becalmed for a few days then have a tidy up. This is how lots appraoch it, it takes as long as it takes, trying to make the world bend into how you think it should be just ends in dissapointment.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Agree. But in mylimited experience it's not even to do with enjoying the sea, it's that you never know what a passage will be like so pointless to try and guess. Take it as it comes, becalmed for a few days then have a tidy up. This is how lots appraoch it, it takes as long as it takes, trying to make the world bend into how you think it should be just ends in dissapointment.

Those of us who use London Transport's District Line have developed a similar attitude.

 

[Wandering Star]

Agree. But in mylimited experience it's not even to do with enjoying the sea, it's that you never know what a passage will be like so pointless to try and guess. Take it as it comes, becalmed for a few days then have a tidy up. This is how lots appraoch it, it takes as long as it takes, trying to make the world bend into how you think it should be just ends in dissapointment.

Won't disagree with that!

Cheers, Brian.

 

[KellysEye]

> Westerly range - some of the Moody's. Swan's, Malo's some of the Najad's. Halberg Rassey's, Sweden Boats etc etc.

I asked what AWBs you had sailed, clearly none. I agree the boats above are good seaboats which I have never mentioned or criticised.

On the subject of no wind we just drift for 24 hours, one example was Portugal to the Canaries when we did 12 nm in 24 hours i.e. half a knot current. After 24 hours we check to see if there is any wind ahead or each side, if so we motor to find it. We did that coming back over Biscay. There was little wind in Biscay but a cold front out in the Atlantic, picked it up and had a fantastic fast reaching sail back to Lymington.

 

[LONG_KEELER]

trying to make the world bend into how you think it should be just ends in dissapointment.

I like it.

Thinking about pasting that above the companionway.

Also the bathroom mirror.

 

[john_morris_uk]

> Westerly range - some of the Moody's. Swan's, Malo's some of the Najad's. Halberg Rassey's, Sweden Boats etc etc.

I asked what AWBs you had sailed, clearly none. I agree the boats above are good seaboats which I have never mentioned or criticised.

On the subject of no wind we just drift for 24 hours, one example was Portugal to the Canaries when we did 12 nm in 24 hours i.e. half a knot current. After 24 hours we check to see if there is any wind ahead or each side, if so we motor to find it. We did that coming back over Biscay. There was little wind in Biscay but a cold front out in the Atlantic, picked it up and had a fantastic fast reaching sail back to Lymington.

We seem to be at cross purposes? I thought you wanted me to indicate which sorts of AWB (fin keeled) boats behaved themselves. I have sailed lots and lots of other 'AWB' fin keeled boats that behave very badly - but there's no point in naming them and upsetting their proud owners who might read these forums.

Regarding speed of passage making, I don't get upset when the wind doesn't blow. Nothing like going for a swim when you are becalmed. Perhaps slopping about and rolling on the swell isn't pleasant, but you go with the flow. I would still rather be on a boat that makes the best of the wind, when the breeze does fill in, and that can't always be claimed for some of the long keeled boats I have sailed in. Hence my original suggestion that long keeled boats are not the be all and end all of offshore and ocean sailing.

 

[Wandering Star]

I would still rather be on a boat that makes the best of the wind, when the breeze does fill in, and that can't always be claimed for some of the long keeled boats I have sailed in.

but that only takes into account the strength of wind you choose to include in your argument. Certainly an AWB will start sailing sooner and faster in a certain wind band than a heavy displacement long keeler, but when we're discussing long distance sailing we're as likely to encounter strong winds as often as light breezes and in strong winds the HDLK will enjoy the conditions, remain quite comfortable and generally look after it's crew whereas the AWB will sail slower or require large input from the crew to stay safe. Have we discussed slamming and skidding characteristics yet?

Cheers, Brian.

 

[Babylon]

Hence my original suggestion that long keeled boats are not the be all and end all of offshore and ocean sailing.

You're right.

 

[rotrax]

As I said before, most of the virtues attributed to long keels are actually benefits of heavy displacement rather than keel configuration. Likewise most of the faults attributed (by some) to fin keels are actually down to the high hull volume broad sterned lightweight AWB type.

p.s. nothing intrinsically wrong with light displacement, speaking as the owner of a 5 tonne boat that has done a couple of ocean crossings.

Absolutly right. If as an added benifit you want a fully supported rudder and a keel that is part of the hull and so cant be knocked off ( or fall off!) a long keeler would be one answer. If you want light wind performance and the ability to back up in tight spots then it would not be your choice. As so often in boating its a compromise.

 

[john_morris_uk]

but that only takes into account the strength of wind you choose to include in your argument. Certainly an AWB will start sailing sooner and faster in a certain wind band than a heavy displacement long keeler, but when we're discussing long distance sailing we're as likely to encounter strong winds as often as light breezes and in strong winds the HDLK will enjoy the conditions, remain quite comfortable and generally look after it's crew whereas the AWB will sail slower or require large input from the crew to stay safe. Have we discussed slamming and skidding characteristics yet?

Cheers, Brian.

I think that there's a real reluctance to let go of the long keel doctrine in your post.... I have tried to argue that you can have all of the qualities that people lax lyrical about AND MORE in a well designed fin keeled boat. As I have said before, it's no good citing the crappy sailing performance and bad manners of some AWB' to justify long keel addiction (if that's not too rude a way to describe it?). No one is denying that long keeled boats can sail very well, but there's a bit of blindness to their faults with some people. It's a bit like an eccentric favourite relative that you indulge and forgive the behaviour of because of their nice side.

There seems no convincing some people though...

Edit I have just realised that might have come across a bit strong. Apologies if it did!

 

[Oatcake]

. The lead mine bit I think too is a bit misleading, because modern fins are deeper and often have bulbous bottoms so that the effective righting moment is just as great as it is on a shallower but heavier long keel.

Unless we're dealing with equivocation wrt to term "blue water cruiser", these bulbous type keels are not advisable for that purpose. They are great for the arc, and for general cruising, but bulbous ended keels are nota usually advisable for "blue water" cruising. A catamaran is a far better prospect than a bulbous keeled mono type if one wants to go fast.

For true blue water cruising the types best suited are long keel, long fin/skeg, lifting keel, twin keel/bilge plates and catamaran, in no particular order. All these configs have their pros/cons for blue water sailors.

bulbous ended keels are not suitable as the keels are usually too fragile when the vessel takes theground, they are great for the ARC and brilliant for the overwhelming majority of normal cruising, but not blue water, IMO.

 

[Robin]

Unless we're dealing with equivocation wrt to term "blue water cruiser", these bulbous type keels are not advisable for that purpose. They are great for the arc, and for general cruising, but bulbous ended keels are nota usually advisable for proper "blue water" cruising. A catamaran is a far better prospect than a bulbous keeled mono type if one wants to go fast.

For true blue water cruising the types best suited are long keel, long fin/skeg, lifting keel, twin keel/bilge plates and catamaran, in no particular order. All these configs have their pros/cons for blue water sailors.

bulbous ended keels are not suitable as the keels are usually too fragile when the vessel takes theground, they are great for the ARC and brilliant for the overwhelming majority of normal cruising, but not blue water, IMO.

I wasn't advocating bulb bottomed keels at all, but answering a question of perceived stability either right way up or upside down, in the context that the same righting moment is achieved by less weight acting over a longer lever as from a longer shallower keel.

I'll throw in another popular prejudice too into the pot, that long keels in some way equate to encapsulated keels, which they do not. Encapsulated keels are a relatively recent phenomenon and not some traditional piece of seaworthy design, because they certainly didn't (couldn't) exist until fibreglass boats arrived. Likewise the idea that bolted on keels are some new phenomenon and only nowadays can fall off, because as long as I can remember keel bolts have been a cause for concern and with various recommendations over the earlier years to withdraw one every year for checking or have them x-rayed etc. A keel bolt passing through a wooden hull was always suspected of hidden corrosion. Would I want an encapsulated keel? Not really, simply because they don't take too kindly to bumping on rocky bits when errors occur, plus they limit the shape the designer can use and make the boat economically feasible to construct, both of the hull and the keel itself. Sure they work in a few cases, the Co32 being an obvious example, but the idea doesn't scale up in size very well, IMO.

 

[Oatcake]

I wasn't advocating bulb bottomed keels at all, but answering a question of perceived stability either right way up or upside down, in the context that the same righting moment is achieved by less weight acting over a longer lever as from a longer shallower keel.

in that regard then the theoretical advantage would undoubtably lie with the thinnest keel possible with the largest possible bulb on the end, this design would right the easiest, in fact regardless of the deck and topside shape. In practice however such a keel would be a risk of snapping off ona cruising yacht and the boat inverting permanently under relatively normal wind/wave conditions.

I'll throw in another popular prejudice too into the pot, that long keels in some way equate to encapsulated keels, which they do not. Encapsulated keels are a relatively recent phenomenon and not some traditional piece of seaworthy design, because they certainly didn't (couldn't) exist until fibreglass boats arrived. Likewise the idea that bolted on keels are some new phenomenon and only nowadays can fall off, because as long as I can remember keel bolts have been a cause for concern and with various recommendations over the earlier years to withdraw one every year for checking or have them x-rayed etc. A keel bolt passing through a wooden hull was always suspected of hidden corrosion.

Strange point to make, I wouldn't like to comment on this bit too much, I don't have As much experience as you seem to have in this regard. I've seen a bit of ballast arrangements, and keel configs, I definitely see an increased use on internal ballast the older the wooden boat is, however, close winded ness changed the keels, and drop keels were very popular initially. I would not like to comment further, and certainly would bow to any greater knowledge wrt to ballast/keel arrangements in old working boats - a subject in its own right.

The use of steel for the hulls was the material that changed the keel/ballast arrangements in blue water yachts in my view.

Would I want an encapsulated keel? Not really, simply because they don't take too kindly to bumping on rocky bits when errors occur, plus they limit the shape the designer can use and make the boat economically feasible to construct, both of the hull and the keel itself. Sure they work in a few cases, the Co32 being an obvious example, but the idea doesn't scale up in size very well, IMO.

Intrigued to find out the keel that does like to bang into rocky bits, please tell.