Originally Posted by KeelHaulin
The record that makes boats like mine and the E-38 out to be something that they are not (lumped with the failed IOR designs), which were definitely NOT offshore capable, despite conformity to an offshore rating rulebook (get it?).
How can the advice of two owners, one of which has owned a N-41 for 24 years and raced on many newer boats, and myself, an owner for 5 years who sails in one of the windiest coastal places in the world, not be providing empirical evidence? I gave you evidence up the ying-yang about performance, and how this boat is not 'slow' given her displacement, and not much slower in sub 20 kt predicted up/down VMG than a Pogo 10.5. How much more empirical evidence do you need?? I'm not the guy who wrote the article on Practical Sailor which states that it is 'the perfect combination of cruising comfort and racing capability.'
Okay, Keel, so you ARE tunnel-visioned on the N41. Cool...we got that out of the way.
Look - let's try a different tack. The reason no one in this thread can agree is that we're all talking about different things. To wit:
1. The OP asked for full-keel
boats that go in light wind - with the presumed assumption that ONLY full-keel boats are REAL "blue water" cruisers.
-Simple answer...I assume...is...they don't exist. Full-keel boats are pigs in light air. Can we all agree on this?
- but this is where it got interesting...
2. Playing off this, the debate then shifted to the traditional "what is the REAL 'blue water cruiser'" angle...and older boats, that can go a little faster than full-keelers started coming into the mix (I think that's where the N41 made its debut). Now, even though the full-keeler crowd probably looks at the N41 as a horrible boat in "REAL" waves, you and KP extol its virtues as a TRUE "blue water" sailer that can blast through waves, yet, indeed, "go in light winds". So - here is yet another angle of the debate...taking the more "modern" designs like the N41 (when compared to full keelers from 1950, that is) and saying they're "better" - to the disapproving howls and cat-calls of the full-keelers.
3. Then comes PCP with the modern array of cruising boats that are WAY fatter and faster than any of the above. YET they are, indeed, "blue water" boats. Now, you and KP start with the disapproving howls and cat-calls, saying that no one, even the designers, even the market itself, knows what they're talking about. These boats are horrible in "REAL" waves. And the full-keelers chuckle.
4. Then comes the issue of how much time the typical cruiser is in such horrible conditions versus having a blast sailing really fast downwind. Do you want fast 99% of the time? Or do you want "comfortable" 1% of the time? (You guys dig that 1%...cool.)
5. Then come whacked-out cost comparisons of 30 year-old-boats to new, modern designs on the market, when the discussion was about the differences in design and capability between older and newer hulls (not cost). The classic dodge that gets us nowhere.
6. Then come the conspiracy theories of how the new boat marketers are duping the blind world of up-and-coming cruisers into going out and killing themselves because of too much canned corn in the non-existent bilge causing problems with stability while surfing toward Antigua under a kite at 22 knots.
So, see? We seem to be having a little trouble with focus in "setting the record straight" as it pertains to a "blue water sailer that can go in light winds".
None of this stuff is empirical. You just seem to think it is because it's your opinion.