Full Keel to Fin Keel.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Jeanneau with similar waterline is 410, costs three times more compared to HF50 and is still waiting for weather window

Comparing boats by static waterline is just playing to an old style of design and often to an old race rule, .eg all the CCA designed boats that have large overhangs to beat the ratings as well a mizzen yawl sail that didn't get counted in the rating. Those long overhangs made for short static waterlines. It's a pretty meaningless comparison.


As for cost difference. I agree there are some great values for offshore cruising boats in older designs. Being a good value has absolutely nothing to do with speed comparisons on passage that we were discussing.

[bobnlesley]

Originally Posted by wingssail

I think it is hilarious that we get such contradictory statements of fact: ...

Perhaps, but also both worth reading and considering; the long/fin keel debate like most things yottie will always be a matter of 'opinion', hopefully opinions based on personal experience, rather than gained on a bar stool.

Sailboats are static objects which move through wind and water, both of which are dynamic - at times a bit too dynamic! Even within the single generalisation of either long/full keel or fin keel, said boats are of widely differing sizes and designs, being sailed for widely differing reasons over widely different passage distances, in widely differing wind & water conditions, by crews of widely differing number/age/physical ability & knowledge/experience, so how could it be otherwise?

The only advice which I tend to discount outright when I see it, is that which is given as 'a fact' and most particularly any which state/imply that theirs is is the 'one' or 'only' way to do it.

How long would we follow these forums if whenever a question was raised, it was followed by an answer/reply and then a dozen subsequent posts saying: "Yes, that's right."?

[Pauls]

Yes. A sailboats interaction with the wind and water is not a simple thing. There are many factors going on and the wind and water both can vary so much that the definition of what is "best" is UTTERLY dependent on what you want the boat to be good at.

So much of boat comparisons are based on racing performance. Totally what should be done if you use the boat to race mostly. And of significantly less importance if you value other virtues more.

I'm very familiar with racing machines of the 2 and 4 wheeled variety. And I know that a machine built for maximum speed on the track is pretty worthless for anything else. This is a general truth for almost anything - focus on optimization for one particular thing generally results in poor performance in other areas.

Anybody likes a boat that sails fast. For me, that goal needs to be combined with sea kindliness, strength, and the ability to do well in truly heavy weather. This is called compromise.

Every individual will have their own definition of what is an ideal compromise is for their use and needs. It all depends on what they want the boat to do well. There is no such thing as a boat that excels in all areas. That is an impossibility. So we all pick and choose.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by Pauls

...Anybody likes a boat that sails fast. For me, that goal needs to be combined with sea kindliness, strength, and the ability to do well in truly heavy weather. This is called compromise...

Yes,...fast... sea kindliness, strength, and the ability to do well in truly heavy weather...

OK, I've got all that, in spades, where now is the compromise which you suppose I must make?

Originally Posted by Pauls

...There is no such thing as a boat that excels in all areas. That is an impossibility...

Don't give up so easily Pauls, I think we can get pretty close. I have.

[double u]

This whole discussion is entirely academic: the choice of full keeled boats, either new or second hand is minute to nearly inexistent.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Paul L

Comparing boats by static waterline is just playing to an old style of design and often to an old race rule, .eg all the CCA designed boats that have large overhangs to beat the ratings as well a mizzen yawl sail that didn't get counted in the rating. Those long overhangs made for short static waterlines. It's a pretty meaningless comparison.


As for cost difference. I agree there are some great values for offshore cruising boats in older designs. Being a good value has absolutely nothing to do with speed comparisons on passage that we were discussing.

What I'm actually saying is there's pros and cons in most aspects. The waterline is the only aspect determining the speed of a displacement hull so there's no reason to overlook it. Overhangs cost you in berth prices but they look good. Weight cost you on overhauls but increase stability. Long keel tracks well but loose pointing ability. Wider beam and flat underbody gives more living space and lighter boat but more pounding on heavy weather etc....
Every single thing comes with a cost.

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

What I'm actually saying is there's pros and cons in most aspects. The waterline is the only aspect determining the speed of a displacement hull so there's no reason to overlook it. Overhangs cost you in berth prices but they look good. Weight cost you on overhauls but increase stability. Long keel tracks well but loose pointing ability. Wider beam and flat underbody gives more living space and lighter boat but more pounding on heavy weather etc....
Every single thing comes with a cost.

So a couple of things here. The overhangs of the CCA boats did/do offer the advantage of a longer waterline, greater speed potential, once heeled. The downside of course being you have to be heeled to get it, so being a bit tender is part of the mix.
Now also, the wider beam and flatter hull, to my sensibilities, feels and looks great in the harbor, but once out sailing, unless its downwind, comes with a few downsides. I don't know the metrics, but a hull that is trying to right itself through the flotation of its beam will be more responsive to every wave it encounters vs. a more tender, narrow hull that is relying more on ballast for righting moment. Now if you like that responsive feel, and/or you don't care to live at 20 degrees of heel all the time then the flatter and typically lighter, hull is for you. And don't get me wrong, sailing faster and flatter is a lot of fun for me too! But I'd just suggest to all that if you get a chance, sail one of the narrower, old long keel, or fin keel, CCA designs and see if it doesn't appeal to you, at least to the point where you won't necessarily discredit them all. I'm always the first to admit my old school hull is a little boat on the inside, and if I am becalmed or running DDW then you may hear me whisper a curse at my tender hull that rolls gunwale to gunwale BUT once she is sailing at all and settled in, at that 15-20 dgrees, it's a comfy ride... and 6-7 kts out of my old long keel hull, 22.5' waterline (static) is my usual too which ain't too shabby.
Now a few folks have also mentioned that its wise to get a design with a hull that serves the needs you have. In my case, for the location, conditions, the family, for me, my boat is the perfect fit. If I had other goals or plans, I'd likely choose a different boat. But I'd still keep this one!

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Don C L

So a couple of things here. The overhangs of the CCA boats did/do offer the advantage of a longer waterline, greater speed potential, once heeled. The downside of course being you have to be heeled to get it, so being a bit tender is part of the mix.
Now also, the wider beam and flatter hull, to my sensibilities, feels and looks great in the harbor, but once out sailing, unless its downwind, comes with a few downsides. I don't know the metrics, but a hull that is trying to right itself through the flotation of its beam will be more responsive to every wave it encounters vs. a more tender, narrow hull that is relying more on ballast for righting moment. Now if you like that responsive feel, and/or you don't care to live at 20 degrees of heel all the time then the flatter and typically lighter, hull is for you. And don't get me wrong, sailing faster and flatter is a lot of fun for me too! But I'd just suggest to all that if you get a chance, sail one of the narrower, old long keel, or fin keel, CCA designs and see if it doesn't appeal to you, at least to the point where you won't necessarily discredit them all. I'm always the first to admit my old school hull is a little boat on the inside, and if I am becalmed or running DDW then you may hear me whisper a curse at my tender hull that rolls gunwale to gunwale BUT once she is sailing at all and settled in, at that 15-20 dgrees, it's a comfy ride... and 6-7 kts out of my old long keel hull, 22.5' waterline (static) is my usual too which ain't too shabby.
Now a few folks have also mentioned that its wise to get a design with a hull that serves the needs you have. In my case, for the location, conditions, the family, for me, my boat is the perfect fit. If I had other goals or plans, I'd likely choose a different boat. But I'd still keep this one!

Concur, thou about the heeled waterline length. It is something trivial which helped on a race to win a boat length or two but too insignificant for a cruiser to think about. What's more important in hull shape is how the Cp varies in different angles of heeling. While it's common knowledge that Cp around 0.55 is the most effective for theoretical hull speed there's not so well known aspect that it should be heeled Cp for narrow hulls while the Cp of upright vessel should be less, in some designs as low as 0.45. This affects in the performance as the resistance in light air is less compared to Cp 0.55 vessel.

[Jim Cate]

BUT once she is sailing at all and settled in, at that 15-20 dgrees, it's a comfy ride... and 6-7 kts out of my old long keel hull, 22.5' waterline (static) is my usual too which ain't too shabby.
Now a few folks have also mentioned that its wise to get a design with a hull that serves the needs you have. In my case, for the location, conditions, the family, for me, my boat is the perfect fit. If I had other goals or plans, I'd likely choose a different boat. But I'd still keep this one!

Don, our old Yankee 30 (a fin keel S&S CCA design) sailed much as you describe, and was a very sweet boat indeed... until we did our SF Hawaii round trip in her. What had been tolerable in short hop coastal cruising (mostly day sails between anchorages) was not so tolerable for a 16 day outbound and 21 day return passage. Being at those heel angles 24/7 adds greatly to crew fatigue, makes simple tasks such as cooking more difficult, and increases the possibility of injury as well. So much so that we decided to change boats before heading out long term.

And I agree with the idea expressed upthread that the speed advantage of the heeled LWL increase is pretty imaginary for a cruising situation. In reality, when passage making one doesn't spend all that much time pushing hull speed, and that's the only time that the theoretical advantage kicks in... and it is miniscule at best.

Long overhangs are indeed pretty on some boats, but for me, they will always be OPBs!

Jim

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

What I'm actually saying is there's pros and cons in most aspects. The waterline is the only aspect determining the speed of a displacement hull so there's no reason to overlook it. Overhangs cost you in berth prices but they look good. Weight cost you on overhauls but increase stability. Long keel tracks well but loose pointing ability. Wider beam and flat underbody gives more living space and lighter boat but more pounding on heavy weather etc....
Every single thing comes with a cost.

If that's what you are saying, then sure. Everything on a boat is a tradeoff. At some point you pick a boat as your cruising machine and ,ive with its pluses and minusses. It sure sounded to me that you were saying that fast modern designs are not faster than an old full keel designs on passage and that shaving off a few days on a 7-10 passage isn't likely. Static waterline really is a poor way to compare boats.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Don, our old Yankee 30 (a fin keel S&S CCA design) sailed much as you describe, and was a very sweet boat indeed... until we did our SF Hawaii round trip in her. What had been tolerable in short hop coastal cruising (mostly day sails between anchorages) was not so tolerable for a 16 day outbound and 21 day return passage. Being at those heel angles 24/7 adds greatly to crew fatigue, makes simple tasks such as cooking more difficult, and increases the possibility of injury as well. So much so that we decided to change boats before heading out long term.

And I agree with the idea expressed upthread that the speed advantage of the heeled LWL increase is pretty imaginary for a cruising situation. In reality, when passage making one doesn't spend all that much time pushing hull speed, and that's the only time that the theoretical advantage kicks in... and it is miniscule at best.

Long overhangs are indeed pretty on some boats, but for me, they will always be OPBs!

Jim

I've always liked the graceful look of the CCA designed boats. I owned and cruised an Alberg 35 for many years. For offshore cruising I wouldn't go back. The lack of initial stability made it very uncomfortable, ie sailing on your ear. It also got more uncomfortable when it hobby horsed going to weather in a sea.
Even with all the uncomfortableness, I still have a spot in my heart for these good looking boats.

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Don, our old Yankee 30 (a fin keel S&S CCA design) sailed much as you describe, and was a very sweet boat indeed... until we did our SF Hawaii round trip in her. What had been tolerable in short hop coastal cruising (mostly day sails between anchorages) was not so tolerable for a 16 day outbound and 21 day return passage. Being at those heel angles 24/7 adds greatly to crew fatigue, makes simple tasks such as cooking more difficult, and increases the possibility of injury as well. So much so that we decided to change boats before heading out long term.

And I agree with the idea expressed upthread that the speed advantage of the heeled LWL increase is pretty imaginary for a cruising situation. In reality, when passage making one doesn't spend all that much time pushing hull speed, and that's the only time that the theoretical advantage kicks in... and it is miniscule at best.

Long overhangs are indeed pretty on some boats, but for me, they will always be OPBs!

Jim

Ha! Yeah, I was thinking of you and your Yankee as I wrote it. Of course that heel makes one ponder installing a gimballed interior! One small advantage my narrow interior has is that the "galley" is the stove on one side and the sink on the other so I can rest my butt on one side and jam my feet against the other while heeled and be propped up straight and steady to deal with food stuff fairly easily. And not having a dinette interior means I always have one good leeward bunk too! My particular hull doesn't hobby horse much but I do try to keep weight centralized.
When I start thinking of longer trips, I'll get that Newick trimaran I've always wanted!

[Cpt Pat]

My modified full keeled (shortened forefoot) Ariel has a waterline of 18.5 feet. Standing straight up, her hull speed is 5.7 knots.

When heeled to 25 degrees, her waterline is 25 feet, and her hull speed increases to 6.7 knots. So I gain a knot.

Heeling is good. And the genius of her architect, Carl Alberg, is demonstrated when there is no change in helm between 0 and 25 degrees of heel.

[gonesail]

Originally Posted by thomm225

So if you should want to move from your shallow 4' draft full keel boat to a fin keel of maybe 6' what sorts of things will be different?

i would say right away you will be faced with a boat that does not track as well as your old full keel. docking the fin keel will be easier .. maybe that's why you see so many of them .. kinda like driving a car. but the fin will probably wander and need more attention at the helm and the sails

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

My modified full keeled (shortened forefoot) Ariel has a waterline of 18.5 feet. Standing straight up, her hull speed is 5.7 knots.

When heeled to 25 degrees, her waterline is 25 feet, and her hull speed increases to 6.7 knots. So I gain a knot.

Heeling is good. And the genius of her architect, Carl Alberg, is demonstrated when there is no change in helm between 0 and 25 degrees of heel.

And why is this superior to having the longer waterline available from the start, instead of requiring the boat to tilt onto its ear to get the longer line? These designs were done to beat tbe CCA racing rule.
FYI my Alberg 35 had some wicked weather helm when the winds picked up and you headed onto your ear.