Jump to content

Desirable and Undesirable Characteristics of Offshore Yachts


Recommended Posts

First of all - what a fucking title :-) - always meant to read it, never have.

Who’s read it?  Who has an informed opinion on it?  Did you like it? Hate it?

Browsing various books on sails and rigging, I just read this great reader’s review of “Desirable and Undesirable Characteristics...”, which is quite insightful.  I hadn’t realized the book —a book such as this— could be considered “dated” per se.  I’ve long known it was a John Rousmaniere book, so it must be The Gospel...but it turns out, according to the review anyway, maybe those old boys had their biases and didn’t know it all.  Anyway, seems like a good read on seaworthiness (“the forgotten factor”, ya know :-) ).  

Here’s the reader review on Amazon:

This collection of articles by a Cruising Club of America committee of the surviving gods of 20th-century sailing, especially the venerable Olin Stephens, lays down the dogmas of bluewater sailing design and safety as they were agreed upon by these worthies at the close of the century. Their lament at the undue influence of racing design on consumer cruising boats is commendably progressive, but otherwise the material is a chronicling of their conservative preferences in traditional equipment. The chapter on anchors takes a step backward, recommending as the primary anchor the fisherman, a design not in production even in 1987 (based on the author's experiences in 1962!); 4 of the 5 boats in the chapter on good designs were custom models not affordable to the general public, letting us all know where we (and they) stand in the class structure of sailing. Read this material for its intrinsic value and recover your sense of modernity by having a go at Garry Hoyt's book "Ready about", which is the New Testament and road map to the 21st century future of sailing.”

 

Ok, now I want to read “Desirable and Undesirable Characteristics” to see what all the fuss is about.  What other books/ideas out there, technical-wise, on sails a rigs has got you fired up? :-)

9EF5EF4F-C93F-499A-BD5B-4F95B381B1D6.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

That in no way diminishes the validity of their choices. They are buying the boat for themselves, not for you or me. I happen to prefer a deep fin, spade rudder, tall carbon rig, paradoxically on a wo

This has turned into Desirable and Undesirable Characteristics of Offshore Posters.

You know who to get the best advice from? Delivery skippers. It isn't their boat, they aren't in love with her and blind to her flaws. They have to get the boat from A to B despite the weather or

Posted Images

29 minutes ago, El Mariachi said:

Mast up----> good.

Mast down-----> bad.

Any questions? 

Which direction should the keel point?

Water: inside or outside?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

This collection of articles by a Cruising Club of America committee of the surviving gods of 20th-century sailing, especially the venerable Olin Stephens, lays down the dogmas of bluewater sailing design and safety as they were agreed upon by these worthies at the close of the century.

I haven't read it, but I love the review.  There's another good review on Aamazon: "This book has no real value. It is over 30 years old and has not been updated. If you are looking for Information to help with a blue water purchase, this book will not help with the modern designs."

I think that in nearly any field of human activity, you will find that after a few decades the game has moved on, leaving the old works less relevant.  In some cases, the change isn't huge: e.g. goat-rearing hasn't moved on a lot since the 1970s.  In some fields, the change is humungous: horticulture in Ireland has been transformed in the last few decades by the arrival of the polytunnel.  And a 1950s guide to computing is useful only as a doorstop, unless you are an archaeologist.

Rousmaniere's book should be regarded as another example of a conservative tome from another time.  Definitely worth a read if you are studying the history of design ... but unless you are preparing an essay on the death of the buttoned-down cult of S&S, it's a poor use of time.  Still, "Remembering of the high priests of paleo yacht design" could be a great essay, so long as you are generous with the acid.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a great book with some great insights.  The backdrop is the aftermath of the Fastnet, if I recall correctly, and the transition from CCA to IOR and further. 

Many, if not most of the insights in that book are totally relevant today.

The one outlier I always remember from that book is the tank tests they did for capsize. Counterintuitively, a heavier mast on a mid displacement keel boat had an initial inertial force that made for a better righting moment (or should I say resistance to capsize moment) than a lighter aloft boat. You wouldn't think so, but heavier rig provided more initial resistance to short powerful gusts than the light rig did.

I really good follow up to this book would be 'Surviving the Storm' by Steve and Linda Dashew. This book carries the ball up the field a little.

As and afterthought, a whole lot of that book was about vanishing stability for IOR boats, if I'm phrasing that correctly. Its interesting that today's pancake pizza wedges seem to be a little bit of a throwback in that regard. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, fufkin said:

As and afterthought, a whole lot of that book was about vanishing stability for IOR boats, if I'm phrasing that correctly. Its interesting that today's pancake pizza wedges seem to be a little bit of a throwback in that regard. 

I think that you are mistaken there, @fufkin.  The problem in 1979 was that the IOR penalised stability, so boats were built with as little of it as possible.  For example, when Denis Doyle's magnificent Frers 50-ft Moonduster  was launched in 1981, they were frantically bolting lad to the ceiling to try to reduce her rating.

That doesn't apply to contemporary designs.  The rating rules are less stupid, so new boats are not built with the keel style which Doug Peterson popularised in the 1970s.  That form concentrated weight high up, but contemporary boats keep the weight low, usually in a bulb.  So they have way more stability than the old IORs boats, and most rating rules now actively measure and enforce minimum stability requirements.

The irony of all this is is that it was the old dinosaurs like Olin Stephens who had created a rating rule which bred unsafe boats.  It was the younger designers from the margins of sailing who developed boats that that are significantly lighter, faster and safer than both the museum pieces which Stephens drew for the blazer-wearers of the NYYC and the diamond planform monsters spawned by his rule.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read it, although it's probably been a decade since I picked it up.

The book was published in 1987 and spends a lot of time making specific recommendations about boat design and outfitting.  It's by definition dated. 

Some of it is hopelessly dated.  No one should be following Rod Stephen's recommendations for halyard materials or Thomas Young's suggestions for navigational equipment from the mid 80s.  The technology has just changed too much.  The sections are still worth reading, for people interested in the topics.  You can still learn a lot from their general approach and philosophy, but specific recommendations are often out of date.

Other areas just feel passe.  Bill Lapworth's recommendations about cockpit design aren't wrong.  He favors a small cockpit that will drain quickly if it floods.  But in an era of open cockpits that drain very quickly through the transom, his thoughts are... just old fashioned.  Similarly, skeg-hung rudders still have their virtues, but decades of experience has generated a consensus that spade rudders are best for most boats.  The conversation has just moved on.  A lot of the book feels this way.  The discussion of stability is really focused on the particular stability concerns of IOR-style boats.  It's not wrong, it's not irrelevant, but today it's feels myopic.

There are, of course, areas that will still be totally relevant today.  Even in the sections that are most outdated, you will find interesting points and good recommendations. My guess is that the areas on the cabin are probably still very worth reading.  Hell, many modern boats would benefit from their builders reading the section on ventilation. 

If you find yourself curious about the book, it's well worth the read.  But yeah, it reflects the yachting world of 35 years ago.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

As a reminder, a lot of people on this forum either own 40-year-old designs, or are looking to buy them. Not everyone can afford the latest and greatest design. In that regard, a lot of the info in the book is relevant.

The Swan 44 and Bermuda 40 (and others from that era) that inspired a multi-page spirited discussion here recently? Both of those designs were decades old when this book was published.

It may seem quaint to say it, but while the equipment may change, the ocean doesn't change, nor do the elements of seamanship.

I had the great good fortune to know and sail with many of those who provided input to this book. Their collective wisdom trumps the sniping from the peanut gallery here over how old-fashioned and outdated the book seems today.

If you don't understand where we came from, you are clueless about where we are going.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rousmaniere was the editor, not one of the authors, but based on a short, long ago,  conversation with John, it was more of a rewriting than an edit. But the idears are the authors'.

I think the real value of the book now is to educate the reader on what the important things are, especially the ones no one talks about much like ventilation. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, accnick said:

... Their collective wisdom trumps the sniping from the peanut gallery here over how old-fashioned and outdated the book seems today.

If you don't understand where we came from, you are clueless about where we are going.

This sounds like black letter law but I don't think it really is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MFH125 said:

There are, of course, areas that will still be totally relevant today.  Even in the sections that are most outdated, you will find interesting points and good recommendations. My guess is that the areas on the cabin are probably still very worth reading.  Hell, many modern boats would benefit from their builders reading the section on ventilation. 

Shifts in the market mean that the cabin accounts for a higher proportion of the cost of a production boat than was the case 50 years ago, not least because wider beam carried well aft means that there is a lot more cabin.

It's easy to list the failings of contemporary cabin design: wide open spaces to fall across, few handholds, fewer hip holds, horribly sharp edges to furniture, and damn all sea berths.  But I doubt that the old guys are much help, because they designed cabins for a purpose which has largely passed: a gang of men on a passage race. 

A modern performance 40-footer will mostly be used as a family or couple's holiday home.  It will accommodate fewer people, demand more privacy for guests, and be inhabited mostly at anchor.  The usage has changed a lot, and the design needs to change too.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, accnick said:

I had the great good fortune to know and sail with many of those who provided input to this book. Their collective wisdom trumps the sniping from the peanut gallery here over how old-fashioned and outdated the book seems today.

If you don't understand where we came from, you are clueless about where we are going.

That sort of commentary is inflammatory, and I will try to respond without fire.

One of the issues here is that we shared knowledge doesn't lead to the same understandings.  We have here some fans of CCA, ROC and IOR eras of yacht design.  We have others who know the boats of that era and have a much lower regard for them.  Both sides have their reasons, but denouncing those who fail to worship at the feet of those old-timers is just a path to flame wars.

32 minutes ago, accnick said:

It may seem quaint to say it, but while the equipment may change, the ocean doesn't change, nor do the elements of seamanship.

Actually, a lot of elements of seamanship have changed radically.  Reliable instant position-fixing via GPS combines with effective small radar systems to radically change the options for handling coasts.  VHF for all has also had a big impact, as has GRIB files

Storm tactics have changed radically:  series drogues have replaced sea anchors, and heaving too is really not an option any more.  Rig designs and sail handling techniques have significantly changed the way boats are sailed, while high-quality self-steering provides a lot more backup for crew.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TwoLegged said:

 

A modern performance 40-footer will mostly be used as a family or couple's holiday home.  It will accommodate fewer people, demand more privacy for guests, and be inhabited mostly at anchor.  The usage has changed a lot, and the design needs to change too.

That's a fair comment. Remember that the book under discussion relates to characteristics of offshore yachts, not floating  weekend homes that spend most of their lives tied to docks plugged in rather than sailing.

If a boat "lives" really comfortably sitting bolt upright in a millpond, it may well be uninhabitable offshore, whether you are racing or cruising.

Buy the boat that fits how you are actually going to use it, not how you wish you could use it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps one should try reading it before commenting?

The book essentially argues for a strong and moderate boat that is comfortable for its crew. Some of the writers raced with their families.  The featured boat as an ideal design is sailed and owned by a woman who sailed it growing up and is near the top of the sport. 

The specifics of good seamanship have changed, but not the principles. It’s also amazing what new technologies and materials can do to improve older designs. 

image.jpeg

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, accnick said:
32 minutes ago, TwoLegged said:

A modern performance 40-footer will mostly be used as a family or couple's holiday home.  It will accommodate fewer people, demand more privacy for guests, and be inhabited mostly at anchor.  The usage has changed a lot, and the design needs to change too.

That's a fair comment. Remember that the book under discussion relates to characteristics of offshore yachts, not floating  weekend homes that spend most of their lives tied to docks plugged in rather than sailing.

If a boat "lives" really comfortably sitting bolt upright in a millpond, it may well be uninhabitable offshore, whether you are racing or cruising.

There are two possible extremes here: the boat whose berths only ever used by a racing crew, and the boat which is just a floating cottage without anyone sleeping on passage.  A boat optimised for either extreme will be horrible for the other.  

But in between those extremes there are some choices which make for versatility.  For example, straight settees make good sea berths, but curved settees and armchairs don't.  A double berth with a lee cloth or board to divide it becomes a dual-purpose bunk, switchable from a bonkbed to a pair of sea berths.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TwoLegged said:

Water: inside or outside?

it stays out , I stay in .

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TwoLegged said:

That sort of commentary is inflammatory, and I will try to respond without fire.

One of the issues here is that we shared knowledge doesn't lead to the same understandings.  We have here some fans of CCA, ROC and IOR eras of yacht design.  We have others who know the boats of that era and have a much lower regard for them.  Both sides have their reasons, but denouncing those who fail to worship at the feet of those old-timers is just a path to flame wars.

Actually, a lot of elements of seamanship have changed radically.  Reliable instant position-fixing via GPS combines with effective small radar systems to radically change the options for handling coasts.  VHF for all has also had a big impact, as has GRIB files

Storm tactics have changed radically:  series drogues have replaced sea anchors, and heaving too is really not an option any more.  Rig designs and sail handling techniques have significantly changed the way boats are sailed, while high-quality self-steering provides a lot more backup for crew.

I'm not saying you worship at anyone's feet. I'm just saying there are things to be learned from them that are still valid lessons.

All of the nav aids you cite are great, but what do you do when you have a lightning strike or an electrical system melt-down? What do you fall back on offshore when (not if) the shit hits the fan?

As an example, I once raced to Bermuda on a boat that lost all electrical and charging capabilities as a result of a storm. No means of contact, no navigation or performance electronics. What I did have was a sextant, an accurate timepiece, and a self-contained hand-held radio direction finder.

Today, of course, you would at least have a back-up self powered GPS, preferable]y one that you kept in a Faraday cage against the possibility of a disabling lightning strike.

15 minutes ago, Elegua said:

Perhaps one should try reading it before commenting?

The book essentially argues for a strong and moderate boat that is comfortable for its crew. Some of the writers raced with their families.  The featured boat as an ideal design is sailed and owned by a woman who sailed it growing up and is near the top of the sport. 

The specifics of good seamanship have changed, but not the principles. It’s also amazing what new technologies and materials can do to improve older designs. 

image.jpeg

Now that's a wonderful boat, designed by Jim McCurdy, and built by Concordia. Probably one of the most seaworthy 38-footers ever taken out of sight of land, and not slow by any rational standard..

I was fortunate enough to race to Bermuda on that boat with the designer skippering, decades ago. Still a great design.

It is a classic example of a traditional dual-purpose offshore boat. She will get you there safely, and bring you back again, no matter what.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, accnick said:

I'm not saying you worship at anyone's feet. I'm just saying there are things to be learned from them that are still valid lessons.

Well, there is linear and non-linear thinking. There has been a paradigm shift from the old days/ways. 

New Americas Cup Mono Foiler Concept revealed by TNZ ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have that book and read it years ago. Just another interesting boating book to read with some good if dated information.

It has been a very long time since I read it. I doubt I would want to revisit it as yacht design has progressed since (unless I was looking for historical perspective.)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, accnick said:

It is a classic example of a traditional dual-purpose offshore boat. She will get you there safely, and bring you back again, no matter what.

Hmm. Selkie is one of the best of her type, but hardly "traditional".  She is a mid-1980s take on the vry-early-1970s style of cruiser-racer, a dual-purpose type which had a life of about 25 years between 1965 and 1990.   She's a consciously retro tribute to the era when uncored GRP hull, alloy spars, polyester sails, and deck-sweeping genoas still spelt boat that can pull home trophies. 

The cruiser-racer era was short, and the fact that it overlapped with the youth of many anarchists doesn't make it traditional any more than miniskirts or leggings.

That sort of boat is easy to critique:

  • shallowish keel with no bulb, so needs rail meat
  • ends too fine for offwind work
  • far too much rocker and too narrow a stern to surf safely 
  • skeg-hung rudder is less effective and more highly loaded than a balanced spade
  • shallow rudder lack control on a spinnaker reach
  • abominable deck-sweeping monster genoa keeps sailmaker happy, but makes too much work for crew
  • unlike say a Pogo, the boat is sinkable 
  • Cockpit too small all the crew needed to sail her
  • Neither heads aft nor hanging locker aft, so on-watch crew drag wet gear through the saloon past the sleeping off-watch crew
  • Cramped interior

And so on.  Pretty boat of grandpa's era, optimised for slogging to windward offshore, but in nearly every respect significantly inferior to a modern design

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TwoLegged said:

and heaving too is really not an option any more.  

???

Don't know about a Pogo, but most cruising boats can be made to heave to effectively. Even mine. It is, I'll admit, a lost art. 

I have the book and have read it long ago. The one theme that is still true (also the theme of Marchaj's book on the same subject): racing rules still have an outsized and inappropriate influence on cruising boat design.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, TwoLegged said:

And so on.  Pretty boat of grandpa's era, optimised for slogging to windward offshore, but in nearly every respect significantly inferior to a modern design

To each his own. "Slogging to windward offshore" describes a significant part of some of the classic offshore point-to-point races, and a fair amount of offshore cruising. Life is not necessarily a reach.

This is not the boat I would build today, but she is a great seaboat that has always kept her crew safe, and has done very well racing to Bermuda.

She has already held up better over time than a lot of boats  are likely to do.

"Traditional" and "classic" have different meanings to different people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, accnick said:

As a reminder, a lot of people on this forum either own 40-year-old designs, or are looking to buy them. Not everyone can afford the latest and greatest design. In that regard, a lot of the info in the book is relevant.

The Swan 44 and Bermuda 40 (and others from that era) that inspired a multi-page spirited discussion here recently? Both of those designs were decades old when this book was published.

It may seem quaint to say it, but while the equipment may change, the ocean doesn't change, nor do the elements of seamanship.

I had the great good fortune to know and sail with many of those who provided input to this book. Their collective wisdom trumps the sniping from the peanut gallery here over how old-fashioned and outdated the book seems today.

If you don't understand where we came from, you are clueless about where we are going.

The sailors from the 18th and 19th century called. Those sailors sailed a million times more sea miles than these self-appointed pundits. They think the book is a dangerous attempt to legitimize foolish yacht designs. Those authors did make some worthwhile contributions, for the time, but would be much wiser to quietly step aside and be quiet (STFU) rather than attempt the indefensible dance from progressive to regressive.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, accnick said:

"Traditional" and "classic" have different meanings to different people.

Indeed, so they aren't really much use unless defined.  But it's hard to defend using the word "traditional" to describe the brief fashions of 1971

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MFH125 said:

I've read it, although it's probably been a decade since I picked it up.

The book was published in 1987 and spends a lot of time making specific recommendations about boat design and outfitting.  It's by definition dated. 

Some of it is hopelessly dated.  No one should be following Rod Stephen's recommendations for halyard materials or Thomas Young's suggestions for navigational equipment from the mid 80s.  The technology has just changed too much.  The sections are still worth reading, for people interested in the topics.  You can still learn a lot from their general approach and philosophy, but specific recommendations are often out of date.

Other areas just feel passe.  Bill Lapworth's recommendations about cockpit design aren't wrong.  He favors a small cockpit that will drain quickly if it floods.  But in an era of open cockpits that drain very quickly through the transom, his thoughts are... just old fashioned.  Similarly, skeg-hung rudders still have their virtues, but decades of experience has generated a consensus that spade rudders are best for most boats.  The conversation has just moved on.  A lot of the book feels this way.  The discussion of stability is really focused on the particular stability concerns of IOR-style boats.  It's not wrong, it's not irrelevant, but today it's feels myopic.

There are, of course, areas that will still be totally relevant today.  Even in the sections that are most outdated, you will find interesting points and good recommendations. My guess is that the areas on the cabin are probably still very worth reading.  Hell, many modern boats would benefit from their builders reading the section on ventilation. 

If you find yourself curious about the book, it's well worth the read.  But yeah, it reflects the yachting world of 35 years ago.

 

I am curious about Rousmaniere’s book as part of a broader understanding of “boat stuff”.  I didn’t grow up racing, and never got involved in it later, to my detriment, so IOR, etc etc doesn’t mean much to me.  I need to upgrade my knowledge.

I’m on a bit of a marine intellectual tear these days.  My recent/current foray into getting a new mainsail made has hit home just how little I know- and that’s the beauty of this sport/activity - lifelong learning, from metallurgy and celestial navigation, to laminar flow, fibreglassing, and beyond.  Who knew that there are varnishes developed with high coefficients of friction?  I’d never heard those words before getting into sailing/cruising.  My father, while he taught me to sail and enjoyed sail trim and how sailing works, didn’t get deep into sailing technicalities.  Which is just as well -we simply enjoyed sailing together, and in fact it may have turned me off the sport as a kid to have technicalities heaved at me - in contrast to my daughter, who has grown up dinghy sailing and really grooves on sailing geekery/technical stuff - which is pretty inspiring to me to learn more!

One of the sailmakers I’m working with recommended reading “Sail Power”, by Wallace Ross - apparently considered a ‘classic’ on the fundamentals and details of sails.  And of course once you’re on Amazon, the algorithm starts pumping recommended books to you - in fact, all books I know of, ‘classics’ in the field that I’ve heard of over the years, but that I’ve just never found the time to read.  I’m not an engineer and don’t really have an engineer’s analytical mind, I can only try - so I like books that can help walk me through the how and why of it all, without assuming I understand what the various calculated measures of hull performance are, like “capsize screening ratio”, etc. Otherwise my eyes glaze over.  I don’t understand the significance of finer points of hull design and physics.

So, my reading list - who knows if I’ll ever have time to get into it - but what’s the rush?  In addition to ‘Desirable and Undesirable...’:

-’Sail Power’, Wallace Ross

-‘Seaworthiness, The Forgotten Factor’, Marchaj (I’m possibly shying away from this as I think it may be loaded with engineering calcs/formulas...as interesting as they may be applied to boats, I have an easier time grasping obscure  electrical circuit theory/calcs, like Power Factor Correction :-) )  But maybe it’s because I’ve zero background in aeronautics/mech eng, where a lot of marine engineering math comes from)

-‘Heavy Weather Sailing’, Adlard Coles

-‘Complete Riggers Apprentice’, Brion Toss 

Have just bought Beth Leonard’s book (undoubtedly with a wee bit of input from @estarzinger :-) ) - as a “compendium” of ideas on cruising boats, to understand their approach and analysis, based on lots of miles sailed.  Seems like it’ll help tie lots of diverse strands together.

And let’s not even get into splicing modern braids, wing sails, and the like.  That starts getting into rocket science :-)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, DDW said:

The one theme that is still true (also the theme of Marchaj's book on the same subject): racing rules still have an outsized and inappropriate influence on cruising boat design.

Absolute gospel.

All rating rules are intended to measure and incorporate performance-enhancing characteristics, such as length, displacement, sail area, and stability. Older rules such as the IOR and its predecessors that rely on point and proxy measurements and low-angle stability measurement to approximate performance-driving characteristics end up falling short in the long run.

All you have to do is look at very early IOR designs and compare them to boats designed just a few years later to the same rule. No one who was designing a boat for any purpose other than rating optimization would ever come up with many of those design characteristics.

Generally speaking, designers are a lot more clever than rule-writers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, accnick said:

As a reminder, a lot of people on this forum either own 40-year-old designs, or are looking to buy them. Not everyone can afford the latest and greatest design. In that regard, a lot of the info in the book is relevant.

The Swan 44 and Bermuda 40 (and others from that era) that inspired a multi-page spirited discussion here recently? Both of those designs were decades old when this book was published.

It may seem quaint to say it, but while the equipment may change, the ocean doesn't change, nor do the elements of seamanship.

I had the great good fortune to know and sail with many of those who provided input to this book. Their collective wisdom trumps the sniping from the peanut gallery here over how old-fashioned and outdated the book seems today.

If you don't understand where we came from, you are clueless about where we are going.

I own a copy of DAUCOOY and have read it a couple times. It has some very good information tucked in here and there. Mostly it is a protracted whinge by owners of CCA yachts that the (comparatively plebian) IOR scene has ruined their clubby gentleman-racer eminence and rendered their pampered yawls obsolete except as cruising boats. They point with the stem of a briarwood pipe to the pinched ends, the broad beams, the large headsails driven by the IOR rating rules and say: Tsk, tsk. While ignoring the absurd overhangs, slack bilges, and stupid little mizzens on their own boats, equally rule-driven. Also, Europeans were good at IOR boats, so a pox on all their houses.

The book is a sort of fetishism, an exercise in cargo-cult boat design. Maybe if we build little CCA yawls out of popsicle sticks and set them in a shrine and burn a really fine pipe tobacco before the altar, the good old days of graceful underballasted-yet-still-grossly-heavy patrician racing craft will return. Hear us, Lord Olin!

 

 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Diarmuid said:

 

The book is a sort of fetishism, an exercise in cargo-cult boat design. Maybe if we build little CCA yawls out of popsicle sticks and set them in a shrine and burn a really fine pipe tobacco before the altar, the good old days of graceful underballasted-yet-still-grossly-heavy patrician racing craft will return. Hear us, Lord Olin!

 

 

I think you sort of missed the point of it all.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Diarmuid said:

I own a copy of DAUCOOY and have read it a couple times. It has some very good information tucked in here and there. Mostly it is a protracted whinge by owners of CCA yachts that the (comparatively plebian) IOR scene has ruined their clubby gentleman-racer eminence and rendered their pampered yawls obsolete except as cruising boats. They point with the stem of a briarwood pipe to the pinched ends, the broad beams, the large headsails driven by the IOR rating rules and say: Tsk, tsk. While ignoring the absurd overhangs, slack bilges, and stupid little mizzens on their own boats, equally rule-driven. Also, Europeans were good at IOR boats, so a pox on all their houses.

The book is a sort of fetishism, an exercise in cargo-cult boat design. Maybe if we build little CCA yawls out of popsicle sticks and set them in a shrine and burn a really fine pipe tobacco before the altar, the good old days of graceful underballasted-yet-still-grossly-heavy patrician racing craft will return. Hear us, Lord Olin!

 

 

Well, few (at least I wouldn't) would argue against IOR doing a lot of unhealthy things to yacht design, which is really what the book is a response to. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brilliant, @Diarmuid.  I had mulled tacking a direct pop at the cult of Saint Olin, but didn't feel up to the flames.  And now you have done it much better than I would.

Anyway, as they burn you alive on the NYYC's lawn at Newport, I will pray for your mortal soul and say three Hail Centreboards for you.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Elegua said:

Well, few (at least I wouldn't) would argue against IOR doing a lot of unhealthy things to yacht design, which is really what the book is a response to. 

You have a bit of a point there ... except that this bunch of East Coast blazer-wearers looked in the wrong direction for remedies.  Instead of looking at what the French and Kiwis were doing to sail on the water, these reactionaries looked behind them at their own pasts of lugging weight through water, and congratulated themselves.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, accnick said:

I think you sort of missed the point of it all.

No, I didn't. I am very good at reading and analyzing texts. You seem rather heavily invested in the people and philosophies embodied in the book, which is fine. But appeals to authority, 'wisdom', and 'common sense' are intrinsically weak arguments, and this anthology is all that. 

The greatest (and most amusing) tension in the book is the feeling of betrayal that the same idols who designed their preferred boats and rating rules went off and created the IOR. The God Abandons Antony.

Musical rendering of same:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read it years ago, and it's an interesting read, if only for historical perspective. It has a place in any reasonable library alongside the other good books in the genre, but doesn't deserve pride of place.

elq6YB4Ftu_ttmijIVqtQ6fswKrFnJu4x09jIeHF

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, DDW said:

???

Don't know about a Pogo, but most cruising boats can be made to heave to effectively. Even mine. It is, I'll admit, a lost art. 

I have the book and have read it long ago. The one theme that is still true (also the theme of Marchaj's book on the same subject): racing rules still have an outsized and inappropriate influence on cruising boat design.

This morning, I was just scanning Webb Chiles’ blog (pardon: “journal”; he hates that ugly, modern portmanteau word) and he’s anticipating leaving for a sail out to Bermuda and back (not stopping there).  Having studied forecasts he writes, “Every seven day GRIB has shown variable wind from every direction, usually with two or three 180º shifts.  So if you observe on the Yellowbrick tracking page that GANNET has stopped or is moving very slowly, don’t be alarmed.  I am not going to beat up the little boat or myself. If we encounter strong headwinds, I will slow down or heave to and wait for the certain change.”

I frankly didn’t know that a ULDB like a Moore 24 could heave to.  The Pardey’s, of course, are/were big proponents of heaving to as a storm tactic and general means to stop/bring a boat under control offshore - with a strong suggestion that fuller keeled boats would work better for this.  
 

Can a Moore 24 really heave to?  Is this just a terminology thing?  What Chiles means by heaving to is different from what the Pardeys meant by it?  Clearly, these are very different kinds of boats.  (Too bad we can’t invite him to the discussion - huge experience in a wide range of boats and conditions; would be very interesting indeed to get his take on things.  Paging Webb?  Ah, he’s probably too busy getting ready to untie the lines and go [link to his YellowBrick tracker]...)

Moore 24 specs: https://sailboatdata.com/sailboat/moore-24

Taleisin specs: https://www.woodenboat.com/register-wooden-boats/taleisin-victoria-0

F5325CCF-B575-4CE5-8DB8-17400827C1A1.jpeg

085EF158-42D7-4B48-916F-CA2CC56F0F9D.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heaved to (how awkward is that phrase?) on every boat I have owned, from a 16' Wayfarer to the current C&C 35. They will all do it, but sometimes you have to fiddle a bit...

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

I read it years ago, and it's an interesting read, if only for historical perspective. It has a place in any reasonable library alongside the other good books in the genre, but doesn't deserve pride of place.

elq6YB4Ftu_ttmijIVqtQ6fswKrFnJu4x09jIeHF

 

 

Like virtually every sailing-related book, you have to put it in the context of its time. Not many of them hold up if you view them as textbooks of absolutes.

You have a lot of classic sailing reading in that book case. I see at least one book there that I wrote a lot of.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, accnick said:

Like virtually every sailing-related book, you have to put it in the context of its time. Not many of them hold up if you view them as textbooks of absolutes.

The bibles of yesteryear have some interesting tidbits, but not many prescriptions for the modern age. Eric Hiscock's Cruising under Sail  is a prime example.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, TwoLegged said:

You have a bit of a point there ... except that this bunch of East Coast blazer-wearers looked in the wrong direction for remedies.  Instead of looking at what the French and Kiwis were doing to sail on the water, these reactionaries looked behind them at their own pasts of lugging weight through water, and congratulated themselves.

Well, this is where we differ.  Having actually read the book, I agree that it is dated, but: a) dated doesn't always equal bad, and b) I think there are some valuable ideas expressed, even if they are expressed by East Coast blazer wearers and if you understand the context.  

As for me, I'm not set on any one set of design characteristics.  Assuming they meet the standards I'm looking at, they are just trade-offs to me. I'm looking for what works best for my sailing goals.   I've spent enough time onshore and offshore in a variety of vessels, racing and not, planing and not, CCA, IOR, IMS, IRC...to have a vague idea I what works for me and my family when cruising.   Accordingly, I've ended up with a strange boat with a strange lineage that according to the "common knowledge" as expressed by some is completely wrong, including having the wrong kind of dinghy.  I even have the wrong kind of anchor (actually that is a fact proved by empirical evidence).  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

I have heaved to (how awkward is that phrase?) on every boat I have owned, from a 16' Wayfarer to the current C&C 35. They will all do it, but sometimes you have to fiddle a bit...

Me too,...on heaving to(both points). It's the term that is difficult, not the maneuver. 

I find saying it this way is less awkward; 'After furling the mainsail, I rather enjoy just sitting while the boat is,... hove to'. 

1284806578_Hovetomizzen3(1of1).thumb.jpg.c469d39c96205581d785cd6f7436c45e.jpg

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Blue Crab said:

I'll betcha ol' ACCNICK knows a little something about shining those brass buttons on his blazer.

Never bothered, actually.

But I do know how to build my own boat, and sail it around the world. That's a pretty decent start on "knowing something" when it comes to sailing.

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the book, bought a sistership to her covergirl. 

Being able to heave-to can be an important skill for resting the crew. There are times when comfort and ride motion become important considerations. Sail offshore enough and you will experience those times. 

Most people who sail around with their wife, like me, want something that is safe, solid, comfortable, sails well, has no bad habits, and can carrry water, fuel, food, etc. for several weeks cruising. If you will not be offshore, seaberths diminish in importance, but I take my mom and pop cruiser offshore to Bermuda and back regularly (not this year, due to covid, sadly), so a seagoing layout is important. 

For such dual purpose boats, there is still plenty of valuable information in the book. It's short, concise, accessible. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, accnick said:

I see at least one book there that I wrote a lot of.

Can’t be Ashley (definitely the wrong century :-) ) or Tim (Brendan Voyage/Sinbad Voyage), as he quite recently passed away. Brion, too. Don Casey?  Nigel?  Hmm...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, I'm a bit confused why this particular book seems to have sparked this debate.

Desirable and Undesirable Characteristics of Offshore Yachts is a jumble of technical articles written 35 years ago by a series of experienced and opinionated people who didn't all agree with one another.  Some of the articles are better than others.  Some of them have aged better than others, often through no fault of authors.  Casting this book like it's a traditionalist manifesto seems strange to me.

There are lots of books out there which are technically out of date, but very worth the time: The Common Sense of Yacht Design, The Compleat Cruiser, From my Old Boat Shop, Of Yachts & Men, etc.  Desirable and Undesirable Characteristics of Offshore Yachts is well worth reading if it sounds interesting to you, but I wouldn't personally call it a classic or a must read.

If the book sounds interesting, then I highly recommend reading Rod Stephen's unfinished and unpublished book.   I found it more fun to read, largely because it's less edited and you get a lot more of Rod's voice and rambling anecdotes and stories.  Since it's less dryly technical, much of the wisdom is less concrete and more applicable to modern sailors.

1 hour ago, Diarmuid said:

The book is a sort of fetishism, an exercise in cargo-cult boat design. Maybe if we build little CCA yawls out of popsicle sticks and set them in a shrine and burn a really fine pipe tobacco before the altar, the good old days of graceful underballasted-yet-still-grossly-heavy patrician racing craft will return. Hear us, Lord Olin

The irony, of course, is that Lord Olin was very heavily involved in the creation of the IOR...

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

Can a Moore 24 really heave to?  Is this just a terminology thing?  

 

The term 'hove to' means quite different things to different nationalities.  After the queens birthday storm a report was initially released suggesting being hove-to was the most used successful strategy . . and then they discovered that many of the kiwi sailors were not using the term in the way US sailors do - they were also referring to 'lying ahull' and to 'forereaching' also as hove -to.

We and Webb will look at the future weather and sometimes 'park' our boats to let something pass below or above us - we will be sitting in nice weather 'hove-to' while the bad weather goes by elsewhere.  This is super common on the passage from the islands down to Kiwi land.  So that again is a different usage of 'hove-to' as a 'waiting technique' rather than a 'storm technique'. Pretty much any boat can do that no matter the design.

Silk (and most ketches) will hove-to perfectly, sitting very calmly, with just the mizzen up.

Hawk could heave to but it was not very stable or settled or comfortable (in decent sized waves), but she would forereach perfectly.

We sailed down in Chile when the pardey's were also there, and interestingly in the biggest blow they were in they did NOT heave-to nor use their para-anchor but instead forereached.

A bunch of this depends on the wave conditions (and sea room) - whether they are coming from a single direction (which is easier to set up for) or multiple directions (which makes being hove to less stable), and the wave shapes (big smooth ones and the boat will just bob up and down and feel good, bad shapes even if smaller can knock the boat around).

 

I disagree with an unconditioned statement that 'every boat can heave-to' - yea it is technically true, but leaves too much unsaid, because some boats can technically heave-to but they are not very stable in that attitude in difficult conditions and other techniques are way better for them.

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, accnick said:

Never bothered, actually.

But I do know how to build my own boat, and sail it around the world. That's a pretty decent start on "knowing something" when it comes to sailing.

There's a lot of that going on up in here, Nick. You a hedgehog or a fox?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, TwoLegged said:

Which direction should the keel point?

Water: inside or outside?

On the west coast of the US & Mexico? I kinda like mine pointing towards somewhere in China.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ishmael said:

I have heaved to (how awkward is that phrase?) on every boat I have owned, from a 16' Wayfarer to the current C&C 35. They will all do it, but sometimes you have to fiddle a bit...

Hove to.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

There's a lot of that going on up in here, Nick. You a hedgehog or a fox?

That would depend on who you ask, on any particular day. I once thought I knew a lot more than I probably do. Ironically, thinking you know a lot can get you started in the direction to understand how much more there is to learn.

I take some things as truths, others as guidelines, some as absolute BS. The trick is differentiating between them. Experience can help in that regard, provided you survive and learn from your mistakes.

"Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now."

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TwoLegged said:

I think that you are mistaken there, @fufkin.  The problem in 1979 was that the IOR penalised stability, so boats were built with as little of it as possible.  For example, when Denis Doyle's magnificent Frers 50-ft Moonduster  was launched in 1981, they were frantically bolting lad to the ceiling to try to reduce her rating.

That doesn't apply to contemporary designs.  The rating rules are less stupid, so new boats are not built with the keel style which Doug Peterson popularised in the 1970s.  That form concentrated weight high up, but contemporary boats keep the weight low, usually in a bulb.  So they have way more stability than the old IORs boats, and most rating rules now actively measure and enforce minimum stability requirements.

The irony of all this is is that it was the old dinosaurs like Olin Stephens who had created a rating rule which bred unsafe boats.  It was the younger designers from the margins of sailing who developed boats that that are significantly lighter, faster and safer than both the museum pieces which Stephens drew for the blazer-wearers of the NYYC and the diamond planform monsters spawned by his rule.

Olin Stephens was sorely disappointed in the instability that was bred by designers maxing out the IOR rule, and this is a large part of the book...an investigation as to what went wrong in the years between CCA and IOR. It is not necessarily a celebration of museum pieces, as you call them. You should read the book. I think you'll enjoy it as it has a lot of insight into an era that you seem keenly aware of, and goes through a deep analysis of its shortcomings. 

I've been mistaken before, at least a couple of times, and am happy to be corrected, but I'm not sure what exactly for in this case. My comments on a modern pizza wedge coming full circle and having similarities to an IOR were in the context of the book's discussion of AVS, as well as righting moment when inverted. 

It would be interesting to see where these old gents would end up on a discussion of an inverted POGO. I'll throw down a fiver that an old CCA has a better inverted righting moment score than a POGO. Having participated in a rollover test for an OPEN 60, my hunch is that the self righting claim is a bit of a dodge as they do the whole test with no rig on. As well, for a STIX type rating, the POGO gets a bonus for having positive flotation. I can't count how many pictures of inverted ocean racers I've seen that were not rated for positive flotation but remained floating when capsized, so there's that.

Another element of safety offshore is crew comfort. Have you ever sailed a modern beamy deep drafted racer? To me they are not nearly as comfortable as a narrower more conservative design. There is also the factor of upwind comfort and performance that some of the more modern lighter designs suffer a bit with.

When you say modern designs have more stability, that is true for initial stability only, not necessarily for vanishing stability, and they have an undesirable higher stability when inverted.

The way I look at it is, sure CCA was an era, IOR was an era, you have great boats designed outside of these rules from those eras, and perhaps a few within them. You also have some abominations. One of todays trends towards ULDB wider flatter hulls with deep draft, well its another trend with another bias. 

I think some of the ol dinosaurs still score bigger with upwind comfort in a seaway, so maybe there's still something to learn from them.

I'll mention it again. 'Surviving the Storm' is a great book that brings the 'Offshore Characteristics' discussion forward, analyzes the shortcomings of both CCA and IOR and arrives at a more modern conclusion as to what constitutes a safe offshore boat. Modern in the sense of plumb bows, max waterline and no overhangs, but maybe not in step with todays trends toward a higher length to beam ratio. Anything less than 4:1 was deemed positively uncivilized in a seaway and not a good bet in terms of how well your boat performs upside down.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, estarzinger said:

I disagree with an unconditioned statement that 'every boat can heave-to' - yea it is technically true, but leaves too much unsaid, because some boats can technically heave-to but they are not very stable in that attitude in difficult conditions and other techniques are way better for them.

I know that a Una rigged boat cannot heave to in any sense. It can do a "Stephens Stop", but that isn't comfortable, essentially ahull with the sails up. Getting a good stable configuration heaving to may take a sail combination unavailable on some boats. It is one of the beauties of a ketch or yawl rig. 

Heaving to isn't something that is done much anymore, but everyone should try it. Motion and noise calm down and you can make your lunch and espresso in peace. It is about 1% of the effort to do compared to deploying (and recovering) any kind of drag device. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DDW said:

I know that a Una rigged boat cannot heave to in any sense. It can do a "Stephens Stop", but that isn't comfortable, essentially ahull with the sails up. Getting a good stable configuration heaving to may take a sail combination unavailable on some boats. It is one of the beauties of a ketch or yawl rig. 

Heaving to isn't something that is done much anymore, but everyone should try it. Motion and noise calm down and you can make your lunch and espresso in peace. It is about 1% of the effort to do compared to deploying (and recovering) any kind of drag device. 

It's handy to heave to while you go down to the head, especially when there's traffic. If there's nobody around I'll just let the autopilot drive while I pee.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

not sure how to edit: My previous comment should read 'todays trend toward a lower length to beam ratio', not 'higher'. Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

The full keel aficionados boast about how they can hold a course like on rails. I call that "doesn't turn well." The displacement aficionados boast about calm motion in rough seas. I call that "not moving." They wax romantically about restful tradewind cruising. I say "boredom."

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Borracho said:

The full keel aficionados boast about how they can hold a course like on rails. I call that "doesn't turn well." The displacement aficionados boast about calm motion in rough seas. I call that "not moving." They wax romantically about restful tradewind cruising. I say "boredom."

That in no way diminishes the validity of their choices. They are buying the boat for themselves, not for you or me. I happen to prefer a deep fin, spade rudder, tall carbon rig, paradoxically on a wooden boat with a 1930's interior aesthetic, but I appreciate the different boats out there as other people's ideas of the pursuit of happiness. 

If an Island Packet is what makes you happy, that's what you should sail. If a Pogo makes you happy, that's what you should sail. Classic, catamaran, meter boat, catboat, whatever. The goal is happiness, and whatever gets you there.

 

  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Cruisin Loser said:

That in no way diminishes the validity of their choices. They are buying the boat for themselves, not for you or me. I happen to prefer a deep fin, spade rudder, tall carbon rig, paradoxically on a wooden boat with a 1930's interior aesthetic, but I appreciate the different boats out there as other people's ideas of the pursuit of happiness. 

If an Island Packet is what makes you happy, that's what you should sail. If a Pogo makes you happy, that's what you should sail. Classic, catamaran, meter boat, catboat, whatever. The goal is happiness, and whatever gets you there.

 

I didn't diminish the validity of anyone's choices. You colored it with negativity. Only pointing out differing opinions of each quality. If a sailor seeks not turning, moving slowly and avoiding the thrill of lively sailing so be it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, estarzinger said:

The term 'hove to' means quite different things to different nationalities.  After the queens birthday storm a report was initially released suggesting being hove-to was the most used successful strategy . . and then they discovered that many of the kiwi sailors were not using the term in the way US sailors do - they were also referring to 'lying ahull' and to 'forereaching' also as hove -to.

Then they were wrong.

Hove to is a very specific thing, not an opinion.

Heaving to ~ Boating NZ

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as an aside, and in reference to the original post in this thread quoting a review lamenting how you can't buy "fishermen's anchors" today: you can! They're still used in modern longline fisheries, in my personal experience. You can often order them special from commercial fishing supply stores and magazines. I toyed with the idea of using one as a spare anchor for my Catalina 22 but they're incredibly awkward to stow and don't provide holding power per weight comparable to a Danforth or newer style.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, fufkin said:

I've been mistaken before, at least a couple of times, and am happy to be corrected, but I'm not sure what exactly for in this case. My comments on a modern pizza wedge coming full circle and having similarities to an IOR were in the context of the book's discussion of AVS, as well as righting moment when inverted. 

Your mistake is in failing to distinguish between two types of beamy boat:

  1. a beamy IOR boat which carried some of its ballast in the ceiling, and the rest high up in the keel
  2. a modern beamy boat, which carries its ballast in a deep bulb

That gives the modern boat a higher AVS than the IOR boat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DDW said:

???

Don't know about a Pogo, but most cruising boats can be made to heave to effectively.

I was pleasantly surprised to find mine hove to quite easily. Took a bit of fiddling to work out the traveller position to keep it sitting still but not much more than you’d normally do. 

It never ceases to fascinate me watching the water to windward settle down, it’s like magic.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Then they were wrong.

Hove to is a very specific thing, not an opinion.

Heaving to ~ Boating NZ

 

Even among American usage, that is a SUPER narrow definition -  how a sloop rig will often do it but for instance is not how ketches commonly heave-to.  

And you may (or may not) realize that the Brits do in fact define some terms differently than American English and neither is 'wrong' per say.

I would think a more 'complete and correct' definition would be something like 'balancing the sails, and rudder in the combination which most stably and completely stops (or nearly stops) the boat's forward motion with its bow pointed up into the waves at roughly the angle used in close reaching'

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Borracho said:

The full keel aficionados boast about how they can hold a course like on rails. I call that "doesn't turn well." The displacement aficionados boast about calm motion in rough seas. I call that "not moving." They wax romantically about restful tradewind cruising. I say "boredom."

Put down the beer El Borracho. No one is saying we all have to sail Westsail 32s. 

Cripes. This place is getting like Cruisers Forum. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, accnick said:

Generally speaking, designers are a lot more clever than rule-writers.

There are more of them. 100's of designers will find the loopholes that <10 rule-writers came up with.

2 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Hove to is a very specific thing, not an opinion.

Our 40' cat would heave to quite well. It did have a tendency to rocket forward until you got it balanced.

It would also lie ahull quite happily in moderate seas like a big raft. Useful for when we broke a spin halyard and shrimped the whole sail. 

18 hours ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

Did you like it? Hate it?

Read it a LONG time ago. It is dated in many ways about what a desirable offshore boat is. I'd be super happy in a Pogo and not so pleased in a Bermuda 40. The motion of the Pogo upwind wouldn't be as nice, but I'd get to my destination much faster if it was off the wind or a reaching course.

Jud - read Steve Dashew's books that are now generously free. I think the weather books is very valuable, especially for those in the mid latitudes.

https://setsail.com/free-books/

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, TwoLegged said:

Your mistake is in failing to distinguish between two types of beamy boat:

  1. a beamy IOR boat which carried some of its ballast in the ceiling, and the rest high up in the keel
  2. a modern beamy boat, which carries its ballast in a deep bulb

That gives the modern boat a higher AVS than the IOR boat.

 And your mistake is not inputing hull shape as one of the key variables in determining AVS, in addition to ballast, displacement and CE, which is why it probably wouldn't be tough to locate various IOR hulls with similar AVS numbers to a POGO. I am happy to be proven wrong for the benefit of the discussion.

The old school from 'Desirable Characteristics...' pushed for 130 degrees as an offshore standard, I think some shorter POGOs, or one of them not sure which is 124 degrees but I can't find to many numbers(maybe ShaggyBaxter can chime in...Oh wait he just showed up as I write this!!). These measurements are not necessarily rock solid when you account for sails on/off or carrying loads. Still, its not as if every single IOR boat was languishing at 115 degrees or something. 

Maybe have a look at the AVS curve of a catamaran. I won't be the guy to start the bar fight as to what the ultimate right AVS number is for an 'offshore safe boat', but will question the inverted stability stats of IMOCA/POGO type hulls, even with canting keels to aid with their righting moment.

Here is a good short article with special mention to the AVS/LPS of 'modern flat racers'.

https://www.oceannavigator.com/assessing-stablity/

And here is a mention of other stability variables that often escaped measurement.

https://cdn.ussailing.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Stability-and-Hydrostatics-Datasheet-Explanation.pdf

...and here is another good article, also mentioning hull shape, free board, and loading as variables on LPS. It makes good mention of the notion that a lighter boat's LPS will be more adversely affected by loading from initial light ship than an initially heavier boat. It also mentions that lately topical IOR dinosaur, the Swan 44, with a very healthy LPS rating of 135.

https://www.practical-sailor.com/safety-seamanship/in-search-of-stability

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TwoLegged said:

Your mistake is in failing to distinguish between two types of beamy boat:

  1. a beamy IOR boat which carried some of its ballast in the ceiling, and the rest high up in the keel
  2. a modern beamy boat, which carries its ballast in a deep bulb

That gives the modern boat a higher AVS than the IOR boat.

I'm not sure anyone is or should be using the typical  flat-out IOR race boat as an example of anything good when it comes to sailing qualities or seaworthy designs.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, fufkin said:

 And your mistake is not inputing hull shape as one of the key variables in determining AVS, in addition to ballast, displacement and CE, which is why it

If I had made such an omission, then you would have a good point.  But I wasn't writing a treatise on stability; I was simply critiquing your conflation of wide boats without considering that one had its ballast in the ceiling and the other has its ballast in deep bulb.

Link to post
Share on other sites

AVS . . . . the French centerboard boats used commonly in the south always interested me. They (mostly) have low AVS, but in return they will not trip on their keels nor pivot on and round up in big waves, and they tend to be extremely stable running off especially when a rear dagger is added.  We knew several that spend years down in the southern ocean with quite good 'storm success'.  It just demonstrates how complicated and multi-dimensional the storm safety issue is. OFC they are not (common) among any racing fleet so would not be taken into consideration in racing oriented literature.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TwoLegged said:

If I had made such an omission, then you would have a good point.  But I wasn't writing a treatise on stability; I was simply critiquing your conflation of wide boats without considering that one had its ballast in the ceiling and the other has its ballast in deep bulb.

Like I said, maybe keep ballast out of it to avoid mistaking my explanation for your imagined conflation and have a look at the stability curve of a catamaran. Bye for now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, fufkin said:

Like I said, maybe keep ballast out of it to avoid mistaking my explanation for your imagined conflation and have a look at the stability curve of a catamaran

Keep ballast out of a discussion of stability?  If that makes you happy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TwoLegged said:

Keep ballast out of a discussion of stability?  If that makes you happy.

You seem to have difficulty in isolating hull shape as a key variable, so as a learning exercise only.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Things that matter in terms of self righting:

- VCG
- beam (skinny is better)
- rig weight, especially the weight of furled sails aloft
- COACHROOF BUOYANCY

Things that matter less:
- freeboard unless really extreme one way or another
- IOR induced hull distortions such as bustles, pinched ends
- fluids in tanks, unless the tanks are really wide

The way various ratings rules have ignored the coachroof buoyancy is silly. If the coachroof is not damaged, it contributes significantly to self-righting. If damaged, and the hull is full of water, you are probably not going to self right.

Big curvy shapes like IMOCA 60 coachroofs are required to meet the rule AVS. A Pogo 12.5 has a small enough coachroof that it doesn't matter too much.

Here's a POGO 12.5 stability curve. The lower curve is with the keel up. The Positive Area under the curve with keel down is much more than the negative area. It's actually quite impressive and better than I would have expected. The deep keel is probably the main reason.

 

image.png.2a725f0b221dd08b7daaa478a2f7da13.png

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, fufkin said:

You seem to have difficulty in isolating hull shape as a key variable, so as a learning exercise only.

I have no such difficulty, and am unsure why you are so keen to project one onto me.

Have a lovely weekend.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, TwoLegged said:

Your mistake is in failing to distinguish between two types of beamy boat:

  1. a beamy IOR boat which carried some of its ballast in the ceiling, and the rest high up in the keel
  2. a modern beamy boat, which carries its ballast in a deep bulb

That gives the modern boat a higher AVS than the IOR boat.

2 beamy boats and one carries its ballast way deeper. Got that part.

Yet strangely you'll not have a problem finding IOR boats with an AVS close to a POGO/IMOCA, or better in some cases.(Though as Zonker mentions, 124 isn't bad)

Regarding my keen habit of projecting and conflating, I don't see any mention of or acknowledgement of hull shape or any other factors in AVS in either your comments or responses, just this vague statement and doubling down about two beamy boats with different draft and ballast placement, so what am I supposed to do...infer that you've said things that you didn't say? I can only go by what you say, not by what you don't.

Again, hull shape matters, especially with stability when inverted. (catamaran)

Depth of ballast/VCG sure matters as well, but as part of a whole package. If you start to narrow the hull, a shallower draft can score a much higher AVS than the big beamy racer with 15 foot draft.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, fufkin said:

Regarding my keen habit of projecting and conflating, I don't see any mention of or acknowledgement of hull shape or any other factors in AVS in either your comments or responses, just this vague statement and doubling down about two beamy boats with different draft and ballast placement, so what am I supposed to do...infer that you've said things that you didn't say? I can only go by what you say, not by what you don't.

Fufkin, you are persisting in making a mountain out of nothing.  You mentioned two eras of beamy hulls, and simply I noted that your comparison omitted a huge difference in approaches to ballast between the two eras.  That's all.

You have now made about 27,000 followup posts trying to pick a fight about that, including this latest one where you denounce me for not having mentioned every other factor involved in stability.   I have no idea what on earth you are trying to demonstrate by all this, but it's bizarre to watch.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, fufkin said:
2 hours ago, TwoLegged said:

If I had made such an omission, then you would have a good point.  But I wasn't writing a treatise on stability; I was simply critiquing your conflation of wide boats without considering that one had its ballast in the ceiling and the other has its ballast in deep bulb.

As and afterthought, a whole lot of that book was about vanishing stability for IOR boats, if I'm phrasing that correctly. Its interesting that today's pancake pizza wedges seem to be a little bit of a throwback in that regard. 

 

You do realize that your critique is about comments I made in the context of a book you haven't read, or no? Any comparison of an IOR boats ballast or draft with a 'modern' deep drafted flat racer is yours, not mine, so I'm not sure how conflation comes into it. You were the one who mentioned two eras with beamy hulls, not me. I said todays racers were a throwback in a certain context, which I guess was misunderstood.

My afterthought comparison was regarding AVS, and how both IOR boats and todays style of racer probably have similar AVS numbers in comparison to more conservative designs. That's it. This is not picking a fight, it is fighting for clarification in the midst of obfuscation. Big difference.

You have a nice weekend as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Suitability of any boat comes down to its operational requirements.

A boat is a vehicle and it's chosen for it's characteristics like any other vehicle.   Where, when, how far, how many and what stores.

Generally, offshore boats should be seakindly and habitable.  No violent motions,  comfortable, as in low Motion sickness index (MSI). Forgiving of inexpert operation. Have a good steering response, have good shelter above deck and an offshore interior, with good sea berths.

Capable well manned hard crews can make a very un-seakindly boat seaworthy in heavy weather.  But the same craft may eventually incapacitate a short handed crew.

MSI limits can be next to impossible to achieve in some combinations of sea state and heading without a resonabale displacement to waterplane area.

Beamy light displacement Wedge type hulls are best as limited coastal cruisers.  The Pogo 12.5 is typical of this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, fufkin said:

Any comparison of an IOR boats ballast or draft with a 'modern' deep drafted flat racer is yours, not mine, so I'm not sure how conflation comes into it.

No so, Fufkin.  Here's the quote where you suggested a comparison between the two types:

21 hours ago, fufkin said:

As and afterthought, a whole lot of that book was about vanishing stability for IOR boats, if I'm phrasing that correctly. Its interesting that today's pancake pizza wedges seem to be a little bit of a throwback in that regard. 

And here's my reply which pointed out that ballast placement is a key distinction:

20 hours ago, TwoLegged said:

I think that you are mistaken there, @fufkin.  The problem in 1979 was that the IOR penalised stability, so boats were built with as little of it as possible.

Now, for the love of god, please stop this bizarre exercise.

Link to post
Share on other sites