SailNet Community banner
  • SailNet is a forum community dedicated to Sailing enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about sailing, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, repairs, reviews, maintenance, and more!

Full or fin keel?

191K views 846 replies 107 participants last post by  mstern 
#1 ·
Can somebody pro/con a full vs. fin keel for a newbie (will learn to sail on said boat) and taking it thru the Caribbean? All I can seem to come up with so far is fin keel is better to the wind, and a full keel will protect your rudder.
 
#130 ·
Seems, too, that boats with hard bilges and high form stability are going to be more likely to 'follow the sea surface' in a beam sea and therefore 'roll' more dramatically as a wave passes underneath.
 
  • Like
Reactions: skygazer
#131 · (Edited)
Those are both good and thoughtful answers. I agree. Thankyou
It seems unfortunate though, in my opinion, that the smaller boats are getting short changed by the modern approach to sailboat design. Yes, they are producing faster and lighter boats in the 30 foot range, but not faster and safer long range cruisers in that size. The modern hull forms and their attached appendages cannot duplicate the speed and safety when ladened. Something that most marketers are not telling the buyers. There is a simple explanation why the lowly Westsail 32 is slow compared to some boats around the buoys. There is also a (slightly less) simple explanation why the same W-32 is faster than said boats when they are used for long distance voyaging. There are sailors out there who are truly looking for that smaller “go anywhere”, live aboard, cruiser. That is, under 35 feet. A Westsail 32, admittedly a 40 foot boat, is attractive partly because it is “smaller”.
I personally, would like to see the designers, producers, and marketers spend a little more time applying the modern technology to a better, safer, “go anywhere”, cruiser that doesn’t fall flat on its face in performance, comfort, and safety when fully, or over fully, ladened, or, when it hits the bottom in the lagoon at Aitutaki. It would also be appreciated if these same people told the truth about how cruising performance will be different than racing performance, even with the modern, fast, light weight boats.
Full vs. fin keel? I prefer what I have. The best that a designer can do is to design the best boat for what it is really going to be doing, at its extremes. And remember that there are people inside.
Thanks again

After thought: Would it have been more appropriate to have put this post in the "Shameless Plug" thread?
 
#132 ·
Those are both good and thoughtful answers. I agree. Thankyou
It seems unfortunate though, in my opinion, that the smaller boats are getting short changed by the modern approach to sailboat design. Yes, they are producing faster and lighter boats in the 30 foot range, but not faster and safer long range cruisers in that size. The modern hull forms and their attached appendages cannot duplicate the speed and safety when ladened. Something that most marketers are not telling the buyers. There is a simple explanation why the lowly Westsail 32 is slow compared to some boats around the buoys. There is also a (slightly less) simple explanation why the same W-32 is faster than said boats when they are used for long distance voyaging. There are sailors out there who are truly looking for that smaller "go anywhere", live aboard, cruiser. That is, under 35 feet. A Westsail 32, admittedly a 40 foot boat, is attractive partly because it is "smaller".
I personally, would like to see the designers, producers, and marketers spend a little more time applying the modern technology to a better, safer, "go anywhere", cruiser that doesn't fall flat on its face in performance, comfort, and safety when fully, or over fully, ladened, or, when it hits the bottom in the lagoon at Aitutaki. It would also be appreciated if these same people told the truth about how cruising performance will be different than racing performance, even with the modern, fast, light weight boats.
Full vs. fin keel? I prefer what I have. The best that a designer can do is to design the best boat for what it is really going to be doing, at its extremes. And remember that there are people inside.
Thanks again

After thought: Would it have been more appropriate to have put this post in the "Shameless Plug" thread?
I think Jeff had already replied to that saying that makes sense to compare boats by its weight even if I think that weight by weight a modern boat is more seaworthy. Perhaps it still misses something to make things more clear and that is that makes also sense to compare boats by weight in what regards price.

So why should today designers be interested in making a very small seaworthy boat, like a Westsail 32, if for the same price they can make a 36/38 light modern boat that will have the same seaworthimess, a better wave passage (much longer LWL), will be much faster and will offer the same load capacity and much more interior space?

who between the two boats would chose the small heavy one? almost anybody;)

Regards

Paulo
 
#134 ·
PAULO, Thanks for responding. Your arguments are good but, in my opinion, they leave something very important out. COMFORT Certainly this is relative but it is easily the breaking point for many cruisers. Myself included. The 38 foot boat that the designers want people to buy instead of a heavy 32 footer will not have the same motion comfort. This is only one example of a hundred: On a delivery return from Hawaii on a very modern 46 foot high performance, racer/cruiser, We were pounding so horribly that we had to slow the boat way down and move much farther off course. We were 4 human beings and wanted to live. In the exact same conditions a boat like a Westsail 42/43, which is much heavier would have continued right on course, with a VMG exceeding that of the fast 46 footer. Yes, I agree, the racing crew would probably have just hung on for another 800 miles until things improved.
I do not accept that the designers should be telling me what I want. Concerning the smaller sizes of long distance voyaging boats, the modern designs are falling way short of of their promise. The theory is good but it doesn’t work out. I have yet to see it. If a boat has just the right Shape for a given displacement, then that same boat has the wrong shape when its displacement was altered because of the necessary stores and equipment for long range voyaging. This is, of course, Much more true of the smaller boats.
At this point in this post I offer one more disagreement with your comments. SPEED I must ask you, how much faster is that modern 38 footer going to be going than the heavy 32 footer that the designers want us to buy? (don’t forget to store the dinghy on that 38 footer) In my opinion, and I have sailed both, the real world answer is, very little, IF at all.
Just one more subject: STRENGTH Yes, technology can handle that problem. But the manufacturers are not. Where I live it is not uncommon to get a little twisted when maneuvering against the wind and current. When the heavy boat hits the dock. The dock may break. When the light weight modern boat hits the dock there is frequently a hole left in the hull. S*** happens.
Full vs. fin keel? On the smaller boats the better designers will use what is the best.

JEFFH, I have not read all 5418 of your posts but I have read Many. I think I like that last one the best. Thanks
 
#136 ·
.. The 38 foot boat that the designers want people to buy instead of a heavy 32 footer will not have the same motion comfort.
Motion comfort has to do also with LWL. A bigger boat has a more comfortable wave passage. Regarding the type of motion of an heavy boat versus a light one, well it is debatable, some like the big slow pitching of the old boats, some prefer the faster but less ample movements of a modern boat.

It is for each one to chose its preference.

This is only one example of a hundred: On a delivery return from Hawaii on a very modern 46 foot high performance, racer/cruiser, We were pounding so horribly that we had to slow the boat way down and move much farther off course.
Of course, in what concerns going upwind a fast boat is always more uncomfortable than a slow boat. If you cannot take the pounding that power and speed can induce, or just don't want to, you have just to go slower and it seems it was what you have done. A fast boat can go slower, a slower boat cannot go faster:D

Concerning the smaller sizes of long distance voyaging boats, the modern designs are falling way short of of their promise. ...
At this point in this post I offer one more disagreement with your comments. SPEED I must ask you, how much faster is that modern 38 footer going to be going than the heavy 32 footer that the designers want us to buy? (don't forget to store the dinghy on that 38 footer) In my opinion, and I have sailed both, the real world answer is, very little, IF at all.
You can only be kiding:D Between a westsail 32 and a good light cruiser like a Salona 38? Maybe 4 days in an Atlantic crossing? Maybe more if the Westsail has bad luck and the wind is weak. On coastal cruising without trade winds the difference will be a lot bigger.

Regards

Paulo
 
#135 ·
My long fin keel or twin keel steel boats are anything but expensive for their displacement.
Many of those older , short keel with rudder attached boats have been drastically improved, by taking the rudder off the keel and replacing it with a skeg hung rudder six feet further aft. I did that on my first boat,a 36 ft pipe dream sloop, designed by Kinny , with a drastic improvement in control. A 1958 design with the same improvements has won the Shark Spit regatta for the last three years in a row. The owner said "If anyone does the same thing on an Alberg 37, I'll never catch him.
Well raked , short keel hung rudders tend to act as drogues.
 
#138 · (Edited)
PAULO, I appreciate your participation concerning this Full vs. Fin keel discussion. Once again, however, I believe you have made a misleading statement. And No, I am not kidding. The Salona 38 does not appeal at all to me. I would much rather have an Alajuela 38 if I had to go that large, for long distance sustained voyaging. Do you not think that the Salona 38’s performance might be compromised just a little when carrying a dinghy (I carry 2 full dinghies when cruising on my 32 with my wife), 3 proper anchors each with 300ft rodes, plus 3000# of additional stuff? Maybe, also a dodger, solar panels, and definitely a little more battery capacity? Why carry so much? Because that is what people do, and need, if they are doing long distance sustained cruising. It is my opinion that your Salona 38 when loaded like a real cruiser will sail significantly worse than what you think, or are just saying.

PAULO: “A fast boat can go slower. A slow boat cannot go faster”
OREGONIAN: “A fast boat cannot go fast when heavily loaded. It becomes slower than the slow boat”

For anyone still interested in this discussion, a few (certainly not all) very good ocean voyaging full keel boats that really would surprise the critics are: The whole line of Cape George cutters, the Alajuela 38, the Westsails, the Bristol Channel Cutter and perhaps the best of all, the Falmouth Cutter at 22ft.

And one last thing: the continual reference to needing the “Trade Winds” to move or not being able to go to weather is totally a bogus statement on your part and the other critics. All the boats mentioned have no trouble in light winds or going to weather, if the owners want them to and have the equipment. All those boats can get the job done just fine.
 
#139 ·
Boats price (when new) by the pound, assuming similar level of equipment.

So lets compare boats by their displacement.

Westsail 32 displacement 19,528 lbs

Beneteau first 42 displacement 18,600 lbs

Pounds /inch immersion

Westsail 32 1064 lbs

Beneteau First 42 1712 lbs

Isn't that a fair comparison?

The Alajuela 38 displaces 27,000 lbs and a fairer comparison would be a boat like the Bavaria 50 at a similar weight.

I don't think the First or Bavaria would be upset that much by the weight carried by the Westsail or Alajuela, given their longer waterlines and much less immersion under the same weights.
 
#146 ·
Boats price (when new) by the pound, assuming similar level of equipment.

So lets compare boats by their displacement.

Westsail 32 displacement 19,528 lbs

Beneteau first 42 displacement 18,600 lbs

Pounds /inch immersion

Westsail 32 1064 lbs

Beneteau First 42 1712 lbs

Isn't that a fair comparison?
Carl's Sail Calculator is a useful comparison tool as well.
 
#140 ·
This Is Great!

All the smart people are posting info on full and fin keels in this thread.:)

Perhaps they are all still subscribed and could expand their info. I looked around a whole bunch but could not afford a full keel. I have yet to sail my boat because it is still being painted. I was wondering what to expect from what i believe are called 3/4 keel like the one on my boat? Is there a positive side to a keel like mine? :cool:

Documentation says my draft is 5'6"
36' LOA Vessel weighing 16,500lbs with a beam of 12'4"

I am hull #1 of 2 i believe. Created by Squadron Yachts of Bristol RI in 1981 in case anyone was curious where i got a boat they hadn't seen before.
 

Attachments

#144 · (Edited)
This Is Great!

All the smart people are posting info on full and fin keels in this thread.:)

Perhaps they are all still subscribed and could expand their info. I looked around a whole bunch but could not afford a full keel. I have yet to sail my boat because it is still being painted. I was wondering what to expect from what i believe are called 3/4 keel like the one on my boat? Is there a positive side to a keel like mine? :cool:

Documentation says my draft is 5'6"
36' LOA Vessel weighing 16,500lbs with a beam of 12'4"

I am hull #1 of 2 i believe. Created by Squadron Yachts of Bristol RI in 1981 in case anyone was curious where i got a boat they hadn't seen before.
The design of your boat has all the traits of an excellent rough water boat. Looking straight on from the bow, we see the deep v-hull design that provides much lower hull righting moment than the newer flat bottom boats. Lower hull righting moment means that this boat will heel considerably less on a wave than a flat bottom boat. The lower hull righting moment is compensated by a heavier keel. So in the end, your boat may have the same or more righting moment than the flat bottom boat.

The bow is lavishly raked along with hull sides to provide progressively increasing bouancy as the hull dives into a wave. Such a bow is well known to reduce the tendency of the bow to boring through the wave. Which is dangerous.

The deep v hull also provides a parting action to the water as the boat comes off a large wave dramatically reducing pounding when going into seas.

The long keel provides stability as has been pointed out. Interestingly enough you rudder is hung further aft, no doubt providing very good directional control. Not all boàts hang the rudder so far back.

The cost is that this boat may be a bit slower than the typical flat bottom boat. But your boat is going to be so much more comfortable in rough water. On the other hand the speed of this boat will be highly dependent on how much sail you put up. So you should not consider that this boat is inherently slow because of its hull design. Sail area will have a huge impact.
Bryce
 
#149 · (Edited)
Hey, I was just talking about this and we have here just a demonstration of what I was saying about inertia and the importance of returning fast to its feet after a capsize, to reduce the chances to be hit by a second wave when the boat is laying down:

(posted on interesting sailboats thread)

Great images. Those are really big breaking waves:D

Outstanding the speed that this boats can return to its feet after being capsized, even with a lot of sail out;) That was a double hit, if the boat had a lot of inertia (a lot of weight for the same RM) and was still capsized when it was hit by the second wave, the story could be other. We can also see clearly the boat going sideways and rotating dissipating with movement the wave energy (look at the clouds) otherwise than with a rolling movement.

Regards

Paulo
 
#151 · (Edited)
That was a double hit, if the boat had a lot of inertia (a lot of weight for the same RM) and was still capsized when it was hit by the second wave, the story could be other. We can also see clearly the boat going sideways and rotating dissipating with movement the wave energy (look at the clouds) otherwise than with a rolling movement.

Regards

Paulo
If it was a properly designed rough water boat, it would have hardly heeled at all during either of the waves. Interestingly enough, rough water boats do not necessarily have high inertia. The predominant inertia from a sailboat invariably comes from its standing rigging. Not from its keel. We have to be careful not to confuse weight with inertia. Although no doubt, a light weight mast on a 10 Million dollar sail boat is bound to have less inertia than any cruising boat.

What you are seeing in the video is the racing boats return to vertical due to its incredibly high hull righting moment. Thats what you get with light weight and a wide beam. The way you pay for this incredible high RM is that the boat heels heavily in a wave as the video shows.

Here is a picture what a boat with only hull righting moment does on a wave. And then how a rough water boat deals with waves.

Your video shows exactly what I was describing earlier in this thread. That is a racing boat load of motivated sailors will hammer through rough seas to finish a race. A cruising couple will hunker down below till the storm is over.
Bryce
 

Attachments

#160 ·
When caught beam on to a large sea, a boat will try and slip sideways, downhill. The important part is can it do so easily or does the hull want to but the keel not want to.

As far as design changes over many decades, I think there are many more boats designed today that are designed to sail well in different conditions without being tweaked and distorted to meet a racing rule. There were certainly many distortions during the IOR rule years but remember many popular long keel cruisers were designed to a rule as well - a better rule but a rule that defined design type all the same. Most of the long keel designs that are popular now for offshore use were designed to race under the CCA rule - Albergs being a good example. Many of them were not intended by their designers to be sailed offshore either.
 
#329 ·
As far as design changes over many decades, I think there are many more boats designed today that are designed to sail well in different conditions without being tweaked and distorted to meet a racing rule. There were certainly many distortions during the IOR rule years but remember many popular long keel cruisers were designed to a rule as well - a better rule but a rule that defined design type all the same. Most of the long keel designs that are popular now for offshore use were designed to race under the CCA rule - Albergs being a good example. Many of them were not intended by their designers to be sailed offshore either.
This is so very true.. it has been going on for more like 200 years though.:)

It is quite interesting to read the history of sailboat design to see the huge impact racing rules had on boat design.
 
#162 ·
Once a couple bought an old mould from a company that failed. The design was a modified version of a 40+ year old rescue vessel. It became probably the most promoted sailboat in history, even hitting Time magazine. It was the Westsail 32.
 

Attachments

#164 ·
Burton, Why would the manufacturers (mostly) all agree that they would rather have people buying fin and other keel types as opposed to full keels? As long as they are promoting their boats and making money the full vs. fin wouldn't matter. I really don't think there is some marketing conspiracy to get people to buy a certain boat type. It's just the direction of the technology.
 
#165 ·
Boats are in most cases the products of racing rules. In the 50's and 60's the CCA rule helped create the type of long keel boats that were common. IOR favored a different type of boat entirely. Now there are more designs that are not fashioned after any rule and efficiency is the goal in many cases. Dragging a long keel around is not for the majority.

Burton

You are the one that suggested that marketing hype and believing manufacturers is not a good idea. I was just pointing out that the boat most promoted in memory is the Westsail 32, your favorite I believe.
 
#168 ·
Re: Marketing - it is aimed at "most" people. Most people do not actually blue water sail, even though most may want a "blue" boat. Most people actually park in a marina, and coastal sail occasionally or rarely - preferably on a blue sky day. So, maneuverability is important, speed is important when out there, and beamy is important for amenities.

If it happens to require less material to build, that is fine also.
 
#169 · (Edited)
Having read all the various arguments in this most excellent thread thus far...I can only say that in my opinion neither the full-keel/ heavy-displacement folks nor the bulb-keel/light displacement/wide beam proponents have made a strong enough case to cast one's lot with one or the other...
There is evidence that seems to favor either one side or the other depending on the goals of the crew.... such as...take the long off-shore cruising couple or 3-4 four non-professional sailors in heavier full-keel boats who aren't in a race...but just trying to make a good offshore crossing or regional offshore cruise/jump... who may arrive a few days later...but perhaps had a less testosterone-pumping cruise... whereas the lighter wide beam race boat with gung-ho race crew and well-funded clients will likely complete the run days faster due to their boat speed and other amenities like satellite updates by a weather team onshore...and lots of race-driven "point A to point B" adrenaline/camaraderie....perhaps allowing them fly in the face of continuous rough-weather pounding like beam breaking waves hour after hour and so forth...

That said...I am looking forward to getting my (new) old '66 Columbia 40's rails wet this summer after she gets some work done on her and a clean bill of health...standing on her deck the other day in middle of a wide river when it was gusting to 20 mph...I was in disbelief at her solid, statuesque feel...though I had just moved up from a 8,400 lb to 18,200 lbs gross boat it was much more rock solid than I imagined and damn nice at anchor when it's blowin'...and I like to just be out on a boat at anchor sometimes...
 
#189 ·
I don't know if this should be another thread, but bilge keels look very interesting. Which ever way the boat heels, one (somewhat pathetic) keel is almost straight up and down, which to my mind means they can be as effective as a deeper keel running at an angle. And the other one, well, is vertical stability desirable or undesirable in a seaway?

Do they make them with aerodynamic keels, or just flat plates? There is one (British made) just down the road from me, looks very cool. I haven't examined it, but I'd love to. Could be a bugger to get off a sandbar.
 
#175 ·
At the end of the day, does not matter if it is a fin or full keel, round, flat or V bottom. Does it have the ability to carry the stores etc that a person(s) is going to put in it, then not slow down tremendously, still go to weather, down wind, handle large waves/wind, etc

If it will not do the above in the terms/specs "YOU" have for said boat, then it is more than likely under specked, potentially over, but more than likely, under specked for the use that the end user has in mind!

marty
 
#176 · (Edited)
mitiempo: “isn’t that a fair comparison” to compare boats by their displacement. Yes, I agree it is fair. The Westsail 32 vs. the Beneteau 42; and the Alajuela 38 vs. the Bavaria 50.
Skygazer: “Marketing is aimed at “Most” People”. Few things in boating are more true. Thanks for the comments.
Benjmin: “This is great” . Yes it is, and long overdue. Your boat looks great too. Thanks for the pics.
Paulo: Thanks for the great video and your continued input. My wife and I have decided NOT to buy a Volvo 70 as our next cruising boat.
BryceGTX: The thumbnails you posted were very helpful and saves a lot of words. All of your input has been welcomed (by some).

Yes, a heavy, full keel cruiser will cost more to produce. Yes, most of the light weight modern designs can sail faster in smooth water when empty. To disregard the valuable benefits of the heavier displacement and/or the full keel is not a step forward toward a better long range voyaging sailboat. IN THE SMALLER SIZES, both attributes can enhance over-all performance. My experience is not as a naval architect, nor as a marketer. It is as a sailor who lives with their results.
The flatter the bottom the quicker the “snap”. If any of the critics say otherwise they are blowing smoke and indicating a lack of experience. The lighter the boat the more it will pound. If any of the critics say otherwise . . . . . In the smaller sizes, this cannot be taken lightly. The modern, light weight sailboat when heavily loaded will lose significant performance, usually falling below the performance of the boat that was designed heavier in the first place. If any of the critics say otherwise they are blowing smoke and indicating a lack of experience.
I repeat all of this for a reason. The newbies. There are many reasons why most boats are fin keeled and light weight. There are also justifiable reasons why heavier displacement and, perhaps, a full keel are very viable options.
As I read of the many theoretic advantages of the fin keel by so many critics of the full keel, ie the “Tip vortices drag”, the” reduced wetted surface”, the “lift”, etc, etc, I counter that much of the hype falls into the category of “statistically insignificant”. That is my opinion, as it applies to the smaller sizes of long distance voyaging sailboats. As I have of a history of “Deleted” posts, I must not say any more.
Thankyou

Blt2ski: Thanks for that input. I see you are a wise man.
 
#182 · (Edited)
Yeah but is the state of the art really any better than it was 30 years ago?....aside from weather input is the question...I think ....Perhaps..a big reason these racers and others go out in these lighter beamy boats since what... the early 80's... is mostly due to satellites stuck in the sky in the mid 70's that could finally show a storm and transmit data so that these lighter faster beamy boats can get to the weak corner of the storm...There..I said it...I think that it's the weather and other tech input more than anything since the 70's that gives "state of the art" race teams and their weather teams on dirt a decent chance to outrun bad weather that the race designers felt safe enuff to come up with these type boats and the commericial hunterbenelina designers followed...I think that's fine....no ones said it till now...but playing devil's advocate.......I think that that's their ace in the hole...their speed...but meanwhile much of the time...,they are pounding and difficult on race crews if raced...or plodding and weather-windowed if cruised and overburdened with gear...which may well cancel their speed vs. the weather edge...just some thoughts...bet that rumpled some feathers...thats one of my theories for awhile and I'm throwing it out there because I am not seeing any other advantage to new designs aside from materials and weather/nav tech and I've thought on it for awhile...the new boats are merely taking advantage of the state of the art of meteorology , not yacht design...though some progress has been made it's been more materials/tech than some new over-arching philosophy of beamy and light is better...Who other than the hardcore big-ballers would really go to sea in those type boats with say 1960's weather forecasting...truly brave mariners...with iron stomachs...Polynesians and others did it..but that was along time ago...
 
#183 ·
Yeah but is the state of the art really any better than it was 30 years ago?..
Of course, like in cars, airplanes and everything else. New materials, new knowledge is continually integrated in boat, car, airplane or motorcycle design.

Those are a lot of assumptions.

I already have the boat with the characteristics that I want. For probably less than the cost of Bruce Farrs consulting fee. Not to mention the cost to build the boat.

His interpretation of what makes a good cruising boat may be different than mine.

Its not hard to understand.
A Naval Architect, or an any Architect for that matter, does not design accordingly with his personal point of view.

Farr would not have made a cruising boat to you according to his personal view or criteria but according with your view.

The Criteria is yours he would just find the better materials and the better hull and keel design to accomplish what you want.

As he know a lot more than you he would be able to design a boat that you would find perfect but a boat that would incorporate all the hydrodynamics knowledge and advantages of modern materials, he would do you a state of the art boat in what concerns the satisfaction of your needs, including sea motion but would make you a much better and faster boat that any old boat, even if one of your design Criteria would be that the boat looked like a classic boat.

If he could not do that he would not be a good NA and Bruce Farr is one of the best.

Just to explain myself better regarding what Architects do, a little story:

Some years ago a rich German come to me, recommended by another client and asked me if I could do him a "Romantic house". I said sure and then passed some weeks understanding what was for him and his wife a "Romantic House". When I understood what was "Romantic" for them I designed a house that they both loved, a "Romantic house", but a modern house in what regards building materials, construction functionality and easy of living.

He thinks that house is a perfect house and he even think that If I could (it is a huge house) I would live in one like that. Of course, he could not be more wrong:D

Regards

Paulo
 
#185 ·
This is clearly an unwinnable argument, and I think the two sides need to agree to disagree and move on.

Statistically I think the vast majority of coastal cruisers appreciate a more nimble, maneuverable design than your typical full keeler. But it's great that those who prefer that style still have boats around that will fulfill their needs. And for ocean crossings, while the relative merits are obviously still debatable the main shortcomings of the full keel are far less relevant.

That begs the question, where are these boats?
The very fact that very few builders are still producing such boats, however, pretty much answers your question, GB. Duped or enlightened?? To each his/her own.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PCP
#186 ·
As I attempted to say, maybe some agreed, one can get any style of boat designed, be it a fin or full keel to do what one wants. BUT, as pointed out, one needs to look at disp to disp. SO I looked up to known ocean goers that would be somewhat equal to my Jeanneau arcadia that is listed at 6200 lbs. A Dana 24 7200lbs and a Flicka at 5000-5500.

The SA/Disp of the flicka at sailboatdata.com was 12-1, with what I could tell was no ability to increase Upwind SA via a 155 or equal. The dana was a bit better at 15.x -1, potential to increase, but not easy. My Arcadia, base is 18-1, with a 155 I am at 25-1.

Bal disp, the flicka and mine are around 32%, the dana 40%. BUT, who is to say at my 5.5' draft that my 32% is worst or better or on par with the dana, probably better than the flicka. With out cranking some numbers......swag on my part.

Reality is, any of these with much more than about 2000 lbs of gear people etc is going to be hard on it for a longer trip! At least, if one hits the proverbial doldrums, my boat can have more power per lb/ton of wt than either of the others, along with a mast that is 40' off the water, vs low 30' range for the dana, and maybe 30' for the flicka. So if any higher than the waterline winds are there, I'm may still moving.

My WL is longer than either boat in length. Being as WL will help contribute some lessening of motion per say in some conditions, other worst, ALL boats have a wave length if one will that will be on par with another of equal lbs if that is what one is using to compare. Capsize ratios seem to go up higher the longer the boat vs shorter boats of equal disp etc.

With PHRF ratings of about 40 secs slower for the dana, and just over 2 min a mile for the flicka than my boat. A 1000 mile passage will take approx 11 hrs longer with the dana, and 33 hrs longer with the flicka. assuming I did the math correct. I would bet it could be longer yet! being as PHRF secs a mile difference do not always add up correct at the end of the day. Using 80% of hull speed to go 1000 miles, the flicka is 222 hrs, dana 204, arcadia 186. More than PHRF differences. Potentially up to 1 and 2 days more for those boats.

If one could hit some downwind work, with my being able to surf, and have over 900# of SA with a spin, the other two do not list, It could be upwards of 2 and 4 days quicker for my boat to do the 1000 miles. 80% speed is 4.5, 4.95 and 5.36 knots for these boats.

At the end of the day tho, we need a boat that will work for us as individuals. how we sail, where we sail etc.

Designers current and last boats that I know of. Farr used to sail a Laser 28 and F1020, both of his designs. Not sure what he sails now. Daniel Andrieu(sp) has a Jeanneau Sunfast 3200 for him and his family. Finot, has a similar style of boat to the SF3200, but a higher tech material for lack of better term for his personal and his design built by that company. Tony Castro has a 40'ish foot boat that is on par with an Alerion or Morris M series, but it has more of an open ocean interior, but older style with a very modern under body fin keel! the latter three sail there boats from the UK to France etc. Certainly some open water than can get interesting to say the least.

Bob Perry, while he does not sail one of his own boats, it is from what I can tell, on par with my boat, but a bit shorter, also a european built IIRC. His cruisers are not generally speaking full keels, more of a moderate fin, so they can be quick!

Most of us want something that is fun to sail, maneuverable, safe, has storage for our personal needs, and a design that works for where we sail! For some, maybe a full keel, other a bildge, some a centerboard ala Finot's boat, others a fin keel! some twin rudders, some single.......in the end, does the boat make your heart spin! as a good women, or man if that is your choice will. There is no right or wrong to keel type per say. Only what you think will work best for you. I'll take a fin, CB, moderate fin to a full keel in that order!

Marty
 
#187 ·
Most of us want something that is fun to sail, maneuverable, safe, has storage for our personal needs, and a design that works for where we sail! For some, maybe a full keel, other a bildge, some a centerboard ala Finot's boat, others a fin keel! some twin rudders, some single.......in the end, does the boat make your heart spin! as a good women, or man if that is your choice will. There is no right or wrong to keel type per say. Only what you think will work best for you. I'll take a fin, CB, moderate fin to a full keel in that order!

Marty
All the rest...IDK
but this sums it up for me, even if you did mispell bildge, (we're such a red headed step child) But hey,
I wanted a camper on the water and thats what I got...
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top