Pocket cruising boats

[Guillermo]

I'd like to learn about seaworthy coastal cruising boats under 30' (sail)
Here what I consider nice examples:
http://www.northbeachyachts.nl/eng/nb24.htm
http://www.selectyachts.co.uk/crabbershome.asp?ArtID=1
More?

[SeaSpark]

A design from the not very well known Dick Zaal, think you will like it Guillermo.

By the way identifying coastal cruising boats under 30' is a massive task. Could you narrow you question down a bit by making more restictions?

http://www.dickzaalyachtdesign.nl/ no direct link possible, look under designs, wooden.

Under "current project" there is the Lunde design it's beautiful but over 30ft.

[Vega]

I'd like to learn about seaworthy coastal cruising boats under 30' (sail)


I agree with SeasparK. Besides you are not a "beginner"....So, what do you really want to know, that you don’t know already? or do you want boat examples?

I guess that the basic stuff is: if you have a small boat the RM will not be big, so, if you want to maximize seaworthiness you should have a boat proportionally heavier (D/L) than a bigger boat, to have a bigger RM.
A small boat (small RM) is more easily capsized than a bigger boat, then it should have a higher AVS and a smaller inverted stability, to be able to easily recover from a capsizing etc, etc, etc

Anyway, making a small boat seaworthy is not economical advantageous, because it will be an expensive boat....and for that money you can buy a bigger boat, as seaworthy, faster and with more space...but there are some beautiful small oceangoing boats out there...and if I did not have a family I would probably fall for this one....You would have to see the boat, the quality of the interior and the absolute perfection of everything to understand why. (Take also a look at the stability curve and see the movie).

http://www.marieholm.nl/uk/zeiljacht1.html

PS1- I know that it is a 33ft, but it is so narrow that, at least in volume it is a pocket cruiser.

Ps2-But I guess that you would prefer this one:

http://www.vilm.de/content_yachten/101.php

[Guillermo]

Thanks, SeaSpark. Nice design, indeed.
Let's see: I'm interested in discussing seaworthy pure cruisers (so no cruiser-racers), design category B, or A, although this last is not essential, as we are talking coasters.
My preferences go in the line of traditional looking designs, but that's only my personal taste. I would like to hear from all stiles.
Heavy or light? In my opinion medium to heavy, let's say with a D/L ratio (imperial units) from 250 to 350, as I find lightness doesn't mach very well with seaworthiness, although I would like to hear other opinions, too.
Able for a family of 4 to do some extensive coastal cruising, so with enough interior volume and clean arrangement.
On the powering side, enough to cope with bad weather when in a tight situation, but with fuel efficiency in mind (So no too much power). Will be also very interesting in knowing about energies other than diesel.
I'd like to discuss also equipment and appliances for such boats.
Rig? Open to all types and aspect ratios.
Keel?: All styles also open for discussion.
Hull materials: All.
Deck arrangement: Open to discussion (I'm not looking for pilothouse motorsilers here!)
I Would like also to discuss some interesting design data, as hull coeficients, etc, usually not available in commercial information.
Cheers.

[Guillermo]

....because it will be an expensive boat....
Thanks, Paulo. You posted while I was answering SeaSpark!
Yes, I know those will be expensive boats, but let's say money is not a concern here...:)
Very nice boats, the ones you post. Maybe you will be surprised, but I like more the Marieholm than the Vilms :!:
Interesting to know 'Friendships' will be back in production in Marieholm's hands...

[Vega]

Able for a family of 4 to do some extensive coastal cruising, so with enough interior volume and clean arrangement.
Cheers.

Hum, I have some experience with costal cruising with 4 and if I ask the family opinion about "cruising extensively" in a boat this size, they would say that I had lost my marbles.
Sorry Guillermo but a boat smaller than 30ft (and not a beamier one, on account of the inverted stability) is suitable for a couple, or a couple and one small child. Maybe with young twins, you can do it in a boat like that,I mean, extensive cruising with 4, in reasonably comfort.:D

[Guillermo]

Hum, I have some experience with costal cruising with 4 and if I ask the family opinion about "cruising extensively" in a boat this size, they would say that I had lost my marbles.
Sorry Guillermo but a boat smaller than 30ft (and not a beamier one, on account of the inverted stability) is suitable for a couple, or a couple and one small child. Maybe with young twins, you can do it in a boat like that,I mean, extensive cruising with 4, in reasonably comfort.:D
I'm not talking about king size berths and the like, conceived for not salty and lazy people, certainly ;). Just normal bunks. I've personally done some pretty extensive cruising in a Puma 23, with my father and two brothers of mine, when I was young.

[Vega]

That's four men. Try to do that with two men and two women:D

[Guillermo]

I get your point, Paulo :) but I still believe coastal crusing can be done quite comfortably with 4 under 30' (Note: I'm not talking liveaboard). At least in Europe, with mushrooning marinas all around, allowing for short trips and where you can enjoy showers and other comforts whenever you want.

I've owned a McGregor 26 (1984 model, with winged keel) when I was living in Cancún, sailing her down from Key West. Crew for that trip was 5 men.
In Cancún I used her for family sailing with two children. No problem, although this design is too light and weak for safe cruising in my opinion. She's rather a protected waters good weather weekender. When in the passaging from Key West to Cancún we were caught in a nightly force 7-8 with two metres steep waves: the hinged and retractable rudder failed, being not conceived for that severe punishment. Luckily nothing else went wrong. We managed to make a fortune repair which worked well enough for another 300 miles.

The Northbeach 24 I mentioned before, has 5 berths and I find she's a proper cruising boat, even being so small. D/L ratio is 283 and SA/D is 16.83 (with main, self-talking jib and yankee); a powerful sailing area, with a low center of effort. The 9 HP diesel engine makes for a 6*HP/D ratio of 8.59, so the boat is clearly a sailing boat with auxiliary engine. Capsize ratio is 1.78 and Comfort ratio 26.29

Retractable keel allows for extended cruising areas in shallow waters, retractable bowsprit makes the thing cheaper when in marinas and hinged mast step makes channel navigation with low bridges an easy task.

Styling is very nice, in my opinion, and arrangement is simple and effective. The only minus maybe headroom in the living space: They only talk about 1.95 m under the spramhood, if fitted.

Design category: B
Designer: Frans Cobelens

Cheers.

[Guillermo]

Janice142's well known search for motorsailers and sailboats under 30':
http://www.janice142.com/Sailboats.htm
(Maybe this thread should have been posted by them?)
More useful information for this thread's purposes:
http://www.yachtsnet.co.uk/archives.htm

Some cruisers up to 26 found at PBO mag, to be reviewed under the limitations of this thread's objectives:
Trident 24, GK 24, Sadler 25, Fisher 25, Contessa 26, Frances 26 (Victoria 800), MacWester 26, Westerly Centaur, Super Seal 26.

I'd like to hear about referencies to new or old boats, reviews and opinions on which one this forums mebers and visitors consider the best.

[MikeJohns]

The death of the pocket cruiser is lamentable. A small capable vessel has much to recommend it, I think heavy displacment is definatley a big plus in this type of boat for room and comfort and load capability/performance issues.

Of the wee cruisers one of the notable I have seen is the Golden Hind 31 (Maurice Griffiths) the design often turns up here (Tasmania) on round the world voyages and is reported to be a comfortable vessel at sea. I don't know her ratios. Even the 26 foot versin has turned up.

I surveyed one that had the bilge keels removed and the owner reported good handling at sea.

I did a quick search
http://www.eventides.org.uk/goldpic.htm

Cheers

[Vega]

One of the last to be still in production is the Vanconver 28 :

"The Vancouver 28 is a direct descendant from the original Vancouver 27, the design that started the Vancouver legend.
Everything about this yacht should recommend itself to a sailing couple."

http://www.northshore.co.uk/index.php?p=yachts/vancouvr/van28

[sharpii2]

A light boat (DL under 180) Can be very seaworthy. It can right itself (if properly designed) from 180 deg capsize. It can also be faster. What it can't be is more comfortable at sea. A light boat of the usual proportions (L/B of 3.0 to 3.5) will usually have a jerkier motion than a heavier boat. Kind of like driving a Camry rather than a Ford Explorer over a rough dirt road. The Camry can make it, but you will feel every bump.

Boats usually cost by the pound. So a heavier boat of the same length is going to cost more than a lighter one, as a general rule. But I will say this, the heavier boat will probably be cheaper per pound, but maye only slightly so. And only when it's new.

A heavier boat can be made of heavy matterials such as steel and ferrocement that are usually less expensive than lighter matterials, such as aluminum and foam core fiberglass. I think the reason heavier boats have such a reputation for being much more costly than lighter boats is that they are usually not only built in much smaller numbers (less amortizement of molds and other tooling) and are usually built to much more rugged standards. Most I have heard of are intended for offshore sailing. Wheras most lighter boats (even though they may end up there) are usually not.

Heavier boats tend to hold their value better than lighter ones too. And, when I say this, I am only refering to boats that are still in sound condition. So, if you want to go cruising and your bill fold is limited (as it usually is for most blue water cruisers who actually want to sail accross oceans rather than pay boat mortgages and dream of it) you're going to have to find yourself a nautical bargan. More often than not, that is going to mean buying a used boat that was once popular but is now out of fasion (such as an old IOR boat) and fit it out as best you can. With reasonable luck, you can pay off its boat mortgage while you're still young enough to do it. Hopefully, by then, you will have learned its ways well enough to know when you are really in a dangerous situation rather than merely a frightening one.

I know all this not from experience, but from reading hundreds of accounts of blue water voyages. Almost always, they happened in boats that were seen as unsuitable to the task, even by their owners. But they set out anyway. They knew that it was either less than ideal or not at all. And, over the many sea miles, they seemed to get so accustomed to their boat that they would defend to the death its virtues.

Now this wild generalization does not include those nautical craftsmen, such as the Pardy's who have the skill and the willingness to build thier whole boat themselves. (and a very conveniet way to recharge their cruising kitty as well). either Seraffyn or the later Tailism would have bankrupted the Pardy's had they had to purchase them rather than build them.

Trust me. Before long we will be hearing about ocean passages in the much maligned (and in my opinion, unjustly so) Mac 26. And it won't be because its the best boat for the job. But merely because it is the only boat available to that person at the time.

When you see me griping in other threads about 'unsafe' and 'unwholesome' off shore racing trends, you now should know the reason why.

I think the most poisonous myth of our times is; that our actions don't effect others.

Bob

BTW the idea that a heavier boat (in smaller sizes) will be significantly different from a lighter one may turn out to be a myth. The reason being that boats of similer LB dimensions have similer pounds per inch rates. For instance: Take two 24 by 8ft boats with one having a light ship displacement that is twice that of the other (one, say, 3,000lbs and the other 6,000lbs light ship), load them both down with 2000lbs of cruising gear and supplies and see what happens. The lighter boat now displaces 5,000lbs and the heavier one 8,000. Both will sink down by about the same amount, but now the heavier one is only 60% heavier than the lighter one.

Not only that, but the lighter boat may actually experience less strain in its loaded condition than it would in its lighter condition. Its pitch and roll will be less sharp and its initial stability will not change that much. (don't try this with multi's, however. With them, twice the displacement does mean twice the initial stability and therfore twice the strain.)

[Raggi_Thor]

But lightweight boats often have a narrow waterline. When they are heavily loaded the wtted area will increase relatively more than for a heavier boat. Then you need to add more sails or it will be slow....

[Raggi_Thor]

Note: I am not a "fan" of heavy displacement. If you have the money and time to build a boat of 5 tons, I think you should make it long and slender.

[Windvang]

But lightweight boats often have a narrow waterline. When they are heavily loaded the wtted area will increase relatively more than for a heavier boat. Then you need to add more sails or it will be slow....

You can design a "light" boat to carry a big payload. Lighter boats are much dryer to sail, faster and need less sail area, making crew work much easier.

I designed a "light" Trintella 52 that only needed a self tacking jib to go much faster than the old "heavy" 150% genoa version. It is 14.2 tonnes and designed to have 3 tonnes of payload.

The movement against big waves is less than the heavy version, but a bit quicker. This is not so much a result of the weight as it is of the increased speed. It is like the difference between a BMW versus a Chevy, it all depents on what you like. Me, I get seasick in a Chevy.

[Raggi_Thor]

OK, I see what you mean :-)
I think you are right.
But if, for some reason, you want only 26 feet, should the boat weight 1 ton or 3 tons to take a load of 2 tons?

[sharpii2]

But lightweight boats often have a narrow waterline. When they are heavily loaded the wtted area will increase relatively more than for a heavier boat. Then you need to add more sails or it will be slow....

True. True.

But the 'under funded' cruiser is happy enough to be on the water. She/he will hardly notice such trivialities.

Also, light boats seem to have proportionately bigger rigs and smaller appendages than heavy boats.

But I do agree with your premise. The over loaded light boat will be slower than the less overloaded heavy boat with the same load.

Bob

[Windvang]

OK, I see what you mean :-)
I think you are right.
But if, for some reason, you want only 26 feet, should the boat weight 1 ton or 3 tons to take a load of 2 tons?

2 ton load for a 26 is a bit much anyway. I agree with you on the long and slender theory a 3 ton 30' is abouth the same cost as a 3 ton 26. Yet if you save weight on a 3 ton 26 you can trade part of that in for performance and part for extra load.

My opinion is, if you only want to have 26 you have te be prepared to travel somewhat "light" that means more pitstops for taking on fuel, water and food. That might not be a bad compromise as the 26 will also be slower and less comfortable.

The attached example is a 40' Kvase I reengineered from steel into foam composite. The hull was build in kevlar in order to get the same strength as the steel. Originally 15 ton, now 13 ton including extra generator, 250 l extra fuel and 120Kg. extra batteries. The only difficulty is getting rid of 3 m3 volume without sacificing to much interior space.

[sharpii2]

You can design a "light" boat to carry a big payload. Lighter boats are much dryer to sail, faster and need less sail area, making crew work much easier.

I designed a "light" Trintella 52 that only needed a self tacking jib to go much faster than the old "heavy" 150% genoa version. It is 14.2 tonnes and designed to have 3 tonnes of payload.

The movement against big waves is less than the heavy version, but a bit quicker. This is not so much a result of the weight as it is of the increased speed. It is like the difference between a BMW versus a Chevy, it all depents on what you like. Me, I get seasick in a Chevy.

52 ft is an awfully big boat. Especially for this thread. Smaller boats have to carry proportionately way more payload.

The 20 footer I'm designing is expected to carry at least 1,000 lbs. And she'll be about 2,000 lbs light ship.

She will be slow, however (3kts anticipated average).

Bob

[Windvang]

52 ft is an awfully big boat. Especially for this thread. Smaller boats have to carry proportionately way more payload.

The 20 footer I'm designing is expected to carry at least 1,000 lbs. And she'll be about 2,000 lbs light ship.

She will be slow, however (3kts anticipated average).

Bob

I think 2,000 lbs is not extremely heavy for a 20' 1000 lbl payload is a lot however.

What if you increase the length of your design by 10% and keep the same weight? You would need the same gear, sailarea and engine (if any). Assuming you build in ply (sharpie) that will still be 3 plates lengtwise for the hull sheeting and so probably the same cost, maybe 1% up on the overall price.

Arthur

[Vega]

A light boat (DL under 180) Can be very seaworthy. It can right itself (if properly designed) from 180 deg capsize. It can also be faster. What it can't be is more comfortable at sea.

Nice post!
I agree with most of what you say, but not about this (if we are talking about a 28ft).

Even if the light boat has no negative stability (or an equal AVS), it would be a boat easier to capsize. The light boat, for having an equal RM it would have a very deep keel with a small bulb and its roll moment would be much, much bigger compared with the heavier boat, making it easier to be capsized by breaking waves, or very disturbed seas.

[Vega]

Nice post!

I agree with most of what you say, but not about this (if we are talking about a 28ft).

A light boat (DL under 180) Can be very seaworthy. ... the idea that a heavier boat (in smaller sizes) will be significantly different from a lighter one may turn out to be a myth.

A light boat, even if it has no negative stability (or with an equal AVS), would be a boat easier to capsize than the heavy boat. For having an equal RM, the light boat would have a very deep keel with a small bulb and its roll moment would be much, much bigger compared with the heavier boat, making it easier to be capsized by breaking waves, or very disturbed seas.

Yes, a small light weight boat can be relatively seaworthy, but not as much as a good designed heavy boat. For that (relatively seaworthy) it would have to be an expensive and very unpractical boat with a big draft, not to mention about safety problems related with a fragile keel. Not the kind of boat the market offers as the mass production 27ft, or the one sailors want as an oceangoig cruising boat.

[Windvang]

Nice post!
I agree with most of what you say, but not about this (if we are talking about a 28ft).

Even if the light boat has no negative stability (or an equal AVS), it would be a boat easier to capsize. The light boat, for having an equal RM it would have a very deep keel with a small bulb and its roll moment would be much, much bigger compared with the heavier boat, making it easier to be capsized by breaking waves, or very disturbed seas.

Why not the same depth of keel with a big bulb? The you can lower weight and increase RM.

[Guillermo]

I've found this nice design from Albert Nazarov (http://www.nazarovdesign.net/design.htm):

'Albatros 800' Transportable cruiser
LOA=8.00m
LWL=7.44m
B=2.25m
DSPL=1270kg
SA=43.8m2

This is in the far end of the spectrum, if we consider it against Golden Hind 31 (By the way, this boat is Design category A!) or Vancouver 28, i.e.
What do you think about it?

Cheers

[Vega]

Why not the same depth of keel with a big bulb? The you can lower weight and increase RM.

To have the same RM of a heavy boat, with the same depth of keel (cruising sailboats have a small draft), the bulb would have to weigh so much that it would not be a light boat anymore:D

[Vega]

I've found this nice design from Albert Nazarov (http://www.nazarovdesign.net/design.htm):

'Albatros 800' Transportable cruiser
LOA=8.00m
LWL=7.44m
B=2.25m
DSPL=1270kg
SA=43.8m2

This is in the far end of the spectrum, if we consider it against Golden Hind 31 (By the way, this boat is Design category A!) or Vancouver 28, i.e.
What do you think about it?

Cheers

That is a very incomplete information. What about draft, Ballast and type of keel (bulb?, weight of bulb).
Show me the Rm curves of both boats and I will say something.;)

[Guillermo]

..A light boat, even if it has no negative stability (or with an equal AVS), would be a boat easier to capsize than the heavy boat. For having an equal RM, the light boat would have a very deep keel with a small bulb and its roll moment would be much, much bigger compared with the heavier boat, making it easier to be capsized by breaking waves, or very disturbed seas...
I'm a little bit confused with your statement :confused:
For the same size of boat, RM curves are quite different for, let's say, a long keeled narrow 'wine glassed hulled' motorsailer and a wide flat planning hulled one, with bulb at the end of a deep keel, both having the same displacement.
Let's suppose they have the same freeboard and comparable deck arrangement. Watertightness supposed all around 360º.
Most probably the flat and wide boat will have an all around better RM curve, with higher initial stability and also higher AVS, so a much bigger area under the RM curve than the motorsailer, thus providing a much better dynamic stability curve, which is really what we have to analize to judge the resistance to capsizing. Please correct me if I'm wrong, or if I misunderstood you.

Note: I do not consider the possibility of a keel failure or other concepts. We are talking only stability here.

[Guillermo]

One of the last to be still in production is the Vanconver 28....
Some interesting data for this boat:
D/L = 332
SA/D = 16.31
6*HP/D = 12.04
CSF = 1.67
MCR = 31.71
Cutter rigged.
Lay-out: 3/4 people.
Design Category: A

Here we have a very nice ocean going, safe, heavy, sail-oriented motorsailer. I like very much this one.

[Vega]

I'm a little bit confused with your statement :confused:
For the same length of boat, RM curves are quite different for, let's say, a long keeled narrow 'wine glassed hulled' motorsailer and a wide flat planning hulled ULDB, with bulb at the end of a deep keel, both having the same displacement.
Let's suppose they have the same freeboard and comparable deck arrangement. Watertightness supposed al around 360º.
Most probably the ULDB will have an all around better RM curve, with higher initial stability and also higher AVS, and so a much bigger area under the RM curve than the motorsailer, so providing a much better dynamic stability curve, which is really what we have to analize to judge the resistance to capsizing. Please correct me if I'm wrong, or if I misunderstood you.


Let’s see :

In the other post we were talking about two sailboats, one light and another heavy, both with no negative stability (AVS 180º).
Both have the same RM ( with no negative stability) and that means that the force necessary to capsize any of the boats would be equal. This does not mean that the boats have the same curve (they don’t), it means that the area behind the RM curves would be the same (not the curves).
As you have said, the lighter boat would have a sharper curve, with better initial stability and the heavier one would have a more rounded curve with worst initial stability but better final stability.

Being the force for capsizing each boat the same, the boat that would be easier to capsize would be the one with bigger roll moment of inertia and that would be the one with the lower CG.

That’s why a sailboat that has lost his rig is a lot easier to capsize, even if without the rig its CG is a lot lower. That’s because, without the mast, its roll moment is a lot bigger.

[Guillermo]

..we were talking about two sailboats, one light and another heavy, both with no negative stability (AVS 180º).
Both have the same RM ( with no negative stability)....This does not mean that the boats have the same curve (they don’t), it means that the area behind the RM curves would be the same (not the curves)...
So, not the same RM or RM curve, but the same area. That's what confused me. Anyhow, I'm not sure they will have the same area under the RM curve for the same size and displacement. Most probably not. Need to work on a realistic example.

.. and the heavier one would have a more rounded curve with worst initial stability but better final stability.
I'm also not so sure about this. We are talking unprobale boats having a 180º AVS, which will probably call for big watertight volumes on deck. Again, have to study it.

..Being the force for capsizing each boat the same, the boat that would be easier to capsize would be the one with bigger roll moment of inertia and that would be the one with the lower CG.
I think it's the contrary. Read: http://www.johnsboatstuff.com/Articles/dynamic.htm


That’s why a sailboat that has lost his rig is a lot easier to capsize, even if without the rig its CG is a lot lower. That’s because, without the mast, its roll moment is a lot bigger.
Losting rig decreases moment of inertia, not risens it, if that's what you are talking about.....:confused:
I think that a sailboat that has lost its mast is easier to capsize is not always true. It depends on keel weight and position. A heavy bulb will make the boat like one of those toys that you cannot turn down (How are they called in english?). Precisely this kind of boats have a very large AVS and very small area under the RM curve in the inverted position. Because of this and the big weight high over the sea level, makes very easy for these boat to turn upright again (keeping keel in its place, not breaking, of course)

From Johnson stuff:
"Dynamic stability controls how much a boat heels in response to a wind gust or impact of a strong wave. A stable cruising boat will resist these dynamic forces long enough for them to pass safely by. Heavy displacement helps dynamic stability, but the most important factor is the boat’s roll moment of inertia. The roll moment of inertia is calculated by multiplying the weight of each piece of the boat by the square of its distance from the center of gravity. The "squared" term makes the calculation very sensitive to how far heavy objects are from the center of gravity. For example, a dingy with two people sitting fore and aft on the centerline has a smaller roll moment of inertia than the same dingy with the people sitting side by side. Both boats weight the same, have the same center of gravity, and the same center of buoyancy (exactly the same static stability), but moving the people off the centerline greatly increases the roll moment of inertia. If two identical boats are hit by a gust, the one with the largest roll moment of inertia will roll the least."
http://www.johnsboatstuff.com/Articles/estimati.htm

Cheers.

[Raggi_Thor]

One interesting issue that may consern this discussion is the changing meaning of the terms "deplacement" and "ballast ratio".

Deplacement used to mean the total weight of the boat with stores and crew, in sailing condition. Now it often is used for the weight of a new empty boat.

Ballast ratio used to mean ballast/deplacement where deplacement is as above.

So some years ago a boat weighing 1000kg would have a deplacement of 1500kg with crew and some food+water. Then the 400kg of lead would have been a ballast ratio of 27% while a salesperson now will say it is 40%.

Now you often find small boats in the lower price range with an empty weight of for exapmple 2000kg and 500kg ballast. That is 25%. When the boat is in use with a deplacement of say, 2500kg the ballast ratio is 20%.

Anyone know what the ISO is doing with this?
I think there is a new common understanding of "deplacement" on its way.

[sharpii2]

I think 2,000 lbs is not extremely heavy for a 20' 1000 lbl payload is a lot however.

What if you increase the length of your design by 10% and keep the same weight? You would need the same gear, sailarea and engine (if any). Assuming you build in ply (sharpie) that will still be 3 plates lengtwise for the hull sheeting and so probably the same cost, maybe 1% up on the overall price.

Arthur

After a while you get into vanishing returns.

Especially in sail boats.

Making my proposed design longer would increase its potential speed in good sailing winds, but, for the same given sail area, make her much slower in light winds. (10% or more) Add to that the extra matterial and the increased structure allowences for the greater length and the few extra feet doesn't seem such a bargain.

The boat was originally concieved as a 15ft micro cruiser stretched out so she could be double ended without breaking the cheap exterior plywood she would be made of. The idea here is to make the least expensive, least complex boat possible that can comfortably cross an ocean (so much for pit stops) and be buildable by crapsmen (dangerous with a saw, deadly with a paintbrush) such as myself. She'll look like a bloated kayak with high sides and a vane tacked to the stern and a single ballanced lug sail over her deck. Which, by the way, will be so narrow that it would be dangerous to venture out on. Hence, all the sail handling will be from below.

If you can imagine das boote with sails, you'll get the picture. Ballast was once going to be water, but is now going to be the somewhat denser sand. And it's all going to be internal. Water stores will be in 2 liter bottles stowed low so they can double in effect as ballast. Each bottle will be refilled with salt water as it's emptied. Water will make up about 60% of the stores.
Everything else will be rank by heaviness and stowed accordingly.

The idea here is to consolidate the forces acting on her (sails above/ ballast below moved as close together as practical) and distribute loads widely. This, I understand, makes for a long lived structure.

She will look and perform nothing like a yacht, so little effort will be made giving her that kind of finish (the main reason boats are so expensive). She will therefore be seen as a pleasure boat. A work boat that doesn't have to pay for itself (nor impress anyone). She will creep accross the ocean at 2 to 4kts, sometimes reaching speeds up to 6kts when the wind is just right.

My mantra is: "simple to build, cheap to maintain." Especially for entry level blue water boats.

As for the disproportionate payload, with all proportions kept the same, boats go up in displacement with the cube of their length. Therefore, a forty foot version of my little beasty will displace eight times as much. So, unless I'm planning on eight crew on a forty foot version, I can afford to cut displacement. And, with a likely two person crew, payload would be the first place I would start that cutting. The boat would end up lighter, but would. proportionately, have the same rig. She would therefore be disproportionately faster.

In your conversion of a steel design to a foam fiberglass version, have you raised the price as you cut the displacement?

Bob

[Guillermo]

Anyone know what the ISO is doing with this?
I think there is a new common understanding of "deplacement" on its way.

ISO 8666 defines masses for recreational craft, as follows (simplified):
- Light craft mass, mLCC
- Mass of the craft when loaded on a trailer, mT
- Performance test mass, mP
- Maximum load mass, mMTL

and loading conditions:
- Test condition
- Ready-for-use condition
- Fully loaded ready-for-use condition

ISO 14946 defines maximum load as the "manufacturer's recommended maximum load"

Too detailed and taking too much time to write it down in full here :(

[Raggi_Thor]

Thanks Guillermo!
It's quite interesting talking to the sales persons on boatshows. Ask them about the displacement and they will give you the mLCC :-)

[Windvang]

In your conversion of a steel design to a foam fiberglass version, have you raised the price as you cut the displacement?

Bob

Is your design a bit like the Paradox cruiser?, it sounds like an interesting experiment!. Raggi what is your idea abouth the increase in price?, as you are a builder.

Yes, the fiberglass hull is more expensive in materials than the steel one. I think up to 25% especially as we used Kevlar. But it had a lot of advantages:

a: It was very easy to build using foam battens around chipboard frames. The foam was cut by a knive then hot-melted to each other and the frame. It took 2 men abouth 4 days to close the hull. Remember the Colin Archer is a complex shape.

b: We could just paint the inside and did not have to insulate and finish it.
c: The boat will have less maintenance in the future.
d: we could use a smaller engine, and a smaller sail area, saving quit a bit of the price back.

Arthur

[sharpii2]

Is your design a bit like the Paradox cruiser?, it sounds like an interesting experiment!. Raggi what is your idea abouth the increase in price?, as you are a builder.

Yes, the fiberglass hull is more expensive in materials than the steel one. I think up to 25% especially as we used Kevlar. But it had a lot of advantages:

a: It was very easy to build using foam battens around chipboard frames. The foam was cut by a knive then hot-melted to each other and the frame. It took 2 men abouth 4 days to close the hull. Remember the Colin Archer is a complex shape.

b: We could just paint the inside and did not have to insulate and finish it.
c: The boat will have less maintenance in the future.
d: we could use a smaller engine, and a smaller sail area, saving quit a bit of the price back.

Arthur

Yes. It is very similer to a Pardox, but its concept pre dates it by about two decades. There are other differences too. A Paradox is intended for shallow water sailing with an occasional (but perfectly safe) venture into deep water. My Lola is intended for the oposite. Above the WL they will look almost identical. Just shows you how design principals dictate design. If you want a big range of stability in a shoal draft boat, the hull section is going to have to be tall for its beam. Or it's going to need an awful lot of ballast (50% or more).

The most striking difference between the two is going to be below the waterline. Paradox has a flat bottom: Lola has a 23 deg 'V'. She also will have boards extending down from her sheer to the depth of her 'V'.

Parodox, on the other hand, has a 'L' section running parallel to her chine. She can sail in extremely shallow water with this device and doesn't need any boards. I haven't heard how well this works to windward, but niether have I heard of any complaints. Maybe she has adequate windward ability, which is all she really needs (the relentless search for more and more windward ability has, in IMHO, done great damage to sailboat design).

For the same length, Lola will be about 50% heavier, but have just about the same amount of sail (no races, please, unless they are either dead to windward or across an ocean:) )

I hope to hear more about your project. Especially when it is ready to sail. It may be very instructive to see how the sail away price of your version compares with that of the steel version (as for myself, I wouldn't bet either way;) )

Bob

[Vega]

I think it's the contrary. Read: http://www.johnsboatstuff.com/Articles/dynamic.htm
.

You are right about the roll moment of inertia, I was thinking upside down, regarding the meaning of the concept. I was thinking in bigger roll, when what it means is bigger inertia to roll.

About which boat is easily capsized I am not sure you are right, see this:

“On the one hand, in a 'static' sense, more ballast lowers the center of gravity, and should therefore be beneficial. It is obvious that for sail carrying, yes more ballast is beneficial. For comfort though, it is not. For resistance to being rolled in actual dynamic conditions, it is not.
A light weight vessel having a large concentration of ballast will have a much lesser 'roll moment of inertia' so will be much more easily put in motion and therefore will be more likely to experience large roll angles due to wave action.
While the 'ballast ratio' may have some utility as a measure of seakindliness (i.e. more equals less), it is in fact quite meaningless as a measure of either stability or seakeeping ability. Why?
We know nothing about stability without considering the distribution of weights ( the vessel's actual center of gravity), and the shape of the boat.”
ROLL MOMENT: While the amount of displacement has an effect on a vessel's motion, it is the distribution of displacement that has the greatest effect on roll motions. We can improve comfort, and we can actually improve safety by increasing the "roll moment of inertia" of the vessel. This is accomplished by spreading out the various weights aboard rather than having them highly concentrated. This is very much counter to the usually assumed requirement for a specific 'ballast ratio' on sail boats, or that there must be a certain amount of ballast present for the safety of a power boat.
For the most basic understanding of this, we can say without doubt that an object with its mass distributed toward the perimeter will have a higher resistance to changes in motion. Therefore, it will be more dynamically stable. This can be intuitively thought of as the ?gyroscope? effect. "

http://www.kastenmarine.com/beam_vs_ballast.htm





I think that a sailboat that has lost its mast is easier to capsize is not always true.
.

About this I think that there are few doubts. There are many studied cases of boats that were very easily rolled after having lost their rigs . The evidence from the Hobart race is clear on that point, one of the few where it was possible to take conclusions.

"On boats, it has been well proven that the very distribution of weights athwartships and into the rig are in fact favorable to stability in a 'dynamic' environment. We have observed that boats that have been dismasted are much more likely to be rolled over. This is due to the lack of inertia (lesser roll moment of inertia) and the relative ease with which a heavy roll can be suddenly induced. This cannot be demonstrated by static analysis as one would normally expect, since the dismasted boat obviously has 'more' static stability without a mast - in the actual ocean though, it is the opposite."

http://www.kastenmarine.com/beam_vs_ballast.htm



. We are talking unprobale boats having a 180º AVS, which will probably call for big watertight volumes on deck.
.

About this you are absolutely correct. This is in fact a useless analysis about almost impossible boats, in particular the light one.

I would propose a much more useful exercise. Let’s find two really good boats of this size, one heavy the other light, and lets have a look and compare their stability curves and roll inertia moment and try to see their overall safety regarding oceangoing cruising.

I will see what I can find.

Um abraço

[Guillermo]

That is a very incomplete information. What about draft, Ballast and type of keel (bulb?, weight of bulb).
Show me the Rm curves of both boats and I will say something.;)
Maybe not so incomplete. Let's see:

Transportable cruiser. (So beam has a limit)
LOA=8.00m
LWL=7.44m
B=2.25m (Aha...!)
DSPL=1270kg
SA=43.8m2

As B is a limiting factor, due to transportability, I think designer has gone to a relatively narrow boat for the size. Lwl/B = 3.31 is a clue, confirming this.
SA/D is almost 38, which is too high, even for a high performance racer. This indicates this area is including an big overlaping genoa, instead of the 100% J, as it should be. Anyhow we can asume sail area is pretty high, probably (because of the sporty look at the image) in the range of racers, let's say 22.

D/L ratio is 86,01, so very light. But most probably stated displacement is in lightship condition (RaggyThor...? :eek: ), so numbers above will be probably incorrect, as full loaded displacement with 2 to 4 people (max), fuel (25 lts for the outboard), sails, anchor, warps, provisons, etc, will most probably be in the range of 1600 - 1750 kg. Let's say 1675. D/L come now to 113,44 still in the band of light boats.

With this displacement and the SA/D ratio of 22 mentioned before, we obtain a sail area (100% J) rather in the range of 31 m2 instead of the 43.8m2 stated

Big sail area, light displacement and relatively small beam calls for a retractable keel (transportability) most probably with a bulb. This will make a nice enough AVS, probably over 115º as per a quick estimative. She has a nice GMo too, but not very high, due to the limited beam. So accelerations are probably not so unconfortable because of this. Capsize ratio is 1,19 with the corrected displacement, so good enough and supporting the thesis on stability exposed upwards.

Engine power (outboard) is probably between 8 to 10 HP, as 6*HP/D varies from to 12.99 to 16.23 and we need more power than this absolutely for nothing. I'd bet for 8 HP, due to the light concept of the boat.

So, as you can see, we may at least guess many things from those basic data. If I'm right, we may have now a quite close idea on the design concept; if I'm not right, at least we may reach the conclusion designer is using 'cheap' commercializing tricks. RaggyThor, what do you think? ;)

And....what do you think on my lucubrations, Paulo?

Cheers :D

[Raggi_Thor]

Guillermo, I think you have figured out a lot :-)
The sail area is very large, compare with Didi 26
(http://www.mboats.no/Didi26/didi26.htm or
http://www.dixdesign.com/26didi.htm)

LOA 8.00m (26'3")
LWL 7.55m (24'9")
Beam 2.47m (8'1")
Draft 0.5/1.7m (1'8"/5'7")

Displ to DWL 1500kg (3306lb)
Displ light 1000kg (2204lb)
Ballast 435kg (959lb)
Waterplane area 9.87sq.m (106sq.ft)

Immersion rate 101kg/cm (565lb/inch)
Wetted surface 13.8sq.m (149sq.ft)
Sail area (main + jib) 31.9sq.m (343sq.ft)
Sail Area/Wetted Surface 2.31

Sail Area/Displ 24.6
Displ/length 97
Prismatic coef .54
Block coef .40

Fineness coef .66
Righting Moment @ 30 deg 815kgm (5895ft.lb)
Righting Moment @ 60 deg 848kgm (6134ft.lb)
Righting Moment @ 90 deg 458kgm (3313ft.lb)

I 9.08m (29'9")
J 2.70m (8'10")
P10.50m (34'5")
E 3.90m (12'9")

Mainsail (excl roach) 20.48sq.m (220sq.ft)
Jib 11.46 sq.m (123sq.ft)
Drifter 15.88sq.m (171sq.ft)
Powering 10hp outboard

[Windvang]

But small compared to a Thompson 8 m c/r. 52 M2 upwind! Welcome to sportsboat territory. :cool:

http://www.tboat.com/T8cr-design.html

[Raggi_Thor]

Wow :-)
The T8 has more draft and more ballast, I suppose you also need the crew...

[Vega]

Big sail area, light displacement and relatively small beam calls for a retractable keel (transportability) most probably with a bulb. This will make a nice enough AVS, probably over 115º as per a quick estimative. She has a nice GMo too, but not very high, due to the limited beam. So accelerations are probably not so unconfortable because of this. Capsize ratio is 1,19 with the corrected displacement, so good enough and supporting the thesis on stability exposed upwards.

Engine power (outboard) is probably between 8 to 10 HP, as 6*HP/D varies from to 12.99 to 16.23 and we need more power than this absolutely for nothing. I'd bet for 8 HP, due to the light concept of the boat.

So, as you can see, we may at least guess many things from those basic data. If I'm right, we may have now a quite close idea on the design concept; if I'm not right, at least we may reach the conclusion designer is using 'cheap' commercializing tricks. RaggyThor, what do you think? ;)

And....what do you think on my lucubrations, Paulo?

Cheers :D

hum, I doubt about the retractable keel, I bet it has a bulb, and I think it will have a draft of at least 1,8 m. The Avs is probably between 120 and 125 and will not carry more than about 90l of water, and about 50 liters of fuel.

But that are only guesses.:D

What I don’t understand is why you want to compare this boat with the Vancouver 28.
One is an ocean going boat, long range cruiser, the other is a fun and transportable coastal water protected craft; a weekend cruiser. What’s the point?:confused:

Comparing the Vancouver with another real cruiser, not a weekender, other class A boat of completely different design, like the Dehler 29, would seem more fit and useful to me.

http://www.dehler.com/

But that’s your thread ;)

[Windvang]

Comparing the Vancouver with another real cruiser, not a weekender, other class A boat of completely different design, like the Dehler 29, would seem more fit and useful to me.

http://www.dehler.com/

But that’s your thread ;)

In that category I nominate the Hunter Channel 27 and Pilot 27. They sail perfectly well, are seaworthy and quite fast. I actually have won some races with the 27 twin keel version! :) The interior space is amazing for their size. O.k. their looks might not be their biggest plus. :rolleyes:

[Guillermo]

...What I don’t understand is why you want to compare this boat with the Vancouver 28.
Neither do I....:P
No, seriously, the idea is to investigate small cruisers' design criteria, and I don't want to tight to my personal opinions (I'm in the line of Vancouver 28 and the like), but would like to hear other people supporting other design concepts, because lightness may have its advantages, as been able to run out of trouble quickly, reason many times used to favour fast passagemakers rather than seaworthy ones, i.e.... That's why I introduced this boat.

hum, I doubt about the retractable keel, I bet it has a bulb, and I think it will have a draft of at least 1,8 m....
Explain to me how it can be trailerable with a 1.8 m draught....

The Avs is probably between 120 and 125 and will not carry more than about 90l of water, and about 50 liters of fuel.
I've refined numbers: AVS something like 128 or over. 90 l water seem somewhat high to me. Probably water is carried in portable plastic containers or bottles. Also fuel is all it can enter a portable can of 25 l...;)

Following Raggi Thor's post, yes I agree: probably SA/D is more something like 24. I figured out things without consulting other designs, just imagining....And comparing with Dix's design, I was close, wasn't I?

[Guillermo]

Data for Dehler 29:
D/L = 163,43
SA/D = 21,98
6*HP/D = 11,09
HSPD = 6,87 kn
CSF = 2,09
MCR = 17.97
AVS = 138,75

Somewhat light and overcanvased to my taste. I find it more a cruiser racer than a proper cruiser.

Windvang: Tomorrow I'l analize Hunter Channel 27 and Pilot 27. Today I'm tired...:(

[Guillermo]

"...A light weight vessel having a large concentration of ballast will have a much lesser 'roll moment of inertia' so will be much more easily put in motion and therefore will be more likely to experience large roll angles due to wave action...."

I think Michael is entering a kind of contradiction here. Increasing ballast and lowering it, being bulbs the extreme case, increase the moment of inertia and so the ability to resist rolling, as well as capsize.
Maybe we are not discussing the same things: On one side there is the usual comparison of a deep wine glassed classic hull with a low center of gravity, against a same displacement boat with flatter sections, 'normal' shaped keels and higher overall CG. In this case, yes: The wine glassed typical hull resist better capsizing than the second. But when talking about extreme cases like bulbed keels, CG becomes lower than in the classic hull case and inertias are also bigger, so this last boats are safer (Again: If keels don't break)

...About this I think that there are few doubts. There are many studied cases of boats that were very easily rolled after having lost their rigs . The evidence from the Hobart race is clear on that point, one of the few where it was possible to take conclusions...
Once again: A dismasted yacht with a long bulbed keel is quite difficult to turn down (not impossible, for sure) even having lost mast . Although inertia diminishes, absolutely, continues to be pretty big. Other keel configurations are more prone to capsizing in big waves when dimasting.


..I would propose a much more useful exercise. Let’s find two really good boats of this size, one heavy the other light, and lets have a look and compare their stability curves and roll inertia moment and try to see their overall safety regarding oceangoing cruising.
We'll do that. But Jeff already has promised to open an stability forum within next days: Let's wait and do it there.

[Windvang]

A lot of stability data can be found at the RYA site.
http://www.rya.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/5DB6C105-D421-4A33-B7AE-07F31E275320/0/StabilityWebPage07_10_05.pdf

[Vega]

But Jeff already has promised to open an stability forum within next days: Let's wait and do it there.

Yes and I will wait till that happens to reply to you. The point that you want to discuss is probably the most important, most controversial and the least understood of all issues related with a sailboat stability and design parameters, regarding seaworthiness and safety .

It will be a good opening thread to that forum:D

[tamkvaitis]

Guilermo you should look at swedish folkboat, it is a vonderfull small cruiser, and it is extreamly seaworthy. I don't know any numbers now, but I'll try to find some.

[Raggi_Thor]

Folkbåt is a handsome and safe cruiser!

LÖA: 7.68 meter
LWL: 6.00 meter
Bredd: 2.20 meter
Lägsta fribord: 0.568 meter
Djupgående: 1.20 meter (Draft)
Segelarea: 16 kvadratmeter (measured sail area, triangles)
Segelyta (verklig): 24.00 kvadratmeter ("real" sail area)
Deplacement: 2000 kilogram (designed(?) displacement)
Kölvikt minimum: 1000 kilogram (Ballast, minimum)
Kölvikt maximum: 1057 kilogram

[tamkvaitis]

My friends sailed one from sweden to Lithuania. Wind was blowing about 10 knots and they haven't used their wetsuits! Although space inside is limited, but the simplicity of the rig, and pleasure of sailing such a boat is enormous. Short trip with this boat was many times more exiting than sailing an old 42 feet IOR racing boat ;)

[Guillermo]

Guilermo you should look at swedish folkboat, it is a vonderfull small cruiser, and it is extreamly seaworthy. I don't know any numbers now, but I'll try to find some.
Lovely boat. First unit launched on April the 23th (1942), a day when important births happen, like the ones of King Afonso II of Portugal, W. Shakespeare, Shirley Temple, G. Gefaell, etc....:D
A pity there are none (to my knowdlege) in this part of Spain. And they even cross oceans....
http://www.jesterinfo.org/BlondieHasler.html
A link to her history: http://www.sfbayfolkboats.org/history.html

Assuming Disp = 2000 kg, ballast 1057 kg (thanks, Raggi), 16 m2 sail triangles, and a 10HP engine, here some parameters:

D/L = 258,26
SA/D = 10,24
6*HP/D = 13,6
HSPD = 5,95 kn
CSF = 1,76
MCR = 22,81
SSV = 11,6
AVS = 359,24 :!:

If we use 24 for sail area:
SA/D = 15,36

[Raggi_Thor]

I once sailed a grp copy, an IF Boat, for a week on the Norwegian southern coast.
It's a very safe and comfortable boat for cruising, it can steer itself for a while and the motions are relatively slow.

http://www.ifboat.com/indexe.htm

[Vega]

Guillermo, regarding 27ft sailing boats stability curves, searching in the info I have available, I can not find anything, except the one from Hunter channel 27.

But I have several from 30ft boats, light and heavy. Perhaps we can change to 30ft? They are small boats, regarding ocean seaworthiness.

Meanwhile, while searching I have found this beautiful 27ft cruiser.
Look at the speed data (from a test) on the image from Yacht magazine.
You don't need a fat boat to go fast, especially upwind;)

http://www.cafe-yachts.com/gallery_c27constr.htm
http://www.cafe-yachts.com/gallery_c27sail.htm
http://www.cafe-yachts.com/gallery_c27design.htm
http://www.cafe-yachts.com/

[Vega]

AVS = 359,24 :!:


What the hell is an AVS of 359,24:P

[Seafarer24]

Two examples of rather traditional styled boats, from the Glen L designs website:

The 29' "Sir Francis Drake"
http://www.boatdesigns.com/products.asp?dept=424

The 22' "Amigo"
http://www.boatdesigns.com/products.asp?dept=423

These are both off-shore capable designs...

[Raggi_Thor]

Cafe 27 and 24 are reasonable priced boats with a modern look and traditional (polyester) construction. I think they give a lot of boat for the money.

[Robert Gainer]

Vega said,
"What the hell is an AVS of 359,24"

I understand that to be “angle of vanishing stability”. But the number is too large compared to other boat I have looked at.
Robert Gainer

[Vega]

Vega said,
"What the hell is an AVS of 359,24"

I understand that to be “angle of vanishing stability”. But the number is too large compared to other boat I have looked at.
Robert Gainer

I know that Robert, but the AVS only goes to 180º. A boat with a 180ºAVS is a boat that will never stay upside down. It is a boat without negative stability.

[Guillermo]

What the hell is an AVS of 359,24:P
It's an absurd, of course. But it is what is obtained applying a well known formula to estimate AVS (http://www.sailingusa.info/cal__avs.htm). This may mean that formula is not applicable to all kind of sailing boats (Unless I've made a mistake in the calculations).

I'll try to work on the posted designs (Raggi, Seafarer, etc) tonight. Quite busy these days....:(
Cheers.

[Guillermo]

Two more for the list:
http://www.chuckpaine.com/pdf/24CAROL24.pdf
http://www.chuckpaine.com/pdf/26FRANCES26.pdf

[Raggi_Thor]

I have asked Cafe Yachts, no answer yet.

[Guillermo]

Raggi,
There is a sweden boatyard buildiing a 31 and a 37 versions of the folk boat.
http://www.kf-yachts.se/

By the way: I do not find that 'café-au-lait' boat a proper cruiser, although that's only my personal taste, of course. She's rather sporty with lots of sail area. Good for weekend club regattas, but I'm not so sure for extended cruising.
Although we may think that a 25-30 footer does not need to be very seaworthy, because you are really not going to use it for ocean crossings. For coastal cruising maybe it is good to have a point of sailing speed as to escape quickly from a bad weather, thinking shelter is almost always at hand. Or maybe that should be better granted by an efficient engine (motorsailer) and a higher displacement, making the boat able to face up demanding situations, as an strong headwind and waves when entering a difficult harbour? What do you think?

Following Seafarer 24 post:
Data analisis for the Francis Drake 24,
D/L = 322,5
SA/D = 15,95
6*HP/D = 6
HSPD = 6,57 Kn
CSF = 1,83
MCR = 28,61
SSV = 27,84
AVS = 132,42º

She's a nice and safe auxiliary with full headroom through all accomodation, sleeping 4-5. Cutter rig is, from my point of view, ideal for an all around small cruiser. Because of the narrow stern cockpit seems to be too small by today standards, not nice for some 'al fresco' dining for 4 people, or other activities. Too low engine power from my point of view (10 HP), for when things are rough.

AMIGO 22 (http://www.glen-l.com/designs/sailboat/amigo.html) is also another very interesting design, with the same philosophy, offering a lot of boat for such an small size.

[Guillermo]

More pocket cruisers (sail) to review:

Vancouver 27
Sabre 27
Albin Vega 27
Twister
Sadler 29
Westerly Konsort
Elizabethan 30
Moody 29
Halmatic 30
Contessa 26
Island Packet 27
Orion 27
Alberg 30


Analisis for Vancouver 27, the original thing for Vancouver 28

LOA 8,23 m
Lwl 7 m
Bmax 2,63 m
Draught 1,3
HD 0,5 m (guessed)
Disp 3946 kg
Ballast 1586 kg
Sail area 32,9 m2
Power 20 HP

D/L = 320,88
SA/D = 13,39
6*HP/D = 13,78
HSPD = 6,42 Kn
CSF = 1,68
MCR = 31,3
AVS = 130,05 º

Nice pocket voyager, as described in: http://www.boats.com/content/boat-articles.jsp?contentid=1028

(This is a slow moving thread, and I will review boats one by one, slowly. I will take my time. Not in a hurry. Just gathering info from my ownn search and with the greatly appreciated help of friends in these forums. Maybe when I have enough models we'll do a poll to find out which one's the best)

[Raggi_Thor]

I spent a week in Lofoten in an Alibin Vega, many years ago, four boys and the skipper's girlfriend. I remember it as a comfortable boat (for it's size) and we felt very secure even some heavy winds and large waves.

[Guillermo]

Thanks, Raggi.

Here Albin Vega 27's data:

LOA = 8,25 m
Lwl = 7,2 m
Bmax = 2,46 m
Draught = 1,17
HD (body) = 0,5 m (guessed)
Disp = 2300 kg
Ballast = 915 kg
Sail area = 31,7 m2
Power = 13 HP (asumed)

D/L = 171,87
SA/D = 18,49
6*HP/D = 15,37
HSPD = 6,51 Kn
CSF = 1,88
MCR = 19,56
AVS = 133,7º

She is considered as one of the best cruising boats in the range, although I find her MCR (Motion comfort ratio) quite low :confused:

Owner's Association: http://www.albinvega.com/

[Peter Brown]

As a suggestion go for the smallest boat that will carry the crew and keep
them happy as it means the sailing will last longer and the boat is easier to handle and is less to buy and maintain. In the marinas you find the "Grotty Yotty's" as we were known sailed at every opportunity with 1 to 4 in the crew. I lived for 31/2 years on a 25 ft and had a fine time. Current boat is 30 ft with long keel and cutter rig for ease of sail handling. Boat comes in at 41/2 tons and has 500 sq ft of sail. We do OK in local races and can cruise at 5.5 knots very easily. Engine is 20 HP which gives 5.5 at 2200 revs with 1L/hr fuel consumption. It is easily handled by 1 and we cruise with young child. Over the years have met cruisers from Hunter 19 up and seaworthiness has not been an issue.

[Robert Gainer]

I spent a week in Lofoten in an Alibin Vega, many years ago, four boys and the skipper's girlfriend. I remember it as a comfortable boat (for it's size) and we felt very secure even some heavy winds and large waves.

That brings back pleasant memories. A friend and I sailed one from Rhode Island to England some years ago.

If you want to talk about desirable and undesirable points of design, the Vega and the 23 foot Alberg design Sea Sprite, which I also sailed to England solo a few years before crossing on the Vega, share at least one common characteristic. The center of buoyancy is further forward then is common today and the curve of area stays balanced as the boat heels. Both boats could self-steer without windvanes. In fact I crossed in the Sea Sprite without a windvane and the boat sailed herself 90% of the time. Today’s boats all appear to trim down by the bow and become unbalanced when pushed.
Robert Gainer

[Guillermo]

Thanks, Robert and Peter.

Robert, as you know bow burying and strongly assimetrical floatations are due to the nowadays favoured wide sterns and flat sections, bred in race fields. Not to satisfy my personal criteria for proper cruisers, but there are as many opinions as sailors....

Here data for Carl Alberg's design Sea Sprite 23:

LOA = 6,85 m
Lwl = 4,95 m
Bmax = 2,13 m
Bwl = 1,75 m (estimated as 0.82Bmax)
Draught = 0,92
HD = 0,4 m (guessed)
Disp = 1519 kg
Ballast = 635 kg
Sail area = 23 m2 (100% forward triangle or...?)
Power = 6 HP (assumed)

Calculated data:
Displacement /Length ratio D/L = 349,32
Sail Area /Disp. Ratio SA/D = 17,69 (Seems too high for the type. Due probaly to SA considered with overlapping genoa)
Power / Disp. Ratio 6*HP/D = 10,74
Hull speed HSPD = 5,4 Kn
Potential Maximum Speed PMS = 6,24 Kn (Same as for SA/D)
Velocity ratio VR = 1,16 (Same as for SA/D)
Comfort Safety Factor CSF = 1,87
Motion Comfort Ratio MCR = 21,31
Screening Stability Value SSV = 24,26
Angle of Vanishing Stability AVS = 138,06º

From Practical Sailor (http://www.practical-sailor.com/pub/1_1/boatreview/1239-1.html)

"The Sea Sprite 23 is a trim but rugged daysailer-overnighter from naval architect Carl A. Alberg that enjoyed a 25-year production run under several different Rhode Island builders, most notably Clarke Ryder. It's a typical Alberg design--narrow beam, full keel and conservative ballast-to-displacement ratio and graceful lines. This is a boat that still turns heads when it sails into a harbor.

The origins of the Sea Sprite 23 go back to 1958 when the small American Boat Building company of East Greenwich, Rhode Island, wanted to expand its product line, consisting at the time of the Block Island 40. Carl Alberg, then in the U.S. Coast Guard, came up with a 22 1/2-foot, full-keel design."


Peter: Which type was the 25 footer you sailed for 3 1/2 years? And your actual?...May I ask data for them...?

[Guillermo]

And here Cape Dory 28 (Also Carl Alberg's)

LOA = 8,58 m
Lwl = 6,77 m
Bmax = 2,7 m
Bwl = 2,21 m (0.82*Bmax)
Draught = 1,22 m
HD = 0,6 m (guessed)
Disp = 4080 kg
Ballast = 1586 kg
Sail area = 37,6 m2
Power = 18 HP (asumed)

Calculated data:
Displacement /Length ratio D/L = 366,75
Sail Area /Disp. Ratio SA/D = 14,96
Power / Disp. Ratio 6*HP/D = 12
Hull speed HSPD = 6,32 Kn
Potential Maximum Speed PMS = 6,71 Kn
Velocity ratio VR = 1,06
Comfort Safety Factor CSF = 1,71
Motion Comfort Ratio MCR = 31,49
Screening Stability Value SSV = 27,17
Angle of Vanishing Stability AVS = 133,3º


More info at: http://www.capedory.org/specs/cd28.htm

[Guillermo]

I didn't knew this place:
http://www.pocketcruisers.com/

An interesting article:
http://www.sailnet.com/collections/articles/index.cfm?articleid=caseyd0035

From there:
"The best advice I can offer, which is a recurring theme of mine, is to go cruising in the smallest boat that will accommodate you, not the largest boat you can afford.....There is an inverse correlation between the size of a sailboat and how often it leaves the dock."

[Raggi_Thor]

I agree with you Guillermo, the smaller the boat, the more it's used and the less you have to worry.

I remember one summer I cruised alone for a week in a "Grimstadjolle", a 17 feet long (and narrow) lapstrake keel-boat, displacement 400kg, ballast 170kg outside iron keel. See pictures below :-)

I had a bom tent, a sleeping bag, a small gas burner, a radio and Johan Bojer's "The last viking" (great book about the Lofoten fisheries in open boats in the 1880ies).

[tamkvaitis]

My friend have done the same thing, only with lasers :D

[Paul Scott]

Ultimate 24. Close quarters, but good sailing. Clever interior. Can take a beating & survive. Might be too light for you, but light can be good. Consider Uffa and his voyages in his 30 square. (!)

Paul

[Guillermo]

Ultimate 24. Close quarters, but good sailing. Clever interior. Can take a beating & survive. Might be too light for you, but light can be good. Consider Uffa and his voyages in his 30 square. (!) Paul
Thanks Paul.
Taken info from her class Association at: http://www.ultimate24.org/4436.html here her basic parameters:

LOA = 7,45 m
Lwl = 6,45 m
Bmax = 2,6 m
Bwl = 2,13 m
Draught = 1,67 m
HD = 0,3 m (guessed)
Disp = 925 kg
Ballast = 340 kg
Sail area = 32,9 m2
Power = 6 HP (FB. guessed)


Displacement /Length Ratio D/L = 96,15
Sail Area /Disp. Ratio SA/D = 35,22
Power / Disp. Ratio 6*HP/D = 17,64
Hull speed HSPD = 6,16 Kn
Potential Maximum Speed PMS = 9,09 Kn (just an indicative of potential, so real speed may be higher)
Velocity Ratio VR = 1,47
Comfort Safety Factor CSF = 2,69
Motion Comfort Ratio MCR = 8,13
Screening Stability Value SSV = 55,58
Angle of Vanishing Stability AVS = 118,78 º

Roll Period T = 1,05 Sec
Roll Acceleration Acc = 0,54 G's (Over 0.18 G is said to be intolerable)
Righting Arm 30º RA30 = 4,04 Ft


From here we can say (as is evident just having a look at the boat) that she is rather a weekend racer than a proper cruiser. Her very low MCR, in accordance with very low T and high Acc, indicates the boat as being quite uncorfortable (even unlivable!) for a long sailing in something more than almost flat waters.

On the other hand they state "minimal accomodation for four". Interior plans are not available, but I imagine an spartan interior with no headroom, so not really useful for long term cruising. Do you have more info on arrangement?

I may agree with you that fast may be safe, if you have the crew to properly handle the boat when in strong conditions, and not for a long period of time. I wouldn't like to experience a force 7 in this boat, even in a race.

Also, hinged rudders are not my favourite for when in rough weather for many hours, unless hings and rest of hardware is really strong (= heavy = not good for racing purposes).

[Guillermo]

data for uffa's 30 square (Estimating HD as 0.6):

Displacement /Length Ratio D/L = 116,48
Sail Area /Disp. Ratio SA/D = 15,53
Hull speed HSPD = 7,16 Kn
Potential Maximum Speed PMS = 7,79 Kn
Velocity Ratio VR = 1,09
Comfort Safety Factor CSF = 1,66
Motion Comfort Ratio MCR = 19,09
Screening Stability Value SSV = 22,44
Angle of Vanishing Stability AVS = 142,17 º

Roll Period T = 2,81 Sec
Roll Acceleration Acc = 0,06 G's
Stability Index SI = 1,22

This indicates that, although conceived as a racing boat, Square 30 have much better 'cruising' characteristics than the Ultimate 24. Even though I wouldn't go for extended cruising in this boat either. Uffa was a brave man....

http://www.uffafox.com/seaswall.htm
http://www.sskf.se/News%20letter/The30sInSouthAfrica.pdf

[Guillermo]

Another interesting boat: The Bristol Channel Cutter.
http://www.boats.com/boat-articles/Review-155/Hess's+Bristol+Channel+Cutter/1383.html

Wonderful mantra: "Go small, go simple, but go now!"

Displacement /Length Ratio D/L = 345,93
Sail Area /Disp. Ratio SA/D = 18,52
Power / Disp. Ratio 6*HP/D = 11,56
Hull speed HSPD = 6,87 Kn
Potential Maximum Speed PMS = 7,74 Kn
Velocity Ratio VR = 1,13
Comfort Safety Factor CSF = 1,67
Motion Comfort Ratio MCR = 36,96
Screening Stability Value SSV = 29,99
Angle of Vanishing Stability AVS = 130,01º

Roll Period T = 3,94 Sec
Roll Acceleration Acc = 0,05 G's
Stability Index SI = 1,28

[Paul Scott]

Guillermo-

Cool thread.

Bob Perry reviewed the U24 in Sailing magazine, and you can see the interior there on line. By the way, the guy who owns Bijou II (a 30 sq) has told me that he likes the big stuff in her. Folkboat folk too.

We cruised our U20 (even smaller) a fair bit, even sailed in 55K (didn't mean to- thanks, NOAA & USWS) twice, in waves/chop before the waves got blown into spindrift of between 6-12 feet (outside). Once the waves get big enough, the ride gets ok, even fun in a small, light, boat. The worst discomfort we ever had on her was 15-20K on the nose with a short 5 foot chop, but everyone under 36' was complaining that day, even the heavy boys. It's not that I'm argueing for light boats in principle, but for strong, able boats that can get out of their own way and take care of you when it gets epic. Our U20 Rave, was knocked down 3-4 times in the above mentioned (55K) bad weather (Vertical Gusts from Above!), but always came up immediately, the mast only touched water if it went into the top of a wave, always handled predictably, aside from a small rip in the dacron main sustained no damage, and left me with complete confidence in her. It is really nice to plane out of a trough rather than stuffing the bow, stopping, wallowing in the valley, and struggling out. Even in the really steep stuff, she did not stuff- the bow went into the bottom of the wave, and 6 inches or so before the water came up to the deck, she would zip up and plane up and out. And this was without much control input- in fact, sometimes none. I think the ability of a boat to handle the lumps in the water is the mystery, and while I agree with your choice of numbers, I have been in boats with good numbers that sucked. It reminds me of L Francis Herreschoff's remarks about Admiral Taylor's theoretical view of the sea- something about waves coming in all shapes and sizes- even trochoidals flowing down his (L F's) neck! Everybody, in all sizes of boat, has stories of a gnarly waves and conditions. But that said, it's really interesting to see the numbers combined with sailing experiences on the boats. If it was up to me, we would test seagoing boats by dropping them from a crane from 20 feet in the air almost upside down with the crew inside, and expect to see the boat sail away immediately with no injuries. Kind of Lasers of the sea.

Paul

[Guillermo]

Thanks, Paul. Numbers are numbers and boats are boats. And a boat is even more than just an object, because boating has two major components: The boat and her crew. Anyhow the analizing of some simple parameters as the ones used (not always accurate, certainly) serve quite well to give us a rough idea of expected performance and focuse discussions. But then human factor comes into equations, and things begin to be more tricky. As you say, is interesting to see how parameters match with reality.

A well designed boat for a certain task handled by incompetent hands probably will collect more disasters than a inadequate one in good hands.
I agree with you that light boats may be safe even in rough conditions, as it's your own experience, and their buoyancy and planning ability may contribute to quicker run out of trouble.

But the question is with what amount of skills and punishment and applied for how much time. With experienced crews probably that's not a problem when in coastal cruising, because most of the times there is a shelter available in a matter of hours. Family cruising boats, on the other hand, have to be forgiving ones and should take care of her crews. Or even experienced crews when caught in dangerous waters with no shelter easily reachable. I'm not sure this is compatible with lightness. Would like to hear more opinions and experiences about this.

[Paul Scott]

Guillermo-

I should add that the 55K sail was done under main alone & downwind- I'm more comfortable with an una rig in wild surrounds. Our 45-50K sail was done 80% under jib alone, 60% downwind, in a bigger seastate, and was so easy that we were making tea & soup. I got the speed of our U20 so we were overtaking the waves by 2-3 knots by furling/unfurling the jib, so I could pick our way through the troughs and stay away from the breaking stuff. We passed a number of boats, as we were doing 15K or so, one was some sort of mid 20' bristol cutter going downwind that was having a hell of a time with overtaking waves, one was a 30' double ender under 3 reefed main and storm jib running that was enjoying things like we were. Although it took them 3 times the time it took us to get to shelter. I was steering for 8 hours. I was a bit hammered, but alert and functional. We had a friend out in all this in his North Sea Trawler who looks for this kind of weather, because he claims that it's the only time his boat is powered up. (!) Got to go out with him sometime in big conditions. A 105' schooner hogged on a wave upwind, cracked some timbers. I must admit I like small strong light boats, personal preference, and the more I'm around, the more I like them in big weather. They seem to be able to take more. And I'm not sure their motion has to be so bad. The Ultimate20, for example, has a draft of 5' (keel bulb), and a ballast/disp ratio of mid/high 40%, which would put it in Rousmanarie's (hope I spelled that right) heavy weather safe vanishing degrees of stability ballpark. And I would agree, since she came up from the mast head in the water with me sitting on the high hull side and my wife standing on the downside cockpit seat side! Never did get get her broadside to a breaking wave over 5' though. But she was fine in 5' breaking waves broadside. And Antrim did the U24 too, as well as the Antrim 27, which has done the Transpac a number of times, which is why I brought up the U24. This said, I agree; ability, all round, matters. I think if you can surf ok and sail a Laser in 30K well, big weather can be fun (or safe) in almost any competent saiboat.

Paul

[frede]

I thought you might want to have a look at this new addition: the Etap 28s.
This is quite an interesting thread!
Frede

[Guillermo]

Paul,
Thanks for sharing your experiences. This is most important to me, as I have had not the opportunity of sailing every type of boat, of course, so it's nice to be able to compare what numbers say with real experiences.

As I said, I agree with you that a fast sailing boat in skilled hands can be as safe, or even safer, than a salty heavyweighter. But skill is the name of the game. As you said: "....if you can surf ok and sail a Laser in 30K well, big weather can be fun (or safe) in almost any competent saiboat" And I would dare to add that for a long run you need a full skilled crew. I'm not talking about 8 hours steering, but, let's say, three days or more.

Let's say you are crossing the Gulf of Biscay with your family, from La Coruña to Lymington, summertime, not that bad weather report, and you're in the middle of it when you get caught in an unexpected Force 9 gusting 10 with 5 m waves. This is not uncommon and has happened many times. One I remember was when one of the last Transpacs, with the result of some days of busy activity for the salvage services and a handful of boats lost. I think it was 4-5 years ago, I'm not sure....

frede: I will review the Etap 28s later, as my Google doesn't want to work this morning (Bad sleeping...?). Thanks.

[Paul Scott]

Guillermo-

I don't know know if I'd cross the Gulf of Biscay in anything short of Mari Cha III- Much much better sailors than I have come to grief there- from minis to 60' tris. Horses for Courses! How about a nice well balanced ketch? Or Romilly??

Paul

[Guillermo]

Here data for the Etap 28s, 1,68 m draught version as per data at: http://www.woodrolfe.com/etap28s.htm

(Note: HD = 0,5 m assumed. Sail area: Main + tacking jib)

Displacement /Length Ratio D/L = 164,11
Sail Area /Disp. Ratio SA/D = 17,82
Power / Disp. Ratio 6*HP/D = 14,55
Hull speed HSPD = 7,06 Kn
Potential Maximum Speed PMS = 7,98Kn
Velocity Ratio VR = 1,13
Capsize Safety Factor CSF = 2,22
Motion Comfort Ratio MCR = 17,62
Screening Stability Value SSV = 74,74
Angle of Vanishing Stability AVS = 116,18º

Roll Period T = 2,02 Sec
Roll Acceleration Acc = 0,21 G's
Stability Index SI = 0,6

(Note: The shallow draught version with tandem keel does not change significantly these numbers)

Roll acceleration Vs four physiological states: Imperceptible, Tolerable, Threshold of Malaise, and Intolerable. Malaise starts at .1 G, Intolerable begins at .18 G. G levels above .06 are considered undesirable for offshore cruising conditions.
Criteria for SI:
< 1.0 vessel considered "STIFF"
~ 1.1 vessel considered "IDEAL"
> 1.5 vessel considered "TENDER"

So this one is quite stiff having a high acceleration parameter and a very low MCR; this probably makes her uncomfortable when in open sea sailings. Design category B (Up to force 8 and 4 m waves) makes her suitable for short passages (theoretically). Under several european countries regulations, she will allowed to go up to 60 miles from a shelter. But if we look at her high 2,22 CSF, I'd rather say this is a boat conceived for club's regattas and some light coastal summertime cruising in mind.

Due to her flat and wide sections astern, floatation probably is quite assimetric when heeled, thus creating a 'lively' weatherhelm when going upwind (?). In spite of her big Lwl (almost the same as LH) I do not find accomodation specially well solved. I think the transversal big berth astern will be a rather uncomfortable place to sleep, except when in marinas. Probably engine accesibility is ackward and forward V berth seems not lengthy enough....but maybe this is too much a guessing exercise. Just stop here...

[Guillermo]

Guillermo-

I don't know know if I'd cross the Gulf of Biscay in anything short of Mari Cha III- Much much better sailors than I have come to grief there- from minis to 60' tris. Horses for Courses! How about a nice well balanced ketch? Or Romilly?? Paul

Although lovely, "Romilly was conceived for estuary and coastal sailing" (from Nigel Iren's site), so... but following links..What about this 30' Burnett-Irens designed "Zinnia"?
http://www.burnettyachtdesign.co.uk/010zinnia.html
Isn't she pretty?

[Vega]

Here data for the Etap 28s, 1,68 m draught version as per data at: http://www.woodrolfe.com/etap28s.htm

(Note: HD = 0,5 m assumed. Sail area: Main + tacking jib)

Displacement /Length Ratio D/L = 164,11
Sail Area /Disp. Ratio SA/D = 17,82
Power / Disp. Ratio 6*HP/D = 14,55
Hull speed HSPD = 7,06 Kn
Potential Maximum Speed PMS = 7,98Kn
Velocity Ratio VR = 1,13
Capsize Safety Factor CSF = 2,22
Motion Comfort Ratio MCR = 17,62
Screening Stability Value SSV = 74,74
Angle of Vanishing Stability AVS = 116,18º

Roll Period T = 2,02 Sec
Roll Acceleration Acc = 0,21 G's
Stability Index SI = 0,6

(Note: The shallow draught version with tandem keel does not change significantly these numbers)

Roll acceleration Vs four physiological states: Imperceptible, Tolerable, Threshold of Malaise, and Intolerable. Malaise starts at .1 G, Intolerable begins at .18 G. G levels above .06 are considered undesirable for offshore cruising conditions.
Criteria for SI:
< 1.0 vessel considered "STIFF"
~ 1.1 vessel considered "IDEAL"
> 1.5 vessel considered "TENDER"

So this one is quite stiff having a high acceleration parameter and a very low MCR; this probably makes her uncomfortable when in open sea sailings. Design category B But if we look at her high 2,22 CSF, I'd rather say this is a boat conceived for club's regattas and some light coastal summertime cruising in mind.

Due to her flat and wide sections astern, floatation probably is quite assimetric when heeled, thus creating a 'lively' weatherhelm when going upwind (?). In spite of her big Lwl (almost the same as LH)...

numbers...numbers…

Etaps are one of the best boats that the mass market has to offer.

They are known to be particularly seaworthy and comfortable for their size.

Last year or so, Hans Habeck his wife Carola and their small child have finished a three year circumnavigation in an Etap 21i.

They had experienced no problem at all (and as it would be expected, they have experienced some bad weather).

I agree it is not a kind of boat suited for that, I mean 21ft, but the fact that they had made it without any problem says a lot about the seaworthiness of Etaps.

[Guillermo]

... says a lot about the seaworthiness of Etaps.
And about the seamanship of the Habecks...! :)

Etap 21i: http://www.etapyachting.com/index.cfm?Part=Yachts&YachtType=21i&Detail=TechnicalSpecs&Pos=1

[Peter Brown]

In response to details of the yacht I spent 3 years sailing on she was a hard chined steel boat 25 ft x 9 ft, with a full keel strting at 0 at the bow and 4ft at the transom. I believe it was originally at cat rigged boat, but was set up as masthead cutter rig. The weight was 4 ton and up wind speed of only 5 knots with tacking angles of 100 degrees. Reaching and running was spectacular. The boat planed easily and would steer readily with a self made wind vane. The average speed for all passages over the years was 5.2 with a best run of 6.6 with twin genoas and no main with 20 knots from behind, this beat the previous best of 6.1 with the spinnaker and was much easier. Mast height was 30 ft with roller furling. Worst weather through Bass Straight was force 10+ down to 16 sq ft of main sail from behind with speedo off the clock down large swells. Boat was sailed with crew of 2 for 1 year and then single handed for 21/2 years. Sailed from Melbourne to Tasmania and then up the east coast to the Whitsundays. Had large double berth in bow and 2 settee berths. Engine was 12 hp two stroke petrol that gave 5 knots. What this is leading to is the boat was able to sail itself quite easily, would heave to beautifully and never looked like putting a foot wrong as the long keel could not broach. The biggest drawback was upwind abaility which is why we have gone for a boat with more keel, but more draft of 5 ft. If you are able to heave to comfortably and ride out any weather then you can sail where your heart desires. As we are on Phillip Island cruising is in Bass Straight, until we can work out how to retire, so we need to be able to handle the weather. I enclose photo of current boat, but do not have photo on file of previous. Regards Peter

[Vega]

And about the seamanship of the Habecks...! :)

Also about their craysiness...I mean doing that in a 21ft boat is already a litte bit mad, doing that with a one year child is rather irresponsible:rolleyes:

[Guillermo]

Thanks for the input on your last boat, Peter. A pity you do not have images from her. Force 10 in a 25 footer is quite a lot of it! (Both weather and boat :) )
About the image from the new one, I'm not able to make it bigger, to better see details....:confused:

[Peter Brown]

you can see many images of our boat The Dolphin on the Newhaven Web Site nys.com.au

[amolitor]

The Flicka has a good reputation, and kind of on the other end of the spectrum, the Nor'Sea 27 also does. These two boats are very much of the same style, the Flicka is quite a bit smaller, and quite a bit cheaper!

Also, with respect to seaworthiness, I am glad to see people discussing the roll moment of inertia and so on, but it's worth pointing out that deep keels with bulbs increase this, while decreasing course-keeping abilities. In a seaway, you want a full-keel style of thing, not an appendage with a bulb, for a variety of reasons.

A full keel isn't very deep!

[Vega]

Raggi,

By the way: I do not find that 'café-au-lait' boat a proper cruiser, although that's only my personal taste, of course. She's rather sporty with lots of sail area. Good for weekend club regattas, but I'm not so sure for extended cruising.
What do you think?



I think you are wrong. :) The Cafe 27 is one of the most exciting little boats that has arrived in the market in the last years. Of course nothing to do with the heavy boats that you have been posting, most of them out of production or with a very marginal market.

This one has been nominated by the test sailors of the six biggest European sailing magazines to the 2006 boat of the year contest. Normally sail magazines have a lot of pressure from the big manufacturers on this contest. It is significant that this boat is made in a very small Czech factory, (that also produces precision musical instruments) and even so it has been nominated. It has to be an interesting boat.

There are a lot of magazines waiting to sail test this boat, so we will have fresh impressions soon.

Meanwhile the boat has already been tested by the German magazine “Yacht”(and some others) and they were really impressed, with everything, including seaworthiness:

(Sorry for the not so good translation)

“The Cafe 27, from a small Czech shipyard is a “grown up boat”... with a love for the detail and its sailing performance is astounding.”

On the water it needs not be afraid of any competition : With most conditions the Café 27 – (the Test boat was the build number one) - is more agile and more pleasant to sail than any other boat in the marina. ... Café 27, is also a correct sea-suited yacht. However despite a width of 2,80 M and a weight of 2,6 tons is still a trailerable boat.

The boat convinces both by its comparatively agile behavior as well as by the absolute speed. ... the Café 27 stands out as a special boat.”

[Paul Scott]

It sounds like some of the design audience would like a shallow full keel (lightish?) boat with a deep centreboard (or daggerboard(s)), no? Kind of a mini Ted Hood design? I've been doodling one of these for years. 28' LOA, una rotating unstayed wing rig, two rudders, with a small bowsprit for many different flying headsails? Kind of an open 30 catboat with a shallow full keel?

Paul

[Vega]

It sounds like some of the design audience would like a shallow full keel (lightish?) boat with a deep centreboard (or daggerboard(s)), no?
Paul

That's not exacly what you are talking about, but it is also a shallow water boat. Do you now this one?

It is an interesting boat.;)

[Paul Scott]

Tech forward, and well disguised.

Paul

[Wellydeckhand]

roomy and well design, for a small boat. Can it take rough water? what is it normal speed VEGA?

[Vega]

Welly, the boat is relatively seaworthy, but with small light boats, I should emphasize the relatively.

About the speed, this is a small boat and even if it looks fast I would say you should expect a cruising speed around 5 knots.

Here is what an owner says of this boat:

"My First Mate and I currently sail a 2000 Seaward-25, which is built by Hake Yachts in Stuart Florida. The factory is of modest size and visitors are welcome. I always have had good customer support from the factory during regular business hours. The S-25 is 26 feet 9 inches Length Over All (LOA), with 23 feet Length on Waterline (LOW). It displaces 3,600 pounds with a mast height Above Water Line (AWL) of 33 feet. The sail area is 280 square feet. It is available in two different versions. One is a wing keel, shoal draft version that drafts 2 feet. The other is a blue water model that has a fin keel with a bulb that drafts 4 feet 2 inches. We sail the wing keel version."

And a magazine boat test (Sailing Magazine):

http://www.sailnet.com/sailing/00/btjuly00.htm

The boat is a popular one and has lots of fans. They have a site:

http://home.att.net/~seaward25/

More information:

http://www.gunkholemarine.com/straightalk.pdf?
http://www.gunkholemarine.com/faq.html?

And the manufacturer site:

http://www.seawardyachts.com/26rk.html

They have also a 32ft. That one (with a displacement of 8300lbs and a ballast of 2500lbs, in a deep bulb) would have some offshore capacity, at least in good weather and it looks even better than the small one.

This one probably is a 6 knot boat.

[Guillermo]

...The Cafe 27 is one of the most exciting little boats that has arrived in the market in the last years...
As I've posted before, I don't remember where, exciting is usually a tricky marketing word I would not apply without fear to proper cruising boats.
She's probably quite exciting for weekend sailing or club regattas, but definetely she's not a boat conceived with extended cruising in mind, in my humble opinion.
From the photos you posted, I find those bilges much inapropriate to avoid the minimum amount of water sloshing around....and also quite weak, if you are unlucky enough to ground or hit a submerged object, a risk we never can expect to be zero when in extended cruisings (Even in short ones!). I've inspected several boats with that kind of flat bottoms arrangement after hitting rocks and other objects, and consequences were quite disatrous. Even with not so strong impacts, structures and hulls were nicely broken.

[Guillermo]

Numbers for the Seaward 26:
(Note: Displacement, as posted by manufacturer, is probably for lightship condition)

LOA = 7,78 m
Lwl = 7,52 m
Bmax = 2,55 m
Bwl = 2,09 m
Draught = 1,83 m (Lifting keel version)
HD = 0,25 m (guessed)
Disp = 1720 kg
Ballast = 545 kg
Sail area = 26 m2
Power = 12 HP (guessed)

Calculated data:

Displacement /Length Ratio D/L = 112,81
Sail Area /Disp. Ratio SA/D = 18,4
Power / Disp. Ratio 6*HP/D = 18,97
Hull speed HSPD = 6,66 Kn
Potential Maximum Speed PMS = 7,77 Kn
Velocity Ratio VR = 1,17
Capsize Safety Factor CSF = 2,15 (Well into the unsafe zone)
Motion Comfort Ratio MCR = 13,79 (Very low. Boat uncomfortable)
Screening Stability Value SSV = 73,12
Angle of Vanishing Stability AVS = 116,34 º

Roll Period T = 1,72 Sec
Roll Acceleration Acc = 0,19 G's (Intolerable begins at 0,18)
Stability Index SI = 0,67 (Very stiff)

Note: With the addition of 500 kgs of crew and stores, things improve somewhat, probably with CSF under 2, MCR around 18 and the acceleration factor around 0,12, still in the Threshold of Malaise zone, but not so violent.

She looks like a typical Florida's waters nice weather coastal cruiser, much in the line of the Hunter 26 I owned a long time ago (She had a winged keel). Not all weathers-all waters coastal cruisers, in my opinion.

The lifting keel seems quite dangerous to me, specially in the reefy coral-heads waters you find in many locations in the Caribbean. I wouldn't like to hit one of those with all keel down at hull speed...!

[Guillermo]

Classic Boats Design Competition
The deadline for entering the CB Design Competition is 31 August 2006. It's your chance to design a handy, seaworthy pocket cruiser, less than 28ft (8.54m) LOA. The winning designs will be published in CB and the overall winner will receive a handmade half model of his/her design.

More info at: http://www.classicboat.co.uk/cb/cb_comp.pdf

[Guillermo]

Another one:
Legend 27: http://www.opalmarine.com/boat.asp?pg=overview&bid=26

Data for the twin keel version:

LH = 8,23 m
Lwl = 7,17 m
Bmax = 3 m
Bwl = 2,46 m
Draught = 1,07 m
HD = 0,4 m (guessed)
Disp = 3470 kg
Ballast = 1170 kg
Sail area = 36 m2
Power = 14 HP

Displacement /Length Ratio D/L = 262,57
Sail Area /Disp. Ratio SA/D = 15,96
Power / Disp. Ratio 6*HP/D = 10,97
Hull speed HSPD = 6,5 Kn
Potential Maximum Speed PMS = 7,09 Kn
Velocity Ratio VR = 1,09
Capsize Safety Factor CSF = 2
Motion Comfort Ratio MCR = 22,73
Screening Stability Value SSV = 58,28
Angle of Vanishing Stability AVS = 118,29 º

Roll Period T = 2,54 Sec
Roll Acceleration Acc = 0,11 G's
Stability Index SI = 0,85

Not so bad for this kind of 'modern' light cruisers. More acceptable than the Seaward 26, from my point of view. I do not know Design category but, also from my point of view, should be no more than "C"

[Vega]

I find those bilges ..quite weak, .

Your opinion is opposite the opinion of the boat testers of Yacht Magazine, and they test hundreds of boats:(

(the words under the picture can be translated as something like “Strong and well made”).

Of course, they also found the Café 27 “ a correct sea-suited yacht” and that is obviously not your opinion.

Of course you are entitled to have your opinion, but it is obvious that yours is a marginal view, in the sense that it is not the main view of what is a proper 27 ft cruiser, I mean the one that defines the market and that is shared by the specialized press.

Look at this one. I find it a beauty, (probably the nicest on the market) but I know already that you are not going to like its movable keel (that permits it to have a good initial stability and a light weight). But that is what makes it interesting for me, because it permits it to enter small rivers, explore lots of nice shallow waters, nice places, and still be a fast and seaworthy boat.

I guess that what makes the right 27ft cruiser depends on the order of the criteria that are important to each sailor.

http://www.de-gier.nl/createsite/prod/createprod.asp?b_id=6158&page=1&rs_prod_id=3326

[Guillermo]

..Of course you are entitled to have your opinion...
Absolutely.

Just to better explain you my point of view, let's review one of the boats at my first post in this thread:

NORTHBEACH 24:
http://www.northbeachyachts.nl/eng/nb24.htm

LH = 7,32 m
Lwl = 6,55 m
Bmax = 2,5 m
Bwl = 2,25 m
Draught = 0,85 m
HD = 0,35 m (guessed)
Disp = 2850 kg (Designed. Light: 2600 kg. Maximum recommended: 3350 kg)
Ballast = 1300 kg
Sail area = 33,3 m2
Power = 9 HP

Displacement /Length Ratio D/L = 282,88
Sail Area /Disp. Ratio SA/D = 16,83
Power / Disp. Ratio 6*HP/D = 8,59
Hull speed HSPD = 6,21 Kn
Potential Maximum Speed PMS = 6,94 Kn
Velocity Ratio VR = 1,12
Capsize Safety Factor CSF = 1,78
Motion Comfort Ratio MCR = 26,29
Screening Stability Value SSV = 34,38
Angle of Vanishing Stability AVS = 126,41 º

Roll Period T = 2,56 Sec
Roll Acceleration Acc = 0,08 G's
Stability Index SI = 1,03

For 3350 kg displacement, numbers are even better (Except AVS, diminishing 3º)

These are what I consider more adequate numbers for a cruising boat (To my taste, just somewhat more power should be desirable)
And she's modern and acclaimed by the specialized press, too!.....And even won prizes! :)

Design Category: B

[Guillermo]

http://www.de-gier.nl/createsite/prod/createprod.asp?b_id=6158&page=1&rs_prod_id=3326
Thanks for the link, Paulo. Nice little boat. Love the styling.
Here some info on it (The kinda' you don't like :) )

LH = 8,3 m
Lwl = 7,79 m
Bmax = 2,7 m
Bwl = 2,21 m
Draught = 1,7 m
HD = 0,4 m (guessed)
Disp = 2800 kg (Light...medium...full load???)
Ballast = 1200 kg
Sail area = 33,5 m2
Power = 11,5 HP

Displacement /Length Ratio D/L = 165,21
Sail Area /Disp. Ratio SA/D = 17,14
Power / Disp. Ratio 6*HP/D = 11,17
Hull speed HSPD = 6,77 Kn
Potential Maximum Speed PMS = 7,62 Kn
Velocity Ratio VR = 1,12
Capsize Safety Factor CSF = 1,93
Motion Comfort Ratio MCR = 19,9
Screening Stability Value SSV = 37,36
Angle of Vanishing Stability AVS = 124,62 º

Roll Period T = 2,37 Sec
Roll Acceleration Acc = 0,11 G's
Stability Index SI = 0,88

Seems also quite more acceptable than the Seaward 26 to me.

[Guillermo]

Your opinion is opposite the opinion of the boat testers of Yacht Magazine, and they test hundreds of boats:(
(the words under the picture can be translated as something like “Strong and well made”).
I respect those opinions. But remember I'm giving you my humble experience as surveyor, not opinions.

[Vega]

I respect those opinions. But remember I'm giving you my humble experience as surveyor, not opinions.

Don't take me wrong, I understand what you are saying. What I want to mean when I have said:” I guess that what makes the right 27ft cruiser depends on the order of the criteria that are important to each sailor.” Is that the criteria (and the order) you chose as relevant to judge a 27ft, would be the order and criteria that I would probably consider relevant to a boat for a circumnavigation.

Of course, if you want to cross oceans in a 27ft, then I would follow your criteria, but people don’t buy 27ft to cross oceans….

As I have said, there is no right or wrong here, just different criteria to judge a boat.

About the market, this boat, the “Pantanal 25” by Roberto Barros seems to answer to what the market demands from a pocket cruiser: An inexpensive boat with a spacious interior, a trailerable and fast boat with a small draft. For having a small draft and still have a big initial stability (for being fast) the generalized answer is a bulb in a movable keel.

http://www.yachtdesign.com.br/02_ingles/index_ingles.htm

[Guillermo]

Paulo,
Here data for the Pantanal 25:

LH = 7,65 m
Lwl = 6,66 m
Bmax = 2,44 m
Bwl = 2,2 m
Draught = 1,5 m
HD = 0,28 m (guessed)
Disp = 1500 kg
Ballast = 320 kg
Sail area = 30,38 m2
Power = 6 HP (Outboard. Guessed)

Displacement /Length Ratio D/L = 141,63
Sail Area /Disp. Ratio SA/D = 23,56
Power / Disp. Ratio 6*HP/D = 10,88
Hull speed HSPD = 6,26 Kn
Potential Maximum Speed PMS = 7,97 Kn
Velocity Ratio VR = 1,27
Capsize Safety Factor CSF = 2,15
Motion Comfort Ratio MCR = 13,93
Screening Stability Value SSV = 89,13
Angle of Vanishing Stability AVS = 115,05 º

Roll Period T = 1,51 Sec
Roll Acceleration Acc = 0,24 G's
Stability Index SI = 0,62


Interesting trailerable boat, quite racy, adequate for short good weather sailings, but not for long term cruising.

What I'm trying to discuss are seaworthy coastal boats able for long term cruising. Most of the cruising done in coastal waters, for sure, but the boat has to be able to handle severe punishment when necessary, having short seas passagemaking capability. Category B is enough to that end, in my opinion, but not Category C. Category A is a bonus as it allows for longer passagemakings, maybe not oceans crossing (or...why not?) but let's say 400-500 miles open sea hops (This is around 3 days in most cases, which allows for a high confiability weather prediction, although....)

Also reviewing my first post:

PILOT CUTTER 30:

LH = 9,14 m
Lwl = 7,85 m
Bmax = 2,89 m
Bwl = 2,6 m
Draught = 1,6 m
HD = 0,6 m (guessed)
Disp = 6350 kg
Ballast = 2200 kg (guessed, asked Select yachts, waiting for answer)
Sail area = 55,64 m2
Power = 29 HP


Displacement /Length Ratio D/L = 366,14
Sail Area /Disp. Ratio SA/D = 16,49
Power / Disp. Ratio 6*HP/D = 12,42
Hull speed HSPD = 6,8 Kn
Potential Maximum Speed PMS = 7,38 Kn
Velocity Ratio VR = 1,08
Capsize Safety Factor CSF = 1,57
Motion Comfort Ratio MCR = 39,74
Screening Stability Value SSV = 34,49
Angle of Vanishing Stability AVS = 126,33 º

Roll Period T = 3,79 Sec
Roll Acceleration Acc = 0,05 G's
Stability Index SI = 1,31

Design Category: A

Now, this is a hell of a boat!

[Guillermo]

Now let's discuss the motorsailer concept, based on a classic: The CAPE DORY 300 (http://www.toolworks.com/cdsoa/specs/cd30ms.htm)

Here data for her:

LH = 9,1 m
Lwl = 8,08 m
Bmax = 3,48 m
Bwl = 3,13 m
Draught = 1,19 m
HD = 0,5 m (guessed)
Disp = 5212 kg
Ballast = 2040 kg
Sail area = 44,31 m2
Power = 30 HP

Displacement /Length Ratio D/L = 275,58
Sail Area /Disp. Ratio SA/D = 14,98
Power / Disp. Ratio 6*HP/D = 15,65
Hull speed HSPD = 6,9 Kn
Potential Maximum Speed PMS = 7,29 Kn
Velocity Ratio VR = 1,06
Capsize Safety Factor CSF = 2,03
Motion Comfort Ratio MCR = 25,01
Screening Stability Value SSV = 53,42
Angle of Vanishing Stability AVS = 119,21 º

Roll Period T = 2,38 Sec
Roll Acceleration Acc = 0,16 G's
Stability Index SI = 0,68

She has quite a high Acceleration number and low SI, so probably uncomfortable when in wavy seas. She is quite beamy. On the other hand the pilothouse concept allows for a dry and protected steering in colder climates, and her rear cockpit integrated with the wheelhouse provides a very nice living area when at port or anchor. Wheelhouse also allows for the cockpit to easily be covered by a tent, providing extra sleeping bunks at night when in good weather. Maybe something like this, less beamy and Category B designed, could be a very nice option. Abating mast, a bonus.
On top of it, as motorsailers are not very sail efficient, probably a lower aspect ratio rig, like the gaff one, could be more appropriate, in line of Paul Gartside boats. A pity he has not motorsailers designs in this range (Anyhow have a look at: http://www.gartsideboats.com/catsail6.php#37mtrsail)

[Guillermo]

More about the Frances 26:

http://www.chuckpaine.com/pdf/26FRANCES26.pdf
http://francis26.org/

LH = 7,57 m
Lwl = 6,47 m
Bmax = 2,54 m
Bwl = 2,29 m
Draught = 1,17 m
HD = 0,5 m
Disp = 3082 kg
Ballast = 1600 kg
Sail area = 32,1 m2
Power = 12 HP

Displacement /Length Ratio D/L = 317,4
Sail Area /Disp. Ratio SA/D = 15,4
Power / Disp. Ratio 6*HP/D = 10,59
Hull speed HSPD = 6,17 Kn
Potential Maximum Speed PMS = 6,68 Kn
Velocity Ratio VR = 1,08
Capsize Safety Factor CSF = 1,76
Motion Comfort Ratio MCR = 27,76
Screening Stability Value SSV = 21,78
Angle of Vanishing Stability AVS = 143,96 º

Roll Period T = 2,7 Sec
Roll Acceleration Acc = 0,08 G's
Stability Index SI = 1,06

"Chuck Paine’s adored his first FRANCES. She was beautiful, well mannered, stable, and just plain fun. She possessed timeless virtues that seem to have disappeared from the modern world. Narrow of beam, her sleek lines overcame resistance like a dreadnaught. Set her in a straight line toward a destination and she was unstoppable."

Hats off...! :)

[Guillermo]

Well, it seems I'm getting alone in this thread, but anyhow...
Here some basic design and most interesting ideas for a pocket cruiser from the Pocket Cruiser Design Competition:

"Most of us who sail small boats have a picture in our mind’s eye as to the perfect little cruising yacht we would like for ourselves. I frequently dream of such a boat. But where do we start? I don’t normally make lists, but in order to build up a picture of what is required, I have come up with some things that may be considered when approaching a design.
Expected use of the boat: Daysailer; weekender; channel hops or extended long-distance cruises. You and the boat will have to be self-reliant and self-suffi cient in any circumstances.

Everything onboard needs to be reliable and robust.
Number of crew: Single-handed; a couple; three crew or more, enabling a watch system to be maintained on extended passages.
Where will the boat be kept: Marina; drying mooring; swinging mooring or trailerable.
Size of boat: Length, beam, draught and displacement; these will tend to grow as you try to squeeze in much of the list below. It’s worth noting that a boat of 26ft will have approximately 50 per cent more displacement and cost twice as much as a boat of 20ft.

Seaworthiness: The ability to ride out a gale, even when coastal cruising. Stability and trim.
Construction: Traditional wood; wood epoxy; plywood epoxy; steel; aluminium; glassfi bre or composite. Adequate scantlings.
Ballast: Internal or external; lead or iron; centreplate, bilge plates or fi n and bulb.
Rig: Gaff; gunter, lug, bermudan; junk; sloop; cutter; ketch or yawl.
Mast construction and rigging; reefi ng systems. Sail areas and centres of effort. Sheet winches.
Steering: Tiller; wheel, pedestal, hydraulic or cable; emergency steering; self-steering.
Aesthetics: One of the most important aspects of any boat, it has to look good!
Safety: Self-draining cockpit; washboards; adequate bilge pumps; secure hatches and portholes; escape hatch; liferaft or tender; grab bag; grabrails; lifelines and stanchions; gas and bilge alarm; fi re extinguishers; fi rst aid kit; radar reflector; danbuoy; lifebuoy.

Engine: Electric motor; diesel inboard or petrol outboard.
Engine access; exhaust runs.
Tanks: Fuel and water for intended use + 25 per cent; grey and black water holding tanks.
Gas: Dedicated draining locker for gas bottle plus spare.
Electrics and electronics: Batteries; navigation lights; internal lights; pumps; VHF; GPS; EPIRB; plotter; log, compass, sextant etc; solar panels; wind generator.
Galley: Cooker; sink; cool box; fridge; worktop; cutlery and crockery; pans and food storage.
Storage: A locker for each crew member’s personal belongings; hanging locker; lockers for bedding; lifejackets; flares; charts; sails; tools and spares. Deck lockers: warps;fenders; legs; liferaft; tender; spare fuel and water cans; anchors and ground tackle; chain locker.
Windlass: Desirable on larger boats.
Chart table: Desirable if there is enough space.
Table: Again, desirable if there is enough space.
Berths: One for each intended crew member.
Seating: Enough for each crew below and in the cockpit.
Wet locker: Oilskins and wellies.
Sanitation: Sea toilet; chemical toilet; bucket and chuck it; handwash sink; shower.
Ventilation: Opening hatches and portholes; engine vents; dorade or mushroom vents; locker vents.
Natural lighting: Skylights; portholes and deck prisms.
Heating: Solid fuel; gas; diesel; paraffi n or radiators.
Tender: Traditional or infl atable. Tender outboard?
Canopy: To keep dry and out of the wind, and to protect an open companionway from spray. Sun canopy.

This isn’t meant to be a definitive list of what needs to be included in the design of a pocket cruiser, but I hope it will act as a reminder of the individual elements that go into making a seaworthy design. It isn’t until you see a list such as this that you realise the compromises that have to be considered, and the problems designers face – and this is only at the preliminary stage
of the design. This is before the calculations for displacement, trim, stability, scantlings, sail area, centre of effort and centre of lateral resistance have been factored in. Finally, one of the most diffi cult calculations if you are working within a budget is that of cost. It may be better to design a basic but sound boat initially, and then add the expensive extras when finances permit."

Really good. I only would add, why not a wheelhouse?

Cheers.

[DanishBagger]

Well, it seems I'm getting alone in this thread, but anyhow...
Here some basic design and most interesting ideas for a pocket cruiser from the Pocket Cruiser Design Competition:

"Most of us who sail small boats have a picture in our mind’s eye as to the perfect little cruising yacht we would like for ourselves. I frequently dream of such a boat. But where do we start? I don’t normally make lists, but in order to build up a picture of what is required, I have come up with some things that may be considered when approaching a design.
Expected use of the boat: Daysailer; weekender; channel hops or extended long-distance cruises. You and the boat will have to be self-reliant and self-suffi cient in any circumstances.

Everything onboard needs to be reliable and robust.
Number of crew: Single-handed; a couple; three crew or more, enabling a watch system to be maintained on extended passages.
Where will the boat be kept: Marina; drying mooring; swinging mooring or trailerable.
Size of boat: Length, beam, draught and displacement; these will tend to grow as you try to squeeze in much of the list below. It’s worth noting that a boat of 26ft will have approximately 50 per cent more displacement and cost twice as much as a boat of 20ft.

Seaworthiness: The ability to ride out a gale, even when coastal cruising. Stability and trim.
Construction: Traditional wood; wood epoxy; plywood epoxy; steel; aluminium; glassfi bre or composite. Adequate scantlings.
Ballast: Internal or external; lead or iron; centreplate, bilge plates or fi n and bulb.
Rig: Gaff; gunter, lug, bermudan; junk; sloop; cutter; ketch or yawl.
Mast construction and rigging; reefi ng systems. Sail areas and centres of effort. Sheet winches.
Steering: Tiller; wheel, pedestal, hydraulic or cable; emergency steering; self-steering.
Aesthetics: One of the most important aspects of any boat, it has to look good!
Safety: Self-draining cockpit; washboards; adequate bilge pumps; secure hatches and portholes; escape hatch; liferaft or tender; grab bag; grabrails; lifelines and stanchions; gas and bilge alarm; fi re extinguishers; fi rst aid kit; radar reflector; danbuoy; lifebuoy.

Engine: Electric motor; diesel inboard or petrol outboard.
Engine access; exhaust runs.
Tanks: Fuel and water for intended use + 25 per cent; grey and black water holding tanks.
Gas: Dedicated draining locker for gas bottle plus spare.
Electrics and electronics: Batteries; navigation lights; internal lights; pumps; VHF; GPS; EPIRB; plotter; log, compass, sextant etc; solar panels; wind generator.
Galley: Cooker; sink; cool box; fridge; worktop; cutlery and crockery; pans and food storage.
Storage: A locker for each crew member’s personal belongings; hanging locker; lockers for bedding; lifejackets; flares; charts; sails; tools and spares. Deck lockers: warps;fenders; legs; liferaft; tender; spare fuel and water cans; anchors and ground tackle; chain locker.
Windlass: Desirable on larger boats.
Chart table: Desirable if there is enough space.
Table: Again, desirable if there is enough space.
Berths: One for each intended crew member.
Seating: Enough for each crew below and in the cockpit.
Wet locker: Oilskins and wellies.
Sanitation: Sea toilet; chemical toilet; bucket and chuck it; handwash sink; shower.
Ventilation: Opening hatches and portholes; engine vents; dorade or mushroom vents; locker vents.
Natural lighting: Skylights; portholes and deck prisms.
Heating: Solid fuel; gas; diesel; paraffi n or radiators.
Tender: Traditional or infl atable. Tender outboard?
Canopy: To keep dry and out of the wind, and to protect an open companionway from spray. Sun canopy.

This isn’t meant to be a definitive list of what needs to be included in the design of a pocket cruiser, but I hope it will act as a reminder of the individual elements that go into making a seaworthy design. It isn’t until you see a list such as this that you realise the compromises that have to be considered, and the problems designers face – and this is only at the preliminary stage
of the design. This is before the calculations for displacement, trim, stability, scantlings, sail area, centre of effort and centre of lateral resistance have been factored in. Finally, one of the most diffi cult calculations if you are working within a budget is that of cost. It may be better to design a basic but sound boat initially, and then add the expensive extras when finances permit."

Really good. I only would add, why not a wheelhouse?

Cheers.

Nice "compilation" :)

Definately got me thinking, and by using your list, that mental picture can be summed up like this (I wouldn't want a wheelhouse, though - both becaus of windage, but also because, imo, it's easier to sail when I can feel the wind):


Everything onboard needs to be reliable and robust.
Number of crew: Single-handed; a couple; three crew or more, enabling a watch system to be maintained on extended passages.
Two people.


Where will the boat be kept: Marina; drying mooring; swinging mooring or trailerable.
Not trailerable (unless it happens to be that, but not as a criteria). Swinging mooring.


Size of boat: Length, beam, draught and displacement; these will tend to grow as you try to squeeze in much of the list below. It’s worth noting that a boat of 26ft will have approximately 50 per cent more displacement and cost twice as much as a boat of 20ft.

I am thinking 24ft or thereabouts.


Seaworthiness: The ability to ride out a gale, even when coastal cruising. Stability and trim.

Certainly. A swing keel, and a combination of internal/external ballast (I will get around to that). Easy to handle, possibly with the type of rig of romily and roxane.

Construction: Traditional wood; wood epoxy; plywood epoxy; steel; aluminium; glassfi bre or composite. Adequate scantlings.


Wood-epoxy. The reason for this is strength. Then a bit more weight can be used for ballast.


Ballast: Internal or external; lead or iron; centreplate, bilge plates or fi n and bulb.

Here I would go for a leaded swing keel. Some leaded external ballast, and use batteries as internal ballast.

Rig: Gaff; gunter, lug, bermudan; junk; sloop; cutter; ketch or yawl.
I think the Romily/Roxanes are yawl rigged? But I would actually prefer to have a single sail, kind of making it a lug-rigged catboat. That way it would be easy to install a self-steerer.

Mast construction and rigging; reefi ng systems. Sail areas and centres of effort. Sheet winches.
I would want the gaff to be carbon fibre, the mast _could_ be a strip-planked wood-epoxy construction (to save money, but I would prefer CF). I would want a boom, though.


Steering: Tiller; wheel, pedestal, hydraulic or cable; emergency steering; self-steering.

Certainly tiller-steering. Self-steering would optimally be an "in-built" Cap Horn self-steerer-


Aesthetics: One of the most important aspects of any boat, it has to look good!

Yup, nice and low. I don't care about standing height that much, frankly.


Safety: Self-draining cockpit; washboards; adequate bilge pumps; secure hatches and portholes; escape hatch; liferaft or tender; grab bag; grabrails; lifelines and stanchions; gas and bilge alarm; fi re extinguishers; fi rst aid kit; radar reflector; danbuoy; lifebuoy.

Manual bilge pumps all around. No traditionally self-draining cockpit (with hoses), but old-school where you sit on "boxes", and the cockpit sole is actually the deck.


Engine: Electric motor; diesel inboard or petrol outboard.
Engine access; exhaust runs.
If an engine were to be installed (not sure I wanted that), it would have to be an electric one. Also, it would have to be able to re-generate.


Tanks: Fuel and water for intended use + 25 per cent; grey and black water holding tanks.
No fuel-tanks.


Gas: Dedicated draining locker for gas bottle plus spare.
I don't like gas. Actually, it scares me a bit. I would want either an Origo (alcohol), or a Taylors K-lite (kerosene). Both for safety, but also because it's easy to get the fuel.

Electrics and electronics: Batteries; navigation lights; internal lights; pumps; VHF; GPS; EPIRB; plotter; log, compass, sextant etc; solar panels; wind generator..
Well, yes - except for the epirb and plotter.


Galley: Cooker; sink; cool box; fridge; worktop; cutlery and crockery; pans and food storage.

Manual pumps. Saltwater and freshwater pumps at the sink. No fridge, but a cool-box. Manual pump to empty the sink.


Storage: A locker for each crew member’s personal belongings; I don't think each person would need a personal locker. I just think they need "a corner", so to speak.


Chart table: Desirable if there is enough space.
Yup, I would want something nifty designed, where, for example, a "lid" could be put on top of the stove or something like that.


Table: Again, desirable if there is enough space.

Don't need it, or want it. I figure that it would make the boat wider.


Berths: One for each intended crew member.

Yup, and proper sea-berths.



Seating: Enough for each crew below and in the cockpit.
Wet locker: Oilskins and wellies.

Yup.

Sanitation: Sea toilet; chemical toilet; bucket and chuck it; handwash sink; shower.
No shower. Certainly a toilet (I wouldn't be able to get my better half to sail for even three months without one).




Ventilation: Opening hatches and portholes; engine vents; dorade or mushroom vents; locker vents.
Mushroom vents, dorade boxes. The locker vents .. I would want a simple hole in the lockers (the ones inside), and have the back of the lockers sides have holes along the hull.


Natural lighting: Skylights; portholes and deck prisms.
Deck-prisms. And one long skylight, rather like "EVA", if you have seen that one.


Heating: Solid fuel; gas; diesel; paraffi n or radiators.
Solid fuel. The black one from Daveys. Nice size. Also, two lanterns to make heat barriers at the openings.




Tender: Traditional or infl atable. Tender outboard?
Oars, and a simple sail. It would be a folding one (plywood+cordura).


Canopy: To keep dry and out of the wind, and to protect an open companionway from spray. Sun cano

Certainly. And the spray canopy should be sort of "inbuilt".



Heh, man, I want to build one, now :p

[DanishBagger]

Ooh, I forgot: I also want to have oars on the "big" boat.

[Jonas63]

I really like this design, what do think Guillermo?

http://boatplans-online.com/proddetail.php?prod=VG26

[Wellydeckhand]

I think Guillermore is thinking of a bigger picture here:) Nice job........ There bound to be a lot of someone praising you for your indirect help:)

WDH

[Jonas63]

:confused: :confused:

Nice job........ There bound to be a lot of someone praising you for your indirect help

Vega and others had posted links to commercial plans on this post before, why should someone praise my indirect help ????

Also like the Roberto barros pantanal design posted before...

[Wellydeckhand]

Sorry, I was commenting on his previous post on mental preparation of dream boat.

Vagabond is trustworthy desigh, dont worry........ in -movie 50 first date - they use Vagabond I think:)

WDH

[fcfc]

I really like this design, what do think Guillermo?

http://boatplans-online.com/proddetail.php?prod=VG26


The big problem of Jacques mertens designs Vagabond 20 and 26 is that designs Primo, Pizzicato and Dingo from french Naval Architect Jean Pierre Villenave existed about 20 years ago.

[Jonas63]

Well... living and learning, it´s almost an exact copy

thanks for the post

I like the dingo :)

[Guillermo]

Heh, man, I want to build one, now :p
OK! Go ahead! :)

I really like this design, what do think Guillermo?
Not exagerated design and quite good from the point of safety, but probably umcomfortable, as roll period is quite low. But we've seen in this thread many other 'modern' designs with similar or worse numbers.

LH = 7,63 m
Lwl = 7,27 m
Bmax = 2,54 m
Draught = 1,53 m (keel down)
HD = 0,3 m (guessed)
Disp = 2773 kg (2045 kg light)
Ballast = 1136 kg
Ballast/Disp = 0,41
Sail area = 31,6 m2
Power = 15 HP

Displacement /Length Ratio D/L = 201,29
Sail Area /Disp. Ratio SA/D = 16,27
Power / Disp. Ratio 6*HP/D = 14,71
Hull speed HSPD = 6,54 Kn
Potential Maximum Speed PMS = 7,23 Kn
Velocity Ratio VR = 1,11
Capsize Safety Factor CSF = 1,82
Motion Comfort Ratio MCR = 23,02
Screening Stability Value SSV = 46,14
Angle of Vanishing Stability AVS = 121,07 º

Roll Period T = 1,79 Sec
Roll Acceleration Acc = 0,18 G's
Stability Index SI = 0,7

From the pages of the designer:
"The seaworthiness may come as a surprise to beginners or to those who have never sailed a shallow draft boat but experienced seamen know that the shallow draft boat is more seaworthy than a hull with a deep keel.
Unlike the deep boat, a centerboarder will not resist the sea. Instead of tripping on it's keel, it will dodge the waves or lift over them. Properly designed, a keel centerboarder will have the same ultimate stability than a boat with a conventional keel. All over the world, lifeboats are shallow draft. Slocum sailed around the world in a shallow draft boat, my daughter's Presto style sharpie was 55' long but had less than 4' draft and sailed 2-1/2 times around the world and I sailed half around the world in a 41 footer with 3' draft.
But there is more to it than safety at sea. In case of real bad weather like a hurricane, a shallow draft boat can take refuge deep inland or in very protected coves inaccessible to deep boats. The centerboarder can, with only a small tide, be beached for repairs or to clean and paint the bottom. It can go on anchor where nobody else can and save on marina fees.
Altogether, shallow draft is the way to go for a serious cruising boat."

Well, I have some disagreement here. I think using lifeboats to justify shallow draft for an all around cruiser doesn't seem quite correct to me. Also I do not find correct the statement that a shallow draft hull is seaworthier than a deep keeled one, because it depends also on other important factors.

Ballast/Disp ratio of 0,41 is quite high, probably due to the combination of inside ballast and leaded centerboard, so designer ends losing around 200 kg of payload by choosing this option, being this against his claims of a high load carrying capacity. Also fractional rig for a cruiser is not my favourite.

Interesting to note calculated AVS is 121,07º, against designer's data of 137º as by the posted GZ curve. For sure calculated data is only a rough approximation and should be taken with care. The volume of the deckhouse is probably producing the hump in the curve at 75º, so increasing AVS from around 125º+ to 137º. To be noted that it is not specified the load condition for that stability curve (As a matter of fact there's something strange to me with that curve: I find it too steep and pointy for an inside ballasted boat....)

Most strange thing is that designer, when comparing with other boats, states the following:
D/L ratio = 251,56
Roll period 2,16 sec
AVS = 118,06º (!!!)

Am I understanding well?

[Vega]

From the pages of the designer:
"The seaworthiness may come as a surprise to beginners or to those who have never sailed a shallow draft boat but experienced seamen know that the shallow draft boat is more seaworthy than a hull with a deep keel.
Unlike the deep boat, a centerboarder will not resist the sea. Instead of tripping on it's keel, it will dodge the waves or lift over them. Properly designed, a keel centerboarder will have the same ultimate stability than a boat with a conventional keel. All over the world, lifeboats are shallow draft. Slocum sailed around the world in a shallow draft boat, my daughter's Presto style sharpie was 55' long but had less than 4' draft and sailed 2-1/2 times around the world and I sailed half around the world in a 41 footer with 3' draft.
But there is more to it than safety at sea. In case of real bad weather like a hurricane, a shallow draft boat can take refuge deep inland or in very protected coves inaccessible to deep boats. The centerboarder can, with only a small tide, be beached for repairs or to clean and paint the bottom. It can go on anchor where nobody else can and save on marina fees.
Altogether, shallow draft is the way to go for a serious cruising boat."

Well, I have some disagreement here. I think using lifeboats to justify shallow draft for an all around cruiser doesn't seem quite correct to me. Also I do not find correct the statement that a shallow draft hull is seaworthier than a deep keeled one, because it depends also on other important factors.


I agree so much with Jacques Mertens that what he says is the reason that has made me abandon the design I have been modifying, of what would be my retirement cruising boat, a good seaworthy keel boat. Instead I am working in the modification and adaptation of an existing boat design with a retractable keel, exactly by the same reasons that Mertens points out, just to get a more seaworthy boat.

I owe to Milan the beginning of my understanding on this matter, when he pointed out that the OVNIS are very seaworthy boats, even with a not satisfactory final stability.

Further investigations led me to find that manufacturers of retractable ballasted keel boats, like Southerlies, advise the owners to partially put the keel up in gale conditions, giving the boat more seaworthiness.

This confirms, as Mertens says, that “experienced seamen know that the shallow draft boat is more seaworthy than a hull with a deep keel”. Who can be more experienced in a boat than the ones that have made it and test-sailed it for more than 20 years, I mean the Southerlies?

The boat with a ballasted keel up will have worse final stability and a lower AVS (all negative things) but can compensate that and better its seaworthiness by the ability of “gliding” on the face of the waves.

A deep keel would not permit the “gliding” and the force of the wave on the boat instead of being transformed into a linear movement, would be transformed also in movement, but this time in a rotational one, that would lead to a capsize.

Another sailor that has understood that is Eric Tabarlay . In his book “Guide practique de manoeuvre” he talks about the problem and these drawings (from the book) illustrate why a boat with a smaller keel area is a more seaworthy boat, regarding capsizing.

[Guillermo]

...illustrate why a boat with a smaller keel area is a more seaworthy boat, regarding capsizing.
As I've said it's not only a matter of deepness. Probably Mertens wanted to say area and deepness, instead of only deepness.

But capsizing has also to see with mass and inertia of the boat, among other thigs, so we cannot make things very simple. I would like to point out that a deeper analysis taking into account other factors should be made. Seaworthiness is more than just resisting capsizing, but also winward going ability, running ability, hoving to ability, kind motions, structural and rig resistance, sail handling characteristics, watertightness, self-righting ability, steering ability, etc, etc. And, on top of all that: the crew's preparedness, resistance, knowdledge and good criteria.

Now, going on talking about off-shore small boats design criteria, here the opinion from Stephen Baker, of Stephen Baker Yacht Design

"In rough order of importance:
1.Unsinkable - using solid flotation if possible, such as thick foam core.
2. Fixed keel
3. Easily reefed
4. Fully watertight companionway
5. Enclosed cockpit (i.e. full lifelines)
6. Full height lifelines (27")
7. The ability to self-right from at least 125 degrees of roll (180 preferable but hard to achieve)
9. Sealed mast with external halyards (to help with self-righting ability)
10. Enough headroom to at least sit upright while on the head (an under-rated characteristic).
11. Sailable (and preferably sailed) by 3 or 4 maximum.
12. Fast enough to get out of trouble (also an under-rated characteristic)
13. Open accommodations to avoid claustrophobia
14. Large enough berths (6'4" minimum) for all crew.
15. Real head with holding tank, chemical toilets just don't hack it in a storm
16. Watermaker
17. SSB
18. All items required for a Class I Offshore race as defined by ORC, if not already included. A life raft is a really comfortable thing to have around, but difficult in 25ft. I realize I would probably have to work very hard to get all this into 25ft, but I'd love to try."

More interesting stuff about small boats at:
http://www.smallcraftadvisor.com/

Interesting to read there their page on Seaworthiness:
http://www.smallcraftadvisor.com/content/seaworthiness/index.htm

[sailaweigh]

"The seaworthiness may come as a surprise to beginners or to those who have never sailed a shallow draft boat but experienced seamen know that the shallow draft boat is more seaworthy than a hull with a deep keel.
Unlike the deep boat, a centerboarder will not resist the sea. Instead of tripping on it's keel, it will dodge the waves or lift over them. Properly designed, a keel centerboarder will have the same ultimate stability than a boat with a conventional keel.

What a bunch of crap. Been there, done that. It's bull.
Mike

[Vega]

"The seaworthiness may come as a surprise to beginners or to those who have never sailed a shallow draft boat but experienced seamen know that the shallow draft boat is more seaworthy than a hull with a deep keel.
Unlike the deep boat, a centerboarder will not resist the sea. Instead of tripping on it's keel, it will dodge the waves or lift over them. Properly designed, a keel centerboarder will have the same ultimate stability than a boat with a conventional keel.

What a bunch of crap. Been there, done that. It's bull.
Mike

Interesting post Mike...You mean you have been in bad weather in a shallow draft boat?
Tell us about it;)

[Vega]

I thought you might want to have a look at this new addition: the Etap 28s.

Frede




Etaps are one of the best boats that the mass market has to offer.

They are known to be particularly seaworthy and comfortable for their size.



Some more information about this one, coming from the first test data from the specialized press.

In this month edition of “Voile Magazine” it is published a sail test of the new Etap 28ft.

They went out for testing the boat with 25k winds and when they returned it was blowing 35k and gusting, with an already formed sea.

They have said (translated):

“It is difficult to imagine a more seaworthy and faster boat, offering so much comfort”....
“ We have surfed downwind at more than 10k without too much rolling.”
About the quality – “Superb finish at all stages and a high quality construction, as in all Etaps..”

Well, I am impressed Frede.;)

[frede]

Thanks, I will look for the review in Voile. I too am impressed with the 28s.

[Guillermo]

Another Light & Fast one:
http://www.rodgermartindesign.com/

QUEST 30

Lh = 9.15 m
Lwl = 8.4 m
Bmax = 3.45 m3
Bwl = 2.76 m (guessed)
Draught = 2.1 m
HD = 0.3 m (guessed)
Disp = 2720 kg (probably lightship)
Ballast = 793 kg
Sail area = 62 m2

Ballast/Disp Ratio W/Disp =0,29
Displacement/Length Ratio D/L = 128
Sail Area/Disp. Ratio SA/D = 32,33
Hull speed HSPD = 7,03Kn
Potential Maximum Speed PMS = 9,78Kn
Velocity Ratio VR =1,39
Comfort Safety Factor CSF = 2,49
Motion Comfort Ratio MCR = 12,84
Screening Stability Value SSV = 119,67
Angle of Vanishing Stability AVS = 113,65º
Heft Ratio HF =0,49
Roll Period T =1,6 Sec
Roll Acceleration Acc =0,35G's
Stability Index SI = 0,46
Roll Period/Beam Ratio T/Bcorr =0,52 (Comfort: 1 – 1,1)
Righting arm 10º RA10 =0,36m
Initial Metacentric height GMo =2,09m

[Seafarer24]

I've been gone for a month so I haven't quite kept up with this thread but wanted to comment on the pictures of waves breaking over the boats a few posts back.

That first boat with the long, full keel, would be more likely to create the "slick" (turbulent wake extending to windward) which causes waves to break before reaching the boat when lying a-hull. The shape of the keel would allow the boat to lie sideways to the waves without slipping forwards out of this protective zone. This is one area that modern underbodies lose out. When lying a-hull they still want to move forwards as the waves aproach, drifting out of their protective "slick". A drogue towed astern can help pin the boat in place.

[Vega]

Seafarer, this thread is not about seaworthiness, dynamic stability and type of underbody so I will not go any further on it.

But let me tell you that those pictures represent the opinion of one of the greatest sailors of all times about the behavior of those hulls in that situation. He knew those two hulls very well. He loved both boats, and has probably made hundreds of thousands of miles in each one of them and endured countless storms.

I am inclined to think he knows what he is talking about.

[Guillermo]

A well known and reputed one:

VARNE 27 (http://www.varne.co.uk/)

Lh = 8,45 m
Lwl = 6,4 m
Bmax = 2,7 m
Bwl = 2,43 m (0.9*Bmax)
Draught = 1,3 m
HD = 0,5 m (Guess)
Disp = 2812 kg (Light?)
Ballast = 1177 kg
Sail area = 31,94 m2
Power = 12 HP
Heeling Arm = 5,2 m (Guess)

Length/Beam ratio (Lfl+Lh)/2B = 2,75
Ballast/Disp Ratio Ball/Disp = 0,42
Displacement/Length Ratio D/L = 299,2
Sail Area/Disp. Ratio SA/D = 16,29
Power/ Disp. Ratio HP/D = 1,93 HP/ton
Hull speed HSPD = 6,14 Kn
Potential Maximum Speed PMS = 6,79 Kn
Velocity Ratio VR = 1,11
Capsize Safety Factor CSF = 1,93 (OK under 2)
Motion Comfort Ratio MCR = 22,63

Angle of Vanishing Stability AVS = 129 º
Heft Ratio HF = 0,89 (OK over 1)
Roll Period T = 2,28 Sec
Roll Acceleration Acc = 0,12 G's (Malaise 0.1+)
Stability Index SI = 0,85 (Comfort: 1 – 1,1)

Upright Heeling Moment UHM = 5865,34 Ft*pound
Heeling Moment at 1º HM1º = 281,9 Ft*pound
Dellenbaugh Angle DA = 20,81 º


To be taken with care:

Righting Arm 10º RA10 = 0,45 Ft
Righting Arm 20º RA20 = 0,82 Ft
Righting Arm 30º RA30 = 1,11 Ft
Initial Metacentric height GMo = 2,6 Ft
CG height to floatation GF = -0,05 Ft
CG from bottom of Keel KG = 3,71 Ft

I have to find out about displacement, probably being the one used the correspondent to lighship condition. A full load displacement of around 3520 kg makes mores sense to me, bringing comfort and safety numbers to what is perceived by owners as a boat having "...a motion that could rock you to sleep"

[Guillermo]

And here what has been said to be the best cruiser in its range ever built:

GREAT DANE 28
(data taken here and there, but mainly from a Yachtworld (http://www.yachtworld.com/core/listing/boatFullDetails.jsp?boat_id=1137342&ybw=&units=Meters&currency=EUR&access=Public&listing_id=53529&url=) ad. More accurate info will be greatly appreciated)

Lh = 8,54 m
Lwl = 6,4 m
Bmax = 2,44 m
Bwl = 2,2 m (0.9*Bmax)
Draught = 1,45 m
HD = 0,5 m (Guess)
Disp = 4195 kg
Ballast = 1798 kg
Sail area = 36,7 m2
Power = 18 HP

Length/Beam ratio (Lfl+Lh)/2B = 3,06
Ballast/Disp Ratio Ball/Disp = 0,43
Displacement/Length Ratio D/L = 446,35
Sail Area/Disp. Ratio SA/D = 14,34
Power/ Disp. Ratio HP/D = 1,94 HP/ton
Hull speed HSPD = 6,14 Kn
Potential Maximum Speed PMS = 6,43 Kn
Velocity Ratio VR = 1,05
Capsize Safety Factor CSF = 1,53 (OK under 2)
Motion Comfort Ratio MCR = 38,49

Angle of Vanishing Stability AVS = 138 º
Heft Ratio HF = 1,61 (OK over 1)
Roll Period T = 3,77 Sec
Roll Acceleration Acc = 0,04 G's (Malaise 0.1+)
Stability Index SI = 1,54 (Comfort: 1 – 1,1)

[VadimGo]

I find your comment by searching the forum, Apology if bothering you.
I just got myself an old Puma 23 sailboat, a bit neglected for some years. The hull is in great condition, rig is OK, interior is in need of reconstruction/modernization. I would like to make it sailable again. I was not able to find any info about this boat – apparently there are very few of them in the USA. I would greatly appreciate if you could help me in any way – comments, pics, links etc.

Thank you

[Guillermo]

VladimGo,
My father owned a Puma 23 for several years, when I was young. Unluckily I haven't kept any kind of data. Building boatyard (INERGA) is not working either, since a long time ago. Anyhow I'll try to do some search for you in Spain and if I find something I'll let you know. A friend of mine has just got an old one from the Spanish Navy (They bought 6 units at the same time my father bought his), so maybe he has some info. Let's see...
In the mean time here you have a link to a selling ad in Spain, where you can find several interior photographs:
http://www.cosasdebarcos.com/barco_37668050061548665250546853544570.html
And here a better maintained unit:
http://www.marktplaats.nl/index.php?sref=http%3A//www.google.es/search%3Fq%3Dpuma+23%26hl%3Des%26hs%3D9Ev%26lr%3D%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla%3A%3Aofficial_s%26start%3D10%26sa%3DN&url=http%3A//koopjes.marktplaats.nl/watersport_en_boten/kajuitzeilboten_en_zeiljachten/43526029.html
You may find some info on the Puma 23 at CDboats: http://www.cdboats.com/boats.html (But you'll have to buy the CD, which maybe doesn't worth while, just for this info. It's up to you)
Cheers.

[Guillermo]

Got from Good Old Boat's web pages:
(http://goodoldboat.com:8080/GOBWeb/GOBAssociations/index_html?search_heading=PPP)

Puma Inegra 23 (Association?)
Bill Thomson
27 Winans Pl
Locust Valley, NY 11560
USA
Phone: 516-671-0753
E-mail: wtchant@aol.com


Note: Inegra---> INERGA

[Guillermo]

Searching for info on the Puma 23, I found also this in Good Old Boat's: A comprehensive list of really small pocket cruisers.
ShortyPen's Sailboat Pocket Cruiser Guide (http://www.shortypen.com/boats/pocket/)

[Guillermo]

Delightful pages, outstanding race and seafaring people.
http://www.jesterinfo.org/index.html

....It might be well to remember the words of Jack Odling-Smee, the Chairman of the original race committee: “…the concept of the race (is) to defeat the ocean rather than the other competitors."

[Guillermo]

Even more internet info on pocket cruisers:
http://www.pocketcruiserguide.com/index.htm

[Guillermo]

The Flicka has a good reputation, and kind of on the other end of the spectrum, the Nor'Sea 27 also does. These two boats are very much of the same style, the Flicka is quite a bit smaller, and quite a bit cheaper!

Also, with respect to seaworthiness, I am glad to see people discussing the roll moment of inertia and so on, but it's worth pointing out that deep keels with bulbs increase this, while decreasing course-keeping abilities. In a seaway, you want a full-keel style of thing, not an appendage with a bulb, for a variety of reasons.

A full keel isn't very deep!

Web pages for the FLICKA. A great little boat!
http://www.flicka20.com/

Her numbers:

Lod = 6,09 m
Lwl = 5,54 m
Bmax = 2,44 m
Bwl = 2,2 m
Draught = 0,99 m
HD = 0,3 m (guess)
Disp = 2721 kg
Ballast = 817 kg
Sail area = 22,23 m2
Power = 8 HP

Length/Beam ratio (Lfl+Lh)/2B = 2,38
Ballast/Disp Ratio Ball/Disp = 0,3
Displacement/Length Ratio D/L = 446,35 (Wow!)
Sail Area/Disp. Ratio SA/D = 11,59
Power/ Disp. Ratio HP/D = 1,33 HP/ton
Hull speed HSPD = 5,71 Kn
Potential Maximum Speed PMS = 5,64 Kn
Velocity Ratio VR = 0,99
Capsize Safety Factor CSF = 1,76 (OK under 2)
Motion Comfort Ratio MCR = 30,81

Angle of Vanishing Stability AVS = 118 º
Heft Ratio HF = 1,46 (OK over 1)
Roll Period T = 2,78 Sec
Roll Acceleration Acc = 0,07 G's (Malaise 0.1+)
Stability Index SI = 1,14 (Comfort: 1 – 1,1)

[VadimGo]

thank you

[Mychael]

Speaking of Nor'Sea yachts, What became of them?
I found their website once and sent a few e-mails but never got any replies, Also to the owners groups drew no response.

Mychael

[Guillermo]

Info on the CATALINA 30 (Deep keel version).
Data taken from: http://kb.sailboatowners.com/brand?post=84

Loa = 9,12 m
Lwl = 7,62 m
Bmax = 3,3 m
Bwl = 2,97 m
Draught = 1,35 m
HD = 0,5 M (guess)
Disp = 4625 kg
Ballast = 1870 kg
Sail area = 42 m2
Power = 30 HP


Length/Beam ratio (Lfl+Lh)/2B = 2,54
Ballast/Disp Ratio Ball/Disp = 0,4
Displacement/Length Ratio D/L = 291,56
Sail Area/Disp. Ratio SA/D = 15,37
Power/ Disp. Ratio HP/D = 2,94 HP/ton
Hull speed HSPD = 6,7 Kn
Potential Maximum Speed PMS = 7,16 Kn
Velocity Ratio VR = 1,07
Capsize Safety Factor CSF = 2 (OK under 2)
Motion Comfort Ratio MCR = 24,76

Angle of Vanishing Stability AVS = 121 º
Heft Ratio HF = 0,91 (OK over 1)
Roll Period T = 2,39 Sec
Roll Acceleration Acc = 0,15 G's (Malaise 0.1+)
Stability Index SI = 0,72 (Comfort: 1 – 1,1)

[Guillermo]

Speaking of Nor'Sea yachts, What became of them?
I found their website once and sent a few e-mails but never got any replies, Also to the owners groups drew no response.

Mychael

Here what I've found:
http://www.norseayachts.com/

Some data for the 27:

Loa = 8,23 m
Lwl = 7,62 m
Bmax = 2,44 m
Bwl = 2,2 m
Draught = 1,17 m
HD = 0,5 M (guess)
Disp = 3672 kg
Ballast = 1405 kg
Sail area = 36,6 m2
Power = 20 HP

Length/Beam ratio (Lfl+Lh)/2B = 3,25
Ballast/Disp Ratio Ball/Disp = 0,38
Displacement/Length Ratio D/L = 231,48
Sail Area/Disp. Ratio SA/D = 15,63
Power/ Disp. Ratio HP/D = 2,47 HP/ton
Hull speed HSPD = 6,7 Kn
Potential Maximum Speed PMS = 7,25 Kn
Velocity Ratio VR = 1,08
Capsize Safety Factor CSF = 1,6 (OK under 2)
Motion Comfort Ratio MCR = 30,4

Angle of Vanishing Stability AVS = 133 º
Heft Ratio HF = 1,46 (OK over 1)
Roll Period T = 3,07 Sec
Roll Acceleration Acc = 0,06 G's (Malaise 0.1+)
Stability Index SI = 1,26 (Comfort: 1 – 1,1)


Very nice numbers, indeed!

[Mychael]

That is the site I've looked at before. It does seem to have been updated a little so I've tried sending them another e-mail.
Last time I sent several e-mails to the company as well as names mentioned in the owners group and never received a single reply.

Mychael

[Seafra]

Anyone here mentioned the Rhodes 22. Unsinkable, impossible to turtle, suberb sailing hardware, spacious cockpit, cruising appointments, and one of the most brilliantly designed cabins on a '22.

[Guillermo]

Using numbers at http://www.rhodes22.com/spec.html , I get for the Rhodes 22:

Length/Beam ratio (Lfl+Lh)/2B = 2,63
Ballast/Disp Ratio Ball/Disp = 0,24
Displacement/Length Ratio D/L = 161,47
Sail Area/Disp. Ratio SA/D = 16,52
Power/ Disp. Ratio HP/D = 6,9 HP/ton
Hull speed HSPD = 5,99 Kn
Potential Maximum Speed PMS = 6,8 Kn
Velocity Ratio VR = 1,13
Capsize Safety Factor CSF = 2,25 (OK under 2)
Motion Comfort Ratio MCR = 13,51

Angle of Vanishing Stability AVS = 114 º
Heft Ratio HF = 0,64 (OK over 1)
Roll Period T = 1,4 Sec
Roll Acceleration Acc = 0,27 G's (Malaise 0.1+)
Stability Index SI = 0,57 (Comfort: 1 – 1,1)

[skyl4rk]

Here is a list of pocket cruisers:

http://cruisenews.net/db/boattypes.php

[Guillermo]

Excellent site, skyl4rk. Thanks for the info.

[Guillermo]

Don Cameron has kindly told me about the Pacific Pilot motorsailer (27'), designed by William Gardner.
I've found very little information in the net about it, just a few numbers constant in this ad: http://www.yachtworld.com/boats/1563031/0 which corresponde to Pacific Pilot 21, not the 27.
I attach a Pacific Pilot 27's photo also kindly provided by Don, who owns "Magnus", a very nice and seaworthy Viksund 33 MS.
You may find his very interesting pages on his boat at:
http://www.silverdonaldcameron.ca/magnus.html

Someone knows more about this Pacific Pilot boat?

[Guillermo]

Here an stylish and interesting concept.
http://www.juanyachtdesign.com/projects-dayboat.html
Would like to know more data for her...

[Nels Tomlinson]

The attached example is a 40' Kvase I reengineered from steel into foam composite. The hull was build in kevlar in order to get the same strength as the steel. Originally 15 ton, now 13 ton ...
So Windvang, I'm curious. You were able to shave off two tons at the same strength by going from steel to kevlar. What did that do to the cost of the hull? Kevlar/foam composite is much lighter per unit strength than steel, but it also costs way, Way, WAY more per pound than steel, so unless you saved a lot on labor, I'd expect the cost went up?

Obviously, there is no intrinsic value to a heavy hull; if your hull is strong enough but too light, you can always stuff in some more gear and supplies. Obviously, the lighter hull is going to be objectively better, but I'm wondering about the cost benefit ratio.

[Dyflin]

A fascinating thread, thank you for all the input. :)

I wonder if I could suggest some more boats for discussion.

Elizabethan 30 (http://www.yachtsnet.co.uk/archives/elizabethan-30/elizabethan-30.htm)

and here (http://www.eoa.org.uk/class30.htm)

Also the Vertue 2 (http://www.bossoms.com/html/vertue.php)

Two more "modern" designs from well known manufacturers include worth considering are

Westerly Merlin (http://www.clickspeed.co.uk/ryb2/merlin.html)

Moody 28 (http://www.yachtsnet.co.uk/archives/moody-28/moody-28.htm)


Thanks again and keep up the great work :D

[yipster]

hi Dyflin, ok nice boats and welcome aboard but use the upload (below text) option becouse we cant look into your HD :P

[Guillermo]

A fascinating thread, thank you for all the input. :)

I wonder if I could suggest some more boats for discussion.

Elizabethan 30 (http://www.yachtsnet.co.uk/archives/elizabethan-30/elizabethan-30.htm)

and here (http://www.eoa.org.uk/class30.htm)

Also the Vertue 2 (http://www.bossoms.com/html/vertue.php)

Two more "modern" designs from well known manufacturers include worth considering are

Westerly Merlin (http://www.clickspeed.co.uk/ryb2/merlin.html)

Moody 28 (http://www.yachtsnet.co.uk/archives/moody-28/moody-28.htm)


Thanks again and keep up the great work :D
Nice post Dyflin, thanks for the input on those very nice boats. Somewhat lazy these days, and also experiencing a home computer problem, I'll work on her numbers as soon as possible.
Cheers.

[Guillermo]

Also here: Any new design lately, deserving to be brought here?

Cheers.

[mcm]

Has anyone on this thread seen any building plans for a 26'-28', STEEL, blue-water, ocean-cruising, shoal-draft, centerboard, possessing full 180 degrees self-righting?

[Guillermo]

It's better late than never. Here some numbers for the Elizabethan 39, Vertue 28, Westerly Merlin and Moody 32. Inputs as per Dyflin posted pages)
(asuming Bwl as 0.9*Bmax)

VERTUE II
Length/Beam Ratio L/B = 2,92 (2*LWL + LH) / (3*Bmax)
Lwl/Bwl Ratio Lwl/Bwl = 3,05
Length/Draught Ratio Lh/T = 5,7
Beam/Draught Ratio Bmax/T = 1,74
Ballast/Disp Ratio W/Disp = 0,48
Displacement/Length Ratio D/L = 418,71
Sail Area/Disp. Ratio SA/D = 13,43
Hull speed HSPD = 6,20 Kn
Velocity Ratio VR = 1,03
Capsize Safety Factor CSF = 1,49
Motion Comfort Ratio MCR = 40,38
Heft Ratio HF = 1,84
Roll Period T = 4,44 Sec
Roll Acceleration Acc = 0,03 G's
Stability Index SI = 1,86
Angle of Vanishing Stability AVS = 148 º


ELIZABETHAN 30
Length/Beam Ratio L/B = 2,79
Lwl/Bwl Ratio Lwl/Bwl = 2,88
Length/Draught Ratio Lh/T = 5,91
Beam/Draught Ratio Bmax/T = 1,86
Ballast/Disp Ratio W/Disp = 0,5
Displacement/Length Ratio D/L = 231,12
Sail Area/Disp. Ratio SA/D = 17,14
Hull speed HSPD = 6,57 Kn
Velocity Ratio VR = 1,12
Capsize Safety Factor CSF = 1,92
Motion Comfort Ratio MCR = 22,14
Heft Ratio HF = 0,89
Roll Period T = 2,61 Sec
Roll Acceleration Acc = 0,1 G's
Stability Index SI = 0,93
Angle of Vanishing Stability AVS = 129 º

WESTERLY MERLIN 28 (Twin)
Length/Beam Ratio L/B = 2,55
Lwl/Bwl Ratio Lwl/Bwl = 2,65
Length/Draught Ratio Lh/T = 8,57
Beam/Draught Ratio Bmax/T = 2,96
Ballast/Disp Ratio W/Disp = 0,43
Displacement/Length Ratio D/L = 261,89
Sail Area/Disp. Ratio SA/D = 13,69
Hull speed HSPD = 6,51 Kn
Velocity Ratio VR = 1,04
Capsize Safety Factor CSF = 2,01
Motion Comfort Ratio MCR = 22,17
Heft Ratio HF = 0,85
Roll Period T = 2,53 Sec
Roll Acceleration Acc = 0,12 G's
Stability Index SI = 0,84
Angle of Vanishing Stability AVS = 121 º


MOODY 28 (Fin)
Length/Beam Ratio L/B = 2,47
Lwl/Bwl Ratio Lwl/Bwl = 2,59
Length/Draught Ratio Lh/T = 5,51
Beam/Draught Ratio Bmax/T = 2,01
Ballast/Disp Ratio W/Disp = 0,38
Displacement/Length Ratio D/L = 230,48
Sail Area/Disp. Ratio SA/D = 15,25
Hull speed HSPD = 6,47 Kn
Velocity Ratio VR = 1,1
Capsize Safety Factor CSF = 2,14
Motion Comfort Ratio MCR = 19,02
Heft Ratio HF = 0,74
Roll Period T = 2,18 Sec
Roll Acceleration Acc = 0,16 G's
Stability Index SI = 0,71
Angle of Vanishing Stability AVS = 124 º

[Raggi_Thor]

Hmm, I would guess that a long roll period like 4,44 seconds is good for comfort? Can you repeat what else goes into the comfort ratio?

[Guillermo]

From Ted Brewer (http://www.tedbrewer.com/yachtdesign.html)

"COMFORT RATIO (CR): This is a ratio that I dreamed up, tongue-in-cheek, as a measure of motion comfort but it has been widely accepted and, indeed, does provide a reasonable comparison between yachts of similar type. It is based on the fact that the faster the motion the more upsetting it is to the average person. Given a wave of X height, the speed of the upward motion depends on the displacement of the yacht and the amount of waterline area that is acted upon. Greater displacement, or lesser WL area, gives a slower motion and more comfort for any given sea state.

Beam does enter into it as as wider beam increases stability, increases WL area, and generates a faster reaction. The formula takes into account the displacement, the WL area, and adds a beam factor. The intention is to provide a means to compare the motion comfort of vessels of similar type and size, not to compare that of a Lightning class sloop with that of a husky 50 foot ketch.

The CR is : Displacement in pounds/ (.65 x (.7 LWL + .3 LOA) x B^1.333). Ratios will vary from 5.0 for a light daysailer to the high 60s for a super heavy vessel, such as a Colin Archer ketch. Moderate and successful ocean cruisers, such as the Valiant 40 and Whitby 42, will fall into the low-middle 30s range.

Do consider, though, that a sailing yacht heeled by a good breeze will have a much steadier motion than one bobbing up and down in light airs on left over swells from yesterday's blow; also that the typical summertime coastal cruiser will rarely encounter the wind and seas that an ocean going yacht will meet. Nor will one human stomach keep down what another stomach will handle with relish, or with mustard and pickles for that matter! It is all relative."

Cheers.

[yipster]

a us naval report mentioned a boat motion of 10 deg can set mariners capacitys back by 50%
interestingly a 5% motion gave 110% capability ( was used in a multihull argument :p )