# Sailing, safety, & size



## Delezynski (Sep 27, 2013)

Hi all,

Over the last week, I have read a number of posts, here and other places, regarding not feeling safe in open water in smaller boats. Now days that seems to mean less then 35 ft!

How many out there equate size to safety? Does it have anything to do with it? If you think size does provide safety, why? What's the logic? 

Do you feel safer in your home country, state? Or is it just in the head of the person making the judgment? After cruising Mexico for years, we feel safer there than in the US! (Excluding ALL boarder towns!)

I am currently reading a book, The Terrible Loyalty, by Sandy Moss. Jill and I met Dave Chamberlain (who the book is about) in the California Delta when we were cruising there a few months back. It's about the voyage of a 20 ft. boat from the West Coast to Hawaii. A very good read!

Disclosure;
I am a geezer and remember when a 32 ft. boat was a BIG ocean going boat! And, Jill and I have cruised on boats from 132 Ft. to our current Nor'Sea 27. We prefer our 27 to all of them.

I have never understood how or why people equate size to safety. Witness the Titanic! 

Greg


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Having also begun sailing when a 35 footer was a big cruising boat, at most levels, I understand the thrust of your point. But for better or worse, the concensus coming out of most studies on the factors that lead to a more seaworthy boats conclude that the one factor that consistently improve seaworthiness (all other factors being roughly equal) is greater length. 

But I also understand that a badly designed longer boat won't be safer than a well designed smaller boat. I also understand that a larger boat can kill people when a smaller boat might simply bruise them. And I also understand that a longer boat in the hands of an inexperienced crew is likely be far less safe for that same crew on a smaller boat. 

These things are never so simple that a simple rule can universally apply. 

But the really good news is that you prefer the boat you own to all of the boats you have sailed before. To me the most joyful thing in life is being pleased with what you have. 

Jeff


----------



## nolatom (Jun 29, 2005)

That's a lot of questions. but for offshore work, days from shelter, I think it's more a question of weight than size.

An ultra-light 40-footer is less safe than a 25' wooden Vertue, in my view.

So personally I would want enough displacement that the boat's motion in a sea won't beat me to death. What is that number? 6000 lbs? 10,000?? The Albin Vega at 5000, has a good reputation offshore. I wouldn't want to go less than that. more like 7000 (Triton) or 9000 (Pearson 30 or similar). Sail area/displacement and ballast/displacement ratios would also matter to me.

Your NorSea 27, at 8000 with 3000 ballast, is much more rugged than the Vega, though likely not as fast. 

Every boat is a compromise. You like yours. other like theirs. But yes, more size alone isn't necessarily safer, or (especially) easier to handle the larger sails and forces.


----------



## desert rat (Feb 14, 2013)

I am not a sailor. I am a technician and a lurker. I read, I learn. Safe? I would feel safer in a Vega in the middle of a storm than in a hotel room in a big city. What boat would make me feel safe to face any situation? An Australian or Argentinian ice breaker with crew should accomplish that. I am also an adrealin junkie. If a big warm teddy bear safety blanket is what you need, more power to you.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

Design and quality of construction will dictate the safety of a small craft at sea, not size. There are a lot of boats under 35' I'd feel safe on, if not comfortable, at sea, and a huge number of poorly built larger boats that I wouldn't want to take to sea, at all. Just the other day, a Beneteau 50 lost her rudder off Martinique, offshore, not on a rock!
I've operated an 80' motorsailor that was absolute junk, built by Lancer. In fact a sister ship had a 12'X4' section of the hull that never completely set up.
I have sailed a Folkboat and a King's Cruiser, both excellent boats and only 27'.
If we are not talking about the operator here, then the size is of little consequence, if it is a well found vessel, designed for ocean sailing, IMO.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

nolatom said:


> That's a lot of questions. but for offshore work, days from shelter, I think it's more a question of weight than size.
> 
> An ultra-light 40-footer is less safe than a 25' wooden Vertue, in my view.
> 
> ....


Sorry but I do not agree.











As Jeff as said it is complicated. It has to do with RM but also with dynamic stability. RM has to do with weight and GZ (the arm). Bigger boats have a bigger GZ so they have an advantage and they are also bigger proportionally to the wave size, that's another advantage in what regards dynamic stability.

An older and heavier small design can partially compensate the disadvantage to a bigger modern design because the weight contributes to the RM and this one to stability, but modern designs with much lower CG (that contributes to a bigger arm as well as the bigger beam) end up to have a better overall stability.

Note that between two boats with the same stability (the same area under the RM curve), one bigger and lighter, the other smaller and heavier the lighter one will recover much more quickly from a knock down assuming they have similar RM at 90º. The force that is pulling the boat up is the same, but the force needed to put an heavy boat back in its feet is mutch more than the one needed to right a much lighter one

That is just an important factor, there are much more about it but generally we can say that a bigger boat is safer and certainly it is if it is the same type of boat. I am assuming well designed and built boats as are most of the boats built today.

Regarding the case you have pointed out I have no doubt that a Pogo 12.50 is much more seaworthy than the old Vertue by a big margin even if the displacement is not very different.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## The Ol Man (Jul 13, 2013)

To paraphase a famous ship designer: Any sucessful ship is a conglomeration of three factors, Design, Construction, Crew Ability. Any succesful ship's Design is the correct balancing of the ablillity to fullfill its intended use, with safety, and comfort. Which ship is right for you? I can't answer that; only you can say what is the balance you are most satisfied with. Is it the best one, here again, that is up to you.


----------



## Sublime (Sep 11, 2010)

I'd trust my 18' Lugger over my 26' Hunter out in the open seas.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I think the boat that causes the least fatigue for her specific crew is going to be the safest. Less fatigue = better decisions. That may be motion, ease of handling, comfort, strength, displacement, whatever. The crew is the primary focus for safety and no two are alike.


----------



## peterchech (Sep 2, 2011)

At a certain point a boat is too small, gotta have a certain amount of rm and anything under say 22' loa prob just won't have it. When the boat broaches, it must have enough weight in the keel at 90 degrees to bring her back up while her crew is hanging off the lifelines. 

After that, all the other factors will be more imp than just size. 

But a smaller boat has to change sails sooner and is waaaaaay less comfortable than a bigger boat. However short handed, smaller sails and loads can be a good thing.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Regarding reefing sails, not necessarily, I mean a bigger boat can have to reef first. It has to do with boat design and you are right regarding smaller sails and loads to be an advantage.

Regarding RM and big boats the biggest advantage is the relation of the boat total RM and the size of the wave: Generally it will be needed a bigger breaking wave to capsize a bigger boat (assuming it has a bigger total RM).

Regarding smaller sails, modern boats that are a lot less heavier than old ones need less sail area. A bigger modern boat can have the same amount of sail of a considerably smaller much more heavier boat.

As the OP had said today the typical cruiser boat, specially the ones that are used offshore are much bigger than 30 or 40 years ago but they are not more difficult to sail. They are more stable and we can do all reefing from the cockpit without going forward on a narrow smaller boat that is much more unstable than a much bigger beamier boat.

40 years ago it was unthinkable to sail solo a 50 or 60ft sailboat, even with a little help from the wife: too much efforts, too much difficulty. Today there are lots of couples there sailing boats like those, because it had become easy: Smaller sails (from the same size of boat), Jib on a traveler, all (easy) reefing from the cockpit and remote controlled winches took most of the effort of sailing and made easy big boats. Because big boats are more seaworthy have a better sea motion and are faster the market went that way, or should I say, cruisers went that way?

Also if we compare the prices of boats, not the price of 40 year old boats but the the price of the few heavy boats that are still made, or where till few years ago, we can see that the price of a boat (unless it is a race boat) has a strong relation with weight. Today you can have a bigger boat for almost the same price that it would cost to build a much smaller old designed heavy full keeler with the same weight. As I explained the lighter and bigger boat have many advantages.






Regards

Paulo


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

PCP said:


> Today there are lots of couples there sailing boats like those, because it had become easy: Smaller sails (from the same size of boat), Jib on a traveler, all (easy) *reefing from the cockpit and remote controlled winches took most of the effort of sailing and made easy big boats. *


Yeah, you've gotta love that Push-Button Sailing, alright...

Especially, when you have to reach _THROUGH_ the wheel to push them... 

I've really come to detest these sort of helm consoles that require one to stick your hand/arm through the spokes of the wheel to do something, they seem to becoming more and more commonplace... A VERY poor/dangerous arrangement, especially in cold or foul weather when you might be more encumbered by heavier clothing or gloves... That plotter could be fun to fiddle with, in a seaway with the AP kicking the wheel sharply back and forth...

Just a matter of time before compasses disappear completely from modern boats... Presumably, this one is that circular shape over the companionway... Hell, as distant as that is from the helm, I'd have to pull out a pair of binoculars to read the card on that freakin' thing 

I like the way Elaine Bunting said the boat is amazingly easy to sail, _"as long as the systems are functioning..."_


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

peterchech said:


> At a certain point a boat is too small, gotta have a certain amount of rm and anything under say 22' loa prob just won't have it. When the boat broaches, it must have enough weight in the keel at 90 degrees to bring her back up while her crew is hanging off the lifelines.
> After that, all the other factors will be more imp than just size.
> But a smaller boat has to change sails sooner and is waaaaaay less comfortable than a bigger boat. However short handed, smaller sails and loads can be a good thing.


OK then. So there's no way, a young Japanese man could have sailed from Japan to San Francisco on a 19 foot boat? Hum.....
If you say so.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

JonEisberg said:


> ...
> I like the way Elaine Bunting said the boat is amazingly easy to sail, _"as long as the systems are functioning..."_


Yes, a bit like an automobile is better than a coach...while everything keeps working. An automobile is such a complicated machine

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

JonEisberg said:


> .....I've really come to detest these sort of helm consoles that require one to stick your hand/arm through the spokes of the wheel to do something......


I couldn't agree with this more. Annoying at the least.



> Just a matter of time before compasses disappear completely from modern boats... Presumably, this one is that circular shape over the companionway...


Also agreed. Given the number of times that I've been on autopilot and its way out of synch to compass heading, it amazes me that one would not want to be able to cross check the real compass. Sometimes due to computer error, others to interference with the buried AP compass. Electronics are great and I use them as primary nav, but ALWAYS crosscheck.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

PCP said:


> Yes, a bit like an automobile is better than a coach...while everything keeps working. An automobile is such a complicated machine


To be honest, an automobile is about a thousand times more reliable.


----------



## Delezynski (Sep 27, 2013)

Minnewaska said:


> I couldn't agree with this more. Annoying at the least.
> Also agreed. Given the number of times that I've been on autopilot and its way out of synch to compass heading, it amazes me that one would not want to be able to cross check the real compass. Sometimes due to computer error, others to interference with the buried AP compass. Electronics are great and I use them as primary nav, but ALWAYS crosscheck.


WAY back in 2005, I was about 20 miles off the Baja coast heading south. It was the mid watch, dark as you can get! Only the bio-luminescence. The sea was running 10+ with about a 10~12 second period. Not to bad conditions. I was using our compass, a Standard Horizon chart plotter, and plotting on paper once every half hour on our GPS driven Yeoman chart plotter. Autopilot and windvane self steering off.

Just for something to do, a test if you will, I turned off the light in our compass to see how well the chart plotter would work in place of the compass. A few threads on online boards around that time were talking about no longer needing a compass.

I switched the chart plotter through it's different displays for navigating, Highway mode, course up mode Etc. to see how well I could maintain my course.

You will get my compass when you pry it out of my dead wet soggy hands!!!!!! 

I did not set the refresh rate to max on the unit, but even if I did, it would NOT be fast enough for me, and did NOT help me to anticipate. I felt like the it did a good job at telling me had had taken place but gave no indication of what will be going to happen. The compass has a natural swing to it that gives MORE information to the user. AT LEAST THAT'S HOW I FEEL ABOUT IT.

So, you young guys out there, revel in the modern, for me, I'll just stick with what I KNOW works for me, my vessel and my family. 

Greg


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Minnewaska said:


> To be honest, an automobile is about a thousand times more reliable.


Well, it seems that old lady that tested the HR 64 was not convinced either, I mean she was not convinced about the efficacy of those mechanic helps and had to change her opinion and even so the way she puts it it seems she raises some questions about reliability.

Fact is that these systems have been used on the last 20 years (increasingly) in top yachts, I mean really big yachts and have proven themselves as reliable as the systems used on a car and there is no reason to be otherwise. When these systems have a malfunction you have always the possibility operate them the old way, manually.

The real problem with these systems, that go from the computerized docking system with bow thrusters to the push buttons sail control, is price that make them very expensive in a small sailboat but these systems permits big 100ft yachts to be operated only for three, 60ft to be operated solo and allow old people to keep on sailing avoiding all the efforts that were otherwise needed and that they are not able to provide anymore.

I have to say that I prefer to keep it simple, if I can, but some facts with my own boat helped me to change of opinion regarding these systems:

I would not have bought a sailboat with electric winches but mine come with an electric winch and a remote control, that I thought it were pretty useless on a 41ft sailboat. I was wrong. I cannot fully put my big main (52 m2) fully up without the help of a winch and even putting 2/3 up it takes a considerably effort that I can do but someone weaker will not be able to do (I am big). Even for myself it take a considerable effort to put the sail up. Using the Electric winch I just pull the first 1/5 of the sail up by hand, out of the lazy bag and then use the electric winch and voilá, the sail up in 10s without any effort.

The boat is 7 years old and the winch works like if it was new.

Regarding the winch remote control, a weightless thing very small, I was so suspicious that on the first year never used the thing. Give it a try this year and now it is always around my neck. How coll it is to trim the main sail from the steering wheel at the push of a button? Very cool I can tell you. I only regret that the winch is not one of the new ones that allow trimming on the two positions, to let go and to pull.

I guess that on the third year with the boat I will have to learn how to use properly the remote control for the steering wheel that I confess, never used but that can proven very useful to solo sailing. In fact Solo racing sailors use it extensively.



JonEisberg said:


> Yeah, you've gotta love that Push-Button Sailing, alright...
> 
> Especially, when you have to reach _THROUGH_ the wheel to push them...
> 
> I've really come to detest these sort of helm consoles that require one to stick your hand/arm through the spokes of the wheel to do something, they seem to becoming more and more commonplace... A VERY poor/dangerous arrangement, especially in cold or foul weather when you might be more encumbered by heavier clothing or gloves...


Jon, do you use the buttons on your TV? Anybody use them? No, everybody uses a remote control. The buttons are there as an emergency back up.

That's the same with those controls, they are remotely used from any part of the boat. Those big boats will almost be on autopilot all the time and will be steered from somewhere else. That plotter on the wheel is only a back up, the third one. The main plotter is on the nav. station and the one more used in navigation it will be the one under the big dodger that on the photos is down. They also offer an hard dodger but the removable one is almost as big and offer already a big protection.

On foul or cold weather, depending from the situation and where the boat is sailing, the boat will be sailed from the interior or from the protection of that big dodger, using the nav station there and a remote control for everything, from the rudder to the sails.







Regards

Paulo


----------



## peterchech (Sep 2, 2011)

capta said:


> OK then. So there's no way, a young Japanese man could have sailed from Japan to San Francisco on a 19 foot boat? Hum.....
> If you say so.


For every story of a crazy feat, I will give you three of small boats with insufficient RM sinking after broaching badly in coastal conditions. There are boats smaller than 22' but with enough rm to be self-righting, but many are not.


----------



## peterchech (Sep 2, 2011)

On my recent Block Island trip, we were 30 miles from shore when we lost all instruments, including chartplotter and AP. Turns out a leaky stanchion post shorted the entire system. We were able to re-wire at port and fix it, and we had a handheld GPS and magnetic compass to guide us back, but relying on anything electrical on a boat seems like a bad idea especially if you need electric winches just to take the sails down.

In-mast furling mains, which seem to be popular on bigger production boats now, scare the crap out of me. I have only been sailing a few years, but have had the need to drop sail NOW enough times to know how important it can be, especially coastally where there is a risk of running aground. It's hard enough to unjam a furling jib, I can only imagine a main where the sail is inside the mast.

That said, I guess enough people are out there sailing across oceans with electric winches and furling mains that they can't be so bad right?


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

I've commonly put 80,000 miles on an auto over 4 years. I would estimate that is about 1,600 hours of use. Typically no maintenance or failures other than wear items. 

Pick any measure you like, miles, years or hours of use. There's no sailboat system in any size boat that has that kind of reliability, even brand new.


----------



## fryewe (Dec 4, 2004)

Minnewaska said:


> I've commonly put 80,000 miles on an auto over 4 years. I would estimate that is about 1,600 hours of use. Typically no maintenance or failures other than wear items.


Hmmm...80Kmiles in 1600 hours? That's 50 mph! Nobody drives like that. No wonder your car is so reliable. Now if you RACED your car like you do your boat every time you see a sloop edging up on you...


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Minnewaska said:


> I've commonly put 80,000 miles on an auto over 4 years. I would estimate that is about 1,600 hours of use. Typically no maintenance or failures other than wear items.
> 
> Pick any measure you like, miles, years or hours of use. There's no sailboat system in any size boat that has that kind of reliability, even brand new.


I don't know about that. Of course you make normal maintenance of your car, according the maintenance schedule.

On My last boat, a Bavaria 36, I had done in 6 years 2200 hours with the engine (no maintenance except the scheduled one). To those 2200 engine hours would correspond about more half sailing time, so we are talking about 3300 hours for a plotter and GPS system, for a furler and an automatic reefing system. Also a radar even if not many times used. Everything worked spotless and it seems that 5 years later everything is still working with no problem.

Why this would be different with an electric winch or any other system? The one on my boat has 7 years and it was used already by me on about 900 hours of sailing (on two years). I don't know how many sailing hours had made the previous owner in 5 years of use but it should not be less than what I have done. No problem at all, no maintenance except cleaning and lub.

I don't understand why you say that the systems in a boat are less reliable than in a car.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

fryewe said:


> Hmmm...80Kmiles in 1600 hours? That's 50 mph! Nobody drives like that.


I just assumed an average between highway and local driving.



> Now if you RACED your car like you do your boat every time you see a sloop edging up on you...


That may be a good point. Definitely press the boat harder.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

PCP said:


> .....I don't understand why you say that the systems in a boat are less reliable than in a car.....


Paolo, I'm not going to argue this to death, it's just my experience that I'm sharing. I've never had a season without some sort of unanticipated failure of something. I'm not strictly referring to the motor or the winches or electronics or anything in particular. It's always something. Every year. For nearly 40. Never been the case with an auto.

In the past 24 months, I've had the wind tranducer fail twice and needed a new Volvo turbo charger and intercooler. I'm also randomly thinking of fresh water hose splits, failed switches, a bad fresh water pump...... I think I'm going to stop thinking about it.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

Minnewaska said:


> I've commonly put 80,000 miles on an auto over 4 years. I would estimate that is about 1,600 hours of use. Typically no maintenance or failures other than wear items.
> Pick any measure you like, miles, years or hours of use. There's no sailboat system in any size boat that has that kind of reliability, even brand new.


I would have to respectfully disagree with you on "There's no sailboat system in any size boat that has that kind of reliability". I believe my cable steering system has many times the 1600 hours on it and the autopilot has at least that. The Raymarine wind speed and angle system certainly has many, many times 1600 hours on it (21,000+), as it's on 24/7/365. Of these three systems, two do not even need periodic maintenance.
There are probably other systems that have at least 1600 hours on them without failures, like the fresh water pump, refer and a/c seawater pumps (magnetic drive) and even the sump pump, but I can't really count hours on them. I have run the Little Giant seawater circulation pumps on a/c units for 3 years, when I lived dockside in Fla and SC without problems 24/7/300 or so days a year, without any maintenance at all.
Considering that all our boat equipment operates in the salt water environment it does, it is actually amazing how long some systems do function without problems.


----------



## peterchech (Sep 2, 2011)

Minnewaska said:


> Paolo, I'm not going to argue this to death, it's just my experience that I'm sharing. I've never had a season without some sort of unanticipated failure of something. I'm not strictly referring to the motor or the winches or electronics or anything in particular. It's always something. Every year. For nearly 40. Never been the case with an auto.
> 
> In the past 24 months, I've had the wind tranducer fail twice and needed a new Volvo turbo charger and intercooler. I'm also randomly thinking of fresh water hose splits, failed switches, a bad fresh water pump...... I think I'm going to stop thinking about it.


I don't know what these people are talking about, marine systems are reliable? Not my experience nor that of anyone i know or race with.

Then again i have never owned a bavaria swan etc, maybe the 1% have their own super-high end systems that are reliable unlike everything else out there?


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

I did the first refit after 40 years and after 3 more years the only failure has been the plastic key switch i used and even that was a 10 minute inconvenience



And its not like we are afraid to get the wet


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Folks, I'm not saying that nothing will last 1600 hours. Goodness, people hear what they want to hear. I'm saying that in 1600 hours in an automobile, its very common to have nothing go wrong. In 1600 hours on a sailboat, it's common to have something go wrong.

If you disagree, you're one lucky sailor. I don't know many that make it a single season without something going wrong.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

PCP said:


> Jon, do you use the buttons on your TV? Anybody use them? No, everybody uses a remote control. The buttons are there as an emergency back up.
> 
> That's the same with those controls, they are remotely used from any part of the boat. Those big boats will almost be on autopilot all the time and will be steered from somewhere else. That plotter on the wheel is only a back up, the third one. The main plotter is on the nav. station and the one more used in navigation it will be the one under the big dodger that on the photos is down. They also offer an hard dodger but the removable one is almost as big and offer already a big protection.
> 
> ...


Well, I know plenty of people today sail that way, but trust me... If I'm coming into a place like Charleston or Fernandina on a dirty night, I'm gonna be standing at the helm... 

I've learned plenty of things in my years of delivering a wide variety of boats. But if there's one thing that stands above the rest, and has informed the choices that have informed the outfitting of my own little tub, is that there can be a real virtue in simplicity... Perhaps my experience is unique, but it's definitely been the case that the more complex the boat and its systems, the greater the likelihood I'll experience some sort of 'problem' during the trip...

Two things I've become particularly wary of, are powered sailhandling systems, and remote control devices... Reliance on such devices can be a great way to break gear, or do damage to the boat. The real risk to such implements is not so much that they might not _START_ working, but that they may not _STOP_... The horrific accident that occurred on an Amel 53 a few years ago in Antigua while a woman was hoisting her husband up the mast using an electric cockpit winch is a prime example... And, the increasing use of wireless engine controllers on larger motoryachts while docking scares the hell out of me, I know of more than one example where they've failed or gone haywire, resulting in major damage to boats...

I've spent a lot of time running Trintellas over the years... Marvelous boats, obviously of extremely high quality, but incredibly complex... Aboard the 50 that I've sailed the most, the joke was always that there was NEVER a moment in time, where everything on the boat worked at once 

While I've come to think pretty highly of the Leisure-Furl system for larger yachts, they've definitely had some teething problems since their inception, and I still feel going with the internally-driven motorized system is a mistake... Better to go with simply running the halyard and mandrell/downhaul to cockpit winches, instead... Here's my favorite example...

We were running a 50 south in December about 5 years ago, the owner was gonna do the Pineapple Cup (formerly the Miami-Montego Bay Race)... The motor for the L-F is located near the end of the boom... We're talking an all carbon rig here, close to 80', probably costing close to $100K - definitely, 'Top of the Line' in every respect, no expense spared...

We had a great trip down to around Cape Canaveral, when the breeze finally came up pretty hard out of the E, then SE... It was a VERY wet ride from there on, lots of spray, some of it even making it to the end of the boom 

We get into Port Everglades, and I head up to lower the main, and push the button... Nothing happens... No biggie, we lower it manually, and head into Bahia Mar...

Now, the motor for this thing is not the sort of DC motor we can take into an alternator shop in Lauderdale to get fixed... It's a highly speciallized one of European manufacture, a replacement/spare costs about $6K, and the ONLY authorized service center at the time was in the Netherlands... So, after spending the entire morning removing the mainsail - which probably weighs 250 lbs - and the motor itself (50-60 lbs), we pack it up to ship via Fed Ex to Amsterdam ( I could probably cruise for most of the winter in the Bahamas for what that alone cost)

They get it back just in time for the race, mad scramble to install it prior to departure...

A front comes thru the night before, so at the start it's blowing 20-25 from the NW, and the Gulf Stream is gonna be pretty sporty...

About 40 minutes into the race, getting into the Stream, they fall hard off the back of wave, and dip the end of the boom, immersing the motor... Uh-oh...

They take in a bit of a reef, seems OK... But about an hour later, when they decide to reef just a tad more, nothing... the newly rebuilt motor is fried, they got all of about 25 miles into an 800+ mile race out of it...

Needless to say, the former owner of this boat would get a good chuckle out of the assertion that his $1.4 million sailing yacht was as reliable as his Mercedes...


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Jon, I was not talking about race boats. Fact is that sailors here, I mean old retired couples are buying +50ft sailboats. They can only manage those boats because they have a lot of help from electric and hydraulic systems and they are buying the boats because they are reliable and they know it.

I am talking about mass production boats. Compared to cars the boat you were talking about would be a expensive modified high tech sports car, not a Mercedes and those are know to be fun but highly unreliable. A Mercedes would be that Halberg-Rassy that I had posted about

I bet that Trintella has more than 10 years. Am I wrong?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## copacabana (Oct 1, 2007)

Can you really compare a car to a boat? My car doesn't have water tanks and hydraulic system, a bathroom, kitchen, complex navigation system, electrical system with numerous internal and external lights, sails and sail handling equipment and so on. Boat equipment might be reliable, but there is so much of it on a boat that something is always needing attention.


----------



## Sublime (Sep 11, 2010)

capta said:


> OK then. So there's no way, a young Japanese man could have sailed from Japan to San Francisco on a 19 foot boat? Hum.....
> If you say so.


Or no way to cross the Pacific and then the Indian ocean in an 18 foot open boat like Webb Chiles did...


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

copacabana said:


> Can you really compare a car to a boat? My car doesn't have water tanks and hydraulic system, a bathroom, kitchen, complex navigation system, electrical system with numerous internal and external lights, sails and sail handling equipment and so on. Boat equipment might be reliable, but there is so much of it on a boat that something is always needing attention.


We were only talking about the boat as a vehicle and about the components related with that, or at least I was. On that regard the car is much more complex than a boat even considering the new ones with electric winches and computer assisted bow thrusters.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

HMMMMMM

I think I have had only one car/truck with an auto that lasted more than 50K miles at an ave of 25mph in speed. Assuming my current truck with its odometer and hr meter are on par with previous rigs. That auto is the one in my current truck. All others have yet to go over 150K. Then again, most do not drive slow up steep grades etc. so anyway.

ANYTHING can break sooner than expected depending upon a lot of "what if's" if you will. Most of the breaks on a boat, truck, not sure what a car is?!?! but if some type of motorized vehicle, then things break when you overstress them in some way shape or form. If you overstress a lot, then things break sooner than later. City driving at higher gvwr's than one normally expect, things break! Alternators every 50-60K miles, starters in the same range.......pretty normal for my useage in trucks. Altho the last couple have been getting better mileage/hours if you will. 

My boat on the other hand, yeah things have broken, need to be repaired, but name ANY type of vehicle, be it a boat or car that is 25+ yrs old, and something will be breaking!

Marty


----------



## Delezynski (Sep 27, 2013)

If you have one simple system, the reliability is high, add another in line system and the reliability of the whole goes down. Add another simple system and once more, it drops.

Now take a complex system and add that into the string and things start to get sketchy, don't they? 

Once more to the premise that a smaller, simpler boat can be a lot safer than a larger complex boat.

If you (and by you I am talking to the weakest member of the crew) can't handle the boat in BAD weather, by yourself, (if we are talking about a cruising couple) without electrics, HOW SAFE IS THAT BOAT?

Don't forget that when the car/truck breaks down, you pull off the side of the road and call AAA. Try that 500 miles “out there”!

Greg


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

PCP said:


> Jon, I was not talking about race boats. Fact is that sailors here, I mean old retired couples are buying +50ft sailboats. They can only manage those boats because they have a lot of help from electric and hydraulic systems and they are buying the boats because they are reliable and they know it.


The Trintellas are not what I would consider Race Boats, in fact the 47 was chosen as Best Luxury Cruiser by CRUISING WORLD in 1998...










One of the features that wowed the crowd at the Annapolis Boat Show that year, was the hydraulic stern garage transom door, similar to this one on a 55: (Such arrangements have since become quite commonplace, of course... But back then, it generated plenty of Oohs and Ahhhs )










Another one of my favorite examples of the vaunted 'reliability' of such boats...

First time I took that 47 south for the owner, I arrive in Key West with a day to spare to catch a flight home for Christmas... After getting the boat secured in her slip at the Galleon Marina, I push the button to activate the transom door, to access the garage where shore power cords, and all the cleaning supplies are stowed...

Nothing happens...

Turns out all the mechanics of this system - electrical motors and hydraulic pumps - are contained within the garage, _to which there is no access whatsoever from the deck level, or through the seat lockers - and no mechanical backup provision for releasing the door..._

When the owner called the factory with this revelation, he said there was a lengthy 'pause' on the other end of the line 

I had to leave the boat as it was, though fortunately was able to transfer all of the frozen/refrigerated food still aboard to the owner's motor yacht in the adjacent slip... Service people were eventually able to pry open the transom door, doing considerable damage in the process, and requiring a very expensive repair and Awlgrip job to the transom...



PCP said:


> I bet that Trintella has more than 10 years. Am I wrong?


The 50 was about 2 years old at the time of the failure I described of the Leisure-Furl...


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

JonEisberg said:


> ...
> Another one of my favorite examples of the vaunted 'reliability' of such boats...
> 
> First time I took that 47 south for the owner, I arrive in Key West with a day to spare to catch a flight home for Christmas... After getting the boat secured in her slip at the Galleon Marina, I push the button to activate the transom door, to access the garage where shore power cords, and all the cleaning supplies are stowed...
> ...


That's just bad design.

Regarding the reliability of the Trintella, probably that's why they went bankrupt while HR continues to grow.

Look I am not saying that a coach is not more reliable than a car or that if you manage to keep it simple you will get more reliability. What I am saying is that some systems made life easy for sailors and allow them to sail faster and safer boats, bigger boats. They are an advantage not a disadvantage.

A genoa furling system is less reliable that an old clip on sail on stay. Even if not frequent they can jam and broke. The same thing with an anchor winch. Or an electric autopilot. Nobody questions today the advantages they bring over the inconvenients.

That's the kind of thing I am saying. Regarding boats over 40ft I would say the electric winches and furlers have reached the same kind of acceptance on the market. They have many advantages and a great reliability allowing older people to keep sailing and a smaller crew. Wireless commands for the winches (anchor and sail ones) and to the auto pilot have become increasingly popular and reliable. They have been developed on the solo racing circuit and have become a big asset there as they are for cruising.

All these systems can be operated manually as a back up, so there is not a difference regarding them to be automatic in what regards reliability, only advantages. The same with lateral thrusters. If you have a malfunction you can still operate the boat has if they were not there.

Again, a coach is more reliable than a car and a car hugely more complex but you can believe it that with time a sailboat will be more like a car and less like a coach in what regards simplicity and reliability just because a car is a lot more comfortable than a coach and faster (bigger boats being sailed by couples).

Regards

Paulo


----------



## peterchech (Sep 2, 2011)

JonEisberg said:


> Well, I know plenty of people today sail that way, but trust me... If I'm coming into a place like Charleston or Fernandina on a dirty night, I'm gonna be standing at the helm...
> 
> I've learned plenty of things in my years of delivering a wide variety of boats. But if there's one thing that stands above the rest, and has informed the choices that have informed the outfitting of my own little tub, is that there can be a real virtue in simplicity... Perhaps my experience is unique, but it's definitely been the case that the more complex the boat and its systems, the greater the likelihood I'll experience some sort of 'problem' during the trip...
> 
> ...


It is amazing to me that an electric motor would be mounted at the end of the boom... First the weight and stress on the gooseneck that it must cause, ie in an accidental crash jibe. And second, how could it not be anticipated that the boom will drag in the water in a broach or rough water? Am I missing something?

Reminds me of the 2 near new raymarine autopilots I have, st1000 and a wheel pilot on my dad's boat. The poor mechanical design from a common sense point of view is astounding...


----------



## peterchech (Sep 2, 2011)

Anyway, I'm not sure I would be comfortable handling a 55' sloop by myself relying on electric winches etc. But generally bigger has to be better for ocean sailing to a point. I find my fathers 32' sloop a handful when things go awry, compared to the 25 and 26 footers I usually sail on. The genny is work to tack. The masthead kite especially can load up, and the spin/whisker pole is quite heavy. There are ways to improve this boat for short handing, but dealing with a bigger genoa than this would be more than I would want to do. It's an argument for frac rigs, or cutter or ketch rigs, for sure...

That said, the difference in motion that a few feet of loa can provide is remarkable...

And bigger boats tend to have dodgers etc, and due to higher freeboard are generally drier to boot.

A mini 650 meets all the ISAF cat 2 safety requirements, and so long as the keel stays on it would be hard to find a safer ocean boat. A well built self-righting monohull that won't down flood in a broach, has up to date rigging etc, and the proper sail selection will be seaworthy almost regardless of size with a good skipper at the helm. Floating cork principal, gives me supreme confidence that no matter how bad I mess up out in open water, the most likely worst case scenario is I float on my side until I can release the sheet or halyard causing the problems. Racing teaches u that lesson well.

That said, being in a seaworthy floating cork isn't very comfortable and it takes a special kind of person to single hand a mini 650 transat


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

When I started sailing, there was a rule of thumb that suggested that 2 1/2 to 5 long tons (5,500 lbs to 11,000 lbs) of displacement per person was ideal for a cruising boat. Obviously, a lot has changed in the 50 plus years since I started sailing such as better winches and lower friction hardware, better sail handling gear in general, lower drag hulls, higher relative stability hulls, and more efficient rigs. Offsetting the changes which make sailing easier, are changes which push the opposite direction. People expect a boat to be something 'closer to home' and so have a lot more stuff on board, and that requires more power and that adds weight, and that adds fuel and that adds weight, and that makes a longer boat. It used to be that the type of people who went to sea were pretty fit and rugged, but now people of all physical condition are going to sea, so as boats are getting bigger, perhaps physical strength and endurance is declining some. And all of these things tilt the symplicity, divided by ease of handling, multiplied by length and weight, equation one way or the other. 

And of course as boats become further mechanized to deal with the above, they require more stored power, perhaps bigger battery banks, energy collectors, and fuel, and that adds weight and that again pushes towards bigger size and perhaps more complexity to handle that bigger size and weight. 

Its a vortex that makes me dizzy just thinking about it.....

Jeff


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

peterchech said:


> ...
> 
> A mini 650 meets all the ISAF cat 2 safety requirements, and so long as the keel stays on it would be hard to find a safer ocean boat. A well built self-righting monohull that won't down flood in a broach, has up to date rigging etc, and the proper sail selection will be seaworthy almost regardless of size with a good skipper at the helm. Floating cork principal, gives me supreme confidence that no matter how bad I mess up out in open water, the most likely worst case scenario is I float on my side until I can release the sheet or halyard causing the problems. Racing teaches u that lesson well.
> 
> That said, being in a seaworthy floating cork isn't very comfortable and it takes a special kind of person to single hand a mini 650 transat


Peter, the Mini 650 (22ft) is one of the safest offshore boats.... for their size...but they are still waiting (for 15 days) for the weather to improve to start the mini-transat (high winds on the Biscay) while the Transat Jaques Fabre will start tomorrow with no problem for safety. It will be raced by racing Multihulls (50 and 70ft) and racing Monohulls (40 and 60ft).

That means that they consider a racing multihull with 50ft more seaworthy than the mini class racer monohull. I would say that a 40class racer is more seaworthy than those 50class racers and an Open 6o more seaworthy than a 40class racer. Any sailor that knows all those boats will say the same.

On the other hand I regard the last Jester challenge mostly with old small boats (less than 30ft) almost went to disaster with the majority of the boats having to retire from the race...and they are proposing a new one

JC 2010 Entry List

JC 2014 Entry List

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

PCP said:


> That's just bad design.
> 
> Regarding the reliability of the Trintella, probably that's why they went bankrupt while HR continues to grow.
> 
> ...


Paulo, I really don't disagree with any of your points, they're certainly valid in terms of allowing older or less experienced or fit couples to sail bigger and bigger boats... I simply think that's not necessarily a good thing... I see all the time, people out there in boats that in my opinion are way beyond their ability to manage physically, especially if some of these sailhandling systems go down... And yes, the loss of something like a bow thruster should not necessarily spell doom, and yet I see people today who really are incapable of docking without them, or of getting off a dock when pinned against it by the breeze, without such assistance...

For me, the essence of Seamanship is basically the constant posing of the question _"What IF...?"_ What happens if we don't arrive a X before nightfall, what happens if I don't attend to the bit of chafe I'm seeing on that sheet, and so on... So, I look at that sleek, elegant mainsheet on that HR that disappears into the boom, and I wonder "What IF...?"










Here's how H-R describes the setup:

_"The mainsheet system only has one single visible line. There is a hydraulic cylinder and line purchase hidden inside the boom. The hydraulic vang is very powerful."_

Hmmm, _HIDDEN INSIDE THE BOOM???_ Seriously? Well, I'm sure it works nicely, certainly gives the boat a sleek and uncluttered look, but I sure don't like the sound of such a system, maybe a few years down the road...

Now, perhaps Selden has made the provision for inspection or servicing such an arrangement very convenient... Still, I don't like this modern trend towards hiding lines and other critical gear... "Out of Sight, out of Mind..." Any hydraulic cylinder will begin to leak eventually, will the first indication of the mainsheet failing on such a boat be a stain on the teak decking beneath the gooseneck? If that system develops a problem offshore in a blow, what then? How easy do you suppose it will be for an older couple to deal with servicing a large hydraulic ram (which often requires highly specialized tools and presses that can realistically only be done in a shop ashore) that is _hidden inside the boom?_

Again, perhaps it's just me, and I'm the only delivery skipper out there who has ever had the misfortune of having this sort of gadgetry go tits up... But, I'm guessing maybe not... 

I'll admit, my perspective on much of this stuff is different from most... In the delivery business, it's very common for me to be running brokerage boats that have sat unused for an extended period, or might not have seen the best of maintenance recently... It's one thing when these complex arrangements are new, or are being 'exercised' routinely... But when such boats sit unused in Florida for a couple of years before being sold, it can be a whole different ballgame, and simplicity rules the day... I really have to wonder about the longevity of much of this stuff, many years on down the road... The original owner will have long moved onto something newer and more slick, but the owner of boats relying upon such complexity 20 years down the road are likely to find themselves in a situation of a car owner who drives their cars basically until they die, and are eventually plagued with the failure of things like power windows, with no means of opening them manually, and so on...

No need to ask me how I know this...


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Jeff_H said:


> ... People expect a boat to be something 'closer to home' and so have a lot more stuff on board, and that requires more power and that adds weight, and that adds fuel and that adds weight, and that makes a longer boat. It used to be that the type of people who went to sea were pretty fit and rugged, but now people of all physical condition are going to sea, so as boats are getting bigger, perhaps physical strength and endurance is declining some. And all of these things tilt the symplicity, divided by ease of handling, multiplied by length and weight, equation one way or the other.
> 
> And of course as boats become further mechanized to deal with the above, they require more stored power, perhaps bigger battery banks, energy collectors, and fuel, and that adds weight and that again pushes towards bigger size and perhaps more complexity to handle that bigger size and weight.
> 
> ...


Yes, that is quite true but I don't think that is going to go on an on. If you look at the market it seems to have stabilized between 45 and 65ft meaning that most cruisers if they could (if they had the money) would buy a boat of that size. The magical number seems to be between 50 and 56ft. Those boats can have an house like feel with all commodities and can take the extra weight without making them slow, are very seaworthy with a much better sea motion than a smaller boat. Some good examples, besides the HR 64 that I have posted regarded the ideal cruising boat on the European imaginary:


























There are another (smaller) tendency that prefers smaller simpler and faster offshore cruising boats, but not that small. I would say they would see the ideal cruising boat between 43 and 60ft, I mean if they had the money to have one. Those boats also use electric winches and wireless commands but in a much smaller scale in what regards the first ones:
















There other (even smaller) tendencies in what regards the ideal cruising boat but not really anything smaller than 40fts if we consider any significant tendency. Normally ideal voyage boats tend to be smaller than the others between 44 and 56ft or at least it is what the market shows.











All these boats are designed to be sailed by a couple and that would be unthinkable some decades ago. That is only possible now due to advances in technology and motorized equipment that takes the effort out of sailing.

I don't say that I like it or at least all of it, specially in what regards the first type of boats that I would discard immediately even if I had all the money in the world, but they are without doubt the ones that are most present as the ideal cruiser for most European sailors, have them the money to have them.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Delezynski (Sep 27, 2013)

In reading a lot of the replies, I get the idea that the “feeling” of safety at sea, or the choice of what boat to go to sea in, is drastically influenced by the age of, and actual experience of the posters.

Greg


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

JonEisberg said:


> Paulo, I really don't disagree with any of your points, they're certainly valid in terms of allowing older or less experienced or fit couples to sail bigger and bigger boats... I simply think that's not necessarily a good thing... I see all the time, people out there in boats that in my opinion are way beyond their ability to manage physically, especially if some of these sailhandling systems go down... And yes, the loss of something like a bow thruster should not necessarily spell doom, and yet I see people today who really are incapable of docking without them, or of getting off a dock when pinned against it by the breeze, without such assistance...
> 
> For me, the essence of Seamanship is basically the constant posing of the question _"What IF...?"_ What happens if we don't arrive a X before nightfall, what happens if I don't attend to the bit of chafe I'm seeing on that sheet, and so on... So, I look at that sleek, elegant mainsheet on that HR that disappears into the boom, and I wonder "What IF...?"
> 
> ...


I don't disagree with you on this. Maybe only on a question of perspective: Systems that allow older people to sail bigger boats come to stay and boats like cars or everything else will be more complex and better with time.

Bigger boats are faster, more seaworthy, more comfortable in a seaway and can offer a more comfortable interior with better storage and tankage and it is normal that cruisers went for them as soon as it become not difficult to sail with a couple (at least if they have the money to afford them).

I agree that any mechanical system that has not a manual back up is not a good system. I don't know if that mainsheet on the HT64 has a manual back up or not.

That tendency for bigger boats and mechanized help started not many years ago. Some systems like some that you described on the Trintella are plain dumb. Systems will go in the direction of reliability and the ones that are not will not survive.

There are some that are already used for many years that proved themselves reliable like furling genoas, furling mains, electric anchor winches, electric furling genoas and electric winches as well as wireless commands. Off course all these systems have to have manual back ups and from them the ones I trust in what regards back up are furling masts that are however very reliable but as you say...what if?

You are also right to say that a mechanical system is more dangerous than a manual one, not in this case but in all cases. You have a lot of power at the push of a button and you have to be careful with the use but the electrical winches for the rigging are not more dangerous than the winch that works with the anchor, one that is used by everybody for a long time.

You are also right into pointing out that these systems will not last forever and need adequate maintenance, specially the more complex ones. This will have not only a cost in the sailboats price (this systems are expensive) as will in the future will bring a problem when these boats become older and went on the used market. Refitting the boat would be much more expensive regarding the boat value.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Delezynski said:


> In reading a lot of the replies, I get the idea that the "feeling" of safety at sea, or the choice of what boat to go to sea in, is drastically influenced by the age of, and actual experience of the posters.
> 
> Greg


Off course, but most of all is influenced by the budget available and a small cruiser is certainly better that no cruiser at all

I would say that for sailing a smaller boat offshore one has to be more experienced and more fit than to cruise a modern much bigger boat offshore.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Delezynski (Sep 27, 2013)

PCP said:


> Off course, but most of all is influenced by the budget available and a small cruiser is certainly better that no cruiser at all
> 
> I would say that for sailing a smaller boat offshore one has to be more experienced and more fit than to cruise a modern much bigger boat offshore.
> 
> ...


Not a good assumption to make. 

Jill and I are both of the social security age. Well, I will admit it, but Jill is my trophy wife at only 25. ;-) 

We could, if we decided to, purchase most any of the boats listed. We chose to cruise our Nor'Sea 27 for many factors. Each year since we started living aboard and cruising we talk over weather or not we want a larger boat, it has always been a resounding "NO"!

Photo below is Jill and a friend on another excursion....... :laugher

Greg


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Delezynski said:


> Not a good assumption to make.
> 
> ...choice of what boat to go to sea in, is drastically influenced by the age of, and actual experience of the *posters*.
> ...
> Greg


Greg it is not an assumption it is a fact: the budget available conditions the choice of the boat. It may not apply to you and I was not thinking in you specifically, but it conditions me and almost all of us. Unlike you most of us cannot afford to pay a million USD for a sailboat not to mention maintenance and the big berthing fees of a big boat.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Delezynski (Sep 27, 2013)

PCP said:


> Greg it is not an assumption it is a fact: the budget available conditions the choice of the boat. It may not apply to you and I was not thinking in you specifically, but it conditions me and almost all of us. Unlike you most of us cannot afford to pay a million USD for a sailboat not to mention maintenance and the big berthing fees of a big boat.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Paulo,

I would like to point out that of the about 15+ boats that departed the San Francisco Bay when we did, for "long term" cruising, we are the the smallest boat, AND we are the ONLY boat still actively cruising. Of the rest, two couples are still living aboard in a Mexico marina and have not sailed in years. The rest, gave up cruising, sold the boats and are now CLODs (Cruisers Living On Dirt). ALL of the boats I cite were fitted out with the best that could be offered in 2004. What is state of the art today, is obsolete next week, some times tomorrow!  I can't believe people NEED a new phone every year!

I do not attribute us still cruising to anything special about us. I do think it has a lot do with how hard/easy it is to maintain and actively cruise a larger boat. Of the breakdowns, and we had a couple, we were FAR less impacted than the larger boats...... That is, we cruised more for less maintenance. 

During 4 years in the Sea of Cortez, we were offered 3 times to trade our boat, straight across, for boats in the 41 to 45 foot range. And they were NOT trash boats!

Of a lot of active cruisers I know, we are NOT unique in cruising on boats far smaller than could be bought by the people cruising them.

I DO agree that many people run out, sell the house and purchase the biggest boat they can. I would also submit that all of those that we met along the way (MANY) gave up cruising in short order!  I am always sad for those that go that route. Not for the loss of money, but for the dreams that go unfulfilled.

That said, in my line of work, when I was working, a "fact" was universally true. As you have said that Jill and I (along with others we know) do not fit your "fact", I submit it is only an assumption. 

Greg


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Greg, was the “twenty footer” you mentioned the Cal 20, “Black Feather”, or was it the WWP named “Tubby”? I’ve seen the former at South Beach before the race and attended the talk on Tubby at BYC. Both were pretty amazing voyages, but twenty days of nothing but canned ravioli isn’t quite my style. I have been knocked down (Boom or masthead in the water) twice in a 22 footer and twice in 38 footers. If the recovery from this is an indication of safety, I’ll take a 38 footer any time. I have yet to get even close to getting knocked down in anything over 40 feet. The fellow in Oregon who is looking for a sailboat isn’t experienced enough to really know what he wants and is getting unduly influenced by the beauty pageant known as “what is the best boat for…”. As you know from your experience in sailing the Gulf of the Farallones, the ability to make speed needed to climb waves and safely navigate in high sea states is an important safety factor. Holding all other variables the same that means water line length. Smaller waterlines means shorter masts. Which means losing airflow over the sails when the boat is in a trough, just when you need the drive to climb over the next wave isn’t much fun.

A lot of these discussions degenerate in the proverbial “beauty pageant” rants that assume a lot of personal criteria, not exactly germane to safety. I see the move to ever larger cruising boats as one more to do with comfort than anything else. Bigger boats mean bigger tankage. Or water makers. Or both. Water makers and SSBs mean alternative sources of electrical generation. Mrs. B loves to sail, but the deprivations resulting from too many crew, too small of a boat isn’t going to work (she is also a Baja vet). Longer waterline gives you more space to store stuff. How do you guys manage all that stuff? Anyone have the courage to post an interior photo three days in on a five day passage? I certainly don’t.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Delezynski said:


> Paulo,
> 
> I would like to point out that of the about 15+ boats that departed the San Francisco Bay when we did, for "long term" cruising, we are the the smallest boat, AND we are the ONLY boat still actively cruising. Of the rest, two couples are still living aboard in a Mexico marina and have not sailed in years. The rest, gave up cruising, sold the boats and are now CLODs (Cruisers Living On Dirt). ALL of the boats I cite were fitted out with the best that could be offered in 2004. What is state of the art today, is obsolete next week, some times tomorrow!  I can't believe people NEED a new phone every year!
> 
> ...


Yes, I like facts but you have completed misunderstood me.

This thread is not about the right size of a cruising boat but about the relation between the size of cruising boat and its safety offshore.

I like diversity and I agree that the size and the type of the boat is a personal choice. But then if we talk about the subject of the thread it is a fact that a modern 50ft cruiser, well designed as any production boat is, it is safer offshore than any 27ft. The fact is that one and not anything about the choice of the size of the ideal cruising boat that I see as a personal choice.

Those boats that I posted represent what the majority of European see as the perfect cruising boat, if they could afford them. It does not represent the choice of all cruisers but a market tendency. That post was trying to show that the tendency, in what regards seaworthiness and cruising space goes in the direction of bigger lighter faster boats that substituted as tendency for offshore work the smaller slower and heavier sailing boats. Not for all but for the vast majority and as a clear market tendency.

Regarding cruising you make a lot of assumptions that I don't understand. Most of the cruisers that buy those big boats or others and have the time to cruise full time don't do that not because they can't but because they don't want. Most cruise during what they call "sailing season" and return home for the winter by the fireplace with the family.

It is not better nor worse, it is a choice regarding life stile.

Regarding that story about boat maintenance Europeans that have the money to buy those boats keep them in average for 4 to 6 years and when they start to get problems or a new nicer model appear they just sell them and buy another new one. Off course we are not talking about everybody but to the ones that have +1 million to give for a new sailboat and have a life style according to it.

We are talking about what sailors would like to do if they have the conditions (and money) to do that. Personally, If I could , I would change my boat every 6 years by a new one and that way would not only have a very contemporary boat as I would escape almost all maintenance and the trouble that gives. However, even if I had all the money in the world, I would not buy one of those big and heavy cruisers, but a smaller and faster cruiser between 38 and 44ft, but that is just my personal choice, my ideal and suits only me and maybe some other sailors since that is a relatively common choice even if not dominant.

Regarding cruising extensively and living aboard a 27 ft boat, not by need but by choice, well I would say that it is not a very common option. Almost non existent here where a 36ft is considered a small cruising boat. It would imply a very spartan way of living but if that suits you and it is your ideal regarding cruising and living style, than it is fine with me, as any other option if you don't try to convince me that a 27ft boat is the ideal boat for me (or to majority) to cruise.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Delezynski (Sep 27, 2013)

GeorgeB said:


> Greg, was the "twenty footer" you mentioned the Cal 20, "Black Feather", or was it the WWP named "Tubby"? <Snip>


George,

The small one I was talking about is "Mini". You can see it at Dave's web site at;
Home

We had a GREAT time talking to him, and the author of the book about his voyage, Sandy Moss. I love going to talks, or even just watching videos of cruisers. Not the short time guys who get a boat, drive it fast, post a blog, then dump it in a few months to a year, but the people who head out far, like Ed & Ellen on Entr'acte who built there boat from a kit ( Ellen and Ed sail around the world in their NorSea 27 Entr'acte ) or Lealea here on the the board.

We agree 20 ft is a bit small for us, but we have talked about a 15 to 20 ft as a "summer home" for cruising places for short time periods.

I think knock down recovery is sure something to think about! But I also think it's different for each boat. That is, because one 35 footer works well, another may not. It's more than just waterline. We took one on our way south along the Baja. A rogue his us broadside. We had the aft end of the boom and spreaders in the water, but not the mast top. Was at 0200, why does everything happen then?????  Sure got our attention! We were clipped in, the cockpit, with Jill in the foot well, looked like a jacuzzi! NOT FUN! But we got less than a cup of water below, and she righted her self in seconds. I think our 8 foot beam helped a lot here.

You know, I have to search my memory about loosing wind in the trough? It just does not come up in my mind that it was a problem. I will think about it and see if Jill remembers any thing about it.

You know, as we cruised, we NEVER met ANY boat that did not have so much junk it took up a full storage area. By junk, I am not talking trash, just stuff like spares etc...

I agree, bigger boats do have bigger tanks, but then, they use more fuel! And with the added weight of the junk, use even MORE fuel. Never met a true cruising boat "out there" that was not over loaded, no matter the length! I think we carry about the same, size for size. We are trying hard to pair down now that we have been. We do have a reefer/ice maker, water maker, SSB, HAM, 50 inch TV (LED projector), Etc... We do NOT camp out on board. Guenevere is our home. I don't think we would have a problem with a post an interior photo three days in on a five day passage? As long as it was of the forward cabin, not our aft cabin!

I LOVE YOUR WORDS; "beauty pageant" rants! Sure fits. 

Greg


----------



## Delezynski (Sep 27, 2013)

PCP said:


> Yes, I like facts but you have completed misunderstood me.
> 
> This thread is not about the right size of a cruising boat but about the relation between the size of cruising boat and its safety offshore.
> 
> ...


I agree about the subject of the thread. But I think we are agreeing to disagree about safety off shore. I was not trying to change any ones mind when I started the thread, simply listening to the ideas of others.

You feel one way, I feel another, each of us basing our opinions on our own experiences and what others put forth.

Believe me, I am NOT trying to convince any one to go live aboard just any 27 foot boat. But I am saying, there are more people who are actually cruising about in smaller than 45 foot boats.

As for us, Our Nor'Sea 27 is VERY seaworthy. And it is NOT spartan. We have a 50 inch TV aboard  (LED projector) and all the other comforts of home. We do NOT "camp out". And we recently finished up cruising the SF Bay area for a few months and are now planning on cruising the east coast of Florida early next year. After that, who knows.

I do pride myself on making up my own mind based on what I learn from others, BUT NOT following the heard, so what is common or not in an area has no baring on what I decide to do.

Thanks for all of your ideas! I do enjoy listening to others ideas and try to learn something from every one. Hopefully, we can meet up at anchor and have cocktail in the cockpit some time!

Greg


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

JonEisberg said:


> ... So, I look at that sleek, elegant mainsheet on that HR that disappears into the boom, and I wonder "What IF...?"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't know much about big sailingboats modern systems (they are out of my range) but I found very strange that a conservative brand like HR use something less reliable or in a experimental stage.

It turns out that almost all modern big sailboats use a similar system even boats that race. It has to be a reliable system to have such a generalized use. The Swan use it also. Here you can see one on the relatively new Swan 60:



"Race-optimized versions, like Emma, have a racing boom rather than the Park Avenue style that comes on the cruising version. However, Emma is equipped with a Magic-Trim system that does away with the traveller, drastically reducing mainsail trim options. A racing mainsheet system is available as part of the optional $35,000 competition package.

On deck, sophisticated sail control systems and an ergonomically designed layout allow the Swan 60 to be easily sailed by just three people. The Magic-Trim mainsheet is a very safe innovation for cruisers, as it has no exposed finger-jamming blocks and includes a quick release that allows the main to be dumped in response to a large gust or when bearing away......All winches on board are electric, enabling effortless sail trimming and creating an uncluttered central cockpit devoid of pedestal grinders."

Flagship: Best Boats Swan 60 | Sail Magazine

The supplier of the system is not the same on the HR and on the Swan but you can have a look at the boats that use the system from this supplier and will have an idea of how expanded is its use and the class of boats that use them.

Cariboni - Marine Hydraulic Systems

Cariboni - Marine Hydraulic Systems

As I have said, we will have to get used to more complex sailboats at least in what regards bigger sailboats. That's the only way they can be sailed by a couple or a very short crew and that's a so big advantage that justifies the use of more complex systems that have no reason not to be reliable...only expensive

Regards

Paulo


----------



## krisscross (Feb 22, 2013)

It would be great if I had enough money to freely pick whatever boat I like in order to keep my rear end safe while at sea. Whatever I lack in purchasing power I will have to make up in my seamanship skills and prudent decision making. But I do appreciate all the comments and opinions of all the experiences sailors here. I will definitely buy the biggest solid boat I can afford, which for me will be something in the 30 to 35 ft range. Instinctively, I prefer smaller boats because this is what I have ever sailed and I know I can handle them even when things get hairy, but size definitely matters and there has to be a happy median somewhere.


----------



## Delezynski (Sep 27, 2013)

GeorgeB said:


> ....... As you know from your experience in sailing the Gulf of the Farallones, the ability to make speed needed to climb waves and safely navigate in high sea states is an important safety factor. Holding all other variables the same that means water line length. Smaller waterlines means shorter masts. Which means losing airflow over the sails when the boat is in a trough, just when you need the drive to climb over the next wave isn't much fun..........


George,

As said, I discussed this with Jill to get her thoughts from our experiences.

A note here, we go out of our way to pick good weather windows!  The great thing about open ended cruising...... NO SCHEDULE. In all our time out we did NOT have all that much bad weather! We used our Mainster for light air MUCH more than storm sails. 

She said, and as I remembered it, that we would stall at times when hitting a wave, but it was more from the water than lack of wind in the sail. She pointed out that when we were in weather that was producing that high of waves, we were almost always reefed down. Or, we would heave-to and hang out for it to pass. A larger boat would most likely not have to reef as early as us. That is a point.

I also remember when we HAD to make any maneuver that even might put us beam to, I would have the engine running, just in case. I can only remember once when I felt I had to engage and rev. It was early on in our cruising and we were running with the wind picking up. Jill suggested reefing, but we were making such good speed, I waited. Lesson learned, LISTEN TO JILL!!! 

Greg


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

“Safety” is an interesting concept. Given the right set of conditions, even a Mac power sailboat falls within the “safe” parameter. “Safety” becomes a sliding scale as the sea state and wind conditions increase. As Paulo said previously, holding all the other variables equal (build quality, principal ratios, etc.), a boat with a longer water line will be in that “safe” zone longer as conditions deteriorate. For example, I used to sail my 22 out of Santa Cruz and a weekend jaunt down to Monterey would sometimes feel like sailing in the Southern Ocean. The same conditions in my 34 is now a “fun romp”.

Yes, we ideally should pick an appropriate weather window to build in as much safety margin as we can, but we don’t always have that perfect crystal ball prediction. A wise general once told me “George, sometimes the battlefield chooses you”. When that happens all you have to rely on is your skills as a sailor and the safety margin built into your boat. By having to engage an engine to power-tack your way in a high sea state you are beginning to dig into that margin. Using our Oregon friend as an example. Safety for him is the ability to claw his way off a lee shore. What would afford more safety margin – a boat with a tighter tacking angle, or a boat with a bigger engine?

Ideally, we would all be like Paulo and be able to afford a million dollar boat equipped with all the latest gizmos and gadgets. But that’s not going to happen. For me, the “size matters” equation tappers off pretty dramatically at around forty feet. Beyond that, things just get too big and heavy to manage on my own. I want to be able to do a headsail change or spinnaker gybe with a pole that I can manage. Certainly, there are plenty of smaller boats that also have that safety margin built into them, but then the issue of crew comfort, tankage, and carrying capacity comes into play. These may be my criteria, but certainly not the only criteria.

Greg, in the great continuum of cruising boats, both your 27 and my 34 are in the same small boat category. As my Mexico sojourn is only a couple of years away, I am interested in learning more from you and Jill (I’m enjoying your website). I’ve got a lot of questions and would like to dialog further.


----------



## Delezynski (Sep 27, 2013)

GeorgeB said:


> "Safety" is an interesting concept. Given the right set of conditions, even a Mac power sailboat falls within the "safe" parameter. ......
> 
> Greg, in the great continuum of cruising boats, both your 27 and my 34 are in the same small boat category. As my Mexico sojourn is only a couple of years away, I am interested in learning more from you and Jill (I'm enjoying your website). I've got a lot of questions and would like to dialog further.


George,

I completely agree about "Safety" and it being a concept. That's partly why I started the thread. I can't count the number of times people ask how we could possibility go to sea in our boat! They always come back with something to the effect that you need a much bigger boat to go. I see so many people that equate size to safety. We know if proper boat, with proper prep and a proper crew, what ever those may be.....

The time I engaged the engine was due to the wave period, not wave height. Jill and I put a LOT more credence in the period! We can handle ANY size wave (as long as it's not breaking) if the period is long enough. And we were starting out and wanted to make a harbor rather than head out to sea, a tactic we have done since then. We try to learn at every opertunity.

I was pondering this all week and it came to mind that the ONE craft that every one goes to when all else fails, is the life raft! Comfort is out, but you are safe. And it's the smallest craft. I just don't think I would like to try to voyage in one.

In fact, for us we spent way more time, orders of magnitude, in calm conditions than in storms!

WOW, to bad we did not talk sooner. We recently finished up our SF Bay area cruise. Spend a few months there in the Bay and Delta. Was in the Alameda yacht club for a Nor'Sea get together. I actually gave a short talk there. We could have had a gam. We are now in prep to head to New Orleans early next February for the BIG party, then cruise on over to the west coast of Fla.

We would be happy to share any info we have on our Mexico romp. We spent years there after planning to only stay a couple of month. But our info may be getting dated. One thing we agree on, we had a GREAT time. We met many people had circumnavigated and were back there, stating that is was the BEST cruising place!

Greg


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Nine times out of ten the conditions will range from the benign to boring. However, that tenth time is the one that is noteworthy and besides, we want to safely make harbor ten out of ten times and not merely nine out of ten. Being a San Francisco/ Norcal kind of guy, I do tend to focus on that “tenth” time as our prevailing conditions make for snotty weather more like six out of ten times. I think I had more days this year in 25-35kts of breeze than I did days under 20 kts. When I race the family Catalina in offshore races I have a hard stop at when NOAA predicts periods in seconds less than swell height in feet when swells are over ten feet. Anything less than that and the waves tend to break in the Gulf of the Farallones.

My racing buddies like to give me a hard time about owning a wildly inappropriate boat too. I know that the Nor’ Seas have a loyal following and are a pretty salty boat too. (Isn’t there a guy on this BB who has done the Hawaii thing?) We were just down the Estuary at Marina Village and I would have loved to buy you a beer at EYC. Maybe next time. What I really want to focus on is the outfitting and boat prep here. We have several friends who live in Mexico and I have tons of bread crumb trails and marked waypoints for my chart plotter. I’d like to pick your brain on what worked for you, what would have been a neat thing and what was a waste of storage space.

For example, awnings, dodgers and biminis. We currently have a dodger and a “cruiser awning” that zips into the dodger and ties into the back stay. I’m thinking of getting a framed dodger that would collapse onto the back stay and a zippered transitional piece. Our canvas work is “royal blue”, your thoughts? Also, what do you think of the cruiser curtains? I noticed that you had a big curved awning that went over the boom. Should we make an awning to fit over the forepeak? Where and how did you store all the awnings? Fire away.


----------



## Delezynski (Sep 27, 2013)

GeorgeB said:


> I'd like to pick your brain on what worked for you, what would have been a neat thing and what was a waste of storage space.
> 
> For example, awnings, dodgers and biminis. We currently have a dodger and a "cruiser awning" that zips into the dodger and ties into the back stay. I'm thinking of getting a framed dodger that would collapse onto the back stay and a zippered transitional piece. Our canvas work is "royal blue", your thoughts? Also, what do you think of the cruiser curtains? I noticed that you had a big curved awning that went over the boom. Should we make an awning to fit over the forepeak? Where and how did you store all the awnings? Fire away.


Should we start a new thread? 
Something like Sea of Cortez bound? 
Start it and I will follow and post. Most likely you will also get more info than just us can provide. 

Greg


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

This Coast Guard rescue represents the problem of trying to sail a boat that is more than one can safely handle in extreme conditions. Looks like the crew could not even reduce sail as the loads on boats of this size become extreme at high wind speeds. Bigger not always safer.

The Coast Guard Channel: The Perfect Storm Rescues


----------



## Delezynski (Sep 27, 2013)

Very nice video. Thanks for posting.

Greg


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

Delezynski said:


> Very nice video. Thanks for posting.
> 
> Greg


Here is another, more info of the situation:
marine flower 2 - Bing Videos


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

casey1999 said:


> This Coast Guard rescue represents the problem of trying to sail a boat that is more than one can safely handle in extreme conditions. Looks like the crew could not even reduce sail as the loads on boats of this size become extreme at high wind speeds. Bigger not always safer.
> 
> The Coast Guard Channel: The Perfect Storm Rescues


You got it wrong Casey, there was nothing wrong with the boat and they say so on the video.






The boat was sailing with all that sail because it could handle and be stable with all that sail. On the movie you can see that the skipper reduces sail (between the beginning and the end of the movie). The crew was only one guy, the family could not help , two women that didn't know how to sail and a small child. They say the boat was his *new* baby and clearly he had not experience to sail alone that boat.

They say he was exhausted!!!! All he had to do was to close the boat put a floating anchor out and wait the storm to pass. Anyway for what I can see and the amount of sail the boat carried there was no need for that at that moment. The boat was sailing alright.

Clearly a terrified family that had thought that the sea was always a nice place and that had enough of bad weather (and the worst was yet to come) and wanted out.

Do you think they would be better or safer in a smaller boat, maybe a 27ft boat? That's plain crazy.

This was clearly a case where the boat could take a lot more than the crew.

Some buy a 50 or 60ft boat and think that the boat is so big that it will always be comfortable or that the boat can take any sea and even if it is obvious that a big boat will be safer than a much smaller one, there is conditions that can be dangerous even for a much bigger boat than that one.

The big and important question is what the hell was doing that boat there?

They certainly had information about the weather. That is the capital error and the one that shows the inexperience of that skipper, more than the fact the had abandoned a perfectly sound boat just because he was tired.

Why he did not put the family safe and stayed on that boat on a floating anchor? Surely he had one and if not, well he is the one to blame, not the boat.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

PCP said:


> You got it wrong Casey, there was nothing wrong with the boat and they say so on the video.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Paulo,
Did I ever say anything was wrong with the boat? No. I said it looked like the crew could not reduce sail. This may have been caused by extreme loads on the sails, due to high winds. Or maybe the boat was broken- we don't have all the information. As I am sure you know, the larger the boat, the more extreme the loads are- then you either need mechanical/electrical advantage or a big strong crew. A failure of your advantage could lead to disaster.

In any case, looks like you got it wrong Paulo. I think Capt Vittone has more experience than you. The below is from Capt Vittone- you may notice he was the rescue swimmer in the CG Marine Flower II video I previously posted.:

Hurricane Survival ? No Place for Absolutes | gCaptain ? Maritime & Offshore News

Hurricane Survival - No Place for Absolutes.By Mario Vittone On October 29, 2012 
...By Mario Vittone

"The owner of Marine Flower II abandoned his perfectly good sailboat in November of 1994. It is exactly what he should have done. His boat wasn't sinking, but after two days fighting seasickness and fatigue, his wife and daughter could only lay below with his infant son. In a matter of hours, he would have to single-hand his 64-foot ketch through a hurricane. I don't think he would have made it. If he hadn't called for rescue when he did, the search and rescue would have likely been just a search. Stepping down into the ocean was a very good idea. If you're thinking you would have done differently, then you are exactly the kind of boater the Coast Guard often looks for, but never finds."


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

PCP said:


> The boat was sailing with all that sail because it could handle and be stable with all that sail. On the movie you can see that the skipper reduces sail (between the beginning and the end of the movie). The crew was only one guy, the family could not help , two women that didn't know how to sail and a small child. They say the boat was his *new* baby and clearly he had not experience to sail alone that boat.
> 
> They say he was exhausted!!!! All he had to do was to close the boat put a floating anchor out and wait the storm to pass. Anyway for what I can see and the amount of sail the boat carried there was no need for that at that moment. The boat was sailing alright.
> 
> ...


Paulo,
I do not have all the facts on the Marine Flower II rescue, but I question why the sails were not taken down during the rescue. Surely it would be easier for the CG crew if all sails were down and the boat was lying a hull. Then the rescue swimmer may have been able to get to the boat with reduce effort. It looks like at the end of the vid, the main sheet is completely released so to depower the single main sail that is still up. Maybe somthing was jammed or skipper just to tired to try to bring down the sail- we just don't have all the facts. In all the CG rescues I have seen, no sails are hoisted on the sailboat during rescue.

In any case the CG did a spectacular job.


----------



## vega1860 (Dec 18, 2006)

Do I really need to comment on this thread? Probably not


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

casey1999 said:


> Paulo,
> .....
> 
> In any case, looks like you got it wrong Paulo. I think Capt Vittone has more experience than you. The below is from Capt Vittone- you may notice he was the rescue swimmer in the CG Marine Flower II video I previously posted.:
> ...


I don't understand what you mean

Captain Vitone was not the skypper of that boat!!!!???

What I have said regarding the skipper was:* "The big and important question is what the hell was doing that boat there? They certainly had information about the weather. That is the capital error and the one that shows the inexperience of that skipper, more than the fact the had abandoned a perfectly sound boat just because he was tired.*

And I certainly would have not the experience needed to sail a 60ft alone across the ocean, at least without a lot of practice with that type of boat and only if the boat was equipped for solo sailing, but I cannot see what that as to do with the inexperience of the skipper of that particular boat.

But the only meaningful point to this thread and the reason you have posted it here has to do with your assumption that a smaller boat would be safer on that situation than that 60ft or then it make no sense to have posted all this here.

So, *do you really think they would be safer on that situation on a 30ft boat?
*

Regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

PCP said:


> But the only meaningful point to this thread and the reason you have posted it here has to do with your assumption that a smaller boat would be safer on that situation than that 60ft or then it make no sense to have posted all this here.
> 
> So, *do you really think they would be safer on that situation on a 30ft boat?
> *
> ...


So you have moved from asking if a 27 foot boat to asking if a 30 foot boat is safe?

I am not saying a 27 foot boat or a 60 foot boat is unsafe. Just saying any boat can be unsafe.

In any case, my understanding from reading many nautical design references is that generally boats over 40 feet will not capsize nearly as easily as somthing less than 40 feet. Assuming the boat is of a normal design (no water ballast and such hi-tech desings). Seems in storm conditions my main concern would be losing the mast and capsize.

The problem is that once boats hit say 40 feet and above, the loads get to the point where one really needs to be careful, especially in storm conditions- and this includes setting drouges and parachute anchors. So even though one may appear to be safer on a 40 foot and above size boat, in reality 35 feet may be a better number for maximum size.

Of course all of this is much dependent on the skipper training, ability, and physical condition, as well as the crews if one is not single handing. The other thing to remember, say it is you and you spouse double handing a 44 footer. One gets injured, can the other single hand the boat in a storm?


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

casey1999 said:


> ...
> The problem is that once boats hit say 40 feet and above, the loads get to the point where one really needs to be careful, especially in storm conditions- and this includes setting drouges and parachute anchors. So even though one may appear to be safer on a 40 foot and above size boat, in reality 35 feet may be a better number for maximum size.
> 
> Of course all of this is much dependent on the skipper training, ability, and physical condition, as well as the crews if one is not single handing. The other thing to remember, say it is you and you spouse double handing a 44 footer. One gets injured, can the other single hand the boat in a storm?


I don't agree with you that a 35ft to be safer than a 60ft boat assuming the boat is prepared to be solo sailed.

No, not a 44fter, I sail a 41ft boat. I can sail the boat alone even on a storm even if I will do everything not to sail the boat in a storm in first place.

On a storm my boat will have considerably more stability and RM than a similar typed 35ft boat.

Regarding my wife no, she would not be able to sail that boat in a storm or in perfect sailing conditions. She would not be able to sail a 35ft either.

She don't likes sailing and refuses to learn. She has the right to do so and I am happy that she likes to voyage and sail on the boat with me taking car of the sails.

You are mistaken in thinking that a smaller boat is always easier to sail then a bigger boat. It depends how the boat is rigged and on the weight of the boat. My boat is less heavy than most old 35fters and in a storm the amount of sail it needs to sail and make good speed is really minimum.

Even with as little as 15/16K of wind the amount of sail to go at 8K is small, with both main and genoa reefed. Off course I could go at double figure speeds downwind with full sail but then the boat would not be easy to sail one by a solo sailor, as it is with the reefed sails.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

We may have found our newest version of an anchor argument. In the end, this is all a matter of personal preference and opinion, with just a little bit of data thrown in to make it irreconcilable.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

PCP said:


> I don't agree with you that a 35ft to be safer than a 60ft boat assuming the boat is prepared to be solo sailed.
> 
> No, not a 44fter, I sail a 41ft boat. I can sail the boat alone even on a storm even if I will do everything not to sail the boat in a storm in first place.
> 
> ...


PCP,
I never made a blanket statement that said a 35 footer is safer than a 60 footer. Not sure where you get these crazy ideas. You would make a good news reporter as they do a great job at twisting and spinning a story.


----------



## rgscpat (Aug 1, 2010)

Of course, Mario Vittone is the rescue swimmer who saved the crew of the Marine Flower 2, and who in an interview called it his most dangerous rescue.

( Rescue Swimmers Have Special Strengths )


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

The Marine Flower 2 is a Sundeer 64 ketch. They were designed as a couple boat and are rigged for sailing from the cockpit. They have probably completed more circumnavigations than any other boat their size, often only sailed by 2.

There was nothing wrong with the boat.

The owner/skipper was inexperienced, at least with this boat.

He should not have been there.

This link catalogs boats and mileage.
SetSail» Blog Archive » Deerfoot and Sundeer History


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

mitiempo said:


> The Marine Flower 2 is a Sundeer 64 ketch. They were designed as a couple boat and are rigged for sailing from the cockpit. They have probably completed more circumnavigations than any other boat their size, often only sailed by 2.
> 
> There was nothing wrong with the boat.
> 
> ...


How do you know the experience of the Marine Flower 2 Skipper?

Even the designers of the Sundeer 64 say they now do not feel comfortable handling such a boat and now have designed a similar power boat:

From:

DashewOffshore.com - the serious cruising sailor's website
This quote from the Dashew's;

"But we've past the point where we were comfortable handling this much sail by ourselves, and we did not want to take crew. The FPB was the next step for us, and perhaps for others facing the same dilemma.

When we started this new project Linda was all for it. Steve, on the other hand, felt he was being forced in this direction by the march of time. At 62 years and counting, it was no longer prudent for the two of us to cross oceans, dealing with the spinnakers and reachers that are part of our sailing equation."

Also, some reports state Marine Flower II was taking on water. Even the CG rescue swimmer stated this in one of his posted interviews. Also wikipedia reported the vessel taking on water:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Gordon_(1994)

From 
Offshore, a family of four required rescue from the Coast Guard after their boat began filling with water in the midst of 17 ft (5.2 m) surf.[43] A 49 ft (15 m) sailboat was disabled about 115 mi (185 km) offshore Norfolk, Virginia, and the crew of three were also rescued by the Coast Guard.[1] The sailboat was sailing from Bermuda to Oxford, Maryland, but was halted after the engine failed, the anchor was ripped off, and the mainstay was torn.[44] The interaction between Gordon and a ridge over New England produced coastal flooding in eastern Virginia. Tides reached 4 ft (1.2 m) above normal in Virginia Beach, which washed away 100 ft (30 m) of a fishing pier. The high tides caused road damage and minor housing damage.[18]

[43]
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/storm_wallets/atlantic/atl1994/gordon/preloc/ilm04.gif

Also, Hurricane Gordon was a very complex system. The weather bureau could not accurately predict its path or fomation. Go online and look at its track- it made 6 landfalls:






Hurricane Gordon[edit]Category 1 hurricane (SSHS)

Duration November 8 - November 21 
Peak intensity 85 mph (140 km/h) (1-min) 980 mbar (hPa)

Main article: Hurricane Gordon (1994)
Hurricane Gordon was the final storm of the season. The system formed near Panama in the southwestern Caribbean Sea on November 9. Strengthening into a tropical storm, Gordon wound its way north into the Greater Antilles. Despite warm waters, persistent wind shear prevented significant strengthening. Executing a slow turn to the north and then the northwest, Gordon made two more landfalls, on eastern Jamaica and eastern Cuba. As Tropical Storm Gordon made its fourth landfall crossing the Florida Keys, it interacted with a cyclone in the upper-troposphere and a series of cyclonic lows which lent the storm some sub-tropical characteristics. After a few days as an unusual hybrid of a tropical and a subtropical system in the Gulf of Mexico, the storm re-claimed its tropical storm status and it made another landfall across the Florida peninsula and continued into the Atlantic Ocean. In the Atlantic, Gordon rapidly strengthened to a Category 1 hurricane. Gordon's characteristic briefly approached North Carolina, but ultimately the storm headed south, weakening into a minor tropical storm before making its sixth and final landfall on Florida's east coast. Overall, the storm made six separate landfalls.[42]

Those Sundeers look like amazing boats, never herd of them before. Interesting no one went out after Gordon to try to claim the boat. Looks like the value was over $500k. Also interesting the boat did not show up in Europe later in the year, unless it was taking on water. Boat has at least two water tight bulkheads.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Minnewaska said:


> We may have found our newest version of an anchor argument. In the end, this is all a matter of personal preference and opinion, with just a little bit of data thrown in to make it irreconcilable.


Precisely! I am always amazed at the religious fervor with which people can vociferously debate these "How Long is a piece of string?" type issues. The reality is that like so many of these things, there is no one-size-fits-all, universally always correct answer here.

The safety of any length boat derives from the specific individual and the specific boat in question. The reality is that people buy boats based on what they fear the most. The unspoken decision process is based on a range of questions; Questions such as: (Caution: The following material may contain items which were stated with tongue firmly planted in cheek.)
-Do I fear being uncomfortable more than I fear not being able to manhandle the boat?
-Do I fear a large amount of complexity more than I fear having to give up performance and seakeeping? 
-Do I fear spending a lot of money to buy and maintain a boat than I fear living in a cramped cabin?
-Do I fear being rolled in a 25 foot wave, than I fear being rolled in a 50 foot wave? 
-Do I fear having to work for a few more years more than I fear not have a dedicated_______ (fill in the blank...chart table, galley table, pilothouse,gigantic steering wheel or twin wheels, etc.) 
-Do I fear having a dinghy which is a third of the length of my boat and needs to be deflated and stored more than I fear not being able to anchor close to shore? 
-Do I fear taking twice as long making a passage, than I fear paying for a bigger slip or not being able to trailer my boat? 
-Do I fear having to ration my consumables on a long passage more than I fear losing fingers or worse adjusting extremely highly stressed control lines? 
-Do I fear the sense of being isolated from the sailing that comes with highly mechanized sailing more than I fear the physical labor of sailing a smaller less mechanized boat?

And so on&#8230;

And the next thing you know these discussions get distorted with anecdotal and asymmetrical arguments. Take the original poster for example. He happens to own one of the few small purpose built cruisers that may actually be safer to sail than the majority of boats which are larger. But in the vast universe of similar sized boats, a boat this size which is also as capable of making safe distance voyages is a rarity. Which is okay, since few people have the mindset that it takes to make long distance offshore passages in a boat that is this small.

On the other extreme are the points raised by my esteemed colleague, Paulo. Paulo rightly points at very large designs which are well designed and engineered to allow a couple to safely handle them in a broad range of conditions. These are truly amazing boats that demonstrate what the ingenuity of man can accomplish. But again, few of us can afford to buy one these, and frankly few of us have the skills that it would take to sail one of these well, and safely, and to repair any possible critical element that might happen to fail mid-passage.

And even if (and I know that is a big 'if') we can agree that these particular larger boats can be safely handled by a couple if properly engineered and equipped, that does not apply to all larger boats. For as good as these examples may be, the majority of big boats out there are neither designed, or equipped or even easily adaptable to being safely sailed by a couple.

And at the end of the day, the reality is that boats at neither end of the extremes truly make sense for any of us. In an ideal world, we have each analyzed our specific needs in terms of how and where we sail, comfort requirements, purchase and operating budget, need for speed, tastes, skill sets, and physical abilities, and purchased the exact right boat that is the precise mix of virtues and liabilities to unequivocally correspond to our needs. And that boat is precisely the right sized boat for safety. (At least, until our needs and our corresponding analysis once changes one way or the other.)


----------



## Delezynski (Sep 27, 2013)

Jeff,

Well said. 

When I started the thread, I only had in mind asking why so many people equate size with safety. It is NOT. You can get a very safe & seaworthy boat in just about ANY size. Because my Nor'Sea is 27 foot, she is not automatically unsafe. I know that many 27s might be unsafe for blue water. Just because a boat is 65 foot, does NOT guarantee she is safe. AND a lot depends on the crew!

My working carrier was in the aerospace industry. The last 10+ in spacecraft. I worked with many of the best engineers in the world. But that did not mean we didn't have failures!! 

Greg


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

casey1999 said:


> ..
> 
> Even the designers of the Sundeer 64 say they now do not feel comfortable handling such a boat and now have designed a similar power boat:
> 
> ...


They are just saying that having reached the age of 62 they think it is too much boat for them now. It was obviously that it was not before, when they were younger. They have sailed it extensively.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

Here ship size and safety taken to the extreme:
Only In America: Why Mega Cruise Ships Are Unsafe: Opinion


----------



## Delezynski (Sep 27, 2013)

Jeff_H said:


> .....
> -Do I fear being uncomfortable more than I fear not being able to manhandle the boat?
> -Do I fear a large amount of complexity more than I fear having to give up performance and seakeeping?
> -Do I fear spending a lot of money to buy and maintain a boat than I fear living in a cramped cabin?
> ...


Jeff,

Also, I want to say that we chose and keep our boat, not from the "fear" you talk about...... BUT, an analysis and decision one EVERY point you talk about! That is, for an example, we don't fear the time of a passage, no matter what size boat we have, but we do take it into consideration. 

Greg


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

After reading this thread, I think I'll keep my little S&S 34:
S&S 34 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Does everything I want and need, at least until I win the lottery.

Do like those Sundeers though, or an Open 60- if I knew how to sail one.


----------



## barefootnavigator (Mar 12, 2012)

Just for fun lets ask our selfs what exactly safer means? does it mean that big boats, say over 40' don't need liferafts or epribs? If this is the case why is that larger boats are more likely to carry more "safety" gear in anticipation of catastrophic loss? Why is it that 9 of 10 coast guard rescue videos are of large boats and how is it possible that small boats have safely crossed every sea in the world since the beginning of time? Its not the boat!


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

PCP said:


> They are just saying that having reached the age of 62 they think it is too much boat for them now. It was obviously that it was not before, when they were younger. They have sailed it extensively.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


I agree. What they said is what was quoted.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

barefootnavigator said:


> Just for fun lets ask our selfs what exactly safer means? does it mean that big boats, say over 40' don't need liferafts or epribs? If this is the case why is that larger boats are more likely to carry more "safety" gear in anticipation of catastrophic loss? Why is it that 9 of 10 coast guard rescue videos are of large boats and how is it possible that small boats have safely crossed every sea in the world since the beginning of time? Its not the boat!


Because Fear is good. Those stickers that say "No Fear" are BS. Fear is what will save you. When you are on a small boat in a big storm, a really big storm, and you have only yourself to depend and no life raft. You should have some fear. Some people buy big boats out of fear of sailing a small boat. But fear is good. That fear will keep you on your toes, and prevent you from making deadly mistakes. The fear will help you fix your sinking boat. Fear is good, it has kept man alive for 1 million years.


----------



## barefootnavigator (Mar 12, 2012)

Please be patent with me as I am a bit slow, what does fear have to do with my post or safety and size?


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

barefootnavigator said:


> Please be patent with me as I am a bit slow, what does fear have to do with my post or safety and size?


People generally fear things they preceive being unsafe.


----------



## barefootnavigator (Mar 12, 2012)

Good point, in 25 years of sailing I have never considered it to be even remotely unsafe. driving a car FEAR!


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

I'm half of that out of shape retired couple with big dreams Paulo references. All our winches are powered and two speed. The Autopilot does 95+% of the driving. First two reefs are single line with low friction set up and third double but all lead to cockpit. Have Dutchman instead of leasurefurl. Boat is 46' and I can pick up all the sails ( I know because I just took them off).
After Cape Dories, Mariners, Tayanas, and PSCs from 24' to my present 46' I believe
1.bigger is better- more comfortable, better sleep and self care so better decisions. It's a joy to take a hot shower in the middle of a passage.
2.If too big when the systems fail you are truly screwed. Mid forties is just about right. All key systems need to run with no electricity. If systems fail they should not put vessel at risk. That's why I don't have a leisure furl or in mast furler.
3.Big= higher hull speed= safety
4. Storm systems should be fool proof which usually means oldtime e.g hanked stormjib, Jordan series drogue etc.
5.Tankage means safety. More fuel more range under power. Mine diesel is in 4 tanks=clean fuel without water regardless. Have 200g of water in 2 tanks=no dependence on watermaker.

You just can't do that stuff in less than mid forty footer. 2 can't run a boat much bigger then that when systems fail. If you live on the thing and you are poorly fed or too hot or too cold or constantly exposed to wind/weather on deck you will be miserable. That's when poor decision are made.


----------



## barefootnavigator (Mar 12, 2012)

Bigger does not mean higher hull speed unless you are talking about motoring all the way. Sure a longer water line may mean higher hull speed in ideal conditions. Last time I was long distance cruising we averaged less than 10 knots of wind, rarely were the conditions optimal. Speed does not EVER equate to safety, safety does. On the other hand I cant even imagine what a hot shower on a boat is like. We all find a happy medium out there, you sound like you have found yours. The joy of sailing is the joy of sailing regardless of size


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Jeff_H said:


> ...
> On the other extreme are the points raised by ... Paulo. Paulo rightly points at very large designs which are well designed and engineered to allow a couple to safely handle them in a broad range of conditions. These are truly amazing boats that demonstrate what the ingenuity of man can accomplish. But again, few of us can afford to buy one these, and frankly few of us have the skills that it would take to sail one of these well, and safely, and to repair any possible critical element that might happen to fail mid-passage.
> 
> And even if (and I know that is a big 'if') we can agree that these particular larger boats can be safely handled by a couple if properly engineered and equipped, that does not apply to all larger boats. For as good as these examples may be, the majority of big boats out there are neither designed, or equipped or even easily adaptable to being safely sailed by a couple.
> ...


Jeff, agreeing generally with what you say let me clarify what I have tried to say regarding bigger cruising boats:

Older production cruising big boats (between 50 and 60ft) were not designed to be sailed solo or by a short crew. Today practically all cruisers, including mass production cruisers of that size are designed to be sailed solo or by a couple. I will not post about all the improvements in rigging and power aids that had made that possible since I am sure you know them. It is a question of design and technology.

Regarding the rest I want to say this:

The OP had sustained in *generic terms* that smaller boats are not safer than bigger boats and I assume he is talking about offshore sailing otherwise all this would not have any sense.

The thread is a discussion about that assumption. He said on the first post:

*"Over the last week, I have read a number of posts, here and other places, regarding not feeling safe in open water in smaller boats. Now days that seems to mean less then 35 ft!

How many out there equate size to safety? Does it have anything to do with it? If you think size does provide safety, why? ....

.. Dave Chamberlain... (sailed) a 20 ft. boat from the West Coast to Hawaii. 
...
I have never understood how or why people equate size to safety."*

The answer to this quite, objectively, is that clearly safety and seaworthiness of a sailboat has to do with size. We are not talking about any particular case but as the OP has putted it, generically.

This means that a 35ft designed along the same lines of the 27ft the OP sails, will be safer, a 40ft even more seaworthy and if for the sake of the discussion we would consider a 100ft, much safer.

Off course a 100ft would have to have an adequate crew to handle the boat but that as nothing to do with the point in discussion. I am sure that the owner of a 100ft will have the money to pay for an adequate crew.

The point is that generically, as the subject was presented, the OP is wrong:

The size of a boat has to do with its seaworthiness (not particularizing any type of boat), generically speaking. For the same type of boat the bigger will be more seaworthy and the reason is the bigger boat has a bigger stability.

Assuming that size has nothing to do with seaworthiness makes not any sense and it is dangerous as it is dangerous to assume that it is safe for a 20ft boat to sail from the West Coast to Havay or even that generically a 27ft boat is as appropriated to be used offshore as a considerably larger boat, generally speaking.

The discussion regarding if a bigger boat can be handle for one, two or three has nothing to do with the generic principle in discussion and is an altogether different subject that has much to do with the skipper experience, the type of boat and the way the boat is rigged.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Paulo approached this purely in terms of basic physics and he is correct. I tried to approach this question in human terms as there is no question a well made small boat such as a BBC at 28' or a Westsail at 32' can survive terrible things. However, it seems death of boats and souls aboard more commonly reflect poor decisions by exhausted terrified crew so I approached this in human terms.
Still think even with all the whiz bang gadgets there is too big and too small. Still think for most of us that ideal size is in the mid forties.
Would love to see a survey of cruising couples to see what size they end up after a few years. Limited crowd I know are in the low to mid forties.


----------



## barefootnavigator (Mar 12, 2012)

Ok I'll chime in  I have been sailing offshore since the mid 80's Im 45 and started off with a 65' boat. I now sail and liveaboard a 22' boat. I have about 75,000 offshore miles under my belt and have been through 2 hurricanes and countless other lame situations. I have delivered dozens of boats thousands of miles. I have never once equated size with safety be it 27' or 150'. I do admit my boat is very small but not at all uncomfortable or unsafe. I have owned 11 boats and find my current one to be the safest and most comfortable of them all. When I purchased my current boat I did it with the knowledge that it is the safest boat I could afford to pay cash for. If I had a baziilion dollars to spend the apple wouldn't fall far from the tree but I might be persuaded to drop 600 grand on a new BCC


----------



## Delezynski (Sep 27, 2013)

PCP said:


> .....
> The discussion regarding if a bigger boat can be handle for one, two or three has nothing to do with the generic principle in discussion and is an altogether different subject that has much to do with the skipper experience, the type of boat and the way the boat is rigged.
> .........


Paulo, ALL,

I am the OP.

When I asked about "safety", I AM speaking of the total subject! NOT just the specific design parameters of this boat or the other.

I am sorry I was not more specific in the original post regarding my views. I am speaking in terms of the typical cruising couple, maybe with a child or 2. They bought a boat and are out for the adventure of a life time. I am NOT talking about an aircraft carrier or cruise ship. 

In speaking of "safety" at sea, the crew compliment MUST be taken into account. I am not specific as to the capability, assuming any single member of the crew can handle the boat. BUT, the size of the boat has a large impact on that. If, as in the video posted, the crew is not large enough to handle the boat when things go to crap, the boat is NOT safe! The size of the boat, "big" did NOT add safety to that boat.

A crew of 2 can handle a 30 foot boat with all electrical systems down, can't say that for a 60 ft boat.

In my view, "safety" takes ALL aspects of the craft and crew into consideration!

By the way, barefootnavigator,

We have hot and cold pressure water aboard our 27 and have taken hot showers at sea! AND, I can tell you after a freezing watch, it is heaven.  We also have a fireplace and use it a lot.  Our range under power is between 500 and 750 miles. Smaller boat uses less fuel.

Greg


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

barefoot gotta respect what you say.you are way more experienced then me even after 35+ yrs at it. ( work that 4 letter word). still different strokes for different folks. seriously doubt I could get my bride to live on your boat especially if she feeds me chili.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Greg gotta respect what you say too. that norsea sounds sweet. still suspect under power bigger boats with bigger tankage have longer range before fuel/water run out. Know we can go farther than you state. Agree size doesn't equate to structural integrety. Especially as forces multiple to some degree when loa increases linearly.


----------



## Delezynski (Sep 27, 2013)

barefootnavigator said:


> Bigger does not mean higher hull speed unless you are talking about motoring all the way. Sure a longer water line may mean higher hull speed in ideal conditions. Last time I was long distance cruising we averaged less than 10 knots of wind, rarely were the conditions optimal. Speed does not EVER equate to safety, safety does. On the other hand I cant even imagine what a hot shower on a boat is like. We all find a happy medium out there, you sound like you have found yours. The joy of sailing is the joy of sailing regardless of size


By the way Barefoot,

A photo just for you.... 

And as we have on our web page......
_Cruising should be entirely for pleasure, and when it ceases to be so it no longer makes sense. Of course those who want to beat out what little brains they have in a night thrash to windward should have a strong, stiff racing machine, a very expensive contraption, one which has sacrificed the best qualities of a cruiser. But the little yacht that can snuggle alongside of some river bank for the night and let its crew have their supper in peace while listening to the night calls of the whippoorwills will keep its crew much more contented. They will be particularly happy and contented when the evening rain patters on the deck and the coal-burning stove becomes the center of attraction. Then if you can lie back in a comfortable place to read, or spend the evening in pleasant contemplation of the next day's run, well, then you can say "This is really cruising." _

* L Francis Herreshoff *

Greg


----------



## barefootnavigator (Mar 12, 2012)

I eat like a king but I have to agree, getting a girl on a 22' boat is near impossible. My primary propulsion is a sculling oar but occasionally my outboard works, I have a range of 25 miles on those rare occasions. As far as experience is concerned I have to admit that half of my sea miles were as crew in training ie a glorified passenger.
One last though. This summer I was invited to stay for free at a local marina. Several of us were sitting in the cockpit playing music eating a huge meal cooked from scratch with great wine and candles everywhere. There was a 65' luxury yacht moored in front of us on its way back through Panama after a summer cruising in the Salish Sea. The owner of the boat came over to complement us on our life and admitted that he was envious of us. As he got up to leave several hours later he also complemented us on our wine selection and said it was the best he has ever had. We might not have big boats or all the bells and whistles but on Sunday night when everyone is rushing back to work we sail on. I cant think of a single complaint I have ever had when it comes to my boat, she is perfect...for me


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Delezynski said:


> Paulo, ALL,
> 
> I am the OP.
> 
> When I asked about "safety", I AM speaking of the total subject! NOT just the specific design parameters of this boat or the other.


Yes, and generically, type of boat for type of boat, a bigger boat will be more seaworthy.



Delezynski said:


> I am sorry I was not more specific in the original post regarding my views. I am speaking in terms of the typical cruising couple, maybe with a child or 2. They bought a boat and are out for the adventure of a life time. ...
> 
> In speaking of "safety" at sea, the crew compliment MUST be taken into account. I am not specific as to the capability, assuming any single member of the crew can handle the boat. BUT, the size of the boat has a large impact on that. If, as in the video posted, the crew is not large enough to handle the boat when things go to crap, the boat is NOT safe! The size of the boat, "big" did NOT add safety to that boat.


Even considering handling the boat and if we consider a 27ft, even an heavy one like yours, a bigger boat (same type) is safer and more seaworthy.

Sure I understand what you say regarding handling the boat and there are limits for that, related with the size of the boat with the type of rigging and most of all with the experience of the skipper, but certainly you would have no problem handling the same type of boat you own if it was a 35ft.

It is not needed much experience to handle that type of boat and a 35ft is a lot more stable, has considerable more stability and will make all work forward or near the mast more safe.

Of course, another question is to know if that for the type of sailing you make your boat has all the safety you need and probably it has.

But the question was if a bigger boat was safer and more seaworthy. And the answer is: Yes it is, assuming the skipper has enough experience to handle it.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## barefootnavigator (Mar 12, 2012)

Paulo, I respect your opinion but I firmly disagree, bigger is not always better or safer. You can run a thousand computer models but you will never be able to simulate real time cruising on a computer. In some cases a larger boat may be more comfortable and may be safer and in many it wont. This is fun to chat about but also pointless as there are millions of variables than have nothing to do with sea state when it comes to being safe at sea.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

barefootnavigator said:


> Paulo, I respect your opinion but I firmly disagree, bigger is not always better or safer. You can run a thousand computer models but you will never be able to simulate real time cruising on a computer. In some cases a larger boat may be more comfortable and may be safer and in many it wont. This is fun to chat about but also pointless as there are millions of variables than have nothing to do with sea state when it comes to being safe at sea.


Ok, go circumnavigate or have a cruise on high latitudes on your 22ft boat, but please don't try to convince others that a 22ft boat (any) is as safe doing that then a properly prepared and suited 44 or 45ft. That can be dangerous. I find this discussion quite odd

Regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

As an interesting exercise, let's take the 1998 Sydney Hobart Race:





Now let's get a list of boats (and their length) that started the race, and a list of those that finished, and list of those lost at sea or abandon.

I am working on the list, but if you have one readily available, please post.


----------



## barefootnavigator (Mar 12, 2012)

Um I Am right now and have been for years, Actually I'm in the yard doing work for a bit but will be back at it again we only went up to 50 degrees latitude this year but will go further next year. Funny thing is all the big boats around here drop the sails when it blows over 30 we never do and the fact that you would suggest that we are unsafe based on nothing more than the length is pretty laughable. Fyi back when I sailed my tiny Flicka a boat half the size of my current boat we happily sailed in 20 plus foot seas and full blown gales on multiple occasions and never once did we fall victim to all the data your computer states. Remember Paulo if you want to be a sailor you have to go to sea.


----------



## Delezynski (Sep 27, 2013)

PCP said:


> ....
> 
> But the question was if a bigger boat was safer and more seaworthy. And the answer is: Yes it is, assuming the skipper has enough experience to handle it.


In the original post I did not talk about seaworthy. Only safety. ANY boat that is not seaworthy is unsafe.

I also stated that 35 was now considered small. Yes, at this time Jill and I could handle a 35 footer, but it would be no "safer", than our 27.

I would consider going to sea in a 55+ foot boat as unsafe for Jill and I to take alone. I am talking about the possibility of bad weather. But that is us.

If the crew can not handle the boat in bad weather with all power out, it's an unsafe boat, NO MATTER WHAT THE DESIGN OR SIZE. And bigger boats get unsafe faster with fewer crew. In my reasoning... 

I often hear (like at a party we were just at), "That a 27 must be unsafe! Better to get a 50 foot boat as it's much safer." What I was speaking to in the original post was just because a boat is bigger, does not make it safer.

Greg


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

barefootnavigator said:


> Bigger does not mean higher hull speed unless you are talking about motoring all the way.


Sorry, but that is simply wrong...

_In general_, greater LWL translates to greater speed, whether under power or sail, in ideal conditions, or those less than ideal... In lighter airs, even a modest increase in speed through the water due to LWL can increase the apparent wind, which in turn results in an exponential increase in speed as a result in sailing in a 'stronger' breeze...



barefootnavigator said:


> Speed does not EVER equate to safety, safety does.


Wrong again...

Speed _MAY_ afford greater safety, on occasion... Faster passage times equal less exposure to weather, speed can often make the difference between reaching a destination before darkness falls, or approaching weather overtakes you... To deny that speed can _SOMETIMES_ be a tremendous advantage in terms of safety, is just silly..


----------



## barefootnavigator (Mar 12, 2012)

Hi Jon nice to meet you  I'm terribly sorry but in the real world of voyaging you are wrong on all accounts. First off if a boat isn't sea worthy enough to handle a little bad weather you shouldn't leave the bay period. You say sometimes which is a very important statement. People who are rushing to beat the dark usually are the ones who make the worst mistakes. Here is a real world example in 6-8 knots of wind on my last sail I raced a 45' ish high performance cruising boat that coasts about 700 grand. I left them in the dust and they eventually dropped sail motored past and asked if I had an electric engine. In the real world my boat is faster than the big ones. I sail rings around large boats in light air all the time. When its really blowing those same big boats drop all sail and motor, I'm not sure why but if they don't have a 2000 mile range their boats are useless for long distance voyaging. So like I said before there are some advantages to larger boats and some to smaller but a sea worthy boat has much more to do with design and construction, followed by seamanship than it does with size. In the real world with proper maintenance and a seasoned skipper there is simply no difference. Then again who do you think pirates will chase, me in my little 22' cutter or the guy in the Halberg Rassey?


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

barefootnavigator said:


> Here is a real world example in 6-8 knots of wind on my last sail I raced a 45' ish high performance cruising boat that coasts about 700 grand. I left them in the dust and they eventually dropped sail motored past and asked if I had an electric engine. In the real world my boat is faster than the big ones. I sail rings around large boats in light air all the time.


Well, those other guys must have been really, _REALLY_ crappy sailors...


----------



## barefootnavigator (Mar 12, 2012)

But so am I  I love big boats and small boats I love them all having happily sailed and owned the ugliest boat ever designed or built I have to say its sailing that I love more than the boats. Here is one more example just for fun. A good friend of mine was headed to Alaska on his 20' Flicka when he hit an uncharted reef. He sustained some damage to his boat and ego but a few hundred bucks in supplies and a few days in the yard and her was back on his way to Alaska.
Another friend just recently in his 52' half a million dollar cruising boat bit a charted reef and the boat went down in three minutes. He was one of the most respected and knowledgeable sailors in the region. So in this situation the smaller boat was safer. I don't know that I know anyone who has lost a boat at sea but I know many who have lost them to land


----------



## Delezynski (Sep 27, 2013)

JonEisberg said:


> Well, those other guys must have been really, _REALLY_ crappy sailors...


John,

I know you from our other talks on other boards, and would LOVE to sit down and have a sundowner together some time! I respect your great experience and do not want to disagree, but on occasion, we have outrun much larger boats on our 27. NOT 60 footers!! 

When we were in the yard in Napa Valley last March, a guy walked up and called us by name. We were greatly surprised to see a guy who had sort of blown us off in La Paz Mexico a few years ago. He had finished up a circumnavigation and didn't have time for us nubes. At any rate, in the yard, he went into this LONG apology for the way he treated us. He said that he had a very profound respect for us and our Nor'Sea. He asked if we remember when we departed the La Paz bay at about the same time he did. It was some place in the back recesses of my brain, but Jill remembered it. He related he did everything in his book to kick his Cheoy Lee 40+ in the pants, but we walked away from him. In light airs, we cook.

I had to snicker, Jill was doing the work that day, not me...... :laugher

Waterline is important, but not always the deciding factor. Like EVERYTHING boating, there are so many tradeoffs.

Also, we have friends in there Nor'Sea that beat most of the fleet from the Galapagos to the Marquesas a few years ago as they had a Mainster sail to set. The cats and tris were standing still, monos not moving at all. From there ( Newsleters )web page;
_"At last, 11:30 AM on May 12 we were anchor down in Hanavave Bay on Fatu Hiva, Marquesas after 27 days at sea.* Average days run of 112 nm per day."_

Greg


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

barefootnavigator said:


> ... Here is a real world example in 6-8 knots of wind on my last sail I raced a 45' ish high performance cruising boat that coasts about 700 grand. I left them in the dust and they eventually dropped sail motored past and asked if I had an electric engine. In the real world my boat is faster than the big ones. I sail rings around large boats in light air all the time. When its really blowing those same big boats drop all sail and motor, I'm not sure why but if they don't have a 2000 mile range their boats are useless for long distance voyaging. ...


I am a bit confused here. Do you sail a race boat? Sure with very light winds a very light small boat can be faster but 8K is already a lot of wind for a performance boat, I mean that performance 45 cruiser. Most modern 45 performance cruisers can make over 7K with 8k wind and your hull speed is about 6k, so unless it is deep downwind I don't see how that is possible.

What is that incredible 22ft fast cruiser boat that can beat a performance 45ft with light wind and most of all can beat it in strong winds?

A 45ft boat is useless for long distance voyaging? Do you think that your 22ft is better? I thought it was a racer

Regards

Paulo


----------



## barefootnavigator (Mar 12, 2012)

Sorry Paulo the only thing worse than my sailing ability is my writing  What I was trying to imply is that most of the larger boats in my region motor everywhere. Here the wind is usually under 8 or over 25 if they cant sail in those conditions then a long term voyage is next to impossible. I'm not bashing big boats but supporting that little boats can and do successfully sail safely all over the world safely every day. My boat has a 7400 lb displacement and is considered to be very heavy for the size she is average off the wind in speed but very comfortable. Above the wind she sails like a dream.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Delezynski said:


> John,
> 
> I know you from our other talks on other boards, and would LOVE to sit down and have a sundowner together some time! I respect your great experience and do not want to disagree, but on occasion, we have outrun much larger boats on our 27. NOT 60 footers!!
> 
> ...


Sure, I can also cite instances where my little tub - 25' on the waterline - has outpaced larger boats...

Still, those anecdotal examples are not enough to dispel my belief that a greater LWL will - _IN GENERAL_ - produce higher speeds, and faster passage times...


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

I am really curious. What is the brand of that 22ft?


----------



## barefootnavigator (Mar 12, 2012)

Would it be safe to say that faster passage times are just as likely to put you in the direct line of foul weather as they are to save you from it? Bad weather can develop anywhere to assume its only behind us is just plain silly  I'm just saying...


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

barefootnavigator said:


> Would it be safe to say that faster passage times are just as likely to put you in the direct line of foul weather as they are to save you from it? Bad weather can develop anywhere to assume its only behind us is just plain silly  I'm just saying...


OK, you are just kidding!!!!

Well, you have a twisted sense of humor but I am afraid that some will think you are for real

Regards

Paulo


----------



## barefootnavigator (Mar 12, 2012)

Its an old FC 22  Id post a picture but I'm too stupid to figure it out .


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Barefoot
1. Light air=parasailor or 140 and full main= 7 to 8 1/2 kts
2. Last 2000 NMR = 20 engine hours
3. Heavy weather= storm sails= better ride than engine and safer.
4. 30+kts= Solent and double reefed main= 200+m/ d

Last trip to Annapolis being fast and looking at weather window left 12h earlier than planned. Got in just as miserable weather was starting to build in Chesapeake.

My experience just this year is just the opposite of yours forgetting about years past.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Seeing that no one is convincing anyone else of their position, I'm just going to argue that I am right without taking one.


----------



## Delezynski (Sep 27, 2013)

Minnewaska said:


> Seeing that no one is convincing anyone else of their position, I'm just going to argue that I am right without taking one.


Yours IS the correct reply....:laugher

A quick note here.

As the OP of this thread, I was just trying to get a feeling for the thoughts about the subject. I NEVER thought about trying to convince ANY ONE about the subject, one way or the other. Although my belief is that any boat can be safe or not, regardless of size.

I do get a kick out of people who look down on smaller (35 foot & less) boats as less capable of voyage making than bigger boats. I find it interesting that people believe Jill and I sail our 27 because we can't afford a larger, *"safer"* boat. 

Greg


----------



## ctl411 (Feb 15, 2009)

I think my 50 footer is safer than the 25 / 30 or 37 footers I've owned. The main reason, fatigue. In rough conditions the smaller boat beats you up more. The smaller 5 boats ( owned 2 of the 30 and 37 footers) have comparable "comfort ratios" to the 50 for their size. 

I sailed the smaller boats almost always solo. The 25 and 30 sloops the 37's cutters. The 37c was probably the easiest to sail alone. The more stable platform made all jobs easier, sails cooking etc. 


I also single hand the 50, no power winches no autopilot. But it is a ketch rig so sail area for each sail is not that much more vs my cutters. The hardest part is docking the 50. I have to use spring lines now on the smaller boats it was optional.

"Sailing" yes the "bigger" boats around here also tend to motor a lot more. I will sail if there is any wind (staysails,drifters etc) if I'm day sailing. If on vacation I will motorsail because of limited time. Most of the bigger/expensive boats owners around me can't/ won't sail in light air. Its not that their boats can't sail faster it's that the owners can't/ won't. Or they don't have the sails to do so. I've been a fan of your mainster for years.


----------



## Klaud (Sep 30, 2013)

Interresting post 
For many reasons i preffer my tiny racer, it can take alot of wind and its built like a tank.
Big boat are really nice and comfortable, cant compare to my little 7.5 racer but ...
As and old sailor said to me ... A safer vessel is the one that move ... A 300 ft vessel that is dead moving is very unsafe in a big storm :-/


----------



## ctl411 (Feb 15, 2009)

I liked my 37c's best also. But my wife loves the extra room and comfort of the 50. The question was about safety and I think bigger is better up to the point where you "need" power stuff. If you can't sail your boat in heavy conditions it's too big.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Greg- You're out there. Looked at your blog and it's clear you're doing it. Please don't have the penis envy thing ( bigger is better). People who look down at you have a stick up their butt. It's just like people -the outside don't count as much as what's inside and what they can do. Still, seem thread is coming to a consensus. Bigger is better (comfort, speed, supplies, ride, survivability etc.) but too big is unsafe ( can't single, can't run without power assist, expensive so when times hard may not be maintained etc.).
Where that too big point is varies. For some it's 30' when they won't even depend on the mechanical advantage of a winch. For others it's 50' as they are fit and have an "I can do it" attitude. For me it's low to mid forties as I think my 4'10" bride should be able to handle everything regardless of occurrence.
Believe Lynn and Larry are right-"you can't buy safety". Believe Barefoot and you are right small boats can be quite safe. But Paulo's points are undeniable.

Think the deal with big boats motoring reflects time constraints and attitude. In boat with proper design and SA/D size should have little or no impact on the decision to power or sail. Personally the sound of the engine drives me nuts and can't see why you would put up with all the sailboat issues if you are just going to power. Besides most all boats are faster with the rags up in any decent breeze. Just like it amazes me that people won't buy the best chain and anchor I'm amazed people won't get appropriate light and heavy air sails.


----------



## Delezynski (Sep 27, 2013)

outbound said:


> Greg- You're out there. Looked at your blog and it's clear you're doing it. Please don't have the penis envy thing ( bigger is better). People who look down at you have a stick up their butt. It's just like people -the outside don't count as much as what's inside and what they can do. Still, seem thread is coming to a consensus. Bigger is better (comfort, speed, supplies, ride, survivability etc.) but too big is unsafe ( can't single, can't run without power assist, expensive so when times hard may not be maintained etc.).
> Where that too big point is varies. For some it's 30' when they won't even depend on the mechanical advantage of a winch. For others it's 50' as they are fit and have an "I can do it" attitude. For me it's low to mid forties as I think my 4'10" bride should be able to handle everything regardless of occurrence.
> Believe Lynn and Larry are right-"you can't buy safety". Believe Barefoot and you are right small boats can be quite safe. But Paulo's points are undeniable.
> 
> Think the deal with big boats motoring reflects time constraints and attitude. In boat with proper design and SA/D size should have little or no impact on the decision to power or sail. Personally the sound of the engine drives me nuts and can't see why you would put up with all the sailboat issues if you are just going to power. Besides most all boats are faster with the rags up in any decent breeze. Just like it amazes me that people won't buy the best chain and anchor I'm amazed people won't get appropriate light and heavy air sails.


Outbound,

Have no fear about us catching the bigger is better attitude! 

I started the thread only about size and safety. Jill and I are VERY safe aboard our 27! I KNOW Jill can bring me home, should I have a medical problem, by herself, even when the conditions go to crap. Just like you, that was/is one of our driving factors. Size of the boat is only ONE (1) factor in the safety of a boat. It seems a lot of people over look that. 

I also did not bring up that when we finished up in Mexico, we came home going to weather at 55 MPH. And last March, we towed to Napa Valley for some wine, and cruised the San Francisco Bay & Delta for months. Saw the Americas Cup boats on the water. Then towed back here to Az. Now planning to tow to the New Orleans area next Feb. for Mardi Gras, then cruise on over to the Tampa Fla. area and haul back out just at hurricane season. *Do that with a 50 footer!* :laugher

Greg


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Delezynski said:


> ..
> I started the thread only about size and safety. ...
> 
> I also did not bring up that when we finished up in Mexico, we came home going to weather at 55 MPH. And last March, we towed to Napa Valley for some wine, and cruised the San Francisco Bay & Delta for months. Saw the Americas Cup boats on the water. Then towed back here to Az. Now planning to tow to the New Orleans area next Feb. for Mardi Gras, then cruise on over to the Tampa Fla. area and haul back out just at hurricane season. *Do that with a 50 footer!* :laugher
> ...


And what as that to do with being a bigger boat safer than a smaller boat?

Nobody says that your boat is not the perfect boat for you and it is perfectly safe for the type of cruising you do. If we were considering a circumnavigation crossing the big austral desert at 50º latitude I would say that it was not a safe boat to do that and a bigger boat would be required if safety was taken seriously. Seaworthiness is not an absolute term. A boat can be seaworthy in some conditions but not in others.

As a good example in what regards size and seaworthiness regarding the same type of boat sailed by a solo sailor we can look at solo racing boats and to a mini-class racer (22ft) a 40class racer and an Open60 class racer. All those boats are very seaworthy boats for its size and all designed to be solo sailed and they are so easy regarding an experienced sailor that even a 60ft boat can be sailed solo non stop around the planet.

If you said to a mini racer skipper that is boat is as seaworthy as an Open 60 boat he would think you were not serious about the question and that you were joking. There is no possible comparison.

Even in what regards 40class racers (hugely seaworthy for a 40ft boat) I remember that, when the boat was new, the sailors and designers had some doubts about if the boat would be suited to race solo on high latitudes. Now, after having tried they consider it is and the boat is also used on circumnavigation races but contrary to the Open 60's if there is a big storm going on they delay the departure to increase the safety margin.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Delezynski (Sep 27, 2013)

PCP said:


> And what as that to do with being a bigger boat safer than a smaller boat?
> 
> Nobody says that your boat is not the perfect boat for you and it is perfectly safe for the type of cruising you do. If we were considering a circumnavigation crossing the big austral desert at 50º latitude I would say that it was not a safe boat to do that and a bigger boat would be required if safety was taken seriously. Seaworthiness is not an absolute term. A boat can be seaworthy in some conditions but not in others
> 
> ...


Paulo,

My statements about going to weather at 55 have nothing to do with safety. I was only responding to the post. 

I need to repeat, I am talking about cruising and the "normal" cruising crew. NOT RACERS!!!!!!!!! NOT technical specifications.

As to the big water, Nor'Sea's have made many circumnavigations and literally hundreds of Atlantic and Pacific crossings. As a quick look, see the Zacko's web site, they crossed the Pacific from Spain, then through the Panama canal, then out through the South Pacific, they are now back in Spain; Ellen and Ed sail around the world in their NorSea 27 Entr'acte .

MY BOAT WITH Jill and I AS CREW IS SAFER THAN A 60 FOOT BOAT WITH Jill and I AS CREW! Even if I could handle the gear if the power was lost, Jill, the only other crew could NOT. THAT WOULD BE AN UNSAFE CONDITION.

Please give this up. I am NOT trying to convince you to get a small boat. And Jill and I are very happy with our boat, to date. As I said, we talk about it a couple time a year, and so far, plan to stay with it. You are happy with your boat, GREAT! We are happy with ours.

That is the GREAT thing about cruising! We are each captain of our own boat and as such take the responsibility for our own decisions and actions.

Greg


----------



## Jabberwock (Sep 24, 2013)

PCP said:


> As a good example in what regards size and seaworthiness regarding the same type of boat sailed by a solo sailor we can look at solo racing boats and to a mini-class racer (22ft) a 40class racer and an Open60 class racer. All those boats are very seaworthy boats for its size and all designed to be solo sailed and they are so easy regarding an experienced sailor that even a 60ft boat can be sailed solo non stop around the planet.
> 
> If you said to a mini racer skipper that is boat is as seaworthy as an Open 60 boat he would think you were not serious about the question and that you were joking. There is no possible comparison.


Judging by the number of dismastings , collisions, breakdowns and what have you, the boats suffer in the Vendee, I'm not sure how seaworthy they really are. It can be forgiven because they are race boats and racers tend to push it to the edge. On the other hand I'm not sure open 60s are a good example of how much safer larger boats are.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Jabberwock said:


> Judging by the number of dismastings , collisions, breakdowns and what have you, the boats suffer in the Vendee, I'm not sure how seaworthy they really are. It can be forgiven because they are race boats and racers tend to push it to the edge. On the other hand I'm not sure open 60s are a good example of how much safer larger boats are.


I was just comparing what is comparable: The same type of boat specially designed for solo sailing, one with 22ft, the other with 40ft and another with 60ft. The comparison regards only those types of boats and the relative seaworthiness between them.

We could do the same exercise comparing the relative seaworthiness of other similar typed class of boats. We can look for instance to Benetau Oceanis series and compare the blue-water ability (and safety on those conditions) of an Oceanis 31 and the one of an Oceanis 45, or go to the First series and compare the Blue water ability (and safety on those conditions) of a First 25 and a First 40.

Sailing Yachts - BENETEAU

This is so obvious that the discussion makes no sense.

Why I am persisting? Because it is dangerous to assume that for the same type of boat size has nothing to do with safety.

That is just plain wrong and assuming a boat can be handle by his crew, bigger boats with the same type are more seaworthy and safer than smaller boats.

Ignoring this can lead to overconfidence and to dangerous situations.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Jabberwock (Sep 24, 2013)

PCP said:


> I was just comparing what is comparable: The same type of boat specially designed for solo sailing, one with 22ft, the other with 40ft and another with 60ft. The comparison regards only those types of boats and the relative seaworthiness between them.


What would be interesting is if one could compile statistics between the three classes to actually come to some conclusion backed by the evidence. Perhaps boats disabled per distance sailed or something of that nature.


----------



## barefootnavigator (Mar 12, 2012)

I read somewhere a while back that the Nor'sea 27 has more circumnavigations than any other sailboat ever built go figure...


----------



## barefootnavigator (Mar 12, 2012)

"Just for fun, consider some of the improbable boats that have safely made it around: Lapworth 24, Lyle Hess 24, 25-ft wood Folkboat, Vertue 25, Contessa 26, Heavenly Twins 26 cat, Albin Vega 27, Cal 2-27, Nor"sea 27, Southern Cross 28, H-28, Westsail 28, Piver 28 tri, Ericson 29, Cascade 29, Odyssey 30, Golden Gate 30, Rawson 30, Channel Cutter 30, And I know for a fact that some of these boats on this list were purchased and equipped for less than $10,000. As has often been said, money or size has never been the main obstacle to anyone doing a circumnavigation. These aren't simple ocean crossings they are full circumnavigations" Quoted


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

barefootnavigator said:


> "Just for fun, consider some of the improbable boats that have safely made it around: Lapworth 24, Lyle Hess 24, 25-ft wood Folkboat, Vertue 25, Contessa 26, Heavenly Twins 26 cat, Albin Vega 27, Cal 2-27, Nor"sea 27, Southern Cross 28, H-28, Westsail 28, Piver 28 tri, Ericson 29, Cascade 29, Odyssey 30, Golden Gate 30, Rawson 30, Channel Cutter 30, And I know for a fact that some of these boats on this list were purchased and equipped for less than $10,000. As has often been said, money or size has never been the main obstacle to anyone doing a circumnavigation. These aren't simple ocean crossings they are full circumnavigations" Quoted


Sure, do you know that a guy had circumnavigated non stop on a 22ft mini class racer? and that a guy had crossed the Atlantic on a small beach open cat? What has all that to do with a bigger or smaller security margin?

That is the kind of thought that is dangerous like: If a guy crossed the Atlantic on a beach cat, than it is as safe to do so and on a beach cat as on a 50ft cruising cat. Size does not matter in what regards seaworthiness and safety

Regards

Paulo


----------



## barefootnavigator (Mar 12, 2012)

So you are comparing say a guy like Larry P who has 200k sea miles under his belt and 2 cape horn crossings and 45 years of successful ocean voyaging on home built boats under 30' with a small beach open cat?


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Jabberwock said:


> What would be interesting is if one could compile statistics between the three classes to actually come to some conclusion backed by the evidence. Perhaps boats disabled per distance sailed or something of that nature.


Are you serious? That is ridiculous and show that you don't know of what you are talking about regarding these particular boats. If you have any doubt ask to a mini class skipper and we will take away any doubt you have.

There is a Mini Transat going on and the weather in the Biscay bay have been stormy and rough. They had to postpone the race for two weeks and when the race started they had to cancels the firs leg because they would get 35K winds on the nose. We are talking about 22ft boats. I am sure that most would have made it (more than 80) but it was too dangerous and probably some few would not make it and safety is paramount.

These conditions are not a problem for a Class 40 racer and much less for an Open 60.

There are a big race sailing out in about a day with class 40 racers (among others), however there are no safe small boats in all weather conditions and they are considering a postponement if some weather models that predict 50K winds for the first night will become more probable.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

barefootnavigator said:


> So you are comparing say a guy like Larry P who has 200k sea miles under his belt and 2 cape horn crossings and 45 years of successful ocean voyaging on home built boats under 30' with a small beach open cat?


Well, size does not count for safety as you say and the guy that had sailed that beach cat is probably more experienced and a better sailor than Larry P.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Delezynski (Sep 27, 2013)

PCP said:


> Well, size does not count for safety as you say and the guy that had sailed that beach cat is probably more experienced and a better sailor than Larry P.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Paulo,

I said I was not going to comment on this with you any more, BUT, for you to say that Larry Pardey???

*It shows your lack of knowledge and puts everything else you say in question!*

I KNOW Larry, he is one hell of a sailor and I have no doubt has forgotten more about boats, boating, and building than you could dream of knowing.

You are welcome to disparage me and my choices, but NOT Friends. 

Greg


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

barefootnavigator said:


> I read somewhere a while back that the Nor'sea 27 has more circumnavigations than any other sailboat ever built go figure...


Well, I seriously doubt that is true...

The Nor Sea 27 isn't even the most popular choice among those listed in LATITUDE 38's List of West Coast Circumnavigators, hard to imagine it would have been an even more popular choice among Europeans and other nationalities who have sailed around the world...

Latitude 38 - West Coast Circumnavigators' List

There's no question, the NS 27 is an extremely capable little boat. But I find it hard to believe that a boat originally designed and marketed to be trailerable, would have been the choice of more circumnavigators than any other boat out there...

I've never seen a definitive answer to the question, and I doubt anyone knows with any certainty, but if I had to put my finger on one boat that has gone around more than any other, I'd guess the Tayana 37... They had a very long production run, many are available at good prices, and have long seemed to me to be a very popular choice among those taking off for extended cruising. Or, perhaps the Valiant 40, or Westsail 32... Among boats under 30', I'd guess maybe the Albin Vega, or Contessa 26?


----------



## Delezynski (Sep 27, 2013)

JonEisberg said:


> .....SNIP.....
> There's no question, the NS 27 is an extremely capable little boat. But I find it hard to believe that a boat originally designed and marketed to be trailerable, would have been the choice of more circumnavigators than any other boat out there...
> 
> I've never seen a definitive answer to the question, and I doubt anyone knows with any certainty, but if I had to put my finger on one boat that has gone around more than any other, I'd guess the Tayana 37... They had a very long production run, many are available at good prices, and have long seemed to me to be a very popular choice among those taking off for extended cruising. Or, perhaps the Valiant 40, or Westsail 32... Among boats under 30', I'd guess maybe the Albin Vega, or Contessa 26?


I would agree Jon,

I know they have made many and I have had the privelage to talk to a few of the owners, but my bet would be about the list you gave. I might move the Westsail 32 up a bit on the list???

Greg


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Delezynski said:


> Paulo,
> 
> I said I was not going to comment on this with you any more, BUT, for you to say that Larry Pardey???
> 
> ...


Calm down, I know Larry Pardey at least is reputation. I am not saying that I am not a better sailor than Larry Pardey. I said that in my opinion that guy that crossed the Atlantic on a beach cat is probably a better sailor than Larry Pardey. Now do you think that Larry Pardey is the better sailor in the world? Do you know that guy that crossed the Atlantic in a cat? How do you can have an opinion if you don't know that guy or his experience?

At least I know both. It seems that at least I am a bit more informed than you

How am I disparaging you or your friends? Just because I justifiably disagree with your opinions, namely about size and safety in boat?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

JonEisberg said:


> ...
> 
> There's no question, the NS 27 is an extremely capable little boat. But I find it hard to believe that a boat originally designed and marketed to be trailerable, would have been the choice of more circumnavigators than any other boat out there...
> 
> I've never seen a definitive answer to the question, and I doubt anyone knows with any certainty, but if I had to put my finger on one boat that has gone around more than any other, I'd guess the Tayana 37... They had a very long production run, many are available at good prices, and have long seemed to me to be a very popular choice among those taking off for extended cruising. Or, perhaps the Valiant 40, or Westsail 32... Among boats under 30', I'd guess maybe the Albin Vega, or Contessa 26?


Jon don't take me wrong but I find funny that when Americans talk about the boat that has made more circumnavigations they always talk about American boats. Sailing is a lot more popular in Europe and there are a lot more sailors in Europe. Do you think that French, Germans, British, Dutch, Swedish, Danes Spanish or even Portuguese when circumnavigate they do that in American boats?

More, on the last 10 years probably were made more circumnavigations than on all decades but together. Do you think that on the last 10 years the Tayanas or Vaillants were the boats more used, even by Americans?

I don't know and certainly they are not the boats more suited for it but if I would bet on a brand I would say Beneteau, Bavaria or Jeanneau, just because they are the boats that have been made in great number and the ones you can find in Europe and in the States.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

casey1999 said:


> How do you know the experience of the Marine Flower 2 Skipper?
> 
> Even the designers of the Sundeer 64 say they now do not feel comfortable handling such a boat and now have designed a similar power boat:
> 
> ...


If you read my post I said that the owner of the Marine Flower 2 was inexperienced, AT LEAST WITH THAT BOAT. The rescue was in 1994, the same year the Sundeer 60 and 64 were first available. Previously all Sundeer and Deerfoot boats were custom designed and built, mostly in aluminum. As far as Marine Flower being "caught" by a hurricane that moved erratically, there are certain ocean passages that are best not attempted during hurricane season - in any boat.

The Dashews are not your average sailors. Don't paint a picture of them moving to power because of their frailty. They were racers and record holders racing catamarans offshore before the Deerfoot/Sundeer time period. They aren't content loafing along. I first met them when they passed through Victoria in 1991 or 1992 as they were coming down from Alaska in their little 67' ketch, the original Sundeer - quite a boat. Their only concession to gadgets was 2 electric winches, and furlers of course. They could easily handle the boat in any conditions they encountered in over 50,000 miles of cruising. Then came Beowolf, their 77' ketch. Is there safety in size? Damn right when you can consistently do 300+ mile days offshore. With today's electronics it is easy to track lows and at these speeds stay out of their way.

Here's a link to the Dashews sailing Beowolf in the southern ocean at 27 knots - as a couple. Notice the stability at speed when Linda is in the galley. 




Their style of cruising under sail was definitely performance cruising.

Interesting point that is a bit off topic - their powerboats are less expensive per mile cruised than the sailboats when fuel cost is compared to sail and rigging replacements.

Are large boats safer? Many factors are involved. Better rested and fed on larger boats because of their more stable motion. Faster due to waterline length all else being equal. A large boat doesn't have to be dependent on electrical gadgets. A long, lean boat like a Sundeer is easily driven. Smaller boats can certainly cruise far and wide if well designed and built, but they won't outrun much weather and can't carry the load the larger ones can.

An interesting comparison can be made between the Sundeer 60 and the Outbound 46. The Sundeer 60 is 6" wider than the Outbound, has 19' more waterline, and has only 240 sq feet more sail area. Load has less effect on the Sundeer - 2900 lbs are required to lower the Sundeer 1" compared to the Outbound at 1940 lbs/inch. The Sundeer 60 is about 9,000 lbs heavier. The Sundeer 60 has a hull speed almost 2 knots faster than the Outbound. Not to criticize the Outbound, an awesome boat. The Nor'Sea 27 is a great boat as well, definitely not your average 27'er.

Here are 2 pics of Beowolf sailing the way the Dashews cruised. Not your average sailors at retirement age.


----------



## Delezynski (Sep 27, 2013)

PCP said:


> Calm down, I know Larry Pardey at least is reputation. I am not saying that I am not a better sailor than Larry Pardey. I said that in my opinion that guy that crossed the Atlantic on a beach cat is probably a bet sailor than Larry Pardey. Now do you think that Larry Pardey is the better sailor in the world? Do you know that guy that crossed the Atlantic in a cat? How do you can have an opinion if you don't know that guy or his experience?
> 
> At least I know both. It seems that at least I am a bit more informed than you
> 
> ...


I ask apology if I mistook your words.

I see sailing across the ocean in an open beach cat as a "stunt". In the same category as taking an inflatable across the ocean. It's not cruising as I see it. You are correct, I do not know the guy who sailed the beach cat. BUT, that is a FAR different than the cruising Larry has accomplished during his life.

I see the open 60s and the last Americas Cup boats as racers, and not cruising boats and not even close to what any of us will be using. Jill and I met with Gary Jobson at the Oakland Yacht Club not long before the races. When asked what technology/parts he thought would trickle down to our cruising boats, he thought for a bit and said, "Maybe some of the radio tec, but nothing else."

Greg


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

PCP said:


> Jon don't take me wrong but I find funny that when Americans talk about the boat that has made more circumnavigations they always talk about American boats. Sailing is a lot more popular in Europe and there are a lot more sailors in Europe. Do you think that French, Germans, British, Dutch, Swedish, Danes Spanish or even Portuguese when circumnavigate they do that in American boats?
> 
> More, on the last 10 years probably were made more circumnavigations than on all decades but together. Do you think that on the last 10 years the Tayanas or Vaillants were the boats more used, even by Americans?
> 
> ...


I don't disagree, I would certainly bet the most popular _BRAND_ to go around would be one of those you've mentioned...

However, I was referring to specific boats, or models... The problem with specifying a particular design with builders like Beneteau, is that they're coming out with new models practically every year...

No question, most of us here tend to think in terms of what we Americans sail... SAIL magazine is just out with a feature on the "Top 12 Bluewater Cruisers", based solely upon the popularity of entries in all the WCC Rallies over the past 5 years... In order, they are:

Jeanneau Sun Odyssey 54DS
JeaneauSun Odyssey 49
Amel Super maramu 53
Hallberg Rassy 42 & 42FF
Amel 54
Hylas 54
Beneteau 57 
Oyster 56
Lagoon 440
Bavaria 42 Beneteau 
Oceanis 473

Average size of this fleet is 49.5

Average price? $481K

So, what would be your guess as to the single model that has gone around the most?


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Delezynski said:


> I ask apology if I mistook your words.
> 
> I see sailing across the ocean in an open beach cat as a "stunt". In the same category as taking an inflatable across the ocean. It's not cruising as I see it. You are correct, I do not know the guy who sailed the beach cat. BUT, that is a FAR different than the cruising Larry has accomplished during his life.
> 
> ...


Not a problem Geg, you are a nice guy. Yes I agree, i's different but I has not talking (only) about cruising in what regards great sailors. I talked about that guy being a great sailor. Great sailors are not only cruisers but also (and mostly) professional ones.

Anyway that does not matter. You are right, it is a stunt and I utilized is example just to show that size matters. It is a stunt to cross the Atlantic solo on a 6m cat but not a stunt to cross it on a 45ft cruising cat and it is not a stunt because it is safer. Size matters

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Jabberwock (Sep 24, 2013)

PCP said:


> Are you serious? That is ridiculous and show that you don't know of what you are talking about regarding these particular boats. If you have any doubt ask to a mini class skipper and we will take away any doubt you have.


Don't know what I'm talking about? I never made any claims one way or the the other. But I guess your knee jerk mind failed to notice that.

In any case it's possible that certain inherent safety advantages the bigger boat has could possibly be offset by the dangers of higher speed, reduced ability to handle the bigger boat easily or higher degree of difficultly in engineering the larger boat. There were three collisions in the first 15 days of the last Vendee. In 2008-2009 19 boats did not finish out of 30 boats due to various failures.

But again when you are just looking at one set of numbers it doesn't tell you anything. Also, all this comparison might tell you is something about the safety of relatively lightly built single handed ocean racing boats.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

JonEisberg said:


> ...
> So, what would be your guess as to the single model that has gone around the most?


I really don't know. As you say while American models tend to have lasted many years, specially the old ones, European models, even the old ones were replaced much more frequently. Regarding single European models probably the OVNI 43/435 is high in the scale as well as the Amel Maramu/Super Maramu. I knew once a guy with a OVNI 43 that had circumnavigated 3 times WITH THE SAME BOAT. That should be some kind of record.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Jabberwock said:


> .. On the other hand I'm not sure open 60s are a good example of how much safer larger boats are......
> What would be interesting is if one could compile statistics between the three classes to actually come to some conclusion backed by the evidence





Jabberwock said:


> Don't know what I'm talking about? I never made any claims one way or the the other. But I guess your knee jerk mind failed to notice that.
> 
> In any case it's possible that certain inherent safety advantages the bigger boat has could possibly be offset by the dangers of higher speed, reduced ability to handle the bigger boat easily or higher degree of difficultly in engineering the larger boat. ....
> 
> But again when you are just looking at one set of numbers it doesn't tell you anything. ..


Sometimes I get lucky. I have said that evidently a big solo racer like an Open 60 would be much safer than a Mini class racer and that anyone that know something about these boats, particularly the ones that sail them, would have any doubt about that and just by accident a very experienced solo sailor had said just that yesterday.

The big Jaques Fabre Transat has been postponed a day (50k winds) and at a certain point on this video about that (min 1.08) a very experienced professional solo sailor, talking about facing bad weather is saying precisely that, talking *not about mini class racers but about much bigger 40class racers versus 60class racers *and 50ft multihulls versus 70ft multihulls.

On a more textual translation and than the one offered on the video he is sayng:

"They are all blue water racing boats with very experienced crews even if some are amateurs. *Evidently the bigger the boat the safer we can consider we will be*"





BRE - Briefing tempo - Transat Jacques Vabre 2013 _por TransatJacquesVabre_

as I have said, that is evident.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Brian you make very valid points. Paulo speaks to racing and high performance cruising but I think Greg is asking about us mere mortal cruisers. Still, Steve in his skinny long boats can routinely do 300 m/ d, I can expect the occasional 200+m/ d but Greg is probably doing 100-150m/d. Less days at sea=greater safety. Steve has to dock his boat and service it on occasion. I think one of the great joys of cruising is hanging out in new places. They seem to charge for everything by the foot. Don't care much about beam. I can sneak through the Panama Canal without extra line handlers for example. I can haul in any decent marina. I can afford a day or two in a slip for a break. But I'm still big enough for a mechanics room with a splendid to do my wash,and AC and water maker and generator and adequate tankage. Big part of cruising is quality of life. Comfy happy crew= good crew dynamics=good decisions= safety. Hearing about macho pros making BFS holds little interest to me as a average Joe.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

outbound said:


> Brian you make very valid points. Paulo speaks to racing and high performance cruising ....


I speak generally and give particular examples, as all examples have to be.

What is true for the Beneteau Oceanis line is true for solo racing boats and any kind of boat: If a boat can be handled by the crew in all conditions, a bigger same type of boat is safer. That is as evident regarding race solo boats or any kind of cruising boat.

That does nor mean that a smaller boat is not perfectly safe under a given set of circumstances and sea conditions, but there is not a single small sailboat (and I am talking as small to boats till 80ft or even more) that can be safe in all sea conditions. Smaller ones (same type) start to be unsafe with much less demanding conditions and on hurricane conditions even the bigger ones are not safe or have not and adequate safety margin.

Regarding the same type of boat there is a huge difference in the conditions that are safe for a 27ft boat and for a 45ft boat. This is all evident and regards directly the subject of this thread: Size matters to safety.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Jabberwock (Sep 24, 2013)

PCP said:


> Sometimes I get lucky. I have said that evidently a big solo racer like an Open 60 would be much safer than a Mini class racer and that anyone that know something about these boats, particularly the ones that sail them, would have any doubt about that and just by accident a very experienced solo sailor had said just that yesterday.
> 
> The big Jaques Fabre Transat has been postponed a day (50k winds) and at a certain point on this video about that (min 1.08) a very experienced professional solo sailor, talking about facing bad weather is saying precisely that, talking *not about mini class racers but about much bigger 40class racers versus 60class racers *and 50ft multihulls versus 70ft multihulls.
> 
> ...


Fist off your translation is somewhat different from the one given. I'll assume for the sake of argument yours is more correct.

I find the position that one person's opinion however experienced he is, should negate the need for real statistical data somewhat dubious. That's not to say he is wrong. I am merely pointing out that intuition and anecdotal evidence has often been proven to be incorrect. I don't want to beat a dead horse here and I'm not trying to convince you of anything. All I'm saying is I trust the scientific method much more than "Jack the sailing god on you-tube said it, so now we must take it as fact."

I have no vested interest in proving small boats are safer and in fact I'm not trying to do so. However, I am still wondering if in SOME situations that may be the case. I haven't seen anything yet that provides a definitive answer......Peace .


----------



## barefootnavigator (Mar 12, 2012)

I think as usual what is being completely lost in translation here is the difference between a seaworthy boat and seaworthy-ness. I would suspect most people reading and writing on this post have never been over a hundred miles off shore or experienced extreme weather if you have please let us know, way back someone asked us to share our level of experience but I was the only one who did so perhaps there are all sorts of arm chair sailors here parroting what they have read. 
We eat just as well if not better on our small boat. Our 22' boat has a very comfortable motion and we rarely get worn out regardless of the weather. People get exhausted at sea due to lack of experience or being short handed, on a 22' boat we are never short handed. If it gets really crappy out we heave to make cookies and watch a movie, no biggie. As far as seaworty-ness if you follow the seasons and use a little bit of caution you have nothing to worry about. Sailors who have little to no time at sea always worry about storms, for those of us who have spent a lifetime out there we maintain our boats and sail. For every sailboat lost at sea hundreds are lost by hitting land due to poor anchoring or navigation. Boats catch on fire, explode sink at the dock an get hit by other boats. Seaworthy-ness of boat construction and design is 10% of being safe at sea. More boats are lost every year because people rely on crazy accurate chart plotters but many charts are over a hundred years old and very inaccurate. People rely on depth sounders which old tell you how deep the shoal you just hit are. Look at any big plastic fantastic boat and you will see a large screen tv right in your safe line of site and the skipper glued to it. Most sailors have lost the ability to think and sail as we did just a few short years ago. Motors on boats keep getting bigger and bigger as do fuel tanks. Some guy posted on here that he has 2200 hours on his 2005 sailboat, in 8 years he has motored the equivalent of half way around the world oin a sailboat.
For anyone reading this who is actually here to learn an not just in it for the endless debate of my D1(k is bigger than yours I would say.
Get a boat
learn the ropes
save a few buck
go sailing 
its the safest thing you can do in this world and yes heavy weather while sometimes scary is also quite fun when you are on a boat you trust and can safely handle.


----------



## Delezynski (Sep 27, 2013)

Jabberwock said:


> ..... Snip ....
> I have no vested interest in proving small boats are safer and in fact I'm not trying to do so. However, I am still wondering if in SOME situations that may be the case. I haven't seen anything yet that provides a definitive answer......Peace .


Jobberwock,

Thank you, my point exactly. I am not, and have not talked about the technical aspects of specific craft. I am NOT saying that every one should sail a boat that is XX foot long, big or small. I am not saying size takes no part in the equation. BUT I AM saying it is only part of the safety equation.

I am simply looking at the fact that so many people seem think if they, with no experience, go out and purchase a 60 foot boat, they will be so much safer than if they had purchased a 30 foot boat.

Jill and I feel safer in our, known to us, stout little boat, than if we were to hop on a 60 foot boat and just headed out. We feel STRONGLY that one member of the crew of a properly outfitted cruising boat should be able to handle the boat, with NO POWER ASSISTED equipment.

Larry P turned us on to the book, "The Venturesome Voyages of Captain Voss". Voss sailed almost around the world, around 1900 to 1912, in Tilikum....









It's more than JUST size that makes a "safe" boat.

Greg


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Greg yesterday there was a break in the wind and rain so finished rigging the dyneema stay and hung the storm jib to measure for sheets while looking at the runs for areas of potential chafe. Got asked " why is that sail such a funny ugly color?". Oh well. 
Still, I understand you get it. What I don't understand is how you can believe there is any situation where offshore you would feel safer in your boat than mine.i respect your experience but just thinking back over the last few months when we had multiple days over 30kt and I felt blessed we were still cooking hot food, sleeping without trouble and feeling very secure and in control on watch. Please give some concrete examples where you think smaller is better


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

It always seems to me that people with smaller boats are more interested in winning this old argument than people with larger boats. Personally I'm not interested in anyone trying to convince me that I should get a smaller boat, period! If someone else is happy with their small boat is matter not to me.

There is a lot more to boating than "safety" to which a larger boat is so much better than a small boat.


----------



## Delezynski (Sep 27, 2013)

outbound said:


> Greg yesterday there was a break in the wind and rain so finished rigging the dyneema stay and hung the storm jib to measure for sheets while looking at the runs for areas of potential chafe. Got asked " why is that sail such a funny ugly color?". Oh well.
> Still, I understand you get it. What I don't understand is how you can believe there is any situation where offshore you would feel safer in your boat than mine.i respect your experience but just thinking back over the last few months when we had multiple days over 30kt and I felt blessed we were still cooking hot food, sleeping without trouble and feeling very secure and in control on watch. Please give some concrete examples where you think smaller is better


Outbound,

Ugly color!  We love our tanbark!! 
I am doing Teak just now. That and a bit of rewiring of our solar system. Having the boat on the hard close by helps me get my projects done, bit by bit.

We have spent days at sea just like you. I think it sounds like our boats are comparably equipped. We have faced some big waves and wind. Some more than the boat in the video that had to be abandoned, what was it, 30 ft & 50 K or MPH??? (we were NOT facing an approaching hurricane) We heave-to when we need to, sail when we need to and yes even motor when we need to. Like you guys, WE NEVER go hungry aboard. My waist line shows it!  As we cruised I found I am always gaining weight!

Please understand, I am not saying my boat is safer than yours. What I tried to say in my posting is that size is only one part of the "safety" equation, not the "be all/end all" measure of safety. How the boat was designed, how the boat was built, how the boat is outfitted, how the crew can handle her, it ALL goes into safety. If we moved onto your boat and I had a year to learn it's system inside and out, and was sure Jill could work it without power. Then the safety factor would be the same. I am also looking at my age in the factor. No matter what I tell myself, I AM getting older and can not handle the physical things I used to. But I am also not willing to put my life in the hands of an electrical system. NOT that they fail often, just that we all know they do. We have many friends who went from smaller boats to bigger, then as time goes on, back to smaller so they can handle them.

I keep asking Jill about getting a Montgomery 17, as a "summer home".  But that would NOT do blue water with us aboard.

I am always amazed at people who look at our small boat (YES, we know it's small) and tell us it's unsafe for us to go "out there".

Take the guy with a bucket of money, he goes out and buys a 55 foot boat, because it feels good at the boat show and he likes the way, when it's backed into the boat show slip, he gets on and off the boat. He takes delivery and has never owned more than a dream before this! Now that is unsafe, no matter the boat. By the way, we watched this take place!! And was at a marina when the back end of said boat needed repairs as it did not back up just like a car.

Some day, that combination will be safe if he keeps learning and knows the limits, just not now.

Greg
By the way, I NEVER thought this thread would grow like this! I was just asking a few views on the subject. Looks like I got them.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Delezynski said:


> ... What I tried to say in my posting is that size is only one part of the "safety" equation, not the "be all/end all" measure of safety. How the boat was designed, how the boat was built, how the boat is outfitted, how the crew can handle her, it ALL goes into safety. ....
> 
> By the way, I NEVER thought this thread would grow like this! I was just asking a few views on the subject. Looks like I got them.


You could have said that from the beginning and the thread would have been short. I think everybody agrees with that.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Delezynski (Sep 27, 2013)

PCP said:


> You could have said that from the beginning and the thread would have been short. I think everybody agrees with that.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Ahhhhh yes, BUT, I would not have learned as much. 

What I did said was; "How many out there equate size to safety? Does it have anything to do with it? If you think size does provide safety, why? What's the logic? ".

It seems that every one keyed in on size and few talked about ability of crew or construction of the craft as you seemed to. Not all craft are built to high standards or crews experienced enough to handle larger boats.

Greg


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

P.S. I don't think the orange/ red storm jib is ugly.i think it's practical . Love tan bark but was told for just about any sail putting in any color decreases life expectancy.
Fair winds Greg. All the best to you and yours.


----------



## fryewe (Dec 4, 2004)

outbound said:


> Love tan bark but was told for just about any sail putting in any color decreases life expectancy.


ob - I think you'll find it's just the opposite&#8230;color increases life expectancy. (Note that furling foresails usually have a dark leach. The leach is the only part of the sail exposed when furled so exposure to sun when furled has less deleterious effect.)

Remember that white colored objects reflect NO light&#8230;and colored objects reflect light with the wavelength of the color observed. So the lighter the color of an object the more light (energy) is absorbed. It's the energy of the light's waves being absorbed (rather than reflected) that breaks down the fabric and robs it of its strength.


----------



## mad_machine (Dec 16, 2012)

Actually, White objects reflect ALL light. It is darker and black objects that absorb light


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

fryewe said:


> ob - I think you'll find it's just the opposite&#8230;color increases life expectancy. (Note that furling foresails usually have a dark leach. The leach is the only part of the sail exposed when furled so exposure to sun when furled has less deleterious effect.)
> 
> Remember that white colored objects reflect NO light&#8230;and colored objects reflect light with the wavelength of the color observed. So the lighter the color of an object the more light (energy) is absorbed. It's the energy of the light's waves being absorbed (rather than reflected) that breaks down the fabric and robs it of its strength.


Mad is right. I used to teach that to kids, seriously White is not a color but the entire spectrum of wave bands our eyes can detect. Black is not a color either but the absence of radiation, meaning that a black object absorbs all radiation that your eyes can see while a white one reflects all. The reason why plats are green is because they absorb the red radiation (photosynthesis) and what is left is yellow and blue that together gives green.

The problem with the sails is not visible radiation but UV. The tissue that is used to protect the genoa is resistant to UV and can have any color. Mine is has a very light grey.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Oregonian (Oct 4, 2011)

Barefootnavigator has said “…if you have any (experience) please let us know…” I have 160,000+ miles on over 150 sailboat. Sailing is what I do. From the very beginning of this thread I could have said that I am in the “size does not matter” camp. As has been very well stated by Barefootnavigator, Deleznski, and jabberwock , there is much more to safety than boat size. I disagree with PCP strongly, but I usually do, and this is just another example of his opinion vs mine. For the most part he is usually guilty of gross exaggerations.
Personally, I prefer ocean sailing on the smaller boats. I have more control of the boat and this clearly equates to safety for me.
One of my 10,000 stories involves a sister ship of a frequent contributor to this thread. I apologize but I am not going to name him. He has one of the bigger boats. While sailing close by, the boat in question was hit by a whale.
It suffered serious damage but did make it to Seattle without taking on any serious water. The whale was also bloodied, unfortunately. Soon after this accident, the boat was repaired and sold. I personally feel that the smaller boat that I was on, which was also heavier built, would not have sustained such damage. This little story says very little, but it is just one example of a much newer, more modern and larger boat not having any additional safety built into it.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Oregonian said:


> .. I disagree with PCP strongly, but I usually do, and this is just another example of his opinion vs mine. For the most part he is usually guilty of gross exaggerations.
> ...


I did not remember who you were but since you accuse me of "gross exaggerations" I give myself the trouble to have a look at your posts to try to remember of what you were talking about and ...yes, of course I remember now: you are the one in love with your Westsail 32.

The one that says that out sails with the W32 a Vailant 40, that says that a 80 years old Atkin 36 can do "6.5k in apparent winds of 18k @ 28 degrees, in difficult conditions".

That says that Bob Perry regarding the Tayana 37 *"got the shape wrong. As he has done on other designs"* and that the Tayana 37 *" it is slower than the 80 year old Alajuela 38 design"* and believes that *"if Perry and JeffH actually did a little long distance voyaging, they might word their praise of the modern designs a little differently"*&#8230; *"Jeff H has been a huge source of that misinformation as have many others. This is an open forum and the people asking questions deserve honest answers. It is a violation of this forum's rules to push some other agenda as Jeff H has done."*

The best is yet to come:

You say also:

*"If my choices were a Valiant 32, Tashiba 31, Brent Swain 31, Baba 30, or Islander 28, I would choose the Brent Swain 31. And I have no doubt that I could sail it - in all directions - equal to or faster than all the other boats mentioned&#8230; I know the math."*.....

and say:

*"The most ridiculous of the comments? &#8230; by Outbound*, *"ability to point and make a good days run in light/moderate air remain failings of most full keeled boats*". &#8230;*A heavier full keeled boat is sailed differently in light air than a lighter fin keeled boat. It can get the job done just as well&#8230;.There is simply no over-riding benefit to crossing an ocean, Down wind or Upwind, in light wind, or heavy air, on a fin keeled, or light weight, ocean voyaging, live-aboard, cruising sailboat.*.....

*The accompanying photos show a W-32 off the coast of Washington. The TRUE wind is approximately 3.1k. Does anyone here really believe that a Farr 38, Elan, or Figaro 35 would be able to do a lot better? Myth #1) The W-32 can't point. In fact, under exactly identical conditions, it will point equal to the average 30' racer cruiser. Myth #2) The W-32 can't run. In fact it runs faster than most 36' racer cruisers.*

*This forum has the potential to be a great source of information. It is important to keep the information accurate. I think a little more policing is in order here."*

All in blue are quotes from Oregonian, where he shows his knowledge about sailboats and design in a very accurate and never exaggerated way.

Well, I try to be accurate but if sometimes I exaggerate I can assure all and particularly Oregonian that I have no intention, as I believe it is the case with him. He was however an excuse: Love makes us blind.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Jabberwock (Sep 24, 2013)

Delezynski said:


> Jobberwock,
> 
> Thank you, my point exactly. I am not, and have not talked about the technical aspects of specific craft. I am NOT saying that every one should sail a boat that is XX foot long, big or small. I am not saying size takes no part in the equation. BUT I AM saying it is only part of the safety equation......


Greg, I just find it hard to come up with solid answers to questions like this based on isolated opinions. Also such answers rarely apply to all circumstances. I know I feel more comfortable handling a smaller boat when on my own or with one other person, but again that's just my take. There are also safety factors when maneuvering in a marina and docking and I would think smaller boats would tend to have the edge there.



Don0190 said:


> There is a lot more to boating than "safety" to which a larger boat is so much better than a small boat.


That depends on where you are and what you are trying to do. I'm currently in Russia. I moved here at the beginning of the year. I had a 37' sloop which I originally planned on bringing here but I ended up selling instead. This is not a particularly large boat by American standards BUT it's too big for me here. The marinas here are tiny and cost of a berthing is extremely high. Being able to take my boat out of the water and store it easily is of great benefit.

As an example out of the 5 marinas I visited (most of which could only loosely be called a marinas) my 37 was the largest boat I saw. This was during March so things may be different at other times of the year when more boats are in the water but I think the point is still valid. Even the boats I saw on stands were smaller.

Then there are the issues of draft, bridge clearance, transport over land etc. Also I think almost everyone agrees that recurring costs are much higher on larger boats. While I'm sure your larger boat has many advantages I would hesitate the say "to which a larger boat is so much better than a small boat". I mean a clearly a smaller boat can do SOME things better.


----------



## Delezynski (Sep 27, 2013)

A matter of numbers!!

Last night, Jill and I had dinner at a restaurant/Jazz club. Ed & Ellen Zacko were there playing in the session. They are back in the USA from Spain. They sailed from the US to the Med a few times over the years, then back across, through the Panama Canal (I posted a Youtube of there trip with MrJohn), then on out through the South Pacific, They shipped their boat to France, did the canals and are now back in Seville Spain. I say this as they have a bit of experience sailing a Nor'Sea and MrJohn is a larger (40 +/- boat).

During a break we were talking about the subject. He said that John, (on MrJohn) thought safety is a matter of numbers. 10 being the best, 0 the bottom.

IF, you have sailor that is a 10, and you have a boat that is a 10 it can do most anything
IF, you have sailor that is a 10, you can have a boat that is a 5 and still go most any place.
IF, you have sailor that is a 5 and a boat that is a 5, that's a recipe for trouble.

In my mind, my thoughts, the numbers are constantly changing. You might be a #10 sailor when you are 30 or 40~ years old. At 55 to 60, you are no longer a 10. No matter what my mind might try telling me, the old body just ain't the same.

A boat might be a 10 when you depart the dock, but as the cruise progress, it may drop in number.

On the way home my mind was going over this. The bigger (say 55+ foot) boat may start out with this #10. Then you put a value on each item or system. So, waterline is part of the total number. How the craft was designed AND built is part of that number. So is that electric winch, (the electric is part of the total for the winch and the manual is part of that number). The rigging is part and so on as you like.

My thought is that while a large well designed and built boat, say 18 to 20 meter (~65 foot) boat leaves the dock a #10.

As it goes along, with a lot of systems, if one breaks down, that #10 can fall rapidly. If for instance electric is used for sails & anchoring, and you loose electric, the numbers fall quickly and the boat fast becomes a 5. 

The larger the boat and/or the more complex, the faster the number can drop.

If a smaller boat, rated as, say an 8 or 9 due to shorter water line, leaves the dock, but does not have electric sail handling or winches as they are not needed, there is just not that much to lower that number. 

Also, we add to that the crew scale. A crew departs the dock as a #10, but after some time, that number may drop. Break an arm and you are instantly down to a 3 or 4. Fatigue would be in this part of the equation. It has been very rare that I have become overly tried as our boat will heave-to very easy and we take a break to rest up.

Any way, just another way to look at this. I think more logical. 

Greg


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Delezynski said:


> A matter of numbers!!
> 
> Last night, Jill and I had dinner at a restaurant/Jazz club. Ed & Ellen Zacko were there playing in the session. They are back in the USA from Spain. They sailed from the US to the Med a few times over the years, then back across, through the Panama Canal (I posted a Youtube of there trip with MrJohn), then on out through the South Pacific, They shipped their boat to France, did the canals and are now back in Seville Spain. I say this as they have a bit of experience sailing a Nor'Sea and MrJohn is a larger (40 +/- boat).
> 
> ...


Greg I agree with what your friend said between the interaction of the boat and the skipper in what regards safety and seaworthiness not so much with your own conclusions.

Let's take for example that story about a sailor with 55 to 60 not being a 10 and let's look for instance to Francis Joyon that is 57 years old:

Look at him:











Only this year he has beaten two major absolute solo records and that boat of his is much more difficult to sail that any 60ft cruising monohull in the market...and he is not cruising the boat but racing.

I could give you more examples of top sailors with about that age. If one is still reasonably fit experience and knowledge counts a lot more than physical performance and power. Look for instance to the vendee Globe, the thoughest sail race and you will see that almost all are over 40 with many over 50 years old.

Regarding boats each boat is a case but you are exaggerating with that story of a bigger boat to start with 10 and finishing with 5.

Of course there are many types of boats and many even if could safely voyage offhsore where not designed thinking about that.

Take one of those boats that are designed with voyage in mind and that is not certainly true. Think for instance on a Allures 45 or 51, on a Boreal 44, 47 or 50, on an OVNI 445 or 495 , on a Nordship 43, on a Halberg Rassy 43 or 48, on a Najad 440 or 460, on an Amel 55, on a x-50 or in a Oyster 575 and I am sure, as their owners and designers will certainly be, that the boat can cross the Atlatic and if not arrive on the other side of the pond with a 10, they will arrive with a 9.





















However I agree that generally it is needed more experience and knowledge for sailing a bigger boat solo and without that experience, as your friend says, if you have a 10 sailboat and a 5 skipper, the boat can go almost anywhere, but if you have a 10 sailboat and a 2 or 3 skipper, than it is a recipe that can lead to disaster.

Unfortunately there are a lot of 2/3 value skippers buying 10 or near 10 value big boats and sailing away with them, some even circumnavigating thinking they are safe because they have a safe boat.

Well, they can be lucky and have time to learn along the way or escape really bad weather altogether or they can not be that lucky and they will be in trouble.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

PCP said:


> Unfortunately there are a lot of 2/3 value skippers buying 10 or near 10 value big boats and sailing away with them, some even circumnavigating thinking they are safe because they have a safe boat.


Probably only really a problem if the skipper thinks they are a 6+.

I'm probably at least a 5 skipper, but my mind am only a 3 and base most of my decisions on this.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Have spoken to several sail makers about this. Still went with red for the parasailor figuring I'll rip it before it wears out. (grin). Seems consensus is any color (including tanbark) added to sail decreases life expectancy. Stuff they put as UV block on roller furling sails is not part of the sail it self. On my sails even it is white to maximize life. May want to ask folks out by you see if you get different answers- I'm always curious but makes sense coloring the sail changes its chemistry so effects it's life.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

mitiempo said:


> If you read my post I said that the owner of the Marine Flower 2 was inexperienced, AT LEAST WITH THAT BOAT. The rescue was in 1994, the same year the Sundeer 60 and 64 were first available. Previously all Sundeer and Deerfoot boats were custom designed and built, mostly in aluminum. As far as Marine Flower being "caught" by a hurricane that moved erratically, there are certain ocean passages that are best not attempted during hurricane season - in any boat.
> 
> The Dashews are not your average sailors. Don't paint a picture of them moving to power because of their frailty. .


So your saying even if you are an experienced sailor you should not sail a new boat, because you would not have the experience to sail that model. Sailing skills are in no way transferrable amonge mono hulls?

Many people sail south (from east coast US) in November, as long as the weather predictions look positve for the trip. Remember, Marine Flower happened 20 years ago, weather predictions and ship board electrionics were no where near what most skippers have today.

Contrary to what you post, I am not painting a picture of the Dashews being frail. Quite the contrary. I am amazed at the Dashews, their skill, their knowledge, and their talents to design a spectacular blue water boat. If I were going to purchase a boat in the 60+ foot range, it would probably be a Sun Deer (in fact asked my wife if we could sell our house to by the Sun Deer now for sail on Kauai- she said no...) I was not familar with the Dashews or the Sun Deer until this post, and thank for providing the information. I am also in the process of purchasing the Dashews publications- these are the best I have ever seen. I am awe struck that the Dashews- sailing ability, nautical design, and able to put all of this is writing. Truly amazing sailors, and in my mind, probably the best in the world.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

A previous poster asked about experience. For me 20,000 blue water miles including North and South Pacific, Tasman Sea, North Atlantic, Carribean. 10,000 coastal sailing miles mostly East Coast US.

For me, I wanted to buy a safe boat. I figured criteria should be boat should be able to be single handed, even if you normally sail with at least one crew. Next criteria is the boat make and model should have a history of sailing non-stop around the world via the 5 great capes. I figure if it can do that, it should be a safe boat. I ended up with an S&S 34. Again, this is my criteria, others for sure have other criterias.


----------



## barefootnavigator (Mar 12, 2012)

That is a rock solid, kick ass, fun great performing boat  love them!


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

outbound said:


> Have spoken to several sail makers about this. Still went with red for the parasailor figuring I'll rip it before it wears out. (grin). Seems consensus is any color (including tanbark) added to sail decreases life expectancy. Stuff they put as UV block on roller furling sails is not part of the sail it self. On my sails even it is white to maximize life. May want to ask folks out by you see if you get different answers- I'm always curious but makes sense coloring the sail changes its chemistry so effects it's life.


So, you've gone with a Parasilor, huh?

Have you used it much, yet? Hope you'll share your impressions after using it for awhile...


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

barefootnavigator said:


> That is a rock solid, kick ass, fun great performing boat  love them!


What boat?


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

Thinking about safety looks like there are two schools of thought. You can go small and simple or big with a lot of technology and expense to allow a reduce crew to be able to handle the larger boat. Either way the boat is probably equally safe, but the larger boat much more expensive with a lot more systems that need to be perfectly maintained (with associated costs).

Kind of like the space shuttle. This was a very complex piece of equipment, that if constructed per spec (no corner cutting on design and testing) and maintained perfectly, the space ship should perform. We know what happened with the shuttle. And how do we get to space today- We depend on the Russians, with there simple, robust space ship that uses the basic technology we used to get to the moon in the 60's over 40 years ago.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Just had it up once with just enough air to fill it. Still early days but it's an example how a advance in design allows a out of shape, fat old man fly a huge sail by himself safely. Much of the discussion seems biased toward smaller boats making use of believed fail safe systems and larger boats needing complicated systems. What seems to be overlooked is a lot of the new fangled stuff is really fool proof and easier. Examples
1. the parasailor
2. dutchmans and lazy jacks
3 dymeena replacing hanks on sails
4. ultra low friction blocks
etc.

These material advances make handling a 40 even 50 ft boat possible even for the geriatric crowd. And physics dictate a well founded well designed bigger boat is safer. Still, curious where folks think the break is in size before physical issues for the average cruising couple is e.g.where size becomes an issue because it's too big to handle without power.

P.S.- Paulo I went to engineering school in the beginning. Known about the spectrum. Still believe white sails last longer. We are no longer using Egyptian cotton or flax. (grin)


----------



## Delezynski (Sep 27, 2013)

casey1999 said:


> Thinking about safety looks like there are two schools of thought. You can go small and simple or big with a lot of technology and expense to allow a reduce crew to be able to handle the larger boat. Either way the boat is probably equally safe, but the larger boat much more expensive with a lot more systems that need to be perfectly maintained (with associated costs).
> 
> Kind of like the space shuttle. This was a very complex piece of equipment, that if constructed per spec (no corner cutting on design and testing) and maintained perfectly, the space ship should perform. We know what happened with the shuttle. And how do we get to space today- We depend on the Russians, with there simple, robust space ship that uses the basic technology we used to get to the moon in the 60's over 40 years ago.


When we decided what boat we would get, among others parameters, was my background. I come from the Aerospace industry and spent many years in the Specifications, design, build, integration, testing and launch of spacecraft.

I have ALWAYS looked at our boat as our very own spacecraft, we just didn't need to bring O2 with us. 

Greg


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

casey1999 said:


> Thinking about safety looks like there are two schools of thought. You can go small and simple or big with a lot of technology and expense to allow a reduce crew to be able to handle the larger boat. Either way the boat is probably equally safe,....


For the same type of boat, a bigger boat is safer. If the bigger boat can be sailed by that reduced crew in any circumstance, then it is a safer boat.

That do not mean the the smaller boat would not be perfectly safe on the conditions that is used but there are conditions that can be too much for any relatively small boat (even a big yacht). The bigger boat would have simply a bigger safety margin and the smaller boat will be in trouble in conditions that will not represent any problem for the bigger boat (assuming that there are a big difference in size between the two boats).

As I have been said, this is evident and it is not a way to see it, it is the only way.

Off course I am talking not not only about the same type of boat but boats with an identical quality of built. For instance a Nor'sea 37 would be safer than a Nor'sea 27, not meaning that the Nor'sea 27 is not a safe boat, just that the 37 will continue sailing in conditions were the 27 will be in trouble, or, for other type of boat, that an Oceanis 45 is safer than an Oceanis 34, meaning the same thing.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

outbound said:


> ..Paulo I went to engineering school in the beginning. Known about the spectrum. Still believe white sails last longer. We are no longer using Egyptian cotton or flax. (grin)


I did not said otherwise and if you understand that you have misunderstood me. White is the "color" that radiates more solar energy and absorbs less. it is logical that a white sail degrades less with solar radiation.
Regards

Paulo


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

PCP said:


> For the same type of boat, a bigger boat is safer. If the bigger boat can be sailed by that reduced crew in any circumstance, then it is a safer boat.
> 
> That do not mean the the smaller boat would not be perfectly safe on the conditions that is used but there are conditions that can be too much for any relatively small boat (even a big yacht). The bigger boat would have simply a bigger safety margin and the smaller boat will be in trouble in conditions that will not represent any problem for the bigger boat (assuming that there are a big difference in size between the two boats).
> 
> ...


Paulo,
Here is an example of how a smaller boat (say my S&S 34) is safer than say a 50 footer set up for single handing. My anchor weighs 35 lbs (and I have 200 feet of all chain rhode). I can pull this anchor up (hand over hand) in less than 5 minutes. If I need to depart an anchorage in an emergency (which I have done), I can do so fast. Say on the 50 footer the windlass breaks pulling up the now 50 lb anchor that the boat requires. What then? Sure I could abandon the anchor, but that is a lot of money and not good seamenship.

A couple of times in the middle of the night we have had Tsunami warnings. I can relatively easily get my boat off the dock and out of the harbor single handed. I would not feel safe doing that with a 50 footer since many times I am dealing with strong tidal current and winds. I have seen an experienced sailing instructor have trouble docking a 40 foot boat (even with 2 aboard) due to the normal wind and tide conditions- so it is not just for my lack of skills.


----------



## Lou452 (Mar 2, 2012)

I want to thank all of you for sharing your thoughts. Now we know the crew can mean more than the type of boat. We are safe to say bigger is better. I have finished two books Twenty small boats to take you anywhere under 32 ft and Twenty affordable sailboats. 30-38 feet John Viger , Gregg Nestor. Where do you find that thin line between an aircraft carrier and a sunfish? I am doing all this reading. I am sailing when I can. Here are 40 boats to pick and look thru Plus Paulo has a Thread with many more boats. The full keel vs fin Keel thread goes on. I think new technology is great. I like ( K.I.S.S Keep it simple.... I am not a fan of one off or custom boats. I think I like to follow the herd. I am window shopping and looking for the dream. What do you all want to put in the window ?
I am happy with my (New to me fits my ability level and needs. 1974 Catalina-22) 
Good day, Lou


----------



## Lou452 (Mar 2, 2012)

Is there a record of a boat type that has made the most passages or holds some kind of records. Are records even keep ?
Good day Lou


----------



## vtsailguy (Aug 4, 2010)

Lots of pages here, so I am not sure if its been mentioned.

From what I understand, when you are thinking of size in relation to safety, it's often better to consider DISPLACEMENT rather than length. Many boats that are longer are actually smaller in terms of displacement.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

Lou452 said:


> Is there a record of a boat type that has made the most passages or holds some kind of records. Are records even keep ?
> Good day Lou


Well, that is hard to know I mean what kind of boat made more passages and that dos not mean it is the better boat for the job.

Regarding records I know one that will interest you: The smaller boat to have circumnavigated non stop: A slightly modified mini class racer, a very light boat with 21ft. A very fast boat for its size.
Typically a mini class racer weights about 650kg, however this one was reinforced and was therefore heavier some hundreds of kgs. It had also to carry all the food and provisions needed for the voyage and that would amount also to more some hundreds of kgs.

It is also the smallest boat to have circumnavigated by the three capes. The boat did not have an engine, but then, it sailed very well.



Regards

Paulo


----------



## Cruiser2B (Jan 6, 2011)

this may have been posted before, not sure haven't read all previous posts.
As far as size and displacement goes, this guy seems to defy both. I like his simple approach to sailing.

Adventures of Salacia: Simple Sailor

see more at Introduction to the junk-rigged Corribee Mingming or look up junkming on Youtube


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

PCP said:


> Well, that is hard to know I mean what kind of boat made more passages and that dos not mean it is the better boat for the job.
> 
> Regarding records I know one that will interest you: The smaller boat to have circumnavigated non stop: A slightly modified mini class racer, a very light boat with 22ft. A very fast boat for its size.
> 
> ...


An S&S 34 did an double (2 times around) non stop circumnavigation via 5 great capes and is the only boat I know of that has done that. A triple by the same man was done on a 40 footer (choose larger boat in order to carry the supplies required, ie food and water, for the trip).

These records stand today, even in the relm of Open 60 and other high tech boats.


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Help me out. What are the "Five Great Capes"? I count 1) Horn, 2) Hope.... Is three and four Southwest and Southeast Capes? Where is the fifth one?

Getting back to the original thesis, the only parameter brought up was one of length. And as the good little engineers we are, we did a constant scaling for the other dimensional data... and we held constant build quality and design. I don't understand why it is hard to draw a simple conclusion from only one variable in our design model.

I do risk analysis and first thought, "heck, with the modeling tools I have, I ought to be able work up a mathematical model on sailboat safety". Wrong. Too many variables and too many subjective assumptions. I am modifying my assumption that safety is a continuum. It is more like a multidimensional shape living within a Monte Carlo analysis. One of you other engineers can play with this one.

I love the associations and allegories. Soyuz v. the Shuttle? Love it. Ignoring the fact that the two solve entirely different design problems (One use vs. reusable, 60 day “return to space” window; aerodynamic v. ballistic etc. ) That is like trying to compare a rescue pod v. and aircraft carrier. Another analogy to use could be “what is safer, a Cessna 150 or a Boeing 777"

But please continue, I’m loving this food fight.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

casey1999 said:


> An S&S 34 did an double (2 times around) non stop circumnavigation via 5 great capes and is the only boat I know of that has done that. A triple by the same man was done on a 40 footer (choose larger boat in order to carry the supplies required, ie food and water, for the trip).
> 
> These records stand today, even in the relm of Open 60 and other high tech boats.


Regarding Joe Sanders accomplishment with the small and old S&S 34 Bob Williams, the Chairman of Antarctica Cup Management and the Antarctica Cup Ocean Race, says:

*"What Jon achieved during his double circumnavigation in 1981/82 was truly remarkable, given the technology available at the time and size of his yacht.*

During that double circumnavigation with the S&S 34 he suffered a 180-degree knockdown and has very lucky in not breaking the mast, a thing that occur most of the times when a sailboat is rolled.

The three times non stop circumnavigation was made on a 47ft boat (not a 40ft boat) a bigger more modern, safer and faster fin keel boat that he could perfectly manage alone during three years. Here it is his 47fter:





PS: After all Sanders broke the mast of the S&S 34 when he was rolled. He managed to jury rig the boat with a mast with half the height and complete that way is second circumnavigation.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

casey1999 said:


> So your saying even if you are an experienced sailor you should not sail a new boat, because you would not have the experience to sail that model. Sailing skills are in no way transferrable amonge mono hulls?
> 
> Many people sail south (from east coast US) in November, as long as the weather predictions look positve for the trip. Remember, Marine Flower happened 20 years ago, weather predictions and ship board electrionics were no where near what most skippers have today.
> 
> Contrary to what you post, I am not painting a picture of the Dashews being frail. Quite the contrary. I am amazed at the Dashews, their skill, their knowledge, and their talents to design a spectacular blue water boat. If I were going to purchase a boat in the 60+ foot range, it would probably be a Sun Deer (in fact asked my wife if we could sell our house to by the Sun Deer now for sail on Kauai- she said no...) I was not familar with the Dashews or the Sun Deer until this post, and thank for providing the information. I am also in the process of purchasing the Dashews publications- these are the best I have ever seen. I am awe struck that the Dashews- sailing ability, nautical design, and able to put all of this is writing. Truly amazing sailors, and in my mind, probably the best in the world.


The Marine Flower 2 had a crew of 4, if you include a wife with a newborn baby and a 13 year old girl in addition to the skipper. Effectively the skipper was singlehanding the boat once it hit bad weather. Yes, I think that is a mistake in the Atlantic at that time of the year. Interestingly he was sailing under main alone - storm jib and mizzen would have been a more logical choice - hove to possibly.

Steve Dashew's books are the best I have read relating to sailing from design to rig to equipment and its installation. They have no equal as far as books by designers as far as I know. I do not know of any designer that has several hundred thousand blue water miles to their credit. The best is the Offshore Cruising Encyclopedia, 2nd edition. I have both editions, as well as his other books. A major part of the book relates to building a reliable boat that doesn't need the kinds of electrical/mechanical aids that are common today on large (and small) boats. The Sundeer 60 is light for its length, lean (13'4" beam) with a long waterline (59' - Disp/length 82) and simpler than many 35' boats today. If the electric winch did fail manual would work well with a rig that is simple and easy to handle. The only other "complicated" sailing equipment are the jib furlers, well proven by 1994. Its sail area is comparable in size to many 40 to 45 foot boats. Yes the anchors are larger - main anchor over 100 lbs on many. Most boats over 30' have an electric windlass and they are very reliable, if in doubt install 2 like a friend has on his Maple Leaf 50. They were designed to not need bow thrusters, now common on much smaller boats - their spade rudders are oversized for easy maneuverability in marinas at the expense of a slight loss of speed in light air, with rudderposts that are also oversized. Yes they have a lot of electronics and a reliable autopilot - Steve preferred the W-H autopilots which are one of if not the most reliable, still uses them on his powerboats. Some also have wind vanes. With more sail area the winches and deck gear is more capable as well. They could be sailed if necessary with manual winches and a hand held gps if all electrical power was lost, an unlikely event with well designed and built systems that are easy to service because they are not crammed into a small space where service is difficult.

Paulo has posted about many modern boats that rely heavily on items like in mast or boom furling and electric captive winches for the mainsheet and other aids that are more complicated than you will find on a Sundeer. They are really quite simple boats for their size with reliability first and foremost.

If I was going to buy a Sundeer now it would be Ocean Jasper, located in Maryland - I prefer its slab reefing to the in-boom furling on the one in Kauai.

One chooses the boat they are comfortable with that is within their budget. Whether it is a NorSea 27 or a Hallberg Rassy 64 or a Sundeer 60 it is their choice and their choice alone. Personally I would take a simple large boat (Sundeer) over a complicated smaller boat anytime. I think my ideal would be an aluminum Sundeer type boat in the 50' to 60' range.

As far as losing an anchor - it is very good seamanship to buoy an anchor for later retrieval.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

GeorgeB said:


> Help me out. What are the "Five Great Capes"? I count 1) Horn, 2) Hope.... Is three and four Southwest and Southeast Capes? Where is the fifth one?
> 
> .... Another analogy to use could be "what is safer, a Cessna 150 or a Boeing 777"


Any airplane pilot will tell you the same : the 777 is safer by a long margin. The 777 can fly with no problem in weather conditions that would be deadly and impossible to a Cessna 150. But you are right, the analogy is similar to sailboats in what regards size.

Regarding the Capes I have no idea of what are the 5. What normally is refereed in a circumnavigations are the big three: The Cape of Good Hope , Cape Leeuwin, and Cape Horn.






Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

mitiempo said:


> ....
> Paulo has posted about many modern boats that rely heavily on items like in mast or boom furling and electric captive winches for the mainsheet and other aids that are more complicated than you will find on a Sundeer. They are really quite simple boats for their size with reliability first and foremost.
> ....


Some yes, others not. It is meaningful that from the boats that I have posted the boats designed to voyage in more remote places and that therefore require a larger autonomy and reliability don't have boom furling and even if they have some electric winches (that today are highly reliable) those winches can be used manually.

That is the case with the Allures, Boreal or OVNI lines. It is not by accident that they are all also Aluminium boats:






Regards

Paulo


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

PCP said:


> Regarding the Capes I have no idea of what are the 5. What normal is refereed in circumnavigations are the big three: The Cape of Good Hope , Cape Leeuwin, and Cape Horn.
> 
> Great capes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...


The other 2 are the SE Cape of Tasmania, and SW Cape on Stewart Island, southernmost main island of NZ...

Some Great Cape circumnavigations might bypass the first by passing thru the Bass Strait N of Tasmania instead, or the second by going via the Cook Strait between the N and S Islands of NZ...

Jessica Watson, for example, bypassed both the SE and SW Capes on her trip... I believe all of the RTW record attempts have been made running south of all 5, though I do seem to recall that some of the boats in The Race in 2000 may have run thru the Cook Strait, perhaps to have made a pit stop in Wellington for repairs...


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

JonEisberg said:


> The other 2 are the SE Cape of Tasmania, and SW Cape on Stewart Island, southernmost main island of NZ...
> 
> Some Great Cape circumnavigations might bypass the first by passing thru the Bass Strait N of Tasmania instead, or the second by going via the Cook Strait between the N and S Islands of NZ...
> 
> .... I believe all of the RTW record attempts have been made running south of all 5, though I do seem to recall that some of the boats in The Race in 2000 may have run thru the Cook Strait, perhaps to have made a pit stop in Wellington for repairs...


This is the map of the triple circumnavigation on the 47ft boat:



Regarding the first one I don't think he was never North of the Equator. In fact it was a two times Antarctic circumnavigation. He passed South of the 5 more Southern Capes.

Normally today when someone talks about a circumnavigation by the three capes talks about only the three big none ones, the others are implicit. I had never heard someone talking about circumnavigating by the 5 capes even referring to passing all of them. I guess that the denomination "by the three capes" is the more common now.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Casey raises two interesting issues.
As regards failed windlass. Use engine ( or sails ) to approach anchor and take strain off chain. Then use snuffer lines run back to primary winches to lay chain on side deck. Works regardless of boat size.
As regards size and docking- YOU GOT ME. No question a smaller boat is easier to handle. Had occasion that two very experienced professional captains after multiple attempts could not get my boat into position for the Newport show. Sail down was in moderate conditions ( ~25kts- full mail and solent). It took multiple line handlers (with lines run across docks by a skiff) and a push boat to get her in. Not something available to a mom and pop team. Have had occasion to just drop the hook outside and wait for wind to die before attempting docking in a slip. Find in any strong breeze even a good bow thruster may not be sufficient for single handed docking. Need security of a line handler on the pier. Never had same issue with my little PSC 34


----------



## Delezynski (Sep 27, 2013)

outbound said:


> Casey raises two interesting issues.
> As regards failed windlass. Use engine ( or sails ) to approach anchor and take strain off chain. Then use snuffer lines run back to primary winches to lay chain on side deck. Works regardless of boat size.
> As regards size and docking- YOU GOT ME. No question a smaller boat is easier to handle. Had occasion that two very experienced professional captains after multiple attempts could not get my boat into position for the Newport show. Sail down was in moderate conditions ( ~25kts- full mail and solent). It took multiple line handlers (with lines run across docks by a skiff) and a push boat to get her in. Not something available to a mom and pop team. Have had occasion to just drop the hook outside and wait for wind to die before attempting docking in a slip. Find in any strong breeze even a good bow thruster may not be sufficient for single handed docking. Need security of a line handler on the pier. Never had same issue with my little PSC 34


Outbound,

I have heard about using the winches (sheet & halyard on the mast) for doing that should the windlass break down. I keep a couple of chain hooks handy. I have never had to do it myself as we can up anchor by hand if required. Heck, Jill was the one who hauled it for the first few years by herself, Till she got smarter and started sending me forward. 

What I always wondered was how well it would work in sketchy weather when it's starting to kick up and ya got to get out, but it's not bad enough to drop the gear. I also wondered what cost in deck damage would be. Not the $$$, but the actual damage to the craft.

Greg


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

As said in prior posts windlass failure is very rare. In a catastrophe ( no juice) you do what you gotta do. I have all chain on my primary anchor . Although I guess I could use the spin halyard but the idea of having chain flying around seems scary. Rather have chain on deck so would use my snuffer lines. Find simple knot easier to work with then hooks. Motoring up to the anchor just have to lift the chain ( can do by hand) and can power over the anchor to break it free. Use primaries not mast winches as they are powered. Would use mast winches in absence of juice but might need the additional mechanical advantage of the bigger primaries. Probably wouldn't need the snuffer trick but for a little bit. Have 75lbs Rocna so anchor and chain will be a heavy lift. A little glass work gotta be better than losing the boat. It's rope not chain going to the winches with the portion of chain on deck under tension or fed into chain locker. Have snatch blocks on toes rails already for the spinnaker so can rig the snuffer line(s) through them quickly. Can't image structural damage from doing this that would threaten the boat.


----------



## Delezynski (Sep 27, 2013)

outbound said:


> As said in prior posts windlass failure is very rare. In a catastrophe ( no juice) you do what you gotta do. I have all chain on my primary anchor . Although I guess I could use the spin halyard but the idea of having chain flying around seems scary. Motoring up to the anchor just have to lift the chain ( can do by hand) and can power over the anchor to break it free. Probably wouldn't need the snuffer trick but for a little bit. A little glass work gotta be better than losing the boat.


Ohhhhh YES!!  better some glass work than loosing a boat.

We also carry a lot of chain rode. The last 15 ~ 20 foot on our main is line so I can cut away if needed. I have 300 ft. chain on my primary. Then about 75 ft. chain followed by 300 ft line on my second.

I have had 2 windlass failures. One (the last one), I was at fault. The first I attribute to poor engineering by the manufacturer. I am sure that they felt it was for a smaller boat, so only needed to be up to weekend sailing.  In both occasions it was a small inconvenience, But it still made for a change in plans.

Greg


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

PCP said:


> This is the map of the triple circumnavigation on the 47ft boat:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Paulo,
You do not know what the heck you are talking about. Please cease posting this incorrect information now. I will post the corrections to your post when I have some time. You have posted so much false information it will take some time to post the facts for you (promise by today though- HI time).

You were correct Jon's triple was done in a 47 footer. When I said 40 footer, I was just trying to get in the ball park- could not remember the exact size.
Regards


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

Delezynski said:


> Ohhhhh YES!!  better some glass work than loosing a boat.
> 
> We also carry a lot of chain rode. The last 15 ~ 20 foot on our main is line so I can cut away if needed. I have 300 ft. chain on my primary. Then about 75 ft. chain followed by 300 ft line on my second.
> 
> ...


When I purchased my boat it had a manual windlass. Thing was ceased up and could not get parts. I sent it to the recycler and installed a massive bronze mooring bit (Buck Alogoquin 7x7). This thing is much more usefull than a windlass. Can moor the boat with it or run an sea acnchor if needed. I reinforced the deck below where the mooring bit is through bolted.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

Delezynski said:


> Ohhhhh YES!!  better some glass work than loosing a boat.
> 
> We also carry a lot of chain rode. The last 15 ~ 20 foot on our main is line so I can cut away if needed. I have 300 ft. chain on my primary. Then about 75 ft. chain followed by 300 ft line on my second.
> 
> ...


Windlasses are only made to lift the anchor and its chain, not for breaking the anchor free. I found this out once while I was trying to help a skipper free his 50 new yacht. I swam his anchor out so I could use the manual windlass to winch his boat off the sand bar- well I cranked on that windlass until somthing stripped.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

outbound said:


> Casey raises two interesting issues.
> As regards failed windlass. Use engine ( or sails ) to approach anchor and take strain off chain. Then use snuffer lines run back to primary winches to lay chain on side deck. Works regardless of boat size.
> As regards size and docking- YOU GOT ME. No question a smaller boat is easier to handle. Had occasion that two very experienced professional captains after multiple attempts could not get my boat into position for the Newport show. Sail down was in moderate conditions ( ~25kts- full mail and solent). It took multiple line handlers (with lines run across docks by a skiff) and a push boat to get her in. Not something available to a mom and pop team. Have had occasion to just drop the hook outside and wait for wind to die before attempting docking in a slip. Find in any strong breeze even a good bow thruster may not be sufficient for single handed docking. Need security of a line handler on the pier. Never had same issue with my little PSC 34


Ok, good, now I know its not just my poor boat control when I try to dock. Problem I have with my dock is I am in I guess what you call a double slip. Two boats in the slip with nothing between (not even a piling where I could run a line to fend off against. I am not overly concerned about touching the dock with my boat, but makes me nervous as hell about touching my neighbors boat. Especially when wind blowing me off the dock and in direction of neighboring boat. If I had my own slip, I would line it with fenders and just ram the boat in- no worries.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

JonEisberg said:


> The other 2 are the SE Cape of Tasmania, and SW Cape on Stewart Island, southernmost main island of NZ...
> 
> Some Great Cape circumnavigations might bypass the first by passing thru the Bass Strait N of Tasmania instead, or the second by going via the Cook Strait between the N and S Islands of NZ...
> 
> Jessica Watson, for example, bypassed both the SE and SW Capes on her trip... I believe all of the RTW record attempts have been made running south of all 5, though I do seem to recall that some of the boats in The Race in 2000 may have run thru the Cook Strait, perhaps to have made a pit stop in Wellington for repairs...


Jon,
Correction.
Jessica Watson only missed West Cape (Stewart Island, NZ):

Also take a look at the boat she used, S&S 34. Now if you were to send your 16 year old daughter on a non stop circumnavigation via 4 great capes, what is the safest boat you could choose?
The Voyage Wall Chart


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

PCP said:


> Well, that is hard to know I mean what kind of boat made more passages and that dos not mean it is the better boat for the job.
> 
> Regarding records I know one that will interest you: The smaller boat to have circumnavigated non stop: A slightly modified mini class racer, a very light boat with 21ft. A very fast boat for its size.
> Typically a mini class racer weights about 650kg, however this one was reinforced and was therefore heavier some hundreds of kgs. It had also to carry all the food and provisions needed for the voyage and that would amount also to more some hundreds of kgs.
> ...


Paulo,
Please post a link to more information on the RTW mini trip if you have. Always curious why someone did not try a single hand RTW with such a boat- I guess they did. Interested as I know someone that races the mini and is planning a non stop RTW trip, but his boat of choice is an S&S 34. Mini does seem like a much faster way to go.
Regards


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

PCP said:


> Regarding Joe Sanders accomplishment with the small and old S&S 34 Bob Williams, the Chairman of Antarctica Cup Management and the Antarctica Cup Ocean Race, says:
> 
> *"What Jon achieved during his double circumnavigation in 1981/82 was truly remarkable, given the technology available at the time and size of his yacht.*
> 
> ...


Paulo,
As far as I know, Jon Sanders has never broken a mast on any boat he has ever stepped foot on- this includes many boats he has raced and delivered over the last 50 years. He did not break a mast on any boat he has circummnavigated on. Your are right he has done many 180 degree knock downs- but never broke a mast doing so. An example of the safety of the boats he sails.

Please correct your self. Jon Sanders never had to jury rig the S&S 34 he did his double non stop circummnavigation.

Please get a copy and read this book before you comment on his double RTW record breaking trip:
Lone Sailor: Jon Sanders, Sir Charles Court: 9780867780208: Amazon.com: Books

Now let's talk about his triple RTW non stop on the 47 footer. You will need this book to fully discuss:
Sanders Sextant, Sea and Solitude: Amazon.it: Hugh Schmitt: Libri in altre [email protected]@[email protected]@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/[email protected]@[email protected]@410RS8WbDVL

Now if you go to page #135, you will read Jon had problems with the 47 footer. He states when ever going to windward in strong winds, somthing like 40 to 50 knots, the boat would nose dive. He ended up having to hove to in those conditions. Jon attributed the nose diving to having the mast and keel to far forward and also having water tanks forward on the boat. This made the boat have a heavy bow. So this boat is not the perfect boat as you make it out to be. Maybe that is why it is in a museum and one of a kind. It did make the trip however, so we do need to credit it.

Jon Sanders route on the S&S 34 took him below all the 5 great capes and all the way to England (2 times).

From Wikipedia:





"Jon Sanders was the first man to circumnavigate Antarctica, circling the continent twice in 1981 - 1982. For this accomplishment, Gate 17 of the new Antarctica Cup Racetrack has been named after him, with sector 17 named after the S&S 34 monohull Perie Banou, the yacht he had used during the circumnavigation.[2] Sanders Gate is positioned mid-way round the Indian Ocean zone; the gate is close to where Sanders suffered a 180-degree knockdown. During the voyage, he passed south of the three great capes: Horn, Good Hope and Leeuwin, before rounding Cape Horn a second time. He turned north to Plymouth, UK and returning south around Good Hope and returning to Fremantle.[3]

This voyage was recognised in the Guinness Book of Records through the following records:

The first single-handed sailor to remain continuously at sea twice around the world
First single-handed sailor to round the five southern most Capes twice on one voyage
First single-handed sailor to round the five southern most Capes twice
Longest distance continuously sailed by any yacht: 48,510 miles (78,070 km).
Longest period alone at sea during a continuous voyage: 419 days: 22 hours: 10 minutes"

Paulo, please do some reading before posting more false information.

Regards


----------



## Delezynski (Sep 27, 2013)

casey1999 said:


> Windlasses are only made to lift the anchor and its chain, not for breaking the anchor free. I found this out once while I was trying to help a skipper free his 50 new yacht. I swam his anchor out so I could use the manual windlass to winch his boat off the sand bar- well I cranked on that windlass until somthing stripped.


We have never used our windlass to break the anchor free. Not even once. We bring the boat up to it so the chain is straight down. I have a chain stopper to hold it tight, NOT the windlass. I then normally tighten up manually and use the wave action or my weight to dip the bow and break it free. Only time I had much trouble was after sitting out a hurricane. The anchor was DEEP! AND into the bottom. But I was happy about it that time. 

Was just talking Jill reminded me of the time we had to depart a open road stead in the Pacific we had anchored in. She was saying how gad she was that we didn't have to resort to manual means as the sea was starting to build a lot. 

Greg


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Agree with above -never use the windlass to break free. Fortunate that we get to anchor in mud most often. Further agree wave action is usually sufficient. Always remember to use snuffers as never want to pull the windlass out of the deck. Sorry if I gave that misperception.
Sure wish this thread got back to Greg's apparent original intent- what size is best/safest for use by average cruising families and couples doing coastal, occasional passages like New England to US/BVIs and rare voyages like to Azores? At what size does size becomes a hindrance on a day to day basis?


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

casey1999 said:


> Jon,
> Correction.
> Jessica Watson only missed West Cape (Stewart Island, NZ):


Thanks, I was recalling that she had experienced the worst weather on her trip in the vicinity of the Bass Strait, and had mistakenly presumed she passed N of Tasmania...



casey1999 said:


> Also take a look at the boat she used, S&S 34. Now if you were to send your 16 year old daughter on a non stop circumnavigation via 4 great capes, what is the safest boat you could choose?


No question, the S&S 34 is a great boat in that size range... But, I think it's a bit silly to suggest that it, or any other particular boat, is unquestionably 'safer' than any other - there are simply way too many variables...

A couple of comparable boats off the top of my head, would be the Contessa 32, and the Camper-Nicholson 35... I'd probably favor the latter, it would be a much drier boat, and probably the best build quality of all 3... The C-N 35 would appear to be the least vulnerable to being pooped, and has a deeper, more secure cockpit, as well...

But if I did have a young daughter, and I was gonna let her take off around the world in a production boat, it would definitely be modified to have the vee-berth ripped out, and replaced with a collision bulkhead and watertight door 

NICHOLSON 35-1 sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

casey1999 said:


> Paulo,
> Please post a link to more information on the RTW mini trip if you have. Always curious why someone did not try a single hand RTW with such a boat- I guess they did. Interested as I know someone that races the mini and is planning a non stop RTW trip, but his boat of choice is an S&S 34. Mini does seem like a much faster way to go.
> Regards


I'm guessing Paulo is referring to Alessandro de Benedetto's truly epic voyage:

Cruising Club of America


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

JonEisberg said:


> But if I did have a young daughter, and I was gonna let her take off around the world in a production boat, it would definitely be modified to have the vee-berth ripped out, and replaced with a collision bulkhead and watertight door


Jessicas boat did have the forward part of boat foam filled and sealed to act as collision compartment.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

casey1999 said:


> Paulo,
> ...Jon Sanders ... did not break a mast on any boat he has circummnavigated on. Your are right he has done many 180 degree knock downs- but never broke a mast doing so. An example of the safety of the boats he sails.
> 
> Please correct your self. Jon Sanders never had to jury rig the S&S 34 he did his double non stop circummnavigation.
> ...


Yes you are right. That was another famous circumnavigator that broke the mast when rolled and end up its circumnavigation under Jury-Rig.

The S&S 34 boat was rolled 180º but he Sanders had a lot of luck and the mast stayed in on piece. Masts broke almost always on a 180º roll. It has not to do with the boat but with the masts. Other S&S 34 had broke the mast on less than a roll.

A roll is a very dangerous situation and even if the mast remains intact a lot of wrong things can happen, if we there is not a lot of luck. Take a look:






His bigger boat, used for the triple circumnavigation, notwithstanding have been caught in a huge storm and knock down several times, always resisted to be rolled. Never passed 110º and that on the worst knock down.

About Jon Sanders' Triple Circumnavigation of the World

Regards

Paulo


----------



## sneuman (Jan 28, 2003)

PCP said:


> Sorry but I do not agree.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But interestingly, the Pogo is crewed by at least four people, according to the video. Is it easily manageable by a cruising couple? Unless the answer is yes (and maybe it is), it is not a "safer" boat for a short-handed crew.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

casey1999 said:


> Paulo,
> Please post a link to more information on the RTW mini trip if you have. Always curious why someone did not try a single hand RTW with such a boat- I guess they did. Interested as I know someone that races the mini and is planning a non stop RTW trip, but his boat of choice is an S&S 34. Mini does seem like a much faster way to go.
> Regards


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

sneuman said:


> But interestingly, the Pogo is crewed by at least four people, according to the video. Is it easily manageable by a cruising couple? Unless the answer is yes (and maybe it is), it is not a "safer" boat for a short-handed crew.


And what leads you to that conclusion?

The Pogo 12.50 has the same hull than a Pogo 40 that is a 40class racer and those boats are used to Ocean solo racing.

The Pogo 12.50 has a smaller rig that make it more easy to manage and a cruising interior.

40 class racers are also used on with a short crew in a circumnavigation race (duo sailed).

Some use 40class racers and Open 40's are used for extensive cruising and there is a guy that is circumnavigating, sometimes with his wife and 3 small kids (he solo sails the boat).






Here you can see him sailing the class40 with almost 50K.











Anasazi Racing: THE BOAT

Even Chinese use that type of boat to circumnavigate non stop






and he made it in 137 days, not bad.

So, what leads you to the conclusion that it is not a safe boat for a short handed crew?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## sneuman (Jan 28, 2003)

PCP said:


> And what leads you to that conclusion?
> 
> The Pogo 12.50 has the same hull than a Pogo 40 that is a 40class racer and those boats are used to Ocean solo racing.
> 
> ...


Paulo - read what I wrote. I assiduously avoided drawing any conclusions. In any case, a solo race boat and a solo cruising boat are two entirely different things. How many people go cruising in an Open 60?


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

sneuman said:


> Paulo - read what I wrote. I assiduously avoided drawing any conclusions. In any case, a solo race boat and a solo cruising boat are two entirely different things. How many people go cruising in an Open 60?


Yes, I read, you said:



sneuman said:


> But interestingly, the Pogo is crewed by at least four people, according to the video. Is it easily manageable by a cruising couple? Unless the answer is yes (and maybe it is), it is not a "safer" boat for a short-handed crew.


But you keep confusing things: Those boats are not Open 60 but 40class racers. The Pogo 12.50 is a performance cruiser with the same hull of a 40class racer but with a smaller rig and a good cruising interior even if a bit spartan. A Pogo 12.50 is a lot more easy to sail than a 40class racer (less power). A 40class racer is designed to be solo sailed by an experienced sailor.

The boat that I posted and that deserved your first comment regarding not being suited for short hand cruising is a a Pogo 12.50. The boat was elected this year as the 2013 European performance cruiser and Is a big sales success with a long waiting list.

There is at least a member of this forum that has a Pogo 12.50. He posted recently a video sailing his boat with a friend (he has a broken arm).

There is another member of this forum that is in France to buy one. If I am not mistaken he is American and will sail the boat back home.

The Pogo 12.50 is one of the few performance cruisers that is unsuitable to race (ratting too high to be competitive) and is used exclusively by its owners for cruising, I would say, fast cruising.

There are several cruising extensively. Here you have a Russian one

Pogo 12.50 Easy: TRANSAT

Regards

Paulo


----------



## sneuman (Jan 28, 2003)

Well, asking a question is not the same as drawing a conclusion. Might I suggest that you seem overly defensive?


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

sneuman said:


> Well, asking a question is not the same as drawing a conclusion. Might I suggest that you seem overly defensive?


I am sorry and you are right. Take into consideration that English is not my first language and yes, even on the second time I misunderstood you. Yes you were making a question and it seemed to me a statement. I hope I have answered your question

Regards

Paulo


----------



## sneuman (Jan 28, 2003)

PCP said:


> I am sorry and you are right. Take into consideration that English is not my first language and yes, even on the second time I misunderstood you. Yes you were making a question and it seemed to me a statement. I hope I have answered your question
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


My apologies - I should have realized where the confusion originated. No hard feelings!


----------

