Hunter, Catalina, Benneteau Debate

[donradcliffe]

I had a 1985 Bene 456 with a lead keel, which took me 86,000 miles without falling off. It was designed by German Frers as an Admiral's Cup boat, and had a flat forefoot section that slammed motoring into the chop, but came into its own when heeled over 20 degrees sailing into a breeze. It was no ultralight off the wind, but was controllable with a good autopilot. Daily runs in the trades averaged 170 to 180 miles, with some heavier air passages over 200. It was one of their first bigger boats, and the winches and blocks were first class.

I am appalled at the drop in design and construction quality in the last 20 years. Deck Salon models with huge windows that need air conditioning, lack of sea births, and glued grid hull construction. Unsealed plywood edges, power winches that require jamming off the mainsheet to tack the genoa, moving the rudder bearings ever closer together, fatter hulls with less ballast, anchor rollers supported by knife edge housings, catamarans with exposed steering stations and IKEA square corners on interior furniture, lack of handholds--the list keeps growing each year.

Catalinas haven't changed as much and have better layouts down below, but are slow to weather and uncontrollable dogs off the wind. I hate working on the smaller ones.

Hunturds, as they are called by one of my shipwright friends, had a really bad reputation in the smaller models, but over 40 feet they might cross oceans without self-destructing.

Finally, at sea, there is no substitute for size. Bigger is better. One night in Massawa in the Red Sea, we came out about 4 miles in our dinghies to assist a 82 ft sloop which had its Maxprop fall off. We thought we would use the dinghies as tugboats, but it was pretty sporty out there and we ended up tacking the big boat into the anchorage. I was really impressed with the feeling of sail power against 25k winds and heavy chop. There was no slamming or lurching--the boat just parted the waves into spray.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

I had a 1985 Bene 456 with a lead keel, which took me 86,000 miles without falling off. It was designed by German Frers as an Admiral's Cup boat, and had a flat forefoot section that slammed motoring into the chop, but came into its own when heeled over 20 degrees sailing into a breeze. It was no ultralight off the wind, but was controllable with a good autopilot. Daily runs in the trades averaged 170 to 180 miles, with some heavier air passages over 200. It was one of their first bigger boats, and the winches and blocks were first class...

^^^This is a statement which is a confirmation of what I've been saying. Thanks, Don, for backing me up.

...Catalinas haven't changed as much and have better layouts down below, but are slow to weather and uncontrollable dogs off the wind...

This I have to disagree with. There is nothing wrong with Catalina hull shapes which would cause them to be "uncontrollable dogs off the wind" Yesterday I was looking at my friend's Catalina 42 in the boatyard and I was amazed at how similar the shape of the hull and rudder was to my Peterson, and I know my boat and donradcliffe's boat are also similar, so I don't have any idea why the Catalina wouldn't have similar sailing characteristics

What I think this goes to show is that you have to assess the individual boat, you cannot generalize about a brand.

As far as the newer designs go, I think they are faster and probably still solidly built, but I am not a surveyor. I like the new Bene's Jeanneaus, and Hanse's, in fact all the euro boats.

I'll find out about speed this year when a friend brings his new Jen 340.9 to the race course (but I've already beaten these boats once before in Cartegena)

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by wingssail

This "slamming" problem is exaggerated and can be reduced by cracking off a little or slowing down. Both techniques are automatically employed by deeper hulls such as full keel models.

These and other techniques can all be used to mitigate slamming. I think we are hung up on minimizing it rather than focusing on the “root cause” of flat hull forms common to many beneteaus.
So-called deeper or V hull designs obviate the problem to a greater degree making them more easily managed.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

These and other techniques can all be used to mitigate slamming. I think we are hung up on minimizing it rather than focusing on the “root cause” of flat hull forms common to many beneteaus.
So-called deeper or V hull designs obviate the problem to a greater degree making them more easily managed.

Yes, they obviate the problem to a greater degree by self-mitigating it; they go slower and they crack off because they have no choice.

Please give us examples of deeper or V hull designs which have windward ability and are not slower and will do so without slamming, and please, if you can, show us the actual hull shapes (there aren't any).

And another question please, in which way are these boats more easily managed? If you are on the helm of a heavy, full keel boat, with a barn door rudder, I assure you it won't feel like it is more easily managed once the wind and waves get up.

Or is it some other kind of boat besides a Benneteau, Hunter, Catalina, etc. that you are speaking. For heavens sake, go to a boat yard and look at these boats, they are not flat bottomed. And anything designed in the last 60 years will have a generally similar hull shape or if it offers a softer ride it does it by by going slower and not going to windward.

If your boat is slamming, don't sail so fast.

[boatman61]

I would not call 4.5/5kts particularly fast.. and when one wants to sail for the Azores rather than up hurricane alley to Bermuda one has to sail hard into the wind for a coupla 3 hundred miles to beat the 30miles/day stream pushing one West..
As I said, suck it up or sell the boat..

[rslifkin]

Weren't the IOR hull shapes generally regarded as good performers to windward (albeit slower than more modern designs on other points of sail)? They aren't overly deep up forward, but usually a little deeper with more V than modern designs. Mind you, they'll pitch more, but they tend to re enter the water more gently.

The slamming of a flatter forefoot is more of an issue with short wave periods I think. The steeper, closer waves are more likely to toss the bow and have it smack back into the water (or onto the next wave when you get an awkward pair in a set). As mentioned above, higher boat speeds will make it worse.

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by wingssail

Yes, they obviate the problem to a greater degree by self-mitigating it; they go slower and they crack off because they have no choice.

Please give us examples of deeper or V hull designs which have windward ability and are not slower and will do so without slamming, and please, if you can, show us the actual hull shapes (there aren't any).

And another question please, in which way are these boats more easily managed? If you are on the helm of a heavy, full keel boat, with a barn door rudder, I assure you it won't feel like it is more easily managed once the wind and waves get up.

Or is it some other kind of boat besides a Benneteau, Hunter, Catalina, etc. that you are speaking. For heavens sake, go to a boat yard and look at these boats, they are not flat bottomed. And anything designed in the last 60 years will have a generally similar hull shape or if it offers a softer ride it does it by by going slower and not going to windward.

If your boat is slamming, don't sail so fast.

Straw man arguments such as that are transparent. To state the obvious, lots of hulls are more suitable on the wind than flat hull shapes. My son’s 54 ft beneteau vs our Alden sail completely differently to the wind yet both can sail equivalently efficiently close to the wind. The difference in behavior however is startling.

It’s quite easy to identify the hull shape of beneteaus while walking a storage yard. Try it!

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

Straw man arguments such as that are transparent. To state the obvious, lots of hulls are more suitable on the wind than flat hull shapes. My son’s 54 ft beneteau vs our Alden sail completely differently to the wind yet both can sail equivalently efficiently close to the wind. The difference in behavior however is startling.

It’s quite easy to identify the hull shape of beneteaus while walking a storage yard. Try it!

I'm sure your Alden is a beautiful boat and a joy to sail, however I doubt if the ratings (if I could find them) would show that it is equivalent to your son's Benneteau 54 in performance. I think if sailed side by side going to windward the Benneteau would easily outpoint and out sail the Alden. Yes it would have a rougher ride, but all he has to do is slow down to your speed and angle. It doesn't mean either is better, it just means that the rough ride is largely due to the faster speed going into the waves.

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by wingssail

I'm sure your Alden is a beautiful boat and a joy to sail, however I doubt if the ratings (if I could find them) would show that it is equivalent to your son's Benneteau 54 in performance. I think if sailed side by side going to windward the Benneteau would easily outpoint and out sail the Alden. Yes it would have a rougher ride, but all he has to do is slow down to your speed and angle. It doesn't mean either is better, it just means that the rough ride is largely due to the faster speed going into the waves.

Thank you for telling me how my boat sails. I had no idea you know more about it (or our son’s) than we do. Clearly, I’m wasting my time here.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

Thank you for telling me how my boat sails. I had no idea you know more about it (or our son’s) than we do. Clearly, I’m wasting my time here.

That's a bad attitude. Don't bang your head, just give us some facts instead of subjective opinion. Prove to us that I am wrong.

Have you sailed it side by side? How are they rated? Your Alden is 7000lbs heavier and has a much lower sail area to displacement, and a 12' shorter waterline and you get sarcastic when I tell you they cannot be equivalent?

If you maintain that these two boats are equivalent nobody is going to believe you. As to which yacht is preferable is a matter of personal preference. I might prefer the Alden because it is gorgeous but it is definitely slower going to windward, and probably on every point of sail.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by rslifkin

Weren't the IOR hull shapes generally regarded as good performers to windward (albeit slower than more modern designs on other points of sail)? They aren't overly deep up forward, but usually a little deeper with more V than modern designs. Mind you, they'll pitch more, but they tend to re enter the water more gently.

The slamming of a flatter forefoot is more of an issue with short wave periods I think. The steeper, closer waves are more likely to toss the bow and have it smack back into the water (or onto the next wave when you get an awkward pair in a set). As mentioned above, higher boat speeds will make it worse.

No, IOR hull shapes are dramatically flatter on the very bottom than most modern designs which are U shapes. One of the characteristics of IOR were the completely flat section ahead of the keel on the very bottom. They have V'd entry but it rapidly changes to a flat, triangle, shaped area which extends to aft of the keel. Further aft than that they are deeper and rounded in shape no longer flatter. IOR boats are slower downwind and reaching because they lack the flatter run aft, not carrying their full beam aft, and the contorted shape near the rudder.

[contrail]

This has been an entertaining thread, in that it has elicited participation by many of our most reliably opinionated members, some of whom have obviously had experience with the different brands, and others who have equally obviously not.

But the thing that throws me is that the manufacturers have changed their designs sufficiently over the years that you cannot legitimately generalize, even within a given brand. Catalina has been the most conservative, with their design changes, but even theirs have evolved, so that one really needs to compare specific models, rather than generalized brands.


Back in the late '80's, I lived on an early Hunter (Cherubini, with a lead keel), raced on a Catalina (in those days with a steel keel), and worked for the Beneteau dealer as an instructor, so I used to get asked to make comparisons, all the time. My answer was that I thought that Hunter came up with by far the most innovative ideas, some of which worked, and some of which didn't, in which case that model disappeared. So, a good model could be a really good boat, and one with an idea that didn't pan out probably wasn't, but you could not generalize. Catalina was the most dependably similar, throughout the line, and a good overall choice (and the one I raced was a regular high finisher, so I didn't think she was slow, at all). And Beneteau, if one were forced to generalize through the whole line, were predictably the fastest, although this came at the cost of other things. In fact, the only model of any of these that I could not make heave-to, was a Beneteau 351! I thought all three made perfectly decent boats.



Of course, I did get used to the slagging that Hunters have always gotten, but with over 20,000 singlehanded offshore miles, on mine, I paid no mind!


However, not long after I stopped racing the Catalina and teaching on Beneteaus, Catalina started using lead for keels, and Hunter shifted to steel, just to give you an idea of how significantly designs changed over the years. In the end, it comes down to a particular boat, where you sail, how you sail, and how a given boat pulls on your heartstrings. To you, she will become the best, fastest, and most comfortable, as she should!

[Bowdrie]

Originally Posted by wingssail

No, IOR hull shapes are dramatically flatter on the very bottom than most modern designs which are U shapes. One of the characteristics of IOR were the completely flat section ahead of the keel on the very bottom. They have V'd entry but it rapidly changes to a flat, triangle, shaped area which extends to aft of the keel. Further aft than that they are deeper and rounded in shape no longer flatter. IOR boats are slower downwind and reaching because they lack the flatter run aft, not carrying their full beam aft, and the contorted shape near the rudder.

Well, maybe.
For sure many of the later IOR designs were miserable creatures, designed to beat the rules, but many of the earlier ones were quite sea kindly/wholesome boats with an easy motion that make good cruisers.
A good example would be the Swan/PJ 43.
The early S&S ones are fine all-around sailors, you could race them and then take the family for a cruise, the later ones by Farr and Holland were much more of a "racing machine".
As the rule developed the boats got more "macabre" as it were.
Such is the nature of racing rules, design features that promote "easy motion sailing" are discarded in favor of anything to beat the rating.
The term "Flat Bottom" is just a euphemism, we all know the bottoms of the modern boats aren't really "flat", it's not a point to belabor.
Captain Q has it right, some boats are "mushers", others are "beaters", going out over the Columbia bar the "mushers" save you from going to the dentist for new fillings.
Some of us, (perhaps most,) are not so enthusiastic about sailing as an athletic endeavor, and certainly most of us don't sail ex-racing boats.

[donradcliffe]

Originally Posted by Bowdrie

Well, maybe.
For sure many of the later IOR designs were miserable creatures, designed to beat the rules, but many of the earlier ones were quite sea kindly/wholesome boats with an easy motion that make good cruisers.
A good example would be the Swan/PJ 43.
The early S&S ones are fine all-around sailors, you could race them and then take the family for a cruise, the later ones by Farr and Holland were much more of a "racing machine".

Good of you to bring up the Swan. We called racing Swans "furniture moving". They would go about 7.5 knots whatever wind angle you chose, and any attempts to increase that just made a bigger hole in the water and bigger wipeouts. I remember the bloopers and rocking and rolling before the crashes. However, older Swans make pretty good solid cruisers if you don't press them.

I stand by my Catalina comments. I race weekly on a 320, and it is one of the better Catalina performers to weather, but will spin out of control with too much canvas. I never get within a boat length of a turning mark going downwind in a blow, because once it starts to round up there is no stopping it. I delivered a 34 Mark II down the coast in 20-25 knots. The first night the autopilot lasted 2 hours before giving up, and I was the only one who could hold a course until I reefed it down to 5 knots. It wasn't quite as bad as the Ericson 35, which required nearly lock to lock steering on every wave.

I sailed a Jeanneau 419 back from Hawaii last year, and just came down from Seattle in a Sun Odyssey 40, where I spent 10 hours going to weather in 14-15 knots. The 419 has a plumb bow and going to weather every wave it hits costs you half a knot. The older Sun Odyssey impressed me with a pretty steady 6.5 knots to weather at an AWA of 35 degrees in waves.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

These and other techniques can all be used to mitigate slamming. I think we are hung up on minimizing it rather than focusing on the “root cause” of flat hull forms common to many beneteaus.

So-called deeper or V hull designs obviate the problem to a greater degree making them more easily managed.

Yeah but you pay a price in greater wetted area and hence lower speed and poorer light air performance and downwind control.

It’s a high price to pay which is why the faster modern boats and their owners don’t want to
Pay it.