Which layout would you choose?

[neilf39]

Konsort versus Merlin by the looks of it. I have a Konsort and you can remove/reduce the size of the chart table and put up a removeable curtain if you want some privacy in the stern berth. My wife and I tried out the Storm as we were looking at getting separate cabins. I am 6ft 1in and the wife 5ft 10in and the V berth was too short and too narrow at the feet. Konsort beat it hands down but no wardrobe space. Stern cabin, getting in and out of the berth was a nightmare and if there were two of you then getting out to go to the loo would involve a pas de deux as you could not use full width to get in and out. Konsort not much better but you really only use it as a single berth anyway and the other sleeps on the starboard cabin couch. I think for 3 cabins I would want at least some side access on each side of a double berth. What transpired is that you need to try out any layout regardless of what it looks like on paper.

 

[Pye_End]

Quite like a fore and aft facing heads. Plenty to lean on whilst heeling, and don't have the risk of hitting your head on the door when on the wrong tack.

 

[johnalison]

I have the top one. Makes the saloon nice and wide. We don’t use the aft berth much apart from for chucking bags into. It might get used a bit more if it had a door on. Can’t complain much though as the boat was excellent value and has some very good points.

That was why we once chose the Sadler 29 in preference to the similarly-sized Merlin. The Merlin’s saloon was so narrow that the seats were only a few inches deep at the bow end, although I believe that there was a version with a tapered table and deeper seats. My saloon needs to be somewhere I can go and flop and there are plenty of boats where it is more like sitting in a pew.

 

[FirstinLastout]

Something I've been wondering about regarding these two cabin layouts... I'm more experienced with the standard, more traditional layout with the heads forward and often shared with the lucky occupant's of the vee-berth rather than the seemingly spacious heads in the 3 cabin arrangement.
During a rough, more trying passage is there any real difference in comfort, or indeed accuracy, in the aft heads versus the standard forward heads setup?
The last sea passage I made was approx 20 hours of beating into F 5 - 6 in a decent sized sea and the one sojourn to the jack's left me feeling like I'd gone over Niagara Falls in a barrel.

 

[Concerto]

The real difference is the distance from the centre of effort of the boat. The traditional place has always been as close as possible to the centre of effort, hence just forward of a main bulkhead, as per the upper layout.

In the second layout, there is no more room in the heads, just that it is closer to the companionway. This has some benefit in not walking through the cabin in wet oil skins.

In later designed yachts the width of the beam and transom have invcreased substantially and therefore the heads can become bigger, not to mention extra overall length.

 

[johnalison]

It has a lot to do with the size of the boat. Below about 30’ it is hard to squeeze the aft heads into the boat effectively and the traditional forwards head is more practical. One exception that I am aware of is the Sadler 290, which appears to be very comfortable, though I have only seen it as a visitor.

 

[SaltIre]

3-cabin one has a better anchor.

 

[lustyd]

The top one looks like a smaller version of the Pearson 36 interior Uma had

 

[Concerto]

It has a lot to do with the size of the boat. Below about 30’ it is hard to squeeze the aft heads into the boat effectively and the traditional forwards head is more practical. One exception that I am aware of is the Sadler 290, which appears to be very comfortable, though I have only seen it as a visitor.

I used own a Feeling 286 (28ft 6")and that had an aft cabin and aft heads.

 

[Koeketiene]

OK it is a wet horrible day so I thought i would see which layout for this yacht you would choose. Manufacturer and class plus what buyers bought will be revealed later.

View attachment 126872

The standard layout.
Given that I sail singlehanded most of the time these days, I have little use for 3 cabins.
Also the larger galley and engine room seem to be more practical.

 

[grumpy_o_g]

I prefer the heads aft but I also want to be able to chuck things straight into the sink from the cockpit (it seems to be only me but I find it a really handy place to chuck things that are too small to put down in the cockpit without them them disappearing).

 

[chrishscorp]

We had a look at the 2nd layout and didnt like it when you think about what sort of sailing you do and the number of bods you have on board and how often overnight we didnt think it warranted the aft cabin and a shrunk saloon, we looked at the lift keel option and were told by many not too, so we complete hopefully tommorrow morning on the standard layout

 

[PeterWright]

Hi,

I think the influence went the other way, it was the Storm design down below that prompted the 3 cabin version of the Fulmar. I have to say that I have never sailed a 3 cabin Fulmar, but it seems to me that, down below it didn't deliver the Storm's key benefit of investing a good proportion of the limited space to the galleyl (see post#15) and the chart table. It did however, bring the heads to the foot of the companionway, so that, when passage making in foul weather, the on watch folk can access the heads, the galley and the chart table without dripping salty water all over any of the bunks. For that reason, I would favour that version over the standard.

However I would favour the Storm over either, a glance at their handicaps under any rating system will show the Storm to be the faster boat. Her extra length and particularly extra beam aft make her much more comfortable down below and her spacious well laid out cockpit is a dream for a 6 person racing crew. The one point on which I would fault her is the choice of masthead rig. The late Ed Dubois originally drew her as a fractional rig which would have made her as close winded as the Fulmars, but Westerly refused this saying that Westerly owners are used to masthead rigs - a surprising line in view of the Fulmar's success.. They did, belatedly put this right in the Regatta 330 but at the same time made a mess of the accommodation both to reduce build costs and to follow the function follows form philosophy of the new designers.

I regard the Storm Cruiser as another mistake - basically they took the Storm OD and replaced her rig with that of the smaller Tempest. They then tried to make up for the poor sailing performance by fitting a 28hp VP 2003 in place of the 18 hp VP 2002. As I remember it, far more Storm ODs sold than Storm Cruisers which has led to the bizarre position that the Storm Cruisers now sell ar a higher price due to relative rarity.

Of course, in terms of actual use, the vast majority of both Fulmars, Storms and their Regatta sisters are used these days as cruisers - their days as sea school yachrs are past, but that's a function of age rather than capability. They both make great cruising yachts, principally due to their ability to stand up to any weather thrown at them, but I still maintain the Storm is the better in this role, for the reasons this post opened with.

Peter.

 

[Concerto]

I think the influence went the other way, it was the Storm design down below that prompted the 3 cabin version of the Fulmar.

Peter.

Sorry Peter, the image I posted with the layouts came from a brochure issued in 1980. https://wiki.westerly-owners.co.uk/images/4/4b/Fulmar_brochure_1980_2.PDF That means this 3 cabin layout predates the Storm design by 6 years.

This was the second brochure Westerly issue. This was the first one. https://wiki.westerly-owners.co.uk/images/7/71/Fldr_Fulmar_32_6.pdf

The other interesting point is that all earlier Westerly's were referencd by by their length and both these brochures show the Fulmar as W32, which was dropped off later brochures.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

I thought it was a Storm, the top was obviously a Fulmar and I sailed in both albeit a long time ago but never unsurprisingly a 3 cabin Fulmar.

 

[PeterWright]

Sorry Peter, the image I posted with the layouts came from a brochure issued in 1980. https://wiki.westerly-owners.co.uk/images/4/4b/Fulmar_brochure_1980_2.PDF That means this 3 cabin layout predates the Storm design by 6 years.

This was the second brochure Westerly issue. This was the first one. https://wiki.westerly-owners.co.uk/images/7/71/Fldr_Fulmar_32_6.pdf

The other interesting point is that all earlier Westerly's were referencd by by their length and both these brochures show the Fulmar as W32, which was dropped off later brochures.

Fair enough so I thought wrong. I had believed the 3 cabin Fulmar came out far later than that. All these designs came from the head of the late, great Ed Dubois, so it's not surprising they had a lot in common. They're both great boats but when I set out to buy a Fulmar in 1996, I bought a Storm OD for the same money.

Having dropped the 32 from the name, did they not add 33 when they put a sugar scoop on the transom, or is that my memory playing tricks on me again?
I'm afraid that I sold my Storm 12 years ago and so left the WOA, moving to the dark side and buying a Moody 425 as my marine bath chair. She also satisfies the required galley, heads and chart table at the foot of the companionway criterion, albeit with a forward heads as well.

Peter.

 

[Concerto]

Fair enough so I thought wrong. I had believed the 3 cabin Fulmar came out far later than that. All these designs came from the head of the late, great Ed Dubois, so it's not surprising they had a lot in common. They're both great boats but when I set out to buy a Fulmar in 1996, I bought a Storm OD for the same money.

Havjng dropped the 32 from the name, did they not add 33 when they put a sugar scoop on the transom, or is that my memory playing tricks on me again.
I'm afraid that I sold my Storm 12 years ago and so left the WOA, moving to the dark side and buying a Mody 425 as my marine bath chair. She also satisfies the required galley, heads and chart table at the foot of the companionway criterion albeit with a forward heads as well.

Peter.

The sugar scoop Fulmar is refered to as the Fulmar 33.

The reason I bought a Fulmar over the Storm (my second choice) was I wanted a ¾ rig not masthead. It is a better rig to singlehand as it has a smaller headsail and spinnaker. The handling of the Fulmar is almost legendary and to be honest I have to agree. It is almost impossible to find a fault under sail or engine, something I cannot say about all of the boats I have sailed. In 8 years I only once managed to stall the rudder, I was beating singlehanded up the Medway under full sail with 20 to 22 knots across the deck. I was seeing how much I could push the rig as I normally reef by 20 knots. However a gust of 26 knots was too much and she luffed up and the rudder could not cope and stalled. It was great fun, especially when you see other boats with a double reef or only one white sail set. I still did not reef as the wind quickly abated to 18 to 20 knots.

Moodys are well designed and built boats, even if you consider yours to be a comfortable marine bath chair. My late parents had a new Moody Eclise 43, so I do have experience on a similar type of boat. The 43 was slightly undercanvassed, so needed a blow to get her realy moving. Shortly after we fitted a generator (1990 or 91), we were sailing in the Solent and realised a Wemble Mens Singles Final was just about to start and my parents were avid tennis fans. So, we just dropped anchor and started the generator. It was so bright outside, we drew all the curtains to see the TV clearly. Bet most other boats thought something else was going onboard at the time, but we just chuckled and enjoyed the tennis.

 

[johnalison]

The sugar scoop Fulmar is refered to as the Fulmar 33.

The reason I bought a Fulmar over the Storm (my second choice) was I wanted a ¾ rig not masthead. It is a better rig to singlehand as it has a smaller headsail and spinnaker. The handling of the Fulmar is almost legendary and to be honest I have to agree. It is almost impossible to find a fault under sail or engine, something I cannot say about all of the boats I have sailed. In 8 years I only once managed to stall the rudder, I was beating singlehanded up the Medway under full sail with 20 to 22 knots across the deck. I was seeing how much I could push the rig as I normally reef by 20 knots. However a gust of 26 knots was too much and she luffed up and the rudder could not cope and stalled. It was great fun, especially when you see other boats with a double reef or only one white sail set. I still did not reef as the wind quickly abated to 18 to 20 knots.

Moodys are well designed and built boats, even if you consider yours to be a comfortable marine bath chair. My late parents had a new Moody Eclise 43, so I do have experience on a similar type of boat. The 43 was slightly undercanvassed, so needed a blow to get her realy moving. Shortly after we fitted a generator (1990 or 91), we were sailing in the Solent and realised a Wemble Mens Singles Final was just about to start and my parents were avid tennis fans. So, we just dropped anchor and started the generator. It was so bright outside, we drew all the curtains to see the TV clearly. Bet most other boats thought something else was going onboard at the time, but we just chuckled and enjoyed the tennis.

So you are proposing that the Moody Eclipse 43 is the best boat for watching TV on? This could be the subject of another thread perhaps. In any case, I will raise you my friend’s Island Packet 46 with satellite television.

 

[Daydream believer]

Something I've been wondering about regarding these two cabin layouts... I'm more experienced with the standard, more traditional layout with the heads forward and often shared with the lucky occupant's of the vee-berth rather than the seemingly spacious heads in the 3 cabin arrangement.
During a rough, more trying passage is there any real difference in comfort, or indeed accuracy, in the aft heads versus the standard forward heads setup?
The last sea passage I made was approx 20 hours of beating into F 5 - 6 in a decent sized sea and the one sojourn to the jack's left me feeling like I'd gone over Niagara Falls in a barrel.

In my boat, if I have a crew , they will be sleeping in the main cabin under way as anywhere else induces sea sickness & the single bunk is good with a lea cloth. So pushing past to the heads is annoying.
At daytime on my own I just need to get in to the heads & back on deck asap & struggling forward is a step too far. Then bouncing up & down whilst using it would cause aiming issues. I would probably end up using the sink. That leads to limp lettuce.
So I would go for the 3 cabin layout , plus of course the privacy factor. But in any event I would want something better in a new boat, rather than either of those configurations & slim stern.

 

[UK-WOOZY]

my boat is almost an identical layout to the lower image