Old vs. New Style Cruisers

[ricwoz]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Did Robert Perry explain how he came to design double enders?

I figured someone (or everyone) would know who I was talking about. Well, he did drop into the thread which was very cool, but no, he didn't explain anything about double enders.

Here's the original thread, from 2017:
Sailing Anarchy: New vs. Old school blue water 37 footers? He made a bunch of comments throughout the thread.

[ricwoz]

Originally Posted by Jammer

I see these as bookends of a design continuum. The PS40 is too heavy and slow and the Jeanneau is built without sufficient regard to sailing in heavy seas and to things like ventilation. There are boats like the Sabre 426 and the Catalina 42 mkii that have good sailing performance, a more moderate beam, and a swim step on the transom, and portlights that open. These boats are also much lighter without any serious compromise in strength.

On the Jeanneau, I would find the saildrive, the total absence of operable portlights, and the excessively beamy cockpit without handholds and footholds to be disqualifying. On the PS, the canoe stern, while pretty, is not something I would actually want to have. Though some will disagree I would not want a cutter rig, because I want the foredeck to be clear, and because I don't want to maintain the additional sail and rigging.

Thanks. I sailed on a Hans Christian 38 quite a bit, one bit of it a pretty hairy crossing to Bermuda in November from Block Island, but much of it just lolling around in Long Island sound. And even though I was and agile and fearless 25 year-old monkey I still recall how difficult it was to board the boat after swimming with a hanging ladder.

I also remember sitting in the cockpit on the crossing and having waves completely fill it. weather gear">Foul weather gear, it turns out, doesn't keep you dry when you are effectively sitting in a bathtub. I realized that a wet suit would have been more practical.

However big the drains were, they weren't big enough. So, while open transom's look sort of weird and dangerous they don't turn into bathtubs. Some people say that the canoe stern is prone to pooping like that. I suspect any shape would have filled, but I've never experienced that sort of extreme weather in any other boat.

Thanks for the pointers to other boats to look at.

[ricwoz]

Originally Posted by Linguini

You compare apples and oranges. compare the PC40 against a modern 600k 40 feet yacht and not against a conveyor belt yacht.

Originally Posted by Tetepare

One thing oft not discussed is longevity. 25+ YO PC40 may need some TLC. Let's see how that SO41 is in 25 years. If one selects a boat for long-term, I'll argue a used PC40 is a better investment with lower maintenance.

Originally Posted by DMF Sailing

I have to agree with the above posters. I can go out right now and buy a new Jeanneau SO389. For that money, I am 100 grand short of being able to purchase a new Pacific Seacraft 31!
...

If I were to ask the OP's question--and welcome to the forum and sorry to nitpick but this is what you wanted, right?--

Thank you for the welcome, and yes, this is exactly the sort of discussion I was hoping to have, with people who know more about this than I do.

Originally Posted by DMF Sailing

I'd be asking you to compare a new Jeanneau SO41 to a commensurately priced used Pacific Seacraft 40, because I believe this is the choice a buyer who wants the latter will have to make.

Unless we want to postulate that people who like slower, sturdier, more seaworthy design and build by definition have at their disposal hundreds of thousand dollars more than people who prefer speed, entertainment, and space.

Thanks all for these comments. What I was trying to do was to focus a bit on the difference in the designs, and I picked the Jeaneau because of it's outrageously aggressive looks. I owned, for many years, a NACRA 5.2 - this boat looks a bit like that. Plumb bow, sheer stern, the shape (like a lot of the new boats) looks like it had a few feet amputated from the original design.

I was trying to separate out the design elements from the price, but obviously I didn't pick the greatest example with the Jeaneau, because of the quality issues. (I really don't know much about Jeaneau's. I don't think I've ever seen one in the flesh, certainly never sailed on one or anything like it. I've sailed a lot on the Pearson Triton (starting at age 3 or 4), Sabre's, Irwin's, the Hans Christian and a very nice Bristol. All pretty much (to varying degrees) on the "old school" side of the design.

Perhaps I should have picked the newer Hallberg-Rassy 40. Even though they have a reputation for building traditional boats, the new one has the twin rudders of the Jeaneau, the wider beam, the dual-wheels, the open transsom with swim-steps, etc. (I'll put the rear-cockpit one here, but there is a Center Cockpit too, as that's one of HR's trademarks)





Is this a better built example of the modern cruiser genre, that is more comparable to the price and quality of the Pacific Seacraft?

The siblings, a nice shot:





HALLBERG-RASSY 40C DATA SHEET
Designer Germán Frers Naval Architecture & Engineering
CE category A - Unlimited ocean voyages
Hull length 40’ 4”
Maximum length 42’ 10’’
Waterline at rest 38’ 6’’
Beam 13’ 8 1/2”
Draught, empty standard boat 6’ 4” *
Displacement, empty standard boat 24,250 lbs
Keel weight 8,.050 lbs
Keel type lead on deep bilge
* Also available as a shallow draught version
Sail area with genoajib, standard boat 970 ft²
Sail area with genoajib, optimized sail area 1,040 ft²
Air draft, ex Windex 64’ 10’’
Engine Volvo Penta D2-60
Power at crank shaft 44 kW / 60 HP
Max torque 169 Nm/2000 rpm
Diesel tank 106 US gallon
Fresh water tanks 137 US gallon

Price: ~$550,000

[rslifkin]

I'd definitely consider the Hallberg Rassy a better comparison to the PS40. It's closer in price, also much more similar in build quality and features intended for long periods away from the dock (tankage, ventilation, etc.).

[Don C L]

Welcome aboard ricwoz!
I didn't read what Perry said about double-enders yet, but I am not aware of any particular advantage double-enders or canoe sterns have in following seas, other than they can be elegant designs to look at. I actually have wondered if a double ender might be more susceptible to getting the rear end kicked around in a broach by a following sea, but I have no empirical evidence for that.

I think as others have mentioned, you really have to look at how the boat will be used and what are the most common conditions you'll encounter. The closest thing to the Jeanneau I have sailed on was a Frers 65. It was a big surfboard and it was great downwind. Upwind it slammed. I suspect that is the nature of the beast for all these designs. Now I can imagine someone who loves the downwind performance would put up with the slamming by heading off a bit going upwind. I can certainly see that.

There is another feature that is harder to measure and evaluate though... the mysterious "seakindliness." There is no measure for it in boat specs. But I think you will know it when you feel it. Some folks are happy to forego some downwind performance for a more comfortable ride, especially upwind, in a heavier, deeper displacement design. Lighter boats, with fin keels and spade rudders, with shallow bilges like the more modern designs coming out of the 70's, feel bouncy to me, like a cork, and they will rotate on all three axes. They should be faster though. (Although I gotta say I was out yesterday coming back in, reaching, with a Catalina 27 with well trimmed sails upwind of me, in a little under 20 knot breeze and I won in my old school boat!) A heavier, narrower and deeper design tends to pitch, but roll and yaw not so much, once sailing, at least to my sensibilities. But I have not tried one in the 40 foot range, and I'd be happy to give one a try!

There is still part of me that wants to go fast no matter what! And then there is part of me that says, ok, I've had enough of this, I'd like to sleep now. Guess I am getting older. I think there are designs that allow you to have a bit of both.

I love pondering all this stuff... I'd love to get a job where I could sail all sorts of different new designs to compare performance because, as we all know well, "There is nothing, absolutely nothing, half so much worth doing as simply messing around in boats!"

edit:
ok I just went back and read Perry's article and this jumped out at me!
"Then why did I make the Valiant 40 a double ender? Marketing!"
What a confession!

[ricwoz]

Originally Posted by rslifkin

I'd definitely consider the Hallberg Rassy a better comparison to the PS40. It's closer in price, also much more similar in build quality and features intended for long periods away from the dock (tankage, ventilation, etc.).

OK, so as someone more familiar with the old style of boats, but trying hard to understand and accept progress where it exists, here are things that creep me out about the HR.

• Twin Rudders (seem very exposed to breakage, but I guess you still have one if that happens)
• Twin Helms, mostly for aesthetic reasons ("two is one and one is none"?)
• Exposed position at the helm. (In the sort of giant seas that completely swamped the cockpit of the Hans Christian 38 on my fun trip back in the mid-1980s, I can imagine being swept completely out of the boat)
• Furled-in-the-mast mainsail. The Bristol I sailed on (Bahamas to Miami) and I remember looking at it sceptically the whole time. (The Jeaneau gives buyers the choice of either a conventional or electric furling-in-the-mast main)

These are the sorts of design elements I am characterizing as new school that I still am not sure I get or like.

[MicHughV]

Some people like blondes...others like brunettes...and ne'er the twain shall meet...

Get what YOU want !!!

[JPA Cate]

Hello, ricwoz, and welcome back aboard CF.

All our cruising has been done in fin keel, skeg-hung rudder boats. So you can see this will be a "neither of the above" sort of post, wherein I will try to explain why. I'll add that this boat (in my avatar) displaces the same as our 36 footer, thus we did not need bigger winches, the efforts in sailing are very similar.

Look at the drawings. Which boat has potential sea berths parallel to the center line of the boat? At sea, those curved hull quarterberths, when the curve is on the downhill side of the boat, you slide down till your head stops at the bulkhead, and your neck takes all your weight. It is not a comfortable way to sleep. You need to be parallel to the centerline. One needs both port and starboard sea berths.

In a lively seaway, you need handholds or finger rails to move safely around.

You want to feel safe in the galley. I think both of those boats you would want a butt belt, but I liked the Crealock's better. I prefer equal size deep double sinks, on the center line for good drainage. We have a U shaped galley, and that will keep you safe, as long as there is a safety bar in front of the stove.

At sea, you want ventilation that doesn't allow water penetration. For hot weather, you want cross ventilation through opening ports, (you can open the ports on the leeward side, at least); dorades help, and fans help, too both in galley and salon, but also in the berths.

If you want a boat that is fun to sail, you will most likely be looking at a fin keel. There's a lot of light airs in a circumnavigation. It is more fun to sail than motor (imho). So, when you look at the heavy displacement lot, you can ask how can you overcome the tendency to motor downwind, just as you can ask the opposite question for sailing the fin keeler upwind: is it okay if I crack off 5 degrees to not pound, and maybe go faster? [I have to admit that our medium displacement boat was deemed too lively at anchor, by some folks with a beautiful timber schooner, that probably displaced 4 times ours. So people's expectations do vary, and they do get to choose what they prefer.]

Part of the issue, of course, is where you want to sail with the boat, whatever you choose. One of CF's members completed a circumnavigation in a Catalina 47, a year or so ago, from Australia. He has sounded completely happy with that boat, and it didn't fall apart on him. He didn't have to worry about plexus failing. If you want a boat that is better built, then you're going to have to pay more, and you'll be looking at different issues. There's a thread here by noelex77 called "Bestevaer 49," wherein the OP writes about the design decisions in that boat. Way interesting to me. (Use the CF Custom Google Search under the Search button.) That is a boat built for high latitude use.

A boat with a fine entry and a broad stern resists hobby horsing. A boat with pinched ends is far more inclined to pitch. The Jeanneau will probably be a lot more resistant to pitching. But, it will probably fall apart sooner. If your usage would be to sail around in protected waters, never get caught out in bad weather, you could be happy with it. You could possibly circumnavigate safely in it with a few changes.

The Crealock would be slower, and maybe not as much fun to sail, and, and until you state clearly what the intended use of the boats would be, I'll still think you need to approach the problem from a different direction, based on what you want to do with it, and how long you think you would keep it. If longevity and durability are major values for you, then you're going to approach the problem from the design implications, whose designs do you like best and why, and are they suited to your anticipated use of the boat? Would you be happy with a crab crusher? Is Eurostyle important to you? Maybe an Allures would do you best?

Ann

PS. The builder of our boat went to a naval architect and had our boat drawn specifically for cruising, so its forward sections are somewhat rounded to reduce slamming, though it is pretty flat aft, but she is fun to sail, and sails competently on the wind. I think the full keel folks exaggerate the slamming problem, just slowing down a tiny bit stops it when it happens, or cracking off. It is not a big deal on a passage to drift away from the rhumb line. A few hours difference in arrival times is not usually critical.

[goboatingnow]

What’s the point comparing these. The differences are almost all subjective and based in peoples peccadillos. It all depends on what you like and value.

[Jim Cate]

The differences are almost all subjective and based in peoples peccadillos

Say what???

Jim

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Say what???

Jim

He said my boat's the best

[Whokickamoocow]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

Hello, ricwoz, and welcome back aboard CF.

All our cruising has been done in fin keel, skeg-hung rudder boats. So you can see this will be a "neither of the above" sort of post, wherein I will try to explain why. I'll add that this boat (in my avatar) displaces the same as our 36 footer, thus we did not need bigger winches, the efforts in sailing are very similar.

Look at the drawings. Which boat has potential sea berths parallel to the center line of the boat? At sea, those curved hull quarterberths, when the curve is on the downhill side of the boat, you slide down till your head stops at the bulkhead, and your neck takes all your weight. It is not a comfortable way to sleep. You need to be parallel to the centerline. One needs both port and starboard sea berths.

In a lively seaway, you need handholds or finger rails to move safely around.

You want to feel safe in the galley. I think both of those boats you would want a butt belt, but I liked the Crealock's better. I prefer equal size deep double sinks, on the center line for good drainage. We have a U shaped galley, and that will keep you safe, as long as there is a safety bar in front of the stove.

At sea, you want ventilation that doesn't allow water penetration. For hot weather, you want cross ventilation through opening ports, (you can open the ports on the leeward side, at least); dorades help, and fans help, too both in galley and salon, but also in the berths.

If you want a boat that is fun to sail, you will most likely be looking at a fin keel. There's a lot of light airs in a circumnavigation. It is more fun to sail than motor (imho). So, when you look at the heavy displacement lot, you can ask how can you overcome the tendency to motor downwind, just as you can ask the opposite question for sailing the fin keeler upwind: is it okay if I crack off 5 degrees to not pound, and maybe go faster? [I have to admit that our medium displacement boat was deemed too lively at anchor, by some folks with a beautiful timber schooner, that probably displaced 4 times ours. So people's expectations do vary, and they do get to choose what they prefer.]

Part of the issue, of course, is where you want to sail with the boat, whatever you choose. One of CF's members completed a circumnavigation in a Catalina 47, a year or so ago, from Australia. He has sounded completely happy with that boat, and it didn't fall apart on him. He didn't have to worry about plexus failing. If you want a boat that is better built, then you're going to have to pay more, and you'll be looking at different issues. There's a thread here by noelex77 called "Bestevaer 49," wherein the OP writes about the design decisions in that boat. Way interesting to me. (Use the CF Custom Google Search under the Search button.) That is a boat built for high latitude use.

A boat with a fine entry and a broad stern resists hobby horsing. A boat with pinched ends is far more inclined to pitch. The Jeanneau will probably be a lot more resistant to pitching. But, it will probably fall apart sooner. If your usage would be to sail around in protected waters, never get caught out in bad weather, you could be happy with it. You could possibly circumnavigate safely in it with a few changes.

The Crealock would be slower, and maybe not as much fun to sail, and, and until you state clearly what the intended use of the boats would be, I'll still think you need to approach the problem from a different direction, based on what you want to do with it, and how long you think you would keep it. If longevity and durability are major values for you, then you're going to approach the problem from the design implications, whose designs do you like best and why, and are they suited to your anticipated use of the boat? Would you be happy with a crab crusher? Is Eurostyle important to you? Maybe an Allures would do you best?

Ann

PS. The builder of our boat went to a naval architect and had our boat drawn specifically for cruising, so its forward sections are somewhat rounded to reduce slamming, though it is pretty flat aft, but she is fun to sail, and sails competently on the wind. I think the full keel folks exaggerate the slamming problem, just slowing down a tiny bit stops it when it happens, or cracking off. It is not a big deal on a passage to drift away from the rhumb line. A few hours difference in arrival times is not usually critical.

There is a lot of wisdom in the above, thanks Ann for such an insightful post. My last boat was akin to the Jenny or HR, and same as Ann I spent a lot of time prior to the purchase ensuring the prospective boat had good 'manners' when working to windward, hence the hullform forrard of the keel is well rounded with the aft sections a lot flatter and it went to windward better than my old IOR hull shape (which was flatter forrard of the keel).
It is too much of a generalisation to say the newer design of the Jenny or HR will suck going to windward, it's all in the design IMHO. I personally found cracked sheets going to windward to be more enjoyable than it has been not.

They are not a golden goose, for example fighting through backless waves and pinching hard is not fun. Not that that point of sail has been 'fun' on any boat I've sailed for that matter!
Another generalisation is the build quality of modern boats. Whilst I agree there appears to be production boats that I wouldn't even take out of a harbour, just because it is new does not equate to 'bad'. Composites can be incredibly strong, my 2016 hull was 30mm thick and survived a few collisions without no worse than a scratch. Multiple different types of open cell foam are used throughout the hull and deck moulds that provide for rigidity or 'walk' between the outer and inner hulls dependent upon the area of the hull in question. In the high impact areas the sandwich will absorb shock loads where in the high strength areas it is all about structural rigidity.
I for one like the new hull designs, but the same as older designs, I would never assume that a 'type' equals 'better'. It all comes down to the design and the build quality. I spent 18 months visiting prospective vendors before placing an order, and that still didn't give me enough time to do an exhaustive analysis of the market offerings. But it did give me enough information to say the 'type' didn't become a purchasing criteria, that just happened as a by-product of a selection process focused on short handed and blue water capable, safety, sea kindly and enjoyable.
Cheers!
WK

[Networker]

Given boats spend 90% of their time at anchor and around coasts, even when doing a global circumnavigation, I’m still of the school that comfort at anchor is more important than comfort at sea. People pick the right sea at the right time of the year, and within that, pick good weather windows so they’re hardly ever caught out (although it happens, it’s the exception not the rule). Most of the downwind sled boats with proper preparation and upgrades and competent crew will be fine.

When circumnavigating, they’re usually doing downwind sailing and following the trades, so picking a boat that’s comfortable at anchor and comfortable downwind sailing seems to be what one would want. This is what sells too.

So I’d go for the Jeanneau or Halberg Rassay.

Steve

[Rohan]

Originally Posted by Bowdrie

Apples to oranges.
The Jennie lacks any kind of berth on the port side.

That's not really an issue here, since like other production boats, the Jeanneau SO 410 comes in different layouts, and you have have a berth on the port side:

https://sailboatdata.com/storage/ima...or_layout.jpeg

And I would assume with it's wide beam and hard chines, that the SO 410 heels less than the PS40 anyway.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Networker

Given boats spend 90% of their time at anchor and around coasts, even when doing a global circumnavigation, I’m still of the school that comfort at anchor is more important than comfort at sea. People pick the right sea at the right time of the year, and within that, pick good weather windows so they’re hardly ever caught out (although it happens, it’s the exception not the rule). Most of the downwind sled boats with proper preparation and upgrades and competent crew will be fine.

When circumnavigating, they’re usually doing downwind sailing and following the trades, so picking a boat that’s comfortable at anchor and comfortable downwind sailing seems to be what one would want. This is what sells too.

So I’d go for the Jeanneau or Halberg Rassay.

Steve

I agree , buy for the 80% of the activity not the 20 %. That Jeanneau is a fine reaching machine too