Lightwave395
Well-Known Member
Kneeling at the transom astride the tiller was de rigueur in the 50 fleet !
Who said this aabout modern yacht designs?
- Thread starter Concerto
- Start date
Kneeling at the transom astride the tiller was de rigueur in the 50 fleet !
Laminar Flow
Well-Known Member
Lots of interesting points.
I'm sure that J-class racing, and racing in general, had and has a considerable effect on yacht design. Starting with America's hollow bows, over the winged keel craze to the latest flying cheese wedges. Of course in the days of the J class, only a few select could afford to sail, unless you were dredging for oysters of fishing for cod.
The broad appeal of the sport did nor come until after the second world war, when general prosperity provided the means and the lessons of mass production and new materials the ability to meet demand and price.
The times when you dropped by your designer for a scotch to discuss your next boat and after have your local artisan shop cobble it together are over. Sadly (in the purely romantic sense).
Today's yacht production, and as you describe it, has more in common with the automobile industry. And, in many ways today's yacht design reflects the needs of the sea and sailing as much as a Porsche reflects the needs of basic transport in an average commuter's life. And, just as auto manufactures like to infuse their brand's marketing with the success and pedigree of racing, yacht manufactures do as well. The spoiler on the back of your Honda Civic serves the same needs as the chine or super-wide transom on your Hanse or Bav. It's simply styling. 196o's car styling did not turn last year's lumbering family sedan into a rocket ship by changing the chrome trim; adding super beam, twin rudders, his 'n' hers steering wheels and natty chines doesn't either.
Just two more points.
On windward performance: Nothing goes to windward like the long, narrow Scandinavian style Skerry cruisers (Schaerenkreuzer). They are not really suitable for open water and interior design options are naturally limited.
The present crop of new plastic is modeled or rather "styled" on the fantastically fast Open 60's, Volvo 70's boats, designed to skim around the world on a quick downhill ride.
They were never intended to do much up-wind work.
The yacht-interior designers (yes, there is such a thing now) just looove them - so much space to be shaped in their own image. Who needs windward performance anyway? And it is true, these ships do look good below and at dock and the huge cockpit/swim grid has plenty of room to drape all that bikini clad flesh over (on your next trip to the outer Hebrides). After all the fuss just a few years ago, we have now become much more relaxed about windward performance, which suits me and my fat tub just fine.
Twin rudders. I love to see new ideas and why and how they work; I do also recall that Roman and Egyptian ships had twin rudders as well. I'm a sailor at heart and motoring, or even maneuvering under power, has never been a huge priority to me. Yet, everyone I've ever talked to who's boat has twin rudders, told me they were difficult to maneuver in port due to the lack of prop wash. To overcome this, many have installed bow and even stern thrusters, which could be regarded as an unnecessary expense and complication.
A lot of fuss has been made about the vulnerability of spade rudders. Well, the twins are actually worse off for that; Boreal and at least one other expedition style builder has decided not to use them for that very reason.
Laminar Flow
Well-Known Member
I'm all for equal opportunity, but ladies as well?
Lightwave395
Well-Known Member
I guess they could always turn around and hang their bums over the transom !
Laminar Flow
Well-Known Member
And guys wonder why their wives would rather do flower arranging with the women's church committee than go sailing with them.
Lightwave395
Well-Known Member
flaming
Well-Known Member
Some interesting points in this thread, but also, to my mind, some important misconceptions.
Firstly, a lot of the quotes about performance make the point that boats like the contessa 32 are faster upwind than the likes of the modern Hanse. But that's not comparing apples to apples. The contessa was always a cruiser racer, so expecting a pure cruising design like the Hanse to be faster is not the point. The real design comparison now would be a JPK, or a Sunfast.
In any direction, in any conditions short of full survival conditions the Contessa won't see which way one of those designs went. A quick look at the IRC ratings for those boats is enough to point out this obvious fact. If you want further proof, have a look at the results of the last doublehanded round the island race.
A contessa 32, sailed by professional sailor and all round hero Pip Hare, failed to get round in the light conditions. A JPK1010 sailed by some complete muppet called flaming came second. (And should have won it, but they retrospectively shortened the course at Bembridge, we won it over the full course... Grrrrr we woz robbed!) We had an elapsed time of 7 hours 48 minutes to Bembridge, which gives you some idea of how light it was. A Mystery 30, which is often held up by proponents of the older designs as the modern version had an elapsed time of 11 hours and 22 minutes. Yes, it's a slightly smaller boat, but that is a huge difference, especially in conditions that you expect to favour a narrower boat that included a light wind run down the solent and a beat all the way up the back of the island. No opportunity to use our fat arse to plane on a reach in that race for sure...
The same holds true in stronger winds too. The last strong wind RTI was 2016. The JPK I'm now sailing finished the race in 6 hours 31 minutes under its previous ownership. The fastest Contessa 32 took 8 hours and 9 minutes, despite starting later and therefore having better tidal conditions than the JPK.
That is a massive difference in two boats with very similar LOAs. About 20%.
But this thread is about cruising boats. So talk of Contessas and JPKs is a bit moot. If you want to see the difference between modern cruising boats and their older cousins, let's look at Westerly and Moody on one side and Beneteau and Jeanneau and Hanse's cruising offerings on the other.
Taking 2016, because every year since has been light winds, and therefore something of a lottery...
The fastest Moody, Westerly etc that I could find was a Moody 336 (which was always considered a fast boat, and isn't really that old anyway) that went round in 9 hours 18. A 346 did it in 9 hours and 30, which is probably a bit more representative of the sort of era we're talking about.
There are various Bavarias, Jeanneaus and Beneteuas from their cruiser range of similar sizes that were considerably faster. The fastest of which was an Oceanis 34 in 8 hours and 9 minutes. I guarantee that every year with good conditions will give you a similar result. But this is about cruising boats, so which is faster is also kind of moot.
The point about handling a boat with twin rudders was made. After a full season parking the JPK, I have reached the conclusion that it is not necessarily harder, it's just different. You plan your approach in a different way. So if you take someone (like me) who was pretty competent at parking a single rudder boat and drop them into a twin rudder boat, then the first attempts often make good you've been framed material. But once you get used to the different way the boat reacts, and start changing your approach, it's not, in my opinion, much more difficult to park. Mostly you need a little more speed than you would in a single rudder boat, and approach at a slightly steeper angle in any wind. Extracting the boat from a berth in reverse can actually be easier, as the 2 rudders grip in astern much faster than a single blade in my experience.
Does this mean that I'm arguing that modern designs are perfect and everyone should go buy one? Of course not. There are compromises to every design feature on a boat. Laminar flow has done quite a good job of pointing out the weaknesses of the fat backside for cruising. Most importantly the slapping at anchor and the need to keep weight out of the boat if your intention is to use the shape to plane.
But they have other advantages from a cruising perspective. Most notably in the usable space they create in the cockpit and the cabin for crew to relax. But also the way the boat will behave on a reach when the chine dips in the water and the leeward rudder becomes vertical. A well designed boat (and I wouldn't suggest that all modern boats are...) is just a pure delight to sail on that point of sail. Regardless of whether it's a lightweight flyer or a bit of a tubby cruiser. The directional stability is amazing in those conditions. I used to hate reaching. Such a boring point of sail, and on the old boat constantly aware that you might spin out if you were pushing it.. I love it now, the boat is just alive and the helm is light and balanced. And the boat is flatter, which is much better for cruising...
And by the way, the quote from Dubois was that you wanted a racing designer to design your cruising boat, not that you wanted a racing design for your cruising boat. There is quite a big difference to that I think.
Firstly, a lot of the quotes about performance make the point that boats like the contessa 32 are faster upwind than the likes of the modern Hanse. But that's not comparing apples to apples. The contessa was always a cruiser racer, so expecting a pure cruising design like the Hanse to be faster is not the point. The real design comparison now would be a JPK, or a Sunfast.
In any direction, in any conditions short of full survival conditions the Contessa won't see which way one of those designs went. A quick look at the IRC ratings for those boats is enough to point out this obvious fact. If you want further proof, have a look at the results of the last doublehanded round the island race.
A contessa 32, sailed by professional sailor and all round hero Pip Hare, failed to get round in the light conditions. A JPK1010 sailed by some complete muppet called flaming came second. (And should have won it, but they retrospectively shortened the course at Bembridge, we won it over the full course... Grrrrr we woz robbed!) We had an elapsed time of 7 hours 48 minutes to Bembridge, which gives you some idea of how light it was. A Mystery 30, which is often held up by proponents of the older designs as the modern version had an elapsed time of 11 hours and 22 minutes. Yes, it's a slightly smaller boat, but that is a huge difference, especially in conditions that you expect to favour a narrower boat that included a light wind run down the solent and a beat all the way up the back of the island. No opportunity to use our fat arse to plane on a reach in that race for sure...
The same holds true in stronger winds too. The last strong wind RTI was 2016. The JPK I'm now sailing finished the race in 6 hours 31 minutes under its previous ownership. The fastest Contessa 32 took 8 hours and 9 minutes, despite starting later and therefore having better tidal conditions than the JPK.
That is a massive difference in two boats with very similar LOAs. About 20%.
But this thread is about cruising boats. So talk of Contessas and JPKs is a bit moot. If you want to see the difference between modern cruising boats and their older cousins, let's look at Westerly and Moody on one side and Beneteau and Jeanneau and Hanse's cruising offerings on the other.
Taking 2016, because every year since has been light winds, and therefore something of a lottery...
The fastest Moody, Westerly etc that I could find was a Moody 336 (which was always considered a fast boat, and isn't really that old anyway) that went round in 9 hours 18. A 346 did it in 9 hours and 30, which is probably a bit more representative of the sort of era we're talking about.
There are various Bavarias, Jeanneaus and Beneteuas from their cruiser range of similar sizes that were considerably faster. The fastest of which was an Oceanis 34 in 8 hours and 9 minutes. I guarantee that every year with good conditions will give you a similar result. But this is about cruising boats, so which is faster is also kind of moot.
The point about handling a boat with twin rudders was made. After a full season parking the JPK, I have reached the conclusion that it is not necessarily harder, it's just different. You plan your approach in a different way. So if you take someone (like me) who was pretty competent at parking a single rudder boat and drop them into a twin rudder boat, then the first attempts often make good you've been framed material. But once you get used to the different way the boat reacts, and start changing your approach, it's not, in my opinion, much more difficult to park. Mostly you need a little more speed than you would in a single rudder boat, and approach at a slightly steeper angle in any wind. Extracting the boat from a berth in reverse can actually be easier, as the 2 rudders grip in astern much faster than a single blade in my experience.
Does this mean that I'm arguing that modern designs are perfect and everyone should go buy one? Of course not. There are compromises to every design feature on a boat. Laminar flow has done quite a good job of pointing out the weaknesses of the fat backside for cruising. Most importantly the slapping at anchor and the need to keep weight out of the boat if your intention is to use the shape to plane.
But they have other advantages from a cruising perspective. Most notably in the usable space they create in the cockpit and the cabin for crew to relax. But also the way the boat will behave on a reach when the chine dips in the water and the leeward rudder becomes vertical. A well designed boat (and I wouldn't suggest that all modern boats are...) is just a pure delight to sail on that point of sail. Regardless of whether it's a lightweight flyer or a bit of a tubby cruiser. The directional stability is amazing in those conditions. I used to hate reaching. Such a boring point of sail, and on the old boat constantly aware that you might spin out if you were pushing it.. I love it now, the boat is just alive and the helm is light and balanced. And the boat is flatter, which is much better for cruising...
And by the way, the quote from Dubois was that you wanted a racing designer to design your cruising boat, not that you wanted a racing design for your cruising boat. There is quite a big difference to that I think.
doug748
Well-Known Member
Re post 47:
I don't disagree with a lot of the above but a better comparison to a Contessa 32 would be something like one of the smaller Elans. the JPK is much more of a stripped out racer and would probably be a distinct handful as a cruising boat. It might be 20% faster but also has 20% more sail and draught.
I have not looked at Elan finishing times in 2016 but they will be much faster than the Contessa, the point is that it is a better comparison.
I don't think the 2017 race can be described as "lottery" conditions either. The fastest boats came within 5 hours and the slowest 11. Nobody had to reef and everyone would feel able to fly a spinnaker, if they had a mind.
I did mean to mention Sigma 33s in my earlier post (right up there with much more sophisticated sailing stock) another class that seems to do exceptionally well in mixed racing.
As do, in their way, the tiny and quite unexotic H Boats and Nordic Folkboats.
You would have to be a loony to suggest that a modern cruiser/racer is not faster than it's counterpart of 50 years ago, I must say I tend to take that for granted.
I don't disagree with a lot of the above but a better comparison to a Contessa 32 would be something like one of the smaller Elans. the JPK is much more of a stripped out racer and would probably be a distinct handful as a cruising boat. It might be 20% faster but also has 20% more sail and draught.
I have not looked at Elan finishing times in 2016 but they will be much faster than the Contessa, the point is that it is a better comparison.
I don't think the 2017 race can be described as "lottery" conditions either. The fastest boats came within 5 hours and the slowest 11. Nobody had to reef and everyone would feel able to fly a spinnaker, if they had a mind.
I did mean to mention Sigma 33s in my earlier post (right up there with much more sophisticated sailing stock) another class that seems to do exceptionally well in mixed racing.
As do, in their way, the tiny and quite unexotic H Boats and Nordic Folkboats.
You would have to be a loony to suggest that a modern cruiser/racer is not faster than it's counterpart of 50 years ago, I must say I tend to take that for granted.
Last edited:
flaming
Well-Known Member
Not sure I agree. In comparison to a contessa the JPK has more berths, doesn't have a head essentially in the forecabin, has a chart table with it's own (exceptionally comfortable) seat rather than using the end of a bunk, has a cooker, coolbox (with fridge option) pressurised water. And on deck is a noticeably drier boat with space in the cockpit for 5 people to sit comfortably. Sounds like just as capable a cruiser as a Contessa to me... And 1.8m is not exactly extreme in draft terms.
I would agree that the likes of the Elans and the Pogos etc are more comfortable cruisers than the JPK. I actually wish the JPK was a bit more stripped out...
2017 RTI, if my memory serves correctly, would be very influenced by if the boat had and could deploy a code zero. But the delta between the 1st JPK1010 and 1st Contessa is incredibly similar to 2016. 7 hours 16 vs 8 hours 49.
Laminar Flow
Well-Known Member
Dear me; I never doubted that contemporary racers are faster than cruising boats of any era. In fact the gulf between racers and cruisers has never been this wide. This is mostly due to the advent of new and exotic materials and, to some degree, engineering, that have lead to a significant reduction in weight.
Design wise, there is very little that is really new, whether we are talking planing, see sandbaggers, with twin rudders, see Great Lake scows, or short keels and separate rudders, see Herreschoff, and movable ballast, all of the above. The only real difference is that we can make these types stay together, mostly, in seagoing conditions.
Most things being equal, the main criteria for performance are: SA/D ratio, Length/D, Ballast/D and, to a degree, Length/Beam.
The main advance has been in the L/D ratio.
Now you have the option to invest the gains in a high ballast ratio or in increased beam to gain more horse power with a greater SA/D ratio. Most modern cruisers and all the racers have opted for the second model, one inspiring the other. To reduce weight, contemporary cruisers have also, unfortunately, been lowering their ballast ratios to 30% or less (Hanse & Bav). Calculated on empty displacement, a racer might get away with it, for a cruiser, liable to collect stuff, this is poor practice as any loading will reduce the range of stability. Loaded for anything approaching serious cruising this will additionally affect performance.
Up to a speed/length ratio of 1.34, light or heavy, boats of the same SA/D ratio will be equally quick. Beyond, the lighter boat with more sail will outperform.
A cruising boat and even a modern one, unless comparatively large, will be too heavy to reach significant above displacement speeds.
The qualities necessary to make a good cruiser are different from those of a good racer. Both models require a designer capable of doing the numbers and reaching the right conclusions. It does not mean that cruising boats require a lesser degree of engineering or sensitivity to weight. On the contrary, we all want more not less in our cruising boats; the days of the one burner primus cooker and no refrigeration are over. My Dad still thought that the height of culinary sophistication on board was having a spoon and a plate with your can of baked beans.
There has been quite a bit of damage done to the rep of cruising boats by the amateur home fitting crowd in the seventies. My type of boat, in particular, is a good example of that. With sailing performance not being a high priority, most decided nothing mattered, as long as it was "super strong" and much of that was carried out without even a basic understanding of engineering. The results have been numbers of grossly over weight boats that do not just perform poorly, but hardly at all.
Many cruising boats would perform much better if they simply cleared out all the junk the have stored away in their lockers and never use.
Last note: the old H-boat design has a SA/D ratio of 20 (high), a B/D of 50% and a D/L of 161 rel. light. They perform accordingly well.
JPK 1010, SA/D of 21;
Contessa 32 SA/D of 15.5
Moody 336, SA/D of 15
Elan 33, SA/D of 18
JPK has an SA/D of 25% more over both Contessa and Moody.
Gotta love them numbers ...
Design wise, there is very little that is really new, whether we are talking planing, see sandbaggers, with twin rudders, see Great Lake scows, or short keels and separate rudders, see Herreschoff, and movable ballast, all of the above. The only real difference is that we can make these types stay together, mostly, in seagoing conditions.
Most things being equal, the main criteria for performance are: SA/D ratio, Length/D, Ballast/D and, to a degree, Length/Beam.
The main advance has been in the L/D ratio.
Now you have the option to invest the gains in a high ballast ratio or in increased beam to gain more horse power with a greater SA/D ratio. Most modern cruisers and all the racers have opted for the second model, one inspiring the other. To reduce weight, contemporary cruisers have also, unfortunately, been lowering their ballast ratios to 30% or less (Hanse & Bav). Calculated on empty displacement, a racer might get away with it, for a cruiser, liable to collect stuff, this is poor practice as any loading will reduce the range of stability. Loaded for anything approaching serious cruising this will additionally affect performance.
Up to a speed/length ratio of 1.34, light or heavy, boats of the same SA/D ratio will be equally quick. Beyond, the lighter boat with more sail will outperform.
A cruising boat and even a modern one, unless comparatively large, will be too heavy to reach significant above displacement speeds.
The qualities necessary to make a good cruiser are different from those of a good racer. Both models require a designer capable of doing the numbers and reaching the right conclusions. It does not mean that cruising boats require a lesser degree of engineering or sensitivity to weight. On the contrary, we all want more not less in our cruising boats; the days of the one burner primus cooker and no refrigeration are over. My Dad still thought that the height of culinary sophistication on board was having a spoon and a plate with your can of baked beans.
There has been quite a bit of damage done to the rep of cruising boats by the amateur home fitting crowd in the seventies. My type of boat, in particular, is a good example of that. With sailing performance not being a high priority, most decided nothing mattered, as long as it was "super strong" and much of that was carried out without even a basic understanding of engineering. The results have been numbers of grossly over weight boats that do not just perform poorly, but hardly at all.
Many cruising boats would perform much better if they simply cleared out all the junk the have stored away in their lockers and never use.
Last note: the old H-boat design has a SA/D ratio of 20 (high), a B/D of 50% and a D/L of 161 rel. light. They perform accordingly well.
JPK 1010, SA/D of 21;
Contessa 32 SA/D of 15.5
Moody 336, SA/D of 15
Elan 33, SA/D of 18
JPK has an SA/D of 25% more over both Contessa and Moody.
Gotta love them numbers ...
Last edited:
Laminar Flow
Well-Known Member
Bunk flats are not just furniture, not any more. They provide important stiffenig to the hull and permit significant weight savings in the structure. A cruiser is not just defined by the furniture, but by what you can load into it whithout affecting safety or performance,
doug748
Well-Known Member
Well, these discussions can get very circular. Here is the Elan (333):
And here a Contessa:
[/URL]And here are images of a JPK interior:
2014 JPK 1010 Sail New and Used Boats for Sale - www.yachtworld.co.uk
To my eye, two were designed for a very similar market, the third not a really fair comparison.
.
flaming
Well-Known Member
But my point was mainly that every time we have a "new vs old" cruiser debate, people always point out that the Contessa (and others to be fair) are faster than new cruising boats. And every time it has to be pointed out that they were cruiser racers when designed, and that current cruiser racers are very significantly faster. And that current cruisers are faster than older ones.
That was basically the point I was making for what felt like the billionth time on these boards.
flaming
Well-Known Member
That is one definition of cruiser. Given the rise in popularity of boats like the Pogos etc for long distance cruising, I would argue that it is not universal any more.
I fear that you are falling into the trap of assuming that everyone who goes cruising enjoys the same things about it that you do...
flaming
Well-Known Member
Well, these discussions can get very circular. Here is the Elan (333):
And here a Contessa:
[/URL]
And here are images of a JPK interior:
2014 JPK 1010 Sail New and Used Boats for Sale - www.yachtworld.co.uk
To my eye, two were designed for a very similar market, the third not a really fair comparison.
.
The JPK you are looking at has been configured as a race boat and it shows. It looks very similar to the one I'm sailing. However, if you spend time on one you can quickly see that for a weekend / cross channel cruiser everything is there, bar a shower. And the level of comfort is owner specced.
To my eyes, the days in which wood is the chosen interior decor of choice are over....
geem
Well-Known Member
Last year whilst in Grenada we met an Irish family that had cruised across the pond on a Pogo 12.50. Asking how their trip was they explained that it was a disappointing trip. With four adults onboard and provisions the performance was poor. In addition they couldnt run direct down wind with their poled asymetric so they were reaching. With the additional weight they didn't sail fast so instead sailed lots of extra miles and had a slow crossing.
Mark-1
Well-Known Member
I don't know if they are over or not but they should be. Aesthetics aside, it's a crazy material to be involved in boat building. If a material isn't impervious to water and the elements it should be avoided where possible on a boat IMHO. Inside and out.
flaming
Well-Known Member
There's no doubt that to get the best out of that type of boat you have to keep them light.
These guys seem to have had a fast crossing.
I make that an average of about 7 knots VMG over an atlantic crossing. Which is pretty quick for a cruising boat...
doug748
Well-Known Member
Could not agree with more conviction. Though I don't recall many threads that have laid evidence out so bluntly.
I also see it from the other perspective. Folk still say they want a new boat because they are faster, when often they are not. A point I seem to have made a thousand times. What they sometimes buy is a nice, big cruising boat with the image of racing speed.
Pedantic maybe, but there seems to be a Pavlovian link between the words New and Fast. If one appears on these pages the other cannot be far behind.
Buying a new, roomy, clean Bavaria with no offending woodwork, rather than a dated, cramped , smelly Sigma. Great, go for it, it's just a subjective judgement call, kidding yourself it is because it is faster is an offence against objectivity.
.
geem
Well-Known Member
I guess it depends on your definition of cruising boat. For us a certain amount of comfort is desirable. Being able to shower in fresh water everyday is a basic requirement. A large watermaker and power to run it is therefore essential.
Space to carry gear and toys. We have two full sets of diving gear, a hard dinghy that can also sail and row. So we have a sailing rig and a set of proper 7’ oars. We also have a 10hp and a15hp outboard. Four kites and two kite boards, a paddleboard. A large comfortable cockpit that provides us a space to eat outside with shelter from the rain and wind. We can sit four people at the cockpit table out of the weather and sun.
We need to carry enough stores for a couple of months of self sufficiency as a minimum. So that fuel, food and spares.
We have space for two guests with their own cabin and head.
We dont want to camp on a boat. We did that when we were younger. We crossed the Atlantic and back on a boat that we kept super light. We dont want to do that again. Its nice to have things that make life more comfortable. This is what I expect from a cruising boat.
