World's Largest Sailing Yacht A

[Steadman Uhlich]

Originally Posted by Steady Hand

Some comparative information about what used to be the World's Largest Sailing yacht:

PHOECIA. (Ex Club Méditerranée)
Made famous for its use by Alain Colas for sailing around the world Single Handed in the OSTAR race back in 1976. Singlehanded!

Length overall: 246 ft (75.0 m)
Beam: 31.43 ft (9.58 m)
Draft: 20.47 ft (6.24 m)
Number of guests: 12
Number of crew: 15
Built: 1976 by Toulon Naval Dockyard (refit at Lurssen in 1999)
Designer: Michel Bigion
Engines: 1 x 1,056 horsepower (787 kW) MTU
Cruising speed: about 12 knots (22 km/h) under power, 12-18 knots under sail
Approximate range: 2,000 nmi (3,700 km)
Fuel consumption: 195 litres (51 US gallons) per hour at 11.5 knots (21.3 km/h) cruising

CORRECTION! Above I wrote "Around the World," when it should have been "Across the Atlantic." The OSTAR race was a Transatlantic Race.

My mind has been on the Vendee Globe which IS around the world.

[brianlara 3]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Thank you brianlara, I was a bit confused for a moment! [emoji3]

Clearly, with this post, I am defending my morality. You are right, moral propriety has no place anywhere.
You have publicly shamed me for being decent.
Your post speaks volumes about.............?....forum rule prohibition.
Possibly I'm the only one here. Not new.

[Pelagic]

Lol Brian...it was an obviously failed attempt at humor

You really should learn to keep your toes outside the room if you wish to spite morality judgements on people you've never met.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Here's an even more attractive view...



Apparently even the photographers struggle with its' unattractiveness, resorting to helicopters to try and present a pleasing visage to the thing.

So, unless you're one of the super rich helicoptering in to visit, or live on a mountaintop with a good sea view (subsequently also probably super rich), you're left with the not-so-attractive views like these.






Far from beauty 'being in the eye of the beholder', it has been pretty well studied, and the principles of 'beauty' appear pretty much inherent in the mind (and not just in higher primates), and relate to things like symmetry, ratios and contrast. Far from 'sour grapes', the consensus opinion that the thing is ugly confirms that it violates at least some of everyone's standards regarding, at minimum, physical attractiveness...

And for 'beauty' as regarding fit for purpose...I hope the thing has some pretty huge scuppers, or bilge pumps, or both, and stays out of extreme northern or southern latitudes, what with the mega reverse-sugar-scoop, very view-restricting coaming-like structure (I guess that's what you'd call it) and high freeboard.....if you get what I mean. Hopefully they'll refrain from any of those high Arctic or Antarctic latitude type sorties...

Of course, the designer could have gone with subtle deviations from the norm where they were less likely to jar, such as a traditional sheer line and an inverted curved cabin top, shown below, instead of the guaranteed-to-jar deviations such as essentially no sheer line (one that follows the main deck), but that would detract from the whole point, which is apparently to shock and give the one finger salute to those that enabled the monstrosity to be built by their need to stay warm in the winter, cool in the summer and see at night.. worse than amoral, the owner is not even ethical...

Great post Jim..... Very convincing except for the assumption that something / someone different ..... is inherently unattractive or even unethical.

[30yearslater]

Originally Posted by brianlara 3

STAD only. You would only get me on "A", even for a banquet, if I were blind folded.
The fact that it was funded with ill gotten gains is even worse than the look.
Behind SOME, MASSIVE, wealth there is unapprehended immorality. Imho.

"Behind every great fortune is a great crime," Honore' de Balzac. That the quote you were looking for.

[250224]

Holy good illustration!

There are lifeaboards with boats for 7 k and there are boats here which cost 200 times
more, 1.5 M. Are those owners immoral? Now multiply again with 200 and you get 300 M.
This is clearly immoral, right? But even the very modest lifeaboard with a 7 K boat might
be able to lead a much more independant life than someone 'in the 3rd world' who barely
suceeds to feed the family.

Terribly complicated. (And maybe there are much too many children/people 'in the 3rd
world' and 'shitty government', no wonder it doesn't work out? I don't know)

Imho you wouldn't need to 'only' critisize at the 'A'bsolute toplevel if you go that alley.
What about you? What about Oysters or Bestevaers?

About the latter: I don't have such boats but find them very interesting and it's great to
read something e.g. about the build of the Bestevaer in this forum. I don't feel like I should
critisize those owners. Not at all. But why should I then put so much focus on the A-owner?
Isn't it about the boat here?

A discussion about superboats per se, I think, is a separate issue from A. (I'm not interested
in it but wonder if the forum would agree upon a limit above which a boat is considered
'definitively immoral' - but a truly beautiful boat like the J Endeavour must be exempted of
course)

[brianlara 3]

I clearly qualified my post with .."SOME" & "EXCESSIVE".

[brianlara 3]

Originally Posted by 30yearslater

"Behind every great fortune is a great crime," Honore' de Balzac. That the quote you were looking for.

No, I wasn't thinking of d'Balzac.
What i said was SOME & MASSIVE. NOT ALL GREAT WEALTH IS IMMORALLY ACQUIRED.
Ratan Tata is a seriously wealthy man by any standard. But utterly moral, like so many other massively wealthy individuals.

Pelagic, sorry !

[250224]

Originally Posted by brianlara 3

I clearly qualified my post with .."SOME" & "EXCESSIVE".

I missed that, sorry.

But, btw, the 'Stad Amsterdam' is also quite problematic, morally. Let's see: on the
webpage I read: 'superbly maintained teak woodwork all echo the romance of the 19th
century'.

Romance? Great. BUT on the 19th century there were really horrible working conditions
here and only SOME of the very rich could afford a voyage with such an EXCESSIVE
luxurious boat, I suppose. (Maybe not so far away from A real 21st boat).

Thus, choose wisely, hihi.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Scout 30

It's good to know that the same guy that denigrates American yacht design every chance he gets thinks this thing is attractive. Kind of puts things in perspective.

I look forward to anchoring near "A" sometime soon in our cruising area and seeing the mega yacht first hand. I'll post some photos.

[Jim Cate]

a

Originally Posted by Kenomac

I look forward to anchoring near "A" sometime soon in our cruising area and seeing the mega yacht first hand. I'll post some photos.

Please don't. We've been subjected to far too many photos of "A" already.

Jim

[Pelagic]

Jim...you are my very favourite curmudgeon......[emoji3]
Seasons best to Ann and yourself!

[Pelagic]

By the way...that's not a bad thing!
https://www.google.com.ph/amp/m.wiki...udgeon%3famp=1

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Great post Jim..... Very convincing except for the assumption that something / someone different ..... is inherently unattractive or even unethical.

Was wondering if someone would call me out on those 2 points.

The first one, the derivation and perception of beauty, has long been and will most likely always be subject to philosophical discussions similar to the chicken or the egg question, not the least because of human nature. That doesn't detract from the fact that, given certain attributes, one design will be shown to be more, shall we say stimulating, (in that particular areas of the brain generally associated with pleasure are lit up in fMRI scans) than other designs (and they're much the same in everyone); and that these stimulating designs can be quantified by having set characteristics relating to rather ethereal natures, such as symmetry versus a certain amount of asymmetry, or ratios of one shape or proportion of shapes to another, or subtleness of curves or...well, as a designer you know better what I'm talking about than I do.

Nor does it detract from the fact that the recognition of what is conventionally perceived as 'beauty', can, for various reasons, have the opposite affect on certain individuals. Mostly only in this sense does 'beauty is in the eyes of the beholder' have much validity to me.

As for 'worse than amoral (without moral consideration), the owner is not even ethical', the point, I suppose, is that given the 'good' that morals are believed to represent (with which I don't necessarily agree), A can build a useless (one that has no real use) boat as a monument to his ego (technological testing and product placement aside) or for whatever dubious excuse he or anyone else wants to make; it is unethical for him himself, because he's not enhancing the lives of the people (the Russian consumers) who enabled the purchase of his monstrosity in the first place. In other words, had he turned some of his fortune back into the Russian socio-economic system, raised standards of living would let the people spend more, which would eventually let him make more, so he could eventually build an even uglier, bigger and more obnoxious vessel...

For instance, with the Stad Amsterdam, referenced above:

The building of the hull in 1997/98 was used as a work experience project for the unemployed (e.g. metalworking and welding).


I hope it's obvious I'm being a little simplistic and tongue-in-cheek, but there is a kernel of truth in it, and the sickness is apparently contagious and spreading. It is fairly clear that in the US the trend is towards a two-class society, but I fear I've already veered too far into one of those taboo subjects at CF, so we'll leave it at that...

[Palarran]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

a

Please don't. We've been subjected to far too many photos of "A" already.

Jim

That made me laugh - for more than one reason. Thanks.