Ideal trailerable sailboat - theoretical approach

Jackdaw · Feb 7, 2013

Unforgettable. You must go.

When we lived in France we drove out at least one a year. Here's a pix on the way to the Pointe du Hoc. When you get there is unimaginable that 19 year old kids climbed up that 100 foot wall under machine gun fire, to free a county that until that morning they have never seen before.

Humbling.

Crazy Dave Condon · Feb 12, 2013

For those who know my contributions to the trailerable market, I would like to say a few things as there are many different opinions.

When designing and selling sailboats, I use to tell most that a truely trailerable sailboat, is one that a person to include women too that can be single handed in trailering, raising and lowering the mast, easy to lauch and retrieve at any ramp a power boat can launch from, comfortability and sailing too.. Most people cannot afford the upper end due to the costs and most with the exception of a few are very timid when trailering even with a 8' beam with a 22. In addition, most are pleasure sailors with very few into racing and that is a different case. A good example is the Catalina 22 compared to the Catlaina Capri 22. With that said, when you talk about a trailerable boat at $100,000, appx. 99.9% cannot afford that cost and when a boat is overwidth, many are nervous pulling. Yes everyone is correct but to each his or hers own decision.

In the photos above, it reminds me of the older Beneteau 235. As for carbon fiber, not only is it expensive but can easily shatter if not careful.

crazy dave condon

anchorclanker · Feb 12, 2013

Jackdaw said:
I don't agree. It would be like bringing back the 1978 Ford LTD wagon.

Technology has vastly improved, boat design has improved, and how people use and what they expect of boats has moved on.

Unlike cars, though, sailboats are almost timeless. The Dana 24 keeps being mentioned, and im sorry but it looks OLD. But thats not for any other reason than the fact its kinda what it has to look like to offer that kind of internal volume, and remain blue water (small stainless window hatches). Boats are like aircraft, they have to slip through the water so the exterior shape is more or less fixed. Like when Moscow decided to build a space shuttle and it looked like ours. Some say they copied ours, but the facts are that aerodynamics dictate the shape rather than whim or fancy

Some of these so called modern looking boat, have goofy looking windows, thats the only thing making them look modern. If someone could take an old and proven design, and update it with modern technology, modern conveniences, and throw some goofy shaped windows on it, that could work, no?

I keep looking at the TES 24. Its probably not so hot for offshore, but it sure is pretty.

Jackdaw · Feb 12, 2013

anchorclanker said:
Unlike cars, though, sailboats are almost timeless. The Dana 24 keeps being mentioned, and im sorry but it looks OLD. But thats not for any other reason than the fact its kinda what it has to look like to offer that kind of internal volume, and remain blue water (small stainless window hatches). Boats are like aircraft, they have to slip through the water so the exterior shape is more or less fixed. Like when Moscow decided to build a space shuttle and it looked like ours. Some say they copied ours, but the facts are that aerodynamics dictate the shape rather than whim or fancy

Some of these so called modern looking boat, have goofy looking windows, thats the only thing making them look modern. If someone could take an old and proven design, and update it with modern technology, modern conveniences, and throw some goofy shaped windows on it, that could work, no?

I keep looking at the TES 24. Its probably not so hot for offshore, but it sure is pretty.

I hear your point but I gotta disagree when it comes to the notion of fixed design. Both in exterior (underwater) shape, and topsides/space management. There has been HUGE advances in hydrodynamic engineering, in both hull and appendage (keel and rudder) in the last 20-30 years. With the same design brief, new boats are faster, track better downwind. Rigging and sail management are much better as well, being both more powerful but still easier to handle and rig.

Go jump on a newly designed boat; you'll be pleasantly surprised. Think about this, if you figure anything from the mid 90s forward is new, and that's almost 20 years. Most sailboats afloat are 30 years+!

anchorclanker · Feb 12, 2013

Jack, I think were thinking/saying the same things, just saying them different. That you could use many of the old ideas, but in a fresh design using current knowledge and technology. The Dana 24 for example, it could just as easily be from the 40's, appearance wise, yet its intelligence and quality shows through, and it looks "right".

Jackdaw · Feb 13, 2013

anchorclanker said:
Jack, I think were thinking/saying the same things, just saying them different. That you could use many of the old ideas, but in a fresh design using current knowledge and technology. The Dana 24 for example, it could just as easily be from the 40's, appearance wise, yet its intelligence and quality shows through, and it looks "right".

Klanker,
Here's a perfect example of that. Check out this beauty. Looks like from the golden age of sail.

But that would be wrong.. Only the topsides are old-school. Its a brand new Alerion Express 28. A thoroughly modern boat, with a modern rig and underwater profile. The Hoyt self tacking boom makes soloing easy, or having a non-sailor as 'crew'. The big main and small jib make sail handling easy. Alerion currently makes models from 20-33 feet. And they sell.

Who knew that an old-school looking boat would like this under water? Fin keel with weighted foot, balanced spade rudder, flat aft sections.

The down-side to all of this is that the boat is very small inside. The traditional looks really limit that. Its a 28 foot daysailer. The new hull forms make for stability while sailing, and room inside. With the narrow canoe hull, the only way to get stability is draft and lots of ballast.

And they cost a ton. And not trailer-able. Buts its what you are talking about, old school looks and new thinking in the rig and hydrodynamics.

http://alerionexp.com/alerion_express28.html

Jackdaw · Feb 13, 2013

Bosman said:
AE 28 does look wonderful, but as you mentioned, price is a factor and amount of room in the cabin. Since we are on the retro topic in modern form, what about this boat?

It does have the retro look to it, shallow draft and the price is not too steep either at £32,967 (approx US $51,250)

Haber 26 Pilothouse

Yes the AE28 is costly. And for sure not trailer-able. Here only to discuss Klanker's point.

Whats modern about that Haber? Twin keel bilge underbody, gaff rigged cutter? Straight from the 60s!

Its my personal option that you cannot make a good looking pilothouse (or center cockpit) sailboat under 35 feet LOA. They just look awkward. But that does not stop people from cranking them out. Com-pac, for instance.

anchorclanker · Feb 13, 2013

Is it even possible to make a trailerable boat that's blue water capable? It would appear the hull and top need to be solid glass, no core, and the ballast needs to be nearly half the boats weight in a deep fin? The Dana 24 weighs 7400 pounds empty. Add a trailer and gear and you could easily exceed 12,000 pounds. Thats not really practical to trailer anywhere by anything less than a 3/4 ton truck.

Someone needs to come up with a boat made of unobtanium.

tkanzler · Feb 13, 2013

My Dad used to be the marketing manager for a company that made industrial infrared equipment, and I still remember him recounting how, when they came out with a new piece of hardware that was quite small, they cast about the office and plant for the guy with the largest hands, and photographed the item being held in his hand. I still remember the photo, in fact (from many decades ago).

Which makes me wonder just how small some of the models in the boat marketing glossy literature really are. Like 4'-6" and 80 lb soaking wet? :Liar:

anchorclanker · Feb 13, 2013

Bosman said:
anchorclanker => do elaborate on what do you consider "blue water capable" boat?

I personally cant say with any personal sailing experience, only what I read or have witnessed on land. 75 km/h is only 46 mph. Its quite common to exceed that on land here in the central US, and even more common to exceed that kind of wind out on a large open lake. In the 9 years we lived in Duluth, there were at least two instances that I recall, where the anemometer on the Ariel lift bridge at Park Point saw winds that exceeded 100 mph, and broke.

I dont believe its unreasonable to assume conditions could well exceed the B rating offshore the east coast of the US or areas around the GOM. Not that a B rating couldnt work, but if those are the ratings, I would say anything less than "A" is not blue water. However, one would assume no one in their right mind would want to be out in those conditions, regardless how well constructed their boat was. Its only in those circumstances where you get trapped where youll wish you had a tank.

Jackdaw · Feb 13, 2013

Bosman said:
anchorclanker => do elaborate on what do you consider "blue water capable" boat? In Europe, boats have to meet European standard 2004/44/EG directive which classifieds them in the following:

A = wind over 8 Beaufort (more than 75 km/h) and/or swell over 4 meters wave height = „high lake “/„open ocean “
B = wind to 8 Beaufort (to well 75 km/h) and/or swell up to including 4 meters wave height = „outside waters protected by territorial waters “/„unprotected waters “
C = wind to 6 Beaufort (to well 50 km/h) and/or swell to Gewässeer “/„by the coast protected waters “
D = wind to 4 Beaufort (to scarcely 30 km/h ), offshore including 2 meters waving height = „, and/or swell up to including 0.3 meters wave height = „ports “/„inland waters “

With above in mind, I would say that Category B would fall into the "blue water capable" craft. For example, TES 24 and TES 28 sold in Canada are build to the B standard. Haber 26 mentioned above can be build to the B standard (factory option is C), not sure on Centaurus 25. Mac 26M got C category for units sold in EU.

All boat I have posted here have solid core hull with deck build on sandwich with either Herex or Airex foam and ballast inside the vessel with light swing keels. Such design offers self righting capabilities and position of the keel does not affect this. I've been told by TES that vehicle towing the boat (TES 24) must be able to pull 3500lbs, 4000lbs ideally.

Many manufacturer use the following descriptions of the categories:

D: Small lake
C: Bay
B: Offshore
A: Ocean - Largely self-sufficient

The categories deal mostly with a boats ability to stay upright in large seas. Because length plays such a big part in this, it is impossible for boats <6.0 Meters to quality for A or B categories. That part of the reason the Mini ocean racers at 6.5 meters long.

In some counties (France being one) your insurance will not pay for claims made for the boats use outside its legal use zone.

If a boat has a retractable keel, that is factored into the calculations and the testing is also done with the keel in. In most cases with the big makers, due to the whole design being done with advanced CAD tools, its modeled as part of the design process and no actual boat testing is needed. The small guys have to build the boat, test it, and hope it hits the desired class.

If anyone is interested, here is the ISO 12217 requirements document.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/955501/ISO 12217-2.pdf

Jackdaw · Feb 13, 2013

anchorclanker said:
Is it even possible to make a trailerable boat that's blue water capable? It would appear the hull and top need to be solid glass, no core, and the ballast needs to be nearly half the boats weight in a deep fin? The Dana 24 weighs 7400 pounds empty. Add a trailer and gear and you could easily exceed 12,000 pounds. Thats not really practical to trailer anywhere by anything less than a 3/4 ton truck.

Someone needs to come up with a boat made of unobtanium.

My question is, why would you want one??

If you want a blue water boat, then why would you trailer it? You could sail it anywhere. And the requirements that make it trailer-able make it much less usable for extended offshore use.

But the bigger question for me is why such a small offshore boat?? Even if you dig small boats, there is a huge disadvantage in speed. A Dana 24 probably averages about 4 knots on a long trip. A decent 35 foot fast cruiser, probably over 6. That not 2 knots, that 50% faster. And you get out of weathers way that much faster too. I love my B-rated First 260, but I've never going to take a long distance (>500 miles) trip in her. That's what the 367 is for. She just eats up miles the way no 25 footer could dream of.

anchorclanker · Feb 13, 2013

Jackdaw said:
My question is, why would you want one??

I would counter with, why not? Why not have the most capable boat if its the only boat you'll own?

Jackdaw · Feb 13, 2013

anchorclanker said:
I would counter with, why not? Why not have the most capable boat if its the only boat you'll own?

Cost... Paying for capability you are unlikely to ever use.

That extra capability cost real money. And effects performance (negatively). Like you said, why buy an 8000 lbs under canvassed boat if you plan to sail it on a lake? My advice to people is to buy a boat that matches their current and reasonably expected needs. You'll enjoy it more. If your needs change, sell it and buy a new boat that matches those need.

anchorclanker · Feb 13, 2013

Jackdaw said:
Cost... Paying for capability you are unlikely to ever use.

That extra capability cost real money. And effects performance (negatively). Like you said, why buy an 8000 lbs under canvassed boat if you plan to sail it on a lake?

This brings up another question, how much does a particular size boat need to weigh to be considered safe off shore? Actually its not so much the weight, as the position of the CG vs the CB. If we can get the CG down deep, and the CB up, our righting moment will be real good. Then we just need to get the strength into the hull. Someone said carbon will shatter, so what about a composite hull, fiberglass over carbon fiber? Lead swing keel with a heavy bulb section?

Another thought, which the TES 24 inspired. All these boats have protruding cabins from what would otherwise be a more or less flat deck. Why not raise the gunwales/freeboard, and keep the top flat? Like on the TES or Dana 24 as examples, just raise the sides of the hull to the same height as the top, and move the hatches out to the sides of the hull? Make a lot more room inside, and be a heck of a lot easier walking/laying around up on the deck.