Well, that escalated really rapidly...

[BOAT]

That looks like a real nice boat but 2 million dollars is a bit out of my range. The bulkheads in that boat do not look watertight to me. I still think I would prefer the MAC70 if the price is the same. I can make the inside look like anything I want but you can't change the bones. I don't see any reason that the 70 or any other boat can have all those wooden walls too - they would be pretty easy to install, but why carry all that weight?

[Russ]

That looks like a real nice boat but 2 million dollars is a bit out of my range. The bulkheads in that boat do not look watertight to me. I still think I would prefer the MAC70 if the price is the same. I can make the inside look like anything I want but you can't change the bones. I don't see any reason that the 70 or any other boat can have all those wooden walls too - they would be pretty easy to install, but why carry all that weight?

It is very clear that you are Roger's #1 fan. He should hire you to do his marketing.

[BOAT]

I like Roger - I have met a lot of the guys that were building these boats back in the 70's - Guys like Don Hansen and Hobie Alter who sold out and Whitney Peden who owned Coastal Rec and the dudes at Jensen Marine and Stan Miller and a whole lot of other guys that were friends with my dad. Coronado was all the rage in the "luxury" class then - The dude driving the company that built the Coronado sailboats (can't remember his name) - we met him at a yacht club in Newport after a regatta and he was one of those guys that was talking about WIDE boat's, WIDER and WIDER - and as I recall that was near 1973 and he was talking about building a 45 foot boat - his boats - they just got bigger and bigger - to us 45 feet was a monster. His whole premise was the "looks good at the dock and sells lot's of boats" deal.

Those guys went out of business shortly after that. (Coronado that is).

Costa Mesa was a hotbed of boat building back then - I was a great place to be if you were into boats. Roger and the other companies used to hire teenagers back then to work in the factories as the huge influx of illegal immigrants had not yet begun at that point. Many people my age met all these pioneers of the sailboat industry just working part time jobs after high school. It was a lot different back then.

In Rogers case I never got the idea that is was all about the money - I mean he has the trappings, the jaguar car, the house on the water and so forth, but it did not seem to be his goal - he really wanted to keep the boats affordable for everyone but still keep everyone safe yet he was always striving for better ways to do EVERYTHING including SAILING ITSELF which led to things like water ballast and poptops and other stuff. I think he really wanted other people to enjoy what he liked too and he knew folks were willing to pay money for the same experiences he had. It was a pretty simple philosophy.

Whitney Peden at Coastal Recreation did not even sail that much - a LOT of the other owners stopped sailing after they got their millions. Not Roger.

[Russ]

There is no doubt that Roger built boats that allowed tons of sailors to get into the hobby. The track record of his boats shows they were extremely safe. No other builder can say that.
Even the 65 allowed non millionaires to compete in Transpac races. For an ocean racer it was extremely cheap.
He narrated his own marketing video and you can tell he truly believes in his boats.

Times have changed and so has boat building.

I know what you mean about those old school boat builders. When I lived in NJ, I go to meet Warren Luhrs. A true sailor. My dad bought one of the first John Cherubini designed Hunter 30s that was built in NJ before the company was forced to move to Florida. It was interesting to go to the factory and see just how low tech (in the 70s') these boats were built.

[BOAT]

Yes! The original Hunters were really good - that was why my brother got the Hunters - My preference in the "new tech" at the time was the Ericson as I had crewed on several and all the same old arguments we make today about boats were made about the Hunter verses the Ericson back then. "Ericsons are 'spartan' and lack luxury because they have a narrower beam!" and the old guys said the Hunters were too fat and talked about all the racing trophy's the Ericson had and still the same guys always saying "racing is not everything" and so forth - this is and OLD debate I have been listening to for decades. Today the Hunters and the Ericson of the 80's seem slender compared to their contemporary counterparts.

The Coronado guys made the same argument - in the beginning their boats were small and narrow, but every year they got bigger and fatter and heavier and SLOWER - but it seems every boat company gets to the point where they hit that fork in the road and they must make a choice: Luxury, or Performance. It's like watching to what happened to the Ford Thunderbird over the years.

As long as "luxury" is always going to be synonymous with WIDTH, the luxury boats will ALWAYS be inferior, and under-perform - that's just a fact.

In my opinion**** In MY opinion, the younger sailors have to stop thinking that WIDE is the measure of LUXURY - I think it's a misnomer - it's just marketing and fluff. A boat can be every bit as luxurious and still be narrow, but the younger crowd is SO taken by the fancy marketing and the flashy brochures that they have forgotten the original purpose.

The next step is going to be houseboats with sails.

[mastreb]

Russ I was referring to the new 70 when I discussed ballast. Mike Inmon gave me a tour when I was there to pick up my new mast after the factory closed. They're just building the one 70 there right now, and have leased the rest of the building to a cabinet shop. The last new 26M was sitting the back lot at the time.

According to Mike, the bare boat will be $500K with an AL mast, so it might squeak in at $1M properly fit out for cruising with the carbon mast. In any case, the buying of it won't be nearly as difficult as the keeping of it. A '70 long boat is just going to be expensive to own unless you're actually out in the ocean with it full time. It's not a boat I can afford to keep.

I do have requirements beyond best possible seakeeping ability and highest possible speed if I actually want to be sailing a lot. I do know what I'm getting into with a relatively beamy boat, as I have lived at sea for years and know well the creeping exhaustion that's caused by heavy weather. I was young then, and the boat was bigger, but I enjoy the sea and moderate weather is a challenge I look forward to. As long as you're not trying to keep a schedule, you can maximize the good weather and wait out the bad as long as the boat stays dry.

Schedules are the ultimate cause of deaths underway.

Matt

[mastreb]

BOAT, you're bringing the beer and we're going to go sailing. I'm going to show you how these new beamy boats with a full chine actually work.

It's not wide in the water when more than half of the boat is up in the air my friend

This is my boat, in San Diego Bay, before the name went on:



More than 50% of the wetted surface is not in the water. It's sustaining 9+ knots in 25 knot winds. That photo isn't rounding up or blowing over in a gust, that's the intentional heel.

It's a little hard to get used to sheeting in to increase heel when all my sailing for the past three years has been to sheet out to decrease heel. But on this boat you want to maintain about 25 degrees for minimal wetted surface, just like you want to maintain 15 degrees on a Mac.

It accelerates A LOT as soon as the windward side comes out of the water. Enough to really feel the sudden increase in speed.

Then we'll drink your beer once we're snug back in at the marina, in that ultra-beamy cockpit with the formal dining room sized table.

[BOAT]

That's incredible Matt- what does the keel look like on a boat like that?? I wonder how the keel works with that angle like that? I would be interested to see how they shaped the keel.

I have never seen too much of that kind of thing - I had no idea the boats were that wide and that flat. Obviously they have gone beyond even what I have observed in the 70's and 80's.

This is pretty new stuff to me.

[Tomfoolery]

Sweet! I really like the arch, too. My Hunter had an arch, and I thought (and still do think) it's the neatest thing since sliced bread. Keeps the sheet out of the way, gives yet another thing to hang on to when needed, makes a convenient structure for a bimini (mine was in two pieces, half in front, the other behind), and so on. Also keeps the traveler from taking off someone's fingers when tacking, if they're not paying attention.

That shape sort of reminds me of some of the ocean racing boats these days.

[Russ]

That shape sort of reminds me of some of the ocean racing boats these days.

That's what I was thinking.




These boat really FLY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h0V1EAvBuM

[BOAT]

Looks like a full on planing hull - I'm still a bit confused on that - it's one thing to blast around the bay but what happens in the heavy seas? That's really what my whole premise was about.

In the big ocean with storms that are inevitable what happens?? It still seems to me that the narrow boat will be a LOT more comfortable, (and safer too).

I thought you guys said racing did not matter?

So again, the whole point of WIDE is for interior room again??

[mastreb]

Looks like a full on planing hull - I'm still a bit confused on that - it's one thing to blast around the bay but what happens in the heavy seas? That's really what my whole premise was about.

In the big ocean with storms that are inevitable what happens?? It still seems to me that the narrow boat will be a LOT more comfortable, (and safer too).

I thought you guys said racing did not matter?

So again, the whole point of WIDE is for interior room again??

Beam has two uses: Interior room of course, but it also provides a "catamaran-like" form stability to monohulls. Form stability refers to the ability of the hull to remain stable without the use of ballast, the way cats and tris do. But just like cats and tris, form stability upright means form stability when upside down as well, meaning it reduces roll speed and could possibly remain inverted. A wide beam is also more subject to capsize when struck beam-on by a breaking wave, however, it's not that much less stable and its actually not entirely clear whether its an overall disadvantage.

The 1979 FastNet disaster and the Hobart disasters provided a lot of information about storm tactics and boat stability. ISO has developed the "stability index" or STIX based on that data with insurance companies to create a single rating that classifies a boat's susceptibility to capsize and it's roll period. They use this data to rate boat's survivability in heavy seas, and this boat >just barely< rates "all ocean" for eight people. It's amongst the least expensive boats that rate "All Ocean", and frankly I can't really afford more at this time in my life.

Nothing beats length for survivability. The bottom line is the longer your boat is, the bigger a wave it can survive. So your best tactic is to get the longest boat you can afford (which is what I did).

It's important to understand that no sailboat is immune to capsize. No monohull should capsize in sinusoidal waves of any height, but breaking waves are always dangerous. In breaking waves, both narrow and beamy boats can survive a 55% LOA breaking wave if faced bow-on. Beyond that, they will all pitchpole.

The difference in form stability comes when hit beam on: A narrow boat can survive a wave up to 44% of LOA while a beamy boat can only survive up to 33% of LOA. Its important to understand that these differences are relatively unimportant: The difference between those two numbers is small, and if you've been hit by a 33% LOA wave, you're going to eventually be hit by an even bigger one in the same storm.

Where narrow boats have a real advantage is the time they take to roll: They're much faster to return to upright than a beamy boat.

Because no boat can avoid capsize entirely, the next tactic to go for is to avoid turtling, and to return to upright before crew harnessed in the cockpit would drown. The higher a boat's angle of vanishing stability is, the faster it will return to upright in a capsize. Beamy boats are slower to return, narrower boats much faster. The "All-Ocean" rating requires that a boat return to upright after capsize within two minutes. Because no catamaran or Trimaran will actually return to vertical after capsize, many people do not consider them to be all-ocean capable.

The race disasters showed one thing clearly: Storm tactics by the crew trump form stability for resistance to capsize. None--not one--of the boats that properly hove-to and stopped racing in both storms were capsized. By keeping bow to the wind and waves, any boat will survive a storm that is survivable based on its length. Some beamy boats that lied a-hull did turn turtle, but the vast majority of casualties occurred on boats that attempted to run after being hit by the storm, continued to race, or otherwise attempted to make headway.

Storm tactics are pretty simple:

1) Keep an eye out for breaking waves. They are the real danger.

2) Should breaking waves occur, immediately stop attempting to make headway, execute a hove-to, and (if possible) engage an autopilot to assist in keeping the hove-to. I think the jib should be lowered or furled completely to move the CE as far aft as possible. The best thing to do IMHO would be to hoist a separate hank-on off the backstay similar to an anchor sail whose purpose is to keep the boat pointed directly at the wind and prevent the main and jib from being damaged. This small sail is also going to cause less drag in the water if the boat capsizes, which will make its return to upright faster. If you have split back-stay, a hank-on that acted as a drag-chute would be ideal.

3) Deploy a storm drogue. Anything you can do to keep the boat pointed naturally at the breaking waves should be done.

4) Go below and baton down. Surviving a capsize means making the cabin as watertight as possible, so stuff any cracks (such as the companionway hatch) with a large towel that will slow prevent water ingress, but you can pull out in an emergency if you have to escape. Do not try to keep the helm in breaking waves. Fix the rudders straight to reduce the possibility of them pulling the boat off course or breaking, or pull them up if possible. The daggerboard or fin keel should remain down.

4) Harness yourself to prevent injury, but keep a knife on your person to cut away the harness if necessary.

5) Wait for the storm to blow over.

If you're inside the cabin of a reasonably tight boat that is all-ocean rated, the difference between beamy and narrow isn't going to matter much because you won't be in the cockpit drowning while you wait for the boat to return to upright. As long as the boat will eventually roll back onto its hull, you will survive. The fool's errand, in my opinion, is in attempting to keep the helm in a storm.

Now as to comfort, well, I don't know. I'll just have to find out. Certainly not as comfortable as a MacGregor 70 in heavy seas

[Russ]

Looks like a full on planing hull - I'm still a bit confused on that - it's one thing to blast around the bay but what happens in the heavy seas? That's really what my whole premise was about.

In the big ocean with storms that are inevitable what happens?? It still seems to me that the narrow boat will be a LOT more comfortable, (and safer too).

Yup, looks like those things get up on plane. Crazy fast for a monohull.

Big ocean racing. You get wet. See video below. More dangerous, yes, but these guys are not cruisers, they are racing to the limits.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3PvD2DRRJ0

I thought you guys said racing did not matter?

So again, the whole point of WIDE is for interior room again??

I own a Mac 26M, so racing doesn't matter.

Wider provides more space, and as Matt has demonstrated (and the video above), doesn't mean slower, plus you don't need a 70' slip to keep your boat in.

@ 4:20 in this video. As you said, eventually you WILL be in a storm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdXxNZcXN3I

[Russ]

This is my boat, in San Diego Bay, before the name went on:

So what IS the name? "Luna Sea II"

[BOAT]

yeah, I could not believe the crap we got trapped in even in my Dad's little 23 foot Aquarius - terrible squalls in the Sea of Cortez - you go to bed on a nice warm calm night and wake up 2 hours later to 50 mile per hour winds and 5 foot swells and a dragging anchor!! It's nut's I tell you! No warning at all! And that's just a 1/2 mile off shore!!!

Even in the always calm San Pedro Channel I can remember HUGE 12 and 14 foot (!!) swells popping up out of nowhere on an April trip to Avalon. At least that's not dangerous but it sure does put the fear of the ocean in you real fast.

And don't even get me started on the Channel Islands, that place can be TREACHEROUS - really weird nigh-time wind and wave patterns that are so strong it's really makes anchorage an adventure, and often a very dangerous one.

I just plain don't TRUST any boat in the bad stuff - and surely not 'boat' because I'm afraid the big sea will pitch pole the boat and break the rudders - when the rudders are broke your at the mercy of your fuel tanks - so I tend to stay withing range of my fuel tanks if I am in any way concerned about the weather. Matt has been in a lot of storms on big boats, but most of the ones I have been in are on small boats so I am more afraid of storms than Matt is I think.

That's also why I like Rogers 70 foot boat because it has a full helm station built right into the top of the cabin where you can run the whole ship and stay dry.