The obsession with speed - a Rant

[Captain Smollett]

I have grown so weary of folks commenting about the speed of sailboats in relation to cruising.  Several years ago, John Vigor was interviewed (along with some others) in Small Craft Advisor (I think, I've posted the link here in the past in any case) about this issue of speed, and he soundly debunked its importance as a myth.

Vigor's argument was essentially that due to the size of weather systems and how fast they move, a difference of a knot or even 2 will make no difference.  This has come up on TSBB in relation to small boats as well outrunning local cells into port - a typical thunderstorm moving at 20-35 kts is going to overtake, in a matter of minutes, a sailboat whether she's doing 5, 5.5 or 6-7 kts.

My most recent encounter with this attitude?  From the Alberg 30 mailing list, an excerpt:

In considering a trip to Barkley Sound on the W side of Vancouver Is.
   from Bellingham, a routing question comes to mind.

{snip}

GIven that our boats are slow, is there a route that's usually
   preferred for a summer trip?

{snip}

(emphasis added)

Now, I know an Alberg 30 is not a racing sled; I'm not trying to argue that she is "Fast."  Nor am I taking offense that someone is pointing out that on a scale compared to modern boats in "ideal" racing conditions she IS relatively slow.

I object to the premise that she, and her sisters and cousins, are SO slow as to effect cruising decisions.

Both one-design and handicap racing have shown time out of mind that "boatspeed" is less critical than boat handling in terms of realizing whatever theoretical performance advantage a given boat should have.

Fast or slow compared to another boat in terms of racing that other boat (where 1/4 kt may be HUGE) is not, in my opinion, the same thing as being able to outrun weather or even performance in varied weather conditions.  Portsmouth ratings, for example, are specific to a given wind speed and completely ignore sea state.

I'll wrap this up with the observation, borrowed from a number of John Vigor's writings, that theoretical hull speed or handicap ratings tell nothing about a boat's ability to stand up to weather and seas.  A theoretically faster boat may not be able to carry that speed into larger seas, may have to slow down soon (ie, at lower winds) or may merely be so uncomfortable in a seaway as to actually make a poor choice for a cruising boat.  Some of this, of course, depends on crew.

I'd like to see some real data, from those with a "cruiser mindset" about ocean crossings.  Do these "faster" boats REALLY make passages that much faster?  The Bermuda, transat and OTW races tell me otherwise.

So, if I could, I'd ask folks to "just stop" with announcing a cruising boat is "fast" or "slow."  We see it in stories, we see it in boats-for-sale ads, we see it in "what boat should I buy" advice, etc.  Maybe it's just me (wouldn't surprise me), but I think 'speed' is very, very low on the priority list of what makes a boat seaworthy.

[TJim]

In a nutshell....Fast boats sacrifice seaworthyness for speed.....whereas good heavy weather boats sacrifice speed for sea worthyness..... Now that being said,  I love sailing an informal speed contest with another Triton or similar old 60's boat.  Another one, the Triton record for SFran/Hilo is 16 days 11 hours and 53 minutes.  That is an average of almost exactly 5 knots and I wouldn't call a Triton fast, but I'd sure
like to take a day off that record, just for the heck of it.  It says something about you and your boat.  But the weather you sail it in says a lot more about your speed.  For example you have almost an average 1 knot of current working with you for about 2/3 of the way from SFran to Hilo for most of the year, but if
you have some pretty good sized swells it's a heck of a lot farther than the same course on flat or relatively flat water.  So if your racing a clock it's a lot different than racing another boat.  So, one way
or the other, it really doesn't matter except to the individual.  On this board, while it doesn't center on speed, I doubt that there very many of us that can truthfully say "we don't care about speed."  TJim

[Captain Smollett]

Fast boats sacrifice seaworthyness for speed.....whereas good heavy weather boats sacrifice speed for sea worthyness.....

My main gripe on this topic is that "speed" on a monohull displacement boat is a misnomer anyway.  We get all wrapped up in theoretical ideals of half a knot (or less) when comparing boats of similar (or not so similar) size and design.

5-7 kts is SLOW.  Period.  Humans can move 900 ft container ships at 30 kts and propel a fairly large aircraft like the space shuttle at 17,000 kts.

To talk about the "speed" of a wind driven displacement vessel is an illusion.

On this board, while it doesn't center on speed, I doubt that there very many of us that can truthfully say "we don't care about speed."  TJim

Count me in that minority, then.  I just don't care about speed.  I don't care, I don't WANT to care, if I get to the next port an hour or a day faster.  If I cared about how fast I arrived somewhere, I wouldn't sail...I'd fly.

I guess it's a matter of mindset.  I found the Nick's quote that Kurt posted just absolutely beautiful - that special kind of powerful, live altering beauty:

What's here, what's now, is finally enough. And it's funny, because what's around me is on the one hand, a complete void, yet this nothingness is rich in everything. As if nothing were everything, and vice versa.

Thanks, Nick, for penning those words and thanks Kurt for posting them.

I long to arrive at that "place," where what I have, where I am is "enough" and nothing contains riches.

[newt]

Well said Capt S.  I don't think a knot of speed really helps if you arrive deathly seasick or in worse conditions due to an unseaworthy design.  I think happiness is understanding what you already have- and as Capt. S already said, it is usually enough.

[Auspicious]

In a nutshell....Fast boats sacrifice seaworthyness for speed.....whereas good heavy weather boats sacrifice speed for sea worthyness.

I'd like to think my relatively fast cruising boat is seaworthy. <grin>

On one passage I consistently got the boat moving a knot or more faster than the previous watchstander by some fairly minor sail and rig tweaks. For a given boat, I think learning to get optimum speed (without hovering over a sheet winch to keep the jib in exactly the right place through every wave and puff) is as useful as any piece of equipment.

You might not think a guy carrying over a tonne (literally) of generator, fuel, and water would be weight sensitive. Nonetheless I have found that keeping an eye on "stuff" on the boat makes a discernable difference in speed and in seakindliness. Accordingly, power tools and paperwork are stored off the boat. I've pared back clothes and off-season stuff, moving it off the boat. It has taken two years, but I've found a balance with no land base and no rental storage (I have a good sized trailer the parking of which is sometimes ... interesting). I race other people's boats and read credible books on sail trim for boats like mine.

Sometimes I don't move very fast -- I did Herring Bay to Annapolis yesterday at 3 kts in light air. Frankly a smaller, lighter boat with less wetted surface could have gone faster. When the wind blows a bit I'm happy to be able to make 7 knots (and sometimes a bit more).

I'm not in the Steve Dashew camp of speed at any cost, but I think that attention to good speed / handling balance and getting the most out of what you have is worth time, energy, and attention.

sail fast, dave

[Godot]

The problem with your premise is that we should all stop talking about speed is that everyone has different priorities.  Some folks enjoy going as fast as possible under sail.  Sure, it will never be as fast as a planing speedboat.  But the only thing fast power boats and sailboats have in common is that they both do their thing on the water.  Speed is relative.  Sailboats can be fast ... when measured against other sailboats.   

I agree, however, that speed really isn't a safety factor.  Last year I was out sailing when the coast guard announced that there where severe thunderstorms forming about five miles away from me.  The directive was to seek safe harbor immediately.  Well, my nearest harbor was where the storm was supposed to be.  Not that it mattered ... it was going to take me at least an hour to get there anyhow.  Two more storm systems moved through before I finally set my anchor securely.  Nothing to do but ride it out.

[Norm]

Can't argue with the Captain's remarks regarding speed. 

Of all the things we wind up focusing on with boats, speed is seldom THE critical factor.  Fitting the boat to the cruising plan is so much more a part of the whole thing.  Fitting the crew to the plan is even more interesting!

I was looking over the 2008 Bermuda Race results, double handed division, in particular.  I know some of the characters.  The best prepared boats and crew finish well up in the standings.  That said: Identical DH class boats finished 13 hours apart.  Where is theoretical boat speed in that story?  In other divisions similar patterns are found.  The J44s finished within 12 hours of one another.  After four days of sailing half a day separates first from last.  Big deal.

We just finished a short delivery.  The boat has a rating that is considered "slow."  We found her to be a nice swift boat in a variety of reaching conditions.  However, the un-gimbaled stove, lack of sea berths, and lively motion were major distractions.  One of the crew wanted to get off half way he was that uncomfortable!  So much for speed!  The trip ended without incident.  The new owners will enjoy their new boat during day sails.  I bet the half hour difference in transit times between their "slow" boat and a "faster" similar sailboat will never make it into the conversation.

Have four hours to sail at any given time?  Speed might matter.  But that's hardly the point is it?

Rant on!

My rant is about over-accessorizing.  I can start by getting a mirror...

Norman

[Banshi]

It's all about the design, I have seen really fast boats in light weather fall back quickly when the wind and seas pick up, so define what "fast" is. Speed does have a part in determining safety because the longer you are out on the water the greater chance you have to run into a problem, mainly running into bad weather. The longer your voyage the more important it becomes. Speed can be achieved many ways not just be cutting the structural integrity safety factor down to zero. Many boats are designed more to be lived in than sailed and can give up good handling, thus safety, for creature comforts that could make them dangerous in heavy weather not to mention being garbage scow slow. So looking for a boat that is safe based on the premise that fast is less seaworthy is foolish at best.

[Captain Smollett]

Speed does have a part in determining safety because the longer you are out on the water the greater chance you have to run into a problem, mainly running into bad weather.

My point, or more accurately John Vigor's point with which I happen to agree, is that this is a myth.

Saving one or two days on a 1 to 2 week passage is immaterial.  The speed of weather systems and their size (tropical storms and hurricanes run 200-500 miles across, double what you'd run in a day or two of extra exposure) completely nullify this argument.

I don't think this idea of "reduced exposure" is actually born out in practice.  I've read of every boat design, shape and speed characteristic being caught in heavy weather.  I think the idea sounds good on paper, but just does not stand up to real world testing.

Notice I said "I think."  YMMV.

[Joe Pyrat]

The thing I find funny about this speed thing is the reaction I've had from racers when they sail on my Triton.  I once was in a race with a J24 sailor aboard and he was just amazed at how well she went through the water. 

Recently sailing on Penobscot Bay in light air I was able to keep up with and even overtake, at times, a 35 footer.  Now granted, if the wind comes up, hull speed to hull speed, he's gone, but how fast do you have to be to enjoy sailing?  If that's really an issue, buy a power boat, or better yet, a car or airplane but think about how little of the surrounding scenery you actually see when blasting along at 75 on the interstate.

A old schooner captain down in Kemah Texas once told me, "In a power boat you get there fast, but in a sailboat you are already there".  Personally I like prolonging that experience.   ;)

[Captain Smollett]

A old schooner captain down in Kemah Texas once told me, "In a power boat you get there fast, but in a sailboat you are already there".

Beautiful!  Grog for that one.

[David_Old_Jersey]

Yeah, I liked that one too  8)

[CharlieJ]

A old schooner captain down in Kemah Texas once told me, "In a power boat you get there fast, but in a sailboat you are already there".  Personally I like prolonging that experience.   ;)

;D There's another old sailor down in Texas, on Matagorda Bay, who has said that for years!! I'm not a schooner captain though;D

[Frank]

Charlie...you're not OLD....just 'experienced'  :o

[Joe Pyrat]

;D There's another old sailor down in Texas, on Matagorda Bay, who has said that for years!! I'm not a schooner captain though;D

Well Charlie, some truths are just universal mate.   ;D

[Banshi]

"The speed of weather systems and their size (tropical storms and hurricanes run 200-500 miles across, double what you'd run in a day or two of extra exposure) completely nullify this argument."

Just does not fly in the real world.........................

No you can not outrun the storm no matter how fast your boat might be but you don't swim against a rip current to save yourself you swim across it. Same goes for avoiding bad weather like say a hurricane. One extra Knot can mean putting 24 extra nautical miles between you and the the hurricanes path/eye. This could mean the difference between fighting gale force winds or 120 mph winds and the worst of the storm.

I don't say speed is everything but to say that it being a safety factor is a myth or is irrelevant is just foolish. The same goes for exposure time on the water. The longer you stand on the train track the greater the risk a train will come through and do you in, safety is all about minimizing your exposure to dangerous situations. This exposure can be, time on the water, prevailing weather conditions, structural integrity of the boat, handling of the boat, experience of crew and so on.

[Joe Pyrat]

All of which can be overcome with proper route and seasonal planning, but I would agree, if you have a hurricane bearing down on you being a bit faster would be a good thing, presuming of course that you can use that extra speed and that the extra speed does not comes at the expense of seaworthiness.

[Captain Smollett]

No you can not outrun the storm no matter how fast your boat might be but you don't swim against a rip current to save yourself you swim across it. Same goes for avoiding bad weather like say a hurricane. One extra Knot can mean putting 24 extra nautical miles between you and the the hurricanes path/eye. This could mean the difference between fighting gale force winds or 120 mph winds and the worst of the storm.

I've addressed this before, about a year or so ago.  Here is my take:

#1.  Boat speed vs storm speed.  A hurricane runs 18-30 kts, my boat, or any other similarly sized boat ('fast' or 'slow') runs about 6-7 kts.  That's a factor 3-5 difference in speed.

#2. The size of the storm - up to 500 miles across.  That 24 miles you run in a 24 hr day is completely immaterial, no matter which direction you are going.  Even just considering the most severe winds at or near the eye wall, you get a diameter of roughly 50 nm.

#3. The error in the predicted track of the storm.  The accepted, practical error in the 24 hr track prediction is 100 miles, 200 miles for the 48 hr track and 300 miles for the 3-day (the old 1-2-3 Rule).  That has to be added to the storm size to get the 'covered' area you want to avoid 24 hrs from now.

#4. The storm location on any weather report is in error by up to about 50 miles.  Again, this has to be added to (2) and (3).

So, let's take 50 nm central storm diameter + 50 nm current location error + 100 nm 24 hr prediction error and you get 200 nm diameter MINIMUM of sea you really don't want to be in.  That's nearly TEN TIMES what you can run in a day on a so-called "fast" boat vs a "slow" one.

Bottom line, you can randomly pick any direction from your "current location" and run at a speed more than twice as fast as ANY 30-35 footer can possible go and still have an equal chance of being hit by the central portion of the storm.  The minuscule difference between 'fast' and "slow" is theory and sounds good to sell magazines.

If this were not true, why do so-called "fast" 30-35 footers get caught in weather just as often as "slow" ones?

[Captain Smollett]

More grist: I found this today on the A-30 list archives while looking for something completely unrelated.  This was posted by John Birch:

My point is that when racing both our 37 and previously our 30 we physically
beat boats with much faster PHRF ratings on REAL unrated time.    In one 300
mile race in our 30 we survived a gale and physically beat two CS36s by 12
hours.

In an earlier post, he said

I guess our A-37 Sunstone's Line Honours against over 50 boats in our Club's
Open Regatta in '95 beating one for one, X 102, X 95, Comfortina 42, 4 C&C 33s,
a C&C 34 plus a medley of other boats was just due to rating with it blowing 18
knots, in flat water, on a 12 mile olympic course with 2 mile legs.

Oh, I said rating but I forgot this was boat for boat physically beating them
before the rating was factored in with 3 weather legs too boot. Heavens, with
the rating factored in they owed us so much time, I only wish my bank account
was so large. 

Incidentally, these comments were in response to a rather wordy essay written by a guy who rather thoroughly "took down" CCA era boats in favor of 'modern' designs.  It's a very interesting read, even if virtually all of it is subjectives couched as scientific analysis.

The A-30 guys did a pretty good job of rebuttal.

Here's the link to the essay; Alberg fans should give this one a read:

CCA Design Suitability for Cruising

[s/v Faith]

That is a good read John, thanks.  I am about 8 posts into it right now, but wanted to point out this statement from the original poster...

As a weekender in confined waters, It matters a lot of me

I think that is telling. 

Of course I thought this post was interesting;  ;)

.... I owned another Alberg design, the Pearson (Ariel).....I was fleet champion in my club.  ......There were a lot of more modern
boats, most of them, actually, and they had to give me time so they didn't
like it at all......

.....That Ariel was the best sailing boat I ever owned, and I wish many times that I still had her.......

.....IMHO     Russ Pfeiffer

;D ;D ;D