2- CRUISING ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DIFERENT TYPES OF HULLS AND SAILBOATS
On the cover, Saare 38.2, above Dufour 390, two cruising boats with about the same length (11.20, 11.40m) with a very different beam (3.66, 3.88m), two very different transoms ant two very different cruising philosophies.
The racing speed advantage of very beamy boats with large transoms has little do to with cruising, unless you cruise in the most spartan way. For planing you need a very light sailboat, so you will not carry 400 or 500 liters water, will not have 150 or 200 liters diesel aboard, neither a lot of spar parts, neither bicycles or scooters, books, groceries, wine and beer, all the stuff that most that live for several months a year, or permanently, carry in a sailboat to allow for being autonomous for 15 days, or more.
Besides, even if big brands main market cruisers are very influenced by the looks of very beamy downwind solo ocean racers they are very different sailboats and we can see that if we compare a racer and a cruiser, with about the same length. While a Class 40 with a 4.5m beam has a displ. of 4600kg and about 1700kg of ballast in a torpedo, in a keel with 3.00 meter draft (plus 2X750 liters of water ballast), a Hanse 410 has a 4.29m beam, displaces 9680kg, with 2370kg of ballast in a keel with a 2.2m draft, being the class 40 a longer boat, with 12.18m to 11.99m hull length.
On top, a Hanse 410, above, a 40class racer
The Hanse is more than 2 times heavier, it has no water ballast, it has a 24%BD that does not remotely compare with the 37%B/D (in average) of a 40 class racer, because if the class 40 had not a 3.00m draft, but a 2.1m draft like the Hanse, and maintained the same RM, it would need to have a hugely bigger B/D.
So, yes, a class 40 racer plans easily downwind with medium winds and due to the high B/D and big draft, it has an acceptable performance upwind (for a race boat), but the Hanse will not plan in medium winds and due to the lack of ballast has not a good performance upwind, specially with some waves, that will increase exponentially wave drag on a beamy boat. The Class 40 has the power to partially overcome the drag disadvantage, the Hanse has not.
A much lighter and easier to plan performance cruiser, like the Pogo 44, charged for cruising, has advantages mostly in medium high and strong winds (sailing downwind or reaching), conditions that most cruisers try to avoid. Most cruisers, even if some sail offshore from time to time, do mostly coastal or semi-coastal cruising, and try to avoid strong or mid-high winds, and not only inexperienced sailors, but also experienced sailors, that have been cruising for many years.
This year in the Aegean, I was checking with my neighbours that were cruisers like me, not charters, if they would be aboard next morning, when I would be leaving, because with the med mooring system you will never know if the anchor of your neighbour is over your chain. I was pretty sure mine was more far away, but I was afraid that, particularly one of them, that arrived later, had his chain over mine.
Sailing with my boat in conditions most cruisers would try to avoid, and that my wife only accepts if it is for escaping worse conditions.
Both of them would be there, in case I took their anchors out, and both had warned me that next day the wind would be strong. I was worried because I had not seen strong winds on the meteo, and I asked how strong? 20/22 it was what they were talking about as strong winds. I would strongly avoid to sail in the med upwind with that wind, that generates nasty short period waves, and makes my wife seasick, but I have no problem going downwind, specially, as it was the case, on the previous days the Meltemi had not been blowing at 30krs, or over, making for a nasty sea.
However they have a point there, because with all the increasing weather instability those 22kts could easily turn into 30k, with stronger gusts, and inexperienced cruisers should avoid that.But I knew that even if that happened, I would not have problems because all I need to go safely downwind in those conditions is a small bit of the genoa out.
Most will chose light conditions to sail, and when conditions are hard and they really have to sail, they choose to motor.
I would have full boat control, on a boat that has a big safety stability, in case things become worse, and the winds even stronger, and I am a relatively experienced sailor.
I knew that the bigger problem was not sailing safely in those conditions, but to convince my wife to do it, and she only accepted because I was sailing to put distance between us and the stronger winds that would arrive next day to the zone where we were, and would remain there for more than a week.
Over the years she had improved much more in her skills to analyse the meteo, than in her sailing skills, where the progress is far from being so good. I guess that sudden interest in meteo happened after an incident, several years ago, when a forecasted F8 turned into a F10, South of Crete, and I had to stay 24 hours at the wheel, with six meter steep waves passing over the boat. I can say that after that I have learned to be more careful, to analyze with bigger detail meteo evolution and to give always a safety margin to what is forecasted, because reality can always be worse (or better) than what is previewed.
This are the conditions most cruisers that like to sail will consider ideal
Most cruisers try to avoid medium high winds and chose weaker winds to sail, many times motoring in weak winds, and motoring upwind when they have to beat, no matter if the wind and sea are perfect for sailing. Even the ones that like to sail rarely chose to sail in winds over 20kt, unless they are doing an Ocean passage, but then, they have no choice.
And, even the ones that make an Ocean passage from time to time, use their boats a lot more in costal conditions, and those are already a minority. Most cruisers have never made an Ocean passage on their boats, and many that have, have made them in other boats, bigger boats with bigger crews. Also, almost all that make ocean passages chose to do so in the "right" season where the winds rarely are over 20kt, almost always downwind, and most of the time around 13 to16 knots.
I have already been told by two circumnavigators that the worst weather they ever got in their boats was in the Med. All this is important to understand what type of characteristics a main market sailboat should have to please the biggest number of cruisers and their sailing and cruising program.
Outbound 44/46, a moderatly beam voyage boat ( 4.11m) with a 35.7% BD with a 1.98, modified fin keel with a bulb, 12.7T displacement and 10.6m2 sail area.
Narrower boats with the beam not all pulled back suffer less in their loss of performance when the boats are charged for cruising, because the increase of wet surface, when heavily charged, is much smaller then the increase of wet surface, in a much more flat hull of a very beamy boat, and even worse, if all the beam is pulled aft.
If in lighter winds narrower boats in light condition are already faster than very beamy boats, they become even faster when both boats are charged, because they lose less speed when charged. Any possible advantage of a beamy boat downwind and beam reaching, in stronger winds, is annulled or much diminished by the superior increase of wet surface. Only in stormy strong winds can a charged modern hugely beamy main market cruiser achieve planning speeds.
Without being hugely beamy the HR 44 (2014) is already a lot beamier (4.20) than the previos HR 43 (4.08m) and newer models, like the 400/40c, are much beamier (4,18m)
However, almost all new cruising main market sailboats are today extremely beamy, with all the beam pulled aft, having that type of hull become today the norm. Even brands like Hallberg-Rassy are using that hull shape. In what regards sailing they are not only penalized by a huge max beam, but also (most of them) by the huge increase of beam in the forward sections, to allow for a larger front cabin, sometimes two front cabins instead of one. They are also penalised by the big increase of freeboard to increase the interior height.
Recently I had a brand new Oceanis 40.1 (11.98m) side by side with my boat. My boat is a bit longer (12.46m to 11.98) but the Oceanis freeboard is about 22cm higher, while the cabin is more than 15cm higher. That means almost 40cm higher and 26cm wider than a 48cm longer boat. And the Oceanis is far from being, among the main brands, the widest boat, a Bavaria C42 (11.99 HL) has a 4.20m beam and the new Hanse 410 (11.99 HL) beats all records, with a 4.28m beam, on a 39ft boat.
From the top, HR 44, HR 43 MKIII, HR 400
But curiously most are convinced that new models are always faster than previous models, and that impression is given by the test sails published in sailing magazines, where all new boats are presented as having always a very good performance, but of course the boats are test sailed without any charge, not even with full tanks.
And worse, they are not only tested in light conditions (not charged), as they are not tested in standard conditions, as it would seem to be normal. All new boats are tested in light sea conditions, and when the winds are light, with a huge code 0 or gennaker, and that allows the tester to say that the boat has a good performance in light winds, giving flattering figures for speed on those conditions.
But, of course, the code 0, or a geenaker are not only not standard equipment, but also most cruisers don't use them, because they are fragile, very expensive huge sails, that are difficult to handle on a 40 or 45 ft boat by a solo sailor (even with the help of a non-sailor wife). These sails cannot be left permanently mounted, even if in a light furler, because they will unfurl and be destroyed in one of the frequent + than 40kt squalls (it happened to me, and in a port). Those sails require a considerable effort not only to be deployed, as to be taken down and stored, not to mention that they occupy a considerable space when stored, space that many times, and in many boats, does not exist.
Above the Dufour 44 Yachting world magazine sail tested, below, the one that Voile et voiliers magazine sail tested.
Even in a boat like mine, that has a sail locker with space for a storm sail and a geenaker, deploying the gennaker is not easy, because the sail locker is also the space where 3 of the eight fenders are stored, as well as the space were garbage is stored (sometimes we only go to a port after 15 days cruising), so deploying the sail implies to take out and secure the garbage bags, taking out and securing the fenders, taking the big sail out (that is tightly packed) , put everything inside again and deploy the sail. Lots of work for getting in light winds, one knot more speed, than with my big 135% genoa.
Below the Dufour 44 Yacht de magazine sail tested
When boats do not have a proper sail locker, things are even worse, because the best place to store such a sail is under the bow bed, so it implies to take the mattresses out, the plywood panels out, and put out the geenaker or code 0 out, by the hatch.
Doing this alone, while the wife is at the steering wheel, is even more difficult, gives a lot of work, and takes a lot of time. And it is good not to forget that the ones that mostly buy these boats are older sailors, or at the retirement age, or near it and don't have the energy, or the stamina of old days.
They are also using the biggeroptional genoa, with optional genoa rails and better quality genoa, as well as an optional six winches set-up. The Dufour 44 comes standard with only two winches. Below you can see the optional genoa, that was used in all the tests, like the gennaker, as well as the 6 winches option.
But this is not the only difference sailboats tested by magazines have towards standard models: they are tested almost always with a genoa and not with the standard self tacking jib. Of course, the genoa gives a much better performance with light and medium winds in all points of sail, but it is an expensive option, because you pay not only for the bigger sail, but also for the two expensive genoa rails, that have to be mounted, and for more winches that this option demands (also needed for the gennaker). You can find it odd, and you can try, but I could not find in the net a single picture of the Dufour sailing in the standard configuration.
Note that I am not saying that the Dufour was favored in tests big over other big brands' boats in what regards this situation, even if I am taking it as an example in what regards test sails.The Dufour 44 offers a nice optional equipment, that even if it makes it much more expensive, and more difficult to sail, it will give it a much better sail performance.
They use also optional better quality expensive sails as well as other performance options, that also improve sailing and speed over the standard boat and use the classic main with battens instead of the furling (in the mast) smaller main, that 90% buyers would chose, that is standard in many boats, and it is an option on the Dufour. Also, they find a way to almost never test sailboats in what are normal sailing conditions, testing them many times in semi protected waters, and almost never upwind, with medium high winds and waves, where these boats generate a huge drag, have not enough power, and will have an uncomfortable and lousy performance.
We can see that contrary to main market cruisers, most contemporary performance cruisers are not hugely beamy boats, most are moderately beamy, some few are even narrow, and only performance cruisers maximized for downwind sailing on the trade winds, like Pogo, are very beamy. This shows that hugely beamy cruising boats have an overall inferior sailing performance than moderately beam sailboats, or even narrow ones.
Above, Hanse 510 and below. Italia 14.98
Even so, if we look at performance cruisers we will see that they are beamier than race boats, and becoming beamier with each new model, but always much less beamier than main market boats. Look at what is happening with Solaris, X-yachts or Grand Soleil, and the increase in beam on their newer performance cruiser models. This increase in beam has nothing to do with improving performance, quite the contrary, but with offering a good sailing performance, offering at the same an interior space as big as possible.
These are two cruising boats with about the same length but completely different philosophies in what regards cruising and sailing.
While older cruiser-racers were used as much as cruising boats, as racing boats, the new ones, that are known as performance cruisers, are used much more for cruising than for racing, and the design evolution reflects that, with the cruising program taking priority over the racing program in the design criteria, comfort and interior space over sailing speed.
They are becoming increasingly beamier, not to be faster, but to offer a more voluminous interior for cruising, and also to sail with less heel.
The Hanse 510 (above) is huge for a 50ft sailboat. The Italia 14.89 ( below), seems a much smaller boat, when in reality it has only less 2cm of hull length.
The ones produced in bigger series offer a version for "cruising" and another one, that they call a "racing" version, but it is just a better equipped version, with the same hull, a better equipped sailboat that we can compare with older cruiser racers in sail hardware, because almost all that is offered in the "racing" version, was offered standard, on the older cruiser-racer type.
Jeanneau has pioneered this route many years ago with the Sunfast, that at the time was just a better equipped version of the the Sun Odyssey, with more draft, a taller rig, better sails and better sail hardware, but with the same hull.
The Hanse is a fat design with a 4.91m beam and a high freeboard, the IY14.98 has 4.34m and a moderate freeboard. The Hanse displaces 16,5T, the IY 12.0T. The Hanse has a 26.4% B/D on a less efficient L keel the IY has 37.3% in a lead T keel, with a bigger 2.6m draft. The IY is incomparably faster, with a much better safety stability and dynamic stability, and more comfortable upwind, while the Hanse offers a much bigger overall stability, a much bigger interior and will sail with considerably less heel. Also, and very important to the ones that like sailing, the IY 14.98 will be able to continue sailing, making good speed with winds that will force the Hanse to use the engine.
We can also see that high performance cruiser-racers, that are more used for racing than for cruising, like JPK, Sun fast, Sydney, NEO, are not beamier than race boats, and are considerably less beamier than the performance cruisers supra mentioned. Here the design criteria takes more in consideration racing, than cruising.
Some of the beamier performance cruisers, like for instance the Grand Soleil, can be turned into a very competitive IRC/ORC racer, using the same hull, in a "race" version, that is the basic version with a huge number of extras, almost doubling the cost of a standard boat, but for each boat sold with top specifications there are 20 or 30 boats sold with standard specifications. And that does not mean that the boat would not be faster if it was narrower and with more ballast, it means simply that the compromise they have taken is a very good one in what regards rating, and the ability to reach it.
Both boats offer 3 cabins, even if for charter the Hanse can have two forward cabins (offering one more) being the main difference the Hanse offering three heads, instead of two, and of course, a more voluminous interior, that can be compensated by the better finish, and better quality design on the Italia 14.98.
These beamy performance cruisers, namely the newer Grand Soleil (44 and the 40), are not designed to be as fast as they coud be, but to offer the best performance with an interior as voluminous as possible, without detracting much the performance, while maintaining a very good and competitive IRC/ORC rating.
We can look at a very curious example from one of the best designers of performance cruisers that can be used successfully as IRC/ORC racers, Matteo Poli. In 2017 he designed for Italia yachts a 40ft performance cruiser, the 11.98, with a HL of 11.98m and 3.98m beam and five years later another 40ft performance cruiser, now for Grand Soleil, with a 11.90m HL and a 4.07m beam.
Another big difference is the price, being the smaller boat more expensive. The reasons are explained in the article. Even if the price was the same, preferring one or the other has to do with what one values more in what regards to cruising and sailing.
Below the two layouts, first the one of the Hanse 510 and then the one of the Italia 14.98. note the much finer bow entries on the Italia 14.98.
Some would conclude that the increase in beam of 9 cm would indicate a design evolution towards a faster boat, and that the new boat would be faster, but they would be wrong because the ORC rating of the IY 11.98 is higher, meaning a slightly faster boat, meaning that actually the Grand Soleil 40 can eventually beat the Italia 11.98 in IRC/ORC, while sailing slowlier.
Narrow performance cruisers have become quite a rarity due to three reasons, a high racing rating due to the need of a very low CG and a lot of ballast; sailing with a lot more heel than much beamier sailboats; and because to offer the same interior space they have to be a lot longer, and that means more expensive in several ways, even if they need a smaller sail area.
Above the "fat" Hanse 460, below, the elegant IY 14.98. Both offer three cabins, but the Hanse offers a much bigger interior and one more head
However there are several performance cruisers that are not as beamy as Grand Soleil or Solaris newer models, and that did not follow that tendency for beamier hulls, like for instance the new models from Italia yachts, where their 49fter, the 14.98, has a beam that is not far from the one of the GS44 (4.34 to 4.27m) and both much smaller than the Pogo 44 (42ft) beam (4.50m).
I have been following a cruiser that also does some ocean minor races ( the ARC and other Transats as well as some coastal races, more for amateur crews than for top racers) where he has obtained some incredible results sailing fast narrow performance cruisers, first in a new (2014) old designed (1979) Luffe 37 and after that in a special edition Faurby 396 (Jesper Bank edition) built in 2010, but with the hull designed back in 1998.
In fact when he bought the Luffe 37 I discussed with him, in an American sail forum that I used to frequent, the choice of that boat, and I was probably wrong in telling him that the newer, a bit more beamier, Luffe 36 was faster. The Luffe 36 is a narrow boat, with a 3.16m beam, but the 37 is even narrower, with a 2.75m beam. He made the 2015 ARC, making 3rd in the cruising division and sailing faster than most bigger sailboats, and they have done it sailing duo handed.
Luffe 37 MKIII
Then, with a 3rd hand Faurby 36, that had previously won (in 2010) the Palby Fyn Cup (Baltic), he won the double handed class on the 2021 Aegean 600 edition, one that had very difficult sea and wind conditions, with two days with winds over F8. And in 2022 I was following his great performance on the Ostar, the North Transatlantic solo Race (Plymouth UK to Newport USA) where he was leading, beating much bigger and more modern boats in real time, when he was forced to retire due to a problem with the autopilot.
Faurby 396 jesper Bank edition
Just to give you an idea of the performance, before having problems the Faurby 396 was sailing slightly ahead of a Pegasus 50 (then1st and 2nd in IRC), also sailed by a great sailor, and no, the Pegasus was not being sailed slowly, in fact it was ahead of a 40Class racer and ended up winning that difficult race (North Atlantic solo Transat).
In what concerns performance cruisers you have to look individually case by case, but you will see that the ones more used for racing have not increased significantly their beam, while practically all the ones used more for cruising (the vast majority) have increased substantially their beam to offer a more voluminous interior for cruising.
The Pegasus 50 that won the 2022 Ostar transatlantic race.You can see also on this photo the much smaller Faurby 396, sailing ahead and not far. The Faurby led the race till having to retire due to auto pilot problems.
There is an exception in what regards very beamy hulls promoting speed in performance cruisers. I am talking about very light boats with the hulls derived from solo downwind racers.
Faurby 396 jesper Bank edition
Like the solo downwind racers, they are hugely beamy and very light, and if they are not charged, as most cruising boats are, and are cruised in a spartan way, they have a very good performance downwind and beam reaching,one that is better than the one of most less beamier performance cruisers, specially if both boats are cruised solo or with a short crew. The better performance is due to an easier control downwind that is translated in more speed. They are also faster when both boats are used on autopilot, because they need less corrections than a narrower boat, and that makes the autopilot more efficient and therefore the boat faster on autopilot. They can be sailed on autopilot in conditions and speeds that would need a good hand at the wheel, on a narrower performance cruiser.
I am talking about boats like the Pogo that even if they have a less good performance upwind than most performance cruisers, they still have, on that point of sail, a much closer performance towards them, than towards main market cruising sailboats, even expensive ones.
Pogo 12.50 with performance modifications (backstay). Huge beam (4.50m) All the boats below are performance cruisers with different types of hull, from narrow boats to moderate beam to beamy performance cruisers.
Their pointing ability is much worse but they can do more speed in a more open course and compensate much of the diference in VMG. Curiously I found out that the difference to my boat is much bigger in weaker winds (less than 12kt), where the big pointing difference continues to exist, but the difference in speed in a more open course is not so big, or it is practically inexistant.
And I found this not only through data taken from races but sailing my boat upwind to the same destination of a well sailed Pogo 12.50. I had at the time an old jib (I had ripped the genoa, the jib was a reserve sail), my boat was slightly underpowered, and the old sail did not perform as well as if it were new, even so I was considerably faster in light wind while the difference in stronger wind (16kt) was very small (VMG), if there was a difference at all, but the difference in pointing angles was so big that it took me some time to understand that we where sailing to the same port.
A sistership of my boat, a Comet 41s, moderate beam (3.92m)
I had also sailed several times upwind with RMs and compared to them the difference of performance is way bigger, because if the RM pointing ability is also considerable worse, they cannot make the same speed as a Pogo on a more open course, even if they can be fast downwind and beam reaching, but nowhere as fast as a Pogo.
Except for very light spartan performance cruisers directly derived from downwind solo racers (that are few), main market cruisers have seen their beam and freeboard increase much more than the one of performance cruisers where, contrary to main market boats, that tendency is not so generalized, and it is more moderated in beam increase.
Luffe 40.04, a narrow beam boat (3.40m)
Today Main Market Cruisesrs, have beams and freeboards that would be unbelievable some decades ago, and of course the huge beam or the huge freeboard have nothing to do with a better sailing performance, quite the contrary, they have all to do with offering the biggest possible interior.
Some 45/46ft boats can offer now two cabins at the bow and a small dingy garage, and for that to be possible, the bow sections become a lot beamier and the max beam is all pulled back, to a huge transom.
Faubry 400, a narrow boat (3.40m). All the above and below sailboats are performance cruisers. Directly below the Grand Soleil 40, a beamy cruiser with a 4.07m beam
With a design criteria prioritizing so much the interior space, versus sailing potential, it is amazing how contemporary Main Market Cruising designs can sail so well, and that is a tribute to the NAs that design them. However that does not mean that they sail better than older designs, with a more moderate beam, at least in what regards overall performance.
However, they sail with less heel, are more stable downwind and beam reaching, and that can also be considered as sailing well, at least in what regards cruising, where for many speed or sailing fun is not important.
Also, even if mounting and deploying solo huge geenakers solo continues to be difficult, and hard work, demanding a very experienced sailor, new designs, because they are more stable, make that job slightly easier.
But loss of performance while sailing is not the only problem with the new main market, hugely beamy cruising designs.
Solaris 40, a beamy performance cruiser with a 4.10 m beam.
Below Italia 11.98, a moderately to beamy performance cruiser with 3.97m beam here on the more racing version, the Fuoriserie with another version more cruising oriented called Bellissima.
Very beamy boats have a huge initial stability and don't need for sailing a B/D as big as narrower boats, and therefore they tend to have considerably less B/D (especially the less expensive ones) than the previous less beamier boats, and that means that for the same stiffness needed for sailing, the AVS and the safety stability are considerably smaller.
This has not become yet a problem in what regards performance cruisers, that for having more power have a bigger B/D, and still have a considerable ballast, but has become a possible safety problem in main market cruisers, specially in less expensive ones, that in some cases have an AVS between 100 and 115 degrees. And worse, this tendency is expanding to some expensive MMCs.
The moderately beam IY 11.98 (3.97m) was the 2019 and 2022 World ORCI champion and it is not only competitive under IRC/ORC, as it is a very fast sailboat.
Some expensive main market cruisers like Hallberg Rassy, Amel or Wauquiez, have diminished their B/D if compared with older models, diminishing their safety stability and AVS, even if not in such an alarming way, as main mass production brands. Generally, while being stronger, more expensive main market cruisers, have a bigger overall stability than the ones from the big brands, and almost all have a much better safety stability and AVS, even if in some few cases, like the one of the Amel 50, or the Wauquiez PS 42 (same designer), the safety AVS and stability is not very different. The HR 50 has also a safety stability and an AVS much poorer than on previous models.
The X4-3 (41.6ft) is a moderately beam performance cruiser with 3.99m beam
To be fair, compared with older models, because they are extremely beamy, the overall stability on the new models is probably bigger than in previous less beamy models with more B/D, but localized phenomena, that even in summer are able to generate 60 to 80 knots winds, are increasing, with several this year on the Med, and with that kind of wind, almost any boat can be capsized to 90º. I have been already been capsized to 90/100º degrees by winds created by one of those phenomena, with winds that probably have reached over 100kt.
The new J40 is a moderately beam performance cruiser with 3.86 m beam
Also a breaking wave of some dimension, even if it is only the top that breaks, can capsize a boat to 90º or over, and that makes safety stability and AVS very importants to safety. In coastal cruising it is possible to avoid the weather capable of create that size of waves, but it is not possible to avoid rare localized phenomena capable of creating huge winds.
Due to the RCD demands all the yachts smaller than 79ft have at least a theoretical 100º AVS, but that is before putting furling sails on the furler and on the furling mast, plus a radar, things that will rise the boat center of gravity, and will make the AVS smaller.
Hanse 460, with a 4.79m huge beam and a small 26.7 B/D, specially if we consider the L bulbed iron keel with 2.25m draft, the 460 has also a huge freeboard that contributes to a lot of windage but also for an AVS not as low as the low B/D would make suppose, however that higher AVS serves little purpose because it does not increase safety stability in a significant way . Below, Hanse 460 huge freeboard.
Will them be able to rise from a 90, or 100º capsize on these conditions, when the wind gets less strong, taking into account the waves created? I have some doubts in what regards sailboats with an AVS near the demanded minimum, and experience shows that racing yachts when capsized, with a much bigger AVS, take frequently many minutes to right themselves up, probably due to having some sail on the water.
One thing is for sure, with an AVS near 100º the RM that makes force to right the boat up at 90º, or at big heel angles, is very small. I have explained why I think that is a problem on this post.
But in what regards sailing and cruising not all is negative in what regards hugely beamy sailboats, they have also very positive points: for the same size they can offer a bigger overall stability than a moderately beam sailboat (due to a huge form stability), specially in what regards initial stability, allowing them to sail with little heel, they offer a more stable platform and have a much bigger interior space, that is always an advantage in what regards cruising.
Of course, their performance upwind is not as good as the one of a narrower boat with a considerable B/D. Upwind with medium high winds, against waves, it is a terrible and very uncomfortable sailboat, with an average pointing ability and sailing poorly with weak winds, but the truth is that most cruisers prefer to use the engine to sailing upwind, or when the wind is weak, so, for them it makes all the sense to have as main market yacht a hugely beamy boat with a big engine.
Hanse 460 sailing in weak winds. Like with the Dufour 44 I am not choosing the Hanse 460 not because it is worst or better than the other big brand's boats of this size, but because it is a good example of the new design tendencies.
This is the type of cruiser, that, justifiably, makes more sense and better responds to the cruising needs of most sailors, offering the bigger interior any type of monohull can offer, and a good performance downwind and beam reaching in medium low winds, that is when most use their sails.
Offering all those advantages in a hugely beamy boat does not mean necessarily that it would have to have a smaller safety stability or AVS than a narrower boat. Big brands main market cruisers have that negative safety stability characteristic as a design option, to improve the bad sailing performance in lighter winds (less ballast, less displacement) and as an option, to allow for a less expensive boat, because with a smaller B/D, less forces are involved, and all can be less strong, and therefore cheaper (keel structure, hull reinforcements, masts shrouds and chainplates).
An IMOCA (solo downwind racer) has the type of hull that inspires the increase of beam in modern mass market cruising boats, but contrary to them they have a big B/D, typically around 42%, and that is huge, specially if we consider that the ballast is in a bulb at the end of a light foil, and that the draft is 4.5m. They have a huge safety stability.
Understandably boat brands spend more money in things that can contribute to sell more sailboats and when a cruiser goes to boat shows to see the yachts and to choose the next one, what they see (and their wives) are the difference in interior space, space design and finish quality. They will not see how the boat is built, much less the differences in what regards safety stability and AVS, so why spend money in those items, when if they spend more money doing a better and bigger interior they sell more boats than the competition that choose to do safer and stronger boats?
As to having information regarding safety stability and AVS, sail magazines don't help. In their sail tests the differences in safety stability and AVS are completely ignored, giving the idea that they don't exist, or are not important.
Of course, the diferences exist and are important, especially between less expensive and more expensive sailboats, and are big, but unless they test safety stability in controlled circumstances (like some top race organizations do for racing boats, rolling the boat and pulling the mast down to a pontoon to see, with a dynamometer, what is the force the boat is doing to re-right itself at 90º), a test sailor, sailing in normal circumstances, will not be able to see the differences in safety stability between different boats.
Above, Hallberg Rassy44 stability curve. Today RCD demand stability curves to be provided with the boat in light condition and in full charge. In yachts smaller than 50ft, while the Max RM, and the overall stability is bigger with the boat charged, the safety stability and the AVS is smaller. Only in bigger yachts is it possible to lower tankage in a way to have in a charged boat not only a better overall stability, but also a better safety stability.
While test sailing the boat they will never reach big angles of heel (over 70º), and due to pressure from the big brands, 10 years ago, or more, stability curves, that were usually posted as part of a sail test, stopped being published in magazines, allegedly because readers could not understand them.
The truth is that even then boat testers were already afraid to comment them, with fear to displease big brands, the brands that give more publicity to their magazines, due to the fact that boats from smaller and more expensive brands had (and have) a much better safety stability, and that is the reason why some of those more expensive brands publish the stability curves of their boats, as public information while none of the big brands does.
Above, the very good stability curve of a Saare 41, below the not so good
one from the Contest 49CS (but better than the ones in same size big brand
boats) with a 117ºAVS that anyway is better than the 115ºAVS from the
Hallberg Rassy 50, but far away from the 127º AVS from the previous
model, the Hallberg Rassy 48 MKII, or from the Malo 47 132ºAVS.
And now the tendency of big brands is to not even give the ballast as information. For now most magazines still publish the ballast, and some the B/D of the boats they test, but it is easy to forecast that someday that information would also be denied, allegedly because sailors cannot understand their meaning, but in fact because big brand's boats have considerably less ballast and a smaller B/D than yachts from more expensive brands.
Today's tendency has gone from one of sailing boats with an auxiliary engine, towards what we called, several decades ago, motor-sailors, boats that can have a reasonable performance while motoring, and a reasonable performance under sail, boats whose hull shapes were taken from the last fishing boats that used this type of hybrid system as propulsion.
To be fair I should say that the performance of modern Main Market Cruisers in what regards sailing is incomparably better than the ones of motor-sailors from 40 or 50 years ago, even if not as good, in what regards motoring, not so much due to the engine power, but due to hull design. MMC, that are much lighter than old motor sailors motor nicely in flat water, but with waves it is another story, specially upwind.
And it makes perfect sense to have MMC with a motor-sailing ability because most cruisers motor more than they sail. I even heard in a a boat show a dealer selling a big yacht from a main brand to an old couple with no sailing experience, telling them the boat was a good motor boat, at the fraction of the cost of a true motor boat, and that they would never need to put the sails on for sailing.
Old Fisher 46 motor sailor. It displaced 25T with 10T ballast (40%B/D) on a full keel with 1.9m draft, with 4.5m beam, it had a 120 hp engine and 120m2 sail.
Most sailboats are used for cruising in the Baltic or the Med, even if occasionally a smaller number will cross the Atlantic to the Caribbean. The Americans buy much less new sailboats than the Europeans and other sales worldwide are negligible. Very few sailboats are used for extensive ocean sailing and strong squalls and meteorologic phenomena with very strong winds are the main problem in what regards safety in the design of main market brand sailboats.
The problem with using sailboats as motor-sailors is that no sailboat can make it against 60kt winds with the engine, and if the boat is pushed to land the only way to get away is sailing.
The Hanse 460 displaces in the shallow draft version 13T with 3.7T of ballast (28,5% B/D) on a L bulbed keel with 1.75m draft, with 4.8m beam, it has an optional 80 hp engine and 101m2 of sail (furling mast). Due to the huge beam, huge feeboard and beam all brought back to the transom, the Hanse has a bigger interior.Because it is lighter it will have a better motoring speed and due to a bigger SA/D it will sail much better than the older motor-sailor. The motorsailor will have a much better AVS, partially due to a strong raised cabin, a much bigger overall stability due to a much bigger displacement. It will have a better and more comfortable motion in strong seas, specially upwind, while motor sailing, due to the much flatter Hanse hull, that will slam a lot. It will be also much stronger due to the overall bigger thickness of the composite structures and the full keel.
We have seen that this year in Formentera were even big sail yachts were washed ashore, and this weird type of phenomena, that has happened this season in several locations in the Med (and probably not only in the Med) is increasing. Most don't have that notion, but in most sailboats sail power is way bigger than engine power, even if they have the most powerful engine that can be installed in a sailboat.
I doubt that a couple, or even a crew, would be able to take the anchor and to sail away with 60K winds, it makes much more sense to sail away before huge winds happen and even more sense, not to be in that location, if it is previously announced the possibility of that occurrence (as it has been the case) even if you have to sail all night to get away. Those are localized phenomena, and probably 30 miles away you will be safe. The problem here is that many times when there is a very bad weather forecast, what comes in reality is much weaker, and people start to trust in luck, a thing that a sailor should never do.
Above, the Fisher 46, that has a large bowsprit that is not on the drawing, below, the beamier and more modern Hanse 460 that has half the displacement of the older motot-sailor.
On a modern light sailboat, to sail with high winds, the only way is to use a very small piece of jib or genoa. You cannot point near the wind because you cannot flat the sail and the best you could do is around 45º to 55º degrees to true wind, but most boats with a good B/D can generate the power to do it, being the biggest difficulty to deploy just a bit of sail, with no error whatsoever allowed, and that means you have to be a very experienced sailor and not allowed to make any small mistake. That angle would be enough to sail away from a lee shore.
But the Hanse, besides sailing better in most cruising situations, has a unbeatable, very important point over the Fisher and that is price. If the Fisher was built today it would cost at least the double of the Hanse, probably more and besides, if the Fisher offers better conditions to sail in colder climates, or for Ocean sailing, the Hanse is better designed to enjoy life while doing coastal cruising in hot climates, and that's what most do.
Some would argue that storm sails should be used, and I have one in my boat, as well as a removable stay, but honestly, this phenomena are so sudden that I cannot see how I could mount them. They are useful for an Atlantic crossing when you know a storm is coming and you have time to prepare for it, not on these circumstances. Besides I know that the storm sail I have is too big for 60kts winds. They are designed mostly for 40kt winds.
I am bringing this subject because I was impressed by the large number of boats that this year ended up on a beach or in rocks, due to the increase of meteo phenomena with strong winds, many times associated to big thunderstorms. It seems it has to do with an abnormal solar activity and not so much with the global warming, but the bad news is that probably next years it will be like the last one, or worse, before solar activity diminishes. If you want to know more about it, look here:
Big builders offer main market cruisers that have all this in consideration (except abnormal circumstances), and of course, also the charter market where sailors rarely are experienced. Contrary to what most believe, the charter market demands are not different, in what regards the type of boat that most cruisers want. I mean, not the layout but in what regards choice of hull and boat characteristics, maximizing interior space, having a simplified rig and running rig (to bring prices down, and making it easier to sail) and having a big engine to give it a motor sailor ability.
Hanse 460, 4.76 beam, above layout for owner, below, layout for charter.
The only difference is that for Charter they want a layout with as many cabins and heads as possible, with almost no storage space. Changing the layout is all that is needed to transform the most demanded charter boat in the most demanded cruising boat. The reason all big brand cruising boats look very similar, it is because they are responding to the same demand, the one that is by far the most common, and that leads to the explosive sales of catamarans.
And that demand has also been felt in main market expensive smaller brands, with better quality building and superior stability, and not only in the hull design, that become much more beamier in the search for the biggest possible interior volume, but on the layout as well, with storage spaces becoming increasingly smaller, making them less adapted for long range or bluewater cruising.
XC 47 with 4.56 beam, below the older XC 45 with 4.31 beam. XC47 displacement 14.9T, SA 124.2m2. XC45 displacement13.2T, SA 112m2.
Also here, understandably, brands try to adapt their boats to the demands of the ones that buy them and most that use expensive main market boats use them the same way the ones that buy less expensive big brand MM cruisers, so the design criteria is about the same, but because they are more expensive they can offer a better safety stability, a more luxurious interior, and be stronger, due to a better building.
The newer XC 47 is beamier than the 2008 XC45, with the beam more pulled aft to mostly give it a bigger interior volume, even if sailing with less heel and giving a more stable downwind ride are also reasons that have led to the hull changes in design. Note that even the X47 is less beamy than the Hanse and it has much finer entries and much less beam in the forward hull sections. The other two huge differences are B/D (26.7%, 36,9%, 43,4%) for not very different keels and drafts (2.25, 2.30, 2.20) and price.
Because main market cruising catamarans are several steps further in the same demand direction, meaning, more interior space, sailing with less heel, better motoring ability (and two engines), they are now sold in great numbers and is the segment that grows faster, even if they have an even worst performance upwind, and in light winds, than hugely beamy main market monohulls. Some are even offered without mast, as an inexpensive cheap motorboat (and their number is increasing too), and all this makes sense, and that's also the reason why we see even less catamarans than monohulls using their sails.
Lagoon 46, beam 7.96m, displacement 15.8T, SA 123m2
Main market catamarans are slow in the weak wind and lousy upwind, but again, that is not a problem for most and they suit most cruisers. However they have two problems, marinas (and ports) that charge the double of a same sized mono hull, and image, because they have started to be not welcomed on marinas, specially the big ones, for lack of space.
True performance catamarans sail overall faster, than main market cruisers and in downwind passages they sail as fast or faster than performance cruisers, but they have their own problems:
They are hugely expensive and they have to be sailed very carefully on the med, where huge gusts and sudden increase of wind are very frequent. Even on downwind passages to sail them as fast as performance cruisers, and taking the same risks, you need a bigger crew. I explained here the problem:
All cruising catamarans have a windage problem, that is specially detrimental in stronger winds. In this regard newer models are much worse than the older ones, because they also offer as much interior space and interior height as possible, at the cost of a bigger windage. This problem concerns not only sailing, but the behaviour while at anchor.
Tag 60ft performance cat going fast, with very little stability left as insurance
This year in Katakolon, like many, I took shelter from strong winds that were approaching, the small yacht port was full and at my side was a 60ft luxury cat. The wind came strong at night, just on the bow, and while my 20kg anchor (spade) had no problem holding the boat, their 56kg anchor could not do so, and they spent all night trying to prevent the boat from hitting the dock, with both engines revving. They had the anchor 60 meters away and ended up with it at only 35 meters to the boat.
Cruising main main market catamarans are an option for most that chose huge beamy monohulls and like their advantages, and that means the majority of cruisers. They are specially suited for beam reaching and downwind sailing, and in what regards sailing characteristics they make sense on the trade winds, were they have advantages and disadvantages. I found this post very interesting in what regards a global comparaison.
Huge windage in modern cats, much more than 25 years ago
On this post you will find a video with a sail speed comparison between a performance catamaran with an older Amel, a medium weight main market cruiser monohull, and the results are surprising.
Below 2002 Oceanis 473, beam 4.32 displ. 11.0T, draft 2.20, 29.9% B/D, std SA/D 17.5 (narrower boats need less SA/D for the same performance)
So, bottom point, each case is a case but overall modern cruising designs are not necessarily overall faster than 15 to 20 year old designs, but they do have a much bigger interior, sail with a lot less heel, are more stable (initial stability) and have generally less safety stability and a smaller AVS.
They are easier to sail downwind or even beam reaching and with medium high and high winds can be faster on those points of sail, specially on autopilot. They have also increasingly bigger engines and therefore work better as motor sailors or while motoring, also because they heel less and that allows to keep the engine on for more time while motor-sailing (10º to 20º of heel). They are slower in light wind, upwind and in medium winds.
Older Catamaran designs, from a decade or two ago were also overall generally faster. Like on the monohulls, the hulls were generally not so beamy and the cabin was rounded and less high, creating less windage, and windage is a major problems with cats, when sailing upwind.
Catamarans represent an increasing market that are almost completely dominated by what are known by condo cats. Their motoring performance is better than the one of monohulls (two engines) and if well sailed they have a good sailing cruising stability with a 38ft length, or over. They have an overall stability way bigger than monohulls of the same size, but a much, much smaller, safety stability and an AVS that is just a bit over 45º, while even on monohulls from the main brands, the AVS is always bigger than 100º, most frequently around 110º or a bit over.
Above Lagoon 42, below 1997 Lagoon 410. The differences in freeboard are obvious as well as the rounded cabin versus vertical cabin the 42 displaces 12T, has a 7.70m beam and the hulls are much beamier than the ones on the 410, that displaces 7.3T, has a 8.0m beam. The 42 has 88.9 m2 and the 410 has 88.9 m2.
For the ones that don't know what I am saying regarding safety stability and AVS, a look at these posts will help:
In the two big families of sailing yachts (catamarans and monohulls), regarding the comparison of the two main different types of the same family (MMC and performance cruisers), with the comparison of the same types, on the other family, there are some substancial differences.
The older boat is faster, but it has much less interior space and the new one, even if it has a smaller beam, is much heavier, and will have an overall better stability,but a higher CG and a worse stability curve, at high angles of heel.
One of the differences is the price between a Condo Cat and a true Performance Cat, that is always way bigger than the difference in percentage between a main market monohull and a performance monohull. Some very good quality main market monohulls can be even more expensive than monohull performance cruisers, a thing that never happens, being performance catamarans always much more expensive than condo cats.
Above, Lagoon 42 with huge freeboard and vertical cabin
Below, 1997 Lagoon 410 with a smaller freeboard and a rounded cabin.
I don't know exactly why the difference in price between a good condo cat and a good performance catamaran is so big. I suppose that it has to do with the cost of dagger-boards passing inside the hull, the much better sail hardware, the structural reinforcements needed to resist the much bigger rig, the much superior sail power, the much superior speed, all this generating a lot more efforts, that, due to the need to maintain the boat light, can only be supported if the performance cat is much better built, using superior building techniques and better materials, and all that increases the price.
Above the almost 30 year's old Lagoon 410 looks much more elegant than the new Lagoon 42, it looks much faster, and it is faster, and a better sailing boat, even if not necessarily a better cruiser. that depends on how each one defines a better cruiser. Look at the two layouts below and you will see that the fat hulls of the Lagoon 42 provide a much bigger living space.
The same happens in very light, very fast, high performance monohulls, for the same reason. Many performance monohulls have a not very different weight from MMC from the big brands, and they are proportionally less expensive towards main market cruisers than very light high performance cruisers, because they don't have to be as radical in building techniques and materials. Their much better performance comes more from a slimmer hull, that generates less drag, from a superior B/D and a deeper keel, that allows a bigger mast and a bigger SA/D, providing a better relation between power and drag, and less from a big difference in displacement.
Above we can see that on the Lagoon 42 the hulls are much beamier than the ones on the Lagoon 410 (below).
We can see that on the 42 they offer much more interior space, but at the cost of a superior drag.
Another very important difference regards the overall stability and the safety stability between the same type of boat from different families: For the same size a lighter monohull performance cruiser is not necessarily less seaworthy, in what regards stability, than a main market cruiser, especially if it is one from the big brands, in many cases it is the opposite and monohull performance cruisers can be more seaworthy.
This has to do with the relatively small difference of displacement between big brands main market cruisers and some performance cruisers. Take for instance the Oceanis 40.1 that displaces 7,985 kg, has 2,007 kg ballast and has a draft of 2.17m and compare it with the First 40, that displaces 7,900 kg, has 2,925kg ballast and has a draft of 2.45 m.
The huge difference in ballast (B/D 25% to B/D 37%), the small difference in displacement and the big difference in draft gives the First a much better safety stability and AVS, while the bigger stability that comes from the keel compensates the eventual superior Oceanis overall stability, that comes from a bigger hull form stability (due to the bigger beam (4.18m to 3.89 m) and the RM that comes from the superior displacement.
Again, if you want to understand this better read the posts about stability with links above, on this post and the one below. The boat righting moment at a given angle is obtained multiplying the arm (GZ), that is the distance between vertical lines passing by the centre of gravity (G) and the centre of buoyancy (B), by the boat mass. Take a look at this video:
Above. 2017 Outremer 45, below 2000 Outremer 45 Even if much slimmer if compared with condo cats, the Outremer 45 looks fat if compared with the 24 year's old Outremer 45.
When you lower the center of gravity (more ballast, deeper draft) you increase that distance and therefore RM, when you increase beam you also increase that distance, and also RM, but the GZ increase is big at smaller angles of heel but very small at big angles, while that difference in increase of GZ, between low and high angles of heel, is much smaller when you obtain that increase lowering the CG (increasing ballast). Displacement increases always RM. The total energy needed to capsize the boat corresponds to the area below the positive RM curve, meaning the addition of the RM created in all heel angles.
Below, first the 2017 Outremer 45, then, 2000 Outremer 45
It would seem that an eventual bigger Oceanis 40.1 overall stability would make it slightly more seaworthy than the First 40, but I would say that it is the opposite, and by a good margin, and here we enter in what is very difficult to measure but it is easy to understand: the dynamic stability of the First is way better than the one of the Oceanis, meaning by dynamic stability the one that is not static (measurable given the boat dimensions), and happens in the dynamics of ocean waves.
Both boats cannot be rolled by wind alone even if both can be capsized (90/100º) only by wind. For rolling them we need the waves that can only be created in a storm, 3 or 4 meters breaking waves. The first dynamic factor that is favorable to the First is the speed that it will take to right itself up after being capsized by a wave. The First, due to a much better final stability (much bigger proportion between the RM generated at big heel angles, versus the boat displacement), will rise up several times faster than the Oceanis.
The new Outremer 42-2 displaces 8700kg, has a 7.15 m beam and 106 m2 of sail area. The older 42 displaces 7250kg, has a 7.20m beam 106m2 sail area and slightly narrower hulls, having a lot less windage. The older Outremer is faster and probably more seaworthy due to more beam, lower CG, rounded cabin, higher space between the hulls, while the new Outremer has a much bigger interior space and more displacement.
The Oceanis will lay on a side for much longer, being exposed to be hit by another big wave, not necessarily a big breaking wave, at a big angle of heel, having available only a small percentage of its overall stability, the one that corresponds to the area between the angle at which it is caught by the second wave and the AVS, on the stability curve.
At the time the second wave hits the Oceanis (with the boat still capsized), the First is already standing, with the full overall stability to counteract the new wave. Most boats that have been capsized by waves are capsized by two following waves, one capsizes the boat, other catching the boat with little stability available, rolls the boat.
Between the new Outremer 45 (above) and the older one (below) the diference in interior volume is huge, due to the rounded cabin on the older boat that will not only give it less windage but also a better seaworthiness, offering much less surface to a breaking wave, and increasing dynamic stability.
The second dynamic factor, that is also favorable to the First, has to do with how much of the energy of a breaking wave is transformed in a rolling movement, and how much is transformed in a sliding lateral movement. Both boats have keels with similar wet areas creating a small tripping effect (bigger keel wet area will increase the roll moment) and will allow both boats to slide, but while sliding on the breaking wave the First is making much more force to right itself up and that increases the chances of not being rolled while sliding laterally. The third dynamic factor, the lateral area exposed to the wave is also favorable to the First that has a smaller freeboard and a smaller cabin height , while the Oceanis will expose more lateral surface to a breaking wave, increasing the force that hits the boat and increasing rolling moment.
Some also say that beamier boats while sliding laterally pushed by a breaking wave tend to be more easily rolled due to a major tripping factor related to beam. Those were the conclusions taken from a tank study already with some decades, but I don't know if this was due to a bias, that at the time, beamy boats had. It does not seem to me such an important factor, as it was considered at the time, but I would like very much to see some modern tank testing to clarify better all these factors related with safety stability and breaking waves.
That means that performance cruisers, like the ones that have a considerably bigger B/D (should be said more correctly a better GZ stability curve) than a same length main market cruiser ( the less expensive ones from the big brands), can compensate the smaller overall stability with a better dynamic stability, that is as important, or more important than a bigger overall static stability.
Many performance cruisers have circumnavigated, most of them while not being many years old, even if some strong ones, like this X-482, when it finished its 6 year circumnavigation, was already more than 20 years old.
In what regards seaworthiness and a MM cruiser versus a P cruiser we can also compare the Dufour 44, with the Arcona 435 that have a similar length. The Dufour displaces 10.2T has 4.45 beam, 25.5% B/D, with a L bulbed keel with 2.2m draft . The Arcona displaces 8.9T, has a 38.2% B/D, with a L bulbed keel with more draft (2.3m). All that was said about the First 40 and the Oceanis 40.1, in what regards comparative seawothiness is true in this case, with the advantage of the Arcona being stronger and better built than the First. And of course, having the Dufour 96.8m2 of sail area and the Arcona 111m2, having the Arcona a much smaller drag (due to a smaller displacement and beam), the Arcona will be much faster in all points of sail.
I have seen videos where light performance cruisers, and racing boats slide laterally when a big breaking wave hits them, and I doubt very much the same will happen with a much heavier boat, that will need more energy to be rolled, but that will not be able to dissipate so easily a breaking wave energy sliding (having an increased risk of being rolled while sliding), and will have a bigger part of that wave energy turned in a rolling moment.
If on a performance monohull cruiser the smaller overall stability, due to less displacement and less beam, can be compensated by a bigger safety stability and a better dynamic stability, the same does not happen in what regards condo cats and performance cats, because their differences in beam do not exist and because the position of CG does not vary as much as the ones on a monohull, because they have no ballast, neither a deep keel to lower significantly the CG.
Of course, being much faster, stronger and more seaworty does not mean that the Arcona 435is a better cruising boat, and it is certainly a much more expensive sailboat. That depends entirely on the factors that you consider more importants for you in what regards cruising. If you do mostly coastal cruising you may not need a stronger and more seaworthy boat, but you may need an easier boat to sail, and the standard Dufour is certainly less complicated and less powerful than the Arcona that demands a more experienced sailor, one that knows how to sail. The Dufour offers a much bigger interior, a much bigger deck space, and a huge swimming platform.
Catamaran stability is calculated the same way as on monohulls but without being able to lower the CG with ballast or more draft. The stability comes basically from beam and from displacement. Increasing the beam in a catamaran has limits and therefore performance catamarans are just much more light, with about the same beam, with a CG slightly lower, with much thinner hulls (less drag) and with daggerboards, to point better to the wind. On catamarans with the same length the overall stability and seaworthiness (if both have a similar building quality) is much smaller on a performance cat than on a condo cat, due to the big displacement difference and due to a bigger SA/D but contrary to performance monohulls, performance cats don't have a substancial advantage in what regards safety stability or dynamic stability.
Above, the much more voluminous Dufour 44 interior (wider and higher), Below the much less voluminous Arcona interior. In both boats the design is of good quality, but the much superior Arcona quality gives it a luxury feel that is absent in the Dufour. However many would prefer the more spacious Dufour interior to the one of the Arcona, space being today for many identified with luxury and quality of life. To make things worse, the Arcona is necessarily much more expensive than the Dufour and for the same money most would prefer just a bigger Dufour (or similar) with even more interior space.
Sure, performance catamarans can pull the daggerboards up, and on that configuration they can resist better a breaking wave sliding easily than a condo cat, that has two long keels with a small draft, but performance cats while sailing only raise the dagerboards while sailing downwind, and that is not the sailing point where they are more often capsized (they can be pitch polled in that sailing position), but while beam reaching, or sailing upwind, and in that case the dagerboard is down, and if the foil area can be smaller than the one of the longer, much less deep keel of a condo cat, its effect is similar. Performance catamarans or small cats can be rolled only by wind action, while a monohull will only be rolled by a breaking wave, being impossible to roll with wind alone.
I really do like the Arcona 435 interior, a blend of classic and modern shapes that I find very agreable and comfortable
That's why catamaran brands when they make heavier condo cats start their line at 38/40ft and when they make lighter P. catamarans start their line at 44/45ft. That's because the only way to truly increase stability, essential to the seaworthiness in a catamaran, is to increase displacement, or beam, and you can only do that in a performance cat making it bigger, because only a bigger cat (than a Condo cat) will have more beam and the same displacement or closer, having the same overall stability.
Even so accidents with 45/55ft performance cats, that resulted in a overturned sailboat are much more frequent than the ones that happened to 40/42ft condo cats. Of course, I am not saying that performance cats have not the necessary seaworthiness for cruising, only that they have to be sailed much more carefully than condo cats, and in what regards solo or short crew sailing they can be tricky to sail, specially in conditions or places where huge gusts can occur, and when they are sailed in autopilot, with a small crew, or solo.
Note that the AVS in the above stability curve is near 130º, being that the reference in what regards optimal safety stability and relatively small time to be re-righted, when rolled, being the estimated average time of about one minute. Note that the area under the positive part of the curve is 3 or four times bigger than the one under the negative part and that means that to re-right the boat it will only be needed a wave 3 to 4 times smaller than the one that rolled the boat.
It is also true that the overall stability of a cat is much bigger than the one of a monohull of the same size, even considering a performance cat, and that the energy needed to roll it is considerably bigger than the one needed to roll a monohull, but the differences regarding the point at witch a monohull and a catamaran can be heeled and return to the horizontal position is as bigger as the difference in overall stability. Both can be heeled till the AVS heel angle, but while on a monohull that point is never smaller than 100º, and in some contemporary designs as big as 120/130º, on a catamaran the AVS is situated around 65º, and with a huge difference in safety stability on higher angles of heel.
And the other difference, probably the more important, is that a monohull faced to a huge gust will heel too a big angle and with heeling the resistance the sails are opposing to the wind is gradually less, being zero at 90º.
The stability curves are from a Neel trimaran compared to catamaran. If the trimaran was a Dragonfly, or a Corsair, the difference would be bigger.
Also the maximum force a monohull is making to oppose a gust (Max RM) happens at about 50 to 60º of heel, while the Max RM on a cat happens just at about 12º. After reaching the Max RM, while increasing the heel angle, a monohull loses stability slowly, while a cat loses it sharply, when it heels more and will turn upside down between 50 and 70º, depending mostly on CG location. Meaning that a cat cannot diminish the wind pressure of a gust in a significant way heeling, and therefore wind gusts are way more dangerous to cats than to monohulls, where they do not represent a real risk.
Comparing the shape of the stability curve of a 44ft cat, with the one immediately above,of a Malo 47, we can see that while the Max RM is obtained in the cat at a 12º heel angle, on the Malo it is obtained with 67º heel that is the cat AVS angle, at which the catamaran will not return. We can see also that while the max useful sail power in a cat is obtained at about 12º degrees, that is also the Max. RM point, on the Malo it is reached probably at 35º, because after that point the increase in drag does not compensate the increase in sail power. From that point to the 67º, where Max RM is reached, there is still a huge increase in RM, capable to resist big gusts, and even more impressive, the boat will be making at 95º!!!!the same RM that it is making at 35º, the point at which it makes the bigger useful sail power (RM).
While at 45º a cat is making very little force to right itself up, all monohulls will not have yet reached the point where they will make more force to right themselves up.
A word about cruising trimarans, that are a very small percentage of cruising sailboats. They offer slightly better stability characteristics if compared to catamarans due to their bigger beam and to the weight being centered at the middle, where the cabin is located, allowing for a lower CG and therefore a better stability curve and a higher AVS, that will be higher in boats like the Dragonfly or Corsair, that have the cabin inside the main hull, than on boats with large superstructures and the cabin over the hulls, like the Neel, due to a lower CG. The Max RM is reached in a trimaran with more heel than in a cat (25 to 30º), they lose stability after Max RM heel angle in a slightly more progressive way than catamarans, and therefore they give a bigger warning before capsizing, and more time to open the sails and diminish sail pressure.
Malo 47, a great bluewater cruiser with 4.12m beam, 14,1 T displc., 39%B/D that could become better (lighter and faster), with a more efficient keel. Below, Malo 47 interior. Unfortunately with the bankruptcy of Sweden Yacht group they will not be made anymore, unless somebody saves them.
This is clear when we compare stability curves of the two types of multihulls: we will find that the AVS, the non return point of a trimaran is about 10 degrees higher (about 75º) and that the max. RM is reached about 15º higher, at 25º. That gives the trimaran a better and bigger safety stability and it is what allows them a bigger warning before capsizing allowing for much more time to correct the excess of wind, letting go the sails before the boat capsizes.
While on a cat sailing safety gets narrow when they reach 10º heel (and that may not even demand a hull out of the water), the same percentage of risk only happens in a trimaran when sailing with a 20º heeling angle, and that means one amas well out of the water.
Like catamarans, trimarans to have an adequate overall stability for casual sailing while cruising, need to be heavy, or big, and that makes them either not very fast, or extremely expensive. Trimarans with a lower CG, like Dragonfly, offer a better performance, but offer a smaller interior than monohulls, and brands like Neel, with the cabin over the hulls, offer more space (even if less than in a cat) but a not so good performance, and if Neel started with the 43 that was a good compromise, faster (and lighter) than condo cats, and have a very good performance downwind with medium and strong winds, is now making mostly slower big condo trimarans, with a huge windage because what the market wants is not good sailing boats, but cruising boats with a huge interior.
Neel 43
When the Neel 43 was a new model, I found one of the first, sailing in Croatia, and because I was very curious about its performance, due to all the propaganda and claims made about it, I sailed in its direction, with also, then, a brand new Salona 41 with a 2.70m draft. In weak wind the Salona was much faster and could point to the wind much better. I was disappointed, I was hoping more from the Neel 43, that however proved in the ARC that it could be a very fast boat sailing in the trade winds.
I have also looked at the performance of boats like the Dragonfly 35 on the ARC transat, and even if I know that the boat can be very fast, faster than the 40, one thing is to sail the boat to have fun and be always at the ropes, to let go if needed, other is cruising safely on autopilot, and I was surprised to see that the Dragonfly 35 sailed that way, with a small crew, was not faster than the average 40ft cruiser.
The Neel 52, is already too high, with too much windage and amas too large to be considered a performance trimaran, more of a condo trimaran.
However for coastal very sportive cruising, boats like the Dragonfly 35, or even better the 28 (that is faster than the 35) or the Corsair 880, are a lot of fun and the fastest short crew cruising boats you can have, if the sea conditions are not too bad, and for fastest, I mean practically overall, no matter the size of the other performance cruisers.
If you have doubts look at the elapsed times in the Silverrudder race and you will see that these small cats are faster there, raced solo, than fast performance cruisers with 44ft or 47ft.
Comparing the Neel 52 with the Dragonfly 40. It is obvious that the Neel CG is much higher than the one of the Dragonfly and that will give the Dragonfly a much better safety stability and a higher AVS. That allows it to fly a amas much higher than the Neel, maintaining the same reserve stability. The Dragonfly 40 displaces 5.8T, the Neil 52 displaces 13.5T. The Dragonfly has a 8.40m beam, the Neil 52 has 8.80m, and that is a surprisingly small difference in beam. Even so the Neil 52 overall stability is two times bigger, due to the bigger displacement.
Personally, if I was younger, I would be very much interested in a boat like the Dragonfly 40, but the truth is that they are hugely expensive, costing as much as a fast 50ft performance monohull cruiser and it is hard to justify that amount of money for a cruising boat that has the interior space of a 36ft, but that does not mean that I don't love the Dragonfly 40, or its concept and love does not need to be rational.
Back to monohulls to talk about a type of boat that has just a small market percentage and from that small percentage that buy them, not all give them the use they are designed for, let's talk about the ones that in Europe are called voyage boats, and in the United States, bluewater boats.
Dragonfly 40 interior, beautifully made, but the interiot with the size of one from a 34ft monohull
Boats that are intended to have a large autonomy, to sail more offshore than in coastal waters and not only in sunny days, but in rainy days and cold weather. This means they have to offer a much better protection to the sailors while sailed in disagreeable conditions, that they should have a very good overall stability, a very good safety stability, and a good AVS, that they should offer a very good storage space, inside and outside, a good tankage (even if in what regards water things have changed due to watermakers), ways of producing energy (through a diesel generator, solar panels, wind generators or hydro generators), be very strong, have a big engine and have a way to easily store and deploy a large dinghy, with a powerful outboard and offer good and and comfortable living space to live for many months in a row, or permanently and finally to provide a good or at least a decent sailing performance, because while crossing oceans you cannot motor most of the time. This is the ideal criteria for a voyage boat, even if none fulfils completely all these points, being ones stronger on some of them, while others have different strong points, covering most of them.
Above and last HH 66, at the middle Gunboat 60
To have a big overall stability they have to have a considerable displacement and that's why today most brands that make this type of boats start at 44/45ft, and most voyage boats are bigger than that. Most used material is aluminium, that has not only advantages: it is more expensive than composites and can have problems of electric corrosion, but offer a better resistance to shocks. Most also use a non ballast center board with ballast inside the boat or in a small fixed keel.
Contrary to Trimarans, sailing with a hull out of water is dangerous in Cats ,no matter the size. All cats on the photos have already passed the heel angle with Max RM (about 12º) and after the heel angle the RM fall sharply. Even in racing, where a big crew is controlling the sails all the time, there has been already a considerable number of capsizes with performance cats 50ft (or over), and even more while cruising because while cruising the boat is on autopilot, most of the time, and the possibilities to react to a dangerous wind gust are almost nil.
Most voyage centerboards that are produced today are made by French shipyards, where the tradition is of using about 35/37% B/D. That is on the low side if we consider the need of a high AVS and a good safety stability. Typically expensive main market cruisers have about the same in a bulbed keel or torpedo with drafts between 2.10 and 2.30m and that gives them a much better safety stability and AVS.
The Dutch, that also make this type of boat, used about 50% ballast, but the truth is that all production shipyards bankrupted while the French survived, because it is much more expensive making boats with more ballast, but also because in light or medium conditions French center-boarders sail better because they are lighter.
For having less ballast and a good overall stability these centerboards need to be beamy and if we compare the beam of a Boreal 44.2 (4.39m), an Allures 45.9 (4.43m), a Garcia 45 (4.44m) and an Oceanis 46.1 (4.50m) we will see that they are only slightly narrower, because they need a lot of hull form stability to sail with a relatively low B/D, meaning low, for a center-boarder.
I would say that, with the exception of OVNI, that tend to have a smaller B/D than the others, their AVS and safety stability are not far from the one of big brands main market boats, but they offer a better dynamic stability in a storm, in survival conditions, running downwind , motoring or using a sea anchor, because in those conditions they can raise the center board and more easily transform the kinetic energy of a breaking wave in a lateral sliding movement, instead of a rolling movement, more than what a main market boat with the same safety stability can do. But while sailing with the board down, they still have a not very good safety stability.
Above, Boreal 44, beam 4.39, displc. 10.3T, 36.9% B/D, CB keel not ballasted 1.02/2.48m draft. Below, Allures 45.9, beam 4.43m, displc. 12.6T or 10.6T, depending on the keel. Non ballasted Center board B/D 35,6%, version with ballasted swing keel B/D 23.7%, both keels with a max. draft of 2.90m.
Regarding a seaworthiness stability comparison, in bad sea and wind conditions, with an expensive main market sailboat of the same length, that typically has a bigger overall stability (more displacement), a bigger safety stability and a bigger AVS, I have many doubts that its superior dynamic stability is enough to make it a safer boat, because it is not only necessary more energy to capsize the keel boat, as the superior safety stability and superior AVS will contribute to not being rolled when sliding laterally. If knocked to 90º it will rise faster, and finally, in the case it is rolled and inverted, the much superior AVS will be a decisive factor to re-right the boat in much less time.
Allures, Boreal and Garcia are aluminum cruisers that have a non ballasted centerboard and all the ballast is either inside, or in a very small keel, and typically have a 35/36% B/D. OVNI, is now using a mix system with a ballasted swing keel and ballast in the interior, but all these boats have a similar safety stability and rely in a big hull form stability for sailing..
Regarding this, in cases that have been well studied, I have seen that boats that have an AVS between 100 and 110 can take half an hour to re-right themselves when upside down and need to be a bit flooded to diminish their inverted stability (I think that is way they take so long to re-right themselves), while boats with an AVS of 125º, or bigger take just some few minutes for another wave to re-right them.
Even if being rolled is a rare event, and it is not the bigger factor in what regards sunken sail boats, the superior or inferior ability to survive that situation is still a safety factor, not only a real one, but a also psychological factor.
Above Aluminum Bestevaer 45ST, beam 4.05m, displc. 13.0T, 37.3% B/D ballasted swing keel with 1.40/2.90m draft. The Allures 45.9 with not a centerboard, but with an optional similar swing keel, has 23.7% B/D.
There are fiberglass voyage boats, like the Kraken, Sirius, JPK, the Pegasus, Malo, Hallberg Rassy, Saare, Swan, XC yachts, Wauquiez, Contest, Hylas, Cabo Rico, Island Packet, Outbound, Najad, Southerly, Amel or Nauticat, made of fiberglass and even made of steel, like the Noordkaper.
Some of them are already standard more prepared to voyage, others are very good MMC, that will need expensive extras to be turned into voyage boats. Some have what is needed in their list of options, others are semi custom boats that can be ordered the way you want them.
The Dutch aluminum Puffin 42, based in traditional sailing boats has a 16T displacement. 4T of ballast outside on a fixed small draft long keel, plus 1.2T in a deep ballasted centerboard (1.10/1.86m), 36% B/D) and 4.2m beam. Surprisingly in the last 20 years 60 Puffin 42 have been built, most in steel. They are now built in aluminum. All these Dutch aluminum boats have a superior building and inevitably a price to match. They are probably the voyage boats that offer the best compromise between strength and seaworthiness but due to their price they are sold in much lesser numbers than French centerboarders that offer in what regards aluminum voyage boats, a better relation in what refers to price/quality/qualities/advantages.
Below Aluminum Atlantic 43,beam 4.30m, displc 10.5T, 40% B/D, on a lifting keel with a torpedo with 1.30/2.95m draft.
They have in common the ability to be sailed from the interior, or to offer (some optionally) a very protect cockpit steering station, and to have a good seaworthiness. But they are very different sailboats, from the very fast Pegasus and JPK, to the slow Nordkaper or Nauticat, to boats like the Hallberg Rassy or Contest, that are really MMC that can be adapted to become voyage boats.
They have different sailing and seaworthiness characteristics and different ways to look at what should be the ideal bluewater boat, some giving priority to sailing performance, others to living confort or boat strength. And I am only considering brands that make boats till 50ft, included, because, even if they say otherwise in their publicity, a boat over 50ft cannot be designed to be sailed by a couple unless they rely strongly in mechanical and hydraulic systems, that are unreliable for this type of cruising and will cause a nightmare when they fail, not to mention that the price is absurd for a yacht meant to be sailed by a couple or a family.
Dutch centerboarders, with non ballasted board used to have a much higher B/D than the French ones (almost 50%) and that gave them a better safety stability, one similar to expensive MMC, but because they were heavy they did not sail as well as the French ones. Today they are built almost exclusively built with swing keels, lifting keels or ballasted centerboards. Excluding traditional types, they are as fast, or faster than the French centerboarders boats, have a a better safety stability and a higher AVS, are stronger, but this makes them much more expensive. However these boats maintain as used, in the market, a very high price and that shows that their small diffusion it is not because cruisers do not want them but because the price is too high.
This type of sailboat is very expensive to produce and very few will have a sailing program that justifies them, or even that makes them the more adapted ones for their sailing program. it is more the kind of boat many dream with while dreaming to sail to far horizons, but that very few will buy. They will not be so suited for sailing in the sun and enjoy life, they have smaller cockpits and big glass surfaces, that are an advantage in cold weathers but a disadvantage in hot climates, where you will see them sailing with them always covered, to prevent the sun from making the boat interior unbearably hot, or in case of running an AC system, to prevent the need to running it all day long. Due to costs and because very few do ocean voyaging, as their most common form of cruising, or sail in bad weather or rainy days, these boats represent a very small market share and the shipyards that produce them fight to survive, even more than others, that produce other types of boats.
Noordkaper 43, made of steel, displaces 19T, beam 4.25, it has a low B/D of about 22% and a long keel with a centerboard and 1.30/2.30m draft. the height of the cabin allows this boat, that has a huge overall stability to have a decent AVS, even with a low B/D.
One of the several brands that in the last decade went bankrupt due to investing in sailboats with a very small market share was Comar, the shipyard that since 1961 built sailboats, with special relevance for Comet, a fast MMC. Instead of renovating their line of performance cruisers ( an already small market) and invest in fast MMC, they invested in performance catamarans and a Kevlar 46ft voyage boat, two types of boats with an even smaller market, and unsuitable for the production of a medium sized shipyard.
Only small shipyards that produce very few units a year and have few workers can compete in this market.
Garcia 45, a French aluminum centerboarder. Garcia and Boreal are from the French centerboarders the ones more adapted for navigating on high latitudes due to a stronger build and better protection from the cold.
Of course, yachts bigger than 50ft can be used for voyaging, and most are, being bigger yachts even more adapted to that, due to a bigger stability and a bigger seaworthiness. But while voyaging bigger yachts are normally sailed by a crew, or with the help of a professional one, and can be very dangerous if sailed by a small not experienced crew, due to the size of sails and forces involved. Mechanical and hydraulic aids can have failures, sailors can make mistakes and the consequences of mistakes when huge forces are involved can be very serious, not to mention that they are multi million boats, only at the reach of very few, even if curiously their small market seems to go much better, than for instance the bluewater boat market for Yachts under 50ft, with many brands that used to make smaller, less expensive sailboats, doing now almost only this type of very expensive big yachts.
Above, Comet 46 explorer, a kevlar yacht that contributed to the bankruptcy of Comar, very strong, with a 4.5m beam and a 11.5Tdisplacement. Interesting sailboat, but for a very small market.
The solution to adapt a MMC market cruiser to turn it in a voyage boat is by far the more common and even if the more expensive ones have more suitable characteristics, due to being stronger, having a better stability and seaworthiness, because they are expensive, most either buy an used older top quality MMC, or buy a cheaper main brand bigger MMC, while fewer have the money to adapt a new top quality MMC to make it into a voyage boat.
Above, JPK 45, a fast voyage boat, with a 4.5m beam, 9.5Tdisplc. 42.1% B/D, in a torpedo keel with 2.25m draft.
Below, Pegasus 50, a fast voyage cruiser, with 4.82m beam , displc. 11.7T, 33.3% B/D, torpedo keel, with a 2.35m draft
Regarding adapting a top quality MMC to make it a voyage boat, the main inconvenience is the lack of ability to sail the boat from inside, even if some voyage boats, not to say most, dont offer also that possibility, or it is just a limited one. But today all electronic brands are developing systems that allow to see and detect objects from inside the boat. They are relatively expensive (some cost 35,000 euros) and don't allow a 360º view, only a forward view, even if I think that would not be dificult to offer a 360º view, and I am sure it will be the next step. The main advantage over a traditional look out is that night vision is hugely enhanced.
The Pegasus 50 is one of the most interesting fast voyaging boats, having a cabin that tilts like a boat stove, and maintains the crew inside the boat in an horizontal, or almost horizontal position when the boat heels.
What I said regarding MMC being adapted as voyage boats is also true for performance cruisers. Of course, it is a different type of voyage boat, one less adapted for sailing in high latitudes, but one that will suit those for whom sailing pleasure is an important part of cruising pleasure, the same type of voyage boat as Pegasus 50 or JPK 45.
The main difference for expensive main market cruisers adapted as voyage boats, is that a performance cruiser, for having the same overall stability needs to be bigger (about 40 to 43/44ft), and a good heavier MMC will be always stronger.
Southerly 48 has has a raised saloon and chart table and can be sailed from the interior.
But if compared with an inexpensive MMC, also adapted to become a voyage boat, the performance cruiser, providing it is sailed by an experienced sailor, has many advantages, being stronger, with a better seaworthiness, due to a bigger safety stability and a higher AVS.
The Southerly 48 displaces 17.3T, it has 4.42m beam, 35.5% B/D. The ballast is distributed by the swing keel (1.0/3.1m draft) and the boat interior. The Contest 49CS is one of the strongest and better built MMC, but cannot be sailed from the interior. It displaces 20.9T, 4.9m beam, 38.3% B/D in a L bulbed keel with 2.35m draft
The Kraken 44, contrary to the 50 has not the possibility of being sailed from inside and it is a MMC that can be compared with an Hallberg Rassy 44. The Kraken has a 3.83 beam, a 14.6T displacement, a 28,8%B/D and a keel bulbed keel with a big wet area and 2.00 m draft.
The Hallberg Rassy 44 has a 4.2m beam, displc. 13.3T, has a 39.9% B/D on a L bulbed keel with 2.10m draft. Even if slightly lighter the Hallberg Rassy 44 will have an overall bigger stability due to being much beamier and with, a much bigger B/D, on a deeper keel. Probably the twin rudders of the HR will give it a better control, than the not very deep single rudder on the Kraken.
The same happens in what regards cats, with the adicional advantage that all of them have the possibility of being sailed from the interior, with a good overall view. Some less expensive condocats from big brands, like some less expensive main market monohulls have experienced problems when they are caught offshore by bad weather, mostly problems with broken bulkheads, or water ingress but there are many that escape really bad weather, or do not have any problem.
More expensive better built main market catamarans will be stronger, but the cat market is more confusing than monohull market, and I cannot say which brands build better and stronger MM catamarans, because most of them, when they make a more expensive catamaran, also make them lighter, and lighter is not good for overall stability.
Hallberg Rassy 44, a great cruising boat with maybe just one shortcoming: not much outside space for ranging equipment
That is the opposite with what happens with more expensive main market monohull cruisers, that are heavier than less expensive big brands MMC. Being lighter, more expensive cats have not only to be better built and use better materials to have the same strength (or to be even stronger), but also they will have to be bigger, to have the same overall stability. Being overall stability smaller, the safety stability, contrary to what happens with monohulls, will be very similar because more expensive catamarans will have about the same beam as less expensive ones and a smaller displacement.
Voyage 480, 10.3T displacement, 7.65m beam, 125m2 sail area. This boat, looking more fit for travel than a Lagoon 42, has however the same, or less overall stability.
One of the cats that is designed as a Voyage boat is the Voyage 480/500 but this catamaran displaces only 10.5T (10.3 fot the 500) with a beam of 7.65m (8.23 for the 500) and that is way less displacement a Lagoon 42 has (12.0 tons), for a similar beam of 7.70m, meaning that the Lagoon will have a bigger overall stability than any of the Voyage cats (the 500 is a 2006 design, the 480 a 2015 design). Below you have a link for a comparison between one of those boats and a monohull (a Southerly 48) made by one of the most experienced sailors around, Paul Shard, from Distant Shores.
So, some care is needed here in choosing a stronger catamaran with the same stability as a cheaper one and one that leaves not doubts about that is the Explocat 52, built by Garcia in aluminium and that is not much lighter than a much less inexpensive condo cat and certainly hugely stronger. Size by size, truly performance light catamarans are less suited for ocean voyaging, or blue water sailing.
Above, Aluminum Garcia Explocat 52, beam 8.20m, displacement. 18,6T, draft 1.50m, two 60hp engines, 167m2 of sail area. This catamaran is one of the best voyage cruisers of any type for a circumnavigation, or for voyaging following the trade winds but its price of around 2 millions with taxes put it out of reach from almost all. Below, Lagoon 51, beam8.10m, displc. 19.7T, draft 1.40m, two 80hp engines, 149m2 of SA.
They can be strong or stronger than less expensive condo cats, but contrary to performance monohulls they have not any significant stability advantage over inexpensive main market cats, and having less displacement they have a much smaller overall stability.
It is only a question of size and price, because with size, displacement and beam increase, and with them, stability. But between monohulls and cats there is a big difference between the needed difference in size (and price) to compensate the difference in overall stability between a less expensive heavier MMC and a performance cruiser, having the monohulls a better safety stability and AVS, an advantage that does not exist, or it is not significant, in performance cats versus MMC catamarans.
The differences in windage and hull beam between the above Lagoon 51 and the Outremer 52 (below) are obvious, even if not as big as in older outremer models, but what you cannot see is the even bigger difference in displacement that gives a huge difference in overall stability that is favorable to the Lagoon 51.The Outremer has a slightly lower CG bur the Lagoon has more beam, a small difference, that makes displacement the main factor in what regards the difference of stability between these two cats.
In Monohulls those differences in seaworthiness and stability between a MMC and a PC are in many cases favorable to a performance cruiser, meaning that a slightly smaller monohull performance cruiser can have the same seaworthiness (overall stability + safety stability + dynamic stability + boat resistance) than a slightly bigger main brand less expensive main market monohull.
While in what regards Performance Catamarans, for having the same seaworthiness of a well built, less expensive, but much heavier condo cat, a performance catamaran has to be much bigger, I would say a difference between a 40 to a 50ft cat, and that makes that option hugely expensive, not to mention that if we raise the size of the condo cat to 45ft, then the correspondent performance catamaran in stability will be a 60ft performance catamaran.
The Outremer 52 performance catamaran has a 7.9m beam, a 12.5T displacement, 1.07/2,30 m draft, two 50hp engines and 140m2 SA.
Of course, I am only talking about seaworthiness in what regards stability and boat strength is also very important, but if you find a condo cat as well built as a performance cat, then it will be much more seaworthy, for the same size.
Back to monohulls for having a detailed look at transoms, because if most have transoms with the beam pulled back and seem similar on deck (or deck plan), with the single exception of beam, they can have huge diferences in the design and functionality, and in their relation with the aft part of the hull, diferences that are only visible if you look at them from behind and below, and that tend to be disregarded by most, as if they didn't exist.
The diference between the interior size of a Lagoon 51 and an Outremer 52 is huge, and explains why Lagoons are called condo cats. There is nothing bad in having a house like interior, that is a tendency followed also by most MM monohull cruisers. But performance cats have always a big disadvantage in what regards stability over MM cats, that can be transformed in a better seaworthiness, if they have a similarly build quality. That is not the case between Lagoon main market cats and Outremer performance cats.
The ones designed as main market cruising boats are a bit like the ones designed for solo downwind racers, preventing the boat to heel, giving very stable boats, but not maximizing light wind or upwind performances. The ones of most performance cruisers (like the ones of racers) are designed in a way that allows the boat to heel till a very considerable angle and only then prevents the boat to heel more. That makes for a less stable sailboat, but one with an overall better performance, specially in light winds and upwind putting to good use (with heel) their bigger B/D.
There are however some very beamy performance cruisers, like the Pogo, that are designed with the type of hull that is used in downwind, short crew, racers, and that are also used in some main market cruisers. That type of transom, and aft hull sections, provide a worse performance in upwind and light wind sailing, but maximizes hull form stability, diminishing heel, and makes the use of an autopilot more efficient and all manoeuvres on a boat easier(due to less heel and a more stable platform).
Above Pogo 50, below the J45, two performance cruisers with completely different hulls and transoms, prioritizing different points of sail and wind conditions. The Pogo will perform better with medium high to strong winds, the J45 with weak and medium low winds. The J45 will perform better upwind, the Pogo will be better downwind (out of weak winds). The Pogo transom is designed not to allow high heel angles while the J45 is designed to increase the RM, and to offer some resistance at the heeling point the boat is sailing in the photo, and if pushed, to allow the increase of heel and RM without a big increase in drag,
Those are also the type of aft hull sections and transoms that many main market cruisers and voyage boats prefer, because their advantages (including the ones of giving more interior volume to the aft part of the hull) are the ones most sailors prefer, over the disadvantages, so, it is what designers and brands tend to offer.
I have given many examples of different designed transoms and different back hull sections in many posts where several cruisers, with different transoms are compared. These posts have good examples:
Below you can see the the Italia 14.98 transom, with the beam much more pulled back than on the J45 (and less than on the Pogo) but with a different design, giving a very progressive increase of RM when the boat heels more, much more progressive than the one on the J45, that provides a heel point where the RM is maximized, at the cost of an increase in drag at bigger angles of heel, but still allows the boat to be sailed with big heel angles without an excessive drag penalization. that is however bigger that the one on the YT at the same high heel angle by the Italia 14.98, that is designed to sail upwind with more heel, increasing the RM that comes from the big 37.3 B/D 2.60m draft and torpedo keel, while the J45 having a bigger 39.9% BD probably has less RM coming from the keel due to a less efficient L keel and a smaller draft (2.32m).
Regarding the use of one or two rudders, on hugely beamy boats, a twin rudder works a lot better, because it is needed a hugely deep single rudder to provide the same efficiency, but that is not necessarily the case with moderate beamy or narrow boats, where a single rudder can have advantages. Less beamy boats can have two rudders or a single one, with advantages and disadvantages (and this includes race boats).
You can look for extensive information on this post, that is exclusively about the subject:
And finally some information about boat building and boat quality. Obviously more expensive boats are generally better built, and less expensive boats are built with less expensive building techniques and less expensive materials. But this does not mean that the boats from the big brands are not well built or strong enough for what they were designed to do (and for the price) just that they are built to a very limited budget, one much smaller than others, and corners are cut, not being as strong and not as well equipped as more expensive boats.
Above, the Solaris 40 has a transom more similar to the one of the Italia 14.98, however more of a segmental arch, while the one in the Italia is more a three centered arch. The one on the Solaris will just give a bit more drag while heeling at bigger angles, but will provide more hull form RM while heeling. Below, Hallberg Rassy 50 has a transom with the beam pulled back but with the same steeper angle you can find on the J45, with the same finality: to create more hull form stability at a relatively low angle of heel without creating a huge drag if the boat is heeled more, while being pushed upwind.
Big brands make an extensive use of bonding agents, and lamination, as a way to connect the different parts of the boat, is almost never used. The boat structure, depending on brands, is either a grid that is made outside the boat and then bonded, or use what is called an integral interior "contre moule" that is bonded to the hull.
They all use now monolithic hulls for yachts op to 50ft, and sandwich hulls for bigger yachts. All use polyester resins and plywood bulkheads.
All have a low B/D, and very basic, lower quality sail harware, and both things contribute for a cheaper boat, because good sail hardware is expensive and because having less ballast the hull and the structure can be less reinforced and therefore cheaper.
Below, the XC47 has a transom design very similar to the one of the J45, for the same reasons, but with the beam much more pulled back.
More expensive better built main market cruiser sailboats from brands like Hallberg Rassy, X-yachts, Grand Soleil, Contest, Saare and many other small brands, use better resins (vinylester or even epoxy), use better quality fibers, use sandwich hulls in all sizes of yachts, sometimes use infused hulls, most have main bulkheads in sandwich composite, have at least some bulkheads not only bonded, but also laminated to the hull, sometimes to the deck too, have the boat structure laminated to the hull or bonded but also laminated, use better quality sail hardware, better sails and bigger B/D.
Below, the transom of the Hanse 460, among the big brand MMC cruisers it is the one more similar to the one of a solo downwind racer and it is designed to keep the boat sailing at low angles of heel, even upwind. The low B/D and huge beam contribute to make this solution more acceptable because due to that, increasing heel angle will not bring a lot more RM from the keel anyway, and the increase in drag that it will generate in this case, makes it pointless.
More ballast and also more fiberglass on the sandwiches, makes them generally heavier than main brands cheaper boats, stronger but not necessarily faster, except upwind in medium and strong weather, where their superior overall stability and superior stiffness due to a bigger B/D, will make the diference. But in what regards speed each case is a case, because while on the less expensive big MMC brands the lesser displacement on hugely beamy hulls (big hull form stability) can be advantageous, in light wind, the bigger B/D, the better sail quality, less beam (less drag), and the better sail hardware will contribute to speed on the more expensive MMC.
Performance cruisers are lighter than expensive main market cruising boats, but sometimes having about the same displacement as big brand main market cruisers. This is not due to the hull not being lighter, but because they have a much bigger B/D and that means more ballast and more displacement due to that. They are built with the same materials used in expensive main market boats, sometimes with better materials, including many carbon reinforcements, and some few are made exclusively with carbon fiber.
Above, Bavaria C46, with a transom similar to the one of the Hanse, but less extreme, allowing a bigger heel angle without increasing drag too much. Below, Dufour 44.
Some of these boats have the structure as an integral part of the hull, and some are even better built than expensive main market boats, and they have to be, when they are a lot lighter than MMC from the big brands.
I have once had the luck to talk to one of the engineers that was responsible for the structural aspects of the ICE 52, while visiting the boat, and he was really happy to find somebody that was interested in the way the boat was built, as happy as me with finding somebody that knew what he was talking about. That is not normally what happens with dealers.
Above, Dufour 44 transom, very similar to the one of the one of the Bavaria 46, allowing just a bit more heel before drag is increased substantially, above a heel point where hull form stability is maximized by a chine.
The Ice 52 could be built using different materials and resins, always with a similar high strength, but with diminishing displacements, being the lighter one a fully epoxy carbon version, lighter than an Hallberg Rassy 40. Of course, as you can imagine the price, that is very interesting in the already very well built heavier version, with 12,5 tons, becomes increasingly higher on the lighter versions.
Top performance very light cruisers have to be expensive and I would say that I would not trust a light performance cruiser that is not very expensive, in comparison with big brands main market boats.
We would have the tendency to think that all big brands MMC have a similar transom, just because they have all beam pulled back and look similar while on the cockpit, but as you can see they are different, and by far the Oceanis 46.1 (above) is the more sportive, the one that allows more heel without increasing drag, and that will allow a better performance in lighter winds. It is a pity not to have a bit more B/D to take a bigger advantage of this transom design.
Below, the First 44 has a transom that continues the evolution from the one of the IY 14.98, to the Solaris 40, to this one, that is even more segmented than the one of Solaris. This will give it an advantage in what regards solo or duo racing, making the boat more stable without increasing substantially drag at higher angles of heel. Upwind sailing and going with a substantially heel angle to use fully all the RM that is generated by a big draft and a substancial B/D, it will lose for other transom and aft hull sections designs, but this transom will make it also easier to sail downwind, and that is also a speed advantage.
They have to cost considerable more not only due to the superior quality of the materials and more time consuming building techniques, to make them lighter but stronger, to be able to deal with the bigger forces created by a bigger B/D and more draft, needed to make them much more powerful.
They are also more expensive due to the better sail hardware, that in some cases is better than the one used in expensive main market boats.
You can see this difference in price very clearly in main brands that make also performance cruisers, like Hanse with Dehler, or Beneteau with First, and you will notice that if Beneteau and Hanse are capable of producing relatively inexpensive main market cruisers, the performance cruisers that they produce have similar prices to other not very expensive performance cruisers, simply because it is not possible to build them as they build main market boats.
It is expected performance cruisers to have more maintenance than the one needed in expensive main market cruisers, even if that is not necessarily the case in what regards big brands MMC, specially in boats with a similar displacement. On very light performance cruisers, or cruiser-racers it is to be expected more maintenance, like dismounting more frequently the rudder, or lowering sooner the keel to check the bolts, replacing chainplates sooner, and so on.
As an example, almost all performance cruisers come now with rod rigging, that offers a more rigid setup and a slightly better performance, but while cable rigging lasts 12 years (because it is more flexible) and needs only a complete inspection each 6 years, not needing necessarily any parts to be changed, a rod rigging needs replacement in 8 years, and in four years needs not only a full inspection, but also the cable terminals to be changed.
As you can see the strength and stiffness is much bigger in a sandwich hull than in a monolithic hull. But not all monolithic hulls are the same (all small and medium MMC from big brands have monolithic hulls) neither all sandwich hulls, that can vary not only on the core material, and thickness, as in the number of layers on each laminate, the fiber material and the resin quality.
You may argue that if the boat is not sailed much this is not necessary, but insurance companies do not want to know about it, and if you don't follow the manufacturer recommendations they dont pay if you lose the rig.
Regarding Catamarans and Trimarans, among main marker boats and performance boats, it is about the same even if all multihulls have sandwich hulls. But that does not mean that all sandwich composites are the same, have the same thickness, or the same resins. Generally performance multihulls are much better built than condo cats, and stronger, even if some cases of delamination are known.
Below, a drawing from Hanse that shows the sandwich hulls that they use in their bigger yachts. They, like Dehler use a balsa core that has very good mechanic properties but that is worse in case of any water intrusion. It is also less expensive. Most industries use now closed cell foam.
I have seen a lot more problems with broken bulkheads in condo cats than in much more expensive performance catamarans. Their main problem in what regards cruising is not being solid, but to have much less stability than condo cats, being at the same time much more powerful, and that makes them tricky to be sailed with autopilot by a small crew, without somebody being always controlling the sails.
So, in what regards building, are older boats better? That is a tricky question, but one thing I am sure. Contrary to what many think sandwich hulls are better than monolithic hulls and vacuum infusion, if well made, is better than hand lamination. Some even say that infusion and sandwich hulls are used because they are cheaper to produce and that is ridiculous.
Hanse says in the picture that they use vinylester, a better waterproof resin, just a steep down regarding epoxy resins, but I don't know if they have any yacht built in vinylester resin, they, like most big brands use it only for the first layer on the outside laminate. 15 years ago they offered as an option the use of epoxy resins, and if you can get one of those used, you will have a better and stronger boat.
The simple fact that big brands use monolithic hulls on cheaper boats and in all more expensive and bigger boats they use sandwich should be enough to understand that statement does not make sense, and if that was not enough the fact that practically all expensive main market boats are made with a sandwich hull, not to mention, all performance cruisers, should close the question.
Many do not understand the advantage. Well, take a 12 meter all iron bar and have with the same amount of iron a 12 meter more voluminous square bar with an hollow center. The square bar, depending on the size of the hollow part will flex much less, about 10 to 11 times less. That's the main advantage of the sandwich, even in what regards many structural parts. I found funny that Kraken with all that talk about monolithic hulls being better, uses sandwich structural parts and sandwich bulkheads.
Contest was the first MMC builder to use not only sandwich hulls bur also vacuum infused hulls. They use this technology since 1995
Brands like Contest, arguably the brand that makes more solid main market sailing boats, has used Sandwich hulls in the last 40 years, being one of the first brands to use in main market cruising boats superior building techniques used in racing yachts. But you should know that when we say that a hull is a sandwich hull that never means that all the hull is sandwich but the most part is. There are parts were a monolithic hull is better, namely parts subjected to high pressure localized areas subject to vibration, like on the keel area, engine area and also on the through the hull openings, to prevent water infiltration in the core.
French boats from big brands (and some others) use what is called in French a "contre moule" that is made outside the boat and bonded to the boat. It is the less expensive way ro provide a boat structure, but has the big inconvenience of being difficult to find out if some part has become unglued and in case of fracture a nightmare to repair, time consuming implying a substancial part of the boat to be dismounted. Above Dufour 470, below a Jeanneau.
What can be cheaper is to make all the hull above water line in sandwich, and all below the water line in monolithic, because this avoids all the work that involves detailing all the monolithic areas in a full sandwich hull. Some big brand MMC use this system in bigger yachts.
Bavaria used this simplified system on the C42 (not sure they use it anymore) and that allowed to offer a more stiff hull in a relatively inexpensive boat. Hallberg Rassy used to do this, but now the hulls are fully cored, with monolithic where it is better to have it.
Many will try to sell you the idea that a monolithic hull is better because it is more resistant to impacts, but I dont think that is true. Used in a monolithic way fiberglass is much more brittle than a sandwich composite. A sandwich has a bigger absorption energy potential and after breaching the first layer, it has to go through the core, that due to te resin has become hard (specially if it is high quality foam) and will absorb a lot of energy, till the inside layers are eventually breached.
In bigger French boats and German ones the "contre moule" tend not to be integral, not covering fully the hull, being at the same time more beefier. That's an improvement in what regards repairs or the location of a part that has become unglued.
For the same weight and layers of fiber (glass or carbon), a sandwich hull will be more resistant in many ways and also to impact, even if it is not where the difference is bigger. On the words of DIAB, a main provider, "The sandwich construction enhances structural integrity, stiffness, impact resistance, as well as being non-rotting as the materials are non-organic, resulting in lighter, stronger, and more resilient products".
Of course not all the sandwich hulls are the same, not all have foam as core, some have balsa, even if today closed cell foam seems to become the more used core among cruising boats, neither the number of layers in each side of the core is the same, neither the resins or the fiber quality or material.
Dehler, a more expensive brand from the Hanse group also uses this type of non integral "contre moule" even if here they use also some lamination and not only bonding agents.
Main market quality sailboats typically use more layers (and that makes them heavier boats) than performance cruisers, even if some of these are also lighter because they use not only better and stronger resins (epoxy) better fibers, including carbon, and more advanced building methods, including infusion, boat structure infused with the hull, or built directly over the hull and laminated to it, and lamination of the deck to the hull, with the sandwiched bulkheads laminated all around, making the boat like a complete shell, becoming one single piece and that increases greatly boat integrity...and construction costs.
On the Bavaria 45/46 they used a full hull grid structure,but stronger, that integrates de furniture, as part of the structure, a system developed by Cossutti fot Italia yachts, and that later was used on the Swan 48, also engineered by him, but Bavaria only used it on this model, and not in all C-line because it was more expensive and clients really didn't care.
Below, Hanse 460 that uses a system very similar to the one Bavaria uses in the other models, an integral full grid that is bonded to the hull.
So this means that older boats are worse? Not necessarily, besides many older expensive boats use already sandwich hulls since decades ago, and I have to say that in what regards contemporary production main market boats from the big brands the cuts in costs are bigger than what they were 20 years ago, meaning that if a model from the same brand and model was built today by the same factory, it would result in a more expensive boat, and if it was a model with 25 years it would cost even more to produce.
This does not mean that contemporary MMC from the big brands are not good boats, in fact they have an amazing price for the quality they offer, but will they last so many years as 20 or 30 year-old boats? I doubt very much, but who buys a new boat in average have only that boat for 5 to 8 years, and they are built to last much more than that, several times more.
Regarding more expensive boats each case is a case but in what regards older expensive MMC there was a tendency to make them more adapted as bluewater boats, meaning that in the design criteria that usage was more considered than it is now. Of course, that has advantages and disadvantages, depending if you use more the boat to do bluewater sailing or more to do coastal sailing, and if the balance was changed to coastal sailing it is because many more are using the boats as coastal cruisers, most of the time, and very few are using them to sail bluewater.
Contest 44, great looks while sailing
This year, before sailing away, I had near me an "old" Contest 44 that was for sale and I could see that all in the boat was oversized and that the boat was certainly very strong, sandwich hull and all, relatively narrow, with a nice hull, a 1999 design by Dick Zall, but with an horrible huge low draft keel with 6000kg, and a barn door rudder, that would create a lot of drag. The boat looked very nice with a classic look and would be beautiful on the water.
Contest 44, a beautiful classic cruiser with an outdated keel and rudder
With the exception of the keel and rudder the boat looked classic and very nice and I found it not to be expensive, at 85,000 euros. I even thought that if someone wanted a good voyage boat maybe it would make sense to spend 75,000 euros in having a NA designing, certifying and building a modern keel for that boat, a keel with a torpedo with 2.3 meters draft, and a deep spade rudder, to substitute the barn door.
To cut costs down even Hallberg Rassy, in the smaller yachts is making this kind of integral structures that are bonded and laminated to the hull. I have no doubt that it is much stronger than the ones that are used by the French big builders, but in case of damage due to a grounding, the nightmare, and costs, to repair the boat are the same.
That would result in a 1000kg lighter keel, in a lighter boat with much less drag and a faster boat. I guess that with more 125,000 euros for a complete refit, the boat would be in very good condition and would look like new, a total of 285,000 euros and that's the price of a new Oceanis 40.1.
I would strongly recommend this type of solution to somebody that has the budget for a new 40ft main brand MMC and want a boat to make a circumnavigation, being the Contest 44 a boat much more adapted to ocean sailing. But I would recommend a new Oceanis 40.1 (or a similar type of boat) as a good solution for somebody with that budget, that wants an "inexpensive" boat to coastal sail in the season, and even for making one or two ocean passages, also on the right season, and does not want to lose time with maintenance and want to have less expensive marina and port fees.
A last word about less common and less used building materials, aluminium, steel, and plywood.
Steel is the less used mainly due to maintenance and weight. Steel as a material makes all the sense for ships, and that's why they are made of steel, including sail ships.
Sure, there are other ways, better ways, of doing a boat structure: You can build a very strong grid outside and then not only bond it to the hull, but bond it and laminate it or better, to laminate it completely to the hull, becoming an integral part of it,. Even better, doing it directly on the hull, or having and external grid, of composite or steel and then infusing or laminate it directly into the hull.
For boats steel as a material is too heavy and also too expensive in what regards building, and while building a smaller fiber boat is much less expensive than building a bigger one, that price proportion is much smaller in what regards steel or aluminium yachts. Their building is much more labor intensive and the only way to cut costs is with robotic work, that implies hugely expensive equipment that does not make sense in a small production.
Aluminium is a good material for yachts, but it has a price problem that regards not only the price of the material, but also the bigger number of work hours. It has a potential galvanic corrosion problem, that the brands that produced those boats have mastered, but that still can be manifested.
Above, a Solaris yacht. Note that everything is laminated together, including the composite sandwich bulkhead.
Last year on the shipyard where my boat stays for winter, a couple was having their 10 year old aluminium voyage boat brought to new condition. The boat had been bought new by them, 10 years ago, from one of the main French aluminium shipyards: the boat was having new paint, new sails new electronics and lots of other renewed parts. The boat looked like new, and was beautiful.
Above, on the Sirius Yachts we can see the same and in this case, like in the Kraken yacht below the structure is built directly over the hull. You can see the green foam that will be the core of the composite structure.
They sailed away a week before me, sailing directly from Crotone (south of Italy) to Crete but in some days they came back. After having made 150 offshore nautical miles they found out they had a water intrusion. They managed to control the situation running almost permanently the water pump, but it didn't stop, and they could not find the origin. They returned, alarmed and pissed, and at arrival a crew from the shipyard went inside to find from where the water was coming, and had to take a substancial part of the boat appart, to find it, behind the galley, a small hole in the hull.
Some time later all the hull was checked with ultrasounds and even if it was found that the thickness of the hull was not uniform, with spots less thick, none of them was alarmingly thin or problematic, and the hole was closed.
Anyway it spoiled their season, they lost trust in the boat, that was put up for sale, and this year I saw the new happy owners, sailing away in a 10 year old boat that looked like new.
Above, Faurby embebed steel frame. Below, the steel hull structure of a big X-yacht. Other Yachts used steel grids or frames in their boat structure, like Salona, Arcona or Luffe or some Grand Soleil.
This story and another older one, by a guy I met in Dusseldorf, and asked me some questions about a boat that he was thinking of buying, a Jeanneau SO 55DS. I told him that the vertical battens on the furling mast did not convince me, for short handed sailing or bluewater sailing (that's what he wanted the boat for) due to a superior jamming risk, and I was assuming he was not a very experience sailor, but while talking I understood I was wrong, and, quite the contrary that he was a very experienced sailor that had already made 3 circumnavigations, so we ended up seating and talking about boats, while drinking some beers at the bar.
He told me that his last circumnavigation was made in an aluminium boat, a voyage boat from one of the main brands, and the the boat opened like a tin can when hit a rock at slow speed. He was disgusted with aluminium boats and centerboards, and wanted a faster cruising boat, and that's why he was looking at the Jeanneau SO 55DS, because if they all breach when the hull hits a rock, he thought it would be better to have a faster and bigger boat, for the same price of a smaller aluminium boat.
Grand Soleil steel structure
Note that an aluminium boat has a better resistance to shocks, if we are talking about blunt objects, where with some luck the aluminium bends and if the the weldings do not break, there is a bigger force absorption than in a fiberglass hull, even if it is a sandwich one, but if there is penetration probably it is not better than a composite one, specially if the bow and more exposed parts of the hull are protected with layers of kevlar. That will give them a bigger resistance to being breached, bigger than what an aluminium hull can have.
Regarding plywood, only RM is using it as material and even if it is a good material, specially when, like in RM case, it is impregnated with epoxy and optionally coated with a kevlar layer, but their use of fiberglass parts in the hull and cabin seems to show that the continuity of plywood use as building material has more to do with a comercial image than with a real advantage towards the use of composites.
Salona steel structure
RM started to make small yachts in small numbers, and at that time the use of plywood, dispensing the use of a mold made sense. Now, with much bigger boats, I believe that if the boats were made fully in composite, they would be as resistant and cheaper to produce, but of course that would involve a complete and expensive re-equipment of the shipyard, that would be very expensive and probably not justifiable due to the small production.
And I will finish with a word about what seems to me the biggest problems in what regards building and safety problems. I will start by the one that causes more sunken boats and that's water intrusion, that is caused by two factors, hull broken at the shaft rudder passage, due to a shock or even some lose or broken support part, and water intrusion by the bowthruster.
Aluminum Allures 45.9
They can be easily solved by two water tight bulkheads that separate these two areas from the rest of the bow, but they are not, because it is more expensive and also because it makes more difficult the installation of electronic equipment on the aft part of the boat.
Do you think that more expensive brands do this? No, most of them they don't, just ask in a yacht saloon and you will be surprised, the same with all other yachts. Even very expensive yachts go down due to this and recently it happened to a big Arcona. Many times there is a water tight bulkhead at the bow, but it is the first one, forward to the bowthruster. Because most people don't understand the importance of this, it should be the RCD demanding this, at least in Class A boats, but they don't.
Very well made Faurby keels, that will be fixed to an interior steel frame that is embebed in the hull (foto above).
Probably the next cause for sunken boats is divided between the loss of a keel, structural failure with broken bulkheads or water intrusion due to hull or deck "windows" to be caved in or blown out and capsizes, with the boat inverted. It may seem strange a window being blown out to be so common (instead of caved in) but that is because they are designed to be more resistant in what regards being caved in, than blown out by a big hull flexing, in bad weather (specially in boats that are less strongly built) but that has happened.
Above, Bavaria C 46 strong structure and reinforced hull port lights, below Dufour contre moule and port hulls.
In what regards "windows", that are always bigger each year the RCD should be more specific and take flexing into account, as well as it should limit their extension without support, that increases also the problem linked with flexing, as it should also be more specific to the kind of support a hull "window" should have and the hull reinforcements needed. I have seen huge differences in different boats, with some inexpensive ones looking scary, in what this regards.
About keels and keel support I would not develop the subject in this post, because I have made one only about it. If you want to know more, look here.
A Pogo structure and bulkheads entirely made of sandwich composite, waiting for lamination.
Regarding bulkheads, the number of main bulkheads broken is huge, in cats and in monohulls, specially the ones over 45ft. Most continue to use plywood for the main bulkhead, that has proven not to be a good material for bulkheads in bigger yachts. Bigger yachts should have a composite sandwich bulkhead laminated all around to the hull and deck. Some more expensive brands use a main composite bulkhead and some performance yachts have all bulkheads in composite.
Finally in what regards the risks of a capsize, or even "windows" to be blown away, it has more to do with boats that are used more as bluewater boats, where really bad sea conditions can be found, without the possibility to find a shelter in some hours, or few days, and when many times you cannot choose the meteo conditions you are going to sail in.
Regarding that, instead of RCD demanding better stability requirements to all boats as well as more safety features, that are not necessary for a boat coastal use, it would make mor sense to create a new boat category for bluewater boats, with more safety requirements, including stability.
Above, the big windows of the Norfship 420DS. Below, the older model , the Nordship 430DS had considerably smaller windows. Bigger windows is a tendency in all newer boats.
Of course this will have the complete disagreement from big brands, that would have to spend more money to make better and safer boats (if they want them in this Class), while more expensive boats will need only some adaptations, or in some cases, no alteration at all, and the price would not be different. This will only happen if sailors will demand it strongly.
Below, the southerly 48 has huge windows that will flex a lot
If you are buying a new boat you should ask about all this regarding the way the boat is built, and incentivate your friends to do the same, even if you are buying an inexpensive main market boat that you already know that has not any of those items, neither use vinylester or epoxy resins and use only bonded agents to hold the boat together, and the reason why you should ask it is because if people start to ask about those things, manufacturers would detect building quality as a strong selling point, and will spend more money there, and less in a nice interior.
As it is, almost nobody who buys a boat cares about it, as if the subject was out of the reach of sailor's knowledge, that implicitly trust the boat is built in the better possible way, and because people do not ask, or care about that, builders prefer to spend money in things people know and care, like boat interior furniture and finish, instead of making better and stronger boats. If all do this than there is some hope that modern tendency for making less good sailboats and more agreeable caravans be inverted.
So, that's about it, time to skip to the next chapter, the 3rd and final one, about WHAT IS THE BEST CRUISING BOAT FOR YOU.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.png)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
%20(2)_0.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpeg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpeg)
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment