Skylark
Well-Known Member
I don’t understand why you’re quoting “now” ?
His posts have been silly for quite a while ?
Who said this aabout modern yacht designs?
- Thread starter Concerto
- Start date
I don’t understand why you’re quoting “now” ?
His posts have been silly for quite a while ?
Laminar Flow
Well-Known Member
Read up on that: Boat design.net. No sillier than insisting that boats with extended sub-zero stability curves or that lightweight flyers that need to be constantly sailed in extreme conditions, by a small crew are safe for offshore cruising and transoceanic passages. I didn't come up with the "holding your breath" statement either, I was quoting; see table posted by Dave Gerr, boat designer and professor of yacht design. And just to add:
"The limit of positive stability is not just where the boat turns turtle, it also is strongly indicative of the expected inversion time, although using LPS the predicted time is usually a bit optimistic and it takes longer for the vessel to right.
Recent analysis of inversions suggest that an LPS of 120 degrees takes approx 4 minutes to self right. but it can be far worse.
In the 1992 Japan Guam race a yacht with a LPS of 114 remained inverted for 45 minutes killing 6 of its crew.
In the 98 Sydney-Hobart we see B52 (LPS 119) inverted for 4 minutes. BP Niad (LPS 105) inverted for 4 minutes drowning one crewman and nearly a second."
geem
Well-Known Member
Safety standards have slipped. Boats used to be built to Lloyds 100 A1 as mine is. Now they are built to the lesser standard RCD.. This standard has allowed at least one well publicised Beneteau to go to sea and stay inverted.
Adrian Jones of Rustler Yachts reckoned the RCD almost dumbs down the standards for a seagoing yacht, whereas Lloyds 100A1 really means something. 'The gap between just compliant and seriously good is getting wider,' he said.
Skylark
Well-Known Member
You two are totally obsessive, is there a point to any of your posts ?
I’m really happy that you believe that you own the best sailing vessel ever built. Why can’t you be happy with other people’s choice? Is it so hard to accept that different people apply different criteria to the boats of their choosing?
I’m really happy that you believe that you own the best sailing vessel ever built. Why can’t you be happy with other people’s choice? Is it so hard to accept that different people apply different criteria to the boats of their choosing?
anoccasionalyachtsman
Well-Known Member
Anyone else remember Frank Mighetto? He'd read a book about boat design too.
Lightwave395
Well-Known Member
Where does the Anderson 22 fit into all this ?
newtothis
Well-Known Member
The Anderson 22 cannot be capsized so needs no stability curve. Cocktails can be left on the deck in a Force 10 with no fear of spilling.
geem
Well-Known Member
Yes, the point is most modern mass produced boats are not better than well designed older boats. That is the argument. You guys wont accept it so his some more data?
To begin with, here the numbers for two cruisers, one light and more 'modern' and the other one more conservative. The numbers were taken from the article written by Rolf Eliasson, one of the fathers of the STIX number, in Professional Boat Builder magazine, February/March 2003. Let's call the boats RED and BLUE, as they appear in the article. I will consider only displacement as Mmsc (Some kind of medium load), as this is the one giving the lowest figure for STIX in both cases, which is the mandatory one to be asigned to the boat.
Let's see:
RED's BASIC DATA:
Overall Hull Length = 11,98 m
Length Waterline = 10,57 m
Flooded Buoyancy (Y/N) = N
Beam Waterline = 3,27 m
Beam = 4,1 m
Tc (HD) = 0,55 m
T = 2.38 m
Displacement MSC = 5165 kg
Displacement Max = 6190 kg
Ballast = 1300 kg (guess; does not influence any ratio or factor other than W/Disp)
Height of CE above DWL = 6,87 m
Height of CLR below DWL = 0,95 m
Angle of vanishing stability, Avs = 123 deg
Downflooding angle Afl = 137 deg
GZ at downflooding angle = -0,23 m
GZ at 90 degrees = 0,58 m
Sail Area = 71,1 sq.m
Area to flooding (Agz) = 74,46 m.deg (The one to be used in this case, as Afl >Avs)
Area to Avs = 75,6 m.deg
RED's 'OLD' RATIOS AND PARAMETERS
Length/Beam Ratio L/B = 2,75 -- being L = (Lod+Lwl)/2
Ballast/Disp Ratio W/Disp = 0,25
Displacement/Length Ratio D/L = 121,99
Sail Area/Disp. Ratio SA/D = 24,18
Power/ Disp. Ratio HP/D = 4,74 HP/ton
Hull speed HSPD = 7,89 Kn
Potential Maximum Speed PMS = 9,78 Kn
Velocity Ratio VR = 1,24
Capsize Safety Factor CSF = 2,39
Motion Comfort Ratio MCR = 15,2
Heft Ratio HF = 0,5
Angle of Vanishing Stability AVS = 116 º
Roll Period T = 1,93 Sec
Roll Acceleration Acc = 0,3 G's
Stability Index SI = 0,47
Upright Heeling Moment UHM = 19635,03 Ft*pound
Heeling Moment at 1º HM1º = 1306,88 Ft*pound
Dellenbaugh Angle DA = 15,02 º
RED's FACTORS AND STIX
Base Length Factor = 11,040
Displacement Length Factor (FDL) = 0,914
FL = 1,001
FB = 2,519
Beam Displacement Factor (FBD) = 0,815
FR = 3,066
Knockdown Recovery Factor (FKR) = 1,146
Inversion Recovery Factor (FIR) = 1,010
Dynamic Stability Factor (FDS) = 1,361
Vaw = 1,000
Wind Moment Factor (FWM) = 1,000
Downflooding Factor (FDF) = 1,522
Delta = 0
STIX = 42,546
ASIGNED DESIGN CATEGORY: A
Wave height max 7 metres (significative)
Windspeed max. Force 10
BLUE's BASIC DATA
Overall Hull Length = 12,2 m
Length Waterline = 10,52 m
Flooded Buoyancy (Y/N) = N
Beam Waterline = 3,2 m
Beam = 3,65 m
Tc (HD) = 0,80 m
T = 2,00 m
Ballast = 3600 kg (guess; does not influence any ratio or factor other than W/Disp)
Displacement MSC = 10319 kg
Displacement Max = 11769 kg
Height of CE above DWL = 6,65 m
Height of CLR below DWL = 0,8 m
Angle of vanishing stability Avs = 147 deg
Downflooding angle Afl = 114 deg
GZ at downflooding angle = 0,4 m
GZ at 90 degrees = 0,67 m
Sail Area = 72,5 sq.m
Area to flooding (Agz) = 57,42 m.deg
Area to Avs = 66,83 m.deg (The one to be used in this case, as Avs>Afl)
BLUE's 'OLD' RATIOS AND PARAMETERS.
Length/Beam Ratio L/B = 3,11 -- being L = (Lod+Lwl)/2
Ballast/Disp Ratio W/Disp = 0,35
Displacement/Length Ratio D/L = 247,21
Sail Area/Disp. Ratio SA/D = 15,54
Power/ Disp. Ratio HP/D = 2,37 HP/ton
Hull speed HSPD = 7,87 Kn
Potential Maximum Speed PMS = 8,26 Kn
Velocity Ratio VR = 1,05
Capsize Safety Factor CSF = 1,69
Motion Comfort Ratio MCR = 35,35
Heft Ratio HF = 1,24
Angle of Vanishing Stability AVS = 123 º
Roll Period T = 3,66 Sec
Roll Acceleration Acc = 0,07 G's
Stability Index SI = 1
Upright Heeling Moment UHM = 19074,33 Ft*pound
Heeling Moment at 1º HM1º = 697,53 Ft*pound
Dellenbaugh Angle DA = 27,35 º
BLUE's FACTORS AND STIX
Delta = 0
Base Length Factor = 11,080
Displacement Length Factor (FDL) = 1,033
FL = 1,001
FB = 1,781
Beam Displacement Factor (FBD) = 1,047
FR = 7,170
Knockdown Recovery Factor (FKR) = 1,508
Inversion Recovery Factor (FIR) = 1,240
Dynamic Stability Factor (FDS) = 1,040
Vaw = 1,000
Wind Moment Factor (FWM) = 1,000
Downflooding Factor (FDF) = 1,267
STIX = 52,100
ASIGNED DESIGN CATEGORY: A
Wave height max 7 metres (significative)
Windspeed max. Force 10
Well, thinking CE marking is not conceived for racing boats, but for the recreational market, where most of cruising boats are short handed and boats should look after their crews, in my humble opinion, I think it's worrying that the RED boat can be labelled as Category A, taking into consideration it has what has been commonly understood for many years, among designers, NA’s and boat owners, as 'cruel' and even dangerous ratios and parameters. The boat is too stiff by all means, with a low motion comfort ratio, too high accelerations (And so quite punishing for a short handed crew) and with a Capsize Safety Factor well above 2, widespread considered a safe limit.
BLUE boat seems to be much better suited for ocean crossings than RED, both from the point of view of 'old' ratios and the STIX.
As we can see STIX provides not enough information about the seaworthiness of a boat (It was never intended to be a clue to this, but this idea is spreading around quickly) and may even be a tricky and dangerous number. Seaworthiness is a complex matter, involving stability, all around scantlings, quality of movements, and a long etc.
I think manufacturers/designers should at least be obliged to publicize the STIX Factors and not only the number itself (Which is not even mandatory!). And even better, publish also the 'old' ratios and parameters, for the people to have a more complete view and understanding of the boat.
Rolf Eliasson himself expressed some serious concerns about the STIX number and how it finally 'came to life', in the aforementioned article. He even suggested minimum STIX for Categories A and B should be 40 and 28, instead of 32 and 23 as it is now. But even rising the level provides not enough guarantee as to define a boat as seaworthy, as we could see per numbers above.
Again in my opinion, most probably a great pressure from modern mass (and light) boats producers (and their designers) was put into the process. Those manufacturers produce very nice boats for Club racing and coastal cruising in fair weather (what most of users do) and fun to sail, but of course they want not many of their models to be obliged to be labelled as Category C, what they should be in most cases.
Long range racing is quite a different thing (with full trained crews aboard), than family oceans crossings so, in my opinion, CE Category's assigning criteria should be revised and adequate to the RCD’s own reason of existing. If racing is intended, a new special Category or Note should apply in addition to the ‘familiy’ Category.
Laminar Flow
Well-Known Member
Thank you, Geem, excellent article.
Concerto
Well-Known Member
geen, I think you have hit the truth about the the way the manufacturers influenced the way the regulations were created. I have seen evidence of how manufacturers influenced EU regulations, e.g. a German bus manufacturer insisted a drum of a specific diameter and height had to pass throughout a bus including the stairs to an upper deck. The diameter was set to ensure a number of competitors had to redesign their buses. The same happened with tethered ballons and a British manufacturer's product did not the new regulations despite being safely used for over 2 decades, resulting in the closure of the business. Sometimes government departments get involved creating regulations. Take how straight a banana should be. It was a British regulation used to protect the Caribbean banana growers from the more curved bananas grown in Central America, adopted as it stood by the EU as no other country proposed any regulation.
Long distance and ocean sailors rate boats from experience about how they will perfom to be safe and comfortable to sail in all conditions rather than statistics of designers and builders. The designers and builders aims have been to use design and use new materials to strengthen structural parts of yachts and at the same reduce the amount of materials used, at the same time increasing the volume of the hull to obtain a better interior layout. The calculations of the designers about stability are still an evolving science NOT based on real life exprience, but tank testing. Real experiences about keel strength still have not been fully learned or understood since Drum lost her keel, or we would not still have keels dropping off a few yachts (not only racing yachts). Extreme designs at a racing level can get it very wrong, America Cup 12 metre defence contender America 1 comes to mind when it flexed and the hull broke and sank in under a minute. My opinion is the pursuit of high volume wedge shaped hulls is taking yacht design too far away from well mannered and comfortable boats to sail, but the main influence is what the charter market needs for accommodation - not personal owners. Personal buyers are offered a variation of what has been created for the charter market.
Over time I hope the EU regulations get toughened up for crew safety. The manufacturers will complain that the yachts will cost more to build. Designers will have to create yachts that will handle true offshore conditions in all parts of the globe to be Category A. Most offshore cruisers are short handed, but the current regulations do not recognise this. There is an over reliance on statistics. Back in the late 1960's, 1970's and 1980's you would look at a design with the plans including hull cross sections and hopefully see a moulded hull to make your own decision at how it would sail. The change from the RORC rating rule to the IOR rule changed hull design from narrow pinched sterns with log overhands to wider beamed hulls with wider transoms and shorter overhangs. The stability of yachts was measure with an inclination test. This inclination test could be cheated by increasing the beam and reducing the ballast ratio. Unfortunately this trend has continued getting more extreme over time. It is now time for it to be reversed.
Long distance and ocean sailors rate boats from experience about how they will perfom to be safe and comfortable to sail in all conditions rather than statistics of designers and builders. The designers and builders aims have been to use design and use new materials to strengthen structural parts of yachts and at the same reduce the amount of materials used, at the same time increasing the volume of the hull to obtain a better interior layout. The calculations of the designers about stability are still an evolving science NOT based on real life exprience, but tank testing. Real experiences about keel strength still have not been fully learned or understood since Drum lost her keel, or we would not still have keels dropping off a few yachts (not only racing yachts). Extreme designs at a racing level can get it very wrong, America Cup 12 metre defence contender America 1 comes to mind when it flexed and the hull broke and sank in under a minute. My opinion is the pursuit of high volume wedge shaped hulls is taking yacht design too far away from well mannered and comfortable boats to sail, but the main influence is what the charter market needs for accommodation - not personal owners. Personal buyers are offered a variation of what has been created for the charter market.
Over time I hope the EU regulations get toughened up for crew safety. The manufacturers will complain that the yachts will cost more to build. Designers will have to create yachts that will handle true offshore conditions in all parts of the globe to be Category A. Most offshore cruisers are short handed, but the current regulations do not recognise this. There is an over reliance on statistics. Back in the late 1960's, 1970's and 1980's you would look at a design with the plans including hull cross sections and hopefully see a moulded hull to make your own decision at how it would sail. The change from the RORC rating rule to the IOR rule changed hull design from narrow pinched sterns with log overhands to wider beamed hulls with wider transoms and shorter overhangs. The stability of yachts was measure with an inclination test. This inclination test could be cheated by increasing the beam and reducing the ballast ratio. Unfortunately this trend has continued getting more extreme over time. It is now time for it to be reversed.
Laminar Flow
Well-Known Member
Never claimed I had the "best sailing vessel ever" and I don't think this is what this thread has been about. Perhaps you missed the point. Nor do I really care what someone else goes to sea in; that is indeed everyone's personal choice.
The most significant gain in modern yacht design has been speed. This is made possible by a dramatic reduction in weight, through the use of new materials and careful engineering. It comes at a cost: comfort, load carrying capacity and safety.
Most people don't cross oceans, that is fine. Most people sail 95% of the time in winds under F6 and 80% of that in winds under F5. That's a fact.
99% of boats designed and built can cope just fine with that and in the context of coastal cruising. It does not mean that all are suitable for ocean sailing which requires a much greater degree of autonomy and greater margins of safety.
The sacrifice in speed to create a much more rounded, safer vessel is, as Geem's latest post shows, modest.
I think this has been an excellent thread overall and I appreciate Concerto for starting it, although I'm sure he'd no idea where it would lead. I also thank Flaming for his contributions, even though we might have to agree to disagree and Geem for his as well.
Skylark
Well-Known Member
You're right there, I've yet to see a point within this thread, just a lot of plagiarized, aged, cut and paste.
If you don't care where others sail, why make the derogatory "it's hardly north face of Eiger" comment about Trade Wind sailing. It discredits you, just like the ridiculous comment about breath holding
Why don't you contact the many contemporary yacht design houses and offer your opinion. I'm sure that the RCD would be interested, too.
I worked within mechanical engineering and was Chartered for more than 40 years. In my time I was called upon as an "expert witness" by Police/Forensics and stood on the committee for National Standards (feeding into ISO) within my chosen field. I had training, qualification and experience in my chosen field and was taught to leave matters outside my field of expertise to others more appropriately qualified. It's very true that "a little knowledge can be very dangerous"
geem
Well-Known Member
All I have seen is people like yourself getting irritated when others argue that modern boats designs are not better than older designs. We post articles and content from various sources that add weight to our argument. Some of the articles are from qualified yacht designers who point out things like the chines are modern production yachts are fashion not function. Scholarly articles on yacht stability demonstrating that modern yacht designs are not as stable as their predecessors seem to bypass you. Maybe you are in denial. You have such a yacht and you don't like it when other point out the short comings. We as owners of older boats built to a high standard have to listen to your condescending description of our pride and joy as a manky old boat.You're right there, I've yet to see a point within this thread, just a lot of plagiarized, aged, cut and paste.
If you don't care where others sail, why make the derogatory "it's hardly north face of Eiger" comment about Trade Wind sailing. It discredits you, just like the ridiculous comment about breath holding
Why don't you contact the many contemporary yacht design houses and offer your opinion. I'm sure that the RCD would be interested, too.
I worked within mechanical engineering and was Chartered for more than 40 years. In my time I was called upon as an "expert witness" by Police/Forensics and stood on the committee for National Standards (feeding into ISO) within my chosen field. I had training, qualification and experience in my chosen field and was taught to leave matters outside my field of expertise to others more appropriately qualified. It's very true that "a little knowledge can be very dangerous"
I could have bought a new boat but being a mechanical engineer and having some understanding of construction I was unhappy with the offering from the mass producers. I could find nothing on offer that tick the boxes for me so I chose an older design.
May be if you had a little knowledge you wouldnt have chosen something so dangerous?
boomerangben
Well-Known Member
I think modern buyer “design” has more relevance to modern boat design than ratios. The range of boats on the market, both new and second hand has never been larger. The spectrum of boat owners has never been larger. Saying a modern design is better than a more traditional one is like saying an avocado is better than a potato. You can argue about nutritional value until you are blue in the face, but at the end of the day, some people will eat one rather than the other.
If you like sailing a boat that handles nicely, is satisfyingly quick and well mannered, then I suspect Mr Dubois was right, if you want a nice recreational space that floats and can sail then you won’t necessarily want a designer of racing boats. That’s not to say a racing boat designer couldn’t design the latter, nor vice versa.
I trained as a naval architect and am anticipating boat ownership in the not too distant future. Ratios and graphs will play a small part in my decision, but more important is who designed it but most important is what it feels like to sail. Does it make me smile? Isn’t that what everyone wants? To smile on their boats?
If you like sailing a boat that handles nicely, is satisfyingly quick and well mannered, then I suspect Mr Dubois was right, if you want a nice recreational space that floats and can sail then you won’t necessarily want a designer of racing boats. That’s not to say a racing boat designer couldn’t design the latter, nor vice versa.
I trained as a naval architect and am anticipating boat ownership in the not too distant future. Ratios and graphs will play a small part in my decision, but more important is who designed it but most important is what it feels like to sail. Does it make me smile? Isn’t that what everyone wants? To smile on their boats?
Lightwave395
Well-Known Member
This is a pointless argument to me, 'better' is a relative term, it's a never ending argument that 'this' is 'better' than 'that'. you're unlikely to convince an ex-racer to go cruising in what he/she may see as an 'old tub' anymore than convince a liveaboard to go cruising in an ex-raceboat.
There are those cruiser/liveaboards that choose to sail an older boat, in comfort, generally laden with most of what they would have had in their domestic houses and there are those who prefer to sail something lighter and shall we say perhaps 'livelier and more nimble (I won't get into the faster argument) and do their cruising with less home comforts.
As one of the latter I see no problems with the former, if that's your choice, I've shared a bottle of wine many times onboard HR's and the like fully loaded with washing machines and much more.
I raced my LW offshore solo and 2 handed for several years, sometimes in atrocious weather and frequently at double digit speeds. She's a wee bit slower now in cruising mode having laden her down with a few spares, tools, curtains, bigger fridge and memory foam mattresses but still often manages 10 to 12 knots offwind in a decent breeze....
For me, simplistically, when you're talking about sailing in bad weather, it's more about the skipper and crew's ability to handle their boat than reams of theoretical design calculations (which I'm not denigrating - if you're a designer you have to start somewhere), history seems to show that generally lighter/racier boats need to be 'actively sailed' through bad weather whereas older, heavier designs are likely to have more ability to ride it out in some degree of comfort.
That doesn't make one design 'better' or even 'safer' than the other - IMHO
There are those cruiser/liveaboards that choose to sail an older boat, in comfort, generally laden with most of what they would have had in their domestic houses and there are those who prefer to sail something lighter and shall we say perhaps 'livelier and more nimble (I won't get into the faster argument) and do their cruising with less home comforts.
As one of the latter I see no problems with the former, if that's your choice, I've shared a bottle of wine many times onboard HR's and the like fully loaded with washing machines and much more.
I raced my LW offshore solo and 2 handed for several years, sometimes in atrocious weather and frequently at double digit speeds. She's a wee bit slower now in cruising mode having laden her down with a few spares, tools, curtains, bigger fridge and memory foam mattresses but still often manages 10 to 12 knots offwind in a decent breeze....
For me, simplistically, when you're talking about sailing in bad weather, it's more about the skipper and crew's ability to handle their boat than reams of theoretical design calculations (which I'm not denigrating - if you're a designer you have to start somewhere), history seems to show that generally lighter/racier boats need to be 'actively sailed' through bad weather whereas older, heavier designs are likely to have more ability to ride it out in some degree of comfort.
That doesn't make one design 'better' or even 'safer' than the other - IMHO
dom
Well-Known Member
Terrible post this. I mean it's balanced, sensible, well argued, insightful, fact based....
And not even one doubtful personal anecdote, really?
Such as how you and your Miss World crew held off a foiling 100 foot+ Ultime Class Maxi-Tri which the Rothschilds then sunk in anger. That kind of thing.
?
Skylark
Well-Known Member
One of your finest posts ?
I’m not getting irritated at all, quite the reverse, I’m throwing petrol on the fire as it’s good sport to watch your reaction. ?
Neither am I in denial. Please don’t confuse me with someone who gives a .... ?
I chose new after a compressive evaluation against my sailing objectives. Your boat picture looks lovely but I wouldn’t want a 40 year old MAB as a gift. I’m very happy with my AWB. Nothing condescending about either description as they are common parlance. I don’t take offence with AWB, do we assume that MAB strikes a nerve ?
You’re claiming to be an engineer and then proclaim my boat to be “dangerous”. A bit of an incongruous statement and folly from an engineer, if you don’t mind my saying ?
Concerto
Well-Known Member
I started the thread as I liked what Ed Dubois said about designing yachts. I did expect some comments, but it has turned out to be an excellent discussion about yacht design.
My personal choice of a Westerly Fulmar was not due to cost but design as I could have bought a new 32ft yacht. I just find the high volume modern hull does not appeal even with all the internal comforts. I have had a number of people sail with me and find it a delight to sail - it is a true classic yacht design. Before Ed Dubois died I had a telephone conversation with him about the Fulmar and he still considered it to be one of his very best designs. It has a large sail area driving a well balanced moderate hull shape. They have been used for international match racing and by sailing schools, how many modern boats have done this. Many owners keep them for long periods of time as they just cannot find a boat with similar qualities. For me it is an optimum size to sail singlehanded and easily controlled with the ¾ rig. It handles well under sail in all wind and wave conditions with no vices. If only I could say the same for all modern boats, but alas time has not proved they are better designed for sailing.
Many buyers of modern yachts do believe their boats are better equipped and have greater creature comforts, but I am happy they like what they have bought. Several events will not make me change my mind on my boat choice. I can remember going on a Dufour 32 at a Southampton boat show when there was a SW force 5 to 6 blowing. It felt like it floated on the water rather than in the water, so much so my daughter could not stand being in the cabin. One of the maintenance staff from the sailing school boats near where I berth says their modern boats can flex and creak in rough weather, but generally perform OK if a little bouncy. Then I remember a chap who approached me to see if I could give him some assistance. He had just bought a new 34ft Hanse with all the goodies on it and paid a delivery crew to bring it round to Chatham. He was not on that trip but needed to move berths and could not do that or know how to sail it. At the time I was just off for 3 weeks singlehanded sailing, but suggested someone he could pay to train him. Thankfully he followed my advice and does use his boat.
We all think our cruising boats are good, but in reality many owners do not sail sufficiently on other boats to learn what is good and bad, let alone how they handle in extreme wind and weather. Many marinas say 85% of the berth holders never take their boats out and those that do only choose lighter wind conditions. People who have sailed for years generally have more of an idea about what they want a boat to do for them, but newer owners are swung by choices offered by the builders. The route into our sport is frequently from chartering a boat in a warm climate, so their experience is totally different from someone who started sailing in the UK by crewing on a yacht, either cruising or racing. In our modern society we are getting more reliant on qualifications, which in our sport are the RYA qualifications. I can honestly say I have none of these and all my experience is from doing it. About the only major event I have not done is sink a yacht, but have had broken mast, broken rudder, mast in the water wipe outs, to name just a few. From all of these events you should learn from mistakes, but many will never have these experiences. I have never sailed across oceans, and now have no wish to do so although I am planning a singlehanded round the UK sail to include the Orkneys and Shetland.
Thank you to all of you who have commented in this thread. As a final comment you will have the opportunity to meet me and see my Fulmar at the Southampton Boat Show as Concerto has been selected as the boat for the Westerly Owners Association berth - when she will be 40 years old in September.
Lightwave395
Well-Known Member
geem
Well-Known Member
"it's hardly north face of Eiger" comment about Trade Wind sailing. It discredits you, just like the ridiculous comment about breath holding
It is hardly the ‘North face of the Eiger’ is true. I dont find that offensive and I have done that trip a couple of times. Its a pretty straight forward trip. It looks to me like you are a bit miffed.
You would want my boat as a gift I wouldn't want yours. We both bought our boats for our own reasons. I respect your decision. Its the right boat for you. Yours wouldn't be the right boat for me.
You seem a little upset in your reply to my post. I dont think your boat is unsafe cruising around the coast I just wouldn't want it if I was crossing the atlantic from West to East. The comment was tongue in cheek. The smiley normally gives that away. You certainly dont pour fuel on the fire and I write these posts with a smile on my face. I just hope that there is less derogatory comments about older designs that sailors choose and I hope that people reading these posts will appreciate that everything new is not necessarily better its just another choice for people to make, as long as they are aware what they are buying. A number of us have posted information that I hope will be useful to those considering buying a boat. Happy sailing?
It is hardly the ‘North face of the Eiger’ is true. I dont find that offensive and I have done that trip a couple of times. Its a pretty straight forward trip. It looks to me like you are a bit miffed.
You would want my boat as a gift I wouldn't want yours. We both bought our boats for our own reasons. I respect your decision. Its the right boat for you. Yours wouldn't be the right boat for me.
You seem a little upset in your reply to my post. I dont think your boat is unsafe cruising around the coast I just wouldn't want it if I was crossing the atlantic from West to East. The comment was tongue in cheek. The smiley normally gives that away. You certainly dont pour fuel on the fire and I write these posts with a smile on my face. I just hope that there is less derogatory comments about older designs that sailors choose and I hope that people reading these posts will appreciate that everything new is not necessarily better its just another choice for people to make, as long as they are aware what they are buying. A number of us have posted information that I hope will be useful to those considering buying a boat. Happy sailing?
Last edited:
