# North American Equivalents to Halberg-Rassy



## nemier (Jul 9, 2005)

Hi Chaps,
I'm well aware of the European quality boats, having spent so much time working over there. Halberg-Rassy, Nautor, Sweden Yachts, Finngulf, X-Yachts, Dehler, etc, but I'm not so sure which North American built yachts are their equivalent. In my mind I have Hinckley, Morris, Lyman-Morse. Is Tartan in this league too? Can anyone please list the quality builders here in North America? Thanks.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Not sure that Tartan still holds such a place these days, but certainly the others you mention would qualify. I'd add Island Packet and Pacific Seacraft (though the latter no longer in production) to that list. Gozzard yachts seem well regarded too in that genre.

In the used category the locally built Sceptres (41/43) have stood the test of time.

But in today's ecomony if you're looking at new it's anyone's guess who'll remain in business.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

Faster said:


> Not sure that Tartan still holds such a place these days, but certainly the others you mention would qualify. I'd add Island Packet and Pacific Seacraft (though the latter no longer in production) to that list. Gozzard yachts seem well regarded too in that genre.
> 
> In the used category the locally built Sceptres (41/43) have stood the test of time.
> 
> But in today's ecomony if you're looking at new it's anyone's guess who'll remain in business.


I'd agree with Faster in most respects, except to add that Pacific Seacraft was purchased out of bankruptcy two plus years ago and is still in business.

Although they definitely have a more performance bent, some might add the larger, cruisier J-Boats to the list.

On more of a semi-custom level, the Cape George Cutters are a traditional but high quality option. Also, semi-custom builder Kanter Yachts in Canada is highly regarded.


----------



## Freesail99 (Feb 13, 2006)

On the European quality boats side wouldn't you add Swan?


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Valiant Yachts are built about 100 yards from the back end of my boat and are argueably one of the best built yachts for long distance cruising anywhere in the world. Like their European cousins, though, they do have their tradeoffs. However, their is NO lack of quality.

For a more modest boat, Catalina and Hunter Marine are also located in the US. They are certainly not Swans... but depending on your use, they are either an ideal or poor choice.

Brian


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Freesail99 said:


> On the European quality boats side wouldn't you add Swan?


Nautor's (Swan) is Swan: Nautor's Swan - Sailing Boats and Yachts

Just like CD is to BBQ, Pollard is to CD-envy, and Wombat is to rodent-envy.

(anxiously awaiting a thoughtful response from my fellow mods)

HEHE!

- CD


----------



## Freesail99 (Feb 13, 2006)

Oyster is another one I would add on the European quality boats side.

Oyster Marine - Luxury Yachts


----------



## SailorGregS (Mar 3, 2009)

Gozzard is a Canadian company, of Bayfield fame.

Another great company, I'm sure if it's American is Cabo Rico, awesome boats.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

On the European side, I'd add Nauticat as well... they're very nice boats, for lead mines.  

Tartan and C&C are definitely not in that league IMHO, just due to issues with the company behind the two brands.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

When you list boats like Halberg-Rassy, Nautor, Sweden Yachts, Finngulf, X-Yachts, Dehler, with the possible exception of Halberg-Rassy these are all reasonably modern, high performance and well constructed boats. Of the three US companies that you mention, only Morris makes a reasonable performance oriented boat and its a 54 footer. Most of the others that are mentioned above; Hinckley, Lyman-Morse, Island Packet, Pacific Seacraft, Cape George Cutters, Gozzard, or Cabo Rico would not provide the sailing ability of the European boats that you mention and some would not be in the same league with regards to the quality of their construction.

In a general sense, the quality European yards seem to be ahead of us in terms of the innovativeness of their designs. Up to date fractional sloop rigs and modern hull forms are much more popular over there than in the States.

I think that the closest U.S. made boats to the boats that you are considering would be the cruising series of J-boats. Sabre might also qualify except that their designs are still very dated. Tartan/C&C have been slowly updating their designs to be a bit more modern but as mentioned the net is full of alligations and records of lawsuits against the company related to lack of payment to suppliers and warranty issues.

At this point there is a real shortage of high quality, modern designed, dual purpose, reasonably high performance boats coming out of US yards.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## mazzy (Mar 11, 2006)

What's the take on Saga Yachts and other performance quality cruisers? I have trouble perceiving the comparable level of performance between the Euro brands listed and the quality North American brands; i.e. Nauter vs IP. (did I put that diplomatically enough? :laugher)
Mike


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

I mean no offense, but I would not list IP higher than Catalina or Bene either.

- CD


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Mazzy,

No offense taken but Nautor predominantly produces high performance, beautifully finished, sophisticatedly engineered, dual purpose boats. Island Packet predominantly produces low performance, robust but crudely engineered, simply finished offshore cruisers. They are at opposite ends of the spectrum from a performance standpoint. 

Saga made (makes?) a series of very interesting boats that were intended to push the preformance envelop in some ways. They were good boats in a lot of ways but again they are not all that high performance and in many ways do not reflect the current thinking in rigs, hull forms with buoyancy distributions which result from the aftward placement of the longitudinal center of gravity and so on. Not bad boats but not in the same league the OP was playing in.

When you look at the boats on the list, and include the current generation of Halberg Rasseys, for the most part these are boats with fractional rigs, moderately light displacement, fine bows and moderately powerful stern sections, fin keels with bulbs and other features which really increase the combination of speed, motion comfort, ease of handling, and seaworthiness over older style designs. 

Jeff


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

I would consider adding Outbound (www dot outboundyachts dot com) to the list.

I have no experience with them but have seen them at the boatshow and there was one in my marina a whiole ago. It looked real solid.


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

I bought an HR because I wanted a comfortable boat that sailed well. I looked at a lot of North American boats and ended up with a SE boat. YMMV. Morris and Hylas make decent boats for comfort and performance but you will have a hard time matching the balance of the Euro boats. The current economy and exchange rates are not your friends.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

There is probably a reason, that of the top 5 boats i would like, NONE are built in NAmerica. Close might be C&C, but even then, not sure they have the overall performance ability of most European rigs, J-boats 109 may fit the bill too for a boat in the size range I would like, Ie about 10-11M or 33-36'. 

Santa Cruz has a few new designs out with the 37 and 41'ish foot boat, but time will tell if they are built to some of the european models. 

Marty


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

blt2ski said:


> There is probably a reason, that of the top 5 boats i would like, NONE are built in NAmerica. Close might be C&C, but even then, not sure they have the overall performance ability of most European rigs, J-boats 109 may fit the bill too for a boat in the size range I would like, Ie about 10-11M or 33-36'.
> 
> Santa Cruz has a few new designs out with the 37 and 41'ish foot boat, but time will tell if they are built to some of the european models.
> 
> Marty


What would you do with that boat? WHat is your intended useage?

- CD

PS I must assume this is not a highjack as the original question has been answered.


----------



## bubb2 (Nov 9, 2002)

I know the design may be dated, but Robinhood 40"s are beautiful and well built boats.

Robinhood 40 Bluewater Cruiser - Robinhood Marine Center, Custom Maine Yachts


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Cruisingdad said:


> What would you do with that boat? WHat is your intended useage?
> 
> - CD
> 
> PS I must assume this is not a highjack as the original question has been answered.


Brian,

I'm personally looking for a boat that is in the upper 30% speed wise in the length bracket I am looking at, and still have some assemblence of an interior. While the C's, H's, IP's etc have an interior, they are generally speaking, in the slower 50% of boats in the length they sell in. An X yacht, a 34 or 35 of which I like, Dehlers 34R, Jeanneau's SunFast 3200, Beneteau's 36.7 will all smoke NA built boats as far as speed goes. Yeah, the B36.7 is built in the US, but it, like the J109 were designed for the European market, which are boats like Giulletta etc. Even the C&C designs, while fast, they have a harder time sailing to ratings if you race them.

I'll admit, I am not looking at a cruiser, more of a race/cruiser into a slower reasonable interior racer model style boat. Do not want a melges/mumm style, but the swan club 42 ooooo la la, or the swan 45. But I have to admit, those are larger than I want for my needs.

Marty


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

Outbound is a Chinese boat. 

Saga is defunct going on two plus years.

Cabo Rico is built in North America (specifically, Central America).

I interpreted the OP's question as a request for information on North American built yachts considered equivalent to "European quality boats." I could be mistaken, but I don't believe he was referring to design approach so much as construction quality. As such, I'm not sure it's helpful in this case to dismiss or down-rate the North American builders because their design philosophy differs from their European counterparts.


----------



## nemier (Jul 9, 2005)

Hi Guys,
Thanks for the most welcome (& helpful) answers. Plenty to google...& keep me out of trouble for a few hours. My wish list is thus:
1. Quality, high performance sailboat in the mid-to-high 30's.
2. I want to spend $125,000 USD
3. I believe less is more, and can do without the fru-fru shiny eye candy adornments.
4. The boat Must do well in light airs.
5. & finally, the boat will cross oceans from time to time.

Well? What do you think, is there anything around that matches this shopping list? I appreciate All replies, this sailnet thing is cool!


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

JohnRPollard said:


> I'd agree with Faster in most respects, except to add that Pacific Seacraft was purchased out of bankruptcy two plus years ago and is still in business....


Thanks, John ... obviously I didn't know that. Nice to hear.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

If you want local boats, not sure if 48north gets up that way, there is a local paid for listing in the back, as does Yachting and one other that the name is not ringing a bell off the top of my head.

I am recalling a swan 36 for sale in Seattle, the smallest boat swan made, about your $$ amount, also about 15-20 yrs old. A yachtworld search would come up with something. If you want a yankee 30, there is a really sweet one for 50K across the slip from me in Edmonds.

Search for any of the above mentioned boats you like, either local or across NA, and I am sure you will find something.

If you want local, and like Jeanneau, Vancouver dealer has an SO 35 and 37, the 37 model has been used for across pond stuff, ala Atlantic runs etc.

Marty

on edit Swan 36 in seattle, There is also a 40' for sail, a mid 70's for 165K. The issue with some of the older swans, is the teak deak, and lots of leaks. You might be better off with a Tartan 37 from the 90's, or some of the other boats mentioned vs a 70;s swan frankly, with the money you have to spend.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

jorgenl said:


> I would consider adding Outbound (www dot outboundyachts dot com) to the list.
> 
> I have no experience with them but have seen them at the boatshow and there was one in my marina a whiole ago. It looked real solid.


They are built in China.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

nemier said:


> Hi Guys,
> Thanks for the most welcome (& helpful) answers. Plenty to google...& keep me out of trouble for a few hours. My wish list is thus:
> 1. Quality, high performance sailboat in the mid-to-high 30's.
> 2. I want to spend $125,000 USD
> ...


For that purpose, I would probably buy a Passport 40. However, I am not even sure she would do well in light airs (under 10). I honestly am not aware of a light air boat, in that price range, in the mid to high 30's, that can cross oceans, and is a great performing boat. SOmewhere you are going to have to make a compromise.

Others dissagree with me. THat is fine. Jeff_h and I butt heads all the time. But I would take some (SOME) production boats across an ocean. I am becoming more and more fond of my 400 and would seriously consider it. However, the issue is tankage and I think she has too many hatches and "light airy portlights". I would have to modify her for that so that I would feel safe. However, she does well in light airs, is fun to sail, and is a heck of a lot more comfortable on the hook than almost all of the bluewater boats that I have been in.

My dad, on the other hand, fell in love with a Tayana 42. Go anywhere? Yep. Tankage? You bet. Cross oceans? In a heartbeat (a really, really long one). Perform well in light airs? Certainly, when the engine is running!!

I find his boat typical of bluewater boats. Certainly there are exceptions, but I can't afford them and you cannot touch them for 125k.

I will tell you this too, with no dissrespect to swan, but I would never pay 175k or whatever the number was for a 30 year old relic - no matter what her leniage. Even a thouroughbred gets old and has to go to pasture eventually. I am not saying that boat is ready for the graveyard, but certainly not worth her cost at prime either. And boats that old will most likely have major refit costs associated with them.

Anyways, that is my read on your predicament. I think something is going to have to give.

Are you going to take this boat cruising? Live aboard? DO you ahve a family? What areas are you going to cruise her? When are you going?

Give me some more information, and I will give you a better boat selection.

Brian


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

nemier said:


> Hi Guys,
> Thanks for the most welcome (& helpful) answers. Plenty to google...& keep me out of trouble for a few hours. My wish list is thus:
> 1. Quality, high performance sailboat in the mid-to-high 30's.
> 2. I want to spend $125,000 USD
> ...


Okay, that helps some then. Sounds like light-air ability is a higher priority. Maybe you should buy Jeff H's boat!? 

Along the lines of what CD is saying:

In that size range, I'm not sure you can acquire a modern H/R or similar quality design for your budget. You can get an older H/R model, but those designs are not much different than the more traditional North American ones that we've discussed here (although, depending on the intended use, that's not necessarily a bad thing, see below).

Also, from among the performance cruisers that do fall in your price range (which would be boats from Benteau, Jeaneau, etc), I don't think these modern-design mid-30 footers will necessarily be up to the task of ocean crossings. There are plenty of folks crossing oceans in Beneateaus, etc, but they do tend to be of the larger variety.

Remember, unless you are talking about solo-racing or minimalist cruising, the boat you choose needs to be able to handle a payload for an ocean crossing with a family. Many of the "modern" designs outperform the traditional types in light air, but not necessarily when heavily laden for cruising. Ocean crossings require more gear, provisions, water, crew...WEIGHT. Watch the waterline of a modern lighter displacement design sink 2-3 inches, then see how well it does in light air. Then watch the bow submarine as seas build!

The way they get around that "issue" with the modern designs is by going with much longer boats than would have been typical 20-30 years ago. So instead of a mid/upper 30-footer, you'd be looking at a mid-40 footer of tha same displacement and carrying capability. Now watch your costs escalate!

Again, we really need more info about how you truly will use the boat. But base don what you've said so far, and sourcing North America, J-Boats might fit the bill. They're not my first choice for crossing oceans, but the J40 and others have been modified and done it successfully. Great performance cruisers for coastal work.


----------



## kwaltersmi (Aug 14, 2006)

Can't believe no one has mentioned Shannon Yachts. These are wonderfully built, beautiful boats with true bluewater capabilities.


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

camaraderie said:


> They are built in China.


OK, sorry - I did not know that. I still like them.


----------



## PalmettoSailor (Mar 7, 2006)

I know H-R's are a well regarded offshore capable boat, but is it really a light air performance boat?

I would think it more matched with something like a Caliber which I haven't seen mentioned yet.

Edited to add a couple more boats that would be likely matches to the stated desires. On the European side the Pretorian 35 would be a good candidate that could be sourced and refit for the stated budget, and on the NA side the CS36 would be another.


----------



## kekkul (Aug 31, 2007)

Grand Soleil Cantieri del PArdo


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

The older Enderlein boats were not real fast in light air. The Frers-designed boats are darn good in light air with the right suite of sails.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I think that Nemier is looking for the near impossible, at least in U.S. built vessels. In a lot of ways, he has the same criteria (but nearly double my budget) that I had when I bought my boat in 2001. Like Nemier, I wanted a boat that had exceptionally good sailing abilities across a wide range of windspeeds and which could cross an ocean. In my case, I did not care about U.S. origin but I also wanted less than 7 feet or draft (actually less than 6'-6" was desirable). I preferred a pretty bare bones interior, but wanted first class deck hardware or a boat that was adaptable. At this budget boats like these are few and far between, but that was how I ended up with a Farr 11.6.
<O</O

Boats like the HR's, <ST1Shannons </ST1and Passports while good offshore cruisers, lack the kind of all around performance and ease of handling across a wide range of windspeeds that seems implicit in Nemier's clarifying post. The Swan 36 was a left over IOR based design and probably would not be a good choice either. <O</O
<O</O

John, <O</O
<O</O

I appreciate where you are coming from but I respectfully strongly disagree with your statement _"Many of the "modern" designs outperform the traditional types in light air, but not necessarily when heavily laden for cruising. ......Watch the waterline of a modern lighter displacement design sink 2-3 inches, then see how well it does in light air. Then watch the bow submarine as seas build!"_

While your statement was true of light weight boats at one time in history, the reality is that modern designs will actually tolerate a much larger percentage of their displacement in payload than most traditional designs. Their typically larger water planes relative to their displacement means that the submerge less for a given load, and with their easily driven hullforms, their speed and ease of handling decrease less with payload.

Unlike light weight boats from the past, neither are truly modern designs likely to submarine their bows as seas build. They are typically less prone to burying a bow than more traditional cruising designs with their longer overhangs. 

I do basically agree with your statement_ "The way they get around that "issue" with the modern designs is by going with much longer boats than would have been typical 20-30 years ago."_

But I would not say that modern designs are *much* longer, just a little longer. Since the displacement of the boat, much more than its length, governs the useful capacities, purchase costs, maintenance costs, and ease of sailing a vessel, Nemier should not pay extra for a longer vessel of equal displacement. It's important to remember in these discussions that much of the weight in many of these heavier weight cruisers comes from items that add nothing to the strength, carrying capacity or seaworthiness of these vessels. <O
<O</O

And while I don't want to throw stones at US Boat Builders, American low to mid-volume boat builders, somewhat like American Car makers, chose to produce the same boat that they have for years or to pursue designs that looked backward and produce the same old heavy displacement cruisers that they always have or the same old dated coastal cruising designs that they always have, or capitalized on some niche market trend like the sudden flux of larger keelboat daysailers. <O</O
<O</O

With a few notable exceptions, U.S.</ST1 boat builders did not attempt to produce performance oriented designs that take advantage of the recent advantages in design theory. This may fairly accurately reflect the tastes of the American Market. Some manufacturers realized that they had a problem a little too late to recover (Pacific Seacraft for example who was tooling new designs when they went broke) or simply never saw the train coming. <O</O
<O</O

Even the American built large production companies generally lag behind the European yards in terms of balancing performance, motion comfort, and seaworthiness concerns with accommodations. 

For what its worth, the New Zealanders, South African, and Australian boat builders were quick to embrace these new design concepts with the Europeans adopting them soon after. Other than J-boats, C&C and really small outfits like Fear, the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com







U.S.</ST1







<ST1







Cape</st1laceType> <st1laceName w:st=" /><st1:country-region w:st="on"><ST1lace U.S.</st1:country-region> has yet to follow. I hesitate to speculate why this is true, but it certainly seems to be the case. 

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## eMKay (Aug 18, 2007)

nemier said:


> Hi Guys,
> Thanks for the most welcome (& helpful) answers. Plenty to google...& keep me out of trouble for a few hours. My wish list is thus:
> 1. Quality, high performance sailboat in the mid-to-high 30's.
> 2. I want to spend $125,000 USD
> ...


COUGHJ109COUGH...

Excuse me.


----------



## CaptKermie (Nov 24, 2006)

Cruisingdad said:


> For that purpose, I would probably buy a Passport 40. However, I am not even sure she would do well in light airs (under 10). I honestly am not aware of a light air boat, in that price range, in the mid to high 30's, that can cross oceans, and is a great performing boat. SOmewhere you are going to have to make a compromise.
> 
> Anyways, that is my read on your predicament. I think something is going to have to give.
> 
> ...


Well CD, his Location reads 'North Vancouver', if it is the North Vancouver I am thinking of, overlooks English Bay, Burrard Inlet waters then he will be cruising The Gulf Islands of the Pacific Northwest. We do not get a lot in the way of mid range winds here, mostly light variable, once it gets beyond LV it inevitably whips up to Small Craft and Gale Force, one extreme or the other. Small Craft is doable but forget the Gale stuff. The OP will likely require a boat that performs reasonably in light air, say 10 knots and be capable of sailing up and down the Georgia Strait in its stride which explains his leaning towards performance. It also would help if it could take on the Small Craft warning weather since we get enough of that too. It is also cold here much of the time so creature comforts come to mind. You know...that Bene 36.7 someone mentioned sure sounds like a good bet for this area. As for the occasional crossing, the closest jump I can think of off hand is Hawaii, it will be a while before that attempt is made.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

Jeff,

I think you misunderstand my comments, because I believe we are saying the same thing in different ways.

Your position is that when comparing traditional and modern designs of the same displacement, the modern design will be the better boat from perspective of sailing performance because it will have a longer waterline with finer entry at the bows, and greater load carrying capacity, among other advantages of the design.

I agree with this completely, but have to add that this statement is intuitively obvious to almost anyone who's spent time around sailboats.

The crux is that your approach to _size_ is one of displacement, rather than one that is constrained by length over all.

What I am saying is that if you take two boats _of the same length overall_, and one is a "modern" medium/light displacement boat and the other is a fuller formed, more traditional cruising hull with perhaps 30% more displacement, the performance of the heavier displacement hull will be less adversely affected by the same payload than the "modern" hull form.

In order to achieve the same load-carrying capability, the modern hull needs to be stretch significantly and displacement increased until it approximates that of the traditional boat while retaining the "modern" proportions. Of course, this yields generally better all-around sailing performance -- again this is the part I find unexceptional.

The problem is that stretching the boat also yields a significant increase in overall cost of ownership. I'm sure you've heard that old boatbuilders' adage "Build them by the foot -- sell them by the mile." The reality of sailboat ownership (power boat too) is that nearly all significant recurring ownership costs are calculated based on length overall. They do not give a credit for being light displacement (and while designers like Dave Gerr have put forth persuasive arguments that they should, it's not going to happen because the alternative formulas are too complicated and the net result would be lower fees by vendors.)

So that leaves folks with a question only they can answer: Go for the modern design that can handle your payload, and accept along with better sailing performance the significantly higher cost of ownership. Or choose a shorter-length traditional boat with comparable payload capacity, and accept less sailing performance but gain the lower over-all cost of ownership.

For a lot of sailors, total ownership cost is the overriding factor. Not to mention that there is a certain satisfaction in doing with less that which others are doing with more.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

eMKay said:


> COUGHJ109COUGH...
> 
> Excuse me.


I thought the J105 cough cough was the cough cough boat! the 109 is $180-225K last I looked at prices for them.

The 105 can be had for $80-120K. I know of a couple locally that have done the Vic-maui with these. Another local is on there way "AROUND" the world in a 105 too. Last I heard they were in Oz, I believe they followed the "red" brick road vs the yellow one tho! If you want a big older, a J37c might work too, have a local in my marina/YC that is about to take off in his boat for places south in July or there abouts.

Jeanneaus Sunfast series is a taller rig,deeper keel more sail area version of the sun oddisys series of boats, farther and harder to find, but better in light winds around here to!

Personally with water makers etc, tankage is a given a bit too much worry. Maybe for diesel, but water........then what do I know, I usually fill my 20 gal water tank once if not twice a yr, and my 7 gal ful tank every other month unless I am doing a bunch of races a few hrs away ea week like I have in march.

marty


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

blt2ski said:


> Personally with water makers etc, tankage is a given a bit too much worry. Maybe for diesel, but water........then what do I know, I usually fill my 20 gal water tank once if not twice a yr, and my 7 gal ful tank every other month unless I am doing a bunch of races a few hrs away ea week like I have in march.
> 
> marty


Marty,

Most of the "Cruiser's Survey's" I've read consistently place watermakers as one of the most trouble prone and unreliable pieces of hardware. Setting off to cross an ocean with insufficient fresh water supplies for the crew and expected duration of the voyage, instead relying on the watermaker to provide, is more of a gamble than I'd take with my own family.

Unless you figure to pull the EPIRB, there's no substitute for tankage.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

John,

I did not know that the water makers were such trouble prone whatevers, or is that "blankty blank blank blanks" or some such wording!

I could see then that water tankage would/could be of concern depending upon where you travel etc then. BUT, if the water maker is workable/usable, then tankage should not be as important as some fell it should be. I am sure two sides to the equation. Reasonable amount of tankage, with suplimental use from a water maker would be my choice. 

But, as kermi points out, if all this person is sailing in and around is the Straights of Georgia, puget sound etc, with a possible trip around Vancouver island. One can do all the about in a catalina 25 if one plans the weather windows correctly! Or sea kayaks for that matter, which by the way, many have circumnavigated VI!

marty


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

I got just the lightair boat for him: MacGregor 26 with a BIG engine!!

HEHE! Sorry, a little bit of humor! Continue on!

Brian


----------



## kaluvic (Jan 14, 2009)

Jeff_H said:


> At this point there is a real shortage of high quality, modern designed, dual purpose, reasonably high performance boats coming out of US yards.
> 
> Respectfully,
> Jeff


Sounds like the US auto industry as well?


----------



## nemier (Jul 9, 2005)

WOW! Lots of info here, great to see!
So let's get this thing rolling. Considering what you all have said, I'm thinking about a J109 or J122. I know, I know, I said I only have $125000 but that figure was what I wanted to spend, not what I needed to spend to satisfy my criteria. After looking around yachtworld for what seems like an eternity, I have realized that something in my criteria had to give (I think John said as much) and that thing is the money part. The North Vancouver that Captkermie talks about is indeed my backyard, and typically on my other sailboats I wouldn't even consider going out until they forecasted a Small Craft Warning. That's why I've learned the need for light air performance. I'm also reading that circumnavigators may see as much as 80% of their global cruising in light airs. The tankage I'm not too worried about. I plan to keep things simple and use the iron sail for port entry only - otherwise I will be sailing. No wind? fine, make some repairs, clean the boat and enjoy the moment while you have a chance too. I plan to estimate my water usage and also carry contingency rations. What the vessel tankage won't carry, I will carry in water bags and bottles. No water maker. No diesel generator. No wind generator. No radar. No $25000 network Nav systems. I do not want anything cluttering up the boat. I do not even want a refrigerator. (My wife will have something to say about that I'm sure - but she knows I'm completely losing it....) My main reason for inquiring about a NA boat is to save 9% taxes on foreign imports. At this point, if I have to plum for a European boat, then I will. I just hope the J's work out because 9% of $200000 is $18000 and that's needed to fill the bilge with red wine for a couple of years. The plan is to circumnavigate, but I'm not getting hung up on that right now. A trip to Hawaii will confirm whether or not my wife will be joining me around God's blue earth or not. I would really like to keep things smaller and go the the 109, but considering the necessary cruising consumables I'm going to need to carry, the 122 may make better sense. Also, my wife appreciates a bigger boat. And that is another story...
I will be virtually single handing all of the time. I think I have answered all the queries, please keep the input coming, I really appreciate it. Oh, one more thing, I have just printed out the USPHRF ratings. What a fantastic find! Someone here on sailnet mentioned it. I have been carrying it around with me for the last 24 hours and it's absolutely packed with info, dog' eared already. The information in there is gold!


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

If you like the 122, look at some older 120's, and J40's. Older designs, and from a couple of folks locally, ie Seattle, the 122's are not that much faster than the 120. Like 10 secs a mile or some such thing. Another is the C&C 120. THere are a couple of 40's and 120' in the seattle area at SailboatsNW, ie J boat dealer here. Not sure what the J dealer up there has. 

Also, look at some older tartens, I recall a 40, altho the 37 may be one of the larger ones. Not near as fast as the above J's or C&C. 

Benateau's 40.7/44/7 might be another, made in South Carolina, so you should not have to pay the tax. You also should not have to pay the tax if the boat is already here, and used should you not? Look for a used 1-2 yr old boat here in NA. Then the tax has been paid, I would assume you would not have to pay twice then. 

Good luck.
Marty


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

Jeff_H said:


> Boats like the HR's *snip*while good offshore cruisers, lack the kind of all around performance and ease of handling across a wide range of windspeeds that seems implicit in Nemier's clarifying post.


I respectfully disagree with you. Come sail with me (really) some hot stinky day in July or August and see what you think.

sail fast and eat well, dave
S/V Auspicious


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

nemier,

I think Jeff, Marty, me and possibly someone else have now all mentioned the J40, given your price range. Take a good hard look at them. Like I said, they are not my first choice for globe-girding voyages -- and the J40's I'm familiar with that have ventured on extended ocean crossings all underwent fairly extensive re-fit and structural improvements -- but it can be done.

Here's an example.

Here's one almost in your neck of the woods.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

The one John linked in seattle, talk to Jeff Carson about that one, he is a rep at that dealership, and a good guy too!

There is also a J40 and 120 At SAILNORTHWEST.COM too, altho a bit more money, 160K for the 40 and 170K for the 120. THey have a C400mkII too, CD may know if that boat would work. They list a J37 too, I believe that is sold, as I know the owner, talking with him a couple of weeks ago, the test sail was supposed to be going on along with the survey. It it is STILL on the market, a very clean boat!

Marty


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

nemier said:


> WOW! Lots of info here, great to see!
> So let's get this thing rolling. Considering what you all have said, I'm thinking about a J109 or J122. I know, I know, I said I only have $125000 but that figure was what I wanted to spend, not what I needed to spend to satisfy my criteria. After looking around yachtworld for what seems like an eternity, I have realized that something in my criteria had to give (I think John said as much) and that thing is the money part. The North Vancouver that Captkermie talks about is indeed my backyard, and typically on my other sailboats I wouldn't even consider going out until they forecasted a Small Craft Warning. That's why I've learned the need for light air performance. I'm also reading that circumnavigators may see as much as 80% of their global cruising in light airs. The tankage I'm not too worried about. I plan to keep things simple and use the iron sail for port entry only - otherwise I will be sailing. No wind? fine, make some repairs, clean the boat and enjoy the moment while you have a chance too. I plan to estimate my water usage and also carry contingency rations. What the vessel tankage won't carry, I will carry in water bags and bottles. No water maker. No diesel generator. No wind generator. No radar. No $25000 network Nav systems. I do not want anything cluttering up the boat. I do not even want a refrigerator. (My wife will have something to say about that I'm sure - but she knows I'm completely losing it....) My main reason for inquiring about a NA boat is to save 9% taxes on foreign imports. At this point, if I have to plum for a European boat, then I will. I just hope the J's work out because 9% of $200000 is $18000 and that's needed to fill the bilge with red wine for a couple of years. The plan is to circumnavigate, but I'm not getting hung up on that right now. A trip to Hawaii will confirm whether or not my wife will be joining me around God's blue earth or not. I would really like to keep things smaller and go the the 109, but considering the necessary cruising consumables I'm going to need to carry, the 122 may make better sense. Also, my wife appreciates a bigger boat. And that is another story...
> I will be virtually single handing all of the time. I think I have answered all the queries, please keep the input coming, I really appreciate it. Oh, one more thing, I have just printed out the USPHRF ratings. What a fantastic find! Someone here on sailnet mentioned it. I have been carrying it around with me for the last 24 hours and it's absolutely packed with info, dog' eared already. The information in there is gold!


Nemier,

I wholeheartedly dissagree with about everything you have written.

Wind gens are not for fun and for frills, they are to charge batteries. I burn about 160-180ah/day. You will burn less if you are going minimal, but I could still expect a solid 60-80 ah burn/day in simply lights and radio. Maybe more. How are you going to charge those batts without wind/engine/solar?

Going without refrigeration would be very difficult to do, in my opinion. It will certainly take the comfort out of cruising.

A radar may be the most safety oriented piece of equipment on a boat. This becomes especially true when following storms, in shipping lanes, in fog, or making a landfall at night. Do not discount the radar.

You don't have to have a chartplotter and autopilot to circum, but it sure would make things nice. It will watch and correct your cross-track error, consistently give you a bearing on your position, and make it a lot less hair-raising when coming into unknown anchorages. You can certainly use windvane, but it is not without its drawbacks. However, you (let me say that I at least) cannot hand-steer all the way around the world.

Maybe it is true that 80% of your time will be in light winds. However, that is not where you should be focusing. Instead, you should realize that 15% will be in nice or heavy winds, and 5% will be in gawd awful storms. You want to ride those storms in a J109, week after week at sea? Would you want to ride them in a j109 at all? That is why many of the "old shoes" are like tanks - for the 5%. If you are going to leave the predictability of a weather window, you better be more prepared for the 5% that can take your life than the 80% that will be boring.

Tankage, tankage, tankage. I can think of a thousand reasons to have to run your engine, including your water supply running low, outrunning a storm, getting out of the way of a ship, trying to direct your course within a storm especially when put up against a lee shore. You going to do that with 20 gallons of diesel??? I don't even think that will be enough to keep your batts charged on the crossing. I have not done the math on your boat (J109), but I would assume, especially if just sailing, you could be a solid 4 weeks out from Hawaii. Given your start point, you might burn a half a tank just getting to the open ocean!!! DO you have the water and supplies to make it that long? Especially since you do not have a watermaker? Once again, how are you going to charge your batteries?

As a weekender, you want performance and to have fun. As a cruiser, the boat is your home. You want comfort. You want to be able to stretch out and relax. That boat, even if it were 50 feet, will get small - especially on weeks without reprieve from rain. Minimalist sounds great until you are in it day after day after week after month. Do not underrate the importance of comfort.

You have to have a tender, or are you going to swim to every shore? With the draft of that boat, you may well find yourself unable to enter many areas and certainly a good bit from supplies. Sooner or later, you are going to have to find a way to get water and food and diesel on that boat. You certainly are not going to do it with a 5 gallon gerry can on your back. As such, you better start considering where you are going to put that tender when your 7' draft boat is parked out at sea! Where you are going to put those extra gerry cans of diesel? Water? Gasoline? It is often done but generally considered a seamanship risk to tie them up to the lifelines as one good storm will take them off along with the lifelines.

The list goes on.

THese are simply my opinions. I am no world traveller. However, I have lived aboard and done more than my fair share of storms. If you can circum with a J109 or any boat anywhere similar, and survive the trip (either by seamanship or your crew not killing you), then you are a better man and sailor than me.

- CD


----------



## kwaltersmi (Aug 14, 2006)

CD,

I wholeheartedly dissagree with about everything you have written, and coincidently agree with most of what Nemier has written. Granted, I'm no circumnavigator YET either, but still...

I firmly believe in the "keep it simple", "go small, go now", etc. philosophies. Obviously there are many ways to circumnavigate and none of us has the "right" answer for anyone else. However, I do believe that leaving the techno gadgetry (radar, refrig, generator, etc.) behind and relying on tankage, a rain catch, a good windvane, and perhaps some sizable solar panels in an "old shoe" will get you around the world just fine, if you're a good sailor. I'll also add that a GPS and a back-up GPS are mandatory on my circumnavigating boat. That's two techno-gadgets I won't leave without.

My disagreement with Nemier lies in his choice of relatively light displacement fin keeled light air boats. I'd personally rather have the old shoe (W32, HC33T, SC31, Baba 35, etc.) for the 5% that CD mentioned. Then as Nemier states, enjoy the slow down times and relish the fact that you've got no place to go in a hurry.


----------



## OsmundL (Nov 11, 2008)

*Everyone is wrong and right*

Since it seems to be in vogue, I wholeheartedly disagree with everything everyone has said here - and I probably agree with most as well ☺
Nemier, you are nuts. Quite possibly you will master a long cruise without conveniences, but have you asked your wife? You are describing a form of sailing that comes dangerously close to a Vendée Globe single-hander. As for the J122, have you looked properly at that cockpit? It is typical of a cruiser-racer; after hours in heavy seas you won't only feel that you are clutching the saddle of a wild horse, you will be tired, wet and exposed. It is quite simply not a cockpit in which to relax for days on end. I certainly hope you include an autopilot, or hand-steering it will eventually be hell. There is something to be said for "go small, go now" but that is what the older style small boats were built for, all the way down to 27ft. Simple, but with a calm sea manner.

On balance I'd go with Cruisingdad, even if he does go over the top slightly. Consider radar, for example: you say you will be "single-handing mostly", and in that case someone has to sleep sometimes, yes? A radar with watch function is for that type of sailing, or your wife will spend some uneasy hours in the cockpit on watch. 
I might go along with the "no fridge." That may sound unlikely, but with preserved food, dry foods and tins it is not essential; besides, drinks can be kept cooler - not cold, but better - with a spell in the sea.
With little diesel and no windmill, how did you intend to keep batteries going? Cruisingdad exaggerates the consumption for lights - we have LEDs today, but his argument holds. An autopilot would kill them.

The 9% tax on imports is a red herring. In the midst of a recession, it is no more than the discount you can negotiate and muscle your way to. The second-hand market has never been better, and new boat manufacturers are ready to deal.

I do agree with your obsession for light wind performance, but you take it too far. There is a huge gap between the "old shoe" and a cruiser-racer, and it is in that gap you should be looking. Methinks.


----------



## bb74 (Feb 11, 2009)

Have a look at the RM boats from Fora marine. I like the 109 a lot but space wise and for extended cruising you may feel a bit cramped. I haven't sailed the RM but they have a very strong ownership group and the boats have done multiple transats without issue. Not many for sale (good sign) but some used boats on the market in your price range.

Good performaning, well built boats.


----------



## mazzy (Mar 11, 2006)

bb,
Someone's going to say it, might as be me; topic is *North American Equivalents to Halberg-Rassy 
*Mike


----------



## bb74 (Feb 11, 2009)

mazzy said:


> bb,
> Someone's going to say it, might as be me; topic is *North American Equivalents to Halberg-Rassy
> *Mike


Got me Mazzy - you're correct. That being said, for the OP, might as well look around and abroad witht eh current prices - sure the fx is going to hurt but for an extra 20K USD I'd go with the best boat available and get it shipped across if needed.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

kwaltersmi said:


> CD,
> 
> I wholeheartedly dissagree with about everything you have written, and coincidently agree with most of what Nemier has written. Granted, I'm no circumnavigator YET either, but still...
> 
> ...


This is a good discussion and may warrant its own thread. I think I will start one up in Boat Buying for the review of different philosophies and real world experiences on the necessities of cruising and circumnavigating.

Brian


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

Double-check the 9% import duty number. I certainly didn't pay that to bring Auspicious home -- even if you take delivery of a new boat once you deliver on her own bottom she isn't new when you reach the US. I don't remember what I paid, but the number was sufficiently small that I was much more concerned about provisioning and helping crew with travel costs.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*Here is the boat for you*

Calibers are great boats. Built solid. Here is the one for to give you comfort and safety.

1988 Caliber Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

Hope this helps

Jeff


----------



## nemier (Jul 9, 2005)

CruisingDad, Kwaltersmi, & OsmundL - thank you for your respected opinions, I appreciate the dialogue & honesty. Much of what you are saying makes sense to me and as I get closer to the 'cut the ropes' date, I may revise my thinking. My previous posting left many questions unanswered I guess, and I see why you have formulated the opinion that I haven't quite thought things through. I think it's important to understand that much of what I'm saying comes from the heart, rather than experience, and represents how I want to do things right now. If there is a better way of doing things, I will take this onboard and most likely implement many of the suggestions. After all, this is this whole reason I'm asking you guys for your opinion - because many of you do have that experience and perhaps I may learn a thing or two.

Now on to address a few responses. I plan to calculate my power consumption and know precisely what my requirements will be. I will carry enough battery power to adequately handle my consumption (which I plan to be minimal). The question remains how I plan to recharge the batteries. Through solar panels and perhaps a towed generator. The solar power industry is making advancements almost daily and by the time I head out (March 7th, 2015) I believe I will have a solar solution in hand that will comply with my minimal weight & footprint criteria. Lighting will be a combination of oil and LED. Auto Pilot will be a wind vane, and I'm currently considering the German Wind-Pilot or the Canadian Cape-Horn. I will also have an electronic Auto pilot but hopefully only use this for port entry & departure. At no time have I ever considered steering by hand, that would only occur if I wanted some fun, or hands-on maneuvering in close quarters, or emergency situations. Additionally, I would fit a high output alternator and run the engine for 1/2 hour everyday to exercise it and to recoup any charging benefit that may provide.
I will carry both a SSB and a below-decks VHF, but use these sparingly. Most of my VHF usage will come from the cockpit hand-held unit I have. I charge this one direct from a dedicated battery. 
The radar is something I have yet to come to a firm agreement on. I do not want one. I do not want the power consumption, nor the maintenance, nor the reliance on it. Having said that, I use the radar every single day at work and am well aware of it's benefits, particularly watching approaching weather systems roll in. I yearn to look at the sky and develop my own instincts and learn to rely on them as Slocum did a hundred years ago. As far as approaching shipping is concerned, I plan to use a very low voltage independent AIS system which takes up as much real estate as two coffee cups, one transmitter and one receiver. This unit has a tiny LCD screen the which displays distance and bearing of the target. I actually plan to keep a visual look-out at all times, myself or the Mrs, and utilize the AIS as a secondary measure.
Cooking and heating will come from propane and I'll carry two 20 lb cylinders which will last 4-6 months. 
My navigation will come from paper charts and hand-held GPS units. I will carry a spare unit for the vessel and one for the dinghy (so three in total) Note, if a vessel I buy happens to already come with a chart plotter I will probably keep it. But, I do not want to get into the commercialism of merchandising the latest & greatest Nav product which quickly becomes useless because the charting software is continually being updated and re-packaged. As quirky as it may seem, I also plan on dusting off my sextent and re-learning how to use it. I must admit, trying to get to grips with a noon sight on a pitching and rolling deck is somewhat beyond me at this time, I'm sure I can do it. My hand-held GPS will provide SOG data. I do plan on investing in the best depth transducer on the market at the time.

At this point I should mention that if I go the J-boat route, it will most likely be a 40 footer, either the J-40, J-120 or J-122, and I am hoping it will be able to weather a storm of any magnitude. Put it this way, I have a wonderful year or so ahead of me to invest in research and test sails, and if I truly thought that the vessel was not up to the task, I would simply walk away. Safety is always my number one concern (especially for my Wife). The thing is, I'm reading accounts of guys transiting the globe in total control on J's and I'm thinking if they've done it safely, surely perhaps I can do it too.
For the 5% ****ty weather issue, I plan to get out there and rehearse some storm tactics first, so when I am caught out (and I know I will be) I am prepared the best I can be. I'll be purchasing a Storm Parachute and will have all the dedicated rigging pre-assembled and ready for use and KNOW how to heave-to at will. Both to get some rest when the need arises and to ride the storm if required.

Now onto tankage. Isn't life itself all about balance? Yes I would prefer more tankage in the J, but that is kind of what makes a J, a J. I'm prepared to live with it and use the theory "you can only piss with the **** you've got" If it turns out that the tankage is really too small then perhaps I will be forced to add more at the cost of something else--balance--. I tell you what though, I'm going to try and live with what I have (and adapt) first. Starting the engine to get off a lee-shore will always be an option because this is exactly what I'll be rationing my fuel for. Lin & Larry Pardy have sailed God's blue earth a few times and an engine wasn't an option because they didn't have one. I've also read about some Dude who had the Iolaire? and the first thing he did was rip out the engine. I love those guys! Between you and me, I'd actually like to do the same but my wife would probably have me committed at that stage. She threatens it now as it is... Anyway, you see my point, the engine use will be for charging purposes, Emergency purposes and port entry& exit.

My last boat had a total cockpit enclosure, to escape from the Pacific Northwest elements and actually I didn't like it. My next boat will not have one...until perhaps I'm ravaged by the sun, wind & rain so much that I beg for forgiveness and install one. But to begin with, I'm going bare back. I'll dress for the occasion...
I do not underestimate the importance of comfort although I know I sound like I do. Let me just say I take comfort in the simplicity of things. At work I'm surrounded by multi-million dollar marine systems and I'm sick of the complexities and specialist knowledge/tools required.

I will be definitely taking a tender but I admit I need more thought on this. My plan is to buy one of those hard bottomed sailing dinghy's from Walker Bay, the kind you can row, or sail, or put an engine on. The one's that have an inflatable ring around the outside of it. Not the belle of the ball I admit, but so so versatile. Not sure where on the boat I would carry it, but I will work on that. I do know that I certainly do not want to carry and jerry cans or kayaks or fenders on the lifelines. I want the decks virgin clear.
The only rebuttal I do not have for you CD is your last comment

"If you can circum with a J109 or any boat anywhere similar, and survive the trip (either by seamanship or your crew not killing you), then you are a better man and sailor than me."

That one kind of got me... I do not think I'm in your guys' league so that comment makes me think somethings amiss here. Perhaps I'll take a back seat for a while and keep sailing and then I'll get back to you. Can we both be right??

The "Nemier, you are nuts" comment made by OsmundL had me howling with laughter. LOL!! That was priceless. Have I asked my wife? Heck I've been mentioning this about 4 times a day everyday for the last 24 years. She knows I'm nuts, and yes it has caused a few heated discussions. We have been absolutely in love with each other for over 26 years and she takes it all with a pinch of salt by now. The 9% import tax on foreign built vessels is a fact here in Canada, BC anyway for sure because I have checked this out with Canadian Customs. In fact, that was the whole seed for this thread. I was going to import an Amel 53 from Trinidad when I was working down there a few years ago, That's another story though. But upon reflection, I take your point ( and others as well) that the $20,000 is small potatoes in the grand scheme of things and not something that should sway my decisions - so everyone - thanks for that, I needed to hear that. Finally OsmundL, your last comment

"There is a huge gap between the “old shoe” and a cruiser-racer, and it is in that gap you should be looking."

Perhaps you are right, but I'll be looking at that gap further to the right...methinks. All, thanks for your contributions, very much appreciated.


----------



## bb74 (Feb 11, 2009)

Seems like you have your priorities set so best bet it to try out a 120 and J40 ASAP and see what they do for you. I really like the J's myself and the 120 with the sprit is interesting for single / double handing.

As for the comments about the 5% weather, well, I really don't see what the difference is on any well built boat in those conditions - J's are well built. If you can depower fast enough and secure everything then it's just a questions of comfort at that point. Well handled you wont sink a J any sooner than any of the other boats mentioned.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

That was a very well thought out, genuinely good reply.

First of all, with even the gear you are talking about taking, that will change the scope of your boat. A j40? Yeah, that could/would work I think though there are those that know better than me as they own them. I am simply not sold on the J109!!!

Regarding the power consumption, you can take care of that with solar. I did. Here is a back view of my array (sitting beside mom and dad's Tayana 42):










But to account for your burn rate, you have to have a large array. That, along with a lot of LED's (especially for running lights), would take care of most of your power issues.

Running a main engine to charge batteries is not good for the engine for many reasons. Also, you will have to run it closer to 4-6 hours as even AGM's can only accept at such-such rate. You have to bulk, accept, and float to get those batts to 100% and that simply takes time with some batts better than others (and of course at more cost).

If you are going to get an Autopilot, just plan on getting a CP. You will end up thanking me for it. TIe the two together and it will make long passages MUCH more enjoyable. THat is the jey here, right? Enjoying yourself? This is not about having something to prove to the world or getting in the press? This is about enjoying yourself, right?

Re: SSB - good. We agree.

Re Radar - I might actually prioritize it over 3/4 of the other stuff we discussed. You cannot see the frighters half the time. They run over 30kts. You might run 6-7. You want to know who they are and where. And that is just frieghters. Not every vessel is required to have an AIS. Few if any private vesssels do, I am not sure taht the fishing ones do, and I think the cut off is 100t (though that might change). An AIS is NO substitute for radar. THere was a thread on that here. Read it. I consider AIS a toy that could be left at home. The fact that you can see a storm with radar is its smallest advantage. It is seeing markers, following ship traffic, seeing in night/fog, etc that make it such a great SAFETY (read SAFETY) tool.

Regarding tankage, you will drink, per peson, without exhertion, in a normal climate, 1/2 gallon day of water. This increases with sweat, exhertion, warm climates, etc. On top of that you have to brush you r teeth, wash your hands, at least rinse off your dishes (salt to wash), and cook with it. If you enjoy coffee, that just went up significantly. That is where you tankage comes in. Calculate up your water useage per person (2.5-5 gallons/person) and give yourself a 20% safety margin... then that is your furthest destination.

Other than that, feel free to ask specific questions around here. We enjoy having you around. ANd just remember the one true thing about sailors: Ask 4 sailors the same question and you will get 5 different answers!!! Ain't it the truth!??

Brian


----------



## nemier (Jul 9, 2005)

All good stuff CD - thank you for the reply.
However...
Radar is completely overrated, Sorry. I work on a commercial vessel in the North Sea and I can tell you it's purely hit-and-miss if we can see you. You are truly on your own. This is why I propose to take AIS instead. Honestly, it is not a toy, but the future of navigation recognition.


----------



## nemier (Jul 9, 2005)

Islander30Bahama

The 38' caliber you suggest has a PHRF of 150.
I'm looking for around 100 initially. But thanks for the heads-up.
I was considering the C470 but I think I couldn't afford it at the time...


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

nemier said:


> ...Radar is completely overrated, Sorry. I work on a commercial vessel in the North Sea and I can tell you it's purely hit-and-miss if we can see you. You are truly on your own. This is why I propose to take AIS instead. Honestly, it is not a toy, but the future of navigation recognition.


Nemier,

It is precisely because the ships can't see us that radar is useful to the sailor: So we can see them!! In other words, ships show up well on radar, sailboats don't.

AIS is very cool, and will get better. But there are still plenty of reports of ship's crews that don't ever look at their AIS.


----------



## OsmundL (Nov 11, 2008)

Nemier, I understand completely that you have thought through this. We need not doubt that you could manage the trip with your preparations - in fact, your specs are pure luxury compared with Slocum, and miles ahead of the engineless Pardys. Many boys' trips are made in paltry vessels from 23ft with 1/5th of your equipment. I would perhaps go further than many here with regards to the boat itself: the so-called "safety" of one boat over another is exaggerated. Most boats beyond the coastal day sailors can, properly handled, survive almost anything - and conversely, any boat can fail when less well handled, or sometimes by pure accident. Could one row across the Atlantic? Someone did.

Perhaps I think too much about your wife. Perhaps I think too much about CDs "This is not about having something to prove to the world?" There are so many good solutions among your choices, yet your main drift - "I want a light boat for light winds" - seems the least achievable. Weight and stowage are enemies to all yachties, and unless you are living on NASA-style pre-dried foods and never collect souvenirs I cannot see you cruising off with a boat in great racing trim. Better then to choose a boat that suffers less from a heavy load.

I had a personal experience last year that may be relevant: asked to crew on an Italian hot rod - not really, but a pronounced regatta/cruiser around 45ft costing serious money - I came to hate it after a journey Biscay-Sweden. I had done the same trip in my own boat feeling very different. The issue? The Italian was great in light breeze and relatively flat water - but mark the last bit, "flat water". As soon as the wind increased and waves grew a couple of meters, the dumb stallion was stalling in the seas, heeling too much, and generally not moving beyond 6 knots, while thrashing us hard and making at least two crew sick. In retrospect, we realized that I'd done the trip faster in my theoretically slower, pure cruising yacht of 5ft less. My boat loved heavy seas and went faster then.

At the other extreme, I wonder about those light winds that still let you sail. From your own experience in the North Sea you obviously know too well the tough conditions there, but weather data show an interesting number: through most of the year, the mean wind speed along the coast is less than 7-8 knots, in July less than 5. When the max exceeds 30, there has to be long periods of 1-3 knots to make up the mean. They're not steady trade winds either. At those times, you will not motor, not even when another day out there puts you in the middle of a storm? Hmmm. Then there is the trade-off: I think you'll admit that your choices will on the whole mean travelling slower, and that means increasing all your provisions from food to water.

I would not harp on about this had you not stated that your first trip goes directly to Hawaii, a true ocean passage. I often feel that sailors exaggerate the role of ocean crossings in their travels, when most long cruises have at most one long 1-2 week crossing while the remainder is done island hopping or coastal cruising. If I faced, say, a 12-mth cruise with only two ocean crossings in it, I too would happily go for a fun boat in preference to an iron-clad battleship. For 1-2 weeks I'd gladly put up with more discomfort.

If money weren't an issue, I'd look at the newest from X-Yachts, their first ever cruiser. But money _is_ an issue - which is why you asked for alternatives to H-R in the first place ☺
I suppose you could adopt the expedition mode and have depots or mates with provisions along the route? Then you could practically do the passage in a Hobie 14. But I digress ☺


----------



## OsmundL (Nov 11, 2008)

Nemier, some quick responses about equipment:
*Radar* may become a very different proposition with the new type released this year. So far only one manufacturer offers it, but its promise is way lower power consumption and sharp image.

*AIS* - I love it, too. I don't trust it. As many have said, small boats generally do not have transmitters; some smaller commercial craft are lax about it, not to speak of pirate ships. It's a bit like driving in NY traffic knowing you can see every third car and no pedestrians. Some turn it off, and I have come across ships that have it on intermittently. A few days ago I passed a ferry that had it "back to front", i.e. it pointed to the bow while the ferry actually went back and forth without turning. Quite weird though not dangerous, to get a collision alarm from a ship apparently reversing towards me! Yet, this points to an inherent weakness: the AIS only tells you where the other ship _thinks_ it is and how it _thinks_ it is traveling. In the admittedly unlikely event that instruments on the other ship are faulty, you are not getting real world data. I have seen a few times that especially ships in local traffic start off with the AIS turned off, then discover me and turn it on. Not reassuring.

*Tender*: I have the Walker Bay you mention, but without the inflatable ring. It is superb for rowing, not like the inflatable condom I put ashore. On the other hand, I am not sure&#8230; it is a more delicate proposition to hang this one safely; it is after all a hard object. The same goes for tying it alongside the yacht when in port.

*Plotter*: I can relate to your dream of being "commercial-free" and not drowned in electronics. On the other hand  ☺ (you saw that coming)&#8230; While you can certainly get to where you want with the portable GPS, the integration onboard provides some invaluable bonuses, and you do not after all need a huge expensive plotter. Consider what it adds: routes plotted in advance link directly to the autopilot; with good maps, alarms can be set for shallow water even when your depth gauge is dead; anchor alarms may be set with a very precise reference to surrounding dry land; the GPS links to your VHF to provide MOB and DSC alarms; your AIS shows on an actual map; when other crew are less versed in paper chart navigation than you, a pre-set course seems like child's play to them. When I say "plotter" it might of course also mean "PC" - in either case, an integrated nav system gives you much faster reaction times and precision in narrow straits with lots of markers and obstacles, compared with desperately referring to paper charts, trying to spot markers and gauging distances, maybe in thick fog or sea swell.

I'll shut up now, I see where this is heading. Next, I'll recommend a sonar-equipped frigate with a suitable convoy of escort ships.


----------



## nemier (Jul 9, 2005)

OSMUNDL - Yes, I take your point. Your post echoes experience and I'm listening. My search for my next sailboat has only begun and I will keep your words (and CD's, and the other's) in mind. Thanks for your wisdom, as always - very much appreciated. I may put up various boats that I'm looking at onto the "buying a boat" forum for opinion's. If a vessel can pass scrutiny on this forum, I may have a winner! Exciting stuff - I'm looking forward to it!


----------



## sww914 (Oct 25, 2008)

A lot of what you've said, especially speed in light airs and your wife's comfort, just scream "look at a multihull" to me. I've never sailed one bigger than a Tornado, I don't know how they feel in a storm, but they look nice in the pictures. Faster = less need for tankage and food storage.


----------



## nemier (Jul 9, 2005)

sww914 - It is coincidental that you should mention that. I have NEVER even considered the possibility of owning a multi-hull, until recently. My wife bought me a subscription to Blue Water Sailing magazine and and it came packaged with another First Issue magazine "MULTIHULL QUARTERLY" and I have started to flip through it when the mood takes me. It has peaked my curiosity but but I have a story to tell which will most likely squash my multihull thoughts until someone can talk me 'round & convince me otherwise. Last night poor weather came in the central North Sea (as forecasted) & we headed to port. Conditions increased above forecasted margins and we were experiencing 8-10 meter seas & 60 knot winds. At one point we had to turn the vessel broadside to the weather to make Port. Approximately 15 minutes into the run, a galley port-hole was stove in. This port-hole is 18 inches in diameter and 1.5" thick tempered safety glass and I thought bullet proof. Wrong. As we were securing the dead-light (which in hindsight should have been closed anyway) all I could think about was how would my new multihull handle this weather? And 2 points were uppermost. First the amount of glass a multihull has, which potentially would have been lost and second, if I managed to put my multihull broadside, I'm thinking she would have gone over...then what? Last night our vessel registered 28 degrees of roll (recorded by the Bridge Management System) and it felt like 88! Anyway, I've never been involved in a multihull discussion before and perhaps that another venue, but losing the vessel is my only concern about them. The weather I'm seeing lately is scaring the **** out of me.


----------



## OsmundL (Nov 11, 2008)

I'm sure a lot can be said for and against multihulls, that's a whole thread. But quickly, only because I too considered them and went to great pains visiting shows etc.:
1. Your passion appears to be _sailing_, and the common cruising cat will probably not give you that thrill.
2. It is a matter of where you want to sail. For the Pacific and Caribbean many swear by them; in most of Europe I'd stick my neck out and say "forget it." The reason is marina space and cost; surprisingly many harbours cannot take multis or charge an arm and a leg for them.
3. Light winds? So, the wind is always coming from behind? Try tacking.
4. Provisions: any concerns you have about travelling light will be doubled. The multi has ample stowage area, and the temptation is to use it, at great expense to sailing speed.
5. Comfort: I won't stick my neck too far out on this, but in view of your North Sea observations, it is fair to say that cats move differently in heavy sea, not always comfortably. Windage is an issue, too.

Seeing we're way off the topic, let's take it all out: once you think multi, there'd be good reasons to think trimaran rather than cat. Beware though, all this is very far cry from your revered H-R.


----------

