SailNet Community - Reply to Topic
Thread: Fat Ass Sterns of New Boats Reply to Thread
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the SailNet Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
Please note: After entering 3 characters a list of Usernames already in use will appear and the list will disappear once a valid Username is entered.

User Name:
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:


Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Click here to view the posting rules you are bound to when clicking the
'Submit Reply' button below

  Topic Review (Newest First)
12-21-2002 06:33 PM
Fat Ass Sterns of New Boats

I would have to agree completely about Carl Schumaker. Carl''s Express 34, 37 and Lightwave 39 were some of the best all around sailing boats of that era. (The 37 was number two on my list when I was boat shopping)

12-21-2002 04:18 PM
Fat Ass Sterns of New Boats

Great thread, people!!! A lot of useful information to consider in this lengthy thread and here is some more.

I have not seen the name Carl Schumacher in this thread. He is probably the father of the FA sterns. And he didn''t care RA (rat''s ass) for the double wide berth that was created, just wanted to go fast. Used in conjunction with his lightweight hull designs and fine entries (Jeff) he only created a half dozen Boat of the Year winners through his recent passing. Latest being the Synergy 1000 (no queen sized aft berth here!!)

Quoted from a tribute article on his passing "In 1973, he moved north to work for Gary Mull, spending four years in that Oakland office before growing weary of Mull''s philosophy of heavy boats, big rigs, and pinched sterns."

His thinking was with his lightweight hulls he could surf off wind, and, the FA sterns coupled with powerful elliptical rudders afforded more stability in these conditions. This design element showed up in 1977!!

So, I would have to say, the late Mr. Schumacher gave us FA sterns and the mass and limited production builders are only recently exploiting the extra space!!

Check out the Express line, Olson 911 and Synergy designs.

Sorry Denr......Form does follow "sailing" function on this one.
12-21-2002 11:08 AM
Fat Ass Sterns of New Boats

We have one of those wide ass sterns and on top of that it''s a center cockpit. We think it sails great, is very stable and have had many,many compliments on the appearance. And, the fun only begins there, we can actually walk on either side of our island bed (standing up I might add). There are lockers, drawers and cubbys that you can use without being a contortionist. On deck there are stern seats and when we''re anchored or in a slip we pull out two of those oversized, comfy folding chairs, set them up on the deck area in back of the cockpit, mix a refreshing adult beverage, prop up our feet and watch the sun set. We can slide our dink right down the davit braces into the water, take 3 steps down our wide, fat stern and jump right in. I guess it''s each to their own but but we feel the pluses outweigh any perceived negatives.
12-21-2002 03:40 AM
Fat Ass Sterns of New Boats

Actually I thought it was a very productive discussion that was comparatively free of whining, except for the whiny post about whining. 8^)

12-20-2002 07:11 PM
Fat Ass Sterns of New Boats

Boy, do you guys whine alot. Why do you care so much about how you perceive what others feel about the way your boat looks structurally as opposed to just taking care of the boat that you do own and sailing it for the pure joy of sailing? Next thing you know you''ll all go off on a tangent about full keels vs. centerboards. Damn! Me and my big mouth.
12-09-2002 05:46 AM
Fat Ass Sterns of New Boats

Thank you Ryan and Jeff,
I was trying to get to the bottom of some things I was wondering about.
I''d like to say more but I have to pick up my 18 wheeler and go see the country for a month.
Type to ya later,

12-09-2002 01:58 AM
Fat Ass Sterns of New Boats

To answer Dennis''s inquiry: "And if that is true, is it true that if they DID have the wide transoms, like we see on the BOC boats, they would sail to weather better?"

This is not a cut and dry question. Powerful stern sections like you see on Open Class boats (BOC) provide a lot of form stability but in the case of the Open Class boats they also mean a lot of wetted surface. To over come that drag requires a lot of sail area. Lots of sail area requires a lot of stability and Open class Boats with their excessive beam and moveable water ballast have enormous stability at low angles of heel. That combination is not so great upwind but is spectacular on a reach. The Around alone is primarily a reaching race. It is very interesting to compare the Open Class boats to the Volvo Boats (nee Whitbread) with their comparatively narrower hull forms and well rounded sailing capabilities.

12-08-2002 06:46 PM
Fat Ass Sterns of New Boats

There are a lot of reasons that AACC boats look the way they do and Open class boats look the way the do. Open Class boats (what I believe is what you mean by BOC boats) carry movable ballast, one man crews and spend their lives reaching with minimal upwind or downwind work in their anticipated repetoir. They have no next to no restictions in the usual rating rule sense.

The AACC boats are designed to a ''box'' rule that severely limits what the outside limits of the boat can be. Draft, weight, length, sail area are all interelated in the formulas and limited in many cases by mins and maxs. AACC boats are sailed with small crews and no moveable ballast, but most significantly raced in a narrow windspeed range and on predominantly windward and leeward courses. This puts a premium on stability and low drag. Different problem, different solution.

Both are specialized types of racing and in many ways offer less filter down to cruisers or even club racers. MORC, IMS, and Volvo (Whitbread) really requires boats that perform well over a wider range of conditions and IMHO offer a much greater opportunity for advancements to trickle down to the rest of us. With the exception of MORC boats which have an older rule, these boats have finer bows and broader sterns than boats from earlier periods of design. They are not as extreme as the Open Class boats.

12-08-2002 04:01 PM
Fat Ass Sterns of New Boats

We wouldn''t have an IACC boat then because we would not be following the design rule. Perhaps you would have a faster boat upwind with a wider beam if you didn''t have to lose sail area/length/displacement to add more beam. If the designers just merely had a length requirement and no restrictions on beam, draft, displacement, sail area, then the boats probably would like quite a bit different.
12-08-2002 01:39 PM
Fat Ass Sterns of New Boats

So, am I correct in believing that the reason IACC(America Cup)boats don''t have the wide transoms is because they would be penalized for it? And if that is true, is it true that if they DID have the wide transoms, like we see on the BOC boats, they would sail to weather better?

This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome