Sprays

Originally Posted by SCOWBOY View Post
Here's a link to Guy Bernadin's Spray hauled out in Chile next to a large fin/bulb keeled ULDB style boat. If the superiority of Spray isn't obvious from this photo (check the other pictures also to get an understanding of why Spray was such a good sea boat) then perhaps the viewers are enamored of fashion and not experience.

Umm, not to argue or anything, but many of us have sailed many many an ocean mile in modern boats including fin keelers and occasionally ULDBs. They have their good characteristics, every boat is a compromise. BTW, the boat behind SPRAY in those pictures is not an ULDB it's just a garden-variety fin keeler.

Why not just tell us what characteristics you like about the SPRAY and a little less chest-thumping?

as for Slocum getting done in by his boat, he probably put to sea in that condition because he couldn't stand all the commenters on the beach (the old equivelant of net forums) making ignorant ill informed remarks about him and his boat. first step read his book.

Funny, I did read the book. Several times, actually, it's one of my favorites. But it didn't hypnotize me into believing that rocks for ballast in beamy shallow hull was a particularly seaworthy configuration.

which by the way brings up the remark about 4 knots. 4 knots for 24 hours is 96 miles, times 30 days is just under three thousand miles. not too shabby old son. btw anybody who thinks they're going to outrun a storm at sea, ie get out of the way of, is dreaming. better a boat that can survive it and ride it out like a duck. ever see a duck capsize and sink? me neither.

No, but I have shot quite a few and had them for dinner

Very good points. It may not have been sea conditions at all. He may have had a coronary and sailed on & on & on.
Not a bad way to go, since we all have to at some point.

IIRC he added a wheel for steering and the mizzen himself.

But you put forth another point I was trying to make, probably not very well.... Captain Slocum did not choose SPRAY for her seaworthiness. He chose her because she was all he could afford... AND HE HAD THE SKILLS to be able to make voyages in her.

Captain Voss chose to circumnavigate in an Indian War Canoe as one of the most outlandishly unseaworthy boats imaginable, as a demonstration of modern seamanship skills & tools (and as a paid stunt). I'm a little surprised nobody has palmed a bunch of TILLICUM replicas on eager would-be old salts. Maybe I shouldn't be such a cynic.

FB- Doug

 

My remarks about commenters on the beach weren't directed to all here btw, if the shoe fits. Slocum himself actually mentioned that in his book when he was first outfitting Spray, recaulking her in fact, and even included a drawing of one incident with the caption under an onlooker "It'll crawl if you caulk her that way!" referring to how he was placing the cotton in the seams.

There was story I heard in Maine about 25 years ago about a fella Captain John, who was retired but held in high respect. One day he was down at the Benjamin River Boatyard, back in the 60s or 70s watching them remove and replace the stem on a small schooner, quite a delicate operation despite the size of the timbers, because of needing to preserve intact everything around the stem, planking etc. Well there's anothe fella standing there frustrated as hell, all pent up, and finally practically fuming he spouts out, "They're doing it all wrong!" Captain John famously replied, "Can you do better?" Whereupon the fella shutup and shortly left.

"You can find boats that have the 'look' you're after, but actually have modern underbodies that would be safer, more comfortable, and offer better performance"

I take exception to this argument especailly the 'safer' part. Here we have a boat Spray which not only got Slocum around the world, but a hundred years later Guy Bernadin has circumnavigated twice in the same design.

The "modern" argument started about the time Slocum was doing his thing. Thomas Fleming Day who was Founder and Editor of The Rudder in the 1890's started the idea that deep keel, low ballast narrow beam vessels were better sea boats. This got started after a race was won I think in NY Harbor, between a local shallow draft 'sand bagger' and a narrow 'plank on edge' English cutter. The cutter went better to windward and won the race. The Rudder championed this shape for many years and it was picked up by others and still prevails today despite numerous examples that shallow draft is generally better at sea. (interesting that TF Day later crossed the Atlantic in a Sea Bird Yawl which is much more like a hard chined Spray than any English Cutter).

It's ironic that yachtsmen were setting the standards while seaman were out doing it in boats that were radically different than those being purported to be better. Seamen in those days weren't reading yachting magazines, I doubt most today are either, unless they work on yachts.

One could excuse the English as a lot of their sailing is in the Channel, must burn the French it's called 'English', and the Irish Sea and the North Sea all notorious for short steep seas, yet the Dutch managed to come with Botters and other very shallow draft wide-beamed boats that are every bit as good as the narrow deep keeled English cutters. So there's no one way to do anything. I mentioned Arno Day. He'd been building boats for 45 years when I worked with him. He once looked at me with amazement at something stupid I said, and replied, "I don't know very much about building boats." Which caused me to look at him with amazement. I didn't know enough yet then to know how little I know, nor will ever know.


Watermen, are on the water 200-300 days per years, this is a far cry from yachtsmen except those who live the cruising life. There was and maybe sometimes still is a tendency among 'yachtsmen' to look down on working watermen, especially in the old days when they were considered illiterate and very low class. So the chance of these exalted types learning from watermen was slim. There were exceptions of course, no less a personage than the real Shakes-speare, the Earl of Oxford Edward DeVere wrote about vessels and sea in "The Tempest" among others with great accuracy.

Cross-disciplinary fertilization is a fairly new phenomenon. For example the British Admiralty searched for a way to replicate the shape of a vessel accurately, so when they came up with a good fast warship, they could build another. The whole molding method they were using wasn't accurate enough. They searched for two hundred years or more until about 1715 when lofting was 'discovered/developed' however this same method of recording and laying out irregular voluminous shapes was in use by people like Leonardo Da Vinci two hundred years earlier to lay out the domes of churches etc. and I don't how far back that went, could be a thousand years.

Deep chunks of lead etc are needed on a deep narrow boat because they have relatively little inherent stability compared to a vessel with a more generous beam. There are of course exceptions like sharpies which have a length to beam ratio of 4 to 1, whereas the original Spray about 3 to 1. Some English style cutters are 5 to 1. This is too complex for a paragraph, as length affects stability as well. The longer the vessel the narrower it can be. LF Herreshof wrote well about this in the Elements of Yacht Design.

There are other issues like how firm the bilges are on a round bottomed boat, which affect stability. also where is the ballast carried. this idea that deep ballast is better is a modern abomination. no less an 'expert' than Captain Joseph Conrad, who'd been on sailing ships for 30 years, twenty as a captain, before becoming a writer pointed out in one of his books, "The ****** of the Narcissus" if I remember correctly, that a vessel ballasted too low will "roll your eyes out".


Working vessels all carried inside ballast. Also being made of wood, they soaked up water which contributed to their weight and ballast. One needs look no further than England itself, the Falmouth Cutters are not particularly deep and carried inside ballast as working boats yet are famously seaworthy.

Ask any lobsterman in Maine who's experienced both wooden boats and fiberglass boats and they'll tell you that glass boats bounce around so much their legs give out. That slowness of response to every shift of the water around a traditional wooden vessel dampens the motion and makes for a much more comfortable ride.

If you look at the waterplane of Spray in the picture of Guy's boat, you'll see it's not very deep, full forward with nice easy sections yet firm bilges amidship,wide at the waterline and fairly fine at the stern. The shallow keel is important at sea, even in the 1960s Adlard Coles in Heavy Weather Sailing noted that many yachtsmen had found their deep keel vessels 'tripping' over their keels in large breaking seas causing them to capsize. Whereas shallower boats could slide off the waves like a duck riding over them. Junks do this.

Spray is a bit like a junk below the waterline, another extremely seaworthy and seakindly vessel. Seakindly is a word we don't see used often any more about new boats, it seems to have been forgotten as a good quality. Junks didn't change that much for over a thousand years, because once they got it right what's the point? The ocean didn't change. Not til engines came along was there any need to develop new hull shapes, except for 'racing rules' which are a disaster IMHO for seaworthiness and seakindliness.

Also living aboard one is presumably where one wants to be, (usually, though everyone who's been to sea sooner or later asks the question, "What the hell am I doing here?" Knowing one could be nice and snug and comfortable ashore somewhere, Maybe this is the genesis of self evaluation) so one doesn't need to get anywhere fast, one's already 'there'.

I haven't seen Bruce Robert's steel Spray design, but 20 foot beam on a 46 foot boat if that's correct, is approaching scow proportions, something I have experience with in building. Scows are designed to more or less go over the water rather than cut through it. And indeed in the right conditions, enough wind, large swells a heavy scow can surf at least down the swells in a smother of foam and bubbles. I've also had the experience of running over the top of a four foot chop for a few miles at speed on a run which was quite exhilirating.

Scows and catboats and others of like nature take advantage of the shearing of water with the wind. That is to say that the first two feet down from the surface is running with the wind, which is why you can get such a sharp chop on top of swells. the next two feet, 2-4 foot down, also shear the same way but a little slower. The next two feet, 4-6 feet down slower yet. Supposedly below six feet there's very little movement attributable to wind speed alone.

This phenomenon is taken advantage of by deep keels, and indeed any foil sticking down below a craft uses this for leverage and perhaps lift in the case of leeboards if they're shaped and or placed correctly. However this is the same phenomenon which in the right conditions can cause a deep keeled vessel to trip and roll.

This brings to mind the slightly bluff bows of Spray or full forward sections especially above the waterline. Aside from making her easier to plank, these full sections make her lift readily as she encounters waves or the backs of swells. No needle nose here to plunge into the back of a swell when running down at sea causing a broach to.

Well thank you gentlemen for the opportunity to share some of this pent-up knowledge etc. Some of you made valid points and I don't want any to think I think I know it all, far from it laddies. I just wanted to point out that fads and fashions get repeated to the point they become accepted as reality, kind of like WMDs....

now it's back to wrrrrk

 

I think some Tillicum replica's have been palmed off somewhere.

BTW I didn't think I was chest thumping... just going aaoo aaoo aaaooo!

also re Slocum dying of a coronary at sea, I've considered myself having narrowly escaped dying of pneumonia a few years ago. when I got out of the coma and spent three months in the hospital I vowed if I get a terminal disease I'm going sailing... heading to England and if I make it, back towards Brazil till I finally drown or end it.. under the sky.

hanging on in a hospital isn't the way to go...

with that in mind maybe he just decided he'd had enoug, I noticed recently that several old-timers with crossings under their belts got lost at sea. maybe it was a choice.

finally re rocks as ballast, I agree don't want them moving or flying all over the place, better lead or iron pigs bolted down.

duck is good eatin' so's rabbit...

thanks for the correction about the ULDB

 

Back in Slocum´s day there were few (affordable) yachts capable of extended cruising. Today, there is an endless list of boats both capable and better suited to ocean cruising than a Spray.

If you like steel yachts, search Yachtworld.com by material type on the Advanced Search option and you´ll see what modern designs are available.

Generally there is a spread of yachts available by length, year and budget.

Good luck.

 

Huh! How is it superior from the photographs? You are going to have to quote some more information than that. I couldnt find the photos by the way, but just because a boat has a bulb doesnt make it 'worse'

Oh sure - the Polynesians who travelled millions of miles over thousands of years didnt have the foggiest idea - right!!!!!

Its not only shabby, its bloody pathetic! If you want to , take the sails down and do it in in three months, drift, and really enjoy yourself. Its easy going slow, and if a fast boat wants to go slow, they can quite easily. I know of some ocean currents that can move faster than 4 knots - and you wouldnt even be able to move against it!

Are you mad? Of course you can outrun a storm with enough warning, and if you have some electronic wizardry on board you can see two days ahead and place yourself well out of harms way. People do it all the time these days.

Ever seen a fat duck in the surf? me neither. But I have seen lots of sleek, streamlined dolphins cruising through the waves comfortably. A flat bottom boat is thrown around horribly by waves, where a rounded, sleeker boat moves with and through the water.

By the way - ducks and all other water going animals arent flat bottomed. they are all streamlined and 'round hulled'

Oh yeah - says you, and you have no more idea than anyone else

He probably got rolled by one of those giant freak waves that send big freighters to the bottom, and he couldnt do anything more about it than any other boat.

The whole point is - with modern design and materials it doesnt cost any more to have a boat that can be as seaworthy as possible, and yet not have to wallow around the ocean for months like the old square riggers and traditional 'boxes'.

They were designed that way because they were all built of heavy timber with lots of gaps between the planks. By all means be a traditionalist if you want - but dont try and kid yourself and everyone else, that the old designs were neccesarily any 'better' just because they are old.

 

Of all the comments posted by Spray likers and dislikers, none have what is truly needed, experience with the type. I've built a 41' Spray. It was a modern variant, though not a Roberts, but had similar upgrades to draft, entry, ballast ratio, etc.

Most cruisers spend 99% of there lives on the hook or tied to a wharf. In this situation, the Spray is a lot of boat for it's length. It's beam and general shape offers a comfortable liveaboard.

Under sail they do get to windward, just not as high as modern, high aspect boat (but this isn't the point). With the right design, they're much more comfortable to be on then, a modern boat (most production boats built after the CCA rule).

Speed is a wonderful thing but not particularly necessary to the extreme majority of cruisers, especially those looking toward a Spray or other craft of charm. A real cruiser spends at least 50% of their cruising time motoring, so windward ability is way over rated in value. A motoring sailboat, can out point the best of the best racing sailboat.

Modern Sprays offer considerably more then the original. Better accommodation, sea kindliness, steady passagemaking, tough service in harsh climates, better stability, etc.

Don't let anyone dissuade you Greenwater. The Spray is one of the most reproduced yachts in the world and the would be arm chair sailors who condemn them, haven't stepped aboard one for any length of time, let alone any real cruising. They track well, don't have fancy high tech fins to break off or highly strung, God awful expensive rigs, both of which seem to fall off the boat at an unjustifiable rate.

Taking a Spray or any shallow draft, limited stability craft well off shore, isn't for the novice, but an experienced skipper can handle her in most anything that mother nature offers and still make coffee below at the height of the storm, which is all but imposable in a modern craft of similar dimensions.

Don't get me wrong, I think there are better craft with the charm, then Spray, but you can do much worse too.

 

What ? A real MOTOR cruiser might, but this is the SAILBOAT section where CRUISERS are SAIL CRUISERS.

I bet you know of a dozen other designs that offer as much room, will point and sail 2/3rds faster, be just as practical and might even cost a bit less.

Windward ability can *never* be overrated on a sailing vessel. Just ask anyone who has had the motor conk out or has run out of fuel due to inclement weather delaying a passage.

Given the life and death situation you can get yourself into on the high seas, tacking away out of a lee shore or off a long line of reefs, windward ability will take on a lot more importance very quickly than just about *all* other yacht characteristics.

Maybe thats what happened to Mr Slocum?

 

thank you PAR,
I've not cruised or lived aboard a Spray, but I've sailed aboard one and spent some weeks aboard and for the most part agree with what you say based on limited experience with this specific boat.

rwatson, you attack me with your comments, so here it is digger.
a: photos see here:http://echoprod.free.fr/spgm/index.php?spgmGal=Concon&spgmPic=1&spgmFilters=#pic

cut and paste as they say and you will see a dolphin style underbody of great sophistication to the experienced eye.

regarding the canoes and Polynesians I guess in Alice Springs John-o you don't recognize that comments in quotes like "unsuited" represent sarcasm, something my Aussie friends have been famous for, but perhaps as far removed from the salt you don't get that. I was attempting to point out that Slocum having made the trip made the canoe he built 'seaworthy'.

regarding "are you mad?" of course or what would I be doing posting on a forum???

regarding me not having any idea what old Josh was thinking re the peanut gallery, it's in his book. read it. he even has a sketch he did of some beachcomber railing at him. "It's going to crawl if you do it that way." Okay maybe not an exact quote but look it up and you'll see the sense is there relating to his caulking of Spray.

you ask am I mad regarding outrunning a storm, of course with modern stuff one can have some advantage, SOMETIMES, otherwise why all the disasters related to weather? Sometimes "electronic wizardry" (your words) can help, but I wouldn't rely on it myself as the final answer. maybe you should live in New England for awhile and you'd see what I mean. we have a saying, "Don't like the weather here? Wait ten minutes."

Your quotes "The whole point is - with modern design and materials it doesnt cost any more to have a boat that can be as seaworthy as possible, and yet not have to wallow around the ocean for months like the old square riggers and traditional 'boxes'.

"They were designed that way because they were all built of heavy timber with lots of gaps between the planks. By all means be a traditionalist if you want - but dont try and kid yourself and everyone else, that the old designs were neccesarily any 'better' just because they are old."


"They were designed that way because they were all built of heavy timber with lots of gaps between the planks." ??????

What in the hell kind of ignorant comment is this??? They were designed that way as a result of several thousand years of evolutionary design and experience, and you, some upstart whippersnapper is going to attempt to blow all that away with little or no credentials??? What are you smoking out there in the bush????

I mean did you even read over your overbearing heated reply? Gaps in the planks?? What's going to float with that?? Do you think your ancestors would even have made if from the prison hulks off Plymouth and Portsmouth if the vessels they traveled in were full of "gaps"...

"as seaworthy as possible" have you heard or read of the Fastnet Race of a few years ago where so many modern boats with "the best possible materials" sank with great loss of life? What are the best possible materials??

Are you aware that spruce pound for pound is stronger than steel? but spruce is not particularly rot resistant which is why it's favored for aircraft and not boats generally.

this is a boat design forum, not a boat predjudice forum. you got facts? back it up Jacko... ;^)

traditional boxes? wallowing around? have you spent months wallowing around at sea in some traditional box??? I'd like to know... it would give your assertions some weight...

and here are links to Guy Bernadin's website, tant pis, tant mieux c'est pas en Anglais... http://echoprod.free.fr/spgm/index.php?spgmGal=Concon&spgmPic=1&spgmFilters=#pic
if you copy this, and paste it into your browser (not your cow btw) you will find pix of Guy's Spray.

only in something as hare-brained as the maritime world would we have people running around at every opportunity shouting "I found a better way!"

do we see anything comparable in chess? even poker?

there's a whole list of guys who've crossed the Atlantic in boats as little as 5 (yes five) feet and change... does it make it smart or desirable??

I find it odd that people who claim to love the Ocean and sailing upon it, want the fastest boat possible to cross the most distance in the shortest time. Why? Afraid of storms? Afraid of dying at sea? What's the problem?

I mean you're entitled to your own agenda and if getting from one island to another in the shortest possible time is your thing, go for it. But don't turn around and judge those who aren't afraid of the sea and wish to enjoy the journey however long it takes to wherever they're going.

The worst possible curse in life is to be afraid of dying. fear of dying prevents us from really living.
drowning at sea included...

sorry boys I've got myself in a mess here. new to this stuff and not looking to cross swords on a whim, but BS anywhere tends to rile me...

I'm willing to be corrected and acknowledge I'm wrong when so, and of course everybody's entitled to their preferences abou tstyle and type of vessel, vehicle, woman, frying pan etc, which doesn't make any one of them wrong, it's just when some attempt to "prove" (sarcastic quotes here) that other's choices are "wrong" that we have a problem. You like skinny girls, he likes fat girls, I like girls in between.. no problem here is there???

 

regarding PAR's remarks about motors conking out etc, yes being able to claw off a lee shore is a great characteristic, BTDT BTW,

but as someone smart once pointed out, "An intelligent man will get himself out of a situation that a wise man would have avoided in the first place."

ever since I heard this I've been working on it...

and rwatson, what's your problem with Spray and Slocum??

so what if you got new designs that are better?? just sayin', if the old one does the job and someone prefers that, what's your beef???

you want to sail a cigar tube with a trowel stuck to the bottom it's okay with me... knock yourself out... wanna substitute parachutes or balloons for sails, okay with me... I don't/won't judge your craft... it's a personal thing..

now your leisure suit....

 

Now, now ... I dont think I ever said anything negative about Mr Slocum. Let me know what sentence you inferred that from by all means.

And likewise - I dont think you can accuse me of not allowing personal freedom ... "By all means be a traditionalist if you want "

My main point -
" but dont try and kid yourself and everyone else, that the old designs were necessarily any 'better' just because they are old."

I say that because the poor ******* who started this thread was going to go out and lumber himself with a great lump of expensive steel that is a dog to sail. And despite all the waffle (mine included), no-one has disagreed on that point.

Call me protective - but there are enough sick puppies out there on the water without promoting another one.

 

The original Spray relied almost entirely on form stability. The modern Spray inspired versions have ballast, so direct comparisons are meaningless.

But what has been maintained is their high beam / length ratios. I have never seen an accurate large angle stability curve for and Spray, but would need a lot of convincing that with that beam, they don't also have great form stability when inverted. Especially the shallow draft versions or the steel ones with their reduced ballast. In this inverted state, they ironically share many of the traits of the ultra wide open class race boats or the cruisers and charter boats inspired by these. A salty sheer and some baggy wrinkle doesn't really alter their hydrostatics: They are still beamy boats often with limited draft and very ordinary heights to their C of Gravity.

Sailing these boats will tell you nothing: In fact their high initial (form) stability will often be a (misleading) comfort. But all the criticism of modern beamy boats in the 'Seaworthiness' thread can equally be applied to these.

 

Since a beach ball shape would have the lowest surface area , the monsterous beam of the old Spray style boats should actually make them FASTER in light weather.

Stability would only be a problem in heavy weather, if all the rig were left standing. Not likely.

FF

 

sorry RW if I misinterpreted, I should probably go read a chart or something.

"I say that because the poor ******* who started this thread was going to go out and lumber himself with a great lump of expensive steel that is a dog to sail. And despite all the waffle (mine included), no-one has disagreed on that point.

Call me protective - but there are enough sick puppies out there on the water without promoting another one."

I agree completely, you're absolutely right about this.

as far as form stability inverted is concerned in the next post, that's what the next extra large wave is for...

have fun gentlemen it's been very interesting and informative truly

 

I love the romance of the Spray. If it is a bad boat how can it be made better?. I have sailed in a 30 ft GRP Spray and to be truthful she is /was a dog unless you realy did want to go sideways. Steel Spray I think that offers oportunity to modify or amend and eliminate flaws. I think Bruce Roberts is onto somthing with his boats?We may have lost our perspective when it comes to Sprays. Do we want to cruise or race?

 

A brief comment or two...

I may be crazy jumping between two fighters here, as they go at it tooth & claw, but here's my 2c on these specific items.....

That was really kind of a special case. Are you aware that, of the people killed during that race (it was 1979, so these were far from "modern racers" more on that specific issue later), one died of a heart attack on board his yacht and several more (3 IIRC) died from running through the prop of a commercial vessel attempting to rescue them? That's at least half the fatalities right there.

About the boat designs & their problems... much of the fleet that found itself in a 'V-shaped depression' in the south Irish Sea for the 1979 Fastnet were the smaller end of a fleet of specialized boats designed specifically to a rather dumb rating rules, which did in fact penalize speed, smart handling, reserve stability, and seaworthiness. Of course the rating rule penalized them, those factors help boats win races!

I find the whole idea of rating rules kind of apalling, however there is no doubt that some awesome vessels have been ocean races intended to rate under some particular formula. Look at the 6- and 12-Meters, for example. If the rating rule is written and applied with less intelligence, you get bad boats.

So, the disaster of the 1979 Fastnet Race was not due to the total inadequacy of racing yachtsmen in their eggshell craft, nor was it the inherent frailty of 'modern' racing yachts. None of those boats would get a second look nowadays, in fact they were actually slower than the previous generation of boats, they just rated better under that particular rule (I.O.R. m3, IIRC)

There was a Sydney-Hobart Race in 1999 which also had tragic events in extreme weather. Some modern boats did have structural failure, but then there was also a verable old-timer that just plain sunk. So it is'nt an issue of modern yachts being built skimpy. And there weren't any SPRAY replicas in the area to compare, unfortunately... any sane skipper would have been in port!

There's a type of construction using strip planks of spruce with a fiberglass skin. Very strong & light, doesn't have some of the issues with other types of core materials.

Nah, we see it in politics too.... but let's not go there

I can only answer that for myself... fast boats are more fun to sail! I also get a big kick out of classic craft and at one point had a great time racing in a class of old gaffers (H12s), pretty good competition too. But every vessel is a compromise and the wise man will try to gain some knowledge & experience in the specific strengths & weaknesses of the type craft he favors.

Agreed totally. In theory, of course, since I am a happily married man. But one may have as many boats as one can afford!

Although I am one of those simple souls who believe that Shakespeare's plays & sonnets were actually written by Will himself, I really enjoyed your posts SCOWBOY and hope you'll continue.

FB- Doug