# Is she bluewater? Interesting story to help with these questions.



## tes735 (Jun 10, 2012)

I'm in the market for a bluewater. Used to have a cal 25 for years and sailed around in Galveston bay until I moved inland and sold it. I've been reading forums like this for awhile doing research to see what my next boat should be and have seen the question of "what bluewater boat to get," and "what makes a boat bluewater" etc.

I found this and regged just so I could post it. If you're asking those questions, then you should read this --an amazing story that adds to the answers for such questions. Just look at the things that went wrong!
EQUIPPED TO SURVIVE (tm) - Lessons Learned: Sailing to Hawaii...The First Attempt by Arnold Rowe

I take some much from a story like this, from "make everything heavy duty as possible," to "have backup parts for items you can't move without," to "double check that everything works!" to "do drills with gear to make sure it works in a pinch" and the list goes on.

By the way, because of forums like these, I think I've narrowed it down to one of the heavier boats like an Alberg based on my budget. Thanks to all those here for the wealth of info.


----------



## jerryrlitton (Oct 14, 2002)

A very good eye-opening story. Thanks for posting it.

Jerry


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

tes735 said:


> I'm in the market for a bluewater. Used to have a cal 25 for years and sailed around in Galveston bay until I moved inland and sold it. I've been reading forums like this for awhile doing research to see what my next boat should be and have seen the question of "what bluewater boat to get," and "what makes a boat bluewater" etc.
> 
> I found this and regged just so I could post it. If you're asking those questions, then you should read this --an amazing story that adds to the answers for such questions. Just look at the things that went wrong!
> EQUIPPED TO SURVIVE (tm) - Lessons Learned: Sailing to Hawaii...The First Attempt by Arnold Rowe
> ...


There is no such thing as a bluewater boat.

Where do you want to go? What is your budget? Let's start there.

THere are a million threads written on this on sailnet and other places. Youu will get twice that many opinions. If you will give me an idea of your itinerary then I can give you my opinion on a suitable boat.

Just remember the old adage: Better to go around the world on a Hunter with an experienced crew than a Valiant with someone that doesn't know what they are doing.

Brian


----------



## CaptTony (May 22, 2011)

What a story! During my professional delivery days I learned neither Catalinas or Hunters are blue water boats. That was well before the internet. Today you can get on line and come to the same conclusion. Why these people in the Catalina attempted to go to Hawaii without doing some research is a topic onto itself.

They ought to have a sign in the cockpit of Hunters and Catalinas that say "no more than 25 miles offshore."

Let the flaming begin.


----------



## chuck53 (Oct 13, 2009)

hey I've got a Catalina and I totally agree. More than a few times, newbies come on here, talking about buying some cheap POS boat and they think they can sail around the world in it and then get upset when I and a couple dozen others tell them in a nice way, they are nuts.


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

Honestly, while I don't think of Hunters or Catalina's as being great offshore boats the reality is that with proper preparation they are fine. 

Let's look at this story for a moment, 

1) the primary concern was a case of life threatening sea sickness. This was independent of anything the boat could have controlled.

2) A missing o-ring from a newly installed water intake. A boat problem, but one that could have been repeated on any boat. Certainly not the builders fault

3) Failure to properly update a steering recall. Again, this was a preparation issue

4) leaking hatches. Thus is perhaps the only issue that could be considered the manufacturers fault. But it is a very common problem with all boats, regardless of manufacturer. By this time the boat was 12 years old. Not particularly old by boat standards, but for caulk, sealant, and hatches this would be at or past their expected lifetime.

5) poorly installed bilge pumps. Again an inconvenience, not a condition that threatened the boat. Had the hatches been checked and rebedded before departure this would have been a minor problem at worst 

6) broken windwave. While a manufacturing defect, it wasn't Catalina's fault. It was the fault of the steering manufacturer.

7) faulty electronics. Again I place this at the hands of the electronics company, not Catalina. 


In short most, if not all of the problems that lead to termination of the voyage (with the exception of the sea sickness) can be directly attributed to poor preparation. Sadly this is often the case. Many cruisers (myself included) spend an inordinate amount of time worried about minor issues, or issues so rare as to never happen, that we forget to check things like if the stearing is up to snuff, or to rebed hatches, ect. 

Watching some of the professional solo sailors prep for long distance racing is an eye opener. No one spends any time on what type of drough, or sea anchor they have. They have one on board, and that's enough. But every fitting on the boat is checked, double checked, and tripple checked. Masts go up and down regualrly as fittings are tested, checked for corrosion or weak spots, replaced and put back into service.

After talking with a few of the Open 6.5 guys, the single thing that gets checked the most is steering. Both the auto pilot, and the entire rudder control system. Its like a religion, every few weeks they rip apart the whole steering system to double check everything is ok. Most cruisers however are lucky if they can even find their emergency tiller, let alone know how it all goes together. And the idea of re-running a steering cable at sea, while not very difficult in reality, is something few people know how to do.

I think the most important conclusion to draw from this is to take a real shake down cruise. 2-3 days in the worst conditions you can reasonably expect to see. If it breaks, that is when it will, not on a nice 12kn day. This is particularly important when the likely conditions are widely divergent from the normal life of the boat.


----------



## creedence623 (Mar 8, 2006)

I think it was more the poor preparation on a poorly maintained boat that resulted in this situation. The boat was recovered some time later still afloat (as is usually the case). You can get into the same situation in a Valiant, Sabre, Swan, -enter your favorite 'blue water" boat here-. It all comes down to ensuring the vessel is properly equipped, properly maintained, and properly sailed. A Catalina 36 is more than capable of making that trip given the right weather window and given the right preparation of both boat and crew. If you were going to undertake a trip like this is that preparation something you want to get into? THAT's really where you're going to see a difference with the more traditional "blue water" manufacturers; there will be fewer mods required to affect their safe passage, but the same rules for sound maintenance, and weather window's apply.

One other observation: The majority of successful voyagers don't make webpages to discuss the hows or whys of their success. People who survive a life threatening ordeal are MUCH more likely to publicize lessons learned. While this is a very interesting read, and offers a number of really good considerations, this I don't think this can be viewed as representative of Catalina 36's or production boats. I think it is more representative of this specific Catalina 36, and this particular sailor.

Counterpoint:






A couple more counterpoints:

Sequitur

Our Life At Sea - Cruising in 2009


----------



## chris_gee (May 31, 2006)

A good account but pretty sure it has been featured here before. Certainly I have read it.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Yes, this is an old story, but a good read just the same. I like Stumble's summary.. not a lot of those issues can be laid at the builder's door.

The boat ultimately survived the ordeal and was returned to the owner, IIRC.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

CaptTony said:


> What a story! During my professional delivery days I learned neither Catalinas or Hunters are blue water boats. That was well before the internet. Today you can get on line and come to the same conclusion. Why these people in the Catalina attempted to go to Hawaii without doing some research is a topic onto itself.
> 
> They ought to have a sign in the cockpit of Hunters and Catalinas that say "no more than 25 miles offshore."
> 
> Let the flaming begin.


Which boats did you sail and what areas did you find lacking?


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

Just for fun I looked it up, and while I couldn't find data from when this boat was built I did find out that currently:

Nautica Swan uses all lewmar hatches for its boats. 
Catalina also uses the exact same hatches.


----------



## MikeinLA (Jul 25, 2006)

CaptTony said:


> They ought to have a sign in the cockpit of Hunters and Catalinas that say "no more than 25 miles offshore.


You should mention that to the fellow in another thread who sailed his Cat 27 from Massachusetts to the Azores. Alone. Without any real sailing experience by his own admission.

Mike

PS - This one......

I have a friend who owns a 1970's sailboat. It's a Cape Cod Shipbuilding Mercer 44'. The inboard diesel gave out last fall so he has had it dry in his yard awaiting a new engine. So anyways, on Memorial Day some drunk thought his yard was a road and hit the supports holding the boat up. It fell over and the mast got bent, a hole in the hull the size of a dinner plate as well as the sails getting trashed. Nothing else got damaged but his insurance company offered him $200,000. They let him keep it for $15,000. That's where I come in.

Does this seem like a headache? *I have a 70's Catalina 27' and it's a dream.* I am thinking of taking the summer off from work and getting sailing lessons, getting her fixed, and sailing her to Europe.* I sailed the Cat to the Azores last summer single handed.* Not sure if that's possible on this. My friend always had it perfectly maintained by the company that built it so it is just a matter of fixing it.

Any thoughts?


----------



## puddinlegs (Jul 5, 2006)

This stuff is all written as if a boat were manufactured like a car. They aren't. The base boat is built, then 'commissioned' by the broker using mostly local resources. I don't know a single owner of a boat that has offshore experience who thinks any boat by any manufacturer is ready to go immediately after commissioning. Most take a measured approach and 'test' the boat over a period of time, distance, races, cruising, etc... that gradually extend the envelope toward the owner's goal whether it's a TransPac or a Ba Ha Ha and onward. Changes are made along the way as will suite the owner's goal. The best owners 'know what they don't know' and embrace the process of sorting a boat ( and crew ) out. Along the way there are inevitably problems that crop up. "Swan" or "Hinckley" on the builder's plate doesn't by you immunity, though it might buy some pretty fabulous customer service and a good basic build quality. If someone's looking for a product that will meet the demands of offshore sailing out of the box without knowledge (or at least extreme curiousity), prep, and work on your part, they really should be pursuing a different, less challenging, recreational outlet.


----------



## tes735 (Jun 10, 2012)

Sorry guys, wasn't really commenting on the boat itself, but the prep work and the items on the boat that could be beefed up to take the seas. This is for any boat! My comment about a heavy boat just has to do with my own experience and the desire not the get the crap beat outta me.

The sea is relentless so anything that can be beefed up should be. That story just gives a good line item list of things that can go wrong. Good for peeps asking those bluewater questions. Need more stories like this. In fact, would be good to have a list somewhere.

I read it somewhere here that there is no such thing as a bluewater boat. Could it be true? I spend 4 years working on off-shore construction barges and ships during my 20's. I was once on a converted tanker (converted to a construction ship) that got caught in a pretty bad storm. We battened down and rode it out. By rode, I really mean it as these things, tho HUGE, have no propulsion of their own. It was like a toy in a bathtub. I saw the sea take huge pieces of equipment that had been lashed down with thick, heavy rope, and in some cases steel cable, ripped right off the deck! We probably would not have sank with everything sealed off, but we did almost flip (a TANKER!). We had to fill the bilges to the point of almost sinking just to keep that from happening. Is that bluewater? I guess it depends on your definition. If by bluewater people mean it won't sink, then yeah, but if by bluewater it means the sea can't harm it, then there's no such thing, unless you're in a sub I guess LOL.

By the way, that storm scared the hell out of me. But, a couple of years later, I bought a sailboat anyway.

Once you get salt in your veins.... 

And I do agree with alot of what I've read on this forum. It's what the sailors can sail. If a great seaman is on a crappy boat, and EVERYTHING goes wrong but the boat doesn't sink, you might see him later on with a paddle just pushing the thing into port like a raft.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

The Wiki thinks this goes back to at least the 14th century:

For Want of a Nail

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the message was lost.
For want of a message the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

Same same on offshore voyaging. A simple gasket, and there goes the fresh water. A sheet fouling a hatch. The little things can add up and get you.


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

I think it is a combination of design, build quality, and crew competence. Any boat with a wide companionway that opens close to the cockpit sole and cabinetry/bulkheads that are attached with screws doesn't meet the build quality required. Catalina, Hunter and others are good boats for their intended purpose but offshore use, at least in the under 35' boats, isn't part of their intended use. All of these boats can be modified for offshore use - but some require much more modification than others.


----------



## JoeDiver (Feb 2, 2011)

CaptTony said:


> ... During my professional delivery days I learned neither Catalinas or Hunters are blue water boats. That was well before the internet. Today you can get on line and come to the same conclusion. Why these people in the Catalina attempted to go to Hawaii without doing some research is a topic onto itself.
> 
> They ought to have a sign in the cockpit of Hunters and Catalinas that say "no more than 25 miles offshore."
> 
> Let the flaming begin.


Not gonna flame...no need. Your opinion is based on experience well over 17 years ago. (based on internet comment) The new model Catalina Ocean Series boats are built and designed well...and with properly experienced and prepared crew are fully capable blue water boats. Note the key words here are "properly experienced and prepared crew"....Sure, some boats are better than others, but to say the new Catalina Ocean Series is not "capable" or should be restricted to 25 miles...is just not accurate.


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

They may be well built but the 385 layout shown below only has one possible seaberth and that is the dinette seat to port. They may be well built and are called "offshore" but have layouts that are better at the dock.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

mitiempo said:


> They may be well built but the 385 layout shown below only has one possible seaberth and that is the dinette seat to port. They may be well built and are called "offshore" but have layouts that are better at the dock.


Agreed. There is one possible seaberth, I'll bet there is no lee cloth.

The athwartships aft cabin is useless with any heel. Although you might able to wedge yourself in somehow.

The galley looks good for offshore.


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Before you "dis" a boat you ought to have at least seen it in person. The little table Stb drops down to form a settee which is designed to turn into a "sea berth" (owner responsible for lee cloth). I have laid down on it and can personally testify that it is more than adequate for that purpose. I really like the cockpit layout on this boat and Catalina will sell it with a standard Selden mast and slab reefing so it meets one of my requirements for an ocean sailor. After sailing this boat I have only two minor critiques. One, she is relatively heavy and somewhat slow in light airs. But was a delight to sail in the twenty to thirty knot breezes in San Francisco Bay. My personal preference is to have the head aft as to not wake sleeping crew or track water throughout the cabin, but with all the other features on this boat I would make an allowance for it. This boat really spoke to me. Unfortunately, Mrs. B is holding out for a 40-42 footer. Disclosure: I am an experienced ocean racer (2nd place in the Pacific Cup to Hawaii) and a cruiser.


----------



## Barquito (Dec 5, 2007)

I wonder if the illness involved in this story was food poisoning.


----------



## kbyte (Jun 6, 2007)

Interesting to note that even experienced delivery skippers can fall prey to unfounded rumours spread by "experts" at tiki bars all over the coast.

Sequitur

Here's a blog from a couple circumnavigating in style and comfort in a Hunter 49. They rounded Cape Horn last winter. They've had their share of the usual equipment problems, but, again, it's not the fault of the boat.


----------



## tes735 (Jun 10, 2012)

@Barquito

I think they said his problem was related to some kind of tear on the esophagus? Don't know if the tear came after the fact or what. One thing I wonder tho, is what the hell do you do if you're single-handing something and get sick? I guess you're kinda screwed.


----------



## KIVALO (Nov 2, 2011)

I've had to work through a bout with flew before, it sucks.... ROYALLY!



tes735 said:


> @Barquito
> 
> I think they said his problem was related to some kind of tear on the esophagus? Don't know if the tear came after the fact or what. One thing I wonder tho, is what the hell do you do if you're single-handing something and get sick? I guess you're kinda screwed.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

tes735 said:


> I'm in the market for a bluewater. Used to have a cal 25 for years and sailed around in Galveston bay until I moved inland and sold it. I've been reading forums like this for awhile doing research to see what my next boat should be and have seen the question of "what bluewater boat to get," and "what makes a boat bluewater" etc.
> 
> I take some much from a story like this, from "make everything heavy duty as possible," to "have backup parts for items you can't move without," to "double check that everything works!" to "do drills with gear to make sure it works in a pinch" and the list goes on.
> 
> By the way, because of forums like these, I think I've narrowed it down to one of the heavier boats like an Alberg based on my budget. Thanks to all those here for the wealth of info.


I've said it before, I'll say it again... IMHO, the single best resource for addressing these criteria is John Rousmaniere's DESIRABLE AND UNDESIRABLE CHARACTERISTICS OF OFFSHORE YACHTS...

Don't take too seriously the comments of those who may opine that there is no such thing as a bluewater boat, or that most any plastic fantastic can be "modified" or "beefed up" for bluewater sailing...

Some boats and designs simply ARE far more suitable than others or most for such sailing, it's completely beyond me why some try so hard to deny this...


----------



## JoeDiver (Feb 2, 2011)

It doesn't matter to me...the water in my lake is brown....so my Catalina 25 doesn't need to be bluewater capable...there isn't any blue water in Eagle Mountain Lake....sometimes it's green...by the end of summer...but usually it's brown.


----------



## CaptTony (May 22, 2011)

Cruisingdad said:


> Which boats did you sail and what areas did you find lacking?


I owned a Hunter 27 and took it to the Bahamas twice. The list of problems is too long to get into here. The main problem was a rubber coupling between the propeller shaft and the engine. The rubber was just glued to two pieces of metal on either side. The lag bolted engine mount - that's right lag bolted into the fiberglass not through bolted with backing plates and nuts - came loose, the engine was out of line with the shaft and the coupling broke. This was many years ago and Hunter has since corrected this, but it is symptomatic of the way the boat was put together. Many things happened on those trips: the head failed, the radio stopped working, problems with the manual water pump and so on.

Then in the 90's I did a Hunter delivery of a 40 footer. We got into a storm just outside Beaufort heading north from Florida. The engine stopped in the rough seas (we were headed in to Beaufort and the wind was right on the nose). That was the end of the engine and it wasn't algae in the filters. We checked. Water was coming over the bow and soaked the cockpit. Water got into the installed instruments and took them out along with most of the onboard electronics. Water penetrated down below even though the hatches were secured. Other things happened to the interior, but I don't want to get into it in an open forum.

I had another Hunter delivery after that one but I turned it down.

I consider Hunter and Catalina in the same class of boats. I delivered a couple of Catalina's with no problems, but the conditions were near perfect. Still, perhaps it was wrong to criticize Catalina the way I did with no personal knowledge of critical failures. So, I take back what I said about Catalinas and defer to what Chuck53 said, "hey I've got a Catalina and I totally agree."


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

Tony - I took a Hunter 45cc off the west coast of Vancouver Island. When I posted the problems I had on CF I was lambasted. I would take a Hunter offshore AFTER some extensive modifications. I have sailed other Hunters in the protected waters of the Gulf Islands with no problems.

I happen to think the ISAF offshore race rules are good place to check if a vessel is ready for offshore. You may trust your vinyl coated lifelines, but some of the other guidelines are essential.

Here is the checklist for the Vic-Maui race. http://www.vicmaui.org/pdfs/VM2012 App B Final.pdf

I am bringing one of the boats back to Vancouver. Granted the boat is not comfortable. But the boat is safe.


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

Hunter did have a lot of problems in their boats made between about 1985-1999. At which point they got a new designer who changes the entire build culture, and made the boats much better.

Again I am not saying I think Hunters are the best built boats in the world, but I know new boats from even the traditional bluewater yards that have come screwed up. Like a S/S Swan with no washers on the winch bolts... or a Hinkley where someone forgot to fully tighten a keel bolt.

Even the best screw up, they just screw up less.


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

My Catalina 34 MkII, built in 2000 has all Lewmar Ocean Series hatches. She also is equiped with a M35B diesel from Universal/Westerbeke (Kubota block) with a Racor primary filter. I have Lewmar 48’s as primaries and Lewmar 30’s on the coach roof and also as secondary’s. My navigation suite is Raymarine and steering is Edson.


----------



## capt13 (Jul 20, 2007)

Cruisingdad said:


> There is no such thing as a bluewater boat.
> 
> Where do you want to go? What is your budget? Let's start there.
> 
> ...


Amen, well said, and very true !!!


----------



## capt13 (Jul 20, 2007)

It's funny I see Catalina's and hunters in the bahamas, and even down in the carribean from the USA????? Hmmm I guess they e-mailed them down there?


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

chuck53 said:


> hey I've got a Catalina and I totally agree. More than a few times, newbies come on here, talking about buying some cheap POS boat and they think they can sail around the world in it and then get upset when I and a couple dozen others tell them in a nice way, they are nuts.


The Catalina 34 was not designed to go around the world. It is a coastal cruiser. Call Gerry and ask him about taking a 400+ though and get his repsonse. I did.

Brian


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

CaptTony said:


> I owned a Hunter 27 and took it to the Bahamas twice. The list of problems is too long to get into here. The main problem was a rubber coupling between the propeller shaft and the engine. The rubber was just glued to two pieces of metal on either side. The lag bolted engine mount - that's right lag bolted into the fiberglass not through bolted with backing plates and nuts - came loose, the engine was out of line with the shaft and the coupling broke. This was many years ago and Hunter has since corrected this, but it is symptomatic of the way the boat was put together. Many things happened on those trips: the head failed, the radio stopped working, problems with the manual water pump and so on.
> 
> Then in the 90's I did a Hunter delivery of a 40 footer. We got into a storm just outside Beaufort heading north from Florida. The engine stopped in the rough seas (we were headed in to Beaufort and the wind was right on the nose). That was the end of the engine and it wasn't algae in the filters. We checked. Water was coming over the bow and soaked the cockpit. Water got into the installed instruments and took them out along with most of the onboard electronics. Water penetrated down below even though the hatches were secured. Other things happened to the interior, but I don't want to get into it in an open forum.
> 
> ...


That is a Hunter. Catalina, Benteau, and Jeauneau are completely different manufacturers. I will tell you that the 380 and 400's are very well built boats and I am very comfortable with them offshore, even in storms. I have pics...

Brian


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

jackdale said:


> I would take a Hunter offshore AFTER some extensive modifications.


Rather than submit an edit, I think I would take a Hunter 50HC into bluewater.


----------



## Brent Swain (Jan 16, 2012)

In a singlehanded race from Frisco to Hawaii, a Seattle boat, which had been lived aboard for the winter, won. While the California boats , which had not been lived aboard in any winter rainstorms, leaked like sieves, the Seattle sailor was warm and dry the whole way. Living aboard in Seattle had given him the opportunity to find and cure any leaks he found.
When I asked a friend I met in Mexico who was cruising in a Catalina 36 , if he planned to cross the Pacific , he said "No way. I've seen what more experienced offshore cruisers cruise in, and there is no way I would consider a Catalina to be up to the job." 
With the Fukashima debris field out there, I wouldn't consider going across the Pacific in any boat which was not made of metal. I have zero deck or hatch leaks. What he encountered would have been zero boat problems for my boats. 
Another lesson from this story is "keep it simple" It was the complexity of his wheel steering system, water tank arrangement, hatches, etc etc which gave him his technical problems. 
Albergs can be drastically improved, by taking the rudder off the keel , and putting a vertical rudder at the aft end of the waterline, on a good strong skeg, at the back of the boat, where it belongs. A friend who circumnavigated on an Alberg 37,said he sure wished he had done that, before his circumnavigation.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

JonEisberg said:


> I've said it before, I'll say it again... IMHO, the single best resource for addressing these criteria is John Rousmaniere's DESIRABLE AND UNDESIRABLE CHARACTERISTICS OF OFFSHORE YACHTS...
> 
> Don't take too seriously the comments of those who may opine that there is no such thing as a bluewater boat, or that most any plastic fantastic can be "modified" or "beefed up" for bluewater sailing...
> 
> Some boats and designs simply ARE far more suitable than others or most for such sailing, it's completely beyond me why some try so hard to deny this...


I never said any plastic fantastic could be modified. Some are plain and simply designed for coastal work.

Well, this could get into a very heated discussion. My dad owns (and I am part owner) of a Tayana Vancouver 42, which by most would be considered a "bluewater" boat. I have sailed a multitude of other boats. I will escape the Hunter comments because I have not owned one. However, I have not had those issues on a Catalina. I own a Catalin 400, have owned and cruised a Catalina 380 (the old Morgan hull 38 altered with a different top, incidentally), 320, and 250. And to be fair, Hunter has made some mistakes. But they have also made some well made boats. I understand teh 49 is a well made boat, but my knolwedge on that vessel other than the boat show is hearsay.

There are several lines of the Catalinas that are not meant to be offshore boats. They are not designed for that. The larger boats are and I am here to tell you they can and have been there. I have done it. I have the pics here too. I had no problems, at all. Never have. I also put my kids on board one and I guarantee you that I am very cautious about where and what we do as such.

Many of the failures attributed with these boats have less to do witht he boat and more to do with the equipment on board. If it is a hull-deck joint failure, that is the fault of the designer and yard. If the chain plate rips loose, that is a mfg issue or design issue. If the head fails, that is the fault of the head manufacturer. All things inside a sailboat are not manufactured by that sailboat. In fact, most of them are not: from winches, portholes, heads, electronics, batteries, running/standing rigging, etc. Why people fault the manufacturer for failures on those is beyond me. Now, if they were incorrectly installed at the mfg, that is an issue. But when discussing the fasability of a production boat going "offshore" when the vast percentage of the equipment on that boat trasncends to other manufacturers that are considered "bluewater", one needs to stand back and ask how much of this is a design failure and how much is a basic equipment failure that could happen to any manufacturer that uses that product.

The issue with many production boats for long term LA or cruising, in my opinion, is storage, handholds (on some models), and tankage. There are some other things, but that is a good start. I also have an issue with accessibility to systems which is more of a problem with some manufacturers than others, and some models over others.

One of the things I like about Valiants, for example, is that most of the entire boat is built THEN they put in all the plumbing and other systems. They do this to make sure things are accessible and removeable afterwards. It costs more to do that and it is shown in the price. Most production boats do not do that. Everything is assembled in stages to minimize man hours. However, I will tell you that I have yet to find anything on a Catalina that is not removeable. They have done a very good job on that. Incidentally, my boat was about 1000 feet from where tehy laid up the hulls for the Valiants (for many years) so I know the boats fairly well.

Tankage is an issue on production boats. I have seen them start trying to increase their tankage on some of the newer boats. But they are also taking away much of the cabinetry. Reason of course is costs, but I don't like it. Depending on the boat, you can correct the tankage issues. I know you can in the C400 an other larger boats. I also had to custom build cabinetry to increase my storage capacity. This is a real negative of production boats.

ANother thing I do not like about most production boats is their lifelines, which are too short. I strongly prefer the taller (30/36") lifelines versus the knee trippers they put on production boats. I have been in some nasty seas and have never gone over, but I do not like them.

I have no problem with the rigging on either the 380 or the C400. In fact, I have a separate trysail track on my mast which many higher end boats do not have. My chain plates are easily accessible and have never leaked. I have never had a hatch leaak and believe me, they have taken their share of being under a wave. I have had the portlights leak. This is not an uncmomon problem on any boat with portlights. THey simply had to be reset.

My hull to deck joint is a Internal Flange which is only used on the 400, 470 (and maybe the new 445). It does not and has never leaked. I have had no reports of a leaking H-D joint on any 400. I have not been tech editor of the other boats so do not know for sure as well.

I have had no reports of any steering failures on any C400. We had a problem with a sheave alignment on some models, but that was corrected.

Th bilges in the c400 up to HN#309ish are deep on every tack and drain to the middle.

The c400 is a perfomance cruiser like the 445. I did 9.4 coming across the gulf. THe 380 can barely get out of its own way. It is a very heavy, older desgned boat like I find many of the "bluewater" boats. I will never have another boat that does not perform well and meet or exceed hull speed. For example, my dad's Tayana is slower than crap and he is happy with 6 knots. At 6 knots, I am checking to make sure my anchor is still up.

Boats are trade-offs. I have said there is no such thing as a bluewater boat. I stand by that. I do believe there are boats better suited for long distance cruising, but it all comes with tradeoffs. Depending on he boat/manufacturer, you can modify these things to your prefernce and destination. The issue is that on some boats, to modify it for long distance crusiing, the cost to doso will exceed what it takes to just go out and get a boat for long distance cruising. That does not make the long distance cruising boat "better"... only better for that use.

I also believe the vast majority of the success of a vessel offshore stand with its crew and not with the boat. For those that want to argue that their Valiant can wihstand a Cat 5 hurricane offshore longer than my Catalina, I will not argue that point, except to say that I wouldn't be there in the first place. Next someone will say that if you are crossing the Atlantic, you may not get to choose your weather. I agree. But that is not to say that the typical weather encountered would not be survivable by a production boat witht eh right crew.

The point is to know your boat and yourself. Buy the boat for where you want to go and what you want to do. If you are hell bent on doing a circum, I don't think a Catalina is for you. You would probably b better off with a boat built for that purpose. It is not to say that a production boat could not, it is simply that the cost to change many of the things that I personally feel are necessary would be cost prohibitive (though I am personally about there... ugh). But buying a Valiant to go sit in the Keys or Bahmas I think is equally a bad decision, and maybe worse.

These are my opinions. I know Catalinas pretty well and am very happy with teh right boat for long distance cruising. I cannot comment on the Hunters as I have not owned one... but they are a completely different manufacturer and I do not think it is fair to group them together.

Brian


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Catalina’s race to Hawaii on a regular basis. In fact, a C309 did the Single Handed Transpac in 2010 and he sailed it back! (This was the year Ronnie Simpson lost his keel on his “bluewater” racer). Catalina’s are represented pretty much in every Pac Cup race and more than a few C34’s have either raced or cruised to Hawaii (another one is leaving this summer). Probably why people don’t hear about this is it is pretty common and for the most part uneventful. Like Cruising Dad said, the boats under 40’ suffer from small tankage and storage capacities which limits their cruising range.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

GeorgeB said:


> Catalina's race to Hawaii on a regular basis. In fact, a C309 did the Single Handed Transpac in 2010 and he sailed it back! (This was the year Ronnie Simpson lost his keel on his "bluewater" racer). Catalina's are represented pretty much in every Pac Cup race and more than a few C34's have either raced or cruised to Hawaii (another one is leaving this summer). Probably why people don't hear about this is it is pretty common and for the most part uneventful. Like Cruising Dad said, the boats under 40' suffer from small tankage and storage capacities which limits their cruising range.


I would assume that the race boats meet ISAF standards for offshore racing, which means a lot of modification to the boats. They are not production boats.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Getting the jib sheet caught under the forward hatch is something for which I have to be alert. I suspect this must be true on many boats. From the description of the comfort level/kind of thrashing they were taking, it seems that possibly this boat does not have a high rating in that respect. It is not only physical comfort of sailors that is important but the shock loads on everything when a boat pounds. Planning how to secure water entry points is a lesson here and one I'll think about. Hatches and vents are the main concerns. I have a couple of small mushroom vents and the head vent that are not really 100% unsealable. Being up high, I've never had solid water flowing over them but if this happened, they would surely let water in although they are designed to drain. It's no fun having everything soaked with salt water.

So before green water starts breaking over the deck, among other things: 1. plug dorade scuppers, close portholes tight, boards in companionway, if not necessary, stow anchor below and plug anchor hawser chain hole, close and double latch lazarettes, cinch down hatches, have emergency hatch plugs available and ready, check that all deck scuppers are clear. Weatherstripping the considerable length of the combined perimeter of all hatches is not a difficult thing to do and can deny many gallons of water entry to the bilge.


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

Unfortunately Swan doesn't provide a list of OEM parts, however by looking at the owners forum, and sales brochures you can pull them out. In this case I specifically looked at the 

Swan 37, 42, 44, 45, 48, 68, 

Swan currently uses Lewman regular or low profile hatches on the following of their line 42, 53, and I can't tell about the 60. However above this Swan uses custom made (at the factory) hatches for all their hatchways since they are all recessed in the hull. 

Catalina I apologize I wrote Catalina but was thinking Beneteau. I haven't been able to track down a parts list for Catalina (that isn't behind a registration wall). But I think they use Bomar hatches.


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

One of the things I was shown years ago to make sure sheets don't get caught in hatches is to make some bungee cord rings. They fit under the lip of the hatch, and take up the room that the line otherwise could use. 

I have also seen people use wood strips, small line, ect.


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Jack, that is quite true. The Hawaii racers need to pass ISAF Cat 1. Because I have raced my Catalina 34 in offshore races in Northern California, it has been modified to satisfy Cat 2. Unless you want to pay your broker a whole lot more up front, no new boat sold as Cat 0, 1, or 2 race ready. Catalina’s 30+ footers as I’m sure boats from other builders are pretty much compliant to Cat 3 right out of the box. They are also ocean rated as are others in the European rating system. Before you add all the safety gear, your boat’s scantlings must meet the standard and I am not sure that all do.


----------



## Allen-deckard (Jul 26, 2011)

A person could buy and drive a smart car from new york to la. doesnt mean the car was made for it or that it's going to be a comfortable ride. Doesnt mean that the smart car is a pos it's just not designed for it.

And as far as the capable crew comments? We thats just fairly obvious. I'd put money on most formula one car drivers putting them in an average sedan and pitting them against a drivers ed student driving a race car.

Most of the comments are apples and oranges if two equally qualifyed captins are saili g side by side there are boats that are obviously more qualifyed to be in bluewater than others.. I just dont understand why it offends people to hear it. If your extreemly well qualifyed to sail and your going around the world in a catalina 22 cudo's to you its a testament to your ability's and luck but because you succeed it doesnt mean the average sailor would.

Anyway just my two cents.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

I have been on a couple of boats that are close to ISAF standards.

The Saga 409 that I have taught on has the cabin sole boards secured and ether mounting points in the cockpit. A Nauticat 37 has some boards secured or under carpet, and tether mounting points. Both had lee clothes. Both had dedicated jackline mounts, stowable mid stays with staysails. I have taken both around Vancouver Island with few worries. I think the lifelines on both are vinyl coated.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Cruisingdad said:


> Boats are trade-offs. I have said there is no such thing as a bluewater boat. I stand by that. I do believe there are boats better suited for long distance cruising, but it all comes with tradeoffs. Depending on he boat/manufacturer, you can modify these things to your prefernce and destination. The issue is that on some boats, to modify it for long distance crusiing, the cost to doso will exceed what it takes to just go out and get a boat for long distance cruising. That does not make the long distance cruising boat "better"... only better for that use.
> ...
> 
> These are my opinions. I know Catalinas pretty well and am very happy with teh right boat for long distance cruising. I cannot comment on the Hunters as I have not owned one... but they are a completely different manufacturer and I do not think it is fair to group them together.
> ...


One of the reasons I continue to cite Rousmaniere's book, is that these discussions always devolve when people continue to focus on _BRANDS_, as opposed to _CHARACTERISTICS_ of the design, or construction...

I just arrived in Isla Mujeres last night, after a 55 hour slog up from Livingston, Guatemala... 20-25 knots out of the ENE for the duration, every inch of the way a continuous struggle to claw off the reefs of Belize, and the Yucatan coast... We got beat up pretty good, that first cold Pacifico last night tasted mighty fine, indeed...

The boat is a Valiant 42, and she took care of us very well... We're in a bit of a race to get out of here before the tropics possibly begin heating up next week , but I'm certainly glad I've got a bluewater boat beneath me... No freakin' way would a Hunter or Hanse of equivalent size would have been as comfortable, or have inspired as much confidence along the 300+ miles of such an unforgiving lee shore in those conditions, and anyone who truly believes otherwise is dreaming, IMHO... (grin)

That has nothing to do with the _brand_, of course... It's primarily a reflection the design and displacement, particularly the underbody, deep forefoot and generous amount of hull volume beneath the waterline... A flat-bottomed flyer like a Hanse would have been absolutely exhausting to sail in those conditions, and I'm simply too old for that crap, now...

Just my opinion, of course... But I'll bet people like Olin Stephens, Bob Perry, and Chuck Paine might be at least somewhat inclined to agree...


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

MikeinLA said:


> You should mention that to the fellow in another thread who sailed his Cat 27 from Massachusetts to the Azores. Alone. Without any real sailing experience by his own admission.
> 
> Mike
> 
> ...


He was lucky - a Cat 27, by his own admission he knew nothing and it was the height of hurricane season. There's a special providence that looks after drunks and fools.


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

Didn't someone cross the Atlantic in a bathtub? I know Spiess crossed the Atlantic and Pacific in a 10' boat or smaller. 

Means nothing.

Hunters or Catalinas - also means little. One or two such trips is a meaningless database. Now a 100 or so and you have some stats to go by.


----------



## sailak (Apr 15, 2007)

CaptTony said:


> What a story! During my professional delivery days I learned neither Catalinas or Hunters are blue water boats. That was well before the internet. Today you can get on line and come to the same conclusion. Why these people in the Catalina attempted to go to Hawaii without doing some research is a topic onto itself.
> 
> They ought to have a sign in the cockpit of Hunters and Catalinas that say "no more than 25 miles offshore."
> 
> Let the flaming begin.


Never say never. There is a Catalina 36 in Seward that has been as far west as New Zealand.


----------



## LandLocked66c (Dec 5, 2009)

I love these threads... Carry on


----------



## tes735 (Jun 10, 2012)

"Albergs can be drastically improved, by taking the rudder off the keel , and putting a vertical rudder at the aft end of the waterline, on a good strong skeg, at the back of the boat, where it belongs. A friend who circumnavigated on an Alberg 37,said he sure wished he had done that, before his circumnavigation." 

This is interesting info. I know nothing (yet) about rudders. I'm also interested in the book that was mentioned. I'll have to hit Amazon. My cloud Kindle reader is already full of sailing books.... what's one more?


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

JonEisberg said:


> Some boats and designs simply ARE far more suitable than others or most for such sailing, it's completely beyond me why some try so hard to deny this...


Agreed. What's important to truly understand is that there are no magic thresholds that say "this boat is okay and that one is not." It's all an amalgamation of lots of factors and a wide spectrum of competence.



capt13 said:


> It's funny I see Catalina's and hunters in the bahamas, and even down in the carribean from the USA????? Hmmm I guess they e-mailed them down there?


There is a lot of island hopping, lots and lots of waiting for very calm weather followed by motoring, and the odd bit of hiring "pros from Dover" to get boats through.



JonEisberg said:


> No freakin' way would a Hunter or Hanse of equivalent size would have been as comfortable, or have inspired as much confidence along the 300+ miles of such an unforgiving lee shore in those conditions, and anyone who truly believes otherwise is dreaming, IMHO... (grin)


I agree with your general conclusion. Note that gross characterizations like full keel, full keel with cutaway forefoot, and fin keels are now more useful than brand names. How many folks have really looked at the underbody of a Swan, HR, or Moody lately?


----------



## JoeDiver (Feb 2, 2011)

LandLocked66c said:


> I love these threads... Carry on


Me too....they're everywhere....

On the Jeep forum....it's "if you don't have a Rubicon it's a mall crawler"

On Scuba Forum....it's "if you depend on computers you'll die".....

On an RV forum.....it's "unless you tow with an F350 you'll kill people".....

Always the same thing...people have an "opinion" and deploy it as an indisputable fact. Even the simple mention of their point of view being an "opinion" gets a reaction with a flood of facts, links, reports......it's as if they're so desperate to validate their way of thinking....they absolutely MUST be right and any dissension MUST be wrong. They perceive themselves as an expert on the subject, and their word on it is the final word.

I actually stopped posting on Scuba Forum because of it. As a PADI Professional (IDC Staff Instructor) I just couldn't stomach the ancient tripe and advice misguiding (and confusing) new divers in recreational diving.

BTW - I'm not in any way inferring the advice/opinions here are "ancient" and/or "tripe"....


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

JoeDiver said:


> I'm not in any way inferring the advice/opinions here are "ancient" and/or "tripe"....


Anything stating the "necessity" of a full keel offshore is.


----------



## Sanduskysailor (Aug 1, 2008)

These threads all boil down to the same argument. Can my Hunter, Catalina, Beneteau etc make it safely offshore. How many times do we have to beat this horse to death. The best answer is it depends. It depends on maintenance and equipment. It depends on the weather. It depends on what "offshore" is. I'm no expert but I will repeat my experience. Transit form St. Thomas to Norfolk in April. Offshore all the way in the north Atlantic (1200 miles). Two boats, an aluminum purpose built pilothouse with deep keel and an Ericson 46. 5 days out we encountered a freak tropical depression. Aluminum boat soldiers on with no damage save an autopilot bracket, Ericson breaks all its bulkheads, cabin sole comes adrift and 2 grew hurt. Both boats were well equipped. Would you take an Ericson 46 from California to Hawaii. Sure. North Atlantic in the spring. Not a good idea. Would a well prepared Catalina or Hunter have made it without significant damage to the boat or crew? Debatable, but I for one wouldn't want to try. It is no time to find out that your hull flexes an alarming amount in 25 foot confused and steep seas while it is not a problem in 25 foot long duration waves. Just remember, all the capsize ratios, comfort ratios and equipment don't mean a thing when it hits the fan. You need a strongly built boat with proper equipment, capable crew, and good boat speed. The longer you are in bad weather the better the chance something bad will happen.


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

Frankly I think the problem here is that anecdotal evidence of seaworthiness is pretty much all there is. To my knowledge there is no boat builder that does anything close to destruction testing of boats, simply because the costs are too high, and the number of boats sold is too low. Sure I know of Hunters that have had the deck/hull joint fail, but I also know of a Swan that lost its keel. Which is more likely, well that is a statistical question that we just don't have the data to support either way. So we must base our decision making on anecdotes, a general 'feel' about quality, and builders reputations. And I don't think there is anything wrong with that, it is necessary.

At the same time, it is important to recognize that most boats, even from low quality builders do quite well offshore even in the worst of conditions. And that a well built boat can founder offshore just as easily. The primary determiner in my experience isn't the boat, but the crew. Proper preparation, diagnosis of the situation, taking steps to reduce loads on the boat, all can play a large part in the survival of ay boat in a storm. And rarely is it necessary to rely on nothing but the strength of the boat itself to get you through a storm.


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Just in from the “for what it’s worth department”: Three Beneteaus and one Catalina are part of the 49 boat fleet for this year’s Pacific Cup. No Hunters are registered. I know of at least one Catalina (a C320!) entered in the Single Handed Transpac which is starting at the end of this month.


----------



## CBinRI (May 17, 2004)

I would not take a boat that lightly built across an ocean. Catalinas are great boats for what they are: coastal cruisers built to a reasonable price point. They are not for crossing oceans. Because there are so many of them it seems like someone is always arguing that they are bluewater vessels, but that is simply not the case. And I am sure someone will tell me that many have circumnavigated, etc.. but that does not mean that they are suitable for the purpose.


----------



## wallabycreek (Aug 5, 2004)

An Australian circumnavigated in a 12 foot boat. I have seen a British lady do it in a trailer sailor. It has been done in a bathtub and a barrel.
You Americans have lost your sense of adventure. Sailing a Catalina across the Pacific would be a piece of cake but you have to have a sense of adventure and give up your creature comforts. Apparently you yanks have lost the plot.


----------



## misfits (Dec 9, 2011)

Stumble said:


> At the same time, it is important to recognize that most boats, even from low quality builders do quite well offshore even in the worst of conditions. And that a well built boat can founder offshore just as easily. The primary determiner in my experience isn't the boat, but the crew. Proper preparation, diagnosis of the situation, taking steps to reduce loads on the boat, all can play a large part in the survival of ay boat in a storm. And rarely is it necessary to rely on nothing but the strength of the boat itself to get you through a storm.


Very well said!


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

CBinRI said:


> I would not take a boat that lightly built across an ocean. Catalinas are great boats for what they are: coastal cruisers built to a reasonable price point. They are not for crossing oceans. Because there are so many of them it seems like someone is always arguing that they are bluewater vessels, but that is simply not the case. And I am sure someone will tell me that many have circumnavigated, etc.. but that does not mean that they are suitable for the purpose.


A cousin took his Cat 42 from Santa Barbara to San Francisco - several days uphill over a notorious stretch of water. His wife said she'd never do it again. The boat had no problems.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

Stumble said:


> The primary determiner in my experience isn't the boat, but the crew.


It is probably is not an either/or. A well prepared, sound boat with an experienced crew will likely get you anywhere with good planning.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

tes735 said:


> "Albergs can be drastically improved, by taking the rudder off the keel , and putting a vertical rudder at the aft end of the waterline, on a good strong skeg, at the back of the boat, where it belongs. A friend who circumnavigated on an Alberg 37,said he sure wished he had done that, before his circumnavigation."
> 
> This is interesting info. I know nothing (yet) about rudders. I'm also interested in the book that was mentioned. I'll have to hit Amazon. My cloud Kindle reader is already full of sailing books.... what's one more?


Have heard this before about Alberg's designs. There are many other hull designs with keel attached rudders as well. A rudder mounted farther aft would certainly decrease drag because of the longer lever arm relative to the pivot axis of the boat AND it would no doubt make backing down a lot easier. Backing a boat and getting any steerage in a boat like my A35 is often a frustrating exercise requiring considerable speed to make anything happen. *BUT* having the keel mounted rudder has its positive points. There is nothing to catch lines, kelp, etc. The rudder is MUCH less likely to hit something, causing severe damage, ripping out stuffing boxes, etc. Many of the boats I look at make me shudder looking at the huge fragile appendage sticking down just waiting to be ripped out of the hull by the *extreme* leverage imparted by a five foot lever arm! Yikes! All in all, I trust Carl's engineering and would be very hesitant trying to improve upon his work. He obviously must have considered hanging a rudder off the stern and must have also decided, weighing the facts, that it was not the best idea.


----------



## Brent Swain (Jan 16, 2012)

Good point on the stubby lifelines . I build all mine 34 inches off the deck, with a solid top lifeline. The solid top minimizes movement on the bottom, as the stanchions are then supported at both ends.
Deep sea, I run a temporary lifeline ,chest high, to the shrouds, then back down to the bow pulpit. It's not in the way, and gives great peace of mind.


----------



## misfits (Dec 9, 2011)

Any boat that is ill prepared eventually will flounder be it 20 miles offshore or 200. Boats that many here consider unworthy of bluewater adventure have sailed across vast streches of ocean successfully....


----------



## CBinRI (May 17, 2004)

SloopJonB said:


> A cousin took his Cat 42 from Santa Barbara to San Francisco - several days uphill over a notorious stretch of water. His wife said she'd never do it again. The boat had no problems.


This is anecdotal and doesn't surprise me at all. I am not saying that you won't make it if you try. My point is that they are not designed for crossing oceans. Why not increase your odds by taking a boat that was designed for that purpose?


----------



## JoeDiver (Feb 2, 2011)

CBinRI said:


> Why not increase your odds by taking a boat that was designed for that purpose?


Like the Costa Concordia?


----------



## Guero (Dec 29, 2009)

CaptTony said:


> What a story! During my professional delivery days I learned neither Catalinas or Hunters are blue water boats. That was well before the internet. Today you can get on line and come to the same conclusion. Why these people in the Catalina attempted to go to Hawaii without doing some research is a topic onto itself.
> 
> *They ought to have a sign in the cockpit of Hunters and Catalinas that say "no more than 25 miles offshore."*
> 
> Let the flaming begin.


I just did Key West, Cuba, Yucatan with a Hunter. Everything went fine, and I'm a newbie and we didn't have excessive preparation. Couple of weeks, planned waypoints a day before and that's it. I'll take my new hunter over my "well respected" old previous boat.

I see Catalinas, Beneteaus and Hunters from Canada and USA in all the Marinas I visit in Mexico and in the carribeans. We're fine, don't worry about us. You should keep delivering Island Packets only, so you can feel safe.


----------



## CaptTony (May 22, 2011)

GeorgeB said:


> Just in from the "for what it's worth department": Three Beneteaus and one Catalina are part of the 49 boat fleet for this year's Pacific Cup. No Hunters are registered. I know of at least one Catalina (a C320!) entered in the Single Handed Transpac which is starting at the end of this month.


I delivered several Beneteaus on long distance deliveries (one from Tortola to Newport and two from Tortola to St. Petersburg to name just a couple). I never had a problem and always looked forward to delivering Beneteaus. At the time, Beneteaus made in France were considered superior and those are mostly what I got. They were all Moorings boats coming out of charter, so they had seen some tough use. Maybe things have changed since, but it was always an easy delivery. Anyone who has ever gone through the Old Bahama Chanel (one delivery in December) knows that sail can be a tough one.


----------



## brehm62 (Mar 27, 2011)

Ed Gillette made the trip from California to Hawaii in a 20' kayak. It took him 63 days. It makes Van Ruth's boat look roomy. John Van Ruth sailed a West Wight Potter 15 from Mexico to Hawaii, a distance of 2,700 miles. It took him 80 days.

Given a choice of either of these or my 20' sailboat for a trip to Hawaii, I would choose mine.


----------



## ottos (Aug 12, 2008)

Just because it can be done, doesn't mean it should be done. Even beach cats have crossed oceans.

.


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

I think part of the problem is the wonderful generalisations and accompanying typical pattern of responses that always accompanies these discussions.

What do we mean when we say 'offshore' or 'bluewater'?

If offshore means say the Caribbean for the US sailor, or just perhaps multiday offshore passages then I say there is plenty of evidence that the average well prepared, well equipped production boat in the 40ft + category has been there and done that several times over. CD being are own wonderful example. I would sail with him on his boat offshore in a blow long before I would step aboard a Hallberg Rassy with a few other members here 

Likewise if bluewater means crossing the Pacific in the Tradewinds in the appropriate season then that is one thing. Sailing from New Zealand to Chile however is something else all together. The former I would do in a properly equipped, prepared Catalina, the later however I would have some reservations. Both are' bluewater sailing'.

Interesting reading is always the list of entrants in the ARC

http://www.worldcruising.com/arc/entries.aspx

There is your Swans(Big nice shiny ones), Hallberg Rassys, Amels and Island Packets. Also however just as many 'production boats'. Hanse's, Bavaria's and Beneteaus aplenty.

I believe actually the biggest issue when choosing a boat for say a circumnavigation is wear and tear.

Your average weekend/social sailing yacht probably does 100-500 nm a year. 
Your average coastal cruising yacht 1000-3000 nm a year.
A circumnavigator might do 15000 - 20000nm a year.

The biggest sales market for sailing yachts at the moment is the first of these categories. Clearly a boat built for occasional weekend sailing is going to wear much easier on a circumnavigation than a boat like say an Island Packet that has been built for such punishment.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

chall03 said:


> I think part of the problem is the wonderful generalisations and accompanying typical pattern of responses that always accompanies these discussions.
> 
> *What do we mean when we say 'offshore' or 'bluewater'? *
> 
> ...


My definition is if you will be unable to make safe harbour ahead of a big storm.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

The informal nuance I've usually felt between the two is that "offshore" you can't call a plumber, duck back in for more beer or tp, and if someone isn't happy they're just going to have to wait for the next landfall. You can't drop 'em back at the dock and you're also out of helicopter range if, as the french might say, "merde arrive".

Bluewater to me is the same thing with one important plus: Weather. Any boat can go offshore, but a bluewater boat should be capable of withstanding at least 90% of what the ocean can throw at it. This including hurricanes, torrential downpours, and rollovers and knockdowns. While pitchpoling might break the mast and rigging, a proper bluewater boat makes that less likely and increases the odds of surviving it and being able to jury-rig. Assuming the crew were only mildly concussed and not too badly broken up.

Offshore is a place. Bluewater is the ability to go there, and survive there. By speed, by wile, by brute strength, whatever works.


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

SloopJonB said:


> My definition is if you will be unable to make safe harbour ahead of a big storm.


See I think this definition is just too all encompassing for me. Tradewind sailing for a couple of days, with a modern forecast being generally accurate up to 5 days ahead is offshore sailing, but of a very different kind to rounding Cape Horn.

I absolutely agree once you are out of reach of land, the game changes in terms of the stakes. However at times coastal cruising here in Australia would actually fall within your definition.



hellosailor said:


> The informal nuance I've usually felt between the two is that "offshore" you can't call a plumber, duck back in for more beer or tp, and if someone isn't happy they're just going to have to wait for the next landfall. You can't drop 'em back at the dock and you're also out of helicopter range if, as the french might say, "merde arrive".
> 
> Bluewater to me is the same thing with one important plus: Weather. Any boat can go offshore, but a bluewater boat should be capable of withstanding at least 90% of what the ocean can throw at it. This including hurricanes, torrential downpours, and rollovers and knockdowns. While pitchpoling might break the mast and rigging, a proper bluewater boat makes that less likely and increases the odds of surviving it and being able to jury-rig. Assuming the crew were only mildly concussed and not too badly broken up.


Hellosailor, I guess I am likewise saying that 90% of what the ocean can throw at you depends on what ocean and what bit of it your on.....
There are boats I would go 'offshore' in the Pacific in, that I would NOT take coastal cruising around the bottom of Australia.

All the other things you are talking about are more to do with being well prepared rather than the boat itself. Not being able to call a plumber means that you make sure your a pretty good plumber yourself, it has nothing to do with what boat you are on.

As for pitchpoling, not too many yachts would do well being pitch-poled in the offshore conditions you describe. The trick is not to pitch pole your yacht in the first place, by knowing heavy weather tactics like how to hove-to offshore in big seas, again far more to do with preparation than the boat. Show me an idiot on a Swan/Island Packet/Tayana/Valiant who is lying ahull in a storm in huge seas and I will show you a solid bluewater boat that will be knocked down/pitch pole very quickly and potentially sink very easily.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Cruisingdad said:


> There is no such thing as a bluewater boat.


Apparently, I'm missing the point you're making with such an assertion... Sorry, but to me that sounds as silly as saying there is no such thing as a beautiful woman... (grin)

Looking at creations such as Dave Pedrick's Leadership 44, or England's Kristin Scott Thomas, I'm simply inclined to disagree...

Just curious, what is the Limit of Positive Stability of the Catalina 400? The designed LPS figure is about as good a starting point as any single criteria for determining a particular boat's suitability for bluewater sailing, it's amazing how little attention is given to it by both marketeers, and end consumers... I'd hazard a guess that fewer than one in ten of us here could cite with any accuracy this very important characteristic of the boats we own...


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

There are plenty of ratios and such to gauge a boat's ability to withstand big breaking seas. The point is to NOT be pitchpoled or surf down wave fronts out of control so as to broach and get knocked down. No rocket science here. ANY boat that digs the bow in and does a front flip is going to lose all its rigging as the BEST thing that's going to happen. I don't care what kind of boat it is. This has to be avoided by some means as rule #1. As for hull design, boats with wide sterns designed so that wives and kids can drive their skidoos right up next to the boat anchored 10 yards from the beach in 2 feet of water and hop on to a wide platform probably do not belong anywhere near big waves. Heavily built boats with double ends and deep keels are OBVIOUSLY more capable of surviving big, breaking waves rolling in from the stern. Boat design has everything to do with capability in "blue" water. To deny this is nonsense.


----------



## larrybme (Nov 2, 2011)

It seems there is alot of negativity towards Catalinas here. There is one that was bought for 25k and after this last Baha Haha is heading for the south Pacific. The couple on board seem to love it, having no problems. They are out there, not talking about it. There were I believe at least three Cat 36's in the 2011 Baha Haha, more than any other single make or model. There was a 1987 model that raced from LA to Hawaii and back with no problems, failures, or breakdowns. Zero, nada, raced there and sailed back. Yet, still not a blue water boat. There is a couple happily cruising the Sea of Cortez for the last two years in a Cat 27. Simple systems, low budget, happy cruisers with no intentions of trading up. I spent two years cruising the west coast of Mex and US in a tartan 36. For the want of more room, I too will be buying a Cat 36 to get back to the ocean, after a way too long absense. A five year plan has stretched to eleven now and I am so sick of land living it makes me sick. Land sickness. So, currently being an armchair sailor and dreamer, soon to be sending you letters, blogs and updates from 'out there doing it', those of you who were diligent enough to afford a 'blue water' cruiser' I am envious. I will be anchoring right there with you anywhere in the pacific real soon in my Cat 36. Knowing its limitations, and sailing accordingly. You can spend a lifetime waiting and saving for the 'right boat', many have and found due to many reasons, that they waited too long, the door closed on their dream. There are plenty of Catalina 36's, 38's and 42's on the market right now in your budget ready to take you where your heart desires, or you can wait and dream on. Cue up Pink Floyd, "Time". Hopefully I will be able to entertain you with some pics, videos and blog form my adventures aboard my humble, well prepared, carefully sailed with vigilance to weather, Catalina 36. I stand with one foot on the dock, and the other on the rail, with money in bank waiting for the accepted offer. Good luck to us all. May our dreams be fulfilled before the are escape our grasp.


----------



## larrybme (Nov 2, 2011)

oops, forgive the typo, my previous boat was a tartan 30, not 36, also a good pocket cruiser and capable 'coastal cruiser' that endured some strong blows and heavy seas off of Big Sur.


----------



## Jacomole (Jun 15, 2012)

I have a Catalina 36 and it sails bluewater just fine.As a matter of fact she is currently in ist final leg of a 1500 mile cruise from tampa bay to Cartagena Colombia. Preparation and being meticulous about maintenance , safety and weather is key.
A good sailor is much more important than the make of the boat.
If you are complacent or not an experienced sailor , the same story will be true in a pearson, bristol, tayana or any make.


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

Limit of positive stability:

Swan 53 - 107
Swan 40 - 112
Hunter legend 50 - 112
Tartan 41 -124
Open 50 - ~125
Hylan 56 - 125
Catalina 470 - 126
Hallberg 54 - 130
Melges 24 - 130
Open 60 - 130 (keel midline)
Beneteau oceanis 373 - 132
Swan 70 - 133
Beneteau oceanis 343 - 134
Swan 37 - 140

This is just a limited selection of boats, but I think it is indicative of the fact that AVS alone is a poor indicator of what most of us mean by a Bluewater boat. 

And it isn't obvious that double enders are better off shore boats than powerful transoms, they are just older designs. They originated for a number of reasons, some aesthetic, some cargo handling, but very little related to seaworthiness. They are easily driven designs due to low wetted surface, but safer? Not really. 

Big open transoms as smurphy calls them also have huge amounts of reserve buoyancy, far beyond the amount that a double enter would, causing the transom to lift very early as a wave approaches from the stern, and lifting the back of the boat up. This propensity to surf helps keep the boat ahead of the breaking water, and limits ingress to the cockpit. While a double enter with limited reserve capacity allows the water to break over the deck much more easily.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

murph, not that I disagree with you. One would hope to never be capsized or pitchpoled let alone dismasted. But a bluewater boat will be out in blue water, and that's eventually going to mean out in really brutal wx, and that's when a rogue wave is easily going to find and invert your boat. The only question being, which axis(es) it will be inverted across.

Doesn't matter what your situational awareness is, doesn't matter how good you are on the tiller. Anything big enough and fast enough to smash bridge windows on one of the Queens, is going to make your boat feel like Donald Duck in a front loading washer.

And IIRC about 2-3 years ago there was someone using the radar satellites to see just how common the rogues are, and they found out they're WAY more common than anyone had thought. Over 100x more common.

Over, as they found out after the Fastnet race, storm boards over the portlights don't help very much when your cabin top itself gets torn away. If you can manage not to get your head and bones bashed in, a *bluewater* boat will still be there with you the morning after.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Hellosailor, (as I posted here before) about 40 yrs ago, a charter capt. I used to know was out in the Hudson Canyon, clear, calm day, fishing. A wall of water came out of nowhere, broke over the boat, and ripped the freakin' bimini off the BRIDGE of, I think it was, a 50' Egg! It was just lucky it didn't hit him broadside. These abnormal waves are more common than anyone likes to think about. 

It's the exposed surface area of large transoms that just look to be dangerous in these kinds of designs. I don't mean J-boats or similar excellent designs but some of the dock-sitting designs that seem to be very popular now. Moving water has immense power. When it meets a flat surface, something is going to give--the direction of the hull. While the buoyancy of these designs allows a greater percentage of waves to pass under, when a big one breaks into the cockpit, the force of that water will move the boat rather than just wrap around a tapered end. Running before big waves and surfing down wave fronts, unless in a modern, low profile racing rig designed for this sort of thing, is not something ordinary cruisers ought to be doing. Getting a boat into a possible broach condition is way over the line of common sense. Knowing when to reef down and heave-to is probably the best safety measure for any boat and has nothing to do with transom design. Then again, many modern designs will not heave-to and have no choice.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"Moving water has immense power. " No debate on that. My physics isn't advanced enough to really know how to treat it, but I've run some crude numbers treating a "block" of water as if it was a block of concrete, falling from various heights and impacting a boat under it, the same way that a breaking wave top will drop a "block" of water on a boat. Once you hit a certain speed, water and concrete are remarkably similar (the water just doesn't spill away) so the analogy is a bit rough but a good starting point.

I leave the math for the curious. Pick your own starting height (the top falling off a 12' wave, or a 20' wave, or a 40' wave are all good starts, a rogue will easily double that height) and your own block of water (one cubic foot? one cubic yard?) and the number rapidly move up to where they make golf attractive. Ignoring the boatspeed and simply "dropping" the block would sure make young math students understand why math can be useful.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

Yes, that's my take on the math/flute music involved in hydrodynamics as well. There's some interesting stuff going on in the Newport-Bermuda Race right now. That Mini-Maxi is a prime example of a flat-out racing boat. Pretty awesome. Broke the record by a mile. Newport Bermuda 2012 - Powered by Yellowbrick Tracking


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Awesome web site! And it looks like the race strategy this year pretty much was "CHARGE!" without all the hunting around for best course.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

I guess they had 20 knots start to finish right at a beam reach. What a hoot! I'd give my right @#$ to get a ride on one of those 72' MiniMaxis.


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

Coming home from a two day 50 mile slog feast dead upwind into 10' confused seas and 25-30kn of breeze, I am feeling more than a little jealousy. More in the range of homicidal that they had such a nice run . I haven't sailed the new toys, but I got to take an Andrews 70 of a 20kn (abt 15kn boat speed average) blast reach across the Gulf of Mexico, and it took two weeks to get the grin off.


----------



## AncientTech (Jun 16, 2012)

I agree with creedence623 as to it being a particular case of a particular boat with a particular captain. I also believe it to be educational and worth a read. I think I will learn best not only by reading P. Lutus and Thor Heyerdahl but these types of documentaries as well. Any knowledge I glean will bolster my chances of making the right decisions when I am forced to. Perhaps even enabling myself to prepare better ahead of time to reduce the chances of having to make those decisions.


----------



## CapnBilll (Sep 9, 2006)

From the above story, having a boat with a solid thick hull for seakindly comfort. And fixing all leaks is a good prerequisite to going offshore.

Also insuring whatever seasickness medicine you bring actually works. Pills are useless, so suppositories are neccessary. 

A number of illnesses mimic seasickness, and many more can make you more sensitive. 

Making the seatrial a 100 mile offshore overnight jaunt during a coastal squal makes a lot more sense than a 3 hour blue sky bay crossing.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

AncientTech said:


> I agree with creedence623 as to it being a particular case of a particular boat with a particular captain. I also believe it to be educational and worth a read. I think I will learn best not only by reading P. Lutus and Thor Heyerdahl but these types of documentaries as well. Any knowledge I glean will bolster my chances of making the right decisions when I am forced to. Perhaps even enabling myself to prepare better ahead of time to reduce the chances of having to make those decisions.


Well right off the bat it will teach you to make a better choice of vessel than a balsa raft.


----------



## JoeDiver (Feb 2, 2011)

CapnBilll said:


> Making the seatrial a 100 mile offshore overnight jaunt during a coastal squal makes a lot more sense than a 3 hour blue sky bay crossing.


Yes...we all know how those "three hour tours" end up.....


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

I will try and respond tomorrow. 

Brian


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

Maybe the better question for the aspiring blue water sailor is "Are you ready for blue water sailing"

Have you taken the time to prepare your boat properly? Whatever that boat may be.
Have you put the time and effort into developing your Seamanship skills?
Have you developed the myriad skills to ensure your success as a "Blue water sailor"?

Seems like most of the disaster stories you read here are mostly about poorly maintained and equipped boats, and inexperienced sailors getting over their heads offshore.

Many of you will be surprised that their are no "APPS" for Blue water sailing.....


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

aeventyr60 said:


> Maybe the better question for the aspiring blue water sailor is "Are you ready for blue water sailing"
> 
> Have you taken the time to prepare your boat properly? Whatever that boat may be.
> Have you put the time and effort into developing your Seamanship skills?
> ...


Good Post...


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

> aybe the better question for the aspiring blue water sailor is "Are you ready for blue water sailing"
> 
> Have you taken the time to prepare your boat properly? Whatever that boat may be.
> Have you put the time and effort into developing your Seamanship skills?
> Have you developed the myriad skills to ensure your success as a "Blue water sailor"?


Agree. I have a blue water boat. My boat is not blue water ready. I thought Jack's Vic-Maui reference was a very good check list to get a person in the right frame of mind for the preparation that's needed.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Jacomole said:


> I have a Catalina 36 and it sails bluewater just fine.


Hmmm, sure you might not want to amend that to something like, _"*So far*, my boat has handled whatever particular conditions she has encountered offshore without any problems&#8230;"_? (grin)

I've little doubt the crews of the 2 Beneteaus abandoned last fall between the NE and Bermuda felt the same way&#8230;

Until, they encountered conditions they'd not previously seen&#8230; And then, rather suddenly, they didn't&#8230;

For example, do you know for certain, or from experience, how well your Catalina will heave-to in a fully developed gale, in a patch of ocean with unlimited fetch? Is your boat fitted with the provision to set up an inner forestay? Absent such a variable geometry rig, and the ability to fly a staysail or storm jib, boats of relatively modest forefoot can often be a real challenge to be made to heave-to, or hold their own fore-reaching or at least making minimal progress to weather&#8230; Just my opinion, of course, but I rate a boat's ability to comfortably heave-to, or even lie ahull, without the necessity of the crew to take extraordinary measures, to be one of the most vital desirable characteristics of a bluewater cruising boat, and one which many contemporary coastal cruising production designs simply lack&#8230;

Don't get me wrong, your Catalina looks like a wonderful all-around boat, well-proportioned, and likely to be quite mannerly offshore... However, at a glance, I can't help but notice a feature like the forward-opening hatch on the forward slope of the deckhouse, which could be highly vulnerable to being torn off or compromised by a boarding sea... Such a configuration is simply not likely to be found on a boat truly designed from the outset for bluewater , and is the sort of feature that really needs to be addressed before heading seriously offshore...


----------



## misfits (Dec 9, 2011)

The minute I looked at the opening shot on the video, there it is in all it's glory, the BBQ grille. At least the canvas cover was on to prepare for the bluewater voyage.

As Ron White says, You can't fix stupid....

Glad it worked out for them, boats can be replaced, people can not.


----------



## MikeinLA (Jul 25, 2006)

Jacomole said:


> I have a Catalina 36 and it sails bluewater just fine.As a matter of fact she is currently in ist final leg of a 1500 mile cruise from tampa bay to Cartagena Colombia. Preparation and being meticulous about maintenance , safety and weather is key.
> A good sailor is much more important than the make of the boat.
> If you are complacent or not an experienced sailor , the same story will be true in a pearson, bristol, tayana or any make.


Please refrain from inserting facts into a "Benehunterlina" bashing thread. Don't you know that Catalina's fiberglass MELTS in blue water? My Cat 36 sailed from Los Angeles to South America under the prior owner, but we all know that Catalina sailors are all LUCKY TO BE ALIVE!:laugher

Mike


----------



## Guero (Dec 29, 2009)

MikeinLA said:


> Please refrain from inserting facts into a "Benehunterlina" bashing thread. Don't you know that Catalina's fiberglass MELTS in blue water? My Cat 36 sailed from Los Angeles to South America under the prior owner, but we all know that Catalina sailors are all LUCKY TO BE ALIVE!:laugher
> 
> Mike


:laugher :laugher

Ahh, the constant bashing from the internet experts, who don't own a Catalina, Beneteau or Hunter, but they know this guy who knows another guy who had this and that happen to their boat.

My Hunter 410 didn't disintegrate either, it also didn't sink, and *absolutly nothing* broke during a cruise from Florida to Cuba and then Mexico, despite getting hit with pretty bad weather during the crossing of the Yucatan channel.

And when it's on the hard, if I knock on the fiber glass, my fist doesn't go through the fiber glass an it ain't soft. She also points very well and is fast,, despite a main with in-mast furling, and I can tack in a few seconds and participate in club regattas. My mast also didn't fell because of the lack of backstay, I fly a gennaker and the B&R rig can take a beating, in fact, this rig is on all the Catamarans i see around.

There are many Catalinas (including 2 Cat 27's) and small hunters at the Marinas in progreso and all of them made the trip on their own bottom. I owned 1 Catalina 25, 1 Aloha 34 and now a Hunter 410 in my short sailing life (I started 3 years ago), and the worst boat, in term of design, ease of working on it, finding parts etc, was the Aloha 34.. But its hull was so THICK! And it's also a well respected boat/brand. It was loaded with weird design decisions.

I spent the weekend studying my user manual, wiring diagrams, etc to know my boat better and didn't find the self destruct mechanism that triggers when you get 3 miles away from the coast yet.


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

Are you guys suggesting that maybe sailnet might be wrong? 

We have a member here who just completed a circumnavigation on a Hunter.....

Another guy just posted in a old thread about doing the ARC rally in his Catalina. 

And if you look through the list of entries for the ARC you will find every second boat is a Bendyslow


----------



## CapnBilll (Sep 9, 2006)

One big thing about a blue water crossing...Luck. The OP failed because of poor planning, an inadequate testing, leaks, rudder failure, etc... and health failure of a crew member. Rough seas due to tropical storm in vicinity. 

But if you take two identical boats, on a crossing one takes a rogue wave, one doesn't, (it doesn't matter how rare, or how big the rogue wave they are documented to exist). 

One boat says my boat is blue water capable, because I made it across no problem, the other says I needed a much bigger, and stronger boat, because everything broke, and the boat nearly capsized, and was swamped.

Who was right? On a calm week, you can cross the Atlantic in a canoe, if you take a near miss with a class 4 hurricane, a 300ft cruise ship can be shredded to debris.

There is no boat that can take everything the ocean can dish out. All you can do, is get a solid well made ship of at least moderate size, in top condition, and watch the weather.


----------



## n0w0rries (May 17, 2009)

If you have to ask if a boat is ready for blue water, the answer you should be given is always no.

Why? Because if you're ready for blue water sailing, you can answer the question yourself. And if you're trying to plan for the future, well there's a 95% chance that by the time you are ready for blue water sailing, your opinion will be different then whatever you got on the internet. (There's also a 95% chance you will never cross oceans too, but I don't want to pee in your cheerios)

Learn to sail. Buy a starter boat that is popular enough to be easy to sell. Go coastal cruising. Drop the hook in a crappy anchorage and stay up all night in 30 knots of wind, while you watch 2 stars to see if the boat is dragging or not. Then sell it and upgrade, or sell it and go back to the farm.


----------



## paul323 (Mar 13, 2010)

n0w0rries said:


> If you have to ask if a boat is ready for blue water, the answer you should be given is always no.


That's a good point. Best answer yet!


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Guero said:


> :laugher :laugher
> 
> Ahh, the constant bashing from the internet experts, who don't own a Catalina, Beneteau or Hunter, but they know this guy who knows another guy who had this and that happen to their boat.
> 
> My Hunter 410 didn't disintegrate either, it also didn't sink, and *absolutly nothing* broke during a cruise from Florida to Cuba and then Mexico, despite getting hit with pretty bad weather during the crossing of the Yucatan channel.


Ahh, and yet another anecdotal example of another safe passage made in a popular production boat, thus rendering moot any and all design and construction _CHARACTERISTICS_ of true offshore boats, and "proving" that virtually any "brand" is just as suitable as any other for bluewater sailing...(grin, bigtime)

I really wish we could steer these discussions away from _brands_, and focus rather on _characteristics_ that determine a particular boat's suitability for offshore passagemaking... But, the "naming names" appears to be a necessary shorthand, I suppose...

Getting back to the original poster's cite, however - do you think that boat was a good example of proof that that particular model was suitable for passagemaking? Here are the most salient points of that report, for me:



> Log notes say "rough and lumpy, everything wet."
> 
> Everything means just that, everything. Cushions, sleeping bags, navigation station, radios, GPS, log notes. Except for the aft cabin, there was not a dry spot in the house. Surprisingly, zip-lock bags, even when securely sealed, can accumulate copious amounts of water. Cans rust rapidly and all our clothing was soaked.
> 
> ...


I don't know about you, but for me, Priority #1 is keeping the water outside of the boat. That includes water coming in from either below, or above, the waterline... Few things over the course of an offshore passage will so quickly lead to prolonged discomfort, demoralization and exhaustion of the crew, and present a real danger to the ability to keep vital systems up and running, than dealing with copious and persistent topside leaks... Time and time again, water getting below, in amounts and into places it shouldn't, is the first step in the classic progression of Cascading Failures...

Now, I suppose it's possible that this particular boat is some sort of "outlier" among all the couple of hundred of other Catalina 36s of that vintage, that _NONE_ of the others would have leaked to that extent when faced with 25 knots offshore... Possible, yes - but in my opinion, not bloody likely...

In my experience, when a 14-year old boat leaks to the extent the author describes, it's not just hatches, portlights, etc... Usually, the hull to deck joint is a primary culprit... Some may think that a through-bolted mechanical fastening of the hull to deck on 4" centers is overkill, and self-tapping fasteners every 6" or even more are usually "good enough"... Well, people are free to believe what they want to believe, of course... (grin)

But again, I wish we would center these discussions on the importance of features such as a hull to deck joint, or the integrity of the topsides and decks from leaks... For example, one of the best arguments IMHO in favor of aluminum construction, is that it generally produces a vessel that will come as close as possible to being watertight when inverted, as it is when floating on her lines... that's the sort of thing I'd like to see addressed in these "Bluewater Threads", rather than simply bandying about different brand names...

Just my opinions, of course... I'm no internet "expert", for sure - but, for the umpteenth time here, I can certainly point you in the direction of some...












Guero said:


> And when it's on the hard, if I knock on the fiber glass, my fist doesn't go through the fiber glass an it ain't soft.


Well, I should certainly hope so...

However, what do you suppose most would make of such an assessment, if they were to come across it on the copy of the survey just done on a boat they were considering for an Atlantic Circle? (grin)


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

John Neale has a fairly comprehensive list of desirable (in his judgement) characteristics as well as a list of boats with those characteristics. You can probably identify other boats that should be on the list.

Mahina Expedition - Selecting A Boat for Offshore Cruising


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

jackdale said:


> John Neale has a fairly comprehensive list of desirable (in his judgement) characteristics as well as a list of boats with those characteristics. You can probably identify other boats that should be on the list.
> 
> Mahina Expedition - Selecting A Boat for Offshore Cruising


Uh-oh, now you've done it...

Not a single offering from Beneteau, Catalina, or Hunter makes his list... Oh, well - what does John Neal know about bluewater sailing, anyway? (grin)

As you say, "_fairly_ comprehensive" is the operative word, there... FWIW, I'd take a Frers-designed Beneteau First Series from the 80's in a heartbeat to take me anywhere I'd care to sail...

And, while it's not my cup of tea at all, I'd have little hesitation delivering a Hunter HC-50, or a boat like Michael's 49, to a place like the Caribbean...

I thought the HC-50 was a pretty cool boat, you've gotta love a 50-footer that was offered with a tiller as an option... Probably one of the least popular models Hunter ever built, however - a case where "their market" spoke volumes...


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

Some friends have sailed with John Neale; interesting stories.

I would probably sail an HC-50 myself; one has done the Vic Maui race.

I am delivering a C&C 44 (also not on the list, but meets ISAF category 1 offshore standards) from Lahaina to Vancouver. It is not a comfortable boat upwind when it pounds. I can see why it is not on Neale's list.

I have also taken a Nauticat 37 (very tender) and a Saga 409 (head is way too big) 50-60 miles offshore successfully.

The Hylas 46 is on his list, but I found that the lack of sea berths was a major PITA.


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

While I agree with mostly everything you are saying, and anecdotal evidence of a boat doing a certain trip once certainly doesn't prove that it is an ideal specimen for blue water, how do we then explain that every third if not second boat in the ARC is a modern production cruiser??

Interestingly I spent sometime living aboard in Port Bundaberg here in Australia, the main port of entry for yachts here in Oz. The boats coming into here, Americans/Canadians having done a trans-pacific, Europeans with two oceans under their belt, New Zealanders doing a Pacific loop or Aussies completing a circumnavigation were largely NOT modern production coastal cruisers.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

chall03 said:


> While I agree with mostly everything you are saying, and anecdotal evidence of a boat doing a certain trip once certainly doesn't prove that it is an ideal specimen for blue water, how do we then explain that every third if not second boat in the ARC is a modern production cruiser??
> 
> Interestingly I spent sometime living aboard in Port Bundaberg here in Australia, the main port of entry for yachts here in Oz. The boats coming into here, Americans/Canadians having done a trans-pacific, Europeans with two oceans under their belt, New Zealanders doing a Pacific loop or Aussies completing a circumnavigation were largely NOT modern production coastal cruisers.


I think you answered your own question - many, if not most of the people who join the ARC do so precisely BECAUSE they are inexperienced at blue water sailing. Inexperience and a less than ideal boat for the purpose sort of go hand in hand.

Anyone who makes it across the Pacific, or even attempts it, is not likely to fall into that category.


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

SloopJonB said:


> I think you answered your own question - many, if not most of the people who join the ARC do so precisely BECAUSE they are inexperienced at blue water sailing. Inexperience and a less than ideal boat for the purpose sort of go hand in hand.
> 
> Anyone who makes it across the Pacific, or even attempts it, is not likely to fall into that category.


I guess I did didn't I?? Aren't I clever 

I don't know if I would go as far as you in saying most who do the ARC are inexperienced, but maybe it is more different kinds of perspectives and a different bluewater experience.

Not only have the guys coming into Bundaberg crossed the Pacific, most of them(The North Americans and Europeans on a circumnavigation) are also venturing onto the Indian Ocean and looking at rounding a pretty bad ass Cape. A very different kind of 'Bluewater' to doing the ARC. Most of them seem to be in custom builds/ heavily modified one offs or a expensive 'bluewater production boat' (Hallberg R/Swan/IslandPacket/Hylas/Ovni/Amel) I don't see many old faithfuls ( Valiant 40 et all), but then again Australia is an expensive place to visit, and budget conscious world cruisers probably sail right past.

The point still stands however that there are 'inexperienced' cruisers in modern production boats sailing across the Atlantic in large enough numbers to not be anecdotal, without really too many issues( Yes I know the ARC is not without incident).


----------



## CBinRI (May 17, 2004)

JonEisberg said:


> Uh-oh, now you've done it...
> 
> Not a single offering from Beneteau, Catalina, or Hunter makes his list... Oh, well - what does John Neal know about bluewater sailing, anyway? (grin)
> 
> ...


Agreed about the 80s era Beneteau Firsts. The 42 is a very solid, fast and well-built boat.


----------



## CBinRI (May 17, 2004)

chall03 said:


> Are you guys suggesting that maybe sailnet might be wrong?
> 
> We have a member here who just completed a circumnavigation on a Hunter.....
> 
> ...


Bendyslow? They make some very fast boats.

I still don't get using anecdotal examples of light boats crossing oceans as a justification for taking a coastal cruiser offshore. It is not wise. It doesn't make them bad boats. I think those who advocate taking a Hunter or Catalina across an ocean are doing their fellow sailors a disservice. And yes, I know it has been done and done a lot. Still doesn't make it wise.


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

CBinRI said:


> Bendyslow? They make some very fast boats.
> 
> I still don't get using anecdotal examples of light boats crossing oceans as a justification for taking a coastal cruiser offshore. It is not wise. It doesn't make them bad boats. I think those who advocate taking a Hunter or Catalina across an ocean are doing their fellow sailors a disservice. And yes, I know it has been done and done a lot. Still doesn't make it wise.


Now fast is a subjective term isn't it?????  

I do agree for the most part. They don't perform badly at all. It is hard to describe an entire brand however as either fast or slow.

Either way I was being a little tongue in cheek, Bendyslow is just a term we use alot around here when racing to annoy the Bendyslow skippers  

As for anecdotal examples, I don't know what other kind of examples there are. If you add up enough anecdotal examples you get statistics. Now I don't personally advocate taking a modern production coastal cruiser across an ocean. I wouldn't do it myself, I sail a early 80's cruiser based on a roberts design and built like tank.

However I don't think we can sit on the internet and say a modern production cruiser can't cross an ocean when statistics say that about half of the boats out there crossing oceans are modern production 'coastal' cruisers.


----------



## CBinRI (May 17, 2004)

chall03 said:


> Now fast is a subjective term isn't it?????
> 
> I do agree for the most part. They don't perform badly at all. It is hard to describe an entire brand however as either fast or slow.
> 
> ...


I would never say they "can't" cross an ocean. In fact, I said that they do it all the time. If it were me, I would increase my odds by taking a heavier-built boat. That's all.


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

Your not saying it, but this thread and others like it seem to always end with an oversimplified, polarizing conclusion that basically modern production boats can't sail offshore.

As I have said a couple of pages back the problems start here with definitions and assumptions. What is Bluewater?? You cannot simply lump all sailing out of sight of land into the one basket and label it 'Bluewater'. There is trade wind sailing and high latitude sailing. There is sailing as part of an organised Rally and there is sailing remote routes on your own. The extremes of 'Bluewater' are extreme.

I personally would take a properly prepared 40+ Beneteau with good crew in the ARC. I would take the same 40+ Beneteau across the Pacific milk-run in season. I would not take it however around a cape.

Now if we are talking a circumnavigation, with associated heavy wear and tear I would be in a 50ft Hallberg Rassy.

The OPs account IMHO is about having a properly prepared boat more than the type of boat. All boats leak, especially old ones regardless of whether it is a Catalina or Swan. Steering not properly checked and maintained likewise is vulnerable on any boat....


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

CBinRI said:


> Agreed about the 80s era Beneteau Firsts. The 42 is a very solid, fast and well-built boat.


AFAIAC it's the best looking boat Bene ever built. The whole series of Firsts of that vintage are great looking boats but the 42 is the best - gorgeous & racy and judging by the conditions of the ones I've seen, well built too.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

www.usna.edu/Users/naome/phmiller/offshore.ppt

A simple, interesting ppt file.


----------



## jackdale (Dec 1, 2008)

smurphny said:


> www.usna.edu/Users/naome/phmiller/offshore.ppt
> 
> A simple, interesting ppt file.


Thanks for that - saved.


----------



## Group9 (Oct 3, 2010)

Faster said:


> Yes, this is an old story, but a good read just the same. I like Stumble's summary.. not a lot of those issues can be laid at the builder's door.
> 
> *The boat ultimately survived the ordeal *and was returned to the owner, IIRC.


Funny how some of these boats seem to do better on their own, than with their owners onboard.

You know you really shouldn't be at sea when you're boat is in less danger with you off of it than on it.


----------



## ravicabral (Jun 14, 2013)

"You know you really shouldn't be at sea when you're boat is in less danger with you off of it than on it." 

 Now that is one great quote!:laugher

In the UK there is a much republished book called "Heavy Weather Sailing" which has a very scientific and objective analysis about boat design for 'Heavy Weather'. It is based on analysis of narrative accounts of various boats encountering extreme conditions (including a dissection of the fateful Fastnet race) so it is a very good read as well as being informative.

There was a bit of discussion on the thread about exactly what 'BlueWater' meant. Maybe 'Heavy Weather' is a more meaningful term. BlueWater just means that there is nowhere to run to hide from it! 

Really interesting and entertaining thread.


----------



## mpatter894 (Jun 7, 2013)

I have over or 1.5 million miles logged as a merchant marine officer on ships over 700ft. I read all this speculation as to what could happen or what will happen at sea which boats are blue water boats and which are not. with todays electronics any idiot can buy a boat and set off on an open ocean passage,just because the person spends top dollar on a so called blue water boat doesnt mean they will make it across the ocean. a successful passage in my opinion is about being able to prepare for and plan your passage, know how to use the weather to your advantage and experience on the water(In my eyes racing around a bay in a small boat wont give you the experience needed to have an enjoyable safe ocean passage). I read all these posts that say dont take this boat or dont take that boat when the truth is if you dont have the knowledge and experience DONT TAKE ANY BOAT.In the past boats were built so much heavier and stronger because that was part of the planning because they didnt have all the electronics and weather routing services and sat services that are available today, and the chances of getting caught in a storm were more likely. another reason they built the boats so heavy was because of the materials available look at resins and space age glues of today much stronger than they had 20 years ago. How many of the old so called bluewater cruisers have used carbon fiber in their bows. Just because a boat is mass produced does not mean its not safe it means technology has allowed them to build boats faster by using computerized software for design and implementation. I could pick out flaws on any boat the question is what are you going to do with the flaws in order for it to be safe. There is so much out there today that allows us to make ocean passages without taking the risks that sailors did in the past. granted there are boats out there that should not go into the blue, but there are a lot more people with money and a dream that should not be out there than there are boats. In fact most boat owners should not even be allowed to leave the dock. In my 20 years of sailing with one of the largest shipping companies in the world only once did i get caught in conditions that actually scared me for the size of the ship(832ft). I would say all that was due to experience and planning not how big or strong i thought the vessel i was on claimed to be. Now just so someone doesnt start bashing me for not being a sail boater cancel that i have been sailing since i was 9 years old and still planning a circumnavigation beginning 2015


----------



## CBinRI (May 17, 2004)

Stumble said:


> Honestly, while I don't think of Hunters or Catalina's as being great offshore boats the reality is that with proper preparation they are fine.
> 
> Let's look at this story for a moment,
> 
> ...


We all love our boats but I think it is border-line irresponsible to encourage people to go offshore in a lightly built coastal cruiser, particularly one that is 25 years old. Catalinas and Hunters are great boats for what they are: coastal cruisers built at a very reasonable price point. Have people crossed oceans in them? Of course. But that is not what they are built for and I wouldn't push my luck by testing them that way.

Edit: Apologies. Didn't notice this was an old thread and that I had made more or less the same comments a year or so ago.


----------



## CBinRI (May 17, 2004)

Stumble said:


> Just for fun I looked it up, and while I couldn't find data from when this boat was built I did find out that currently:
> 
> Nautica Swan uses all lewmar hatches for its boats.
> Catalina also uses the exact same hatches.


Well that seals the deal.


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

A good builder will through bolt hatches while many will use screws - as Catalina has in the past. The hatch quality is only as good as the installation.


----------



## jzk (Feb 25, 2008)

The steering thing is very uncool. A port that rips off from a jib sheet? Not good at all.

The rest is just lack of preparation. How did they not know that their boat would be all wet in that kind of weather? If this was the first time they were in weather bad enough to take some good waves and get things wet, they shouldn't have gone.

And didn't Jack know he would get that seasick? That seems a bit like lack of preparation also for that kind of trip.


----------

