Laura and I have spent the last six weeks aboard a friends Tartan 41. That time included six days at sea crossing the Gulf of Mexico, in winds reaching 25 knots, and three days sailing from our clear in-port (Progresso) around to Isla Mujeres, Mexico, again totally to weather and again in winds reaching 25 knots..
We have talked at length during this time about the size and complexity of this 41 footer, compared to our Tehani at 25 feet. Our conclusions are that the 41 is simply too big. Huge amounts of space in the main saloon, but most is just that- empty space. Way to large for easy reaching of handholds, plus the empty areas are virtually useless from a storage point of view-
This boat is also equipped with refrigerator/freezer, radar, TWO chartplotters, pressure water, SSB, electric anchor winch, etc. Way to complex for us. The owner spends a good deal of time simply keeping up with systems, and worrying about whether the batteries are up to snuff.
Sail handling, anchor handling, docking etc are serious jobs for two people on a 41 foot boat, particularly when part of the crew is 5'2" and 110 pounds ;).
It's a great boat, and will outsail our boat handily (41 feet against 25 feet) But we concluded we'd rather have our 25.
Although we both agreed that the 6 days to weather would have been completely miserable aboard Tehani ( in the conditions we had), the BOAT would have done just fine. The crew would have been a different story ;D ;D Aboard Tehani, we would have sailed to Key West, then to Isla, sailing on a beam wind.
You know I had some of the same thoughts aboard that Pearson 424...
Sadly, it is still in Marathon. The Westerbeke apparently started fine a couple times after I left but then
acted like it had developed a internal problem....
... there are advantages, but like you I am quite happy with what I have... (see signature).
I know we've talked about the advantages of sail handling on small boats vs big ones quite a bit here on sailfar, but I thought I'd throw this into this thread.
I did something today that I *KNOW* I would not like to do on a 40+ footer: remove the mainsail from the mast/boom with a 20 knot side wind (with gusts over 25 kts per NWS) blowing across the boat. ;)
How I did it: Sail ties around sail and boom very loose so they could slide as the bolt rope was pulled out of the boom slot. As a section came off, tied the loose sail (on deck) into a tube with a sail tie. This process kept the sail from filling with wind. Once all off, folded the whole tube over and lashed with another tie.
Then, took the bundle to the shore, in the same wind, and laid out and more properly furled the sail for stowage in a sail bag.
There is no way I'd want to do this with a bigger sail that I probably could not even lift myself (at least without a ton more effort).
Maybe that's just me...
Wheww!! :o I was glad to get to the part where you were at dockside doing this.
(Otherwise I would have REALLY thought you were nuts!) ;D
Quote from: Tim on March 24, 2011, 08:09:27 PM
(Otherwise I would have REALLY thought you were nuts!) ;D
Yeah, why would I be taking the sail off the boom in those conditions...that's SAILING weather! ;D
Boat size - to me - is kind of an individual thing.
If your boat seems too small, or too big, then comfort (not necessarily creature comforts, but mental space) is affected.
Although I'd planned on getting a smaller, more easily trailered boat this go-around, when this fell into my lap, it just felt right. It's a good size for me and what I hope to do, and after spending several hours aboard digging through it, I was convinced it was a fit for my current needs.
And although this Southcoast throws overboard all the older style builds that traced back to Alberg in favor of something with a topsides more like a Bayliner, it shares some of its hull shape with the older Westerly hulls.
Perhaps the folks in the 40'+ hulls feel good about them, in which case I could not criticize their choice. But part of me wonders if they responded to the boat's lines, or the boat's advertising.
I know bigger does not translate to safer at sea. Storms take down big freighters all the time.
Surely a nice solidly built seaworthy craft speaks well of its owner. Regardless of size.
Some time ago Laura replaced the protective strip on a roller furled jib from an Irwin 46. She couldn't carry the sail. I barely could.
We helped deliver the boat for a haul out and back, and when we returned and were putting it to bed, Laura was putting the mainsail cover on. She had to stand on the mast mounted winches to reach the tie cord up top. She asked the wife how SHE did it- was told "Oh, I keep a ladder aboard so I can reach that"! :o! :o!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks, but no thanks.
Quote from: tomwatt on March 24, 2011, 08:55:54 PM
Boat size - to me - is kind of an individual thing.
...
Perhaps the folks in the 40'+ hulls feel good about them, in which case I could not criticize their choice.
Well said. Grog for that.
I will say, however, that I do find it sad when dreams to cruise die. Sometimes, they die because a person bought more boat than he could afford, financially, mentally or spiritually, to maintain. It's a VERY difficult thing to be able to predict, but the "conventional wisdom" on LOA "required" to go cruising does not help.
Leading to the problem...
Quote
I know bigger does not translate to safer at sea.
I can respect the big boat guy's right to make his choices. A friend of mine has a 46' schooner that he absolutely cannot sail alone. He MUST have crew. But, it's the boat HE wants and he's happy with it.
I just wish the vocal big boat advocates (http://sailfar.net/forum/index.php/topic,699.msg5937.html#msg5937) extended me the same courtesy.
It's kind of a stupid thing to say, I guess; but I have the feeling that if you think your boat is too small, too large, or perfectly sized, you are right.
Whether you prefer a tiller or wheel, you are right.
Stinkpot or ragboat? Right again.
Individuality is a good thing.
More than one big boat sailor (a couple liveaboards in particular) has told me that they don't like to feel like they are camping onboard (almost always stated in those terms). A legitimate choice. Personally, I'm comfortable roughing it. Although, I admit, I would like a few more feet length, a couple inches headroom, a fully enclosed head, and a shower. Not so much for me (except for the headroom and a better place to store clothes ... I'm looking to move aboard, after all); but for the women I've met who seemed real exited by the sailboat and sailing until they realized how small it really is <sigh>.
Although a boat is much more, it's also a tool whose usefulness and fitness to the task at hand can be measured.
Dockside condos are great live-aboards.
Narrow-beamed, deep hulled oldies are great long distance cruisers.
Lightweight trailer-sailers are good for that.
Next to the claw hammer, which is often touted as the most abused tool on earth, boats might well come in second.
Not too many years ago I spent two months working in the High Sierra Mtns of CA. I slept in a pup tent on the ground and cooked my meals on a one burner stove on the hood of my pickup. Compared to that my C-22 is a mansion on water. It's all relative.
Larry
Quote from: tomwatt on March 25, 2011, 10:53:48 AM
Next to the claw hammer, which is often touted as the most abused tool on earth, boats might well come in second.
If a man with only a hammer thinks every problem is a nail, then I must think every problem is broad reach. :o)
Todd
Quote from: sailorbum on March 25, 2011, 11:29:50 PM
then I must think every problem is broad reach. :o)
Todd
Grog for that!
I recently found this cool sailboat performance calculator with side-by-side comparison feature. http://www.image-ination.com/sailcalc.html
I was surprised when comparing the Rhodes Meridian 25 to the Tartan 41. The Meridian scored considerably higher in several important aspects...
Capsize Ratio:
Tartan 41 - 1.88
Rhodes Meridian - 1.6
Motion Comfort:
Tartan 41 - 27.64
Rhodes Meridian - 31.53
Displacement to LWL
Tartan 41 - 232
Rhodes Meridian - 450
Comparing a similar-sized Rhodes Reliant 41 design to the Tartan 41 shows how much more seakindly the Rhodes design is...
Capsize Ratio
Tartan 41 - 1.88
Rhodes Reliant - 1.53
Motion Comfort
Tartan 41 - 27.64
Rhodes Reliant - 44.95
Displacement to LWL
Tartan 41 - 232
Rhodes Reliant - 448 [Consistent with the Meridian]
:D :D
But let's not tell HIM that!
;) ;)
Of course that last figure means you can't load as much "stuff" aboard. Which means you don't have as much "poop" to keep track of.
;D
Sure thing, I'll keep these specs between us. Bad enough to have to suffer from a crew-punishing boat design, without also having to hear about the comparison... ;) (To be fair to the T41, it is designed to go fast and crew comfort is secondary--so it is no doubt a success on its own terms)
I was thinking that as you load a boat like and Rhodes or Alberg design, that the overhangs do increase the waterline LWL length as it sits deeper in the water (as it also does when heeled to its sailing lines), to compensate in some degree.
Was looking at some of the other large boats with low motion comfort specs, for instance...
Beneteau Oceanis 381, Motion Comfort=20.59
Jeanneau Sun Odyssey 45.2, Motion Comfort=21.29
Contrast with some of the well-regarded cruising designs...
Allied Seawind, Motion Comfort=39.69
Alberg 37, Motion Comfort=39.3
Bristol Channel Cutter, Motion Comfort=36.89
Cape George 31, Motion Comfort=42.16
Camper Nicholson 32, Motion Comfort=43.52
Hinckley Pilot 35 Sloop, Motion Comfort=36.58
Laurent Guiles Vertue, Motion Comfort=46.91
Rhodes Bounty II, Motion Comfort=40.8
Rhodes Reliant, Motion Comfort=44.95
So I don't know how precise the Comfort Ratio is, but there definitely seems to be something to it when you see this kind of pattern with proven cruising designs.
[Granted, most of these are on the large size...]
If I can share an example of how this has influenced my personal thinking...
For awhile I've appreciated the Laurent Giles Westerly designs, and was torn between the Centaur 26 design and the Longbow 31. I had seen a couple of the larger boats for sale very reasonably (one was a free "project", but had to be transported some distance), and was tempted...
At 6700 lbs, the Centaur is quite large for a older 26-foot design, and the interior is especially roomy, (although the cabin trunk is large compared to the traditional Alberg or Rhodes proportions). It has a mast/rig that is still within the range that a couple people can step (with tabernackle base). The Centaur 26 is quite a bit to trailer, even with a heavy duty pickup, but the 3'-0" draft helps, and it is doable.
The Longbow 31 (or Berwick 31 twin keel) is 2500 lbs heavier, and the interior is quite a bit more spacious, but the 31's mast is so much larger that stepping it oneself is not that practical. Setting up a trailer and towing a 9400-lb boat with a 4'-6" draft (higher CG and total height, 9'-6" beam) is also over the line.
These were real penalties for a cost-conscious do-it-yourself cruiser, but I had always assumed that since the boats were by the same designer and builder, that of course the larger boat will have gains in seakindliness and seaworthiness proportional to its increase in size (displacement).
Wrong. When I now look at the performance specs...
Displacement
Westerly Centaur 26 - 6700
Westerly Longbow 31 - 9261
Hull Speed
Westerly Centaur 26 - 6.18
Westerly Longbow 31 - 6.56
Capsize Ratio
Westerly Centaur 26 - 1.8
Westerly Longbow 31 - 1.81
Motion Comfort
Westerly Centaur 26 - 26.21
Westerly Longbow 31 - 27.13
So I have to conclude that perhaps if one needs the additional room, there is a case to be made for moving up, but for seakindliness and seaworthiness--probably not so much.
That Giles did not include a bridge deck (that the Centaur has) on the larger boat, should perhaps have been a clue that priorities were shifting a bit. The early designs are the ones that made his reputation, while the later ones may be compromises that are made by a now popular builder to reach out to a broader market... [the boats in the previous posts may be exceptional because the designer did not compromise the seakeeping ability to create more interior room, or lighten the displacement to compete with beamy lower-cost boats]
So although the performance specs may not have a precise absolute meaning, I do believe that the application to and comparison of these two somewhat similar designs is valuable. It's not that the Longbow (or Berwick 31) is not a nice boat--it is--but this does help one think about the true costs and benefits (or lack thereof) of a larger boat.
Good stuff.
And also, you might not be aware that Eric and Susan Hiscock's famed Wanderer III was a Laurent Giles design, built in wood- 30 loa, with an 8 foot beam.
Quote from: Jim_ME on April 08, 2011, 05:05:50 PM
That Giles did not include a bridge deck (that the Centaur has) on the larger boat, should perhaps have been a clue that priorities were shifting a bit. The early designs are the ones that made his reputation, while the later ones may be compromises that are made by a now popular builder to reach out to a broader market... [the boats in the previous posts may be exceptional because the designer did not compromise the seakeeping ability to create more interior room, or lighten the displacement to compete with beamy lower-cost boats]
I'm fascinated by the notion that leaving the bridge deck out has a positive side. I can think of numerous advantages of having it, and no real downside. Maybe some argue "getting into the cabin is easier without a bridge deck," but since both of my cabin boats have bridge decks, I've NEVER cussed it as an inconvenience.
Is there really a 'broader market' that demands a boat that lets any water in the cockpit down below?
By the way, Giles is another favorite designer of mine, but as you say, Jim, that may be based on his earlier work.
Here is an archive page showing the Longbow 31 and a couple photos of the low companionway and shallow wimpy bridge deck...
http://www.yachtsnet.co.uk/archives/westerly-longbow/westerly-longbow.htm
Here is the Centaur page with a couple photos showing the bridge deck...
http://www.yachtsnet.co.uk/archives/westerly-centaur/westerly-centaur.htm
I've wondered why Giles would omit the bridge deck, too. Was it because the cabin trunk goes so far aft and the cockpit was small enough that he felt that the cockpit needed the seating area? Did he feel like the Longbow might be fast enough to be more of a racer than the Centaur and would carry a larger racing crew much of the time and needed to maximize cockpit seating? Was the larger boat enough more expensive that it was targeted to older buyers that were more likely to be able to afford it, but to whom a bridge deck and taller ladder inside would present more difficulty climbing over? Would the boat be used more for entertaining and daysailing so that he wanted the cabin and cockpit to be more accessible to each other?
When I look at the interior profile section drawing, it looks like with the engine/cabin arrangement, that it would be difficult to have a ladder and bridge deck, since there was so much horizontal distance needed above the motor, which would have required an extra-long companionway opening in the cabin trunk, and the landing/ladder would have taken up more room in the cabin. I don't know if this consideration was an influence on the design, or just the result of other considerations.
Westerly built/sold 260 Longbows between 1970 and 1980, but 2555 Centaurs in that same period, so it seems safe to say that the bridge deck on the Centaur didn't put buyers off too much. ;) (The Centaur was also smaller and no doubt affordable to a larger market, too.)
Westerly's have always attracted/repelled me.
Especially the older, "knuckle-bow" models.
The Longbow/Berwick/Reknown/Pentland, etc. are all on the same hull.
There is a Westerly Owners' Assoc. website that offers some more info on them...
http://www.westerly-owners.co.uk/index.htm
I always liked the Reknown, thought it might make a nice cruising ketch.
Although I've read that the Conway is a more seaworthy model (scuttlebutt is worth what ya' pay for it).
Charlie, Your writing about the Hiscock's boat being a Laurent Giles 30-foot design reminded me that I thought they owned a Giles Vertue 25-footer...
I found this website
http://www.bluemoment.com/hiscocks.html
and read that they did and it was Wanderer II. ;D
I found this to be a very interesting article about heavy weather sailing in a Vertue...
http://www.cheoyleeassociation.com/vertueArticle.htm
Yep- I have one of his smaller books, titled "Wandering Under Sail" which details his first boats, before he met Susan. He sailed all over the English Channel and Brittany coast with no engine- in Wanderer (18 foot sloop built in 1898), then Wanderer II, which was built for him and designed by Jack Giles.
According to that book she was a gaff cutter 24 feet on deck, 7'2" beam, drawing 5 feet, with a bowsprit. and transom hung rudder.
Wanderer II was the boat he had when he and Susan met, and began sailing together.
One of my favorite quotes from the book is this-
"That I bought my first boat on a Wednesday, sailed her away on a Thursday, and found her wrecked on a Friday is an unfortunate fact."
;D
Tom, My initial reaction to the Westerly boats was that they were visually challenging.
But then they grew on me...like an acquired taste. Sometimes things can get so ugly that they are beautiful... I began to appreciate how practical and utilitarian they are... Like those old British Land Rovers...not the sleekest looking vehicle on the road...
I did suggest looking at a Renown in another thread...
http://sailfar.net/forum/index.php/topic,3195.msg35025.html#msg35025
...Not to try to persuade anyone to move up to a 31 footer, but to consider a very roomy one if space is a high priority--as a possible alternative to getting a 40-footer.
I'm happy to report that I've never been tempted to get either a Tartan 41 nor a Westerly Conway 36. I suspect that someone could give me either one, and I still could not afford to use it in any kind of sustainable way.
For one thing, both have a draft of about 6 feet and I've read many accounts of areas where that would be very limiting (such as Craig's trip through the Okeechobee Canal where the Ariel's 4-feet was plenty). James Baldwin, in his list of recommended boats, I believe simply rejects anything with a draft over 5 feet.
I think that it is true that many focus a lot on attaining a level of seaworthiness sometimes based on size and myth (as in my case below) and as John has said, cross over a line into unaffordable unsustainability.
I suppose that what these calculators could really use is a way input our wherewithal factors and then spit out a financial-burden misery/fun ratio...
This takes one back to Craig's quote... ;)
Charlie, that's a good quote.
You know that someone has an economy with words when he can describe the entire ownership experience of a boat in one sentence. :)
Quote from: Jim_ME on April 08, 2011, 11:46:28 PM
Tom, My initial reaction to the Westerly boats was that they were visually challenging.
But then they grew on me...like an acquired taste. Sometimes things can get so ugly that they are beautiful... I began to appreciate how practical and utilitarian they are... Like those old British Land Rovers...not the sleekest looking vehicle on the road...
Odd looking indeed.
But the hull shape (more bird-breasted - broader towards the forward, tapering towards the stern with a flattish underwater profile) was what prompted me towards my "new" boat... has the same basic hull shape, keel obviously different.
I like the Reknown shape/style enough that I could own one and not be embaressed having one at dockside.
However, the boat I truly envy... and although it's fairly large, it doesn't appear so... is this little beauty, a 32' Rossiter Lapwing:
(http://www.yachtsnet.co.uk/boats/n6947/n6947-sailing1.jpg)
http://www.yachtsnet.co.uk/boats/n6947/n6947.htm
Now, if I could only come up with 45,000 pounds and a crew to help me bring it across the pond!
From Kurt's link on the Sharpie, and Matt Layden's chine runners designs, I checked out Sven Yrvind's site www.yrvind.com
Since we haven't had much internet access lately it was a while ago I read his blog, always interesting and thought-provoking.
I do not think he would object it so I quote him here; quite philosophical and very well written I beleive.
THE COMFORT PARADOX
One of the most frequently heard comments? concerning my boat is that it is not comfortable. It is a very true statement. But I design and build boats and go to sea in them not for comfort but because I am curios and the activity gives me pleasure and excitement.
Comfort diminishes activity; lack of activity leads to lack of stimulation, without stimulation you become bored, fat and tired. You get energetic only by using energy, not by resting.
Eating and entertainment work like drugs or borrowed money, they lessens the boredom ordeal momentarily. In the long run they make the situation worse.
Strive on the other hand is painful at first, but as time passes will bring curiosity pleasure and excitement. The problem with that healthy solution is that it is to abstract for most people. Historically man has never had to worry about to much comfort and is therefore not designed to deal with it. On the contrary lack of food and rest has been the problem.
Modern society has changed that. Industrial and farm factories are now producing more than we need. Few free spirits has survived a new species of man has been breed, the obedient man. He eats not real food but ersatz food. His experiences are ersatz screen experiences.
It is so much easier to watch sport than to compete yourself. It is so much easier to do ersatz sailing and to start the engine when the wind fails than to use an oar or wait for wind. But like all ersatz things there is no thing like the real thing.
A captured animal in a zoo is not a happy animal. He tells us that without talking, still he gets plenty of food and good shelter and his life is without danger. Still he would rather bee free.
Modern man in the big cities are like captured animals. We have all the comfort and food we need, still we are bored. But because we live among millions of equally bored people we do not notice the gloom. Only occasionally do we meet a surviving free spirit and wonder why he is so happy. It is not comfort which makes me happy.
written by Sven Yrvind
Grog for posting "The Comfort Paradox."
Wow. Great stuff.
A new appreciation for "small" came to me today.
I have, for practical purposes, completed the arduous task of completely stripping my deck (not cabin) of all paint and primer. Grinding through the painted on non-skid was slow going.
As I coiled my extension cord and put away my grinder (probably 15+ hours total grinding, and that does not include the sections cut out with a circular saw for recoring), I reflected on how far I'd be on this job if I had a 45 foot "wondercruiser," longer, wider and with beam carried all the way astern.
Uggggh.
We lump all this kind of thing under "maintenance," but that does not count for much until you start doing some serious overhauling.
I think I am within a couple of days starting the 'refinish' stage now that most of the 'stripping' stage is done.
Congrats.
Or like Laura and I- haul, sand paint bottom, splash- three days work.
One gallon bottom paint instead of three per coat!!
Little boats are nice.
"The Comfort Paradox"
Grog for that!
I agree with it 100%. At times when I try to tell others my reason for sailing small simple boats is that I need to be a little uncomfortable to be at my best I just get a crazy look. To be at my best I need to be challenged. Years ago when I played tennis I always would play with better players in order to be challanged and improve my skills i.e. play up to the competition.
grog fer dat.
Small boats are fun, I ran across this video, nice photography http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQNX3OsjJnk&NR=1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQNX3OsjJnk&NR=1)
Here is something I wrote a while back on boat size.
My loving wife swears to me that size doesn?t matter. But does it? I was recently told that my boat is too small. Living in the boat yard I meet all types: boaters, builders, workers, and dreamers. We fall somewhere in between the lines. At a whopping 24 feet with a displacement of 6500lbs, by today?s standards our boat is considered small by any measure. I recently read an article titled Pocket Cruiser Of The Year. It was a 38-footer. I guess our boat is now considered a dinghy. Our Allegra 24 designed by Fred Bingham has 6?1? standing headroom and four berths. The shortest, our double, measures 6?5?. The Roo has a full galley with a two-burner propane stove and oven. Even though we choose to use a cedar bucket we do have a very nice enclosed head which is small enough to be considered seaworthy but large enough to actually pull your pants down while inside. With two adults and two dogs this might sound small but it works for us. Because we are financially challenged there aren?t many boats in our price range to choose from. Even if we go up to 30? we won?t get much more usable room. Having such a small boat we can get away with an outboard engine and no marine head. This leaves us with the usable space of a well-built 30-footer with no prop drag and lighter displacement. Being of a traditional design but built with modern building techniques and materials, our boat is incredibly strong but lighter and faster than she would appear. Sure we could sell our boat and put a nice down payment on a larger boat. Then in 20 years when it is payed off we could spend another three years rebuilding everything on it and sail away. I would be 62, Lizzie would be 50, and we would have a boat that is older than the one we currently own.
Holiday grog to you for that!
The Allegra 24 is a beautiful boat, not speedy, perhaps, but well-designed and very seaworthy. That's what you want!
--Joe
Ive since sold her but she was quite fast both in light and heavy wind. Now I sail a Falmouth cutter which is a bit slower.
Spent a good while one night talking to Fred Bingham about his Allegra designs. The 24 is the smaller one-there was also a 25 and a 26 .
Nice boats.
My Tehani is usually the smallest boat in any anchorage-25 feet, 7 foot beam, she isn't large by any means. Yet, counting our two previous trips to Florida and return, we've cruised her some 10,000 miles since her rebuild.
I wouldn't mind another foot of beam but other than that, she's done whatever we asked. Who could wish for more?
Here at anchor- Pipe Creek, Exumas, Bahamas
Quote from: Jim_ME on April 08, 2011, 10:16:47 PM
I've wondered why Giles would omit the bridge deck, too. Was it because the cabin trunk goes so far aft and the cockpit was small enough that he felt that the cockpit needed the seating area? Did he feel like the Longbow might be fast enough to be more of a racer than the Centaur and would carry a larger racing crew much of the time and needed to maximize cockpit seating? Was the larger boat enough more expensive that it was targeted to older buyers that were more likely to be able to afford it, but to whom a bridge deck and taller ladder inside would present more difficulty climbing over? Would the boat be used more for entertaining and daysailing so that he wanted the cabin and cockpit to be more accessible to each other?
Westerly built/sold 260 Longbows between 1970 and 1980, but 2555 Centaurs in that same period, so it seems safe to say that the bridge deck on the Centaur didn't put buyers off too much. ;) (The Centaur was also smaller and no doubt affordable to a larger market, too.)
The total Westerly build for all 4 derivatives was around 1,000 - Pentland (Bilge Keels & Aft Cabin), Berwick (B/k & Aft cockpit), Renown (Fin keel & Aft cabin) and Longbow (Fin & Aft Cockpit)......I think all of them came in Ketch & Sloop versions.
FWIW I once sailed on a Pentland (not mine) accross the Bay of Biscay (2 days of no wind - day 3 a real hooley!). A really good sea boat and sails a lot better than the caravan looks suggest! As someone said, something of a Landrover - and pretty much a go anywhere boat.
I thought carefully about buying one instead of the Seadog 30 I got (and still have) - around here I need Bilge Keels (for the cheap moorings) and at the time also wanted an aft cabin. I decided against the Pentland as the aft cabin is rather small - and not going to become a double, let alone an owners cabin. Ideal for kids though.....and storage! (that's become the primary use of mine!).
In the same circumstances again I would probably not bother with an aft cabin so would be looking at a Berwick - probably stick with a Ketch rig though, I just like 'em!
In regard to the Bridge deck, if you look carefully will see that the cockpit sole is raised (4 inches?) at the forward end of the cockpit and a couple of inches more above that for the companionway - so the idea is that unless in a hooley or taking a wave into the cockpit that spray and rain (and the odd dollop of sea!) does not go straight down below. The easy "fix" is putting (and locking in) a single washboard - or a custom DIY version for when the wind and sea is up..........I guess it was a trade off between in port / sunny day use and when in rough weather......and the marketing dept won!
(http://c907.r7.cf3.rackcdn.com/10968799.jpg)
Charlie, I am very familiar with you boat, she is a beauty. Ahh yes an extra foot of beam would be nice. Ali
Topic on cabin design must-haves split off into it's own thread (http://sailfar.net/forum/index.php/topic,3527.msg38601.html#msg38601) since it's an interesting topic on it's own.