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:
Quote
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.
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
Quote from: TJim on July 01, 2008, 12:11:39 PM
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.
Quote
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:
Quote
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.
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.
Quote from: TJim on July 01, 2008, 12:11:39 PM
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
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.
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
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.
Quote from: Banshi on July 06, 2008, 12:40:44 PM
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.
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. ;)
Quote from: Joe Pyrat on July 06, 2008, 01:15:49 PM
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.
Yeah, I liked that one too 8)
Quote from: Joe Pyrat on July 06, 2008, 01:15:49 PM
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
Charlie...you're not OLD....just 'experienced' :o
Quote from: CharlieJ on July 06, 2008, 02:24:16 PM
;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
"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.
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.
Quote from: Banshi on July 07, 2008, 10:42:47 AM
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?
More grist: I found this today on the A-30 list archives while looking for something completely unrelated. This was posted by John Birch:
Quote
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
Quote
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 (http://lists.alberg30.org/pipermail/public-list-alberg30.org/1999-December/027696.html)
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...
QuoteAs a weekender in confined waters, It matters a lot of me
I think that is telling.
Of course I thought this post was interesting; ;)
Quote.... 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
I thought you (and one or two others ...) MIGHT like that one!
;D
I always find this an interesting topic because there is a twist to it for little boats like mine (N17). It can plane. It takes a fair amount of wind or auxilary power. The latter point is one I have given a lot of consideration to. I know of a couple of N17 owners that have enough of a motor to plane like a little speedboat; not blazing fast, but >10 kts. I think the primary use for it is getting to good sailing water faster in good conditions, not pounding the snot out of the boat through big waves trying to get away from heavy weather. I went with a motor that just does hull speed, so my info is second hand. I have planed briefly under sail and the way it handles I think it would be very dicey in gusty winds or big waves. But this is a boat that shouldn't be out too far. Anyway, if you are comparing 6 kts to 12 it's a different discussion.
On the issue of fast boats better avoiding bad weather (specifically, tropical cyclones), I found this today.
Quote
If a ship has at least 20 knots, at her disposal and shapes a course that will take her most rapidly away from the storm before the wind has increased above the point at which her movement becomes restricted, it is seldom that she will come to any harm.
From this page:
http://thenauticalsite.com/nauticalnotes/met/mymet-lesson10-trs.htm
It makes me wonder if the author is saying that 20 knots is some sort of 'average needed' speed to outmaneuver such systems.
If so, a monohull with 8 kt hullspeed has no practical advantage over one with a 6 kt hull speed. Both are at luck's mercy given (a) size of storms and (b) errors in track prediction even if state of the art data is available.
(Typed this from the safety and comfort of shore as Hurricane Arthur churns just off Cape Fear and nominally headed this way).
This "kinda" fits into this disscussion: I just came back from Moosehead lake. There is a restored 100yr old (this year!) 115 ft x 28 ft x 7.5 ft x 200ton classic old style "Gadsby era" passenger/frieght boat that they now use for tours. It is a displacement hull and has 2-300 hp diesels. Thats 600HP for 200tons! It moves along at 8.5 knots @ 1250 RPM!!! Barely a wake!! It is SO beautiful and SO efficient!! Why....WHY can't designers today make beautiful boats with a "soul" that are timelessly pleasing to the eye AND extremely efficient? They did 100 yrs ago!! So much for progress!!
Quote from: Captain Smollett on July 03, 2014, 05:25:27 PM
It makes me wonder if the author is saying that 20 knots is some sort of 'average needed' speed to outmaneuver such systems.
It sounds like he's saying that 20 knots is a minimum, not average. That would keep most sailboats out of the equation!
I'd rather have a boat that I could trust to survive the storm, strap myself in, and ride the storm out. I do think I have the boat, but I hope I don't have to find out how she handles the eye of a hurricane. (She would undoubtedly handle it. I don't know how I'd feel afterward!)
Quote from: Frank on July 03, 2014, 08:04:51 PM
It is a displacement hull and has 2-300 hp diesels. Thats 600HP for 200tons!
I had a friend that had 2-300 hp V-6 outboards on his 16' bass boat. That's 600 hp for 1200 lbs. (+/-).
He said that fishermen needed the extra speed to stay out longer, and hopefully catch the biggest fish before the tournament ended.
$35,000+ for that boat, and no way to ever win enough tournament money to pay for it!
Quote from: Travelnik on July 03, 2014, 08:30:54 PM
It sounds like he's saying that 20 knots is a minimum, not average.
Ooops, sorry. I did not word that very well. By "average needed" I did mean an 'average minimum,' meaning "for the average storm, a minimum speed needed...." I worded it clumsily for sure.
Quote
That would keep most sailboats out of the equation!
Even most 'fast' ones. ;)
Quote
I'd rather have a boat that I could trust to survive the storm, strap myself in, and ride the storm out. I do think I have the boat, but I hope I don't have to find out how she handles the eye of a hurricane. (She would undoubtedly handle it. I don't know how I'd feel afterward!)
Indeed. Well said.
Quote
I had a friend that had 2-300 hp V-6 outboards on his 16' bass boat. That's 600 hp for 1200 lbs. (+/-).
He said that fishermen needed the extra speed to stay out longer, and hopefully catch the biggest fish before the tournament ended.
:o :o
Just wow.
Was reading the other day about some guys that fish out of Beaufort...regular guys with smallish boats (all were in the 20-25 ft range). Most had twin outboards. Most were talking in the ballpark of 100 gallons to run to the stream and back, and that's not the fuel needed on site.
I thought..."Wow, about $400 for one day of fishing." Makes me appreciate sailing that much more. ;)
Folks- I was aboard the USS Saratoga when we ducked UNDER a hurricane in the Atlantic- She stuffed her bow a couple times!! And that bow is 90 feet up!!
I'll pass on doing it in ANYTHING smaller, thank you very much!!
Quote from: CharlieJ on July 03, 2014, 09:17:07 PM
Folks- I was aboard the USS Saratoga when we ducked UNDER a hurricane in the Atlantic- She stuffed her bow a couple times!! And that bow is 90 feet up!!
I'll pass on doing it in ANYTHING smaller, thank you very much!!
Here's a vid of Kitty Hawk doing the same thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1graEzmeRU
There's an interesting comment below regarding the wave height, suggesting that the height need only be 20-25 ft to come over the bow of a carrier. Who knows if it's true, but the guy sounds knowledgeable.
Quote from: Crazer on July 04, 2014, 12:02:40 PM
Here's a vid of Kitty Hawk doing the same thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1graEzmeRU
There's an interesting comment below regarding the wave height, suggesting that the height need only be 20-25 ft to come over the bow of a carrier. Who knows if it's true, but the guy sounds knowledgeable.
That's probably true, but the ones we were in were more than 30 feet, I assure you. We weren't in the storm itself, but in the left over seas.
But I did stick the top rail of the bow pulpit on Tehani through two waves in Santa Rosa Sound.The waves were not all that huge, just quite close together and she didn't have time to rise before she hit the troughs. This was right at a bridge, with steep, close together seas.
Was NOT a fun day :o :'( :o
Thanks Capn. S for another interesting topic.
I have owned several boats in the "not fast" category. Although I love the exhilaration of sailing speed to be found in the smaller board-boats and catamarans I have sailed, when it came time pick boats for cruising, I have repeatedly chosen to forgo the more modern, "performance oriented" designs in favor of boats with robust construction, traditional seakeeping characteristics, and arguably more comfortable motion. Because we have lived aboard full time, we appreciate the security of design choices like encapsulated ballast, solid laminate hulls, heavy bulkheading/scantlings, lower aspect rigs, etc. These are design choices that aren't often found in the faster, more modern boats, which are often optimized for racing, chartering, and build economy.
As painful as it is to hear our boat called a "Wet-Snail" by snooty racers, I am comforted by knowing that our keel will never suddenly fall off, our rudder will not be smashed/bent by running aground, and when it gets nasty, she will take care of herself in a way that the faster boats could not. To paraphrase John Letcher, she may be an embarrasment when racing round the bouys, inshore, but all alone out on the ocean, she will be a joy to sail, for that is what she was built for.
I had the pleasure (tongue in cheek) of riding a frigate in the edge of a hurricane. also went around the tip of south American on it and watched seas as high as our flight deck and lost our motor whale boat in that storm. don't want to do it again.