Canoe stern vs ????

[massnspace]

I am actively looking for a boat for some offshore sailing.

I am sold on the modified fin with skeg-hung rudder. Done.

But what about the stern? I am leaning towards a canoe-stern, but some other boats have what I think is a referred to as a “wineglass” shape, and still others seemed pinched off really high.

So what are the pros and cons of each? Do any work better with a longer fin and skeg underbody? Any advice welcome.

David
Seattle

[GILow]

Originally Posted by massnspace

I am actively looking for a boat for some offshore sailing.



I am sold on the modified fin with skeg-hung rudder. Done.



But what about the stern? I am leaning towards a canoe-stern, but some other boats have what I think is a referred to as a “wineglass” shape, and still others seemed pinched off really high.



So what are the pros and cons of each? Do any work better with a longer fin and skeg underbody? Any advice welcome.



David

Seattle

As a long time canoe stern owner I observe the following:

1. They look kinda salty so everyone assumes you can sail.
2. They reduce the useable space inside the boat more than you’d believe.

Apparently they do some other stuff, something to do with following seas, rough conditions…

But points 1 and 2 cover most of it.

[wholybee]

Originally Posted by massnspace

I am actively looking for a boat for some offshore sailing.

I am sold on the modified fin with skeg-hung rudder. Done.

But what about the stern? I am leaning towards a canoe-stern, but some other boats have what I think is a referred to as a “wineglass” shape, and still others seemed pinched off really high.

So what are the pros and cons of each? Do any work better with a longer fin and skeg underbody? Any advice welcome.

David
Seattle

The stern type doesn't really change the underwater profile much if at all. See passport 40 vs valiant 40. The passport has a *lot* more space, but underwater is almost the same.

https://sailboatdata.com/sailboat/passport-40/
https://sailboatdata.com/sailboat/valiant-40-101-199/

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by wholybee

The stern type doesn't really change the underwater profile much if at all. See passport 40 vs valiant 40. The passport has a *lot* more space, but underwater is almost the same.

https://sailboatdata.com/sailboat/passport-40/
https://sailboatdata.com/sailboat/valiant-40-101-199/

Yeah that's the comparison I was thinking of too.
Long ago we used to believe that double-enders and canoe sterns were better for taking on following seas. I think that has been fairly well debunked now.

But I sure like the Valiant 40.

[GordMay]

“Double Enders According to Perry” ~ by Bob Perry
➥ Double Enders According to Perry (Guest Post by Bob Perry)

Originally Posted by Perry

”... Then why did I make the Valiant 40 a double ender? Marketing! It was just assumed that offshore cruising boats had to be double enders and rather than buck that trend I decided to go with it and at the same time add my own twist to the shape to try and improve the performance of the double ender...
... I remember sitting at dinner one night with the Lafitte group who built the Lafitte 44. At the other end of the dining table I could hear a discussion going on about the benefits of the canoe stern. I thought to myself, “What BS.” If any boat is going to spend it’s life moving forward the best way to end the boat is with a transom. The bow and the stern do very different jobs. The stern should not look like the bow. I don’t think there really is a cogent argument for why double enders are the best sea boats. But if you insist on sailing around in reverse I think a double ender makes the most sense...
... For a wide variety of reasons a transom works best...”

“Legend: Bob Perry” [interview /w Robert Perry]
➥ https://www.nwyachting.com/legend-bob-perry/

”... “From a pragmatic standpoint, there are plenty of reasons not to go with a double ender,” says Perry. “There is less space aft on deck and less space below for stowage and engine access. But you know what? If you like it, go for it! Beauty and personal appeal are great reasons to go for a design.”...”

[Pete7]

Love out sugar scoop stern for getting in and out of the dinghy and the extra storage space in the aft cabin and cockpit locker. Wouldn't want to give these advantages up.

Underwater the stern is still very much a canoe shape.

Pete

[Mike OReilly]

I have a double-ender. Love it. Looks way nicer than all those boring, ubiquitous open transoms out there. But functional it ain’t.

I think the only time it might be a benefit is when encountering a breaking following wave — but luckily, that happens very rarely. Otherwise, you lose a huge amount of storage and living space with the tiny aft.

But the look lovely [emoji3].

[CarlF]

Like the yawl rig, the canoe stern was a better idea before cruisers wanted solar panels and dinghy davits on the stern.

[rslifkin]

Canoe sterns look nice and they may track a little (not a lot) better in a following sea. But in my mind, the loss of space, loss of weight carrying ability in the stern, increased tendency to hobby horse, and reduced ability to push past hull speed make the canoe stern not worth it.

A wineglass stern won't exceed hull speed as easily as a modern wide, low stern either, but in general, it's a better set of compromises than a canoe stern. It's a nice, efficient shape in the water. And the wineglass stern has far more reserve buoyancy than the canoe stern which reduces the pitching and weight carrying concerns.

[Lee Jerry]

A couple additional points:

Canoe sterns are not about the underwater shape, but rather the above water shape and how that shape interacts with the water (waves). Therefore, BP is somewhat wrong - there are reasons besides aesthetics, hydrodynamic and others, to use a canoe stern. In general, they may lose the total trade-off comparison in most cases due to the negatives discussed, but they still have their advantages.

Besides the known better following seas performance (I won't argue how much, and short of surfing), they also behave better to weather than many modern clorox bottles. The wide back end drives the bow down, skews the waterplane, lifts the rudder...

That better motion translates to easier steering too, whether a driver, wind vane or autopilot (lower energy consumption).

They have lower drag at low speeds (comparing similar weight), both lower wetted surface and better shape (lower wave making).

They don't "slap" at anchor the way wide, flat ass-ends do.


I would think that they'd hobbyhorse less, or at least less harshly (if that's a different thing), but I don't have first-hand experience.


On the negative, in addition to mentioned above by others, there is also the lost beam aft gives less sail carrying ability, but this is a more whole-boat design issue.

[rslifkin]

For the hobbyhorsing issue, a boat with relatively balanced ends is the worst case. A wider stern means the stern goes down less for a given amount of bow rise. This shifts the center of rotation in pitch further aft relative to the center of gravity. That gives more damping to the pitching motion, so the boat will still pitch, but it won't hobbyhorse as readily and you'll also feel less vertical motion in an aft cockpit (more comfortable).

[Kettlewell]

A big, fat canoe stern, like on a Valiant 40 or my former Aage Nielsen can be a thing of beauty, IMHO. They also don't reduce cockpit space much, and encourage you to keep junk from back there, which is where most modern cruising boats store so much junk. Every boat will sail better if you keep weight out of the ends. They have some odd benefits. I found it much easier to pull into and out of tight dock spaces because I could kick the stern in or out without catching a corner of the transom on something. They can have chocks right on the centerline which is a great place for a stern anchor line or a drogue line. A couple of times I have been stuck in a marina slip when a storm was driving waves right into the marina, and being tail end into that stuff with a big wide modern transom would have been miserable. In one instance, boats in the marina were taking breaking waves over the boats and an open transom could have been dangerous. If done right they don't slow a cruising boat up and don't promote pitching. Long narrow canoe sterns are another thing altogether. Beautiful, but too many compromises on a cruising sailboat.

[Benz]

Everyone is comparing canoe sterns to "wide, modern transoms." Well, of course canoe sterns are better than that. But there's no context in which a canoe stern is better than a transom on a full-keeled cruising boat. I have thousands of miles logged on various full-keeled transom-stern boats, and what makes them behave well in a following sea is the keel. The underwater profile of a well-designed full-keel boat will be the same whether it's got a canoe or a transom--the only difference is that canoe sterns are an ugly affectation (IMO), that take away valuable space.
Now, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so no offense to canoe-stern lovers, but I personally don't like the look.

[Kettlewell]

I rather like the way our old boat Snow Star looks.

[massnspace]

Thanks for the replies so far.

It seems that most offshore sailing happens going downwind (hopefully? And if the right routes are chosen in the right season).

So the waves WILL be passing the boat at most times. So most of the time the stern has to act a bit like the bow….split the wave.

That seems to me to make the canoe stern (or high wineglass) invaluable. Or at least makes the boat much more comfortable?

I should also say that I plan on using a WINDVANE a lot…..as much as possible. So does that device work better when the waves are not able to push the stern around as much (ie works better with a non-squared off stern)?

Loss of storage in the stern is not a huge concern for me (I think)…