toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Hi, I would put hull form at the top. The modern flying wedges are fast and the voluminous stern cockpit fashionable and popular,but I suspect ( I am a sailor not a Naval architect) not as sea kindly, nor I suspect nearly as controllable running in big winds and seas. The SM bow holds up well, doesn't dig in causing slewing. The SM tracks incredibly well off the wind in big seas.. Likewise the ketch rig. Reducing sail is a dream as is increasing it.
.Not criticizing the 50 in any way. It was just built to a different design brief to a particular target market. As we have come to expect from Amel, they have done it well.
On 30 June 2021 at 10:29 Justin Maguire <justin_maguire@...> wrote:
I’d love to know - beyond who they market to - what changes make these new boats less seaworthy world cruisers?
The only three specific features that are regularly brought up are:
- twin rudders without the protected prop
- the loss of the ketch rig.
- the more modern hull form that bashes more up wind (though is nicer downwind)
Build quality is as good or arguably better..
Ease of systems maintenance is as good or arguably better.
I’m genuinely curious to learn here
On Jun 29, 2021, at 17:39, Alan Leslie <s.v.elyse@...> wrote:
Absolutely agree with all of that.
Judith and I visited Amel in La Rochelle in 2019 and went for a sail on the 50.
Judith fell in love with it's creature comforts and layout and now says we'll buy one when we win the lottery!
I have all the above misgivings about it as an ocean crosser, but then maybe those days are over and as a coastal short passage cruiser the 50 would be ideal.
Certainly Antoine Riotin said the same things to me - the target market for Amel has changed; it is no longer the circumnavigator as it was in Henri Amels day.