# Definition of Coastal Cruising vs Blue Water



## toben (Aug 23, 2007)

Most of the true blue water boats are out of my price range. I'm not really interested in sailing across the Atlantic or Pacific anyways. 

What I am interested in is sailing down to the Florida Keys, out to the Bahamas, Jamaica, Puerto Rico and back. 

Is this close enough to the coastal cruising definition safety wise? 

I'm looking at older boats size 27-30 range. Maybe a hunter, Catalina or Macgregor.


----------



## Freesail99 (Feb 13, 2006)

I know it doesn't sound like much. But there is a big difference between a 27 foot boat and a 30 footer. Go with the 30 footer. All the boats you mentioned in fair weather always with an eye to the weather are ( I think ) up to the Tass.


----------



## Melrna (Apr 6, 2004)

Some of those are serious crossing like crossing the Gulf stream a few times or a night or two out at sea. Even in decent conditions the motion of the boat will be important especially if it is a small one like you are talking about. Unless you and your crew can handle the hobby horse motion for hours on end you will end up not liking it or be beat up by the time you get there. One can sail any boat to any destination if crew is competent, the weather good and the boat outfit right. 
I would look at other boats and not the ones you listed like an Island Packet, Cape Dory, Bristol Channel, Westsail, or maybe Pacific Seacraft Orion


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

Toben,

You said: "What I am interested in is sailing down to the Florida Keys, out to the Bahamas, Jamaica, Puerto Rico and back." 

I was with you up to the Bahamas. But once you start making passages through the Carribean to places like Jamaica and Puerto Rico, you are no longer talking about "coastal sailing". That is big water out there.

Melrna is right, people have made similar trips with the kinds/size of boats you are looking at, but that doesn't mean you should. If you were just going down the east coast to the bahamas and back, I'd be less apprehensive. But if you're set on roaming farther afield, Melrna's short list is a good place to start. Is price more important to you than size? If so, you might also take a look at the Pacific Seacraft 25. That's a blue-water capable boat in the same price range as you seem to be in.


----------



## toben (Aug 23, 2007)

JohnRPollard said:


> Toben,
> 
> I was with you up to the Bahamas. But once you start making passages through the Carribean to places like Jamaica and Puerto Rico, you are no longer talking about "coastal sailing". That is big water out there.


Thats what I needed to know.

I can live with only going to the Florida Keys and the Bahamas.

I especially don't want to scare my wife to death.

When I am old and rich I will buy a bigger boat to sail around the world.

Legalities aside, what is sailing to Cuba like?


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Unless you plan to sail in a lake other than the Great Lakes, you will be better off with a "Deep Water" cruiser. Just offshore is as dangerous as out of site of land, believe me...


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Actually...you can get all the way down to PR simply by waiting for weather an making day hops...nothing over 24 hours is necessary. Nevertheless it does get rougher past the Turks and Caicos and you will be bashing into trade winds and seas. You need a decent sized boat for that and a VERY reliable inbard engine cause you ain't gonna sail it. I'd prefer to see you in something a bit larger or more robust than a small Hunter or Cat for that portion of your trip. But if you limit your trip to US Coast and Bahamas down to the T&C's you can do it in the boats you mentioned.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

It could be done in a 16' boat...just depends on how big your nads are...etc.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

I was trying to think of comparable priced boats that are designed for blue water. So that says to me the boat would have to be smaller and older. At the Pacific Seacraft rendezvous last summer, we had a couple in attendance that had cruised aboard their PSC 25 (Mark II) for several years, from the US down into the Carribean, to Venezuela and back. That's a boat you can pick up for $15-20K (sometimes less), often with a trailer. It has an inboard diesel. Small, but stout. Flicka is another possibility.


----------



## CaptKermie (Nov 24, 2006)

Toben:
Like Comradiere said if you limit yourself you can make do with the boats you listed. And if you don't want to scare your wife to death, stick with closer destinations for the first few years. The boats you mentioned are easy to buy and easy to sell, get one and discover for yourself what your comfort zone is then decide from there if a bigger boat with bigger water is in your future.


----------



## tjaldur (Mar 1, 2008)

In my opinion it is a misconception that it is safer close to the coast than far away from it. It is the waters close to the coast that are the most dangerous. 

As an example if the weather gets bad, I wait on deeper water until the weather has calmed down before I try to reach a harbour or approach land in any way. Most accidents on the sea happens in coastal area. But this is only my opinion.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I would say that the dangers of being off-shore and being in coastal waters are more different rather than saying one is inherently safer than the other.

If you have a problem in coastal waters, you're often close enough to help that it can make a difference, but you do have to be more careful with navigation, since there is land and rocks to run into and more marine traffic.

Offshore, you don't have to pay quite so much attention to navigation, since there's a lot less to run into, but if somethng goes wrong, help isn't often near enough to make a difference.



tjaldur said:


> In my opinion it is a misconception that it is safer close to the coast than far away from it. It is the waters close to the coast that are the most dangerous.
> 
> As an example if the weather gets bad, I wait on deeper water until the weather has calmed down before I try to reach a harbour or approach land in any way. Most accidents on the sea happens in coastal area. But this is only my opinion.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Just about the most popular and affordable production boat on earth must be the Catalina 30'. Might be worth a look.


----------



## tjaldur (Mar 1, 2008)

I certainly did not intend this to be a simplified either-or discussion, although I can see that it may seems so. It happens my exact meaning does not translate well enough into a foreign language. What I am trying to say is that the dangers of the sea are not proportional to size of the boat or the distance from the coast, but rather on the seaworthiness of the ship and the competence of the skipper.

Particularly what I am trying to argue against, is the idea that a larger boat (or more electronic equipment) can compensate for lack of competence. 

There is of course many arguments for wanting a bigger boat, like comfort, speed, payload etc. but not seaworthiness. Seaworthiness is not proportional to size. What is most dangerous for a boat is a breaking wave. Chances are that a breaking wave happens in shallow water.

Anyway, at least here in Norway where we have a more than 2 000 years of experience of fishing in the Atlantic ocean and even claim to have discovered America some 1000 year ago, the general advice that is thought in any school of competence for leisure boaters is to seek away from the coast and outwait the weather if it gets bad.


----------



## Plumper (Nov 21, 2007)

tjaldur said:


> What I am trying to say is that the dangers of the sea are not proportional to size of the boat or the distance from the coast, but rather on the seaworthiness of the ship and the competence of the skipper.


I agree. You can buy the illusion of safety but when it all goes sour it is the ability of a sailor in a well found boat that gets you home.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Just remember, the boats are usually tougher than the people in them.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Tjaldur...your English is quite good and easily understood. The point though is not where would you rather be when the weather is bad....sea room helps with a good captain...no doubt. You are correct.

The point is that sailing coastally and within the "error factor" of the weather forecast...you can get into port in most cases before bad weather becomes a problem. If you sail a lightly constructed boat and are a competent captain...this must be your strategy. At sea this is not an option and both the boat and the captain must be "blue water capable" or the risks go up quite high. 
The notion of the competent vs. incompetent captain is valid ...but the QUESTION is about blue water boats so we must assume the same captain on both boats. Give me a blue water boat over a coastal cruiser every time in a storm ...and give me a BIGGER bluewater boat over a smaller one every time (up to a certain size anyway). No one can tell me they'd rather be in a Flicka in storm conditions vs. say a PSC 34. If they do...they haven't been to sea or are just friggin nuts!  
I am not arguing with you here....just agreeing with your basic point and expanding a bit on my own point of view. Having been to Norway some decades back..I have nothing but respect for the skills of the sailors there!


----------



## tjaldur (Mar 1, 2008)

Of course I agree that a bigger boat, for many reasons, is better than a smaller. That is, by the way, why I myself now have a converted fishing ship. The largest and most comfortable ship I could find that I can sail alone. Even when it hardly can sail by the wind.

I believe we agree on the essential points and that I, perhaps, am extrapolating the issue in searching to underline a saying we have: "Only a fool does not fear the sea". 

Having opportunity to reach port before the weather gets bad is a good point. Perhaps I also was too quick in that I do not know for sure what the coast looks like in your area or how rapidly the weather changes. Anyway, we seem to agree that false feeling of security is the biggest danger.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Total Agreement! No fjords here...but widely spaced inlets and hostile, shoal shoreline makes planning and good navigation essential here too! The sea just offshore of North Carolina is called the "Graveyard of the Atlantic" for good reason. More than 2,000 ships have sunk in these waters since people began keeping records in 1526!


----------



## SimonV (Jul 6, 2006)

Now don't go shooting me down SD, because I can't prove this as I can't find the site. But it was a medical site relating to mariners and made a lot of sense. Day sailing= when you can receive medical treatment within 12 hours.
Coastal sailing= when you can receive medical treatment within 24 hours,
Blue water sailing = when medical treatment is not readily available for up to three days. Ocean sailing = when medical treatment is not available for more than 7 Days.


----------



## Plumper (Nov 21, 2007)

camaraderie said:


> The sea just offshore of North Carolina is called the "Graveyard of the Atlantic" for good reason.


I thought it was Sable Island. I think lots of places like to use that moniker. Kinda overused.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

That actually sounds like a reasonable set of definitions... but I'd change day saiiling to about six hours...



SimonV said:


> Now don't go shooting me down SD, because I can't prove this as I can't find the site. But it was a medical site relating to mariners and made a lot of sense. Day sailing= when you can receive medical treatment within 12 hours.
> Coastal sailing= when you can receive medical treatment within 24 hours,
> Blue water sailing = when medical treatment is not readily available for up to three days. Ocean sailing = when medical treatment is not available for more than 7 Days.


----------



## SimonV (Jul 6, 2006)

sailingdog said:


> That actually sounds like a reasonable set of definitions... but I'd change day saiiling to about six hours...


I'm only going on memory, as I read the artical a week or so ago.


----------



## Plumper (Nov 21, 2007)

How is it that the availability of medical help is the determining factor in bluewater sailing. Medical help is often not available within 12 hours along the north coast but it could hardly be called blue water. A chap in a kayak might be 12 hours from help on a lake.
I suggest that using medical criteria is pretty limiting.
Blue water is offshore, coastal isn't. Coastal should indicate that an anchorage harbour is less than a sleep away. Blue water involves sleeping and a level of commitment that coastal doesn't.
For example, sailing down the west coast of the US is probably a blue water passage even if you are in sight of land because safe havens are few and far between. If it gets nasty they (USCG) close the bars and you are committed to staying out until it gets better, even if you can read the road signs. Medical help is close, a quick helo ride, but an anchorage isn't.


----------



## SimonV (Jul 6, 2006)

Plumper.
It was defined in a way that you would have to rely on your own resources, you break an arm you deal with it, and you don’t call the coast guard for a non life threatening injury to a member of your crew. You said (Quote) "Blue water is offshore, coastal isn't. Coastal should indicate that an anchorage harbour is less than a sleep away. Blue water involves sleeping and a level of commitment that coastal doesn't.
For example, sailing down the west coast of the US is probably a blue water passage even if you are in sight of land because safe havens are few and far between." (end Quote) exactly that fits the definition of Blue water.


----------



## Plumper (Nov 21, 2007)

SimonV, I am not sure what you mean. I think that the definition presented was limited to time to medical help. I think that definition is flawed. I prefer to define bluewater in sailing terms rather than medical terms. Assume no medical help is ever available, then what is bluewater and what is coastal?


----------



## tjaldur (Mar 1, 2008)

Fascinating definitions. I use to think that I am in coastal waters as long as I can see a lighthouse. That is in terms of navigational aids. Blue water is when all navigational aids are on board only. (compass, log, sextant and charts)


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

tjaldur said:


> Fascinating definitions. I use to think that I am in coastal waters as long as I can see a lighthouse. That is in terms of navigational aids. Blue water is when all navigational aids are on board only. (compass, log, sextant and charts)


I agree to alot of this when out of sight of land (not talking fog with 3 feet visability) are you bluewater or is bluewater the travel time a helo or vessel can reach you? if youre in the middle of the pacific and a helo onboard a tanker is 1000 meters away is it still considered bluewater?
I'm just posting with my one track mind, out of this quote "compass, log, sextant and charts" i read it as comp*ass*, *leg*, *sex*tant and charts. sorry!


----------



## tjaldur (Mar 1, 2008)

Well, what makes us human is that the mind constructs the reality. The senses are only accessoires.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

camaraderie said:


> No one can tell me they'd rather be in a Flicka in storm conditions vs. say a PSC 34. If they do...they haven't been to sea or are just friggin nuts!


Amen to that! Having been fallen off the face of a wave, in a major NE storm, only to hit the trough and then be knocked flat I can assure you that Cam is on the mark with the above statement.

I can honestly say that if we had been in a lightly built coastal cruiser or even a heavily built blue water boat like a PSC 27 I might not be here today..

By that way that wave would have thrown a lighter boat into the next latitude! We were on a Shannon 50/51 that had a displacement of about 36,000 + pounds...!!!

Blue water capable = better & stronger and more reliable in rough weather!

Competent skipper = just as much if not more than boat construction!

If you've never sailed both a true blue water boat and a coastal cruiser in rough weather you honestly can't make an educated comment.

I've owned three Catalina's a 30, 310 and 36 and I can assure you they shudder, flex, creak, groan and cabinetry grinds on adjoining cabinetry in winds over 30 true and seas over 4 feet.

A well built blue water capable boat moves through the water with NO noticeable flex, no creaking and no groaning. They also don't shudder when coming off a wave like a lightly built coastal cruiser does.

My Catalina's were great boats and I used them for their intended use, ok sailing to Nova Scotia pushes that envelope a bit, but I purchased them for COASTAL CRUISING and NOT blue water sailing.

Unfortunately, I like to sail both early and late season off the Maine coast and it can get rough with 30-45 knot NW blows not all that uncommon in the fall. I felt I was beating on my Catalina's a little too much so moved on to a more solidly built boat...

Trust me there is a difference that you can feel between a coastal cruiser and a blue water capable boat...!


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

toben - you've started off right by identifing where and how you want to use the boat. I do though, think you need to think a bit larger. For extended stays on board, 30' can get pretty small, pretty quick. I would suggest looking at 32'-36'. Also, shoal draft and good ventilation would be high on my list.


----------



## sailhog (Dec 11, 2006)

PBzeer said:


> toben - you've started off right by identifing where and how you want to use the boat. I do though, think you need to think a bit larger. For extended stays on board, 30' can get pretty small, pretty quick. I would suggest looking at 32'-36'. Also, shoal draft and good ventilation would be high on my list.


I'll second that. With your old lady on board, you might want to look at an older Catalina 36.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Halekai...exactly right...good description. To further those thoughts...that "shuddering" may be thought of as the boat trying to break all its attachment points as they "work" on wave after wave. I production boat may indeed stand up to the beating in a storm...but it IS wearing itself out and over time that will become evident in leaks, loss of structural integrity or worse. Blue water boats of any size don't shudder!


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

tjaldur said:


> Having opportunity to reach port before the weather gets bad is a good point. Perhaps I also was too quick in that I do not know for sure what the coast looks like in your area or how rapidly the weather changes. Anyway, we seem to agree that false feeling of security is the biggest danger.


On the east coast of North America, the weather is usually coming from the west, unless it is hurricane-driven. The North American West Coast, particularly the Canadian and Alaskan parts, are more like Norway in that they are usually a lee shore. A casual examination of the boats in British Columbia versus the U.S. East Coast will usually reveal fairly obvious differences due to the increased possibility of higher waves and stronger winds coming from the Pacific.

British, French, Dutch and German "family cruisers" are usually more strongly built in my experience than their North American counterparts for the "casual sailing" market because in North American, most people sail in nice weather, which is sometimes predictable up to a week in advance. In Europe and on the north west coast of North America, the weather tends to arrive more rapidly and more harshly. The boats have to be better and the sailors cannot be unprepared for rapidly developing gales.

As to the original question, I would not choose _any _Hunter, Catalina or Macgregor at 30 feet or less to transit the Caribbean. Very strong winds and high seas can develop *between* the islands, and in my opinion 30 feet is the lower end of ocean-capable, and while the hulls might survive, the rigging on a lot of "coastal recreational" boats, as well as the rudders and the portlights, are NOT strong enough to survive heavy weather transits.

Exceptions to the above comments are found in older, first generation boats like the Contessa 26 and Alberg 30 that have been rerigged to ocean standards. These boats have a far more pleasant motion in rough water than the modern coastal cruiser, which is geared largely to club racing and light-air, single day trips....at which they excel.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

tjaldur said:


> Fascinating definitions. I use to think that I am in coastal waters as long as I can see a lighthouse. That is in terms of navigational aids. Blue water is when all navigational aids are on board only. (compass, log, sextant and charts)


These terms are constantly debated, but I believe most North Americans would consider "coastal" to be the distance from shore that one could easily traverse in one daylight period: 12 hours x 5 knots=60 nautical miles. Some others would determine it as whether the water was over the continental shelf or not, in which case off Nova Scotia, "coastal" could be hundreds of miles out. Still others would say that it's when one is beyond the reach of search and rescue operations, which of course varying a great deal around the world.

Personally, I believe it has to do with the boat and the crew and the sea states, which differ offshore and near shore. I also believe that some "coastal" boats can, with some prudence, cross "oceanic" water, such as the route between New York and Bermuda, and then south to the Caribbean, fairly easily. Ocean-capable, or blue water boats, should be able to handle anything up to 60 knots, heaving to if necessary, without undue concern that the hull or the rigging will break down.

I've seen lightly built boats on Lake Ontario in 50 knots, and they and their crews take a beating. I doubt that were such conditions to persist for three or four days, which can happen crossing oceans, that the boats or the crews would escape injury or bad damage.


----------



## Plumper (Nov 21, 2007)

camaraderie said:


> Blue water boats of any size don't shudder!


I've been on destroyers that shudder when the weather gets bad. No boat can beat everything. The other factor is still the sailor. The good ones know the boat limitations (as well as their own) and start to ease things up when the shuddering starts.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

My father, a merchant seaman during WWII, used to say it wasn't the gales that bothered him, it was the possibility of hitting a wave train at just the point where the stern and the bow were on two crests, and the amidships was hanging unsupported over the trough. Apparently, wartime economies and rapid shipbuilding meant that a laden freighter might snap in half in such a situation, going to the bottom with all hands.


----------



## Plumper (Nov 21, 2007)

Valiente said:


> On the east coast of North America, the weather is usually coming from the west, unless it is hurricane-driven. The North American West Coast, particularly the Canadian and Alaskan parts, are more like Norway in that they are usually a lee shore. A casual examination of the boats in British Columbia versus the U.S. East Coast will usually reveal fairly obvious differences due to the increased possibility of higher waves and stronger winds coming from the Pacific.
> 
> British, French, Dutch and German "family cruisers" are usually more strongly built in my experience than their North American counterparts for the "casual sailing" market because in North American, most people sail in nice weather, which is sometimes predictable up to a week in advance. In Europe and on the north west coast of North America, the weather tends to arrive more rapidly and more harshly. The boats have to be better and the sailors cannot be unprepared for rapidly developing gales.
> 
> Exceptions to the above comments are found in older, first generation boats like the Contessa 26 and Alberg 30 that have been rerigged to ocean standards. These boats have a far more pleasant motion in rough water than the modern coastal cruiser, which is geared largely to club racing and light-air, single day trips....at which they excel.


I agree with your comments on boat design (Euro vs US) but I disagree with your ocean weather theory. The North Atlantic in winter is known as the worst place to be. That is why the Load Lines on freighters are the lightest for WNA (Winter North Atlantic). Check my facts here:
Waterline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Although the winter storms here in the PNW have gotten a little worse in the last few years, I'd rather go to sea here than the North Atlantic and I have years of sea time on both oceans.


----------



## Boasun (Feb 10, 2007)

sailingdog said:


> I would say that the dangers of being off-shore and being in coastal waters are more different rather than saying one is inherently safer than the other.
> 
> If you have a problem in coastal waters, you're often close enough to help that it can make a difference, but you do have to be more careful with navigation, since there is land and rocks to run into and more marine traffic.
> 
> Offshore, you don't have to pay quite so much attention to navigation, since there's a lot less to run into, but if somethng goes wrong, help isn't often near enough to make a difference.


The last sentence quoted here is where I beg to differ.
A good Skipper/Navigator will always pay attention to his/her's navigation. Even offshore. There are far to many navigation hazards out there that are charted and you have to pay attention to where you are at. And here in the Gulf there are many platforms that very much a hazard to navigation for one reason or another. As one navigator to another, keep track where you are at and be safe.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

By what I wrote I mean that the level of accuracy is generally a bit lower offshore. If you're half a mile off on a position fix in the middle of the ocean, it really doesn't mean a whole lot. If you're 150' off trying to enter a 100' wide channel entering a harbor, it's a big problem.

Navigation should never be ignored or neglected... but when you're far offshore... and if you're near oil platforms, you're really not that far offshore IMHO, the precision is at a different level.



Boasun said:


> The last sentence quoted here is where I beg to differ.
> A good Skipper/Navigator will always pay attention to his/her's navigation. Even offshore. There are far to many navigation hazards out there that are charted and you have to pay attention to where you are at. And here in the Gulf there are many platforms that very much a hazard to navigation for one reason or another. As one navigator to another, keep track where you are at and be safe.


----------



## Boasun (Feb 10, 2007)

Please note that you will find offshore platforms up to a couple of hundred miles offshore. And as you to come closer to shore they are more numerous and some are unlit and abandoned. Thus hard to see. They are suppose to be lit but there are many times when you will find some that are not. I know this because I use to run offshore all the time servicing the working platforms and have come across one or two that was not lit and its fog horn inoperative. So beware and be careful out there. Also watch out for vessel traffic.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Noted Boasun... That's in the Gulf of Mexico... If I'm ever down that way, I'll keep that in mind. Fortunately, up here that isn't the case.


----------



## tjaldur (Mar 1, 2008)

One year, I think it was in 1986, there was a storm in the Baltic sea that was not forecasted. More than 100 boats of all sorts were out there somewhere between Sweden and Finland. Those who stayed in the boats managed. Those who left the boats did not. All the abandoned ships sailed/drifted ashore by themselves, more or less unharmed.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Just my 2 cents, but if you are asking these questions, you might want to do some costal cruising until you get some knots in your belt. You didn't say where you were from but there are many nice bays along the coast like Narragansett or Long Island Sound, Chesapeake, etc. that you can get a good feel for it in the boats your talking about. In these places you can still get a handfull when the weather turns. Some say if you can sail LI Sound you can sail anywhere, there may be some truth to that. If you wish to keep peace with your spouse give her as much space as you can. A well setup 35 footer can be single handed with ease once you know how and every foot counts in every way! Good luck with that, get someone who knows to help you find that boat, read EVERYTHING you can and a good survey is priceless.
Bob C s/v Valkyrie Irwin Citation 35


----------



## Plumper (Nov 21, 2007)

We still haven't settled on a good definition of Coastal and Bluewater. I'm really interested in the various ways folks are categorizing it.


----------



## tjaldur (Mar 1, 2008)

I believe the terms "coastal" and "blue water" or older than both rescueservices and GPS. That is why I suggest that coastal is where one is using terrestrial navigation (dead reckoning) and blue water is where one is using celestial navigation. Then dead reckoning as navigational aid makes the limits of coastal waters. 

Defining in terms of rescueservice, as an example, will make the definition to a question of the yearly budget for the rescueservices.


----------



## Plumper (Nov 21, 2007)

tjaldur,

Good reasoning.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

Plumper said:


> I agree with your comments on boat design (Euro vs US) but I disagree with your ocean weather theory. The North Atlantic in winter is known as the worst place to be. That is why the Load Lines on freighters are the lightest for WNA (Winter North Atlantic). Check my facts here:
> Waterline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Although the winter storms here in the PNW have gotten a little worse in the last few years, I'd rather go to sea here than the North Atlantic and I have years of sea time on both oceans.


I wasn't referring so much to the North Atlantic as to the east coast of North America versus the west coast of Europe, including Britain. The issue of fetch and the sequential nature of depressions and currents smacking European waters makes them on average more challenging a proposition for small yachts than does, say, 50 miles east of Long Island or southeast of Halifax.

This is not to say that the North American east coast south of Nova Scotia and north of Florida doesn't have plenty of challenges (navigational and fog among them), but that the presence of a large continent to what is usually windward (again, not always, which can make for episodic brutality on the weather front) does have somewhat of a moderating effect, with the Gulf Stream as a bit of a wild card that can steer or power certain storms at certain times of the year.

My father commented that the worst seas were a toss-up between Cape Horn, the Bay of Biscay and the Western Approaches to the English Channel. All three areas feature long fetch ocean waves meeting continental shelves and "cupping" land masses.


----------



## chucklesR (Sep 17, 2007)

The definition that included time to medical help is really rather vague. In a modern area of the world with a GPS and Satl phone I can get a helicopter ride to a doctor coming my way in minutes to pick me up 2-300 miles out and take me back - still within the 6 hour 'day sail' category.

I define it:

Day sail = sailing somewhere in daylight - with the intent to anchor or moor safely before sunset.

Coastal = I can see the coast most of the time

Near coastal = I can see the brown cloud of pollution from land and probably hear both FM and AM radio stations, VHF to the USCG is likely.

Blue Water = any further than that and I'm B/W.

Doesn't matter really what anyone else calls each, I know what and where I'm going given the crew and boat underneath me. For me, that mean's I'll single hand anywhere, but won't leave the Chesapeake Bay with the Admiral.

Weather and waves doesn't matter - 10 miles east of Anegada in BVI (and similar islands) the shore drops, bounce back waves have no effect an all you have in front of you is 2000 miles of wind in your face fetch. 10 miles is more than I can swim even with a PFD that makes it blue water.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Getting back to the original question, I own a US 30' shoal draft. The US 30's also were available with deep water draft, making it more "blue-water" friendly. For the two of us, the shoal draft was what we needed (our marina has a pretty shallow channel), 30' was just right (and the max size our tiny marina allows), and the price was right ($10,000 and the trade of our HV 17'.) But, we put in over $20,000 to repower, renovate, etc. What we wanted was a coastal cruiser that we could handle, with good sails, and good hull. What you choose really all depends on your needs and what you intend to do, sailing wise.

I definitely would not call her a blue-water cruiser by any means, but she can definitely handle her own in inclement weather. (We were caught in a full-blown gale, and she handled very rough seas like a champ.) Under sheet, she's very fast and the ride is smooth. Yep, 30' is small, but the layout is great- I never feel cramped or claustrophobic. We also have all the amenities- flush toilet, pressurized water, water heater, refrigeration, stove, XM radio, autopilot, LCD TVs, XM radio with cockpit remote... (Lazy-jacks are next on the list when the mast gets pulled.) But, I have no qualms about taking her to Key West and the Bahamas, or going north in the Gulf.

But, the boat buying decision is ultimately yours, whether you go small, big, old or brand new. Do your research, talk to people that own that particular brand, and find one that will suit your needs and taste.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Very well said WuWei. 


WuWei said:


> But, the boat buying decision is ultimately yours, whether you go small, big, old or brand new. Do your research, talk to people that own that particular brand, and find one that will suit your needs and taste.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

sailingdog said:


> Very well said WuWei.


Thank you.


----------

