The Ideal Cruiser - a long range passagemaker

Best cruising sailboat of the year

Cruising World and Sailing World magazines have nominated the Morris 45 for 14th Annual Boat of the Year contest.
http://www.morrisyachts.com/news/detail.asp?NewsID=316
http://www.morrisyachts.com/sail/45/

I like the lay-out and the luminous interior, but 50 gals of fuel are too low to my taste for long term cruising.

Some numbers for her (based on basic data from the web site):
Length/Beam Ratio L/B = 3,17 (Not beamy)
Lwl/Bwl Ratio Lwl/Bwl = 3,4 (even better)
Ballast/Disp Ratio W/Disp = 0,42 (OK)
Displacement/Length Ratio D/L = 149,14 (light)
Sail Area/Disp. Ratio SA/D = 19,21 (nice)
Capsize Safety Factor CSF = 1,88 (OK)
Motion Comfort Ratio MCR = 26,08 (pretty low to my taste)
Roll Acceleration Acc = 0,11 G's (better around 0.06)
Stability Index SI = 0,78 (better around 1.0-1.1)

So, here we have another lighty and probably corky one. How will she perform in tight conditions in the high seas...?

 

Even the Morris are corky ones to you...

I believe that for satisfying your parameters you should look for boats designed 35 years ago....or the very few nostalgic ones that are still made that way (and probably designed 35 years ago).

For me the Morris 45 has only a big problem: THE PRICE

By the way, last year (2007) the big winner (in what refers long distance cruising) was the Malo 40. Another corky one to you and one that even I would say it will be certainly worst in tight conditions than the Morris 45.

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=11479&page=25&highlight=cruising costs

What justified the choice of the Malo 40 as one of the big overall winners of the 2007 contest (the other was the Catalina 309) was:


The judges' decision to crown the Malö 40 as Import Boat of the Year ... in the words of one of the judges, "a superb job of meeting the needs of long-distance cruising couples in terms of sailing ability, safety, and price."

The Malö 40's systems stood out, earning an A rating from judge Ed Sherman, a stickler for detail. He said, "It's a sweet-sailing boat. Everything on the boat that we tested was of maximum quality." The Malö 40 was also judged as Best Midsize Cruiser.

http://www.cruisingworld.com/boat-o...0-win-cws-boat-of-the-year-contest-48033.html

 

Paulo,
Let me quote John Holtrop again:
"...most of today’s boats are designed for high performance and coastal cruising. These are not "bad" designs, they simple reflect what the majority of today’s buyers consider important. It does point out, however, the need for cruising boat purchasers to understand these fundamental differences so that they can make informed decisions based on how they intend to use the boat."

I respect your and other people's opinion , but to my taste I find a D/L of 150 as being low for an all around 40'cruiser. Which is not the like for a 55-60 footer, as size matters.

"I believe that for satisfying your parameters you should look for boats designed 35 years ago....or the very few nostalgic ones that are still made that way (and probably designed 35 years ago)."
Would you be so kind not to make that kind of statings anymore....?
http://boatdesign.net/forums/showpost.php?p=115471&postcount=173
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showpost.php?p=136767&postcount=217
About this last:

Some data for the Malo 40:

Length/Beam Ratio L/B = 2,89
Ballast/Disp Ratio W/Disp = 0,38
Displacement/Length Ratio D/L = 228,41
Sail Area/Disp. Ratio SA/D = 19,74
Capsize Safety Factor CSF = 1,83
Motion Comfort Ratio MCR = 30,33
Heft Ratio HF = 1,02
Roll Period T = 3,5 Sec
Roll Acceleration Acc = 0,08 G's
Stability Index SI = 0,91

Acceptable to my taste. Her STIX (MOC) of 49,6 is quite impressive (Although using their curve and asuming 9,48 MT is displacement at MOC, I'm only able to come up to around 48 at it's most ).

 

I am not saying you don’t like the Nordship 40, but what is relevant is that the Nordship 40 does not satisfy your own parameters as a proper oceangoing cruiser.

I believe a good boat should satisfy all and not only some.

These are some of the ratios you have posted regarding the Nordship 40:

If we compare these ratios with other ratios (posted by you on other boats analyses) and the evaluations you have made of them (concerning good or bad characteristics), we will see that the Nordship 40 doesn’t satisfy your own criteria for a confortable oceangoing cruiser.

(for comparing what is comparable we have to compare the boat in lightship condition, the same condition of the other boats you have analyzed)


Nordship40, evaluation considering some of Guillermo parameters and values:

Roll Acceleration Acc = 0,08 G's - insufficient- (0.06 being considered as ideal for ocean-goers, malaise 0.1+)
Stability Index SI = 0,94 - insufficient - (Comfort: 1 – 1,1)

Roll Period T = 3,67 Sec - not ideal - (better around 4,5 sec).

 

Maybe one should view the various "Boat of the Year" elections only as what they probably are, - a powerful marketing tool. If an editor quarrels with a manufacturer, tests of this manufacturer´s boats will simply disappear from the paper for years. How are those nominated selected? How the winners? I suppose an editor from Italy will have different priorities than one from Sweden. Does a nice teak layout compensate for a poor MCR ?
The problem is that we buyers are affected by these "elections" too much. Its easier to go with the "usual suspects" (Malö, Najad, HR, Southerly 46 and Cigale 16 (for Vega ) then to risk an own decision. I am not excluding myself here. Found a "no name" 48 DS boat, AVS 142, GZ as below, specs as below. Will I buy it? Or isn´t it better to follow the herd?
Loa 14,58m
Lwl 12,76m
Beam 4,48m
Draft 2,22 / 1,90 m
Keelw. 5,71 t
Displ. 13,5 t
Saila. 158 m²
Water 700l
Fuel 400l

 

I don’t deny that there are lobbing about it, but if things were as bad as you say the winners would be always from the Beneteau group, Bavaria or Hunter, because they are giants among small shipyards.

That is not what happens. Malo is a very small shipyard.

You forget that the main objective of boat magazines is selling magazines, not boats. Nobody would buy a sail magazine that were as tendentious as you say. You forget also that most professional test boaters are honest people that do is job as better as they can.

By the way, all the builders you talk about are relatively small builders, with Halber-Rassy working to be a medium production builder.

The Cigale is a boat built in very small numbers (I only saw one once).

If things were as you say, an American Magazine like CruisingWorld would chose almost always an American boat, as Boat of the Year.

It is not lot like that, it is quite the opposite. I believe that the lobbing here come from the American builders, because Cruisingworld (some years ago) have separated American boats from the “Imports”. So you have now the better American Boat and the better import boat. Even if they concur to the same market, they have different categories on the attribution of prizes.

 

I don’t deny that there is lobbing about it, but if things were as bad as you say the winners would be always from the Beneteau group, Bavaria or Hunter, because they are giants among small shipyards.

That is not what happens. Malo is a very small shipyard.

You forget that the main objective of boat magazines is selling magazines, not boats. Nobody would buy a sail magazine that were as tendentious as you say. You forget also that most professional test boaters are honest people that do is job as better as they can.

By the way, all the builders you talk about are relatively small builders, with Halber-Rassy working to be a medium production builder.

The Cigale is a boat built in very small numbers (I only saw one once).

If things were as you say, an American Magazine like CruisingWorld would chose almost always an American boat, as Boat of the Year.

It was not lot like that, it was quite the opposite. I believe that the lobbing here come from the American builders, because Cruisingworld (some years ago) have separated American boats from the “Imports”. So you have now the better American Boat and the better import boat. Even if they concur to the same market, they have different categories on the attribution of prizes.

The only no name boats are the ones made by an unknown shipyard and designed by an amateur.

If they are designed by a competent naval architect and built in a reputable shipyard they are custom boats.

Many times they are better built than production boats and have good interiors. The problem is that, for a new boat, one of those will cost much more than a production boat, sometimes several times more.

Where is the photo of taht boat

 

My point was not that the people, who are testing, would not be honest. Just for someone in the Med a "good" boat might mean something different than for someone in the north. And if you collect editors from ten or more European countries to select a "Boat of the Year" it is difficult I suppose.
Whether, if you have none of your boats nominated in any category in a year is as bad as loosing the third Michelin star for a cook, - and what to do against it, I cannot say. And of course it will be different from car industries/car magazines.
"No name" was not serious. Meant in comparison to those, which are present in the papers permanently.
Quote:"If they are designed by a competent naval architect and built in a reputable shipyard they are custom boats."
That´s the point. Difficult to find out about that competence before. And if you go wrong it costs a lot of money and nerves. I already discarded 2 boats/yards because of negative experiences of the new owners. And both looked nice from the beginning.

So that´s my new favorite (although I like both, the Cigale and the Southerly) :

 

Hei...that's a production boat

That's a CR 480. Great boat, great shipyard . That's a very expensive one

I once had a talk with the owner of the shipyard, inside a CR400. I was questioning him about the safety of the large glass surfaces on the deck saloon and asking about the way they were built and the type of glass used. I was satisfied with the answers and he had seen that I was impressed and made this comment: "The glass and their fittings on the saloon had cost me more money than the 55hp Volvo engine".

I was even more impressed

Ps- I had read CR tests on boat magazines

 

So good that it was not nominated, would be even more expensive.

 

For that price you can also have a look at the 47 Azzuro.

The Azzuro is made by Alliage, best known by its line of centerboarders (expensive and very well made and finished aluminium boats).

The Azzuro are also made of Aluminium but are completely different boats. They are fast, light and carry little ballast because they have a deep bulb (for the 47, 3m of draft). For enter in the port or anchor near shore, you pull the bulb up and stay with only 1.5m draft.

The 47 weights only 10.5T for 116m2 of sail.

They are not racers, but certainly they are very interesting fast cruisers.

The photo is not from a 47 (I believe none had been finished a 47) but from the bigger brother, the 56. Just to give you an idea of the finish.

http://www.alliage-yachts.com/GB/voiliers/azzuro_47_tech.htm

 

Thank you for the link, the interior is very nice. Weight of keel is, hm, modest? I will visit the yard and see it myself, at first however I will go to Orust to see the CR480 there. The CR 400 I saw too and you are right, the owner seems a reasonable guy.

 

kwb1312
Nice boat, the CR 480 DS.
I would like to know some more data for it.
Do you know for what load condition is the stated displacement of 13,5 tonnes?
The deep and shoal keels weight the same?
Do you have some drawing or profile for the underwater hull & keel(s)?
Also:
Do you know Bwl and body draught?
What's her STIX at MOC for a given keel? What's the downflooding angle?
(I've been playing around with the posted GZ curve, guessing things for the 2,2 m keel with a downflooding angle of 115º, and figure skyrockets to 61+ ! )

By the way:
Among other works related with the CE marking of recreational boats, I use to perform the assessing of prototypes as a NB surveyor. As I have some insight of that world, in my opinion it is not so rare to find somekind of an 'understanding' among boatbuilders/importers and magazines when the time of testing boats. Boatbuilders/importers pay very expensive advertisings at the magazines, and they also use to be members of powerful boatbuilders' organizations....

As a curiosity, I have realized a very well known and worldwide respected magazine I'm subscribed to, has abandoned lately the posting and analyzing of STIX related info at their usual sailingboats' test reports. The editor had contacted me some time ago in order to publish some of the analysis I have done about STIX and the like. We exchanged a couple of messages and info on the matter, and suddenly there became a 'blanket of silence' as they stopped publishing all STIX related info at the magazine. Nowadays they only state the RCD design category.

On the other hand, magazines also tend to tell people what people is expecting to be told, in line with the sign of times. They have to sell.

On top of all this, as you say, magazines surveyors' opinions may also vary with places and cultures.

So I think it is wise to take what we read in magazines with a critic mind, and do not believe in them as if they were the envoy angels of God.

Cheers.

 

Guillermo,
Thanks for looking into. I dont have any drawings yet, maybe when I am visiting the yard I will get some.
As additional data I can only provide the following: Stix is 54, BWL is: 356 cm
The stated displacement is for an empty standard boat, so it will vary depending on equipment.
Hopefully that makes some sense if compared to your calculations.
I fully subscribe to your opinion about the magazines. Although not my field I have some private insight into car manufacturing and the relationship between car producers and car magazines. And it would be naive to think the situation will be completely different in the yachting industry. On the other side some, more technical orientated papers, seem to try to deliver hard facts aside from glossy ads.

 

Bulbs on long keels carry the CG down and can have the same effect as much heavier ballast on a short keel. The Azzuro design is from Berret & Racoupeau Yacht Design, a very reputable name and I don’t believe that thy would made an unsafe boat.


Those ballast numbers are by no means strange, giving thee type and weight of the boat.

You can have a look at the Futuna 50 designed by another reputable Architect, Marc Lombard.

That boat weights 10.5/13.2 T and has a bulb of 2.7T on a 2.5M Keel.

Compared with these numbers, the 10.5T Azzuro 47 with a 2,5T bulb on a 3M Keel seems comparable, and probably even better (both boats have the same type of hull).



http://www.alucomposite.com/view_en_F50.html
http://www.marclombard.com/