ARC as a way to look at how different types of boats sail

[noelex 77]

The real passage time that matters most to cruisers is the time taken to complete the journey plus the time taken to fix the things that broke.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

The real passage time that matters most to cruisers is the time taken to complete the journey plus the time taken to fix the things that broke.

[emoji106] [emoji106] [emoji106] [emoji106] [emoji106] [emoji106] [emoji106] [emoji106] [emoji106] [emoji106] [emoji106] [emoji106] [emoji106] [emoji106] [emoji106]

[emoji2]

[Polux]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

The real passage time that matters most to cruisers is the time taken to complete the journey plus the time taken to fix the things that broke.

Yes, but i don't see the relevance here. It seems all boats have problems and I am not sure that a given type as more than others. You can see by the boats that retired or had problems, they are of all sorts, from a Discovery 57 to problems on the steering "equipment" to a Starlingt 39 with autopilot problems or an old Swan 44, a XC50, a Dufour 45, all with undisclosed problems, to a Lagoon 560 that had to turn around to make some repairs.

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Avere qualche informazione in più su quella barca, sembra interesante!!!!!

Unfortunately, her name slipped out of my rotten memory. She was featured in one of those fat luxury yacht magazines not too long ago. If you ask people in the field, they sure will know. Huge yacht, very modern lines, whole front window (about the whole width of the salon is glass pane and slides/hides back into the roof section. Another specific thing is she has a very modern and very colorful painting covering a large portion of the bulkhead that sits just fore of the salon section.

I will ask a mate with whom we salivated over her beauty some time ago. If he recalls her name, I will let you know here or via a PM.

Ciao,
barnacolli

[Suijin]

Originally Posted by Polux

Well, no, the results show that in average performance cruisers on the ARC are faster then mass production main market cruisers.

Well, no, the results could show that skilled and experienced performance oriented cruisers buy "performance cruisers" while coastal comfort/convenience oriented cruisers buy mass production cruisers...and that both groups sail them accordingly. Many if not most of the modern, mass production cruisers have very good PHRF ratings due to their modern design features of plumb bows, long wetted surface, light displacement, and modern underbodies. But if you're sitting in the cockpit reading, eating grapes, and only adjusting sail trim when you see a squall, you're probably not sailing the boat to its full potential.

I've done a fair amount of long distance ocean racing and a few rallys, with multiple entries of the same type of boat in many of those events. There is a HUGE delta of outcomes based on how those boats are sailed.

Look at the boats' PHRF ratings. That will tell you which boats are faster, for the most part. That said, given that the ARC is pretty much a downwind sled ride, there will be some variation as many boats enjoy a lower PHRF rating due to better pointing ability and windward performance.

Originally Posted by Polux

And you are contradicting yourself again when saying that probably mass market production boats will hold their own regarding performance cruisers and saying also that looking at the PHRF rating is the way to look at a boat performance. If that was so how can you say that mass market production cruisers will hold their own versus performance cruisers if these ones have a considerable bigger PHRF compared with them? Makes no sense.

I can find fistfuls of Beneteaus and Jeanneus with ratings in the 60s/70s that have better PHRF ratings than Outbounds and Oysters and whatever else you want to call a "performance cruiser".

Really, the only thing that would be revealing in this exercise is if you were to chart the progress of ARC participants against their boats' PHRF ratings. Doing so would reveal a) which boats outperform their PHRF rating downwind, b) which boats are being well sailed and which are not, or c) which boats found wind and which did not, or d) which boats had breakdowns impacting performance, or e) a combination of the above.

Originally Posted by Polux

I don't understand what you mean but you sure look unjustifiably disagreeable.

I simply stated an opinion about the value of your exercise, while you included condescending sarcasm in your reply. I'm not making any judgements about you, I'm simply saying that I don't agree with the usefulness of the exercise with respect to the validity of the conclusions you're drawing from it.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Unfortunately, her name slipped out of my rotten memory. She was featured in one of those fat luxury yacht magazines not too long ago. If you ask people in the field, they sure will know. Huge yacht, very modern lines, whole front window (about the whole width of the salon is glass pane and slides/hides back into the roof section. Another specific thing is she has a very modern and very colorful painting covering a large portion of the bulkhead that sits just fore of the salon section.

I will ask a mate with whom we salivated over her beauty some time ago. If he recalls her name, I will let you know here or via a PM.

Ciao,
barnacolli

By the description it looks like a Wally but I don't know of which one you are talking about:

Wally // Sail

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Suijin

...Many if not most of the modern, mass production cruisers have very good PHRF ratings due to their modern design features of plumb bows, long wetted surface, light displacement, and modern underbodies. ...
Look at the boats' PHRF ratings. That will tell you which boats are faster, for the most part. That said, given that the ARC is pretty much a downwind sled ride, there will be some variation as many boats enjoy a lower PHRF rating due to better pointing ability and windward performance....
I can find fistfuls of Beneteaus and Jeanneus with ratings in the 60s/70s that have better PHRF ratings than Outbounds and Oysters and whatever else you want to call a "performance cruiser".
...

You were talking about performance cruisers versus mass production main market cruisers and saying that they have similar PHRF. They don't. By definition performance cruisers are faster.

It seems that there are some cultural differences here regarding what is a performance cruiser. I have an European culture and for an European (and that includes sail magazines) a performance cruiser is a cruiser-racer with a good interior. Some cruiser-racers , like the J111 or the Sunfast 3600 can cruise but the interior is so little adapted to cruising that they will not fit on that category. They also call performance cruisers to some bluewater boats with very fast performance even if not intended to work as a cruiser-racer, like the Cigale or a Pogo 50.

A Jeanneau or Beneteau (even a First) from the 60s /70s, even if a performance cruiser on their time is not a performance cruiser anymore and a modern mass production main market boat can have a superior PHRF and be faster. That does not happen between a modern mass market production cruisers and a modern performance cruiser and the ARC is sailed mostly by recent boats.

Regarding the PHRF to be the only judge of a boat performance in what regards cruising with a relatively loaded boat, the lighter smaller boats with a bigger PHRF can be more affected (by that load) then a middle weight bigger boat with a smaller PHRF.

Regarding that, even if it is true I heard opinions that I considered vastly exaggerated like these:

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Like equating stability with seaworthiness, equating IRC ratings with speed for a cruising boat is an arm-chair fallacy.

Speed in a cruising boat - which will not have multiple sail changes on board, and will not be fully crewed - is determined mostly by waterline length, D/L, underbody form, sail condition.
..
IRC ratings also understate the advantage of size, since they assume racing condition without cruising gear on board.

Thus my boat has a similar rating to a Salona 45. In winds light enough for the Salona to use its much greater SA/D, and with both boats empty and stripped for racing, maybe they will have similar performance. But in cruising trim and in real life, my boat is one to two knots faster on every point of sail. ..
In the Med, I guess, or in Florida, a SA/D of 20 or more could be a good thing. ..
My boat's SA/D is 16.5, .....

(on the rudder thread)

He is talking about a Moody 54 that Typically has a IRC between 1.051 1.072, versus a Salona 45 that tipically has a IRC between 1.098 1.097, a big difference indicating that Salona is a much faster sailboat. Regarding a Salona not being fast with strong winds or upwind with heavy seas, a Salona 44 (that is a Salona 45MKII) has made some great results on the Sydney Hobart, that as you know is a race generally with high winds, heavy seas and lots of upwind sailing.

I apologize for any no intended sarcasm, but as you see your opinion is not an unanimous one (regarding rating to be a good indicator) and as on the ARC the boats are reasonably loaded that's a good place to have another look at the relative performance of both types of boats.

[Polux]

As promised let's look at the performance of mass production main market modern inexpensive sailboats. That does not mean the boats are cheap, but inexpensive for their size (new boats) and certainly much more expensive than some old bluewater heavy boats.

Regarding those boats the first is a Beneteau Oceanis 54, going very fast and ahead of all the middle weight expensive "bluewater" boats of the same size, even faster than much bigger ones. The only of those that is only 2nm ahead is a bigger Najad 570. The First Oyster, bigger but not much bigger, a 575 is behind as well as a fast Oyster 55. Sailing at the same levell of the previous boats, a Bavaria 42 cuiser then an Hanse 575, a SO 49, a Hanse 430, a SO 54DS, a SO45 DS, a Hanse 470, a Gib Sea 51, a Hanse 505.

Contrary to the performance cruisers with several smaller boats ahead of those, there are relatively few boats with less than 45ft, being the exceptions The Bavaria 42, a Hanse 430 and a SO 45DS. These boats are sailing at the same level of most cats, leaving some well behind and are sailing at the same level as much bigger expensive bluewater boats.

The exception here (regarding expensive "bluewater" boats, besides that Najad 570 are the two smaller XC 45 (great boats: see the post about it on my blog) and with the slower of the mass production boats considered above, a Halberg Rassy 54.

A final comment about the oddest boat on the rally, a kind of super MacGregor. I had to check it out several times. I had some difficulty in believing that some crazy guys would cross an Ocean with that. They are not only crossing the Atlantic but they will keep cruising on the Pacific. Check out the last post on my blog. It is about that boat.

[Suijin]

Originally Posted by Polux

You were talking about performance cruisers versus mass production main market cruisers and saying that they have similar PHRF. They don't. By definition performance cruisers are faster.

It seems that there are some cultural differences here regarding what is a performance cruiser. I have an European culture and for an European (and that includes sail magazines) a performance cruiser is a cruiser-racer with a good interior. Some cruiser-racers , like the J111 or the Sunfast 3600 can cruise but the interior is so little adapted to cruising that they will not fit on that category. They also call performance cruisers to some bluewater boats with very fast performance even if not intended to work as a cruiser-racer, like the Cigale or a Pogo 50.

There is a cultural difference. Here in the US, there is a more distinct difference between a "performance cruiser" and a "racer/cruiser". The performance cruiser is a full-fledged cruising boat that hedges towards performance. In more recent boats, that is a function of modern design ideas and construction techniques, with a nod to displacement, although designed to carry a cruising load. A racer/cruiser on the other hand, is far more likely to be slanted towards racing, in terms of design and equipment, but with amenities that allow it to be conceivably used for cruising.

As a result, we see many modern mass production boats...Junneaus, Beneteaus, Hanses, etc. that, because they are primarily targeted at coastal cruisers, have PHRF ratings that equal or exceed what we call "performance cruisers". They are modern, light displacement boats, relatively speaking, not optimized for long distance cruising or comfort at sea. They most certainly will not, however, be as speedy as the coastal cruisers, although the differences are hard to categorize given that there is more of a spectrum than defined categories.

Originally Posted by Polux

A Jeanneau or Beneteau (even a First) from the 60s /70s, even if a performance cruiser on their time is not a performance cruiser anymore and a modern mass production main market boat can have a superior PHRF and be faster. That does not happen between a modern mass market production cruisers and a modern performance cruiser and the ARC is sailed mostly by recent boats.

If I follow you then, your primary interest is how modern mass market production cruisers fare in comparison to modern performance cruisers, or as we call them in the US, "racer/cruisers". And your primary focus is on how well a heavily laden modern mass market production cruiser stacks up against a heavily laden performance cruiser, sticking to your nomenclature.

Originally Posted by Polux

Regarding the PHRF to be the only judge of a boat performance in what regards cruising with a relatively loaded boat, the lighter smaller boats with a bigger PHRF can be more affected (by that load) then a middle weight bigger boat with a smaller PHRF.

There is no doubt that all other things being equal, a boat that is designed to "sail well" with a higher displacement is going to be less impacted by loading than a performance cruiser (unless you pile all your provisions and crew on the rail).

That said, I still believe that there are too many variables at work here for you to effectively use the ARC as a testbed for drawing any meaningful conclusions about the extent of that impact. In addition to the variables I've already cited, you have the fact that many of the boats in the ARC are on the last leg of the World ARC, with a commensurate load and weary sailors. To be clear, I'm not attacking your ideas about the impact of load, I'm simply skeptical regarding your methodology.

Originally Posted by Polux

I apologize for any no intended sarcasm, but as you see your opinion is not an unanimous one (regarding rating to be a good indicator) and as on the ARC the boats are reasonably loaded that's a good place to have another look at the relative performance of both types of boats.

I never suggested that my opinion was unanimous. I'm simply stating my own personal opinion that the ARC is not a good place to evaluate the relative performance of both types of boats.

[Suijin]

Originally Posted by Polux

As promised let's look at the performance of mass production main market modern inexpensive sailboats. That does not mean the boats are cheap, but inexpensive for their size (new boats) and certainly much more expensive than some old bluewater heavy boats.

Regarding those boats the first is a Beneteau Oceanis 54, going very fast and ahead of all the middle weight expensive "bluewater" boats of the same size, even faster than much bigger ones. The only of those that is only 2nm ahead is a bigger Najad 570. The First Oyster, bigger but not much bigger, a 575 is behind as well as a fast Oyster 55. Sailing at the same levell of the previous boats, a Bavaria 42 cuiser then an Hanse 575, a SO 49, a Hanse 430, a SO 54DS, a SO45 DS, a Hanse 470, a Gib Sea 51, a Hanse 505.

Contrary to the performance cruisers with several smaller boats ahead of those, there are relatively few boats with less than 45ft, being the exceptions The Bavaria 42, a Hanse 430 and a SO 45DS. These boats are sailing at the same level of most cats, leaving some well behind and are sailing at the same level as much bigger expensive bluewater boats.

The exception here (regarding expensive "bluewater" boats, besides that Najad 570 are the two smaller XC 45 (great boats: see the post about it on my blog) and with the slower of the mass production boats considered above, a Halberg Rassy 54.

I think these results do point to one tentative conclusion; the hull form of mass market production boats, which are basically light displacement sleds, is much better suited to downwind sailing than what we classically refer to as Water boats">blue water boats with their deeper fore foots and greater wetted surface. If these boats were beating in a head sea, we would likely see a different picture.

Having sailed the Columbus route on a few occasions, I can say it does favor sleds both in terms of the wind and the seas. It's pretty easy uncomplicated sailing, with just about the perfect conditions for mass market production boats. At least until a squall runs you down

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Suijin

I think these results do point to one tentative conclusion; the hull form of mass market production boats, which are basically light displacement sleds, is much better suited to downwind sailing than what we classically refer to as blue water boats with their deeper fore foots and greater wetted surface. If these boats were beating in a head sea, we would likely see a different picture.

Having sailed the Columbus route on a few occasions, I can say it does favor sleds both in terms of the wind and the seas. It's pretty easy uncomplicated sailing, with just about the perfect conditions for mass market production boats. At least until a squall runs you down

I agree with you that some boats that will go fast here would not go as fast on a upwind course, but then, most of the bluewater cruising courses follow the trade winds.

But not all, for the instance the Xyacht, that have been top performers on this rally are relatively narrow boats that will perform much better upwind then the typical modern bluewater boat, kind of Oyster, Discovery or Amel.

Also all those top performance Italian Yachts that are having a great performance, for instance the Sly 47, the Grand Soleil 43 the FY61 are boats maximized for upwind sailing as almost all Italian designs. Have a look at the Fy 61:



and they are sailing well above those bigger Oyster 825 (that are racing too). Also a X55 ahead of the 2 825 Oyster. The Xyachts are also maximized for upwind sailing.

There are several types of boats, even among performance boats or medium or heavy performance boats. Look for instance to the lousy performance of that Mason 44, compared with more modern boats and last year I saw the same regarding other old full keel passagemaker, regarding new designs for doing the same job.

But I will agree with you regarding main market mass production boats not to be maximized for upwind sailing...just because most the cruisers that use them use them most downwind or on a broad reach.

The interest of all this is to see how each type sail on this conditions. On upwind races you can see how the boats perform on those conditions, except that there are not many rallys or races that have so many different types of boats sailing together.

[arsenelupiga]

upwind sailing is overrated. Only in near flat water makes sense.

Wait for 3m breakers, 30 knots of wind and then do upwind sailing for 2 days.

Enjoy. Ask your wife after how she feels

[Polux]

Originally Posted by arsenelupiga

upwind sailing is overrated. Only in near flat water makes sense.
Wait for 3m breakers, 30 knots of wind and then do upwind sailing for 2 days.
Enjoy. Ask your wife after how she feels

Actually I like to go upwind...3m breakers ad 30k is a lot, even if i had done that this year...I have fun for some hours, I believe that for two days it would be less fun and I would have to reduce boat speed for comfort...and that is no fun

I know how my wife felt, even only on those 5 or 6 hours That's why I don't do it more times (only by mistake). But you exaggerate, I have no problems to go upwind even with my wife with less than 20k wind, if it is not too close to the wind. With more than 15k she does not appreciate at all even if she does not protest much. But you are right, what she prefers is flat water even if I have one of those Italian boats that "like" to go upwind.

[arsenelupiga]

Originally Posted by Polux

Actually I like to go upwind...3m breakers ad 30k is a lot, even if i had done that this year...I have fun for some hours, I believe that for two days it would be less fun and I would have to reduce boat speed for comfort...and that is no fun

I know how my wife felt, even only on those 5 or 6 hours That's why I don't do it more times (only by mistake). But you exaggerate, I have no problems to go upwind even with my wife with less than 20k wind, if it is not too close to the wind. With more than 15k she does not appreciate at all even if she does not protest much. But you are right, what she prefers is flat water even if I have one of those Italian boats that "like" to go upwind.

that is by thinking also. cats also do go upwind but is pounding that sets the limit.

in 20 kn true cat upwind speed progress will beat similar size & canvass mono and wife will still be fine after couple of hours. Low wind speed more rollers, that is where cat gets real weak and monos vastly outperform.

[Polux]

After having looked at the performance of mass production main market cruisers let's look at the performance of the big production performance cruisers, I mean the type of boats that are only slightly more expensive than the first ones, have a smaller interior and a better performance... but first a look at a boat that should have been mentioned on the last post, a small Delphia 33 with an outstanding performance.

Not a particularly fast boat (about the same as most other boats of this type), the little Delphia 33 has ahead a Jeanneau 43, on the side a very badly sailed First 44.7 and a Beneteau 473 clipper and many bigger boats behind proving that a small cruiser, that is limit regarding RCD certification of A class, can successfully cross the Atlantic.

Regarding not expensive performance cruisers the best performance goes for a Turkish boat, an Azuree 40, a boat with a great cruising interior, a fast boat maximized for downwind sailing. A great performance and by fat the 1st 40ft, sailing ahead of almost all 50fters and ahead of most (bigger) cats. A look at the boat. Next year probably I will sail along with one since a friend is thinking of buying one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXy-0n7Lwvs

Slightly ahead of the Azuree sails a Dufour 45e, also a great boat with a very good cruising interior and a rigging that makes easy solo sailing. The Dufour is racing side by side with a racing X45 and a Xp 44 near the head of the race. Great performance. Slightly after the Azuree 40 sails an older First 44.7 and a bit after two First 40, almost side by side. Very close an Elan 410 and an older First 40.7. A bit behind a surprising Linjett 37. The 1st 37fter is a Swedish made very traditional performance cruiser, a boat that should interest the more conservative on this forum. Very nice classic lines.

All these boats are sailing among much bigger cruisers. the Linjett that is the last of all mentioned boats is on the tail of a Leopard 46 (cat), behind and close, two Jeanneau 54DS and behind a Oyster 575, a Hanse 505 and a Lagoon 400 and many other bigger boats.

The last of these performance cruisers, the Linjett 37 clearly on the first half of the fleet. Pretty impressive for a 37fter on a fleet where most of the boats have more than 45ft, many over 50ft.

By the way, I am very impressed by the performance of the Linjett 37 but she should not be on this post, since it is a very expensive boat. A top build also. Just look at this crazy movie with the new Linjett 43, that has a lifting keel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGWjmboWcYc

Tomorrow a look at the cat performance.