# I was told that for safety offshore you need 45



## sailforlife (Sep 14, 2016)

I was told that for safety purposes you need at the least 45 feed of sailboat. How many of you agree with this statement?

:cut_out_animated_em


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

An idiot at the helm of a hundred foot boat is still an idiot and probably won't get very far, but a competent sailor at the helm of a 19 footer is still a competent sailor and he can go anywhere he damn well pleases in his 19 footer. He just won't be nearly as comfortable as he would be on a 35, 40 or larger boat. Check out the mini-transAtlantic racers.


----------



## WharfRat (Aug 4, 2015)

I certainly do not. Safety is much more a function of the skill and wisdom of the skipper and crew, and the matching of the boat's capabilities to the work to which it is put.

For example, look at this list of circumnavigators:

http://www.latitude38.com/features/circumnav.htm

and you'll see a great many -- possibly even most -- are under 45 feet.

Certainly the current trend in bluewater cruising is more in the 50+ range, but that's more about comfort than actual safety.


----------



## amwbox (Aug 22, 2015)

Not even remotely true. Long passages are routinely made in smaller boats. Not a new development. Guy in my marina has been to New Zealand and back twice in his 24 footer. 

What you really get in a larger boat is seakindliness, which is not the same as seaworthiness. A safe boat isn't necessarily a comfortable boat, whilst a comfortable boat isn't necessarily a safe one. A safe boat is one that is built, equipped, and maintained for the task it's set to, with crew that are experienced, equipped, and able to handle things going wrong. A bad sailor on a big boat is much more likely to have issues than a good sailor on a small boat.

I mean, look at Rimas...he's presumably still alive, right?


----------



## sailforlife (Sep 14, 2016)

capta said:


> An idiot at the helm of a hundred foot boat is still an idiot and probably won't get very far, but a competent sailor at the helm of a 19 footer is still a competent sailor and he can go anywhere he damn well pleases in his 19 footer. He just won't be nearly as comfortable as he would be on a 35, 40 or larger boat. Check out the mini-transAtlantic racers.


So if you are caught in some bad weather with 15 , 20 foot waves a 19 footer with the proper captain will be able to handle that? Had a friend that was stuck in a bad storm told me the waves towered over his 47 foot sailboat in the carribean. He was terrified the waves looked like 20 feet tall , he told me the bigger the boat the better. Told me anything under 40 is a dinghy in bad conditions.


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

sailforlife said:


> So if you are caught in some bad weather with 15 , 20 foot waves a 19 footer with the proper captain will be able to handle that?


There will become a point when your play here become apparent.
There are many people on this forum willing to help.
Go to Facebook for that stuff


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

I did 10s of thousands of miles in a 36' boat... It did very well... even in a full gale.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Absurd statement. A competently handled small boat can do the job.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I know my insurance company requires 40 LOA before they'll provide offshore coverage. Always look to the actuaries, if you're interested in the odds. That doesn't mean their answer is an absolute, but it's usually a well tested advantage.


----------



## sailforlife (Sep 14, 2016)

Minnewaska said:


> I know my insurance company requires 40 LOA before they'll provide offshore coverage. Always look to the actuaries, if you're interested in the odds. That doesn't mean their answer is an absolute, but it's usually a well tested advantage.


That says something for sure, if the insurance company won't insure you. Thank you for that good reply.

irateraft:


----------



## amwbox (Aug 22, 2015)

That's simply based on LOA, not construction quality or seaworthiness. You know...the important things. Sounds like the sort of arbitrary thing an insurance company would do. That way they don't have to try to sit there and judge seaworthiness on a case by case basis, instead simply issuing a blanket edict.

I mean...a Nor'Sea 27 and a Catalina 27 are obviously exactly the same thing.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

amwbox said:


> That's simply based on LOA, not construction quality or seaworthiness......


Yes, I'll take my neighbor's Cabo Rico 38 offshore over another neighbors Hunter 45 any day of the week.

But the averages remain.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Who told you this? Knowing this might illuminate what you're really asking.

The safest boat in terms of surviving what the seas can throw at us is one far from shoreline, on jackstands, tied into the ground. I think they call these houses .

Of course size matters. A 100' war ship is going to be safer than a 50' sailboat, which is safer than a 25' powerboat. That is, assuming you mean simple survivability in large waves. Obviously bigger is better (ignoring all other factors), so it's a never-ending regression.

There's been a lot of research into vessel stability. One consistent finding is that it only takes a relatively small wave to roll a boat: 30% too 60% of LOA according to this summary:

Dangerous waves and your boat - Ocean Navigator - Ocean Voyager 2011

Bigger is always better (ignoring other design characteristics). And it's always possible to conceive of bigger. So the real question is, what size is big enough for your risk level?

One guide is insurance, although given that they are businesses, their calculations are based on profit, not "safety."

Another guide to look at is the history of recreational boating. Cruising really began in the 1960s with the mass marketing of fibreglass boats. In the early days the BIG boats were low to mid-30s. From the late 1970s to the late 80s the BIG boats were upper 30s to low 40s. Into the 1990s and 2000s the size moved up to mid to upper 40s. Now the BIG boats are mid 50s to low 60s.

Through all this time recreational sailors have been cruising the oceans blue. Has size made it safer? Hard to say&#8230; I'm unaware of good historic safety data going back to the late 60s, but I do believe boating in general has become safer. How much of this is due to size increases, and how much to the many other factors involved (design, navigation technology, communications, SAR, etc&#8230 is likely impossible to tell.

What does correlate well is general affluence and the related demands for more "creature comforts." This explains the increase in boat size far better than any safety factors.

So where does that leave you? Well, we can say with certainty that today people routinely cross oceans with boats in the mid to upper 30-foot-lengths. Many sail offshore in low 30s, and a sizeable number of people travel the oceans in upper 20-footers. On the other size, I believe that most offshore recreational cruisers now have boats in the mid to upper 40s range, with 50s become more common.

Do more smaller boats go down to Davey Jones' Locker compared to their larger cousins? I've never seen that indicated in data, or indeed even suggested by anyone I've read.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Excellent post Mike.

I spent the day today packing supplies into 5L dry bags to prepare my Prindle 16 for an "offshore" voyage, which I consider to be a voyage that is more than inland, but less than Blue Water, basically a coastal voyage with no protection from the open ocean.

We have been planning for nearly 2 years, upgraded every system on the boat. Dehydrated bags of cooked dhal, calculated water requirements. Had custom made sails. Bought specialised equipment. Studied and studied our route.

There is so much that can go wrong, so much scary **** that can happen. But I generally trust my 16 foot boat.


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

Sir Francis Chichester theorized that it takes a wave that is at least as high as the boat's length to pitchpole a boat. Thus, he reasoned, if you planned to sail in the far southern latitudes, where wave heights frequently reach 60 feet, your boat should be about 60 feet long. The boat he had built for that task was Gipsy Moth V, a 57 footer.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

Minnewaska said:


> Yes, I'll take my neighbor's Cabo Rico 38 offshore over another neighbors Hunter 45 any day of the week.
> 
> But the averages remain.


From what a few insurance agents have told me, it's more about money than safety. 40+ footer will have high enough premiums to offset the risk, but a sub 40 footer won't. 
That's the main reason they won't insure older boats as well. It costs roughly the same to repair an older, less valuable boat with much lower premiums, as it does to repair a newer one with much higher premiums.
If you really think any insurance company cares about anything but the bottom line, then I've got this great bridge for sale. Cheap!


----------



## travis.taylor (Oct 2, 2017)

Sir Francis Chichester also wrote in the account of his circumnavigation, Gypsy Moth Circles the World, that he regretted having such a large vessel, saying that it was far too much work keeping her happy in the rough and highly variable conditions he encountered in the Southern Ocean...

A small, but stout and well sorted boat is the way to go in my opinion..


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

Sailormon6 said:


> Sir Francis Chichester theorized that it takes a wave that is at least as high as the boat's length to pitchpole a boat. Thus, he reasoned, if you planned to sail in the far southern latitudes, where wave heights frequently reach 60 feet, your boat should be about 60 feet long. The boat he had built for that task was Gipsy Moth V, a 57 footer.


Pitchpoling is much more a factor of the vessel's design than her length, IMO. If you read "Once is Enough" you will soon realize that Tzu Hang never had a chance, sailing before the wind in that weather. She was extremely narrow, easily burying her bow in even moderate seas.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

capta said:


> From what a few insurance agents have told me, it's more about money than safety. 40+ footer will have high enough premiums to offset the risk, but a sub 40 footer won't.
> That's the main reason they won't insure older boats as well. It costs roughly the same to repair an older, less valuable boat with much lower premiums, as it does to repair a newer one with much higher premiums.
> If you really think any insurance company cares about anything but the bottom line, then I've got this great bridge for sale. Cheap!


A big +1 on this one!

Seriously &#8230; there is more than enough data to answer this question about which is safer. If there were a clear safety negative to boats less than 40 feet, I can't imagine that it would not be widely known.

The main reasons boat size is bigger now than in the past has to do with affluence, and the continual transfer of what was once luxury, into necessity.


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

A smaller boat surfing down the face of a big wave generates tremendous speed. When it reaches the bottom of the wave, it can bury its bow under water, and the following wave causes it to trip over its own bow. A longer boat won't generate as much speed, and a boat with a broader bow will have more buoyancy in the bow, which will help the bow lift when it reaches the bottom of the wave, instead of burying its bow.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

Sailormon6 said:


> A smaller boat surfing down the face of a big wave generates tremendous speed. When it reaches the bottom of the wave, it can bury its bow under water, and the following wave causes it to trip over its own bow. A longer boat won't generate as much speed, and a boat with a broader bow will have more buoyancy in the bow, which will help the bow lift when it reaches the bottom of the wave, instead of burying its bow.


First, if you are surfing down the face of a big wave in a storm, you are doing it all wrong. Second, as soon as the white water hits the boat, *any* boat, it is going to lose it's buoyancy quickly, *very* quickly. At that point it won't matter how big your boat is if the wave throws the stern over the bow.
The first tactic of heavy weather sailing, IMO, is to heave to. If one must run, then, just like a surfer, one should move across the face of the wave until the white water overtakes the boat, then put your stern to the wave (at or near the bottom) and let the wave pass by the boat while moving almost not at all.
A lot of folks on small boats, from Tahiti ketches, Westsail 32's to even Suhaili have weathered great storms at sea without pitchpoling. Take a look at small boats designed for ocean crossings and you'll find few with narrow beams and pointy, un-buoyant bows.
On the other hand, a small boat's rig will be mostly sheltered from the wind at the bottom of a big wave when running under bare poles, but a bigger boat's won't, driving that boat on, much faster. If she's in the white water w/o buoyancy, she is in much greater danger of being pitchpoled, or even capsized, than a small boat moving slowly, or not at all.
There are no absolutes in that kind of weather, but seamanship and experience definitely trumps theory.
Personally, I've given up on drogues and sea anchors, preferring to drive my unfettered boat through a storm, if I can't or don't want to heave to.


----------



## Capt Len (Oct 9, 2011)

Back then the Spray's cod head mackerel tail concept was popular for a big fowing sea .A little reading of Miles Smeaton,(pitch poling) and Bernard Moitessier experiences (Throw away the drogue an giver 'hell) could give some useful education on really heavy weather. Interesting how Bernard change his methods half way around. I think this change had much to do with the ocean racing hull design that followed.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

capta said:


> If one must run, then, just like a surfer, one should move across the face of the wave until the white water overtakes the boat, then put your stern to the wave (at or near the bottom) and let the wave pass by the boat while moving almost not at all.


Capta, this is one of the best short narratives I have read on heavy weather tactics. Awesome. Write a book man, I would buy it.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

capta said:


> From what a few insurance agents have told me, it's more about money than safety. 40+ footer will have high enough premiums to offset the risk, but a sub 40 footer won't.
> That's the main reason they won't insure older boats as well. It costs roughly the same to repair an older, less valuable boat with much lower premiums, as it does to repair a newer one with much higher premiums.
> If you really think any insurance company cares about anything but the bottom line, then I've got this great bridge for sale. Cheap!


First, while insurance companies are definitely focused on profit, it's claims experience that drives profit, way more than premium. They play the averages, not absolutes.

I think your agent made up what they believe. First, my policy will not cover any damage to rigging on an offshore passage, for any reason. Perhaps what he/she sells does, otherwise, the issue is losing the boat altogether or liability to a passenger. Premium is definitely set by value, so a boat with 2x value will pay 2x premium and vice versa. Same math. In fact, the premium is paid by passage, in my case, and it's pretty low. No way they collect enough of this rider premium to pay for any loss, to any length boat. They're just trying to minimize loss claim. In fact, they would have to collect my premium from 1,000 boats cruising to Bermuda, in order to pay for just my loss. They're focused on avoiding the loss.

As to passengers, is there any chance they are less likely to be hurt on a bigger boat, or more likely to force an abandonment? I don't really know. Interesting thought though.

Finally, which vessel is more likely to press the easy button and abandon out of fear? A 30ft sailboat, whose gunnel is close and personal with the ocean, or a 60ft boat? I have no stats on this, clearly both have examples. But, it sure stands to reason, the small boat may be abandon first.

I think many people just hate insurance companies. I hate insurance companies. However, it doesn't cloud my perspective on them having loss risk models that are helpful to consider. Not absolute.


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

Capta, the point of my post was not to discuss heavy weather sailing techniques, because that isn't the subject of this thread, which is about boat size in relation to offshore sailing. My point was to explain a particular way in which big boats and small boats behave differently in heavy weather conditions. That's what this thread is about.

I haven't discussed my thinking with regard to heavy weather sailing techniques. I'll save that for a thread titled: "What are the best heavy weather sailing techniques?"


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

45 feet is just a totally arbitrary figure. Somebody just picked a number out of thin air. Dollars to donuts the guy who chose 45 feet as the minimum safe size had a 46 foot boat. He wanted to be part of a club that others were not. This is a common atitude amongst sailors. Its based on the size of boat he can afford rather than ability or features or intended waters or season.

Depending on ones experiences one could argue that you need a minimum 150 feet for safety offshore. On average boats will handle seas better as they increase in size. On average. But 45 feet is just a totally made up number.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Depends if mono or multi. Depends with mono how much of the GZ curve is from form stability. 28’ bcc routinely cross oceans and deal with storms let alone squalls but for a purely form stable platform that can’t deal with a knock down size matters. Both loa/lwl to prevent pitchpoling and beam to prevent capsize. 
Question is can the boat survive in a totally passive mode in extreme weather. Yes you may actively need to set the boat up (drogues,warps, parachute anchors sail changes or striking) but once done you can lie on the sole and puke out your intestines. 
Also risk of “tripping” matters. As bizarre as it sounds there’s evidence that centerboarders and lifting keels may be at less risk with traditional full keelers at more risk of a full roll when broached. Same with multis. Dagger board boats having not only better performance but better able to slide than the low aspect fixed keels seen on many cats.
Would point out my earlier comment in a different thread was referring only to Cats not monos. Personally have raced a 36’ tri to Bermuda. Felt quite safe. Would note that was a balls to the walls racer with extreme beam, very fine hulls and daggerboard. Owner had completed a solo trans Atlantic race as last race just before we left Newport. Definitely not a cruising boat. No head, no frig. No weight and optimize for one purpose only. Going fast.


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

Webb Chiles seem to be doing OK in his San Juan 24?


----------



## sailforlife (Sep 14, 2016)

jorgenl said:


> Webb Chiles seem to be doing OK in his San Juan 24?


I have been to San Juan Old City Beautiful place....

:2 boat::2 boat:


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

Sailormon6 said:


> Capta, the point of my post was not to discuss heavy weather sailing techniques, because that isn't the subject of this thread, which is about boat size in relation to offshore sailing. My point was to explain a particular way in which big boats and small boats behave differently in heavy weather conditions. That's what this thread is about.
> 
> I haven't discussed my thinking with regard to heavy weather sailing techniques. I'll save that for a thread titled: "What are the best heavy weather sailing techniques?"


Gee, I'm sorry. Perhaps when you post you should add guidelines that dictate the only responses you want to see. From your comments it seemed you haven't been there or done that on a big boat or small, so it seemed appropriate to bring up the fact that it's how the vessel is handled, not her characteristics or size, that will determine a successful outcome in those conditions. But OK, I get it, I shouldn't have posted my thoughts on your thread. I certainly won't make that mistake again.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Capta can you post for me. I’ve learned from you and like that to continue.


----------



## Hudsonian (Apr 3, 2008)

Friends have crossed the Atlantic six times in their Hood 38 centerboarder. They couldn't get insurance to go more than 150 miles offshore until they had logged several trips from the NY metro to Newfoundland. They're currently planning a sprint circumnavigation.

Webb Chiles is sailing a Moore 24, which Ron Moore, who co-designed and built the Moore 24, described the 2,050 lb. boat to me as "an elegant hot rod".


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

H that’s common for any boat. Even the insurance companies understand experience matters. Although I had done multiple Bermuda races and had decades of coastal cruising insurance required a captain for my first passage Newport-BVI. Then required two vetted crew plus myself for the next one. Then had no requirements other than I be on the boat. My passage rider has progressively fallen in cost inspite of no change in insured value.
Although insurance is a rip off they aren’t stupid.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

MikeOReilly said:


> Another guide to look at is the history of recreational boating. Cruising really began in the 1960s with the mass marketing of fibreglass boats. In the early days the BIG boats were low to mid-30s. From the late 1970s to the late 80s the BIG boats were upper 30s to low 40s. Into the 1990s and 2000s the size moved up to mid to upper 40s. Now the BIG boats are mid 50s to low 60s.
> ......
> 
> What does correlate well is general affluence and the related demands for more "creature comforts." This explains the increase in boat size far better than any safety factors.


Mike,

This is thought provoking. The "naval architecture" for longer LOA boats has been there for a long time.. but as you point out the market had not yet grown to that.

Do you think this was because sailors conception of sailing has changed from mostly a day use to a weekend use to a term use (cruising)? Obviously there are many day use sailors... racers... Sunday afternoon sails... My own observations confirms this. And there is a lot of week ending to a relatively nearby harbor... witness the transient mooring business which has been stood up.

If there initial demand was day use, racing and weekending... there was little need for the robust offshore capable designs... as well as the long LOA boats.

I suspect that with weekending... came the need for more comfortable accommodations. Sailors would even use their boats as week end homes...get close to nature... relax and or do some boat maintenance. But the capability to take your home with you to someplace 100 miles or more became a new meme. We seen size creep in houses as well to where McMansions are more the norm size wise in many markets rather than the exception.

++++

I did a lot of world travel before I began to sail by plane... Once I acquired the capability to "travel" by sea in my own boat... this became the platform for my travels. It's a lot more work that flying... and it limits destinations accessible to me. But long journeys... take lots of time and if one can have some of the comforts of home.... longer LOA... why not? But this is expensive and only makes sense if you travel and or if you have the funds to do it this way. So it becomes a compromise.

I often think how fortunate I was to be born in the era when this sort of travel was possible and relatively attainable.

How bout that!


----------



## Ajax_MD (Nov 24, 2009)

Sailormon6 said:


> A smaller boat surfing down the face of a big wave generates tremendous speed. When it reaches the bottom of the wave, it can bury its bow under water, and the following wave causes it to trip over its own bow. A longer boat won't generate as much speed, and a boat with a broader bow will have more buoyancy in the bow, which will help the bow lift when it reaches the bottom of the wave, instead of burying its bow.


That's what warps and drogues are for. Slow you down and keep things manageable.


----------



## Ajax_MD (Nov 24, 2009)

jorgenl said:


> Webb Chiles seem to be doing OK in his San Juan 24?


Moore 24. Very different boat, but your point is taken.


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

Ajax_MD said:


> Moore 24. Very different boat, but your point is taken.


Yes, sorry, I might nave gotten the boat mixed up with the other legend, Rimas? ;-)


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

outbound said:


> H that's common for any boat. Even the insurance companies understand experience matters. Although I had done multiple Bermuda races and had decades of coastal cruising insurance required a captain for my first passage Newport-BVI. Then required two vetted crew plus myself for the next one. Then had no requirements other than I be on the boat. My passage rider has progressively fallen in cost inspite of no change in insured value.
> Although insurance is a rip off they aren't stupid.


I find this really interesting. Over the years the insurance companies I've dealt with didn't seem to care at all whether I was inexperienced or licensed up the ying yang. I can't remember ever having to produce a ticket even when I was operating the big motor yachts, except when seeking charter insurance, and even then there was little interest in it other than it existed. 
I've never gotten the slightest discount because of my tickets, experience or record either, which seems radically unfair.


----------



## Slayer (Jul 28, 2006)

WharfRat said:


> I certainly do not. Safety is much more a function of the skill and wisdom of the skipper and crew, and the matching of the boat's capabilities to the work to which it is put.
> 
> For example, look at this list of circumnavigators:
> 
> ...


Can you repost this link; the one above is dead.


----------



## WharfRat (Aug 4, 2015)

Yeah weird they have put some sort of access control on it.

If you Google for "Latitude 38 Circumnavigators" then it will bring up a hashed URL like this one

Latitude 38 - West Coast Circumnavigators' List


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

Sailormon6 said:


> Capta, the point of my post was not to discuss heavy weather sailing techniques, because that isn't the subject of this thread, which is about boat size in relation to offshore sailing. My point was to explain a particular way in which big boats and small boats behave differently in heavy weather conditions. That's what this thread is about.
> 
> I haven't discussed my thinking with regard to heavy weather sailing techniques. I'll save that for a thread titled: "What are the best heavy weather sailing techniques?"


Actually on further inspection, *THIS ISN'T EVEN YOUR THREAD* so all I can and will say to you is unpublishable, if I don't want to get kicked off this forum!


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

SanderO said:


> ...Do you think this was because sailors conception of sailing has changed from mostly a day use to a weekend use to a term use (cruising)? Obviously there are many day use sailors... racers... Sunday afternoon sails... My own observations confirms this. And there is a lot of week ending to a relatively nearby harbor... witness the transient mooring business which has been stood up.
> 
> If there initial demand was day use, racing and weekending... there was little need for the robust offshore capable designs... as well as the long LOA boats.


Yes, interesting stuff Sander. All better discussed in a cockpit, over a beer (or two, or three&#8230. Hope we can do that someday.

So you're suggesting there are proportionally more boats travelling offshore, for longer durations, than in the past. I wish there was some hard data on this question, but I'd have to disagree.

My observation is that the vast, _vast_ majority of boats rarely spend more than a few days off the dock each year. Too many never leave at all. Most rarely go out for more than a few days at a time. Far fewer venture for weeks. And it is the rare boat that leaves the dock for months.

I bet, based on my own distorted view of the world , that there were proportionally* _more_ recreational boats travelling the oceans blue in the 1970s and early 80s compared to today. I bet today there is a higher proportion of recreational boats that only do day or weekend travel. Or worse, hardly ever leave the dock at all.

(*I say proportionally more. I believe there are more recreational boats today than in the past, so obviously the absolute numbers have gone up.)



SanderO said:


> I suspect that with weekending... came the need for more comfortable accommodations. Sailors would even use their boats as week end homes...get close to nature... relax and or do some boat maintenance. But the capability to take your home with you to someplace 100 miles or more became a new meme. We seen size creep in houses as well to where McMansions are more the norm size wise in many markets rather than the exception.


I think your McMansion observation supports my view that boat size has risen with affluence and the increased demand for more comforts. There is no needs-based reason for houses to have increased in size. In fact, family size has gone down over the last 40 years. But the reverse has happened with house size. The main reason is increasing affluence, and demand for more comforts and more stuff.

Houses are larger now b/c we can afford more (or are willing to take on more debt &#8230; which is a whole other discussion). So too with boats.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

capta said:


> I find this really interesting. Over the years the insurance companies I've dealt with didn't seem to care at all whether I was inexperienced or licensed up the ying yang. I can't remember ever having to produce a ticket even when I was operating the big motor yachts, except when seeking charter insurance, and even then there was little interest in it other than it existed.
> I've never gotten the slightest discount because of my tickets, experience or record either, which seems radically unfair.


This parallels my experience with insurance as well. I've never been asked about my certifications or experience. In fact, I brought it up with my broker a few years back. They said it made no difference what accreditations I had, or how long I'd been at the helm. All they cared about was the boat survey, and what coverage I wanted.

Last May I conducted an insurance survey with members here on SN and over at CF (and posted the results for all to have). It was interesting to see the range of rates people were paying, which underscores the advice to really shop around. I didn't ask about certification or experience discounts. Perhaps it is time to run the survey again.



WharfRat said:


> If you Google for "Latitude 38 Circumnavigators" then it will bring up a hashed URL like this one
> 
> Latitude 38 - West Coast Circumnavigators' List


Excellent source WR. Now, if someone would be willing to transfer the boat length data into a spreadsheet, we could easily come up with LOA medians and averages.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Mike,

For sure disposable income has grown and this will explain boat size creeping up. It will also explain more boats not being used... sitting in slips or on moorings...another observation. Some marinas have transient slips or use vacated slips for short term visitors (I assume with slip "owner's" permission)... but what I see is most marinas are largely full all the time in season and so it seems most of the boats never go anywhere.

You also need to factor in the improvement in navigation gear and systems... which makes going from here to there seem as simple as following a google map... turn right in 500'... The fabulous gear now is a safety feature and encourages some to sail further more frequently than in the past when perhaps people felt more experience was necessary to mitigate risk. This gear has added to the cost... but increased the range and "confidence" for sailors.

++++

As far as insurance goes... these claims seem to be settled by formulas or bargaining... unless the damage is huge. The insurance industry is shady in my opinion. And as there are no license requirements they also avoid this issue and it doesn't figure in their premium rates.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

WharfRat said:


> Yeah weird they have put some sort of access control on it.
> 
> If you Google for "Latitude 38 Circumnavigators" then it will bring up a hashed URL like this one
> 
> Latitude 38 - West Coast Circumnavigators' List


OK, so I'm a glutton for punishment&#8230; I went ahead and converted the text file into data. Involved some fancy importing, along with manual inputs, but I came up with a row of boat lengths.

The average length of west-coast circumnavigators is: 41.9 feet. 
The median is almost identical: 42 feet.

The list covers from the 1960s (and earlier in some cases) to the present. What would be really interesting is to generate a graph of _date_ vs _LOA_. I bet it would show an increase in size over time. (The file is too messed up to do this without hours of manual work).


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

SanderO said:


> For sure disposable income has grown and this will explain boat size creeping up. It will also explain more boats not being used... sitting in slips or on moorings...another observation. Some marinas have transient slips or use vacated slips for short term visitors (I assume with slip "owner's" permission)... but what I see is most marinas are largely full all the time in season and so it seems most of the boats never go anywhere.


Yup, I agree. My observation is that relatively few boats leave their home port for more than a few days each year, and most never go very far, or for long.

Another thing to consider is that, especially in the USA and (to a lesser extent) Canada, people are working longer, and taking less time off, compared to previous decades. This means most people can't go very far, or for very long.



SanderO said:


> You also need to factor in the improvement in navigation gear and systems... which makes going from here to there seem as simple as following a google map... turn right in 500'... The fabulous gear now is a safety feature and encourages some to sail further more frequently than in the past when perhaps people felt more experience was necessary to mitigate risk. This gear has added to the cost... but increased the range and "confidence" for sailors.


I agree. I think boating has become safer over the decades. But I suspect it has more to do with the things you mention here, and not so much about increasing boat size.


----------



## capecodda (Oct 6, 2009)

outbound said:


> Capta can you post for me. I've learned from you and like that to continue.


++++1 Me too


----------



## PhilCarlson (Dec 14, 2013)

Minnewaska said:


> I know my insurance company requires 40 LOA before they'll provide offshore coverage. Always look to the actuaries, if you're interested in the odds. That doesn't mean their answer is an absolute, but it's usually a well tested advantage.


... and Minnewaska for the win.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

The idea that boats have generally gotten bigger over the years caused me to think about this. 

Block Island’s Old Harbor was very approachable, when I was a kid. You could even expect to get a slip, with little notice. Today, it’s nearly impossible to find a spot to anchor in July or August, let alone secure a slip or mooring. Obviously, people are staying. This is true for many other anchorages I can recall.

So, are people staying because they already bought bigger boats that would allow it. Or, do people want bigger boats so they can overnight more comfortably. 

I’m going to throw some odds to the latter. A conscious decision to buy bigger, so the option to stay aboard longer is available. This could be driven by exponential increases in water front property costs. Perhaps, historically, one might have a beach house and a day sailer. Now, the boat serves as both.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> Block Island's Old Harbor was very approachable, when I was a kid. You could even expect to get a slip, with little notice. Today, it's nearly impossible to find a spot to anchor in July or August, let alone secure a slip or mooring. Obviously, people are staying. This is true for many other anchorages I can recall.


I don't know where Block Island is, but I suspect it is near a large urban area. Anchorages located close to crowded areas are become more crowded due to the sheer increase in the number of boats, but also (I suspect) b/c people don't go very far.



Minnewaska said:


> So, are people staying because they already bought bigger boats that would allow it. Or, do people want bigger boats so they can overnight more comfortably.
> 
> I'm going to throw some odds to the latter. A conscious decision to buy bigger, so the option to stay aboard longer is available. ...


The point is, what people define as "comfortable" is an ever-increasing standard. As I wrote, yesterday's BIG "comfortable" boats are today's smallish frugal ones. Humans haven't changed in their basic needs. What has changed is our _perceived_ need for more comforts.

Today's houses are far more comfortable than generations prior. Yesterday's luxury is today's necessity. It progresses this way as affluence grows, not through any hard reality of what is needed to be comfortable (beyond the basics, of course).

The current housing market is perhaps a case-in-point. For the first time in 50 years average house sizes are starting to decrease. The millennial generation is starting to reverse the trend of their parents, and grandparents, and are now demanding smaller homes. Why? Because this is the first generation that will be poorer than their parents. They can't afford the huge McMansions.

(This same financial trend explains the development of the so-called "sharing economy", which has little do to with sharing.)

BTW, I'm not saying comforts are bad, or that small and "sharing" is a negative. Perception is often reality. I'm just trying to understand the trends we see in the context of the OP's initial query.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Regardless of the size of Shiva... I get waterfront views for a tiny fraction of what it would cost of have a home on the water. AND I can enjoy many water front views...

How cool is that!


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

SanderO said:


> Mike,
> 
> For sure disposable income has grown and this will explain boat size creeping up. It will also explain more boats not being used... sitting in slips or on moorings...another observation. Some marinas have transient slips or use vacated slips for short term visitors (I assume with slip "owner's" permission)... but what I see is most marinas are largely full all the time in season and so it seems most of the boats never go anywhere..


IMO, the reason cruising boat size has gone up is because the axiom that "the biggest cruising boat one should have, is one you can sail alone" is now valid for much larger boats, since the introduction of roller furling gear. This means many of us never have to leave the cockpit to set/dowse sail, reef or trim. Add to that the improvements in autopilots and the reliability of vane gears and any fairly competent sailor can now cruise a pretty big boat.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

capta said:


> IMO, the reason cruising boat size has gone up is because the axiom that "the biggest cruising boat one should have, is one you can sail alone" is now valid for much larger boats, since the introduction of roller furling gear. This means many of us never have to leave the cockpit to set/dowse sail, reef or trim. Add to that the improvements in autopilots and the reliability of vane gears and any fairly competent sailor can now cruise a pretty big boat.


Could be &#8230; although I'm not sure that's a cause, or an effect. Most likely a bit of both.

Boats get bigger. This creates a challenge of how to managed them, which leads to better tech. Better tech allows small crews to more easily manage a vessel, which leads to increasing boat size. Round and round.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

I consider things like AP, roller furling, power assisted winch operation, windlass crew... even the sail flaking system which allows one person to douse a 450sf mainsail. All of these are standard gear on boats today and enable short handed sailing and longer distances one will venture from "home".


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Back in day went to the trouble of getting a captains license, doing my SAS. As I recall it didn’t lower my insurance but did lower my rider for ocean races on my own boats. Having that stuff plus being a doc and doing some wilderness CMEs also helped getting a ride as crew on boats I wanted to sail. 
Block is a simple 4h daysail even when entirely upwind from the top ( Barrington) of Naragansett bay and shorter for the rest of the bay. Hence it’s popularity. 
Many of have wives. Hence bigger boats. 
Go cruising. US citizens are rare compared to their population. French, brits and even Canadians seem much more adventurous and inclined to cruise distances. Look at the Ocean cruising club. Admittedly started in Britain but has been international for quite some time. Still most members are brits or members of their commonwealth. Or how the French are bananas about sailing. Although more expensive there many more 30 somethings sail. Or Sailty Dawgs. There the number of Canadians is impressive.
No Americans of my generation don’t like to be stressed now. There are times sailing is quite stressful. See hope as my kids are more adventurous. Back in my mentality at that age.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

outbound said:


> ....Block is a simple 4h daysail even when entirely upwind from the top ( Barrington) of Naragansett bay and shorter for the rest of the bay. Hence it's popularity.......


4 hrs, beating upwind from Barrington? That's optimistic. It's 36 nm, if you never have to tack.

Nevertheless, it's always been in the same place. What do you think is driving how many more boats are there than there were 30 years ago.

Do you remember when the Oar was just the inside bar and it had no glass in the windows (let alone a sushi bar)? Block has changed alot.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

SanderO said:


> I consider things like AP, roller furling, power assisted winch operation, windlass crew... even the sail flaking system which allows one person to douse a 450sf mainsail. All of these are standard gear on boats today and enable short handed sailing and longer distances one will venture from "home".


True. I don't need power winches, but I am beginning to look in envy at some of the in-mast roller main systems. If only I could afford that&#8230;


----------



## seabeau (Oct 5, 2014)

outbound said:


> Depends if mono or multi. Depends with mono how much of the GZ curve is from form stability. 28' bcc routinely cross oceans and deal with storms let alone squalls but for a purely form stable platform that can't deal with a knock down size matters. Both loa/lwl to prevent pitchpoling and beam to prevent capsize.
> Question is can the boat survive in a totally passive mode in extreme weather. Yes you may actively need to set the boat up (drogues,warps, parachute anchors sail changes or striking) but once done you can lie on the sole and puke out your intestines.
> Also risk of "tripping" matters. As bizarre as it sounds there's evidence that centerboarders and lifting keels may be at less risk with traditional full keelers at more risk of a full roll when broached. Same with multis. Dagger board boats having not only better performance but better able to slide than the low aspect fixed keels seen on many cats.
> Would point out my earlier comment in a different thread was referring only to Cats not monos. Personally have raced a 36' tri to Bermuda. Felt quite safe. Would note that was a balls to the walls racer with extreme beam, very fine hulls and daggerboard. Owner had completed a solo trans Atlantic race as last race just before we left Newport. Definitely not a cruising boat. No head, no frig. No weight and optimize for one purpose only. Going fast.


 Your "tripping" comment is just a slight stepping stone to the truth of the matter. Any sailing vessel with adjustable underwater appendages or none at all for that matter, are a great deal less susceptible to tripping in breaking seas than any fixed keel craft. Think about the physics involved or even an analogy to knee injuries in football, same actions, same reactions. . I've have experienced many times, my 18,000 ketch,with my centerboard fully retracted, the boat being driven 30 or more feet perpendicular to my original direction by breaking waves in the South Carolina and GA. sounds and inlets with absolutely no ill effects. I don't believe that any fixed keel craft could do this without being knocked down and rolled. The Presto 36, designed by the genus of Coral Gables FL., Ralph Middleton Munroe in 1884.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Lots of good stuff, I enjoyed reading through Wharfrats list. Quite a number of sub 30 foot boats, including engineless. Smallest on the list was a 21 foot yawl I think 5 total under 25 feet.

I am still curious what the OP meant by the term Offshore. I am of the opinion that offshore can be a much lower threshold than transoceanic or a circumnavigation. If you look at common usage of the term "offshore", you see references to offshore races wich are frequently coastal in nature, such as the Lake Ontario 300 and Chicago to Mac, the Fastnet Race (which takes place mostly within 100 miles of land). "Offshore" oil rigs are generally within 200 miles of shore, they have to be, oil is drilled on the continental shelf. "Offshore" sport fishing generally occurs with 30 miles or so of shore, again the fish like the shelf. The Royal Yachting Association considers an offshore skipper qualified to operate not more than 150 miles from shore. The controversial CE ratings even consider Offshore to be a lower threshold than "Ocean" its the title they give to their CE B rating mostly 27 ish to 32 ish feet.

So I am curious if the OP meant offshore to the carribean or the Dry Tortugas type of off shore. If so, the minimum boat size gets a lot smaller. I know a guy who took a Sea Pearl 21 to the Bahamas- no engine, stink pots regularly do the run, I know a guy who entered a Sandpiper 565 in the Lake Ontario 300. 

Tankage, shelter, fuel range, speed, weight of provisions all allow for much smaller boats within a couple hundred miles from shore vs the demands of a transoceanic voyage.


----------



## capttb (Dec 13, 2003)

Regardless of size, I don't worry about a boat sinking from under me in the middle of the ocean, all the real danger is near the edge.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Agree with you but teenagers are crossing oceans on sub 20’ boats. Hell folks row across a the Atlantic in stuff a few feet smaller. 
Going to leewards/windwards from New England/ chessie is a different kettle of fish at 7- 12 days than over night to the Bahamas. Going east to west across the pond is yet another jump up. Think off the continental shelf is offshore and that distance varies. Miami to Bahamas is near shore. But the whole thing is meaningless. I’d be more concerned going up the coast of Portugal and Atlantic France then doing a salty dawg Hampton to bvi. Think talking about good sea boats is more useful.
Or even outside helicopter range i.e. 200-400 m. Or self sufficient in significant weather. Dislike the bwb label as well for the same reason.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Maybe a bit of semantics, but most of the major sailing organisations would call New England to Carribean direct Ocean/Oceanic/Unlimited Voyage. Coast of France, Uk, Miami to Bahamas as Offshore.

RYA makes the offshore/ocean distinction, CE makes it, World Sailing makes it. World sailing defines Oceanic as any offshore race over 800 miles in length, while offshore is any race held in unprotected waters whether that be coastal or Ocean.


For me, I will call any voyage beyond sheltered waters offshore. Cape Breton to Newfoundland- Offshore, Miami to Bahamas- Offshore, a run down the East side of Vancouver Island- Coastal however a run down the West Coast of Vancouver Island- Offshore, run down the Coast of Florida or Georgia- offshore, unless within the barrier islands. New York to Bermuda- Offshore Ocean, or just plain Ocean.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Stand corrected Arcb. You’re right. Still think in many parts of the world when being within 50 -75$m of land you’re more likely to see miserable conditions that will stress you and the boat. Passive options are more limited due to the hard edges and increased traffic. Breaking waves are more likely. forecasting seems pretty good for 3 d and reasonable for 5 so further agree when coastal hopping you can wait it out and pick your window which is not an option mid ocean. But large cyclonic systems although increasing in severity and becoming less predictable are still predictable. You see the squalls on radar. Your weather router sends you to the correct side of the storm or prevents you from sailing into it. Last time going north we sat for 6 days waiting for a front from the Bahamas to Newfoundland to disperse. So other than microbursts, waterspouts and the like you can hunker down in advance. Wind against wave is miserable. The gyre gives you a washing machine at times in every ocean/shore combination. I’m not talking about crossing the stream but more local near shore conditions. Personally have never gotten across NJ without some unpleasantness.
In terms of the boat and crew focusing on the distinction between near shore, offshore and ocean leads to less helpful thinking and prep. How many people get into trouble thinking “ well I’m not crossing an ocean so it will be alright”.
In terms of size and construction believe the distinction between protected waters boats and good sea boats is very useful. Beyond that don’t see much utility.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

MikeOReilly said:


> True. I don't need power winches, but I am beginning to look in envy at some of the in-mast roller main systems. If only I could afford that&#8230;


I got a Milwaukee with a winch bit to raise my 440sf main. WOW what difference. In the past I could raise it from the mast 50% of the hoist or more.... and then would you a genny winch which allowed more leverage. I was exhausted when it was up. I am getting older and I don't do the sort of exercise the maintain upper body strength. Trimming the smallish genny (fractional rig) is not a problem for me.

But Millie is a dog send... I love Millie and use her to do all sorts of lifting:

raise the alum dink from water to fore deck...

raise heavy stored sails from the cockpit lockers

send someone aloft

and in the not too distance future get new batteries from dock to deck.

It's a spendy device... but aside from the above... it's a heavy duty right angle drill.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Totally agree Outbound, just an exercise in terminology. I agree, bad stuff happens when the Ocean hits the shelf and even worse stuff happens where the ocean hits the rocks 

I see the main difference between offshore and offshore ocean as range, self sufficiency and sea keeping ability. Basically, the boat needs to be able to survive offshore conditions and be an effective off-grid home.


----------



## zeehag (Nov 16, 2008)

oh good bludi george. i must have died. i sailed a friends err former friends irwin citation 37 south in 30 ft following seas. day after an el nino storm 1994 january. 
ohmygeorge i am dead and donot know it!!!!!


hahahahahahahahaha


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

zeehag said:


> oh good bludi george. i must have died. i sailed a friends err former friends irwin citation 37 south in 30 ft following seas. day after an el nino storm 1994 january.
> ohmygeorge i am dead and donot know it!!!!!
> 
> hahahahahahahahaha


It depends on the period those monsters and if they were breaking. Not too many boats will be happy with a 30 wave braking on it.


----------



## zeehag (Nov 16, 2008)

SanderO said:


> It depends on the period those monsters and if they were breaking. Not too many boats will be happy with a 30 wave braking on it.


citations hate bumpy water. i worked hard those 19 hours. owner was fair weather sailor and on a schedule hahahahaha
occasional breakers but not endangering us.. our swell period on west coast is longer than east coast so 30 ft can seem like a smooth ride. my formosa handles em so much better than citation.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

zeehag said:


> citations hate bumpy water. i worked hard those 19 hours. owner was fair weather sailor and on a schedule hahahahaha
> occasional breakers but not endangering us.. our swell period on west coast is longer than east coast so 30 ft can seem like a smooth ride. my formosa handles em so much better than citation.


I sailed through a full gale over night in the Gulf Stream. Needless to say the waves were short period, very high and breaking... YUCK.

However once we made it through this monster... it moved to the East.... we experienced the largest waves (if you could call them that) that I have ever seen. They were no breaking and very long period. So we were sailing up and down / through hills and valleys of water/waves. This was actually delightful. But the ht what maybe 40 feet.

Before this pattern settled in... we had following seas which were not breaking over the boat but there were over spilling hissing tops at the stern...


----------



## zeehag (Nov 16, 2008)

did gom in 37 seidelman sloop. craved my ketch during the gale parts and loved the sloop sailing during the sweet times. 
prefrontals give high breaking seas... mine were essentially quartering to following seas as the trek i made was downhill. uphill, waiting for a lil less weather coming from nw is a blessing. bashing into this stuff is a pit from hell, no matter what you sail. rollers, however, beat the hell out of the chop in gom. i havent sailed across from fla to bahamas, prollhy wont, as i have no draw to visit them. i have considered bahamas overcrowded since 1960s. EVERYONE went to bahamas from ny. 

my best choice for cruiser is a heavy displacement 41 ft ketch. works well in trades and beam winds. doesnot beat ye to death on a rough passage, and it is not mandatory to put boat in irons for cooking. .... 

is a shame common sense has been educated out of people lately, as it is requirement of successful anything. is common sensical to avoid bad weather in a wee small boat. many are defying this , and some finding issue with loss. some successful. the successful were blessed with good luck or awesome guardian angels. 

as far as insurance is concerned...that is a snake oil therapy i avoid. hull insurance places mandates on travel and prohibits use of hurricane holes designed to keep boats safe in canes. that means half of the migrating cruisers time must be spent in specified locales for the insurance company safety. not yours, theirs. the other half time is s[pent travelling in that particular boat to avoid said weather conditions. 
to have an insurance company mandate minimum size for sailboat ownership is rank abuse of power.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

SanderO said:


> I got a Milwaukee with a winch bit to raise my 440sf main. WOW what difference. In the past I could raise it from the mast 50% of the hoist or more.... and then would you a genny winch which allowed more leverage. I was exhausted when it was up. I am getting older and I don't do the sort of exercise the maintain upper body strength. Trimming the smallish genny (fractional rig) is not a problem for me.
> 
> But Millie is a dog send... I love Millie and use her to do all sorts of lifting:
> 
> ...


Yes, I have a friend who just got the same and, like you, absolutely loves it. I never say never, but at this point it's just not needed on our boat.


----------



## paulk (Jun 2, 2000)

sailforlife said:


> That says something for sure, if the insurance company won't insure you. Thank you for that good reply.
> 
> irateraft:


or maybe they lost too much money in Florida and Texas, so they need to make it up on the backs of the guys with bigger boats who have deeper pockets. Maybe try a different insurance company. After you sign up with the new insurance company, read up on Lin and Larry Pardey, Hal Roth, and Robin Knox-Johnston, among others.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

The Pharoah, the Titanic, the Edmond Fitzergerald, the USS Annapolis, the K-19...all proof that even 100 feet is not enough to buy you safety at sea.

Tell all those "45 feet" people they are woefully ignorant, it is nowhere near enough.


----------



## Sal Paradise (Sep 14, 2012)

Minnewaska said:


> Yes, I'll take my neighbor's Cabo Rico 38 offshore over another neighbors Hunter 45 any day of the week.
> 
> But the averages remain.


Curious then if that is one insurance company policy, but others vary as well. It could also be because there isn't enough money in a smaller boat policy.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Sal Paradise said:


> Curious then if that is one insurance company policy, but others vary as well. It could also be because there isn't enough money in a smaller boat policy.


I bet this is the case as well.

It's kinda like how liability-only insurance is so hard to get. It's always part of any comprehensive insurance plan, so you can see that it's is quite cheap. Therefore, we can conclude the risk is very small.

But trying to find a broker who will arrange the sale for this is difficult. Why? I suspect it's b/c there's little money in it for anyone in the financial food chain. Most insurance/broker businesses would rather work for big bucks than big pennies.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

MikeOReilly said:


> Yes, I have a friend who just got the same and, like you, absolutely loves it. I never say never, but at this point it's just not needed on our boat.


I don't want to derail this thread.

Things like power assisted winch... an electric windlass... roller furling ... AP are things which not only make sailing easier... and sure you don't NEED them....

But they make sailing anywhere... coastal or offshore safer...

Who can say that reserving your strength is not mission critical to your safety?

Millie is one of the best things I have added to Shiva... bar none.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Sal Paradise said:


> Curious then if that is one insurance company policy, but others vary as well. It could also be because there isn't enough money in a smaller boat policy.


I don't know what other insurance companies do. other than my policy. I don't follow the logic of the insurance company only making profit on larger vessels. It's just math. They're good at it and if risk is proportional, the premium can be proportional. It's a very price competitive business and volume is how they achieve statistical loss expectations. If you were right about only wanting the larger premium and risk, why would they insure any boat below 40ft at all? Most boats sink or suffer most losses at their slip.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

SanderO said:


> I don't want to derail this thread.
> 
> Things like power assisted winch... an electric windlass... roller furling ... AP are things which not only make sailing easier... and sure you don't NEED them....
> 
> ...


Well&#8230; we could get into a discussion about equipment and safety. I personally would be concerned about becoming dependent on too many electrical gadgets, and what happens when they die. And as far as reserving your strength; perhaps &#8230; but if you don't use it, you lose it.

There's no doubt that as systems get bigger (bigger boats, bigger sails, bigger anchors), and as we get older, more power assists are required. A manual winch or windlass is a huge power assist. The "millie" just takes it another step along the way.

On our boat, with its setup and with our current abilities, an electric winch handle is simply not needed. Our manual winches are sized to manage the tasks. I did upgrade to self-tailors on the mains, which I would argue is one of the best things we've ever added to _Pachina Mia_.

I take a different view towards safety. I think simplicity, maintainability, and reliability are most important. I aim towards tools that are either highly reliable (like chartplotters or radios), or that I can understand, maintain and repair myself. For me that equates to manual tools as much as possible: manual windlass, manual winches, windvane, etc.

I'm sure the electric winch handle is quite reliable. Maybe I'll need one some day, 'but it is not this day.'


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

MikeOReilly said:


> Well&#8230; we could get into a discussion about equipment and safety. I personally would be concerned about becoming dependent on too many electrical gadgets, and what happens when they die. And as far as reserving your strength; perhaps &#8230; but if you don't use it, you lose it.
> 
> There's no doubt that as systems get bigger (bigger boats, bigger sails, bigger anchors), and as we get older, more power assists are required. A manual winch or windlass is a huge power assist. The "millie" just takes it another step along the way.
> 
> ...


A Millie does not mean you can't use a winch handle and muscle power... same with a windlass... you can anchor without one or if it fails... you can hand steer if your AP fails... You can do manual dead reckoning or celestial if your GPS chart plotter fails...

You can even raise and lower your head sail in the groove if your furler becomes jammed.

These are safety features... make sailing easier and more doable by a short handed crew.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

SanderO said:


> A Millie does not mean you can't use a winch handle and muscle power... same with a windlass... you can anchor without one or if it fails... you can hand steer if your AP fails... You can do manual dead reckoning or celestial if your GPS chart plotter fails...
> 
> You can even raise and lower your head sail in the groove if your furler becomes jammed.
> 
> These are safety features... make sailing easier and more doable by a short handed crew.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you're saying _easier_ means _safer_. I'm saying _safer_ is more complicated than that in the context of boat system. As I say, I view safe systems on my cruising boat in terms of simplicity, maintainability, and reliability, not just ease of use.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

The other side of the equation is how big is too big. We choose the O46 because although she has all powered winches and an AP I can run the boat by myself in the absence of any power. Same reason there’s a hydro and on the back. Find many long distance cruisers end up on something in the 40 to 50 ft range with cutter or solent rigs. Big enough to get you there. Big enough to live in comfort. But not to big to manage as a mom and pop.
Multis are a different matter. Size equals safety. They move too fast for any form of mechanical wind driven steering to work ( most say 10k is the upper limit for vanes). So you’re going to be dependent on electrons. They’ve gotten so dependable many don’t think that’s a big deal.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Sal-
Every insurer sets and follows their own unique rules, even if they appear from time to time to be the same.
The key to the whole insurance industry (excluding the "mutual assurance" groups no matter who calls them what) is that each of them has their own actuaries, and each of them generates their own risk factors. And in theory, if my actuaries are better than your actuaries, my company will make more money than your company.
My guys tell me "five percent of boats over 45' go offshore without adequate crew, and die". So, I set the rates for them a little higher. Your guys counted boats differently somehow, and they say "Only 2% of boats ever go offshore and only two percent of them die" so you figure, eh, no need to raise rates, just require "an adequate watch" and exclude coverage when there isn't one.
Who wins? Who got the numbers right-est?

Insurers rightfully treat most of that as "trade secret" and will not tell you what they are basing their rates on, because that's the key to their whole success. When AIG came into the US auto insurance industry around 1988? 1990? their initial policy quotes were 10% cheaper than the competition. They swore it eas because they knew risk assessment better. Then after one year, all of a sudden they needed 10% increases across the board. Ooops? Or a lowball to get business? No one will ever tell you.

You could argue that the boat is irrelevant, the guy commanding it is the penultimate "seaworthiness factor". One of them might very well be doing it that way. Or, basing coverage on your auto accident & ticket history, in the belief that a wreckless person is a wreckless person, at home or afloat.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

outbound said:


> The other side of the equation is how big is too big. We choose the O46 because although she has all powered winches and an AP I can run the boat by myself in the absence of any power. Same reason there's a hydro and on the back. Find many long distance cruisers end up on something in the 40 to 50 ft range with cutter or solent rigs. Big enough to get you there. Big enough to live in comfort. But not to big to manage as a mom and pop.
> Multis are a different matter. Size equals safety. They move too fast for any form of mechanical wind driven steering to work ( most say 10k is the upper limit for vanes). So you're going to be dependent on electrons. They've gotten so dependable many don't think that's a big deal.


Yup&#8230; The average size of circumnavigators on that _Latitude 38 - West Coast Circumnavigators' List_ referenced earlier came out to be 41-feet.. This is a list that includes all the PNW circumnavigators going back to the 1960s. It also includes a fair number of round-the-world racers.

I bet if we charted _average size vs time_ we'd see the average size increasing over the decades. I'd postulate that today, the average size is mid to upper 40s.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

sailforlife said:


> So if you are caught in some bad weather with 15 , 20 foot waves a 19 footer with the proper captain will be able to handle that? Had a friend that was stuck in a bad storm told me the waves towered over his 47 foot sailboat in the carribean. He was terrified the waves looked like 20 feet tall , he told me the bigger the boat the better. Told me anything under 40 is a dinghy in bad conditions.


Many a large ship has broken her back when straddling two very large seas. A well found small boat is like a cork, bobbing up and over the seas.
When you are down to the real life or death stuff at sea, when you *must* hand steer or perish, a smaller boat should be a lot easier to handle, physically. The mast(s) of a bigger boat are more exposed to the wind. I believe the white water will be more problematic for a big boat, over a smaller, lighter boat, but that's completely theoretical, as I just don't have any facts to back that up.
My experiences with real heavy weather conditions on pleasure craft have been on vessels from 37' to 80'. Each was a unique experience and I can't say that another boat would have been better in those conditions. Had any of the systems (hydraulic steering for instance) failed on the 80 footer, we probably would have died. The 37' had no such systems to fail. The 65' gaffer that was rolled three times in a full blown tropical cyclone had a tree for a main mast, which is the only reason why we survived, I believe. A bit more buoyant than any metal spar, and a *lot* stronger. The 80 footer would *not* have survived that storm, period!
But whatever you buy, "you pays your money and you takes your chances". I doubt there is any boat out there that anyone would guaranty your survival on. Wasn't the Titanic billed as "unsinkable"?


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Capta my experience is much more limited than yours but still feel compelled to disagree. I’ve been declared overdue with th cg sent out and have been in a few storms however. In each case the ability to set the boat up to be safe passively has saved the boat and my life.
Even on boats with 4 souls aboard they will become exhausted if hand steering. With a mom and pop crew this will occur earlier. In storms hand steering much beyond 1/2 h to 1 h becomes problematic. After a day or two of that you are dragging your fanny and more likely to not catch that wave just right or make some other mistake. Yes hand steering through a squall is wise but once you’re in multi-day gales or storms your approach needs to be different on a small boat. imho.
Depending on the boat I’ve used hoving to ( in gales not storms where it may not be successful), warps and drogues. I’ve never used a sea anchor but others tell me of success with these on multis and full keel boats. Other than exceptionally fit racers crewing I’ve not heard of boats hand steering for days successfully. 
Think it’s important to acknowledge your limitations and be realistic about your ability to function in a gale let alone a storm.
I agree due to average wave period and size mono boats in the mid to upper forties may be better seaboats. I’ve not been in storms on multis so can’t comment on whether there is a too big for smally crewed cats. Would say strong steering systems and powerful APs seem required. Storm damage to cat steering systems seems to occur. Also agree in a storm “ a mono takes care of you....you take care of a multi”. Although that seems to changing with better APs and the more common use of drogues.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

outbound said:


> Capta my experience is much more limited than yours but still feel compelled to disagree. I've been declared overdue with th cg sent out and have been in a few storms however. In each case the ability to set the boat up to be safe passively has saved the boat and my life.
> Even on boats with 4 souls aboard they will become exhausted if hand steering. With a mom and pop crew this will occur earlier. In storms hand steering much beyond 1/2 h to 1 h becomes problematic. After a day or two of that you are dragging your fanny and more likely to not catch that wave just right or make some other mistake. Yes hand steering through a squall is wise but once you're in multi-day gales or storms your approach needs to be different on a small boat. imho.
> Depending on the boat I've used hoving to ( in gales not storms where it may not be successful), warps and drogues. I've never used a sea anchor but others tell me of success with these on multis and full keel boats. Other than exceptionally fit racers crewing I've not heard of boats hand steering for days successfully.
> Think it's important to acknowledge your limitations and be realistic about your ability to function in a gale let alone a storm.
> I agree due to average wave period and size mono boats in the mid to upper forties may be better seaboats. I've not been in storms on multis so can't comment on whether there is a too big for smally crewed cats. Would say strong steering systems and powerful APs seem required. Storm damage to cat steering systems seems to occur. Also agree in a storm " a mono takes care of you....you take care of a multi". Although that seems to changing with better APs and the more common use of drogues.


Hand steering in storms is very exhausting ergo dangerous. You need to find a comfortable safe point of sail or heave to... and wait for better conditions.


----------



## amwbox (Aug 22, 2015)

capta said:


> But whatever you buy, "you pays your money and you takes your chances". I doubt the is any boat out there that anyone would guaranty your survival on. Wasn't the Titanic billed as "unsinkable"?


I think this is the salient point. Taking a boat offshore, particularly exposed to heavy weather, is an inherently dangerous activity. For all the talk of what makes a solid boat or a bluewater boat or whatever...end of the day we are still putting hairless apes into an environment where they do not belong and are unable to survive without their shiny tools, and where we are depending on gear and hairless ape think to see us through a thousand unknowable variables which are determined by elemental forces of nature.

We'll never take the risk out of it. We can mitigate it somewhat, and make ourselves feel better about it...but yes...money paid, chances taken. Some guys won't consider it without a nice thick steel hull, other guys do it in rowboats.

Risk is objective...risk tolerance is subjective.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Should mention think that hand steering isn’t an absolute requirement for safe seamanship. Have had occasion to leave the AP on while fore-reaching or the windvave ( a Fleming on that occasion) with warps out. Yes you need to remain on deck near the wheel but you can hide under the dodger. I’ve been hurt hand steering. Was slammed into the wheel. Had crew break fingers once as well. Forces involved, as you know, are beyond comprehension. Having a wheel spin to its stop is scary.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

In reality it is the crew which determines the safety.

You can have a heavy “ well built” boat like an Outbound or Bristol but if the skipper and crew are not able to understand or deal with the current situation it means nothing what boat you are in whether it’s a mono or cat. 

I haven’t been in the variety of storms like Cap, but have some offshore experience crossing the Atlantic twice early in my 20s. As I get older I actually try and avoid those situations. The last crossing I was part of a six person crew on a well founded 56 foot mono. We crossed through a force 8 storm with 35 foot faced waves. To thing you can deal with the confused seas and let an autopilot handle that is a great intellectual point of view, but in all practicality is nuts. Short hand steering shifts was the only way to keep from getting battered, stay hove to, especially in confused seas and wave trains which changed frequently. Yes it is physically challenging. However I trust a human to make the decision even tired over an AP. This is one area over reliance on electronics should be avoided. If you can’t physically handle you boat in a storm situation you should think very carefully about putting yourself in the danger. You electronics can / will fail. 

It’s why when I see someone post things like is a 37 Tartan a stout boat which can handle cruising accross oceans. The answer is maybe. Maybe if the captain is experienced. maybe if there has been experienced storm handling skills already . People don’t know what they don’t know. We all know that. Is the first time you want to find that out 300 miles offshore in 20 foot waves and 55 knot winds when your electronics you rely upon give out. And you are responsible for the other lives on your boat as well as yours. 

I am about risk avoidance as I age. While you can’t entirely avoid it, you can minimize your risks. First and foremost to me is actual sailing experience and HONESTLY determining your own. Then you must identify what happens if you are incapacitated. Do you have knowledge and equipment on board to handle the adverse seas and weather. 

Outbound / Sander/ Mike / and others who through their posts here appears is a knowledgeable sailors with a stout boat and obviously accesses his travels carefully . Their experience to handle situations which can / will occur will allow him to overcome and face situations ( even if I don’t agree with his AP advice). Part of that experience is also understand what their limitations are as well as the crew with them and NOT putting everyone in potential danger. Any one is good in 20 knots and 3 foots seas. But what about the increased situation you can always run away from. It’s not like sailing the Chesapeake or LI Sound where a Port is only 5 hours away so they get in before the **** hits the fan. You don’t have that luxury off shore. 

Many who have lofty goals of cross ocean sailing/ cruising that I know do it with some modicome of experience. What scares me is when I see the “larkers” ( spelled correctly) who embark on a lark . It’s ok if it’s only them as suicide should be permitted, however with others involved not OK. 


Certainly a heAvier boat can handle this more comfortably, but again it depends on the crew and the captain. It’s not about the comfort level but about the safety. No boat is inherently built to protect an inexperienced crew. Most boat# with an experienced crew however can handle any situation, however uncomfortably.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

chef2sail exposes a very important aspect of heavy weather sailing...

There is no way to get appreciation of heavy weather sailing without experiencing it. Sure reading is great... videos can help... sailing in high winds in coastal waters helps...

Once you are offshore and facing a storm... full on gale or worse... you have no real idea of what it takes to survive.

Having experienced this should not embolden sailors but humble them... These are experiences you will never forget... they are terrifying.

Well said Chef!


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

I have lost my copy of Bowditch so I can't quote it exactly, but if I may be allowed to paraphrase his line about extreme circumstances in a hurricane at sea, "With the arrival of the bar, all navigation ceases. The safety of the vessel and her crew become paramount..."
It is a sentence that has always impressed me. I read it as all the rules go out the proverbial window and from this point forward, you are winging it.
I also prefer to avoid these sorts of experiences at sea as I age. It is a lot easier since they've thrown up a bunch of weather sats and we no longer have to rely on ship reports for deep sea weather. But that doesn't mean that you can't get a tropical cyclonic storm at sea. None of us can out run a storm traveling at 20 knots or so. Or even unforecast storms of incredible magnitude in the Gulfstream, between the NE and Bermuda, a little 650 mile hop. Even a relatively mild norther in the stream between Fla and the Bahamas (49 miles) can produce seas that can be absolutely terrifying, and there is no going back if you are around half way, as it's going to be just as bad going *any* direction.
So, we try to prepare. We read, watch videos and hope that if that storm ever comes, we have the ability to get through it. But when push comes to shove, as above, we are all winging it. Each heavy weather experience is unique and therefore each a new challenge. Luck often plays a part, but intelligent action and calm, collected thinking play a much bigger part.
For example, when I encountered that tropical cyclone (a Pacific hurricane) off Fiji, we went into the eye fairly early after entering the storm (it was moving at 22 knots, after all). It was such a relief to be in a calm, with small but confused seas, that we really wanted to stay there forever. But we had damage to mitigate and I paid no attention the really important thing. Instead of flat chat powering across the eye and entering the back of the storm, I allowed us to fall back into the dangerous semicircle, which meant about 4 more days of storm. Had I entered the navigable semicircle, we would have been out of the storm in 8 hours or so. Intelligent action and calm, collected thinking could have made a huge difference.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

I am happy to call myself a chicken sailor. I do my best to avoid heavy weather, be it for short coastal hops or multi-day passages. I feel no need to go out and test myself, or to challenge Nature. 

But at some point those who venture offshore will get caught. This is where experience, luck, skill and the quality of your boat will all come together to allow you to learn new lessons — or not.

In these times I focus on protecting the ship and protecting the crew (so we can protect the ship). I have great confidence in my little vessel, but there are no guarantees once you untie the dock lines. You do the best you can in the circumstances. 

My limited experience has taught me to remain calm, and try not to get exhausted. Eat warm food if I can. Stay warm and dry if I can. Don’t try to be the hero all the time. Protect the ship, and she’ll protect you.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Unfortunately if you want to get some places you have to sail off shore. Long term forecasts are sure helpful and these days there are weather routers. This is fabulous. But weather can decide to not follow the predictions.

On almost all my ocean miles the weather was fine... the only horror was the 91 Marion Bermuda which was started on schedule and send 200 boats in the eye of a deep low in the Gulf Stream which went on to become the famous Perfect Storm and killed Mike Plant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Plant) on his way to the BOC solo round the world race.

Of course you can be trapped in heavy weather in coast waters or even at anchor in a snug harbor.

Today it's probably a lot safer when you choose your weather window and use a weather router and keep abreast of the weather.

I too am more of a fair weather sailor... I have nothing to prove and that sort or risk/excitement is for younger lads.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Sandero I remember that race. We were on a Hinckley center cockpit ketch and scared sh-tless. On trip back bent the mandrill for the in mast roller fuller. Got DQ’d as captain talked to a ship about the weather. 
Think I’ve been misinterpreted. Have used the AP in squalls with someone in hands reach of the wheel. Have used the windvane with warps out. Haven’t put the AP on in a storm and gone blithely down below. Agree that would be a tactic of last resort (incapacitated crew and no other option). Like Mike my storm experience is limited and I work hard to keep it that way. 
I’m a wimp. Usually reef before nightfall as I hate to reef in the dark. Carry a jsd and rig an extra forstay for a storm jib if leaving on a passage. Don’t single on passage so carry at least two crew with me. Try as hard as I can to prep the boat before leaving. Always get multiple weather sources but still pay for weather routing service.
In spite of this as Capta has rightly pointed out it’s not if but when. Hopefully it’s just a squall or two. Still I think you must hope for the best but prepare for the worst. In a small boat with 2 to 6 crew of average experience and endurance some way to passively endure the weather should be in your toolkit. Hobart, fastnet and so many other reports would seem to support that view. 
Would add to the discussion just like Capta has no faith in drogues I have no faith in hoving to on a fin keel boat once winds>~30. I be curious if others feel the same way.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

May have mis remembered. Race I was referring to was the one a doc was hit in the head by the boom. To my knowledge the only fatality in that race.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

outbound said:


> May have mis remembered. Race I was referring to was the one a doc was hit in the head by the boom. To my knowledge the only fatality in that race.


I think the 91 some was hit in the head by the boom.

This was my first offshore passage aside from sailing from Ptown to ME. It was also the worst.

I entered not to race, but to do an offshore passage with 200 other boats, a crew and the boat that was prepared and inspected by the race committee.

When I go offshore I always rig the inner forestay and have the storm jib either hanked on and tied up or ready to go with sheets attached. Set up the gybe preventer. I often rig a 3rd sheet for the genny which can be used if the working jib gets messed up... or if I want to re position the car Usually reef before dark. Kept a regular radio sched with SouthBoundII.

Jack lines in the cockpit and on deck of course... Liferaft lashed in the back of the cockpit ready to go... radio checks, weather routing flares etc all in order.

I do not make these preparations for coastal.

After 91 I experienced nothing by good weather with some squalls including sailing past a deep low which developed into a hurricane Emily... no more than a period of gale force winds and tons of rain and a waterspout!

The boat performed admirable all times. I would often sail to a more comfortable course and lose some VMG. I was never in a hurry.

I don't know if I was lucky... I've done the trip 10 or 12 times and had mostly lovely weather.,.. even flying the chute for an entire day until sunset. Sailing offshore is something I want to do as little of as possible... that is faster passage is a safer passage.

You never can be too prepared.


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

SanderO said:


> You never can be too prepared.


I think it all comes down to that.

I have read and note the experiences others here have had offshore. In comparison probably some squalls, a few good blows and some heavy swell is the worst I have ever encountered on an offshore passage.

Whether this makes me lucky I am not sure? I guess you are always unsure how you will handle that 'perfect storm' until you are in the situation. Part of me would like to face the worst and know that I would be up to task.

So maybe this is only my limited experience and good luck talking, but I believe there is an inherent risk in sensationalising the offshore heavy weather risk to the detriment of approaching offshore sailing and indeed all sailing with a holistic view to safety.

Statistics tell me there is more chance of my boat catching on fire, or of my family being blown up by the gas oven, or drowning in strong current in a anchorage , or being hit by the boom (as you mentioned above), or going overboard in benign conditions than the perfect storm ever ending me.

I also note the amount of vessel loses and threat to life when run aground on lee shores or when dragging anchor and wonder perhaps if it is tradition from earlier sailing days that makes us all so obsessed by the 'here there be dragons' approach to those conditions we perceive are waiting to attack us the moment we are 100nm offshore.

Perhaps it is more a peculiar condition specific to US east coast sailors?

The Chesapeake, ICW and those island things down the bottom are all fairly benign and the moment you folk sail 'offshore' things do begin to get quite nasty in that part of the world.

Here in in the Tasman Sea in the wrong conditions with our rugged coast where protection lies only behind barred river entrances if you are out in a blow where the whole coast becomes a lee shore you don't run for port. You sail like hell to get sea room. So this whole bluewater/coastal discussion seems kind of cute to us. Who not just sail good boats and sail them well all the time?

I will agree that when conditions deteriorate experience helps. But you only get experience one way.

How big is big enough? Well to me thats just the wrong question to ask.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

chall03 said:


> ....Statistics tell me there is more chance of my boat catching on fire, or of my family being blown up by the gas oven, or drowning in strong current in a anchorage , or being hit by the boom (as you mentioned above), or going overboard in benign conditions than the perfect storm ever ending me.
> 
> I also note the amount of vessel loses and threat to life when run aground on lee shores or when dragging anchor......


I'm sure these are all true (maybe less so for the oven explosion), but they are all a factor of occurrence too. One is going to drag anchor more often than hit an offshore survival storm, because one anchors 1000x more than one makes an offshore passage.

It's like the old adage that one is more often going to get in a car accident, within a mile of home. That's simply because that location is the most common place one drives.

Statistics would consider the denominator, not just the numerator. The truth is, I'm not sure which is more likely. The increased vigilance one probably takes to make an offshore passage could indeed be what is lowering the statistical likelihood of offshore mishaps. I also wonder if inexperienced sailors are less likely to even make an offshore passage, vs. inland/coastal.

I'll offer a new hypothesis. The easy button (EPIRB-SAT/SAR) makes it a whole bunch easier to abandon ship than ever before. That might be increasing otherwise survivable abandoning. Is one more likely to push the button in a 30ft or 50ft boat? I suspect the former. Could be what insurance companies are thinking/seeing.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

I suppose there is offshore and there is offshore... that is where you cross and what the historical weather and sea states are at the time of your voyage.

Sailing to the Caribbean from the US east cost means you have to cross the Gulf Stream. Gulf Stream is notorious for bad conditions, it's own weather system. There are eddies and so forth around it. Sure it can be benign and dead calm... but this is the exception not the rule.

Caribbean sea has rather reliable and predictable weather. Sure it gets Hurricanes... but these pass through at a predicted and well known time frame.

Data about the weather and sea state is vastly improved and available to the off shore passage maker now as it never was before. This makes sailing off shore safer... and short term AND longer term forecasts should inform departure decisions because you're out for a longish term...

Today off shore passage making IS safer because of technology and better boats...and equipment. But while all that is changing... human capability has not changed... You still need sleep and can only lift so much etc.

I think the boat size needs to be handle-able by the crew in rough conditions and probably an optimum size is low to mid 40s. Of course sailing a larger boat in fair weather is not much of a problem... but in rough weather the forces of wind increase geometrically... So there you have it. 

Find the balance.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

SanderO said:


> ....Today off shore passage making IS safer because of technology and better boats...and equipment. But while all that is changing... human capability has not changed... You still need sleep and can only lift so much etc.......


Excellent point. One should also consider having an incapacitated crew member along the way too. btdt

In a way, this can be where tankage matters offshore. An insufficient crew is likely to need to motor more.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Minnewaska said:


> Excellent point. One should also consider having an incapacitated crew member along the way too. btdt
> 
> In a way, this can be where tankage matters offshore. An insufficient crew is likely to need to motor more.


YES! I bunkered enough fuel to motor... from NY to Bermuda and from Bermuda to Caribbean ~1,000nm). Longer than that I would need lot's more fuel.

I actually DID motor once from St Marten to NY! YIKES!


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

Minnewaska said:


> Excellent point. One should also consider having an incapacitated crew member along the way too. btdt
> 
> In a way, this can be where tankage matters offshore. An insufficient crew is likely to need to motor more.


HA! Your going to depend on an incapacitated crew member to motor you along? Another fools's errand here!


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

aeventyr60 said:


> HA! Your going to depend on an incapacitated crew member to motor you along? Another fools's errand here!


Not sure if that was humor or confusion on your part.

In my experience, the incapacitated crew are down below..... incapacitated. The remainder of the crew found they had to motor more, as they were too short handed on the sails. On one occasion, I was the one incapacitated from getting deathly ill and was the strongest sailor aboard.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

^^^ you never know how the sickness thing is going to play out. Great lakes crossing in May, 35 ft boat, not just rough, but it was cold too. Had a 10 month old with us, so he had to stay below for the cold, but all other adults were too seasick to go below. They would become incapacitated with sickness if they went below. So, all the adults except me (the owner and skipper) had to remain in the cockpit while the skipper hung out below with the baby. Worked okay because my nav station was down below and there was one other strong sailor on board up on deck, but it was an unusual set of circumstances.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Arcb said:


> ^^^ you never know how the sickness thing is going to play out. Great lakes crossing in May, 35 ft boat, not just rough, but it was cold too. Had a 10 month old with us, so he had to stay below for the cold, but all other adults were too seasick to go below. They would become incapacitated with sickness if they went below. ...


Along the same lines, my partner suffers from _mal de mer_. She's copes incredibly well, but when things get bumpy she has a hard time functioning down below. She's never missed a watch, but it means I end up taking over most galley tasks, and other down-below duties.

Since we're a two-person crew, this means we have to protect her from getting too seasick, and we have to protect me from trying to do too much and missing too much sack time.


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

I was told that for safety offshore you need 45.

I would recommend 12 gauge, not .45. It is easier to hit what you are aiming for.

:angel


----------



## Skyeterrier (Feb 11, 2016)

MikeOReilly said:


> Along the same lines, my partner suffers from _mal de mer_. She's copes incredibly well, but when things get bumpy she has a hard time functioning down below. She's never missed a watch, but it means I end up taking over most galley tasks, and other down-below duties.
> 
> Since we're a two-person crew, this means we have to protect her from getting too seasick, and we have to protect me from trying to do too much and missing too much sack time.


Mike, on a longer trip does this pass, for her, after a few days or does the seasickness continue throughout the voyage?


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Skyeterrier said:


> Mike, on a longer trip does this pass, for her, after a few days or does the seasickness continue throughout the voyage?


She tells me it persists, but she seems to manage it increasingly well the longer we're on board. Interestingly, when things get really snarly she tells me she no longer feels the seasickness, so that's good.


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

Minnewaska said:


> I'm sure these are all true (maybe less so for the oven explosion), but they are all a factor of occurrence too. One is going to drag anchor more often than hit an offshore survival storm, because one anchors 1000x more than one makes an offshore passage.


My point was for the average cruiser complacency with these everyday situations is a bigger real danger than the perfect storm.

The Oven exploding? Faulty gas installations on yachts have resulted in two fatalities here locally that I know of.

However perfect storms and big oceans make for more exciting Sailnet threads.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

MikeOReilly said:


> when things get really snarly she tells me she no longer feels the seasickness, so that's good.


That warm fuzzy feeling when fear over rides seasickness 

:boat :


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

So we now end up where we started.
The general rule (as mentioned above) for purchasing an offshore vessel one wishes to sail across oceans (not talking racing here) has always been, and remains; do not purchase a vessel you can not sail alone. Perhaps one should add; in any conditions you might encounter.
We've agreed that many of us can now sail larger vessels than we would have 40 years ago, mainly because of innovations like roller furling, rope clutches and in cockpit control lines and self tailing winches. Autopilots and vane gears have improved, but they were available to most sailors 40 years ago, so I don't put them in the equation.
Therefore, owning a boat that fits into this rule, should limit the effect an incapacitated crew member would have on the captain's ability to make a safe haven, even under sail. 
As for powering rather than sailing, I think that really depends on the circumstances. If one is going balls to the wall for close by medical help, perhaps powering would be the correct option. But most of the time Skipping Stone will sail much faster and more comfortably than under power. For extreme circumstances, I'd motorsail, if at all possible. Powering a sailboat is the last option, IMO. 
In any non-commercial situation, I have never had a crew member, aboard any vessel I was in charge of, who was indispensable, even now @71. Not even if there were just two of us.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Think about trying low dose sturgeon starting a day before leaving. Depending on weight/metabolism as little as 12.5mg twice a day may suffice. I try to get all crew to sleep on the boat for at least one night before leaving. Any med they bring must have been used at least for an entire day sometime before leaving given the risk of side effects being undiscovered without prior use. I also try to serve a ginger leaden meal for dinner before leaving.
Smells are a common trigger. Use a pressure cooker and don’t make her serve.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

outbound said:


> Think about trying low dose sturgeon starting a day before leaving. Depending on weight/metabolism as little as 12.5mg twice a day may suffice. I try to get all crew to sleep on the boat for at least one night before leaving. Any med they bring must have been used at least for an entire day sometime before leaving given the risk of side effects being undiscovered without prior use. I also try to serve a ginger leaden meal for dinner before leaving.
> Smells are a common trigger. Use a pressure cooker and don't make her serve.


OB, my spouse says Bonamine (meclizine) works the best for her. I don't think she's tried Sturgeon (cinnarizine, right?). How different is it from Banamine?

She's also gone through various other things like ginger and even those wrist bands. And of course Gravol, which sort of works, but knocks her out.

ADD: Apparently Bonamine is not available in Canada anymore, at least not without a prescription. She's running out, so if anyone knows a source please let me know.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

MikeOReilly said:


> OB, my spouse says Bonamine (meclizine) works the best for her. I don't think she's tried Sturgeon (cinnarizine, right?). How different is it from Banamine?
> 
> She's also gone through various other things like ginger and even those wrist bands. And of course Gravol, which sort of works, but knocks her out.


Mike: has she tried this:

https://www.amazon.com/NEW-Reliefba...18992007&sr=8-3&keywords=new+relief+band&th=1

This is FDA approved for nausea, not like those terry wrist bands with the plastic knobs. Originally developed for chemo patients, it works even after the symptoms hit. Like magic. Worth every penny.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

MikeOReilly said:


> She tells me it persists, but she seems to manage it increasingly well the longer we're on board. Interestingly, when things get really snarly she tells me she no longer feels the seasickness, so that's good.


'

This post relates *only* to non-stop voyages of at least 4 days out of the sight of land. In all my years of sailing small craft offshore, I've only had two people who never got over feeling seasick after three days at sea.
The first thing I do to someone becoming queasy, is to put them on the helm for a four hour watch. After that much time out there in the weather, steering by the compass, they begin to understand that *they* are actually in control of this rocking, tipping thing; not at the mercy of the ocean. Works like a charm.
From observation, it seems most folks who get queasy, do so more because they are in a completely unfamiliar environment, in an uncontrollable situation, than from actual motion sickness. The animal reaction to being put in this situation can be either fight or flight, the latter of which is often accompanied by evacuation. Calm the fears, even the unconscious ones, and the urge to flee fades. 
There are a few folks who have a definite problem with motion sickness, but these folks get sick in cars, buses, planes and trains, not just boats. But even at that, never having been on a boat before, their preconditioned response to another sort of vehicle, kinda puts them behind the 8 ball, before the motion has even begun. For them, I believe the only help is medicinal. Personally, I've seen no definitive proof that the urban remedies actually help.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

MikeOReilly said:


> OB, my spouse says Bonamine (meclizine) works the best for her. I don't think she's tried Sturgeon (cinnarizine, right?). How different is it from Banamine?


When I was circumnavigating Bonine was the drug of choice for the US navy, because it supposedly did not put the crew to sleep. I never found that true of the OTC variety and I wonder if the US navy version has a bit of a pick-me-up in it?


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

mstern said:


> Mike: has she tried this:
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/NEW-Reliefba...18992007&sr=8-3&keywords=new+relief+band&th=1
> 
> This is FDA approved for nausea, not like those terry wrist bands with the plastic knobs. Originally developed for chemo patients, it works even after the symptoms hit. Like magic. Worth every penny.


Thanks mstern, I'll pass this on to her. Looks interesting.

Her's is not a debilitating form of seasickness - or rather, she doesn't allow it to become so. But we both adjust to manage her situation, which is just fine.



capta said:


> '
> 
> This post relates *only* to non-stop voyages of at least 4 days out of the sight of land. In all my years of sailing small craft offshore, I've only had two people who never got over feeling seasick after three days at sea.
> The first thing I do to someone becoming queasy, is to put them on the helm for a four hour watch. After that much time out there in the weather, steering by the compass, they begin to understand that *they* are actually in control of this rocking, tipping thing; not at the mercy of the ocean. Works like a charm&#8230;.


Agreed, which is why my spouse is more often on the helm than I. Certainly at the first sign of anything she jumps on the helm, even when it is my turn. I've read the 3-day thing before. Our longest passages have been just over three days now, so perhaps she'll get to test this out soon.

I really don't think it's a case of being unfamiliar for her - we've been seasonal coastal cruising, and now doing some longer passages, for going on 15 years now. It just seems to be part of how her brain processes things. She does get motion sick in a car as well, so it just seems to be a systemic thing.

She's never lost her cookies on our boat, although she did on another. Not sure if that's b/c of me being there , or b/c our boat's motion comfort is pretty high compared to the other boat she got sick on.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

capta said:


> When I was circumnavigating Bonine was the drug of choice for the US navy, because it supposedly did not put the crew to sleep. I never found that true of the OTC variety and I wonder if the US navy version has a bit of a pick-me-up in it?


She says it's non-drowsy for her, and also doesn't affect her in other cognitive ways the way some of the other drugs do.

&#8230; this is all my interpretation or perspective based on observation and what she tells me. It's hard to know exactly what someone else is really feeling.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

FWIW Wifey used to get seasick easily... refused to go below. Now she's basically OK and will go below and even prepare sacks or a meal! Amazing progress.... but it's over maybe 20 years.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Due to extensive research done by the navy and NASA the neurobiology of this is fairly well worked out. Folks tend to segregate into high frequency v low frequency groups. Some get sick on ships some on high speed multihulls. Similarly the involved neurotransmitters are known. Combos of central antihistaminics and amphetamines have been in use for some time. Modafinil to increase alertness has been used by pilots since its introduction. Risk of Parkinsonism and dystonic reactions with effective seasick pills has limited their availability in several countries but can be circumvented by internet pharmacies. All this is in the public domain and internet available. Pays ya money...take ya chance. So what ever you do try it first in a controlled setting. 
Some people will not habituate leading to life threatening dehydration and/or electrolyte disturbances. Mallory Weiss esophageal tears from repetitive vomiting can lead to serious bleeding. I had a grandfather who nearly died while on a North Sea ww2 destroyer. I carry compazine suppositories and rehydration for folks driven to this extreme. Seasickness is not just a cause of inconvenience. It can be quite serious and should be viewed as such. I’ve been with people who have gotten sick for the first time 5 or 6 days into a passage.
Fear with its catacholamine flood of the brain stem can suppress motion sickness in some so your wife’s experience can be viewed as an example.
However on passage you may want to take a third person in case you’re left to single to exhaustion or just need someone on deck when something below needs urgent attention.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

capta said:


> .....As for powering rather than sailing, I think that really depends on the circumstances. If one is going balls to the wall for close by medical help, perhaps powering would be the correct option. But most of the time Skipping Stone will sail much faster and more comfortably than under power. For extreme circumstances, I'd motorsail, if at all possible. ........


When I was incapacitated, I was medically sick, not seasick. I've also been on crew, with others who were taken out. One cut their hand pretty badly (almost lost a finger), others were indeed seasick.

Maybe you're among the lucky ones who always have the right winds to take a direct tack toward your destination, at hull speed, but not me. Motor sailing has been exactly the solution. Jib down, main sail reefed and holds the boat steady. Main self tacks, if even necessary. Best plan, IMO, for shorthanded and rushed to destination. Not just easier for shorthanded crew, but typically the fastest way too.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

Minnewaska said:


> When I was incapacitated, I was medically sick, not seasick. I've also been on crew, with others who were taken out. One cut their hand pretty badly (almost lost a finger), others were indeed seasick.
> 
> Maybe you're among the lucky ones who always have the right winds to take a direct tack toward your destination, at hull speed, but not me. Motor sailing has been exactly the solution. Jib down, main sail reefed and holds the boat steady. Main self tacks, if even necessary. Best plan, IMO, for shorthanded and rushed to destination. Not just easier for shorthanded crew, but typically the fastest way too.


I and my crews over the years have indeed been very fortunate, or careful. One is not allowed to injure oneself when sailing with me, period. Rule #!; don't get hurt. No kidding.
The worst injury I have ever had aboard any vessel I've commanded has been a few cracked ribs and a few broken fingers and toes, but none at the same time. And this includes all the commercial vessels as well, even those engaged in very dangerous work, to be sure. 
So on this one, I really cannot speak from experience, though of course I do have things worked out as to where I would go if there was a serious injury aboard, at any time.


----------



## doctorcam (Aug 19, 2007)

To get back to the original question, and following MikeOReilly's lead, I took the Latitude 38 list and through the magic of PHP and a spreadsheet came up with the folowing:

The longest vessel in their database is 180 feet, the shortest a 12-foot custom boat. The average length has varied over the years (from the late 1800s to about two years age), perturbed mostly by the occasional boat of exceptional length. 

Overall average: 44 feet.
Modal length (the most frequent length): 40 feet.
Median (roughly speaking, the halfway point in the distribution): 42 feet.

Bottom line: whatever you're comfortable with.


----------



## doctorcam (Aug 19, 2007)

I neglected to add that the average length varies over the years, mostly because of the occasional vessel or two of exceptional length. There is no overall trend to increasing length.


----------



## amwbox (Aug 22, 2015)

doctorcam said:


> I neglected to add that the average length varies over the years, mostly because of the occasional vessel or two of exceptional length. There is no overall trend to increasing length.


There's not? I keep hearing the average has moved from the 30's the 40's the last few decades. (Could be that more people can afford the bigger boats as they depreciate.)


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

doctorcam said:


> To get back to the original question, and following MikeOReilly's lead, I took the Latitude 38 list and through the magic of PHP and a spreadsheet came up with the folowing:
> 
> The longest vessel in their database is 180 feet, the shortest a 12-foot custom boat. The average length has varied over the years (from the late 1800s to about two years age), perturbed mostly by the occasional boat of exceptional length.
> 
> ...


Thanks Doc. That's about what I got as well. I did take out a few of the outliers, including some of the obvious racer-class stuff. Basically got the same though.



doctorcam said:


> I neglected to add that the average length varies over the years, mostly because of the occasional vessel or two of exceptional length. There is no overall trend to increasing length.


I am wonderfully surprised by this finding. My prediction was that there would be an average increase over time. This is based largely on anecdotal evidence gathered mainly from online babbling that I take part in here, and on Cruisers Forum.

Love it when data challenges assumptions. This finding deserves a whole thread unto itself. The idea that cruising boats are now typically in the mid-40s to low-50s seems almost a given in these forums.

doctorcam, can you post (or link to) the spreadsheet or database file, or even just a report summary (table or graph)? Like I say, I'd love to use your finding as the basis of a new thread discussion, b/c this really does challenge assumptions about boat size.


----------



## doctorcam (Aug 19, 2007)

I expect your parenthetical comment is correct. People are buying larger boats, but they're not necessarily circumnavigating the globe. A lot of the newer designs do not look particularly useful for offshore.

This is just Latitude 38's database of circumnavigators, it pertains to West Coast sailors, and it's complete only through 2015. There are 341 usable entries, a smaller dataset than I like (500-600 is better). A larger dataset that encompasses sailors from most of the rest of the world might show us something else. That having been said, most of what we hear from others is just "what we hear from others" - it's anecdotal information and not verifiable. I'm a scientist by nature (and formerly by profession), and I like data that are recorded systematically and for which there is verification.

There are 21 under 30 feet, and 108 more under 40 feet.


----------



## amwbox (Aug 22, 2015)

doctorcam said:


> I expect your parenthetical comment is correct. People are buying larger boats, but they're not necessarily circumnavigating the globe. A lot of the newer designs do not look particularly useful for offshore.


Oh snap. You're asking for it.


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

I may be taking a dirt nap by then, but I predict a redo of the ocean sailing fad/interest.
Not a Westsail, but something 36ish and solid...basics.
Not Mahindra....but something like that...


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

doctorcam said:


> I expect your parenthetical comment is correct. People are buying larger boats, but they're not necessarily circumnavigating the globe. A lot of the newer designs do not look particularly useful for offshore.
> 
> This is just Latitude 38's database of circumnavigators, it pertains to West Coast sailors, and it's complete only through 2015. There are 341 usable entries, a smaller dataset than I like (500-600 is better). A larger dataset that encompasses sailors from most of the rest of the world might show us something else. That having been said, most of what we hear from others is just "what we hear from others" - it's anecdotal information and not verifiable. I'm a scientist by nature (and formerly by profession), and I like data that are recorded systematically and for which there is verification.
> 
> There are 21 under 30 feet, and 108 more under 40 feet.


Thanks again Doc. As a former (and sometimes current) science journalist, I too appreciate credible data. This is why I was excited by the albeit limited Latitude 38 dataset - at least it is something. All too often on these forums anecdote is taken as generalized fact; this whole boat length thing is a perfect case in point.


----------



## doctorcam (Aug 19, 2007)

WHOOPS. I should have done a little more data cleaning - got a few entries out of sequence, and that made quite a difference. I've done more analysis.

The overall average is about 45 feet (44.6), and that covers from the 1890s to the present day.
Average length per decade has gone up and down, but more recently has increased. Keep in mind that the occasional large boat perturbs the results. These averages are for voyages that began in the specified decade, regardless when they ended.
1950-1959: 47.4
1960-1969: 34.0
1970-1979: 45.0
1980-1989: 40.3
1990-1999: 44.7
2000-2009: 48.9
2010-2015: 52.3 - caution: there are 3 70-footers and one of 105 feet in this group of 14. The remaining ten average 42.3 feet.

The greatest number of boat lengths is in the 30 to 50 foot range - it's a somewhat flattened normal distribution with a pronounced right skew, meaning that most of the outliers are larger than the great majority. So the rumours do reflect what is going on, but it seems, at this stage of the analysis, it may be due more to an increase in the number of larger boats than to a general tendency to prefer boats in the 40 to 50-foot range.

My apologies for having misled everyone. Chalk it up to a senior moment.

Mike - I'll send the spreadsheet back-channel.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

doctorcam said:


> WHOOPS. I should have done a little more data cleaning - got a few entries out of sequence, and that made quite a difference. I've done more analysis.
> 
> The overall average is about 45 feet (44.6), and that covers from the 1890s to the present day.
> Average length per decade has gone up and down, but more recently has increased. Keep in mind that the occasional large boat perturbs the results. These averages are for voyages that began in the specified decade, regardless when they ended.
> ...


No apologies needed Doc. You've done a great service in actually providing some real understanding to what's going on in the cruising world. And thanks for the raw data. I'm going to play with it as well.

I noticed the dataset included a mixture of mostly cruising boats, along with a number of RTW racers. And as you've pointed out, there are a few big length outliers.

If we remove these latter two groups, what would the distribution and length trends would show? I may play&#8230;

Does anyone know of any similar datasets anywhere else? This is good, but isn't really big enough to make definitive statements. There must be other datasets out there somewhere...


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

My last comment on LOA and long term cruising.

Having own a 36' and lived aboard and cruised long term (4 yrs) and done offshore passages... If I were to do this again I would probably want a long LOA maybe up to mid 40s. I single hand and forces begin to get too much for me to handle without electric / mechanical assist. Even the weight of the 440SF main on Shiva requires two people to move it about (as from dragging the sail bag).

Cruising to me would not involved using slips so mooring and anchoring a longer LOA single handed is no different than the 36 with a good windlass. Getting along side for fuel and water would be the same - doable.

The main reasons would be:

faster passages because of longer LWL
more room storage for provisions and spares
More comfort/space in cockpit and larger galley/head (Shiva's are perfectly adequate)
more head room (Shiva's is perfectly adequate)
larger fore deck to stow a RIB for passage (Shiva is in adequate)
presumably drier to windward (higher free board)

However design is more important that LOA... a longer LOA can offer less usable space and stowage... Such as a Hinkley SW40 which seems an awful boat for long term cruising.


----------



## svselkie02 (Feb 6, 2017)

Aside from hull speed, displacement, volume and comfort, all of which obviously affect offshore safety, boat length will determine the height of wave it will take to roll your boat. Rule of thumb is, as I recall, a wave 1/3 the height of your LWL will roll you over, so longer is also better there. But the last person I heard saying 45' was the minimum was selling a 45' boat, and as others have said, lots of much smaller boats have been out there and happy for years.


----------



## zeehag (Nov 16, 2008)

my formosa 41 is perfect. garden designed functional trade winds cruising boats


----------



## drew1711 (May 22, 2004)

Great thread, folks! Made me think of Chester Nimitz' letter to the fleet after three destroyers were lost in a typhoon during WWII. It's well worth taking a few minutes to read. And keep in mind, he's not talking about 40-foot sailboats!

https://www.history.navy.mil/resear...l-letter-on-lessons-of-damage-in-typhoon.html


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

drew1711 said:


> Great thread, folks! Made me think of Chester Nimitz' letter to the fleet after three destroyers were lost in a typhoon during WWII. It's well worth taking a few minutes to read. And keep in mind, he's not talking about 40-foot sailboats!
> 
> https://www.history.navy.mil/resear...l-letter-on-lessons-of-damage-in-typhoon.html


Herman Wouk's description of Typhoon Cobra in The Caine Mutiny is absolutely terrifying! It's worth reading the book just for that bit.


----------



## mbianka (Sep 19, 2014)

Minnesail said:


> Herman Wouk's description of Typhoon Cobra in The Caine Mutiny is absolutely terrifying! It's worth reading the book just for that bit.


Just read an excerpt of that part of Wouk's book in the Rough Waters book. Another sobering read about the power of storms is Run The Storm about the El Faro sinking and all the opportunities that were passed by where the ship might have survived.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Well, if those storms are sobering, take my advice and get drunk but only passagemake in the right season and then you're unlikely to hit a bad storm.

Simple


----------

