LORD NELSON 41 QUESTION
 

Anyone with opinions or experience with the Lord Nelson 41? Looks
like a well designed, safe, maintainable boat but I am anxious about
the performance price that I am assured I will pay. My limited
experience in light air with the boat is pretty good (3.5-4 knots
boatspeeed in 5 knots of wind) but I guess the windward performance is
poor. Anyone want to rant on the relative merits of heavy
displacement less performance boats vs. more modern designs?

Pablo

LORD NELSON 41 QUESTION
 

Sure, I'll rant about heavy displacement boats, Pablo. We've sailed a
Westsail 32 for years and years and loved it. You can NOT escape the
compromise between speed (aka "performance") and seaworthiness. Ask the
Aussie 12-meter lads whose boat was going like a gazelle when it split and
sank. True, we are talking a contiuum here, not an either/or situation, but
the faster you want to go the less seaworthy your boat will be. And vice
versa, certainly: heavy displacement boats are the most seaworthy--and
hence the least "performing" of sailboats. For bluewater sailing we'll take
our old Westie, and zing around the harbor in a Laser for fun.

Dick

PS. We're about to make the geriatric jump to power boats, and have chosen
a Lord Nelson Victory Tug. That's the powerboat equivalent of the Westsail,
and built hell for stout, as is LN 41.


wrote in message
...

Anyone with opinions or experience with the Lord Nelson 41? Looks
like a well designed, safe, maintainable boat but I am anxious about
the performance price that I am assured I will pay. My limited
experience in light air with the boat is pretty good (3.5-4 knots
boatspeeed in 5 knots of wind) but I guess the windward performance is
poor. Anyone want to rant on the relative merits of heavy
displacement less performance boats vs. more modern designs?

Pablo

LORD NELSON 41 QUESTION
 

This is almost absolutley false. There is NO certain correlation
between speed and seaworthiness excpet that very slow boats have a
harder time avoiding bad weather. Racing sailboats built right on the
ragged edge of technology that are inteneded for short course day
races are in NO WAY representitive of boats intended for long distance
cruising. Even then they are fine for the conditions in which they
sail, which always include chase boats to retrieve the crew when they
sink :)
For some examples of boats that have unquestioned seaworthiness and
can sail rings around a Westsail, see the Valiant 40, Pacific Seacraft
series (34,37,40, and some others), and Deerfoot at the top of the
scale. One rule you will find is that you can have a cheap heavy boat
that will hold together, but building a strong and light boat is
expensive due to the higher tech materials and expert labor required.
If you go for cheap and light (see Hunter and Bendy-twos) , you wil be
making a compromise that might not be the best for long voyages. On
the other end of the scale, if some low budget Chinese yard built a
Westsail knock-off with very poor materials, they could make the boat
weigh twice as much as a Westsail 32, be half as fast, and still be
much LESS seaworthy than the original.
Joe Della Barba
SV Coquina
C&C 35 MK I



On Sat, 8 May 2004 15:37:19 -0700, "R.W. Behan"
wrote:

Sure, I'll rant about heavy displacement boats, Pablo. We've sailed a
Westsail 32 for years and years and loved it. You can NOT escape the
compromise between speed (aka "performance") and seaworthiness. Ask the
Aussie 12-meter lads whose boat was going like a gazelle when it split and
sank. True, we are talking a contiuum here, not an either/or situation, but
the faster you want to go the less seaworthy your boat will be. And vice
versa, certainly: heavy displacement boats are the most seaworthy--and
hence the least "performing" of sailboats. For bluewater sailing we'll take
our old Westie, and zing around the harbor in a Laser for fun.

Dick

PS. We're about to make the geriatric jump to power boats, and have chosen
a Lord Nelson Victory Tug. That's the powerboat equivalent of the Westsail,
and built hell for stout, as is LN 41.


wrote in message
.. .

Anyone with opinions or experience with the Lord Nelson 41? Looks
like a well designed, safe, maintainable boat but I am anxious about
the performance price that I am assured I will pay. My limited
experience in light air with the boat is pretty good (3.5-4 knots
boatspeeed in 5 knots of wind) but I guess the windward performance is
poor. Anyone want to rant on the relative merits of heavy
displacement less performance boats vs. more modern designs?

Pablo

LORD NELSON 41 QUESTION
 

writes:

Anyone with opinions or experience with the Lord Nelson 41?
snip

The following comment is not mine but rather from a guy who enjoys high
latitude sailing and sailed a L/N 41 from Scotland back to the US:

"It's a slug", would be much kinder than his comments.

BTW, this is a guy who also rebuilt a Hinckley 35, put more than a few miles
under it's keel, and has been a racer and off shore sailor most of his adult
life.

I accept his opinions for what they are.

YMMV.



--
Lew

S/A: Challenge, The Bullet Proof Boat, (Under Construction in the Southland)
Visit: http://home.earthlink.net/~lewhodgett for Pictures

LORD NELSON 41 QUESTION
 

"R.W. Behan" wrote:
Sure, I'll rant about heavy displacement boats, Pablo. We've sailed a
Westsail 32 for years and years and loved it. You can NOT escape the
compromise between speed (aka "performance") and seaworthiness.

???

Several misconceptions here. There are many completely different &
unrelated ways of evaluating any given boat's performance... for example
light air, VMG to windward, etc etc. Speed of sailboats is not as easily
quantifiable as, say, speed of two different makes of car. Even with
cars, you can compare top speed, speed in 1/4 mile, speed through a
slalom, etc etc. Will you say that comparing the speed of sailboats is
less or more complex? Then consider the attitude about racing boats &
speed, ignoring ratings... bad idea. A fast boat with a faster rating =
loser, but it may be a great sailing boat. The most successful racing
boats are designed so as to sail very slightly faster than the rating
rule thinks they should.

Then take a look at seaworthiness. What is it? (insert book here) There
is certainly no easy linear comparison.


Joe Della Barba wrote:
This is almost absolutley false. There is NO certain correlation
between speed and seaworthiness

Agreed.

... excpet that very slow boats have a
harder time avoiding bad weather.

Well, they can stay in.

For some examples of boats that have unquestioned seaworthiness and
can sail rings around a Westsail, see the Valiant 40, Pacific Seacraft
series (34,37,40, and some others), and Deerfoot at the top of the
scale.

And the Deerfoot isn't even heavy displacement.

... One rule you will find is that you can have a cheap heavy boat
that will hold together, but building a strong and light boat is
expensive due to the higher tech materials and expert labor required.

Agreed, but I'd go one step further and say that 1- "heavy" doesn't
necessarily equal strong. For example, those very very thick old timey
fiberglass hulls that some folks rave about have a very very low
glass/resin ratio... and resin isn't what makes it strong. 2- a very
heavy boat is going to impose greater loads on it's structure & rig (and
on it's ground tackle & it's crew).

If you go for cheap and light (see Hunter and Bendy-twos) , you wil be
making a compromise that might not be the best for long voyages. On
the other end of the scale, if some low budget Chinese yard built a
Westsail knock-off with very poor materials, they could make the boat
weigh twice as much as a Westsail 32, be half as fast, and still be
much LESS seaworthy than the original.

And a lower ballast ratio, etc etc.

I'm not a big fan of heavy-heavy cruisers, and detest the faux Colin
Archer designs (insert book on characterisitics of redningskoite), but
the Lord Nelson is above average. At least it will go to windward.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King