When I set out to write this review of the Outbound 46, one of my first steps was to contact Phil Lambert, her creator, for some photos of the hull out of the water. Surprisingly, he had hell to find any and, in fact, had to go take some. Thanks, Phil.
The point being, that no one asks him about the most important part of any boat, the part under the water. So let’s fix that silliness, because I know Attainable Adventure Cruising readers are way too smart to be so wowed by a slick interior that they forget the important stuff.
A Standout Boat…If You Know What To Look For
Over the years I have made crystal clear that I’m very picky about hull forms for offshore voyaging. And, further, I have made no secret of my disdain for many modern designs.
But the sad fact is that, regardless of the basics of good design or how much I rant and rave, these unhealthy trends seem to be here to stay. Some days it seems like the whole market is shopping for a condominium with a balcony, rather than a boat. That’s certainly what it felt like at the US Sailboat Show last fall.
That is, except for the unpretentious boat lurking between the high-rise condo-marans and the big-assed marina queens. The boat perhaps most noticeable for the lack of a lineup of eager people waiting to be wowed by yet another interior designed to maim the maximum number of crew from nasty falls if she was ever taken offshore.
As you will have guessed, that boat was the Outbound 46, and after just one glance I was smitten, a process helped along by knowing that she is from the board of Carl Schumacher, one of the all-time great sailboat designers, who would have become far more well-known if he had not died so young.
Now, with an introduction like that, you are probably thinking that the Outbound 46 is some heavy full-keel boat that will get you there, but not quickly. You would be dead wrong. When Carl drew the boat he was at the top of the offshore racing game. And those of you who know me know I love fast boats.
The Outbound 46 is a slippery boat that will pull a horizon job on most cruisers, and even give racers a run for their money, particularly when the breeze is up and the going gets nasty.
Why? Not only is she fast but she is easily driven and, most important of all, easy on her crew. So, long after crews on other boats will have cried uncle from the motion, the pounding, and/or the difficulty steering, the Outbound 46 will still be moving along well.
Fast passages are not made by the fastest boats, but rather by the boats that can go fast the most, because they don’t beat up their crew. And that goes double for boats crewed by a couple, and triple for those of us who are not as young and strong as we used to be.
And fast passages are simply safer—less time for bad shit to happen. The other benefit of fast passages is the chance to win the well-known FIB trophy—First In Bar.
Finally, as Bill Lee is want to say, fast is fun. Or, to put it another way, if we are going to buy a sailboat, why the heck wouldn’t we buy one that sails well? And if she can sail well and not beat up the crew while doing it, like the Outbound 46, that’s the ultimate, at least for cruising.
So how do I know all this about the boat, particularly given that I have never sailed one? Did I just read Phil’s marketing stuff, or owner testimonials, and take it as fact?
Nope, I know this because I have sailed a boat with the same attributes well over 100,000 miles—I have a benchmark. And, further, I have spent years studying the attributes that make good boats work. Let’s take a look:
Credit where credit is due. I should point out that the original 44 was drawn by a good friend in the marine insurance business, Craig Chamberlain. I took his drawings to the yard to make the deal then sweated over what to do on the flight home. I needed a more experienced designer and engineer. Craig decided there was less risk in insurance, especially with 3 babies to feed, so he bowed out of a partnership, but we set it up so he could work with Carl as the lines came together. A lot of people contributed to the boats success over the years.
Hi Phil,
Thanks for the fill on that and good on you for sharing the credit.
I appreciate these “deep dives” into boat design…in case I win that lottery all AAC members are counting on…because they unify under one banner desirable characteristics so rarely found in existing designs and we can all learn from that.
Hi all,
Lovely looking boat and nicely set-up – congratulations to Phil and his team.
Anyone know the STIX value, can’t seem to find it on-line?
Thanks, Rob
Hi Rob,
Not sure, but she has a good capsize screen. And given the comparatively narrow beam and high ballast ratio with bulb (more on that in the next chapter) I’m not worrying about it. I’m near certain the Outbound would at least qualify for Category A
That said, Phil, do you have a value?
“Capsize ratio of 17.22 is well below the 2 where we are supposed to get nervous.” Should this be the Capsize Screening Formula, and the value would be 1.6 or 1.7, depending on the displacement used?
Hi Dan,
Different number, and anyway neither of these are at all accurate since they don’t take into account the Outbound bulb keel which moves the CG down and increases static stability. The only accurate way to do this is an incline test which I near guarantee the Outbound would pass with flying colours.
All that said, people fixate way too much on these numbers since they also don’t take into account dynamic stability, which is important too.
And anyway, the bottom line is that any boat no matter how stable will be capsized by a breaking wave that’s more than about 60% of her length in height, so the most important thing is to carry a series drogue and deploy it in time.
https://www.morganscloud.com/2018/09/16/there-are-no-rogue-waves/
I think the way you phrase: “Capsize ratio of 17.22 is well below the 2 where we are supposed to get nervous” is confusing. You’re linking to something that states “Capsize Ratio” yet the numbers do not align. To a reader, linking to the calculator then stating a completely different number than what the calculator outputs is VERY confusing.
That being said you state the Capsize ratio of 17.22, which is the number of the sail area to displacement, so I do believe you are stating a wrong number?
Hi Jordan,
I just checked and that’s not the case. If you follow the link and then follow the instructions on the linked page and then select the Outbound 46 from the list you will see that the ratio calculated is indeed just as I wrote. Also, with capsize ratio the lower the number the better and 2 is generally considered the upper limit for offshore use.
If you hover over the number on the calculator you will find a tip:
That said, capsize ratio is a very crude number because it does not involve imaging the hull or an incline test, which I clearly warn about.
Maybe someday I will do an article on the numbers used to measure stability and the efficacy of each, but that would be a good 3000 words, so I can’t be adding that to this article.
Bottom line, based on experience, I have no worries at all about the stability of the Outbound 46.
Honestly I have no special knowledge about capsize ratios, but to me 17.22 is way higher than 2. Possibly are these different measurements?
Oops!!!! Completely missed that I had the decimal point in the wrong place. The number should be 1.722.
Thanks for picking that up. I kept checking the numbers in the calculator but it never occurred to me that I had made an error that silly. Apologies to all.
Sorry, Jordan, you were right. I had misplaced the decimal point and never saw it no matter how many times I looked and even in you comment. Just shows haw dangerous assuming is. Thanks for catching it.
Hi Dan,
I owe you an apology. You were quite right about my error. I misplaced the decimal point, but somehow I kept misreading it, even in your comment. Shows how dangerous assuming one is right is!. Thanks for catching it and sorry I ignored you.
Ahhh those dang decimals! Thank you so much for this! I totally didn’t even realize that it was the same number as the one I pointed out with a different decimal!
Loved reading this – I learn so much! My Shearwater 45, designed by Dudley Dix in the late 90’s, has many similarities with this design. Overwhelmingly, the definition of “good design” depends on intended purpose: blue water cruiser or mobile home….or somewhere in between. One design feature I really like here is the full utilisation of bilge space for tankage. Lowering COG and opening up all that under-seating saloon storage space is – like most brilliant ideas – so simple yet so hard to execute with excellence. I’d love to see this in my next boat….might have to talk with Dudley!
Hi Steve,
Yes, getting the tankage in the bilge is huge. More on that later.
I had one built for me in 2013. I’m a fat, old man with bad knees. My wife isn’t a sailor. We commute Newport to Windwards and back. Have had multiple 200+nm days. Count on 8-12 days. Two key things. Fast is fun but flat is fast. Makes for a lovely seaboat. May go an entire season in the windwards without seeing a full genny and main but still smoke everyone else. Up north the sails go out at ~10kts and the engine off. 99.5% of the time she’s run by me alone. People forget it’s always too much or not enough. Have 5 berths aft of the mast. 4 are singles so never hot bunk on passage if you have crew. With lee clothes and a bundleboard no struggle to stay put and sleep. With two staterooms and two heads having a another couple for company is no issue. The workroom/garage is a total joy. Something that should be on any liveaboard boat.
Hi Lee,
Thanks for the first hand confirmation on the boats sailing capabilities. I total agree on the benefit of an easily driven hull that it can be sailed at fairly low heal angles and still go fast.
On the deck, rig, and arrangement stuff, please keep your powder dry until we get to those parts of the boat in later articles. Definitely want your input then.
Thanks for commenting on the curious case of the “plumb bow”. Considering the unpredictable vicissitudes of anchoring, I’ve always been baffled at the apparent disadvantages of not having an overhang to allow clearance for the anchor in launching or retrieval. Then too there’s the occasional circumstance of the boat over-running the chain rode. A plumb bow would seem to exacerbate chain abrasion of the hull gel coat. A nice bow overhang also improves observational visibility of what’s under the boat, whether it be dolphins or sea floor. There’s the practical issue of increasing incremental buoyancy as the bow buries itself in chop or swell. It never occurred to me, until reading this article, that the plumb bow is an accommodation to racing rules rather than a logical design feature.
Hi Reed,
Good point on the problems of anchoring with a plumb bow.
Yes, plumb bows became fashionable around the time that high end racing went over to box type rules that encourage them, like the IMOCA 60, 50, and 40. In the absence of a rating rule, plumb bows make no sense at all, particularly for a displacement hull forms.
Hi John,
I always thought the plumb bow, at least in the J boat (Johnstone) tradition, had to do with getting the longest waterline length within a certain hull length resulting in optimal speed for that size boat. I can see how a “box” rule, as much as I understand it which is not a great deal, might result in the plumb bows for the same reason. Is that the history of Johnstone’s design?
My best, Dick
Hi Dick,
I can’t speak for the Johnstones, but first off their boats don’t, if memory serves, have plumb bows—not even the hot J80—other than some of the newest ones where I suspect that fashion, and maybe the racing rules, is the reason—the Johnstons are some of the best marketers boating has ever seen, so they will follow fashion when it will sell more boats.
One other point. Johnston boats tend to be very full forward and aft with high prismatic coefficients. This makes them fast off the wind and reaching and also means they don’t need overhangs and flair for reserve buoyancy. However, most of them (all?) pound like a hell up wind, not good for cruising. Point being that pretty much all Johnston boats since the J120-105 time are ultralight semi-planing designs, which makes them a very poor boat to use as an example when we are thinking about cruising boats. Don’t get me wrong, I love the J120 (and the 105) but it’s as well to understand what it is, and more importantly, is not.
So that leaves the question, why in the absence of a rule or fashion would you want the longest waterline for a given length? The only reason I can come up with is to save marina charges, and given that the difference would only be a couple of feet, and that with a cruising boat we will need an extended anchor roller which a smart marina will take into account, that seems like a very poor reason to make the boat both wet and more likely to root.
Hi John,
Thanks, as always, for the considered response where I learn. Dick
Not sure I comprehend the plumb bow as a “JBoat” tradition. The Johnstone designs never had plumb bows until a few of the most recent models like the J88, J97, J99 and J112. Before these all JBoat hulls were iterations of the classic J24, that came on the scene in the mid-1970’s. The hull form of my j42 is quite similar to the subject of this article, the Outbound 46.
Hi Reed,
Interesting. I have not been in US waters for pushing 2 decades now, but I have always thought of Johnstone J boats as having plumb or plumb-y bows as one of their trademarks: like the J88, but I also see now see pics of more conventional bows. Overseas, I always felt a pleasant rush of recognition when I saw in the distance the familiar and easily identified profile of a J Boat in the distance.
My best, Dick
My wife and I have noted that plumb bow cruising boats often have stainless steel sheet metal cladding on their bows to protect their hulls from rubbing chain and swinging anchors, or perhaps the cladding is to hide the damage previously made. We have also noted that many plumb bow boats have anchor rollers extending far beyond the end of the bow deck to keep the chain away from the hull. That last modification seems rather weak and begs the question, why not just extend the deck and angle the bow up to the end of the anchor holder to support it properly?
Bill
Yep, often thought the same thing. Same with those short prods carrying the tack of Code Zero and Assy gennakers a few feet fwd of a plumb bow.
The trend for a plumb bow and fabricated bowsprit/prod incorporating both the anchor roller and A-sail attachment, is certainly noticeable in trade shows and yachting press. The Beneteau 46.1 John references above having a typical example. Given these bow sprits will almost certainly be included in any marina length calculation, it seems an unlikely driver?
So I wonder if the trend is driven more by: the desire for a strong but well projected attachment for an A-sail (a plumb bow provides a much better angle for the support strut under than a cut-away bow)? Then maximising water-line length and therefore cruising speed under engine and light airs sailing speed? Cost – a clipper bow with a long overhang that is strongly built, would be more expensive to manufacture? Lastly weight up front – a plumb bow and sprit will keep weight out of the bow vs an extended traditional clipper bow?
BTW, the modern sprit with a good strut design would largely negate the issue of bow anchor strike or chain rubbing as much as it does on a traditional clipper bow (we have both a clipper bow and scrapes and chips to prove it – little badges of honour really).
Br. Rob
Hi Rob,
That’s an interesting explanation, but given the benefits of reasonable overhang and flare I think the trend to plumb bows is really just about fashion. It would be far from the first time that stuff that is just plain wrong has been done to cruising boat hull form in the name of fashion and looking like a “cool race boat”. Tumblehome in the 80s comes to mind.
It’s easy enough to design a stiff structure for the stay attachment, regardless of bow shape. If anything, the plumb bow should be *more* expensive to manufacture, as access to the stem area is so much tighter inside the hull mould.
Plumb bows are good for one thing, and one thing only: Maximizing waterline length for a given limit on overall length. Because of that, they became popular for raceboats designed to rules that penalize or limit overall length. Then, because of the raceboats, they became popular for non-racing boats that were supposed to look “sporty” or “modern”.
Without the LOA constraint, moderate overhangs tend to yield a better-behaved boat overall, if you keep the displacement, waterline length, beam, and draught the same.
Hi Matt (and others),
Never having tried to run the simulation of a boat hitting a wave, it strikes me that bows with less overhang could also be benefiting from having a small amount of buoyancy acting earlier in the wave interaction. My thinking is that our goal is to have the least pitch possible while also keeping the decks relatively dry. It would seem that one of the keys to this is to start the pitch acceleration early but at lower magnitude than if we were to go to the extreme of having tons of volume and lifting surfaces just below the deck line so it all had to act at once at the end resulting in high accelerations. Of course, this is just a single element of a system of design parameters that have to work together but it strikes me as a potentially important one when dynamics are considered.
When I look at a boat like many of Dashew’s, to me it is this volume distribution throughout the hull that the design does so well at. Watching his boat in decent waves (I passed Wind Horse as she was headed upwind in pretty impressive chop) and having watched the videos available of the other boats, the boats appears to me to be keeping the accelerations low but high enough. Also critical is that the boats don’t get out of phase which is something I have experienced in more than a few boats, typically ones that would be said to have the highest reserve buoyancy but whose implementation resulted in pitching out of phase and tons of green water on deck.
Is there anything to this?
Eric
Hi Eric,
Yes, I agree on how critical getting the amount of buoyancy in the ends is. Too little and the boat is a submarine, too much and she hobby horses. Definitely not a matter of more is better. Having spent thousands of hours watching what our boat does my thinking is that the critical factor is how well the boat transitions from wave piercing in reasonably sized chop, to lifting to the wave in large chop and swell. As far as I can see from that observation, the secret to doing it well is a fairly fine bow at the waterline but with both moderate overhang and flare to stop the bow rooting and keep the boat dry. Hard to see how that can be done with a plumb bow and indeed most plumb bowed boats have very little flare, as far as I can see.
Another point is that until saiboats get very big, wave piercing is hard to do because of the substantial pitching moment of the mast. And if you are going to pitch, you need reserve buoyancy in the ends to soften that. Once again moderate overhang and flare do that very well.
Here’s a video showing our boat motoring up wind at just about the transition point between wave piercing and lifting. She pierces most waves, but lifts to the bigger ones.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=37&v=xcRJDLQ2vW8&feature=emb_logo
Now here’s a video that shows what happens with too much buoyancy in the ends (very high prismatic coefficient): a bunch of pitching even though the boat is heavier and and the conditions much more benign than the above: https://www.morganscloud.com/2014/09/15/motor-boat-musings-part-1/
By the way, one of the interesting side effects of changing to carbon on our boat is the dramatic reduction in pitching when motoring upwind.
I also think that the way the design is optimized for this transition from wave piercing to lifting varies depending on what the end goals are. For example Wind Horse was optimized for wave piercing, but it is interesting to note that Steve’s latest boat seems more optimized to lift to waves, even though she is much bigger than Wind Horse. The stern matters a lot too, and again it is interesting that Wind Horse has, I think, more relative buoyancy aft and Cochise is almost pinched in the stern so as to avoid lifting and driving the bow down in big waves.
All that said, it’s also important to note that both boats have an overhang and flare in the topsides, to stop the bow burying.
Pics here: https://www.morganscloud.com/2012/09/08/long-thin-boats-are-cool/
https://www.morganscloud.com/2017/10/19/meeting-up-with-steve-and-linda-dashew/
Hi John,
Yes I agree on most of what you say. But I still wonder whether a small but useful component of all of this is starting the correction earlier than an overhang boat could start interacting with the wave. I end up doing and looking at dynamic models pretty regularly for work and one of the most important factors is always to start corrections early as you can correct at much lower rates of change. Of course here we need to watch correcting too much on small waves for comfort and speed reasons but the correction I am talking about should be small enough not to matter for those conditions. You still need the correction to get stronger as the bow buries further. My thinking is related to the dynamics and not simply a static view of buoyancy.
To some degree this is a wave shape question. My hypothesis is that a boat with overhangs starts its interaction with the wave later (going into waves) giving it less time to get the bow up, therefore the higher acceleration needed to get to the same result. Higher acceleration robs energy and is more likely to result in out of phase pitching which is really bad. A boat that interacted earlier would need less flare and reserve buoyancy for the same pitch result if the hypothesis holds. Anecdotally, the good boats that I have sailed on with plumb or near plumb bows have been no more likely to bury the bow than the good ones with overhangs despite less flare as you point out. I have been on poor ones of both type although by far the worst were a few classic overhang boats with so much flare they would just slap the wave, pitch way up and stop dead.
We are definitely on the same page about the amount of buoyancy in the bow of a Nordhavn, not my idea of how a boat should move through the water. It could be that the effect that I am talking about is small enough to not really matter but I would think that it would be intentionally a small amount of buoyancy as the lever arm is quite large. When design elements are balanced, it may be that moving anchor chain aft and lightening the rig are bigger factors, that is what I don’t know as this is not my field.
Eric
Hi Eric,
Interesting, I had never thought of it that way. The idea of starting the correction earlier certainly makes sense. That said, given that the font face of the wave has slope wouldn’t a reasonable overhang start to interact with it before a plumb bow? Was that what you were referring to when you said it was a wave shape question?
Anyway, I totally agree that too much and poorly designed overhang is probably the worst possible situation. For a short time I sailed Luders 16s (the fleet bought my sails so it was required) and we used to joke that it was the only boat that could hit the same wave twice.
Hi John,
Yes, that is what I had in mind. Of course, I don’t have a proper answer to the wave shape question.
The Luders is certainly a pretty boat.
Eric
Verus Amore? Can they be serious? I notice it has safety gear. What do they need that for stuck in a marina? Or perhaps that’s just for show too. Anyway, love the article, and as always your take on contemporary boat ‘design’. I’m looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the 46’s spade rudder. And will the hung prop be mentioned in Part 2? I always feel they are a bit exposed. But to what extent would the alternatives affect the hull form?
Hi Mark,
Yes, definitely digging into rudders in Part 2. As to the prop, I wouldn’t worry too much. Our boat’s prop is exposed in the same way and yet we don’t tend to pick up stuff on it, even in Maine with a bazillion lobster pots. We have also never hit ice with it, even when pushing through quite thick brash with bug lumps in it. I think the secret is the fairly deep and V sections that tend to push stuff away and I would expect the same on the Outbound. I guess a full keel boat with a two blade prop behind the dead wood would be more protected, but I can’t see taking the huge performance hit both under power and sail just to get that benefit.
Great articles and reader input. Really looking forward to the rest! Thanks. SK in the UK.
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for the kind words. These reviews are the hardest thing we do, so doubly appreciated.
Hi John
We inspected an Outbound 44 in 2013 in Wilson Cove, Norwalk, Ct, on a very quiet day. This is a protected and very calm harbor. Both of us found the Outbound to be very light, uncomfortable and squirrelly at the mooring, and elected to buy a heavier boat, a Trintella 47. We were very unhappy with the feel of the boat at the mooring. Displacement of our boat, Dawnpiper, is around 40,000 lbs, and we are happy with the choice.
Best wishes,
Charles & Heather
Charles L Starke MD FACP
s/v Dawnpiper
Hi Charles.
Hum, if you found an Outbound light and uncomfortable, a modern Beneteau would make you truly crazed, ditto say a J44. But the key point is that your Trintella is a much heavier and bigger boat (the 46 is a 44 with a bit added), which will always feel more stable. The other thing you might have been experiencing is that the Outbound has a much higher ballast displacement ratio than the Trintela, and will also have a CG that’s a lot lower due to a deeper (relative) keel and heavy bulb, and so ironically the Outbound is almost certainly more stable than the Trintella, but this does translate into a faster harsher motion without sails up. (We noticed the same when we changed to a carbon mast.)
Also, if I remember, I think your boat may have in mast roller furling. If so the resulting heavy masts softens motion.
So like all things it is a tradeoff: softer motion on the Trintella, particularly with sails down, as against more powerful (size for size) sail carrying and higher static stability for the Outbound. On the other, other hand, your boat will have higher dynamic stability and a higher STIX number due to added size.
Either way, both boats will be very safe at sea.
I crewed on one from Norfolk to Antigua a few years back and can appreciate the “squirrely” comment. I found the boat difficult to balance and wrote in my daily log that I thought the autopilot was working overtime. That said, this is relative to my own boat which has a longer keel and a rudder on a skeg. Balancing is straightforward and we can leave the wheel unattended for periods of time without worry (not like we would with AP or Monitor of course). Disclaimer: I don’t have much experience with newer designs like a Bene or similiar. Other than this, which again, may very well be a “me” thing, it’s a pretty perfect boat.
Hi John
I find plumb bows on modern yachts unattractive. A bit like the put-down – nothing naffer than a plastic gaffer. But I question the seaworthiness criticism. Almost all working boats around the UK: Scilly Island and Bristol Channel Pilot Cutters, all the way up the coast to fishing vessels working out of Scotland, had plumb bows. These vessels went to sea in all weathers in some of the worlds most challenging waters. I grant that a plumb bow isn’t the only difference between these classic working vessels and the modern monstrosities, so maybe a plumb bow as part of the complete classic package gets your nod of approval? ?
Yours aye
Bill
Hi Bill,
Those boats has very different hull forms than modern boats, typically “Cod Head, Mackerel Tail” with very full bows and therefore a lot of buoyancy forward, so they would not have needed overhang or flare for reserve buoyancy. Also, I’m guessing that there might have been a tax benefit since the lack of overhang would, I’m reasonable sure, reduce registered tons. So more fish, but less harbour dues etc—always look for the money motive, I say!
The other thing is yes, old classics are beautiful and should be preserved, but we know way more about boat design these days, so I would not apply 1800s tech to boat being designed today. Sure they went to sea in horrible weather, but a lot of them did not come home again.
And finally, a lot of those plumb bowed boats were wet as hell. I sailed in Moonraker as a boy with Peter and Anne Pye, but I would not vote to go to sea in her today, particularly if offered an Outbound 44!
Hi John,
We have started to see a few of these Outbounds around New England and I have been favorably impressed by examining them at anchor and sailing near them (they can easily pull away from our 36’er). To me, it is a solid design that includes good moderation all around. The boat should be sea kindly and it is reasonably quick but hasn’t made too many sacrifices to get that speed.
Eric
Hi Eric,
Like you, moderation is the word that comes to mind. Good to have your confirmation of that impression.
regarding the observations that OB46 can sail downwind under reefed main only and that OB46 is squirrely at anchor, I wonder if both of those characteristics are due to the rig being somewhat more forward compared to some of the boats with which many people have cruising experience, such as IOR era sloops and true cutters. with the mast stepped more forward, the reefed main pushes less and pulls more; anchored, there is more windage forward to promote hunting about the anchor.
Hi Michael,
Not sure anyone said that the OB was squirrels at anchor. I think Charles’s comment was was more about how the boat felt to them physically. Also, as far as going downwind with the main up, our boat is a cutter with the mast well aft and does that fine, so I think it’s more about how the boat tracks and steers than where the mast is. I would also not say that the OB mast is particularly far forward. If you are interested in how mast position, particularly relative to keel position influences balance Chuck Paine has some interesting analysis of that in his book: https://www.chuckpaine.com/yacht-designs-book/
Hi Michael,
Looks like you were right about Charles’s concern and the reason for it. See my comment to him for some more thoughts. I will make sure to tackle this later in the review, thanks.
Dear John
From our memory, the Outbound was squirrelly on a mooring. We were very uncomfortable.
For comparison, we slept fairly well at a mooring on our Trintella 47, in Rockland Harbor, Maine, with a southeast wind, in which our mooring ball blew away and a ramp at the dock penetrated right through a floating dock.
Best wishes,
Charles
Charles L Starke MD FACP
s/v Dawnpiper
Hi Charles,
Thanks for the clarification. No question that the Outbound is a lighter and and more lively boat than your Trintella. That’s a trade off for her speed, and stability, and just being a smaller boat.
When you say “squirrelly”, I now assume that she yawed more at the mooring. That would not surprise me since since she will have quite a lot of windage forward with the Solent rig. It’s one of the many reasons I prefer a true cutter. More on that, and what to do about it in a later post.
Hi John
I hesitated to say online, but both Heather and I got nauseous and seasick on a mooring in a calm harbor on the Outbound. We couldn’t wait to get off. Harry Morgan from S&S, showed us the boat in Norwalk Harbor, Ct, on a calm day, in 2013, soon after our Trintella 45 was dropped by the yard and declared a total loss. Heather has ben sailing since age 4, and we’ve both been in sixty foot seas, without seasickness, going to Antarctica.
Best wishes,
Charles & Heather
Charles L Starke MD FACP
s/v Dawnpiper
I’m really enjoying your article and think it is a refreshing perspective. I had the great fortune to own a Beneteau 361 sailboat when the kids were young enough that they didn’t question the need to go sailing :). We sailed Newport, RI, Cape and the islands for 10 years. It kept us safe and we had fun, so I appreciate that, but I knew the design was off. It had a 12.5′ beam on just 31′ of waterline and a capsize ratio of >2 ?. The tankage was small and focused at the bow and stern, so I had to think about how to use the tanks to keep balance. The bilge was flat an inaccessible due to an inexpensive one-piece structural fiberglass stiffener. There was no way to access the hull underneath it and water sloshed and mildewed the entire bilge. Most importantly, I never felt safe in rough conditions. The flat bottom, very light displacement, and in my view undersized hardware did not give me confidence. Ughhh! So when I set out to buy a boat recently, I could not bring myself to buy another big fancy floating condo. When you actually study hull form and boat design, it really is quite frustrating to see where things have gone. I ending up buying a Hallberg-Rassy 48 MK II. I love this boat design as it makes so much of the tried and true design criteria you are writing about. Alas, even HR has moved to plumb bows, flatter bottoms, and extremely wide sterns with twin rudders :/ I’m happy with my purchase and worried about the future of sailing vessels.
John.
Hi John,
A very clear eyed analysis. On the Beneteau, the good thing is she got you out there! She also, I think, set you up for the good decisions you are making today—the HR 48 is a loverly boat.
Like you I worry a lot about where this is going and the future of sailing. We desperately need a good wholesome and simple starter boat at a reasonable price. Perfectly doable in theory, hard to make happen in practice.
Hi John
Interesting read.
We have a Sweden Yachts 50, curious as to your take on her.
Cheers
Hans
Hi Hans,
I don’t want to get into the sort of hip shot opining that it would take to answer that in a comment. Bottom line, if I’m going to talk about a boat I need to spend a bunch of quality time researching it and then write several thousand words to do the job properly. At least a week’s work.
Hi John,
Definitely concur with your analysis of a safe, fast and manageable boat. But then again I would…I own a Kelly Peterson 44.
Doug Peterson was a genius, not formally trained, (neither was Schumacher) but he “saw” shapes that interacted with the fluid environment, and, was a contemporary of an equally inspired Schumacher, the parallels are extraordinary.
Both had fathers in the aerospace industry in the hotbed of that industry in Southern California in the ’70’s.Both had to borrow money from family to build their successful designs (Doug from his grandmother, Carl from his mother). As a complete aside, I came from that same environment, my father was a world renowned aircraft designer, who when I mentioned I had bought a Peterson designed boat, he said “I used to know a Carlton Peterson in California, was in the business”. Turns out it was Doug’s father.
So both designers took, in an organic way, much of aerospace thinking and applied it to yachts (Both had the voluminous design folio’s of the NACA directories) with evident effect. (Doug with Americas Cup winning designs, and Carl with quarter toners).
And both drew the lines of some of the greatest cruising boats that will get you there, safely, quickly and in comfort.
A final anecdote.
We were next to a new Beneteau Sense 46 in Marseilles, with a young crew in matching Musto polo shirts (monogrammed of course with the yachts name), and i did notice a bit of an “attitude” with the owner about an “old” KP44 moored next door. OK, nice guy, had a few chat’s with which we understood we were both heading for Malta the next day.
They left after morning coffees, we about an hour later. Good southerlies, made good VMG down to Sardinia over the next couple of days, then the Sirocco kicked in..NNW at about 25-40knots, as we got closer to Malta maybe SSW at 35-45 but with gusts much stronger.
Maybe what most of us would call “challenging” conditions, but the norm for blue water sailing. But this is what the KP44 loves, two reefs on the main and what we call the 747 slot on the cutter rig, keep her flat and she goes like a freight train.
Made Malta after 5 days and a bit, squared away everything, relaxed The next day doing the usual dock walk saw our Marseilles neighbours just arriving, in a very sorry state, and the looks on the crews faces said it all. Helped them tie up, quick conversations led to a litany of failures. Furler locked, blew out the genoa, one block of rope clutches literally torn out of the coachroof, meaning halyards were snap shackled to where ever they could find a hard point, “and there is a a strange rubbing noise around the fwd head” which due to legal constraints i will not describe what happened.
John I can only thank you for your blog and forum to allow the in-experienced and experienced to share the most important thing about sailing….we never do this alone.
It is our combined experience that gives us as a community the ability to continue in a safe manner, look forward to all your new information.
Mark
Hi Mark,
I agree, Peterson drew some great boats, starting with Ganbare, a break through boat.
And as you point out, sooner or later all of us will need to do a tough passage up wind, and when that happens a lot of the modern lightly built boats will be found wanting.
I’ve really enjoyed my four years on Océane (2016 Outbound 46 #61). Every sailing vessel is a trade off between that ‘floating condo’ and a light semi-planning racer. This boat makes all the right trade offs and is well thought out passage maker. Her light air performance, pointing ability, perfect balance when healed and speed are impressive. I’ve only pounded once and that was poor planning on my part (opposing current and wind). Fast and dry is fun. As an engineer I can vouch for her mechanical integrity. The Keel and rudder mount Design are something to see. The Solent rig, hard dodger, ‘machine room’ and tankage are big pluses. Not sure what to make about the comment made by someone who said, “she was ‘squirrelly’ at the mooring”. Any wind or current makes this boat want to go!
Hi Scott,
Thanks for the first hand report and confirmation of my analysis of the hull. I was just a tad worried that Carl might have smoothed the V of the bow into a U just a tad too quickly (for downwind performance) so she would pound upwind in really adverse conditions (why I qualified that aspect) so good to hear that I need not have worried.
As to the squirrelly comment, I think that it might have been that the Outnound tended to yaw more at the mooring than the commenter’s boat, which would stand to reason given the Solant rig. Also he is comparing to a much heavier, and almost certainly lower performance boat—it’s all trade offs.
What has your experience been with yawing at anchor or a mooring?
I will look forward to your input in future parts of this review.
Hi John,
I love the review series you are doing of the Outbound 46. I have always been a fan of the lines of the Outbound and the layout. For me personally I always felt that they utilized spaces in a good way(bilge keel storage for example). Since I am going through a refit on my boat, I look towards Outbound to see how they have done something to help guide me on my refit.
That being said, you talk about how the rocker, forward/aft of keel is nearly identical which will help with rooting. Since the Outbound 46 does not have a skeg hung rudder, I am curious to hear what you have to say about designs with skeg hung rudders.
For example, my boat(https://imgur.com/a/KPe0O5j) seems to have a similar fore/aft rocker shape, however, the skeg throws off the entire design as it creates what appears to be a “flat” spot in the stern leading to the rudder. How does a design similar to my vessel affect the performance of a boat – especially when offshore? Will we see more rooting? Is weight carrying capacity affected in the stern?
Thanks!
Could you or any of your readers comment on the hull form of the Shannon 39?
It appears to have a somewhat pinched stern similar to the one you pictured in the above article that is captioned as being “White-knuckled” when steering downwind. The Shannon does have a different keel configuration though.
This YachtWorld listing has some good pics of its hull form
https://www.yachtworld.com/boats/1994/shannon-39-3664503/
Hi John,
I see what you mean, there is a superficial resemblance, but in looking closer the Shannon is a very different hull form, and much healthier, than the boat I was writing about. She was also not designed to a racing rule and so not subjected to any rule cheating weirdness. In summary, while the stern does not appeal to me personally, I don’t think it’s a problem.
Perfect. Thank you.
Quote:
“As I have written before, for a designer with proper qualifications and experience, designing a good offshore boat is not magic, or even that difficult. The proper characteristics and ratios have been known for decades. For example, we have known how pointy a boat should be at the ends (prismatic coefficient) for a given use since the middle of the last century. Today, a few key presses in design software will calculate that number instantly.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that the last true breakthrough in offshore boat design (outside of bleeding-edge race boats) occurred in 1971 when Bill Lapworth turned the offshore racing world upside-down with his fin keel, spade rudder Cal 40. I digress.”
So you dismiss 50 years worth of research in CFD, VPP, tank tests with a little qualifier (“outside of the bleeding-edge race boats”). Sorry John, just as a master pilot does not make a master aeronautical engineer, a master skipper does not make a master naval engineer. There are people who do that for a living, also for cruising boats and there are a number of firms world-wide, who do that extremely well – helped by the latest technical advances courtesy of our racing brethren. Second guessing them on the basis of “proper characteristics and ratios … known for decades” is just that, second guessing.
With all respect due your experience, John, as I have seen going through the commissioning process and experiencing the results with a boat by the same design firm it _is_ magic. Replace “known” with “assume to have known” in your quote and you are spot-on. And nothing worth having in life, whether it is a book, a text in a blog or a ship is the result of “just a few key presses”. To the contrary, it is long and intense work by an experienced team.
Just compare recent cars with those of 50 years ago. Those were tractors in comparison. Are there drawbacks? Yes of course – all the complexities are potential failure points and not being able to fix much could be a real problem. Nevertheless, over the useful life span (some 300000 km) there isn’t much to fix. I have now driven many thousand miles without costly repairs on the previous two and my nearly new car appears to be just as reliable, and much more comfortable, powerful and safer to boot.
Whatever the qualities of Schumacher’s designs and that of the boat in question, they precede the last quarter century of progress in CFD, tank testing and VPP. Here are just two examples of what has been done since:
https://www.owenclarkedesign.com//Sailing-Yacht-and-Motor-Yacht-Naval-Architecture-1
https://nordkyndesign.com/nordkyn/design-overview/
Incidentally they come to somewhat different conclusions, but the latter example is about 15 years old.
Folks need to spend their money on what makes them happy, and if the owner of a similar boat is thrilled with it, good for him. If I had the change to spend on such a boat, however, I wouldn’t want to have a design that is ancient in comparison to what is possible now, that didn’t have the benefit of the incredible progress that has been made in those 25 years. The fact that many production boats are optimized for boat shows and the charter market shouldn’t distract from that.
Last, but not least, flat bow = slamming is an oversimplification. I just spent 600 miles on a flat but well-designed boat going into arctic waters much of it against wind and swell – the slamming was very benign, actually less than we experienced crewing on a 40-year old Swan. Neither did I get seasick the way I used to on the latter.
Hi George,
I never said that there have not been advances, just that the fundamentals of good boat design have been well understood for many years, but are often violated in the interest of pleasing the marketing department and buyers who have never been offshore.
You might want to read my latest on the A40 where I write at length about the advances in keel design. I’m also a fan of high efficiency spade rudders. So not a stick in the mud ignoring advances. Point being that to be clear on my thinking you need to read my body of work, which changes over time as I learn ever more, not pick a single quote and then build a case against it.
All that said, I still believe, based on considerable reading, that you can’t design a good offshore displacement boat if you violate important ratios like the prismatic coefficient.
Hi John,
Fair enough.
I think there are three issues here:
1) Horses for courses …
There are plenty of designs and features that are simply flawed for one reason or another. In a blue-water context, wide open spaces, huge beds w/o lee-cloths, galleys w/o means for bracing oneself, berths in the fore peak, designs subject to flooding etc. will simply not work.The many designs made to appeal for showroom and charter, are, arguably just fine for their intended use. I am sure, the wide-sterned boat you showed would be great for parties with deliveries under engine to the next marina in-between. Such designs will just never be proper cruising boats, and I agree with you on that point.
2) New vs. old engineering
The other issue is that given the advances in naval architecture, CFD, etc. performance, whether optimized for cruising or for racing becomes a much more granular question than a few key indicators such as prismatic coefficient could deliver. When I talk to old-school designers, it is in a language that focuses on those indicators. When I talk to modern ones, that language is no longer relevant because it has been superseded by something much more refined. There are likely to be strong correlations from old to new, but for the modern designers the indicators are an outcome, which they will consider “interesting” but not a goal, and if they are violated by a competent designer then for very good, science-supported reasons.
Furthermore, the optimization is for the intended passages. An example: “I can give you light air performance or great performance in all but light air – what is your cruising style” – the implication being that a lot of cruiser motor to avoid excessive beating or when becalmed and the design might as well take that into account.
All I am suggesting is that reducing a boat to the indicators of the olden days will result in an oversimplification with much less satisfying results than what is possible with the modern advances.
3) Blinded by being in love with retro
Folks should spend their resources on what makes them happy. If they derive pleasure from driving antiques in 50-year memorial races pretending to compete with a virtual RKJ or Moitissier – good for them. If they succeed, I doff my hat to them; it’s just no my idea of sailing fun.
If they are happy with an essentially retro design, however good the designer, good for them. They just shouldn’t pretend that their boat is inherently better, only because it is old, “proven”, “everyone knows that” or they are better or more worthy because they brave a tough environment with artificially limited kit.
Having owned one landmark house too many, its just not my cup of tea. What I want is the state-of-the-art optimized for _my_ requirements, which happen to be fast, safe and comfortable high-latitude sailing and cruising. However much I enjoyed the old Swan, I wouldn’t want to own it and I wouldn’t want to take it there. Today, there are much better ships possible and feasible for that purpose and we shouldn’t lose sight over that.