# Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat � Which one will you book passage on?



## NCC320 (Dec 23, 2008)

*Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

First of all, unless you have a one off, they are all production boats, but for this discussion, lets talk about a Beneteau (or Hunter, Catalina). I, for one , think all this discussion about blue water vs. production is largely nonsense. Yes, some boats are built more rugged and are more suitable for open sea voyages than others, but the truth is that most of us will be doing inshore or coastal boating and we don't need a boat built for around the world voyages. More rugged means more expensive, or older, tired boats of a certain type that you hope will hold together.

Several weeks ago, I was in Beaufort, NC. Walking the docks there, I came upon the largest Beneteau that I have ever seen. Later, I determined that it was a 57 ft. mid-cockpit boat. If you haven't been up close to one of these, just take it from me, it's massive. This boat was relatively new, spotless, and every fitting seem robust. The triple spreader mast was humongous. I spent a good bit of time looking at this baby, thinking how nice it would be to have one of these $600-700K boats. Since I have a Catalina 320 (one of the non blue water suitable BeneCataHunter group), I am a bit sensitive to all the negative comments that are posted on these boats. From my perspective, they fit my needs and sailing just fine, and I hate all the unjustified trashing that they seem to get. Then, I thought about a blue water boat&#8230;.an Alberg 30 or 35. Albergs date from 1960-1970 time frame, but are generally acknowledged as being blue water capable, despite their age.

As I admired the Beneteau. I could envision an Alberg 30 (or similar "Blue water" boat) tying up ahead of this beautiful, large 57 foot Beneteau, and the two owners/captains meeting, wherein the Alberg captain acknowledges the fine things about the larger Beneteau, but then advises the Beneteau owner that his boat really is not a blue water boat , and that his older, smaller Alberg was more suitable for offshore passages. No one would likely say this in person, but we have this discussion all the time on line and production boats are generally put down, often in favor of an older boat, which likely has age, wear, and stress issues.

So, for discussion purposes on this thread, which of these two boats would you sign on as a crew member for a transatlantic voyage., an older, smaller blue water boat, or a newer, larger production boat? Assume that an additional two person experienced crew will be on each boat, and that you will encounter storms and rough seas. My choice would be to go with the Beneteau, but which would you choose and why?


----------



## sailak (Apr 15, 2007)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

I'd go with my blue-water production boat, a Pacific Seacraft 37.

Why? Much better ride than the Beneteau and a bit roomier than the Alberg.


----------



## aloof (Dec 21, 2014)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

The world is big. The crossings long. I'd get the fastest, longest, lightest, boat I can afford. The choices above are all pigs. All else being equal I would join the Beneteau crew because the slow wallowing painful crossing will be over far sooner.

The Beneteau will be a hateful thing to own when after 5 years of cruising all the complex accoutrements begin to fail. The Alberg will, of course, not have anywhere near the complexity.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

Production.


----------



## TomMaine (Dec 21, 2010)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

Transatlantic? Longest wins everytime for me. As long as it's reasonably built.

I own a 60's vintage well built boat. I think it's a coastal boat, not blue water. Too short.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

Got friendly with a professional captain who ran a new bene in the mid fifties. He had brought the boat from SF to bvi. Told me he had a terrible time with it. 
Owner decided after just one year of ownership from brand spanking new to toss it. Boat went to usvi to be PUT ON A SHIP. Boat is going to the med to be sold.
Also friendly with another pro captain who just completed a job running a mid fifties Hylas. He had taken it from east coast to Oz. Also met him in Bvi. On that boat. Boat several decades old and looking brand spanking new. It was returning to Florida to be sold as owner broke his hip.
Regardless of what Smackie says there are well constructed boats and not so well constructed boats. Old/new, production/one off, glass/non glass just doesn't matter. What matters is it being used for its intended purpose and has it been well maintained and appropriately fitted out.
OPs original post suggests the right decision is to look for another berth.


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

I will be on the Beneteau 57.

A friend has one, very nice boats and many have crossed the Atlantic, in fact they were designed and built to pretty much do just that as at 57ft they are not ever going to be in a bareboat charter fleet, nor just a picnic boat. Let's give Beneteau some credit.

However when you are comparing 30ft with 57ft you are very much comparing apples with mangoes. Anyone who understands seamanship as it exists outside of an internet forum knows waterline length is a factor.

Of course as I am a crew member on this boat, and only crossing the Atlantic I also do not have to maintain the thing or pay for marina fees in the Med 

If you asked me which one would I _buy_ for a multi year circumnavigation, or which boat I would wish to own and maintain in 30 years my answer would differ.

Likewise if you told me that I was sailing from Australia to Chile by way of the Southern Ocean my answer would also differ.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

Chall makes a very good point. Remember bene also builds custom one offs. Some are excellent strong boats.
In the size range OP is considering the Hunter built( yes Hunter Smack) cheribini designed 37' would be a strong competitor as the smaller boat. But at that size the old Morris 36' would be my choice. Did a passage to the Bahamas on one and she handled strongwind/big seas with ease.
Stainless today.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

A passage is not a passage. A few days offshore, is not a month. The Coconut milk run is not the southern ocean. It's just hard to say, with any absolutes.

The new 57s (both Bene and Jeanneau make one) are big boats. Surprisingly larger than the 54 we have. Their current 53 is nearly the same hull as our 54, they must have wanted it to sound like a bigger difference? It is.

On a trade wind or shorter passage, where speed and comfort are a priority, the 57 wins hands down. If you need maximum system and structural self sufficiency, not so sure. The newest era of Bs and Js are price competitive because they clearly used lower cost materials. I'm probably overwhelmed by the finishes (plastic and fiber board) and not giving enough credit to the structure, but it's enough to raise an eyebrow.

Bottom line is, a production boat will suffice for 99% of all uses by all sailors. Even a blue water passage, at the right time of year on the right route. They only fall short as go anywhere, anytime, which virtually none of us do.


----------



## aa3jy (Jul 23, 2006)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



TomMaine said:


> Transatlantic? Longest wins everytime for me. As long as it's reasonably built.
> 
> I own a 60's vintage well built boat. I think it's a coastal boat, not blue water. Too short.


Interesting..then a PS Flicka would not be considered as "Blue Water" capable...


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



aa3jy said:


> Interesting..then a PS Flicka would not be considered as "Blue Water" capable...


I will take a 57 beneteau over any 20 ft boat for 99% of conditions I ever expect to see.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



Minnewaska said:


> I will take a 57 beneteau over any 20 ft boat for 99% of conditions I ever expect to see.


I can top I would take 100% of the time (would add a plus but that would be meaningless).

I think all small old boats are as bluewater as a cork floating in the water. Yes it floats, but so what!


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



Minnewaska said:


> A passage is not a passage. A few days offshore, is not a month. The Coconut milk run is not the southern ocean. It's just hard to say, with any absolutes.


What he said.

And a passage is not cruising. Most of us don't buy boats to do a passage. We buy them to go cruising.

The OP was talking a Trans Atlantic (let's guess it would be part of the ARC) which would mean in season. That would be an absolute hoot in a Bene 57 with a few people on board. A kite during the day...a glass of spanish red at sunset, the freezer full of dinners. Fantastic! Sign me up.

But New Zealand to Chile?  No thanks.


----------



## TomMaine (Dec 21, 2010)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



aa3jy said:


> Interesting..then a PS Flicka would not be considered as "Blue Water" capable...


I should have said 'transatlantic'. A Flicka is blue water for some but if I'm signing on for a transatlantic, it's way too small which carries qualities 'I' wouldn't choose to cross the Atlantic(I'm 61  )

In my preference, the qualities that make a great coastal sailboat are not the qualities I'd want for ocean crossings(and vice-versa).


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

Specific design 'blue water' boats are more than style and waterline length; they are built/designed purposely 'stronger' to historical (scantling) rules/evidence of what survived without failure - usually to a strength factor of 3 (or 4 times) 'stronger' than the average maximum forces/conditions expected. Coastal design boats are built only 2x times stronger than whats expected; inshore (lake) boats are usually only built to 1.5 times as strong.

This has nothing to do with being light or being 'heavy'; its all about strength - residual strength such as rigging strength, laminate strength (flexure and impact) and _material fatigue_, etc. etc. etc. This has absolutely nothing to so with skill of the crew.

For example, A Dana 24 is a true blue water designed boat, a BeneHuntaLina 24 would be a 'coastal design' boat .... the inbuilt strength differences of these two boats are quite evident.

How this design process works is _something_ like this 'simplification': The boat is initially designed for size/shape, purpose and expected sailing load/stores etc., the designer then theoretically pulls the initially designed boat over to a heel angle of 45° and then 'starts' the final design refinement process by selecting the rigging based on the needed strength to react to that 45° angle of heel, the boat fully loaded, and without 'yielding' the wire, and then for blue water design multiplies that theoretical force value calculated by 3 (or more) to arrive at the wire 'size' and then designs all rigging support structure to the same or greater strength value, hull strength to support that rigging structure and then re-adjusts/re-evaluates all other structure etc. etc. etc. etc. so the boat's structure and safety function doesnt exceed / or 'come apart' at the forces generated by the 45° heel angle in the open ocean many days or weeks from land .... times THREE for a purpose built blue water boat, times TWO for a coastal design, times 1.5 for an inshore design. Youll find this 'safety factor' to be uniformly consistent in just about each and every structural and safety component of the entire boat and with the appropriate 'safety factor' included in each and every structural component and all based on WHERE the boat will be used.

So go ahead and sail off on a circumnavigation in your stock coastal design (safety factor of 2) 'production boat'.... but there's a damn good / better than even chance the coastal 'production boat' will 'come apart' before you complete that voyage, simply because the historical/scantling inbuilt strength of that coastal production boat isnt to the level of what has historically survived (in comparison of the 'scantling rules' and safety factors built-in) ... and no matter what kind of boat handler/sailor you think you are.

Blue water design boats are built much stronger to handle the maximum force loads 'historically expected' to be encountered - they are 'stronger' than boats that are designed to sail 'coastwise' and that can scoot into a port to avoid those forces sometimes encountered in the open ocean.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



aa3jy said:


> Interesting..then a PS Flicka would not be considered as "Blue Water" capable...


No, he said he would pick the bigger boat, not that shorter boats aren't blue water capable. Two completely different things.


----------



## zedboy (Jul 14, 2010)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

When was the last time the chainplates were replaced on the Alberg 30?


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

As someone who has sailed almost every boat in the bareboat fleets of the late 70's and early 80's, catamarans, trimarans and traditional schooners (some pre-1900) I've a pretty good idea of what I'm comfortable on, offshore.
It certainly isn't any boat built specifically for the bareboat market, or any boat built by a yard for to fill a mass market need (think Bayliner here), nor the super light go fast racing sleds, though I have delivered plenty of all of these.
Anybody can get lucky and sail a poorly built mass production boat around the world, and those without luck, we read about online these days.
The Out Island 41, for instance, was never designed as an offshore cruiser; it's even got islands in it's name, yet plenty have done just fine offshore, especially if you accept that with a 4' draft on a 40 footer, when you have to go hard to weather you are going to do it motorsailing. 
Many of us prefer the comfortable (at sea and at anchor), moderate performance, tried and proven displacement cruisers. We don't mind our time at sea and we know our boats can take more than we can, if need be. There are others who don't care about comfort at all and want as little time sailing and at sea as possible; it's where they go that matters, not the getting there and they'll risk the loss of the boat should conditions deteriorate beyond what the boat can take. Those in the middle, with the fin keel/spade rudder moderate displacement performance boats are often club racers gone cruising, and they forgo some comfort at sea and at anchor for the joy of keeping the boat performing well underway, yet having a boat that will survive everything but that storm few ever encounter.
I can't recommend to others what boat would suit them; I only know what I would be comfortable sailing offshore. As a professional captain, I've certainly sailed more than my fair share of boats I didn't think should go offshore, offshore and done just fine.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

To expand on RichH's fine post, it is not strictly about the safety factors for arbitrary reasons, but also about construction materials and methods which are intended to withstand a larger number of cyclical high loadings without losing strength. Boats that purposefully designed for offshore use typically will employ such items as wider and graduated thickness tabbing, more frequent and robust internal framing, a more detailed focus on the load path for critical hardware, and so on, all of which are intended to minimize the long term negative impact of cyclical loading by reducing the percentage of load being absorbed by these components relative to the strength of the materials involved, and minimizing flexure, which in turn minimizes the amount of strength lost to fatigue and work hardening.

The example that I often cite is the case of glued in bulkheads or hull to deck joints. The larger value oriented coastal cruiser manufacturers often rightly point out that with high tech glues, the fiberglass comes apart before the glue joint fails. And that is true. But if we look at the joint in detail, the total adhesive area is by necessity typically the thickness of the bulkhead often is a little less than 1/2" or even less on a smaller boat. A properly tabbed in bulkhead for the same sized boat might extend 3 inches either side of the bulkhead (often more). In other words, the tabbed in bulkhead in this example spreads the same overall force over 12 times the area as compared to the glued in joint. This reduces the unit forces (i.e. lbs per sq. in) felt by every part of the system, and allows concentrated forces in the tabbed bulkhead to be distributed to a larger area more quickly. Effectively, the components in this tabbed in construction example might experience less than 10% of the unit force experienced by the glued in construction.

Glued hull to deck joints are similar, albeit not as dramatic, with perhaps 1" glue surface on an outward flange joint, vs. 3" to 4" glue surface on an inward facing joint, plus the inward facing joints can be thicker and permit larger mechanical fastenings.

Since fiberglass is a fatigue prone material, this means that the materials which are experiencing these greater loads are weakening at a greatly accelerated rate. That may not matter for coastal cruising since boats are getting used less frequently and there is a tendency to seek shelter or stay at the dock on nasty days. But a single transatlantic is the equivalent distance to the amount of sailing that a typical heavily used coastal cruiser might sail in four or five years, and while many offshore cruisers never encounter 'the ultimate storm', they still tend to be sailing for significant period of time in weather that is heavier than experienced by most coastal cruisers.

As a result you do see such items as failed hull to deck joints occurring and you do see loose bulkheads and frames, and you do see delaminated hulls in the areas where bulkhead loads are greatest with glued construction. And that is what you are counting on to keep the sea out if and when you get clobbered by the one that no one expected.

I should note that there is nothing magic about this, and that proper engineering does not have to add weight to a boat. But it does mean that there is more hand labor, higher levels of care in the design and execution with greater attention to the details and careful strategic decisions about where the weight used for structure is employed. The bad news is that frankly, that level of care results in a more expensive boat to build.

So getting back to the original question about what kind of boat would I chose....... when I was looking for a boat to sail across the Atlantic, I did a lot of research. I chose a boat that was actually much lighter for its length than many race boats of its day, let alone most cruising boats of that length.

But based on my research, I chose a boat that was built for the rigors of racing and cruising in South Africa (as in the Cape of Good Hope) and which was a model of boats that had raced from Cape Town to Rio as a one design class for over 20 years (at the time that I had bought my boat), as well as a model which done some amazing passage making.

The construction featured a hull to deck joint has a glued and bolted flange, which is over 4" wide and is solid glass the thickness of the hull on both the deck and hull side. The design includes glassed in longitudinal frames at 12" o.c. , and glassed transverse bulkheads or transverse frames at around 28" in the ends of the boat and closer spaced through the rig and keel load area. There are four main bulkheads, which are fully tabbed into the hull and deck on all sides which have minimal openings through them. Even minor the bulkheads are fully tabbed to the hull and each other.

It is neither a mass production boat, or a dedicated offshore cruiser. I wanted more strength and a better offshore layout than most value oriented production boats, and better performance than most cruising boats. The idiosyncratic nature of my boat meant that it cost less than a similar vintage value oriented production boat and way less than a purpose built cruising boat of the same length, and slightly less than a smaller equal displacement cruising boat of the same era.

This would be a wildly expensive boat to build today, because there are minimal liners requiring that the glass be carefully finished on the interior, but which allows hand glassed-in components, and all of that hand tabbing and hand finishing is very labor intensive. But if the goal is to construct a light weight hull that is intended to last through decades of hard use, that is what it takes. I also chose this design because it is easy to work on with visible wiring and plumbing passages, a fully visible engine compartment, and fully accessible chainplate and structural components.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

Excellent posts gentlemen. You elegantly said what I clumsily tried to impart to Smackie. Other issue is livability on passage. This has to do with the various details such as hand rails and other things that can be added but also with the basic floor plan. I delight that on either tack I can sleep four behind the mast securely. That you can stay on the throne. That you can prepare a meal without things falling out of the lockers and cook without being burnt.
Open floor plans look great at the shows but just don't work offshore.
Finally having good places to hide from the elements but still be able to run the boat. It's amazing how much warmer you are out of the wind.totally different climate under the hard dodger then behind the wheel. Calmer if the boat is quiet below.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

Doesn't this topic ever get old? How can some people type 10 paragraphs over and over on the same "discussion" every time?

Who really cares about some little 24-30' old boat being "bluewater"? Who the hell wants to spend all that time bouncing around in those little cave boats only to camp on them once they get somewhere? The real reason buy those isn't anything to do with having a "bluewater" boat, that's just the story they use for why they have an uncomfortable boat because that's what they can afford.

Maybe people should stop this "bluewater" storm event boat and start thinking in a useful manner about getting a "cruising passagemaker".

I feel better now till next week when I can copy and paste this post into a new thread :devil


----------



## NCC320 (Dec 23, 2008)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

Since I used Beneteau as my example boat for this discussion, are you telling us that a 311 Beneteau, a 37 Beneteau, a 50 Beneteau, and a 57 Beneteau are all built to same safety/over-design factor or 2X forces (i.e. coastal)? I think we would all agree that forces inshore, and forces off shore are quite different in adverse conditions. Wouldn't Beneteau use that difference in designing their boats (on whose real life performance history in large part assures or dooms their success as a company) before applying any 2X or other safety factor?

A Dana 24 is a fine boat, but it's still 24 feet. In storms, the waves and winds get ferocious. And the Alberg 30, which was my original example, was built strong, but things age and get tired, so there are potential unforeseen trouble areas, and it's still only 30 feet long against big waves and winds.

Would it not be a better bet to go with the more modern, less stressed (fewer stress cycles experienced since it is newer) larger 57 Beneteau vs the older, smaller boat (for which we probably know little about its history unless it still belongs to the original owner). The older boat would have likely had periodic upgrades to try to keep it in high condition. But lots of upgrades, if not most of the ones I've seen, are of uncertain quality and execution.

And I used a transatlantic crossing in the OP, but don't limit it to one trip. Assume these two boats are going to make multiple crossings in fair and foul weather conditions.

Unfortunately, the great majority of us have rather limited funds, so, with what's available, each of us will select the best compromise of build vs. cost vs. age vs. ride, etc. that fits the available funds and our intended usage. So the question is not are there more robust, better built boats than the 57 Beneteau, although she is a mighty fine looking boat. In my thought process, there is a point where a "Blue Water" boat (size, age, etc.) is a poorer choice for ocean cruising than a "production boat" Am I wrong?


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

Yes you are wrong.
A new or old yugo is still a yugo.
I've done transits or buddy boated on passage with wood, Al, grp boats older than me and I fart dust.
Yes,,they may need new engines, through hulls, re fastening, electronics, etc. But the basic structure will be sound if maintained and not have been subject to collision or catastrophic grounding.
Passages are either benign or terrifying. When benign a bigger boat will get it over quicker. When terrifying a bigger boat will be safer and less scary. As a generalization LOA means hull speed. Displacement means comfort


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

BTW- high quality boats tend to get high quality maintenance. People have a lot of money tied up in them. They use them for passagemaking and know they are betting their life on them. Even if moved by a pro captain who is "running" the boat then that captain is betting his life and future livelihood on good maintenance.
Whether live aboard cruiser or pro run I think your argument is not in concert to my experience.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

I think by choosing such disparate sizes as an 'either/or' you're skewing the decision, or at least the basic premise of the thread. Comparing size for size (say Bene 57 vs Hylas/Oyster/etc and/or Bene 30 vs Morris/Pacific Seacraft/etc) makes more sense?


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



RichH said:


> So go ahead and sail off on a circumnavigation in your stock coastal design (safety factor of 2) 'production boat'.... but there's a damn good / better than even chance the coastal 'production boat' will 'come apart' before you complete that voyage, simply because the historical/scantling inbuilt strength of that coastal production boat isnt to the level of what has historically survived (in comparison of the 'scantling rules' and safety factors built-in) ... and no matter what kind of boat handler/sailor you think you are.
> 
> Blue water design boats are built much stronger to handle the maximum force loads 'historically expected' to be encountered - they are 'stronger' than boats that are designed to sail 'coastwise' and that can scoot into a port to avoid those forces sometimes encountered in the open ocean.


Generally agree. But it's important to remember that not all BeneHunterLinas are rated as "coastal production boats". Many are rated for "Ocean" cruising, otherwise known as "blue water". That fact often gets lost in these silly debates.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



Jeff_H said:


> Since fiberglass is a fatigue prone material, this means that the materials which are experiencing these greater loads are weakening at a greatly accelerated rate. That may not matter for coastal cruising since boats are getting used less frequently and there is a tendency to seek shelter or stay at the dock on nasty days. But a single transatlantic is the equivalent distance to the amount of sailing that a typical heavily used coastal cruiser might sail in four or five years, and while many offshore cruisers never encounter 'the ultimate storm', they still tend to be sailing for significant period of time in weather that is heavier than experienced by most coastal cruisers.
> 
> As a result you do see such items as failed hull to deck joints occurring and you do see loose bulkheads and frames, and you do see delaminated hulls in the areas where bulkhead loads are greatest with glued construction. And that is what you are counting on to keep the sea out if and when you get clobbered by the one that no one expected.


This a great point - and actually why I think people's blind trust in "solid, old blue-water boats" (Alberg, etc.) is a bit misguided. Fatigue is fatigue. And a 40-50 year old boat is going to have a hell of a lot more if it than a much newer boat.

_Rebel Heart_ was a great example of a, "solid, old, vaunted blue-water brand" falling apart around them.

No thanks.

And since those bluewater brands are now starting to adopt the "production boat" building methods anyway (plexus joints, liners, modular interiors, etc.) - it's becoming more and more of a wash.


----------



## NCC320 (Dec 23, 2008)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



outbound said:


> Yes you are wrong.
> A new or old yugo is still a yugo.
> 
> So we are saying a Beneteau 57 is a yugo. Really.
> ...


 Exactly. That is my point. At some point, I don't know where, when there are significant differences in age, size, equipment, etc., it would seem to be a better choice to select the large Bene 57 over a smaller 30+ boat of rugged, blue water construction, especially if age and condition are questionable on the older blue water boat. As the size of the production boat and blue water boat move closer to each other, at some point, the choice would move to the better built boat. If they were all priced the same, we all would select the nicer boat, i.e. new Mercedes over a new Chevy. Unfortunately, for many who venture forth, the funds are limited and the choice is between a new/like new, larger Chevy or a used, older small Mercedes. A good used Mercedes of comparable size might be a good, even bette choice, but an old, worn out Mercedes is a piece of junk, But some seem to insist that if it's a Mercedes (blue water boat) regardless of size and condition, it's a better choice than a Chevy (production boat), no matter what the condition or size. 

For the same money, I can generally get a newer, bigger production boat vs. my blue water boat choices. And no matter which way one goes, they need to be careful of their choice.

Of course this is a never ending discussion, as neither side can see middle ground. Not unlike the political parties sometimes.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



NCC320 said:


> Of course this is a never ending discussion, as neither side can see middle ground. * Not unlike the political parties sometimes*.


Sometimes????:eek


----------



## seaner97 (May 15, 2011)

The middle ground is easy to see. It's uninhabited.


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



smackdaddy said:


> _Rebel Heart_ was a great example of a, "solid, old, vaunted blue-water brand" falling apart around them.


Any boat, of any design, despite the best efforts of the builder at the time of construction can suffer issues and problems 30 years later if not properly addressed and maintained.

Threads like these simplify bluewater sailing down to buying the right boat.

If only that was all there was too it.


----------



## Sublime (Sep 11, 2010)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

A 57' boat is probably going to be a bit more comfortable (less coffee and wine spillage) but boats smaller than 30' have done dangerous passages. And boats not thought of as bluewater boats have been through some impressive stuff. I read a story about a B&R rigged Hunter that goes around cape horn regularly. As we all know, in internet sailing, that's impossible.

Bluewater boats have had problems while out there, even well maintained ones. So really, anything could happen. You're taking your chances if you play chicken with a hurricane in any boat.

I think the skipper and luck has more to do with a safe passage. Most boats are tougher than the people on them. And if you pick your window wisely, just about any boat can make it as long as she's a maintained vessel. If your luck runs out, you're screwed.

Has anyone read the story of this guy Rimas? Bought a POS $500 San Juan 24', did nothing to it and made it to Hawaii from Seattle. He's a fool IMO, but the boat made it. If that boat can make it, surely a 57' Bene with a skipper who has a head on their shoulders would be fine.

Personally, I like the character of older boats.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

"Blue water design boats are built much stronger to handle the maximum force loads 'historically expected' to be encountered - they are 'stronger' than boats that are designed to sail 'coastwise' and that can scoot into a port to avoid those forces sometimes encountered in the open ocean."

I find this statement to be a bit misleading. There are few places on earth that will test the mettle of any vessel more than the west coast of the US. Since there are very few places to 'scoot into a port' if you do get caught out, your boat had better be able to take whatever the sea throws at her, on a left coast, 'coastwise' voyage. The same can probably be said for southeast Africa and other places as well, I'm sure.
Perhaps the terms should be more along the lines of day sailor, weekender and passage maker, no matter the size, rather than defining a boat by how far offshore she might sail.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



Sublime said:


> I read a story about a B&R rigged Hunter that goes around cape horn regularly. As we all know, in internet sailing, that's impossible.


"Regularly", huh? Hmmm, that's a story I'd like to see... 

Perhaps Skip Novak has traded up to a Hunter?


----------



## Sublime (Sep 11, 2010)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



JonEisberg said:


> "Regularly", huh? Hmmm, that's a story I'd like to see...
> 
> Perhaps Skip Novak has traded up to a Hunter?


It was several years ago that I stumbled across it. I'll see if I can find it.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

Agree with Capta. "Blue water" is meaningless . Started a thread awhile back,which trended to point out that on the shelf may engender more dangers then off the shelf. A storm is a storm but when wave height x seven equals depth you're in for a beating. He rightly points out issue is whether you can find a safe harbor in time. You can't when hundreds of miles from land fall but as he says you maybe in the same unfortunate situation coastal.


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

Be aware that material strength "fatigue endurance limits" are based on number of cycles at some specified maximum loading (psi), usually as some small percentage of ultimate tensile/compressive strength of the material. 
When these limits are exceeded the material is quite prone to catastrophic fatigue failure.

An example: The classic sailboaters endurance limit for 300 series stainless steel (rigging) is for a maximum 1 million load cycles not to exceed a load limit of 30,000 psi for a material that has an ultimate tensile limit of 90,000 psi. This includes latent stresses caused by load impact, etc. Such is consistent with 'rule of thumb' guestimate insurance records of catastrophic rig embrittlement failure after ONE circumnavigation (24k miles), ... excluding corrosion failure. 90,000/30,000 = factor of safety = 3 (although 'some' 300 series stainless steels have a (ductile) yield value around 30,000 psi).

The 'coastal design' without modifications, has a high probability of catastrophic rig FAILURE after sailing only 2/3rds of a circumnavigation ... average. Its Rigging is not as 'robust' as it's built to safety factor of approx. TWO. Meaning 90,000 ÷ 2 = 45,000 psi > 30,000 endurance limit (is exceeded). ... and then deduct for additional corrosion failure timing on top. 
Fiberglass (behaves in the exact same manner, different numbers and different endurance limits). JeffH posted a link to the USNavy source for such fiberglass fatigue documentation a few years ago - cycle time dependent in excess of defined applied stress endurance limits.

Same limit regime applies to the major structural components of railroad carriages, aircraft, long distance trucks, cranes, gantries, ships, etc. ... exceed the service limit as set by scantling history / endurance limit of the critical stressed components = high probability of fatigue failure, etc. .... and the aircraft loses a wing, the suspension/steering on your auto breaks off, your crane collapses, the bridge collapses, your boat comes apart, etc. etc. etc.

ALL structural materials, subject to repetitive/cyclical stress have published/tested fatigue endurance limits, including historical structural/stress anomalies to be avoided, etc. ALL materials subject to cyclical stress above their defined endurance limit become tired - fatigued. The way to avoid fatigue is to build 'stronger' (heavier cross sections, etc.) so the peak psi loading is less than the endurance limit and is not exceeded even if the cycle clock is exceeded. If such an endurance limit is never exceeded its quite possible to have infinite service life. 
The average is that a coastal design at factor of safety = 2 will only make it 2/3rd of a circumnavigation ... and then have a high probability to have a major structural component catastrophically fail. Thats why coastal boats are well 'beefed' up for BIG voyages, and not 'just' the rigging.

This endurance limit stuff applies to ships, cranes, aircraft, boats, diving boards, skiis, automotive frames and axles, etc. etc. etc. etc. ... anything that 'moves' and has applied cyclic/repetitive stress ... and the clock.

So, both of your contrarian arguments ... simply dont 'hold water'. (pun _intended_). 
Capta should know what happens when an ocean going ship exceeds its 'total functional' fatigue endurance limit ..... they take that 'long' ship, cut the fatigued section from the middle section and make that long ship into a 'short' ship and let her voyage for a just a 'few' more years.  ;-)


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

When the BWC can explain away Mark's incredible, continued success across the earth's oceans in his "production boat" Bene I'll listen. That boat and her skipper seem to be holding up just fine.

Until then, blah, blah, blah....


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

Rich- spot on. Love to read the naval data on grp. Where do I find the link. Google was unhelpful. Still if scantlings are robust enough suspect in well designed grp service life is multiple decades. Far as I know there are bridges architectural structures, farm equipment etc. where the "scantlings are so robust and maintenance so good they remain functional a century later. Friend has steam powered equipment in his fields and folks drive over the Brooklyn bridge. 
One of the big advantages of buying a new boat is you know how many miles are under the keel, how many gales/storms, groundings etc. My boat is only two years old. The bail that holds the vang to the boom failed. Stress crack across the part that inserts into the groove in the boom.The pop rivets the prevent the bails from sliding in that groove popped out. Spoke with wichard-sparcraft. They are sending replacements. Stand up behavior. Gentleman said he loves hearing about Outbounds. Thinks they are a good test of his company's stuff as they are actually sailed. Most coastal boats have few miles on them and are rarely highly stress loaded.
Testing grounds are racers. They test the limits of extreme loading. And cruisers. They put multiple load cycles on their boats. If they are me they put inadvertent loading on boat bits as well.
There is a middle ground. It's reality. Rich sounds like a engineer dealing with reality.


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

I cant seem to locate the USN original paper that JeffH referenced; but, here's an abbreviated and probably updated continuation from the USNA that includes a lot of composite dynamic structural fatigue discussions/observations/ (flexural) testing methods, etc.

http://www.usna.edu/Users/naome/phmiller/J-24fatigue/fnlJ24report.pdf

.... and you can follow further to your exact interests in following up on the listed footnotes, references, etc.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

Why is it a given that structural stress limits have to be exceeded on a blue water crossing? They might be, but is the rig certain to experience stress beyond it's stress limits, if properly reefed?

I completely understand the differences here between coastal and open water rigs. Our boat is closer to a coastal boat than a BWC, but I'm not convinced she is ill suited to a well managed crossing. Naturally, I know several that go back and forth RI to BVI annually.

When one boat is built at 2X and another at 3X, the 3X wins. But how would you know what limit your boat was built to and are they really that bright a line? Can one be 2.5 or 2.75, whatever.


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



smackdaddy said:


> When the BWC can explain away Mark's incredible, continued success across the earth's oceans in his "production boat" Bene I'll listen... .


He's an Aussie.

I'm guessing huge stones and lot's of beer has something to do with it.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

What I don't understand about these discussions is why we can't have both? My boat is both solid, strong (a la RichH's sensible comments) AND it is comfortable at anchor and as a liveaboard. Both are important.


----------



## NCC320 (Dec 23, 2008)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

RichH,

You have stated safety factors in boat design as coastal at 2, blue water/ offshore at 3. That's rather specific. I understand the concept that most production/coastal boats are built lighter than some other boats, which while more expensive, would be stronger/more heavily built. Where exactly do you get those numbers? I suspect each builder/designer uses a slightly different number and that they would not be sharing this information outside their company.

Ref: Post 37 Calculations

For 300 Series Stainless Steel (rigging), Ultimate Tensile Limit is stated as 90,000 psi, Yield Limit is stated as 30,000 psi
Safety Factor is selected as 2
Fatigue Endurance Limit is stated as 1 million cycles not to exceed 30,000 psi loading

Since you are designing rigging that you don't want to permanently deform (stretch), Yield Limit needs to be used in strength and sizing calculations or 30,000 psi, not the ultimate tensile limit of 90,000 psi. You have selected a Safety Factor of 2, so that when applied, you would use 15,000 psi as the basis for sizing rigging to handle the load. Since you have designed based on yield limit of 30,000 psi, you will not exceed the Fatigue Endurance Limit loading limit of 30,000 psi. and your rigging will not fail with the Safety Factor of 2. The safety factor covers you in case the actual loading experienced in use exceeds what you have calculated. And certainly, a Safety Factor of 3 is better than 2 from perspective of will it fail?

If fatigue loading limit was different from yield limit, you use the smaller of the two limits, then apply the safety factor of 2.


----------



## aa3jy (Jul 23, 2006)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

Maybe adhering, though controversial, to Lloyds standards to boat building maybe a basis for comparing apples to apples..


----------



## jerryrlitton (Oct 14, 2002)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

Look guys, I think we all know that the most important factor in crossing oceans is the skipper and the crew. Hands down, the same in aviation however we are not talking about the skipper and the crew. Now let's talk about the boat. Some are seriously better suited than others. There is structural integrity, (Rich addressed this) features you find on a dedicated ocean crossing boat such as beefed up chain plates and rigging, the ability to go hand to hand via well placed hand holds and very strong furniture, larger and multiple fuel and water tanks, maybe a bit narrower hull design so you don't get bounced around as much while below when it gets rough, a good turn of speed to minimize crossing times, multiple sail configurations available, well placed cleats, maybe a bit higher stanchions, not to mention the level of comfort of the design. Etc,etc. yes I can fly around the world in a C172 or a helicopter however both will be modified to accomplish this and I will be seriously picking weather windows and fuel stop. And the comfort level would suck. Same with some of the "production" boats&#8230;and that's ok too.

Chuck Yeager said that it is the pilot, not the aircraft that win air battles and I agree. However some aircraft are better than others. I am no Yeager nor Moitessier. That's why I chose my present boat. I know I will muck it up more than once and I want a boat that will be the most forgiving with my short comings.

However one of the main reasons I chose the Islander is it looks far better than then Benehuntalinas. Better row away factor.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

Some don't understand that the BW "discussion" really has very little to do with boats!


----------



## capecodda (Oct 6, 2009)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

The OP's question is would I rather go in a big under-built boat, or a small over-built boat on an trans-ocean passage.

I'll take none of the above.

I've got an overbuilt 38 but I'm not going transatlantic...it's too small for comfort. Besides, it's hard to hang the grill in force 10 conditions, or at least hard to keep it lit.

I want big boat comfort and overbuilt safety or I ain't going:wink Come to think about it, I'm probably not going period, I'm a coastal cruiser who doesn't mind a couple of nights out there in settled conditions doing watches to get someplace nice.

I know there are some true offshore people reading and writing about this and I always enjoy learning from their experience. But for most of us, who cares:laugh


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



chall03 said:


> He's an Aussie.
> 
> I'm guessing huge stones and lot's of beer has something to do with it.


It is a formidable recipe.


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



NCC320 said:


> RichH,
> 
> You have stated safety factors in boat design as coastal at 2, blue water/ offshore at 3. That's rather specific. I understand the concept that most production/coastal boats are built lighter than some other boats, which while more expensive, would be stronger/more heavily built. Where exactly do you get those numbers? I suspect each builder/designer uses a slightly different number and that they would not be sharing this information outside their company.







Such is universal standard engineering practice since the time of the ancient Babylonians where the 'Code of Hammurabi' inflicted the death penalty on architects whose designs collapsed and killed someone. When actual practice and failure forensics prove otherwise, then you have specifics 'codes'.

*Generalized* Rule of Thumb for 'factors of safety':
SF=2 for normal non-rigorous usage
SF=3 for Critical usage
SF=4 for hazardous usage
SF=4/5 for for 'lethal' usage 
These General/approximate 'Rules of Thumb' for safety factors which are driven chiefly by insurance underwriting or lawsuits/litigation .... unless one makes/builds one or more item, and then rigorously destroys and analyzes for complete (as possible) evaluation during the destruction to prove (in court or for insurance purposes) that such an object will in future perform to the level expected - including normal 'contingencies' and as best as possible. Such rule of thumb safety factors are generally applied to accommodate for 'unforseen and unpredicted' events (usually 'historical' based) that can adversely affect such structure. 'unforseen' - would include hidden errors of material weakness, errors, etc. in the execution of the construction, errors in overloading. Inotherwords there should always be some 'cushion of safety' when something is used in a situation where there is any possibility of an 'overload'.
What should never happen in the real world is for someone to have a (say) 900 pound actual load, and then only build a support structure that can only handle 900 pounds. 
Building codes and pressure vessel and nuclear codes, SAE codes, CE codes, etc. etc. are VERY close in specifics to these generalized SF (rule of thumb) numbers, .... unless the forensics of past failure dictate and require otherwise and appear in place in 'the code'.

This Safety Factor 'stuff' is clearly unlike 'the law' or 'politics' where everything is always 100% correct 100% of the time. 
.... or when some 'consumer' desires to take a 'flimsy' sailboat on a circumnavigation.

;-)


----------



## NCC320 (Dec 23, 2008)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



RichH said:


> Factor of safety - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Such is universal standard engineering practice since the time of the ancient Babylonians where the 'Code of Hammurabi' inflicted the death penalty on architects whose designs collapsed and killed someone. When actual practice and failure forensics prove otherwise, then you have specifics 'codes'.
> 
> ...


Actually, I didn't ask the definition of safety factor, but rather on what basis you declare some boats use 2 and others use 3, the difference being production vs. blue water rated. I think you are applying numbers that you are pulling out of the air. Which manufacturer uses what?

Also,

Ref: Post 37 Calculations

For 300 Series Stainless Steel (rigging), Ultimate Tensile Limit is stated as 90,000 psi, Yield Limit is stated as 30,000 psi
Safety Factor is selected as 2
Fatigue Endurance Limit is stated as 1 million cycles not to exceed 30,000 psi loading

Since you are designing rigging that you don't want to permanently deform (stretch), Yield Limit needs to be used in strength and sizing calculations or 30,000 psi, not the ultimate tensile limit of 90,000 psi. You have selected a Safety Factor of 2, so that when applied, you would use 15,000 psi as the basis for sizing rigging to handle the load. Since you have designed based on yield limit of 30,000 psi, you will not exceed the Fatigue Endurance Limit loading limit of 30,000 psi. and your rigging will not fail with the Safety Factor of 2. The safety factor covers you in case the actual loading experienced in use exceeds what you have calculated. And certainly, a Safety Factor of 3 is better than 2 from perspective of will it fail?

If fatigue loading limit was different from yield limit, you use the smaller of the two limits, then apply the safety factor of 2.


----------



## aloof (Dec 21, 2014)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

So a safety factor is really just the designers admitting they have no idea what the real loads are.

In reality, out here away from the dangerously overloaded loaded armchairs, there are all kinds of boats. Many of which would never meet the armchair qualifications of Blue Water. Boats that could not get here without blue water passages of thousands of miles. Boats that have done far more miles that some desk jockey's estimate of miles before likely failure. Boats that are bringing great, and affordable, enjoyment to their sailors ... With reasonable risks.

One factor that is not taken into account in the dusty old scantlings and timber size rules us that today a navigator can plan and execute an extended voyage, or even around the world, with a reasonable expectation that all extreme weather can be avoided.


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



NCC320 said:


> Actually, I didn't ask the definition of safety factor, but rather on what basis you declare some boats use 2 and others use 3, the difference being production vs. blue water rated. I think you are applying numbers that you are pulling out of the air. Which manufacturer uses what?


OK, for those 'blue water' boats Ive owned, when I back-calculated those factors of what I SAW, I arrived at SF =3 to 4+. and then asked the designer what SF that he applied: "Target minimum SF 3; but, due to material selection of common geometry parts came out to ~4, and I was still unsure of the chainplates due that little 'kink' [stress riser] at the through-deck which resulted in SF 4+".

Perhaps you should be more critically specific in your questions. ;-)


----------



## NCC320 (Dec 23, 2008)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

Still don't know who uses SF of 2. Actually, various safety factors might be used on a given boat depending on the particular element being designed.

I submit that there is no definitive definition of coastal/production and blue water boats. Some are built better than others and some are more expensive. But this thread has strayed a bit from my original point. There is a point where, at least in my mind, one would choose a production boat vs a so called blue water boat depending on size and condition of the various vessels under discussion for offshore cruising.

And there is a lot of undeserved bad mouthing of the popular production boats. Even, very experienced sailors can be a bit biased. I still think that 57 foot Beneteau was impressive.
I'd love to have one.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

Thanks for the link to the naval paper. Although it's quite long with a fair amount of math and discussion of an old boat ( j 24) it's still an eye opener. I think even glancing at it would change the tenor of many prior posts. It is worth a look.
The folks who run the sdr have gone back and forth snow birding eleven times on a bene. Some of those passages were not pleasant. Indicting production boats is silly. Indicting production boats made for coastal use is not when they are are declared to be appropriate for long term voyaging.
What's missing from this and many conversations about production boats is what specific production boat. You can talk about Mercedes. They make sport cars, trucks, vans and the $150k g wagon. Very different vehicles for very different purposes. Boats are no different. Different boats aimed at different end users.


----------



## Hush34 (Dec 12, 2013)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

The original post was Blue Water vs. Production Boat. Sure lost the point. Simplified for the slow to understand. Which would you prefer to cross the Pacific in a Hunter 40 or a Pacific Seacraft 40 same vintage. If you say the Hunter 40...god bless your pea sized brain.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



Hush34 said:


> The original post was Blue Water vs. Production Boat. Sure lost the point. Simplified for the slow to understand. Which would you prefer to cross the Pacific in a Hunter 40 or a Pacific Seacraft 40 same vintage. If you say the Hunter 40...god bless your pee sized brain.


Good lord, man, it's "pea sized". Get your insults squared away.

I've done a bit of offshore sailing/racing on a PSC 37. That's me at the helm on a 600 mile offshore race and return delivery...










And on a nice beam reach in 15 knots out in the Gulf...










They're fine boats. No question.

But, I _bought_ a Hunter 40 of roughly the same vintage. And I wouldn't mind at all taking her across the Pacific (though I'd add a watermaker and a beefier battery bank - to either boat actually - before doing it).

So, I've sailed both, and in terms of _actually sailing them _I just don't see that much difference - well, except mine's more comfortable...and faster. That's why I bought her when I could have bought something else. That - and my Hunter was WAY more affordable.

So - nothing at all against the PS. Great boats, obviously. But not _all_ that.


----------



## NCC320 (Dec 23, 2008)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



Hush34 said:


> The original post was Blue Water vs. Production Boat. Sure lost the point. Simplified for the slow to understand. Which would you prefer to cross the Pacific in a Hunter 40 or a Pacific Seacraft 40 same vintage. If you say the Hunter 40...god bless your pee sized brain.


Maybe it's you with the pee sized brain.....read all the posts. It was never Hunter 40 vs. Pacific Seacraft 40. It was a small, old "blue water" Alberg 30-35 vs a like new well equipped production Beneteau 57.


----------



## HR28sailor (Feb 11, 2010)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

I have found this post to be very informative with the discourse on design elements particularly intriguing and certainly worthy of discussion. But one question which I was hoping would have come up but hasn't is with regards to handling characteristics of production boats in thick weather. We can have our boats laden with all manner of technology, with expert weather routers threading our way around the nasty stuff, but sometimes no matter how careful we are, mother nature has other plans.

So here is the question; now facing a gale, how well does a modern production boat heave to? Do you have to deploy a large drogue, mess with lines to get it balanced doing all this work on deck while being lashed by the gale, or with a full keel old boat, back the storm jib, reef the main right down and sheet the main, lash the tiller over. All done from the safety of the cockpit in minutes.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

Drogues rock. And they're hardly ever needed.


----------



## Hush34 (Dec 12, 2013)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

Thanks for checking my spelling....guess I shouldn't rush to post. Hunters are nice coastal cruisers, just wouldn't want to be 1000 miles from no where in one.


----------



## SimonV (Jul 6, 2006)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



Hush34 said:


> Thanks for checking my spelling....guess I shouldn't rush to post. Hunters are nice coastal cruisers, just wouldn't want to be 1000 miles from no where in one.


Why not?


----------



## SimonV (Jul 6, 2006)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



HR28sailor said:


> So here is the question; now facing a gale, how well does a modern production boat heave to? Do you have to deploy a large drogue, mess with lines to get it balanced doing all this work on deck while being lashed by the gale, or with a full keel old boat, back the storm jib, reef the main right down and sheet the main, lash the tiller over. All done from the safety of the **** pit in minutes.


I would expect most to reduce sail for the conditions and continue.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

Heaving too is one of many tactics. Please read and become familiar with current heavy weather tactics. Although Allard Coles book is truly a classic and even now very much worth reading multiple accounts, studies and reviews suggest 
Full keel boats do no better and often worse in heavy weather. 
Going to bare poles with no other intervention may not be best tactic for many boats.
For most boats order should be:
Carry appropriate sail plan and reduce sail. My boat will sail without stress on the AP in 30-40 true. This is true for many, many fin/bulb designs. The full keel being more "sea worthy" is a fallacy.
If tired fore reach or hove too. This tactic is limited. For most boats once sustained winds are over 50 t sustained risk of broach, pooping or being overwhelmed are too high.
Deploy jsd or similar device.
I leave the raft in its locker and the jsd in the lazerette when coastal. When off shore the raft goes under the helm seat and the jsd is easily accessible by opening the hatch to the work room where it's placed on top with ending chain and weight.
I leave the collego stay down and storm jib stowed when coastal. They are pre rigged for passage.
They say " the wind don't kill you- it's the waves". If your boat isn't built and prepped appropriately stay in port. Here there is no question size matters. Taking a multi below ~ 45' out on passage is just foolish imho. Taking a mono out without a true storm sail plan available is the same. I see simple sloops with just a roller furling genny available. I wish them luck.
Bye- genset oil change.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

Smack
Before getting my hands dirty. I owned a psc 34' for a few years just before the Outbound. Bought it to make sure the wife would be ok with the "life" before dropping the kids inheritance on our last boat and to teach her to sail.
On that boat going south made the turn past Gloucester. Got hit by a series of pop up t storms. With her at the wheel went to third reef and two turns on the staysail. All from the cockpit. Bore off to 50-60 degrees. Had gusts to mid fifties. Cold so made tea. No sweat. No OMG from the bride. Great boat. 
Look at that boat or the 37' or 40'. Look at the scantlings. Read the link to the naval report posted above. Then look at current Hunters. The psc are built to repetitively deal with off shore conditions. Many production boats are not.
BTW- I've owned several double enders - the psc and Bob's Tayana. I've done passages on V 40. Great offshore boats but time has shown the double ended characteristic does not add seaworthiness but does dramatically decrease usable space.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



Hush34 said:


> Thanks for checking my spelling....guess I shouldn't rush to post. Hunters are nice coastal cruisers, just wouldn't want to be 1000 miles from no where in one.


Then you definitely shouldn't be...especially since you're wrong about what most Hunters are.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



outbound said:


> Smack
> Before getting my hands dirty. I owned a psc 34' for a few years just before the Outbound. Bought it to make sure the wife would be ok with the "life" before dropping the kids inheritance on our last boat and to teach her to sail.
> On that boat going south made the turn past Gloucester. Got hit by a series of pop up t storms. With her at the wheel went to third reef and two turns on the staysail. All from the cockpit. Bore off to 50-60 degrees. Had gusts to mid fifties. Cold so made tea. No sweat. No OMG from the bride. Great boat.
> Look at that boat or the 37' or 40'. Look at the scantlings. Read the link to the naval report posted above. Then look at current Hunters. The psc are built to repetitively deal with off shore conditions. Many production boats are not.
> BTW- I've owned several double enders - the psc and Bob's Tayana. I've done passages on V 40. Great offshore boats but time has shown the double ended characteristic does not add seaworthiness but does dramatically decrease usable space.


Like I said out, I have absolutely nothing against PS boats. They are great boats. I understand how they are built - and, like I said, I sailed one pretty hard and pretty long. And I bought a Hunter.

So I'm not taking anything away from anything. I'm just satisfied with my boat.


----------



## seaner97 (May 15, 2011)

smackdaddy said:


> outbound said:
> 
> 
> > Smack
> ...


And you should be. Hunters are nice boats if you like the aesthetics of them. As are Benes and Jennes. That doesn't make them the equal of an offshore design.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



seaner97 said:


> And you should be. Hunters are nice boats if you like the aesthetics of them. As are Benes and Jennes. That doesn't make them the equal of an offshore design.


Okay - split those hairs if it makes you feel better. But those boats are currently doing quite well offshore...all over the world...by design.


----------



## seaner97 (May 15, 2011)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



smackdaddy said:


> Okay - split those hairs if it makes you feel better. But those boats are currently doing quite well offshore...all over the world...by design.


Really? By design? I've got my boat stored all winter at a place where the guy is a Hunter dealer. I've never seen them advertised as designed for bluewater or as a go anywhere. Unless you get one of their designers on record as meeting the scantlings for offshore, I think that statement is false. Doesn't mean it can't be done, but they ARE NOT designed for it. Just like mine wasn't.

Anecdotally, a different Hunter dealer told me if he had the choice between a 15 year old Hunter and a 40year old Pearson/Bristol/Columbia he'd go with the older one if well found.

Listen, I'm glad you like your boat, and they CAN go places, but that doesn't mean they are designed for it.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

Other people always seem to know more about all of a "production" brand boat's entire line in order to make sweeping brand comments than an real owner of a specific model.

But then 70+% of SN members are owners of a 30+ year old boat, you know the boats that were built back in the day when builders knew how :laugh


----------



## seaner97 (May 15, 2011)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



aloof said:


> So a safety factor is really just the designers admitting they have no idea what the real loads are.
> 
> In reality, out here away from the dangerously overloaded loaded armchairs, there are all kinds of boats. Many of which would never meet the armchair qualifications of Blue Water. Boats that could not get here without blue water passages of thousands of miles. Boats that have done far more miles that some desk jockey's estimate of miles before likely failure. Boats that are bringing great, and affordable, enjoyment to their sailors ... With reasonable risks.
> 
> One factor that is not taken into account in the dusty old scantlings and timber size rules us that today a navigator can plan and execute an extended voyage, or even around the world, with a reasonable expectation that all extreme weather can be avoided.


Certainly worked well for PRODIGAL:wink


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



seaner97 said:


> Really? By design? I've got my boat stored all winter at a place where the guy is a Hunter dealer. I've never seen them advertised as designed for bluewater or as a go anywhere. Unless you get one of their designers on record as meeting the scantlings for offshore, I think that statement is false. Doesn't mean it can't be done, but they ARE NOT designed for it. Just like mine wasn't.
> 
> Anecdotally, a different Hunter dealer told me if he had the choice between a 15 year old Hunter and a 40year old Pearson/Bristol/Columbia he'd go with the older one if well found.
> 
> Listen, I'm glad you like your boat, and they CAN go places, but that doesn't mean they are designed for it.


We've been over this _ad infinitum_ in my production boats threads. The larger Hunters, as well as the other production boats you list, are indeed designed and built for bluewater (CE Cat A).

Now this doesn't mean they are designed for YOU to take them out there - we all have our own criteria for what we want personally in a boat - but that personal preference doesn't change the fact that they _are_ designed and built for that exact use.


----------



## seaner97 (May 15, 2011)

Well, I must have somehow missed that factoid in the thousand pages of those threads. I will admit that I've not actively looked at anything over 37, and most of the people that have boats up here in that range either have the more economical good old boats or have the wherewithal (and good sense) to buy a Morris or a Hinkley.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



smackdaddy said:


> We've been over this _ad infinitum_ in my production boats threads. The larger Hunters, as well as the other production boats you list, are indeed designed and built for bluewater (CE Cat A).


As is so often the case, our own Jeff H puts things in their proper perspective...





Jeff_H said:


> It is a complicated question as to whether the CE 'A' Open Ocean standard means a boat is blue water capable. To understand the CE Directive for Pleasure Craft (The text of which can be found Maritime industries - Enterprise and Industry ), you need to understand its purpose. When the EU was organizing as a essentially a trade free zone, there was a need to develop uniform standards that would replace the standards that were then in place in each of the individual member countries. In the case of standards for pleasure craft, there were huge variations between contries that had very stringent requirements to countries that voluntary standards to countries with no standards at all.
> 
> The process of developing standards started out quite scientifically. Some of the research papers that came out of the preliminary research was really ground breaking. But ultimately the developement of the standards was very political. Since each of the signatory countries had to agree with the standards, the standards had to be a compromise from the most stringent and most tollerant standards used by the member countries. France in particular was very concerned about having standards that were so stringent that it damaged its boat building industry.
> 
> ...


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



seaner97 said:


> Well, I must have somehow missed that factoid in the thousand pages of those threads. I will admit that I've not actively looked at anything over 37, and most of the people that have boats up here in that range either have the more economical good old boats or have the wherewithal (and good sense) to buy a Morris or a Hinkley.


yeah, but are those Maine-built boats fitted with those "vaunted" CE-compliant brass seacocks with a 5 year warranty?


----------



## seaner97 (May 15, 2011)

I'll look real close the next time one flies by me! In all seriousness, I doubt there's anything on them that isn't bronze where it could be.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



JonEisberg said:


> As is so often the case, our own Jeff H puts things in their proper perspective...


Exactly - it's a standard that the industry agrees to. And these boats meet it. It's really not that complicated.

Paulo does a great job of explaining it in my wildly popular production boats thread on CF.


----------



## seaner97 (May 15, 2011)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

I'm sure someone's said this before, but I think you should change your tag to Last Man Talking


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



NCC320 said:


> As I admired the Beneteau. I could envision an Alberg 30 (or similar "Blue water" boat) tying up ahead of this beautiful, large 57 foot Beneteau, and the two owners/captains meeting,
> 
> So, for discussion purposes on this thread, which of these two boats would you sign on as a crew member for a transatlantic voyage.,


Just to get back to the topic; I would go on the 57' Bene!!!! I wouldn't sign up to sail on a 2 day coastal cruise on a Alberg 30 type POS (yes I think those old boats like that are just POS boats).


----------



## aloof (Dec 21, 2014)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

However, on the other hand, the crew on the Alberg 30 will be way more fun, more interesting, than that of the Beneteau. By far. Burning Man or Rotary Club, take your pick...


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



aloof said:


> However, on the other hand, the crew on the Alberg 30 will be way more fun, more interesting, than that of the Beneteau. By far. Burning Man or Rotary Club, take your pick...


Are they also better looking, more educated, richer, and better read? :laugh


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



aloof said:


> However, on the other hand, the crew on the Alberg 30 will be way more fun, more interesting, than that of the Beneteau. By far. Burning Man or Rotary Club, take your pick...


Have we on Sailnet actually come to the point where we are judging people by the type of boat they are sailing?
I sincerely hope this post was in jest.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

What's a rotary club?


----------



## seaner97 (May 15, 2011)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



smackdaddy said:


> What's a rotary club?


Isn't it that thing that you use to keep someone from stealing your car?
:wink


----------



## aloof (Dec 21, 2014)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

Maybe that post was a little harsh....in characterizing Rotary Club members as possibly not being much fun on a boat.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

Na- a bunch of yachties with pink pants with whale decals in a mini van headed to Myrtle.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

They are good people doing good work.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

Smack feeling ornery. Will modify OPs choice. The four of us ( you, me and our loves) are going to do the clock. I sail down to meet you. I take my boat or my friend Eds V40 ( last one built), or another friends Swan 46, or we ask Steve for a PSC 40 or 44 or we take the HR 43 in my yard or a Cambria etc.
Or we take your Hunter.
Which one does your lovely take?
Note- they are all production boats. 
Note one was not conceived to do that trip. Rest were.
Posit the question another way. We ask Bob to employ state of the technology. Arimid/epoxy, cf stick and rudder post, autoclaving, vacuum bagging. Whatever. Money no object.just give us the fastest, strongest, safest boat feasible. Or we take my boat. 
Now my boat can definitely do the trip. Between my sisterships and with my negligible contribution there are probably over 1m nm under Outbound keels in blue water transits.
Still I'd take what Bob comes up with.


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

I'd pass on both of you guys...


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



outbound said:


> Smack feeling ornery. Will modify OPs choice. The four of us ( you, me and our loves) are going to do the clock. I sail down to meet you. I take my boat or my friend Eds V40 ( last one built), or another friends Swan 46, or we ask Steve for a PSC 40 or 44 or we take the HR 43 in my yard or a Cambria etc.
> Or we take your Hunter.
> Which one does your lovely take?
> Note- they are all production boats.
> ...


I have two little lovelies: my sons. And we'd take whatever Bob comes up with as well - in a heartbeat. Alas, that's not in my budget. So we're going with the Hunter. See you out there.


----------



## Hush34 (Dec 12, 2013)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

I have been on Hunters in storms near shore, not a good feeling. Their hulls are not stiff enough for my taste....they are also not very comfortable in any kind of seaway....just personal preference...Despite my preference they are all over the world. Just not my choice.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

Yup- I'd take the one off as well but it's out of my budget. Would have no cruising kitty. Still you sidestepped the issue. Think if you were fully honest in the reply you would admit you would take the Outbound (etc.) in the first example. 
You would also concede there is a trade off - risk v. design and therefore expense. And another age v. integrity. And another size v. seaworthiness. And so forth. 
Where you personally draw the line on each of these depends on resources, experience, and how risk adverse you are. But to deny their existence is like denying evolution. Yes an abstract theory but quite evidently true.


----------



## Pamlicotraveler (Aug 13, 2006)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

What a tired subject. Sail a boat that is comfortable for you and safe. If that's a lightweight boat that gets there fast, but bobs, weaves, and bounces on the open seas, then go with it. If a kindly sea motion is important go with something heavier.


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



outbound said:


> Yup- I'd take the one off as well but it's out of my budget. Would have no cruising kitty. Still you sidestepped the issue. Think if you were fully honest in the reply you would admit you would take the Outbound (etc.) in the first example.
> You would also concede there is a trade off - risk v. design and therefore expense. And another age v. integrity. And another size v. seaworthiness. And so forth.
> Where you personally draw the line on each of these depends on resources, experience, and how risk adverse you are. But to deny their existence is like denying evolution. Yes an abstract theory but quite evidently true.


Does your Outbound have an icemaker? :smile


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

No
We have yet to put in the watermaker. Leaning toward a Cape Horn Extreme. Try to keep boat "belt and suspenders ". Want a boat that's safe, sail able , and pleasant even after all the gizmos break. Exception at present is the A.P. No back up. Debating between Monitor or Hydrovane. Leaning toward the Hydrovane. That way easy to use swim ladder and get extra emergency rudder. 
No ice maker but have two refrigeration units with pull out divide between them. That way either fails pull out divide and no impact when on passage. Friend on sistership built his with ice maker, big genset, and three A.C. units.
I only use ice for the single malt. And then only one ice cube in order to get just the right amount of water in it.:laugh


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

P- now a days there seems to be much less correlation between weight and ride. Your right that light boats need to be kept light to perform and their ride may deteriorate markly when over loaded. But it's no longer considered true that heavy boats are more comfortable in a seaway. It is true bigger boats generally ride better. So given they usually weigh more in that regard your statement has merit.
Jeff could offer an explanation why this is. I hope he does so we all can learn.


----------



## Cruiser2B (Jan 6, 2011)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



Don0190 said:


> Just to get back to the topic; I would go on the 57' Bene!!!! I wouldn't sign up to sail on a 2 day coastal cruise on a Alberg 30 type POS (yes I think those old boats like that are just POS boats).


This is a topic, as we know, that is debatable and quite frankly no one opinion is correct. These threads provide some enjoyment and good reading. At one time the Alberg 30 and many like it were "production" boats. At the time these boats were produced they were very nice boats and fast for their day. They were never built to be "blue water" boats, but by design(mostly hull design) like all Alberg designs they make for a seakindly and safe passage boat. These boats have stood the test of time. 30-50 yrs later many are still providing safe passage and great sailing. So as you can tell I do not agree with your opinion. I think it is based on ignorance

You have your opinion and I respect that but I feel obligated to defend the Alberg and boat like it. I think these older boats have their place and very good boats when maintained. Lets face it if they were POS boats would there be such a following and would they still be here??????

Alberg 30 and designs like it can be found in excellent shape and these boats may not out sail todays productions units, lets face it technology has helped speed up sailing vessels. Some things I would bet on with the Alberg that you cannot guarantee with the Bene, 1. On the Alberg design and ones like it, the keel will ALWAYS stay with the boat. 2. 99% chance so will the attached rudder. 2 very important items in seaworthiness and ocean crossings. In your opinion this maybe a POS design, IDK.

I think these older boats are still great boats, sure some have seen better days and some maybe better off being used for scrap. But there are many more with a lot of potential. They are affordable and with some elbow grease will provide many more years of service.

The Bene and newer production boats are mansions compared to the older units. They are definitely nicer, brighter and have many more modern conveniences than older production boat. And while some people like that many may not see that as a necessity on an offshore passage.

I hope your Hunter is around in 30-50yrs. Time will tell. If I had to buy a new "production boat, Id shoot for a Rustler 36, Full keel and attached rudder and It'll be every bit as nice as a Hunter but with features that make it seaworthy. If money were no object I buy one of Bob Perrys new full Keel units......but the reality is if I ever did upgrade to a larger boat it would be a Westsail 32, I am sure another POS to you.

I'd pick the boat that has proven time and time again to be safe 1000's of miles from land


----------



## Brent Swain (Jan 16, 2012)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

As I dont like to worry about bumping into containers , whales and debris on a dark ,foggy ,moonless night , I would go for a properly built, backyard steel boat , with an outboard rudder hung on a skeg, so I could have a trimtab style windvane, which I didnt have to worry about breaking. 
Full length keels are not a good idea on a steel boat anyway. You end up with a space in the back of them which is impossible to maintain, and inacessible , but useless for carrying any weight.They dont neccessarily track any better than a well balanced long fin keel and skeg hung rudder, but put a lot of weight in the stern, where you need it least. A steel skeg can be easily built to eliminate any fear of it breaking, and can also serve as a keel cooler for the engine, eliminating salt water intakes , heat exchangers, and so many potential engine problems. A steel hull with stainless thru hulls and ball valves, totally eliminates thru hull problems and worries. She would be simple and practical, with little except electronics ,which I couldn't repair myself, anywhere in the world , with tools and materials I have on board.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



Cruiser2B said:


> You have your opinion and I respect that but I feel obligated to defend the Alberg and boat like it. I think these older boats have their place and very good boats when maintained. Lets face it if they were POS boats would there be such a following and would they still be here??????


They have a following because they are listed in OLD books written when they were OLD boats. That makes them good boats for people who like to read old books and use 30 year design arguments to convince themselves that in today's market they are anything other than POS boats, no matter how good they have been maintained.

BTW - I just looked at the 5 Alberg 30s listed on Yachtworld. If you really desire to go long term cruising on one I feel you are fool, but it doesn't really matter to me if do it.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

Here's what $17K will buy you in the way of an Alberg 30 on YW:



















Or $15K on SBL...










Or this one for $12.5K that's actually looks very well taken care of...










They are "cheap".

However, I certainly don't see much in the way of these being "better bluewater boats" than a modern production boat. And I certainly wouldn't buy one for cruising. Never.

But if a person feels that it's a better fit for them - whatever. Buy it and go sailing.


----------



## ccriders (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

An Alberg 30 has about the same useable space as a Catalina 27. Just enough for a weekend. For two. The either/or choice is just foolishly trying to force a moot point.
John


----------



## Cruiser2B (Jan 6, 2011)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



ccriders said:


> An Alberg 30 has about the same useable space as a Catalina 27. Just enough for a weekend. For two. The either/or choice is just foolishly trying to force a moot point.
> John


What point is that? That you do or don't need every modern convenience to voyage. I admit the Alberg 30 is small compared to boats produced today. That however doesnt make it a POS nor does it make it not suitable for cruising. It may not be suitable for you but for many owners of Albergs and designs like her have traveled across every ocean for 30-40 years now...seems like a proven offshore voyaging design to me.

Smack-You are correct, they are cheap and even a bargain depending on how you are looking at it. After my refit I will have a boat capable to taking me anywhere, maybe without every modern convenience but a few. I will have about 30k invested minus the sweat equity of the refit, but I enjoy it for the most part. I believe a new Catalina 31 is about 150k starting at price.....I dont think a Cataina 31 would be a better offshore vessel, even it is was or equal too Im 120k more into that vessel. At that point Id be stuck paying for it. So yes price surely has alot to do with. 
i wish I could afford a new Bob Perry full keel carbon fiber boat....but at 750k a pop before being fitted out I have a few more pennies to save

Don0190- A fool.....hmmm maybe, I am after all chatting with you on an internet forum. I will say this... many before me have chosen such POS boats and safely returned. This is the path that I am taking. My alberg 30 appeal to me unlike some of the newer designs but that is strictly a visual thing. These POS have hull designs that are proven through out history to provide safe offshore passage, granted slow passage. I have read books that suggest older designs and have described what designs work and what don't. Even though I already have the boat I still continue to read about design of yachts. Currently reading _Desirable and Undesirable Characteristics of Offshore Yacht_ from 1987. Good read, lots of eye opening stuff in there about design. You should read chapters 3-4(hull design). Research started after FASNET race of 1979. These chapters described the results of research and made me feel pretty good about my chosen boat, Alberg 30....Yes this book is somewhat dated but what the sea can dish out hasn't changed in thousands of years, if ever.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



Cruiser2B said:


> This is the path that I am taking. My alberg 30 appeal to me unlike some of the newer designs but that is strictly a visual thing. These POS have hull designs that are proven through out history to provide safe offshore passage, granted slow passage.


well go forth and cross an ocean on your "though out history" boat, I'm sure it will meet the needs stated in your 1987 book!


----------



## Cruiser2B (Jan 6, 2011)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



Don0190 said:


> well go forth and cross an ocean on your "though out history" boat, I'm sure it will meet the needs stated in your 1987 book!


Don0190- Do you know the book? And thank you, Thats what I plan to do..Ill wave to you from my POS as you go zooming by.

A word of caution..... tie a string to that keel on that highly regarded Hunter...you never know what might happen out there:wink


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



Cruiser2B said:


> Smack-You are correct, they are cheap and even a bargain depending on how you are looking at it. After my refit I will have a boat capable to taking me anywhere, maybe without every modern convenience but a few. I will have about 30k invested minus the sweat equity of the refit, but I enjoy it for the most part. I believe a new Catalina 31 is about 150k starting at price.....I dont think a Cataina 31 would be a better offshore vessel, even it is was or equal too Im 120k more into that vessel. At that point Id be stuck paying for it. So yes price surely has alot to do with.
> i wish I could afford a new Bob Perry full keel carbon fiber boat....but at 750k a pop before being fitted out I have a few more pennies to save


I bought my _fully_ equipped Hunter 40 for right at $42K. Since then, I've done some big things like all new standing rigging, new motor mounts, as well as added solar, AIS and iMux, some engine work, etc. - adding another $17K or so.





































So it doesn't have to be an old Alberg vs. a brand new Catalina. There's a WORLD of boats in between that are fantastic values...and that require very little elbow grease to start cruising offshore.


----------



## Scotty C-M (Aug 14, 2013)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

Alberg 30, Catalina 310. Neithor is a POS. Both have advantages and disadvantages. In my opinion, the POS name calling really gets in the way of a meaningful conversation. When a boat falls into that catagory it's mostly because they are in poor condition.

Time honored or new design, very few boats are not production. Saying "blue water or production" is not even a proper comparison. For example, Tartan is a production boat - just go to their website and compare it to the Catalina website. Same corporate model. Now you may prefer Tartans, I happen to prefer Catalinas. Both reperesent production pros and cons. Which model also matters. Again, the Tartan 110, while a great boat, may not be my first choice for blue water, but wow, the 4000 sure looks like it could cross an ocean. To me, the Catalina 30 is a bit light for blue water (I owned one for about 10 years), but I'd go to Hawaii on my Catalina 400 . No problem.

Now it's true, here in Santa Cruz we have a tendency to prefer lighter boats. Fast is Fun (Santa Cruz Yachts, Bill Lee) has applications in blue water philosophies as well as racing. Modern design has a lot of improved knowledge in materials and manufacturing, but that tried and true traditional stuff has a lot going for it also. So make your choice and go, but don't trash the other guys choice just because it's different. Bottom line is that all boats are small when they are at sea. There is no such thing as a "completly safe" boat. Any boat out there is going to be a compromise of various financial, design and manufacturing perameters. Pay your money and take your chances.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



Scotty C-M said:


> Alberg 30, Catalina 310. Neithor is a POS. Both have advantages and disadvantages. In my opinion, the POS name calling really gets in the way of a meaningful conversation.


I agree - but you have to remember that production boats in general, and Hunters specifically, have been stupidly bashed at "POS boats" for a long time in the forums by BlueWaterChuckleheads. So you need to understand the context.

Personally, I'm with you, I won't call any boat a POS. I love boats of all kinds.


----------



## Cruiser2B (Jan 6, 2011)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



smackdaddy said:


> I bought my _fully_ equipped Hunter 40 for right at $42K. Since then, I've done some big things like all new standing rigging, new motor mounts, as well as added solar, AIS and iMux, some engine work, etc. - adding another $17K or so.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Smack- you are correct. This tread started with 2 boats so far apart on the scale they are not even close to comparable...... truth be told I would sail a hunter, catalina, bene...whatever if they looked a bit more traditional. I am visually drawn to traditional older looking vessels. I am a fan of full keels but would consider a boat with an encapsulated spade and a skeg hung rudder. 
I only jumped in this thread because Don0190 called older Albergs and such designs POS....While some may be most are not, and their designs are infact seaworthy that is fact not opinion. If I had $42k at the time of my purchase Id of bought a W32...again because these boats appeal to me and after watching youtube video of W32 Satori sailing during perfect storm, I was sold on that design.






hard to argue with its seaworthiness.

Like you I try not to bash anyones boat...I too love boats in general. opinion are like @ssholes everones got one and they usually stink. unfortunatly internet is a hard place to have a friendly argument. Back in the day friends and i used to go back and forth throwing jabs about ford and chevy all in good fun....around here people want their word taken as gospel and have no respect for what others do or have done.

there is a guy Roger Taylor, www.thesimplesailor.com, that has sailed all over the north atlantic in a 20ft boat......he recently upgraded to a 24ft boat.... after watching and reading about his simple approach to cruising I believe any boat well maintained with a good crew will go anywhere


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



Cruiser2B said:


> Smack- you are correct. This tread started with 2 boats so far apart on the scale they are not even close to comparable...... truth be told I would sail a hunter, catalina, bene...whatever if they looked a bit more traditional. I am visually drawn to traditional older looking vessels. I am a fan of full keels but would consider a boat with an encapsulated spade and a skeg hung rudder.
> I only jumped in this thread because Don0190 called older Albergs and such designs POS....While some may be most are not, and their designs are infact seaworthy that is fact not opinion. If I had $42k at the time of my purchase Id of bought a W32...again because these boats appeal to me and after watching youtube video of W32 Satori sailing during perfect storm, I was sold on that design.
> 
> 
> ...


Agreed. Any boat that take care of its crew in the Perfect Storm is a hell of a boat. No argument there.

She looks to be in good shape in that video. Amazing.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



Cruiser2B said:


> Don0190 said:
> 
> 
> > well go forth and cross an ocean on your "though out history" boat, I'm sure it will meet the needs stated in your 1987 book!
> ...


I'm guessing the answer to that would be a "No"... 

Here's a roundup of the of the collective sailing experience of the authors of that volume:

sum total of 850 years of sailing...

750,000 miles of offshore sailing...

ownership of 43 different cruising/racing sailboats...

147 Newport-Bermuda Races...

36 Transatlantics, 11 races to Hawaii...

5 of them - Olin & Rod Stephens, Jim McCurdy, Bill Shaw and Bill Lapworth, are widely respected yacht designers, and all of the rest have sat on the Technical Committee of the Cruising Club of America...

Only on an internet sailing forum, can someone without any bluewater sailing experience as far as I can tell, be so dismissive of such a collective body of knowledge and experience, simply because it was published a few decades ago...

But then again, perhaps there has been some seismic shift since 1987 in the nature of the Sea, and the Laws of Newtonian Physics, of which I remain blissfully ignorant...


----------



## seaner97 (May 15, 2011)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



Cruiser2B said:


> Smack- you are correct. This tread started with 2 boats so far apart on the scale they are not even close to comparable...... truth be told I would sail a hunter, catalina, bene...whatever if they looked a bit more traditional. I am visually drawn to traditional older looking vessels. I am a fan of full keels but would consider a boat with an encapsulated spade and a skeg hung rudder.
> I only jumped in this thread because Don0190 called older Albergs and such designs POS....While some may be most are not, and their designs are infact seaworthy that is fact not opinion. If I had $42k at the time of my purchase Id of bought a W32...again because these boats appeal to me and after watching youtube video of W32 Satori sailing during perfect storm, I was sold on that design.
> 
> 
> ...


Perry's Tayana will get you there as a "production" boat too. A bit pricier, but some 80s versions out there in Smack's ballpark. I agree it all comes down to what you like to sail in. Hunters are NOT POS.
This always reminds me of the old house/new house argument. New house- no maintenance, everything's done,etc... Old house- built to better standards, test of time, way more character, etc... I think the fact is that the old houses (and old boats) that are still around are the ones that work and work well. All the crappy old houses got torn down because they were crappy. Maybe not all the POS old boats have been scrapped, but the really good ones are the ones people are still using and love. The reverse is true for the new ones- maybe they will age just as well, but your new boat or starter castle might be the one that they didn't get right or skimped somewhere you don't know about. The benefit of boats is that they are somewhat easier to inspect for that stuff. It's all taste and risk/reward at some point.


----------



## okawbow (Feb 15, 2007)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

I get motion sick fairly easy. Most newer designs are not as motion friendly as older full keel boats. A comfortable boat in a seaway is very important to me. For that reason, and the fact that I have very little money; I choose a old, slow motion friendly design for blue water.

A few years ago, I paid $2000 for a Cheoy Lee 31 ketch. It has a motion comfort rating of about 35. It had steel and concrete for ballast, and therefore had a slow roll motion and not the snappy, jerky motion a deeper lead ballasted boat has. I never got sick once, in 3500 miles of cruising from Kentucky Lake, to Mobile, straight down , offshore to 
Key West, and then mostly offshore up the coast to Maine and partly back down. The old boat averaged over 100 miles a day offshore, (actually did 150 miles one day),and felt completely safe in conditions from light wind to 6 foot confused seas, and strong winds we shouldn't have been in according to weather forecasts.

Not saying that old boat is a better choice for cruising, although it had enough room for my wife and myself for the 4 months we cruised. But from a comfort at sea point; I'm sure it was better for me than any comparable newer design. Can't beat the price either!


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

For many years was enamored by Carl Alberg designs. Cape Dory was being built the next town over so quite a few in the area on the used market.Then first one I had came with an outboard in a well. That was difficult but moved up to a 25 that was well kept and then the CD that's looks real close to the Alberg 30 referenced above. It was a great boat. strong, secure and a stable predictable motion.


----------



## Cruiser2B (Jan 6, 2011)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



outbound said:


> For many years was enamored by Carl Alberg designs. Cape Dory was being built the next town over so quite a few in the area on the used market.Then first one I had came with an outboard in a well. That was difficult but moved up to a 25 that was well kept and then the CD that's looks real close to the Alberg 30 referenced above. It was a great boat. strong, secure and a stable predictable motion.


Cool, I grew up about 2 miles from O'Day factory. Was in Dighton last week...wish I could afford to live there now


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

What do think the glyphs on the Rock mean? Still a beautiful park.


----------



## ccriders (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



Cruiser2B said:


> What point is that? That you do or don't need every modern convenience to voyage. I admit the Alberg 30 is small compared to boats produced today. That however doesnt make it a POS nor does it make it not suitable for cruising. It may not be suitable for you but for many owners of Albergs and designs like her have traveled across every ocean for 30-40 years now...seems like a proven offshore voyaging design to me.


You missed my point. I like Alberg's designs, they just look right. But the OP wanted to force a choice between an Alberg 30 and a Beneteau fifty something for an ocean crossing. Now that comparison is moot for many reasons at least one of which is that no one would ever be making that choice. Choosing the Alberg 30 over the Beneteau would be driven primarily by economics, not seaworthiness. But having made that choice, you face the serious problem of limited space for supplies as well as crew. The analogy to the Caralina 27 was not intended to demean Albergs seaworthiness, but merely its capacity limitations. 
I once thought 28-30 feet was all one needed for voyaging and cruising. But then I was once young and it all seemed possible, like the couple with kids sailing off in a fortified Cal 25!
You have probably seen the You Tube videos of kids out in Albin Vegas, another small seaworthy design. But when they go looking for something they have to dig through a great heap of stuff to find it. Water and fuel are all consuming worries. A crew of two is pretty much max and a major crossing is measured in weeks. Go simple, go small, go now really ignores a lot of reality. I know it can be done, by skilled and lucky seamen.
John


----------



## jerryrlitton (Oct 14, 2002)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



smackdaddy said:


> I bought my _fully_ equipped Hunter 40 for right at $42K. Since then, I've done some big things like all new standing rigging, new motor mounts, as well as added solar, AIS and iMux, some engine work, etc. - adding another $17K or so.
> 
> So it doesn't have to be an old Alberg vs. a brand new Catalina. There's a WORLD of boats in between that are fantastic values...and that require very little elbow grease to start cruising offshore.


How does one spend 17k on a "fully equipped" boat?
Unless it was not "fully equipped" nor ready for serious cruising......


----------



## BentSailor (Nov 10, 2010)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



jerryrlitton said:


> How does one spend 17k on a "fully equipped" boat?
> Unless it was not "fully equipped" nor ready for serious cruising......


Depends on what you consider *fully* equipped. Definitely some folks around here that think one doesn't NEED everything one CAN have on a boat. I know my definition of "fully equipped" has far more stuff/detail attached than some of the older salts on the forum 

Also, at least a good chunk of that $17K sounds like it came from stuff Smack mentioned in his post:
Since then, I've done some big things like all *new* standing rigging, *new* motor mounts, as well as *added* solar, AIS and iMux, some engine *work*, etc. - adding another $17K or so.​Replacing the standing rigging & motor mounts adds up. As does adding incredibly useful, but not necessarily _essential_, things like solar, AIS, iMux, etc.

Personally, AIS & solar are things I would consider essential equipment for cruising, but it's not hard to find those that disagree. I think we'd all agree that iMux probably isn't though


----------



## seaner97 (May 15, 2011)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



BentSailor said:


> Depends on what you consider *fully* equipped. Definitely some folks around here that think one doesn't NEED everything one CAN have on a boat. I know my definition of "fully equipped" has far more stuff/detail attached than some of the older salts on the forum
> 
> Also, at least a good chunk of that $17K sounds like it came from stuff Smack mentioned in his post:
> Since then, I've done some big things like all *new* standing rigging, *new* motor mounts, as well as *added* solar, AIS and iMux, some engine *work*, etc. - adding another $17K or so.​Replacing the standing rigging & motor mounts adds up. As does adding incredibly useful, but not necessarily _essential_, things like solar, AIS, iMux, etc.
> ...


Thanks for making me look up iMux. Yeah- not essential for most, but essential is individual.
I think Smack probably put that money in her because he wanted to be sure, but I bet all the stuff he replaced inspected fine and wasn't felt to be past it's shelf life. Hell- I've had professional riggers look at my standing rigging twice now and both tell me I've got at least another 5 years (3 years apart) of coastal cruising, but you can find people that buy a boat with rigging that's 5 years old with unknown usage and they replace for peace of mind. Hard to argue that when you've got your family on board. It's one thing if you kill yourself...
And if you want (but don't need) the new bells and whistles (electronics) that stuff adds up.
That being said, I did a ton of long distance backpacking and a fair bit of kayak tripping where you have to pack light, and it amazes me the stuff that people on "modern" boats feel is "necessary". Used to see this all the time with some people that were carrying 30 extra pounds of "necessary" equipment on their backs. To each their own, but equipped correctly, I think you can go further on smaller than some people realize. Might not be your cup of tea, but it also isn't a POS boat as someone earlier intemperately suggested.


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

Depends on what you consider fully equipped. Definitely some folks around here that think one doesn't NEED everything one CAN have on a boat. I know my definition of "fully equipped" has far more stuff/detail attached than some of the older salts on the forum * Depends on what you consider fully equipped. Definitely some folks around here that think one doesn't NEED everything one CAN have on a boat. I know my definition of "fully equipped" has far more stuff/detail attached than some of the older salts on the forum *"

You "Brown Water" sailors always seem to need a bunch of stuff, Bent....


----------



## Scotty C-M (Aug 14, 2013)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

My problem isn't spending the 17K,. It's getting it!! :devil


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



JonEisberg said:


> But then again, perhaps there has been some seismic shift since 1987 in the nature of the Sea, and the Laws of Newtonian Physics, of which I remain blissfully ignorant...
> 
> 5 of them - Olin & Rod Stephens, Jim McCurdy, Bill Shaw and Bill Lapworth, ,,,,


Well certainly the nature of the sea and the Newtonian Physics did not change on the last 30 years as they have not changed since medieval ages and I would say that sailing boats are a lot more efficient now.

It is not the sea that had changed but the way the sailingboats are designed to sail better and more efficiently on the same old sea and some old physics and that evolution has never been as fast as on the last decades.

Sure those NA had done some great designs and contributed to the evolution of Yacht design but all of them have made those contributions several decades earlier than the late 80's. On the late 80's the ones that were making major contributions for the evolution of Yacht design where (among others) Farr, Reichel & Pugh, Finot, Marc Lombard, Racopeau, Humphreys, German Frers. They are still active today, or at least their cabinets.

Just to measure the evolution in design, even in what regards bluewater boats, you have just to look what they were designing on the 80's and what they are designing now.

These guys were the avant garde on the late 80's and if you compare contemporary sailboat design not with what they were doing on the late 80's but with the relevant work of the NA that you mentioned, that are mostly from the 60's and 70's, then that evolution is just huge: boats from another era that in what regards contemporary design have only a historic value.:wink


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

Still to many there is something just right about a twelve and a half, or a BCC, or a Justine or a V40 or a Peterson schooner.
They may be old designs but in their size they do just fine. Cruising isn't about just going fast. No argument with each passing year there are significant advances in design and materials but for some that's one of several factors that gives them joy from their boat. Some like brough superiors some like this years duc. All good.
Good to hear from you Paulo


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



outbound said:


> Still to many there is something just right about a twelve and a half, or a BCC, or a Justine or a V40 or a Peterson schooner.
> They may be old designs but in their size they do just fine. Cruising isn't about just going fast. No argument with each passing year there are significant advances in design and materials but for some that's one of several factors that gives them joy from their boat. Some like brough superiors some like this years duc. All good.
> Good to hear from you Paulo


Exactly...

One of the better chapters in DESIRABLE & UNDESIRABLE CHARACTERISTICS is the one regarding 'Ventilation'... One of the more notable changes I've seen between boats of that Bygone Era Pre-1987, and many of today's production boats, is how much consistently poorer the natural ventilation among the latter seems to be. Things like dorade vents, aft-opening hatches that can be left open when spray is flying, vertical portlights that can remain open in rain showers, are largely absent from many modern boats today... The most miserable offshore passage i've ever had was aboard a 50' late model state of the art 'Globe Girdler' which was hugely dependent upon an AC/climate control system for to make the boat habitable underway... After the generator began to have 'issues' 500 NM distant from Tortola, the final days of that trip were akin to being in a sauna...

The ergonomics of decks and cockpits are hugely important to me... Since 1987, side decks keep getting narrower, as the all-important balloon of interior volume is steadily inflated... Could be just me, but I do not see that sort of thing as a more Desirable Trend in Offshore Yacht Design...

Again, perhaps it's just me... So, which deck would you prefer to take a stroll forward on some dirty night in the Stream?

;-)


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

PAULO!!!!! HOW ARE YOU!!! It's really good to see you posting, irmão.

Jon - why are you "strolling" on the decks in the first place? That's dangerous dude. Clip in and stop being coy. And anyway, everyone knows that Hunter config is perfect for getting a snug fit for those jerry cans on *The Eisberg™*. Why mine's a little too wide...










Can you really not move about on that spacious cabin-top? You have no vision, sir.


----------



## Brent Swain (Jan 16, 2012)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



PCP said:


> Well certainly the nature of the sea and the Newtonian Physics did not change on the last 30 years as they have not changed since medieval ages and I would say that sailing boats are a lot more efficient now.
> 
> It is not the sea that had changed but the way the sailingboats are designed to sail better and more efficiently on the same old sea and some old physics and that evolution has never been as fast as on the last decades.
> 
> ...


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



Brent Swain said:


> ...the gullible.


Your bread and butter...and elk meat in oil.


----------



## Brent Swain (Jan 16, 2012)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



BentSailor said:


> Depends on what you consider *fully* equipped. Definitely some folks around here that think one doesn't NEED everything one CAN have on a boat. I know my definition of "fully equipped" has far more stuff/detail attached than some of the older salts on the forum
> 
> Also, at least a good chunk of that $17K sounds like it came from stuff Smack mentioned in his post:
> Since then, I've done some big things like all *new* standing rigging, *new* motor mounts, as well as *added* solar, AIS and iMux, some engine *work*, etc. - adding another $17K or so.​Replacing the standing rigging & motor mounts adds up. As does adding incredibly useful, but not necessarily _essential_, things like solar, AIS, iMux, etc.
> ...


I have rigged a 36 footer with $42 worth of unused galv wire, right of the reel. The galv turnbuckles I bought 30 years ago for $26 each cost me $21 each to replace last year. 
Big solar panles near here cost $150 ,less and more output than i was quoted a couple of years ago for $400.
My $100 handheld GPS gives me far more info than I was able to ever have in the 70s, when I first began crossing oceans.
Its' a good thing Smack is finally going cruising ,so he can finally acquire the expertise he has been so falsely claiming to have had for so many years. It will be a steep learning curve for him .

He says he is nervous? Shows he really doesn't have all that much confidence in the "expertise" he has been implying that he has.


----------



## Scotty C-M (Aug 14, 2013)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

All you guys who keep insulting each other are really boring. It also drops your credibility way, way, down. If you want to talk boats, fine. If you want to continue your pissing contest - just leave.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



JonEisberg said:


>


Jon, is this one a Hinckley Bermuda 40? Looks pretty much like the lady on the dock right next to me. An absolutely gorgeous traditional sailboat. I love to stare. However, while below deck space has ballooned, she's a good example of the opposite. For a 40ft boat, she only has a v-berth and a couple of singles in the salon. It's actually remarkable how little living space there is.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

Sailed a fair bunch on B40 and SW42. Great boats. Only draw back was like the swans of that generation you needed to wear your foulies even when it wasn't raining. 
Trade off great tracking and sea keeping v. three double berths like you see on current boats that size.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



smackdaddy said:


> PAULO!!!!! HOW ARE YOU!!! It's really good to see you posting, irmão.
> 
> Jon - why are you "strolling" on the decks in the first place? That's dangerous dude. Clip in and stop being coy.


Well, anytime you head offshore, you never know when you might be compelled forward to attend to something, when conditions are far less than ideal for doing so, and when you'd least like to have to leave the cockpit...

Like, when it becomes necessary to re-secure 200+ pounds of fluids stowed in jerry cans after their lashings to the lifelines have begun to loosen up, for instance...





smackdaddy said:


> And anyway, everyone knows that Hunter config is perfect for getting a snug fit for those jerry cans on *The Eisberg™*. Why mine's a little too wide...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I see nothing at all wrong with the ergonomics of your deck... The height of the bridgedeck/companionway would be a deal-breaker for me, but that's purely a personal preference... It's certainly a desirable feature for offshore as regards reducing the risk of downflooding, that's for sure 

But it seems you've missed my point... According to some around here, your boat is "OLD", having been built _WAY BACK_ in 1989... However, to repeat the point made in Post #104, _"I'm sure it meets the needs outlined in that (ancient/outdated) 1987 book..."_

;-)


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



JonEisberg said:


> The ergonomics of decks and cockpits are hugely important to me... Since 1987, side decks keep getting narrower, as the all-important balloon of interior volume is steadily inflated... Could be just me, but I do not see that sort of thing as a more Desirable Trend in Offshore Yacht Design...


I with you Jon. Wide side decks were one of the make-or-break factors I wanted when we went shopping for our current boat.

My previous boat was ahead of it's time in this regard. Despite being an 1974 ketch, her side decks were barely passable going forward, and completely ridiculous going aft. Although she sure had a lot of space down below (Grampian 34).

To me, a wide and stable side deck, a foredeck with plenty of space for anchoring, and a cabin-top I can easily step up to and work on at the mast, are all critical factors. Even when there's nothing much going on I love strolling around the boat while she's underway. It's great to be able to walk down our decks without having to wiggle past rigging, duck or squeeze by the cabin, or swing your butt out around the shrouds.

Smack, your deck looks fine, although I see you have the same approach to varnishing as I :wink.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



Minnewaska said:


> Jon, is this one a Hinckley Bermuda 40? Looks pretty much like the lady on the dock right next to me. An absolutely gorgeous traditional sailboat. I love to stare. However, while below deck space has ballooned, she's a good example of the opposite. For a 40ft boat, she only has a v-berth and a couple of singles in the salon. It's actually remarkable how little living space there is.


No, it's a Sou'wester 51, I believe... I chose that shot simply to compare the width of the side decks with the newer boat of comparable size...

Agree completely about a boat like the B-40, it's amazing how tight she is below compared to today's boats of equivalent size. Beautiful boats of very high quality, but would not be my personal choice for cruising, but there's no denying those decks sure are nice to move about...

The book referenced is titled DESIRABLE AND UNDESIRABLE CHARACTERISTICS OF OFFSHORE YACHTS... it is the view of the authors of that volume, and one that I share, is that safe, wider and uncluttered decks are a desirable feature on a boat to be sailed offshore. No reason why a suitable balance cannot be struck between the need for safety on deck and in the cockpit, and the desire for accommodation space below... For those that believe that interior volume trumps safety topside in a cruising boat that might be taken offshore from time to time, well, there's certainly no shortage of choices available 

I simply think that the modern trend towards designing boats from the inside/out, and decks and cockpits being configured around the interiors, have resulted in some unhappy compromises... And to my eye, those absurdly narrow side decks relative to her size on the Hunter 49 I pictured are just one example... I'm just not seeing how that design is an 'improvement' in that respect over Smack's 1989 Hunter, simply by virtue of being newer...

Other than having more Curbside Appeal at the boat shows, of course...


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

Smackers,

Is that a powerboat'ish type of fender holder?

You will need to get rid of that ;-)


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



smackdaddy said:


> PAULO!!!!! HOW ARE YOU!!! It's really good to see you posting, irmão.
> 
> ...


Thanks Smack.

The right word in Portugal to mean what you want to express with Irmão is "compadre" or "camarada" anyway a nice try:grin. On Brazil, where they speack Portuguese too, "meu irmão" would be perfectly alright for that meaning.:nerd


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



JonEisberg said:


> ..I simply think that the modern trend towards designing boats from the inside/out, and decks and cockpits being configured around the interiors, have resulted in some unhappy compromises... And to my eye, those absurdly narrow side decks relative to her size on the Hunter 49 I pictured are just one example... I'm just not seeing how that design is an 'improvement' in that respect over Smack's 1989 Hunter, simply by virtue of being newer...
> 
> Other than having more Curbside Appeal at the boat shows, of course....


I don't understand the point of this thread: Bluewater boats versus production boats????? are not the boats posted here as bluewater boats old production boats????

The thread It is not about bluewater boats (that I as generally in generally in Europe prefer to denominate as voyage boats)?

There are lots of voyage production boats being offered on the market and certainly you are not talking about them when you talk about the tendency to design them from the inside to the outside?

Those boats (designed inside to the outside) correspond to the design criteria of a big part of the market to whom a very comfortable interior is one of the main requirements. Those are entitled to have their choices satisfied that makes all sense on boats that stay most of the time on anchorages enjoying live and that don't properly voyage just make small hops between anchorages.

Since this thread is about bluewater boats (voyage boats) the subject should be old production designed voyage boats versus contemporary voyage boats.

Regarding that you will see that a guy like Cornell that has circumnavigated 3 or 4 times on all different types of boats (old ones too) and is circumnavigating again, chose for this circumnavigation a contemporary designed voyage boat and not an old designed boat. His previous boat was already a contemporary one on at the time.

You have also certainly heard on this forum Steve that had cruising extensively on an old voyage boat (one of the best old ones for many) talking about the huge advantages of a contemporary voyage boat (that he owns now) over his old designed voyage or bluewater boat.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

My boat was shown at Newport and Annapolis. Although I tried to stay off her during show hours sometimes went back to get a snack or drop off boat bits I bought. Didn't identify myself as owner unless asked to do so by broker.
It was interesting listening and watching. The folks who just came to look went straight down the companion way. The potential buyers walked around the boat from the dock, then walked around the deck, then sat in various places in the cockpit then went below. Once below asked to see engine and mechanical systems then asked to lie in the berths. All stood in the galley and leaned against various things to brace themselves.
Interesting to hear people disparaging the boats absence of hull windows, three double berths, wasted space in a workroom. Even heard one lady complaint "all the d-mn closets and lockers need a latch or retainer undone before they would open. What a PIA". 
Yup smacks boat, in fact many boats of that era, make more sense once it gets bumpy.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

The mason and the boreal are very different creatures. Ones a grand old lady. The other the cutest thing just leaving the climbing wall. Don't think it's fair comparison. 
Stevens a great guy and he has an awesome boat. No question about it.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



JonEisberg said:


> Well, anytime you head offshore, you never know when you might be compelled forward to attend to something, when conditions are far less than ideal for doing so, and when you'd least like to have to leave the cockpit...
> 
> Like, when it becomes necessary to re-secure 200+ pounds of fluids stowed in jerry cans after their lashings to the lifelines have begun to loosen up, for instance...


Who would lash cans to the lifelines? That's stupid - especially when you've got _*The Eisberg™*_ like I have on my boat.

And no Jorgen - it's NOT powerboaty thank you very much...okay, maybe a little since we're powering a lot right now...hence the cans.



JonEisberg said:


> I see nothing at all wrong with the ergonomics of your deck... The height of the bridgedeck/companionway would be a deal-breaker for me, but that's purely a personal preference... It's certainly a desirable feature for offshore as regards reducing the risk of downflooding, that's for sure


That's actually one of things I really like about this boat. Sure, you give up a bit of convenience of being able to shuffle your slippers through a companionway that's flush with the cockpit sole - but I prefer something more set up for offshore sailing. And my hips are still good.



JonEisberg said:


> But it seems you've missed my point... According to some around here, your boat is "OLD", having been built _WAY BACK_ in 1989... However, to repeat the point made in Post #104, _"I'm sure it meets the needs outlined in that (ancient/outdated) 1987 book..."_
> 
> ;-)


I know MY boat is "old" - though not as ancient as that book. My point - as has always been my point for several hundred thousand views now across these various forums - is that the more modern production boats shouldn't be compared to boats highlighted in 1987. That's like saying this is the only haircut people should have...










Catch up with the times, man!


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



PCP said:


> Thanks Smack.
> 
> The right word in Portugal to mean what you want to express with Irmão is "compadre" or "camarada" anyway a nice try:grin. On Brazil, where they speack Portuguese too, "meu irmão" would be perfectly alright for that meaning.:nerd


Dammit! I hate it when I speak stupid.

Oh well. You know what I mean.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



outbound said:


> The mason and the boreal are very different creatures. Ones a grand old lady. The other the cutest thing just leaving the climbing wall. Don't think it's fair comparison.
> Stevens a great guy and he has an awesome boat. No question about it.


I agree it is not a fair comparison but that seems to be the point of this thread:

Both boats are of about the same size both are voyage boats but 30 years of design evolution separates both boats. Not fair indeed, the Boreal (that is a good design, like the Mason was in 1985) has to be a better boat.


----------



## vagabundoII (Jan 6, 2014)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*

After reading everyone's point. I think the conclusion is, there are horses for courses. And even then different people would do it differently in different places.

I like the Refrence to Adlard Coles's book. I have a first edition which is mainly about long keel boats, but there are updated ones versions. All relevant. I believe a well maintained, equipped, set up and sailed boat will do very well even if it is out of its design brief. I would still rather apply those rules to a boat that has been designed and scantled to do what is described as here as "blue water" for my use.

That formular works on any huge size range of boats. One of my friends sailed from the UK to the carribean and back double handed on his Sadler 25 and another solo on his wooden folk boat. Both had no trouble. On the other hand boats designed for that exact job like class 40's in the route du rhum lost keels. Size has its pros and cons aswell. some times it is better to be in a corked bottle.

I'm very happy on my long keel classic. I have everything I need on board. Rigged her so I know the condition everything and do routine checks. I'm sure others would hate it


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

*Re: Blue Water Boat vs. Production Boat - Which one will you book passage on?*



smackdaddy said:


> I know MY boat is "old" - though not as ancient as that book. My point - as has always been my point for several hundred thousand views now across these various forums - is that the more modern production boats shouldn't be compared to boats highlighted in 1987.


Well, one thing seems pretty apparent, that you've never read the book in question ;-)

If you had, you'd understand that the book's title is a very accurate description of its content, and that there is no particular emphasis or tendency to "endorse" the designs of the era in which it was written... For instance, this is from the closing summary on the chapter on "Steering Control":



> This overview of the problem of steering control has shown that this aspect of yacht design, like many others, involves several design compromises. *There are few "correct" solutions...*





smackdaddy said:


> Catch up with the times, man!


If that means having to flop over onto starboard tack in order to open the fridge, I think I'll pass, thank you...

;-)


----------

