# Why a racer for cruising discussion...



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

We all have different opinions of what makes a good cruising boat. I get that. Believe me, Paulo's idea of what makes a good cruising boat, Jeff_h's, my dad's, and mine are three different animals altogether! I respect all of their opinions, but I have long tried to make a different case.

My question in what could be a very debated thread is why you would choose what I consider a race boat for cruising? I am sure to get the typical response of, "Because we appreciate being able to sail and appreciate sailing over creature comforts." I have heard some variation of that for years. But, for a fulltime cruising boat, do you really gain that much going to a racing boat for cruising?

First, lets define cruising. Cruising, in my opinion (and everyone gets their own), is fulltime, probably no house, everything in storage, I am going-going-going or living on the water for well over a year, and likely many years, if not permanently. I have to tell you that the difference between taking off for a few weeks or even a few months (both of which I have done) while still maintaining a residence is TOTALLY different than selling it all and sailing (which we do now). Why? Because when you sell it all and sail, you don't have the luxury of odd storage, a place to return to when the boat gets cramped, that (un)realistic knowledge in the back of your head that if your boat sinks, you will just have to move back to your house and deal with the insurance company. I think SSCA has a similar definition, which I agree with, but I guess everyone gets their own. What I don't think is cruising is taking off for a few weeks, maybe a few months, where the idiosyncracies of your boat can just be shrugged off until you get back home. That seems like vacationing to me.

Next, lets define racer/performance/HD. My idea of a performance boat is a boat that meets or slightly exceeds hull speed in normal wind conditions. These are the typical conditions a cruiser will set off in, not necessarily the conditions they will see. Lets say these conditions are 15-20 kts sustained. A boat that cannot reach hull speed at these numbers is what I would define as a HD (heavy displacement cruiser... though I can think of a few more metaphors!). A boat that goes well over hull speed in 15-20, or in less than 15 sustained, I would define as a racer. Again, these are all open to discussion. They are my loose definitions.

Now, I am not in any way suggesting that everyone needs to get a HD Cruiser for cruising (though an argument can be made for them), but why get a racer? The majority of these boats are generally narrow beams, light storage, very light tankage, and deep draft. Many have air draft over 65, cutting off any hope of the ICW, and I can even make a good argument that air and water drafts over ICW limits also cut off safety. The comment will come up as usual, "because we appreciate a performing boat over the creature comforts." Well, if you are cruising, is your boat really still a racer? 

For example, my boat used to be a LOT faster than it is now. SHe loved to jump up and go, and now it takes pretty close to 20 to get her at hull speed or thereabouts. I have a LOT of stuff on my boat, and I have two kids. I will admit that without the kids, it would be easier to rearrange this stuff to make it more accommodating for speed. Heck, our cans and food would be cut over half! But does my boat really have that much stuff on it for a cruising boat? Solar? Gotta make power some way. Without solar you are doomed to make power with a generator and subsequently carry more gas and diesel at what can easily add up to more weight. Water jugs. A few diesel jugs. Lots of food. Lots of tools. Lots of spare parts. Life raft. Some books (more minimal now with kindle). Snorkel gear (though I carry dive gear too). Tender. TV. Guitar. Bike. Cart. Minimal documents (now have scanned in most). My boat is heavy. I could cut some stuff, but these all get used and make our boat our home. 

So what do you cut? And more importantly, where do you put that stuff that you feel is essential on a race boat? Most of the cruising boats I see, which have lots of storage, still have stuff crammed in every corner and every spare inch. I am not going to say I couldn't get rid of some stuff, but our deal is that if we don't use it much, it is off the boat (spare parts and tools the exception). Lets see, just my tools take up a 30x30x60 area... and that does not even include all the spare parts! Pots and pans of various sizes, including vacuseal bags, flower, sugar, and other necessary items take up the exact same side across from it. Can goods and bottled water fill the bilge. Spare parts in the holds below the waterline. Everything heavy is low, light is high. Most everything on this boat is secured in a locker or behind strong fiddleboards. 

So again, what do you cut on a race boat? Can you? Cabinetry is often at a minimum. If you do not cut much, is that boat still a race boat? My argument has long been that when cruising on one of these boats, the stuff that the HD or even performance boats can stowe safely below and in holds, you end up stuffing in every corner, above the waterline, and/or on deck. Whereas we can keep most of our stuff safely secured and below the waterline, you may not or your boat is sooo stuffed down below that you cannot move around. And if you stuff it above deck, is that boat still performing well? Is she still safe for cruising? Because if you put 5000 pounds of stuff on a boat that is 25,000 lbs, then you have altered its displacement by 17%. If you put that same 5000 lbs on a boat that displaces 15000 lbs, you have altered its displacement by 25%... or about 50% more. Not to mention, much of that stuff in my opinion will go above the waterline and on decks whereas other boats can keep it below.

Now, a 40 foot racer as a man cave, single guy, I get that. I don't agree with it, but I get it. Its just you. But can you and a spouse really make that work long term? With kids? And is your boat going to be safer than mine, or a HD cruiser, when you really load it up with what you will need to cruise with? My guess (GUESS) is that you have now really changed that boat and the very properties you came to admire it for are now lost upon your chosen lifestyle. I also guess (GUESS) that in reality, that boat is less safe than the typical HD or performance cruiser which has the ability to properly stowe items.

What are others opinions? Agree? Disagree? Why?

Brian


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

What you write is the essential reason for the huge variety of boats and the continued demand for custom designs.

Everybody's idea of the "ideal" sailboat is different - even within the various subsets like cruising boats.

Even within the different points in a single persons life for that matter.

I can well appreciate the "all the comforts of home" offered by Huntabenelinas but my taste runs more towards a more "roughing it" type of boat - simpler and with more personality. I also prefer more involvement in boat handling than the set it and forget it, all furling rigs.


----------



## peterchech (Sep 2, 2011)

I kind of like the racers for their simplicity more than anything else.

Since many "cruisers" as you define them, statistically, are at a point in their lives (50's or over empty nesters) where they can afford new or new-ish large cruising boats, the numerous systems probably become less of an issue to them.

But I certainly know that every boat I've ever stepped foot in myself has been close to 30 years old. And things like hoses, through-hulls, miles of old and sometimes-shorted (always corroded) wiring, etc. etc., all hidden behind cosmetic paneling and very difficult to access, makes a "cruising" boat a huuuuuuge PITA. 

Things like in-mast mainsail furling and other complications to rigging also in my opinion make some "cruising" boats more anchor-friendly, but less sailing friendly.

That said, even a racer is gonna be slow if it's loaded down, especially a boat designed to plane or semi-plane, it gives up something upwind for that planing hull-form and if you are too heavy to plane off the wind, you are possibly slower overall than a true cruising boat.

The solution? GET A BIGGER BOAT


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

To be honest when we do distance races its serious to US and for us distance is 200 miles or less

So you have 7 people doing 3 hours on at most then crashing and doing it again until the finish

Anything remotely nice down below is a problem as your dragging sails up and down constantly And in generally can't really be worried about nicking fine woodwork


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Interesting definition of a cruiser. Is a cruiser someone who stays in the Caribbean or one who cruises in many different varieties of conditions. Person who never goes more than 500 miles from their home base and just circles the Carribean to me is a live aboard who takes trips, not a cruiser. Gary was a cruiser IMHO. Wingnwing live aboard cruiser in my definition. 

Someone like Killarney is really a cruiser to me. Many different wind conditions. Can't just run in for protection in 2 or 3 days. Endures light winds and the. Boat moves, and heavier winds and seas without trepidation. Most cruisers I know are couples. Not all require the creature comforts like air, etc.. Many prefer a simpler less expensive way of cruising you do. They are more of minimalist nature. Look at the anchorages of the real world traveling cruisers who travel in style .they have Amels, Moody's, Hans Christians, Taswells, Passports, Vagabonds, Outbounds, Oysters, Calibers, Hylas. These are not the charter boats of he Carribean. 

A cruiser hits many brief wind conditions as they travel to many different areas. Not just 15-20 in the trades, but also lighter winds too. The cruiser definition you used will never apply to 98% of us. Most of us are hybrids. Very few of us are live aboards therefore we don't need to carry what we have around with us all the time. Even when we travel 6months a year to the Caribbean we will not be considered cruisers by your narrow definition. So I guess we will be taken a 6 month vacation on our boat by your definition. Not our definition by the way, I think we will consider ourself cruising because of the distances we will e traveling as well as the many destinations. 

Racers. True racers I have see are like cruisers at he other end of the spectrum. They are a breed who goes fast...all the time, light and heavy wind. The have minimal accommodations major electronics , huge winches, open cockpits, many different sails. Most of us are not racers either. Look t he Vende boats, those are racers.

Sundeers are racers.

Racers and Cruisers make up 2% at each end of he sailing community. The rest of us in the middle with attributes of both ends of different degrees. As mentioned boat makers hybridize to catch our individual preferences, that's why so many variations from J and X yachts to Catalina's, Bennes, Hunters to Tartans, Sabres....to Hanse.. To Ip. 

Paulo likes performance cruisers, I do also. Most of they rest of us on Sailnet are in the middle. Never to be racers or cruisers by your definition.

Boats have so many accessories you can add to turn any boat into a cruiser for living style. However you cannot turn some boats into performance boats. Many boats can hit hull speed, but can they blue after it for 30,000 miles without busting apart? Will they last 20 years sailing in blue water. 

I am alo a member of SCCA. What type of boas do you see they have?


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Brian, this is akin to debating whether you are a serious racer if you haven't taken sandpaper and removed the varnish and the bulkheads on your boat.

It is what it is, and each person sets their own criteria for how far they pursue the differences.

One skipper has coffee cups. The next has titanium coffee mugs, because whether he's racing or cruising, they weigh less and make his boat faster and lighter--which is safer for cruisers as well. And then the next guy won't allow coffee cups onboard at all, because real sailors don't need "hot" anything at all, and the excess weight is intolerable.

A cruiser with two kids aboard? Come on now, Fedex takes live animals. The kids can spend the night on a carousel in Memphis, and join you once you make landfall.


----------



## killarney_sailor (May 4, 2006)

The more I think of it, the less sense it makes to try to define terms like 'cruiser' and 'blue water boat', when we think of some of the people we have met while cruising. On one hand, a couple on an Oyster 56 bought from the factory exactly to spec with the owner in the factory most days to make sure it was done right. On the other hand, a singlehander on an engineless Bristol 27 that was older than the owner by quite a few years. Both boats though were on pretty much the same path at roughly similar speeds.

I think when we get down to it, we really define for ourselves what cruising is (or is not) and what boat makes sense for what we want to do. I would not want to do the singlehanded, Bristol way and I can't afford the new, big Oyster route so we made our own definitions and got on with it.


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

I would also take issue with such a narrow definition of a cruiser. As far as I am concerned, if you are going away on your boat for multiple days for the purpose of exploring, or just getting away, you are cruising. You can sneer at such people and say they are not "real" cruisers all you want but the fact is the vast majority of people who consider themselves to be cruisers do not fit your definition. 

If I WERE going to leave my entire land based life behind and live on a boat, I certainly wouldn't do it on a pure race boat unless my intention was a high speed circumnavigation of some kind. I doubt many people would. 

In the context of your very narrow definition of cruisers and racers your question is pointless, because few, if any, of YOUR kind of cruisers WOULD use a race boat.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

15-2 knots of wind?!?!?! that as noted would be tradewinds only! Here in puget sound, many more days one needs a good iron genny to get around! Even if you only own theboat/house etc! 

Locally any how, there was a "race your house" ace last october. As Irecall, the types of boats varied as much as one would like to see. From a few heavy tayana style boats, to a 40 Elan that was in that brands race/cruise mix. 

I also know of one fellow living on board the saem boat I have, ie about the size of a catalina 28 mkII! so, live aboards and cruisers fit all kinds of sizes and shapes etc.......

At the end of the day, you will get what works for the type of cruising you do.....in the mean time, anybody know where I can get an extra 6" of draft for my boat, would like it to be 6' vs the 5.5!

Marty


----------



## NewportNewbie (Jul 30, 2011)

A "pure" race boat would be a HORRIBLE cruiser. Why? Well how is it when the head is out in the open? No shower. No insulation. Sometimes needs more people to properly sail. Usually has more sail area requiring more care to sail. Is made lighter, and usually light isnt as durable.

I think anyone doing long term cruising wants the amenities of home. Heat/AC, insulation, electronics (radio/TV) easy to sail shorthanded, more stable and can handle more weather. Yes there are plenty of race boats that sail around the world in all kinds of weather, but even the Volvo 60s/70s and Vendee boats had major failures, and they were made to go around the world. 

Now there are lots of race inspired cruising boats. The Beneteau First 30, Elan 310, Junneau Sunfast 3200, etc. These are boats they say can race well, but are also stable and easy to sail as well as have full interiors and lots of amenities. I ALMOST bought a First 30 because of how much more comfortable the boat was below deck, yet still was easy to sail, and had nearly the performance of a race boat.


----------



## killarney_sailor (May 4, 2006)

Side note on the guy I mentioned who is singlehanding a Bristol 27. Saw a post by him on CF (he is in New Zealand now). He said that he paid $1000 for his used Monitor which is what he paid for the boat. There is no one model of a cruiser.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Cruisingdad said:


> My question in what could be a very debated thread is why you would choose what I consider a race boat for cruising?
> 
> Cruising, in my opinion (*and everyone gets their own*), is fulltime, probably no house, everything in storage, I am going-going-going or living on the water for well over a year, and likely many years, if not permanently.


Somehow this has turned into a, "What is a cruiser" thread. I do think that some kind of definition is important because it sets a boundary on how the boat is going to be used. How the boat is going to be used has everything to do with boat selection. Whether anyone here considers themselves to be a cruiser, someone else to be a cruiser, or only thinks Beth Leonard et all are cruisers is kinda beyond what this thread was about. There is simply nothing wrong with using the boat on weekends, months off on far away islands while returning to your home every summer, or full-time, no house, no nothing but a boat and the world and the water beyond. What makes YOU happy is what is important, not the definition of what a cruiser is. Quite candidly, I don't care if you have a hobie cat sits in your driveway on the trailor and you call yourself a circumnavigating cruiser. That is just a label, and a nebulous one at best. It is how you use the boat, and how you define 'cruiser', that influences boat selection and is what I was hoping to discuss... especially how it influences those that choose a 'racer-cruiser' or my definition of a racer as a primary 'cruising' boat. Make sense?

This thread has stemmed from several long discussion both on this board and off of it (more off of it, surprisingly) about boat selection. There was the Blue Jacket thread where me and Paulo highly disagreed, the Smackdaddy boat selection thread where me and Jeff disagreed, and a number of older posts where someone says, "I am going to go cruising and looking for a Bene First or J122 to go cruising on." It is generally at this point that I find myself a bit miffed on how they make this work. Whether they do it or are going to do it is none of my business, and frankly, I don't care. It is their life and their money. This is a theoretical discussion.

As I recall, both J and Bene call their boats Racer-cruiser. My point in this was as a cruiser, how do you make this boat work? Who really has made it work? What did you cut to make it work, or did you cut anything that I carry? How many people did you have aboard? *Most importantly*, how does a racer-cruiser really and truly perform as a cruising boat when loaded down with the things I find essential? Is it still a fast boat? Due to its traditionally narrow beam, lack of storage, low water and fuel caps, etc... aren't many of the things that a HD/performance Cruiser can store safely and securely, now stored in a fashion that may make them unsafe or significantly alter the righting moment of the racer-cruiser?

Brian


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

killarney_sailor said:


> Side note on the guy I mentioned who is singlehanding a Bristol 27. Saw a post by him on CF (he is in New Zealand now). He said that he paid $1000 for his used Monitor which is what he paid for the boat. There is no one model of a cruiser.


I wonder if I met him!? We met a tall, slender caucasian, maybe low 40's, on a Bristol 27 in the Tortugas. He was with a younger caucasian male in his 20's - don't think it was his son, but not sure. No engine. We had to tie off of his stern to snorkel and dive the Windjammer as there was only one ball. If so, it is a small world. Of course, I find that I keep running into the same people.

Brian


----------



## SolSailor (Dec 30, 2012)

blt2ski said:


> ...anybody know where I can get an extra 6" of draft for my boat, would like it to be 6' vs the 5.5!


If I'm reading this thread correctly, the easiest way to get an extra 6" of draft out of your boat is to have Brian do the provisioning for you!!


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

SchockT said:


> I would also take issue with such a narrow definition of a cruiser. As far as I am concerned, if you are going away on your boat for multiple days for the purpose of exploring, or just getting away, you are cruising. You can sneer at such people and say they are not "real" cruisers all you want but the fact is the vast majority of people who consider themselves to be cruisers do not fit your definition.
> 
> If I WERE going to leave my entire land based life behind and live on a boat, I certainly wouldn't do it on a pure race boat unless my intention was a high speed circumnavigation of some kind. I doubt many people would.
> 
> In the context of your very narrow definition of cruisers and racers your question is pointless, because few, if any, of YOUR kind of cruisers WOULD use a race boat.


Again, this thing has morphed into something I never said, not did I in any way imply it. If the word 'sneer' was directed at me, I take offense to that. Don't start putting words in my mouth if it was directed to me.

My definition of a cruiser is more to define the *use* of the boat versus who is a cruiser. Like I said, I don't care if you have a hobie cat in your drive on a trailer and call yourself a circumnavigator. Makes no difference to me and I couldn't care less. There is no better or worse way. My way is not right and yous is not wrong. My point was to point out that there is a HUGE difference between what you consider a cruiser "going away on your boat for multiple days for the purpose of exploring" versus someone who is living aboard, travelling to various places, for months at a time or years at a time. I have done it your way and my way and many ways between. Believe me, there is a difference!! The definition of a cruiser as how it defines the use of the boat is what I was laying out because that use defines boat selection in my opinion. As I stated above, this is about boat selection - specifically how it pertains to a racer-cruiser, not the definition of who is a 'real' cruiser.

Brian


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

SolSailor said:


> If I'm reading this thread correctly, the easiest way to get an extra 6" of draft out of your boat is to have Brian do the provisioning for you!!


HAHA! You don't need me to. Just let my kids come aboard! You would be surprised how much legos weigh when you get enough of them!!

Brian


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

It's really hard to make specific references like this is what cruiser is.....and a racer is a narrow beamed boat without " categorizing" a pigeon holing things. The reaction you received may not have been what you intended but obviously is what a few independent people interpretted what was said by you So maybe let's eliminate the word cruiser...as I don't fit your narrow definition. 

People buy boats hopefully for their intended uses. It is individual owner specific. You have 2 kids on your boat all the time. Most don't. That means you want two heads, I don't. That means you want a large cockpit, I don't. It may mean you want an open transom , I don't. Beam is important to you or room, not for me if it slows me down. We both like our grills

Tankage is important in terms of fuel, but I can manage with 100 gallons of water and a water maker. I don't want a furled main, I want a performance main which is run on he KISS principal. One forestry is enough or you, I want a detachable inner stay or second furled headsail for long distance passage making. I need a 6gallon hot water tank you need at least 12. I want solar arrays , wind generation and a Honda 2000. You want a generator. 

There is much more. But the drift is I want a performance cruiser which gets up and goes. In the 40 foot range a Hanse, a Saga, a Sabre. Something which is very safe and comfortable for two. 

There are too many variations of sailboats just like sailors which tick off boxes for each of us to narrow it down. A live aboard will look or different qualities than a world cruiser. A live aboard may have a different view about boat speed and want the space of an IP or such, where a long instance cruiser sees the advantage the of a 5 day passage taking 4 with a performance cruiser. 

I just read the blog of a purple on a large J ( a 42 I think) which crossed the Atlantic in 3 days less than most because of its performance in light winds. It had enough creature comforts for me. 

This is a hard topic to generalize on as there are so many different qualities and combinations we all require for our boats. I say get what fits you and what fits your needs. I ll get what fits mine and well both be happy cruising on the water as we got what we wanted.


----------



## jimgo (Sep 12, 2011)

Brian,
Your original question, I think, was "why a racer as a cruiser". I think that depends on what your goal is. Are you using the boat as a means to go from one port to another, or as a means of escaping land? If your goal is to go from port to port, a racer makes some sense to me, because it gets you from Point A to Point B faster than a cruiser, or another way to look at it is that it gets you from Point A to Point C, where a cruiser only gets you to Point B. The racer probably won't get you there as comfortably, nor will you probably be as comfortable aboard when you're finally at the dock, but that's the trade-off, isn't it?

Similarly, if your goal is to get away from land, then a racer probably isn't the best choice. Of course I'm overgeneralizing in my characterizations of both types of boats, but the narrower beam will mean less elbow room in the racer, and most people (there are exceptions, but a family of 4 probably isn't among them) need/want space. The cruiser will give you more room for creature comforts, and the ability to spread out (provided you don't add TOO many creature comforts) more than the racer. Plus, the (likely) shallower keel on the cruiser will mean you can do more exploring, and get into more ports. Even if you're port-hopping, you may not get to the next port as quickly as in the racer, but you'll probably be more comfortable when you get there, and while you're there.

So, what's your goal? To get from point to point quickly, or to slow down and enjoy the ride?


----------



## Andrew Burton (Oct 22, 2012)

I chose my my boat, a C&C 40, for cruising because I like to sail...really love to sail. I mean, I'm passionate about it; I can get off a two-week delivery and clean the boat up in a rush so I can get out on my little boat and go sailing.

I love the way the C&C handles under sail and I love the feedback from the rudder to my fingers as I lightly hold the wheel. She is very clearly a racer/cruiser with relatively light displacement and most sisterships are used mostly for racing.

While I probably won't move aboard and take off cruising, in the back of my mind is the knowledge that I could. I know of two sisterships whose crews are doing just that.

As I travel, I see very few cruising boats that are _fun_ to drive; it's a major hardship for the self steering to fail on those boats. Not so on mine; she's the kind of boat where we'll turn Otto off and steer by hand just for the fun of it. And that's a benefit of cruising on a racing boat. For me, the sailing part of cruising is just as important as exploring new harbors, rather than an ordeal to be put up with between stops.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Cruisingdad said:


> We all have different opinions of what makes a good cruising boat. I get that. Believe me, Paulo's idea of what makes a good cruising boat, Jeff_h's, my dad's, and mine are three different animals altogether! I respect all of their opinions, but I have long tried to make a different case.
> 
> My question in what could be a very debated thread is why you would choose what I consider a race boat for cruising? I am sure to get the typical response of, "Because we appreciate being able to sail and appreciate sailing over creature comforts." I have heard some variation of that for years. But, for a fulltime cruising boat, do you really gain that much going to a racing boat for cruising?
> 
> ...


Brian, I don't have a single idea of what makes a good cruising boat. I know what I want from a cruising boat for doing the cruising I do and if I went for a different kind of cruising, for instance a circumnavigation or cruising in extreme latitudes visiting lonely and badly charted places, I would not chose a different boat, but two different boats.

The big difference between you and me is that you think that there is an ideal cruising boat for all while I know that the boat that I prefer is just that, the boat that I prefer and that would not be suited to others that have not the same preferences.

Regarding cruising I give an equal value to voyage, to discover different, nice places and the pleasure of sailing and I like to sail fast. But even for people that has the same tastes the choice of boat can be quite different, from trimarans to catamarans to fast monohulls and between them to the ones more suited to upwind or downwind sailing. Even regarding the small number that prefers a performance cruiser the choice is huge. I know that you call the Catalina 40 a performance cruiser and to performance cruisers racing boats, but that is only a question of opinion.

Regarding your question, obviously only the ones that enjoy the pleasure of sailing fast and don't mind to live in spartan way would chose a race boat for cruising. Race boats have the advantage of not being expensive when they are not already competitive. If they are offshore solo racing boats they will not only be very seaworthy, with a big stability, as relatively easy to sail, even on autopilot.

I know of some that are doing that (and certainly there are much more) two, on class 40 that are circumnavigating, one with the complete family with two small kids and also two friends that are also circumnavigating in an old Mini class racer (22ft). They are now on the Pacific after having crossed the Atlantic and they seem quite happy with the boat.

But I guess that is not what you are talking about. I guess that you don't call racers just to racing boats but to any boat that is a bit faster than a Catalina 40

Regarding those, there are plenty voyaging, some a lot faster than a Catalina could ever voyage (and that is necessarily good, just different). Among those there is a nice couple that I had been following in the interesting sailboat thread, that sail a Fox 10.20, a light 33ft boat with a lifting keel. The boat was new when they started, they finished themselves the interior and the boat is quite nice. Here you have the dimensions and the boat on the links:

LE FOX 10,20 - CAPADO creative boat

CAPADO creative boat

Basically a 3800kg boat with 10.20m of length and 3,60m of beam and a variable draft from 2.40m to 1.30m.

Here they are:






Yes, I know that some think that only a big modern light boat has the carrying capacity in provisions, water and need stuff to voyage...and if by miracle all this stuff is put aboard a small boat the boat will be too heavy and will not sail decently...well, did I mention that they are circumnavigating?

And almost finishing and not one of those non stop circumnavigations or fast circumnavigations without having time to see the world. No, they stop and take some time in each nice place, it is only in the water that they are fast, for a small boat. From South Africa to Brazil the average was over 8K. Charged and all

and they have just the boat they want, it was designed by a friend that happens to be a NA, taking all their requirements and tastes in the process.

FoX Technology - Yacht Design and Engineering

That would not be the boat I would have chose for that, I would have preferred a bigger boat, I guess that a Pogo 12.50 would be alright, and I bet that you, of course would choose a Catalina, but that is not the point. The point is that little boat is the perfect boat for those two to circumnavigate and therefore it is a perfect cruising boat, at least to them.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

What were we talking about again? Race boat suitability for cruising? Who qualifies as a cruiser? What is cruising? Let’s see if I can contribute without this thread totally falling off the rails.

Back in my younger days I raced on an Aerodyne 38. Loved it. Fastest I ever sailed was on that boat. Totally “grins and giggles” was that boat. Designed under the open class concept, she was the opposite of narrow. She was designed to surf under an A-kite. I lusted after her performance and at the time, I entertained the idea of “gentrifying” one and cruising it with MrsB. A dozen years later one that was gentrified did come up on the market. It had a furling boom and a bow extension for an anchor roller amongst other mods. Despite all the cruising mods, it looked like it was a beast to sail now that the Mrs and I are a bit older. They never completely solved the tankage issues which were now equal to my C34’s capacities. The interior was beautiful, but as Dad said, lacking a lot of storage space – too small for a year in Mexico IMHO. Needless to say we passed on that one. Lately, I been racing classic plastic, namely the venerable Cal 40. MrsB had seen a nice example of one tricked out for cruising (albeit in a narrower hull). The downside of classic plastic is the need to throw major coin at a “good value” boat to bring it up to what we expect out of our boats (we passed on this idea too.) There is a lot to be said about “dancing with the girl you bring to the party”. We are committed to our current boat for our cruise to Mexico in the coming years. 

Now Cruising Dad, exactly how much cruising stuff are you carrying around? Back when we were campaigning our boat, we kept pretty close track of the poundage we carried on board and I worried that “cruising” is going to add a lot of weight and kill a lot of performance.


----------



## Brent Swain (Jan 16, 2012)

Racers which slowed down while tacking were said to have "Excess directional stability." On an offshore cruising boat, there is no such thing as "Excess directional stability" the more the better. If a piece of gear on a racing boat doesnt break from time to time, it is deemed to be "Overbuilt." Cruising boat and racing boat priorities are exactly opposites , in these, and many more ways


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Ahhh.... finally the discussion is getting fun.

Ok, let's talk about what I carry on my boat. I will try and get as many things as I can. I am sure to leave some stuff out. Some of my stuff is kid oriented. No way around that and I accept all criticism from it as valid from those who will not take guests or kids. However, let me share some of these things, you decide what you would or wouldn't want, then lets talk about the space it takes up.

<The Settees>

Tools:

I won't bother listing them all, though I have them all listed out for my book. Every (Every!) tool on my list has been used. If it doesn't get used it gets off. In fact, I have bought some tools that double over - like the quick wrenches that accept multiple sizes or converters to reduce the sockets I have to carry. All in all, even after all my pruning, I could only get my tools down to a 24x18x50. That is basically 3/4 of the size of a settee on a typical sized 40 foot boat.

Food:

The bilge takes up most of our food. It is filled with bottled water (and distilled... important for those with wets), can food, flour, rice, sugar, a pressure cooker, a cast iron skillet, dog food, a vacuseal and extra bags. This takes up a comparable size of our settee on the starboard side. We have some room left over except when we fully provision. Everything in there gets used and are essential for cruising for us.

Spare parts:

I carry an extra water pump, extra bilge pump, general diaphragm pump, a spare oil filter, a spare secondary fuel filter, two spare racor filters, a spare belt, a variety of screws and bolts of different sizes, new plugs and impeller for OB, impellers for Gen and Main, strainer and spare baskets. There are some other odds and ends I am sure I missed. THis takes up over a 30x30x30 area.

Detergents and oil:

We carry extra dish soap, boat soap, main oil, gear case oil, and a variety of other basic chemicals that are constantly used. This takes up over a 30x30x30 area.

Galley items:

Zip lock baggies, foil, saran wrap, trash bags, and cleansers under the sink. THat takes up a 12x30x30 area. On either side of the stove are 8 settings of plates and bowls, two skillets, a toaster, and a set of nesting cookware (pots), a collapsible strainer, two silicon collapsible mixing bowls, a container for cereal, a pitcher, a platter, and a set of disposable food containers (which we don't dispose of as we use for leftovers). THat takes up a 59x12x16 area.

In the china cabinet, we keep powdered gartorade and powdered Koolaid and a few cook books. We also keep two china wine glasses, four plastic goblets, two small crystal glasses, four coffee mugs, and six stackable plastic glasses. This takes up a 28x24x12 area. Above this on a 28x12x10 area we keep tortillas and bread.

Our dry storage is 28x18x30. It is filled food, ranging from cereal, lots of pastas, oats, our spare cooking oils, etc.

Our microwave takes up 19x18x30.

Beside the microwave, in two drawers are a 10 place setting of spoons, knives, and forks, including two large serving spoons, spatulas, thongs, and various items used in the galley for cooking. I can be more specific, but I doubt anyone would cut any of these items. This takes up 10x16x17.

Trash can is 13g, and takes up 10x12x20 in the cabinet.

Sink is a double sink, 13x24x9.

Oven and stove are three burner. It is 24x24x26.

Over the sink is the spice rack. It is 28x20x14. It also holds olive oils, spare spices, and 6 cup coffee maker.

Nav Station:

Nav station is 34x36x42. it holds a variety of maps and cruising guides, the electrical panel, secondary chartplotter, secondary repeater, VHF, Water/fuel/waste readouts, radio, Genset panel, battery charger/inverter panel, pencils and paper and other small office type things. THis nav station is independent of the salon settees, and has its own seat. Inside it also has the battery charger/inverter.

Salon:

We have four cabinets in our salon, each approximately 22x11x24. THey are stuffed with the following: paper towels (our nemesis, incidentally), napkins and Kleenex, large cruising guides like Explorer charts for the Bahamas, cameras, spot light, clip on fan. One cabinet is filled with the Play Station and WII for the kids. THe other is filled with movies and games of all types (board games, card games, etc).

Between the cabinets are decorations like plastic flowers. We also keep our books there, though these are few now, thanks to the Kindles.

The TV is wall mount and does not take up any living space.

The entire rest of the salon is taken up with tankage, including holding and diesel.

Heads:

We have two heads. The forward head is the kids head, but we also use it for storage. It is 40x37x76. It holds most of our medical supplies, emergency kits, spare toilet paper and head chemicals, bathroom cleansers, spare cosmetics, two tv trays mounted the wall.

The aft head has a separate shower. All of us shower there. Including the shower, it is 36x64x75.

State Rooms:

We have two staterooms. THe kids is the V berth. It measure at 86x77x108, but remember half of that disappears in the V. It holds all of their clothes (not much clothes, honestly, as we are in the south, maybe a weeks worth of changes), their books and school supplies, and toys. It does have a small seat in it for them to sit at.

Our stateroom is large. It is 12'x11'x78". Remember that part of that is eaten up with the cockpit floor, but it has a queen berth and LOTS of storage. We use one of the cabinets as a dirty clothes cabinet, one cabinet to store various files and safety gear (ditch bag stuff), clothes, my guitar and a small keyboard, a fan, and a small-flat radio. It has two settees in it which store foul weather gear. We use part of the space to secure our computers when under way.

Outside:

Outside we have various items which take up real estate. They are as follows:

6 Person Offshore Liferaft.
1- Dive Tank.
1- 20 lb grill tank.
1- foldable bike.
1 foldable cart.
2 - kayaks which are only mounted when underway on the lifelines.
2- spare 5 g diesel cans
2 - spare 5g gas cans. 
2 - spare 5 g water cans.

10'2" tender hangs on davits.

6- Kyocera 130W panels. They have their own, independent arch.

Seat Cushions.

A world-class-seasoned grill.

Each lazarette contains:

Snorkel gear for 4.
1 - BC and Regulator (and soon to be a spear gun and HI Sling)
2 wet suits
Covers for boat when at anchor for shading
A/C Compressor
Diesel Generator
Life Jackets
Extra Dock lines and Jack Lines and harnesses.
2.5G Wet Dry Vac.
AB Fridge Compressor
2 - 10lb Propane tanks for galley.

DONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok, I am sure to have missed a few odds and ends here. It was not intentionally. But that is everything in my boat within reason. So lets now start talking about what YOU would cut. If reasonable, we can start removing these items and calculating the savings in space and potential weight.

I have already divulged that some stuff I carry is kid related. No getting around that. I understand that some of that could be used for other things for those that do not have kids. But what is important to see here is that the VAST majority of this space is things that every one of you would likely take too if cruising. The space killers are not kid related, in general, and shared as boat items.

Also, when you start looking at all these things, now start thinking about where you put these on a J122... a First, or many other boats of similar design. Assuming they have not used a shrink-ray, the space these items take up is the space they take up. No negotiation there. So, where do you put it? I have pulled the boards on these boats, and I am telling you it doesn't fit! So what you do is you start shoving it into the V berth, the quarter berth. You stick it in crannies and crevices, many of these items well above waterline which should not be and screws up the balance of the boat. Not to mention, what did the weight of these items do to this boat? The same boat that was designed at a low displacement is now over-weighted and what effect has that had on its stability and speed?

I am not saying you cannot MAKE these boats work. I am making the argument that it will come at a considerable tradeoff, and the very reason you bought that boat might be compromised.

I am NO minimalist. Not at all. But I am not over the edge either, IMHO. Thre are pleasure things like the guitar and keyboard and dive gear that could be cut easily. But they are also all used and serve a purpose on this boat. What do you cut? Take a look around. These are REAL measurements, on a boat often called a dockaminium, a fat cruiser, extravagant, and all the other acronyms I get thrown toward me. When I go on other peoples boats that are cruising, I feel like I am Spartan, so now you see where I am coming from.

Brian


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Cruisingdad said:


> ..
> Also, when you start looking at all these things, now start thinking about where you put these on a J122... a First, or many other boats of similar design. Assuming they have not used a shrink-ray, the space these items take up is the space they take up. No negotiation there. So, where do you put it? I have pulled the boards on these boats, and I am telling you it doesn't fit! So what you do is you start shoving it into the V berth, the quarter berth. You stick it in crannies and crevices, many of these items well above waterline which should not be and screws up the balance of the boat. Not to mention, what did the weight of these items do to this boat? The same boat that was designed at a low displacement is now over-weighted and what effect has that had on its stability and speed?
> 
> I am not saying you cannot MAKE these boats work. I am making the argument that it will come at a considerable tradeoff, and the very reason you bought that boat might be compromised.
> ...


Many years of experience looking at all kind of sailing boats, specially between 39 and 45ft boats, and for looking I mean actually being inside the boats with my wife taking a special care in what regards storage space I can tell you that typical main mass production like yours are normally more "fat" (to use my daughter terminology), than the typical performance cruiser, like the J122 or an Arcona 41. For having the same space you just have to bought the next size in what regards boat size. You will have a bigger saloon but probably the same storage space.

However some modern cruising boats that are faster than the typical fat cruiser manage to have the same storage space, or even more since they are designed with voyage in mind. that does not mean you like them, but we are only talking about storage and speed. It has also other advantages in what regards blueawater sailing namely a cuter rig, with two front sails on furlers plus alight removable furler for the asymmetric spinnaker. The boat comes standard has a twin keel and can be beached for cleaning the hull or repairs.

I am talking about the 2013 European family cruiser, the RM 1260:






RM 1260: Flinker Knickspanter im Exklusiv-Test - Yacht TV - Segel Videos von Europas größtem Yacht Magazin

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Here are two simple observations

For me the generator is not necessary- save 500-600 lbs. at least

For me the second head is not necessary and you could get all that as increased storage space.


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Say it isn’t so, Cruising Dad! You mean I’m committed (condemned?) to all that stuff and more when we go cruising? I’m thinking of taking a grinder to my tools right now! Why have a generator and no water maker? We see the lack of water a bigger concern and power secondary (except for the amps needed to make water). I actually spent a week as a guest on a friend’s J122 down in Mexico not too long ago. Trust me, it’s a little like camping with the kids as all the stuff normally in the aft state room (aka the “garage”) has to go somewhere and that somewhere is the main saloon. The J is a pretty boat and fun to sail on San Francisco Bay but is a little like a gypsy encampment after nearly a year of cruising. If you really want storage, you need to go way beyond a Catalina and into something like a Taswell. I happened to talk to Jeff Johnstone last weekend and surprise! They are thinking about bringing out more cruising designs as they see their market moving away from the “cruiser-racer” concept. Paulo, what do you think of the Jeanneau 409? Saw one at the show that sort of spoke to us. Was not impressed with the Bavaria. Reminded me of a Catalina but with European pricing. Made me like my boat even more.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

GeorgeB said:


> ... Paulo, what do you think of the Jeanneau 409? Saw one at the show that sort of spoke to us. Was not impressed with the Bavaria. Reminded me of a Catalina but with European pricing. Made me like my boat even more.


I had the luck of having a talk with Eric Stomberg about the boat. Eric belongs to Jeanneau america and was very influential on the design of that boat. He is the one that played the "owner" part with Philippe Briand , the NA and the boat was made accordingly with what he thought it would be the right 40ft cruising.

I believe that much of the success of that boat is due to him. He is also a sailor and at the time (the first boats were being delivered), he didn't miss a delivery to have the opportunity to test the boat. He give me a lot of insight about the boat sailing qualities and I felt that he was a honest straightforward and very nice guy.

I find the interior design very agreeable specially on the 2 cabin model. And I like the boat that even on the 3 cabin has a decent storage. Personally that would be the boat that I would chose among all mass production 40fts, main market. But as I said that is personal, there are also other fine boats on that class.

I like more the interior and also the type of hull, more narrow than the others and with one of the best B/D ratios (taking into consideration draft and type of keel). They have also a performance package that will make it even faster and it is the only boat of that class that uses infusion. That makes is as strong as the competition and substantially lighter, with a better performance.

The only one that comes close is the Hanse 415, also a good design but I don't like the interior and I prefer the concept of lighter with less sail then heavier with more sail.

The Hanse is also maximized for downwind sailing while the Jeanneau has in my opinion a better overall balance in what regards performance: I sail upwind (many cruisers don't, they use the engine) and I like boats with a good upwind performance, and the jeanneau has a good one for a main market cruiser.

They even can run a German main-sheet system if you want to give you full control of the main at the wheel. The only thing I don't like is the two lonely winches on the cockpit and the impossibility of having another two. That is alright with the self taking jib but with a genoa or a geenaker two more would come handy. Anyway, only two winches in the cockpit is the rule to all in that class, with the exception of the Bavaria that is the only one that offer 4 winches in the cockpit as an option.

I agree with you about the Bavaria. I don't like the interior, even if functional and the boat looks left much to be desired. Curiously it is a good hull. They use the boat in a lighter version for Match racing in Germany and it sails much better than what I thought possible. Well, it is a Farr design






They are making a new boat (with the same hull?) along the lines of the 56 and 33 and I expect that the improvements that the 56 shows on overall design and interior design quality would show also on the new 40.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## One (Mar 20, 2013)

Cruisingdad said:


> ...


I was going to write a point-by-point response to the long list you posted. But after having spend forty minutes responding point by point, I realised I was only about a third through your post.

Instead I'll do this short:

I'm a minimalist. Even at home I don't have many things. I have good things, but not many. Reading your list, it seems you're carrying everything that can possibly fit somewhere on the boat. Obviously, if you consider everything a necessity, you will have a hard time carrying less.

It seems, that not only are you carrying everything and then some, but that you're not considering lightweight options for each items. For instance tools - A lot of my tools are (reasonably lightweight) motorcycle tools.

I will never carry anything cast iron, nor will I want a micro wave. It's a sailboat, and besides the space and weight it takes up, the micro wave uses a lot of power.

As for the generator. If I was to carry a generator, it would be in lieu of the diesel engine. In other words, I would carry a generator only if I could get rid of the engine, and I mean that if at all possible, I'd get an electric engine.

Speaking of which: Batteries! I already have LiFePo4 batteries. I will never go back to lead-acid, agm or whatever. Not only are the LiFePo4 batteries lighter for a given Ah rating, but they have many more useable amps than similarly rated old-tech batteries. And, since things needs to be charged: They are charged much faster, not least because they have next-to-no loss.

I haven't gone through the entire post as you can see, but you can see that even those few "alterations" play together to make a much smaller and lighter system without any real sacrifices (unless you actually depend on a microwave).


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Um Brian........you do not need a 40' boat for all that stuff, try maybe 40METERS! so you are about 100M short on boat, get a longer bigger boat, and you can carry all that sheet and then a bit more, and still have reasonable performance.....

THEN, you can get one of the lifting keel thingymabobs, that will allow you into those shallow draft harbors, along with dropping it off shore some so you have some performance!

THere you have whatyou need to do to solve ALL you problems! just get one of them metric style boats, all is solved!

Marty


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

One said:


> I'm a minimalist. Even at home I don't have many things. I have good things, but not many. Reading your list, it seems you're carrying everything that can possibly fit somewhere on the boat. Obviously, if you consider everything a necessity, you will have a hard time carrying less.


What do you consider a minimalist? I hear that term thrown out a lot, generally by Americans (which I dont think you are) who think a minimalist is someone without a TV or microwave. I have never met a true minimalist as a cruiser, but have met a two or three in my previous life as a backpacker. Here is a minimalist to me:

They carried everything they own in a backpack. They caught rainwater or drank out of the stream. They fished for food, generally supplemented by what they could find on the trail. No radio. No electronics. Little to no money. They cook on a campfire and start the fire with flint and steel (a long lost art... though we had to do it many times too). The only modern part of them was their backpacks, tents, and hiking boots... all well worn. They disappeared in the wilderness for weeks at a time. Nice enough people, but not for me. That is a minimalist to me. If you are putting batteries in your boat, I personally would not consider you a minimalist. And the batteries you put in are very new technology, again not what I would see a minimalist ever doing.

The label is not important to me, and if you want to call yourself a minimalist or anyone else does, they are welcome to. Makes me no difference. Just my opinion.



One said:


> It seems, that not only are you carrying everything and then some, but that you're not considering lightweight options for each items. For instance tools - A lot of my tools are (reasonably lightweight) motorcycle tools.


I find that comment pretty typical of someone who has not spent a lot of time cruising. It is one of those things that sounds good in theory, but in reality and practicality does not work.

The tools are what the tools are. Again: every tool has been used on this boat. The weight saved by using the Motorcycle type wrenches may be lost the first time you break one. Not to mention, we are splitting hairs on the small amount of weight saved with the few tools that can be purchased lightweight. I prefer solid, well made tools that will take a beating. If you are land-side, and your wrench breaks, no big deal. Go to the store and buy another. If you are at sea or a secluded anchorage and it breaks, you are screwed... just as screwed as if you didn't bring one in the first place. Modern sailboats, especially American made boats, are filled with a variety of different sizes and bolts and screws. A sailboat by its very nature is 80% made up of things bought from vendors. You will have to carry a full set of metric and american. You will have to have a variety of bits. You will have to carry both metric and american alan wrenches. A drill. A jig saw. Hole saws. Hack saw. A large variety of plumbing and electrical supplies. Can you get away without it? Certainly... until the first time something breaks. Better hope its not a critical system if you don't have the tool for it. Nothing pisses me off worse than hearing some cruiser complaining about a broken waterpump - not knowing where it is, not having a spare, and not having the tools to fix it. Those people are best left back at the yacht club where fixes are a phone call away. As an old Boy Scout, I say, "Be Prepared."



One said:


> I will never carry anything cast iron, nor will I want a micro wave. It's a sailboat, and besides the space and weight it takes up, the micro wave uses a lot of power.


Another common misconception I see, generally from those that have not spent a lot of time cruising or away from the marinas. There are several modern items that have really changed sailing. The microwave is one of them. My microwave pulls 80 amps/h. Sounds like a lot, but it is not. Why? Because it only is run for minutes at a time. That comes out to 1.33 amps/minute. In three minutes, I can cook two cans of canned peas. In two minutes, I can heat up an entire can of soup. In one minute, I can cook fish fillets, which come out surprisingly awesome in the microwave - both juicy and tender. Those same items take considerably longer on the stove, and the fish for example, cooked in the oven, will use a LOT of gas and really heat up the cabin.

Microwaves can be run from an inverter - they do not require a generator. Their power use is minimal. They are quite light. Their size is small and they make a great place to put things in when at sea because the door can be easily closed and has a positive lock. And most of all, and maybe most importantly, they are readily available everywhere and are very cheap to obtain. Walmart sells them for $35. Your stove can easily run over a grand. Your stove uses propane or alcohol.

Now, as a cruiser, let me tell you what IS a real PITA to get: Propane. This often involves a long trek to some far off propane dealer to get it filled or exchanged... if available at all (not too many propane dealers in secluded anchorages). You can get diesel and gas on the water (to make electricity). No prob. A decent solar system will easily keep up for any loss of electricity the miserly microwave uses. But propane is a RIGHT PITA to get and we covet it, as do all cruisers I know.



One said:


> As for the generator. If I was to carry a generator, it would be in lieu of the diesel engine. In other words, I would carry a generator only if I could get rid of the engine, and I mean that if at all possible, I'd get an electric engine.


Is this on your "canoe" boat? Is this something you would do or you have done? Not sure where you would put a generator on that boat anyways. However, the theory behind not having an engine and the reality I think are two different things. WHen a storm is bearing down on you, it sure is nice to have an engine as a calm often proceeds the storm. When going down the ICW with the Sportfish running you over and cutting you off, it sure is nice to have a engine. When trying to make against the current into a tight channel with breakers and shoals around you, it sure is nice to have an engine. When coming into a crowded marina where currents and winds are not favorable, it sure is nice to have an engine. I can think of a thousand reasons to have an engine, but cannot think of a single reason not to have one. An engine can make electricity, but I certainly do not see that as its key purpose. I believe an engine makes up not only a valuable asset on a cruising boat, but it also is a critical piece of safety gear.

You better research those electric drives pretty good, especially if you are worried about weight. I thought I heard even Lagoon dumped them? This is hearsay, but I was told a couple with a 420 was spending a LOT of money to have their electric drives ripped out or considering it. They were at one of our previous marinas. They HATE them.

When cruising, I believe that tried and true and dependable is more important that new and fashionable. Let the guys that don't leave the marinas horse around with the new technology. My life, and that of my family's, depends on my boat and its proper functioning. That is the mindset of a cruiser.



One said:


> Speaking of which: Batteries! I already have LiFePo4 batteries. I will never go back to lead-acid, agm or whatever. Not only are the LiFePo4 batteries lighter for a given Ah rating, but they have many more useable amps than similarly rated old-tech batteries. And, since things needs to be charged: They are charged much faster, not least because they have next-to-no loss.


Lead acid batteries are tried, true, and inexpensive. More importantly, they are readily available anywhere. It baffles me why anyone would put a battery in their cruising boat that is not only incredibly expensive, but its availability in most areas is zilch. I paid $135 for my last 4d wet cell. When it goes out, I can probably replace it at any decent port, and if near a major port in the US, probably for the same $135. I plan for failure and how to work around it. Inability to replace systems, or rare and complicated systems without a working knowledge of them, is like playing with fire to me (as a cruiser).

Brian


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

PCP said:


> I had the luck of having a talk with Eric Stomberg about the boat. Eric belongs to Jeanneau america and was very influential on the design of that boat. He is the one that played the "owner" part with Philippe Briand , the NA and the boat was made accordingly with what he thought it would be the right 40ft cruising.
> 
> I believe that much of the success of that boat is due to him. He is also a sailor and at the time (the first boats were being delivered), he didn't miss a delivery to have the opportunity to test the boat. He give me a lot of insight about the boat sailing qualities and I felt that he was a honest straightforward and very nice guy.
> 
> ...


Paulo, have you been on that boat with the mast on?

Not to change the subject too quickly, but I found that boat a disaster. The rigging is WAY too small. The backstays are connected to a little half-eye fitting smaller than what I use to haul up my tender!! All the rigging seems vastly undersized for that boat, except for perfect weather conditions. The mast is inmast and the slot on that mast is very tight and the mast has no room for a crinkle. That thing is one blow from a hangup. The cabinetry down below is sparse and reminds me of Ikea. We actually saw the plastic wood-looking tape peeling off of the cabinet... on a new boat!! Cant wait to see it in a few years in the humidity. I don't think any of those cabinets are real wood. There are very few lockers and very little space for actually storing stuff. Go look back on my list and tell me where you are going to put that on the 409?!?? I found this pretty typical of all the XX9 series of Jeaunneau. Not one single sailor on our dock liked that boat. It became the joke as something was always going wrong on that boat. And don't they run the bilge pump through the Main engine exhaust? What about the coamings on that boat? Even without cockpit cushions, those coamings are only a few inches tall, especially closer to the wheel where others helping you sail will be sitting. Talk about a sore back after being at sea for a day. Weren't the seats behind he wheel also flat, so that on a heel, there is no way to sit erect?

Yeah its a light boat - lightly built. We had one sitting in our marina new for a long time. They couldn't sell it (new). I think Jeaunneau has made some awesome boats, but I personally found that boat lacking anything desirable. It was built for a pricepoint. I think the base price on it was 259,000. Pfft. Not in this lifetime.

George, if you are interested in that boat, let me give you the name of the brokers in Florida that have several. They would LOVE to sell it to you and will make you a deal you cannot believe. I will be happy to send you their number. Just PM me.

My opinions.

Brian


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Cruisingdad said:


> Ahhh.... finally the discussion is getting fun.
> 
> Ok, let's talk about what I carry on my boat. I will try and get as many things as I can. I am sure to leave some stuff out.
> 
> ...


Well, although I don't qualify as a real cruiser as per your definition, and I appreciate that any attempt like yours to itemize all the crap I've stuffed aboard my little tub would truly make my head hurt, two things I would rate as essential cruising gear - and that occupy a considerable amount of storage space on my boat - are notably absent from your list...

1) *Ground tackle* - any/all spares, including storm mooring gear, shore lines, sea anchor/drogue, etc...

2) * Sails in addition to working sails* - storm and additional light-air inventory, in particular...

I carry what most might consider a ridiculous amount of ground tackle aboard my boat... 2 on the bow, one at the stern, and a large Fortress and a dismantled aluminum Spade stowed below... And, if I'm heading for a place like Newfoundland, my Big Bertha Northill comes along for the ride, I'll swap it for the Spade... Not a cruiser, perhaps, just a graduate of the "What If?/You Never Know" School of Seamanship... (grin)










My boat, like yours, is extremely heavily-laden whenever I take off sailing. She's a heavy boat to begin with, and I've added tons of weight over the years. I've built in extra tankage - 100+ gallons of water, and 50 of fuel is a lot for a 30-footer... However, she was originally designed as a cruiser/racer by Brit Chance, and had an enviable race record after her launch in the early 70's... So, even with all the additional crap I've added, and raising the waterline more than once over the years, she still retains a fairly slippery hull form, and a very seakindly aspect, despite the fact that most of it is underwater... (grin)










As heavy as she is, she is still wonderfully responsive and a delight to sail, but all that mass and volume requires *horsepower*, especially in light to moderate conditions... And this is where I think most sailors today are really missing the boat, and the reason why so many cruisers I see up and down the East coast of the US are doing so much motoring, and so little sailing... I know I'm a broken record on this issue, but without a compliment of light air free-flying sails - gennakers, Code 0s, etc. - most cruisers and liveaboards as per your definition are gonna be covering a lot more miles under power, than under sail...

And that is where cruisers need to think more like racers, and carry the tools necessary to get the job done... Never ceases to amaze me, the low priority given to a sail inventory to get them through the lighter stuff, by folks sailing the sort of Conestoga Wagons you and I do...


----------



## One (Mar 20, 2013)

Cruisingdad said:


> What do you consider a minimalist? I hear that term thrown out a lot, generally by Americans (which I dont think you are) who think a minimalist is someone without a TV or microwave. I have never met a true minimalist as a cruiser, but have met a two or three in my previous life as a backpacker.


I do have a tv, I need to keep an eye on the news to make my living.

I am a minimalist in that I make it a point to come up with simple solutions throughout my life (professional and private). I also find things that are not decorated and whatnot, but I do like wood, if the purpose makes it a good choice.



> Here is a minimalist to me:
> 
> They carried everything they own in a backpack.


I can carry everything I need in a backpack, and often do (although, more like a carry-on, that a backpack these days).



> They caught rainwater or drank out of the stream.


That is not minimalism to me. That is primitivism.



> They fished for food, generally supplemented by what they could find on the trail. No radio. No electronics.


Same as above.



> Little to no money.


So, basically, the life of a beggar.



> They cook on a campfire and start the fire with flint and steel (a long lost art... though we had to do it many times too).


I often take on small camping trips in my open water rowing boat. But since I'm not a beggar, and I care about leaving nothing but footprints, I don't have campfires anywhere.



> The only modern part of them was their backpacks, tents, and hiking boots... all well worn. They disappeared in the wilderness for weeks at a time. Nice enough people, but not for me. That is a minimalist to me.


See the points about primitivism and the life of a beggar.



> If you are putting batteries in your boat, I personally would not consider you a minimalist. And the batteries you put in are very new technology, again not what I would see a minimalist ever doing.


You have a very distorted picture of "minimalism". For something simple, go look up "minimalism" on wikipedia, do a google search for "minimalism", and while you're at it, do a google search for "scandinavian minimalism" and do a google image search for both.



> The label is not important to me, and if you want to call yourself a minimalist or anyone else does, they are welcome to. Makes me no difference. Just my opinion.


See above. I don't bring "everything and the kitchen sink" as you seem to do, according to your list. I make it a point not to.



> I find that comment pretty typical of someone who has not spent a lot of time cruising. It is one of those things that sounds good in theory, but in reality and practicality does not work.


Ah, yeah, and we're back to you thinking it can't possibly be done any other way than the way you do things. You seem to have failed to notice where I said that by simplifying you will need less spares and tools, and that many tools can be found in compact and lightweight versions.



> The tools are what the tools are.


No, they're not. Any tool can be had in various versions. It pays to look around.



> Again: every tool has been used on this boat.


And there's the rub: I don't carry any and all tools I ever used on my boat. It's simply not necessary. I sail in a boat that sails well, and I have no intention of doing anything other than engine work of the very basic kind while underway.



> The weight saved by using the Motorcycle type wrenches may be lost the first time you break one.


Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know your engine was one big heap of rust where you had to bang on the spanners to make it work. The motorcycle spanners I have are plenty strong for my needs. I have never broken a single one.



> Not to mention, we are splitting hairs on the small amount of weight saved with the few tools that can be purchased lightweight. I prefer solid, well made tools that will take a beating.


It was an example of attitude. When you buy everything to "take a beating" and bring spares for that, you end up with a heap of weight and space taken.
If, on the other hand, you consider each detail, you will end up with far fewer things needed, and by extension, carried. And those that you do carry are well considered and chosen to save weight and space.



> If you are land-side, and your wrench breaks, no big deal. Go to the store and buy another.


I'm sorry, but my wrenches has never broken.



> If you are at sea or a secluded anchorage and it breaks, you are screwed... just as screwed as if you didn't bring one in the first place.


See above.



> Modern sailboats, especially American made boats, are filled with a variety of different sizes and bolts and screws. A sailboat by its very nature is 80% made up of things bought from vendors. You will have to carry a full set of metric and american. You will have to have a variety of bits. You will have to carry both metric and american alan wrenches. A drill. A jig saw. Hole saws. Hack saw. A large variety of plumbing and electrical supplies. Can you get away without it? Certainly... until the first time something breaks.


See my above points of simplifying that you continue to ignore.



> Better hope its not a critical system if you don't have the tool for it.


Apart from the mast, keel, rudder, and, yes, my fridge, there is nothing on board I consider "critical".



> Nothing pisses me off worse than hearing some cruiser complaining about a broken waterpump - not knowing where it is, not having a spare, and not having the tools to fix it.


You seem to imply I'm arguing that no spares or tools should be carried. Nice strawman. 



> Those people are best left back at the yacht club where fixes are a phone call away. As an old Boy Scout, I say, "Be Prepared."


That is all fine and well. I'm saying: You're not preparing for the end of the world. Keep it simple.



> Another common misconception I see, generally from those that have not spent a lot of time cruising or away from the marinas. There are several modern items that have really changed sailing. The microwave is one of them.


You must be joking? Maybe in your world. But I don't see a need for one at home (the one I had at one time never got used), so why should I use it when I'm out there? You are reaching at straws when you make the claim that because I think a microwave is ridiculous, then therefore I must only be cruising from marina to marina. How ridiculous is that!? :laugher



> My microwave pulls 80 amps/h. Sounds like a lot, but it is not. Why? Because it only is run for minutes at a time. That comes out to 1.33 amps/minute. In three minutes, I can cook two cans of canned peas. In two minutes, I can heat up an entire can of soup. In one minute, I can cook fish fillets, which come out surprisingly awesome in the microwave - both juicy and tender. Those same items take considerably longer on the stove, and the fish for example, cooked in the oven, will use a LOT of gas and really heat up the cabin.


Yes, I said, I don't eat microwave food, nor do I have any intention to do so.



> Microwaves can be run from an inverter - they do not require a generator. Their power use is minimal.


I know they can be run from an inverter. See the point about simplifying.



> They are quite light. Their size is small and they make a great place to put things in when at sea because the door can be easily closed and has a positive lock. And most of all, and *maybe most importantly, they are readily available everywhere and are very cheap to obtain*. Walmart sells them for $35.
> 
> 
> > Seriously?
> ...


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

JonEisberg said:


> Well, although I don't qualify as a real cruiser as per your definition, and I appreciate that any attempt like yours to itemize all the crap I've stuffed aboard my little tub would truly make my head hurt, two things I would rate as essential cruising gear - and that occupy a considerable amount of storage space on my boat - are notably absent from your list...
> 
> 1) *Ground tackle* - any/all spares, including storm mooring gear, shore lines, sea anchor/drogue, etc...
> 
> ...


Jon! Mark this in your calendar. For once... I AGREE WITH YOU! Gawd, the shame of it. Next I will be pulling off my bimini (snicker).

My point in defining a cruiser was not, as I said, to say THis is a REAL cruiser and any of you are just second best. Quite the contrary. I was trying to define the word in terms of the USE of the boat. That is very important when talking about a 'cruiser'. I am sure you agree (or think you do, at least).

The problem with many modern boats, mine no exception, is the lack of lazarette storage. Take a boat like yours, for instance. Not many people used roller furlings, in mast, etc. Was it even around then? If it was, it was likely not a very reliable system. No, most cruisers hanked on their sails and when they wanted to power up or depower, they changed sails. I personally believe that those times made better sailors and the boats made better boats. The boat was not only designed to be able to accomodate all those sails in lazarettes, but was also designed with the realization that a sailor was going to have to go forward in what might be crappy conditions to change them out or reef them. High lifelines, deep lockers, and friendly decks were the norm, often associated with granny bars and solid handholds. Many of the modern boats I would hate to go forward in (but many of them I would equally hate to sit in the cockpit of). It almost seems like many boats today were built to look good in the showroom or the boat show, and not with going to sea in mind. I can give a LOT of examples, one of them being the Jeauneau 409 I mentioned earlier. Hunter has made some improvements, but I see many of their boats doing likewise. Same with Catalina. Valiant was one of the last holdouts of boats I am familiar with that hung true to the old adage, but I guess Chris couldn't keep it afloat after his dad died. I do like many things they did on Valiants, but there are also many things they should have done that were absent. That, I guess, is for another thread.

Ground tackle, extra lines, etc... I couldn't agree more. I do not have your inventory of anchors. I am actually interested in buying a large fortress as I could break it down. My primary is a Delta that has never once let me down, but we will see how she grips the grass in the Bahamas. She is oversized for the boat (two times), and all chain. Once I set her, she doesn't move. Getting her back up would be a nightmare without a windlass though.

Another comment about racers: I enjoy racing. I really do. In a perfect world, I would have two boats... one to race and the other to cruise. And I have long said, the best way to become a good cruiser is to hang around racers. There are things racers do which do not work or are unsafe on a cruising boat - but a good racer and captain will teach you more in one race than you will learn in a year of cruising on your own. The ability to tweak a sail for everything its got should be first chapter reading for a cruiser. My opinions, just don't let Jeff_h read that.

Pretty boat, btw, Jon. Look better with a bimini and full enclosure (snicker)....

Brian


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

I think Petercheck pretty much nails it for long term cruising boats (post #3) .... immersion factor, or how much a heavily loaded boat sinks into the water when filled to capacity with cruising stores. Purpose built long distance cruisers/passagemakers typically have more 'stowage capacity' and when fully loaded with stores wont be wallowing against a deeply submerged waterline. 
Also for long distances, a boat that 'snaps' on every wave can become quite tiring in comparison to a more 'sea-kindly' boat ... theres a big diff. between a 'slow roller' and a 'snappy' boat when it comes to 'roll period'.

Also too structural fatigue can be a concern for long distance/long term, a heavier 'beefed up' boat will typically have a higher inbuilt 'structural factor of safety' which prolongs the time frame of 'endurance limit' in total stress cycles (rigging and hull). Generally, a 'flimsy' is certainly going to come apart faster and become 'structurally tired' sooner than a 'crab crusher', although composite structural design keeps getting better and better during this current 'evolution'.

"Sea-kindliness" is probably more important than ability to 'quickly accelerate' when youre 'cruising' ... especially if you havent worn a wristwatch for many years!!!! A crab crusher with a 'rounded power-bow shape' will '_blast_ its way' through the real steep stuff due to is momentum and latent inertia, while the 'flimsy' will tend to pound and pound (and possibly get stopped) and pound again until your dental fillings loosen and fall out.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

One said:


> I do have a tv, I need to keep an eye on the news to make my living.
> 
> I am a minimalist in that I make it a point to come up with simple solutions throughout my life (professional and private). I also find things that are not decorated and whatnot, but I do like wood, if the purpose makes it a good choice.
> 
> ...


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Sails:
An interesting point and I would suggest a big racer/cruiser divide. The low end of either might be one main and one headsail, a 130-150. But while the serious racer may sort through 14 sails to load the day's inventory...a cruiser has to carry all the sails they own, and build inventory a bit more parsimoniously.

One main, storm sail, _maybe _3-4 headsails if they're seriously considering light air and storms? What does who consider "proper" for the cruising sail inventory, as opposed to racing?


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

PCP said:


> Many years of experience looking at all kind of sailing boats, specially between 39 and 45ft boats, and for looking I mean actually being inside the boats with my wife taking a special care in what regards storage space I can tell you that typical main mass production like yours are normally more "fat" (to use my daughter terminology), than the typical performance cruiser, like the J122 or an Arcona 41. For having the same space you just have to bought the next size in what regards boat size. You will have a bigger saloon but probably the same storage space.
> 
> However some modern cruising boats that are faster than the typical fat cruiser manage to have the same storage space, or even more since they are designed with voyage in mind. that does not mean you like them, but we are only talking about storage and speed. It has also other advantages in what regards blueawater sailing namely a cuter rig, with two front sails on furlers plus alight removable furler for the asymmetric spinnaker. The boat comes standard has a twin keel and can be beached for cleaning the hull or repairs.
> 
> ...


Hey Paulo,

I watched the video. I completely understand we have different tastes in boats. But I have some questions.

1) How would that boat, with hard chimes, handle a steep sea with a short period? Even my boat is tough in those conditions. I was on a Hunter with a flat bottom and it sounded like a PDQ going into those waves: Bang! Bang! Bang! Do you think that boat would do that? Would you buy a boat with hard chimes like that for cruising?

2) Of course, this is all from pictures, but I don't remember seeing any cabinetry on the walls. That means much of the storage has to go into the settees. Did they put all the tankage below the floorboards? If not, wouldn't that kill the storage on that boat?

3) Wouldn't you prefer more wood? Nothing to do with the performace of the boat, but it didn't seem very warm.

4) Would you have a problem not having a place to put your feet for long distance voyaging? For example, when on the same tack for a long period of time, we stretch our feet across to the foot hold between the two settees on the table. THis was one of the issues I had with the Blue Jacket. Without that, you are forced to sit on the highside - exactly as they are showing in the video. Now that isn't a problem for a day sail, but could you personally do that for a long period of time? Wouldn't your butt fall asleep? Wouldn't your back get sore. My issue with many of the new boats coming out (production boats primarily) is the rediculous coaming in the cockpit and the flat seats behind the wheel. I realize they are trying to maximize the space below, but in doing so, have they made a less comfortable boat for long distance sailing?

5) My boat is 41'6", and 13'6 wide. That boat is 39 long, and 14.5 wide. And you call my boat fat!!! (Snicker)

6) I like the storage area which they are using as a line locker. I really wish I had that on my boat. I said before that one of the failures of many modern boats is the crappy lazarettes.

7) What do you think that boat makes good in 15-20kts sustained? What if she were loaded down with a couple two-three thousand of pounds of gear? How would that change the charachteristics of that boat? Since it is devoid of any real cabinetry, where would you put things that you have to get to often and quickly, like spot lights, paper charts, paper towels, flour, sugar, coffee, large pots and pans like a pressure cooker, etc? If you think about the things, even in a house, that you use on a daily basis, don't you want them easily accessible? We end up having to put a lot of stuff in our settees, and having to pull the cushions and boards to get to them and mangle through all the stuff is a PITA. Would you agree?

8) I agree with you that many of the production boats stink at storage. Large salons, terrible handholds, cruddy storage. I have LONG been screaming about that. They make these huge salons that look great in the boat shows, but when you have to load it up, there are very few cabinets. I cannot tell you the number of boats I have been on that don't even have fiddleboards! So in general I agree with your statement, though it depends on the boat (both ways). I will tell you that my boat, for instance, has a nice amount of cabinetry on it... and I still had to add more. Other boats that come at a higher price point, like you were mentioning, already have that.

Its a neat looking boat. Pretty lines. Kinda pricey though... I saw the older models, and 2008 at that, were over a quarter million US on yahctworld. I wonder what that boat costs new. Do you know? Just curious.

Brian

PS A Catalina 400, though I think has many good qualities, is NOT my ideal cruising boat. I hope you don't think it is. I like many things about it, hate some things, but in general have made it work. There are definitely better boats that I like better... but $$$$!!! I have not sailed one, but I really like the looks of the X yachts. I have suggested that to many people (and Sabres and a couple of others) that have a larger budget than I do. But that is why I am cruising now with a boat I make work instead of working at an office to have my perfect boat sitting at the marina!!! I just remind myself that both me and the guy next to me on the Taswell 49 has the same view. His is just a lot more quiet (no kids). HEHE!

PPS Anyone ever see Romancing the Stone? The boat in that movie is in our marina. Kinda cool.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

hellosailor said:


> Sails:
> An interesting point and I would suggest a big racer/cruiser divide. The low end of either might be one main and one headsail, a 130-150. But while the serious racer may sort through 14 sails to load the day's inventory...a cruiser has to carry all the sails they own, and build inventory a bit more parsimoniously.
> 
> One main, storm sail, _maybe _3-4 headsails if they're seriously considering light air and storms? What does who consider "proper" for the cruising sail inventory, as opposed to racing?


I think many of the cruisers, with their roller furlers and inmasts, have gotten away from carrying any extra sails. I am one of them. Does not mean I think I should.

I have often considered investing in a trysail. I already have the track for it. I actually have a heavy made sail for a much smaller boat in storage in Washington. I wonder how that would work on my boat??? Anyways, I am as guilty as the crowd and admit it. Does not mean I don't agree with Jon, which I do.

Another sail I would like is a cruising chute. I had one on my last boat and loved it. I loved just flying it. Unfortunately, I have had my boat dollars going elsewhere. And in all honesty, and I will ask Jon what he thinks too, I just don't see many cruisers using spis. He is right about motoring a lot too. It shocked me how much we end up motoring.

I will say one thing though (about motoring): We try to avoid sailing when we will get bounced around too much. Sometimes you can avoid that and have a better voyage (not a better sail) by motoring. Also, where before we might just sail, it is not unusual for us to motorsail to make better time. I think that argument for a "Racer" could be that they do not have to do that as much and their boats will point better, making for a better VMG. I also think, in theory, they will be able to sail and make better speed in winds where many cruisers will have to sail.

One of my consistent arguments though, and it may be a Bob Perry question, is when you load up a racer-cruiser with cruising stuff, how have you affected the stability of that boat? THe performance? The RM? Wouldn't a race boat, given its nature of design and the lack of storage, be forced to put things higher thus decreasing its RM for instance, versus a HD cruiser might keep it low and secured? Because the percentage increase of displacment would be much higher on a racer-cruiser versus a HD cruiser, wouldnt the effects of loading it down really alter it more than a HD Cruiser?

I really don't know. It is a question. But it seems logical to me that it would.

Brian


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

RichH said:


> I think Petercheck pretty much nails it for long term cruising boats (post #3) .... immersion factor, or how much a heavily loaded boat sinks into the water when filled to capacity with cruising stores. Purpose built long distance cruisers/passagemakers typically have more 'stowage capacity' and when fully loaded with stores wont be wallowing against a deeply submerged waterline.
> Also for long distances, a boat that 'snaps' on every wave can become quite tiring in comparison to a more 'sea-kindly' boat ... theres a big diff. between a 'slow roller' and a 'snappy' boat when it comes to 'roll period'.
> 
> Also too structural fatigue can be a concern for long distance/long term, a heavier 'beefed up' boat will typically have a higher inbuilt 'structural factor of safety' which prolongs the time frame of 'endurance limit' in total stress cycles (rigging and hull). Generally, a 'flimsy' is certainly going to come apart faster and become 'structurally tired' sooner than a 'crab crusher', although composite structural design keeps getting better and better during this current 'evolution'.
> ...


I agree with much of that.

Brian


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Remember the old television show, “The Naked City”? Each episode would start out “There are eight million stories in the Naked City, this is one of them?” There must be at least that many definitions of the word “cruising”. We all have different concepts of the word and definitely different plans when we all “head out and turn left at the Gate” (the San Francisco vernacular for cruising). It would be most helpful if people would put their boat and location in the signature line so I can figure out if the responder is like me or not. When people don’t put anything in their signature or Bio, I tend to think of them as “keyboard captains” and heavily discount what they say.

My future cruising grounds will be the west coast of Mexico and the SOC where you can be a week or more away from reliable marine repair. I’ve been 500 miles offshore on the way to Hawaii on a boat that started to lose its steering gear and mid-Atlantic on a boat with generator problems. That, and a career in Aerospace, makes me sensitive to the repair/DC aspect. After all isn’t the definition of cruising “fixing your boat in exotic locations”?

Dad, interesting take on the Jeanneau. Usually that vitriol is reserved for Catalina’s. Unlike what I’m assuming is most people on this thread, I’m not independently wealthy so I do look for an affordable price point. After-all, I’m on my third Catalina. What attracted me to the 409 was its similarity to my C34 in terms of its layout (two stateroom, single aft head). I did not like the lack of a coaming aft of the steering wheels (almost lost a cushion overboard at a cocktail party). The single set of primaries and that mainsheet set up was a turn-off too. But all boats in my price range tend to be compromises. Can you give me an objective comparison with your 400? Sail California recently merged (acquired?) Cruising Yachts, so now besides their usual “Js”, they now are brokering Jeanneau. The line is so new to them that they even asked me if I wanted to test drive the 56, 409, and 389 out on the Bay with them. What kind of deal can I get from your local Florida man? (I am friends with my local brokerage owner).


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

chef2sail said:


> Here are two simple observations
> 
> For me the generator is not necessary- save 500-600 lbs. at least
> 
> For me the second head is not necessary and you could get all that as increased storage space.


Dave,

Agree on both accounts, with a couple of stipulations.

I don;t think the generator is 5-600 lbs. I will have to look that up, but I think it is around 250. Remember, mine is only a MV 3.5 . I just measured the dimensions at: 18x14.5x18. That's basically the size of a carry-on suitcase! However, they are rediculously expensive. I think this one, installed in 2006, was $15,000. I understand they are more than that now.

Of the things I have and listed, like you Dave, the Generator would have been one of the first to go if I had to choose. However, I suspect it would be a short divorce. Before long, I think I would end up seeing a Honda 2000 on my stern!

We make roughly 300ah/day. THat is well more than we use. But it only takes one day or two of clouds in the winter before we are hurting... and that is with 840ah batt banks! Without hot water, we end up running a pretty solid 180 ah/day. With all the kids on the computers and printer (my kids homeschool, but have to use computers), we can exceed that number.

I will be able to give a much more accurate pic of AH used in about 6 weeks. Kids will be out of school and hot water will be less of an issue. Of course, then the water usage goes up, but that is another discussion.

On the second head: Yes. We agree. Or, you could use it for straight storage as many people do (sail locker, wet locker, etc). I have no choice. THis was one of the stipulations my wife wanted for kids (she doesn't want them using her head). I got no problem with that, but I agree with you.

Brian


----------



## Andrew Burton (Oct 22, 2012)

"I will say one thing though (about motoring): We try to avoid sailing when we will get bounced around too much. Sometimes you can avoid that and have a better voyage (not a better sail) by motoring." 

Brian, by your definition of cruising (and mine intersects with yours on this point), why would you leave when you are going to get bounced around? Why would you leave when it's necessary to motorsail? And why would you need to "make time?" Personally, I like the idea of waiting for better weather; we're cruising, so what's the rush? My dear wife has a job, so she is bound by her schedule, but I'm not and neither, I presume, is a full time cruiser.


----------



## Andrew Burton (Oct 22, 2012)

"I have often considered investing in a trysail. I already have the track for it. I actually have a heavy made sail for a much smaller boat in storage in Washington. I wonder how that would work on my boat??"

I've never hoisted a trysail in anger. I wouldn't bother getting one. I like deep reefs in a sturdy main, and frankly the main is going to get pulled down pretty early in a serious blow. On the other hand, I really like a storm staysail hanked on to an inner forestay. With a boat that sails reasonably well, you can even claw to weather with only the staysail flying...and someone on the helm who can steer.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

GeorgeB said:


> Remember the old television show, "The Naked City"? Each episode would start out "There are eight million stories in the Naked City, this is one of them?" There must be at least that many definitions of the word "cruising". We all have different concepts of the word and definitely different plans when we all "head out and turn left at the Gate" (the San Francisco vernacular for cruising). It would be most helpful if people would put their boat and location in the signature line so I can figure out if the responder is like me or not. When people don't put anything in their signature or Bio, I tend to think of them as "keyboard captains" and heavily discount what they say.
> 
> My future cruising grounds will be the west coast of Mexico and the SOC where you can be a week or more away from reliable marine repair. I've been 500 miles offshore on the way to Hawaii on a boat that started to lose its steering gear and mid-Atlantic on a boat with generator problems. That, and a career in Aerospace, makes me sensitive to the repair/DC aspect. After all isn't the definition of cruising "fixing your boat in exotic locations"?
> 
> Dad, interesting take on the Jeanneau. Usually that vitriol is reserved for Catalina's. Unlike what I'm assuming is most people on this thread, I'm not independently wealthy so I do look for an affordable price point. After-all, I'm on my third Catalina. What attracted me to the 409 was its similarity to my C34 in terms of its layout (two stateroom, single aft head). I did not like the lack of a coaming aft of the steering wheels (almost lost a cushion overboard at a cocktail party). The single set of primaries and that mainsheet set up was a turn-off too. But all boats in my price range tend to be compromises. Can you give me an objective comparison with your 400? Sail California recently merged (acquired?) Cruising Yachts, so now besides their usual "Js", they now are brokering Jeanneau. The line is so new to them that they even asked me if I wanted to test drive the 56, 409, and 389 out on the Bay with them. What kind of deal can I get from your local Florida man? (I am friends with my local brokerage owner).


I will send you a PM on the brokerage company, etc, as I don't want to have anyone screaming at me. They would know me. I will put the rest here as others will want to chime in.

Hmmm.... I assume your budget is around 300k if you are looking at a 409?  I would look into a used Sabre 426 or X, off the top of my head. The new bene seems to be a step up from the XX9 Jeauneaus, but just so you know, a good friend of mine (at the same marina, incidentally), lost her forestay on her maiden voyage on her brand new bene! If you get serious about those boats, I will let you speak with her. She is awesome... pretty gal, loves sailing, relatively young, has her own money, buys her own boats, captains license, singlehands. I wouldn't dare let her post on Sailnet in the Hersailnet Forum!! I couldn't keep up with all the posts! She's a rarity in this world. Her forestay chaffed through at the top and though I think the rigging seems a bit more heavy than the xx9, it is not vastly so. She has had a lot of problems, but in fairness, the factory rep came down and they have taken care of her. Another boat that people consider over the C400 is the Bene 423. My issue with that boat is that the stern sits in the water right at the HD joint, and they love collect barnacles there as it is impossible to paint. Also, I think every single 423 I have ever seen lists to starboard. Not much, but enough that it would irritate me.

You know a boat I do like and lost racing against was a Bene 40. The hull looks very similar to the C400... scarily so. To be fair to me, I was filled to the rim with crusiing stuff and he was fresh off the truck (now I am making excuses... I might be a racer yet!!). It might be a cheaper option than a new Bene. Nice sailing boat. My only issue with the Benes is I really do not like the hull-deck joints for reasons explained above.

If you can spend over 300, I would really be looking hard at a newer Sabre, a C445, or a newer X. I keep talking up the X's. I have not sailed them or against them. But they look sweet and I bet they are fast. I KNOW the Sabres are, for the most part. You will have to be comfortable with a cored hull though, which unless I am mistaken, all Sabres have. Others can chime in there. I have mixed feelings on a cored hull for cruising.

We had very dear friends that lived in the Sea of Cortez on their boat for five years. They Loved it George. They loved the people. One word of warning, which you may already know, is that you will have to get used to hot weather. Ventilation will be critical. THat often means, with all due respect to my HD lovers, a boat with a lot of hatches (a production boat). I would avoid anything with teak decks and would really focus my search on a boat where the V is the master. That rules out a C400. A C42 would fit the bill. You will have to buy one used. If you want to go that route, let me know as there are things in private I want to discuss too.

If under 200k, I would get a C400. I don't think there is a better boat. Of course, many will disagree with me. They think I am some kind of Catalina lover, which is not entirely true, incidentally. Everything they say about me and grilling is true - guilty as charged.

Regarding the J122 - I understand exactly what you are saying. I know because I have seen it and because I too am a cruiser. That is why we are having this discussion. The J122 is a rocking-cool boat. Man that thing is nimble. But no way I would cruise on it. Just not the right boat for the cruising we do... in my opinion. And in my opinion, it is not the right boat for the cruising most would do. But that is what we are discussing here, I think...

Brian


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Cruisingdad said:


> Paulo, have you been on that boat with the mast on?
> 
> Not to change the subject too quickly, but I found that boat a disaster. The rigging is WAY too small. The backstays are connected to a little half-eye fitting smaller than what I use to haul up my tender!! All the rigging seems vastly undersized for that boat, except for perfect weather conditions. The mast is inmast and the slot on that mast is very tight and the mast has no room for a crinkle. That thing is one blow from a hangup. The cabinetry down below is sparse and reminds me of Ikea. We actually saw the plastic wood-looking tape peeling off of the cabinet... on a new boat!! Cant wait to see it in a few years in the humidity. I don't think any of those cabinets are real wood. There are very few lockers and very little space for actually storing stuff. Go look back on my list and tell me where you are going to put that on the 409?!?? I found this pretty typical of all the XX9 series of Jeaunneau. Not one single sailor on our dock liked that boat. It became the joke as something was always going wrong on that boat. And don't they run the bilge pump through the Main engine exhaust? What about the coamings on that boat? Even without cockpit cushions, those coamings are only a few inches tall, especially closer to the wheel where others helping you sail will be sitting. Talk about a sore back after being at sea for a day. Weren't the seats behind he wheel also flat, so that on a heel, there is no way to sit erect?
> 
> ...


Uau!!!!

The base price here is 142 400 euros. That gives 149 070 dollars. The boat is made there and you have small tax how the hell the boat costs 259 000 dollars? I guess the rest of your comments go on the same sense that price exaggeration. 
Sailboat Jeanneau Sun Odyssey 409 - Jeanneau Yard

The boat is a success here, where the competition is way more tight than on the US. Do you mean that the boat does not sell several times more than the Catalina 400? well, it seems that they don't make the Catalina 400 anymore.

Brian, there is a reason why a boat is taken out of production: It is because it is no more competitive on the market and there are not enough people that want to buy it to make profitable to continue producing it.

I don't like to say bad things about any boat. The market today is so competitive that there are no more bad boats anymore but you really exaggerate in what regards the Jeanneau 409. The Jeanneau is a mass production boat made to a price like the Catalina 400. The price of the Catalina is higher so it is normal to be slightly better finished but on the essentials the Jeanneau is a much better boat than the Catalina, in what regards design and built technologies.

The infusion is really a major improvement in what regards a quality and the Catalina 400 share the same hull with the MKI. We are talking of an almost 20 years old hull design by a, well, a NA that only does Catalinas, face to a new design by one of the better European designers. There are no possible comparison and the performance differences are evident.

Regarding the interior I like much more the one from the Jeanneau. Yes as I said the Catalina is better finished but even so, I would no have changed the Catalina interior for the one of the Jeanneau, neither I would have a a Catalina 400 instead of a a Jeanneu 409, even if they give me the Catalina 400 for the price of the Jeanneau and the Jeanneau is way less expensive.









There is a reason for the 409 to be a sail success and Catalina 400 not being built anymore.

I know that the boat that is made in Europe has a good quality for a mass produced boat and it is a very good sailing boat. The competition is so big here that is impossible for a boat to win the European boat of the year Contest without being a well made, very good sailboat an the Jeanneau was the family boat of the year in 2011.

But maybe the boat made in American is of an inferior quality? I had a look at some reviews on American sail magazines to see if your opinion was shared. After all you say so bad about the boat on so many things so evident to see that they cannot fail to notice it:

*Sail magazine*:

"So far sales are strong, and it looks like the 409 will maintain Jeanneau's prominent position in this critical size range....

*Finish quality is above average for a mass-production cruising boat...*.

The Sun Odyssey 409 promises to continue the success enjoyed by its predecessor by providing cruising families with a comfortable, versatile platform that looks sharp and sails well. The several sail-plan options, the different interior layouts, and two keel options make it possible to fine-tune the boat to your individual needs....

Under Sail:

In light to moderate conditions on Biscayne Bay (8 to 10 knots of wind, slowly building to 12) with the rig properly tweaked, the boat tracked well and I found the helm to be nicely balanced and forgiving. In lighter winds that morning we occasionally topped 5 knots sailing close-hauled, and I was able to leave the wheel unattended for long periods without the boat falling off. In somewhat stronger wind later on, we easily topped 6 knots on a close reach, and the helm stayed balanced, with no tendency to round up when the wheel was released.

In significantly stronger wind (15 knots, gusting to 20) during my earlier sail, I found the boat was reassuringly stiff, thanks in part to the hard chine in the topsides running aft from amidships..."

Jeanneau Sun Odyssey 409 | Sail Magazine






*Cruising world*:

"Immediately noticeable under sail is the refined thinking that Philippe Briand and the Jeanneau Design Team have invested in the deck layout. It wasn't very long ago that BOTY judges were lamenting the way that work stations were scattered all across the cockpits of new boats, from the coamings to the cabintops, making it difficult to sail shorthanded. No more. On the 409, as well as on many other of this year's fleet, we were happy to see sailhandling lines and winches laid out within easy reach of the helm....

"I was pleased with the performance of the boat," said BOTY judge Ed Sherman, having sailed at 6.1 knots into 10 knots of true wind. A 40-horse Yanmar provided plenty of power to push the 409 along at 7.5 knots. In terms of noise under power, the boat was smack-dab in the middle of the fleet: 88 decibels at 2,600 rpm; 91 decibels at 3,000 rpm..

...Like other Jeanneaus, the interior of the 409 is a model of flexibility.

After a thorough inspection, it was clear to all of us that they were thinking about a lot of things."

Jeanneau Sun Odyssey 409 Sailboat Review | Cruising World

On the *Bluewater sailing magazine* I could only find a test on the 41DS, the sister boat that shares the same hull and quality of finish and interior:

"The new deck saloon design embraces simple cruising elegance while offering innovative sailing systems...

Under power, the 41DS handles easily and well. With a sail drive powered by the standard 40hp diesel, the prop is well positioned to keep water pressure on the rudder, thus even at slow speeds the boat turns with assurance. Straight ahead, the boat will motor at 6.5 knots at a conservative 2000 rpms, yet will climb to her theoretical hull speed of 8.04 knots without much bother at 2800 rpms-just short of the maximum we noted given the fixed three bladed prop...

The 41DS showed itself to be a handy cruiser that motors well and maneuvers easily in tight quarters and a fine sailing design that is intended to make performance cruising easier than ever. This boat can certainly be handled by a couple and is also a cinch for those who sail alone....

Philippe Briand did the basic hull design work when he drew the lines for the Jeanneau 409. The 41DS uses the same hull, keel and rudder as the 409 but has been given an entirely different deck and interior. The 409 was one of the most successful new designs in Jeanneau's line in recent years and has earned the reputation of being a quick and capable racer-cruiser....

*The fit and finish of the new generation of Jeanneaus continues to impress with attention to detail and the depth of the seamanship that informs decisions about where to put things and how to build them-enough to make any owner proud.*..

Down below, the somewhat traditional interior (by modern Euro standards) will appeal to the American market, as will the overall quality of the craftsmanship that goes into the boat.

Like the 409 in the racer-cruiser slot of the market, the new 41DS promises to offer her owners a ton of great cruising at a price that is a very good value both today and in the future, when you may want to move up to a larger boat."

BLUE WATER BOATS | JEANNEAU SUN ODYSSEY 41DS | BLUE WATER SAILING MAGAZINE | CRUISING, SAILING, BOAT REVIEWS, GEAR, CHARTERING | 888.800.SAIL

Brian it seems that the fact that you own a Catalina and seem to be in love with it makes you see defects and shortcomings where professional testers (that test a compare douzens of boats) find nothing wrong, and I am not talking only about US testers boat about all those European magazines testers had choose this boat as European family boat on the year he come to the market.

Nobody found as you say: *"I found that boat a disaster. The rigging is WAY too small. The backstays are connected to a little half-eye fitting smaller than what I use to haul up my tender!! All the rigging seems vastly undersized for that boat, except for perfect weather conditions. The cabinetry down below is sparse and reminds me of Ikea. We actually saw the plastic wood-looking tape peeling off of the cabinet."*

The general consensus in what regard the finish and the interior was:

" *Finish quality is above average for a mass-production cruising boat..The several sail-plan options, the different interior layouts, and two keel options make it possible to fine-tune the boat to your individual needs....The fit and finish of the new generation of Jeanneaus continues to impress with attention to detail and the depth of the seamanship that informs decisions about where to put things and how to build them-enough to make any owner proud"*"

I pretty much agree with what they say, that is about what I have heard by all that professionally reviewed and test sailed the boat and confirms my personal impressions on the boat.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

PCP said:


> Uau!!!!
> 
> The base price here is 142 400 euros. That gives 149 070 dollars. The boat is made there and you have small tax how the hell the boat costs 259 000 dollars? I guess the rest of your comments go on the same sense that price exaggeration.
> Sailboat Jeanneau Sun Odyssey 409 - Jeanneau Yard
> ...


Paulo,

I did not mean to upset you on the boat. I will send you a PM to explain my opinions, and we can decide where to go from there and what should or should not be posted on this thread.

Brian


----------



## deniseO30 (Nov 27, 2006)

well.. if I had the 20mil.. and the 2 million a year to maintain it.








Then there is the J class...









Oh.. what would a crew of 20-30 yr old men cost?


----------



## Brent Swain (Jan 16, 2012)

Cruisingdad said:


> Ahhh.... finally the discussion is getting fun.
> 
> Ok, let's talk about what I carry on my boat. I will try and get as many things as I can. I am sure to leave some stuff out. Some of my stuff is kid oriented. No way around that and I accept all criticism from it as valid from those who will not take guests or kids. However, let me share some of these things, you decide what you would or wouldn't want, then lets talk about the space it takes up.
> 
> ...


This shows the naivety of assuming that a cruising hull can be "Light Displacement," and a hull designed to sail light can perform as a stripped out racer, and not be far below the lines she is designed for.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Cruisingdad said:


> Dave,
> 
> Agree on both accounts, with a couple of stipulations.
> 
> ...


The average couple is a cruiser so having the solar and wind generator should be enough with the large battery bank. Less hot water needed also therefore less storage. Less water needed therefore less storage.

You have to also add weight in fuel, pumps, shield etc. for the generator weight not just the generator.


----------



## HeartsContent (Sep 14, 2010)

PCP,

That 409 is an ugly duckling like an IKEA catalog. 

What I remember about checking out Jenneau is a very irritating step down towards the bow (all models) and clearly I am not a fan of European interior design.


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

I won't quote Paulo,s long post but....

Does anyone remember any sailing magazine EVER saying much bad things about a boat they have tested? They may point out one or two minor areas that "could be improved"...

why is that one might wonder? Maybe because of the mighty advertising $$$$ ?


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Cruisingdad said:


> Paulo,
> 
> I did not mean to upset you on the boat. I will send you a PM to explain my opinions, and we can decide where to go from there and what should or should not be posted on this thread.
> 
> Brian


I think I got the pictures right now

The Catalina 400 seems to me as having a better galley, even if those two rows of cabinets on the Jeanneau gives a lot of practical storage space, but in what regards the saloon the Jeanneau has a bigger one and one that I like more.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

HeartsContent said:


> PCP,
> 
> That 409 is an ugly duckling like an IKEA catalog.
> 
> What I remember about checking out Jenneau is a very irritating step down towards the bow (all models) and clearly I am not a fan of European interior design.


Listen, I am not bashing the Catalina 400 that is a good sailing boat. Brian is the one that was bashing the Jeanneau 409, that is also a good boat. What I said was that I liked more the interior of the 409 and that the hull design of the Catalina is an older design with a worse performance.

Regarding the interior it is a question of personal taste and the Catalina has certainly a great galley.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Must be why Chevy builds cars and trucks, same as ford, same as dodge.......Mercedes etc.......boats are similar, there is not ONE boat model or brand that will suffice for everyone!

Frankly, I prefer my Jeanneau over a catalina of the same vintage. One it is typically 20-30 secs a mile faster in handicap. Even a Cat 30 which is 2' longer than me, I am dang near on par in all measures as a C28mkII! The interior look and feel is different between the two! Even for a mid 80's model and design.

While I and many other Jeanneau affecionado's do not like the newer interior wood look, only so much one can do about it, when many manufactures are trying to stretch som resources. Teak being one of them, so they ar grinding it up, making it sorta look real with shavings. which can stretch a given lb of teak wood farther. ALso allowing the cost to stay lower! Whether this is good or bad.....not going to say one way or the other, as I think I have already said the why. No different than iron vs lead keels. Lead is 10-20 times as expensive as iron lb for lb. 4000 lbs of lead vs iron.......adds up to $20K just in metal alone! Saving the buyer some money in the beginning. Be it good or bad, again, up to you to decide!

As far as a type of boat.....a race cruiser which Jeanneau is NOT currently advertised as, the old Sun Fast models were, the Sun Odessey models have all mostly been cruise /race to currently "Performance Cruisers". Catalina gets advertised as a cruiser! Cruiser vs performance cruiser means slower! just as cruise/race will be faster than aperf cruiser, but slower than a race/cruiser or racer! WIth in a given relm of boat, a slow race cruise may be slower than a fast cruise/racer! or have a nicer interior, but that manufacture chooses to sell as a race/cruise vs cruise/racer!

WOuld I buy a catalina.....wife has found one or two she likes, generally speaking, she goes in, says yuck, walks out. Brians wife does this with jeanneaus. Both purr in the opposite boat. Only really matters to brian and I as we are married to these women. Otherwise, frankly it really does not matter!

My boat I would like to have a shower,much less 2 showers! A generator? not likely....

J105's were basically designed to race, but can cruise. Head room is 5'8", just taller than the ave female! Designer assumes these buyer owners will spend every other night or so in a B&B, the rest at anchor maybe, or at a dock! Cruising to some! 

What your style of cruising is, will depend upon the type of boat you own!\

Marty


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

blt2ski said:


> ...
> As far as a type of boat.....a race cruiser which Jeanneau is NOT currently advertised as, the old Sun Fast models were, the Sun Odessey models have all mostly been cruise /race to currently "Performance Cruisers". Catalina gets advertised as a cruiser! Cruiser vs performance cruiser means slower! just as cruise/race will be faster than aperf cruiser, but slower than a race/cruiser or racer! WIth in a given relm of boat, a slow race cruise may be slower than a fast cruise/racer! or have a nicer interior, but that manufacture chooses to sell as a race/cruise vs cruise/racer!
> ..


Just to make this clear. In Europe a performance cruiser is a denomination for all boats that can cruise in a fast way, boats that are fun to sail are meant for the ones that want to have fun sailing and have all controls that allow a perfect control of sail shape like a big traveler car on the back of the boat, 4 winches on the cockpit (or a direct main and two winches), fractional rig, back-stay adjuster and so on.

Some of these boats are also designed taking racing in mind, in what regards handicaps and the needs of space for a crew to sail the boat and they are called also cruiser-racers, some are just not designed taking that in consideration, they are designed just to go fast solo, or with a reduced crew and they are not called cruiser-racers, just performance cruisers. All cruiser racers are performance cruisers but not all performance cruisers are cruiser racers.

Some examples of the last ones: The Pogo cruising boats, the JPK 38, the Cigale and many others.

Every sailboat can be used for racing. What makes a cruiser racer is to have been designed thinking specifically in a dual function and purpose.

The Jeanneau 409 is not a cruiser racer and even if some for marketing purposes call it a performance cruiser it is not. It is a fast cruiser and has won the European boat of the year contest in the class of Family cruisers, not performance cruisers. That one was won that year by the Elan 350.

For the ones that don't know the European boat of the year contest is very different from contests of a boat of the year chose by a single saol magazine. They are chosen by testers from many European magazines, one for each country and as many countries have boats on the contest while others have not and that kind of balances the odds in what regards favoritism. In that year the Jeanneau 409 beat several other nominated (and not all boats are nominated, only the best): the Bavaria Cruiser 45, the Bénéteau Océanis 58, the Comet 26 and the Hanse 445.

At that time on the interesting boat thread I posted the positive and negative comments of all those testers from Yachting World, Fare Vela, Waterkampion, Batnytt, Yacht Revue, Seilas, Yate, Voile Magazine, Yacht, Badnyt and Marina.ch.

*POSITIVE:

This Philippe Briand designed cruiser has many modern design features such as plumb ends, hull chines, an aft cockpit and twin wheels, but it is her accommodation that says more about what really lies at the heart of her design.

Her modest and elegantly fitted teak or oak interior is the first thing to grab your attention. While subtle in colour, the horizontal grain might not be a major feature, but it sets the scene for a boat that challenges the norm. ....

The message is clear, Jeanneau are heading back to their roots with a good looking, solidly built boat that has an eye on the future as well.

... Just in front of each of the wheels lies a Harken 50.2 self tailing winch onto which the mainsheet and genoa sheets are led ensuring the primary controls are close to hand for the helmsman, while also allowing the crew can operate them easily as well.
...At a starting price of €128,740 she is very good value for money for a well built boat that has looks that will last.

The 409 does not only have a very elegant appearance. She also features clever details on and below decks. The option of different headsails is a big plus. And the accomodation is both warm and roomy - something that doesn't always go together well. In fact, even though she is fairly priced she feels rather rich and very comfortable.

The more complete boat of the category, she looks more luxurious and refined than her class. She seems to be back to the Jeanneau best times, when they were realized in medium quality and far from cusins Beneteau.

+ very well designed
+ good deck solutions, many details well resolved
+ functional interior layouts
+ well done interior finishing, quality materials
+ good value for money

Those guys from Jeanneau are very clever : you can hardly beat them in term of value for money. You have lots and lots of space, the boat is rather good under sail and you feel you are on a special boat. Still, it is a mass production boat and the price is very good but you really enjoy living aboard and nothing reminds you of anything « low price ». Well done.

You feel the experience of the yard, when you are sailing the boat: good upwind performance and comfortable trim options, when you have choosen the electric sheetwinshes. Other fine features:
- Variable sailplan: especially the possibility to use three different foresails
- Ambiance under deck: The interior is made with brain and charm; well done woodwork with good working fittings; multifunctional navigation place and salon table.

I you want a boats to give good vibrations, Sun Odyssey 409 is a splendid example. It combines trendright chines, big beam aft with a coachroof ending in "shoulders". If EYOTY was a beautycontest, 409 would have won it too.
Besides having Philippe Briand onboard again, Jeannau has included some new neat features for relaxed sailing, like selftacking jib, low integrated jibtrack on the coachroof, sheets led under a deckcover to electric winches in the cockpit, This demonstrates fresh thinking.
....
Inside Sun Odyssey 409 collects even more points with inviting space, clever layout with one or two aftcabins and toilets, and a genious charttable doubling as bar.

Finishwise the 409 feels de luxe, with leatherhandles, leathercovered charttable, rounded fronts.

Under sail the boat balances a family´s needs, enough sailarea for good speed in light air and solid ruddergrip with lots of control in high winds. Even more familyplus is proper ballastratio for comfortable ride when wind picks up.

Overall Sun Odyssey 409 represents a new level on family cruising in design, sailing, inside volume, finish and value for money.

Better by design: Jeanneau have managed to make an affordable family cruiser witch looks luxurious, but not on the price tag. ...

Jeanneau has the skill to keep things simple and functional. The 409 feels like a bigger boat especially down below.
...And as opposed to the Xc where you get a lot of boat for a lot of money the Jeanneau gives just a lot of boat for the money.

*

*NEGATIVE:

Where the layout struggles a little is in the friction of the sheet systems and in winches that are a bit underpowered fro the task.

A bit stiff on the helm, maybe. And with a bit too much friction in the rope arrangement that leads all aft.

- not fast or funny under sail, heavy at the helm.

You could argue that it feels a bit heavy and numb on the wheel but never the less I'm quite certain that Jeanneau targets their audience close to spot on.*

Regarding the American market it is a bit more confusing. Brian and many call race boats to performance cruisers, some magazines call performance cruisers to relatively fast cruisers (I have seen Tartans to be called performance cruisers, as well the Jeanneau 409) so it is all very confusing. I guess that because on the American market there are much less boats than on the European market the distinctions are more difficult to make since there are not many boats on each class and there is not a clear distinction among them.

On American market you can also find still in production boats basically designed 20 years ago or more and that puts what one consider the performance of a mainstream cruiser more on the slow side, compared with European patterns.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Paulo,

Jeanneau could also be marketing the NA market different than say the european market, in that here, ie NA, Jeanneau is using the term performace cruiser, where as in Europe, they do not fall into that catagory. So in the end, even tho I am using that term, it is correct for here, but not over there! 

Marty


----------



## joebeach (Aug 16, 2011)

Cruisingdad said:


> .... She is awesome... pretty gal, loves sailing, relatively young, has her own money, buys her own boats, captains license, singlehands. I wouldn't dare let her post on Sailnet in the Hersailnet Forum!! I couldn't keep up with all the posts! She's a rarity in this world....
> 
> Brian


Well not to change the subject - again - but I am single.  Not in the market for a $300K boat, but I could be persuaded to crew for an "awesome" female captain of same....


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

blt2ski said:


> Paulo,
> 
> Jeanneau could also be marketing the NA market different than say the european market, in that here, ie NA, Jeanneau is using the term performace cruiser, where as in Europe, they do not fall into that catagory. So in the end, even tho I am using that term, it is correct for here, but not over there!
> 
> Marty


That's about what I was sayng

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Cruisingdad said:


> Hey Paulo,
> 
> I watched the video. I completely understand we have different tastes in boats. But I have some questions.
> 
> ...


Brian, I will discuss not this here but I would say that I consider that boat to be a better voyage boat than the Catalina or any other main market mass produced boat. Not my opinion only it is a consensual opinion in Europe. The boat was designed for that and perfected along many years.

The boat as designed with long range voyage in mind having as basis the more adapted hull boats forms to solo sailing, particularly in the trade winds that is where everybody travels, at least while sailing. That is pretty evident to me and the advantages are too many to list, at least in what regards my available time. The boat is extensively used for that and it is as popular for that as the several brands of aluminium boats. It is one of the very few brands that are not shrinking with the crisis but growing. That shows the interest of the ones that like voyaging for the concept.

In fact I had test sailed one (previous model) because that was really one of the boats that I was considering and in what regards storage and interior space my wife's favorite (with the Southerly 42).

I had in fact to struggle with her to choose another boat. The boast is fast and it is a performance voyage boat but it was not nervous enough for me. I mean it did not deliver that crisp feeling that a sports car deliver and that make driving or sailing truly enjoyable for me. That was the same reason why I did not consider the Jeanneau 409 (the faster performance version).

Saying all that, I would say that it would not be the ideal boat for someone that would chose to circumnavigate or voyage the wrong way, I mean against the preponderant winds but then, neither the Catalina.

Regarding going upwind with waves, both your boat and the RM are not a model of comfort but I doubt that boat would be worse than yours. What counts there is how fine are the entries and the tridimensional shape of the hull, specially the bow and frontal part. The RM even if it has a fat ass has finer entries than the Catalina :





The boat foot print, I mean will also be much smaller on the RM. These type of boats, like the shape of them or not, have a diagonal thin foot print while sailing. Looking at the footprint we would say that we are talking about a narrow boat.

Regarding being Fat, I suspect my daughter would call Fat to both but definitively the Catalina is a lot fatter: after all we are comparing boats with the same length, one with 7400g and the other with 9299Kg, a huge difference in what regards wet surface. Non notwithstanding the much smaller RM wet area they have a similar sail area and you know what that means regarding speed.

Regarding length the Hull of the Catalina is slightly bigger (12.34 to 11.99m). They do that at RM to make sure that the boats pay in Marinas the charge for boats under 12 m but if you look at the more relevant data in what regards interior space and performance, the LWL, then things become inverted and then the RM is considerably bigger than the Catalina (11.13 to 11.68m).

Catalina Boats | 2012 Catalina Ocean Series 400mkII

http://www.charles-watson.com/downloads/Brochure RM 1260.pdf

Regards

Paulo


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

PCP said:


> That's about what I was sayng
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


I said it in a few less words! LOL

At the end of the day tho, any of these boats work IF the owner buyer likes the look feel etc of the boat.

The real question becomes, how much sheet are folks going to take along? if a lot, then a heavier disp larger payload boat for a given length is going to be needed, OR, as I kinda sorta joked, but was also serious about brian needing a 40M boat vs a 40ft boat, one needs to go longer, so that one can stay in an area that might be on the true lighter disp end of things, so the boat feels lively etc. Both boats at the end of the day may disp say 40K lbs, but a longer one will be faster more lively etc than the shorter one of the same wt!

Marty


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

A few questions for CD.

Now that you are cruising with a full load, how has it affected the performance?

Have you raised your water line?

If you plan on making longer passages, Across the Pacific, how will you store the mountain of food your crew will require?

What changes would you make for further long distance voyaging?


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

aeventyr60 said:


> A few questions for CD.
> 
> Now that you are cruising with a full load, how has it affected the performance?
> 
> ...


Sorry for the late reply to these. We had company this week and they just left.

Ok, here goes:

We have been living aboard and cruising (or modififed cruising depending on your definition), for many years now. We have taken some time off here and there, but this is not our first time living aboard, or being mobile live aboards. As such, the day we bought the boat, I had them raise the waterline three inches. We have never gotten close to that waterline, and it may have been an overkill, as even fully loaded, the top of the paint is a couple inches high.

My performance loss is kind of odd since we now are aboard FT with no address or even a dock box (this means that things we might have left in storage or in a dock box or in a car, we now take with us). I would estimate we lose about a knot in 15 kts. However, we can still get to or over hull speed, but it takes more wind (maybe 20 kts). I was motor sailing Saturday, and was were running about 8 kts, with 8.3 the high. We waived at RTB (a member here) as we sailed by him and his wife. So, I can still get pretty good speeds, but it takes more 'power' from wind or motor. Another interesting change is how we motor. I assume this is because of the higher displacement, but whereas before, I could slow the boat down quickly with the motor (like coming into a slip), I have to plan ahead a lot more now. SHe doesn't stop on a dime anymore, if that makes sense?

As it stands, we have enough food for about a month on the boat. THis assumes no outside food. That is about how we stay stocked. We stay stocked that way not because we have to or spends months at far away anchorages, but because we like a variety of things to eat on the boat and a trip to the grocery store is a real PITA (we do not have a car). We try to make frequent trips to keep her stocked up because that way I can haul the canned goods in small amounts on the bike, backpack, or cart. If you wait a week+, then the amount you need to get to restock is a lot more, more weight, and probably will cost a cab.

If we are major conservative, on the hook, we can run about two weeks on water. THis is a periodic shower and conservative clothes washing and dish washing. We can all shower conservatively, every day, for a bit over a week on what we carry comfortably. SO to cross the Atlantic or Pacific, which I have no interest in at this point, we would buy a watermaker.

I think that answered all your questions?

Brian


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

Cruisingdad said:


> Sorry for the late reply to these. We had company this week and they just left.
> 
> Ok, here goes:
> 
> ...


All good CD. yes, same here, lock stock and barrel on the boat. we actually are cruising about 1500 lbs lighter then when I left Seattle in 99. It does make a difference! I was given a water maker several years ago, and have never installed it. Don't want anything extra to maintain. 100 gallons for two goes a long way...plus it rains.

Same with food, a village on every island, fresh is so good. getting pretty handy with the crab trap. Can't keep my wife away from the fishing pole either. I ride my bike also to provision, good work out in the tropical heat. Beer gets a little heavy though..
Cheers!


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

chef2sail said:


> The average couple is a cruiser so having the solar and wind generator should be enough with the large battery bank. Less hot water needed also therefore less storage. Less water needed therefore less storage.
> 
> You have to also add weight in fuel, pumps, shield etc. for the generator weight not just the generator.


Dave,

I think you will end up having a generator no matter what. I also am not sold on having a huge battery bank. The power required to refill that bank, after a few cloudy days, may be more than you can produce - especially considering you not only have to replenish but you have to make enough for that day to keep up with your daily loads.

The hot water killer is showers and washing dishes. The washing dishes is the same no matter how many are on board (pretty much anyways). The shower use is surprisingly small. I measure out how much water (total) I use when I shower. Conservative, I will use about 1.5 gallons. Really conservative I have gotten it under a gallon. There are some tricks to doing this, but unless you want a mutiny, you figure out real quick how to conserve the hot water. My point is that you will go through more hot water with 4 people versus two, but not as much as you might think.

The water is a bit of a different story. The actual cooking for two will not be that much less than with four people, but four people will drink twice as much water as two. The modern method for this is to buy a watermaker, then you don't have to worry about it much, but still an issue. THen your water supply is dependent on how much diesel you have, or how much electricity you make if you get a Spectra type watermaker.

Just some thoughts.

Brian


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

aeventyr60 said:


> All good CD. yes, same here, lock stock and barrel on the boat. we actually are cruising about 1500 lbs lighter then when I left Seattle in 99. It does make a difference! I was given a water maker several years ago, and have never installed it. Don't want anything extra to maintain. 100 gallons for two goes a long way...plus it rains.
> 
> Same with food, a village on every island, fresh is so good. getting pretty handy with the crab trap. Can't keep my wife away from the fishing pole either. I ride my bike also to provision, good work out in the tropical heat. Beer gets a little heavy though..
> Cheers!


I have plumbed, put in the Thull, and pulled the power for the watermaker... but have not bought it yet. Water has not been our biggest problem, per se, but it can be when we are on the hook for along time. A water maker would make our life more comfortable I think - but there are so many places we enjoy going and anchoring that, even if we had a watermaker, I would not run it! Some of these bays I won't even swim in, forget drinking the water!!

We will see how much my attitude changes in the Bahamas at .45/gallon. We are trying to rig a gutter system to have the water drain into one of the tanks for things like a shower or general cleaning. THen save the other tank for good, treated, drinking water. Is that what you do?

Brian


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Brian-
"She doesn't stop on a dime anymore, if that makes sense?" More stuff equals more mass equals you need more force to accelerate it, or "un"accelerate it. So yes, your engine will need to do more work. I would guess that if the engine has enough hp, you could regain some performance by moving to a larger prop, or a different pitch. If you run the new laden weight of the boat versus a prop guide, that should give you some numbers.

And then if you install a double-decker shower, of course the hot water goes twice as far, it just isn't quite as hot when it reached the son on the lower deck.(G)


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

CD, Yes rain catchers. When it rains we shower, ha, ha. no several times a day, mandi style. Some of the rainstorms are so fierce we fill up in an hour or so. Hot water? Never. Too hot. The sunshowers we had needed a t shirt to keep the water from scalding us.

When we do fill up from a hose we have a big filter that gets any of the bigger stuff out. In the Phillipines we found water cascading off of cliffs, the fishermen usually had a tie up spot, so we just joined them at the watering hole.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Cruisingdad said:


> Dave,
> 
> I think you will end up having a generator no matter what. I also am not sold on having a huge battery bank. The power required to refill that bank, after a few cloudy days, may be more than you can produce - especially considering you not only have to replenish but you have to make enough for that day to keep up with your daily loads.
> 
> ...


As all things in sailing in cruising generators are also a compromise. For a generator you increase substantially the weight as well as you need diesel and that diminishes your autonomy. It all depends what type of cruising you do and your life style. If you sail to faraway places or remote places you need autonomy and do not want to have your itinerary always dependent on refueling places.

I am not saying that a generator makes not sense to you but I cannot imagine having one specially now that I found out how much high performance batteries and an improved recharging system are efficient. If on a move I will have hidrogenerators that seems to be the more efficient solution. Eventually if that is not enough, wind generators and solar power.

There are many circumnavigating or cruising extensively without a generator, others don't do it without a washing machine plus the generator. What is important is that each one is satisfied with the way he is doing it, slow, fast, heavy or light has not much importance if the sailor is satisfied with his boat, his sailing, his set up and his life style and I am sure you are satisfied with yours.

regards

Paulo


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

PCP said:


> As all things in sailing in cruising generators are also a compromise. For a generator you increase substantially the weight as well as you need diesel and that diminishes your autonomy. It all depends what type of cruising you do and your life style. If you sail to faraway places or remote places you need autonomy and do not want to have your itinerary always dependent on refueling places.
> 
> I am not saying that a generator makes not sense to you but I cannot imagine having one specially now that I found out how much high performance batteries and an improved recharging system are efficient. If on a move I will have hidrogenerators that seems to be the more efficient solution. Eventually if that is not enough, wind generators and solar power.
> 
> ...


We started out as 12 volt boat and after 14 years still are. 360 watts of solar and a wind generator take care of us just fine. We are not screen people so are energy needs are much smaller then others. I get about 6.5 years out of 6V golf cart batteries. The big draw is the fridge/freezer and this is one area we will not compromise on. Everybody needs to generate power, I just find that not burning fossil fuel is for me. I think with some very small changes everybody can exist on solar and wind.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

PCP said:


> Brian, I will discuss not this here but I would say that I consider that boat to be a better voyage boat than the Catalina or any other main market mass produced boat. Not my opinion only it is a consensual opinion in Europe. The boat was designed for that and perfected along many years.
> 
> The boat as designed with long range voyage in mind having as basis the more adapted hull boats forms to solo sailing, particularly in the trade winds that is where everybody travels, at least while sailing. That is pretty evident to me and the advantages are too many to list, at least in what regards my available time. The boat is extensively used for that and it is as popular for that as the several brands of aluminium boats. It is one of the very few brands that are not shrinking with the crisis but growing. That shows the interest of the ones that like voyaging for the concept.
> 
> ...


Hey Paulo,

Unless I could step on that boat, I would probably have a difficult time agreeing or disagreeing with you. I do not believe the Catalina is a good world-voyager. It is a great islands boat, lots of room, great storage (on this model... others do not), lots of hatches for ventilation and light. It makes a good boat for that purpose. However, she lacks many things I would look for in a long distance cruising boat. However, many of those things that I would look for are also lacking in the RM... and probably ANY 'racer-cruiser', which of course is what this whole thread was about.

I believe that every boat was designed with a purpose in mind. That makes some boats better at some things than others. Just like I wouldn't race a Tayana 42, I wouldn't cruise on a First or J122. Can you? Sure. Can you MAKE it work? Absolutely. But why MAKE it work, when there are better boats built to the purpose you are going to use them for.

In the discussion of this thread, what I have tried to point out is what I carry as a cruiser. As mentioned, some of these things are kid related, and as there are very few cruisers with kids, some of these things can be removed. However, in general, I believe that most people here will see that the things I carry are the same things they would carry on their boat. These things take up space. That space must be allotted on the boat. Racer-cruisers in general have much less storage space than the typical performance or HD cruiser (that I have ever been on). So my point was that if you are going to choose one of these boats to cruise on, you will likely have every single corner stuffed with things. You will be forced to put things that HD boats could store below the waterline, above it. You may be forced to place things in berths or in heads where they are not locked down well, will roll in a sea, and are hard to get to. All of this will not only affect the performance of your vessel, but the comfort of it as well. In the end, you may find that the racer-cruiser boat has lost many of the qualities you thought you were cruising on it for in the first place.

That was my point.

I would also like to discuss specifics or the RM boat with you if you want? I found it wanting.

First, and I have said this before: Where do you lean your back against when sailing? Laying up against the lifelines on the high side is fine for a day cruise, but my back (and I am only 41) would be killing me after a day or two at sea. And what about your butt? Do you find that acceptable? They need a foot rest in the cockpit or some place to push up against you can sit in the seats. Look at the fellows in the picture you put a link to: http://www.charles-watson.com/downloads/Brochure RM 1260.pdf

Do either one of them look comfortable to you? THe one sitting down has to lean all the way across to the other seats, thus his back is only supported by the corner of the coaming. THe other is having to lean over behind the wheel. Now, don't get me wrong, but that would be fine for a day sail, but day(s) at sea?

Second, from the pics, I see this as a boat with very minimal storage. There is minimal storage in the staterooms, the galley, and none in the salon (except in the settes). The line drawings show a rather shallow bilge, but I have not been on the boat so am just guessing. I am not guessing about the cabinetry. As I have shown in my previous post, with specifics and exacts of what I carry, how do you make this work? I gave exact dimension that this stuff takes up, so where do you put it all?

THird: Tankage. 34 gallons is very low for fuel for cruising in my opinion. I carry about 45, plus another 20. I have 45 gallons of holding tanks. What is the holding tank of the 1260? I suspect it is minimal, like the Jenneau 409 (20 gallons). 20 gallons will not last you long. Surely you agree?

Fourth: You data on the C400 is incorrect. The LWL is 38 feet (same as the RM). I know this because I pulled a tape measure on it. The Draft is 6 feet with the wing. The engine is a 54, not a 56. The water is wrong, the holding is wrong, it only has one ice box not two, etc. There is a LOT of incorrect information on the C400 floating around the net.

Fifth: Do you like those huge portlights? They look good in the brochure, but are they a good idea for a boat that goes to sea? For example, the portlight that is sitting under the goose neck under the mast... don't you think that is a really bad idea? The large portlights running each side of the cabin top? There is no such thing as a shoe that grips wet plastic. THat stuff becomes ice when it gets wet.

Brian


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Cruisingdad said:


> Hey Paulo,
> 
> ... However, many of those things that I would look for are also lacking in the RM... and probably ANY 'racer-cruiser', which of course is what this whole thread was about. I believe that every boat was designed with a purpose in mind. That makes some boats better at some things than others. Just like I wouldn't race a Tayana 42, I wouldn't cruise on a First or J122. Can you? Sure. Can you MAKE it work? Absolutely. But why MAKE it work, when there are better boats built to the purpose you are going to use them for.


Brian, I have already explained that: Not all performance boats are cruiser racers but all cruiser racers are performance boats. What makes a cruiser racer is to be designed specifically to a dual propose, cruising and racing. that is not the case with the RM that was designed has a performance voyage boat, meaning voyaging fast. There are other boats designed with that purpose in mind. The Cigale comes to my mind because it was one of the first.



Cruisingdad said:


> In the discussion of this thread, what I have tried to point out is what I carry as a cruiser. As mentioned, some of these things are kid related, and as there are very few cruisers with kids, some of these things can be removed. However, in general, I believe that most people here will see that the things I carry are the same things they would carry on their boat. These things take up space. That space must be allotted on the boat.


Brian I never wanted to say that the type of boat you have is not adequate for what you do. You just think to assume that all like to live and voyage like you and that is just not true. Some like to carry 6 anchors, a washing machine I even had saw a motorcycle and much more stuff than what you have. For those your boat would be inadequate.

Those that like to travel fast like to travel light and would not take all the stuff you carry. Not that the RM was not able to carry all that stuff you carry and still be more fast than your boat (Bob Perry explained why in another thread) but the boat would be much slower than what has potential to be and nobody would buy that kind boat for loading it that way. They buy it in first place because they like to voyage fast and weight is always an enemy of speed and they know it.



Cruisingdad said:


> Racer-cruisers in general have much less storage space than the typical performance or HD cruiser (that I have ever been on). So my point was that if you are going to choose one of these boats to cruise on, you will likely have every single corner stuffed with things. You will be forced to put things that HD boats could store below the waterline, above it. You may be forced to place things in berths or in heads where they are not locked down well, will roll in a sea, and are hard to get to. All of this will not only affect the performance of your vessel, but the comfort of it as well. In the end, you may find that the racer-cruiser boat has lost many of the qualities you thought you were cruising on it for in the first place.
> 
> That was my point.


Yes I agree. Except that the RM is not a cruiser racer but a voyage boat. In what regards cruiser racers you are right. If someone want to carry the same kind of stuff in a cruiser-racer he has to buy a bigger boat (not a 40ft but a 43 or 45ft). I have already said that.



Cruisingdad said:


> I would also like to discuss specifics or the RM boat with you if you want? I found it wanting.
> 
> First, and I have said this before: Where do you lean your back against when sailing? Laying up against the lifelines on the high side is fine for a day cruise, but my back (and I am only 41) would be killing me after a day or two at sea. And what about your butt? Do you find that acceptable? They need a foot rest in the cockpit or some place to push up against you can sit in the seats. Look at the fellows in the picture you put a link to: http://www.charles-watson.com/downloads/Brochure RM 1260.pdf
> 
> Do either one of them look comfortable to you? THe one sitting down has to lean all the way across to the other seats, thus his back is only supported by the corner of the coaming. THe other is having to lean over behind the wheel. Now, don't get me wrong, but that would be fine for a day sail, but day(s) at sea?


I don't understand your point. When one voyage the voyage is made most of the time on autopilot. The RM has the hull based on solo racers and as those is the best and easiest boat to be run on autopilot, even on demanding conditions. You can even sail the boat from the chart table with a joystick. The boat was conceived for that. You can see the sails, both sides and straight ahead, from the chart table.

When enjoying sailing (on the fast lane) at the ruder or wheel (just for the fun of it) the boat gives you lots of space around the wheels where you can enjoy it. It offers you also a nice lateral spot where you can fit in tightly and have support all around.

Note also the traveller at easy reach of the one that is steering the boat. That will contribute for a better control in the conditions were one would have pleasure at the wheel.





I have to go. I will continue later regarding the other points.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Cruisingdad said:


> .....
> Second, from the pics, I see this as a boat with very minimal storage. There is minimal storage in the staterooms, the galley, and none in the salon (except in the settes). The line drawings show a rather shallow bilge, but I have not been on the boat so am just guessing. I am not guessing about the cabinetry. As I have shown in my previous post, with specifics and exacts of what I carry, how do you make this work? I gave exact dimension that this stuff takes up, so where do you put it all?


You should be kidding:



That fat ass really provides an outstanding storage space. There is more on the outside and only accessible from there.

The boat has normal sized wardrobes (vertical cabinets) on the cabins, two on the front cabin one on the back one:



besides that the boat has the tankage all on the side (that gives a better motion comfort). Look at the space behind the settees, it is where it is and the space is so big that works as two extra berths. This permits to have most of the space behind the settees as storage.



Like yours this boat has a big galley with lots of storage (not bigger than yours?) with a big cold storage space:





Cruisingdad said:


> .
> THird: Tankage. 34 gallons is very low for fuel for cruising in my opinion. I carry about 45, plus another 20. I have 45 gallons of holding tanks. What is the holding tank of the 1260? I suspect it is minimal, like the Jenneau 409 (20 gallons). 20 gallons will not last you long. Surely you agree?


Why the hell do you think a voyage boat will have the same holding tanks as a typical cruising boat like Jeanneau? I don't know what is the capacity but this is a boat that allows some customization and if you want it would not be difficult to have a huge black water tank

Regarding fuel. You will certainly run out of fuel first. This boat needs only about less the wind you need to sail decently and this is not the type of boat for cruisers that carry a generator. Besides the boat comes equipped with the tankage that suits most of the cruisers that will sail and voyage on this boat. They mount additional tanks if someone needs them.



Cruisingdad said:


> Fifth: Do you like those huge portlights? They look good in the brochure, but are they a good idea for a boat that goes to sea? For example, the portlight that is sitting under the goose neck under the mast... don't you think that is a really bad idea? The large portlights running each side of the cabin top? There is no such thing as a shoe that grips wet plastic. THat stuff becomes ice when it gets wet.


Portlights well made have no problem and this is a cruising boat, not a racer, a boat made to enjoy live and the scenery and as I said, that great visibility to the outside (I am talking about the upper one) allows you to sail the boat from the inside, in stormy weather or simply when it rains. When you voyage you cannot always chose sunny days

Regarding "*the large portlights running each side of the cabin top*" how can they be slippery if they are practically vertical?



They are a great idea because they not only provide an interior with lots of light as they contribute to make possible to sail the boat from inside.

Brian, I don't pretend to sell this boat to you. That is not the point and this is not obviously a boat that would suit you. This is a boat for the ones that like to voyage far away, fast and safe, not for the ones that like to travel with a lot of stuff. The point is that there are a significant number of those sailors so significant that RM was been growing fast in production numbers, kind of 2 or 3 times more than some years ago.

The point is that this was the boat that won 2013 European boat of the year in the class of family cruiser. This means that many testers from many nationalities that know all boats on the market think this is not only a great voyage boat but also a boat that is not a marginal one anymore meaning that the ones that use them (the ones that like to voyage fast and light) are growing in numbers and are not a small minority anymore.

You should stop thinking that there are only a right and sensible way to cruise and voyage. Nothing wrong with your Catalina that is a good cruising boat, but that does not make it the perfect compromise in what regards cruising and voyaging except maybe for you, certainly not for all.

With friendship,

Paulo


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Out here in California, the best deal you are going to get on a Jeanneau 409 is $269,000. The whole “racer-cruiser”, “performance cruiser” is just marketing speech from the builders and sail magazines. The terms are whatever you want them to be – there is no governmental or standards board definition. I’ve been cooling on the idea of the 409 lately but I still think I will go out sailing on one in the next couple of weeks. I’ll keep you posted. One thing that has me curious is the wide variety of boats that get posted to Paulo’s thread. Now, I’ve only been sailing in Germany, Norway and Great Britain, but I didn’t see the large volume of “exotic” boats that Paulo writes about. Where do I find the European version of our YRA and where can I find the results of the various regattas? All I find are the professional type races and I’m not interested in “NASCAR” results. I agree with Cruising Dad that although one can cruise in a gentrified racer, does it have the same “suitability of use” as either a purpose made cruiser or a (modified) boat from one of the production houses?


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Brian- I am 100% on your side. Would note with many designs you give up little or nothing in vmg for the type of sailing we do and still have the benefits of displacement and ability to cruise in comfort and style. I know feeling secure and comfortable will mean we will push the boat more so passage times should be fairly close. I look at Paulo's posts and choices and know those boats are not where my wife and I would choose to live. I showed her european boats, South African boats. New Zealand boats, one offs . glass boats aluminum boats even steel boats etc. but when we boarded a sistership of our boat and then had the joy of sailing her we knew we found home. I believe once you look at a vessel as home be it for a month a year or forever the comfort factor becomes important beyond measure. I'm not talking about comfort in terms of boat motion( although that's important) but comfort in terms of a place you feel totally at home . For me this did include excellent performance and a sense my boat 'been there done that" so I need not be concerned about the integrety of the vessel. But my boat feels like a place that was built for me. All the details fix the needs of my wife and I. And it stirs my heart with beauty inside and out. I know we don't meet your definition of cruiser as part of our deal was to sell the house but keep a pied a terre somewhere but find we think alot alike.
Only disagrement with you is about the generator. Going to try and do without one. May change our mind when we go south if we find we need to run the AC alot.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

GeorgeB said:


> ... I'll keep you posted. One thing that has me curious is the wide variety of boats that get posted to Paulo's thread. Now, I've only been sailing in Germany, Norway and Great Britain, but I didn't see the large volume of "exotic" boats that Paulo writes about. Where do I find the European version of our YRA and where can I find the results of the various regattas? All I find are the professional type races and I'm not interested in "NASCAR" results. ...


A agree with you completely on that and I suggest that sailing one day on a boat is not enough unless you have narrowed down to the precise type if boat that suits you. I have charted several boats for a week and more to find out what was the kind of boat I was interested in (sailed out others with friends or in limited test sails).

The best place to try new boats is Croatia. The importers of different boats have brand new boats or boats with one or two years that you can charter. Be aware that those boats have a huge demand and that now it will be probably too late to manage to charter one of those, at least for this summer.

For testing a RM the best place is the Atlantic coast of France. if you talk with the shipyards they will point you in the right direction.

Regarding the comparative performance of the boat you have plenty places (ORC, PHRF, LYS) that rate sailboats, (cruisers and performance cruisers) in a quite precise way. You will have a pretty good idea of the average performances of each sailboat.

Regarding to look at the race results as information the best places are races with a huge number of participants. In those most of the boats are cruising sailboats. It is better to look at European races not only because they are bigger in numbers but also because the average age of the boats is much lower.

As I said there are plenty and I post about them on "interesting boat thread" but just to give some examples, the ARC.

World Cruising Club - ARC Results

J.P. Morgan Asset Management Round the Island Race - Results for the 2012 race

You have to look at real time results, not handicap.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

outbound said:


> Brian- I am 100% on your side. Would note with many designs you give up little or nothing in vmg for the type of sailing we do and still have the benefits of displacement and ability to cruise in comfort and style. I know feeling secure and comfortable will mean we will push the boat more so passage times should be fairly close. I look at Paulo's posts and choices and know those boats are not where my wife and I would choose to live. ....


What side? The one that says that there is only one type of cruising and voyage boat that fits all?

My side is that there are many types of voyage boats all adapted to a given type of cruising and voyaging, but covering different and specific needs. Some of them are way slower and heavier than the Catalina 400. They suit different kinds of sailors and are the perfect choice for each one of them. That's why there are a specific market for each type of long range cruisers, because long range cruisers wants them: they suit their living and sailing style but different living and sailing styles anyway.

This thread seems to be about the ones that prefer to voyage fast and enjoy sailing while they are doing that and the boats adequate to them. There are a relatively big offer of small production boats for this kind of sailors and that means that there is a lot of them.

What is your point and Brian's point? That those sailors are wrong and cannot enjoy sailing and live the way they like?

That only the way that you like to voyage and live and the boats adapted to that particular "taste" are good and adequate to long range voyage?

I confess I don't get your or Brian's point. Maybe I have understood wrongly and this thread is about the right of existence of sailors that like to voyage fast and the boats that are designed for them.

whatever you say *they exist* and in growing numbers, *as well as the boats adapted to them*. That you don't like their live style and their boats and that they are not fit to you? Big deal, that's obvious. What about you understanding that the reverse is also true: That those sailors would not be interested in a Catalina 400 as a voyage boat because it does not fit their life style, voyage style and sailing pleasure?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

outbound said:


> Only disagrement with you is about the generator. Going to try and do without one. May change our mind when we go south if we find we need to run the AC alot.


I hope you don't need a generator. I think a lot of it is how you 'cruise'. If your time on anchor is limited, and you find yourself in marinas frequently, you will not. Same with a watermaker. But between the fridge, hair dryer, hot water, coffee pot, toaster, microwave, etc, etc... you might be surprised!

And if I was going to go back, I would probably buy the little Honda like many here have done. Seems a lot closer to the KISS principle, it is cheap, and seems reliable. The only negative is you will now have to carry more gasoline, versus diesel.

Anyways, look forward to seeing you out here!! My kids have always wanted a babysitter that had an Outbound!

Brian


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

PCP said:


> What side? The one that says that there is only one type of cruising and voyage boat that fits all?
> 
> My side is that there are many types of voyage boats all adapted to a given type of cruising and voyaging, but covering different and specific needs. Some of them are way slower and heavier than the Catalina 400. They suit different kinds of sailors and are the perfect choice for each one of them. That's why there are a specific market for each type of long range cruisers, because long range cruisers wants them: they suit their living and sailing style but different living and sailing styles anyway.
> 
> ...


Paulo,

I am not taking anything you say personally. I agree with your signature earlier: in friendship. This is simply a discussion about boats and use, especially as it pertains to racing type boats.

My point in all of this, which I may not have explained well, is to discuss the feasibility of certain boats for cruising. It certainly is not to pick on any particular boat or say that a particular boat is 'bad'.

I have tried to be very specific in my comments and reasoning. I have laid out exactly what I carry and the space it takes up. My point in doing that was to discuss what we carry, how it would fit in other boats, what might be excluded, and the repercussions/impacts of putting the chosen items on other boats.

What I wanted others to see is that many of the things, if not most of the things we carry, are not unique to us. You will find that if you are a cruiser, you will carry these items too. As you look through my list and discount some items, you may realistically add other items too which are important to you. As you do, you will begin to get a feel for the amount of storage which you will need to successfully or comfortably cruise on the boat of your choice to the comfort level of your choice. You may also see that you will have to do without things in order to make your boat of choice work. This may alter your boat choice.

I keep comparing these different boats to a Catalina 400, though I could also do the same with a Tayana 42 or Catalina 380. My reason for using these boats as opposing examples are not because I consider these the perfect boat to go cruising on. In fact, I do not. However, I know the boats and their strengths and weaknesses. I know what works here and does not - first hand. I have lived through and experienced things that I like, things I don't, things that have worked for us, and things that have not. I then compare these experiences against other boats and how those experiences would influence my selection of those boats for a cruiser. For example, I have been on several Firsts and a J122. I see very serious shortcomings with those boats for the cruising we do, and in fact, the cruising most anyone would do. I also believe those shortcomings would not be unique to us. I have tried to lay out specifics on why.

When discussing the RM, I do not in any way think it is a bad boat. I have tried to be very cautious when discussing it because I have not personally seen the boat and am making judgement calls and comparisons to mine without a first hand examination. However, I still see (from experience) things that cry out to me as deficiencies.

So to be clear, I was trying to discuss boats from a cruising point of view. I wanted to be specific and make this an educational discussion. This thread was never to pick out the perfect boat. It was also in no way to say you cannot cruise on a particular boat. It was simply a thread of information and discussions on what works, what we each like, what we don't like, and the tradeoffs of certain boats if you chose them for cruising (specifically racer-cruisers) and why. In this discussion, I wanted to bring out specifics on some boats and discuss them. The RM was a good example, but I have not set foot on one, so much of what I am talking about is from pictures... which I hesitate to do. However, even with the RM, I think we can have a reasonable discussion on its negatives and positives. We can do the same on the C400 and I can give many negatives of the C400 for cruising also.

That was my point.

Brian


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Paulo posted an interesting link for the various ARC rallies. First, there are a lot of really rich folks out there and the vast majority of boats are in the $500K (USD) to $1M price range. The typical 45-65 foot Oysters, Hylas, Moodys etc. Hardly my price range (Perhaps Paulo can adopt me?). Second observation is very few of the boats in the “Interesting Boat” thread are there either. Paulo, If you have a link to Portugal’s YRA race results, I’d appreciate that as I want to see what the “common man” is racing over there.

One of the big problems we are having is one of definition. How about we use more quantitative methods in our discussion? The boats would be more comparable if we placed them side by side on a table. I have done this for my own boat as well as the 400 and 409. Please double check the numbers. For example, the Jeanneau’s keel and displacement values appear to be on the light side. I have a series of formulas that calculate all sorts of ratios so that might be of future interest.

The “fatty” 400 is a mere 5 inches wider than the Jeanneau. Another surprising dimension is the 409’s LWL is only an inch shorter than it’s LOA. 

Catalina 34 MkII	Catalina 400	Jeaneau 409	Aereodyne 38
LOA 34.5 40.5 40.5 37.66
LWL 29.83 30.50 39.25 34.21
Beam 11.75 13.50 13.08 13.00
Draft 5.58 6.92 6.83 7.75
Ballast 5,000 8,300 4,982 4,150
Displacement 11,950 20,500 17,328 11,250
Sail Area 528 808 773 795
I 44.0 52.7 50.9 50.8
J 13.5 15.5 14.8 14.5
P 38.6 47.0 49.2 51.8
E 12.0 17.0 16.1 16.5
Fuel 25 35 53 25
Water 59 110 87 70
Base PHRF 144 110 73 27
"Sail Away" $111,500	$179,300 $269,000 $159,000
Engine M35B	Yanmar 56	Yanmar 40 Yanmar 27


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Help! How can I post a table of numbers and have them line up in columns?


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Cruisingdad said:


> Paulo,
> 
> I am not taking anything you say personally. I agree with your signature earlier: in friendship. This is simply a discussion about boats and use, especially as it pertains to racing type boats.


Nice to now that but Brian in what regards cruising boats you keep thinking that only what is good for you, even if that is good for most, is good to all.

Simple logic should have already finished this discussion a long time ago.



Cruisingdad said:


> My point in all of this, which I may not have explained well, *is to discuss the feasibility of certain boats for cruising*. ... I have laid out exactly what I carry and the space it takes up. My point in doing that was to discuss what we carry, how it would fit in other boats, what might be excluded, and the repercussions/impacts of putting the chosen items on other boats....*You will find that if you are a cruiser, you will carry these items too. *


That is quite simple: a boat is *feasible to cruise and to voyage* extensively if there are cruisers that cruise and voyages extensively in it and finds it adequate for that.

That completely invalidates what you call your point: There are lots of cruisers cruising and voyaging on those boats and they do that by choice.

I find amusing that you fail to understand that some would prefer to voyage in those boats and even more amusing your incapacity to understand that those that like to voyage in those boats in conditions that you would find Spartan would find boring your boat and would prefer theirs. Brian, some of those boats are expensive, some more than yours

The fact is that there is not only a lonely sailor doing that but entire families some even in real racing boats (adapted). The fact is that you don't have to command a special design to a NA to do that or adapt a solo race boat, there are many performance cruising designs for that kind of voyaging, some even made in small production (and the RM and Pogo in more than small production).

The stuff you carry and think it is indispensable is only indispensable for you, not obviously for the ones that cruises and voyage on those boats (an hair-drier, for god-sake I never used an hair-drier in my entire live and that is not a problem to my sons or to my wife either). Luxury for her is to pass her hair with fresh water each two days.



Cruisingdad said:


> ...
> So to be clear, I was trying to discuss boats *from a cruising point of view*. I wanted to be specific and make this an educational discussion. This thread was never to pick out the perfect boat. It was also in no way to say you cannot cruise on a particular boat. It was simply a thread of information and discussions on *what works, what we each like, what we don't like, and the tradeoffs of certain boats if you chose them for cruising (specifically racer-cruisers) and why.* ..


I don't think you are being completely honest about this (not saying it is intentional). you are not trying to understand why some prefer to voyage and cruise in boats that you call racers (instead of performance cruisers) or why do they prefer that.

That is a fact:

they voyage and cruise and they prefer to do that on those boats, that is not disputable.

Some are even production boats made expressly for fast cruising and unsuitable for racing, like the RM or the Pogo.

It would be interesting if this discussion was a balanced one and you were trying to understand why they prefer those boats to your boat and how they live in them instead of trying to say that those boats are not cruising boats, neither the ones that sail them are cruisers, because you cannot put in them all the stuff that you consider indispensable for cruising.

Brian, they cruise and voyage on those boats, they like those boats, they like to cruise and live the way they do. It is not a question of money, those boats are expensive. A 40ft performance voyage boat is probably more expensive than your boat and if you want one you have to go to a long waiting list while the Catalina 400 has no clients that justifies it to be kept in production.

Not saying this to say that the Catalina 400 is a bad boat you know that is not my opinion, but Brian there are more long range cruisers buying Pogos and RM than Catalina 400, they exist and they don't like your boat,the same way you don't like theirs.

You don't like their boat because you cannot put all your stuff inside (and that is not even truth in what regards a RM or a Pogo with the same length) and they don't want your boat for cruising or even sailing because it is boring to sail and slow.

I know that you think your boat is fast one but believe me, for the ones that chose to cruise in performance boats your boat is a slow one that does not even have a traveler near the wheel or a fractional rig, a back stay adjuster not to mention weight or a inefficient shallow keel (the Pogo has a swing keel and can have less draft than your boat).

Yes I know that you think all that is for racing but you fail to understand that those that sail those boats enjoy sailing and like to have their sails perfectly trimmed and have pleasure in sailing a fast and responsive boat. That is not only a question of speed but a question of sailing pleasure.

I don't pretend or want to change your cruising style but I hope to have contributed to answer to your question: Why some prefer to cruise in a performance boat and they do, *THAT'S A FACT* as it is a fact that there are in the market performance cruising boats designed for them, even some pointed to long range cruising.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

GeorgeB said:


> Paulo posted an interesting link for the various ARC rallies. First, there are a lot of really rich folks out there and the vast majority of boats are in the $500K (USD) to $1M price range. The typical 45-65 foot Oysters, Hylas, Moodys etc.


You have to look again The vast majority of boats are Jeanneau, Bavaria, Beneteau. Some Pogos too and a considerable number of Lagoon by the way.



GeorgeB said:


> .. The boats would be more comparable if we placed them side by side on a table. I have done this for my own boat as well as the 400 and 409. Please double check the numbers. For example, the Jeanneau's keel and displacement values appear to be on the light side. I have a series of formulas that calculate all sorts of ratios so that might be of future interest.


Yes, old formulas to old boats, you can stay with them but they are useless for modern boats. Of course the Jeanneau is light compared to a Catalina, a sailboat is supposed to be light, specially if we want to have a good performance.

The jeanneau is built with an infusion process that can make it lighter an as strong as a heavier boat. About the keel weight, the weight you need on a keel has a direct relation with the weight of the boat, the draft and the keel design. The jeanneau has more draft, is lighter and has a modern bulbed keel while the Catalina has an old designed non bulbed one. You cannot make a direct comparison. You can look at sail area. Sail area is normally proportional to the boat stability.



GeorgeB said:


> The "fatty" 400 is a mere 5 inches wider than the Jeanneau. Another surprising dimension is the 409's LWL is only an inch shorter than it's LOA.


Fat has not to do with beam alone and sometimes has nothing to do with it. A 40class racer is hugely more beamier than any of those boats and is the opposite of a fat boat. It has to do with the hull, weight and the bow entries. When I said that the Catalina was fat I was comparing it with the RM (that has more beam than the Catalina). regarding the Jeanneau the difference is probably not so big but the Jeanneau has obviously a faster and more elegant hull.



GeorgeB said:


> Catalina 34 MkII PHRF 144
> 
> Catalina 400 PHRF 110
> 
> ...


Here you have pertinent information regarding performance but I don't understand where yo got that PHRF for the Aerodyne 38. The numbers I got are 39 for the all carbon version and 42 for the epoxy/carbon version. Regarding the Aerodyne price you can only be joking: or it is an used old boat or a very, very old price...and even so.

PHRF New England - Handicapping - Base Handicaps

I love the Aerodyne, a boat designed by Rodger Martin. They were made in South Africa and now it seems it is a Finnish company (don't know if they are made there or are still in business). There are some sailors that would not mind to cruise in them but the boat is a cruiser racer with a very strong optimization for racing and the interior even if functional is a bit stark.

Probably in what regards cruising would be a more extreme boat than a J122. That is not a boat designed with voyage in mind but certainly it has the potential seaworthiness and stability to be used that way, if adapted for the job and providing the ones that would voyage in it are the kind of sailors that would chose a very light and fast boat to voyage and don't mind the spartan look and feel.

It would probably need a watermaker but the engine (and the diesel) would only be used for charging the batteries because that boat can SAIL with very light wind. Little diesel tankage would be needed.

I don't know why you bring the 34ft Catalina. It is not in the same class as the others in what regards size, stability or seaworthiness as a blue water cruiser.

The Catalina 400 only has that PHRF (100) with the deep keel. Brian's boat with a shallow keel has a PHRF of 120.

The jeanneau and the Catalina are the same type of boat. Brian says the Catalina interior is bigger and has more storage but I know that the Jeanneau 409 with two cabins has a big storage with plenty space for generator and all that stuff. The differences would not be considerable even if the storage of the Catalina can, according to Brian, be slightly bigger.

The performance is very different, a PHRF of 120 compared with a 73.

Note that I am not saying that all sailors would like more the Jeanneau. There are heavier and slower boats than the Catalina 400, specially on the American market, but obviously performance is an important point in boats with similar cruising characteristics, I mean belonging to the same market segment.

Anyway the importance of that varies with sailors, as the relative importance of having what one finds to be a nice interior and that depends in great measure of personal taste. What is important is to have a boat that we like and that is adapted to the cruising and sailing style of each one.

For me the Jeanneau 409 is not enough fun or fast to sail and don't have a traveler near the wheel. I would not have one for cruising and sailing.

Probably the Aerodyne has a cruiser interior too spartan for me (but functional and adapted to more spartan cruisers), besides it is out of my price range.

I would say that If new, regarding 40ft boats I would chose the Salona 41 (I don't like the Dehler 41 interior) and even so it would be a bit more expensive than the Jeanneau. I also like the J122 and could live with one but the price is also out of my reach. My boat would also be an option but also out of my range as new.

But that is just what is adapted to me, my life style and cruising style. Some would prefer faster boats for cruising (and there are some on this site with them) and most would settle for a slower boat with more interior space (more fat) and with more storage.

Bottom point: you have to find out first what is your budget and then see if you have money for a new boat or just an used one. if you have money for a new boat you have to see if you are limited or if you can chose and what is the scope of that choice. Then, according with the budget, you have to try to understand what type of boat will make you happy. Sometimes you only have 2 or 3 possible choices.

For that it is important to see the boat interior on a boat show and it is fundamental to sail the boat. A Catalina 400 would seem very similar to a jeanneau 409 on a boat show (with different styles) but in the water it would be a completely different boat.

All boats are different even if we can join them in groups according with speed and sailing characteristics but even so they feel differently at the wheel and that, as well as the sailing characteristics, will probably be important to you, they are certainly to me.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Paulo,

Look at what George is currently sailing, and you may see, as I will swag why the C34 was brought into the comparison, ie it is what he has now! From THAT angle, certainly worth bringing up that boat model! Now truly comparing it to the other boats.....yes, I would agree, not in the same ball game. The other, being as they are all in thesame general size bracket if you will, it is worth comparing them.

I have also been saying many times over, Jeanneau's in general thru the years, are faster than catalina's. Last weekend, I literally out sailed 2 C420's and a C400. I was beating them boat for boat, much less on handicap! I'm rated a 204 non flying sails, IIRC they were in the 140-150 range NFS. My base local is 189 with flying sails, NEngland which you mentioned earlier IIRC I am a 169 or 172 or there abouts. possibly even a 159. PHRF DOES generally speaking, within regions change ratings. NE is able to do a lot of triangular courses, herein Puget Sound where I am, reaching is a good day, most of the time you are either going upwind, or down! nothing in the middle per say. My boat is 28' on deck no less. Local there is a C34 raced frequently, it is 174 IIRC with a typical local FS rating. I actually race at 195 fs, due to a smaller spin than normal.

Marty


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Paulo- we are wimps and like every comfort but also like to get where we are going. Using your logic let's compare a j120 ( couldn't find pogo in NE phrf site so choose that as a "fast boat") to an outbound at phrf of 33 to 90. When cruising our average hop is ~700m so that means by phrf the j boat will arrive there 5h 15m quicker. In my life of cruising it just don't signify against the comfort, beauty and wonderful ride of my boat. In reality as my skill set rises and I become more confident I believe we'll will push the outbound harder then we would the j boat so the difference would be less. Also the livability of my boat ( comfort at anchor, maintenance etc.) is non pareil. The owners of the other cruising boats on this thread probably feel the same way about their boats. 
regards
outbound


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

outbound said:


> Paulo- we are wimps and like every comfort but also like to get where we are going. Using your logic let's compare a j120 ( couldn't find pogo in NE phrf site so choose that as a "fast boat") to an outbound at phrf of 33 to 90. When cruising our average hop is ~700m so that means by phrf the j boat will arrive there 5h 15m quicker. In my life of cruising it just don't signify against the comfort, beauty and wonderful ride of my boat. In reality as my skill set rises and I become more confident I believe we'll will push the outbound harder then we would the j boat so the difference would be less. Also the livability of my boat ( comfort at anchor, maintenance etc.) is non pareil. The owners of the other cruising boats on this thread probably feel the same way about their boats.
> regards
> outbound


Ok, you can be wimps and like every comfort but even so there are others that need and want even more comfort, like the motion of a really heavy boat and need of more space and comfort. Some just hate heel and will chose a boat that heel very little or a multihull. Nothing wrong with that and they are right too.

No wrong here I have nothing against guys that like to voyage and sail in slow or very slow sailing boats and they sail more comfortably for sure since speed equals almost always less comfort, not only in the type of the boat but in what regards sea motion even if that can be misleading sometimes when the boat is planning or semi- planning downwind.

I also have nothing against the guys that like to cruise, sail and voyage in boats faster than the ones I prefer (and there are lots of them).

I am only pissed with guys that think that the way they look at cruising, voyage and living is the only right one and are unable to understand that the boat and lifestyle they prefer would be boring to some and uncomfortable to others.

That is obvious and I don't understand the difficulty of understanding it.

Look at the boat market: there re plenty offers of voyage boats way faster than yours on the trade winds and some are even produced in considerable numbers. That means that there are many that want and prefer faster boats for cruising and voyaging and they are so many that justifies the production of boats and not only one offs.

*THAT IS A FACT*: they exist, they voyage and cruise and they would not have your boat over a much faster boat. That has not to do only with function (arriving some days first on an Atlantic crossing), but mostly with the pleasure to sail and voyage on a fast sail machine, the same way that one does not have a sport car to arrive faster (there are speed limits) but for the pleasure that it gives to drive.

I am hoping that you finally understand that I find the Outbound a great cruising boat, that will satisfy some types of cruisers and voyagers but that it will not satisfy all that like to cruise and voyage. That's why there are so many types of cruising and voyage boats.

It is ridiculous to call racing boats to all cruising boats faster than the one we own or assume that they are unsuitable for cruising just because they are not fit to do that the way you or Brian do.

If some chose them as voyage and cruising boats then it is because they are fit for those sailors in what regards cruising and voyaging: this is not evident? They do actually sail, voyage and circumnavigate in them.

It is not a question of money: Fast boats are expensive.

Racing boats are boats designed exclusively for racing and when you and Brian talk of racers you are not talking about those boats but about performance cruisers, some of them never intended or designed for racing. That makes no sense.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

I’ve got a busy day so only had a chance to “skim” the messages, but I’ll try to add context to my yesterday’s message. I used the C34 as a “base boat” as I am quite familiar with it being a past national champion in that boat. I am also potentially in the market for a 40 foot boat to cruise Mexico and beyond in the next couple of years. My dilemma is it worth it to me to double/treble/quadruple my current boat cost as I enter into retirement? My C34 is a pretty capable little boat – It qualifies for the PacCup, TransPac, SHTP, and Bermuda 1-2 races so it has the “chops” IMHO for what I want to do. The question is how much comfort and performance would I get by buying a 40 footer and does it make economic sense for me. I pulled the dimensional numbers off of various sources on the internet and I am a little suspicious of several of them. My spreadsheet uses the PHRF formula to calculate that number so if the dimensional data is off, so would the PHRF number. No offense to my New England brothers, but NEYRA is highly political and they plug a lot of adjustments into their base numbers (I know, as I was also the national measurer for C34 at one time). NorCal YRA base utilizes an unadulterated formula. I thought the PHRF number for the Aerodyne was low too as we raced as a 36 rating ten years ago (I’ll see if I can find an old certificate to verify the numbers.) I will also expand my database to include a J122. I also want to put in a “true” cruising boat that is about 40 feet as a comparison (to anchor one side of the continuum.) I suggest that when someone wants to introduce a new boat into this discussion, they first post the dimensional data so I have some way of calibrating the boat in our continuum. Boats discussed that don’t have this data I’ll consider as “vaporware” and I’ll not consider or address them. I think that if we start to use more quantitative methods, we will all gain a better understanding and will be able to further the discussion. 

Paulo, I was looking at the division standings for the ARC. What division should I be looking in to find the Beneteaus and Jeanneaus ? 

Is there a way I can post tabular data on Sail Net? I’d like to post my expanding database.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

LOA: 44'9" Sail Area: 1083 
DWL: 40'3" Water: 200gal. 
Beam: 13'6" Fuel: 200gal. 
Draft: 6'6"/5'6" SA/Disp: 18.75 
Disp.(light): 33,000 Disp/Length: 189 
Ballast:
10,000 (w/ 3500# bulb) Beam/Length: 3.3 
Bridge Clearance
64' LPS (IMS) 127 degrees 
In the spectrum of modern boats- moderation in all degrees. Will give sailing polar and sail plan to follow


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Outbound, thanks for the data. Is this an Outbound 46? Don't forget the water tankage and engine size, as tanks and engine are probably a discrimnator for cataloging cruising boats. 

My PHRF formula (which I got from the SFYRA PHRF committee doesn't calculate the Cal 40 rating correctly (albeit, it is spot on for all the Catalinas). I just might include the official SFYRA PHRF along with my calculated number.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

I 59’
J 17.5’
P 52.74’
E 18.5’
sorry can't figure out how to transfer sailing polar.

Don't understand why Paulo makes inference he does. Thought seriously about building a "state of the art" high performance cruiser. Wouldn't have done so if I did not respect those vessels. I understand why some folks are drawn to the fastest thing afloat and prefer those vessels. I've owned many bikes and cars and some that were driven mostly on "track days" only. I understand the fascination with speed. I choose a boat that in the spectrum of boats currently afloat is fairly fast but clearly many boats are faster. I did a Newport to Bermuda race where the owner of the tri went through our personal kit to eliminate any excess weight ( we won). But I, like many, will sacrifice a bit of speed to not be concerned about those issues. Wife likes to do her hair and a nice hot shower is a pleasant anytime and anywhere. The issue of expense is not relevant to this decision. At $525K base boat and most going out with $100 to $200K over that Outbounds aint cheap. Phil is still taking new orders for 46s and 52s. Must be a reason. I have no problem with those making other decisions and see the merit. But it seems you have issue with the fact that Outbound is also a joy to sail in anything from ghosting to 50kts. 
Not going to pick up the gauntlet anymore Paulo. We just see things differently. Guess it comes with the temperance of age.
GeorgeB. Do what's right for you. The h-ll with this thread. It hasn't gotten focused to the reasonable question you posit. If the extra money means you will have more security and joy on land keep the C34. She a sweet boat and very capable. If it's on your bucket list to cruise the world with your lady and occasional guests go for it. To return to Paulo's examples then decide is it on a Lambo, Mercedes or Landrover. Remember the Ford gets you to the same place too and aint so bad at all. Don't think you would be unhappy on anyone of these (grin).


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

GeorgeB said:


> I've got a busy day so only had a chance to "skim" the messages, but I'll try to add context to my yesterday's message. I used the C34 as a "base boat" as I am quite familiar with it being a past national champion in that boat. I am also potentially in the market for a 40 foot boat to cruise Mexico and beyond in the next couple of years. My dilemma is it worth it to me to double/treble/quadruple my current boat cost as I enter into retirement? My C34 is a pretty capable little boat - It qualifies for the PacCup, TransPac, SHTP, and Bermuda 1-2 races so it has the "chops" IMHO for what I want to do. The question is how much comfort and performance would I get by buying a 40 footer and does it make economic sense for me. I pulled the dimensional numbers off of various sources on the internet and I am a little suspicious of several of them. ...
> 
> Paulo, I was looking at the division standings for the ARC. What division should I be looking in to find the Beneteaus and Jeanneaus ?
> 
> Is there a way I can post tabular data on Sail Net? I'd like to post my expanding database.


I had a bit of the same problem as you and in fact I got an interest in understanding sailboat design on account of that. I had a 2002 Bavaria 36

http://sailingbreezes.com/sailing_breezes_current/articles/BS05/bavaria36.htm

and I had the same doubts as you but finally I decided that I wanted a more seaworthy and fast boat and one with a better upwind performance at least with the same storage space. It was not easy, the Bavaria 36 was a good boat and a fast one.

It is faster than an Oceanis 39 and probably faster than a Catalina 400 (there are 3 different Bavara 36 models, this one was the fastest of all).

After trying many boats I decided that what I wanted was a 38 to 40ft performance cruiser and ended up with a 41ft boat with those characteristics. I ended up with a 41ft because I had to choose one on the used market and that was the better pick. If new I would have bought a 38ft performance cruiser and I am sure I would be very satisfied with that boat (it had the interior space, the storage I needed, the light wind ability, the point ability and a nice cruising interior).

Regarding the Bavaria 36 I would say that this one is a 1.5K faster boat but more than that it is a boat that I can sail with less wind and as I am retired and I am not in a hurry to go anywhere that means that I normally turn the engine half an hour leaving anchorage and half an hour entering a new anchorage (just for charging batteries) and in meantime I sail . Believe it or not I go out when there are at least 2K wind making about 2k speed, but I sail all the time. This is also a boat able to make a much better VMG against the wind. not only the boat is faster as it can close much more on the wind.

Me and my wife are very satisfied, but that is just me and my wife.

I guess you have to decide if the storage space of your present boat is enough. That was the starting point of my wife. I wanted a better sailing boat she did not want one with a less nice interior or with less storage and if possible with more.

Then you have to decide what is the sailing performance you want: Not only bigger boats are faster but regarding your boat, if performance boats, they can sail with a lot less wind.

Then you should start to try sailboats centering your decision point in what storage and performance you want and need on a sailboat. I suggest you to start by classes of boats like size and main market versus performance cruiser (the last ones have to be slightly bigger to have the same interior space of the first).

Since you say that you enjoy sailing and that actually now very well to sail and enjoy fine tuning ( past national champion) I suggest that you try performance boats. They are not all the same and since you want a voyage boat I suggest you look to boat seaworthiness also, specially in what regards stability. And then of course you have your wife's demands (if it is the case).

Not easy, but it can be a lot of fun. I sold my boat and I was two years trying new boats and charting others till I refined my choice.

I hope it helps.

Regarding the ARC:

http://www.worldcruising.com/content/S634917073956986953/ARC2012 Cruising Results by Division.pdf

http://www.worldcruising.com/content/S634598188535521172/ARC 2011 Cruising Division Overall.pdf

http://www.worldcruising.com/content/S634916919004722794/ARC2010 Cruising Division Results.pdf

http://www.worldcruising.com/content/S634916914435162768/ARC 2009 Results by Class.pdf

http://www.worldcruising.com/content/S634916908997461217/ARC 2008 Results by Division.pdf

http://www.worldcruising.com/content/S634916874918265360/ARC2007_Results_Divisions.pdf

Regards

Paulo


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

yup a 46. the 52 is a palace and well beyond my needs or means.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

outbound said:


> ....
> Not going to pick up the gauntlet anymore Paulo. We just see things differently. Guess it comes with the temperance of age.
> .....


I guess that if at 60 (well some months to go) I am not well tempered I will never be

Regards

Paulo


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

I think some people try to draw a hard line between "racer" and "cruiser". I say, for sake of argument, that no such line can exist. I have succesfully raced a Baba 35 pilot house version. I have successfully cruised a 70' ULDB. I think it all boils down to personal sailing style and sailing skills. It drives me nuts to sail a boat with design flaws that performs poorly. I want performance first then I'll see what I can do to get the comfort and safety I need. But that's my personal style. If doing 4.5 knots to weather with the AWA at 40 degrees makes you happy then go for it. I really don't like the attitude, "I'll tell you how to have fun damn it!"

It wasn't so very long ago that the Valiant 40 was considered too radical to be a serious offshore cruising boat.

I can remember John Neale storming into my office and berating me for being so stupid as to design an offshore boat without a full keel. Now John sails a H-R with a spade rudder.


A full keel Baba 40 AIRLOOM won it's class last week in Seattle's Blakely Rock Race.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

agree with Bob. Sail a well designed boat well- have too much fun


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Bob, It seems you have to wait for some more years to get the "temperance of age"

As you know Magnus Olsson died recently at the age of 64. That one never reached the age of temperance and lived a full life. His constant big smile while steering is all about what sailing is: Joy.






Certainly he had cruised but I refuse to believe that he had done so in a boring boat. I just can't imagine that.

Sailing and cruising are separated things, cruising can be made through sailing but different people value differently sailing and cruising. That is the reason that different sailors have different "ideal" cruising boats.


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

Paulo:
I'm 66 years old. I'm getting wiser.

For you guys sailing is a hobby. For me it's my business and has been since I ws 21 years old. My hobby is hi-end stereo gear, Hi-Fi gear. I'm an audiophile or as we audiophiles say, I'm an "audiofool". I have spent $3,500 on speaker wires, twice. If I told you how much the cartridge (needle) on my turntable cost you would not believe me. In my hobby we are as passionate about the elements as you guys are about sailing. We rage horrible word wars over which is better,tubes or solid state. We call each other vile names. In the end it all comes down to personal preference, both can be very good, I own both, tubes in the office and ss in the living room. But we still like to attack each other and call each other idiots if someone disagrees. But it's best to keep in mind we all love hi-fi/ sailing and we all enjoy it in our own personal way.

Yeah, I read about Magnus dieing. I'm not keen on death. Sad people are left in the wake. They say time heals all. I say BS.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Bob- as one who at one time has bought more gold bits( hope they don't find super cooled wires or some unobtainable is better) for the sound system then my wife and reconstructed a room to anchor the speakers I feel your pain. Fortunately, with age has come frequency loss but the passion to sail started in my teens and I can't shake it. Guess I'm intemperate too. Don't remember calling Paulo nasty names. Guess you hang in tougher circles.
On the business side- really like the version you did of the Outbound 46. Makes a lot of sense.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

bobperry said:


> ...
> 
> Yeah, I read about Magnus dieing. I'm not keen on death. Sad people are left in the wake. They say time heals all. I say BS.


I was not talking about his dead I was celebrating his life. I believe he will not die in the heart of those that appreciated his live and I have.

In what regards Hi fi I have advance acustics and monitor audio, that's what my money can afford but I am a fan.

I don't believe that you besides having a job as boat designer are not passionate about your work. I hope you are.

I am not attacking anynobody. I don't think that there is a right way to cruise or a right cruiser boat. Different people has different tastes, life styles and sailing pleasures.

Each Sailor if he cruises and sails enough boats will discover his perfect cruising boat (even if he does not have money to have it) and that perfect cruising boat will be different according to the sailing and life profile of the cruiser.

That is what I have been saying but not what others have been saying and I am not attacking them. I consider them friends. Just a difference of opinion regarding the possibility of a performance cruiser (that Brian calls racer) to be the perfect cruising boat for some...not for all.

Have you seen the title of this thread....that's about that, the possibility or impossibility of that reality.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

I guess if the “grownups” like the esteemed Mr. Perry have now shown up does this mean us kids have to go home or can we still play some more?  Bob, now that you are here, can you “check my math”? I have a couple of formulas that are obviously broken – can you tell me where they are incorrectly written?

MOMENT OF INERTIA (I) = Displacement^1.744/35.5

ROLL PERIOD (T) = 2*PI*(Inertia/(82.43*lwl*(.82*beam)^3))^.5

STABILITY INDEX = T / (beam*.3048)

Yes, boat selection is extremely personal and I am still enthralled with my C34 but I am at a crossroads as I look to retirement and Mexico cruising. Do I make a jump to a bigger platform? If so, do I buy something that the cool kids are all sailing? If I double my expense in the boat, will I double my pleasure? My C34 gives me a whole lot of pleasure right now and it is never boring. I have done a whole lot of racing an on some pretty fast designs so I have a pretty good idea of what is on the far end of the spectrum, it’s the stuff in the middle like the Benies, Jeannies, and yes, the fatty cattys that seem to be too closely grouped together and hence, my corundum. 

Not to be a total brown noser Bob, but I raced your Nordic 44 design to a second place in the ’08 Pac Cup. Beating the third place boat by almost 24 hours (and losing first by a “mere” three hours.) It was a fun ride. Based on the experience, tried to talk the Mrs. into the Nordic 40 version but she didn't like the small cockpit and forward head. As they say, different horses for different courses.


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

George:
I don't check math. I design boats. Somebody here with a textbook can check your math.

Glad you enjoyed the Nordic 44. I think that's one of my really good designs. The cockpit for the 44 became the cockpit for the Nordic 40. We used the same tooling. That's why the fanny on the 40 is so broad. Not sure why your wife didn't like it. But doesn't matter she was right anyway. Wives are like that. The 44 is the far better boat.

Best of luck with your boat search.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

GeorgeB said:


> ... It was a fun ride. Based on the experience, tried to talk the Mrs. into the Nordic 40 version but she didn't like the small cockpit and forward head. As they say, different horses for different courses.


Then you have a wife...and has it is expected it is an important part of the equation in what regards to chose a cruising boat and it is only far to be that way.

I remember some time ago on the interesting sailboat thread someone that wanted a boat for circumnavigating. His personal choice, if the wife was not coming along was something fast, adapted to solo sailing. If I am remembering correctly he was thinking in something like an Elan 350. We ended up convincing his wife (good for them) and the compromise was a fast big voyage catamaran with a nice interior and lots of interior space

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

I get wanting to cruise in something fast. Who doesn't.

The responses to the question here(I have followed the whole thread) seem to be a suggestion that it is all just about 'style' - That some people cruise with more stuff and some with less.

While this is true, it is a simplification. What I don't get is that if your 'cruising' (Your boat is your home not a building and you move it around a fair bit) there is a level of tankage/provisions/spares you just have to have.

Even planing 10+ kts minimalists have to eat and drink, presumably their boats also sometimes require maintenance, and occasionally they like to have fun.

Boats such as Firsts( just an example CD mentioned, not picking on it) would get pretty weighed down/squishy by the time you have met what i believe would be the average/accepted level of tankage/provisioning/spares/safeties IMHO. 

Our boat doesn't have a much in the way of toys or mod cons. We are a moderate diplacement 35ft cruising sloop, No Generator, no AC, no watermaker, No microwave(Ok, we are getting one though, purism be damned those things are miracles on passage).

We DO carry 180 Litres of diesel( about 50 Gallons?) and additional Jerrys. Triple that for water. We do wear clothes and eat food. We have a medical kit that takes up an entire locker, cruising guides that fill another, and don't get me started on charts and toilet paper. Occasionally I need to fix stuff so there are tools, and when I am not I have been known to read a book or two. We at times probably nearly equal our water capacity in wine/beer/rum and scotch. 

When you are living and voyaging fulltime even simple needs such as ours are enough to fill most crevices in a good cruising boat. I question in a boat with less storage/tankage and light displacement how you do satisfactorily get around these simple facts. 

Of course yes there a extremes, some guy probably has sailed around the world on a racing machine with 5 gallons of diesel, a pair of shorts and 2 cans of baked beans.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

call03 - couldn't of said it better. Trick is to have a boat that can carry the load, be comfortable and still be reasonably fast. Also having a boat that can be repaired and serviced easily just about anywhere is another issue not given enough importance by some when thinking about this initially.


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

What i don't understand is, why does everyone seem to accept the assumption that a more performance oriented boat cannot be loaded up with the same amount of gear and provisions as slower, porkier cruising boats. Performance cruisers aren't kept light because their hull form can't handle the load, they are kept light because lighter is faster. There is no reason you couldn't. Fit out a J120 for serious cruising, and it will still sail better than a loaded down Catalina. At least on the performance boats you aren't wasting cargo capacity on heavy furniture and un neccessary woodwork. I have sailed on a J160 that has all of the extra tankage, generator, and even a dive compressor, and is still blazing fast, and plenty comfortable.


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

Achock:
I have explained this ad nauseum here. But there are still some skeptics. And perhaps they have a valid point. Given the fact that the waterplane area for two 40'er, one a cruiser and one a racer, will be similar, their two pounds per inch immersion factors will be very similar. So, let's say each boat will sink an inch for every 1300 lbs. of gear loaded. Of course the more the boat sinks the more the waterplane increases and the plbs. per inch immers will increase. We all know this, with the exception of the crew of the MERRY LUDDITE.

However, and this is where the slekptis have a point: If your racy 40'er weighs 14,000 lbs and your cruiser buddies 40'er weighs 24,000 lbs. You will have 218.75 cu. ft. of volume below the DWL to stow gear, including tankage while tyou heavier cruiser buddy will have 375 cu. ft. of volume below the DWL. Not quite twice as much volume but colse enough.

What does this mean? It means that you will have a hard time finding places on your race boat to stow all the gear.You heavier buddy has that generoud bilge area where he can stash canned good, wine, gear and spares. With you skinny bilged race boat about the only think you can stow below the sole is pasta, spaghetti, on its side.

Displ means volume and in this example I am only talking about volume bekow the DWL. It makes sense that the cruiser may have fuller ends and maybe more freeboard too so the above the DWL volume is also greater.

The lighter boat will in almost all cases still sail better. But at night, snug in that anchorage when you go to bed on your racer you may be resting your head on a can of beans or a jerry jug full of water.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

While that is true in narrow hull racers in performance cruisers with the hull based on open solo racers the huge transoms allows a big storage space. The hulls have normally one cabin on one side and an identical space on the other side has a storage space. That space is a very big one. That is one of the reasons that make them among fast performance boats popular voyage boats for the ones that like to voyage fast.

Other important reason for that choice is the easiness of sailing (regarding other performance cruisers) and the fact that those boats and hulls were designed taking in consideration the possibility of the boats to be sailed on autopilot, even at two figure speeds downwind.


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

I understand that you have to have the actual physical space to put your stuff, and if your kind of cruising requires you to carry enough canned food and water to be at sea for months, then you should choose your boat accordingly. In many cases I suspect that people fill up whatever size boat they have with stuff! Just like when I had a condo, and moved into a townhouse, I couldn't believe how much space I had for my stuff. A few years later, the townhouse was full. Then came the house! Tons of space! Now, there is no room in the 2 car garage because of all the stuff! I suspect the same principle applies to boats!

Of course if you are taking all your worldly possessions to sea with you, a big heavy tub might be exactly what you need! That certainly isn't what I would want.


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

Paulo:
You are being silly. You are introducing radical hull shapes into the discussion. If I can do that I can prove anything. We are not talking about Volvo 60's or Open 40's here.

Sure they are wide. But they are thin. There is little usable volume there. You sure as hell cannot load up the stern with tankage or anything of any weight. You must know that. On a heavy boat you can fit a 100 gallon fuel tank down in the bilge over the keel, keep the wreight amidships and lower the VCG while you are at it.

Try that in the stern of you light and wide race type boat. Ridiculous!

Or maybe, you just want to argue. If you do then I'm going to watch hockey.


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

PCP said:


> While that is true in narrow hull racers in performance cruisers with the hull based on open solo racers the huge transoms allows a big storage space. The hulls have normally one cabin on one side and an identical space on the other side has a storage space. That space is a very big one. That is one of the reasons that make them among fast performance boats popular voyage boats for the ones that like to voyage fast.
> 
> Other important reason for that choice is the easiness of sailing (regarding other performance cruisers) and the fact that those boats and hulls were designed taking in consideration the possibility of the boats to be sailed on autopilot, even at two figure speeds downwind.


I actually don't disagree with you on this in regards to these modern 'performance cruisers'. They seem to be an evolution in design, albeit an acquired taste. There is certainly though a well funded, more performance orientated breed of cruiser that loves these kind of boats.

I do personally like the Marten 49.

It's darn pretty, fast and there is enough storage/tankage for my needs. It is academic however, they are well beyond my means.

What was in my means when boat shopping were boats such as First 36.7's, and similar style aussie cruiser/racers. I used to race J 24's. My last boat was a IOR 1/4 Tonner and my wife is actually more of a hardcore racing sailor than me. When boat shopping we initially liked the idea of something like a First, but in the end we couldn't see making it work for our intended cruising use. We boat a slower moderate displacement cruising boat.


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Bob, the one great thing we all gloss over is also the great determining factor and that is WHAT DOES THE MRS. WANT? My bride is the one who likes host parties and such for the other couples in the anchorage so even in our little C34, being able to sit six in the cockpit for cocktails and four comfortably for dinner is a must. I know, it’s a cross I have to bear, but I do get a lot of sailing out of it. Interesting observation about displacement and volume. Is it safe to assume for every 1,000 of displacement there is 15.6 CF of potential storage? I know that it can’t be an exact number, but it is an interesting way making a comparison between boats. Another thing that keeps me away from the go-fast boats is I discovered much to my chagrin when we were beating off of Cabo Falso in thirty knots of breeze, is my wife absolutely detests running backs! Which opens up a whole another can of worms concerning the desirability of a complicated rig on a cruising boat.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

bobperry said:


> Paulo:
> You are being silly. You are introducing radical hull shapes into the discussion. If I can do that I can prove anything. We are not talking about Volvo 60's or Open 40's here.
> 
> Sure they are wide. But they are thin. There is little usable volume there. You sure as hell can load up the stern with tankage or anything of any weight. You must know that.
> ...


Are you sure I am the silly one?

One of the boats that has been sold on the last year in bigger numbers as a fast ocean voyage sailboat is the Pogo 12.50. They have a waiting list of more than a year.






And the originally designed by Finot and now redesigned by Marc Lombard Cigales 14 and 16, considered by many the best fast voyage boat.






Among others off course,

Silly? I don't think so

Regards

Paulo


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

SchockT said:


> if your kind of cruising requires you to carry enough canned food and water to be at sea for months, then you should choose your boat accordingly.


Interestingly our cruising doesn't require us to be at sea for months, yet we find it is necessary to still have a somewhat well stocked boat. Shops are not handy when cruising.(At least where we cruise).



SchockT said:


> Of course if you are taking all your worldly possessions to sea with you, a big heavy tub might be exactly what you need! That certainly isn't what I would want.


We also don't have a lot of worldy possessions on the boat, honestly just simple normal stuff and what an average sailor, doing average cruising would deem essential on boat.

This stuff adds up more than you would think...


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

Yeah Paulo:
I do this for a living. I've done it for a living for the last 46 years. I have not interest in argument for argument sake. I have designed every kind of boat from the Baba 30 to the Flying Tiger 30. I know boats. I have done 70ULDB's and 60' ULDB cruising boats. I'll wait for the list of your designs. I have about 7,000 boats on the water that I have designed.

For long range, offshore cruising displacement has it's benefits. If you want to argue that then go ahead but argue to the rest of your audience because I know you are being less than intelligent. I'd say "stupid". Cruisers want tankage, engine space, stowage space, room for personal effects and more tankage. You need displ to give this. This is not a theory. This is not a philosophy. This is reality.

Lets see,,,,,You want me to load extra tankage, say 150 gallons, into the stern of a light and wide racing type hull form? It will not work. It will trim boat by the stern dramatically and hurt performance. Take any designer of that type of boat and suggest he add a 150 gallon tank aft and he'll laugh at you Paulo. Then suggest 200 gallons and the designer will laugh so hard he'll throw up. The suggest a dinghy in davits, a BBQ, a Solar panel array, an outboard. The poor designer of the light boat will die laughing. R.I.P. While he's laying there dead you can suggest a stern anchoring set up with 300' of nylon on a spool mounted on your stern pulpit. I think the body will roll over.

You have this attitude that all good boats have to be your idea of a good boat.
That's total BS. We all have our own way of approaching yachting. There is no reason it has to be reduced to argument or "my way or the highway". I love boats. I love all kinds of boats. I love light boats and I like heavy boats. I just love boats and I appreciate them for what they are as individuals. I am a good enough sailor to get the most out of any boat.

Do it your way and enjoy.
Guys like Wolf can do it their way and enjoy.
Who enjoys more?
I don't give a rat's ass.
Fun is fun. 
Happy is happy.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Thank you Bob.


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

One of fastest offshore, cruising boats I have come across, and liked is the Saga 43. 

This particular one was for sale and the owner had claimed it regularly had done 200nm 24 hour runs. It had good tankage/storage ( well good enough, yes there are boats with more). If I didn't already own a boat I like, and was thinking of heading across oceans soon I would of seriously of come close to buying said boat.

Now what was the name of that guy who designed it??


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

I think the designer's name is Russel Upsomegrub.


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

bobperry said:


> A full keel Baba 40 AIRLOOM won it's class last week in Seattle's Blakely Rock Race.


I've sailed against that boat more times than I can count, and have usually been beaten by her. She's wicked competitive, even with her dacron sails. I love watching her beat the lightweight money-boats. 

MedSailor


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

bobperry said:


> Yeah Paulo:
> I do this for a living. I've done it for a living for the last 46 years. I have not interest in argument for argument sake. I have designed every kind of boat from the Baba 30 to the Flying Tiger 30. I know boats. I have done 70ULDB's and 60' ULDB cruising boats. I'll wait for the list of your designs. I have about 7,000 boats on the water that I have designed.


What has that to do?... I mean the boats I have designed. It was not me that have designed those voyage boats. You should ask how many boats Jean Marie Finot or Marc Lombard have designed and the answer would be probably a lot more than you, specially on the last years were they are very successful designers and looked by major boat builders for designing production boats.

That is a stupid argument anyway. They could have designed the boats and they could have not had any success like that very narrow cruiser boat that you designed some years back that could fit in a container.

The success of a design has nothing to do with the one that design it but is measured by the number of boats sold and by how the functions for what the boat was designed are fulfilled and that again can be measured by the interest that the sailors have on that boat and the way it is used.

Both the Cigale and the RM are making boats along those lines, basing the hull in Open sail boats, for 15 or twenty years. The fact that not only the boats are used for the function they were designed but that they are not only kept in production as in the case of the RM increased its production by 2 or 3 times show clearly that they are a success and there are many sailors using those boats and that concept for long range voyaging.

The Pogo cruisers are a more modern and extreme concept in what regards cruising and long range voyage but the fact that they have increased production and even so have a waiting list of an year shows obviously the success of the concept and that many cruisers want that kind of boats has voyage boats and use them like that. There are already many cruising extensively in distant places.



bobperry said:


> I think some people try to draw a hard line between "racer" and "cruiser". I say, for sake of argument, that no such line can exist. ...
> 
> ... I want performance first then I'll see what I can do to get the comfort and safety I need. ... I really don't like the attitude, "I'll tell you how to have fun damn it!"
> 
> ...


I find amusing that you have said that and then contradict it on a subsequent post.

Bob, like in the Vailant many decades go, the success of the boats and the use sailors give to them talk by themselves.

John Neale, many decades ago, called you stupid for designing what was then a light and fast offshore cruising boat that proved late to be a success and you are calling stupid to designers that design modern lighter fast voyage with hulls based on Open beamy boats. I find that very ironic specially because when jonhn Neal said that to you the Vailant had not proved yet as a very successful long range voyager while the RM, the Cigale and the Pogo are already very successful voyage boats.

They are not only used in large numbers has the RM 1260 was chosen by test sailors from many countries of Europe as 2013 European family cruiser and the Pogo 12.50 was chosen last year as European performance cruiser.

Against facts there are no arguments and it is not you saying *"I know you are being less than intelligent. I'd say "stupid"* that changes that.

This is not a theory, this is reality.



bobperry said:


> For long range, offshore cruising displacement has it's benefits. .. You need displ to give this. This is not a theory. This is not a philosophy. This is reality.


I bet that it was what John Neale tell you when he called you stupid for designed the Vailant 40 years ago

For the sake of argument, this kind of beamy boats based on solo racing boats are not even the type of boat I prefer. That does not make me blind to his advantages, his success among sailors has a fast voyage boat or the quality of the design functionality and adequacy for the propose they were created.

In what regards that, more than mine or any other opinion, the success of this type of boats among sailors speaks for themselves.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Paulo- There are many places on the eastern seaboard and elsewhere where watermakers are problematic ( silt,other contaminants), and others airless ( need engine). We intend to cruise the eastern US then Carribean ( may need to buy water) then the world. Being able to choose when and where to buy fuel and water gives freedom, decreases expense and increases the chances of not putting contaminated fluids on our boat. Having 200 gal of water and 200gal of fuel under the center of the bilge gives freedom.Given having all the comforts of a dirt house means the 90% of the time we spend in a particular locale will not mean we rent rooms to just have the comfort of long hot showers or a washer/dryer. Given most of the sites interesting to us are in close proximity to the ocean living on the boat needs to be as comfortable as possible.. Behavior and noise at anchor are important to us. Being totally independent and able to live entirely off the grid for extended times is important as well. Displacment makes that possible. I have no argument with you about the light boats. Nor will I argue they can't be strong,fast and safe. That misses the point. Everyone here are sailors. They all know light is fast.
The Valiant had a ~20y run and still are very desirable boats. I gave serious thought to buying the Valiant 50 still sitting in the yard in Texas. My boat has had a ~13y run with more on order. She is fast but also extremely comfortable. Why are you arguing with Bob? Why can't you see there will always be a demand for boats that sail very well, are comfortable, safe and allow the displacement to live on a boat without making the serious compromizes lack of displacement demands? I understand the fascination with speed. I very much enjoy the passage as well so with a reasonably fast boat spending an extra few hours at sea even for an ocean crossing does not seem a hardship against the losses I face in a light displacement vessel. Why can't you respect that view. If someone drew a new vessel that allowed the features of the Outbound ( tankage not requiring replacement down the road, no keel bolts to fail etc) and was faster I would have bought it. Bob's Valiant was the best voyager/liveaboard of that time and remains a great boat. I think in viewing all the functions we want in our water ( not dirt) house the Outbound is the best for us and many agree. Face reality without displacement you become increasing dependent on systems to function to maintain the basics of life. Without displacement comfort, safety and quality of life can be achieved but with much greater difficulty. Basic proven construction techniques mean your boat can be fixed just about anywhere and is much more likely to return to it's orginal strength even when done by clumsy hands.
THAT'S REALITY. put down the glove. Apologize to Bob - respect his life's work. It's ok to be wrong. We all are at one time or another.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Paulo- they made fewer dusenburg's then yugo's. which is the better design?


----------



## copacabana (Oct 1, 2007)

Very good points Outbound. I'm at the other extreme with Wolf- I have a 35ft full keel boat with 500 liters of water in the keel and 280 liters of diesel under the sole. The tanks being where they are give me cavernous storage throughout the boat. It's still a "4-knot sh!tbox" as they would say on SA... but it is very well built (a Vindo from Sweden) and it is very easy and inexpensive to maintain. Choices ...

Not to throw more wood on the fire, but how many miles per day does your boat do on passage compared to one of Paulo's examples like a pogo? I know mine averages about 110 miles a day, which is nothing to write home about, but at least it's a comfortable ride. My only complaint is that it doesn't move in really light air.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Sailed on other owners boats so know she ghosts wonderfully. Had one short sail from Newport to Barrington in less then 10kts all day and saw 6s and 7s. No need for engine. Average above 6. On passage other owners say count on ~180. Sailing polar says above 12kt should see hull speed ( 8.32) or better. Trades fine - over hull speed get 200m/d.Tx. Tried to run numbers and from what I can see given usual time of year and course of travel would be less than a day -likely much less between the boats.Numbers may lie. Really don't know a hard answer. See what happens in the ARC and other passages. Spoke with several owners. All impressed what they get out of the boat day to day in all kinds of weather.
Haven't had time to quote log on my own boat yet. Norfolk to R.I last week of May. Will let you know.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Now you are sorta kinda down to the what I was saying earlier, or JeffH sometimes says, if you want to carry the farm on board, you need to increase disp for a given size, OR go longer! Jeff mentions comparing boats IIRC by disp or WL. 

Either way you look at it, you need the SA for X lbs disp to ghost you along in lighter winds, or sails that allow you to ghost, or you use the perverbial iron genny like we need to do here in the salish sea if you want to get some where. In the middle of the ocean, a drifter would come into play very nicely! 

If you want a boat as Paulo suggests, you need to go longer to get the disp such that one can place the water tanks etc in a manner as to not make the designer, say some bob perry dude rotflhao! or make if fuller with more disp for a given size. 

Personally, Brian needs to go longer if he could afford, or find a longer equal style catalina if that is his prefered brand, such that performance is not killed as much with the junque/junk he carries. No different that I see with folks with land yachts/RV's, they think they will load 700-800 lbs in their rigs. usually closer to 1500 lbs, or more if living in it per say as Brian and family are doing. They as Brian has done IMHO, not payed attention to the actual payload that a given boat/rv can carry, with out hurting performance! 

I could do quite nicely with a boat as Paulo suggest, and FT10 or equal around here for how I travel. Wife on the other hand. looks at the different DS style boats and purrs. But most of them are slower than dead slugs going backwards! it comes down to finding something in the middle, that is nice inside for her, but has speed fun potential for me. This is probably how most of us have to choose a boat, along with budget!

In the mean time, there is "NO PERFECT BOAT" for everyone! just as we humans look different, we all have a what is our perfect boat, which WILL be different than someone elses.

Marty


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

Paulo just likes a good debate and I can appreciate that. But he borders on being a bully and is a bit myopic when it comes to the full range of cruising boats. That's OK. He's passionate and that's all good.

For the record: 
I think Paulo and I have the same taste in boats.
I like to sail fast.

For the record:
Of course the modern design offices all do stability studies. We all use computers now andf all it takes is the push of a button. I love it when Paulo lectures me on how a yacht design office works. Usually these days we do multiple stability studies as we evaluate different keels and draft options. This is a given and made possible by the computer. Before computers, even the biggest design offices seldom did full stability studies. It took too much tie. Still, those offices produced fine, and safe sea boats. It took having the "feel" for what boats do at sewa. I like to think I still have that feel.

For the record:
Paulo's claim that you can use all that volume aft in the flat, wide stern racer type hull for cruising gear is not valid. You cannot put a 100 gallon fuel tank in the stern of one of those boats without bad trim problems. However, in a heavier boat, say a D/L arpound 275 you may have volume below the cabin sole in the keel cavity to install a 100 gal. fuel tank amidships where it will not hurt anything while actually helping to lower your VCG.

That's all I have to say about that.
I have to take my dog to the groomer today. That means from 8:30 am until noon I am going to be in a very bad mood. I don't like to be without my dog. Spo Paulo if you want to come at me please get your facts straight and you may want to rethink your efforts to lecture me on how the world of yacht design works. It's my world.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Always liked Vindos. Beautiful inside and at 50' you can play catch inside. Seems everyone ( maybe even Paulo) has come to the same place. There are advantages and disadvantages to all designs. Extreme designs do extreme things extremely better. Moderate designs may serve "real life" better for many of us. As design and technology advances real meaningful advance occurs. My boat addresses the issues Bob speaks to intelligently, elegantly and makes use of our understanding of the physics of sailing. It's right for the bride and me. I won't be bullied into thinking otherwise.


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

I've been thinking, again.
"The past is the past".
Right.
Some sailors prefer the past. Some prefer the past for aesthtic reaons. Some just prefer the way the older boats sail. Some older boats are very forgiving. For some it's a question of economics, "I'd love a radical 50' cruising boat but all I can afford is this old Pearson." So we own the boats we like and the boats we can afford. We keep our bottoms clean. We maintain our gear and we buy the best sails we can afford, new or used. And, here's the clincher, we all enjoy our boats.

Today I am wearing a green flannel shirt. That's my choice. It's an old man's shirt but hell, I'm an old man and I like it. I'll be your shirt is different. That's fine with me.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Ok, well here has been one of MY points in all of this.

A can of green beans takes up the size of a can of green beans. A screw driver takes up the size of a screw driver. A spare water pump takes up the size of a spare water pump. Period!!

I have already said that there are things in my boat that I carry that are kid related. Any yeah, I play the guitar and that takes up space too. But when it comes to cruising, and especially living aboard, that is something I know quite a bit about. I don't design the boats and I don't make my decisions based upon hypothesis. I live in them, and I know what you will most likely be carrying! 

What I tried to do at the beginning of this thread was to lay out what a cruiser was. It was not to say that was the only definition of a cruiser. It was my definition. And as such, with that type of cruiser, you have to carry certain things. THose things take up space. That space has to be accounted for. You gotta put your screw driver somewhere.

SO what I did was I listed out the specifics of the things I carry, including the space they take up. Funny that many people keep avoiding the specifics of what I carry and keep inferring it is 'all that stuff'. That is why I ask them what THEY would take off. THat makes for a good discussion. In the end, once you have compiled what you would take off, you now have the specifics to determine how you are going to put that on boat X. I think most here would be very surprised to see that there is not a whole lot of things they would take off and will be shocked to see the amount of room it takes up.

My long held argument is that many of the Racer-cruiser boats (what I call a racer-cruiser) do not have the storage for these items. In fact, they often will have shallow bilges, sparse cabinetry, sparse tankage, and many other things that make them a great boat for weekending, buoy races, or vacationing, but simply make the boat a poor choice (not an impossible choice) for the type of cruising I do. For others, who 'cruising' means running down to the nearest marina for the weekend, it will be fine. But when you cruise, at least anywhere near my definition of it, you carry a lot of stuff. Grocery stores are not across the street. THere is not a West Marine at every corner. Even if you have a watermaker, you often cannot run it in the anchorages. You have to take a crap, and that uses 1-3 Gallons/person/day. - before you are either illegally pumping overboard, peeing off the side, or scurrying into a marina for a pumpout. And pumpouts, even should you find one that works, are often a fairly long rid (and ain't free). And I haven't even got started yet on trying to find propane or other things!!

Another point of contention: I began living aboard in 2000 and had my oldest son on board at 5 days old. My youngest son has, with a few periods off the boat, really never known anything but boating and living aboard. We have done it, do it now, and will be doing it for as long as I can see. I know what works and what does not. Boating is and has been our life. So when I read about a boat, chosen as the 'family cruiser', and I come out and have serious misgivings about aspects of it, maybe I know what I am talking about? I would love to know how many of the judges that choose the 'family boats' have lived on their boats, currently live on their boats, and will be living on their boats AND (BIGGEST AND) have raised their kids on their boats nearly since birth?? How many of them do it now? Or is this some industry recognized experts that won a race and somehow are qualified to choose boats and select boats for families? Pfft. Ask a parent, live aboard, and cruiser that is raising their kids on their boat what they would look for in a 'family cruiser' and you might just find we don't like none of the stuff the 'experts' pick.

There are SOME whose opinions I do value on what makes a good cruising boat for a family. Tom Neale is one. He's been there and done that, though his girls are now gone. Interesting, though, his boat selection choice (Gulfstar 54... and you think MY BOAT IS FAT AND SLOW!)... and I wonder how many of the 'judges' have read his book, "All in the Same Boat"? 

None of this is to say that you cannot make any boat work. You can Make a boat work. But going back to the point of this thread, the typical Racer-Cruiser will have serious tradeoffs as a live aboard and cruising boat - enough so that I guess (GUESS) the boat becomes more unsafe than its HD counterpart and vastly more uncomfortable.

Brian


----------



## copacabana (Oct 1, 2007)

Outbound, thanks for the compliments on the Vindo. They are indeed very attractive, though I suppose not for everyone's taste (as this thread has proven!). Sorry to mislead you in my signature, it's 35ft, not 50ft. The model was called a Vindo 50 because it carried 50 square meteres of sail. 

And Bob you have hit the nail on the head with this one:

""I'd love a radical 50' cruising boat but all I can afford is this old Pearson." So we own the boats we like and the boats we can afford. We keep our bottoms clean. We maintain our gear and we buy the best sails we can afford, new or used. And, here's the clincher, we all enjoy our boats."

I bought this boat because it was the best quality boat I could afford and it pleased my eye. There are times I wish I could get it to move better in light air, but otherwise I'm happy with it. The wife and kids and I get to go cruising and have a blast. We're comfortable on board and it gets the job done.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

bobperry said:


> For the record:
> Paulo's claim that you can use all that volume aft in the flat, wide stern racer type hull for cruising gear is not valid. You cannot put a 100 gallon fuel tank in the stern of one of those boats without bad trim problems. However, in a heavier boat, say a D/L arpound 275 you may have volume below the cabin sole in the keel cavity to install a 100 gal. fuel tank amidships where it will not hurt anything while actually helping to lower your VCG.


Exactly!

And given what is often very sparse cabinetry, and little storage, many of the items you take for cruising are either tossed on top of the cabinetry, put in mesh bags hanging from the ceiling, or (and my alltime favorite) taking up the entire quarter berth or head or shower.

Not only does this make for an uncomfortable boat to live aboard, but it prevents you storing those things safely below the waterline, it makes things very inconvenient to get to, and when the boat starts rolling those things are jumping all around the boat.

My opinions.

Brian


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

It was you that dismissed the importance of stability curves in modern Yacht design and remembered the old day where they were not used. For what you have said It seemed you did not consider them important in modern boat design. I am referring to this post:



bobperry said:


> You guys and your graphs. Do you really understand how inadequate a 2D graph like that is compared to the dynamic forces of the sea. But if it amuses you then play on. I'm not sure this is the right environment for me.
> ...
> Do me a favor, go back and determine how many designs from the S&S office had full stability studies done. Surpirse! Now do it for Phil Rhodes office. Surpise! All this preoccupation with numbers is a function of the computer age and the ability to use some bozos program to get some numbers.
> 
> ...





bobperry said:


> ..
> For the record:
> Of course the modern design offices all do stability studies. We all use computers now andf all it takes is the push of a button. I love it when Paulo lectures me on how a yacht design office works. Usually these days we do multiple stability studies as we evaluate different keels and draft options.


I am glad you consider them an important tool, as everybody else.



bobperry said:


> For the record:
> Paulo's claim that you can use all that volume aft in the flat, wide stern racer type hull for cruising gear is not valid. You cannot put a 100 gallon fuel tank in the stern of one of those boats without bad trim problems. However, in a heavier boat, say a D/L arpound 275 you may have volume below the cabin sole in the keel cavity to install a 100 gal. fuel tank amidships where it will not hurt anything while actually helping to lower your VCG.


Regarding inspired hulls from Open solo racer being used by several Major NAs and many sailors for voyage boats *that is a fact*.

*The existence of a fact does not deserve discussion* but the why and how is the relevant issue.

I understand why and how those hull, designed by several major NAs for the purpose of fast voyage boats work in what regards sailing potential, load and characteristics.

Since it is a fact they are used and that has to do with the advantages they offer to the sailors that choose them for voyaging I respectfully suggest you try to understand how they are used for voyaging (*because they are*) and how they can carry the needed load (*because they can*) that the ones that use them considers necessary.

Regarding carrying heavy loads on the back of the transom, everybody knows that is not indicated and should be avoided. I never said that. I said that those boats have a large transom and all the beam pushed back. That means that in comparison with a narrow boat, or a boat with the max beam at the middle and a tiny transom, the back cabins are comparatively huge. *The back cabin is not the transom * and in there are plenty of storage space away from the transom. Anyway, not all needed things to cruise are heavy and even the extra space near the back of the transom can come handy for the storage of light but voluminous stuff.

Regarding water and fuel we can ask Eric but I think that they are carried at the center of the boat. Almost all that voyage in those boat uses hydrogenerators, similar to the ones racing boats use. The produce 500w at 7K (if I am not mistaken) and on the trade winds 7K is a very low average speed for these boats.

They are very light and sail with very little wind so the quantity of fuel they have to carry is very small. Regarding water they use normally a watermaker but even so the water tankage of a Pogo 12.50 is 200l, the one from a Cigale 14 is 500L and the one from a RM 1260 is 400l. All of them can take more tankage as an option.

You seem to forget that there are some that prefer to voyage in small boats like Contessa or westsail and those have normally not a watermaker and an inferior or equal water tankage regarding the boats I am talking about.

But Bob, the important point here is : *They exist, they have been used successfully used as fast voyage boats for many years, their number has always been increasing and they are the right voyage boats for many among the ones that like fast boats.*

Saying that they cannot exist because they cannot carry the needed load does not make sense, since they exist they are increasing in numbers, they are designed and used for voyaging and obviously satisfy those that own and use them for that purpose.



bobperry said:


> For the record: I think Paulo and I have the same taste in boats.
> I like to sail fast.


If you like only one type of boat I am sorry to disappoint you but that that is not true because I like many types of different boats and some of them are not even fast, like old traditional boats. If I could I would have a collection, just for fun and to suit my mood.

Yes in what regards cruising I like fast boats but the one that I have chosen is the one adequate (for me) to do the cruise I do, that involves a lot of variable winds and lots of upwind sailing.

If I went for a circumnavigation or went for extensive voyaging on the trade winds, then if I could I would pick a Cigale or RM and then we would not agree in the boats we like anymore.

It I went for cruising in high latitudes, I would pick a Boreal that has also the hull shape based on Open solo racers and then again we would not agree on the type of boat we like.

It seems to me that I like the boats you like but you don't like all the boats I like.

I will not be able to continue this agreeable discussion (insults apart, of course). I am on the limit of time to prepare my annual 4 months of cruising and I will restrict my participation to some posts on the interesting sailboat thread.

Best regards

Paulo


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Brian-
Next time you go to Sears, ask for the 2013 Special Tools Catalog. You'll have to present ID and sign for it, they won't mail them out. Turn to page 45, check out the freeze-dried screwdrivers. They take up much less space than the old-fashioned kind. You can fit a full dozen of them in a number ten envelope. (VBG)


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

hellosailor said:


> Brian-
> Next time you go to Sears, ask for the 2013 Special Tools Catalog. You'll have to present ID and sign for it, they won't mail them out. Turn to page 45, check out the freeze-dried screwdrivers. They take up much less space than the old-fashioned kind. You can fit a full dozen of them in a number ten envelope. (VBG)


Actually I watched one of the kids cartoons and I realize I need a Shrink Ray.

Brian


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

bobperry said:


> That's all I have to say about that.
> 
> I have to take my dog to the groomer today. That means from 8:30 am until noon I am going to be in a very bad mood. I don't like to be without my dog.


sorry, Bob - but at the risk of making you any grumpier today... (grin)

Looks like someone made a big Boo-Boo with one of your favorite babies...










This pic is from a friend living aboard in Brunswick, GA... The other day this boat was towed into the yard at Brunswick Landing... Story seems to be, that the guy was headed up the ICW, and went astray, and hit a bridge with a clearance lower than the 65' fixed bridge clearance on the Ditch (My guess is he went up the Back River instead of the Mackay River inside St. Simons Sound, there's a bridge with a 40' clearance up there)

I couldn't help but notice from Dave's blog, that the boat is sporting a full-cockpit bimini... (grin) And, why people feel the need to carry so many jerry jugs of diesel to motor up and down the ICW never ceases to amaze...

OK, someone mentioned your Saga 43, which I've always thought was one of your coolest designs... When I was in Newfoundland a few years ago, this one was one of the four other cruising boats I saw during my cruise, I had a wonderful evening aboard her alongside me in Francois...

So, hopefully this will make you feel better... Those boats get around, and her owners were absolutely in love with her...


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

Jon:
No you have it wrong.
That is the folding sprit version designed to reduce the cost of marina fees.

I guess it speaks well to the strength of the headstay. 
Looks like you are still having way too good a time.
A buddy of mine out here just bought a Saga 48. He loves it.


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

Brian:
When I desiged my latest "perfect boat for Bob" I made sure I had dedicated guitar stowage space. Guitars are hard to stow, pilot berths work great, and I refuse to play a mini-guitar.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

bobperry said:


> Brian:
> When I desiged my latest "perfect boat for Bob" I made sure I had dedicated guitar stowage space. Guitars are hard to stow, pilot berths work great, and I refuse to play a mini-guitar.


Well, I designed a ******* guitar storage space: I put two eye hooks into the bulkhead and a piece of line to hold it down... snicker... BEAT THAT!! And if I had put those eyes on a racer-cruiser, the boat would have split down the middle, pulled the dock down with it, created a tidal wave, and lives would have been lost!!! See! Never take a guitar on a Racer-cruiser! You need a Catalina for that!

You do sail a Catalina, don't ya Bob??

Brian


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

Brian:
Not anymore but I owned a Catalina 27 when I first met my wife.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

bobperry said:


> Brian:
> Not anymore but I owned a Catalina 27 when I first met my wife.


Ha! Fair enough. I was just joking you, btw.

Brian


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Brian- it's nice to hear from someone that's been there done that. Reading your posts ( and some others) is an education.


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

I have followed this thread with a lot of interest.

I have also somewhat "been there" and done (a bit of) what Brian is doing, cruised for a year and lived aboard for another year. On a boat identical to Brian's - a C400.

Now, while I think the C400 is a superb cruising boat for island hopping and a very comfortable live aboard - in a fully laden cruising state it sure ain't no rocket in light air.

For that reason I found myself motoring (as most other cruisers with too much crap on their boats do) a lot more than I would have liked to.

Brian, in winds below 10 kts, do you sail or motor most of the time?

I like sailing, so if I would do it again, I would lean more towards the performance cruisers that Paolo subscribes to. Sacrifice some comfort for performance.

One thing I know for sure, I would never lean towards the other end of the spectrum, an old design heavy displacement boat. Those chaps motored even more than meself ;-) - and slower too...

Now, to through a spanner in the works, next time around I think the solution for me and the best of both worlds might be a perfomance catamaran.

Fusion Kit Catamarans

Plenty of performance and excellent liveability.

Outbound, I like your boat very much, I have been on both the 46 and the 52. We had a 52 in our marina for awhile, I think it was hull #1. Beautiful ship but close to 1 mil kitted out...


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

How would you make Banana Bread on a cruiser/racer?


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

jorgenl said:


> Now, while I think the C400 is a superb cruising boat for island hopping and a very comfortable live aboard - in a fully laden cruising state it sure ain't no rocket in light air.
> 
> For that reason I found myself motoring (as most other cruisers with too much crap on their boats do) a lot more than I would have liked to.


Just curious, did you have a light-air sail inventory of free-flying sails, such as a spinnaker or Code 0?


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

chall:
How do you make banana bread at home?


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

Using my recently acquired, coveted, secret CD wife's recipe course 

It specifically states that the bread will only work, if cooked on a Catalina. If cooked on anything faster, the speed and motion of the vessel is such that it is sure to make the bread dry and tasteless. 

How many of these youtube videos of young tanned Europeans on Pogos and such show them eating Banana Bread while doing 16 kts huh??


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

thank you Jorgen- wish you joy. Hope you get that cat. Went to the web site.Looks like a beautiful beast that would make any sailor purr.


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

JonEisberg said:


> Just curious, did you have a light-air sail inventory of free-flying sails, such as a spinnaker or Code 0?


Jon, I knew someone would ask ;-). The answer in unfortunately no...

The story is that I bought my boat 6 months prior to taking off (bad idea... I know) and had very little time to outfit her while working and running a company full time. I new what I wanted/needed but simply had to prioritize to get things done in time. Hence no solar panels, no code 0, and a few other bits and pieces that would have been nice....

Anyways, learned a lot, think I know what I want next time, sold the boat and for now it's back the grown up world of corporate BS trying to make a $ ;-)

Anyone want to buy an unused fortress fx 37, sat phone and a liferaft ? ;-)


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

Oh , and I am sad to admit that I even had a roller furling main. Drove me crazy. Never again.


----------



## Brent Swain (Jan 16, 2012)

Wide shallow sterned boats with super lean bows are very badly balanced hulls, hard to control downwind in a rough sea. They have no directional stability. Even a slight narrowing of the stern and filling out the bow can make a huge improvement in directional stability.
Many racers are super deep draft, a huge burden for cruisers. They usualy have nothing in the way of adequate mooring bitts or bow rollers, and often have only dangerous, knee high, plastic coated "Lifelines". Most make a poor choice for cruising in.


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

Brent Swain said:


> Wide shallow sterned boats with super lean bows are very badly balanced hulls, hard to control downwind in a rough sea. They have no directional stability. Even a slight narrowing of the stern and filling out the bow can make a huge improvement in directional stability.
> Many racers are super deep draft, a huge burden for cruisers. They usualy have nothing in the way of adequate mooring bitts or bow rollers, and often have only dangerous, knee high, plastic coated "Lifelines". Most make a poor choice for cruising in.


What specific boat design do you have in mind with your comments?
The average racer/cruiser that I have looked at have around 6' draft; hardly "super deep". Most of them are equipped with mooring bits, bow rollers, and yes, even anchor lockers! Knee high lifelines? not on any boat I have ever sailed on, but then maybe I just have short legs! (How high do you want your lifelines anyway? Waist high? )

If you are talking about full-on race boats, then yes, they aren't a great choice as they often have very little down below; pipe berths, portapottie and a 1 burner stove if you are lucky.


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

JonEisberg said:


> Just curious, did you have a light-air sail inventory of free-flying sails, such as a spinnaker or Code 0?


John has made this point before, and it got me thinking....

How many people make the requisite design sacrifices in space, tankage, strength etc for a "fast boat" and then not only load it up with weight, but don't leverage the fact that the have a "potentially fast" design by having a clean/fast bottom, all the sail control hardware they need and a solid inventory of good sails?

What good is it to be making all the sacrifices you have to make to have the boat with the awesome PHRF rating and then only have a 135% on a furler and a furling main as well and don't keep their bottom clean? What about that folding or 2 blade prop? Some people put a big 3blade wheel on their "fast design" too.

I'd bed that a "slow design" that was all tricked out with vangs, high-purchase traveler, cunningham etc and has a couple jibs, a battened main and an A-sail and Code-0 would sail circles around the "fast design" that is poorly outfitted.

You can't buy fast, you gotta make it fast too!

MedSailor


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

Med:
My guess is that you would lose that bet/race. I think you'd have to give both boats comparative sail inventories to prove anything.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Med, 

the fast boat would still be faster, BUT, the slow boat would probably win hands down on handicap! Airloom does this upon occasion, altho on windier days, due to the boat she races against, size does win too! She is sailed well too!

Marty


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

Not to mention,,,the superb design.


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

Boy Brent, you sure do make some broad generalizations. They are not all accurate. My ICON with a big wide stern and a very fine entry tracks like it is on rails and is a very benign boat to drive. By the way ICON was designed as a racer/cruiser and had succesfully cruised all over the Pacific from New Zealand to Seattle. It has a very deep, 13'8" draft lifting keel. It is not your Grandpa's cruising boat but it is a boat that has done a lot of cruising.

Any race boat with "knee high lifelines" would nort qualify for any of the races around here or pretty much abywhere in the world for that matter. There are very strict International regulations for lifelines and pulpits.


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

bobperry said:


> Med:
> My guess is that you would lose that bet/race. I think you'd have to give both boats comparative sail inventories to prove anything.


Well actually no, I don't think so. If you gave them the same inventories the faster design would win every time, but we all know that, so it doesn't prove much.

What I was getting at was that I suspect there are many under-appreciated factors that contribute to "speed" (or lack thereof) besides the initial design and weight of gear.

I'm imagining some smug "fast boat" owners that think their boat will outperform anything afloat when in fact they aren't doing everything they can to make it fast. Meanwhile I'll try and stay smug in the knowledge that my boat wins in the "comfort at anchor" race. 

MedSailor


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

Ahh, Med,,, I'm not sure you understood my post or perhaps I said it poorly. The fast boat will most certainly win. That's why they call it the "fast" boat.

Of course a poorly maintained and equipped boat will suffer in the performance department wherther it's a heavy boat or a light boat. No news there as yoiu say. The most succesful racers spend a lot of time maing sure everything on the boat is at it's max performance level. You can't win a tacking duel with a frozen primary winch. No news there either.

But you are correct, there is no way to objectively measure the "comfort at anchor" factor. And that may involve much more than just volume. I look at some modern "crossover" type boats with very light and sparse interiors. Is that what I want when cruising? Well, I think it would do the job alright but I'm not sure it would satisfy that part of me that drew me to yachting originally. I kind of like the dark, woody interiors. Kind of hard to measure that feel but it's real.

Sometimes in the harbor after being anchored a few hours I see an old boat come in. It's just about dusk and I know this guy has been sailing all day, slowly tacking back and forth ignorrant of tidal currents and back eddies and just beating up the sound the best he can with his blown out sails and funcky bottom.

The guy gets one of the last good anchorage spots in the harbor, drops his hook and begings tidying up his boat as the sun sets. Sometimes I'm jealous of that guy.


----------



## Brent Swain (Jan 16, 2012)

bobperry said:


> Boy Brent, you sure do make some broad generalizations. They are not all accurate. My ICON with a big wide stern and a very fine entry tracks like it is on rails and is a very benign boat to drive. By the way ICON was designed as a racer/cruiser and had succesfully cruised all over the Pacific from New Zealand to Seattle. It has a very deep, 13'8" draft lifting keel. It is not your Grandpa's cruising boat but it is a boat that has done a lot of cruising.
> 
> Any race boat with "knee high lifelines" would nort qualify for any of the races around here or pretty much abywhere in the world for that matter. There are very strict International regulations for lifelines and pulpits.


Many years ago you told a friend of mine that asymetrical waterlines give better directional stability. The boat you designed for him ,based on that assumption, had none. He was very disappointed with it. He went back to building Spencers, which he had much experience with, boats with much finer sterns, and resulting good directional stability.


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

Brent I would never have said that. You can delude yourself all you want. But I would never have said that. You are being stupid and desperate. If anythihg I would have said the opposite. Just look at the old Valiant 40. It had symetrical waterlines ( fore and aft). I have always advocated fore and aft symetry in waterlines, within reason.

Now let's be men here, Be specific. Name the boat. Step up. Name the boat. Come on.

I have never said that. Now it's up to you to provide the truth.
Or, shut the **** up.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Bob,

Unfortunetly, Icon was behind the Carr a bit ago off of edmonds coming back from protection island. both were screaming upwind! going to be a quick race for the long course, would not surprise me if they were not all finished by 10 pm at the latest. 

I was on the phone to another friend that I thought woudl be racing, he was surprised when I mentioned the Carr was in first OA, we bothfigured withthe way icon was powered up with this current owner, she should have been in front. might have been tacks to the south, but it did look like after a bit Icon might have passed the carr......who knows from Edmonds looking 5 miles south..

Marty


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

When this thread first popped up, I stood there....arm cocked.... Boston cream pie in hand and ready to let fly... before I stopped to reflect for a moment, and decided that I would not get involved in this food-fight-going-somewhere-to-happen. It was probably a good decision in that the best way to survive a collision is to avoid it in the first place.

But at the end of last week, I received an email from a friend asking if I planned to attend the Annapolis Spring Boat Show. And in that email, he said he was suprised that I did not weigh in on this thread since in his words, "this was a thread which had both barrels aimed right at you".

Try as I might, I could not get that comment off my mind since I was; 1. Out for the weekend doing one form of what I personally would call cruising, and 2. Sailing in conditions that were most enjoyable if you were sailing what Brian would call a racer, but I would call a cruising boat with an acceptable level of performance.

And so here is my take on this whole thread....to me this entire thread is basically the sailing equivillent of trying to convince Goldilocks that the bed and the porridge weren't "just right".

To me, even the premise of these kinds of discussions go way off the track when people try to imply that there is remotely one universally correct truth about subjects that are entirely subjective, like this one....

As I have often said around here, there is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all, correct way to enjoy the water. We each come to the water with our own mix of experience, preferences, budgets, sailing venues, friends and family, physical fitness, free time, sense of adventure, access to different boats, and so on. Within that mix, there may be better and worse choices for what we do on the water, but short of taking purposefully negligent actions that put yourself and others at risk, there is no universally right or wrong way to enjoy the water. Redundant Period

Now then, each of us may look at how someone else choses to enjoy the water and say, "Ya know, that is just plain not for me." That is legit. It is actually a healthy thing to do since you won't get sucked into doing something that is wrong for you just because someone else did it and got away with it.

But you are no more right or wrong whether you chose to buy a boat to sail around the world, or chose to buy a mass production whatever and fill her past brimming with every consumer item that the marketing world can conceive of, or you chose to buy a a replica of 'Svaap' and sail with a former cannibal in spartan conditions to places unknown, or you chose to buy a boat, sit in the cockpit, drink margaritas, watch the sunset, never leave the dock for so long that you farm baracles so successfully that the boat not longer floats on water but is supported by a mountain of barnacles. If you enjoy it and don't harm others, it is all perfectly good.

And for each of these preoccupations there are boats, which will probably properly fit the bill. And that brings me back to Goldilocks.

There is a spectrum of choices out there. There are the boats so heavy and undercanvassed that no matter what happens, they will never sail worth a darn. But dig long and hard enough, and you will find an owner of one of these oyster crushers, who can quote you chapter and verse from their own personal bible of reasons about why they own the perfect boat and go on at length about why this is the perfect boat for everyone who ever existed. "Ah! Just right"

And at the other end, are truly extreme stripped out, we are not joking, useless for anything else but racing, race boats. And there will be the owner of that vessel with his own bible of lauditory proverbs and psalms extolling the devine characteristics of why his craft is the only right vessel for all. "Ah! Just right"

But as Bob Perry, someone who has wrestled these issues to the ground on many occasions would probably agree, *all boats, and I mean each and every one of them, is a compromise, *and the best of them are the ones that balance those compromises in a way that the owner of said vessel is happy with thier boat. "Ah! Just right"

So for Brian, (Cruisingdad) the Catalina 400 was carved from manna handed down from on high by the great lord Gerry Butler, perfectly formed for him and his family to carry around his family and all their comforts of home. "Ah! Just right"

The Pogo, which Paulo mentioned, is perfect for those young European guys in the video, surfing at 12 knots and grinning ear to ear. "Ah! Just right"

Its not perfect for Paulo, since he would like a little more comfort, but when he finds the right mix of comfort and performance it too will be "Ah! Just right".

Outbound, loves his Outbound as the near perfect balance between performance and safe voyaging. (he's probably right) "Ah! Just right"

Wolfenzee loves his rendition of a 1930's era Atkins design. "Ah! Just right"

As do the whole, love-my-Westsail 32-and-will-fight-to-the-death-anyone-who-says-they-are-slow crowd. "Ah! Just right"

And none of these folks are wrong in terms of the boat being perfect for their needs.

And so for the record, this weekend, I ghosted for 20 miles in often well less than 4 knots of wind, gunkholed my way back into a quiet corner, spent a quiet night on the hook with the Love of My Life (my wife not the boat), and had a rip snorting beat and reach home in gusty conditions, on the most perfect boat (for me). Anything less would have screwed up a perfectly lovely weekend.... "Ah! Just right" But I would never claim that my boat is perfect for everyone.

Which is the whole point....there is no point to a thread titled like this one, in which the definitions are so subjective and the range of acceptable options defined so personally and narrowly. So while I understand why my esteemed colleague and co-moderator might start this discussion and what he hoped might evolve from the discourse, as titled, a thread like this is asking, "How long is a piece of string, and you better be able to fight to the death to justify that answer."

Jus' Say'n (even if I didn't want to)....
Jeff


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Jeff, probably because we work making other people dreams come true that gives us a bigger flexibility in what regards personal life style and taste. One of the most difficult and enjoyable works I have made was a big house for a German, a house near the shore and a golf course. He come to me with his wife and said that he wanted a "romantic house".

First I had to understand what was a romantic house for him and his wive, what were the images and the life style that comes to his mind related with a romantic house/life style. In the end I got the right picture and made to him and his wife what he wanted but could not imagine. Both loved the house and the funny thing is that they never understood that the style of his house had nothing to do with most of my work even less with my personal taste in what regards living and housing. 

Related with taste and quality versus life style another example: for many years I read the German architectural magazine Hauser (that has great pictures) and used to comment what I liked more with my wife. I soon find out that while I was admiring quality, style and design, not having necessarily to do with what I would like to have for living, my wife was incapable to separate what was pure quality and a great design from what she would like to have for living, meaning that she could only like what suited her.

I believe this happens to many in what regards sailboats: Most can only like and appreciate what is fit for his lifestyle independently to be a great design. If it is not suited to him but only to other type of cruisers or sailors, then it is a bad design.

I don't know if the fact that being used to work satisfying other peoples dreams (that are very different) has to do with the fact that I like many types of boats, and among each type I can appreciate the ones that are truly outstanding, even if they not suit my living and sailing style, I suspect that it has.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

Paulo:
I have spent my life drawing other people's dreams.
That's easier than drawing mine. My dreams change all the time. If it's gusting to 6 knots in the morning I have one dream. If it breezes up in the afternoon and I see 25 knots TWS then I have another dream. I need several boats.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

At thend, Jeff, Paulo and Bob have said the same thing, while I probably DO NOT have the same schooling credentials. after spending 30 some odd years landscaping yards, some I designed, others another did.....everyone has a different taste as to what is right for them. I remember doing one yard thinking it looked nice, not my style, but at the end, the HO loved it, He wondered if I would want it in my back yard. I had to admit yes but no. I did notlike the tan/brown Italian look and feel. I would have choosen different colored pavers, and a different style for my yard. For him, it worked and looked great. 

At the end of the day.....I think I said it before, there is no right or wrong boat, only one that works for you!

Marty


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

I work in a different field. Not infrequently there is a right ( this increases the odds you will stay alive) and a wrong ( do this and it's more likely you will die). Trick is to get the person in front of you ( and we all carry our own baggage) to do the right thing and feel they own the decision. Seems like that's true for any professional who is skilled at their avocation. 
Same problem with boats. We think we know what will work for us and we know what we lust after but few of us are honest enough with ourselves to recognize what we really need. Hopefully when we can't always get what we want ...we get what we need. ( sorry Mick) when directed by our peers, good friends, a porfessional or a skilled N.A.


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

I think I can offer up this piece of wisdom:

The only "wrong boat" is not having a boat at all..... (or maybe a wooden one)

MedSailor


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Sorry med,

I prefer the "no boat" as being the wrong one! Having built 2 wood ones,,,,, I enjoyed them as much as my currect fiberglass one, along with a canoe and a few other glass types too. ALL are good........

Marty


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

PCP said:


> Jeff, probably because we work making other people dreams come true that gives us a bigger flexibility in what regards personal life style and taste.
> 
> Related with taste and quality versus life style another example: for many years I read the German architectural magazine Hauser (that has great pictures) and used to comment what I liked more with my wife. I soon find out that while I was admiring quality, style and design, not having necessarily to do with what I would like to have for living, my wife was incapable to separate what was pure quality and a great design from what she would like to have for living, meaning that she could only like what suited her.
> 
> ...


Paulo

I think that you have hit the nail on the head. A big part of designing anything is defining in an intellectually honest way a clear understanding of the problems to be solved, and a big part of that definition requires the designer to 'get into the head' of the person we are designing for. Often this is a high wire balancing act without a net because the client's head and heart want something which may be mutually exclusive, or which is mutually exclusive with the solution suggested by 'best professional judgement'.

Selecting the right boat, also involves that kind of understanding of the problem and an intellectually honest approach to the solution. All to often we see people proudly parading about in their 'King's new clothes", when the rest of the world can clearly see the nakedness of thier position.

In the end, it's still Goldilocks, "Ah, just right" or as my grandmother would say when asked about decisions that she did not like, "As long as you are happy." 

Jeff


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

jorgenl said:


> I have followed this thread with a lot of interest.
> 
> I have also somewhat "been there" and done (a bit of) what Brian is doing, cruised for a year and lived aboard for another year. On a boat identical to Brian's - a C400.
> 
> ...


Sorry for the late reply. Was tied up on boat things... can you believe it???

Ok, lets see...

Winds under 10 kts? Depends. If the wind is behind me (running), I will motor because I will motor at almost hull speed (8ish). If I am making to weather, I will motorsail. It all depends on the winds, but this generally puts me at (or close to) hull speed. But it also depends on when I have to make my next point. I dont mind a leisurely sail. When the kids are down below at school, sometimes that is the best.

BTW, what was your hull number? If you don't remember, what year was it?

As someone who has cruised and lived aboard, consider all the stuff you carried, Jorgenl. Think about where you put it all. Now, go put yourself in a racer-cruiser (a J122 or First) and tell me where all that stuff goes? My point in this is that, depending on your manner of cruising or what your definition of it is, you simply do not have the room to properly stowe all that stuff on many of these boats. And many of the things you carry I believe would be unwise to do without. Instead, what I expect would happen on many of these boats, is that you would end up stuffing the quarter berth with stuff, nets hanging down from the cabin, bags stuffed in every corner, etc. There are of course boats that are faster than the C400 and still have good stowage. Boats that come to mind that I have been on are the Sabres and Tartans, but there are many more. Of course, you are starting to ratchet up the money too... I mean if money wasn't an object, I guess we would all be sailing around on Gunboats and huge Swans. Unfortunately, it is an option and a real reality with most people.

So it is not comfort I am saying is the reason to avoid many of the racer-cruisers, it is their ability to effectively handle the stuff that comes along with cruising.

You also mentioned that you would not go with another inmast? Why? We have more miles under our keel than I can count and have never had a single issue. In fact, I love it.

Brian


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Jeff_H said:


> When this thread first popped up, I stood there....arm cocked.... Boston cream pie in hand and ready to let fly... before I stopped to reflect for a moment, and decided that I would not get involved in this food-fight-going-somewhere-to-happen. It was probably a good decision in that the best way to survive a collision is to avoid it in the first place.
> 
> But at the end of last week, I received an email from a friend asking if I planned to attend the Annapolis Spring Boat Show. And in that email, he said he was suprised that I did not weigh in on this thread since in his words, "this was a thread which had both barrels aimed right at you".
> 
> ...


Hey my friend,

That is a beautiful response, but I am not sure that we are talking about the same thing.

I am not asking which boat is best or who makes the best boat. Not at all. My tastes in boats and yours are probably very different, and maybe not so much either, depending on the use. I love "race" boats, or performance cruisers as Paulo calls them. They are fun to sail and be out on. I think another poster here even commented about liking the simplicity of them. How do you disagree with that?? What I am saying is that these boats are awesome for their use, but they do not make a good cruising boat, in my opinion. It is not because they are not of a certain brand, it is because they are traditionally narrow beamed, low storage, tiny bilged, boats. It has nothing to do with their sleeping arrangements or how large their sink is or how many heads they have or dont. THose are comfort features. I am talking about their sheer ability to carry and stowe the items needed for cruising in my view of what cruising is. These boats would make great weekenders or vacation boats, but where do you put the spare water pump? The spare alternator and bilge pump? Where do you put massive amounts of tools? What about books and charts? How do you make the tiny blackwater tanks work which are fine for weekending or if you are always at a marina, but not so great when on the hook or ball. What do you do about the low water tankage? What are you going to do to keep up your power load? Where do you stowe your tender and the gas required to make it run? Where do you stowe your liferaft? Etc, etc...

So my point is that when you start adding up all the things that are 'required' to cruise (and when I say required, I mean from each person's point of view), these boats which make great weekenders and beer can racers, are shoved full of crap everywhere. Where other more cruising oriented boats can stowe all of that stuff safely and securely, you are shoving it into every crevice, filling up the shower stall, taking over the quarter berth, and strapping stuff everywhere on deck. Where a more cruiser-oriented boat can not only safely and securely stowe that stuff, but can also properly stowe things based upon weight (deep bilges are great for heavy items, and heavy items go below the waterline), the racer-cruiser has to stick them above the waterline or wherever they can stick them. SO in the end, what you have is no longer a performance boat or a racer-cruiser. Is it faster than the typical cruiser? Sure... but how much faster, and maybe more importantly, how much safer? How much stuff did you stowe above the waterline that reduces your RM? How much stuff will be flying around when the boat gets into a good storm? How much stuff did you leave off in tools or safety gear because it simply doesn't fit?

Now, as I have said all along, you can MAKE these boats work. But in the end, there are considerable tradeoffs, and the boat you are left with is nothing like the boat you thought you were going to be cruising with. The value of great storage, large tankage, deep bilges, and the accessibility to stuff is not truly appreciated until you cruise.

Brian

PS A side note, of interest maybe: Since 2000, I do not remember seeing one (not one!!) f/t cruiser in a First or a J122. I do not think there is a cruiser in Boot Key right now on one. THis doesn't mean that there are not people on them. It does not mean that I might not have missed one. But I can say with confidence that for the ones that are out there, they make up an exceedingly small part of the FT cruisers. Why is that I wonder?


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Hey Jon,

One of our good friends that are cruisers just pulled off their cruising chute and stuck it in storage. Why? It took up too much room that became necessary for other things.

Food for thought.

Brian


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

Cruisingdad said:


> Sorry for the late reply. Was tied up on boat things... can you believe it???
> 
> Ok, lets see...
> 
> ...


G'Day Brian,

My hull was #243. 2002 model.

Why not in mast:

1. Basically because of sailshape and performance. I nearly always had a small flap or "flutter" in the leech. Drove me crazy. Hard to control sail shape.

2. Never had any issues with sail not furling/unfurling - but it sure is slooow to furl. A trad main with batt cars can be dropped in 1 s should it be necessary (after coming thru a cut in the Bahamas and having very little space to maneuver while furling main).

3. I would much prefer a traditional main with harken batt cars (although the batt cars also detract from perfomance somewhat...)

Space for all the stuff:

We were only two people on our cruise, wife and I. No kids. If two people cannot fit their stuff on a 40' boat (even if it is a J122) - they have too much stuff.

I carried a lot of tools and spares, remnants of my once decent wine cellar ;-) and cruising guides, charts etc. No books - kindle or ipad takes careof that. three small laptops, small printer, scanner, foulies, ditch bag, first aid kit etc etc. We had space to spare while cruising.

While living on the boat and going to work - differrent story. One need a lot more clothes, shoes etc, especially north of Florida where it gets cold in winter.

Don't get me wrong, I loved our C400, I think it is an excellent boat for what we did.

If I bought a boat again for weekend and occasional week long sails on Chesapeake bay (where summer winds are often light) it would be smaller, maybe 32'-35'. Less systems - more performance and more sailing.
2 people do not need a 40' for that, and I find that the larger the boat the less inclined one is to take it our for a 2 hr sail on a wednesday night after work or for a casual race.

If I bought a boat again for long term cruising - I would carefully consider a performance catamaran (if I had the $$$).

Now, I'm thinking about what kind of tractor to get... ;-)


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

jorgenl said:


> G'Day Brian,
> 
> My hull was #243. 2002 model.
> 
> ...


Totally agree on the performance part of the main. I don't have your flutter though. That would have driven me crazy too. In fact, I would have jerked that sail down and taken it to the sailmaker!!! However, for the small performance loss, I sure do love the other aspects of the inmast. We were in a nasty storm off of Pensacola. THe boat was really rolling. One reef wasn't enough. The ability to drop in another reef without going forward or leaving the safety of the cockpit sold me. I can take one in or shake one out by myself, from the cockpit, night or day, with ease.

On my C380, we had trad slab reefing. I came to HATE it. I was actually about to invest in the Harken Battcar system too. I noticed that it was such a pain to raise and lower it, not to mention dropping in reefs and going forward, that we did not use it much and at night would often drop in a reef whether the weather warranted it or not. I do not drop in a reef on inmast until I have to. And Kris can drop one in or take one out at night without waking me up or me worrying about her or the kids. I know she is safe.

Using your bahamas example, as I am sure you know, if you blew that main (depending on the wind), that sail probably would not come all the way down, could very likely be fluttering part way on the deck, and would require someone to go forward. I think inmast is MUCH faster than a trad main, and much easier to single. This is from a cruising point of view. Racing?? Not on your life!!

We do have to carry more stuff than you did. I have tried to be pretty upfront about that. But a lot of the stuff I carry - tools, spare parts, tender, books, charts, etc... are things that would carry over no matter how many were on board. And the tankage on many of those boats simply would not work.

Regarding the performance cats? I have been on many cats, I would not call any of them performance. They at first look like a great deal. But we were on a lagoon with good friends of ours and they hate the lack of storage. Just two of them and they are FT Cruising. Theirs is only a 36 or 38 though. ALso, better start checking out slip availability before going too far! You might find many of the marinas either don't have space for you, can't fit you, or will charge you a ridiculous price for putting your cat there. However, other than their cost and their slip availability, they sure do offer a LOT of positives! I personally would not rule one out, though if I was looking at paying that much, I might lean more to a Taswell or Hylas or HR that just had more waterline.

Brian


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

Cruisingdad said:


> Regarding the performance cats? I have been on many cats, I would not call any of them performance. They at first look like a great deal. But we were on a lagoon with good friends of ours and they hate the lack of storage. Just two of them and they are FT Cruising. Theirs is only a 36 or 38 though. ALso, better start checking out slip availability before going too far! You might find many of the marinas either don't have space for you, can't fit you, or will charge you a ridiculous price for putting your cat there. However, other than their cost and their slip availability, they sure do offer a LOT of positives! I personally would not rule one out, though if I was looking at paying that much, I might lean more to a Taswell or Hylas or HR that just had more waterline.
> 
> Brian


Brian, I do not consider Lagoons performace Cats. Under most circumstances they seem to be (same length) about as fast as our C400.

We sailed with a Lagoon 380 from Great Sale Cay to FT Pierce, about 24 hrs, in different conditions starting at 10 kts SSW and finishing around 20-25 kts SSE. They got there 0.5 NM before us. That could be because I reefed when winds started to be sustained at 20 kts.

I would look at at for example a Fusion 40. During that sail from GSC to Ft Pierce, a buddy on a Fusion 40 started several hrs behind us, overtook us as we entered the Gulf Stream and we never saw him again ... ;-).

I do think that a Lagoon 380 or 420 has plenty of volume for storage (they just don't like weight that much).

And just imagine the number of solar panels you can put on the huge bimini hard top. You can sell power back to the grid.

Another benefit with a cat, especially if you like motoring - they have two of them engines! talk about redundancy ;-)


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

jorgenl said:


> Brian, I do not consider Lagoons performace Cats. Under most circumstances they seem to be (same length) about as fast as our C400.
> 
> We sailed with a Lagoon 380 from Great Sale Cay to FT Pierce, about 24 hrs, in different conditions starting at 10 kts SSW and finishing around 20-25 kts SSE. They got there 0.5 NM before us. That could be because I reefed when winds started to be sustained at 20 kts.
> 
> ...


I have not been on a FUsion. I would have to check that out.

The storage space on our friends really isn't great. It looks like it would be, especially given the forward port hull which is like a little garage, but the room for clothes or other things in the staterooms is not good and the cabinetry in the galley is minimal. This is actually more their opinion than mine. I also asked them what they make good, and they make 7.5. I can easily make 7.5.

How fast was your C400? DId you keep her at or around hull speed? Over? Under?

Brian


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Cruisingdad said:


> Hey Jon,
> 
> One of our good friends that are cruisers just pulled off their cruising chute and stuck it in storage. Why? It took up too much room that became necessary for other things.
> 
> ...


Well, that merely confirms what my lyin' eyes have been telling me for years... Namely, that for many of the cruising sailors I see out there, the art and enjoyment of sailing is simply not a particularly high priority...

NTTAWWT, of course... (grin)

If the day ever comes when I find myself removing my free-flying sails to make room for "other things", I'll know it's time to start browsing Yachtworld in search of something like this...


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Cruisingdad said:


> I love "race" boats, or performance cruisers as Paulo calls them.


Brian, I call race boats to race boats, meaning boats that are designed exclusively to race. I call performance cruisers boats to all boats that are meant to cruise fast. Some of them can also be used for racing and they are dual purpose boats (cruiser-racers), others, like Pogo, Cigale or RM are just fast cruisers or voyage boats, not designed for a dual purpose use. It is not me that call them that way. All Europeans call them that way and I guess some Americans too



Cruisingdad said:


> ... it is because they are traditionally narrow beamed,... I am talking about their sheer ability to carry and stowe the items needed for cruising in my view of what cruising is. These boats would make great weekenders or vacation boats, but where do you put the spare water pump? The spare alternator and bilge pump? Where do you put massive amounts of tools? What about books and charts? How do you make the tiny blackwater tanks work which are fine for weekending or if you are always at a marina, but not so great when on the hook or ball. What do you do about the low water tankage? What are you going to do to keep up your power load? Where do you stowe your tender and the gas required to make it run? Where do you stowe your liferaft? Etc, etc...
> 
> So my point is that when you start adding up all the things that are 'required' to cruise ... SO in the end, what you have is no longer a performance boat or a racer-cruiser. Is it faster than the typical cruiser? Sure... but how much faster, a....


Narrow beamed...you certainly are not talking about the Cigale, RM or the Pogo

Regarding being able to carry all the needed stuff how can be otherwise if many of those boats circumnavigate?

I have been flowing the voyage of Capado, a Fox 10.20, a much smaller boat than a J122 and certainly one with a lot less storage. It carries enough storage to make their owners happy (a couple) while circumnavigating and regarding speed and storage they crossed the South Atlantic doing over 8K. I doubt that your boat could do that and it is a much bigger boat.

CAPADO creative boat

Le Voyage de Capado: Videothèque

Not saying that your boat is not perfect for you or others like you but keeping defending that it is the perfect boat for all and that all the stuff you carry are necessary to all cruisers just does not make sense.

Brian, there are lot's of people out there cruising and voyaging and circumnavigating in boats you call racers and some a lot smaller than your boat. If they are doing that in those boats it is not only because it can be done but also because those boats are the ones that fit their life style and their sailing pleasure. I don't understand your difficulty in accepting that and I say accepting because it is the reality.

Brian you are in denial mode

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

JonEisberg said:


> Well, that merely confirms what my lyin' eyes have been telling me for years... Namely, that for many of the cruising sailors I see out there, the art and enjoyment of sailing is simply not a particularly high priority...
> 
> NTTAWWT, of course... (grin)
> 
> If the day ever comes when I find myself removing my free-flying sails to make room for "other things", I'll know it's time to start browsing Yachtworld in search of something like this...


hahahahaha!

Brian


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

Cruisingdad said:


> I have not been on a FUsion. I would have to check that out.
> 
> The storage space on our friends really isn't great. It looks like it would be, especially given the forward port hull which is like a little garage, but the room for clothes or other things in the staterooms is not good and the cabinetry in the galley is minimal. This is actually more their opinion than mine. I also asked them what they make good, and they make 7.5. I can easily make 7.5.
> 
> ...


Fusion Kit Catamarans

Boomerang is the one that we met in the bahamas. Check out that galley. very nice layout. Check out the double drawer stainless fridges and freezers. Much better than a C400.

I do agree that Lagoons, especially the 380, has small galleys. They have somewhat adressed that on the Lagoon 400.

Check out the Lagoon 400. LAGOON Catamaran - construction, vente et location - constructeur catamaran de luxe, bateau de plaisance et de croisère

The storage for clothes etc in the L400 owner's hull by far surpasses that of the aft statesroom in the C400.

And another benefit, your kids gets an entire port hull to themselves!

My C400 was relatively fast, in 15 kts she would easily do hull speed on a reach. I seem to remember to have seen above 9 kts on a broad reach in 25-30 kts of wind (need to get home on a sunday syndrome). Wild ride and it punctured my brand new dinghy as it was moving around in the davits.

She is an excellent power boat as well, would easily do 7.5 kts cruising at 2200 rpm, so the hull must be easily driven.

It's not that I need to go much faster than a C400's hull speed, it is that I would like a boat that sails very well in light winds because that's when I motored a lot (need to get to where I'm going syndrome...).

Given more time, I would have done what Jon suggested earlier, get a code 0 on a roller.


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

JonEisberg said:


> Well, that merely confirms what my lyin' eyes have been telling me for years... Namely, that for many of the cruising sailors I see out there, the art and enjoyment of sailing is simply not a particularly high priority...
> 
> NTTAWWT, of course... (grin)
> 
> If the day ever comes when I find myself removing my free-flying sails to make room for "other things", I'll know it's time to start browsing Yachtworld in search of something like this...


There's a lot to be said for one of those ;-)


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

PCP said:


> Brian, I call race boats to race boats, meaning boats that are designed exclusively to race. I call performance cruisers boats to all boats that are meant to cruise fast. Some of them can also be used for racing and they are dual purpose boats (cruiser-racers), others, like Pogo, Cigale or RM are just fast cruisers or voyage boats, not designed for a dual purpose use. It is not me that call them that way. All Europeans call them that way and I guess some Americans too
> 
> Narrow beamed...you certainly are not talking about the Cigale, RM or the Pogo
> 
> ...


Ha! Denial!?? (smile)

Just so you know, my boat is NOT the perfect boat for me. Like I said, if money were not an object, Id be in a Gunboat or Swan or maybe a larger Taswell, Hylas, or (my wife's favorite... a European boat... ugh!) a Hallberg-Rassy. But how many of us are ready to drop 1-2 million on a boat?? Come on.



PCP said:


> I have been flowing the voyage of Capado, a Fox 10.20, a much smaller boat than a J122 and certainly one with a lot less storage. It carries enough storage to make their owners happy (a couple) while circumnavigating and regarding speed and storage they crossed the South Atlantic doing over 8K. I doubt that your boat could do that and it is a much bigger boat.
> 
> Paulo


Now hang on....



That's Speed Over Ground baby!!! C400 hull speed is 8.1. That ain't bad for a fat, overloaded cruising boat!!!

What does it take to get your RM over hull speed??

Haha!

Brian


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

jorgenl said:


> Fusion Kit Catamarans
> 
> Boomerang is the one that we met in the bahamas. Check out that galley. very nice layout. Check out the double drawer stainless fridges and freezers. Much better than a C400.
> 
> ...


I like it!! After dealing with the fridge hassels we deal with, I would love that fridge!! Only problem I see is the cost, though. 2012 is 550k. Start adding on everything else you will need for cruising, and that boat could easily jump over 600 or probably more. THat doesn't even count the tax.

600ish... I would be looking real hard at a late model Nordhavn 46... but that is just me!! (Jon will love that statement).

Brian


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Hey Paulo,

I looked at the site on the Capado. Did you see their V berth? That is exactly what I am talking about. And I can guarantee you that their boat looks completely different down below when the camera isn't out!

Like I have said, many times, you can do it on those kinds of boats, but there is a big tradeoff.

BTW, any pics of the down below while cruising? What about the decks? Where is their tender? Liferaft? How do they get water aboard when at anchor? Those pics looked a lot like a photo shoot... even with the Vberth stuffed with stuff.

I'm just sayin...

Brian


----------



## Capt.aaron (Dec 14, 2011)

I like my Hybrid Racer cruiser from the 60's. Realitivly heavy for a racer, great performance for a cruiser. Best of both worlds. I just added a little 8 horse out board for tight quarters, but basically sail enginelss. I leave May 9th for Honduras and the engine will be stowed away before departure. Point being performance in light winds is crucial. My Asym. spin. is a very important part of my inventory. A guy just sailed by me in a West Sail with Tanbark sails. reefed down, club footed jib, making hull speed in 15 knots, on a running reech down Gov. cut in Miami about an hour ago, running in front of some looming heavy weather, and I gotta say I was envious. I think west Sails, or big HD double enders make great long term cruisers as well.


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

Cruisingdad said:


> Hey Jon,
> 
> One of our good friends that are cruisers just pulled off their cruising chute and stuck it in storage. Why? It took up too much room that became necessary for other things.
> 
> ...


I suspect a lot of cruisers fall into that trap. They get their boats so loaded down, that the boat practically needs a gale to get it moving. As a result, they find themselves motoring more often when the wind isn't perfect. Then they decide that they don't really use that spinnaker very much, so they take it off, and replace it with more stuff. They are often the same people who declare "I don't need to clean my bottom, I'm not a racer, and my boat is slow anyway!" Not to mention "Why should I bother spending money on my sails, my boat is slow anyway"! It is a vicious cycle that ends with a power boat!

With regards to racer/cruisers, there is more to it than whether or not it has enough room for all the stuff you would like to take with you. Today's racer/cruisers have plenty of ammenities and storage. The choice to go with a performance cruiser has more to do with sailing. For example, In mast furling: from a performance perspective it is not just about the loss of sail area and sail shape, which in itself is not insignificant. It is also about excessive weight aloft, windage, and lack of tuneability. While a cruiser with in mast furling might feel that ease of reefing is great, the cruiser that has a good performance rig may not need to reef at all because they have the tools to depower and control the full main, plus they are not dealing with the extra heeling moment caused by the heavy "tree trunk" furling mast. I also wonder what you do if your in-mast furler jams with the sail partially furled. In that case, you are screwed, because there is no way you are going to get the sail down. Aside from the mast, performance oriented boats tend to be equipped with better quality hardware. Better running rigging, better winches, clutches, travellers, vangs etc. They have more efficient keels, and more powerful rudders. All of those upgrades make the boat more enjoyable to actually sail. To me, sailing is kinda the point of having a sailboat.

A case in point is what may very well be our next boat. A Jeanneau Sunfast 37. It has all the amenities of the Sun Odessey, except that they cater to performance minded sailors with the mast, keel, rudder and rigging. Sure, you have the inconvenience of not being able to deploy your cockpit table underway because of the cockpit mounted traveler, but that is a price I am willing to pay for the vastly superior functionality of it. The SunFast and the Sun Odessey are very similar boats, but the SunFast will do circles around the Sun Odessey. And it can win races too!


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Cruisingdad said:


> ...
> 
> Now hang on....
> 
> ...


Brian, I mean not over 8k as max speed, but the *average* speed over 8k on the South Atlantic crossing. That means that they have sailed many times at two figures speeds and that is only a 34ft boat.

Regarding the RM, the hull speed is pretty irrelevant, bigger than the one of the Catalina since the LWL is bigger. The RM is a much faster boat, lighter (about less 2000kg) and with the same sail area.

(Brian I think you have measured wrongly the LWL in your boat. I think you have measured it over the hull. The Lwl is a measured in a straight line and not around the hull.)

A Halberg Rasssy is expensive but the model the size of your boat (a bit bigger) does not cost 1 million, much less 2. An HR 415 costs about 450 000 euros.



Cruisingdad said:


> I looked at the site on the Capado. Did you see their V berth? That is exactly what I am talking about. And I can guarantee you that their boat looks completely different down below when the camera isn't out!
> 
> Like I have said, many times, you can do it on those kinds of boats, but there is a big tradeoff.
> 
> ...


If you saw the movies you saw that they have a dinghy. I guess they store it in the central (floor) cockpit locker, but it is obvious that they store it somewhere.

Of course the V berth is full of sails. They are only two (many boats cruise with just two) and they like to go fast so they have plenty of sails.

A photo shoot? Water aboard when at anchor? I do not understand what you mean, but you have plenty of nice movies here, maybe they answer your questions:

Le Voyage de Capado: Videothèque

This was the boat they wanted, they are very experienced sailors and the boat was designed by a friend NA according to their requirements, hearing the NA suggestions. The boat was new and if they wanted for the price of the Fox 10.20 (a custom boat) they could have had an used Catalina 40 (or a similar European boat) with not much years and in good condition. That was not what they wanted, they wanted a fast, fun to sail boat that could be sailed on autopilot with a variable draft and easy maintenance.

Not meaning that this is a boat for all and that is not the point but certainly this was the boat they wanted to circumnavigate.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

Cruisingdad said:


> Ha! Denial!?? (smile)
> 
> Just so you know, my boat is NOT the perfect boat for me. Like I said, if money were not an object, Id be in a Gunboat or Swan or maybe a larger Taswell, Hylas, or (my wife's favorite... a European boat... ugh!) a Hallberg-Rassy. But how many of us are ready to drop 1-2 million on a boat?? Come on.
> 
> ...


Yeah, you are doing that broad reaching with over 15kts apparent, so you've got over 20kts true? That is the kind of wind speed and angle it takes to get the heavyweights going, and they eat it up. The key is, what can they do with you don't have the perfect reaching conditions. Oh yeah, I forgot, then you "motor sail" 

And you do of course understand that speed over ground includes any current that you might have going your way as well.

Don't get me wrong, I think it is great that you saw speeds like that, and it was obviously a big event for you or you wouldn't have taken a pic. ( I have seen boatspeeds close to that on my 30' IOR boat, but never bothered to take a pic.) The point is, a 40ft performance cruiser would see numbers like that on a regular basis, and not consider it noteworthy enough to take a pic.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

SchockT said:


> ...
> A case in point is what may very well be our next boat. A Jeanneau Sunfast 37. It has all the amenities of the Sun Odessey, except that they cater to performance minded sailors with the mast, keel, rudder and rigging. Sure, you have the inconvenience of not being able to deploy your cockpit table underway because of the cockpit mounted traveler, but that is a price I am willing to pay for the vastly superior functionality of it. The SunFast and the Sun Odessey are very similar boats, but the SunFast will do circles around the Sun Odessey. And it can win races too!


The Sunfast 37 is a nice boat and faster than a Sun Odyssey but not that faster The boats share the same hull while the Sunfast has better sail controls and a bigger draft.

One of my the nice sail memories was a passage between Leixões (Porto) and Figueira da Foz: lots of wind and downwind sailing. Some hours before my family was able to shower and get ready to sail, leaved the same marina a Sun fast 37 . When I arrived at Figueira da Foz I was directed to berth alongside it.

The boat belonged to a very nice French, that help me alongside. He was very happy with the great sailing day and he was very satisfied with his boat performance. He said to me that he had made an average of 7.4K and asked me how much time I had took: I look at the watch, asked my wife the departure time and tell him.

Well, his smile was not that big anymore. I had no idea of the average speed, only know that I had had a great sailing day. It turned out that I had made an average speed well over 8K. That does not mean that my Bavaria 36 was faster than his Sunfast 37 ( but it is more fast than the actual Bavaria 36) since I had been having fun and rarely had used the autopilot on all voyage (broached slightly two times). The point is the Sunfast 37 is not that fast.

From that vintage a First 36.7 or an Dehler 36 are way faster. If you can find a Dehler 36, it is a beautiful and great boat. Of course the Sunfast, even if not as fast, is also a great boat and probably not as expensive as the Dehler.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

The Sun fast 35 locally in phrf is rated some 20+ secs a mile faster, IRC it is also rated a bit faster. The SF37 is a bit of a dog for what it should be! The SO25 is rated about the same as an SF37. Both the SO and SF 37 need a bit more SA to really reach there potential. I know of a fellow in Austrailia that took and SO 35 and added 5' to the mast, now that puppy performs!

Marty


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Brian,

8 knots is pretty slow for a 40' boat, I've done that numerous times with my 25'WL boat! Even hit 11.1 water speed. Not sure what my over the ground was that day, with a upwards of 2-3 knot current, 14 knots in a 28' on deck boat, equal to a C28mkII! You has 12 more feet! hmph!









that was before the "here hold my beer watch this moment!










Marty


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

PCP said:


> The Sunfast 37 is a nice boat and faster than a Sun Odyssey but not that faster The boats share the same hull while the Sunfast has better sail controls and a bigger draft.
> 
> One of my the nice sail memories was a passage between Leixões (Porto) and Figueira da Foz: lots of wind and downwind sailing. Some hours before my family was able to shower and get ready to sail, leaved the same marina a Sun fast 37 . When I arrived at Figueira da Foz I was directed to berth alongside it.
> 
> ...


We considered the 36.7, and I have sailed on a couple. They are nice sailing boats, and certainly quicker than the SF37, but the Jeanneau is a much nicer cruising boat than the Beneteau. The same goes for the Bavaria, we have looked at several, and the wife doesn't like the layout. Dehlers are very rare around here, so although I have liked the look of the ones I have seen, I haven't seen many. (I really like the 50ish footer that is in our club with the cleverly designed fold away dodger...very slick!)



> The Sun fast 35 locally in phrf is rated some 20+ secs a mile faster, IRC it is also rated a bit faster. The SF37 is a bit of a dog for what it should be! The SO25 is rated about the same as an SF37. Both the SO and SF 37 need a bit more SA to really reach there potential. I know of a fellow in Austrailia that took and SO 35 and added 5' to the mast, now that puppy performs!


Yes, the SF35 is on our radar as well, but again, they are rare. I would like to compare the 35 and 37 directly to see what the differences are. I have raced on a SF37, and thought it performed pretty well against the boats around it, even though I didn't think we sailed it to it's potential. I am not so much concerned with our ability to campaign it seriously as to it's overall sailing qualities. At the end of the day, it is still a "furniture boat"! I would race it in fun club races, but if I want serious racing I will go out on my friend's Olson 30 or some other full-on racer. Once you've raced a 30' keelboat at 13kts it's hard to go back to displacement boats.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Shock,

To my knowledge there are only 4 SF35's in the states, One currently or was for sale in your area, one here in seattle, another in the GL's, and a 4th on the east coast. THere are IIRC 7 or so SF37's here in the greater salish sea area.

If you go to Jeanneau Owners Network - the best independant resource for Jeanneau Yachts and Boats worldwide you can find some performance VPP's for both, if not, I have both once I get my laptop running, or can get the files off of the harddrive into a new puter.

Marty


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

blt2ski said:


> Shock,
> 
> To my knowledge there are only 4 SF35's in the states, One currently or was for sale in your area, one here in seattle, another in the GL's, and a 4th on the east coast. THere are IIRC 7 or so SF37's here in the greater salish sea area.
> 
> ...


Wow, I didn't realize the SF35 was THAT rare! I saw the one that is on the market down south, but unfortunately we are not quite ready to take the plunge into a big budget boat yet. Who knows, by the time we are ready to buy we might have our sights set on something else, but right now the Jeanneaus check off a lot of the boxes on our wish list within our expected budget.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

The SO 35 is pretty common. the SO/SF37 was/is Jeanneau's biggest actual boat number built recently, around 1200 or so. Most of the time they build 300-400 of a given hull then change the design around. Even my 86 Arcadia, while there was literally just over 600 hulls, the deck went from an arcadia, to a sundream 28, then a sun light 28 IIRC. SA is the same for the arcadia and SD, the last design was sail shortened IIRC also. All three were Castro designs. 

The SO35 in that rigs Deep draft is actually a pretty good performer. OR, if you can find one of the 3-5 SO36iP's here in the salish sea, that is pretty close to the same speed potential as the SO35, quicker than the 37 models! A bit more room below also. VPP's are also at the jeanneau site for the 36iP.

Marty


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

SchockT said:


> We considered the 36.7, and I have sailed on a couple. They are nice sailing boats, and certainly quicker than the SF37, but the Jeanneau is a much nicer cruising boat than the Beneteau. The same goes for the Bavaria, we have looked at several, and the wife doesn't like the layout. Dehlers are very rare around here, so although I have liked the look of the ones I have seen, I haven't seen many. (I really like the 50ish footer that is in our club with the cleverly designed fold away dodger...very slick!)
> ....


Just to make myself clear: I do prefer the Jeanneau SF 37 over the 2002 Bavaria 36 and maybe over the first 36.7 (for cruising). You were talking about speed and that was what I was talking about. You can also look for the Elan 37 (I think there are some in America) or the lonely Salona 37. The owner is a member and unless he wants to buy a newer Salona I don't think he wants to sell.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

PCP said:


> Brian, I mean not over 8k as max speed, but the *average* speed over 8k on the South Atlantic crossing. That means that they have sailed many times at two figures speeds and that is only a 34ft boat.
> 
> Regarding the RM, the hull speed is pretty irrelevant, bigger than the one of the Catalina since the LWL is bigger. The RM is a much faster boat, lighter (about less 2000kg) and with the same sail area.
> 
> ...


Paulo, the LWL of my boat is 38 feet. With all due respect, and I know you did not mean it disrespectful, but I know what LWL is and how to read a tape measure. I have told you several times that the information on the net on this boat is incorrect... a LOT of it. But that is a discussion for a different day.

Part of the problem with our discussion is what I read on the cruising thread you posted on. We have a different idea of what cruising is, which was why I tried to define it in the beginning of this thread. I am a fulltime, no home, no address, cruiser. I move a lot, or may spend weeks in an anchorage I love. I have no timetable for return to a land life, ever. I can do this indefinitely or quit tomorrow. My boat is my home, my family's home, and our only home. I spend a lot of time on the hook in remote areas that has no restaurants, no parts stores, no grocery stores, nothing. Or sometimes I sit in a mooring fields like I am right now, waiting for the next weather window to take off (to the Bahamas in this instance where, once again, you better load that boat up cuz you don't want to try and get it in the Bahamas or at their price even if you can). It is my intention to sail down to the carribean, though I think we may sail up the east coast of the US this year... or maybe we won't?? No big deal. I move when I want or don't if I don't feel like it. For the type of cruising I do, I have to carry a lot of stuff. Many of the places I go are relatively remote, and many of the places I plan to go are the same. This means lots of tools and lots of spare parts. This means lots of food. This means lots of tankage. So when you or others start to point out boats for cruising, and I begin picking them apart with the issues they will have, we have a very difficult time seeing eye to eye. It does not make my definition of cruising right or wrong. It does not make yours right or wrong. It is what it is, but our definitions really define what works for us in a boat and what will not. As I have said many times, you can make any boat work. But for the type of cruising I do, and my definition of what cruising is, the boats you often point out have significant disadvantages or issues. Because quite candidly, if 'cruising' is hoping on a boat to go somewhere, hanging around a marina, going to restaurants for dinner, then returning after a few days or maybe some weeks to a residence or parking it at your marina, the things you carry are very different. Is that cruising? Many think so. Many do not. I don't. Whether it is or is not is irrelevant. It is the use of the boat that defines it.

If or when you make it to Brazil (and I bet you do!!!), I think you will see that. And I hope you do come. Hey, maybe I'll be there too or meet you around in Guatemala or the Winwards? I would have a blast cruising with you or meeting you and meeting your family. And what's more, my friend, I will race you to the next anchorage (and yes, I have no problem firing up the engine and cheating when you aren't looking)!!!!

Go enjoy your summer break. Shoot us some pics on here. I will do the same. Check in when you can. When you have a nice glass of wine, facing the sunset, shoot me a toast and we will do the same here.

Take care,

Brian


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

SchockT said:


> Yeah, you are doing that broad reaching with over 15kts apparent, so you've got over 20kts true? That is the kind of wind speed and angle it takes to get the heavyweights going, and they eat it up. The key is, what can they do with you don't have the perfect reaching conditions. Oh yeah, I forgot, then you "motor sail"
> 
> And you do of course understand that speed over ground includes any current that you might have going your way as well.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I think it is great that you saw speeds like that, and it was obviously a big event for you or you wouldn't have taken a pic. ( I have seen boatspeeds close to that on my 30' IOR boat, but never bothered to take a pic.) The point is, a 40ft performance cruiser would see numbers like that on a regular basis, and not consider it noteworthy enough to take a pic.


I do not doubt that there are other boats that are faster, and especially more performance oriented boats. But remember, this is a FT liveaboard cruiser. Big difference from your 30 IOR boat that you race. Big difference from Marty's. And I think that any FT LA cruiser that can exceed hull speed on their boat ain't bad.

I will put a challenge out to you: Go be a fulltime liveaboard cruiser, cruise like I do, do it for a while, then come back to me and show me your pics. It would be interesting after doing that to see how much of your perceptions have changed, or if they have at all?? Who knows, maybe you would want an even faster boat and disagree with everything I am saying? Or maybe, after living aboard and cruising your boat for a while, you might find that this crazy dad on the internet wasn't so wrong after all.

You see, the difference is that I have done this for a long time. I am typing it from my boat right now moored in Boot Key Harbor. I will be doing it for as long as I can see. I am not giving theoreticals, or assumptions. I am giving you first hand, doing it now, have done it, will be doing it experience. THat does not make all of my experience right, as others can have exactly the same or more background as me and may have a different opinion. But the boats I see out here beside me are not First. They are not J122s or other boats that I consider racer-cruisers. I see a lot of Catalinas, Benes, Jeanneaus, a lot of IP's, a lot of Hunters, Morgan OIs, CSY, CS, Pearsons, Tayanas, Passports (including a new 49 that is freaking gorgeous), some Valiants, HCs, the occasionaly Taswell or Hylas, etc. You know what all of these boats have in common? The very characteristics I have been talking about. THere are also quite a few cats, including a Leopard that just pulled up beside us (have you looked at that boat Jorgenl) and Lagoons.

Why is that? What have you or others figured out that all of these other FT Cruisers seem to be missing? Or is it that they realized what I have been saying: that the theory of the boats you are talking about using as a FT cruiser might sound good, and who doesn't want to go faster?, but in reality just don't work or have too much of a compromise.

Brian


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

I don't know, Biran. But after watching video of Team Oracle (who are now racing a hydrofoil catamaran btw) I think we can safely say that any boat with one contiguous waterline that is immersed while under way, _is not a racing boat. _

There's a new line been drawn in the sand. If your boot stripe stays wet, you're a cruiser.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

blt2ski said:


> Brian,
> 
> 8 knots is pretty slow for a 40' boat, I've done that numerous times with my 25'WL boat! Even hit 11.1 water speed. Not sure what my over the ground was that day, with a upwards of 2-3 knot current, 14 knots in a 28' on deck boat, equal to a C28mkII! You has 12 more feet! hmph!
> 
> ...


Marty,

You better clean those glasses off!! That ain't 8 knots. 8.1 is hull speed. That is 9.1 Baby!!!

Still, you consider 8 knots slow for a 40' cruising boat? Are you serious? SHow me a fulltime cruising boat, 40 feet, going over that or that regularly does that?? THere are some - I know that. A sabre comes to mind and a Tartan. But most FT cruisers are SLUGS and could never get close to or exceed hull speed. Believe me, for a cruising boat given what most cruising boats are, that is fast.

Big difference between my boat Marty, loaded down with cruising stuff, and yours - which you use for racing. I have kayaks on the side, a 200 lb tender flopping around on davits, a 100 pound liferaft strapped to the top, half a dozen water and diesel cans on a fender board, a diesel generator, many weeks worth of groceries, over a thousand pounds of water, 45 gallons of diesel, books, text books for the kids, all the clothes we own, guitar, legos galore, four people, a fat bulldog, etc. How much of that do you carry on your boat... especially when you race? Apples and oranges, man. Load all that on your boat, and assuming you can still crawl onboard and water isn't coming over the gunnels, lets see how fast you go!!! What will happen is this C400, with the worlds best looking male moderator, will sneak up beside you to winward, and as I douse your air, I will turn on the engine and the generator. THe diesel cloud will come over you. Then I will crank up Bob the Builder or Sesame Street or Bob the Sponge Pants as loud as it will go. Fatty will stand at the toe rail and threaten to board you (pirate style) and eat any cute little dogs if they stick their heads up out of the companionway. You will peak through the black air, coughing, holding your eardrums, tears streaming down your cheeks, then scream out loud, "CURSE YOU CD!!"

Next day, the Jenneau will be for sale and you will be shopping for a Sabre... always on the lookout to see when you can get even. (BIG LAUGH). At that point you may be able to outrun me, but don't forget, I still got Fatty - ready and waiting!!

Take care,

Brian

PS Looks like I am heading up to Washington next month. Gonna go do some sailing with mom and dad and take care of a couple of things. I think they will be in the San Juans then, but as fast as their boat goes, may take the next month for them just to back it out of the slip! Who knows with them. I won't be there long, maybe a week, but would love to catch up?


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Cruisingdad said:


> ...
> 
> Part of the problem with our discussion is what I read on the cruising thread you posted on. We have a different idea of what cruising is, which was why I tried to define it in the beginning of this thread.


I agree that is the problem. The problem is that you cannot imagine that another sailor has an idea of cruising different then the one that you have. I have not an idea of cruising regarding what I post on the interesting boat thread. I know what I like and need but I gladly accept that others cruise in a different way and prefer other boats.

If I decided to voyage and cruise in remote places, or if something strange passed my mind and I decided to circumnavigate on the trade winds then I would prefer a different boat, I mean two different boats, one for each situation. On that thread there are many different types of boats for very different cruisers with very different life styles, some much more sportier than mine, others that need or want to do carry more load than the one you carry.



Cruisingdad said:


> ...
> I am a fulltime, no home, no address, cruiser. I move a lot, or may spend weeks in an anchorage I love. I have no timetable for return to a land life, ever. I can do this indefinitely or quit tomorrow. My boat is my home, my family's home, and our only home. I spend a lot of time on the hook in remote areas that has no restaurants, no parts stores, no grocery stores, nothing. Or sometimes I sit in a mooring fields like I am right now, waiting for the next weather window to take off (to the Bahamas in this instance where, once again, you better load that boat up cuz you don't want to try and get it in the Bahamas or at their price even if you can). It is my intention to sail down to the carribean, though I think we may sail up the east coast of the US this year... or maybe we won't?? No big deal. I move when I want or don't if I don't feel like it. For the type of cruising I do, I have to carry a lot of stuff. Many of the places I go are relatively remote, and many of the places I plan to go are the same. This means lots of tools and lots of spare parts. This means lots of food. This means lots of tankage. So when you or others start to point out boats for cruising, and I begin picking them apart with the issues they will have, we have a very difficult time seeing eye to eye. It does not make my definition of cruising right or wrong. It does not make yours right or wrong. It is what it is, but our definitions really define what works for us in a boat and what will not. As I have said many times, you can make any boat work. But for the type of cruising I do, and my definition of what cruising is, the boats you often point out have significant disadvantages or issues.


See, that's your problem. You say: *"my definition of what cruising is,"*, Brian a definition is something that is valid for all. You cannot have a definition of cruising without trying to make it stick to all. You have your way of cruising and a boat that fits your way and that's all. Others will have other ways and other boats more suitable.

Regarding living aboard all year and not having a home I cannot just imagine that. Just for my library I would need to have a 100ft boat I am not interested in that as I am not interested in cruising in winter. In fact I have some trouble in imagining how you manage to do that on a 40ft boat, Catalina or not, kids and all.

In fact, in what regards cruising boat design a liveaboard cruising boat is a very particular design. There are no mass production boats designed for that particular criteria. I had a friend that cruised and lived with the family on a boat that seemed adapted to that (it was designed for that) but it was a 60ft boat and even so the space for the kids was not much.



Cruisingdad said:


> Because quite candidly, if 'cruising' is hoping on a boat to go somewhere, hanging around a marina, going to restaurants for dinner, then returning after a few days or maybe some weeks to a residence or parking it at your marina, the things you carry are very different. Is that cruising? Many think so. Many do not. I don't. Whether it is or is not is irrelevant. It is the use of the boat that defines it.


There you go

Each case is a case but on my 100 days of cruising last year I had been 4 times in a Marina, two because I damaged the sails and I had to go there one day to deliver them and another to pick them. My water tankage is good for 3 weeks, not taking special care with the water consumption.

On the 100 days I wasted about 250 liters of diesel (mostly for charging the batteries) and sailed about 3000 Nm.



Cruisingdad said:


> If or when you make it to Brazil (and I bet you do!!!), I think you will see that. And I hope you do come. Hey, maybe I'll be there too or meet you around in Guatemala or the Winwards? I would have a blast cruising with you or meeting you and meeting your family. And what's more, my friend, I will race you to the next anchorage (and yes, I have no problem firing up the engine and cheating when you aren't looking)!!!!
> 
> Go enjoy your summer break. Shoot us some pics on here. I will do the same. Check in when you can. When you have a nice glass of wine, facing the sunset, shoot me a toast and we will do the same here.
> 
> Take care,


Thanks Brian,

It is not my summer break, it is my 4 months sailing season

That Brazil cruise does not mean much to me without my kids, I will not be an year without seeing them so it will not depend on me.

It seems a lot easier to me for you to come sailing on the Med, after all you live with your kids on the boat. If you do I will be more than glad to help. Not all places are expensive and some of the better natural ports are there.

Have a nice passage to Bahamas. I am waiting for those pics.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Brian, 

I think you make a very strong case that the boat you have chosen suits your needs as you define them. To understand your needs and to find ways to meet them is a wonderful thing in life. We all should be so lucky! 

But where I somewhat disagree with the way this thread has been running, is the implicit assumption that there should somehow be an agreement on the same set of needs and wants. Mostly there is nothing inherently wrong with any individual's needs and wants but I think that for this thread to be universally applicable any individual's needs to be understood in broader context. 

There are a whole lot of ways to skin the cat you have chosen to get skinned. For example, while I would not advocate this for you and your family given your defined needs and wants, when I was a teenager I was friends with two-boys who lived in our marina with their family. That family had completed a circumnavigation and were back in the States so that the older boy could start Jr. High as we called back then. 

This family of four had sailed around the world in a conventional ketch rigged version of the Alden designed Svaap,William Albert Robinson's 32 foot circumnavigator. This was a boat which had about the interior space of a Catalina 27, and perhaps twice its displacement. In the early 1960's this boat did not have much of an electrical system and almost no electronics. The engine was what was called a 'semi-diesel' and could run on multiple fuels, being started with gasoline or alcohol and diesel, and then ran on any fuel that burned. The stove, interior and running lights were operated on what they called parafin but which I later decided was kerosene, another fluid that the engine would run on. They had an early rudder hung servo-trim tab type vane driven self steerer. If I remember right from the time that the kids were 5 or so they stood watches. (much shorter than the adult watches as I recall). 

The parents gave the kids a decent elementary school education. Certainly the older boy who was close to my age was better at reading and math than I was, plus he was a far better sailor than I, teaching me a lot about all three. 

Now, obviously those were simplier times, and I am not sure that I would recommend that approach to anyone. But for that family, they defined their needs and their wants in a way that made sense to them. And they were wildly happy within the results of fulfilling thier definition of their needs. 

And at the heart of it, it is about defining what it takes to provide enjoyment from the water. So, at virtually the same time, on the same dock, there were two guys from the Bronx (frankly the most unlikely candidates to take up sailing) bought a Pearson Packet for their first boat. All I remember about these guys is that one was huge and the other quite small. One was called Moe and they had blue collar jobs and really strong NY accents. The bigger guy was the leader of the two. The boat was in a slip near ours and the bigger guy had a great sense of humor and would come by and talk to us about how things were progressing. 

Every story began with, "So I sez to Moe..." At first they just would go down to the boat and sit on her at the dock. We wondered how they decided to buy a boat. As the big guy said, "We wuz droiv'n down da road neeehr da Tribora bridge an I saw a boat. So I sez to Moe, "We gotta try dis boadt'n ting. Layda, we wuz near Cidy Eye-l'n so we found a boadt we could both fit
in and bought it."

Finally, after months of just coming down and sitting on board at the dock, one day they went out. "So I sez to Moe, Moe t'day we're goin out ta da wader." And they did and motored out to the shipping channel and back.

For the rest of the season, they "went out ta da wader". Next spring, our boat is back in the water and so are theirs. For much of that season they would come down and just motor out. Then one day they decided that they would go out and raise the mainsail. "So I sez to Moe, we're gonna put up da sail and we did."

For the rest of the season, they sailed happily around the Channel between City Island and Harts Island Prison. The next year, we moved our boat to Manhasset Bay so the last time we saw them they had both sails up and were reaching along near Execution Rocks; Looking happy as clams. 

So what is the point of this story- besides my appreciating the opportunity for the fond memory it invoked. Here was two guys who defined their needs very small, and bought a boat that was a good boat to learn to sail on for a couple guys, who without reading or any formal training just decided to learn to sail. They enjoyed the boat and stayed out of trouble. They built skills and enjoyed themselves in their own ways as much as the guys with goldplaters in the same yard. In the end theycame to enjoy sailing as much as each of us that venture "out ta da wader".

And so as I read this thread, you are not wrong. You need these things to do what you do. 

But many of us have different needs. To cruise the Bahamas, I personnally have no need to drag about anywhere near as much stuff as you list as necessities. It does not make me more right than you, just different. 

A boat like yours, while perfect for your needs, would drive me crazy, just as my boat would drive you crazy. I could not live with your boat's limited performance, deck layout compromises, and would not want its interior layout. To me the greatest luxury is being able to sail. All else is of secondary importance. 

Of course I don't need or want as much on board as you do. And as I eschew weight and gadgets, I can 'make due' with a boat that is more spartan and better performing. As a vegetarian, I don't need refrigeration, and without refrigeration I need less fuel and batteries and recharging systems. My enjoyment on the water comes from the people I am with, the world I sail in, and reading, which I now mostly do from a device that needs charging roughly once a week underway. 

And as a boat gets lighter, its spares and anchors get lighter, and as its performance gets better it needs less fuel to operate. I have mentioned this before, when I was researching my boat, I spoke to a fellow who had sailed a sistership of my boat from South Africa to the Carribbean. He made the entire trip on less than 12 gallons of fuel and covered the distance much weeks faster than a larger boat which left with him and was forced to motor much of the way. I'd rather get by with less. 

I don't advocate my tastes, and choice boat for you, or anyone else besides me. But by the same token, it comes down to what I said in my earlier post, the problem is not with your definitions at the outset, but with the assumption that they apply more broadly than to you. Solely from my point of view, there are racers, and there are performance cruisers (both of which you would call racers) and there are vessels which are historically interesting, and then there are boats which for my own purposes, have no reason to exist. But those same boats which have no use for me may be just right for those who own, love and enjoy them. 

And if that is the case, this thread is a battle to find universally definitive truth where none really exists. And that is why this thread makes very little sense. 

Jeff


----------



## jorgenl (Aug 14, 2006)

Jeff, I guess you won't be needing a grille either so that should save some additional weight ? ;-)


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

jorgenl said:


> Jeff, I guess you won't be needing a grille either so that should save some additional weight ? ;-)


LOL Very good point!


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Brian, when you are ready to speed up that old tub of yours, let me know and I'll hook you up with a genuine Soviet air force surplus titanium propane grill. Fast way to get five pounds off the stern rail. (WEG)

Stainless is for dock queens.


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

hellosailor said:


> Brian, when you are ready to speed up that old tub of yours, let me know and I'll hook you up with a genuine Soviet air force surplus titanium propane grill. Fast way to get five pounds off the stern rail. (WEG)
> 
> Stainless is for dock queens.


Oooh! Titanium! Boats are always faster with titanium, just like motorcycles!

(Are you serious? Is there such a thing?)


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Comrade ShockT, if you have an American Express Black Card, anything is possible.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

I am beginning to think Brian is trying to talk himself out of buying a BETTER FASTER boat! Reality is, he needs to come to the dark side, ie a cruise/racer, or a peformance cruiser, not a plain old almost slower than a dead slug cruiser! A full keel would be generally speaking slower than a dead slug going backwards!

By the way brian, while you may think my boat is a racer.......a farr 30 is a racer, or a meldges 32, both of which are half the wt, with twice the sail area I have! I at least have a full stove, sink, hell, I even have a flush head! not a blinken porta potty!

Oh, You also need another 10' of boat for all that sheet you carry if you truly want performance!

Marty


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

There is something to be said for traveling light, when it allows you to get where you are going quickly. In the case of people who have to live on land to earn a living, having decent performance increases your range, so you can make the most of your limited cruising time.

Of course, if you have the money you can get there fast AND comfy! Imagine having this:



















And still being able to do this:


----------



## wind_magic (Jun 6, 2006)

I have not had a chance to read all of the posts in this thread yet but I will make some time later to catch up.

In response to CD's original post I would just say that I think that a lot of the difference between long distance full time cruisers is in their need for creature comfort, and that makes a big difference in what boat you end up with.

Some people come at cruising from living in a house and my opinion is that they tend to think of a boat as a really small version of a modern suburban home. They've always had air conditioning, refrigeration, hot water, etc, and so the perfect boat that they imagine for themselves has all of these things in miniature. That means they are going to end up with a complex boat that has to be pretty big to hold everything.

Other people come at cruising from different directions, camping, for example, or from living in an RV, or they grew up on boats, and many of those people have completely different expectations about what creature comforts are necessary for long term cruising. You don't miss air conditioning if you've never had it, and many people don't mind carrying water jugs around instead of using a water maker, so their boats can be a lot less complex and they don't have to compromise as much on speed, for example.

Our species lived for 200 thousand years in the tropics without air conditioning.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

SchockT said:


> Oooh! Titanium! Boats are always faster with titanium, just like motorcycles!
> 
> (Are you serious? Is there such a thing?)


You are kidding but one of the Open 60 boats on the last vendee globe had a keel in massive titanium (the foil) with a lead bulb. It was the first one to break. well, that is true that the boat had already more than one circumnavigation with that keel and that the stress forces on the keels was misjudged by all NA. It broke, as all the others that broke due to metal fatigue.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

SchockT said:


> ...
> Of course, if you have the money you can get there fast AND comfy! Imagine having this:
> 
> 
> ...


A Riptide 50, beautiful boat and a very expensive one.

But you don't need such a fast boat (that needs a crew to go that fast downwind - it is not a solo based boat) to have a very fast performance boat compared with a Catalina with about the same or more interior storage space.

It is true that for that and comparing a production main market cruiser and a performance cruiser you need to go for a bigger boat (probably with the same weight) than the mass production cruiser, with some exceptions like the RM.

The boats are much better rigged and tend to be a bit more expensive but then the Catalina is also an expensive one in what regards main market and if we look at the used market than that difference is really small if any, in what regards the year of the boat.

Regarding not expensive good performance cruisers with a storage compared to the Catalina I am thinking of the 2 cabin versions of the Salona 44 or the Dufour 45:











The previous model, the Dufour 44 is around for sometime as the Salona 44 and you can get them as low as 120 000 euros for a 2008 boat (ex-charter boat), so in what regards used boats the difference will be minimal.

2008 Dufour 44 Performance Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

Of course, not all need the interior space of a a Catalina 400 for cruising. Most that cruise don't live permanently with the family on a boat and many are just couples most of the time and that makes the needed storage a lot less demanding.

For me, a well designed 38ft performance cruiser will be enough in what regards storage. Some will be happy with smaller boats and rarely couples need more than the space offered by a 40ft performance cruisers...but then they can always buy bigger.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

PCP said:


> A Riptide 50, beautiful boat and a very expensive one.
> 
> But you don't need such a fast boat (that needs a crew to go that fast downwind - it is not a solo based boat) to have a very fast performance boat compared with a Catalina with about the same or more interior storage space.
> 
> ...


Yes, that is why I said "If you have the money", but the owners of that boat do use it for family cruising, and although it may not go quite as fast as it does with a full race crew, the water ballast makes it extremely quick, even single or double handed. They don't give up anything in the way of creature comforts, and can still get from Victoria Bc to Maui Hawaii in less than 2 weeks! (Ok, I will concede they may not have as many places to stash 1000lb of canned food, but who cares!)


----------



## Classic30 (Aug 29, 2007)

FWIW, I think that the answer to CD's original question lies with his orginal post:



Cruisingdad said:


> Next, lets define racer/performance/HD. My idea of a performance boat is a boat that meets or slightly exceeds hull speed in normal wind conditions. These are the typical conditions a cruiser will set off in, not necessarily the conditions they will see. Lets say these conditions are 15-20 kts sustained. A boat that cannot reach hull speed at these numbers is what I would define as a HD (heavy displacement cruiser... though I can think of a few more metaphors!). A boat that goes well over hull speed in 15-20, or in less than 15 sustained, I would define as a racer.


With that definition in mind, the difference between "cruising" and "racing" in any boat of any size you care to mention is nothing other than: *weight*. ie. Safe, comfortable, long-term cruising requires being able to carry lots of "stuff". High-performance, short-term racing requires getting rid of lots of "stuff".

Therefore, to work out whether or not a particular boat will work for you requires first off, working out the weight of all the "stuff" (people, food, bikes, tvs, laptops, coffee mugs, etc.) you intend to take along with you and, with that number, working out precisely how large a boat you need to carry that weight whilst still maintaining whatever performance you're wanting for where you're going. This is exactly the way ancient explorers like Cook tackled the same problem.

Crunching the numbers, you'll quickly find that the reason why so many typical cruising yachts are HD is simply because they are designed to carry the maximum amount of stuff in the minimum size (capital cost)... and that to maintain greater-than-hull-speed performance from a racer whilst carrying the same amount of stuff requires something looking very much like a superyacht.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Seems to be a consensus that weight carrying ability and storage space and fuel/water capacity are meaningful to cruisers of all strips. Still, within that genre that are faster and slower vessels. Boats that are more or less comfortable. Boat that are easier or harder to maintain and to sail. The other side of expense is what you do once you get there. Many will want to get off the boat- take a long hot shower and go do their laundry then go to a restaurant. Others go to places where that's just not feasible or they deem it undesireable and would rather choose if,when and why they leave their boat. Personally, I like the concept of being self contained and self reliant. I like the idea of living on my boat and venturing forth when it suits my fancy. Not out of need.If you feel more secure,at ease and comfortable (e.g. "at home") on your boat than on land you are on the right cruisng boat for you.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Hartley18 said:


> FWIW, I think that the answer to CD's original question lies with his orginal post:
> 
> With that definition in mind, the difference between "cruising" and "racing" in any boat of any size you care to mention is nothing other than: *weight*. ie. Safe, comfortable, long-term cruising requires being able to carry lots of "stuff". High-performance, short-term racing requires getting rid of lots of "stuff".
> 
> ...


Hartley there are not many cruising yachts with high displacement, except old ones. Today they are very rare.

What defines a performance cruising boat is not *" that meets or slightly exceeds hull speed in normal wind conditions"*. Most modern cruising boat can do that, including a Catalina 400. What defines a performance cruiser is that he is capable of doing that with a lot less wind than a non performance cruiser.

Regarding carrying load Bob Perry explained already that the ability to carry load has not to do with the weight of the boat and even if nobody in his right mind would want to put unnecessary weight on a fast boat, the chances are that even carrying all the load the heavy boat carries, the performance cruiser would be faster than the Heavy weight, being both boats the same length.

Off course that would depend on the boat hull shape but normally modern boats are beamier than older boats and that contributes for the loading capacity.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

outbound said:


> ... The other side of expense is what you do once you get there. Many will want to get off the boat- take a long hot shower and go do their laundry then go to a restaurant.
> 
> Others go to places where that's just not feasible or they deem it undesireable and would rather choose if,when and why they leave their boat. Personally, I like the concept of being self contained and self reliant. I like the idea of living on my boat and venturing forth when it suits my fancy. ....


I have showed you that your idea that only your type of boat can cruise extensively or voyaging and all lighter performance cruisers are marina boats, day sailers or week end cruisers and unable to travel to far places makes no sense because they are out there doing what you say they cannot do.

I have posted repeatedly about sailors that are doing that on those boats, I have posted about a very light and fast Fox 10.20 that is finishing a circumnavigation, about a First 40.7 cruising the Antarctic and continuing the circumnavigation against the prevailing winds (they went cruising on the Pacific), about two guys doing a circumnavigation (cruising) on a 22ft mini racer, a full family with two kids circumnavigating on a 40class racer and I could go on. These are only some of the more evident cases that proves you wrong in assuming those boats cannot do that.

They are out there, they are cruising on the boats you say that cannot do it. Those boats can do it because they are doing it

They certainly don't do it the same way you do it. They do it faster and in a more spartan way and would not like to do it with more "comfort" on a slower loaded no fun sailing boat.

Why is this so difficult to understand? It is all a question of pleasure and lifestyle. Different sailors have pleasure with different things even if both are cruising. The boats used by different kinds of sailors reflects those different tastes and compromises, even when they are cruising or voyaging on or to the same places.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Paulo- With all due respect as far as I know nobody ( self included) has said you can't you it. It is self evident you can do it. Question is do you want to do it. My boat and many others ( Hylas, Passport, Morris, HR etc.) will gve VMGs above hull speed for days on end. ( my boat's polar is above hull speed in anything above12kt true).Give the thrill of sailing a fast boat well but also pamper you underway and at anchor.I try to not live my life in a testosterone storm and I ( like many) am secure enough that I don't feel the need to be competitive in every venue of my life. I respect your view of boats and life - it is not my own. After exposure to type of boat you keep mentioning my boss said "I don't want to live like that". Why can't you respect that decision and stop beating a dead horse. I get it and think the others on this thread are knowledgeable enough to get it as well.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

outbound said:


> Paulo- With all due respect as far as I know nobody ( self included) has said you can't you it. It is self evident you can do it. Question is do you want to do it.


That is also self evident. They do it because they want to do it and they like to do it that way.



outbound said:


> My boat and many others ( Hylas, Passport, Morris, HR etc.) ...Give the thrill of sailing a fast boat well but also pamper you underway and at anchor.I try to not live my life in a testosterone storm and I ( like many) am secure enough that I don't feel the need to be competitive in every venue of my life. I respect your view of boats and life - it is not my own. After exposure to type of boat you keep mentioning my boss said "I don't want to live like that". Why can't you respect that decision and stop beating a dead horse. I get it and think the others on this thread are knowledgeable enough to get it as well.


The boats I have talked about are not necessarily the ones I would chose to do it and that is the case with all the boats I have mentioned on the previous post. I mentioned them not because they represent my way of cruising but because those were the types of boats that more clearly fit on the types you where implying that they would not be able to travel to distant shores or cruise extensively. Some of them are extreme examples. They are not the type of boat that I would chose but they are obviously the types of boats that *some* would chose and *prefer*.

You are kind of inverting things: it is not me that does consider that any given type of boat, except the one I own, is inadequate to cruise or voyaging or that all that like to go a lot faster than you, because it gives them pleasure, are only doing that on a competitive basis or testosterone thing. That does not make sense if they wanted to compete they would be racing not cruising.

The insistence on the speed of your boat makes not sense also. Yes, there are slower boats and yes there are faster boats. What is your point: Is that the Outbound 44 has the perfect balance between speed and comfort to all? I guess so and that is the problem: Some would like to have a more heavier and slower boats, some would want a faster and more sportive and enjoyable boat to sail. That's obvious otherwise there would not be an offer of those boats and all would be cruising in boats like the outbound.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Ok- you win. One of the points I was inelegantly trying to make is there is enjoyment in sailing any boat well. Had great fun sailing a Tayana for may years which you would consider a double ended slug. Trimmed well she was a joy. Could walk away from the wheel ( with no brake on and no vane or autopilot) and she would just get it done. Had great fun sailing a racing tri. To me the enjoyment is usng what ever vessel you're on to it's capabilities. When cruising to get the most out of the day. What drives me nuts is seeing a gorgeous boat struggling through- being sailed poorly putting unecessary wear on it's crew and equipment.
P.S. re read my posts. Don't see where I made those implications you ascribe to me. If so my bad.


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

Outbound: I'm with you. There is a lot of satisfaction gained from getting the most out of any boat. I pretty much like all boats. Paulo can turn any post into an argument.
"I sure like my boat."
Paulo, "No you don't And I'll tell you why."


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Thanks Jim and Bob. In a couple of weeks get to go cruising into my new life. Will not leave you guys behind. You're the best.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

outbound said:


> Ok- you win. One of the points I was inelegantly trying to make is there is enjoyment in sailing any boat well. Had great fun sailing a Tayana for may years which you would consider a double ended slug. ....


I don't see how you take that conclusion. I never sailed a Tayana but they have a very good reputation as cruising boats and certainly will make happy many sailors.

Regarding sailing slow boats and enjoying them, I owned for many years a 80 years traditional boat and I sure enjoyed sailing the boat and being able to do so without any winch. In fact much more difficult than sailing a modern boat but also that difficulty contributed to the fun of it.

That has being my point all the time: There are not a perfect cruising boat and what one calls perfect depends on what gives more pleasure to each sailor and that varies has much as all boats that are used for cruising, from very fast boats to heavy displacement boats.

It was not me that was defending a given type of cruising boat as the perfect cruising boat quite the contrary.

regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

bobperry said:


> ...
> "I sure like my boat."
> Paulo, "No you don't And I'll tell you why."


Funny how you can misinterpret me 

What I have said all the time is that no doubt the Catalina 40 is the perfect cruiser for Brian, the Outbound 44 the perfect cruiser for Outbound, the Boreal 44 the perfect cruiser for Steve, the Pogo 12,50, the perfect cruiser for Eric, the Opium 39 the perfect cruiser for Anders and for Nemier the perfection in what regards cruising is a big fast cat (Outremer 49) but there is not a perfect cruiser for all and I am quite sure that Eric would not like the Outbound 44 and the Outbound" would not like Eric's Pogo and so on.

Contrary of what you use to do, these are real guys and members of this forum, all very satisfied with their (very different) cruising boats.

Bob what I have been saying, contrary to Outbound and Brian, is that there is not a perfect cruising boat for all and that some like to cruise in very fast boats, other like to cruise in heavy boats and in the middle there are for all tastes

Regards

Paulo


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

Paulo:
I didn't "misinterpret" you. I was just taking a gentle poke at you with my now almost famous "stick". I was having a little fun.

Besides I needed to lash out at sombody. Outbound called my Tayana 37 a "slug". On the other hand, he said he could get it to balance so maybe I'd better pay attention to him.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Bob I was poking fun at Paulo. I loved my Tayana. It taught me to sail, gave me courage when I had none left. It warmed my body and my soul. Some of the best days of my life were on that boat- the first Hippocampus. That was a boat that sailed well, balanced beautifully and was a graceful lady in all weathers. Kind of vessel that truly took care of you if you just gave her a little love. Bob you made many people very happy with that design.
Once again Paulo why don't you read my posts or Brian's. I still don't think either of us said there is a perfect cruisers for everyone. In fact I would and have stood proud and have argued the opposite when you in your various posts have implied there is. 
"Boats that are not enjoyable to sail" etc.Who says so. I can't tell what will make some people happy. I'm tinkled pink when I can figure out what makes me happy and besides myself when I can make the Admiral pleased let alone happy. Find it doesn't help to be judgmental. Learn more from listening with an open mind.
Guess like when you tell me you can train to curcumvent sleep deprivation we see the world differently
P.S.- I think I said I thought Paulo would consider the Tayana a slug. I turned some good days on that boat and she had a great ride in the chop we see in the N.E.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

outbound said:


> ....
> Once again Paulo why don't you read my posts or Brian's. I still don't think either of us said there is a perfect cruisers for everyone. ...


No, only said, implied and sustained that fast performance cruisers were unable to cruise to faraway places. That those boats are not an option to any serious cruiser and that means they are not the perfect cruiser for anybody...and yet they are for some even for long range cruising.



outbound said:


> Guess like when you tell me you can train to curcumvent sleep deprivation we see the world differently
> ..


It is not curcumvent (whatever that means) sleep deprivation, it is sleep management and I had not said I could do that, I said that can be trained.

All solo sailors do and work on that and it is a very useful thing to learn even if you sail with your wife. You never know when you are going to need to be on hatch more time than what you have anticipated. If you do not train that you are going to be exhausted where a sailor that can manage sleep will have a much bigger resilience.

Singlehanded sailing sleep management | Trade Winds Solo Round Britain Challenge

Regards

Paulo


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Paulo- I'm a board certified sleep physician. Guess on the othe thread I misinterpreted what you said. Spend part of my professional life training various folks in sleep management. Also am fairly aware of the effects of sleep deprivation. Have spent many hours studing this in detail and aware of its effects. Perhaps you may wish to discuss this off line.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Certainly I like always to learn. You mean training sleep management for a healthy life or for specific situations like solo sailing?

I guess that would be a pity to share that knowledge in private and I bet there are lot's of sailors interested. Why don't you open a thread about that, I mean sleep management for solo sailing? I would be more than interested in participating and learning

Regards

Paulo


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Paulo- On another thread I gently tried to point out I was concerned there may be health risks to this activity. There is an area of the brain called the supra chiasmic nucleus (SCN). It sets the circadian rhythm of your entire body. Both simple things like core body temperature, autonomic tone, hormone release and more complicated things like cognition and immune function. It in turn responds to "time givers" such as the tract (not involved in vision) which goes directly to this area from the retina. Activity and eating also feed into it. All cells ( even in bacteria or worms) have per and clock genes. The function of the SCN is to see all our cells are working in concert. If either by choice ( sailing) or demand (shift work or torture) the function of the SCN is disturbed there would seem to be a risk of significant health consequences ( such as the increased risk of cancer in shift workers). Interrupted sleep disturbs the circadian rhythm. The normal functions of sleep for the brain and body do not normally occur.Simply stated fragmented sleep is not of the same quality nor benefit as a normal sleep period inside a normal circadian rhythm. Again in my first post concerning this I expressed an concern that the repetitive disturbance of sleep associated with certain activities may have health effects. I'm unaware of literature concening sailing in this regard and would think an epidemiologic study to quantify the effects if any might be problematic. I'm aware of mechanisms to mitigate the short term effects of sleep disturbance and allow people to recognize these effects to ward against untoward behaviors as a consequence. But as a physician I think it would do the topic and the reader a disservice to engage in the activity you propose as it would give it short shrift and run the risk of not furthering health and well being. Hence, with all due respect decline your invitation


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

outbound said:


> Paulo- On another thread I gently tried to point out I was concerned there may be health risks to this activity. There is an area of the brain called the supra chiasmic nucleus (SCN). It sets the circadian rhythm of your entire body. Both simple things like core body temperature, autonomic tone, hormone release and more complicated things like cognition and immune function. It in turn responds to "time givers" such as the tract (not involved in vision) which goes directly to this area from the retina. Activity and eating also feed into it. All cells ( even in bacteria or worms) have per and clock genes. The function of the SCN is to see all our cells are working in concert. If either by choice ( sailing) or demand (shift work or torture) the function of the SCN is disturbed there would seem to be a risk of significant health consequences ( such as the increased risk of cancer in shift workers). Interrupted sleep disturbs the circadian rhythm. The normal functions of sleep for the brain and body do not normally occur.Simply stated fragmented sleep is not of the same quality nor benefit as a normal sleep period inside a normal circadian rhythm. Again in my first post concerning this I expressed an concern that the repetitive disturbance of sleep associated with certain activities may have health effects. I'm unaware of literature concening sailing in this regard and would think an epidemiologic study to quantify the effects if any might be problematic. I'm aware of mechanisms to mitigate the short term effects of sleep disturbance and allow people to recognize these effects to ward against untoward behaviors as a consequence. But as a physician I think it would do the topic and the reader a disservice to engage in the activity you propose as it would give it short shrift and run the risk of not furthering health and well being. Hence, with all due respect decline your invitation


Fair enough and I think you are right on a permanent basis or even on a regular basis but that is not something you are going to use on a regular basis.

I know of some studies and I think it would give an interesting thread. I din't have the time to do it right now (I am almost leaving for cruising) but when I come back in October we will discuss that in a thread. I think it is a very interesting topic.

The studies and improvements that took place in what regards sleep management and solo racing are huge. I remember that 15 years ago it was vulgar the racers on the Vendee Globe having hallucinations and break downs due to sleep deprivation. Today all are trained and accompanied by physicians and there are no cases of hallucinations anymore or physical break down and you even so on the last race, after almost 3 months on those conditions, the two leading racers fighting for victory as if it was a match race, not for one or two days, but for 15 days. You could tell by their daily video broadcasts that they were in good shape and not near break down.

I don't want to learn about that for doing it for 3 months. I guess some days would be enough for me. In fact what I have learned through the years reading about that and how that should be done have improved me already as a sailor and I can feel that I manage much better my sleep needs while voyaging. The objective of sleep management is not being sleep deprived or tired and that does not mean doing that forever, but for a short period of time.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Paulo- You speak to very short term effects. For instance, in men the major release of growth hormone occurs in the first period of stage 3 ( slow wave sleep). The web address you cited concerning the round Britain race noted that individual intentionally did not allow himself to enter slow wave sleep due to concern he would be hard to wake. 15 minute naps due not allow stage R sleep to occur until the deprivation from this stage causes a REM rebound like effect. The hallucinations you refer to are thought to be microsleeps with REM intrusion.In simplistic terms I think it not unlikely this person for some days is likely to have much stage 2 sleep and less stage 3 ( restores the body) and REM ( restores the mind). Yes, I'm aware of techniques to mitigate the cognitive effects of fragmented sleep but once again can not endorse doing the activity you suggest. Please respect that decision.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

outbound said:


> Paulo- You speak to very short term effects. For instance, in men the major release of growth hormone occurs in the first period of stage 3 ( slow wave sleep). The web address you cited concerning the round Britain race noted that individual intentionally did not allow himself to enter slow wave sleep due to concern he would be hard to wake. 15 minute naps due not allow stage R sleep to occur until the deprivation from this stage causes a REM rebound like effect. The hallucinations you refer to are thought to be microsleeps with REM intrusion.In simplistic terms I think it not unlikely this person for some days is likely to have much stage 2 sleep and less stage 3 ( restores the body) and REM ( restores the mind). Yes, I'm aware of techniques to mitigate the cognitive effects of fragmented sleep but once again can not endorse doing the activity you suggest. Please respect that decision.


Off course I respect your not endorsement as I respect the ones that recommend it to as the best technique to reduce fatigue for a limited period of intensive sailing. They are also physicians and have been studding sleep management for solo sailors for decades with amazingly good results.

As I said on a temporary basis. Anyway as I said, I want to know more...but not now. I will come back to it.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Once again you misconstrued my statement. I just said I do not wish to be involved in this activity. I am well of the science. I do it for a living


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

Oh cool! We are arguing about sleep now. I'm an expert at sleeping. I do it everyday. In fact, I sleep more than I sail.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

bobperry said:


> Oh cool! We are arguing about sleep now. I'm an expert at sleeping. I do it everyday. In fact, I sleep more than I sail.


Absolutely, the expert are you but I certainly sleep more then I sail...well, almost all time, but there are times where I sail more than I sleep and sometimes I sleep when I sail, other times I sleep and sail like a a crazy metronome

Regards

Paulo


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Just came in from fishing.gonna take a nap.


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

Out:
Me too. That casting takes a lot of energy.

Had a dream last night that I was buying new kitchen appliances for the house. I was buying some appliances that I had seen in an Indian restaurant.

Go figure.


----------



## steve77 (Aug 5, 2010)

bobperry said:


> Oh cool! We are arguing about sleep now. I'm an expert at sleeping. I do it everyday. In fact, I sleep more than I sail.


Reminds me of the Steven Wright joke:

"Honey, did you sleep well?"
"No, I made a couple mistakes."


----------

