What's the fascination with long keels?

[chrisedwards]

I'll leave alone your other comments - they are opinions not facts, and opinions I dont agree with. But I think the above comment is a bit off the mark.

I'm not sure that I would call an F1 car a car - its about as related to an everday car as a windsurfer is to your pilot cutter. Less so if anything.

A much better comparison is between a sports bike like an R1 and a touring bike, or between a sports car like a Radical and my Lotus. They are reasonably similar, certainly much closer than they are to the classics. The modern consumer motorbike or proper sports car has inherited quite a lot of the technology and characteristics of the racing version.

But most modern production yachts have benefited little from the technology developed for racing yachts in part because of the conservatism of the buying public. Some years ago there was briefly a flurry of interest in ULDBs ( remember the Sadler Barracuda?) but that died. Where are the production yachts with unstayed carbon masts or wing masts or high strength low weight hulls? None of these would prevent the use of the boat as a cruising caravan - they would just make it sail better.

But boats are toys and many of the men buying them still have a romantic attachment to the old days when sailors had fingers like marlin spikes, the rum ration wasnt diluted, the navy didnt have women on board and men like them wouldnt be catching the 0730 from Esher but would be rounding the Horn with a cargo of spices. Etc Etc. Or at least thats my theory why we yotties are so conservative.

This is revealing an interesting angle. I have a long keeled boat with two free standing carbon fibre masts. This is because this is the best combination to do what I like to do - sail without using the engine. I consider the OP to be rather a traditionalist having stayed masts.

Whats the fascination with stayed masts?

 

[DavyMac]

About 10 listed on Yachtworld priced from less than £110k to £177k, but mostly in £120-150k range...

No links, bute are they not Rustler 36s?

I also read Tim Cunliffe's article and immediately wondered why he didn't mention the R42, but it may simply be that he (or his wife) didn't like one particular feature - bunk too short or something. Unless Tranona's examples are R42s, TC would not have had much if any choice at under £200k either.

 

[Ex-SolentBoy]

No links, bute are they not Rustler 36s?

I also read Tim Cunliffe's article and immediately wondered why he didn't mention the R42, but it may simply be that he (or his wife) didn't like one particular feature - bunk too short or something. Unless Tranona's examples are R42s, TC would not have had much if any choice at under £200k either.

I think he is listing the Mason prices.

Actually, there are Masons listed over $250 k ex USA as well.

My point was at with the import and Vat he could well have spent over £200k and I still think that he, of all people , shoud have bought British. If its good enough for the Royal family, it's good enough for him!

 

[westernman]

I think he is listing the Mason prices.

Actually, there are Masons listed over $250 k ex USA as well.

My point was at with the import and Vat he could well have spent over £200k and I still think that he, of all people , shoud have bought British. If its good enough for the Royal family, it's good enough for him!

His previous boat, a Bristol Channel Pilot Cutter lookalike, was built in Canada.

 

[Conachair]

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/boat-...sing-boat-list-january-2008-a.html#post251474


A blue water boat list from US perspective. Really can't be bothered to see how many long keels are on it.

 

[rotrax]

He should be ashamed of himself!

I read his article about the purchase, and his list of criteria.

A British built Rustler 42 would have been a much better option in my opinion. Despite being British that is now two boats in a row he has sourced overseas. Despicable.

Here we go again! It appeared pretty obvious that opinions were divided on this post, now you are suggesting that a well known sailor has made the wrong choice. I suspect he thought long and hard, counted his pennies and bought what was right for him using his considerable experience to assist the decision making. In my opinion, of course...........

 

[Bosun Higgs]

But don't forget the cost of such cutting edge technology. Not just to the man buying the yacht but also to the reputation (and balance sheet) of the builder if it goes horribly wrong; as new technology has a nasty habit of doing.

That's the Sir Humphrey argument " nothing must ever be done for the first time!"

And, with inescapable female logic, asks why anyone in their right mind would want to buy a boat that you can't climb aboard!

She clearly has too much ballast in the wrong places if she needs to haul herself aboard, not that you should say so of course.

As you have bought the Motorcycling analogy up ........... If, as I have done, I wished to cruise along the freeways of the USA or the motorways of Europe ....The type of machine I would choose is a retro or a cruiser. As a European I would prefer a reto. The colonial cousins love their harleys.

There is no denying that technology and Harley dont go together. But then who in their right mind would ride a Harley for any distance as opposed to an RT or a Pan etc? They are another example of sentimental attachment to things past plus in their case a hobby of modification / one off building. Analogous to the long keel.

This is revealing an interesting angle. I have a long keeled boat with two free standing carbon fibre masts. This is because this is the best combination to do what I like to do - sail without using the engine. I consider the OP to be rather a traditionalist having stayed masts.

Whats the fascination with stayed masts?

I too have sailed a boat with unstayed carbon masts - brilliant and very very tough. But the boat concerned, a Freedom, has a keel and underwater profile that ensures she points badly and struggles to keep up with more modern designed boats 10 foot shorter. Shame. Bit pointless really.

 

[Bosun Higgs]

Most of the arguments in support of the merits and virtues of long keeled yachts dont go any where near the race performance argument!. In fact most cruising yachtsmen are exactly that and are frankly not interested in racing. In fact your suggestion that a long keeled boat would possibly be purchased with serious racing in mind is so far off the mark, it becomes a rather silly comment.

Even if not racing, I fail to see why you would want to point less well, to sail slower, to handle worse than you otherwise could.

 

[Conachair]

Even if not racing, I fail to see why you would want to point less well, to sail slower, to handle worse than you otherwise could.

It's not that anyone wants to point lower or sail slower, but if you talk to the people actually out there doing it then you find that these criterea get pushed lower down the list of desirable bluewater features.
And worldgirdling cruisers are a pragmatic honest bunch when it comes to things which work or don't. The "well, no one will be rude about their own boat" doesn't apply.

 

[Conachair]

Another list from someone who has spent a lot of time out there on many different boats.

http://www.yayablues.com/bluewater.htm

 

[Poignard]

That's the Sir Humphrey argument " nothing must ever be done for the first time!"

I'm not arguing that at all; simply pointing out that someone other than me can invest in it. I'd rather put my hard-earned money into something proven.

Also, don't forget, one day you are going to have to sell this piece of cutting-edge nautical technology. How many will want to buy it?

She clearly has too much ballast in the wrong places if she needs to haul herself aboard, not that you should say so of course.

I would not dare! Actually it is length of leg, not weight, that is the issue.

But are you now saying that people should alter the shape of their bodies to suit their boats? Sounds a bit sci-fi to me.

 

[westernman]

Even if not racing, I fail to see why you would want to point less well, to sail slower, to handle worse than you otherwise could.

Then you will want an Americas cup boat - one of the last monohull ones.
Those are the best pointing boats around.

However, you won't find many people cruising them. You won't find them out once the wind gets up either - they are too afraid that that tall rig will come crashing down on them in more than 30 knots of wind.

 

[john_morris_uk]

Another list from someone who has spent a lot of time out there on many different boats.

http://www.yayablues.com/bluewater.htm

That will be the list in which he comments on the various boats he suggests. I quote one of his comments:

"I am not a fan of full keel boats in general...."

I had a look at the other list and there's a real mixture there. I lost interest when I saw that the entire range of J boats were listed. I might like sailing reasonably efficiently, but crossing Oceans in a J is not high on my aspirational list! (Unless we are talking about one of the classic J class boats and not the light weight racing flyers he is mentioning.)

 

[flaming]

I think Bosun might be rather overstating the link between racing performance and suitability for ocean cruising. Upwind performance does not seem to be key when crossing oceans, even when racing. Otherwise Volvo 70s would not look like they do.

There is no doubt in my mind that higher performance boats are very suitiable for typical coastal / x channel cruising - and indeed would be my choice. I've done a lot of that sort of cruising in a boat that many here would regard as a "performance cruiser", my Dad's Dufour 40, and I'd hate to do that sort of cruising in anything slower (or proportionaly slower for length). Not saying that's right for everyone, but it's my opinion.

However - does this change when you start thinking about crossing oceans rather than 24/36 hour channel crosssings?

I don't know, I've not done any of that sort of sailing - but with my background in sailing fin keel, spade rudder performance boats I would naturally tend towards that sort of boat. Which is why I think the new generation of lightweight, flat backsided, twin ruddered boats with "Ocean cruising" as their aim are really interesting.

Not really sure if I've added anything to the thread with that or not!

 

[snowleopard]

Whats the fascination with stayed masts?

You can see what's holding it up. Any idiot can see that a long unsupported structure can't possibly be strong enough, as someone once said on here. And it's bound to impose much bigger loads on the hull.

 

[Tranona]

I think he is listing the Mason prices.

Actually, there are Masons listed over $250 k ex USA as well.

My point was at with the import and Vat he could well have spent over £200k and I still think that he, of all people , shoud have bought British. If its good enough for the Royal family, it's good enough for him!

Of the 9 Mason 44s listed only one is over $250k and two at that price point. Of course if we really wanted to be xenophobic and criticise TC further the boats are actually built in Taiwan! even if he paid asking price for the most expensive one it would still be significantly cheaper than the Rustler. Not arguing the merits of either boat, just that he knew what he wanted and was able to get at a price that was acceptable to him.

BTW I would not take the Royal bit as recommendation. I chose the same upholstery material for my boat after seeing it on a certain Rustler 36 when it was new. Notice that it has now been changed. Was it not any good?

 

[Twister_Ken]

I too have sailed a boat with unstayed carbon masts - brilliant and very very tough. But the boat concerned, a Freedom, has a keel and underwater profile that ensures she points badly and struggles to keep up with more modern designed boats 10 foot shorter. Shame. Bit pointless really.

"Until", as one Freedom owner gleefully told me "you go downwind". Then they just goosewing the rig, let the forward sail run by the lee, set the aft just high of square, and go like the clappers in a breeze. Not enough breeze? A mizzen staysail tacked down to the windward rail. And they do it as if on rails.

 

[Ex-SolentBoy]

Here we go again! It appeared pretty obvious that opinions were divided on this post, now you are suggesting that a well known sailor has made the wrong choice. I suspect he thought long and hard, counted his pennies and bought what was right for him using his considerable experience to assist the decision making. In my opinion, of course...........

Despite all that he got it wrong.

 

[Conachair]

There is no doubt in my mind that higher performance boats are very suitiable for typical coastal / x channel cruising - and indeed would be my choice. I've done a lot of that sort of cruising in a boat that many here would regard as a "performance cruiser", my Dad's Dufour 40, and I'd hate to do that sort of cruising in anything slower (or proportionaly slower for length). Not saying that's right for everyone, but it's my opinion.

However - does this change when you start thinking about crossing oceans rather than 24/36 hour channel crosssings?

Or does it even matter?

What does change is that the sailing abilities of a boat get diluted by the other things a boat needs to do. Lots storage space, carry at least a couple of tons more weight, provide a nice home to live in etc. And not break much crossing oceans as when you get to the other end you need to fix the bits that do break with whatever is available. Often back street fabricators as chandlers are rarities and waiting for weeks for bits to filter through customs is a horrible experience.

Perhaps everyone is looking at this completely the wrong way. Maybe long keels historically feature a lot in bluewater boats as the boats heavy and tough enough available just happened to have them.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Or does it even matter?

Perhaps everyone is looking at this completely the wrong way. Maybe long keels historically feature a lot in bluewater boats as the boats heavy and tough enough available just happened to have them.

Good old Darwin. Survival of the fittest.