Who said this aabout modern yacht designs?

[flaming]

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.

All of this is awesome, and clearly a Pogo style boat isn't for you.

It's also not the only way to go cruising. And the rise of the Pogo style boats does seem to indicate that more and more people are prioritising fast passages over all of the toys. Or are making very poor boat choices for their needs I guess!

 

[geem]

All of this is awesome, and clearly a Pogo style boat isn't for you.

It's also not the only way to go cruising. And the rise of the Pogo style boats does seem to indicate that more and more people are prioritising fast passages over all of the toys. Or are making very poor boat choices for their needs I guess!

I guess its how you use your boat. We liveaboard for at least 9 months of the year. By the time we get home in July I will have lived on the boat for 2 1/2 years with only 3 months at home. We have been out in the Caribbean cruising for the last 6 years. If your boat is a full time replacement for a house you would expect a reasonable level of comfort. If you weekend sail and cruise for three weeks on that boat for your summer hols then a Pogo could work very well. You could still classify the Pogo as a cruising boat but better suited to that scenario rather our own.
If you loaded up the Pogo with the gear we have onboard I suspect we would be faster!
In addition, the weight of our gear doesnt mean we are a slow boat. The boat is designed to take the weight. We are not sat deep in the water. The boat has the original waterline and we have a couple of inches of bottom paint showing. Yesterday on a 50nm sail from the Eastern end of Antigua to Guadeloupe we were sailing in 10/12 kts true wind with the wind on the beam doing 7 kts. We did have 130% genoa, main and mizzen staysail set so 1500sq ft of sail but that how she was designed. Once the wind increased to 13/14 kts we were doing our 8 kts hull speed and some at times. Not a Pogo but a comfortable load lugging passagemaker

 

[dom]

In addition, the weight of our gear doesnt mean we are a slow boat. The boat is designed to take the weight. We are not sat deep in the water. The boat has the original waterline and we have a couple of inches of bottom paint showing....

This supposed ability of old boats to mysteriously stand up to their loads and barely sink on their waterlines is of course cobblers. Archimedes still rules as any ship loader knows!

What is true, however, is the fact that for example a racing boat with its transom designed to barely touch the water will have its performance disproportionately affected by additional weight and racing boats being much much faster machines will want to plane easily, But that's a different ball game entirely.

 

[geem]

This supposed ability of old boats to mysteriously stand up to their loads and barely sink on their waterlines is of course cobblers. Archimedes still rules as any ship loader knows!

What is true, however, is the fact that for example a racing boat with its transom designed to barely touch the water will have its performance disproportionately affected by additional weight and racing boats being much much faster machines will want to plane easily, But that's a different ball game entirely.

The fact is that the majority of modern production boat hulls follow a design trend. That is relatively flat bottomed, wide transom, light ballast ratio design. Put a liveaboard cruising load on that style of hull and you risk immersing the transom, you destroy the already dubious righting moment and the boat is slow. Many older designs had slack bilges. The hull forms had a hemispherical shape. The least wetted area of a given hull with maximum volume is this shape. Hang a heavy keel from it and you have a nice ballast ratio with good righting moment and lots of reserve buoyancy to carry a load. Its not a shape to plane or surf down waves but its fast in light airs and carries load well without sacrificing performance in the same way that the equivalent load would do on a more modern hull shape. The speed is very much limited by hull speed. I know that when we push our boat above hull speed the bow wave, stern wave and huge hole between the two are trying to tell me something! We have a lot of hull in the water! We are no skimming dish

 

[dom]

The fact is that the majority of modern production boat hulls follow a design trend. That is relatively flat bottomed, wide transom, light ballast ratio design. Put a liveaboard cruising load on that style of hull and you risk immersing the transom, you destroy the already dubious righting moment and the boat is slow. Many older designs had slack bilges. The hull forms had a hemispherical shape. The least wetted area of a given hull with maximum volume is this shape. Hang a heavy keel from it and you have a nice ballast ratio with good righting moment and lots of reserve buoyancy to carry a load. Its not a shape to plane or surf down waves but its fast in light airs and carries load well without sacrificing performance in the same way that the equivalent load would do on a more modern hull shape. The speed is very much limited by hull speed. I know that when we push our boat above hull speed the bow wave, stern wave and huge hole between the two are trying to tell me something! We have a lot of hull in the water! We are no skimming dish

No need to go round the hills here; a loaded boat will sink on its lines until it displaces an equivalent mass of water. End of!

Moreover, your comparisons remain spurious. Hull design, sail shape, foil dynamics, etc have all progressed since the 1980s -- cruise and race alike. Even relatively conservative modern designs like Contest have gone with the flow; in fact, I'm quite taken with one of them whose ballast ratio is around 34%, sports a modernish rig, and mostly sails like a dream. Nicer than older design boats I have seen and certainly a notch or two faster. Otherwise, why would anybody buy one?

How would it compare offwind against say a Pogo 12.5 in a big open sea blowing 30-35kts? A softer ride and drier for sure, but realistically, about 60% of the Pogo's speed would be going some. How would it do against say a slightly smaller AWB such as a First 53? It would be spanked, no ifs, no buts. Against Beneteau's charter offerings; It'd show them a clean pair of heals.

Nothing surprising here; almost all boats have got demonstrably better, yet there is no single perfect boat. But what does exist today is a fantastic range of new boats with an even wider choice second hand. Which means something to suit everybody's tastes and means.

Far better to get on and sail one's ideal floating partner than bang on about MAB/AWB comparisons every month ?

 

[geem]

No need to go round the hills here; a loaded boat will sink on its lines until it displaces an equivalent mass of water. End of!

Moreover, your comparisons remain spurious. Hull design, sail shape, foil dynamics, etc have all progressed since the 1980s -- cruise and race alike. Even relatively conservative modern designs like Contest have gone with the flow; in fact, I'm quite taken with one of them whose ballast ratio is around 34%, sports a modernish rig, and mostly sails like a dream. Nicer than older design boats I have seen and certainly a notch or two faster. Otherwise, why would anybody buy one?

How would it compare offwind against say a Pogo 12.5 in a big open sea blowing 30-35kts? A softer ride and drier for sure, but realistically, about 60% of the Pogo's speed would be going some. How would it do against say a slightly smaller AWB such as a First 53? It would be spanked, no ifs, no buts. Against Beneteau's charter offerings; It'd show them a clean pair of heals.

Nothing surprising here; almost all boats have got demonstrably better, yet there is no single perfect boat. But what does exist today is a fantastic range of new boats with an even wider choice second hand. Which means something to suit everybody's tastes and means.

Far better to get on and sail one's ideal floating partner than bang on about MAB/AWB comparisons every month ?

 

[geem]

You obviously are a racing guy not a cruiser. Trying to explain the merits of a nice cruising hull is wasted on somebody who thinks planing at a million miles per hour in 35 kts is a good thing. Lots of cruisers are looking for a boat that is well behaved in those conditions and easy to sail. A boat that will look after them when they are short handed and the weather turns nasty.
Contest and Trintella share the same heritage. So at least we like similar things maybe. I dont bang on about AWB/MAB every month. I do try to bring balance to an argument that everything new is better. It isnt. Everything in life these days seems to be built to a price. I guess it is the only way yacht builders stay in business. It doesnt mean we have to like it.

 

[dom]

I do try to bring balance to an argument that everything new is better. It isnt. Everything in life these days seems to be built to a price. I guess it is the only way yacht builders stay in business. It doesnt mean we have to like it.

Not trying to be confrontational here, but it was always thus. Every boat is/was built to a price point; it's the only way yacht, ship, or any other manufacturer can stay in business. Even NASA's moon quest had a rolling budget. And no you don't have to like it and nobody suggested otherwise.

If enough punters are happy to buy a new boat at a commercial price point, then a new boat is born and the market has even more choice. Whether that be a super-seaworthy vessel, a classic 18th Century lookalike, or dare I say it a 35kt weapon, which are serious fun BTW, but a different kettle of fish again to a Pogo,

And if you point out that cruising clobber would ruin a boat like that, then we can absolutely agree on something! ?

 

[geem]

Not trying to be confrontational here, but it was always thus. Every boat is/was built to a price point; it's the only way yacht, ship, or any other manufacturer can stay in business. Even NASA's moon quest had a rolling budget. And no you don't have to like it and nobody suggested otherwise.

If enough punters are happy to buy a new boat at a commercial price point, then a new boat is born and the market has even more choice. Whether that be a super-seaworthy vessel, a classic 18th Century lookalike, or dare I say it a 35kt weapon, which are serious fun BTW, but a different kettle of fish again to a Pogo,

And if you point out that cruising clobber would ruin a boat like that, then we can absolutely agree on something! ?

Just for the record, I am not against racing boats.?
I have raced on Taz a couple of times. Full carbon rocket ship. 37ft high performance machine and the only boat to have done all 12 RORC Caribbean 600s. Also skippered on little Britain Challenge a few times, raced with the sunsail fleets in Cowes and in Largs as skipper. Also raced on Sweetheart last year in Antigua Classics. And on many other events over the years. I enjoy racing but in one thing I have worked out is that racing boats dont make good cruisers. Fine for weekend sailing and the occational trip across the Channel but not much else. You will always find people cruising ex racing boats but they have big drawbacks. We met a Dutch couple on an aluminium ex BOC boat in Curacao. That boat was fast but there was almost nothing below. It was super basic. It stayed fast as they hadn't converted it to a cruising boat. Most sailors wouldn't tolerate this.
The modern crop of current production boats doesnt do it for me.

 

[Laminar Flow]

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...

Even if some like to quote examples of the supposed superiority of so-called performance designs, lets look at the numbers.

A Pogo 12.5 crossing the Atlantic at an average speed of 7kts relates to a relative speed factor of 1.01

Average sailing speed is normally 0.9; so the Pogo was a factor of 0.2 quicker.

I have friends who sailed a Hans Christian 38 the same route and at the same relative speed as the Pogo. SA/D of 15.5. They flew their spinnaker most of the way.

The reason the Pogo is faster (or not, as Gleem pointed out) is not because of some incredible design epiphany, fancy foils (many of which are pre WW2 and some from WW1), but because they have a very high SA/D ratio, period.

For the same reason a Hanse 315 with a SA/D of 16.75 will, if at all, only be marginally faster than a Contessa 32 with a SA/D of 15.5. That they are apparently not, speaks volumes for the quality of the Contessa's design. Displacing water is one thing, losing it at the other end is another.

In terms of pure displacement speed, there has been absolutely no progress made in the last fifty years, hull for hull.

Going around the corner for an overnighter to the next marina is not cruising in my mind. Nor is making a quick dash across the Channel for a meal and a night in Cherbourg. In real cruising with proper ground tackle and a useful means of getting ashore, food, supplies and tools, or in other words: autonomy, you're done with the planing and we are back to where we were 50 years ago with relative speeds of 1.34.

 

[Laminar Flow]

Far better to get on and sail one's ideal floating partner than bang on about MAB/AWB comparisons every month ?

The reason I seem to be compelled to bang on is that some have trouble comparing the apples with apples.

I love sailing boats in all their shapes and forms and essentially I don't care about all the different denominations (MAB, AWB and whatever). I do like to look at the numbers, hull shapes, rigs etc. though and I have designed and built boats as well. I have also sailed them places.

Ratios allow us to compare different boats. And when folk tell me this or that boat is fast or not, it is easily verified; there is no magic. The parametres are pretty straight forward. To think that a Hanse 315 is in the same league as a Pogo 30 is incorrect: the numbers do not add up, even if they share similar styling features. To say that either make a better offshore cruiser is dubious at best.

Most people have a clearer view of the practicality or performance of various cars than they do of boats; rarely do they confuse a stock car racer with a RV.

 

[Resolution]

Reading the fight back contributions from Flaming and Dom makes me wish that I was young enough and wealthy enough to get out and try some of the current crop of fast cruisers.

 

[Laminar Flow]

Reading the fight back contributions from Flaming and Dom makes me wish that I was young enough and wealthy enough to get out and try some of the current crop of fast cruisers.

Ownership may not be required; find someone to sail with and report back. I'd love to hear if I was wrong; happy to learn.

 

[dunedin]

I guess it depends on your definition of cruising boat. ....................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. ..............
<Abbreviated>.

.

I agree entirely that it depends what you are looking for.

But with your payload this probably puts you in a 1:10,000 minority of owners of sailing cruising yachts. Most are not full time liveaboard, and I would suggest you have more caboodle than most liveaboards I have come across.
Which is all fine for you, but very different from most buyers of a cruising yacht. And any boat builder needs to build boats which are going to be bought new by a large enough number of people with both cash and interest.

 

[Laminar Flow]

.

I agree entirely that it depends what you are looking for.

But with your payload this probably puts you in a 1:10,000 minority of owners of sailing cruising yachts. Most are not full time liveaboard, and I would suggest you have more caboodle than most liveaboards I have come across.
Which is all fine for you, but very different from most buyers of a cruising yacht. And any boat builder needs to build boats which are going to be bought new by a large enough number of people with both cash and interest.

No offense, but I doubt you have your numbers right. It is commonly underestimated how much gear, supplies, food and even a simple set of tools add to displacement, regardless if you are out for a 3 week hol or cruising full time. Irregardless of the size of boat, there is a base minimum required, before you even start getting in to the supplies that are crew size specific. Most designers calculate empty displacements for stability purposes, (sans safety gear et all and sometimes without furling systems) and most manufacturers like to quote these numbers in their publications. Remember, heavy = bad. This is how the yachting press "tests" these boats as well.
From my experience, Geem's boat is by no means a rare exception to loading. Furthermore it is of a substantial size (45' ?) for a couple and I am quite willing to believe it is still floating at or above it's DWL. Things get a lot more tricky when the boat is smaller and I remember visiting a Nic 30, where two extra guests were enough to flood the cockpit floor through the drains. With the pilot and the required four line handlers on board he had 3" of standing water in the cockpit while transiting the Panama canal; he was a singlehander.

If, as I have said before, a lot of nonsense has been written about sailing speeds, generally by over-exaggeration, displacement has to be a close second by gross understatement.
Fudging the numbers on speed? Who cares. Fudging the numbers on displacement is a lot more sinister: it not only affects speed (Nooo!) but more importantly, stability, safety and sea-keeping.

 

[Concerto]

As the OP I find the discussion so far very interesting. However we are fixated on boat speed rather than comfort sailing.

Whilst looking at some of the information on Sailboatdata.com, I saw the information on Comfort Ratio. This I had not noticed before so decided to see how this was calculated. This link explains it quite well.
CRUNCHING NUMBERS: Brewer Comfort Ratio - Wave Train
The comfort ratio improves with added weight from everything carried on board rather than for a bare boat.

There is also an excellent YM article on how to interpret boat statistics written by Nigel Calder and Chris Beeson, but does not include the comfort ratio.
Understand your boat and her statistics

Their opening comments include the following:

"The perfect cruising boat doesn’t exist and cannot be designed. Different sailors have different budgets and varied experience and requirements. "

"The key to lifelong contentment on the water is to find out what makes your perfect cruiser. There are a huge number of factors to consider and many statistical tools you can use but, before you can find the right answers, you need to ask the right questions. "

Further into the article they made these comments which seem very sensible.

"Everyone has a different cruising style. It’s important to select a boat suited to your aspirations. How and where do you want to sail? Here’s our list of desirable attributes that you can rank in your own order of importance:

• Speed, on various points of sail
• Comfort, at sea and in harbour
• Short-handed sailing
• Directional stability
• Security in all conditions
• Manoeuvrability under power
• Fun to sail
• Shoal-draught cruising
• Galley specification
• Space for entertaining (saloon and cockpit layout)"

Finally they sum up including:

"Our personal idiosyncrasies are a key part of the relationship we have with our boats. If you can temper yours with the kind of objective data, you will be able to understand better why your boat behaves the way she does."

So everyone who has commented is right according to the type of sailing they want to do, but can be so different to many other sailors choices. I personally do not like the modern wide beam wedges of a light construction. I am also tradtional about having a wood interior. My boat does not have pressurised water, a shower or built in fridge. I prefer the KISS principle and you get less problems that need to be solved. My choices may not be right for others, but I am happy with the boat I have. Thank goodness we are all different and there is a wide choice of boats, both new and secondhand, to satisfy virtually all sailors.

 

[Laminar Flow]

Thank you for that, Concerto.

I might have mentioned "comfort ratio" earlier. Beam and waterline plane are the main factors; the higher the resulting number, the better.

Another factor mentioned by Brewer is the capsize screening factor. A factor under 2 indicates a vessel suitable for offshore work. This factor is based on the fact that the two elements that contribute most to a capsize are a wide beam and low displacement.

A few numbers for comparison:
Pogo 30 SA/D 27.18 Capsize F 2.65 Comfort 11.44
Contessa 32 SA/D 15.5 Cap. F. 1.80 Cmfrt. 27.72
Moody 336 SA/D 15 Cap. F. 1.99 Cmfrt. 24.81
Hanse 315 SA/D 16.75 Cap. F. 2.02 Cmfrt. 22.33
My Tub SA/D 17.8 Cap. F. 1.74 Cmfrt. 35.36

 

[flaming]

Even if some like to quote examples of the supposed superiority of so-called performance designs, lets look at the numbers.

A Pogo 12.5 crossing the Atlantic at an average speed of 7kts relates to a relative speed factor of 1.01

Average sailing speed is normally 0.9; so the Pogo was a factor of 0.2 quicker.

I have friends who sailed a Hans Christian 38 the same route and at the same relative speed as the Pogo. SA/D of 15.5. They flew their spinnaker most of the way.

The reason the Pogo is faster (or not, as Gleem pointed out) is not because of some incredible design epiphany, fancy foils (many of which are pre WW2 and some from WW1), but because they have a very high SA/D ratio, period.

For the same reason a Hanse 315 with a SA/D of 16.75 will, if at all, only be marginally faster than a Contessa 32 with a SA/D of 15.5. That they are apparently not, speaks volumes for the quality of the Contessa's design. Displacing water is one thing, losing it at the other end is another.

In terms of pure displacement speed, there has been absolutely no progress made in the last fifty years, hull for hull.

Going around the corner for an overnighter to the next marina is not cruising in my mind. Nor is making a quick dash across the Channel for a meal and a night in Cherbourg. In real cruising with proper ground tackle and a useful means of getting ashore, food, supplies and tools, or in other words: autonomy, you're done with the planing and we are back to where we were 50 years ago with relative speeds of 1.34.

I don't even know who you think you are arguing with any more.

Nothing you say about the Pogo simply being a light boat is in any way disputed. That's the whole point of the design. The post of mine you quoted even starts with me saying "There's no doubt that to get the best out of that type of boat you have to keep them light. "

The point of designs like the Pogo, and there are many others, is not that they are magic, but just that they bring a different approach, a different mentality, to going cruising. The idea that a modern cruising boat can plane. Clearly it's not for everyone, very obviously it's not for you, but I have no idea why the very existence of these boats seems to upset you so much.

Here's a nice review of another boat that you'll hate. A boat that was tested straight after an Atlantic circuit. The quoted performance, albeit in light airs, is very impressive indeed.

JPK 45 boat test: Performance cruiser provides memorable enjoyment

 

[Lightwave395]

Here's a nice review of another boat that you'll hate. A boat that was tested straight after an Atlantic circuit. The quoted performance, albeit in light airs, is very impressive indeed.

JPK 45 boat test: Performance cruiser provides memorable enjoyment

That would do it for me, no doubt, had I the wealth to afford it !

 

[dom]

Another factor mentioned by Brewer is the capsize screening factor. A factor under 2 indicates a vessel suitable for offshore work. This factor is based on the fact that the two elements that contribute most to a capsize are a wide beam and low displacement.

A few numbers for comparison:
Pogo 30 SA/D 27.18 Capsize F 2.65 Comfort 11.44
Contessa 32 SA/D 15.5 Cap. F. 1.80 Cmfrt. 27.72
Moody 336 SA/D 15 Cap. F. 1.99 Cmfrt. 24.81
Hanse 315 SA/D 16.75 Cap. F. 2.02 Cmfrt. 22.33
My Tub SA/D 17.8 Cap. F. 1.74 Cmfrt. 35.36

Fair enough having different points of view, but posting nonsense while claiming elsewhere to be a boat designer is not really on.

The capsize factor you refer to is simply beam/(cube root of displacement)

So add 1000kg to the bottom of your keel and it goes down; fair enough. Add it to the top of the mast, ditto! Now does that make sense?