Who said this aabout modern yacht designs?

[doug748]

That is why Pogo are so successful
& they cannot have figured it out that well, otherwise the latest 40ft HR would not be so much faster than its predecessors & some of the modern Hanse etalia would not be leaving old Swans etc standing in their wakes.

We hear quite a bit about the flying Hanse boats. Here is a lovely piece of video showing the 2017 RTI race:

Contessa 32, designed in 1969 - came in 8h 49 * elapsed time, beating c 21 Hanse boats in a field of c27.

The 6, or so, Hanse boats beating it had an average length over c40 ft; with a waterline commonly longer than the Contessa LOA.


Personally, I think speed is a generally overrated feature on a cruising boat but we do hear a lot of old toffee about "fast" boats. Often the only evidence is in manufacturers advertising.



* 6 other Contessas finished under 9 hours.

.

 

[Mark-1]

feel the early IOR based designs are some of the nicest to sail aboard. The prettiest yachts are the old RORC rule designs with long overhangs. Some of you may disagree with my opinions, so feel free to reply.

Asthetics is one thing, but I really don't understand how a hull shape designed to gain a handicap advantage by minimising LWL can possibly be 'good' as a cruising boat. All other things being equal the highest possible LWL has to be 'good', surely? The fact that cruising boats copied racing boats at that time must have been fashion and is otherwise inexplicable to me. (Unless I'm misunderstanding something about boat design which is entirely possible.)

 

[Robin]

I'll take a punt on........Doug Peterson.

Having owned a Doug Peterson one ton cupper, Jeanneau Sun Legende 41, I have to agree he got it very right with that one

 

[geem]

[QUOTE="Laminar Flow, post: 7066523, member:
One more point not often mentioned, is that these flat sterns make one hell of a racket at anchor, as the waves slap and splash up under them. I remember visiting a couple on their steel Red Baron design, anchored in a quiet lagoon at the San Blas. The pings and bongs that went on under that stern and reverberated throughout the boat, would have had me in an institute after a single night of it.
[/QUOTE]
Its not just the noise. We were having dinner on a friends Jen 52. I heard this huge bang and assumed we had been hit by another boat. The vibration through the hull felt very much like an impact. I said ‘what the hell was that?’ My friends says it was just a wave hitting the stern! I couldn't believe it. He says they have to sleep in the front and dont use the back cabins apart from storage. No bloody wonder

 

[Laminar Flow]

We hear quite a bit about the flying Hanse boats.

It pays to look at the numbers. The Hanse 315 has a relatively conservative SA/Displ. ratio of 16.75 (empty) and it should be noted that virtually all new boat tests are done with empty boats and the testers generally have to even bring their own pencils with them. I have seen a Hanse 315 with six well-fed Germans in her cockpit, out for a weekend's boys' sail on the Isselmeer - loaded like that it was dragging it's transom through the water. An American test, referred to it as a daysailer/close to base cruiser. In plain speak: do not load down heavily.
Essentially the Hanse (and many others) are trying to mimic the Pogo type. Alas, the Pogo 30 has a SA/D ratio of 27(!). To plane requires a minimum SA of 400sqft/ton and, when empty and under spinnaker, the Pogo achieves this. The key word here is "empty".
Even stripped down, a Hanse could never manage this.

With the new sail plan our tub has a SA/D ratio of 17.5. While, as a ketch and with our keel configuration (not to mention the greenhouse), we will never be as close winded as a Hanse 315, our actual speeds are very comparable to those published in the tests on the Hanse site. Once again, all the boats tested are empty; our's is, emphatically, not.

There is hardly a subject about which more rubbish has been written than sailboat speeds.
No company sells a new boat with: Sails as good as your old one, but might be less seaworthy though, noisier at anchor and less comfortable at sea. Oh, and do be careful loading her for cruising.

 

[Concerto]

One observation I have noted is how short most modern masts are on AWB. I know the Fulmar I have is ¾ rigged , but it is berthed between a 36ft and 39ft yachts, and my mast is taller than the 36ft yacht and very close to the 39ft yacht, both of which are masthead rigs.

To increase the AWB performance would involve a substantial increase in sail area to achieve better sailing performance. However most AWB owners have never raced and would not know how to correctly handle the extra sail area, and from my observations how to set sails anywhere near perfection. It makes it so easy to out sail larger boats (even as I am usually singlehanded) and then I am accused of having a fast boat.

 

[geem]

One observation I have noted is how short most modern masts are on AWB. I know the Fulmar I have is ¾ rigged , but it is berthed between a 36ft and 39ft yachts, and my mast is taller than the 36ft yacht and very close to the 39ft yacht, both of which are masthead rigs.

To increase the AWB performance would involve a substantial increase in sail area to achieve better sailing performance. However most AWB owners have never raced and would not know how to correctly handle the extra sail area, and from my observations how to set sails anywhere near perfection. It makes it so easy to out sail larger boats (even as I am usually singlehanded) and then I am accused of having a fast boat.

I read an interesting article by an America yacht designer a while ago who explained that the current crop of wide arsed boats needed taller masts and deeper keels to make them perform well. The problem was, he explained, that to have deep/heavier keels and taller masts the hulls would have to be stronger to support the loads. The overall increase in weight would mean they would be deep in the water before you even added any gear so to keep the same hull shape they would need exotic materials such as carbon and cored hulls to keep weight down. Since the boats would now be expensive, nobody would buy them, so what we have is a facsimile of a fast boat not actually a fast boat. He also explained that the wetted area on these wide hull shapes made them sluggish in light winds because they dont carry the sail area. Back to the not strong enough hulls to carry the imposed loads and deep/heavier enough keels to counter the large sail plan

 

[dunedin]

I read an interesting article by an America yacht designer a while ago who explained that the current crop of wide arsed boats needed taller masts and deeper keels to make them perform well. The problem was, he explained, that to have deep/heavier keels and taller masts the hulls would have to be stronger to support the loads. The overall increase in weight would mean they would be deep in the water before you even added any gear so to keep the same hull shape they would need exotic materials such as carbon and cored hulls to keep weight down. Since the boats would now be expensive, nobody would buy them, so what we have is a facsimile of a fast boat not actually a fast boat. He also explained that the wetted area on these wide hull shapes made them sluggish in light winds because they dont carry the sail area. Back to the not strong enough hulls to carry the imposed loads and deep/heavier enough keels to counter the large sail plan

That sound like totally incorrect nonsense from the “designer” - or just badly misquoted. A narrow hull makes it more difficult to support a tall rig, whereas a wider hull makes the rig stresses much less. And as for hull strength, proper design and engineering can build in strength in the right areas, as opposed to just slapping lots of extra resin in all random places as often done before.
Plus many boats for years have had rig and keel strain taken on an internal structure, with tie rods up to the chain plates. Not like the old boats where some even had chain plates set above window cutouts in the coachroof.

We should just start a sticky for the weekly rant of “my old boat is much better than any modern design”. Facts are unlikely to influence anybody to change their prejudices.

 

[geem]

That sound like totally incorrect nonsense from the “designer” - or just badly misquoted. A narrow hull makes it more difficult to support a tall rig, whereas a wider hull makes the rig stresses much less. And as for hull strength, proper design and engineering can build in strength in the right areas, as opposed to just slapping lots of extra resin in all random places as often done before.
Plus many boats for years have had rig and keel strain taken on an internal structure, with tie rods up to the chain plates. Not like the old boats where some even had chain plates set above window cutouts in the coachroof.

We should just start a sticky for the weekly rant of “my old boat is much better than any modern design”. Facts are unlikely to influence anybody to change their prejudices.

Err, I think you will find resin doesnt provide the strength! Building light but strong structures requires minimal resin, just enough to wet out the fibres. This wasnt a comparison with prehistoric build practises it was an explanation why modern wide arsed boats dont perform as well as expected. You will probably find little difference in width of older designs at their shroud attachment points so rig loads are not widely different. The difference is the width that modern designs carry way back to the stern.
Yes modern boats have a structural grid and tiebars but install a decent sized mast and heavier keel and that structure needs to be designed accordingly, so it get beefier and heavier unless you make it out of carbon. It then gets expensive and we are back to nobody can afford it or is prepared to pay for it. I don't expect to be able to change the prejudices of those that believe everything modern is good but facts are facts

 

[Laminar Flow]

Let's roll it back a bit, since I started this mess.
My response was to the notion that racing designs make good cruising boats. Dubois was nor the first to make that connection, I believe Uffa Fox said so as well. My contention is that this does not hold true today.
It would appear that designers today are caught in some terrible dichotomy: One one hand, displacement has become something undesirable, on the other, customers want more and more creature comforts on their boats. You can't have both, as any number of the current design crop show.
Weight now being a bad thing, I have noticed that many of the new designs have B/D ratios of 30% or under; not that long ago that would have been considered unacceptably low for a seagoing boat. To make up for the lack of (ballast) stability the boats are made wider to increase initial stability to carry the rig.
In a shallow hull, any gear or commodity you add to the boat detracts from its ultimate stability; while it does increase initial stability in a beamy dish, that in turn increases the strain on the rig.
Righting moment is the paramount force for designing a rig. Beam increases RM and makes a boat stiff; it also increases wetted area, reduces comfort and ultimately, seaworthiness.
The construction of large, flat surfaces to resist the impact of waves and slamming requires considerable stiffening and hence weight, no matter the engineering (just as Geem pointed out)
To overcome this one needs to use exotic material and that comes at a cost.

It can be argued that the desirable qualities of a cruising boat are : seaworthiness, comfort and then, speed and probably in that order.
The two things that affect seaworthiness and comfort the most, are wide beam and light displacement and in both cases it does so negatively.
On speed: comparing two boats with the same SA/D ratio, one of light displacement and one heavy, they will both have, for all practical purposes, the same speed potential. Remember, it requires 400sqft/ton to plane. In fact, and up to a relative speed of factor 1, when frictional resistance plays the greater part, the heavier boat will be faster.
Average relative sailing speed, this is well documented, is about 0.9

Again, I'm talking about cruising yachts. We too have had good passages and more of them since I increased our SA. Those are of course the ones we like to remember over a good glass of wine, because they were exceptional.

 

[geem]

Perhaps Juan Kouyoumdjian's most famous innovation has been his modern take on hull chines, now appearing on numerous new production cruiser-racers. 'But on most boats I see, they have no real effect,' he explains to 0yvind Bordal...
We see them more often than not when a new production model is presented to the market. Distinct horizontal lines breaking up the rounded shape of the stern. A wide transom with sharp angles, instead of the traditional, unbroken arch.

At the same time a new buzzword has crept into the sailing vocabulary. It's really an old term, describing a way of building boats from materials that can't be easily formed in more than one direction, such as plywood, steel or aluminium. But nowadays the word has taken on a new meaning, and has a much more sexy ring to it. Chines are the new black.

Today's chines carry a whiff of the Volvo Ocean Race, an image of full planing on the open sea. Chines symbolise something modern, efficient, stable and fast. But that's all feelings. What are these chines really? What are the hard facts? What can they deliver, and how do they work? And can so many different boats really benefit from them...

Juan Kouyoumdjian, commonly known under the very-much-easier-to-spell moniker Juan K, is famous for being a straight talker. His fresh approach to yacht design, combined with a Latin temperament, has led to a few controversies in the racing design community over the years. But when we meet in the hotel lobby the first impression is a very accommodating, almost modest guy. And when he starts talking it's obvious that he really tries to transform his very complicated trade into something understandable for outsiders.
We start out talking about the design environment where chines and other hardcore racing features are born, and how they may trickle down to more normal boats.

Juan K says: 'As you know, I used to be very involved in the Volvo Ocean Race. Now, after a one-design was introduced, we're not involved in the race any more. But there really was a lot of knowledge and information, a lot of experience that was built up with the V070s during the last few races. Not just by us, but by all the designers who were involved. And I think quite a lot of it actually can be used in more conventional boats. The V070s were quite extraordinary boats, and I think many of them will continue to be sailed for years to come. In terms of outright pace they will be competitive for many years yet ...
'But chines and wide sterns were not the only important dividend from the V070 era. As I see it, the more important developments related to the structure and building technology in the hulls and decks, and the impact of weight. I would also say canting keels, and the way boats are sailing with them, even if that might be less of a topic in the futrtre because most conventional boats don't have a canting keel. .. and most owners don't want one.
'But in particular we learned a great deal more about slamming and the dynamic loads in the boat. That can be very useful in conventional boats as well.'
But what about the chines we see on a lot of production boats nowadays? Do they work? He laughs. 'Yes, we see them in just about every boat now. In the V070s they were there for very specific reasons related to the rule-limited maximum beam and the stacking capacity. So there was a moment during the design process where we sort of ... well, we had to cut off the rest of the boat. That resulted in the chine.
'They also had some other benefits, but originally the chines came out of a rule constraint. And I must admit that today I see a lot of boats out there where the use of chines is more of a fashion statement than anything else. Some designers are exploiting them well but, yes, a lot of it's about fashion.'
So how would he describe the effect of chines, when used properly? 'V070s were designed for a certain angle of heel,' he explains.

'These boats are never sailed upright, not even with the wind from astern. For every different heel angle we optimised the hull shape for a certain boat speed. So in essence when you optimise hull shape, or more precisely the immersed volume at different angles of heel, you end up with a certain shape. And at some point you have to cut off the rest of the boat, to make it fit to the restraints of the rule. What comes out is what you've seen.
'It's not like we say ... let's put a chine there. It's not an input. It's an output. A result of something else. On some production boats it's done properly. On most boats I've seen it's merely fashion.'
But how to explain the advantages of chines, when actually used properly in production boats? 'In these boats,' he says,

'you are allowed to end up with any hull shape you want, you can choose any beam at the back of the boat. There are no specific rules. That freedom allows you to exploit transom shapes that reduce dynamic drag as a function of heel and speed. So if you say what is the advantage - well, I don't think there is an advantage per se, like "OK, we have a chine, therefore you have an advantage". It's more like, if you optimise the hull with complete freedom, no rules, you will most likely end up with a hull that has a chine at a very specific spot. So, like I said, the chine is a consequence, it's an output.'
OK, but to be even more specific: the advantage of this hull shape, that for one reason or another ends up with chines - is it mostly present on broad sailing angles, maybe even planing? Or is it good upwind as well?

'It can actually be very good upwind,' Juan explains. 'Particularly for boats with a symmetrical keel in the middle, like a regular production boat.
'When the boat heels the chine helps in balancing the boat. It's good for safety as well. On a boat with a wide transom and a single rudder, the rudder has to be very far forward on the hull to stay in the water when the boat is heeled. That reduces steering moment, and to overcome that it's necessary to make the rudder bigger. Which gives you more drag. But even now, with the rudder moved forward on the hull, you will find it very difficult to press the boat hard, because the boat will lose balance with a lot of heel.
'Putting the chine in the water helps balance the boat back. It's almost like having an extra rudder in the water. When the chine is submerged the boat will have a tendency to bear away a little more. That makes it possible to load the sails harder, add some more power to the boat and take advantage of its form stability. Thus the chine can help take pressure off the rudder.
'The same thing actually applies on broader angles - if the boat is fast enough. Fast boats will always have the apparent wind pretty much forwards, and basically experience roughly the same situation, when it comes to side force and heeling.
'On normal displacement cruising boats, that almost never exceed hull speed, the whole concept of wide sterns and chines doesn't really have any relevance - certainly from a performance point of view. Even on lightweight, faster boats the chines have to be designed properly and located properly. Otherwise they don't do anything. Chines can only make the boat go faster within a very specific set of circumstances, and I don't see these circumstances appearing very often on a normal production boat.'
Weight is the next big thing
What about the future? Are there some general design trends that he can see coming? Or to put it another way: what does Juan K believe will define the production boats that will be successful over coming years?

'Right now hull shapes, or design concepts, are very much conditioned by the construction methods and the consequent heavy displacement,' he says. 'Particularly the weight.
'It's very difficult to produce a boat that is very light and at the same time low cost. 'So, as things are right now ... Imagine you had a concept for a nice, spacious and fast cruising boat; present techniques allow you to build that boat at a competitive price... except when it comes to weight. The boat will end up so heavy that its pure weight will kill the concept. So in a way you have been kidnapped by construction methods.
'I hope, and I expect, that the biggest progress that we can achieve in production boats is related to the production itself. Because it's only through allowing the construction to be lighter that we will be able to make a design jump into something new. Right now you could make a boat of the same size very fast ... but it would cost three times the money.
'So we need to find ways to build efficiently cost-wise, but still light enough to make the boat perform well. Weight is the problem right now.'

 

[dunedin]

Going back to the OPs question, the Ed Dubois designed Westerly Fulmar was definitely a huge step forward for the sailing ability of Westerly yachts, with great proven seaworthiness. Showing the benefit of race boat experience.

And a heck of a lot of the successful modern cruising yachts are still designed by people with major race boat credentials - eg Jeanneau Our designers and naval architects | Jeanneau

 

[dom]

We should just start a sticky for the weekly rant of “my old boat is much better than any modern design”. Facts are unlikely to influence anybody to change their prejudices.

Sailing to Byzantium

That is no country for old men. The young
In one another's arms, birds in the trees,
—Those dying generations—at their song,
The salmon-falls, the mackerel-crowded seas,
Fish, flesh, or fowl, commend all summer long
Whatever is begotten, born, and dies.
Caught in that sensual music all neglect
Monuments of unageing intellect.

An aged man is but......

 

[Laminar Flow]

I am actually very interested in design innovations for sailing boats and I am not blind to the disadvantages of older models either. But I am continuously surprised at the lack of understanding of the underlying physics when it comes to boats and sailing boats in particular. I do appreciate the thrill of speed; dinghy sailing can provide that, no doubt, and most of the current crop of ocean racing boats are just that: big dinghies.
There are cruising dinghies of course, if you are interested in that sort of thing. However they are not really suitable for extended habitation or crossing oceans for that matter, although several have.
The yachting industry is big business and it is tough selling new boats in a contracting market, saturated with a plethora of perfectly good older boats. Why would anyone buy a new boat if the old one does the job? To sell their product the industry has created the myth that the new is always better and the sailing press knows too well which side of their bread is buttered.
The most frequent adjective yachting journalists use when reevaluating old plastic is "surprising". The boat is "surprisingly" fast or makes "surprisingly" little fuss in a seaway etc., etc..
Really? Actually you just need to look at the numbers. No boat with a SA/D ratio of 16.75 is a racer, ever, even if it is a Hanse and tries to look like an open 60, well a little bit at least. It is as if everyone's been brainwashed.

 

[ryanroberts]

The Moore 24 looks like a lot of fun, but not sure where I would keep the wine rack

 

[Concerto]

The Moore 24 looks like a lot of fun, but not sure where I would keep the wine rack

Not that much different from the Hunter Formula One, 22ft design by Stephen Jones, it was one of the first Kevlar reinforced hulls from 1984. . Mine I bought new and found it hummed when on the plane due to turbulence from the keel on the flat aft sections. Went like the clappers but you had to watch putting the bow under as it could sink. I did have an occassion to stand of the keel after a crew member did not do as instructed and tipped her over during a spinnaker gybe in a force 7. Great fun to sail.

 

[Laminar Flow]

Not that much different from the Hunter Formula One, 22ft design by Stephen Jones, it was one of the first Kevlar reinforced hulls from 1984. . Mine I bought new and found it hummed when on the plane due to turbulence from the keel on the flat aft sections. Went like the clappers but you had to watch putting the bow under as it could sink. I did have an occassion to stand of the keel after a crew member did not do as instructed and tipped her over during a spinnaker gybe in a force 7. Great fun to sail.

I agree entirely, they are fun to sail, no question.
We were however talking about cruising and for that they are, as intimated, not really suitable.
There is also a short promo on Youtube on the Hugo Boss. I love the part where the moderator explains how you have to hang on to do your business on the heads that are conveniently mounted in the middle of the space, sans privacy, 'cause walls add too much weight. Try selling that to the missus with a mixted crew aboard. No doubt it would make for some awkward dinner conversation when you have guests. They also show the disgusting freeze dried pap they get to eat; not my idea of a culinary fun time afloat. I hold more with a fine lamb tagine and a suitable cellar of reds in the bilge to choose from.

There have been attempts of course, to offer such speeds to the cruising public, such as the Deerfoot concept. I'm just not sure how practicable a cruising 70' footer is for the average couple, both financially and as far as handling goes. Perhaps they are useful for crossing the wide open spaces of the Pacific. All I can say, it would be entirely unsuitable for the type of cruising we enjoy, which includes exploring quaint little harbours and secluded passages up idyllic rivers.

Designers "quoting" racing features on cruising boats is akin to putting a spoiler on your Winnebago; it doesn't make it more comfortable, nor safer and it sure as hell doesn't make it go faster.

 

[Lightwave395]

I agree entirely, they are fun to sail, no question.
We were however talking about cruising and for that they are, as intimated, not really suitable.
There is also a short promo on Youtube on the Hugo Boss. I love the part where the moderator explains how you have to hang on to do your business on the heads that are conveniently mounted in the middle of the space, sans privacy, 'cause walls add too much weight. Try selling that to the missus with a mixted crew aboard. No doubt it would make for some awkward dinner conversation when you have guests. They also show the disgusting freeze dried pap they get to eat; not my idea of a culinary fun time afloat. I hold more with a fine lamb tagine and a suitable cellar of reds in the bilge to choose from.

I had a Hunter Formula 28 ( 'Screwball' ) back in the early 90's. There was absolutely nothing down below save for a proper sea toilet in the forepeak.
Th first owner told me it was a condition of his buying it made by his wife who ocassionally raced with him.
Brilliant boat for round the cans Solent racing at the time, my first step up from 505's

 

[boomerangben]

I find this subject fascinating and Ed Dubois comments intriguing. His comments make complete sense to me - deep down a designer or should I say naval architect with a keen passion for boats that sail efficiently whilst satisfying the compromises of sea kindliness, space in the right places and safety is going to make the sailing paramount, hence the association between racing and cruising. Top end racing is now demanding top end money, just as it did 100 years ago and I wonder how relevant the J class was to cruising then. I suppose the 80’s narrowed the gap between top end racing and cruising, financially at least but foils, canting keels huge carbon rigs and wings have opened the gap up.

I wonder though if modern boat design is not really about sailing at all, after all the market for building a”sailors” boat (by that I mean the sort of boat Mr Dubois designed) is quite small, especially in cruising circles. I reckon modern production boat designers set out to create a new market - one that taps into high disposable income dreamers (I use the word cautiously meaning people who are not natural sailors but are captured by the glossy magazine covers, fancy website etc). So these production boats don’t need to sail particularly well because the most important aspect is to create a market by lowing the cost of entry, appealing to the aesthetic, fulfilling the dream. I wonder if Ed’s customers were more willing to sail when the wind is less than 90 deg to required track than those customers of modern designers, so windward performance is not really that important these days. To a certain extent journalist reviewing boats will ensure designs will still perform, but as others have said test sail boats are sailed light, the transom held clear if the water helping the sales reps job but the reality of a loaded AWB is slightly different.
I reckon the design brief has changed over the years - it’s less about sailing, more about getting a greater number of people to buy sailing boats. Those who buy boats for the sailing can still pay their money and take their choice, those wanting a white average on crystal clear azure waters surrounded by happy splashing kids and smiling other halves have a huge choice, as do those somewhere in between. It’s all about making the money go round

 

[Laminar Flow]

I had a Hunter Formula 28 ( 'Screwball' ) back in the early 90's. There was absolutely nothing down below save for a proper sea toilet in the forepeak.
Th first owner told me it was a condition of his buying it made by his wife who ocassionally raced with him.
Brilliant boat for round the cans Solent racing at the time, my first step up from 505's

Surely the choice then was a(ny) toilet rather than no toilet at all, coming from a 505. My wife doesn't like peeing off the rail either ...