Jump to content


Bristol Channel Cutter


  • Please log in to reply
112 replies to this topic

#1 Foxtrot Corpen

Foxtrot Corpen

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 901 posts
  • Location:Solomons, MD, USA
  • Interests:Racing / Snow Skiing/ Riding (Victory Cross Roads)

Posted 29 November 2007 - 01:16 PM

I'm thinking about going back to cruising in a few years when I've had enough racing.
And, I'm considering buying a Bristol Channel Cutter to head south in.
I had a Southern Cross 31 for 16 years and loved that boat.
[Currently race a Beneteau 36.7 in the Chesapeake Bay]
Anyone out there have experience with cruising a Bristol Channel Cutter?
Thanks!
...FC

#2 Jon Eisberg

Jon Eisberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,994 posts

Posted 30 November 2007 - 01:56 PM

Have you spoken with Bernie Jakits of Rogue Wave Yacht Sales in Annapolis?

of course, he's in the business of selling boats, but no one knows the BCC better than Bernie...

Good luck, they're a sweet boat, no question about it...

#3 wayfarer1

wayfarer1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 308 posts
  • Location:Black Point-Dark Harbor

Posted 30 November 2007 - 02:14 PM

Years ago while cruising in USVI there was a wooden one called Silver Seal, the owner Tom love cruiseing in it. Nice classic boat

#4 kent_island_sailor

kent_island_sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,539 posts
  • Location:Kent Island!

Posted 30 November 2007 - 03:06 PM

Long sprit and "square top main" isn't just for tradional boats anymore!
That is the latest race boat design too :)

Seriously - Look at the Pardey's books. They describe quite well why the design is a good one for voyaging. For example, you can get a big jib sheeted to a good angle and use simpler and stronger external chainplates with this design.

#5 R Booze

R Booze

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,236 posts
  • Location:43 miles from both Mexicos.....
  • Interests:Postponing my funeral 'til tomorrow....

Posted 30 November 2007 - 03:18 PM

I'm thinking about going back to cruising in a few years when I've had enough racing.
And, I'm considering buying a Bristol Channel Cutter to head south in.

...FC



Whew, now that's what I'd call a study in extremes.


BTW, great boat choice. Good luck..........

#6 mad

mad

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,164 posts

Posted 30 November 2007 - 03:46 PM

Google a guy called Bill Tilman (think thats right) he had one called Mischief and went all over the place with it.

#7 Wayne

Wayne

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 496 posts
  • Location:San Diego

Posted 30 November 2007 - 04:23 PM

FC

I had a 30' custom BCC sistership to the pardey's 2nd boat Talesien.

Cruised and sailed it in many many conditions.

They are very beautiful boats and I still have great memories of mine.

But you are not going to spend all your time rowing around the boat admiring it. You will have to sail it on up or down the coast now and then. And here lies the problem.

They have a cult following and those owners will testify how fast they are and how well they go upwind and on and on and on. But I have never seen any of those BCC owners out on the race course, and after hanging out with many of those guys, I really don't think they know what good performance is.

They are expensive and the lower priced boats are pretty beat.
You pay for the bowsprit in the marina, and yes you will go into a marina from time to time.
The rudder is a barn door and the helm is freakin heavy. Yes you can ballance it with the sails but.....
The boat is really small inside for the price.
The wood is a hell of alot of maint. even if you just paint it.
They are wet because of the low freeboard. Take the bullworks off the boat and look how low she is to the water.
They sort of go upwind, but not really very well.
The cockpit is very uncomfortable.

So there are some major compromises with this boat. Is it all worth it for the beauty. I don't think so in the end.

You are racing a Bene 36.7 so you are used to some level of performance. I think you are going to get frusterated by this boat.

I learned my lesson on this subject. I came out of racing multis and I-14s, 5 ohs etc. and tried the BCC and recently had a Valiant 42. Both very frusterating.

But if you must...go ahead. Boats come and boats go. Buy a really nice Morse finished BCC right and you will be able to sell it after a season.

It might be more satisfying to consider a used J-42. A little more money but alot more fun with less maint.

If you must go this slow, go to capegeorgecutters.com and check out the brokerage section. There is 1 nice 36 and a nice 31 for sale. Your GF will appreciate the extra space.










I'm thinking about going back to cruising in a few years when I've had enough racing.
And, I'm considering buying a Bristol Channel Cutter to head south in.
I had a Southern Cross 31 for 16 years and loved that boat.
[Currently race a Beneteau 36.7 in the Chesapeake Bay]
Anyone out there have experience with cruising a Bristol Channel Cutter?
Thanks!
...FC

Attached Files



#8 ejj

ejj

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 141 posts

Posted 30 November 2007 - 05:45 PM

They are very pretty. But not great cruising boats--they are a lifestyle statement. And a lot of maintenance. They are OK for longer trips, but not that great when you are living on the hook--which a lot of cruising is...

I would look into getting a modern boat in the 34-40 foot range. Still small enough for two people to manage it. Get something faster and easier to sail. Compare the BSS to other boats with a similar weight and LOA. Look at a used Hallberg-Rassy 34-36-37-39-40. They are a nice compromise that is a well built boat. Often have heat, good dodger set-up, decent tankage and head, good speed and handling, good resale... Or other quality brands with a modern hull-shape.

#9 born2sail

born2sail

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,782 posts
  • Location:Pacific Northwest

Posted 30 November 2007 - 08:22 PM

Radio Bay in Hilo...

Attached Files



#10 Sinead

Sinead

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 01 December 2007 - 02:12 PM

Google a guy called Bill Tilman (think thats right) he had one called Mischief and went all over the place with it.


PLEASE!!!!!

Tilman sailed Bristol Channel pilot cutters (he had three, of which Mischief was the first) ) These were the boats built for pilot duties in the Bristol Channel and out into the Atlantic in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Usually 45 - 50 foot. Some were bigger.

The BCC has nothing whatsoever to do with the genuine Bristol Channel pilot cutter.

#11 Foxtrot Corpen

Foxtrot Corpen

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 901 posts
  • Location:Solomons, MD, USA
  • Interests:Racing / Snow Skiing/ Riding (Victory Cross Roads)

Posted 01 December 2007 - 02:39 PM

Ah... excellent points Wayne and ejj. The reason I sold my Southern Cross 11 years ago was that it was too slow to reasonably cruise the Chesapeake Bay. Ended up with a Tartan 3500 for for 6 years. Sold it because it was too slow to race. Now I'm racing a Bene 36.7, and doing fairly well. The salty looks of the BCC have always appealed to me. But, now that you mention it, I AM rather spoiled now with the pointing ability and speed of the 36.7. I realize, as R Booth said, I'm looking at two extremes here. Maybe something not so extreme would better suit our needs. Cape George Cutter? Larger crusing J boat? Halberg-Rassey? Yes... some good alternative considerations.
Thanks to all for the great inputs... and reality check!
...FC

#12 mad

mad

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,164 posts

Posted 02 December 2007 - 07:53 PM

PLEASE!!!!!

Tilman sailed Bristol Channel pilot cutters (he had three, of which Mischief was the first) ) These were the boats built for pilot duties in the Bristol Channel and out into the Atlantic in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Usually 45 - 50 foot. Some were bigger.

The BCC has nothing whatsoever to do with the genuine Bristol Channel pilot cutter.

My mistake, assumed he mean't BPC,

Nice first post as well`

#13 Methersgate 14

Methersgate 14

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 250 posts
  • Location:N 52:05:38, E 1:18:49

Posted 02 December 2007 - 11:15 PM

PLEASE!!!!!

Tilman sailed Bristol Channel pilot cutters (he had three, of which Mischief was the first) ) These were the boats built for pilot duties in the Bristol Channel and out into the Atlantic in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Usually 45 - 50 foot. Some were bigger.

The BCC has nothing whatsoever to do with the genuine Bristol Channel pilot cutter.


Correct.

Mischief (lost under tow following a grounding on Jan Mayen)

Sea Breeze (lost when ice forced her onto rcks in a fjord in east Greenland)

Baroque (survives)

See here:

Bob Comlay's website, with accounts from other crew members, including me

#14 Zonker

Zonker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,155 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 03 December 2007 - 05:56 PM

I find it funny that these folks, Tom and Harriet Linskey - people with 1000's of blue water miles behind them, changed to a 46 catamaran when it came time to sell their BCC. Maybe you should consider one.

Hans across the Sea Project

#15 Estar

Estar

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,573 posts

Posted 04 December 2007 - 12:26 AM

Actually, they had a J32 for many years after the BCC, and TL was a major league multihull racer before that (as in the worrell1000 and wrote a book on racing "Race Winning Strategies"). So, it actually was the BCC that was a step out of character, not the new Cat. Even with the BCC they still did the race from Australia to Japan, and Harriet pretty much singlehanded it because Tom got very badly burned near the start.

#16 Wayne

Wayne

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 496 posts
  • Location:San Diego

Posted 04 December 2007 - 03:05 PM

Yes, I raced against Tom in the Worrell 1000.....

My wife and I have cruised in our Valiant 42, 30' BCC and our Seawind cruising cat.

Once you have cruised in a cat, you can't go back. No rolling at anchor, sailing flat, a little extra speed when you want it, no dark submarine like cave to go down into. People say.....well it doesn't steer and feel like a sailboat. When you cruise, the auto pilot does all the driving, and he don't give a shit what it feels like.

It doesn't have that pretty "row away factor" but they are beautiful beasts on a long passage.....

My wife won't go in a mono after the cat.....In fact she said she'd buy me any cat I want next time we go cruising.


Actually, they had a J32 for many years after the BCC, and TL was a major league multihull racer before that (as in the worrell1000 and wrote a book on racing "Race Winning Strategies"). So, it actually was the BCC that was a step out of character, not the new Cat. Even with the BCC they still did the race from Australia to Japan, and Harriet pretty much singlehanded it because Tom got very badly burned near the start.



#17 R. Trowbridge

R. Trowbridge

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 81 posts
  • Location:Quidi Vidi, Newfoundland

Posted 17 December 2007 - 01:12 AM

I'm thinking about going back to cruising in a few years when I've had enough racing.
And, I'm considering buying a Bristol Channel Cutter to head south in.
I had a Southern Cross 31 for 16 years and loved that boat.
[Currently race a Beneteau 36.7 in the Chesapeake Bay]
Anyone out there have experience with cruising a Bristol Channel Cutter?
Thanks!
...FC

We find that the performance abilities of the BCC are exaggerated, but the comfort level in rough conditions is right on. It is a very seaworthy design meant to cross oceans.

Ours is wood, cedar over oak, 30ft, and gaff rigged.

Attached Files



#18 sailordiver

sailordiver

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 119 posts
  • Location:Venice, CA USA
  • Interests:Offshore cruising, diving (rebreather & regular), underwater filming, motocross, mountain biking, drumming, writing, snoozing...

Posted 17 December 2007 - 03:02 AM

[quote name='Wayne' date='Dec 4 2007, 07:05 AM' post='1446781']
When you cruise, the auto pilot does all the driving, and he don't give a shit what it feels like.

Well said... Allot of people don't realize that you only actively sail the boat about 5% of the time when you're out crossing oceans and such. MI think motion is more important over the long haul than the thrill of sailing in perfect conditions, which coincidently happen about 5% of the time.

#19 born2sail

born2sail

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,782 posts
  • Location:Pacific Northwest

Posted 17 December 2007 - 04:40 PM

So A616, how much of the ocean can that rail hold? Must be a lot of extra weight to leeward at times :lol:

Attached Files



#20 R. Trowbridge

R. Trowbridge

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 81 posts
  • Location:Quidi Vidi, Newfoundland

Posted 18 December 2007 - 12:12 AM

So A616, how much of the ocean can that rail hold? Must be a lot of extra weight to leeward at times :lol:


The rail is about and inch and a half above the deck and drains instantly, like having a continuous skupper. What I love about that toerail is how much of my junk it has kept from getting into that ocean - flashlights, children, me, water bottles ect.

#21 Foxtrot Corpen

Foxtrot Corpen

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 901 posts
  • Location:Solomons, MD, USA
  • Interests:Racing / Snow Skiing/ Riding (Victory Cross Roads)

Posted 28 July 2013 - 11:31 PM

I had totally forgot about this thread that I initiated 6 years ago.  I am now boat-less after having raced the last 10 years, and we are on the hunt for another boat... presumably a cruising boat.

I have been enamored with the Bristol Channel Cutter ever since first reading about them in Farenc Mate's "The World's Best Sailboats".  Such a cool, salty boat!

I did a search in the forum and this very old thread popped up.  Very interesting to see that I somehow keep coming back to the BCC.

So... still thinking about it as well as others.

Any new thoughts out there?  Thanks! 

...FC



#22 Bob Perry

Bob Perry

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,256 posts

Posted 29 July 2013 - 12:18 AM

Great to see some honest reports here instead of the typical bull shit you see associated with the BCC.

 

They are fabulous looking boats but performance antiques. I could be very happy with one but I would enjoy it for ecatly what it is and not what some wanker thinks it is.

I love BCC's.

Attached Files



#23 jhiller

jhiller

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 624 posts

Posted 29 July 2013 - 12:02 PM

I owned the second from last one built for 10 years. Mine is pictured in Ferenc Mate's last Best Boat book. I built it to take my son and me on an adventure and it did just that. The two of us lived on it for months and were as comfortable as one can be on a boat of that size. It is a very sturdy boat. He were caught in 50+ knots off the Florida coast and the boat was fine and never gave us a moments concern.

Because the rudder is unbalanced when you are hard pressed you need to use the Pardy designed trim tab self steering to steer. The weather helm is overpowering.  

I liked it very much too. Got lots of attention and was very cool looking. The row away factor was a 10 out of 10.

Mine was highly modified. I had lots of kevlar added to the lay-up and added a watertight bulkhead in the bow. Ray Richards did the design mods and supervised the construction...

 

If you want to know more I'd be happy to speak with you about it.

Over all I'd compare the BCC to the Maltese Falcon....



#24 SloopJonB

SloopJonB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,531 posts
  • Location:West Vancouver, B.C.
  • Interests:Daysailing, local cruising and working on them.

Posted 29 July 2013 - 05:21 PM

An acquaintance of mine built the BCC under license here in the 80's Doug's boats were exactly as good as the Morse built boats. I love them but have no illusions about them. The interior is ridiculously small & cramped for a 7 ton (nominally) boat - about 1/2 the size it should be for that weight. When you see one out of the water you get a pretty good idea of just how fast they will be in reality (not very). The cockpit is a footwell for a max of 2 pairs of feet and you better have good lower back muscles because that is all that will be holding you up.

 

Their row away factor hits the red line though, the deck space is wonderful and you will be constantly making new friends everwhere you sail one.

 

If you like them like I do, fine - just don't kid yourself that they are a "good" boat in the modern context. IMHO the only reason for buying one is the same as for the Westie 32 - owning one is the only way to bring your heart rate back down to a normal level. :)



#25 curm

curm

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 542 posts

Posted 30 July 2013 - 01:06 AM

The good news is that the price of BCCs appears to have plummeted over the last year.  I owned a BCC knockoff built by Sam Devlin.  I got lots of compliments, but it was too slow and too small inside.  I sold it, and I'm glad I did.  Now I have a Bristol 38.8--no speed demon either, but I still get lots of compliments and the interior is huge by comparison.



#26 Tanton Yacht Design

Tanton Yacht Design

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 438 posts
  • Location:Newport R.I
  • Interests:To Never Quit.

Posted 31 July 2013 - 05:50 PM

I have always liked BCC's, but as M.(modern)BCC's. Fin keel and separate rudder.Attached File  Kaysailing.jpg   150.1K   74 downloads

#27 Foxtrot Corpen

Foxtrot Corpen

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 901 posts
  • Location:Solomons, MD, USA
  • Interests:Racing / Snow Skiing/ Riding (Victory Cross Roads)

Posted 01 August 2013 - 03:15 AM

Thanks to ALL for the great personal observations, opinions, and info... all a most valuable reality check.
All your valuable inputs have drawn me back full circle in realizing that regardless of what an awesome/salty/seaworthy boat the BCC is, that it's just not practical for Jody and I who will probably spend 90% of our time cruising the Chesapeake Bay.
Now considering a couple boats more tailored to our intended primary cruising grounds... Pacific Seacraft 34 and Morris Linda 28.
Thanks again to all for your insight!
...FC

#28 TAK

TAK

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Location:Eastport MD
  • Interests:Sailing on the Chesapeake. Hopefully further soon..

Posted 01 August 2013 - 05:05 PM

Pretty Boat.. Being over 6 feet and 200lbs  its too small for me..  

Add a partner and I would feel primitive.     

 

You might like the 85 34' Sea Sprite in Annapolis - I think Kate/ Bernie is representing it..   

 

Good Luck, Tom



#29 curm

curm

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 542 posts

Posted 04 August 2013 - 01:06 AM

The Seasprite 34's are really nice boats, but its a full keel.  Wouldn't you rather have centerboarder for the Chesapeake?  I'd look for a Tartan 34, or if you want more headroom, a Bristol 35.5.  



#30 TQA

TQA

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 464 posts
  • Location:Caribbean
  • Interests:Caribbean cruising as long as I can

Posted 04 August 2013 - 01:57 AM

I thought this thread was going to be about boats that could survive in the approaches to the bristol Channel in the UK.

 

The BCC28 is quite a cute little boat but look up Hirta for a proper Bristol Channel Pilot Cutter

 

Hirta's Vital Statistics

LOA - 50ft 10in
LWL - 45ft
Beam - 13ft 8in
Draught - 7ft 10in

 

With some serious cruising and working chops to boot.



#31 crash

crash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,729 posts

Posted 11 August 2013 - 12:24 AM

Hey Jim,

In the modern cruiser world, I might look at a J/110.  Essentially a J-35C with a sprit.  You and Jody (Jodi?) should be able to handle it as a two some, yet still be pretty comfortable and fast.  Realize it doesn't fit the "salty" look though....

 

Or what about something from the CCA design era?  You get beautiful graceful lines. A different sort of salty. Plus as "older" race boats, they sail much better than a typical BCC, and on the bay, the centerboard option many CCA yawls, etc came with it a big bonus.  B-40s, BI-40s etc, would give you a nice cruiser with decent performance for a "classic looking: cruiser.  Small on the inside for their length, but Jody's not so big ;)

 

Good to see you back and interested again.

Pete



#32 baccara

baccara

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 52 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 07:19 PM

Okay - how is it now with that pointing ability and VMG ? Some say that BCC is quite fast upwind for a long keel boat and then we hear that it doesn't really point that well after all, and is slow too to cruise. But as the upwind performance is very important from seaworthiness point of view, can anyone present any data ?

10 kn breeze, flat seas: how fast, what is the max VMG, tack-to-tack angle, AWA, TWA @ max VMG ? And how about 25 kn of wind and large waves, still able to make progress, how high, what speed ? Any reliable observations on leeway angle ? Calibration issues aside, numbers no not lie (at least much).

#33 Bob Perry

Bob Perry

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,256 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 07:33 PM

Bac:

I think one problem here is that people who sail BBC's are not very likely to record those numbers with any accuracy if at all.

Maybe a better way to get a handle on the overall performance of a BBC is to look for PHRF rating numbers. They are not always accurate either but they are a good start. Someone must have raced one, somewhere.

What we need here is a good VPP study but that takes getting the lines inot the computer and that would take some time.

If you are looking for a good upwind boat I think the BCC would not be the boat for you. That wineglass section does not leave much real "keel" to do the work.



#34 baccara

baccara

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 52 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 08:17 PM

Yep, If BCCs had been raced much, somene would have already presented some numbers i guess... everyone loves a good upwind boat, of course. My 35 foot racer goes 7+ knots and points quite high (angle of course depends on wind shear, waves and so on, but something like AWA 24 at best, i guess) provided we have a crew of seven hiking and sail and rig trim is what is should. My lovely IF does something like 5,2 - 5,4 and points well enough to my liking. And even though racing that 35 footer is great, helming/sailing that little 40-year old IF (that someone might call 4knsb) is actually somehow more pleasant and soothing.

So, how would BCC fare against IF or its English cousin Contessa 26 ? BCC has a lot more sailarea, longer waterline, much higher RM at small angles - but on the other hand, keel shape looks less efficient than in these Folkboat derivatives, and there is more wetted surface and BCC supposedly weighs about 3 times more ...

I haven't sailed a BCC, just seen them in pictures. But i think i would like to cruise in BCC, i'd like to think that they should be able to claw off lee shore well enough, and they probably go upwind well enough even when there is only a wndwane or a tired singlehander at the helm, much like a Vertue.

But if anyone would be able to present some numbers, i'd love to see them so that we do not need to do a VPP analysis...

#35 Bob Perry

Bob Perry

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,256 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 08:54 PM

What is an "IF"?

 

24 degs AWA is very good. You should be very pleased.



#36 Bob Perry

Bob Perry

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,256 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 09:01 PM

I got it.

International Folkboat.



#37 baccara

baccara

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 52 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 09:15 PM

24 is good. But only in reasonably flat water, and with enough meat on the rail. And the instrument calibration is always something one should suspect at all times ...

What is an "IF"?

 

24 degs AWA is very good. You should be very pleased.



#38 baccara

baccara

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 52 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 09:31 PM

One thing that would probably deserve some discussion is how the wineglass section, especially how the keel and hull blend together, affects motion comfort in extreme weather. I find the way Chuck Paine has shaped the keel-hull area in his first designs (full keel, double enders) ie. with tight radius very interesting and nice. Not that his designs would be the only ones with a full keel, but with a good wing shaped profile...

 

 

 

i



#39 Bob Perry

Bob Perry

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,256 posts

Posted 09 September 2013 - 09:40 PM

Bac:

I used the same tight keel tuck radii in almost all of my "full keel" designs. It allows you to preserve some actual foil shape through most of the keel planform. With a wineglass section there is very little room for a foil on the keel. I have several lines plans in my book that show this clearly.

 

I think the benefit to the wineglas shape may be in the motion. But my double enders all have a good motion and that type is generally form tender enough to  make motion not an issue regardless of mid section.



#40 SloopJonB

SloopJonB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,531 posts
  • Location:West Vancouver, B.C.
  • Interests:Daysailing, local cruising and working on them.

Posted 10 September 2013 - 12:37 AM

I think if anyone can explain the performance envelope of a BCC it would be Larry Pardey. He's done a lot of racing, right up to world championship level and he's sailed a BCC most of his adult life.

 

Send an E-mail to landlpardey and ask.



#41 baccara

baccara

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 52 posts

Posted 10 September 2013 - 10:43 AM

I know - i have both 'Yacht design according to Perry' and 'My yacht designs' by Paine in my bookshelf, and i've read both numerous times, both wonderful books... :)   Paine's early designs, such as Carol, Frances and Annie seem to have that type of keel as well, and for the sake of exaggeration the hull shape looks as if one could saw off the long keel and replace it with a fin keel and a spade rudder without having to change the hull form totally - at least on paper ...

 

Do you know if anyone has made simulations/tests on the wineglass shape and how to determine where the "keel starts to be too much a part of hull" so that the lift produced byt the upper part is not meaningful anymore ? I know that this very complex issue and it of course varies from one boat to another, and to make it even more difficult probably depends somewhat on the conditions in which the boat sails, etc. And even a boat/ship with only a sturctural backbone type of keel can make to weather in certain circumstances, although very modestly, provided that the hull is floating deep enough. But any thoughts, if we take a the original Folkboat as an example ?

 

One thing that i'd like to know is that doesn't the BCC tend to trim it's bow down a little when heeled, there is certainly plenty of shape change in the hull, the flat buttocks near the quite wide transom and deep forefoot with relatively fine entry ... Or maybe i am either just dead wrong with this or it is just unnoticable due to large overall displacement ?

 

Bac:

I used the same tight keel tuck radii in almost all of my "full keel" designs. It allows you to preserve some actual foil shape through most of the keel planform. With a wineglass section there is very little room for a foil on the keel. I have several lines plans in my book that show this clearly.

 

I think the benefit to the wineglas shape may be in the motion. But my double enders all have a good motion and that type is generally form tender enough to  make motion not an issue regardless of mid section.



#42 BobJ

BobJ

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 987 posts

Posted 10 September 2013 - 03:24 PM

There's a Paine "Frances" at our club.  They are rare on the West Coast and I've walked over several times to admire it.  I imagined having one until I saw it try to leave it's slip.  I don't think I could do a full keel again.



#43 SloopJonB

SloopJonB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,531 posts
  • Location:West Vancouver, B.C.
  • Interests:Daysailing, local cruising and working on them.

Posted 10 September 2013 - 05:24 PM

There's a Paine "Frances" at our club.  They are rare on the West Coast and I've walked over several times to admire it.  I imagined having one until I saw it try to leave it's slip.  I don't think I could do a full keel again.

 

I've seen a couple around here. They are beautiful but if you are over about 5'8" you can't even SIT down below. Pure daysailers unless you are short or a masochist.



#44 Bob Perry

Bob Perry

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,256 posts

Posted 10 September 2013 - 06:02 PM

This is just a test of my new keyboard. I poured water over the other one yesterday and it was acting very weird.

This one is working fine and,,,,I bought the waterproof model.



#45 baccara

baccara

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 52 posts

Posted 10 September 2013 - 06:52 PM

There's a Paine "Frances" at our club.  They are rare on the West Coast and I've walked over several times to admire it.  I imagined having one until I saw it try to leave it's slip.  I don't think I could do a full keel again.


Why is that ? Because long keel boats do not want to turn while backing ?

#46 baccara

baccara

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 52 posts

Posted 10 September 2013 - 07:16 PM

There's a Paine "Frances" at our club.  They are rare on the West Coast and I've walked over several times to admire it.  I imagined having one until I saw it try to leave it's slip.  I don't think I could do a full keel again.

 
I've seen a couple around here. They are beautiful but if you are over about 5'8" you can't even SIT down below. Pure daysailers unless you are short or a masochist.

To me, Frances with a windwane and good anchoring gear (manual bronze windlass, all-chain rode ...) would be just about the perfect boat for singlehanding...

#47 jhiller

jhiller

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 624 posts

Posted 10 September 2013 - 08:19 PM

Bob
It it fact or fiction that Moses came to you in a dream and delivered the lines of the Valiant 40 on tablets with the thunderous admonition thatthe stern would part the sea ?
That's the word around the campfire

#48 SemiSalt

SemiSalt

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,621 posts
  • Location:WLIS

Posted 10 September 2013 - 09:23 PM

My impression is that pre-1960 or so, designers were mostly interested in the total lateral plane of a design. They didn't much distinguish between the more efficient fin and the less efficient hull body. I went looking for a quote to back that up and didn't find a direct one. One of the places I looked was in my copy of Skene's Elements of Yacht Design. The edition I have at hand is the Francis Kinney 8th edition from 1981. I think it's telling that the word "keel" does not appear in the table of contents, and the only references in the index have to do with structure. I didn't see any references to NACA sections, for lift/drag ratios.

 

On the other hand, it was well understood that a wine-glass section could reduce wetted surface compare to the tight radius described by Bob. 

 

The book does contain the lines of Intrepid and the discussion suggests that she had a short keel to reduce wetted surface. It wasn't long until the fin keel era was underway.



#49 Bob Perry

Bob Perry

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,256 posts

Posted 10 September 2013 - 09:28 PM

Yes, that story is true Jimmy. We made a deal.  My advice. Don't make deals with Moses.



#50 Bob Perry

Bob Perry

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,256 posts

Posted 10 September 2013 - 09:32 PM

Essentially the reason that long keel boats don't back for shit is that the control surface is on the leading edge of the wing.

Another version of this is that the "arm" between center of pressure on the hull/keel and the control surface is too short to be effective.

I have thought about it a lot and I honestly don't know. I don't have to know. I just know it is true that full keel bioats don't back worth a damn.



#51 Bob Perry

Bob Perry

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,256 posts

Posted 10 September 2013 - 10:01 PM

Here is my view on it:

Keep in mind that despite years of fin keel boats even prior and into the early 60's fin keels were still not universally accepted as the only way to go for performance. Look at the last of the CCA boats. Look at the last of the RORC boats.

If you were working with some variation of the "full keel" there wasn't much room in the geometry to treat it like a true "wing". I learned about NACA foils when I went to work for Carter. I put one on the Valiant 40 and before long they were showing up on cruising boats. When i raced in the early 60's the K-40 was very succesful. It had a "full keel", well cutaway on both ends but close enough. Ben Seaborn is the first designer I am aware of who laid out a keel with percentages of chord lines and "foils" His foils were funky and kind of pointy in the leading edge but he was on the right track. Ben treated the keel like a wing. Ben knew some Boeing engineers and I suspect he got the idea from them. But while his first fin keel boats were very succesful the fleet change to all fin keels was kind of slow. Carter's RABBIT and TINA kind of mark the beginnings of international acceptance of the fin keel. Yes, I know there were lots of fin keels before this. I already said that. But it was only after those Carter boats and Bill Lapworth and the Skip Calkins boats that people really made the switch.

 

If you didn't see the keel as a wing making it a defined fin didn't make much sense. If you saw it as a wing going to a well defined fin planform made all the sense. I just think a lot of those early guys weren't really sure how the keel worked and tradition had a very strong hold over their design ideas. When I gave the Valiant 40 a fin keel and a rudder on the skeg people gave me a world of shit. Yves- marie Tanton and Chuck Paine thought  I was nuts. I don't think they thought it was a bad idea. I think they thought it would never catch on. Maybe they did think it would never work. Chuck's early boats all had ful keels. I remember John Neale coming into the office and getting spitting mad at me because I thought the Valiant was a cruising boat. He was irate. He was wrong. "Please don't spit on my drawings John." I remember a prominant Seattle yacht broker stopping me on the dock and yelling at me for 15 minutes about how stupid the Valiant was. Blill Black, a long time customer of his had just put a deposit down on a Valiant. He was a little short, runt of a guy so I just stood there and smiled, hoping I was right. He later accused me of "dresssing like a pimp". Cool.

 

But I look at some of the Phil Rhodes boats like CARINA and the S&S BOLERO and I can't call them "wrong". They are art. Not much science but a lot of art. Get ahold of the book LINES that tracks the hull shapes of the S&S office. Check out the progresssion through the 12 meters as they go form a true full keel to a fin keel with rudder well aft. This did not happen overnight.

 

The really funny thing is this. Check any of the sailiing web sites. There are still people who don' t think fin keel boats are suitable cruising boats. Tey keep looking at boats like BCC's and searching for some redeeming, dominant, positive quality. I look at a BCC and I think, "That's, a cute old boat."



#52 hobot

hobot

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,363 posts
  • Location:Riggers Hollow Archipelago, Wa. USA

Posted 10 September 2013 - 10:08 PM

Let's hope John doesn't become aware of the Pogo then.



#53 olaf hart

olaf hart

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,553 posts
  • Location:D'Entrecasteaux Channel

Posted 10 September 2013 - 10:09 PM

The Valiant 40 is an interesting case study Bob, it is usually the first bloke into a market who does all the work, and the second bloke who makes all the money...

 

Nice to see a story where the first guy wins.



#54 baccara

baccara

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 52 posts

Posted 11 September 2013 - 09:33 AM

The really funny thing is this. Check any of the sailiing web sites. There are still people who don' t think fin keel boats are suitable cruising boats. Tey keep looking at boats like BCC's and searching for some redeeming, dominant, positive quality. I look at a BCC and I think, "That's, a cute old boat."

 
I don't know, i can think of couple of positive qualities that are typically associated with a long/full keel boat rather than in a fin keel boat, not sure how relevant they are for typical cruising people of today, though...
 
First thing that comes to my mind is the ability to heave-to without losing too much hard earned ground - provided of course that the full keel is at least reasonably deep one, ie with plenty of lateral area. There are of course fin keeled boats that heave-to quietly and drift very little, but as the amount of lateral surface seems to be the determing factor, most fin keelers are at disadvantage here, some of them downright hopeless (including mine). Good question is then, how popular it is nowadays to heave-to in a storm as opposed to just press on. Perhaps it is only a thing to do while crossing oceans and even then only when not racing ?
 
Another thing could be the ability to clean/paint the bottom in tidal areas by just leaning slightly against pier during low tide. Most full keeled boats do not need additional support for the hull itself, maybe something under the keel to to be able to reach the very bottom of the keel. I am not trying to say here that there are no fin keelers that could not do this - when i look Valiant 40 the keel looks just perfect (straight, longish bottom) and strong hull construction for such operation - just that many (if not most) long keelers could do that at least with some simple chocking under the forward part of keel, but i would not automatically try that with a lightly built fin keeler, especially of the keel tip is short.
 
I remember reading long threads in various forums years ago where people debated over the seakeeping abilities and directional stability of full vs. fin keel and i was somewhat amused as well. My thinking is that the keel type is really not the determining factor there, there are other things much more important (displacement, hull shape, center of gravity, RM, the list goes on and on) but still some people seem to believe that the long sweping keel is the only foolproof solution for "serious" ocean crossing, and the other end of spectrum tries to convince everybody that modern, light racing type with broad stern (eg. Pogo) is the tool of choice for everyone (not referring to the Pogo40 discussion here at CA). In my opinion the only thing that can be said with reasonable certainty is that a proper wing shaped keel with decent aspect ratio and profile will outperform (meaning better boatspeed and/or VMG in this context)  the old long keels in most (if not all) conditions.
 
I've never felt that long keelers typical inability to turn when backing is much of a problem, even when there is no engine (eg. classic metre-boats), one just needs plan the maneuvers in beforehand. Many short keeled lightweight racers are very wiling to turn in most docking situations, which is of course very nice - but they need to have certain speed, otherwise the keel just stalls and boat goes sideways without much control - so they need some forethought as well.

#55 baccara

baccara

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 52 posts

Posted 11 September 2013 - 10:24 AM

 He later accused me of "dresssing like a pimp". Cool.

 

This deserves further elaboration. I am hoping we're talking about a 'Huggy Bear' -type of outfit here ?



#56 Bob Perry

Bob Perry

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,256 posts

Posted 11 September 2013 - 01:31 PM

No Bac, not Huggy Bear but you can retain that image if you like. The true story is not as good.



#57 Bob Perry

Bob Perry

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,256 posts

Posted 11 September 2013 - 01:37 PM

Full keel boats can sit on a tidal grid for their bottom job. But some fin keelers can do that too. You could do that with a Valiant 40.

Valiants can heave to till the cows come home.

Fin keel boats can have great directional stability and,,,they turn.

 

I still don;t see any advantage to the full keel boat unless haul outs in primative areas is on the list. They may have an advantage there. Niot sure that's a good reason to own one.

 

See this is proof of what I said. People keep grasping for ways to justyify boats they like and this full keel thing is a perfect example.

Just say, "I like full keelers" that's good enough. Can't argue with that.

Except is someone says "why?" you might be stuck. You answer should be, "Because I do."

 

I have a friend who flies a tail dragger airplane. He likes it.



#58 sam_crocker

sam_crocker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,110 posts
  • Location:PNW

Posted 11 September 2013 - 01:39 PM

Bac:

I think one problem here is that people who sail BBC's are not very likely to record those numbers with any accuracy if at all.

Maybe a better way to get a handle on the overall performance of a BBC is to look for PHRF rating numbers. They are not always accurate either but they are a good start. Someone must have raced one, somewhere.

What we need here is a good VPP study but that takes getting the lines inot the computer and that would take some time.

If you are looking for a good upwind boat I think the BCC would not be the boat for you. That wineglass section does not leave much real "keel" to do the work.

The BCC rates 240 according to us sailing.  Not stellar, but then it is a 28 foot boat.



#59 sam_crocker

sam_crocker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,110 posts
  • Location:PNW

Posted 11 September 2013 - 01:53 PM

This is just a test of my new keyboard. I poured water over the other one yesterday and it was acting very weird.

This one is working fine and,,,,I bought the waterproof model.

The old one will probably work just fine once it completely dries out, especially if it was water and not soda.

 

Funny related story.  I have worked developing keyboards and we tested for spill resistance both at the home office and at the factory.  We kept getting different results between the two sites and could never figure out why.  Basically we'd pour water/soda/coffee on it, let it sit a few seconds, then turn it over to let the fluid out like a user would probably do and then return it to the keys up position.  Finally somebody went to the factory to see how they were doing the test.  They were following the written procedure to the letter including the final step where it said to turn the unit right-side up, which they interpreted to mean the right side of the keyboard sticking up in the air.  D'oh!



#60 Bob Perry

Bob Perry

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,256 posts

Posted 11 September 2013 - 03:22 PM

Sam:

WHL suggested I try a hair dryer but I was impatient and I needed a few other office supplies so I went for the Logitech waterproof model. I like it. It's very smooth. I'm imnto smooth. But it can't spell flor shit.



#61 SemiSalt

SemiSalt

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,621 posts
  • Location:WLIS

Posted 11 September 2013 - 03:27 PM

I was looking thru my library at my older design books. One is Sailing Yacht Design by Robert G.Henry and Richards T. Miller, 1965. Henry worked for S&S and Miller designed ships for the Navy. The book has a foreword by Olin Stephens. I thought the assembled multitude might be amused by the following chart:

 

lateral plane

 

It relates the Lateral Plane Coeff (s-axis) to the Prismatic Coeff (y-axis). At the time, they were trying to adapt the methods that they used for traditional boats to fin keel boats. In this case, the most of these boats still had attached rudders, but they had a lot of fin area, like a Dragon or 5.5. The very low Cp values on the y-axis were due to including the fin in the Cp calculation, as mentioned in the text.

 

The text goes on to describe tank test results by Pierre DeSaix at Stevens, so they knew they got the majority of the lateral force from the fin, and the majority of the resistance from the hull.



#62 Bob Perry

Bob Perry

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,256 posts

Posted 11 September 2013 - 03:54 PM

Semi:

I used to own that book. I probably still do. Somewhwere. It was always a puzzle whether or not to include the keel in the Cp with full keel boats. I usually did in the old days, i.e. CT 54. But when I got to the Tayana 37 and beyond I was trying to treat the keel and hull as seperate entities so I quit that practice. For many of those old designs its hard to tell where the hull ends and the keel begins. I am jealous of all the tank testing they got to do in the old days. I've only done tank testing once and its the most fun that men who like boats can have. Models connected to computers! Fun! But expensive. The models we used cost $9,000 each. I keep one in my office.



#63 miloman

miloman

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 235 posts

Posted 11 September 2013 - 03:55 PM

I still don;t see any advantage to the full keel boat unless haul outs in primative areas is on the list. They may have an advantage there. Niot sure that's a good reason to own one.

 

Even then, a different configuration might be preferable.  The only true advantage I see to full keel boats is that they don't pick up lobster pots.  But plenty of people manage to sail Maine's pot infested waters in fin keel boats and enjoy it.

 

See this is proof of what I said. People keep grasping for ways to justyify boats they like and this full keel thing is a perfect example.

Just say, "I like full keelers" that's good enough. Can't argue with that.

Except is someone says "why?" you might be stuck. You answer should be, "Because I do."

 

There's a flip side to the point of view you're talking about as well.

 

There are people out there who clearly think if you aren't sailing a multihull, skiff, or a fin keeler with a keel chord the width of a shoelace, your boat is slow and interminably boring... an equally ludicrous position.

 

I've always thought the "fun is fast" mentality misses the point a little.  If speeds the ticket, why are we in sailboats?  I grew up sailing and racing traditional boats, dinghies, and occasionally IMS race boats.  I harbor no illusions about the relative performance of these boats.  But just because a NY32 doesn't go upwind with a modern IMS boat doesn't mean that it's tediously slow or boring to sail.  No amount development will make a Herreshoff 12.5 any less fun to sail.  My family likes it's Stone Horse and when she has a wonderful sense of power and drive when she gets rail down.  She has a big rig and is even fairly quick.  We can enjoy that without kidding ourselves that she'd keep up with J-24.  The design must be pushing 80, after all.

 

That said, I love fast boats.



#64 Bob Perry

Bob Perry

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,256 posts

Posted 11 September 2013 - 04:08 PM

Milo:

 

The most fun sail I have had in years was on BJ's Baba 35 pilot house version in the Race Your House race. Full keel, dink on davits and thank goodness Donn's outboard had been stolen the night before or we would have had the outboard on the stern pulpit too. Hardly a "sportboat". But Tricky, Donn and I drove the shit out of that boat and did very well in the race, 2nd in class.

 

"Fast" is an AC cat. Everything else is "slow" now.

 

I enjoy any well mannerred boat and I get my kicks thinking I can get the most out of any boat. It's fun to make a boat sail to its full, potential even if full potential is 4.5 knots hard on the wind.

But when Performance is dicussed some degree of objectivity needs to be employed. It need not have anything at all to do with "fun". I don't have a formula for fun.

 

I love fast boats too,



#65 SemiSalt

SemiSalt

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,621 posts
  • Location:WLIS

Posted 11 September 2013 - 04:20 PM

I don't mean to wear y'all out with this, but I personally got a kick out this one. It shows the 'acceptable' ratio of LWL to Load Waterline Beam.
 
Beam Ratio
 
My fat boat would lie about on the x-axis, way below the preferred zone. I feel like an outcast.


#66 kimbottles

kimbottles

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,719 posts
  • Location:PNW
  • Interests:SWMBO

Posted 11 September 2013 - 05:14 PM

I don't mean to wear y'all out with this, but I personally got a kick out this one. It shows the 'acceptable' ratio of LWL to Load Waterline Beam.
 
 
 
My fat boat would lie about on the x-axis, way below the preferred zone. I feel like an outcast.

 

The Sliver is no where near on that chart.........like off the top of the chart



#67 baccara

baccara

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 52 posts

Posted 11 September 2013 - 05:15 PM

I don't mean to wear y'all out with this, but I personally got a kick out this one. It shows the 'acceptable' ratio of LWL to Load Waterline Beam.
 

 
My fat boat would lie about on the x-axis, way below the preferred zone. I feel like an outcast.


This is seriously good stuff, i'd like to see more ! Principles of Yacht Design by Larsson & Eliasson is also good reading, although much newer and does not have any nostalgia in it... but plenty of interesting/useful graphs.

My boat lies above the zone due to narrow waterline and plumb bow, can't help but smile at that...

#68 baccara

baccara

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 52 posts

Posted 11 September 2013 - 05:35 PM

Milo:
I enjoy any well mannerred boat and I get my kicks thinking I can get the most out of any boat. It's fun to make a boat sail to its full, potential even if full potential is 4.5 knots hard on the wind.
But when Performance is dicussed some degree of objectivity needs to be employed. It need not have anything at all to do with "fun". I don't have a formula for fun.
 
I love fast boats too,

And even though fast is fun, and going upwind in fresh wind and large waves in a fast raceboat is an absolute blast for some hours or even some days - the agressive slamming motion, creaking of winches amplified by lightweight carbon structures due to someone constatly trimming the main (or anything that has any load in it) and humming of mast and rod rigging due to wind usually stops being fun after certain amount of time, and steering a lively boat that needs your full attention all the time will wear you out even if here are several helmsmen to share the task. That's why i think i'd rather cross an ocean in a bit more traditional boat with plenty of displacement, perhaps even wineglass sections and a less efficient long keel even. Call me pussy if you like - i probably deserve it.

#69 kimbottles

kimbottles

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,719 posts
  • Location:PNW
  • Interests:SWMBO

Posted 11 September 2013 - 05:58 PM

Milo:
I enjoy any well mannerred boat and I get my kicks thinking I can get the most out of any boat. It's fun to make a boat sail to its full, potential even if full potential is 4.5 knots hard on the wind.
But when Performance is dicussed some degree of objectivity needs to be employed. It need not have anything at all to do with "fun". I don't have a formula for fun.
 
I love fast boats too,

And even though fast is fun, and going upwind in fresh wind and large waves in a fast raceboat is an absolute blast for some hours or even some days - the agressive slamming motion, creaking of winches amplified by lightweight carbon structures due to someone constatly trimming the main (or anything that has any load in it) and humming of mast and rod rigging due to wind usually stops being fun after certain amount of time, and steering a lively boat that needs your full attention all the time will wear you out even if here are several helmsmen to share the task. That's why i think i'd rather cross an ocean in a bit more traditional boat with plenty of displacement, perhaps even wineglass sections and a less efficient long keel even. Call me pussy if you like - i probably deserve it.

 

On my first ocean race one of the very experienced crew told me, we never beat hard to weather, we always crack off a bit because there will be a wind shift and then we can tack on it. He claimed you should never get closer than a close reach on an ocean race. More fun, more comfortable and fast. Maybe not super competitive but made sense to me



#70 Bob Perry

Bob Perry

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,256 posts

Posted 11 September 2013 - 06:17 PM

Bac:

You are no pussy but you are a bit short sighted.

There are a lot of boats in between a BCC and an all carbon ultra light racer.

You might check out some of my cruising boats and start with the Valiant 40

 

Many of my "performance cruisers" have proven themselves able and comfortable cruising boats.. They might be a bit radical for you.

 

But if an antique design is what you like I'd say go for it.



#71 baccara

baccara

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 52 posts

Posted 11 September 2013 - 06:28 PM

The BCC rates 240 according to us sailing.  Not stellar, but then it is a 28 foot boat.


As i am not famililiar with the PHRF i had to do a bit of comparison with some familiar boats in us sailing phrf table. 240 is definitely not fast, but the performance seems to be comparable to some of the boats that i had in mind. I think that BCC would be fast enough for me - for cruising purposes.

#72 SemiSalt

SemiSalt

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,621 posts
  • Location:WLIS

Posted 11 September 2013 - 07:01 PM

Kim,

 

John Illingworth wrote something along those lines in his book Further Offshore. Of course, being the way he was, he has specific angles to fall depending on the time/distance to the mark.

 

sam,

 

A rating of 240 is typical for full keel boats  with LOA in the high  20s. Whether the BCC can sail to it, and it what conditions, is a different story. In comparison, the C&C 25 rates about 225. 



#73 baccara

baccara

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 52 posts

Posted 11 September 2013 - 07:12 PM

Bac:
You are no pussy but you are a bit short sighted.
There are a lot of boats in between a BCC and an all carbon ultra light racer.
You might check out some of my cruising boats and start with the Valiant 40
 
Many of my "performance cruisers" have proven themselves able and comfortable cruising boats.. They might be a bit radical for you.
 
But if an antique design is what you like I'd say go for it.


I know, it does not make much sense to compare heavy displacement cruisers to modern racers. But when cruising or archipelago-hopping with small children, the kind of performance that i am mostly interested in is good, solid windward ability that comes in a decent sized, well-mannered package. That is the reason why i like for example Folkboats and the like. Racing is then a totally different thing alltogether for me, it does not need to be confortable at all, and i am not so sure if serious racing can be considered as fun, per se... Highly satisfying, though.

My personal favourites of the boats that you've designed are Tayana 37, Passport 37/40 and Night Runner. And while not a cruiser, FT10 is also cool boat, i've crewed on FT10 once, i like the way how effortlessly it goes downwind in light to medium air. Like a magic carpet...

#74 Bob Perry

Bob Perry

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,256 posts

Posted 11 September 2013 - 07:29 PM

Bac:

Your mind seems made up. Why even ask for opinions?

I'll sign out on this one.



#75 SloopJonB

SloopJonB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,531 posts
  • Location:West Vancouver, B.C.
  • Interests:Daysailing, local cruising and working on them.

Posted 12 September 2013 - 01:08 AM

The BCC rates 240 according to us sailing.  Not stellar, but then it is a 28 foot boat.


As i am not famililiar with the PHRF i had to do a bit of comparison with some familiar boats in us sailing phrf table. 240 is definitely not fast, but the performance seems to be comparable to some of the boats that i had in mind. I think that BCC would be fast enough for me - for cruising purposes.

 

That rating puts it in the performance range of a Catalina 22. Keep in mind that the BCC is a 28 footer in name only - it really compares more closely to a more contemporary 35'. The plumb bow and transom stern make it's "size" misleading. It's listed disp. is 14K for example.

 

By those measures, a PHRF of 240 makes it a REAL dog. It NEEDS big water tanks if you're going to cruise it.



#76 Bob Perry

Bob Perry

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,256 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 01:25 AM

Jon:

Let's not confuse Bac with facts.

He wants to take his family offshore in a Folkboat with a non self draining cockpit.

I have decided he's a jerk.

There you have it.



#77 miscut jib

miscut jib

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,181 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 02:05 AM

Is there a general structural advantage to a full keel for whacking logs/whales/whatever else is lurking beneath the waves?



#78 Bob Perry

Bob Perry

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,256 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 02:22 AM

No, don't think so.

I can whack whatever I want with a good, stout fin keel.

 

I recall he old shanty:

"Heave ho my stout boys

A whacking we will go"

 

Maybe it was "wanking".



#79 baccara

baccara

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 52 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 06:24 AM

Jon:

Let's not confuse Bac with facts.

He wants to take his family offshore in a Folkboat with a non self draining cockpit.

 

Speaking of facts, what makes you think that ? I mean, where was that implied - even remotely ?

 

 

I have decided he's a jerk.

There you have it.

 

Perhaps you (or someone else) could clarify reasons for this, in a PM perhaps ? I thought we were here exchanging opinions and discussing, and i honestly have a hard time figuring reasons for getting called a jerk. I am not in a process of buying a BCC (or any other boat), i just find that design exciting, and the real life performance was of interest to me since we do not have many (any?) BCC's this side of Atlantic.



#80 SloopJonB

SloopJonB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,531 posts
  • Location:West Vancouver, B.C.
  • Interests:Daysailing, local cruising and working on them.

Posted 12 September 2013 - 06:57 AM

Jon:

Let's not confuse Bac with facts.

He wants to take his family offshore in a Folkboat with a non self draining cockpit.

 

Speaking of facts, what makes you think that ? I mean, where was that implied - even remotely ?

 

 

>I have decided he's a jerk.

There you have it.

 

Perhaps you (or someone else) could clarify reasons for this, in a PM perhaps ? I thought we were here exchanging opinions and discussing, and i honestly have a hard time figuring reasons for getting called a jerk. I am not in a process of buying a BCC (or any other boat), i just find that design exciting, and the real life performance was of interest to me since we do not have many (any?) BCC's this side of Atlantic.

 

 

Don't take it too personally - the Maestro can get a bit cranky from time to time.

 

This too shall pass. ;)

 

The bottom line here though is that for your stated plans, the BCC is not a very good choice - very small interior for a "big" boat, very expensive and so forth. The only good reason to buy one is plain old love - you just can't live without one. They don't stand up too well to a logical selection process.



#81 Southern Cross

Southern Cross

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:Single - handed sailing, sailing with my kids, open water swimming

Posted 12 September 2013 - 12:27 PM

Milo:
 
"Fast" is an AC cat. Everything else is "slow" now.


Damn. Ain't the the truth. Quote of the year.

#82 Bob Perry

Bob Perry

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,256 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 01:09 PM

I stooped to name calling. But I was impatient and I did not want to waste any more time on this.



#83 SemiSalt

SemiSalt

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,621 posts
  • Location:WLIS

Posted 12 September 2013 - 02:29 PM

If someone offered me the choice of a BCC (14,000lbs) or a Cape Dory 33 (13,300 lbs ) or a Cape Dory 36 (16,100 lbs), the BCC wouldn't have a chance.  As listed here (http://www.capedory.org/phrf.html), the PHRF for the 33 is 186 and the 36 is 180.

 

I'm not saying that the CDs are fit for the open ocean; that's outside my range of competence, although the 36 was advertised as a ocean cruiser.

 

That said, there are people who like a very heavy boat for extended cruising or as a live aboard. One is Tom MacNaughton. http://www.macnaught...com/default.htm



#84 Figment

Figment

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,015 posts
  • Location:Long Island Sound

Posted 12 September 2013 - 03:35 PM

 

The BCC rates 240 according to us sailing.  Not stellar, but then it is a 28 foot boat.


As i am not famililiar with the PHRF i had to do a bit of comparison with some familiar boats in us sailing phrf table. 240 is definitely not fast, but the performance seems to be comparable to some of the boats that i had in mind. I think that BCC would be fast enough for me - for cruising purposes.

 

That rating puts it in the performance range of a Catalina 22. Keep in mind that the BCC is a 28 footer in name only - it really compares more closely to a more contemporary 35'. The plumb bow and transom stern make it's "size" misleading. It's listed disp. is 14K for example.

 

By those measures, a PHRF of 240 makes it a REAL dog. It NEEDS big water tanks if you're going to cruise it.

Another perspective:  a wetsnail 32 rates roughly 225?    Yeah.



#85 kent_island_sailor

kent_island_sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,539 posts
  • Location:Kent Island!

Posted 12 September 2013 - 03:50 PM

Bad analogy. Tailwheel aircraft can have significant performance advantages. If nothing else the tail wheel is usually less drag than the nosewheel would be and you sure can't fit tundra tires to a nosewheel airplane. The *only* reason they lost market share in small aircraft is nosewheel airplanes are easier to handle on the ground.
 
What you are looking for is a biplane. For about 99% of what airplanes do a biplane is only better if you want to look cool. They were a good idea when aircraft design was a new science and wood, cotton, and wire were your building materials. You gained strength and paid for it with drag. Sound familiar ;) Nowadays the only real place biplanes have a niche other than just for fun is ag planes where speed is not an issue and anvil-like ruggedness is.
 
 

I have a friend who flies a tail dragger airplane. He likes it.



#86 Bob Perry

Bob Perry

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,256 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 03:50 PM

Tom McNaughton?

 

Reminds me of a chat I was having with Bill Garden back when I was a kid.

There was a designer, in Detroit I think, named F.S.Ford Jr. As a kid I thought his designs were awful. I was an opinionated kid but I grew out of it.

I asked Bill what he thought of F.S. Ford's designs. Bill's exact words back were,. "God should break his pencil."



#87 Expat Canuck

Expat Canuck

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 144 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 03:53 PM

I am jealous of all the tank testing they got to do in the old days. I've only done tank testing once and its the most fun that men who like boats can have. Models connected to computers! Fun! But expensive. The models we used cost $9,000 each. I keep one in my office.

 

I think my favourite job so far was working in / running a tow tank.  I'd go between talking to clients, writing proposals and reports, programming computers, rowing around the basin, diving in the basin, and getting chewed out by my bi-polar boss.

 

All but the last was a total gas.

 

As my boss said once, "No one tests a proven design.  We get to see the leading edge all the time."



#88 kent_island_sailor

kent_island_sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,539 posts
  • Location:Kent Island!

Posted 12 September 2013 - 03:53 PM

I would have no hesitation to sail a Cape Dory across an ocean other than it taking awhile. IMHO good, seaworthy, and slow.

 

 

If someone offered me the choice of a BCC (14,000lbs) or a Cape Dory 33 (13,300 lbs ) or a Cape Dory 36 (16,100 lbs), the BCC wouldn't have a chance.  As listed here (http://www.capedory.org/phrf.html), the PHRF for the 33 is 186 and the 36 is 180.

 

I'm not saying that the CDs are fit for the open ocean; that's outside my range of competence, although the 36 was advertised as a ocean cruiser.

 

That said, there are people who like a very heavy boat for extended cruising or as a live aboard. One is Tom MacNaughton. http://www.macnaught...com/default.htm



#89 SloopJonB

SloopJonB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,531 posts
  • Location:West Vancouver, B.C.
  • Interests:Daysailing, local cruising and working on them.

Posted 12 September 2013 - 05:00 PM

I was an opinionated kid but I grew out of it.

When was that?



#90 zedboy

zedboy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 207 posts
  • Location:Eastern Med

Posted 12 September 2013 - 07:09 PM

I would have no hesitation to sail a Cape Dory across an ocean other than it taking awhile. IMHO good, seaworthy, and slow.

 

At least you'd beat the BCC.

 

Can I ask a different question: In the same price/size range, is there a boat you'd choose to cross oceans if you didn't want to go a slow as possible?



#91 Bob Perry

Bob Perry

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,256 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 07:12 PM

That's funny Zedder.



#92 BobJ

BobJ

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 987 posts

Posted 12 September 2013 - 09:27 PM

I would have no hesitation to sail a Cape Dory across an ocean other than it taking awhile. IMHO good, seaworthy, and slow.

 

At least you'd beat the BCC.

 

Can I ask a different question: In the same price/size range, is there a boat you'd choose to cross oceans if you didn't want to go a slow as possible?

 

If you're in the "Eastern Med" you have more choices than we do (with designs out of Europe), but I can't think of much at 28' LOD that I'd want to cross an ocean with.  Mid-latitudes and single-handed are probably do-able, but not "not-slow."  There are more options at 30-32 feet.

 

As the old saw goes, "Able to cross oceans - 28 feet long - not slow?  Choose two."



#93 zedboy

zedboy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 207 posts
  • Location:Eastern Med

Posted 13 September 2013 - 06:57 AM

 

I would have no hesitation to sail a Cape Dory across an ocean other than it taking awhile. IMHO good, seaworthy, and slow.

 

At least you'd beat the BCC.

 

Can I ask a different question: In the same price/size range, is there a boat you'd choose to cross oceans if you didn't want to go a slow as possible?

 

If you're in the "Eastern Med" you have more choices than we do (with designs out of Europe), but I can't think of much at 28' LOD that I'd want to cross an ocean with.  Mid-latitudes and single-handed are probably do-able, but not "not-slow."  There are more options at 30-32 feet.

 

Oh, this wasn't for me - I've been boatless since we left Canada in July. If I bought something tomorrow, there's a Westerly Pentland in Croatia that looked nice for like $15k. But I have to take CG tests to get licensed here (Ontario boating card means nothing) and the Admiral wants me to deal with converting my driver's license first. And heck, I don't need to cross oceans (tho I'm sure the Med can get suddenly nasty). Lots to see here with passages of no more than 2-3 days. No rush, season is all year.

 

I was just asking hypothetically, and thinking more in terms of comparable displacement and LOA: around 7 tons and 36', what would you buy to cross oceans? Is a Bristol 35.5 faster? Is a Pearson 365?



#94 SemiSalt

SemiSalt

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,621 posts
  • Location:WLIS

Posted 13 September 2013 - 12:44 PM

The YRA/LIS PHRF base rating list is the most comprehensive that I know how to find on line: http://phrf.yralis.org/base-ratings

 

They have the Bristol 35.5 at 156 and the Pearson 365 at 216 (!).  That makes the Bristol a lot faster and the Pearson a pig.



#95 Elegua

Elegua

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 567 posts
  • Location:The country that dare not speak its name

Posted 14 September 2013 - 02:21 AM

BCC: None have drowned but some have starved. Or is that Westsail? 



#96 kimbottles

kimbottles

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,719 posts
  • Location:PNW
  • Interests:SWMBO

Posted 14 September 2013 - 02:53 AM

BCC: None have drowned but some have starved. Or is that Westsail? 

Hanna Tahiti Ketch



#97 Elegua

Elegua

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 567 posts
  • Location:The country that dare not speak its name

Posted 14 September 2013 - 03:26 AM

BCC: None have drowned but some have starved. Or is that Westsail? 

Hanna Tahiti Ketch

 

 

Some enterprising soul actually had their tahiti ketch rated: US Sailing says 237-240; so it seems that this statements would apply to the BCC as well.   :)

 

Unless of course the BCC is considered less seaworth because it abandoned the traditional lifeboat style hull.  :P



#98 kent_island_sailor

kent_island_sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,539 posts
  • Location:Kent Island!

Posted 14 September 2013 - 04:08 AM

That is kind of hard to answer, given the variables. For a delivery, I guess I only care of the boat is safe.

For fun - I am not sure a Cape Dory is "as slow as possible", but like her Alberg sisters there is a lot of wetted surface to make the boat sticky in light air. I am kind of partial to C&Cs, so a Landfall 38 is one of my favorites. Also depends on time of year and crew. My own boat can wear you out offshore in heavy stuff and would be wet enough to make a winter crossing miserable.

I thinkI am getting out of the size and price zone, but when I was working on them and moving them around Valiant 40s seemed to be about what I wanted overall.

 

 

I would have no hesitation to sail a Cape Dory across an ocean other than it taking awhile. IMHO good, seaworthy, and slow.

 

At least you'd beat the BCC.

 

Can I ask a different question: In the same price/size range, is there a boat you'd choose to cross oceans if you didn't want to go a slow as possible?



#99 sailglobal

sailglobal

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 353 posts

Posted 14 September 2013 - 03:30 PM

I was an opinionated kid but I grew out of it.

When was that?

I think he's referring to the "kid" bit,,,,,,   :)



#100 zedboy

zedboy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 207 posts
  • Location:Eastern Med

Posted 14 September 2013 - 07:10 PM

My own boat can wear you out offshore in heavy stuff and would be wet enough to make a winter crossing miserable.

I thinkI am getting out of the size and price zone, but when I was working on them and moving them around Valiant 40s seemed to be about what I wanted overall.

 

You are 5 feet and 4 tons or so out of the size range, not sure where you are on price.

 

That's quite a vote, a guy who sailed a Bristol 45.5 3/4ths the way 'round saying he'd just as soon have a V40...

 

Still looking for reasonably fast recommendations in the 35'/7T range, as per the thread ... we have nothing other than the B35.5?!






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users