Boat Design Q & A

Hi! Is there anyone who could tell me where i could find the angle of limit stability or angle of vanishing for a morgan 382 or a cal 39? Thank you! - Jacques

Hi Jaques: Best bet would be to check with US Sailing and see if they have ever done an IMS certificate on one of these boats. If they have, the stability data will be spelled out for that boat. You will need to keep in mind that sisterships vary somewhat - especially if they have more weight in the rig for roller furlers. - Steve

(top)

Dear Steve and Linda: Having discovered SetSail site, I want to tell you what a terrific boat you have designed in the Wind Horse. What I found particularly interesting is your break up with the dominant design rules of cruising power boats, e.g., trawlers.

While my limited budget allows me only to dream of Wind Horse, I am myself involved with pushing ahead my own dreams of ocean cruising. Having known your work, I have already given up my trawler-oriented mindset and I am rethinking the entire issue considering the canoe-like hull proposition you so beautifully materialised in Wind Horse.

Having said this, I'd like to know your comments on two points.

-according to the equation of displacement hull speed (1.2 times sqrt water level length in feet, am I correct?), a 85 feet-long boat could achieve a max speed of around 11 knots. But boats often go far beyond these limits, as are good examples your own designs. So, I confess I'm puzzled. Could you, please, shed some light on the issue?

-have you ever considered adding lifting hydrofoils to your designs (I think about Wind Horse) not, of course, to turn them into 60-knot-out-of-the-water rocket-boats, but to reduce their displacement and wetted area by say, 30%, so increasing speed & range? I think of hydrofoils added, say, to the keel and skegs, in order to compensate for, say, 30% of the vessel's weight, or displacement, and adding to stability as a bonus benefit. Is this way wrong? If so, could you point the problems with it?

Thank you for your attention. Best regards, Francisco

Thanks for the kind words, Francisco:

Regarding speed length ratios (SLR), the ratio a boat is able to achieve is a function of the displacement, and hull shape. As the displacement length ratio drops, the ability of the boat to break out of the hull speed regime increases. For example, with just 300 HP Wind Horse will do fourteen knots when she is lightly loaded. That's a SLR of over 1.5.

As a designer what you have to play with is the relationship between volume in the ends of the hull and that in the middle. Getting this right helps reduce drag at higher speeds, but then if you reduce drag at higher speeds, you increase it going slow! Which is why you need to carefully consider what speed you want to optimize the boat for.

As far as hydrofoils go, these work best on high speed craft. Wind Horse is too slow for their efficient use.

Good Luck with your project - Steve

(top)

Hi Steve, As part of researching for a suitable boat I've read the articles about keel and foil design at www.vacantisw.com as well as your description of using a NACA 0000 foil shape with a 15% foil section in Offshore Cruising Encyclopedia. Can you tell me in general terms how much a foil shaped keel improves boat performance compared to one that has no foil, ie. the sides of the keel are parallel? Is this difference enough to warrant keeping away from boats without foil keels? Thx, DM

Hi DM: Foil shape - the foil itself, the planform, and how it intersects with the hull all play a part in drag. If you are motoring, or sailing downwind the issues are not as critical as when reaching and beating. And they are very significant.

I don't think there is any generalized way to quantify this for you except to say that foil shape is as important as hull shape and sail shape. They are all related.

If you are interested at all in performance, then this has to be an issue. If you are interested in working your way off a lee shore in heavy weather it becomes a major safety issue. On the other hand, if you really like the boat, the price is right, and my two previous caveats are not important to you, then it is less of an issue.

Sounds to me like I have not told you much. As I am inclined towards performance, foil shape is critical to me. And we've spent a huge amount of time on this very subject for the unsailboat we are currently designing - to minimize drag. - Steve

(top)

Dear Linda and Steve, We first heard about you two in the Mahina Cruising seminar given in San Francisco this past March by John and Amanda Neal. It was a great seminar and your books were prominently displayed and talked about during their seminar.

We are just about ready to take off for five or so years on a cruising journey which we hope will include the Med, Caribbean and South Pacific. More if time allows. I (Glenn) have been boating/sailing since the age of 12 and am now the ripe old age of 52. I grew up sailing on Puget Sound, the San Juans and Canadian waters and sail/race J-105's in the San Francisco fleet. The two of us have chartered all kinds of sail and power boats in California, the Caribbean, and Mexico.

Because we understand that you sail on a 78-footer Beowulf, we thought you could help us with a dilemma we are currently experiencing. We are looking to purchase a boat in the very near future. Two boats are under serious consideration. One is a new Hylas 54. The other is a used Farr 63 built in 1999. Both are cutter-rigged, center cockpit pilothouse models. Both are loaded with the latest in nav and electronic gear. Both have in-mast furling mains and a bow thruster. My wife likes the smaller Hylas, thinking that it will be easier to sail shorthanded (just the two of us most of the time). I like the larger Farr which is a bit roomier, has a bit better sailing performance overall and will be more sea kindly with the longer waterline length. The biggest ISSUE is draft. My wife thinks the 9-foot draft on the Farr will keep us away from many tropical locations where we may want to anchor/moor the boat. I say the difference between the Farr's -foot draft and the Hylas' 7'2'" draft is negligible and that it would affect less than 5% of the places we'd like to go. For instance, we chartered a Hylas 54 in the BVI and barely were able to join other boats anchored on the south side of Annegada Island where the depth water was 8 feet. We assume the draft on Beowulf is at least 9 feet. Do you feel limited in where you can cruise??

Any thoughts or opinions would be greatly appreciated if you have the time to respond. We look forward to using your reference materials. Kind Regards, Glenn and Linda

Hi Glenn: The problem of draft is one with which we've wrestled for many years. There is no substitute for draft in performance. And there will be a huge difference in performance between the Farr and Hylas strictly because of this - both upwind and down (there will be other issues affecting performance as well, but draft is a biggy).

Beowulf drew 8'. When we were in the design cycle we looked at everything from 6' to 10'. If we were doing a sistership today for ourselves (which we almost did), to be used on the Pacific Coast, with occasional trips (maybe once every three years) to French Polynesia, we'd kick up the draft to 9.5' - because of the performance aspect. However, for more general cruising we feel that her 8' was about the right compromise for us.

The 9.5' of the Farr is not going to be an issue in most of the Caribbean, or the West Coast of the US, or for that matter in the tropical S. Pacific. And there are certainly lots of places in New Zealand where that sort of draft is not an issue. The East Coast of the US is a little more limiting.

The rub comes in risk factors. For example, there is a lot more risk cruising in out-of-the-way spots, where thin water is present but poorly charted. We've had several experiences over the years where, through foolishness, we got ourselves into difficulty but were able to extricate ourselves without outside assistance. In each case, had draft been a foot more, we'd have needed a tug (and if no tug was available we'd have left the boat).

Haul out is another issue. It will be more difficult to find usable haul out facilities with the deeper draft vessel, and blocking will be more difficult. This may or may not be an issue depending on where you are when you need the haul out.

Then there is the factor of heavy weather anchorages. In many parts of the world - tropical in particular - the safest anchorages are up a river. The rivers themselves are often surprisingly deep, but they seem to invariably have an entrance bar which must be crossed. These are typically around 6.5 to 8 feet.

Another thing to consider is the shape of the keel. If the keel is bulbed, then it is unlikely that you will be pushing it through soft mud across the river bar. On the other hand, if it is a very small fin, with a thin tip, and you have reasonable power and an efficient prop, you can push the keel through several feet (or more) of mud (we once pushed Beowulf through 3' of mud - to a friend's house up a river in New Zealand).

I have not specifically answered your question - sorry about that. I would say both of you are correct. From my perspective it comes down to the risk factors associated with the draft, and how you view these versus the performance pleasure (and this is a positive in terms of safety) that comes with the higher performance configuration. Most cruisers would opt for the shallower draft because they don't care about the performance. That's what Linda would want as well. From my perspective I'd consider the deeper draft boat. But if I were cruising full time, doing a circumnavigation, I'd rather have something more like 8', assuming no bulb.

Assuming the Farr has a bolt-on keel, have you considered a different fin? Good Luck - Steve

(top)

Hello Steve. First off thanks for writing the Encyclopedia. It was a driving force in getting my wife and I to buy a boat and sail the West Coast from Vancouver to Mexico.

We are now looking to move up in size from our Roberts 44 to potentially an Irwin 52. These boats are rare on the West Coast and abundant on the Southeast Coast. They have 2 keel configs - one has a centerboard and shoal draft of 5'6", and the other is a fixed keel with a draft of 7 feet. I have no experience with big boats with centerboards, and would value your opinion on their merit when going to windward? What do you think of Irwins?

Thanks a bundle, Tony

Hi Tony: Centerboards are an advantage where draft is concerned. But they are often a pain as far as maintenance goes, and tend to be noisy when sailing downwind in the trades. We prefer to avoid them where possible.

The other question is the design of the boat. In terms of ballasting and hull shape, it is very difficult to optimize for both fixed keel and centerboard design. A design that swings both ways is bound to have major compromises.

On the other hand, a lot depends on the price of the boat in question, where you are cruising (if you have the option of deeper draft, it is usually a better approach in terms of maintenance and performance), and the type of weather you want to be able to handle.

All of which applies to any design. The Irwin 52 was never intended as an offshore design, and this would not be our first choice in heavy going. On the other hand, for coastal work, they offer a lot of interior volume - an amazing amount. The Roberts 44 I am not familiar with.

Since you are on the West Coast, I am assuming draft is not an issue for you. At least, that would be the case in Mexico and the South Pacific, and the Pacific NW. Good Luck - Steve

(top)

Hello and thank you,

Over ten years ago I read of Sundeer 64' and bought the video and watched it over and over again. I dreamed my wife and I were owners of such a boat thousands of times. Being just regular people, a police officer and stay-at-home mom, we'll never likely have the means for such an acquisition. Now I see Beowulf and am THUNDER STRUCK. I think if GOD The Father, Son and Holy Spirit decide to sail a human-made vessel, it will be Beowulf. It is as close to perfect as mere mortals can produce. You MAY do a newer sailing design in future days, and it MAY be different here and there, but I can not imagine it could be better. Please continue your work of supplying the able people with such fine boats. We dreamers can always use more "fuel". And those with the financial means to become owners of your creations will be very well satisfied with their fine decisions to do just that. {Three-hundred miles per day...it almost seems to defy the laws of physics.}

With gratitude, encouragement and best regards,
John M

P.S. Hello again, I forgot to ask, I thought you two were steadfast REAR COCKPITTERS! What made you put Beowulf's cockpit in the CENTER? Cordially, John

Hi John: Thanks for the comments. The cockpit location is a compromise. We wanted the aft deck clear for dinghies, and then there was the working area with the sail controls. The way the cockpit is done, it does not impinge on the interior the way most center cockpit boats do, because of its "floating" design. Regards - Steve

(top)

Hi Steve, I've just found your website and have a couple of questions. I live on a 1977 40ft Cheoy Lee ketch. It is quite spacious and has a full keel. I couldn't help noticing that you don't mention Cheoy Lee's anywhere on your web. Do you see this as a good cruiser and is a full keel better in weather? Thanks, Todd

Hi Todd: I have no direct experience with Cheoy Lee vessels. A full length keel is not usually an advantage in heavy going, except perhaps when hove to, and leaving a slick to weather to calm the seas. However, this is a controversial subject. The Pardees swear by it. But we have chatted with a lot of full keelers over the years who have not been able to create that "slick" to weather. Regards - Steve

(top)

Hi Steve, I read that you felt at one time your Sundeer 56/60 was one of your best designs. After your experience with Beowulf, are there any significant changes that you would make to that boat? A better question is if you were going to design a similar sized boat today, what would it be like? Thank you, Downing Mears

I f budgets issues are constrained I would leave the boat as is. With more budget, we'd use a carbon fiber rig and Kevlar in the hull. Regards - Steve

(top)

I realize this must be the single most common question you hear, but I cannot find it on your FAQ page. What are your recommendations on rig type and boat size for a cruising couple? We currently have a Frers 41, but want to move aboard and go offshore indefinitely - so we are looking at other boats. When we cruise now - which is every available moment (we do not race), our boat is stuffed with all manner of gear, supplies, bikes, books etc. Our gear wish list is long, and provisioning for a long journey... Personally we love split rigs, and are very inclined towards a marconi rigged schooner we have seen. My concerns are handling a large boat (60') with my wife, and of course maintenance costs. Any pointers you may be able to give us would be much appreciated. Thank you for all the information you have published. Alex & Daria Blackwell

Hi Alex and Daria: There is no cook book answer. Many, many trade-offs, starting with budget. However, if you are thinking of a 60-footer, then I would try to stay with a single stick rig. Much simpler, typically more efficient, and easier to sail, as long as you have a good reefing system and proper inner forestay for staysails. Lots more detail on all of this in our Offshore Cruising Ency. Good Luck - Steve

PS-The most important thing is to go cruising. Spend a minimum amount of time on gear and systems, maximize the time spent learning to handle the boat,and then go!

(top)

We are looking at buying a 1983 Alden with two centerboards. I'm familiar with one board but not two. The boat draws 5' 4" BU and 11' 8" BD. What is your advice on this arrangement. Thanks, Rod and Lucinda

Hi Rod and Lucinda: Twin centerboards have been used by several designers over the years as a way of providing more control on helm balance. If there is excess weather helm, you use more aft board and less forward.

My own feeling is that if the hull and fins were right to begin with, you would not need to do this. However, it does provide the additional control.

The main negative will be you have extra drag from the second centerboard trunk opening, and additional maintenance. Steve

(top)

Dear Steve, It has been while since I last connected with you--in fact it was 2000 prior to the Bermuda race. By the way, INTERMEZZO now FUERA did quite well. In any case the reason why I am writing to you is because I am now working with Bill Tripp Jr. to figure out the true history and facts on how to bring her back to her original state. I thought you might be able to help me separate history from folklore--fact from fiction. I am not sure if she was a ketch or a yawl, you reference in one of your books that she was a ketch, but we are not sure. Do you have any before pictures that you could share with me? Many people who think they are in the know think that she was hull number one. We are convinced that the bow sprit was not part of the original sail plan. Any help sorting any of this out would be very much appreciated. Best regards, Fred

Hi Fred: Here's what I know: She was originally a yawl, with a small (worthless) mizzen just behind the helm. Good place for a riding sail and radar--that's about it. This was the second Col 50 built for (I think) a guy named John Hall back in the days of factory racing teams. We anchored one weekend next to the earlier boat, SIMOON, and the learning curve was obvious. Everything on INTERMEZZO was taller, heavier, deeper. Compared to a stock boat; the keel is deeper and heavier, rudder larger, rig taller, bowsprit added, and of course the interior is structural (except for the headliner). If you anchor next to a "stock" rigged boat, it will look like someone forgot the last panel on the mast... I do not recall what hull number she was, but it would have easily been #20 or higher as INTERMEZZO was built some years after the series started production. When we worked on the boat in New Zealand we moved the mizzen mast forward a few feet which made it more functional for use jib and jigger (with the staysail). Steve

(top)

Steve, Thank you for responding so fast to my e-mail. I have many questions which seem to be answered several different ways by as many people. It is always a pleasure to have some one like yourself to give input. I still am interested in a boat, I thought a motorsailer since I will be in Alaska most the time. But several people have been talking against them if one was ever to truly sail in the open ocean, small on deck structures etc is preferred as to a pilot house. Although I have found the open ocean, hundred miles off shore to be calmer in the long run than the inshore tides etc... (I have skipped tugs across the gulf of Alaska several times). I anxiously await your response. Cheers, Spike

Hi Spike: You are right about where its rougher! Close to shore, with tides/currents are usually much worse than offshore--especially in Alaska! Re: the pilot house boat and/or motor sailor for offshore, that's a function of design and construction. If it is well built and suitable strong for a knock down or dropping off a wave, you will be OK. You then have the issue of how well they power and or sail. In the olden days motor sailors did not motor well and didn't sail well, so you had the worst of both worlds. Today, with modern engines, lighter boats, and good folding or feathering props you can have both in one package. If you are going to be using the boat in Alaska, Canada and the Pac. Northwest, the pilot house and powering will be more important than the pure sailing abilities--at least that's our take on the tradeoffs Good Luck--Steve

(top)

Hi Steve. With a 36 foot waterline, wouldn't the boat (at least theoretically) have a hull design speed of about 8 knots? [sqrt 36 = 6 x 1.34 = 8.02] Do you find that such boats won't sail at the design speed? Sidney

Hi Sidney: Theoretically, your CSY 44 will go eight knots--but not very often. The issue is what speed can you average, and my guess is that a CSY would average a speed length ratio of one to 1.05 times the square root of the water line length. There are many factors in involved, including displacement length ratio, beam, prismatic coefficients, fin design, and rig. For the CSY most of these ratios are not oriented towards performance. This is covered in much greater detail in our Offshore Cruising Encyclopedia. Regards--Steve

(top)

My question is this. I feel that BEOWULF is too big for me. I don't really want to deal with so many sails and the cost and effort to maintain, dock, haul, paint, etc. a 78-foot ketch, even if I have to go a little slower. I expect that, as in the past, you can't help but always be thinking about how you might build a successor to your current yacht. Historically your yachts have always gotten bigger, but I was wondering if you had ever given any consideration to a new design, maybe in the 50-foot range, for those of us that are a little less aggressive in our cruising requirements than are you and Linda. A boat like the Farr 50 Pilothouse seems to have interesting design characteristics but I have not test sailed one because it doesn't have sufficient headroom for me and I don't want to waste their time. Because I am 6'3" tall, and refuse to have to duck anywhere on my own boat,I require an absolute minimum of 6'6" headroom throughout, including heads and showers. After many years of trying to find a boat in the 48-53-foot that is based on the design characteristics that you have pioneered, with an attractive pilothouse and an interior that is designed for both voyaging and live aboard, I am finally giving serious consideration to custom building a boat. I have eschewed this option until now for fear of making a mistake and owning a white elephant, which I can ill afford, but it seems that no production builder is going to build my dream boat for me while I am still young enough to use it. Whether you are interested in such project, or might suggest a couple of yacht designers whom you favor, I would appreciate your thoughts. Jeff

Hi Jeff: First, do everything you can to avoid a custom project. It will cost more than you think possible, and it is a huge amount of work, and for most very inefficient. You are way ahead of the game to find a good used boat, and then spend a few bucks fixing it up to make it your own. Pilot houses are hard to do on 70 footers--and just begin to look good as you get close to 80. Smaller than this and there are a lot of tradeoffs Obviously there are lots of smaller pilot house boats--but you pay big penalties (the Farr boats to which you refer I would call raised saloon designs). And then there is the issue of scale. The way we do boats the 55-footer carries basically the same stuff, people, and supplies as the longer boat. However, there's a lot more waterline and interior into which this can be supported/divided. Right now we are swamped with project, so here are two suggestions for talented designers--Angelo Lavaranos in Auckland, NewZealand lavranos@ihug.co.nz--and Roger Martin in Newport--rodgermartin@home.com Good Luck--Steve

(top)

I noticed that your boats keep getting bigger and bigger. What do you consider the best minimum size for cruising? My dream is to sail down the coast of California to Mexico, Panama Canal, Caribbean, and then Greece, Italy, France, and England. Thanks for writing what looks like a wonderful book. Sincerely yours, Sal

Hi Sal: It is not as much the boat as the crew. In the 60s and 70s many ocean voyages were made in the Virtue, a 25-footer, and SetSail correspondents Dave and Jaja Martin circumnavigated in a Cal25. The main thing is to have a basically sound boat, keep it simple, and go sooner rather than later. And when you are trading off boat size and its cost vs. complexity and systems, always buy waterline first. You will have more fun and be more comfortable on a bigger, simple boat, than a smaller, complex vessel. Steve

(top)

Hello! The subject of Multihulls vs. Monohulls is a hot one, and is likely to continue to be. :) However, there is one designer who has put online a very good paper on multihull seaworthiness. It is, of course, true that he is a catamaran designer, so the criticism may be the paper is biased, but it is very technical in nature, and I find (having an engineering background) reasonably complete and suited to the informed lay reader.

The article on your site I am referring to is: Multihulls.

John Shuttleworth's article on multihull seaworthiness is here: http://www.steamradio.com/JSYD/Articles/NESTalk.html

I believe that your opinions may be swayed by his treatment. As always, seaworthiness is as much a function of the crew as of the boat, but a good crew with a bad boat can only go so far. I was very timid about the idea of multihulls and blue water, but decided I would research it before making up my mind. What I found were many good sources of experience reports (MultiHull Voyaging by Thomas Firth Jones for example) which finally convinced me that multihulls, designed correctly, could be as seaworthy in blue water as a well designed monohull, if not more so.

I have heard a bit about storm tactics and multihulls, and the one thing I have heard that I do not know if you have mentioned (not having purchased your book yet) is using a large para sea anchor. I am told that using a very large para anchor, head-to the seas, creates a slick much like the one one gets with a keel boat that is properly hove-to. The idea is to use the para anchor at roughly a one wavelength distance from the boat. This saps the waves power as it comes towards the boat and will then rarely, if ever, break across the bow. Since swell cannot capsize a boat, it stands to reason that this would be a very good tactic.. a sort of heaving-to for a multihull. The para anchor should be something like at least 75% of the beam. I have heard that 28 foot, nylon para anchors are most common, being able to be gotten from other sources than custom. Have you heard of this tactic?---Timothy

Hi Timothy: Multihulls in heavy weather is a controversial subject. We cover this topic exhaustively in "Surviving the Storm" including some unbelievable photos of a cat in the Queen's Birthday Storm--and the answers are complex.

From my perspective as someone who has sailed quite a few miles in cats, as well as monohulls, and from the research we've done I feel the following:

1)Size is a major issue with multihulls in heavy weather, much more so than with monohulls.
2)All other things being equal, multihulls take better seamanship than monohulls for a successful outcome in heavy weather (this includes weather analysis, tactics, and boat handling).
3)The major ingredient in multihull safety is understanding weather, and having the speed to get out of the way of bad conditions. However, speed and the cruising multihull is typically an oxymoron. The vast majority of cruising multi's are overweight, under-rigged, and have too little wing clearance.
4)Most of today's multihulls are optimized for space and convenience, with chartering being the driving force. These are good boats for what they are designed for, i.e. short hops in protected waters. But they are not designed for heavy weather. Just take a look at the cockpit doors on most cruising cats.

As to your comments on para anchors, you will find quite a bit of data on this subject in the above mentioned book. Para anchors can work, but in survival storms, with large breaking seas, they have their problems with both mono- and multihulls. They are not a magic bullet (we have seen no evidence about the "slick" you mention).

Finally, as to your comment on crews and boats in heavy weather, I take exactly the opposite view. A good crew will usually do well in terrible weather by virtue of their skills, even in a less-than-optimum boat. On the other hand, there are literally dozens of examples of sailors heading offshore in good boats, with the latest gear, getting into serious trouble precisely because they have not taken the time to learn and practice fundamental heavy weather seamanship. Regards--Steve Dashew

(top)

Dear Sir, I am looking for a good cruising boat with a shallow draft or proven retractable keel design. I have raced in the southern oceans against wind and tide in 67ft steel hull 42 ton yachts and they were superb--but they have 9 ft drafts. I now live in Florida and plan to do some world cruising with my family. However, local water depths can be very shallow. Most of the day boats here have a very flimsy retractable keel (rotating blade hinged on a bolt and lifted on a cable. Many snap their cables and some break their bolts--and they just would not work in severe weather!!). I have heard of a famous 54ft steel ketch, Northanger, which cruises the extreme latitudes and has only 1m draft--but I have no idea of her retractable keel design or other design specifications. Regards Richard R. from the USA

Hi Richard: There are more retractable keel designs being built for offshore sailing all the time. However, it is difficult if not impossible to make a retractable keel as strong as a fixed fin for impact with the ground--sailing loads are easy. So, as attractive as is this concept, we've stayed away from it (which may say something about how often we get stuck. The French have done quite a number of extreme shallow designs, some of which have a pretty good record offshore. If you find something satisfactory, let us know what it is. Regards--Steve Dashew

Dear Steve, Thank you for your response. For your interest, I attach a recent response that I have received from the Northanger shore crew. It might not be the optimum design but it does prove what might be feasible if you want to achieve ultra shallow "keel up" design. I couldn't get the Northanger.com website to work but there are other websites which give lots of information about the boat best regards Richard

Hi Richard;

I am answering your e-mail to Northanger, since they are somewhere between Greenland and Labrador at this moment. They have just finished a first ascent of the prow on Sander's Hope, a rather steep chunk of granite on the northern coast of Greenland see www.northanger.com.

Northanger is a Damien 2 design by Michel Joubert aimed at high latitude sailing. At last count there have been 32 vessels built according to the original drawings. I have only been able to find 11, so not sure where the others are. I believe they have all been built from steel, but not always using the same configuration. The early ones were round bilged on steel frames, some of the later ones used an overlapping plate multi chine method, thus eliminating some of the longitudinals without sacrificing strength. All use a drop keel arrangement with a kick-up or raised arrangement for the rudder which is hung aft. All have had some problems with the original design in down wind sailing in rough conditions. There is a tendency to broach. All the ones I know of have changed the design in one way or another to compensate for this. This is where I come in regarding Northanger. In 1998 I radically changed the design aft, lengthening the vessel and adding a large skeg arrangement. I don't know how much information you want, so will stick with giving a little more info on the keel.

The keel is a nine ton drop keel which hinges on a pin, can be drawn completely into a keel box which basically divides the vessel in two halves (access fore and aft), and can be locked or not in position, either half way or fully down. With the keel up draught is 3', down it is 12'. Besides the ballast, there is a large tank built into the keel, which can be either water, diesel or kerosene. In Northanger the keel is raised (with great effort) using a multi pulley'd/cable come-a-long. Other vessels have used an electric winch or hydraulic winch. The latter is considered for Northanger. As a whole the arrangement seems to be problem free. When the keel is down and in an unlocked position, there is a danger of when grounding and the keel comes up, when it drops back down suddenly rather than gradually, the shock could cause damage to the keel box. There have been various arrangements (some work some ???) in other boats to dampen the shock. Northanger usually locks the keel, unless there is positive knowledge the bottom has a gradual slope.

The Damien design is extremely robust to be able to sail/motor through severe ice conditions, including overwintering in ice. I would not say it is an "ideal" boat for hot climates. The original design did not allow for adequate ventilation, sailing in the tropics is like being inside an oven.

Hope this gives you some of the information you are looking for, if not please let me know with specific questions. If I am unable to answer them, I am sure Greg will send a reply in a month (or so) when time permits.

Regards Karel Doruyter Base manager Greenland Expedition

(top)

Hi. Could you tell me if you have had any boats built at Bos and Carr in NZ. Two clients have an interest in using this yard and I have some indication that you are familiar with their work. John

Hi John: The answer is yes, we've been involved with them on several projects and they are first rate craftsmen. I would not hesitate to use them again. Steve

(top)

Steve...Your recommendation to look at CAL 48 and CAL 46-2 was received. You stated though that you prefer aft cockpit. This does make sense. Some aft cockpit designs are better then others. Could you make recommendations for an aft cockpit design that I should be looking at in a used boat that has a long waterline as well as seaworthy? All your help is much appreciated in my quest for a used blue water boat. Corey

Hi Corey: I have not kept up with what is available these days. There are so many options which of course is the problem. My recommendation is to take your time, look at lots of boats, and after a while you will start to get a feel for the best price/performance package for your needs. Sorry I can't be more specific... Steve

(top)

Hi Linda & Steve, My wife and I have just purchased your Offshore Cruising Encyclopedia and are enjoying the read very much. Keep up the good work.

A quick question, based on information in the above mentioned book and on your website, I was under the impression the "Deerfoot" name designation was yours. However, I have just come across a Deerfoot 50 (s/v Privatus) that is said to be designed by Ulf Rogeberg and built by Hinkley, Lange & Son. Any explanation or information you or your staff can provide about other "Deerfoots" would be appreciated. Regards, Roy

Hi Roy: We sold the Deerfoot business in 1986. "Privatus" was designed by Ulf, as you've indicated, and Ulf's a fine designer. However, we had no involvement with the boat, so I cannot comment on it technically (have never even seen photos of it).

What I've heard is that the project started out in the Pacific Northwest, then got into trouble and the boat/molds, etc. were shipped back to Hinkley for completion. I'm not sure how accurate this data is.

I would judge the boat on its own merits, aside from any "labels" which don't mean much anyway. Regards--Steve

(top)

Dear Steve & Linda, I have read both your books several times. How can anyone read the same stuff over and over? I can, if it is as interesting and informative as your books. (Especially the Encyclopedia). I just sold my O'Day 40 and I am preparing to sell my business. After the business is sold, I want to buy the last boat that I will own. ( I am 57 years old, & I want to do some serious cruising) I love the Sundeer 67, but I do not know if I will be able to afford it. Are you still building boats? If so, can you give me a ballpark price of both the Sundeer 56 & 67(built in aluminum). If it is not in the realm of my ability, then I will go in a different direction. If you are not building anymore, can I purchase the plans? Thank you. Tony

Hi Tony: Thanks for the compliments. To answer your questions, first, we are still doing boats, but at a much reduced pace, so we can get in a bit of cruising. If we don't go to sea now and then, we forget how to make proper design tradeoffs!

Second, we've always avoided selling our plans. Our preference is to control the entire project so everyone is guaranteed the correct outcome.

As to costs on a custom alu. 57 or 67 type design, this varies widely with exchange rates, final specification, etc., but a rough guess would be around $1,700,000 for the 57 and maybe $2,500,000 for the 67. Regards--Steve Dashew

(top)

I am curious what boats you are designing and building other than BEOWULF. I am actually looking for a boat in the mid-40's and I am dissatisfied with anything currently available on the brokerage market. To complicate things a little my last boat was a cruising pilothouse multihull, Atlantic 42, which I loved but was impractical for Northeast cruising. Regards, Kevin

Hi Kevin: Over the years we've done a variety of sizes from 57' to 80'--all of which have been designed to the same principles, i.e. optimized for couples who want to sail offshore with a weather eye peeled towards unpleasant conditions. These have all been built with watertight bulkheads and scantlings which enable them to perform when the chips are down.

We've looked at doing a small boat many times--and recognize there is a substantial market for such a product--but have never been able to find the time. For better or worse, the big boat end of the business has been good to us, and we can control the end product. With a smaller boat, we'd be forced to rely much more on a builder and it would be tougher be sure we were getting what we wanted.

I realize this doesn't satisfy your requirements, but occasionally there comes along an interesting one off in the size range you want. The key is to keep looking. Good Luck--Steve Dashew

(top)

We are flying to Florida this week to look at a couple of boats. We currently own a '95 Caliber 40 that we have prepared for offshore cruising. Your Encyclopedia and the 2 hour Offshore video have been very helpful in those preparations. Now that we have our 6,000 sq foot home for sale we have decided that a 40 footer may be a bit small for permanent liveaboard for two people, Just the two of us have lived in this monster house for 18 years. We plan to live on our new boat until I am 64 or 65. I just turned 52 and my wife is 44 years old.

Hi Jerry: The first thing I would say is go cruising first with your existing boat. Get a feel for the life style, and how much complexity you want in your life. Since you've got the boat ready to go, you can do it now--rather than waiting!

We will be looking at a '95 Sundeer 60 (PELICAN EXPRESS II). I am trying to find out if that Sundeer 60 was built from the same molds with the same rig as the new 60's. Do I understand correctly that the 60 was a 56 with a four foot extension on the stern for storage and a bigger swim step?

The Sundeer 56 was actually designed as a 60, and then shortened. The lines of both are very efficient, although the 60 will carry extra weight better, and is, of course, going to be faster.

We are also interested in a Deerfoot 65 (SPURWING) that was built it 1987 by Cen Marine, Sa. The naval architect is listed as A. Lavranos which sounds a lot like Angel Lavranos who I believe built INTERMEZZO II in Cape Town. SPURWING is built in aluminum and is unpainted, just like the first aluminum Sundeer ketch.

Spurwing is NOT a Deerfoot. We had nothing to do with this boat, know nothing of its origin, and the brokers should know better than to try and pawn it off as one of our boats. She may be lovely, and well set up, but since we've never seen the boat, nor had anything to do with it, it is hard to express an opinion.

I am a little confused about the Deerfoot boats--we looked at a Deerfoot 50, PRIVATUS, in Seattle last spring. She is a fiberglass boat that was laid up in Port Townsend, WA and finished at Hinckley, or so I am told. The NA on that boat is also listed as A. Lavranos

Privatus was designed by Ulf Roegeberg in Denmark, who did some work for us as well. However, we had nothing to do with her design or construction, and the Deerfoot label is a misapplication. Seems to be the week for counterfeit boats!

Did someone buy the right to the Sundeer name and then design some boats that have a configuration different that the Dashew Deerfoots?

We sold the Sundeer production business two years ago. The folks that bought the business, have the molds and rights to the designs, and have had TPI continue to build the boats for them. Good luck with your search-Regards Steve

(top)

I love your design concepts of fast cruising sailboats designed to be handled by a couple. I have a few questions that, if you have the time, I would love to get answered.

1. I have read your design paper for BEOWULF and it looks like a terrific boat. How is the water ballast working out and do you ever worry about having all that ballast on the wrong side in the event of an accidental jibe?
2. What do you think of the use of carbon fiber, particularly in masts? And have you considered the use of a free-standing mast?
3. What do you think of the Fox 50 concept of converting an Around Alone Open 50 design to an ultra-fast cruising boat? I think they were to be built by TPI and Lyman Morse, although after the initial hoo-ha I have not heard anything about them. They seem to take your concepts a step farther, but perhaps too far.

Thanks, Pete

Hi Pete: The water ballast is great! We use it about 70% of the time when we are on passage.

As for the accidental jibe scenario, given BEOWULF's very high initial stability without the water ballast, this does not pose a problem. When we are offshore, we normally only pump in 4500 pounds of ballast (out of a potential total of 7500 pounds). This gives us about five degrees of heel. If it is on the wrong side, it is a little uncomfortable, but not an issue safety wise.

Should we take a knockdown to the wrong side, we still have a substantial positive range of stability.

We considered carbon fiber spars for BEOWULF. They would certainly reduce the pitching moment upwind, and add a percent or so to pure boat speed due to the lower center of gravity. However, given the cost premium (around $150,000) they did not contribute enough speed for the money.

I saw the preliminary plans for the Fox 50--a friend was interested in one. I think for a local cruising boat--glorified day sailor--it would be cool, as would some of the really hot sport boats. However, I think there would be some long term cruising tradeoffs which would be painful--unless you were prepared to go in a very spartan manner, in which case the boat would have been great fun!--Steve Dashew

(top)

Is there a listing of used Dashew boats available?--Tom

Hi Steve: Your web site says: "Every one of the 47 yachts between 57 and 80 feet that have been built to our principles since 1978 have been designed to be sailed and maintained by a cruising couple."

A 50-footer (is now being) advertised (as a Deerfoot). Is this truly a Deerfoot? It does not fall within the 57-80 foot range mentioned. Is this one of your boats?--Christopher

Hi Christopher: I guess the answer depends on how you define "Deerfoot." We are not familiar with the specific details of this boat. However, around the time we sold the business, Ulf Rogeberg, a designer in Denmark with whom we had worked, did the design for a smaller boat.

We were not in any way involved in its design or construction. I believe the design was sold to someone who started to build it in the Pacific NW and then had it finished in the East. However, we are not sure of the details.

This might be a very nice boat, but as we said, we've had nothing to do with it.

This is the second time we've heard of the Deerfoot name being applied to something with which we had nothing to do. The other, mentioned in one of the FAQs on our website, is a 65-footer built in South Africa. Not sure what to think about this except to take it as a compliment. On the other hand, it is not really fair to the buyers to have people thinking we were involved (to the extent that makes any difference) when we were not.--Regards, Steve

(top)

(Regarding Offshore Cruising Encyclopedia)...An encyclopedia it certainly is--a wealth of information that must have taken a lifetime to collect. I enjoyed reading your book and I'm glad I made the purchase.

Criticism: 1. There are a few mistakes where you reflect imperial measurements and then the metric measurement in ( ). Assuming that the imperial measurement are correct, then the metric conversion is incorrect. I cannot remember the page numbers where the errors are. It's insignificant really--perhaps a tiny slip of the pen? 2. You seem to have a big prejudice against multihulls and this is sad. All the text and pictures also show outdated multihulls designs and concepts. Regards, Wiets

Hi Wiets: Sorry about the mistakes. We go through three inside and two outside edits and they still creep in!

Regarding multihulls, I love them for day sailing, and for shuttling between the islands of the Caribbean, they are fine. But for long passages our feeling is that you are better off putting your money into a monohull--faster, with more heavy weather options. Multihulls only make sense to us if they are fast, and the vast majority of the cruising multihulls we see are slow--which makes them doubly dangerous in heavy weather.

Now, if you have a big cruising multi, which is kept very light, has good wing clearance, and is sailed by an experienced crew, that is a different story. But we see few multis which fit this description. Regards--Steve

(top)

Hi--I read about the importance of knowing your boat's LPS in the Offshore Cruising Encyclopedia, and I was wondering where and how I can review the LPs for different models of boats so I can use that information to help me buy the right boat for me. Is there a site online that lists the LPs for different models of yachts? Thanks, Erin

Hi Erin: Good data to be hunting for! In the US, go to the United States Sailing Association, and ask for the IMS measurement certificate listing. This will have the basic data, including LPs, on a variety of boats--and the data will surprise you. It is often a lot different than manufacturers claims.

Keep in mind that boats vary within class based on how they are rigged. If you are looking at IMS data with sails furled on deck, and you cruise with two roller-furled headsails, there will be a significant difference. Regards--Steve

(top)

Hello Dashews, We love the books and are busy trying to absorb all the info as we plan toward and dream of our own cast off day in 36 months. We have been educating ourselves on design as we continue to search for the right boat for our needs. I agree with your philosophy on waterline and the value of older CCA boats. I also like aluminum or steel (though right now steel seems like a better buy in general).

Here's the issue--I am 6'5" tall, my wife is 6'0" and our two sons 4 and 2 1/2 are destined to be at least that big. That's a lot of height on a boat. Can you give us some direction on makes of the older boats that would be more inclined to accommodate our height? I know that it is an issue of free board as much as anything but has interior volume and subsequently headroom increased with the newer boats or can we find a pool of appropriate boats built of steel or alum. In the 60s--80s that will save us aching heads? Thanks, Dave

Hi Dave: There are lots of tradeoffs in boats and headroom is one of the biggest. I think you can generally find 6'4" in most boats around 50'--maybe even 6'6". But this will be in just from the middle of the boat forward, and of course, on the centerline. As the boats get bigger, obviously the headroom goes up a bit.

There will be exceptions--and if you look long and hard enough, will find more headroom.

Short of starting from scratch and custom building--something I would recommend against if you can avoid it--you will probably end up with a compromise. As to specific boats, I am afraid I can't help you there. Good Hunting--Steve

(top)

I am trying to locate a contact number/E-mail/website for the Paul Luke large aluminum cowls you mention in the cruising encyclopedia. Grateful if you could assist.--Andrew

Hi Andrew: The number we have for Paul Luke, in Maine, is 207 633 4971.

(top)

Hi ya: For years we have lusted after your boats (Wiroa was one) but couldn't afford them. Our own boat Gungha (Alan Buchanan design in steel, round slack bilge's and overhangs) was getting too small. We owned her and lived on board for 21 years.

Last year we were lucky to change boats and boat designs. The new boat is a Birdsall 60. She really is the boat of our dreams. Heaps of space, stable and fast-as. I can't think of anything about the layout or performance of the boat that I could criticize. We have just made our first offshore passage from NZ to Tonga with heavy weather and she went like the clappers. So no problem there. There is however a problem of lingering doubt vis-à-vis the design.

I have been used to the deep draft and 45% ballast ratio of Gungha (nice and rolly). I always knew that if she was capsized she'd snap back upright in moments. I know you're probably familiar with the Birdsall designs, as they resemble your own in some aspects. This yacht is 63' on deck, 60' at the waterline. She has a 14'10" beam which is carried aft but certainly not forward (very narrow there) and she has a 6' draft.

The yacht is single chine steel with a long (about 17' fore and aft) fin keel and a skeg-supported spade rudder. The hull of the yacht draws a little over 2' with the keel making up the rest of the draft. The yacht is double-bottomed fully with welded in tanks, which hold a total of 800 gallons of fluids. The deck plate and all construction techniques have concentrated all the weight as low as possible. The yacht has a center cockpit and trunk cabin with considerable buoyancy.

My problem is this. The yacht is adequately stiff even in hard conditions but...she only has 4 tons of ballast. Her total shipyard weight is 27 tons. What do you think of that and her ability to be tipped over????? We have sailed over 60,000 miles and prior to that I was a commercial fisherman in Alaska...Am I getting paranoid in my old age?

Thanks and cheers, Mike

Hi Mike: The question you pose about capsize resistance cannot be answered in any simple fashion. However, for steel construction, which means a relatively high vertical center of gravity (assuming decks and structure are steel) your instincts (concerns) may be accurate. Hard to make the numbers work out with shallow draft, high VCG, and low ballast. Here's what I would do:

1-Check with the designer about his calculated range of stability, and the VCG assumptions on which this is based.

2-For a design as that you've described, and for sailing back and forth from New Zealand, I'd like to see at least a 125-degree LPs, and preferably 130 degrees.

3-Verify the VCG with an inclining test or a rocking test (see Skene's Elements of Yacht Design for how to do the latter).

4-If you are shy, consider adding some lead to the bottom of the fin. This is not going to be difficult in NZ.

5-I'm sure you are already aware of it, but keeping the hull tanks filled will add significantly to the LPs

6-If you really want to check things out, hove the boat down to horizontal with the masthead, and then measure the force required to hold her at 90 degrees. The designer can take this data and give you a very accurate LPs figure.

Good Luck!

(top)

1) What are your thoughts on the merits of roller-furling mains, especially the leisure furl boom systems which allow a better cut main with full battens?

2) Center-cockpit boats--Is the benefit of a better aft cabin and a small afterdeck worth the wetter, more motion at the helm that results from being higher up and more forward?

Hi Scott: Re: roller-furling mains--the inside-the-mast systems are very heavy, add much windage from the very big spar sections, and require battenless, hollow-leech sails which are slow and draggy. However, they are easier to use than the in-boom systems.

The in-boom systems get rid of most of the negatives of in the mast, but are very tricky to use in heavier conditions. The boom must be at a very precise horizontal angle and no further outboard than a close reach.

Both systems are costly.

I realize I am in the minority here, but they don't make much sense to me, unless the design of the boat has an oversized mainsail, with the boom way high in the air, making it hard to furl and cover (which is a dumb way to design a boat in the first place, but that's another story).

Re: center cockpits, there are many tradeoffs here. Steering is more difficult to do well because of the distance and direction change issues. You are going to be wetter closer to the spray coming off the bow. There is more motion because you are substantially higher than in an aft cockpit. And, the interior is broken up by the foot well.

On the other hand, with a mid engine room this is directly below the foot well, the space issue is mitigated (although it is noisier). You get an interior with as natural break in the middle to isolate guests and owners from each other. And, if you are using a Jordan Series Drogue in heavy weather, the companionway is not as vulnerable.

In general, I do not care for center cockpits. However, if properly done, they can be nice on boats over 45 feet (14m) or so. Regards--Steve

Dear Steve, I have been reading your book "Encyclopedia of Offshore Cruising" and found it very useful. The design thinking behind your designs has me really thinking. For some time now I have been considering the design of fast seaworthy cruising sailing boats and your design philosophy seems spot on. The chapter on how the long waterline dishy hull shapes perform in breaking seas is fascinating. My idea of the ideal cruising boat has evolved over time from the heavy displacement long keel slow type to your type of design. My present boat is an early 70s S & S IOR 39 footer. I was very happy with it with regard to seaworthiness and particularly its ability upwind in heavy air. It has a high ballast ratio of 60% and has a quite gentle motion. Its main downside is its speed off the wind. It will not keep up with the newer lighter broad transomed boats of today. I would love to purchase a boat of your design but the size range that you operate in is a bit of a dream for me. I have a few questions though that you maybe able to answer for me with regard buying a newer boat:

You advocate that on a limited budget the CCA and older IOR boats are a good purchase. This seems a little at odds with the philosophy of long waterline as typically these boats had a very short waterline for their