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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

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