# CE Category A Production Boats ARE Blue Water Boats



## smackdaddy

In case there was some ambiguity in my previous now-locked thread I thought I'd start this one with very simple clarity so that people looking to buy a cruising boat have some clear direction...

If you are looking to purchase a "blue water" boat for cruising and have heard all kinds of things on forums that seem to cast modern production boats in a negative light, you should look for the CE Category A rating to give you some guidance from professionals who actually know something.

Here it is stated very simply from the Beneteau site:



> Category A - Ocean: covers *largely self-sufficient boats designed for extended voyages* with winds of *over Beaufort Force 8* (over 40 knots), and significant wave heights *above 13 feet*, but excluding abnormal conditions such as hurricanes.


I've bolded some important distinctions above...wind *OVER* F8 and waves *ABOVE* 13'. So we are talking F9-F11 conditions, excluding hurricanes (F12) and abnormal conditions (like clumsily hitting rocks, containers, and Krakens at will). And finally "extended voyages" *does NOT mean* "coastal cruising" as many like to disparagingly label these boats.










Now, though you'll often hear on forums that conditions like this (F10, F11, etc.) are somehow "common" and that only traditional "blue water boats" can handle these conditions with ease - if you are at all a prudent cruising skipper and pay attention to the weather, you will very, very rarely (likely never) see those conditions to begin with - at least as a sustained storm at sea.

To give you a bit more perspective on this, here is the definition of a tropical cyclone:



> Tropical Storm: A tropical cyclone in which the maximum sustained surface wind speed (using the U.S. 1-minute average) ranges from 34 kt (39 mph or 63 km/hr) to 63 kt (73 mph or 118 km/hr).


Compare this with the Beaufort ratings above and think about how often you get hit by tropical-cyclone-strength conditions while cruising.

More proof of this comes from one of the most prolific sailors in the world, Hal Roth, in his seminal book "Handling Storms at Sea" (I've read it and you should too). Here it is on my bookshelf in my office alongside another great book signed by Chuck himself...










Hal has this to say about the violent storms people like to talk about on forums:



> "During the past 40 years I've sailed some 200,000 miles on the world's oceans either by myself or with my wife. Yet in all these seagoing passages - some up to 52 days in length - I've never seen prolonged winds of hurricane strength and only one violent storm of Force 11. My point&#8230;is that violent weather is infrequent and that with care in planning bad days can be avoided or certainly minimized."


So, in relation to "blue water" boats being able to "handle violent survival storms", there are 3 takeaways from the above:

1. The CE Category A rating implicitly covers F9-F11. And you will likely see F9 and maybe some F10 if you're out long enough. But the boat is designed and built to handle that. And Hal's book will tell you everything you need to do to stay safe if it happens.

2. According to both the Beaufort Scale and Roth himself, storms of F11 are exceedingly rare (just one in his 40 years and 200K miles of cruising). And F12 just doesn't happen unless you go looking for it.

3. Unless you're a very poor skipper, you should pretty easily be able to avoid these more extreme conditions - especially as a cruiser. You just need to practice some "care and planning".

So, don't worry about the age old "blue water" boats debates you see on forums. They are meaningless. Look for the Category CE ratings on more modern boats (the rating goes back to 1998). Then get a good survey on whatever boat you are looking at, prepare you and your boat to deal with heavy weather, and plan and pay attention to the weather as you cruise. This is what real sailors like Hal Roth do. And they tend to stay out of trouble.

So, you can listen to experienced nautical architects and engineers, and sailors with decades and hundreds of thousands of miles under their keel - or you can listen to forum posters who seem to get into trouble A LOT due to what can only be an obvious lack of "care and planning" according to Roth.

I don't think that's a difficult call to make.


----------



## colemj

Hal Roth had the advantage of sailing before man-made climate change caused more frequent violent storms, and before modern anchors with rope rodes along with ammunition enough for the several hand guns and assault rifles on board and carrying peat moss and poop buckets for composting heads caused such unseaworthy imbalance in control and handling of modern production boats. 

Other than the above, no controversy at all...

Mark


----------



## Minnesail

I just finished reading that Hal Roth book and I noticed that paragraph also. Lots and lots of sailing, almost none of it in extreme weather.


----------



## colemj

The Pardeys also said the same thing, as did Beth Leonard and Evans Starzinger. And all of them sailed in more extreme places than most cruisers.

Mark


----------



## Jeff_H

I will start by noting that creating threads, such as this one, that are simply rehashing topics which were beat to death on the Production Boats and their Limits thread will only result in a whole lot of deleted threads. 

As someone who attended lectures and read the articles by the researchers who developed the CE Recreational Craft Directive, Directive 94/25/EC and the later update Directive 2003/44/EC as they were being developed, and as has been explained on numerous occasions. the CE directives are intended to provide a unified set of regulations that diminishes the trade barriers between the various countries of the EU. At the time that it was being developed, there were a broad range of standards within the EU for pretty much anything that you could conceive of. In adopting standard regulations the standards were not set at the levels of the most stringent regulations that existed and due to political pressures, (since all states had to sign off on the standards) were often set to match the lowest standard. 

While amazing research was performed to establish a better understanding of the science behind the regulations, the researchers expressed frustration that the regulations were watered down by representatives of various countries who threaten not to ratify aspects of the standards that were in conflict with the ways that boats were built in their countries. So at best the Recreational Standard represents the lowest standard that could get passed by 28 member states of the EU. 

Even taken at face value, the CE Category A rating does not intend to say that a boat with this rating has been engineered for the wear and tear of prolonged distance voyaging. What it does do is set out minimum standards for a boat which is used to make an offshore passage and a maximum Force condition that the boat is likely to survive if handled skillfully. In Europe the 'handled skillfully' thing is taken quite seriously in that the majority of coastal EU countries require operator certifications that go well beyond our ASA and US Sailing Certifications. 

At the heart of this, these discussions come down to each person's definition of 'blue water' and acceptance of risk. It is true that many long distance cruisers never experience winds and seas above force 8. But it is also true that if your definition of blue water cruising means extensive long passages, then your chances of experiencing long periods of over force 10 winds go up extensively. In my own case I have spent three days offshore battling conditions that ranged between force 7 and force 8 on a simple sail from Savannah to St. Augustine. An acquaintance who sailed a sistership to my boat from South Africa told me that despite a weather forecast to the contrary, coming up the African coast from Cape Town, he spent almost the first 10 days of his trip in 30 to 60 knot winds and seas that approached the height of his masthead at times. In "Cape Horn: One Man's Dream : One Woman's Nightmare" Reanne Hemingway-Douglass describes close to a month in heavy conditions and being pitch-poled several times. 

So while many of the great distance cruisers may have avoided the worst storms, it is something of a roll of the dice whether you can count on not experiencing days and weeks in heavy conditions beyond those that the Directive 94/25/EC is intended to cover. And so it comes down to how much risk you are willing to take and what your idea of 'blue water' cruising really is. 

Which gets to the silliness of the title of this thread. There was a thread not long ago that tried to define 'blue water sailing' and did not come close. So then, if we can't agree on the term 'Blue water', then what makes a boat a 'blue water cruiser' given that the definitions seem to be all over the map. 

For some, its simply about standing up to a particular force conditions, or its simply being able to make passages off the continental shelves. For others its about a trans-oceanic passage. 

For me, and for many, if they use the term 'blue water cruiser' at all, it means that a boat is purposefully designed and engineered to withstand the prolonged and repetitious stresses of long distance voyaging. Whether that is months of sailing in 25 knot trades, or a week or two of slating in the doldrums, or cramming into one year the number of hours sailing that would be spent in a dozen years of coastal cruising, prolonged distance cruising stresses a boat in ways that normal coastal cruisers were never engineered to be. 

When I worked for a yacht designer, I did those calcs and we pumped up the numbers for boats intended for distance cruising vs coastal cruising. That was the norm back then and with more sophisticated engineering software I have to assume that still remains the norm. While Directive 94/25/EC says that a Category A boat will stand Force 8 winds and make a long distance passage, it does not and is not intended to establish engineering specifications for how long it can do it. 

In the late 1990's Hunter ran a marketing campaign that said something like "Hunter goes the distance". This created quite a backlash from more traditional cruising sailors and I ended up moderating a prolonged online discussion and Q&A between Cruising World Magazine web denizens and Jim Bohart at Hunter Marine. Much of the texts of those discussions were published all over the net and I assume that they are still out there. 

Jim was quite candid. Many of the non-marketing types at Hunter were not thrilled by the ad campaign either. They felt that the ads set an unrealistic expectation for what were intended primarily as coastal cruisers. Hunter endeavored to build good coastal cruisers and were one of the first companies to comply with the CE Open Ocean Category (what Cat A was called back then). But he was clear that being able to sail in the open ocean was not the same as being engineered to do prolonged offshore passage making. 

He described quite honestly what happened when someone decided to take the 'goes the distance' quite seriously and ordered a boat to be used for that purpose. He described how they went through all of the components of the boat and decided which needed to be beefed up to stand up to the rigors. Extra layers of cloth were added. Backing blocks and bolts were used rather than threaded plates as was more common. Details were beefed up throughout. And yet things were failing throughout the trip. My recollection was that a further beefed up rudder was shipped to the boat at one point, and the arch attachment was repaired at another. The plan was to sail the boat around the world. I don't think that they succeeded. And that was a beefed up version. 

He also talked about features that failed offshore on other models. Hunter used Beckson plastic ports back then and Jim mentioned a boat coming off a wave wrong and landing on its topsides and cabin side, blowing the Lexan portlight apart and sending flying across the cabin in a torrent of water. Amongst other heavy weather failures, he described portions of the pan with its molded in frames separating from the hull and cracking the frame after a particularly rough collision with a wave on a comparatively new boat. (This is not unique to Hunter, I also know of some Beneteaus which have done the same including one that was not far enough off the North Carolina Coast that some would even think of that as being offshore.) 

So it comes down to whether you personally like the odds; whether you personally believe that you are comfortable with the odds taking your chances that you are as good and/or as lucky at missing heavier than cat 8 storms as the Pardeys and Hal Roth, whether you feel the odds are in your favor taking a boat offshore for prolonged periods of time that was designed to meet the absolute lowest trade standard that 28 EU member nations were willing to agree on, and/or whether your personal definition of 'Blue water' sailing is such that it somehow improves the odds of not exceeding these minimal standards. 

In the end, you personally may decide that a CE Recreational Craft Directive Category A is sufficient for you to call that boat a 'blue water boat', But from a yacht design and engineering standpoint, a Cat A rating that does not equate to making the boat particularly well suited to stand up to the rigors of voyaging prolonged distances for prolonged periods of time.


----------



## outbound

Aw gee smackie. Give it up. It’s gotten old.


----------



## GeorgeB

Jeff, I spent way too much time this afternoon trying to untangle the CE Recreational Craft Directive without much success. The document itself doesn’t speak to any of the specifics of the various categories, but merely references a series of ISO standards. Are the various categories buried in each of the ISO standards referenced in the directive? Why don’t they publish something like a “compliance matrix” that shows what standard(s) the various categories meet? Perhaps an expert like yourself could present some concrete information instead of the anecdotes and editorial opinions that usually prevail in discussions of this sort. Does a Beckson port disqualifies a boat from being “ocean capable”? (weren’t they pretty common amongst multiple builders back in the day?) How about the Lewmar Ocean Series? Do they make the grade? I know that the directive is supposed to cover things like scantlings, opening sizes, and stability indices. But yet I find very little relevant documentation. Perhaps we can drive the discussion in that direction and make it more meaningful.

p.s. my stability index formula is “broken” on my Excel spreadsheet of indices. Can you provide me with the correct formula?


----------



## RegisteredUser

When you know the string is infinite, what is the reason to chase the end?


----------



## gonecrusin

I've learned over the years not to argue or worry about what others sail, not to worry about someone's experience or decisions. Mostly good things happen and people enjoy themselves, sometimes bad things happen, boats break, boats sink, boats flip over and uncharted rocks appear. But today we have modern communications and GoFundMe sites so it's all good.


----------



## Jeff_H

GeorgeB said:


> Jeff, I spent way too much time this afternoon trying to untangle the CE Recreational Craft Directive without much success. The document itself doesn't speak to any of the specifics of the various categories, but merely references a series of ISO standards. Are the various categories buried in each of the ISO standards referenced in the directive? Why don't they publish something like a "compliance matrix" that shows what standard(s) the various categories meet? Perhaps an expert like yourself could present some concrete information instead of the anecdotes and editorial opinions that usually prevail in discussions of this sort. Does a Beckson port disqualifies a boat from being "ocean capable"? (weren't they pretty common amongst multiple builders back in the day?) How about the Lewmar Ocean Series? Do they make the grade? I know that the directive is supposed to cover things like scantlings, opening sizes, and stability indices. But yet I find very little relevant documentation. Perhaps we can drive the discussion in that direction and make it more meaningful.
> 
> p.s. my stability index formula is "broken" on my Excel spreadsheet of indices. Can you provide me with the correct formula?


George

The last time that I looked at this, the way that the category designations worked is that the standards were broken down into a range of individual modules dealing with issues like stability, scantlings, down-flooding, inspections during construction, required equipment and so on. (Individual items related to the equipment categories have their own CE standards, so something like port lights would have a set of standards as well.)

Each of the categories have acceptable ranges for each of the modules. The original set up was that a boat had to exceed the required scoring in each component of each module for the category it was rated. That was later shifted to combining components and modules into a system that resulted in a minimum accumulated score on the idea that certain things could be below the standard but might be offset by other factors.

For example, a boat might be lacking in stability to achieve an open ocean rating but if it could be prevented from down-flooding at a larger heel angle, it would still could pass as open ocean (That was the reason that there was a period when boats stopped having operable ports and suddenly cabin top hatches were the rage, it was the reason that cabin and freeboard volume suddenly increased since that raised he score on ultimate stability even if it reduced useful stability).

Because of the granular nature of the modules, there is no way to simply have a matrix and look at a boat on that matrix. Its more about looking at the individual component regulations and each of the module, doing the calcs and seeing where the boat ends up.

But that was not the point of my post. The point is that the CE directive never was a consumer protection regulation intended to assure a boat buyer that a boat is capable of a specific type of voyage. Instead it was intended to lower trade barriers between countries which had differing regulations.

Jeff


----------



## boatpoker

RCD/CE are what gave all the euro boats NPS brass (insane !) throughulls on NPT brass (more insane) tapered ball valves (can't call them seacocks).


----------



## smackdaddy

Jeff,

I have a lot I could say on many of the points you raised in your previous posts above. But I don't want to run the risk of having this thread closed as well since we've all already rehashed many of them in the other thread. The reason I started this thread was your email to me regarding the closure of my "Production Boats and the Limits" thread where you said this:



> More to the point, new info gets lost in these endless catch all threads *where as short threads with titles that are tied to the specific topic of the tread, would seem do a better job of getting the information out there and allow for discussion that does not rehash the same old same old*.


This is exactly what I've done with this thread. I've stated *my own conclusion* from all the years of discussion and research that I've done on this topic - on forums, on various boats offshore, on my own boat, etc. And it is a conclusion I will absolutely stand by until I see good evidence that it's not true. As you said above, and as I agree, I think that this kind of clarity is very important for people looking for boats.

Now, whether people agree with this conclusion is completely up to them. But there is no ambiguity here that requires hashing or re-hashing.

So, apart from this post in reply to you - unless there are new and/or compelling arguments to the contrary of this conclusion, backed up by evidence as George has mentioned, I have no intention of debating the same old stuff with the same old people in this thread (e.g. - brass thru-hulls, etc).

That said, if you'll allow, I will specifically touch on this...



Jeff_H said:


> But that was not the point of my post. The point is that the CE directive never was a consumer protection regulation intended to assure a boat buyer that a boat is capable of a specific type of voyage. Instead it was intended to lower trade barriers between countries which had differing regulations.


I think you're conflating the politics and perceived expectations behind the standard with the standard itself. In other words, the lowering of trade barriers has nothing to do with whether tens of thousands of rated boats since 1998 have been able to effectively deal with the conditions laid out in their CE ratings.

If, in fact as you say above, this CE Categorization *is* the lowest standard that could be agreed to politically (and that simply for standardizing trade) - then even by Hal Roth's account after 40 years and 200K miles of sailing I highlighted above - the Cat A standard is a pretty good minimal standard. I think all of us sailors would agree that what's laid out in that Cat A standard is what we want our boat to be able to handle at sea if we're not frequenting Cape Horn.

So, politics notwithstanding, either Cat A boats over these decades will have survived the conditions as rated or they will not have. Period. It's really very simple and leaves very little room for politics or subjective preference.

If a brand has a poor record of compliance in this area, i.e. - a product line that demonstrably doesn't deliver on the stated rating - it will be very well known and it will die. And that has nothing to do with trade barriers or political agreements.

As for the intention of being a consumer protection regulation - that too is very political. The standard, as used for marketing/selling boats, *is not a guarantee of protection* to the consumer by any means (and everyone knows that) - but it IS an understanding between brand and consumer that *the product will do what it's supposed to do within the specified standard*. Here is how the CE Marking website puts it (with my bolded part):



> Description:
> Directive 94/25/EC was published on the 16st of June 1994, and it came into force 20 days later..
> 
> The Recreational Craft Directive (94/25/EC, as amended by Directive 2003/44/EC) *is intended to ensure a high level of safety for users*, as well as regulate exhaust and noise emissions of certain types of engine-propelled recreational craft. The Directive aims to harmonise the rules governing the sale of recreational craft within the EU.


And here are the two documents:

94/25/EC

Directive 2003/44/EC

And that takes us back to the evidence beyond that standard. If there are tens of thousands of production boats sitting in anchorages all over the world having been cruised there by people who bought them (or delivery captains who got them there) - then there are only two possible explanations...

1. Either NONE of these boats EVER faced ANY of these defined conditions for some inexplicable reason; or,

2. They are holding up as advertised.

So, this just isn't as complicated as people want to make it (e.g. - the definition of "blue water")

As George has said, what I hope this thread can be is the discussion of the details behind and evidence of this standard. My plan is to highlight Cat A production boats that are out there successfully doing what we all do and want to do. That evidence is inarguable - despite the color one wants to apply to the water - and it's good for newbs who are researching the topic.

It's simply reality.

PS - Here is your interview with Jim Bohart of Hunter. I can't find where he refers to Hunters as "coastal cruisers". In fact, in this particular interview doc, it's quite the opposite. But it's a great study for this age-old debate.


----------



## gonecrusin

smackdaddy said:


> If there are tens of thousands of production boats sitting in anchorages all over the world* having been cruised there*


Herein is where the problem lies. Some (not tens of thousands) CE Cat A white boats do sail to distant locations. Those sailors who do sail to distant locations in white boats, realize it is best to sail in season along routes that are less taxing to their yachts. I applaud those sailors, it's good seamanship, they are smart but that doesn't make a CE Cat A boat a "blue water boat". There are differences between true blue water boats and white boats.


----------



## smackdaddy

gonecrusin said:


> Herein is where the problem lies. Some (not tens of thousands) CE Cat A white boats do sail to distant locations. Those sailors who do sail to distant locations in white boats, realize it is best to sail in season along routes that are less taxing to their yachts. I applaud those sailors, it's good seamanship, they are smart but that doesn't make a CE Cat A boat a "blue water boat". There are differences between true blue water boats and white boats.


Gone - I will address this post of yours because I think it's important to this discussion - then I'm going to finish my wine and go to sleep.

What you're talking about here is Jeff's earlier point of defining the color of the water. No one agrees on what "blue water" really means.

So let me turn it around using the Cat A standard...

Should a "true blue water boat" (as you define above) be largely self-sufficient and able to handle extended voyages with possible conditions up to F11?

If your answer is "yes" - then there you go. That's what this thread is about.

If your answer is "no, that's not enough" - then what more do you expect of a "true blue water boat"?


----------



## Maine Sail

boatpoker said:


> RCD/CE are what gave all the euro boats NPS brass (insane !) throughulls on NPT brass (more insane) tapered ball valves (can't call them seacocks).


Bingo...! It is however amusing to see folks who don't own those standards (They are HUGE MONEY), and who've have never read them, _blather on so expertly_ about them....


----------



## colemj

gonecrusin said:


> Herein is where the problem lies. Some (not tens of thousands) CE Cat A white boats do sail to distant locations. Those sailors who do sail to distant locations in white boats, realize it is best to sail in season along routes that are less taxing to their yachts. I applaud those sailors, it's good seamanship, they are smart but that doesn't make a CE Cat A boat a "blue water boat". There are differences between true blue water boats and white boats.


Where we travel, we find ALL cruising sailors choose to sail in season along routes that are less taxing to their yachts - regardless of the actual boat.

Expedition sailors and the like are of very small numbers and choose different boats accordingly than most recreational cruisers. Many of these boats are custom builds, or at least highly customized.

Those sailors found anchored outside Foxy's Bar or Nipper's or the like, season after season, in "bullet-proof blue water boats" (with jugs lining the decks, a tiny rowboat tied behind, and a small solar shower always hanging up) are the ones I find misplaced and in denial more than a Hunter crossing the Pacific.

But those are generally the ones continually searching to embroil others in a "blue water boat" argument.

Mark


----------



## blt2ski

boatpoker said:


> RCD/CE are what gave all the euro boats NPS brass (insane !) throughulls on NPT brass (more insane) tapered ball valves (can't call them seacocks).


While I agree with this point and mainsails after......can not seem to get both quotes in this.....

Issue as noted in the political part, is a minimum of 5 years before rotting for the valves! These valves do meet the minimum part of the requirement! granted 5.5 to about 8 years. Where as other types and styles last longer. They are also pricier. So to some degree, this is a how to make a boat more cost effective to buy, but still meet the requirement.

Does this mean that the boat is incapable of handling the above wind wave conditions etc? Probably not, it just means that they are not what many of us would call up to the longevity task we want in our parts and pieces of the boat. If you buy a boat with these valves, plan on replacing in 5 years, just as you would tires on a car/truck in a couple of years! Granted more expensive than new tires.......sail cloth many times is not as good as what you might buy aftermarket, or what you would prefer......

For someone that does not know better, this can be an issue, if you know better, you will be upgrading things on the boat, UNLESS, you buy an Oyster, or some other UPPER end boat. If you buy a run of the mill boat new, you will need some upgrades!

Marty


----------



## smackdaddy

Exactly Bluto. Systems and/or components quality don't have a direct correlation to the Category A designation we're discussing here. Quality and longevity of these things might be a valid complaint against the overall CE standard vs, say, the ABYC standard...but if the boat meets the CE Cat A standard - it meets the CE Cat A standard. And that's what we're discussing here. Then, as you say, it's your choice to buy the Oyster or the Beneteau (assuming the Oyster has the "right" thruhulls).

These systems/components quality issues are absolutely good for everyone to know to understand when you should look at inspecting/replacing various components. But that's a different discussion and a different thread.


----------



## aeventyr60

^No it's your ******** understanding on the entire offshore standard thinnghy....


----------



## smackdaddy

Mark - do you happen to know of a listing somewhere for Cat A rated multis? I've been able to find references here and there via some sales sites, but it would be great to know how this standard applies to cats, etc.


----------



## gonecrusin

smackdaddy said:


> Gone - I will address this post of yours because I think it's important to this discussion - then I'm going to finish my wine and go to sleep.
> 
> What you're talking about here is Jeff's earlier point of defining the color of the water. No one agrees on what "blue water" really means.
> 
> So let me turn it around using the Cat A standard...
> 
> Should a "true blue water boat" (as you define above) be largely self-sufficient and able to handle extended voyages with possible conditions up to F11?
> 
> If your answer is "yes" - then there you go. That's what this thread is about.
> 
> If your answer is "no, that's not enough" - then what more do you expect of a "true blue water boat"?


My expectations for a blue water boat are:
it will handle +F12 for days
it will handle +45' waves for days
Built without pans, with fully tabbed bulkheads, with robust hull to deck joints, substantial framing and stringers... 
Built without minimal gear (such as brass skin fitting) undersize winches, insufficient backing plates, light standing rigging...
Can sail to weather in F10 against a short period wave for days without structural failure.
Can take a grounding at speed without destroying the boat...

These are my expectations.

If you want to change the title to "IMO, CE Cat A Production Boats ARE Blue Water Boats" you'll get no argument from me.

I kind of liken this discussion to hobbyist welders compared to industrial welders. Both machines produce beautiful welds but one can make that same weld all day long while the other needs to be babied and will only give you that beautiful weld 40% of the day. Pick the machine for the duty cycle required.


----------



## colemj

smackdaddy said:


> Mark - do you happen to know of a listing somewhere for Cat A rated multis? I've been able to find references here and there via some sales sites, but it would be great to know how this standard applies to cats, etc.


Nah, it doesn't really interest me to know. I suspect all of the 38' and over EU production multis are Cat A rated. Smaller, lower expectation multis just aren't a large enough market, and Gemini, Tomcat, Farrier, etc have it pretty well cornered.

And within this coastal range of catamarans, there are few that would argue the proper usage profile. The smaller Dragonfly's and Seawinds are the only I can think of that might be debatable in this regard.

Mark


----------



## colemj

gonecrusin said:


> My expectations for a blue water boat are:
> it will handle +F12 for days
> it will handle +45' waves for days
> ......
> Can sail to weather in F10 against a short period wave for days without structural failure.
> Can take a grounding at speed without destroying the boat...
> 
> These are my expectations.


Yowza. Those are about my expectations for pulling the pin on our EPIRB...

Mark


----------



## capttb

I've seen F8 to F10 and never want to again, although "see" is the wrong verb because you CAN'T see, often overlooked is the "blowing spume" part of the description. I had inexperienced crew once ask "What's that roaring noise ?" "That's the waves breaking, look right next to the boat and you can see the foam when they pass".
Can't imagine going to weather in those conditions, about 35 kts. I start running downwind screaming like a little girl being chased by the boogeyman.


----------



## Barquito

> Yowza. Those are about my expectations for pulling the pin...


I thought you were going to say, '...on a self-immolating hand grenade.'


----------



## Barquito

My boat was designed to be taken offshore. Not everyone agreed. When a certain sailing rag called it a coastal cruiser, the esteemed designer canceled his subscription to said rag. Or, so the story goes.


----------



## krisscross

Is there a list of CE Category A Production Boats?


----------



## smackdaddy

colemj said:


> Nah, it doesn't really interest me to know. I suspect all of the 38' and over EU production multis are Cat A rated. Smaller, lower expectation multis just aren't a large enough market, and Gemini, Tomcat, Farrier, etc have it pretty well cornered.
> 
> And within this coastal range of catamarans, there are few that would argue the proper usage profile. The smaller Dragonfly's and Seawinds are the only I can think of that might be debatable in this regard.
> 
> Mark


No worries. It seems that all the new boats by FP, R&C, Outremer, etc. are built to the CE Cat A standard as one would presume. And they don't sink - so they have that going for them too.

So, yeah, they're blue water boats as well. Nice.


----------



## smackdaddy

gonecrusin said:


> My expectations for a blue water boat are:
> it will handle +F12 for days
> it will handle +45' waves for days
> Built without pans, with fully tabbed bulkheads, with robust hull to deck joints, substantial framing and stringers...
> Built without minimal gear (such as brass skin fitting) undersize winches, insufficient backing plates, light standing rigging...
> Can sail to weather in F10 against a short period wave for days without structural failure.
> Can take a grounding at speed without destroying the boat...
> 
> These are my expectations.


Wow. What sailboat(s) fits that bill - as agreed/backed by the builder?


----------



## GeorgeB

Arggg! This is so frustrating! The 94/25/EC and it’s 2004 amendment do not talk to the various categories, they are just presented in (Smack’s) table. They reference the various annex’s but within each annex there is no category differentiation. Boatpoker mentioned that the RCD/CE requires brass NPS throughhull, but Jeff’s document doesn’t have this in it. Come on guys, where is the “good stuff”? 

Maine Sail, I understand that the AYBC is an industry trade group and that is why you have to buy a membership in order to have access to them (and I truly appreciate it when you do publish snippets of them as well as explain them.) But the EU/EC is a public organization and the relevant documents must be out there, somewhere.


----------



## smackdaddy

krisscross said:


> Is there a list of CE Category A Production Boats?


I don't know of one. But, this gives you a pretty good plain-language overview of the standard from Beneteau:

What CE Certification means for Boat Buyers | Beneteau

So, most all of the larger cruising boats being built in Europe will have this rating. And you can find specifics for specific boats by searching around especially on the sites of those who sell these boats.

On the American side, Catalina Yachts breaks their boats into the following categories:



> Catalina's broad range of intelligently designed family-oriented sailboats includes the SPORT SERIES, with sprightly 8-27 foot day sailors, the CRUISER SERIES capable, roomy mid-sized yachts from 31-35 feet, and the majestic OCEAN SERIES 38-44 footers for more serious offshore adventures.


And I assume the Ocean Series meets the Category A rating - and assume in their parlance that "serious offshore" equates to "blue water". Here is one of their brochures stating this:



> All Catalinas larger than 30 feet are built to robust standards: rated CE category A Ocean, NMMA Yacht Certified Program, and follow all applicable American Boat and Yacht Council Standards.


Finally, you can see the trend of pre-Marlow Hunter over the years since 1999 by reading that interview I linked to above. Boats larger than 34' were all Cat A rated at that point - and presumably since then...at least until Marlow (I have no interest in searching that one out).

So the info is out there.


----------



## outbound

Steve this has been asked and answered. Reminds me of a time when I was trying to get Iron Butt credentials. You need to do a thousand miles in a day. ( never got it). Most riders were on big bmws or wings. I guy on a ?buza shows up. Given a ration. But he replies his ride meets all certifications for highway travel which is true. Still that wonderful bike wasn?t designed for safe comfortable extended travel. Same thing here even if you accept cat A has a meaningful standard. Sure. Great you can do it. Not the best ride/boat for it. Knock yourself out. 
It this point no new information or thoughts have been posted in this entire thread. Hope you move on and stop beating a dead horse


----------



## Don L

No one even agrees what a Blue Water boat is, so why argue whether a cat A boat is one? Personally to me the Cat A thing is pretty clear to what it was designed to/for. If that is or isn't your definition of a BWB then that is the end of the question isn't it?


----------



## smackdaddy

Out, I consider you a SN friend. So let me try to explain this in a very civil way because it's important as I fully realize I'm on the edge here...

As promised, I won't spend time debating you here as we've already talked *a lot* about many of these issues in my previous thread. But, per Jeff's statement in that email, that's why I've crystallized things to be as simple, demonstrable, and clear as possible in this new thread. You know *exactly* what will be discussed here. And it will include monos and multis and anything else that qualifies under the Cat A standard. This is simply the reality of the current market.

Now, I have absolutely no problem if you (or anyone else) fully disagree with my conclusions - which I am presenting plenty of evidence for. And I have no problem if you (or anyone else) choose to not read or participate in this thread. I'll take no offense whatsoever.

But what is a dead horse *for you personally* ignores the standards _that virtually *the entire boating industry* recognizes as valid in relation to ocean-going recreational vessels_. That obviously leaves the larger discussion wide open beyond ones personal views...which I respect...or even the long-running traditional forum debates that people may be - rightly - tired of.

So, I am not trying to convince you - or anyone else who strongly disagrees with this topic - to reach the same conclusions I have. And I'm not taking anything away from any traditionally recognized brands of boats out there. That's not the point here.

What I AM doing is presenting the other ACTUAL side of that long-standing debate, which, again, is based on widely recognized and accepted industry CE standards. As you see, there are LOTS of misconceptions out there on this subject. This is not trolling - nor is it simply spewing subjective opinion. This, again, is simply the reality of the market and boat buyers need to understand that.

But what seems to be going on here is a push to say this is simply not a "permitted" topic - or at least not for me. If that's the case, then I don't know what to say.

I am being, and will continue to be civil and present facts to back up anything I'm saying in this thread. And hopefully it will prove informative for those looking to buy boats for cruising the ocean. I just don't see how that's a bad thing. If people are truly not interested, then the thread will have no one reading it (though that's certainly not the case right now).

And I can take a hint.

Cheers.

PS - I might need to get in touch with you on the side. My youngest is interested in the brain and I hear you have some insight.


----------



## colemj

Barquito said:


> I thought you were going to say, '...on a self-immolating hand grenade.'


That device is specifically reserved for if the autopilot breaks.

Mark


----------



## outbound

Ok let’s look at actual people buying boats for blue water or voyaging.
Believe most people in this extremely small segment of the market have the following concerns:
Safety
Cost ( total cost of purchase minus return apon sale , maintenance, insurance, operating cost, expense of repair in case of damage i.e. grounding, collision etc.)
Quality of life at sea and anchor
Ability to tolerate expected sailing program 
Ability to carry stores ( water,fuel, food, tools and spares) as well as toys/entertainment/appliances to maintain quality of life while following the dream often off the grid. This being done without compromising sailing performance. 
Performance under sail and power. Ease of activity under sail/power and safety of execution in all expected conditions.

Let’s further extract high latitude sailors as cat A has no meaning from them rather they are looking at light ice certification. And extract those primarily looking mostly to do ocean racing on a unlimited budget as these are one offs or built to a defined rule again having nothing to do with cat A.

Now I’m the first to admit I barely reach the threshold of a blue water sailor. I usual do just two passages a year. 3000m on the rhumb line so probably given you nearly never get to do the rhumb line still <4000 miles a year. But I know a fair number of blue water sailors. Further have been through the exercise of buying a boat for blue water service several times and have assisted friends with the same expectation. Categorically in 30+ years of this at no time from anyone (insurance brokers, yard managers, boat brokers, professional captains, prospective buyers, myself, interested friends, advisors, lists of bwbs, books about this activity, magazines about this activity such as blue water sailing, societies or organizations such as occ, sdr, etc. has cat A ever been mentioned. As Jeff clearly said in this thread and others elsewhere cat A has NO utility in deciding what to buy for this activity. Any thoughtful person engaging in this activity is probably not buying their first boat when contemplating commencing this activity. They know cat A may represent the lowest acceptable floor for this activity hence has no relevance in decision making. In practice it never comes up.

So if you wish to continue to beat a dead horse go to it but people need to realize when reading your posts you are obsessed in talking about a very limited and impaired floor and they should be judging prospective purchases by suitability as regards the issues noted above. In short cat A is not relevant to purchasing decisions.


----------



## Arcb

While writing another post, it occurred to me just how irrelevant the category A stuff is.

Regardless of how you feel about the idea of children setting records to be the youngest to solo circumnavigate. It happens. This means young people, with limited experience (at least when they left) setting out for serious open ocean voyages. You don't want to select the wrong kind of boat for this kind of trip.

In 1985, the record was set by a 21 year old girl in a Contessa 26. She held the record until 1995, when she was beaten by a slightly younger 21 year old boy, also, in a Contessa 26.

Solo circumnavigation by teenagers, I think we can call it a BWB, if anything can be called that.

And, it is automatically disqualified from CE category A because it lacks sufficient mass. 

I think we might have a marketing tool? Contessa 26 disqualified from being a BWB because it isn't big enough?

This Cat A stuff certainly appears to be about selling boats, preferably big boats. It wouldn't at all surprise me if the major yacht manufacturers lobbied for this standard to include minimum size requirements. We all know there is more than one way to skin a cat when it comes to assessing a vessels seaworthiness, I don't think it's above yacht designers to chose the method that is most beneficial to them.


----------



## boatpoker

You know the old one .... A camel is a horse designed by committee.

RCD/CE standards were designed by twenty eight politically (economically) motivated committee's driving one politically motivated overall committee.


----------



## gonecrusin

smackdaddy said:


> Wow. What sailboat(s) fits that bill - as agreed/backed by the builder?


Hylas, Outbound, Swan, HR, Oyster, Southern Ocean, Alden, Passport, Tayana, CN, Southerly, Little Harbor, Baltic, Hinkley... These are certainly expensive boats but by carefully shopping, good late models can be found and while not new, they are capable of sailing in tough conditions.

Maybe something like this?

1986 Hylas Sloop Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

Little bigger budget? Maybe this?

1990 Oyster 46 Center Cockpit Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

Everyone wants a weather window but sometimes it's just a bit tough or you get caught. Here's a nice ride in F9 but I wouldn't hesitate to take either of the two boats listed above in these conditions, sure wouldn't be as comfy though.


----------



## Jeff_H

Arcb said:


> In 1985, the record was set by a 21 year old girl in a Contessa 26. She held the record until 1995, when she was beaten by a slightly younger 21 year old boy, also, in a Contessa 26.
> 
> Solo circumnavigation by teenagers, I think we can call it (Contessa 26) a BWB, if anything can be called that.
> 
> And, it is automatically disqualified from CE category A because it lacks sufficient mass.
> 
> I think we might have a marketing tool? Contessa 26 disqualified from being a BWB because it isn't big enough?
> 
> This Cat A stuff certainly appears to be about selling boats, preferably big boats. It wouldn't at all surprise me if the major yacht manufacturers lobbied for this standard to include minimum size requirements. We all know there is more than one way to skin a cat when it comes to assessing a vessels seaworthiness, I don't think it's above yacht designers to chose the method that is most beneficial to them.


I do want to comment on this in several parts. First of all, I am reasonably familiar with why the Contessa 26 does not carry a Category A rating, and its not only about its displacement or its length. But in fairness, I should start by saying that I am a big fan of these boats and the Folkboat derivatives in general.

It is my understanding that the Contessa 26 failed to get a Category A rating for a number of other issues beyond its size, such as its mix of ratings on downflooding, and initial stability. Individual Contessa 26's can and have been modified to improve their ratings by sealing seat lockers and modifying the companionway hatchboards. I understand that the Contessa can achieve a Cat A rating with these mods.

But there is a very real reason that size is considered heavily by the rating system. In almost every study of seaworthiness and analysis post storm survivals and losses, the only single common determinant of seaworthiness was the length of the boat with most studies concluding that longer waterline length was a major factor in how well a boat weathered extreme weather. While structural capabilities, stability (both initial and ultimate), motion comfort, and so on were factors in how well the boats faired, these were not found to be consistent factors in the seaworthiness of boats in extreme conditions. It is for that reason that waterline length figures prominently in the calculations.

Back to the Contessa 26......beyond the length issue it should be understood that the Recreational Watercraft calculations penalizes the extremes. Therefore, within the CE calculations, boats like the Contessa get slammed for their extremely narrow beam and very high L/D. These numbers are significant in that the Folkboat derivatives tend to sail at pretty high heel angles due to their narrow beam. They also tend to have a very small carrying capacity relative to their displacement which is the product of a small water plane due to the narrow beam as well.

Asd a result they also lose points because their cockpit soles are very close to the water line and when heavily loaded can flood due to the Contessa's small carrying capacity. This becomes significant since the low coaming on the companionway makes downflooding a greater risk. If pooped, downflooding is a very high risk, and once downflooding begins the added weight of the water means that additional downflooding becomes a greater risk. The configuration of the companionway, makes it hard to create a higher coaming at the companionway.

Similarly the high heel angles become significant due to the low cockpit coamings, the position close to the rail, and standard cockpit locker lids which unless sealed can open during a knockdown. Other issues are equipage issues such as the inability to carry a liferaft in a manner that conforms with the ease of launch and protection underway required by that module of the Directives.

Lastly, while I personally consider the basic design of the Contessa to produce a boat that with mods can be safe to take offshore, the fact that these boats have a long record of successfully completed extraordinary passages, that alone should not be construed to indicated that they make safe offshore capable boats. By that Logic one might conclude that Josh Slocum's 'Spray' or Alain Gerbault's 'Firecrest' were good blue water designs. But neither would be considered seaworthy or seakindly based on all that we know today about the science and reality of seaworthiness and seakindliness. Both boats accomplished what they did on the seamanskip, courage, and ingenuity of their skippers.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## Arcb

Jeff_H said:


> Both boats accomplished what they did on the seamanskip, courage, and ingenuity of their skippers.


^ This was kind of my point 

Good post Jeff, I am not going to argue your understanding of the calculations, because I am certain you have a better understanding than I do.

But, my understanding was part of the stability calculations for Cat A, included a minimum displacement of 3 tons, or 6600 lbs. It seems based on that, the only way to modify a Contessa 26 to Cat A standards would be to add 1200 pounds of weight? (plus possible other modifications).

But lets forget for a second that my post was about Contessa 26's. These rules (as I understand) exclude all boats under 6600 pounds displacement from Cat A, while automatically include some not very impressive boats, that while they might be able to maintain stability, are reasonably likely to simply fall apart before a boat like a Contessa.

What is really sinking boats out there? Is it catastrophic loss of stability, or is it just as likely to be successive failures of systems resulting in a cascade effect that the crew becomes increasingly less capable of managing as fatigue increases. Repetitive hard groundings, dismastings, rigging failures pump and through hull failures, crew failures.

I would really like to see the logic on why a vessels seaworthiness is being so tied to its stability in these standards.


----------



## smackdaddy

I don't want to make this thread about Hunters (that debate is dead too), but rather keep it general to all the Cat A rated boats out there - mono and multi. That said, it had been a while since I read that 1999 interview Jeff had with Jim Bohart (JB) of Hunter - back when forums were still called Bulletin Boards (CWBB). I linked that doc above and I think it's definitely worth a read to get a snapshot of this debate that has been going on for the almost 19 years hence. It will definitely give you some perspective. It's a hoot. For example...

Here is the last question posed to (JB)...



> CWBB About the huge centerline aft berths with no sides; are you to wedge yourself in the spaces on the floor when offshore, or rig lee cloths all around the berth like mosquito netting and roll back and forth, back and forth in your off-watch.
> 
> Also, I would like to know some of the documented "passages" the boats have made and some of the offshore races they have been in, or other proving grounds I can "take to the bank".
> 
> JB See above answer: I would install lee cloths!


For some perspective here, this is the aft cabin of a 1999 Oyster 53&#8230;










And a current Oyster 475&#8230;









(Note the flush in-hull topside portlite like my 1989 Hunter)

And this is a 1999 Hylas 46&#8230;










And a current Hylas 56...










Now I LOVE the centerline aft bed in our Hunter 40. It's freakin' awesome!










But while under way we sleep in the salon one tucked behind the dining table with cushions&#8230;










&#8230;the other in this very salty lee cloth'd settee&#8230;










&#8230;And in the v-berth if necessary. Just like Oyster and Hylas baby!

Ahm, I won't get into the arches issue.

Like I say, an interesting read in light of this thread. But more relevant I think is the "take it to the bank" challenge of "documented passages". Here is Jim's reply to that part of the CWBB question&#8230;



> Taking it to the bank: In 1991, 11 matched Legend 35.5's were sailed from New York to Bermuda with two crew per boat, then used for 15 days of match racing in the Omega Gold Cup. All this in extreme conditions -- some it during the time Hurricane Grace approached the island, and after being trashed by the most competitive skippers in the world at that time (some still are: Paul Cayard, Chris Dixon, Magnus Holberg, Marc Boet, Peter Isler and others). After the competition they were sailed back to St. Augustine by a crew of just two.
> 
> In 1990, Jim Bankson and Gary Baillargeon sailed the Legand 35.5 Another Child from Seattle to Hawaii and captured a first place finish in the double-handed Pacific Cup, beating several noted Cal 40's.
> 
> The 1989 single-handed Trans-Atlantic saw Courtney Hazelton on the modified Legend 45 Marico capture a first place finish in the fifty foot class while recording a record run.
> 
> This same boat renamed (Sky Catcher) sailed in the '94 BOC captained by Nigel Rowe, the former Director of the BOC.
> 
> During some of the worst weather ever for the St. Pete to Isla Muejeres race in 1996, Steve Curran piloted a Hunter 336 to a first place overall. Most of the fleet was badly mauled and more than half never finished the race.
> 
> In the 1998 Trans-Atlantic (Dayton to Bermuda) Gus Williams finished third in his class, sailing a Legend 35.5 with his family aboard. The weather was so bad that only 40% of the fleet finished.
> 
> Brad Newell aboard Wendigo a Legend 43, departed California the Summer of 1994 arriving in Auckland NZ, Dec 1, 1995. We received a letter from them indicating they had no problems and praising the boat for both it's comfort and sea keeping ability. They might have since finished their circumnavigation.
> 
> One has only to contact. Bill O'Reilly, owner of Trident Yacht Sales in Darling, South Africa, to ask about the experiences of the delivery crew that brings him his boats from our yard and delivers them on their own bottoms, 9,200 miles through some of the roughest waters on the planet. I had the opportunity to hear Malcolm Meyers, a delivery skipper and veteran of 19 Atlantic crossings, tell of his 57 day nonstop delivery from St. Martin to Cape Town. During those 57 days he endured three storms, the worst a reported force 10 with seas to 35'. He did endure one knockdown, but nothing major broke and the rig held. His words, "I was impressed."
> 
> Strike up a conversation with Chris Oldham who has sailed his three Hunters from Seattle, to San Diego, to the VI, Bermuda, the Mediterranean and twice across the Atlantic. For personal family reasons Chris has withdrawn from the Round World Rally. Two Hunters (another 450 and a 40.5) remain committed.
> 
> Pauline and Voytec Dolinski left California and cruised Mexico for months before striking out for Polynesia aboard their Legend 37.5 in March of 1996. We still hear from them they as they continue cruising the world.
> 
> Over the years we have commissioned at our Yard in St. Augustine many boats scheduled for delivery in Europe, the Med, Africa, South America, and to charter companies who place them worldwide into demanding service. I could go on, but I think this illustrates the point.


So, again, take it how you'd like - but these are a lot of examples that fit into our discussion (even though most of these boats and voyages were *before* the Category A standards were even enacted).


----------



## copacabana

Steve, does that aluminium foil taped on the ports come standard on Hunters or is it an add-on?


----------



## smackdaddy

gonecrusin said:


> Hylas, Outbound, Swan, HR, Oyster, Southern Ocean, Alden, Passport, Tayana, CN, Southerly, Little Harbor, Baltic, Hinkley... These are certainly expensive boats but by carefully shopping, good late models can be found and while not new, they are capable of sailing in tough conditions.


I'm sorry, but no they don't. You'll need to show me proof (like I can show you with the Cat A rating) that ANY of these boats/brands *certify* that they are made for the conditions you cited:



> it will handle +F12 for days
> it will handle +45' waves for days
> Can sail to weather in F10 against a short period wave for days without structural failure.
> Can take a grounding at speed without destroying the boat...


I can tell you right now that you won't find it.

And this is a perfect illustration of why the blue water boat debate as it has been framed for so many years is dangerous. This is what people think these boats can do.

PS - I expect one of you knowledgeable non-production-boat guys to explain this to Gone. I'm not joking here. This is on you. And you need to clarify this.


----------



## smackdaddy

copacabana said:


> Steve, does that aluminium foil taped on the ports come standard on Hunters or is it an add-on?


I ordered those from Oyster. $400 each. But they're marine grade.


----------



## zeehag

so a few have argued for the sailor... but many donot get the fact blue water boats and shallow water boats all have one thing in common... the loose nut behind the wheel/tiller. 
if that jerko cannot sail, the bluewater boat is a lakefront daysailor. 
almost anything can make it around the world iff there is a sailor on board. 
a real sailor can get a bathtub around the planet. 
screw the numbers and learn to really sail. practice in heavy weather and learn well. 

numbers are nothing without the ability of the sailor to handle the issues that arise. boat is just a boat. boat doesnot care what the damned numbers say. it cares about nothing as it is inanimate object into which idiots like you and i put our lifes trust into. 
it SHOULD be other way around.. the vessel is just that--a vessel to contain that which has the balls to face busted ribs and heavy seas while screaming in pain ....itis the sailor that determines the deal, not the boat'

no i am too lazy to go rtw. not motorvated into that. would love to see moorea, but i can live without the busted ribs and other convoluted issues. and how do they cook cats, now i have 2 that is a determining factor.


----------



## smackdaddy

zeehag said:


> so a few have argued for the sailor... but many donot get the fact blue water boats and shallow water boats all have one thing in common... the loose nut behind the wheel/tiller.
> if that jerko cannot sail, the bluewater boat is a lakefront daysailor.
> almost anything can make it around the world iff there is a sailor on board.
> a real sailor can get a bathtub around the planet.
> screw the numbers and learn to really sail. practice in heavy weather and learn well.
> 
> no i am too lazy to go rtw. not motorvated into that. would love to see moorea, but i can live without the busted ribs and other convoluted issues. and how do they cook cats, now i have 2 that is a determining factor.


A couple of cats and big bottle of mustard would easily get you Moorea.

And +1 on your point about the sailor. Bad sailors can break any boat.


----------



## ianjoub

smackdaddy said:


> I ordered those from Oyster. $400 each. But they're marine grade.


You got screwed. Oyster doesn't make those, they buy them from a 3rd party vendor. You could have gotten the exact same thiing for $50 each, just not in the Oyster packaging.


----------



## bblument

outbound said:


> Steve this has been asked and answered. Reminds me of a time when I was trying to get Iron Butt credentials. You need to do a thousand miles in a day. ( never got it). Most riders were on big bmws or wings. I guy on a ?buza shows up. Given a ration. But he replies his ride meets all certifications for highway travel which is true. Still that wonderful bike wasn?t designed for safe comfortable extended travel. Same thing here even if you accept cat A has a meaningful standard. Sure. Great you can do it. Not the best ride/boat for it. Knock yourself out.
> It this point no new information or thoughts have been posted in this entire thread. Hope you move on and stop beating a dead horse


Never heard of "Iron Butt" credentials, but it doesn't seem like it would be that big a deal...? I did 850 miles in one day on a 1984 VF700C (sort of a sport cruiser, very upright riding position, no back support) a while ago, and during the last couple hours the temp was 42F. I was a little chilly and stiff, but another 150 wouldn't have been even remotely out of the question. Wish I had know it was a thing...

I'm enjoying this thread. I still get nervous when the wind gets above 15knots so the kind of sailing being discussed is in the distant future for me, but I really would love to gradually increase my skills and my boat's robustness to a point where my sailing windows aren't so narrow. It's great to read about the experiences of all of you folks who are actually out there doing this kind of sailing. Thanks to all for taking the time to contribute.

Barry


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Ok let's look at actual people buying boats for blue water or voyaging.
> Believe most people in this extremely small segment of the market have the following concerns:
> Safety
> Cost ( total cost of purchase minus return apon sale , maintenance, insurance, operating cost, expense of repair in case of damage i.e. grounding, collision etc.)
> Quality of life at sea and anchor
> Ability to tolerate expected sailing program
> Ability to carry stores ( water,fuel, food, tools and spares) as well as toys/entertainment/appliances to maintain quality of life while following the dream often off the grid. This being done without compromising sailing performance.
> Performance under sail and power. Ease of activity under sail/power and safety of execution in all expected conditions.
> 
> Let's further extract high latitude sailors as cat A has no meaning from them rather they are looking at light ice certification. And extract those primarily looking mostly to do ocean racing on a unlimited budget as these are one offs or built to a defined rule again having nothing to do with cat A.
> 
> Now I'm the first to admit I barely reach the threshold of a blue water sailor. I usual do just two passages a year. 3000m on the rhumb line so probably given you nearly never get to do the rhumb line still <4000 miles a year. But I know a fair number of blue water sailors. Further have been through the exercise of buying a boat for blue water service several times and have assisted friends with the same expectation. Categorically in 30+ years of this at no time from anyone (insurance brokers, yard managers, boat brokers, professional captains, prospective buyers, myself, interested friends, advisors, lists of bwbs, books about this activity, magazines about this activity such as blue water sailing, societies or organizations such as occ, sdr, etc. has cat A ever been mentioned. *As Jeff clearly said in this thread and others elsewhere cat A has NO utility in deciding what to buy for this activity.* Any thoughtful person engaging in this activity is probably not buying their first boat when contemplating commencing this activity. They know cat A may represent the lowest acceptable floor for this activity hence has no relevance in decision making. In practice it never comes up.
> 
> So if you wish to continue to beat a dead horse go to it but people need to realize when reading your posts you are obsessed in talking about a very limited and impaired floor and they should be judging prospective purchases by suitability as regards the issues noted above. *In short cat A is not relevant to purchasing decisions.*


Out, all I can say is that all of the above is nothing more than your opinion. You (it seems with your circle of cruising friends) have defined and branded "blue water" to be what *you* want it to be. And you have a list of your own requirements in a boat that fits your definition of it. We'll just call it the "Outbound Category A" standard. And again, that's fine. I have no problem with it. Honestly.

But the rub (and the reason for this thread) is the bold part of your statement. That is just absolutely and categorically wrong. I showed you the page on the Beneteau site that talks about this rating and what it means to boat buyers. And I showed you the CE Marking description of the Directive itself, and what it means to consumers. And if you look around at boat advertisements you'll see that this rating is almost always used when selling these newer boats.

So, this is why I won't debate you on this anymore. You have your own very dogmatic way of thinking about this (which is fine) - but the reality in the market is demonstrably NOT what you're saying it is. So, again, I have no intention of trying to change your mind. But I will absolutely highlight the reality of the market that is out there with facts - not opinion.

Since we at least seem to agree on the focus of this discussion being cruising (not rounding Capes, racing, etc.), I will leave you with this, Out - you need to explain to me in your view of things, how your ocean (i.e. the blue water), or the activity of your and your friends' cruising boats - so exceed these requirements:



> A largely self-sufficient boat designed for extended voyages that can handle F9-F11 conditions, but excluding abnormal conditions such as hurricanes.


----------



## smackdaddy

bblument said:


> I still get nervous when the wind gets above 15knots so the kind of sailing being discussed is in the distant future for me, but I really would love to *gradually increase my skills and my boat's robustness to a point where my sailing windows aren't so narrow*.


Barry - this should be framed and shown to every newb coming into sailing. This is *EXACTLY* the right frame of mind for learning.

Keeping your windows narrow in the beginning is the key. But so is pushing a bit each time to gradually widen that window. You never are fully prepared, but you are always controlling everything you can control.

Good on you. I look forward to following your adventures.


----------



## smackdaddy

Arc and Poker - you both, like others, are focusing on the wrong thing: The political, marketing, and numerical aspects around the standard itself. And these things undermine in your (and others') minds the validity of the standard. But here's why that's the wrong thing...

The Cat A standard itself is very, very clear and simple. Consider it like a Boxrule in race boat design. Many ways to get there but only one rule/standard. Either these boats will meet the Cat A standard - or they will not. How they do it, how long they can do it for, what they offer beyond the basics, etc. is completely secondary (and what makes the market in terms of product differentiation). But the standard is the standard. So, if you guys want to rail against the CE certification processes and standards - start another thread and go to town.

This thread is about Category A and the boats that meet that standard. Period.


----------



## ThereYouAre

colemj said:


> <snip>
> 
> Those sailors found anchored outside Foxy's Bar or Nipper's or the like, season after season, in "bullet-proof blue water boats" (with jugs lining the decks, a tiny rowboat tied behind, and a small solar shower always hanging up) are the ones I find misplaced and in denial more than a Hunter crossing the Pacific.
> 
> *But those are generally the ones continually searching to embroil others in a "blue water boat" argument.
> *
> Mark


I thought smack owned a Hunter.


----------



## gonecrusin

smackdaddy said:


> I don't want to make this thread about Hunters (that debate is dead too), but rather keep it general to all the Cat A rated boats out there - mono and multi. That said, it had been a while since I read that 1999 interview Jeff had with Jim Bohart (JB) of Hunter - back when forums were still called Bulletin Boards (CWBB). I linked that doc above and I think it's definitely worth a read to get a snapshot of this debate that has been going on for the almost 19 years hence. It will definitely give you some perspective. It's a hoot. For example...
> 
> Here is the last question posed to (JB)...
> 
> For some perspective here, this is the aft cabin of a 1999 Oyster 53&#8230;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And a current Oyster 475&#8230;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Note the flush in-hull topside portlite like my 1989 Hunter)
> 
> And this is a 1999 Hylas 46&#8230;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And a current Hylas 56...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I LOVE the centerline aft bed in our Hunter 40. It's freakin' awesome!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But while under way we sleep in the salon one tucked behind the dining table with cushions&#8230;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#8230;the other in this very salty lee cloth'd settee&#8230;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#8230;And in the v-berth if necessary. Just like Oyster and Hylas baby!
> 
> Ahm, I won't get into the arches issue.
> 
> Like I say, an interesting read in light of this thread. But more relevant I think is the "take it to the bank" challenge of "documented passages". Here is Jim's reply to that part of the CWBB question&#8230;
> 
> So, again, take it how you'd like - but these are a lot of examples that fit into our discussion (even though most of these boats and voyages were *before* the Category A standards were even enacted).


Because your boat has an aft master cabin it's the same as a Hylas or Oyster? Because boats are built to Cat A standard the build construction and quality are the same regardless of the builder?

Interesting perspective.


----------



## Arcb

smackdaddy said:


> Arc...
> 
> The Cat A standard itself is very, very clear and simple. Consider it like a Boxrule in race boat design. ...
> So, if you guys want to rail against the CE certification processes and standards - start another thread and go to town.
> 
> This thread is about Category A and the boats that meet that standard. Period.


Focusing on the wrong thing? According to whom? You create a thread that says X = Y and I say, no, X =X and Y=Y and you say that's because I'm focused on the wrong thing? That's convenient.

I know how classification rules and boats work. I am not going to go into details, but I do. I have been reading BP's posts for long enough to know that he knows how it works too.

A seaworthy vessel is a vessel that at the start of it's voyage, a prudent sailor would deem fit for it's voyage with regards to construction, maintenance, equipment and crew.

A construction standard, is a construction standard, it's something that happens in a factory in Europe, not necessarily close to the water.

The construction standard you are referring to seems to have a heavy focus on stability features that favour larger vessels, but doesn't seem overly concerned with other features that may make a vessel seaworthy, and furthermore has no element of periodicity.

It's a construction standard. Cool. Standards are better than no standards, but X doesn't always equal Y. Not in my opinion.

When you talk about blue water, it sounds like you are talking about some kind of specific voyage. A construction standard alone doesn't make a vessel fit for a specific voyage or even a type of voyage. Doesn't work like that.


----------



## GeorgeB

Rather than this becoming a rehash of Smack’s previous blue water thread, can we stick to his thesis of the EC Cat A rating being sufficient for his “blue water” connotation? A couple of very big points here: The EC rating system has been trashed here, but yet, the “experts” here cannot produce the actual standard. They cite examples of it that are not in the references they cite. I’m beginning to think some of these experts might not be that expert after all. I still cannot find the standards but in the EC literature, skippers must qualify through a certification process before they can legally sail a Cat A boat in EC waters (Note that this is a requirement for EC citizens and not visitors). Also, the EC has a published list of approved boat builders that require no further examination. But other boats must individually be certified to their category before they can be imported into the EU. So, let’s see what these certifications are before we pass judgement. I hope that a European can join in an add some clarity.

Roll period, moment of inertia, and stability index are calculations NA’s use to predict a boat’s handling characteristics in the same seas as Smack’s Category A. They, by themselves have nothing to do with down flooding (although this can be a secondary event if your boat exceeds its AVS). So, for you NA’s out there, fix my formulas!

Here are my “broken” formulas:

MOMENT OF INERTIA (I) = disp^1.744/35.5
ROLL PERIOD (T) = 2*PI*(I/(82.43*lwl*(.82*beam)^3))^.5
STABILITY INDEX = T / (beam*.3048)

Smack, I noticed that I didn’t have your boat in my little database of indices. Is your boat the Hunter 40 Legend? Interesting boat. Have you recorded your boat’s “sling weight” when you get it hauled? The 17,400# listed seems to be a bit lite. Also, is your boat a 7/8 frac rig? I need an accurate “I” measurement. I have built this little database over the years with boats that I have raced, cruised or sailed on, race competitors and boats that I'm just curious about. The indices are done as formulas (yes, I cross check the manufacturer's information) so I can even "tweak" an attribute to see how it would effect a particular boat.


----------



## Arcb

GeorgeB said:


> Rather than this becoming a rehash of Smack's previous blue water thread, can we stick to his thesis of the EC Cat A rating being sufficient for his "blue water" connotation?


Meaning can we stick to opinions that agree with you and Smack? No. Because I don't, nice try though.


----------



## GeorgeB

Arch, just asking you to stick to the topic. Read the first post.


----------



## smackdaddy

Jeff_H said:


> But there is a very real reason that size is considered heavily by the rating system. In almost every study of seaworthiness and analysis post storm survivals and losses, the only single common determinant of seaworthiness was the length of the boat with most studies concluding that longer waterline length was a major factor in how well a boat weathered extreme weather. While structural capabilities, stability (both initial and ultimate), motion comfort, and so on were factors in how well the boats faired, these were not found to be consistent factors in the seaworthiness of boats in extreme conditions. It is for that reason that waterline length figures prominently in the calculations.


This is an important point. As mentioned above by detractors of the CE certifications that the driving forces behind these standards are "marketing to sell bigger and more expensive boats", this shows the flimsiness of that argument. If there is empirical evidence that larger is safer - that's not marketing, that's safety.

Again, this thread is not really about the details behind the certifications that you may or may not agree with. It's purely about the standard itself and whether boats are consistently FAILING to meet it. Because if we are not seeing that - then assumptions all over the sailing forums are wrong.


----------



## smackdaddy

Now - back to production boats doing what they do while we talk...

In my CF thread on the subject a Catalina owner put up a great post discussing the standard and various views of it - but also a huge list of Catalinas that have ticked off some impressive boxes. You can link to his post above, but I'll put his list here in the spirit of this thread (you can research which of these model do or do not meet the Cat A standard)...



> The Circumnavigation of the "Juggernaut"
> Catalina 27
> Sailed By: Patrick Childress
> http://www.catalinayachts.com/pdf/halfoffame/ACFB0.pdf
> 
> The Circumnavigation of the "Patriot"
> Catalina 36
> Sailed By: Craig Mortensen
> http://www.catalinayachts.com/pdf/halfoffame/Patriot-HOF-web.pdf
> 
> The Voyage of the "Annie Laurie"
> Catalina 470
> Sailed by: John MacDougall
> http://www.catalinayachts.com/pdf/halfoffame/MacDougall-HOF-web.pdf
> 
> The Circumnavigation of the "Anja K"
> Catalina 42
> Sailed By: The Richards Family
> http://www.catalinayachts.com/pdf/halfoffame/ACF99.pdf
> 
> The Voyage of the "C'est La Vie"
> Catalina 470
> Sailed By: Keith and Susan Levy
> http://www.catalinayachts.com/pdf/halfoffame/ACF9D.pdf
> 
> The Voyage of the "Alaskan Poor Boy"
> Catalina 36
> Sailed By: Mike Gartland
> http://www.catalinayachts.com/pdf/halfoffame/ACFA3.pdf
> 
> The Circumnavigation of the "Hippos Camp"
> Catalina Morgan 43
> Sailed By: The Eustache Family
> http://www.catalinayachts.com/pdf/halfoffame/ACF9B.pdf
> 
> The Voyage of "Our Journey"
> Catalina 36
> Sailed by: Boris & Judy Dobrotin
> http://www.catalinayachts.com/pdf/halfoffame/ACFA5.pdf
> 
> The Voyage of the "Salacia"
> Catalina 42 mkII
> Sailed By: Lucian Jorg
> http://www.catalinayachts.com/pdf/halfoffame/ACFA1.pdf
> 
> The Voyage of the "Toroa"
> Catalina 42 mkII
> Sailed By: Heinz Muehlberger
> http://www.catalinayachts.com/pdf/halfoffame/ACF9F.pdf
> 
> The Voyage of the "Red Thread"
> Catalina/Morgan 440
> Sailed By: Glen and Pam Maddox
> http://www.catalinayachts.com/pdf/halfoffame/Red-Thread-HOF-web.pdf
> 
> The Voyage of the "Moonrise"
> Catalina 36
> Sailed by: Eileen Ross & Don Elmore
> http://www.catalinayachts.com/pdf/halfoffame/ACFA9.pdf
> 
> The Voyage of the "Sunseeker IV"
> Catalina 400
> Sailed by: Larry & Jane Burge
> http://www.catalinayachts.com/pdf/halfoffame/ACFAB.pdf
> 
> The Voyage of the "Last Resort"
> Catalina 470
> Sailed by: Richard & Sharon Drechsler
> http://www.catalinayachts.com/pdf/halfoffame/LastResort-HOF-11w-web.pdf
> 
> The Voyage of the "Figment II"
> Catalina 320
> Sailed by: Alec Blanc & Crew
> http://www.catalinayachts.com/pdf/halfoffame/ACFAE.pdf
> 
> The Voyage of the "Suzanne"
> Catalina 42
> Sailed by: Gary Shepard & Crew
> http://www.catalinayachts.com/pdf/halfoffame/ACFA7.pdf
> 
> Now, there ARE 100's of other Catalina's that have safely and successfully made long offshore passages, etc. but, the above are just the ones that have been publicly publicized....


----------



## Arcb

I am staying on topic, just not the topic I am being directed to follow.

Take a look at this Cat A Jenneau Sun Odyssey 319. Length over all, 29'6". Weight 11244 pounds. Fuel Capacity 100 Liters (that's 25 gallons), Water Capacity 150 liters (that's about 38 gallons).

Nice looking boat? Yes, in my opinion. Is it nicer than my boat? Yes. Competently handled, could it survive multiple days of winds exceeding F8 and seas exceeding 4 Meters? According to its CE Category the interpretation of the CE certification on this thread, definitely. Any volunteers to try it out and get back to me with results?

https://www.jeanneau.com/en/boats/2-sun-odyssey/113-sun-odyssey-319


----------



## smackdaddy

GeorgeB said:


> Rather than this becoming a rehash of Smack's previous blue water thread, can we stick to his thesis of the EC Cat A rating being sufficient for his "blue water" connotation? A couple of very big points here: The EC rating system has been trashed here, but yet, the "experts" here cannot produce the actual standard. They cite examples of it that are not in the references they cite. I'm beginning to think some of these experts might not be that expert after all. I still cannot find the standards but in the EC literature, skippers must qualify through a certification process before they can legally sail a Cat A boat in EC waters (Note that this is a requirement for EC citizens and not visitors). Also, the EC has a published list of approved boat builders that require no further examination. But other boats must individually be certified to their category before they can be imported into the EU. So, let's see what these certifications are before we pass judgement. I hope that a European can join in an add some clarity.
> 
> Roll period, moment of inertia, and stability index are calculations NA's use to predict a boat's handling characteristics in the same seas as Smack's Category A. They, by themselves have nothing to do with down flooding (although this can be a secondary event if your boat exceeds its AVS). So, for you NA's out there, fix my formulas!
> 
> Here are my "broken" formulas:
> 
> MOMENT OF INERTIA (I) = disp^1.744/35.5
> ROLL PERIOD (T) = 2*PI*(I/(82.43*lwl*(.82*beam)^3))^.5
> STABILITY INDEX = T / (beam*.3048)


Thanks George. I truly appreciate that you (with your background and experience) are seeing the same holes in all this I've been seeing.

Now, I will freely admit that though I do have a degree and background in Architecture - I'm not an engineer or NA - so I won't be able to critique the numbers, etc. What *I'M* going on in this thread is more a market evaluation angle. In other words, there need to be quite a few boats in any brand or model line consistently failing during *extended voyages* to show them not fit for purpose (i.e. - the CE Cat A standard). In all the years I've been discussing this in my various threads I've seen examples of failures here and there (keel and sump issues on Benes and Jenes, rudder/assembly issues with the Bene 50s, etc.), but I've certainly not seen significant trends.

So that's the fundamental purpose of this thread: Look at the trends of these boats sailing all over the world's oceans vs those significantly failing during those endeavors. From everything I've seen the former FAR outweighs the latter. And that just doesn't align with the typical arguments as you point out.



GeorgeB said:


> Smack, I noticed that I didn't have your boat in my little database of indices. Is your boat the Hunter 40 Legend? Interesting boat. Have you recorded your boat's "sling weight" when you get it hauled? The 17,400# listed seems to be a bit lite. Also, is your boat a 7/8 frac rig? I need an accurate "I" measurement. I have built this little database over the years with boats that I have raced, cruised or sailed on, race competitors and boats that I'm just curious about. The indices are done as formulas (yes, I cross check the manufacturer's information) so I can even "tweak" an attribute to see how it would effect a particular boat.


Yes, mine is the 1989 Hunter Legend 40. And it's definitely an interesting boat. I've not sling-weighed it myself. I believe it was possibly done during our pre-purchase survey haulout (when the boat was "empty") - but there's no specific notation of that. I only have this from the survey:



> BALLAST: (Rptd) 8,400 Lbs.
> DISPLACEMENT: (Rptd) 17,900 Lbs.


As for the rig - it is interesting indeed. It's the B&R (masthead) - but also has an adjustable backstay. I'm not sure if that came standard in 1989 or was added as I know this boat was raced for a while. So that should make your "I" measurement a bit easier.

I've not yet bought new sails, so I've not done specific measurements yet.

From what I recall, our AVS (especially with the shoal keel) is on the light side and wouldn't meet Cat 0 requirements. But there are a lot of other features to the boat that would satisfy many of the "blue water" crowd's preferences.


----------



## Jeff_H

GeorgeB said:


> Rather than this becoming a rehash of Smack's previous blue water thread, can we stick to his thesis of the EC Cat A rating being sufficient for his "blue water" connotation? A couple of very big points here: The EC rating system has been trashed here, but yet, the "experts" here cannot produce the actual standard.


Here's the deal, as I explained in an earlier post, the standards are not a small document that can be "produced" here. It is a collection of parts that if posted would probably exceed the size of all of the annual posts on Sailnet.

While most of the people I know who actually have access to the standards have either paid a licence to access them online, or have purchased them as originally published as a stack of CD's, or more recently as a Thumbdrive that has been transferred to their computers. When the full set of standards were available on CD's the set that I saw at the time filled 6 to 8 CD's. I would imagine that a full print set would be many large volumes.

When the Directive was being developed I had access to various draft versions of sections of the Directive, and had the opportunity to hear lectures, exchange emails, and read articles by the researchers and yacht design professionals working to develop the standards. (My comments about the standards being watered down came from items that were stated in lectures or in direct conversations that I had with the people who were developing the standards.)

When I have had specific questions over the years since the standards have been published I have had the opportunity to discuss some of these types of issues with professional yacht designers that I know, including Dudley Dix or some of the naval architects at Farr's office.

I personally do not own a license to the set of CE standards and I am told that a license is very expensive. I have never tried to buy access and would have no reason to. I do not claim first hand knowledge of the all or even most of the modules in the Directive. That said, I have looked at specific sections in specific modules at various times by visiting yacht designer friends and looking at their copies and seen portions of the process that they have gone through getting their designs categorized or some of the documents that they have prepared to be send to a consultant who specialized in getting boats categorized.

When it comes to why no one has 'produced' the directives here, maybe this can help you to visualize why that cannot happen. Although I have worked in yacht design and naval architectural offices, I am architect of buildings with my own firm. (You can look me up; I am Jeff Halpern from Halpern Architects) In my office, I have a book shelf with the code books that I use in my work. I bought a set when I went into practice and have had to buy updated copies as they are updated. The current print copies of the commercial and residential building codes, Life Safety codes, Energy Code, Fire Resistive Directories, Zoning regulations, ADA, the wood, steel, and concrete manuals and so on occupy most of the top shelf of a bookcase perhaps a couple feet long.

Within those codes are references to other codes and standards that address items like specific items like sprinkler design, clearances in front of an electrical panel, or flame spread on a more detailed level. One set of those other standards for example, would be something like the NFPA standards. Sitting on a shelf, the print copies of the NFPA standards that apply to buildings are probably 5-8 feet long. Other than NFPA 101, I do not own the set of NFPA volumes, but I have access to most/some of them online, and can and do refer to a set in the library of the local Fire Marshal's office when I need to look up something specific that is not available online. And even though these codes have specific restrictions and requirements within them, there are cases where we work with code authorities to achieve 'equivalences' that do not strictly meet the letter of the code, but which meet the intended level of safety within the code.

The Directive for Recreational Watercraft is similar to the building codes, in that there is an enabling legislation, which defines the general areas of yacht design that can be regulated (which is similar to state and local enabling legislation, which determine which codes can be enforced in a given location). That overarching code authorization is what Smack provided links to.

The actual modules of the Directive correspond to building and fire codes for buildings, only they are of course specific to yachts. Like the building codes, the modules I have seen include exceptions and equivalences and references to other CE certification standards. My sense is that print versions of the entire set of modules and standards would be probably be about the size of a New York City phone book.

Within the recreational watercraft modules that I have seen, some items are defined by references to other CE standards. For example, I once looked up running lights. The basic directive only named a color, distance that the light needed to be visible, and an angle of visibility for different sized boats. But there was a reference to another CE standard. It was that standard that included the color and range for each running light with the color described on the kelvin scale and brightness in lumins; Degrees of Protection with the corresponding required impact resistance of the fixture, and the ability for the fixture to operate when subjected to wind and rain and so on.

Which goes back to your quote. No one, even someone with access to the full set of the Directives could literally 'produce them' here. If one of us had access to the Directives, and you had a specific question, that person might be able to cut and paste a specific answer to your question from the Directives.

But also back to your quote, none of us here, except Bob Perry are 'experts' on this topic. Some of us have specific areas of expertise, like Maine Sail, who operates(d) a boat repair facility and so really is an expert in the materials and methods of construction of his work, or Boatpoker who is a marine surveyor and knows the standards of his industry to name a few. Quite a few members have spent a lot of time offshore, and quite a few more have sailed for decades, and contributed generously from their experience.

Speaking solely for myself, I, for one, certainly do not claim to be an expert. As an amateur I can only report on what I have read, or heard from the experts or experienced directly. I may have worked on yacht designs with experts, drawn lines and performed calculations. I may have taken the opportunity to obtain access to experts, or done my own homework from primary sources, or made my own observations on specific items that have interested me. From there I may have formed an understanding of the issues. I have accumulated enough knowledge that true experts have felt comfortable having detailed and technical discussions with me on a range of topics over the years. But I never claim to be an expert. I may like to think that I am fair minded enough to have earned enough trust to fairly moderate a sailing forum (in concert with my fellow moderators), or a moderate a discussion between a hostile audience and a boat manufacturer. I like to think that I can explain my understandings clearly enough and in a manner which can be understood, debated, maybe corrected or expanded, on their merits. But in the end, I remain an amateur who can only comment on what I have been exposed to.

And from there you (or anyone else reading my comments) get to weigh, accept, or reject any and all of my (or anyone else's) comments on whatever basis you elect to chose.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## Don L

Arcb said:


> ....................., could it survive multiple days of winds exceeding F8 and seas exceeding 4 Meters? According to its CE Category the interpretation of the CE certification on this thread, definitely. Any volunteers to try it out and get back to me with results?


See this to me is why all your arguments and/or points are pretty much meaningless as to the topic as you wouldn't even accept a boat that meets standard can even do the stated category conditions. In other words it matters nothing that the standard even exists because you can tell by reading a brochure that it is to you lying.

While I don't know what "Blue Water" is, I know that my 2001 41' Cat A boat can go anywhere a non-stupid person would be expected to take it (and even where I've taken it). That doesn't mean I believe it can go everywhere or survive stupid people.


----------



## gonecrusin

Don0190 said:


> While I don't know what "Blue Water" is, I know that my 2001 41' Cat A boat can go anywhere a non-stupid person would be expected to take it (and even where I've taken it). That doesn't mean I believe it can go everywhere


Don, this is exactly what is being discussed. Smack argues a Cat A cert implies the boat with this cert can go anywhere and be sailed in any condition short of a hurricane. To Smack there is no differentiation between the Jeaneau 31 and a Baltic 110, both are Cat A and both can sail anywhere in any condition.

Like I said earlier, interesting perspective.


----------



## Arcb

Don0190 said:


> See this to me is why all your arguments and/or points are pretty much meaningless as to the topic as you wouldn't even accept a boat that meets standard can even do the stated category conditions. In other words it matters nothing that the standard even exists because you can tell by reading a brochure that it is to you lying.
> 
> While I don't know what "Blue Water" is, I know that my 2001 41' Cat A boat can go anywhere a non-stupid person would be expected to take it (and even where I've taken it). That doesn't mean I believe it can go everywhere or survive stupid people.


Don, no where did I say that I don't believe that little Jenneau doesn't meet the requirements it claims it can go. Nor did I say I doubt your Hunters abilities. I don't. You are thinking of some one else.

What I am saying if you are willing to take that little stock Jenneau into sustained Force 8 winds and 13+ seas on the open ocean and stand at that wheel (does the boat even come equipped with an autopilot or a dodger, or are they extras), with the back of the cockpit being wide open to the sea, only a few feet behind the helmsman- YOU ARE MY HEROE. There appears to be no bridge deck what so ever, the fuel range is what with 26 gallons. The fresh water range is what with 40 gallons.

I don't doubt for a second that a Naval Architect could design that boat specifically to meet the minimum stability requirements for Cat A. They are naval architects, that's what they do. All I am saying is I think there is a little more to this whole thing then whether the boat can meet the minimum stability requirements

Would you take that boat across the Atlantic knowing there is a possibility of a sustained force 8 gale in your path. Would you. Would Smack, would George B.

The entire premise of this thread was to educate non experts like me on how to purchase a boat for blue water voyaging, open ocean, all conditions. You guys all recommend that Sun Odyssey 319 for that purpose. Is that what I understand.


----------



## smackdaddy

Jeff_H said:


> Speaking solely for myself, I, for one, certainly do not claim to be an expert. As an amateur I can only report on what I have read, or heard from the experts or experienced directly. I may have worked on yacht designs with experts, drawn lines and performed calculations. I may have taken the opportunity to obtain access to experts, or done my own homework from primary sources, or made my own observations on specific items that have interested me. From there I may have formed an understanding of the issues. I have accumulated enough knowledge that true experts have felt comfortable having detailed and technical discussions with me on a range of topics over the years. But I never claim to be an expert. I may like to think that I am fair minded enough to have earned enough trust to fairly moderate a sailing forum, or a moderate a discussion between a hostile audience and a boat manufacturer. I like to think that I can explain my understandings clearly enough and in a manner which can be understood, debated, maybe corrected or expanded, on their merits. But in the end, I remain an amateur who can only comment on what I have been exposed to.
> 
> And from there you (or anyone else reading my comments) get to weigh, accept, or reject any and all of my (or anyone else's) comments on whatever basis you elect to chose.


Jeff, I want to make it CRYSTAL CLEAR that I have HUGE respect for your opinions and viewpoints. You are definitely an expert in my eyes in these discussions - even though I may not always agree with everything you say. Beyond that you are one of the most fair and honorable people I've come across on forums. And my being able to type these words proves that.

Now - that said - I think George's broader point is critical. The *criticism and dismissal* of this standard most always comes from uninformed amateurs. Even if someone purports to be an expert *in a particular area* - that certainly doesn't make them qualified IN ANY WAY to condemn outright a hugely comprehensive standard as you clearly point out.

As I've said, my background is architecture and I know exactly what you're talking about in terms of the various codes libraries. It's insane.

Therefore, instead of blindly litigating Directive details that very, very few would EVER have ANY credibility litigating, we are left with 2 options:

1. Start another thread where people who want to condemn the CE standard can do so, BUT PROVIDE CLEAR FACTS AND DOCUMENTATION to back up their claims; or,

2. Focus on the evidence we CAN ALL CLEARLY SEE in the market as to whether boats are meeting the Cat A standard.

Bob's boats do speak and always have spoken for themselves. As I told him on Facebook - *Robert Perry is a globally recognized standard*. And it is high. No question. Everyone knows that.

But this discussion is about production boats and the Cat A standard itself which is clear and pretty unassailable in my view.

Finally, let me illustrate the trouble we get into WITHOUT FACTS AND DOCUMENTATION like George is calling for. Earlier you said this...



Jeff_H said:


> Whether that is months of sailing in 25 knot trades, or a week or two of slating in the doldrums, or cramming into one year the number of hours sailing that would be spent in a dozen years of coastal cruising, prolonged distance cruising stresses a boat in ways that normal coastal cruisers were never engineered to be.
> 
> *When I worked for a yacht designer, I did those calcs and we pumped up the numbers for boats intended for distance cruising vs coastal cruising*. That was the norm back then and with more sophisticated engineering software I have to assume that still remains the norm. While Directive 94/25/EC says that a Category A boat will stand Force 8 winds and make a long distance passage, *it does not and is not intended to establish engineering specifications for how long it can do it.*


On the first bold part - pumped them up from what to what? And how do those calculations and multipliers fit with the current CE Directives (taking into account newer materials, methodologies, technologies, etc.)?

On the second, THIS is one of the most critical aspects of everything we're talking about. But I honestly have never seen ANYONE (expert or no) that knows the answer to this question of actual "service-life". And we've been watching this since at least 1998 in regards to the Cat A standard. Thus far, I think we can conclude it's at least 19 years for most of these boats.

Then this...



Jeff_H said:


> (My comments about the standards being watered down came from items that were stated in lectures or in direct conversations that I had with the people who were developing the standards.)


"Watered down" from what to what? Again, amateurs who want to believe something just see "watered down standards" and draw a conclusion. But, like George says, unless we have an understanding of the actual numbers - that terminology doesn't mean much and is actually dangerous as you can see in posts above.

So, back to the Cat A standard and the evidence of productions boats that meet it....


----------



## GeorgeB

Ok, I've got a credit card handy, where on the EU website(s) do I purchase them? It's funny that FAR, MILSTD, MILSPEC building codes, and ISO are all in the public domain but a directive that refers to the ISO is in private. How does one import a boat into the EU if they don't have access to them. (Heck, I can send you a thumb drive that will easily fit 6 -8 CDs)


----------



## Don L

Arcb said:


> Don, no where did I say that I don't believe that little Jenneau doesn't meet the requirements it claims it can go.
> .


Say what, I QUOTED YOU. You pretty much much said the boat can't do it!


----------



## Don L

gonecrusin said:


> Don, this is exactly what is being discussed. Smack argues a Cat A cert implies the boat with this cert can go anywhere and be sailed in any condition short of a hurricane. To Smack there is no differentiation between the Jeaneau 31 and a Baltic 110, both are Cat A and both can sail anywhere in any condition.
> 
> Like I said earlier, interesting perspective.


I don't feel he is saying this at all. I think he is saying that Cat A boat is a Blue Water Boat to him based on the definition of what a Cat A is designed to handle.

I'm not drinking Smakaid, bt I think a bunch of people just what to argue extremes


----------



## smackdaddy

Arcb said:


> Don, no where did I say that I don't believe that little Jenneau doesn't meet the requirements it claims it can go. Nor did I say I doubt your Hunters abilities. I don't. You are thinking of some one else.
> 
> What I am saying if you are willing to take that little stock Jenneau into sustained Force 8 winds and 13+ seas on the open ocean and stand at that wheel (does the boat even come equipped with an autopilot or a dodger, or are they extras), with the back of the cockpit being wide open to the sea, only a few feet behind the helmsman- YOU ARE MY HEROE. There appears to be no bridge deck what so ever, the fuel range is what with 26 gallons. The fresh water range is what with 40 gallons.
> 
> I don't doubt for a second that a Naval Architect could design that boat specifically to meet the minimum stability requirements for Cat A. They are naval architects, that's what they do. All I am saying is I think there is a little more to this whole thing then whether the boat can meet the minimum stability requirements
> 
> Would you take that boat across the Atlantic knowing there is a possibility of a sustained force 8 gale in your path. Would you. Would Smack, would George B.
> 
> The entire premise of this thread was to educate non experts like me on how to purchase a boat for blue water voyaging, open ocean, *all conditions*. You guys all recommend that Sun Odyssey 319 for that purpose. Is that what I understand.


Arc, let me try to give this a whack. First, the bold part is not what I've said. Let's ONLY stick with the language of the Cat A standard for this discussion. There's no reason not to.

You mentioned the Contessa 26 above. I don't know what the tankage is on those boats - but they've been taken around the world as you point out and in doing so surely faced F8 conditions. But they apparently don't meet Cat A (just like the Catalina 27 that Childress did his lap in).

But, if we're going to have a productive discussion here - let's at least be intellectually honest about things. Here are the *non-Beaufort qualifiers* from the Cat A standard:

1. Largely self-sufficient boat.
2. Designed for extended voyages.

So, beyond the fact that we're talking ocean and not coast - it is up to you, just like the skippers of those Contessa 26s to define what "extended voyage" means and, therefore, what "self-sufficient" needs to mean in turn.

Watermakers solve water tankage limitations. Done. More sailing solves fuel tankage limitations. Done. And adding dodgers, autopilots, etc. is easy to do if you want and need them. Done. None of these things stopped the Contessa skippers. But if this Jene 319 is Cat A rated and the Contessa is not - the Jene is a safer boat.

Would *I* buy the Li'l Jene to sail offshore? Hell no - that thing is tiny. And I DEFINITELY wouldn't buy a Contessa. BUT, again, if we're being intellectually honest here - there are plenty of very reasonable and safe ways around the limitations you point out if you wanted this boat. And you'll end up in exactly the same places as the Contessas - just WAY before they ever get there. Probably more places actually - and happier - and safer.

PS - On the open transom, take a look at the cockpits of the VOR and Vendee boats. To your point though, I don't like it either for this boat. I'd tether the hell up FOR SURE. But that's another reason I'd prefer the 419 (apart from the fact it's far more pimpin' than the Li'l Jene)...


----------



## Arcb

No doubt the 319 is just a scaled down Open 60... Especially in its stock Cat A form with no autopilot, dodger or watermaker. So now it sounds like you are saying Cat A boats are blue water boats, but in some cases will need significant modifications and upgrades for that purpose, because really, there is a whole lot more to this blue water boat thing than meeting minimum stability requirements. Interesting, I might decide not to run out and buy one after all.


----------



## ianjoub

Arcb said:


> Would you take that boat across the Atlantic knowing there is a possibility of a sustained force 8 gale in your path. Would you. Would Smack, would George B.


Would you leave port in any recreational sailboat knowing that?


----------



## gonecrusin

GeorgeB said:


> Ok, I've got a credit card handy, where on the EU website(s) do I purchase them? It's funny that FAR, MILSTD, MILSPEC building codes, and ISO are all in the public domain but a directive that refers to the ISO is in private. How does one import a boat into the EU if they don't have access to them. (Heck, I can send you a thumb drive that will easily fit 6 -8 CDs)


https://www.nmma.org/certification/ce-certification


----------



## boatpoker

gonecrusin said:


> https://www.nmma.org/certification/ce-certification


Suggest you read your own link. These are not the directives. Several years ago I had to purchase two of the standards for an insurance investigation. They cost me around $700 and there are dozens of more standards. It took over two months to get a hold of those apparently secret standards. A degree in politispeak would be advised prior to reading that stuff.


----------



## colemj

Arcb said:


> the fuel range is what with 26 gallons. The fresh water range is what with 40 gallons.


Gotta be careful using tankage to define a BWB, or even characterize one. Pretty much all of the older designs that everyone says are BWB have abysmal tankage. This boat you mention has about the same tankage as a Westsail 32. The Pardeys made a career in blue water work with no fuel tank and a smaller water tank. The venerable Hinckley Bermuda 40 has a whopping 48gal of fuel, while the Crealock 37 only has 40gal.

Pretty much all of the "BWB as defined by old salts" boats I see under 40' have their decks completely lined with fuel and water jugs. Just to go to the Bahamas, let alone venture further. Wonder how that helps in stability and seaworthiness, compared to production boats with sufficient tankage down low.

In today's world, water tankage is almost meaningless because of relatively inexpensive and robust watermakers. We have a 100gal water tank and never fill it more than halfway. This leaves us 400lbs lighter on passage, which is important to a catamaran. At 30gal/hr, we can make water quickly when needed.

Mark


----------



## gonecrusin

boatpoker said:


> Suggest you read your own link. These are not the directives. Several years ago I had to purchase two of the standards for an insurance investigation. They cost me around $700 and there are dozens of more standards. It took over two months to get a hold of those apparently secret standards. A degree in politispeak would be advised prior to reading that stuff.


It did seem a bit thin for a 2 minute google......


----------



## colemj

Arcb said:


> Especially in its stock Cat A form with no autopilot, dodger or watermaker.


I'm pretty sure those are extra options for most boats regardless of production/BWB. And it is interesting that you define BWB by their inclusion.

Mark


----------



## ianjoub

colemj said:


> At 30gal/hr, we can make water quickly when needed.
> 
> Mark


Is that a typo? I ask honestly, I thought water makers were slower than that.


----------



## Arcb

colemj said:


> I'm pretty sure those are extra options for most boats regardless of production/BWB. And it is interesting that you define BWB by their inclusion.
> 
> Mark


Whoa, hang on, I'm not the one defining blue water boats, that was the thread starter you are thinking of.

Seems pretty certain you didn't read my posts about the responsibilitty being on the skipper to make any vessel ready for a voyage prior to taking it. That's regardless of whether we are taking one of Smacks Blue Water Boats (as defined in the thread title) or a Folkboat.

The skipper can use the CE certification as a box he can check off on his list, but if he starts off by buying what some dude on the internet told him was a blue water boat (in this thread, not me, the thread starter), he might have problems.

I am actually pretty casual about what I take out on open water. But, I don't worry too much about what boat strangers on the internet think I should sail.


----------



## GeorgeB

Jeff, sorry for getting a little hot under the collar. This ECD search should be straight forward but has turned out to be quite byzantine in a way only Europeans could devise. In reading the ECD and the RSG CE Guidelines (incidentally, the current version is 2016) I see no further references to the various categories other than what’s in Smack’s table. No references in the Annex’s either. I don’t know if they are buried within the individual ISO documents (perhaps you can make a screen shot of one, say EN ISO 12216:2002 Small craft - Windows, portlights, hatches, deadlights and doors - Strength and tightness requirements. I figure that if CAT A must be in compliance with every directive, annex and underlying ISO, then this is a very high standard rather than a “low” one. For example, under Quality Assurance/ Inspections, the builder must be in compliance with ISO 9002 which would be cost prohibitive to most small builders, no matter how “blue water” their boats might be. You are right, I don’t need the complete ISO library (could care less about Danube barge construction). I did find a website, but they are written in French, the RYC wants 200£ membership before I can see the “free” document. But they do have what I assume is a compliance matrix. To import a “Blue Water” boat into the EC, starts at 2,200€ and that’s assuming they do not have to write a ECD compliant owner’s manual. My conclusion to all of this is 1) the Europeans have a lot of rules, And, 2) The ECD and their underlining documents are pretty comprehensive and in my opinion, mark a pretty high standard and not a low, basement, one. Jeff, if you can find section in the ECD that is substandard, please post it so we can all see.

In the “for what it’s worth” column, In Spain, you cannot legally sail your CAT B boat further than 10 kilometers from land without an exemption. Beyond that only CAT A boats.


----------



## smackdaddy

Arcb said:


> No doubt the 319 is just a scaled down Open 60... Especially in its stock Cat A form with no autopilot, dodger or watermaker. So now it sounds like you are saying Cat A boats are blue water boats, but in some cases will need significant modifications and upgrades for that purpose, because really, there is a whole lot more to this blue water boat thing than meeting minimum stability requirements. Interesting, I might decide not to run out and buy one after all.


Again, this is the problem with trying to define the term "blue water". On forums, the term has always been "exclusive". In other words, ONLY this boat or that boat BELONGS in *real* "blue water" (whatever that is). And that's ultimately a silly and indefensible way to think. It is completely and utterly subjective based on the indefinable. It is no standard at all. Yet, as Out pointed out above, there are extensive online lists of boats that fall under this nebulous "category", requirements of cruising rallies that use this term to separate themselves from other rallies, thread after thread trying to find out what it is, and boat owner after boat owner saying theirs is and yours isn't, etc. So I very facetiously use the term in the title of this thread to break down that perceived exclusivity and highlight its many problems. And I make no apologies for that. And here's why...

For the exclusive notion of "blue water" to exist outside of this Cat A discussion, *you need to be able to define exactly where this "blue water" is that the Cat A standard does NOT cover in relation to cruising.* Go back to Hal Roth's book. He's sailed 40 years and 200K miles across the planet and he doesn't seem to have found it. So why do so many on forums believe it exists and only a very narrow group of boats can go there?

Maybe the question should be how many boats on the bluewaterboats.org site meet the Cat A standard?

So, I'm going to stop debating you here Arc - because you're just being hyperbolic and not logical. As I've said from the beginning the Cat A boats can and already do what the rating says they can do. It's nothing more than that. Whether you want to call them "blue water boats" or not doesn't matter a whit to me. But they are frequently and increasingly sailing all over the planet's oceans including blue water. That's undeniable.

That said. *No.* I would definitely not want to do long passages in the Li'l Jene. But the Li'l Jene can handle the stated conditions and is limited in other areas just like any other boat (note that its rating doesn't list the number aboard like the other boats). So it's definitely the bare minimum - just like any rational and honest person will understand. Remember, even the Jene SO 51 has no dodger and "limited" tankage (63g fuel and 162g water). So don't get caught up in this "stock" mentality.


----------



## boatpoker

GeorgeB said:


> Jeff, sorry for getting a little hot under the collar. This ECD search should be straight forward but has turned out to be quite byzantine in a way only Europeans could devise. In reading the ECD and the RSG CE Guidelines (incidentally, the current version is 2016) I see no further references to the various categories other than what's in Smack's table. No references in the Annex's either. I don't know if they are buried within the individual ISO documents (perhaps you can make a screen shot of one, say EN ISO 12216:2002 Small craft - Windows, portlights, hatches, deadlights and doors - Strength and tightness requirements. I figure that if CAT A must be in compliance with every directive, annex and underlying ISO, then this is a very high standard rather than a "low" one. For example, under Quality Assurance/ Inspections, the builder must be in compliance with ISO 9002 which would be cost prohibitive to most small builders, no matter how "blue water" their boats might be. You are right, I don't need the complete ISO library (could care less about Danube barge construction). I did find a website, but they are written in French, the RYC wants 200£ membership before I can see the "free" document. But they do have what I assume is a compliance matrix. To import a "Blue Water" boat into the EC, starts at 2,200€ and that's assuming they do not have to write a ECD compliant owner's manual. My conclusion to all of this is 1) the Europeans have a lot of rules, And, 2) The ECD and their underlining documents are pretty comprehensive and in my opinion, mark a pretty high standard and not a low, basement, one. Jeff, if you can find section in the ECD that is substandard, please post it so we can all see.
> 
> In the "for what it's worth" column, In Spain, you cannot legally sail your CAT B boat further than 10 kilometers from land without an exemption. Beyond that only CAT A boats.


I'd love to see the official standard that permits Beneteau, Dufour, Jeanneau, Bavaria and Hanse to install brass (Yes ! Brass ! ) NPS throughulls with brass NPT ball valves instead of real seacocks.


----------



## Arcb

I'm not caught up in any stock mentality. Have you seen the boats I sail?

Here's the problem. This thread is like every other blue water thread before it. It's same exclusive us are better than you because we have real blue water boats but you don't. 

But instead of big tanks, two ends, and full keels, the exclusive right to enter this blue water club is a steel ISO plaque epoxied to a bulk head.

And it looks to me as though a powerful European lobby group ensured that only boats above a certain price point get that plaque. As near as I can tell, Catalina doesn't even participate in this program, and they have lots of nice boats, maybe George can let us know if he has that ISO plaque on his bulkhead.


----------



## GeorgeB

Catalina does and my C34 in particular, carries the EC plaque of approval. You need to do a modicum of research if you wish to contribute anything of value.


----------



## GeorgeB

Boat Poker, what is your contention with the EC standard? Is it the Brass? Or the combination of NPS and NPT threads or that the thru hull is NPS and brass? Forespar’s Marlon thru hulls are covered in the applicable ISO standard.


----------



## Arcb

GeorgeB said:


> Catalina does and my C34 in particular, carries the EC plaque of approval. You need to do a modicum of research if you wish to contribute anything of value.


What's an EC plaque of approval. I thought it was a rating system. A, B, C or D.


----------



## smackdaddy

Arcb said:


> ]Here's the problem. This thread is like every other blue water thread before it. It's same exclusive us are better than you because we have real blue water boats but you don't.


I see George already corrected you above on the Catalina thing (which I'd also already mentioned earlier).

And no, this thread is about INCLUDING production boats in a mythical arena they've been very wrongly EXCLUDED from for a very long time.


----------



## Arcb

Yes, good to know he knows his own boat. You might be surprised to know I don't spend a lot of time on Catalinas. 

All Catalinas over 30 feet have the same EC rating as the Jeneau 319.

Did you know that apparently, if you get the fin keeled polish built Tes 28, you can get a CE cat A rating for it? That's what it says on their Canadian sales site any way. Who knows what to believe though.

Same as a 60 foot Oyster. The Tes 28 and the Oyster. Who would have thunk they were equals.

I would love to see the stats on how many of those vessels are making transatlantic voyages.


----------



## boatpoker

GeorgeB said:


> Boat Poker, what is your contention with the EC standard? Is it the Brass? Or the combination of NPS and NPT threads or that the thru hull is NPS and brass? Forespar's Marlon thru hulls are covered in the applicable ISO standard.


It would take me hours to count the number of surveys I've done with the issues shown in This Article. Mainesail also has some great stuff on his website with the same issues.

There is much similar stupidity in many of their other standards ... propane and electrical .... but that's for another thread


----------



## smackdaddy

This is what Poker is talking about in terms of the standard (from the article with a link to the ISO added)...



> The standard for metallic seacocks and through-hull fittings *(IS0 9093-1)* states: 'Materials used shall be corrosion-resistant...' But amazingly, the directive defines corrosion-resistant as: 'a material which, within a service time of five years, does not display any defect that will impair tightness, strength or function.'


And this is the apparently desired standard:



> A decades-old bronze Blakes seacock: good for another 30 years or more...


----------



## boatpoker

You may not have noticed but I have not and will not comment on this BWB issue. I am concerned that people believe this politically and financially motivated piece of marketing from the EEC. These are the same standards that permit Beneteau/Jeanneau to have side opening propane locker opening directly over non-ignition protected engine compartment hatches. These are the same Standards that permit Jeanneau to put 22 brass so called seacocks in their 54', some of them not accessible from inside the boat, gear clamps on propane hoses ... I could go on and on for hours.

I simply don't trust their standards.


----------



## smackdaddy

Okay Poker. I understand. But as you say, that's not really what we're talking about here.


----------



## boatpoker

smackdaddy said:


> Okay Poker. I understand. But as you say, that's not really what we're talking about here.


I'm not so sure. I don't trust their standards but are not the ABC ratings derived from those standards ?


----------



## Rocky Mountain Breeze

Okay, I have wasted a lot of time reading to this point so I will give my $.02 worth. In my business we are required to meet standards (International Building Codes) for installation of equipment in order to get the bureaucratic seal of approval. If the equipment is not sufficient for the task, or does not deliver the performance predicted by the architect, consulting engineer, or Code, I am the one left to make it work, none of those who had all the "knowledge" of how it should have been done take any of the liability. You should think of sailboat standards the same way. **** happens and the owner should be held responsible for using good judgement, which is the elephant in the room being dodged here. Put your ego's aside and try, try very hard, to think rationally.


----------



## smackdaddy

boatpoker said:


> I'm not so sure. I don't trust their standards but are not the ABC ratings derived from those standards ?


My point is that the details you are highlighting lead down several other rabbit holes that are best hashed out in a separate thread. Then people can decide if what you're presenting there affects what we're discussing here.

For example, the 5 year brass thing. If this is the widespread timebomb implied in the article, why aren't Jenes on the bottom of marinas all over the place? Maybe because people are maintaining their boats and replacing seacocks every 5 years? Maybe they are lasting longer than 5 years? Maybe they are using some other material now? I don't know - but I've certainly not seen a lot of stories about actual sinkings.

Also, you talk about surveying boats and finding crazy things. I don't doubt you at all - but I assume that they are primarily used boats. Who knows what owners have done to them? For example, here is the drainage schematic for a Jeanneau SO54...










I think I count 18 seacocks as standard. Were the other 4 you're talking about, including the inaccessible ones, aftermarket? Are some of these 18 inaccessible?

My point is for this kind of info to really be useful *in evaluating the CE standard itself*, it needs to be backed up factually and confirmed that it is a common, widespread, and ongoing practice in all the boats being turned out by a brand. What you see as a surveyor is a lot murkier than what is coming straight out of the factory.

Again, I'm not saying you're wrong - but it's just not a rabbit hole I want to go down in this thread - nor is it one that affects whether boats are performing up to the Cat A standard as this thread is focused on. It's just a different subject.


----------



## blt2ski

For some history on that lil Jen folks have used as an example, It is actually a Delphia 31, that was BOTY in 2012. Delphia and Jeanneau have a history going back many years, with the Dephia yard building Jeanneau boats. 
The tank size, while maybe small for some, does allow per the CE A standard, 50 hrs of motoring at 80% of hull speed, or about the equal to the square root of hull speed. If it does not meet this spec, it is not a Cat A boat, among many other items needing to be met. 
New smaller Jeanneau - SO319 unveiled | Jeanneau Owners Forum link to more info on Jeanneau-owners site

As far as taking it off shore, I would take this Jeanneau off shore. It would need some upgrades from where it sits now......that is a different issue and story. It is smaller than the 319 too, by about 2', and 5/8 the weight! It does have a few things I feel design wise are better than some of the newer ones, both from jeanneau and other brands frankly! My swag, is the 319 would go off shore in the conditions needed to meet the cat A standard, and get from point A to B. Would it get thru a katrina or equal.......that is another story.

This standard is no different that other build standards. Be it housing, office buildings, sky scrapers, cars, trucks, tractors etc. ALL usually have a minimum standard on how to measure some of the end results needed. No different than the walls I build that need to be engineered to meet certain standards, get thru city/county building code laws etc. Or drainage I do in landscapes...........

My boat in the article listed, was a pre CE B equal. Much of the design standards are in Cat A boats. Are there enough handholds below, no! No it does NOT have a dodger.....don't want one! It finally has an auto pilot as of 2 years ago. Very helpful when short handed, ie just me! It would not do well off shore as of 2 weeks ago, I removed the overflow for the head. As I really do not plan on taking it offshore enough to dump head legally overboard! that would have to be added back so my ~20 gal tank would not be full depending upon how many days at sea I would be......

BP mentioned in the FB post smackers did, he is reading the build specs in New Zealand.......min berth size is 72"L x 18" wide......not his standard mind you. Then again, he is around 6.5' tall, and a bit wider than 18"! I beleive the person wanting a boat buile in NZ is a bit bigger like BP! On the other hand, a semi famous, now defunct poster of a few years ago, had on HIS custom built boat, things a bit lower than normal, as he and his spouse were a bit smaller in stature! Would Bob want to be on that boat for long, Probably not, but BP seemed to appreciate that boat. mentioned that boat and a picture of the keel as I recall, on page 18 of the July-August 2010 issue of GOB......oh yeah, 2 pages after the boat review in GOB linked above! I have that rag around the house somewhere!

With this all in mind, choose your boat wisely for the activity you have in mind. IF you want to go HIGH LATITUDE sailing, ie arctic or Antarctic, You may very well want a boat built to stranger standards than Cat A. Then again, a Sun Fast 37 built by Jeanneau got into the Arctic circle in winter, did generally speaking just fine. This is a race version of the SO37, that WAS the highest built numbers boat by Jeanneau until the 409/419 derivative out currently. Certainly, Jeanneau's CAN handle extreme winds. I've been in 35-45 knot winds in mine, did fine, as long as she was reefed etc per the wind and sea state!

Marty


----------



## blt2ski

Smack,

Per some, ok, many threads on the Jeanneau-owners site, and FB page, the stock thru hull setups seem to be lasting 5.5-8 years as I noted earlier in this thread. Some of us with older one, have the higher "copper" content bronze vs brass valves. I got 33 years before I replaced them the last 2 weeks of October with marlon Forespar versions. I believe you would find the same issues at other brand oriented forums like Beneteau, Hanse, etal!

Marty


----------



## smackdaddy

From what I can see, all of Fontaine Pajot's cats are Category A...










...as are Leopards...










...and Outremers...










It's a bit harder to find for the cats - but various sites mention it for various models.

PS - That Lucia 40 gives me a Portland Pudgy.


----------



## outbound

Have read through the posts and it seems they just confirm my opinion that cat A has little or nothing to do with how thoughtful people envisioning a blue water program buy boats. As I said before it seems to be an impaired floor. I would add even within the cat A offerings by the large manufacturers there are boats better and not well suited for blue water work.
I never never said that all cat A production boats are not suitable for blue water passages. I count as friends the couple who founded sdr. Their Jenneau has more blue water miles under her keel then nearly everyone posting here. Still I believe they recognize that there are many non cat A boats that are excellent in fact superlative bwbs as there are cat A vessels that are poor choices for that activity.
For $550k you can have a gentleman in B.C. build you a Lyle Hess channel cutter 34’. F. Mate included it in his book as a remarkable bwb and all the sailing rags commented on how well suited it is for this activity. I’ve been in contact with the builder. The boat is NOT cat A. In fact it is not built to any formal rule. I can mention a list of one offs where again the EU rule was not consulted in construction or design. Perhaps they meet the rule. Perhaps not. In short I believe it is uninformed and not helpful to make the post that is the title of this thread. Rather if argument is wanted discussing the specific design and construction details of specific boats would be more educational and entertaining.


----------



## gonecrusin

boatpoker said:


> You may not have noticed but I have not and will not comment on this BWB issue. I am concerned that people believe this politically and financially motivated piece of marketing from the EEC. These are the same standards that permit Beneteau/Jeanneau to have side opening propane locker opening directly over non-ignition protected engine compartment hatches. These are the same Standards that permit Jeanneau to put 22 brass so called seacocks in their 54', some of them not accessible from inside the boat, gear clamps on propane hoses ... I could go on and on for hours.
> 
> I simply don't trust their standards.


If you don't trust the standards that make a boat Cat A then the boat, by default, cannot be a BWB. It seems there are too many Cat A boats with construction problems: brass skin fittings, bulkheads breaking loose, hull and decks separating, hulls cracking and leaking windows for Cat A to be a meaningful indicator of build quality. Cat A seemingly has nothing to do with construction standards or the robustness of a boat to qualify it for blue water sailing.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

100 posts and I have not replied!

Yippee!

Why?

Because these B.S. threads are always the same.
Started by someone in a Production Boat or an anti-production boat troll: Check

Lots of high tech long worded drivel: Check

People saying "I've read the thread and all boats except mine are crap": Check

Lots of forum people who could have spent their retirement safely cruising the world are now put off.

Glad I didn't read any of it.

:nerd


----------



## colemj

ianjoub said:


> Is that a typo? I ask honestly, I thought water makers were slower than that.


30gal/hr isn't even a high capacity one. Granted, many of the 12V systems available peter out at ~15gal/hr or so, and many people drink the koolaid of 2-3gal/hr is plenty, but 20-40gal/hr AC (and even DC) powered systems are becoming very popular now with relatively inexpensive power systems available like large solar arrays, suitcase generators, large capacity battery banks, etc.

Mark


----------



## colemj

Arcb said:


> Whoa, hang on, I'm not the one defining blue water boats, that was the thread starter you are thinking of.
> 
> Seems pretty certain you didn't read my posts about the responsibilitty being on the skipper to make any vessel ready for a voyage prior to taking it. That's regardless of whether we are taking one of Smacks Blue Water Boats (as defined in the thread title) or a Folkboat.
> 
> The skipper can use the CE certification as a box he can check off on his list, but if he starts off by buying what some dude on the internet told him was a blue water boat (in this thread, not me, the thread starter), he might have problems.
> 
> I am actually pretty casual about what I take out on open water. But, I don't worry too much about what boat strangers on the internet think I should sail.


Perhaps I misread your posts. You mentioned small tankage size twice, and lack of dodger/autopilot twice, and lack of watermaker once, in implying what you thought did not make a good BWB example.

My point was that almost all BWB's of the past (of anyone's description) didn't have these, and that they are options when buying pretty much most boats today, and found it interesting that their inclusion/exclusion might be a defining characteristic for some.

It is the last point that speaks to all of these threads - people seem to have pet characteristics that define BWB's to them. I bet in the Oyster owner's group there are arguments raging about whether certain models are true BWB's depending on if they have the OEM aluminum foil on their windows or aftermarket...

Mark


----------



## Arcb

colemj said:


> Perhaps I misread your posts. You mentioned small tankage size twice, and lack of dodger/autopilot twice, and lack of watermaker once, in implying what you thought did not make a good BWB example.
> 
> My point was that almost all BWB's of the past (of anyone's description) didn't have these, and that they are options when buying pretty much most boats today, and found it interesting that their inclusion/exclusion might be a defining characteristic for some.
> 
> It is the last point that speaks to all of these threads - people seem to have pet characteristics that define BWB's to them. I bet in the Oyster owner's group there are arguments raging about whether certain models are true BWB's depending on if they have the OEM aluminum foil on their windows or aftermarket...
> 
> Mark


Absolutely not, my last boat, I think qualified as a boat people would feel okay off shore on. It didn't have or need a water maker (older boat, so she had a metric ton of fresh water).

However, for a multi week trip on the little Jeneau (I like small boats by the way), I think it would be nice to have a water maker to compensate for it's 40 gallon water tank.

Same thing with the auotpilot and dodger comments. I was speaking specifically to modifications I would want to make to that boat. That is an ultra exposed cockpit, open at the stern, and limited protection forward due to the high cockpit sole.

If you had to hand steer that boat in F8+ conditions with no dodger, it would suck. I don't care how much more experience somebody may have than me, breaking wave after breaking wave in the face would suck. And running before 15-20 foot seas with no protection aft would be pretty scary and suck.

I was speaking specifically to modifications I would want to make before I personally would take that specific stock boat out, in 13+ foot seas and force 8+ winds (keeping in mind, Cat B, includes force 8, so Cat A exceeds Force 8, so we are talking about sustained Force 9+ open ocean).


----------



## Don L

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Lots of forum people who could have spent their retirement safely cruising the world are now put off.


I doubt that. If it were true that people really make their decisions on what boat to get based on 20+ year old books and forum threads the major builders would be making different boats to meet the market demand. I'm sure that will start some thread of how dumb current buyers are and how they never go anywhere etc. :frown

At the most it costs some people money going down the rabbit hole. People like me who got influenced by this crap and got a "real" boat initially before getting over it. All I got out of "what type of boat" threads and my 2 years of ownership of the 'real" boat was a $15k lesson on just how good a modern Hunter really was.


----------



## ianjoub

smackdaddy said:


> I think I count 18 seacocks as standard. Were the other 4 you're talking about, including the inaccessible ones, aftermarket? Are some of these 18 inaccessible?


I count 22 in your pic.


----------



## blt2ski

ianjoub said:


> I count 22 in your pic.


I'm counting 14 or 22 depending on front Vee area chosen.

Marty


----------



## smackdaddy

blt2ski said:


> I'm counting 14 or 22 depending on front Vee area chosen.
> 
> Marty


Yep - you're right. So I'm still wondering which of these are inaccessible.


----------



## smackdaddy

colemj said:


> I bet in the Oyster owner's group there are arguments raging about whether certain models are true BWB's depending on if they have the OEM aluminum foil on their windows or aftermarket...


Hey! Watch it mister!

Actually, I started a thread over there called "My Hunter is now an Oyster". Everyone thus far has been in polite and enthusiastic agreement.

My user name there is BlueBlazerAscotBoy.


----------



## smackdaddy

Don0190 said:


> At the most it costs some people money going down the rabbit hole. People like me who got influenced by this crap and got a "real" boat initially before getting over it. All I got out of "what type of boat" threads and my 2 years of ownership of the 'real" boat was a $15k lesson on just how good a modern Hunter really was.


That's a pretty clear indication of why some clarity is needed out there.


----------



## Arcb

Don0190 said:


> I doubt that. If it were true that people really make their decisions on what boat to get based on 20+ year old books and forum threads the major builders would be making different boats to meet the market demand. I'm sure that will start some thread of how dumb current buyers are and how they never go anywhere etc. :frown
> 
> At the most it costs some people money going down the rabbit hole. People like me who got influenced by this crap and got a "real" boat initially before getting over it. All I got out of "what type of boat" threads and my 2 years of ownership of the 'real" boat was a $15k lesson on just how good a modern Hunter really was.


How is this thread any different than the ones that convinced you to buy an old tank.

This thread is pitching any boat carrying a CE cat A as a blue water distance cruiser, even when the companies own web site use descriptors like "entry level family cruiser", "fast coastal cruiser".

This one might be worse than those threads, pushing 28 and 29 foot family coastal cruisers as blue water distance cruisers because they have some stamp of approval on them.

It is no different than traditional bwb threads, it pushes a singular feature on a boat as being the prerequisite for blue water cruising (whatever that means), except in this case, that singular feature is a plaque epoxied to a bulk head.


----------



## smackdaddy

Arcb said:


> This thread is pitching any boat carrying a CE cat A as a blue water distance cruiser, even when the companies own web site use descriptors like "entry level family cruiser", "fast coastal cruiser".
> 
> This one might be worse than those threads, pushing 28 and 29 foot family coastal cruisers as blue water distance cruisers because they have some stamp of approval on them.
> 
> It is no different than traditional bwb threads, it pushes a singular feature on a boat as being the prerequisite for blue water cruising (whatever that means), except in this case, that singular feature is a plaque epoxied to a bulk head.


Well if you really think this to be the case - let me resolve it for our readers...

You should exercise some judgement here - which I'm confident most everyone understands. We've already discussed the issue of safety between Arc's example of the Contessa vs. the Li'l Jene. The Li'l Jene, having a Cat A designation means it's a safer boat than the Contessa (some of which have circumnavigated).

But what does the designation mean beyond that? Well, as we've already discussed, much of that depends on what YOU want and need based on your envisioned trip. With the Cat A designation we know that she's safe and can handle heavy weather. But take a closer look at that designation...










Now compare that with the designation with the next size up, the 349...










Do you notice the lack of number beside the "A" for the Li'l Jene? Here is the definition of that number...



> Since the number of people onboard can impact a boat's seaworthiness, changing the number of people on the boat can also change its category, with more people aboard -- and more weight and potentially less stability -- putting a boat into the next lower category.
> 
> While the European standards are no guarantee that a boat will be suitable in all respects for the conditions in its designated category, they help to separate the purely inshore craft from those capable of operating safely in more demanding conditions.


Now let's compare that designation of the Li'l Jene with the Li'l Bene...










So, if I'm considering buying a boat and and not just blindly stumbling along I will have a few questions for the Jeanneau dealer. What does it mean that the L'il Jene has no number associated with the A designation? Does it mean that the boat can't have any people on board during it's circumnavigation? That sure solves the tankage issues and saves you a lot of money on dodgers, watermakers, etc. Does it mean that if one person steps aboard the designation drops to B? Or does it mean that it's really intended for coastal hopping (i.e. - the absolute minimum on the "extended voyage" definition) for one or two people aboard max - but is built to handle the Cat A conditions - where the Bene is not? (This would be my hunch).

But I, personally, don't know the answer to this - which is why I'd ask if I were you before blindly dropping 100 large because of this thread. Even so, I think that most rational people would not be looking at this particular boat for crossings or a circumnavigation. But I also think if I were looking for a small coastal cruiser, I'd be impressed at this Cat A rating over the Cat B rating of the Bene.

So, as the OP of this thread - and to put this hyperbole to bed once and for all - *"This thread is NOT pitching ANY boat carrying a CE cat A as a blue water distance cruiser."* - depending on what is in your mind regarding that "distance" - and what is in your mind regarding "blue water".

But I will conclude with this - facing F8+ conditions *in the ocean* 10-20 miles off the coast (what many deem "coastal cruising") will test you and your boat just as heartily as it will 700 miles off that same coast - maybe more depending on underwater topography. Furthermore, in many places in the world, you will NOT want to try to duck into an entrance in those conditions. So you'll be at sea with all the other blue water boats until things calm. And you might even have to rescue the dude in the Contessa.

Just think a little bit. I trust your judgement.


----------



## capta

smackdaddy said:


> So, you can listen to experienced nautical architects and engineers, and sailors with decades and hundreds of thousands of miles under their keel - or you can listen to forum posters who seem to get into trouble A LOT due to what can only be an obvious lack of "care and planning" according to Roth.
> I don't think that's a difficult call to make.


This post immediately brings to mind the Corvair, the Fiero and over nine million General Motors pickup trucks built in the '70s and '80s with an added "feature" that made those trucks deadly. All these vehicles were designed by supposedly competent *engineers* and certified by some governmental inspection agency or another, yet are/were fatal to drive, by even the most competent and experienced driver.
Designers design to a certain level of construction cost and builders build with the bottom line in mind. There are many high quality ocean capable vessels being produced today. There many more that are not designed nor built as ocean capable vessels, yet have circumnavigated. That still does not change the *fact* that those vessels were not designed for that purpose, and one is adding more risk to an already risky endeavor, sailing one offshore.
"Care and planning" can only take one so far. Skill and experience far outweigh "care and planning" in my book, as that is what will get one through a difficult situation that one could not possibly plan for. Aren't you one of the ones who keeps harping, "Sh*t happens..." when going sailing?


----------



## gonecrusin

MarkofSeaLife said:


> 100 posts and I have not replied!
> 
> Yippee!
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because these B.S. threads are always the same.
> Started by someone in a Production Boat or an anti-production boat troll: Check
> 
> Lots of high tech long worded drivel: Check
> 
> People saying "I've read the thread and all boats except mine are crap": Check
> 
> Lots of forum people who could have spent their retirement safely cruising the world are now put off.
> 
> Glad I didn't read any of it.
> 
> :nerd


Mark, I have a lot of respect for you and believe you are a very good seaman, you do it right and your miles prove it. But these are good discussions to have and they open peoples eyes to what is on the market and how they are built. To just say it's Cat A and blue water ready is misleading at best. It is much more important to look at structure and construction technique then a silly plaque stuck to a bulkhead.

You commented here and felt inspection of the structure of your own boat was in order.

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f47/oceanis-485-steering-failure-160096-10.html

Who would want to spend a chunk of their retirement monies on something like this? It's better to have this information out in the public domain. It's better to have these conversations here before writing a check, it's better to have these conversations here before finding the rudder going walkabout while sailing the north Atlantic.


----------



## gonecrusin

smackdaddy said:


> *"This thread is NOT pitching ANY boat carrying a CE cat A as a blue water distance cruiser."*.


Of course you are. The title is CE Category A Production Boats *ARE *Blue Water Boats.


----------



## smackdaddy

George - regarding that crew-number-to-CEcategory-designation issue I mentioned above, I found what I think is the related ISO directive here:

ISO 12217

I have no idea if this particular doc is current or even legit - but it looks like it is. Maybe Jeff can confirm.

I'm planning to look through it and compare it to the ISAF-OSR regs and see how the Cat A designation lines up with Cat 0 for example.


----------



## overbored

gonecrusin said:


> Of course you are. The title is CE Category A Production Boats *ARE *Blue Water Boats.


Nice catch.

So now what do we do discuss what makes it a BWB?


----------



## smackdaddy

overbored said:


> Nice catch.
> 
> So now what do we do discuss what makes it a BWB?


Yeah, that's why I included this, which he cut out...



> - depending on what is in your mind regarding that "distance" - and what is in your mind regarding "blue water"


So I still stand by exactly what I've posted. If people want to ignore the details - I can't help them. It really does amaze and amuse me how the term "blue water" is infuriating so many people. It means nothing.


----------



## Faster

gonecrusin said:


> Of course you are. The title is CE Category A Production Boats *ARE *Blue Water Boats.


So perhaps the title ought to be "ARE CE Cat A production boats 'blue water boats'?"


----------



## gonecrusin

overbored said:


> Nice catch.
> 
> So now what do we do discuss what makes it a BWB?


No. I think the conversation should be directed to; how production boats are used, what are successful strategies for using production boats and what failings the boats have as a warning to others. IMO Cat A isn't worth the cost of the sticker on the bulkhead but the people who sail these boats and the people who repair them are an invaluable resource. Don, Mark and Smack use their boats appropriately and seem to be having a wonderful time with them.

I've owned white production boats, they have been fun to sail, very economical and a joy to own. Were they especially durable, no I ended up replacing stringers and bulkheads and they tended to get soft.


----------



## smackdaddy

Faster said:


> So perhaps the title ought to be "ARE CE Cat A production boats 'blue water boats'?"


No, Fast. The title is exactly what it should be. Again, the onus is on someone that is uncomfortable with this title to explain to me where this "blue water" of theirs is that is NOT included in this Cat A designation...



> Category A - Ocean: covers largely self-sufficient boats designed for extended voyages with winds of over Beaufort Force 8 (over 40 knots), and significant wave heights above 13 feet, but excluding abnormal conditions such as hurricanes.


If someone can explain to me where such "blue water" is and why only certain boats can go there, then I'm happy to have the title changed.

No one has been able to do that thus far.


----------



## aa3jy

Faster said:


> gonecrusin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you are. The title is CE Category A Production Boats *ARE *Blue Water Boats.
> 
> 
> 
> So perhaps the title ought to be "ARE CE Cat A production boats 'blue water boats'?"
Click to expand...

Believe it or not the Beneteau Ocean series are CE Cat A..brass through hulls and all..


----------



## gonecrusin

Faster said:


> So perhaps the title ought to be "ARE CE Cat A production boats 'blue water boats'?"


I said that very early in the conversation. Had Smack said "IMO CE Cat A production ARE boats blue water boats", we would not be having a discussion. We are all entitled to our opinion.


----------



## gonecrusin

smackdaddy said:


> No, Fast. The title is exactly what it should be. Again, the onus is on someone that is uncomfortable with this title to explain to me where this "blue water" of theirs is that is NOT included in this Cat A designation...
> 
> If someone can explain to me where such "blue water" is and why only certain boats can go there, then I'm happy to have the title changed.
> 
> No one has been able to do that thus far.


There's the Smack we all know, Pedantic Smack! But I do love you!!


----------



## smackdaddy

-TIMEOUT-

Okay - I need to hit the pause button and ask the moderators a question here...

My intent here was not to create "another production boats thread" that just turns into vague uselessness. But as you can clearly see, there seems to be the same kind of shouting down that was going on in that thread. I ask you to take an objective look at the shouting. Because I have a strong hunch this is going to continue (again) until you have to make a call anyway.

What I've done with this thread is focused on a *very clear and defensible standard* (not my own) about what these Cat A production boats are suited for. And I've been very methodical about presenting facts and evidence for everything I'm saying regarding that standard and those boats. I've not needlessly argued with people. I've not insisted that they agree with me. I've not gotten personal with anyone. I've not reported anyone. None of that. I've just presented facts. And I will continue to do so.

On the other hand, there is a growing chorus of posters who are demanding that the title of this thread be changed, that the term "blue water" cannot be used here (though no one can define it), that the entirety of the CE standards are invalid for this reason or that, etc. Yet I've not seen one piece of actual evidence shown for any of it.

In fact, the only detailed definition for a "blue water boat" I've seen put forth is a boat that can sail in hurricanes for days with no damage. And no one has corrected that.

So, if you think that what I am doing here is against the rules of the forum - or somehow wrong. Please at least let me know in this thread why you see it that way - and then feel free to close it.

I (along with George and a couple of others) truly am/are trying to make this an informative thread for new production boat buyers. And I see no reason the "blue water boat" crowd should be able to shout that down without good reason.


----------



## Don L

Later today I’m going to enjoy some BWB


That stands for Beer Wine Bourdon right?


----------



## GeorgeB

Man, you guys have been very busy – doesn’t anybody work anymore? So much to comment on (and that’s just not responding to the neigh sayers). Smack, the JSA Webstore was one of websites I was looking at yesterday. How did you find this doc? Damn, you’re good. Someday we got to figure out how to arrange a meet and greet. The good folks at ISO have laid out in great technical detail what they attribute for a Cat A boat so you guys can start quibbling over what constitutes a proper opening size, angle of heel wind force, etc. But before you do, I suggest you fill out the 21 pages of worksheets with your own boat’s data so we can see how much your unrated “blue water” boat exceeds the Cat A standard. A lot of fun formulas to “play” with but the PITA for me is they are all in metric and my stuff is in English. But seeing that my boat is already certified Cat A, I know that my piece of Tupperware meets or exceeds the standards presented in 12217-2 so I’m going to wait for a cold winters day to dig into this one. Mrs. B was complaining that yesterday I spent too much time inside on the computer so I’m going to sail on my nephew’s Wasa 54 this weekend. So hopefully that will give me a little blue water street cred for you guys.


----------



## colemj

Don0190 said:


> Later today I'm going to enjoy some BWB
> 
> That stands for Beer Wine Bourdon right?


You have to be really drunk on beer and wine before listening to a Bourdon drone on and on, so I recommend getting the first two down way before the last one.

Mark


----------



## boatpoker

smackdaddy said:


> *very clear and defensible standard*


I have no dispute with BWB boats but to call these politically motivated, EU economy motivated standards "defensible" ..... IMHO ..... BS.

PS You're still one of my favourite poster's and I am a Hunter fan


----------



## ianjoub

GeorgeB said:


> I suggest you fill out the 21 pages of worksheets with your own boat's data so we can see how much your unrated "blue water" boat exceeds the Cat A standard.


I am far too lazy for that. I was glad to see that the Oyster 675 I really like is considered light displacement though, D/L 177.


----------



## RichH

As Jeff_H has implied in an earlier post, many such 'standards' are constructed to eliminate foreign competition, enhance (state) 'preferred' trade groups, etc. etc. etc. (all as a downside). And on the upside, an attempt to provide a threshold for liability, and responsibility of casualty, etc. etc.

All this 'discussion' probably can be quickly brought to a quick conclusion by the following alternate method: International maritime insurance/underwriting !!!!
All you'd have to do is choose one or two 'production' boats (with and without Cat A CE certs), chose one or two top of the line to 'middling' cost purpose-designed BWBs, ..... and then for each - get a quote on a full value (international) insurance policy  ... for one complete circumnavigation. 
The ratio of 'real' cost of such boats DIVIDED by the quoted insurance policy cost should be substantially different and should be indicative of the (failure or loss) risk of someone taking a thinned-out coastal design vs. a purpose built BWB on a 'serious' long distance voyage/circumnavigation. Such a suggestion should be predicated by the realization that such underwriters make their 'actuarial bets' based on what historically succeeded without any casualty loss vs. what incurred a major casualty loss, ... or broke apart and then sank.

;-)


----------



## smackdaddy

GeorgeB said:


> Man, you guys have been very busy - doesn't anybody work anymore? So much to comment on (and that's just not responding to the neigh sayers). Smack, the JSA Webstore was one of websites I was looking at yesterday. How did you find this doc? Damn, you're good. Someday we got to figure out how to arrange a meet and greet. The good folks at ISO have laid out in great technical detail what they attribute for a Cat A boat so you guys can start quibbling over what constitutes a proper opening size, angle of heel wind force, etc. But before you do, I suggest you fill out the 21 pages of worksheets with your own boat's data so we can see how much your unrated "blue water" boat exceeds the Cat A standard. A lot of fun formulas to "play" with but the PITA for me is they are all in metric and my stuff is in English. But seeing that my boat is already certified Cat A, I know that my piece of Tupperware meets or exceeds the standards presented in 12217-2 so I'm going to wait for a cold winters day to dig into this one. Mrs. B was complaining that yesterday I spent too much time inside on the computer so I'm going to sail on my nephew's Wasa 54 this weekend. So hopefully that will give me a little blue water street cred for you guys.


No worries GB. It's just a gift I suppose. Heh.

I'm comparing the specs in that doc with the ISAF OSRs to give some clarity there. We'll see where the mods come down on this thread. If need be, I'll continue the conversation elsewhere.

And yeah, we do need to meet up some time. I need a trip to the west coast.


----------



## colemj

RichH said:


> The ratio of 'real' cost of such boats DIVIDED by the quoted insurance policy cost should be substantially different and should be indicative of the (failure or loss) risk of someone taking a thinned-out coastal design vs. a purpose built BWB on a 'serious' long distance voyage/circumnavigation.


You're hypothesis might be true, and I would argue that a thinned-out coastal design might not even be offered insurance for a RTW.

However, this thread is discussing CE Cat A production boats, not thinned-out coastal designs. I do not think there will be any insurance qualms about taking one of these RTW.

I would even bet a donut that a couple on an Oyster would have more trouble getting insurance for RTW than 4 adults on a Hunter. The actuarial statistics show the number of people on board is more determinant of a safe insurance bet than the type and build of boat.

Mark


----------



## smackdaddy

George - I'll leave you with this one last thing. Here is the ISO regulation regarding stability for the different Categories...










And here is the ISAF-OSR requirement for Cat 0 Monohulls...










I'll let you explain to people what this means.


----------



## RichH

colemj said:


> However, this thread is discussing CE Cat A production boats, not thinned-out coastal designs. I do not think there will be any insurance qualms about taking one of these RTW.
> Mark


Speculation really doesn't matter as that's apparently the 'problem' with the current 'thread', and is perhaps based on mostly unsupported speculation and attempted validation of past personal preferences based upon what one currently 'owns'.

Perhaps you'd agree to volunteer to do the leg-work of obtaining the quotes, etc.? ;-)


----------



## colemj

RichH said:


> Perhaps you'd agree to volunteer to do the leg-work of obtaining the quotes, etc.? ;-)


I've already done this to enough extent to know there isn't a difference. We get quotes regularly for our non-CE rated boat built as a semi-custom with higher build specs than most production CE cat A rated similar size catamarans, and these quotes are essentially identical with friends on the other boats, with the small differences being in the deductibles and the actual hull value.

Comparing our boat (and by proxy the CE-A catamarans) with full custom higher end builds shows the insurance differences being only reflecting the agreed hull value and deductible.

A bit of perusing some of the multihull forums, where the question of insurance comes up often, will show you that what people pay for insurance has no connection to the brand/model/perceived build quality/etc. It has all to do with agreed hull value, deductible, cruising grounds, and people on board for passages.

We have found some insurance companies won't provide coverage for offshore passages with only two people, while others will if the experience level of the two people are high.

Mark


----------



## Arcb

Um, tell me you guys didn't just find ISO 12217-2. Please tell me, you haven't been blindly pitching a standard you have never read.

I have been referencing it all along, I didn't share because I figured the experts would have had it in front of them while they were pitching the kool-aid.

Scary. Really scary. This is pretty basic stuff any modern boat over 30 feet or so should be able to meet with minimal effort, especially if a naval architect had it in front of him while he was designing the boat (which he would be incompetent not to). It doesn't mean the boat is going to be able to land on the moon. It just describes pretty well any boat of a certain size.

I especially like the signs you can post on points of down flooding saying do not open under way, so the boats can beat downflooding rules. That's awesome.

I also like the rules for boats that are too beamy to be self righting, they have to remain buoyant while upside down. Now that's a strict rule.


----------



## colemj

Arcb said:


> I also like the rules for boats that are too beamy to be self righting, they have to remain buoyant while upside down. Now that's a strict rule.


That's a multihull.

Mark


----------



## Arcb

colemj said:


> That's a multihull.
> 
> Mark


Take another read Mark. Its multi hulls and form stable monohulls.


----------



## colemj

Yes, I was just commenting that those characteristics are ones most multihulls can't avoid as it is inherent in their design and build. I don't get the sarcasm about the rule being "strict" - it seems natural for multis. Fulfilling that rule for monos must be pretty involved and difficult.

Unless you are implying that a boat that is designed to be stable and floating when upside down has no business in open waters. That would be as silly as saying one that could sink for any reason has no business there.

Mark


----------



## Eder

Heres all the CE Category A Production Boat I need...plug from the thru hull I just installed.


----------



## Arcb

No Mark, I am not implying anything, the rules speak for themselves. 

A wayfarer isn't self righting. a Laser isn't self righting, a Hobie Cat isn't self righting, but all remain buoyant when up side down. Its a common sense rule.


----------



## GeorgeB

Smack, you are really making me sing for my supper. In your table 5, you take your displacement in kilograms and multiply it by .002. You then subtract that product from 130 degrees and you get the calculated minimum AVS. Using the data from my boat, I need an AVS of 119 degrees. The tested AVS performed by Catalina for my boat is 129.62 degrees. My boat exceeds the standard (yay!) by ten degrees. 

According to SNAMES, offshore boats should have an AVS of over 120 degrees (yay again!). However, boats with an AVS of less than 140 degrees may not be self-righting when in an inverted condition (boo hoo!) A nice comparison number is the Pac Cup minimum of 105 degrees. Years ago, I got to see them do these AVS tests on Ocean Planet. Bruce and the designer were actually inside the cabin when the crane flipped over the boat where it was quite content to stay inverted. Bruce and the designer “ran” back and forth on the overhead to induce the righting moment. 

I got nervous looking at your second table until I realized it was for OSR regs for Cat 0. These are where my excel formulas have an error in them so I cannot compute them (a little help here guys). Suffice to say Catalina says my stability index (T) is 115. Not good enough to do the Vendee Globe, but I think I’ll manage.

Remember years ago when Simon Lebond’s boat turtled in a Fastnet race? I bet he’s real happy that the boat floated inverted. Me too, as we sometimes blare “Hungry Like a Wolf” from the loudspeaker when we’re transiting to the start line.


----------



## colemj

Arcb said:


> No Mark, I am not implying anything, the rules speak for themselves.
> 
> A wayfarer isn't self righting. a Laser isn't self righting, a Hobie Cat isn't self righting, but all remain buoyant when up side down. Its a common sense rule.


OK, then I'm just not getting it. It looks like sarcasm to me, but I'm sure that rule isn't meant to be applied in isolation of other rules leading to a class A rating.

Mark


----------



## Arcb

George, I hope you remembered to include your stores and each of your 75 kilo crew members! Wouldn't want to forget them. No doubt you remembered to calculate free surface due to slack tanks.


----------



## boatpoker

Eder said:


> Heres all the CE Category A Production Boat I need...plug from the thru hull I just installed.


That plug was taken from very close to the keel to be that thick, just like almost every other boat.

How about this brand new Lagoon 450 that was only 1/16" around the drive leg. The laminate was so thin the water was leaching through the hull. The dealer couldn't figure out where it was coming from. I was hired to find the source.


----------



## smackdaddy

Yeah - I kind of put you on the spot there George.

For those of you who may not know about the ISAF-OSR regs, here is a quick synopsis...



> The World Sailing Offshore Special Regulations (OSR) govern offshore racing for monohulls and multihulls, structural features, yacht equipment, personal equipment and training....


Now, somewhat like the CE standard, these regs are split into categories from Cat 0 - Cat 6...with Cat 0 being *the most stringent* - for this reason...



> 2.01.1
> *Category 0*
> Trans-oceanic races, including races which pass through areas in which air or sea temperatures are likely to be less than 5°C (41°F) other than temporarily, where boats must be completely self-sufficient for very extended periods of time, capable of withstanding heavy storms and prepared to meet serious emergencies without the expectation of outside assistance.


For some more reference, Cat 2 covers "Races of extended duration along or not far removed from shorelines or in large unprotected bays or lakes" (i.e. - "coastal" racing) and Cat 6 is inshore dinghy racing.

Now that you understand what Category 0 is in terms of the OSR regs, go back to my post above and compare these stability requirements (as just one data point) in the ISO 12217-2 doc on which the CE Category A standard is based.

*In short, Cat A rated production boats meet the strictest AVS standards that trans-oceanic racing boats have to meet - and vice versa.*

[I'll pause while you catch your breath.]

Now, before the howling starts - yes, you'd still have to calculate STIX, AGZ , IRC SSS, and all other kinds of things to meet that OSR rule to the letter (and I have no interest in doing all that math for you). And also this is *just* the stability factor in these regs/ratings. As has been noted there are a million other factors that go into *both* the OSR and CE Cat ratings (and you'll have to dig for all that on your own). *BUT*, in regards to the stability of a boat - which is pretty important I'd say - I'm comfortable that - with a couple of tweaks...



> Trans-oceanic cruising, including cruising which passes through areas in which air or sea temperatures are likely to be less than 5°C (41°F) other than temporarily, where boats must be completely self-sufficient for very extended periods of time, capable of withstanding heavy storms and prepared to meet serious emergencies without the expectation of outside assistance.


...definitely includes "blue water".


----------



## colemj

It would be helpful to see a larger perspective picture of that. From the closeup pic, I don't think the hull being thin there is an issue, and that looks more like a fairing plate for the outer rubber fairing to glue to.

Attached is a larger perspective picture of a saildrive opening from our boat. Any hull glass within that larger circle is inconsequential to the integrity of the boat because the main boot seal is attached there, and water fills that cavity anyway. A thin hull piece there wouldn't allow water into the rest of the boat.

But in your case, the manufacturer could have cut incorrectly when installing the bed. Difficult to tell without a larger perspective.

Mark


----------



## boatpoker

colemj said:


> It would be helpful to see a larger perspective picture of that. From the closeup pic, I don't think the hull being thin there is an issue, and that looks more like a fairing plate for the outer rubber fairing to glue to.
> 
> Attached is a larger perspective picture of a saildrive opening from our boat. Any hull glass within that larger circle is inconsequential to the integrity of the boat because the main boot seal is attached there, and water fills that cavity anyway. A thin hull piece there wouldn't allow water into the rest of the boat.
> 
> But in your case, the manufacturer could have cut incorrectly when installing the bed. Difficult to tell without a larger perspective.
> 
> Mark


Actually the engines are mounted on an FRP module with a limber hole which leads directly into the hull interior as in this diagram. The thin part in the diagram is for the recessed leg cover plate.


----------



## smackdaddy

Poker - though I do want to keep the thread focused on the Cat A language since these secondary issues don't really impact that language in terms of new boats, I do have a couple of questions for you out of curiosity - based on that article you posted on the brass thru-hull/seacock issue...

1. What is your standard for how long a thru-hull/seacock should last? The article indicates several decades for the Blakes.

2. What new boats out there come with Blakes (or equiv) thru-hull/seacocks that meet this several decade standard, and what is the price difference in these boats vs. the ones that might have brass?


----------



## boatpoker

smackdaddy said:


> Poker - I do have a couple of questions for you - based on that article you posted on the brass thru-hull/seacock issue...
> 
> 1. What is your standard for how long a thru-hull/seacock should last? The article indicates several decades for the Blakes.
> 
> 2. What new boats out there come with Blakes (or equiv) thru-hull/seacocks that meet this several decade standard, and what is the price difference in these boats vs. the ones that might have brass?


I see some brass Euro throughulls in fresh water getting questionable around 7-10yrs. I think 5yrs. is absolutely pushing the limit in salt water, Throw in some (very common) otherwise small electrical issues or poor cathodic protection mainentance and they get questionable quite quickly. Given that most (NPT/NPS) are hanging on by a few threads, dezincification is scary and I wouldn't have them on my boat. I would guess that 90% of the Euro throughulls are like this but there is a sprinkling of Marelon n some models.

Brass is cheap ! that's why they use it. Home Depot is not known for quality marine fittings but sell the same product.

Brass is one of those metals that literally eats itself in saltwater. Brass is generally about 35% zinc and 60% copper..... What a terrific galvanic cell.

Price difference, I don't know, I never even look, I just buy silicon bronze which will outlive me and my grand kids.

If you search this forum and Cruisers Forum you'll find there are quite a few threads about Euroboat owners replacing throughulls in late model boats (4-8 yrs... my guess)


----------



## albrazzi

I've never seen a horse beaten so badly I felt for the horse. My 30 YO Canadian built Boat has the thu hulls that came with it (Most of them anyway) I think just good enough to make a rating is just that, good enough. I consider my CS to be extremely well built but hardly a "Blue Water" Boat. Curious we haven't heard much from Bob Perry on this one. I guess he's busy building Blue Water Boats.


----------



## smackdaddy

For comparison sake, do we know if a NEW Oyster, Hylas, Outbound, etc use Blakes - or silicon bronze? The reason I'm asking is from a value engineering standpoint. As long as I know what to expect - I personally wouldn't mind saving hundreds of thousands of dollars on the boat itself and changing out the thruhulls in a couple of years - or just upgrading them when I order the boat.

Again, issues like this are more about component quality and longevity than meeting the language of the Cat A standard I've posted here. I have no problem with my aft cabin looking like this...










...instead of this...










...if it means I can save $1,140,000 and go cruising. I can buy a hell of a lot of seacocks and Dark&Stormies for that kind of dosh.

And, like I said earlier, people seem to understand the brass issue and are maintaining their boats. That's a good thing. We're not seeing tons of failures and sinkings everywhere. And we also don't know exactly how widespread the brass usage is. Was it just for a few years - and now most are using Marelon? I don't know.

So, to me, it's just not the panic issue that the article tries to make it. To me, the best option would be for the manufacturers and/or dealers to provide a clear maintenance schedule on things like this so the buyer knows. Maybe they do - I don't know.


----------



## Arcb

smackdaddy said:


> [I'll pause while you catch your breath.]


Caught my breath... That was exhausting.

What I am curious about is the assessment matrix you used to determine that a small Coastal boat with a Cat A rating is so much safer than a boat like a Contessa 26.

Jeff did a brilliant job of describing some very serious stability short comings. But what about how easily the sail plan is managed short handed. How well would a boat like this tolerate one or more repetitive groundings. How about the hatch design. Could a competent skipper jury rig repairs on a boat like this. Is this boat really as manifestly as unsafe as the experts backing EC Cat A claim.

None sense.


----------



## capta

albrazzi said:


> I've never seen a horse beaten so badly I felt for the horse. My 30 YO Canadian built Boat has the thu hulls that came with it (Most of them anyway) I think just good enough to make a rating is just that, good enough. I consider my CS to be extremely well built but hardly a "Blue Water" Boat. Curious we haven't heard much from Bob Perry on this one. I guess he's busy building Blue Water Boats.


I sailed a Wm. Hand gaff ketch, launched in 1909, for 5.5 years through the SoPac in the 70's and never gave any thought to the possibility that her original silicone bronze seacocks could have problems. We serviced them at each haul out, so it's not like we never gave them a look see. Actually, until I began reading these forums it never occurred to me that proper silicone bronze seacocks would have a finite lifespan, if they were properly installed, maintained and bonded.
Perhaps it's the fabrication/materials on the more modern production boats or ignorant owner upgrades that cause electrolysis, I just don't know.


----------



## boatpoker

smackdaddy said:


> we also don't know exactly how widespread the brass usage is. Was it just for a few years -


It continues to this day on every one of the brands mentioned except for the odd Marelon valve that appears.


----------



## smackdaddy

Arc - it was joke, and not directed at you or anyone in particular.

As for the Contessa, as you say Jeff already did a stellar job of explaining why it doesn't meet Cat A standards.



Jeff_H said:


> I am reasonably familiar with why the Contessa 26 does not carry a Category A rating, and its not only about its displacement or its length.
> 
> ...
> 
> It is my understanding that the Contessa 26 failed to get a Category A rating for a number of other issues beyond its size, such as its mix of ratings on downflooding, and initial stability.


I certainly have nothing to add because he's covered it and I don't know Contessas. But this thread is not about Folkboats. It's about Cat A production boats. As for repetitive groundings all I can say is go back to the first post and read the Cat A standard. That's not part of it.

And I've never seen any cruising boat list a multiple grounding threshold number in their specs as an indicator of sailing worthiness.


----------



## smackdaddy

In my listing of Cat A cats above, I forgot the Lagoon line. All Cat A from what I can see. This is the 40:










Cat A:10


----------



## blt2ski

Poker,

Looked up prices for brass, SS, Bronze and marlon valves, thru hulls, and threaded barbs in 3/4 and 1.5" sizes. Catalog I am using is a bit on high side price wise. The prices listed are NOT what I paid for the marlon fittings I bought. Yes one can find them cheaper. It does show the price ratio differences between the 4 types.

3/4" Valve Barb Thru hull total 1.5" valve Barb thru hull total 
Brass 25 15 30 $70 65 20 65 $150

SS 75 50 35 $160 310 70 70 $450

Bronze 40 38 40 $118 100 30 90 $220

Marlon 50 6 20 $76 145 10 30 $185


Bronze over brass is about 1.5 times as much, Stainless 2-3 x, Marlon 1.1-1.2x the cost of brass. 

You start talking 14-22 valves on the larger Jeanneau Smack mentioned, that starts adding up to a number of $$ just in valves, do the same with windows and ports, Epoxy vs typical polyester resin.......and one can start seeing how a 50' Jeanneau, can be 1/2 to as little as 1/3, possibly 1/4 of an Oyster or other HIGHER end production boat, or even a one off!

This kind of difference in part cost goes on in ANY industry, be it computers, cars, trucks, home building, high rise office towers, sail boats, power boats, military builds of planes, carriers, subs etc. Somewhere, someone has to decide what is the final grade of part they are willing to except, price etc, that is how the builder/manufacture of that item is going to build the product. Also why some manufactures have 2-4 levels of build quality if you will. IE GM, Chevy, Buick, Olds at one time, Cadillac. Mecedes has the A, C and E series vehicles. A is smaller lower cost units, C in the middle, E is bigger, more luxurious items on board. 

Call it what you will, be it right or wrong in your book, it is how things are done ALL over the world.

marty

Dang it, the $ numbers do not line up with topic, so one will have to fudge on how you read. Nothing below the 3/4 and 1.5" columns......grrrrrr...........
While walking dog, i came up with not so brilliant, put $ in front of 3/4 and 1.5" totals, 3 numbers before are the vlave, barb and thru hull $ per unit.


----------



## boatpoker

blt2ski said:


> Poker,
> 
> Call it what you will, be it right or wrong in your book, it is how things are done ALL over the world.


You are absolutely correct. I believe this goes to show the brilliant marketing of the lauded CE standards. Build to the lowest common denominator and the lowest common standard then brag that your boat meets these vaunted standards.

And we are not just talking about seacocks here, every element is built to that lowest cost. If you noticed the photo I posted of the Lagoon 450 with the 1/16" thick area in the hull you will notice it is all chopped strand, no sign of roving or any woven fabric. I can go on about their electrical systems, many with washers rather than keel bolts, no backing on cleats, sad propane system requirements but I think I've had enough of this thread for a while. Casting off tomorrow morning early and likely won't have internet access for some time. Have fun.


----------



## blt2ski

Poker,

I can say the same for home building standards/codes etc having seen and worked on homes of different price levels and what goes into them. One has to realize, you get the same workers be it a 200K boat, or the same size that is 400K or 600K. Materials will be different generally speaking. It will come down to which boat, house, car etc can you afford for these three prices! If you only have $200K, you buy that item, if you have $400K, you buy that one, yeah, it is probably better built in many ways than the $200K one, same can be said of the 600K one!

Enjoy your boat ride! Vacation.

Marty


----------



## smackdaddy

It may sink in 5 years when a cheap brass thruhull gives out - but MAN what a 5 years!










PS - I love that Hunter arch.


----------



## smackdaddy

I want to make one last point on Hunters specifically before I head off and let this thread float a bit...and it still generally fits within the context of this thread regarding the negativity directed toward production boats. Hunter bashing has been a forum sport for as long as I've been around forums - and even long before I came along and brightened the mood.

As I've written before, as I was new to sailing and looking for the "right boat", at first I bought into it. Completely. After all, it seemed like the most experienced sailors/yardguys/surveyors/whatever knew what they were talking about. You could pretty much do no worse than a Hunter.

Then there were three things that made me start doubting the prevailing "wisdom". One of those was Jeff's interview with Jim Bohart. Jim was boldly shooting down virtually everything being said in the forums regarding Hunters. I admired that. That took stones.

It is exceedingly clear that Hunter was, without question, one of the most innovative, pioneering sailing yacht companies out there. Just look at the arch in the 2018 Beneteau that CWBB members were mocking in 1999....along with centerline berths that you'd find in an Oyster and a Hylas at that same time.

The second thing was Michael's voyage in _Sequitur_. He was definitely a master mariner who knew EXACTLY what he was doing. And he chose a production boat - a Hunter - for a Cape rounding circumnavigation. And it did great.

And the third thing was Hal Roth's book which quashed the forum-based panic-mongering of what awaited you out there in "blue water".

Even I, as a newb, could see that there was something very off about forum world. So I ended up buying a Hunter. And I've been extremely happy with the choice.

So, here's the deal. The Hunter yacht company that rocked the sailing world back then is dead. It's gone. It's now just a dim glow under the wing of a motor yacht brand. It apparently is not showing its boats at the big shows, etc. It's just hanging on. And I think that's a shame. It was extremely undeserved.

Simultaneously, most of the US-based high-end "blue water" yacht brands are also dead or at the end of their runs. I don't need to recite the list - you know them. No one wants them. No one can afford them.

So, both ends of the spectrum in the US are dead. Really the last major brand of US yacht design is Catalina. And they've been brilliant in maintaining a safe, conservative, niche in the market...providing very good boats that people can afford. But they will always remain a niche I think - which will unfortunately shrink over time.

The bottom line is that the US is pretty much done when it comes to innovation and growth in the global cruising yacht market (obviously not counting brilliant custom-designers like Bob Perry, Farr, etc). Whether you like it or not, Europe owns the space. Hands-down. The US doesn't even factor. And this is another reason I find the CE standard-bashing so humorous.

On the one hand, I'm perfectly fine with Europe's dominance. They are, without question, mind-blowingly innovative (always have been) - and deliver insane value for the money. So good on them.

But back to the US. *I honestly think that US-based forums had a very strong hand in killing this US-based market - both ends of it.* When all that is acceptable in forum-world is either a million-dollar "blue water" yacht - or old, used, traditional boats no longer being made - there is absolutely no domestic market for what brands are turning out *today*.

How does that do anything good for sailing?

So, just as I saw that something was really off in Hunter bashing in forum world several years ago - I see the exact same problem with "production boat" bashing. To those who want to buy million dollar yachts - go for it. To those who only want old, traditional boats whose manufacturers/builders are nothing more than dim history (and getting dimmer) - go for it.

But there is a hugely vibrant, innovative, and compelling world of attainable yachting with production boats that are just as capable as anything else out there for the cruising you want to do virtually anywhere in the world. And they will make killer used boats when you're ready - as long as you look after them.

Don't let the forums tell you otherwise.


----------



## blt2ski

Smack, 

you have to go back farther than when US based forums showed up. Reality is, you have to go back to a 1980 presidential election..........Maybe a bit farther than that, but that is one that killed many of the boat builders, ie the president lowering income taxes so far, he had to add other taxes, new etc. One was a boat tax.......lots of people quit buying new boats, among some of the reasons.......Bangor Punta went BK due to many reasons, Killing O'Day, Ranger, Cal, Jeanneau - but french government, right or wrong got a buyer for the company, kept it going........Eventually selling to Group Beneteau about 8-10 years later. 
A number of other boat builders went BK or equal during the 80's also. Not just this luxury tax that was put on many items.....other things as well. Higher loan rate %'s.......

At the end of the day, many reasons beyond the ones I mentioned for the US boat building biz to die. 

Marty


----------



## outbound

Silicon bronze. All bonded. 
Current insurance for Newport to Antigua has NO stipulation for any crew but myself. Price the same as it was when insurance requested vetting of crew and minimum of 2 crew and myself in the past. Infer they are more interested in prior experience of that passage.
Still feel this thread is a variation of the Monty Pylon “this bird is dead” with Smack being the shop keeper.


----------



## Don L

My 2001 Hunter has all it's original hull valves. Guess I'm going to sink any second and it is a race between the valves and the keel/rudder falling off :crying


----------



## Ajax_MD

The problem with these ratings isn't so much the ratings themselves, it's the mentality that owners adopt because of them.
It's like having a Cadillac health insurance plan- "I'm covered, so I'll engage in risky behavior that I otherwise might not engage in if I had no coverage."

I can see it now- An owner in mid-ocean, standing in knee-deep water in the cabin, mast bent over at the spreaders uttering "But, but... It's Category A!"

People today, use labels as a means of avoiding responsibility or as an excuse not to exercise good judgement.


----------



## blt2ski

Ajax_MD said:


> The problem with these ratings isn't so much the ratings themselves, it's the mentality that owners adopt because of them.
> It's like having a Cadillac health insurance plan- "I'm covered, so I'll engage in risky behavior that I otherwise might not engage in if I had no coverage."
> 
> I can see it now- An owner in mid-ocean, standing in knee-deep water in the cabin, mast bent over at the spreaders uttering "But, but... It's Category A!"
> 
> People today, use labels as a means of avoiding responsibility or as an excuse not to exercise good judgement.


I've also seen this mentality with other standards etc. We could probably ALL rattle off many other standards or should we say "minimum standards" for how wee should do things. Have done this with snow skiing, rock/glacier climbing, landscape industry certification tests, other industry certification tests. Building standards in homes and the CE/ISAF offshore rules and ratings........

the CE ratings be them A, B, C or D, are just that minimum standards to succeed with that type of sailing.

It is what the person does with the basic minimums, and makes then work in their application.

Marty


----------



## colemj

boatpoker said:


> If you noticed the photo I posted of the Lagoon 450 with the 1/16" thick area in the hull you will notice it is all chopped strand, no sign of roving or any woven fabric. I can go on about their electrical systems, many with washers rather than keel bolts, no backing on cleats, sad propane system requirements


Do you know if that thin area was a build mistake, or is it that way on all L450's? Are all of their hulls 1/16" thick CSM overall (that's rhetorical - I know they aren't)? To me, it looks like Lagoon made a mistake in installing the engine bed assembly and didn't get it centered on the proper hull area from the mold. That 1/16" of chop strand is the first layup of any gelcoated boat and would have been laid over the saildrive cutout area on the hull to allow for release.

If it is a build mistake, then it has nothing at all to do with the quality of the certification standard itself, and does not represent an example of how the standard allows for bad practices, or even lowest common denominator.

"With washers rather than keel bolts"? This doesn't make sense on two levels - catamarans don't have bolted on keels, and washers and keel bolts cannot physically be used interchangeably for any application.

Since this seems to be an isolated case regarding that L450 build (I've heard of this one before, but of no others), perhaps you could compare its build mistake, in regards to how you feel what the CE standards allow, with that of the similarly recent Oyster 90 that lost its keel because of a build mistake?

Mark


----------



## colemj

Ajax_MD said:


> The problem with these ratings isn't so much the ratings themselves, it's the mentality that owners adopt because of them.
> It's like having a Cadillac health insurance plan- "I'm covered, so I'll engage in risky behavior that I otherwise might not engage in if I had no coverage."
> 
> I can see it now- An owner in mid-ocean, standing in knee-deep water in the cabin, mast bent over at the spreaders uttering "But, but... It's Category A!"
> 
> People today, use labels as a means of avoiding responsibility or as an excuse not to exercise good judgement.


Can you provide any real examples supporting your thesis?

Mark


----------



## colemj

Personally, I doubt many people care, or even consider, the CE rating when planning how to use their boat. I know some countries have strict rules regarding how a boat is allowed to be used based on ratings, so those people would be interested. But beyond that, I doubt the above posters' theses that people use these labels recklessly and with a false sense of abilities.

I bet people are far more interested in the color and material of the countertops, and the size of the shower, and the size of the bed, and the upholstery, than the CE rating.

But I agree with the thread thesis that if the boat was design and properly built to a CE rating, it can perform at that rating. Whether the seacocks need to be replaced at 5yrs is inconsequential to the rating. Lots of "BWB's" come with sails that will need to be replaced at 5yrs, along with other parts. And I find it interesting to hear people think that a boat with 30yr old bronze seacocks is preferable to a boat with brand new brass ones.

Mark


----------



## slap

colemj said:


> And I find it interesting to hear people think that a boat with 30yr old bronze seacocks is preferable to a boat with brand new brass ones.
> 
> Mark


On my old boat I had 40+ year old bronze seacocks and they were in excellent condition. I wouldn't be surprised if they will still be going strong at 60+ years.

Thirty years from now I'll take 60 year old bronze seacocks over 30 year old brass ones.


----------



## Arcb

colemj said:


> Personally, I doubt many people care, or even consider, the CE rating when planning how to use their boat. I know some countries have strict rules regarding how a boat is allowed to be used based on ratings, so those people would be interested. But beyond that, I doubt the above posters' theses that people use these labels recklessly and with a false sense of abilities.
> 
> I bet people are far more interested in the color and material of the countertops, and the size of the shower, and the size of the bed, and the upholstery, than the CE rating.


The counter top comment made me laugh. Its so true. My wife happened across an ad for the new Tattoo 22 and wants it to be our next boat because she loves how it looks. It took me considerable negotiation to avoid a Mac at our last purchase for the same reason. As much as Hunter owners complain about Hunter bashing, they get it really easy compared to Macgregor owners. However, Tattoo yachts is an American sailboat manufacturer that has always done well in spite of what people say on internet forums or their Cat C rating, they are building boats that people want at a price that they can afford- success.

In terms of the blue water thing, their is only one semi concrete definition that I know of, and that is beyond the continental shelf. Whether that's the physical continental shelf or the legal continental shelf which is 200 miles from shore. I believe it was originally a British Navy term, and they used the same kind of definition- all oceans capable international voyages.

So if this post had been: can a Cat A achieve its design parameters, I think this thread would have been a lot shorter. But that is not how the thread was titled, it was titled Category A Production Boats ARE Blue Water Boats. Some are, I feel pretty confident about that. But are they all suitable for 400 mile plus open ocean trips and trans oceanic voyaging. Not so sure. Maybe with the right modifications and crew, don't know.

But then when you get into the, my Cat A boat is a blue water boat because that's what the label says, but your non Cat A boat isn't a blue water boat, because that's what the label says. Well. That's not what the label says. There is a strict definition associated with each of the Cat A,B C, and D labels, and non of those definitions mentions blue water, that was just one persons interpretation, and since its an interpretation rather than a fact, its open for debate.

I think that's the issue that some folks are disagreeing with here, I know that's what I disagree with. Its a European standard, I am not European, and as long as I am not in Europe, I am not going to let Europeans tell me how I can use my boat or how safe my boat is. I already have a regulator that does that, and I like their approach, safety gear changes as boat length increases, but the limitations on usage don't change as the length increases. The law puts the onus on me to determine whether my boat is fit for a passage, not a third party. I know people that I would feel safe with 20 miles from shore in a Wayfarer in F8 conditions, and I know others that I wouldn't feel safe with backing their 40 foot boat out of a slip in dead calm conditions.


----------



## Lazerbrains

The sad fact is that some people will only see what they want to see.
The OP of this thread is a good example of that.


----------



## smackdaddy

Just have time for a quick post then I'll be out for a day or two and you guys can go to town.

Three things...

*1.
*
*The rule of this thread is...
*


colemj said:


> Can you provide any real examples supporting your thesis?


You're welcome to say whatever you want - but if you want to be taken seriously in the conversation you need to support it with examples and facts. There are plenty of other threads for pure opinion. This is not one of them.

*For newbs to be able to learn something about boats - they need facts, not anonymous, unsubstantiated gossip and opinion. So that's the threshold of this thread. Prove your point or start another thread.*

For example, I don't agree with a lot of what Boatpoker says, but I respect and consider his opinion because he is willing to show examples of what he's talking about. And I always respect Jeff's input because he's willing to thoroughly explain his position. Again, I may not always agree - but I welcome it.

*The ONLY exception to this rule is Bob Perry. He can say whatever the hell he wants and it's gospel. He IS his own proof.*

One of the many things I really like about Bob is that he just likes boats. All boats. Even steel ones. That's the way it should be.

*2.*

People are still complaining about use of the term "blue water" in the title of this thread. But no one is complaining about the equally vague term "production boats". You should ask yourself why that is. Why the need to "protect" this term?

Both of these terms are simply accepted "slang" that, in reality, have little meaning in the real world. When considering a boat purchase, the newb only ever really learns these terms if they go on forums. And then these terms lead to Google searches which lead to the further split between traditional boats and modern boats on blogs, in magazine articles, etc.

In other words, this is primarily a distinction without a difference. Here are a couple of examples. If I enter "blue water boats" in a Google search, this is one of the hits I get...

https://davetownleyyachts.com/blue-water-vs-production-boats/

And this is what this guy says...



> The first question you should ask yourself: what type of cruising are you planning on doing? With both power and sail, there are different qualities of boats, often separated into two different categories (with a few in between) -- production boats and blue water boats. We quantify blue water cruisers as boats designed to handle and be out in rough seas off of the coast. Then there are production boats, which are designed for coastal cruising in lighter weather.


As a newb, that certainly seems to be a clincher. "Blue water boat" it is. Who's gonna argue with that? And this defintion fits almost exactly with all the never-ending arguments on-line.

The problems are that most of the blue water crowed would have trouble with the wording in his definition of "blue water boat" (i.e. - what does "off the coast" mean?). And his definition of "production boats", though a common one, is just flat wrong in regards to the discussion in this thread. The Cat A boats are by no means "designed for coastal cruising in lighter weather". That's patently clear.

So, on forums and even in many blogs and magazines, these terms are at best ill-defined, and at worst completely mis-defined. The CE Category A rating completely does away with the line he is trying to draw. We are simply now talking about* ocean-capable cruising yachts* at different price points with different features. Period.

Conversely, if you look up the definition of "production boats" you find this...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boat_building



> Fiberglass (Glass-reinforced plastic or GRP)
> Typically used for production boats because of its ability to reuse a female mold as the foundation for the shape of the boat.


Ergo, if your boat is fiberglass - regardless of price or brand - it qualifies as a production boat. Here is Bob's list of his "production boats" on his site:

http://www.perryboat.com/productionboats/productionboats.html

And the list includes everything from the Perrywinkle to the Flying Tiger to the Passport to the Valiant - etc.

So, again, I use these terms in the title because they are common terms that people like to use/misuse on forums, etc. - and terms that boat buyers will come across and search for. But the CE Category A standard makes them both meaningless.

I'll repeat: This thread is purely about CE Category A fiberglass boats - be they Oysters or Beneteaus. When new, they are EXACTLY the same in regards to this standard. Period.

*3.*

Speaking of Bob Perry, his Valiant was Number 1 on CW's 40 Greatest Production Monohulls of All Time. No surprise.










(PS - Arc, your Contessa 26 is on it, by the way.)

Now, back to my point about "blue water" vs. "production" being meaningless terms. Look through that list. Apart from many of Bob's "production boats" being on this list (which is why he is a standard to himself) - take a look at how many of those brands and companies are now gone. These boats are just getting older and tireder. There is no future there.

Finally, look at how many of the typically defined "production boat" brands are on this *best of all time* list. As I said earlier - just this fact alone completely flies in the face of the traditional forum arguments about boat quality. Otherwise, these "production boats" wouldn't be on the same list as Swan, Hallberg-Rassey, Hinckley, Hylas, etc. (You'll notice Oyster is not on the list.)

Finally, on the "production boat" front - here is a great article from New Zealand about why they make sense over the more custom-built boats...

http://www.sail-world.com/Australia/Production-Boats-–-Why-Buy/30500



> It wasn't lack of appeal that hindered their introduction to New Zealand, but rather acceptance by the boat buying public of a foreign made mass-produced boat. This has been the major stumbling block as Roger Wilson of International Marine Brokers found out.
> 
> He founded IMB in 1990 and it has been instrumental in creating a market for imported production yachts in this country. It took many years, in a difficult market, to establish a place for brands such as Bavaria Yachts and Catalina Yachts, but they are now the dominant brands from Germany and America in New Zealand.
> 
> It took a lot of hard work and marketing expertise, using boat shows and promotions, to find acceptance and convince local boat buyers that European and American boats are much better value, with better features and proven sailing ability. Instead of waiting up to 12 months for your boat to be built, you can now expect delivery in 4 - 5 months, despite shipment from the other side of the world.


And it's great to see that Catalina is one of the dominant brands there, just behind Bavaria. I will always qualify the water around New Zealand as "blue".

+++++++++++++++

So, as I said in the beginning, this thread is focused ONLY on *CE Category A fiberglass boats* ("production boats"). This includes *any and all brands of boa*t, as they are ALL certified to handle the conditions laid out in that standard. Period.

And this is exactly the reason the title of the thread is correct. This is the future whether you like it or not.

Beyond that, it is actually helpful to discuss things like the brass seacocks (if they are indeed widespread across the various brands). As has already been said, it's not really a big deal in relation to the Cat A standard for new boats - it's just a good thing to know so that you can maintain them as the owner of a boat that has them.

On the other hand, Marks point about the thin lay-up on that one multi is right on. Showing singular examples certainly doesn't condemn and entire brand or line of boats. An Oyster lost its keel after all and I still think Oysters are great boats. You need to *show that a problem is widespread* if you are trying to imply it's a problem for a brand and model of boat.

So - make this thread about learning. Do your homework and prove your point with examples. Then you can be a productive part of the conversation.

I'll leave with you with 3 new production boats covered HERE by Petey Nielson:









Bavaria C57









Lagoon Seventy 7









Hanse 588

Cheers.


----------



## colemj

Lazerbrains said:


> The sad fact is that some people will only see what they want to see.
> The OP of this thread is a good example of that.


This is an ironic statement.

Mark


----------



## Arcb

This has been the third time we have been told not to disagree with the premise of this thread. 

However, I still disagree with the premise of this thread. You claim you are stating facts to educate new buyers but I disagree with the unsupported facts that you are presenting.

You claim "blue water" is meaning less slang. I say it is slang, but not meaningless. It's nice that some folks learned the word blue water from internet forums, but not all of us have.

I am holding, in my hand an internationally recognised coastal masters licence. This is recognised by the STCW, which is IMO, which is the United Nations, not some mail order license. Here is the definition given for coastal "a voyage that is not a sheltered waters voyage that is between Canada and the United States (except Hawaii), Saint Pierre and Miquelon, the West Indies, Mexico, Central America or the North East Coast of South America; and during which the vessel is always north of latitude 6 degrees north and within 200 nautical miles from shore or above the continental shelf". I am not making up my definition of coastal or the continental shelf. It's internationally recognised . I have to know this definition of coastal, because if I go beyond it my license is void.

Blue water, or unlimited voyages are beyond coastal voyages. There are only a couple of people on this thread who regularly engage on them. I'm not one of them and neither are you.


----------



## Ajax_MD

colemj said:


> Can you provide any real examples supporting your thesis?
> 
> Mark


It's not my thesis. I've read it elsewhere.

Here's one from the RAND corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9174.html
Here's a more recent study MMS: Error

No, I can't cite a study that specifically says that sailors engage in riskier behavior when they believe their boat is CE Category A.
It's not a huge leap of logic to say that people who believe they are "covered" in one aspect of life (health care) and engage in risker behavior, might also act the same way if they believe they are "covered" in another aspect of life (seamanship).

Look, I'm not here to prove a thesis to you for my master's degree, this is just casual discussion. Feel free to disregard my post if you disagree with it.


----------



## albrazzi

colemj said:


> Personally, I doubt many people care, or even consider, the CE rating when planning how to use their boat. I know some countries have strict rules regarding how a boat is allowed to be used based on ratings, so those people would be interested. But beyond that, I doubt the above posters' theses that people use these labels recklessly and with a false sense of abilities.
> 
> I bet people are far more interested in the color and material of the countertops, and the size of the shower, and the size of the bed, and the upholstery, than the CE rating.
> 
> But I agree with the thread thesis that if the boat was design and properly built to a CE rating, it can perform at that rating. Whether the seacocks need to be replaced at 5yrs is inconsequential to the rating. Lots of "BWB's" come with sails that will need to be replaced at 5yrs, along with other parts. And I find it interesting to hear people think that a boat with 30yr old bronze seacocks is preferable to a boat with brand new brass ones.
> 
> Mark


In case any of this was directed at my comments a few posts back, I would prefer a 30 year old Boat with Bronze seacocks than a 30 year old Boat with cheap brass ones. What I meant is, well built is well built. No more no less.


----------



## albrazzi

smackdaddy said:


> I want to make one last point on Hunters specifically before I head off and let this thread float a bit...and it still generally fits within the context of this thread regarding the negativity directed toward production boats. Hunter bashing has been a forum sport for as long as I've been around forums - and even long before I came along and brightened the mood.
> 
> As I've written before, as I was new to sailing and looking for the "right boat", at first I bought into it. Completely. After all, it seemed like the most experienced sailors/yardguys/surveyors/whatever knew what they were talking about. You could pretty much do no worse than a Hunter.
> 
> Then there were three things that made me start doubting the prevailing "wisdom". One of those was Jeff's interview with Jim Bohart. Jim was boldly shooting down virtually everything being said in the forums regarding Hunters. I admired that. That took stones.
> 
> It is exceedingly clear that Hunter was, without question, one of the most innovative, pioneering sailing yacht companies out there. Just look at the arch in the 2018 Beneteau that CWBB members were mocking in 1999....along with centerline berths that you'd find in an Oyster and a Hylas at that same time.
> 
> The second thing was Michael's voyage in _Sequitur_. He was definitely a master mariner who knew EXACTLY what he was doing. And he chose a production boat - a Hunter - for a Cape rounding circumnavigation. And it did great.
> 
> And the third thing was Hal Roth's book which quashed the forum-based panic-mongering of what awaited you out there in "blue water".
> 
> Even I, as a newb, could see that there was something very off about forum world. So I ended up buying a Hunter. And I've been extremely happy with the choice.
> 
> So, here's the deal. The Hunter yacht company that rocked the sailing world back then is dead. It's gone. It's now just a dim glow under the wing of a motor yacht brand. It apparently is not showing its boats at the big shows, etc. It's just hanging on. And I think that's a shame. It was extremely undeserved.
> 
> Simultaneously, most of the US-based high-end "blue water" yacht brands are also dead or at the end of their runs. I don't need to recite the list - you know them. No one wants them. No one can afford them.
> 
> So, both ends of the spectrum in the US are dead. Really the last major brand of US yacht design is Catalina. And they've been brilliant in maintaining a safe, conservative, niche in the market...providing very good boats that people can afford. But they will always remain a niche I think - which will unfortunately shrink over time.
> 
> The bottom line is that the US is pretty much done when it comes to innovation and growth in the global cruising yacht market (obviously not counting brilliant custom-designers like Bob Perry, Farr, etc). Whether you like it or not, Europe owns the space. Hands-down. The US doesn't even factor. And this is another reason I find the CE standard-bashing so humorous.
> 
> On the one hand, I'm perfectly fine with Europe's dominance. They are, without question, mind-blowingly innovative (always have been) - and deliver insane value for the money. So good on them.
> 
> But back to the US. *I honestly think that US-based forums had a very strong hand in killing this US-based market - both ends of it.* When all that is acceptable in forum-world is either a million-dollar "blue water" yacht - or old, used, traditional boats no longer being made - there is absolutely no domestic market for what brands are turning out *today*.
> 
> How does that do anything good for sailing?
> 
> So, just as I saw that something was really off in Hunter bashing in forum world several years ago - I see the exact same problem with "production boat" bashing. To those who want to buy million dollar yachts - go for it. To those who only want old, traditional boats whose manufacturers/builders are nothing more than dim history (and getting dimmer) - go for it.
> 
> But there is a hugely vibrant, innovative, and compelling world of attainable yachting with production boats that are just as capable as anything else out there for the cruising you want to do virtually anywhere in the world. And they will make killer used boats when you're ready - as long as you look after them.
> 
> Don't let the forums tell you otherwise.


That's right blame it on the Forums. This country has been in a defensive economy for 20 years give or take, there's just not a growing number of people with the inclination, desire, and knowledge to sail so its not a growth market, neither is our economy for that matter. Europe and the world is just so much bigger and gosh, older too. Some itty bitty Forum can't possibly have that kind of influence, some yes, Ill give you that but not that much.


----------



## Jeff_H

GeorgeB said:


> Jeff, sorry for getting a little hot under the collar.
> In the "for what it's worth" column, In Spain, you cannot legally sail your CAT B boat further than 10 kilometers from land without an exemption. Beyond that only CAT A boats.


You don't need to apologize to me. This is only the internet discussion and as such it can be a frustrating medium to to deal with complex issues. I only wanted to make it clear that I personally do not hold myself out to be an expert.



GeorgeB said:


> Smack, you are really making me sing for my supper. In your table 5, you take your displacement in kilograms and multiply it by .002. You then subtract that product from 130 degrees and you get the calculated minimum AVS. Using the data from my boat, I need an AVS of 119 degrees. The tested AVS performed by Catalina for my boat is 129.62 degrees. My boat exceeds the standard (yay!) by ten degrees.
> 
> According to SNAMES, offshore boats should have an AVS of over 120 degrees (yay again!). However, boats with an AVS of less than 140 degrees may not be self-righting when in an inverted condition (boo hoo!) A nice comparison number is the Pac Cup minimum of 105 degrees. Years ago, I got to see them do these AVS tests on Ocean Planet. Bruce and the designer were actually inside the cabin when the crane flipped over the boat where it was quite content to stay inverted. Bruce and the designer "ran" back and forth on the overhead to induce the righting moment.


George,

A couple quick things here. The AVS number that is referred to as needing to be 119 degrees or greater is not the actual AVS of the boat. It is calculated using a simplified surrogate formula that was developed as a part of the IMS racing rating calculations. That formula was developed when computer drafting and calculations were in their infancy and was intended to provide uniform results rather than a specific and accurate actual AVS for any specific case. If you look at the formula, it does not include the volumes of the cabin and cockpit, or the state of fullness of the water and fuel tanks for example which would normally be components of an actual AVS.

When the IMS/CE values have been compared to the actual AVS values for normal cruising boats (vs stripped out racers), cruisers normally have a 15 to 20 degree higher AVS angles than the formula would predict. So for example if your Catalina when actually tested has an AVS at 129.562 degrees, that would translate to a IMS/CE AVS around 109 to 114 degrees when calculated using the formulas involved.



GeorgeB said:


> Remember years ago when Simon Lebond's boat turtled in a Fastnet race? I bet he's real happy that the boat floated inverted. Me too, as we sometimes blare "Hungry Like a Wolf" from the loudspeaker when we're transiting to the start line.


Just for the record, "Drum", Simon LeBond's boat, was an IOR maxi that lost its keel. It floated upside down as would most larger boats that lost their keel. (i.e. similar to Cheeky Rafiki) I don't know where that fits into this discussion.



smackdaddy said:


> Yeah - I kind of put you on the spot there George.
> 
> For those of you who may not know about the ISAF-OSR regs, here is a quick synopsis...
> 
> Now, somewhat like the CE standard, these regs are split into categories from Cat 0 - Cat 6...with Cat 0 being *the most stringent* - for this reason...
> 
> For some more reference, Cat 2 covers "Races of extended duration along or not far removed from shorelines or in large unprotected bays or lakes" (i.e. - "coastal" racing) and Cat 6 is inshore dinghy racing.
> 
> Now that you understand what Category 0 is in terms of the OSR regs, go back to my post above and compare these stability requirements (as just one data point) in the ISO 12217-2 doc on which the CE Category A standard is based.
> 
> *In short, Cat A rated production boats meet the strictest AVS standards that trans-oceanic racing boats have to meet - and vice versa.*
> 
> [I'll pause while you catch your breath.]
> 
> Now, before the howling starts - yes, you'd still have to calculate STIX, AGZ , IRC SSS, and all other kinds of things to meet that OSR rule to the letter (and I have no interest in doing all that math for you). And also this is *just* the stability factor in these regs/ratings. As has been noted there are a million other factors that go into *both* the OSR and CE Cat ratings (and you'll have to dig for all that on your own). *BUT*, in regards to the stability of a boat - which is pretty important I'd say - I'm comfortable that - with a couple of tweaks...
> 
> ...definitely includes "blue water".


There is a reason that these two numbers are the same, because they are the same and come from the same place. This is a very good example of an area where the Categorization was watered down. During the period that STIX was being developed I attended a round table discussion on the process used to finalize the decision on some of the benchmarks. The panel included researchers and designers who were 'correspondents' to the process. It is important to remember that much of this was in the wake of the research that had taken place in the years after the Fastnet Disaster and the massive amounts of research that followed.

The IMS rule was starting to become the grand prix racing rule to replace the IOR. In its original form, appendixes to the IMS rule specifically included minimum accommodations, scantlings, and was intended to develop boats which could be raced in OSR Cat 0 races. The term Cat 0 was still evolving but it included minimum stability standards and a simplified formula was developed with the intent that a boat could be easily measured with the manual equipment of the day and a repeatable approximate AVS calculated. That formula and mimimum stability as calculated back then have not changed in the 25 or so years since it was first enacted.

But at the time that STIX was developed, the researchers were saying, that a boat with less than a 140 degree AVS will not self right without major wave action, and even if it did self-right, it would not self right fast enough if overturned in that the longer a boat remained inverted the more downflooding would occur and the greater the likelihood of sinking. The researchers wanted the STIX value for AVS to be calculated as the actual worst case AVS (i.e. empty tanks, stowed gear shifting and so on) and they believed that the in order to achieve a CE Cat A , the calculated actual worst case AVS should exceed 140 degrees.

There were a slew of different opinions on why that was right or wrong. The race boat folks said, that if Cat A AVS was set at 140 almost all offshore race boats would be instantly obsolete. They argued that the large and skilled crews on race boats should allow an exemption for race boats with full crews. It was then argued that if race boats were granted this exception they would almost have to be placed in multiple categories perhaps Cat A when crewed and Cat b when not crewed. It was argued that if race boats were granted an exemption, designers would game the system and claim every boat was a race boat and get the exception. It was also argued that the IMS calc was conservative in that it typically came out lower than the real AVS. So in the end, the AVS used in the CE standard is the same formula and required limit as the IMS calc, and the same formula and required limit as the OSR Calc, and the same formula and required limit as the CE Cat A. But none are the actual AVS and none actually achieve the 140 degrees that the Research suggested as reasonable requirement.

It was interesting when the research presented at the time did complete worst case calculations of AVS, not only didn't typical racers and coastal cruisers achieve AVS in excess of 140 degrees, neither did most traditional cruisers.That finding was very surprising at the time. That was a part of the case for reducing the required min AVS to 120 degrees.

What happened next is the part that is somewhat disturbing to me. So the agreement seemed to be heading towards accepting 120 degrees calculated using the IMS/EC formula. But there is concern that many boats in production won't achieve even that. So another compromise was proposed that allows the designers to calculate the actual AVS and use that number instead of the IMS formula but with the same 120 degree AVS min instead what should have been the 140 degree min that more closely is associated with an accurate AVS.

At that point, increasing freeboard and/or raising the volume of the cabin pushed an otherwise marginal design over the 120 degree min at the price of creating a boat that is more likely to approach that limit.

Jeff


----------



## Arcb

smackdaddy said:


> *1.
> *
> *The rule of this thread is...
> *
> 
> People are still complaining about use of the term "blue water" in the title of this thread. But no one is complaining about the equally vague term "production boats". You should ask yourself why that is. Why the need to "protect" this term?
> 
> Both of these terms are simply accepted "slang" that, in reality, have little meaning in the real world. When considering a boat purchase, the newb only ever really learns these terms if they go on forums. And then these terms lead to Google searches which lead to the further split between traditional boats and modern boats on blogs, in magazine articles, etc.
> 
> In other words, this is primarily a distinction without a difference. Here are a couple of examples. If I enter "blue water boats" in a Google search, this is one of the hits I get...


I have already provided the Canadian definition of a Coastal voyage (basically, anything within 200 miles of shore or above the continental shelf).

But in the interest of being cosmopolitan, I did some more research.

So, UK, RYA Ocean passage is defined

*To be eligible as an ocean qualifying passage the distance between departure and arrival points by the shortest navigable route must be more than 600 mile.*

For the US, it mirrors the Canadian definition of Coastal nearly exactly except they call it short international. A blue water, or open ocean voyage would be beyond these limits.

*Short international voyage is an international voyage in the course of which a vessel is not more than 200 miles from a port or place in which the passengers and crew could be placed in safety. Neither the distance between the last port of call in the country in which the voyage begins and the final port of destination, nor the return voyage, may exceed 600 miles. The final port of destination is the last port of call in the scheduled voyage at which the vessel commences its return voyage to the country in which the voyage began. *

The reason the definitions of Coastal vs Ocean are so closely aligned for these countries, is they all work under the umbrella of the STCW.

If when you talk about Blue Water Voyage, you are talking about a lesser threshold than this. Then you are recommending the wrong standard under EC Category system.

For Coastal voyages, the EC Categories are split up into two categories, depending on how Coastal you are. For the Offshore rating, the EC recommends category B

Category B - Offshore:* includes boats operating offshore with winds to 40 knots and significant seas to 13 feet.

This Class B is your 10-20 miles offshore in the gulf of Mexico stuff.

It might even fall into the Category C neighbourhood, depending on weather.

Category C - Inshore:*is for boats operating in coastal waters and large bays and lakes with winds to Force 6, up to 27 knots, and significant seas 7 feet high.

If You are sailing in a harbour. Like, Toronto, or New York Harbour you might be looking at Category D.

Category D - Inland or sheltered coastal waters:*is for boats in small lakes and rivers with winds to Force 4 and significant wave heights to 18 inches.

As this is a European standard, most European sailors are going to be aware of these not so subtle differences, because European sailors often have fairly high standards of training or education compared to us on this side of the pond, and of course, they are all STCW countries as well.

So the question is not how we define blue water, because we didn't start this thread. Unless you give your definition, then when you say blue water, I assume you are talking about what is internationally accepted as being beyond a Coastal Voyage.

If you are using a lesser watered down standard for blue water, then you have actually been recommending the wrong EC category right from the start. A little jaunt down the coast of the gulf of Mexico is offshore- Class B. You are writing your own version of the EC categories. You are not following the guidelines given in the EC documentation. You are just making stuff up.

You are recommending a bigger boat than what is required under the standards (and really, these standards are just basically about boat size, pretty well any boat of a certain size can meet these standards with minimal effort).


----------



## ScottUK

smackdaddy said:


> And it's great to see that Catalina is one of the dominant brands there, just behind Bavaria. I will always qualify the water around New Zealand as "blue".


Having sailed and raced in NZ for years I can say emphatically Catalina and Bavaria are NOT dominant brands in that country. NZers typically have local productions such as Ravens, Youngs, Davidsons, Stewarts etc or one offs.

I agree the water around NZ is not for the faint hearted but I'm not sure I would qualify it as blue. I had a Raven 26' that my wife and I cruised extensively in NZ. I really do miss sailing there.


----------



## ScottUK

Arcb said:


> So, UK, RYA Ocean passage is defined
> 
> *To be eligible as an ocean qualifying passage the distance between departure and arrival points by the shortest navigable route must be more than 600 mile.*


Your quote is misleading as the RYA ocean passage standard is:

"During the passage a minimum non-stop distance of 600 miles must have been run by the log, the yacht must have been at sea continuously for at least 96 hours and the yacht must have been more than 50 miles from land or charted objects capable of being used for navigation/position fixing while sailing a distance of at least 200 miles"

So the qualifying passage could all occur within your definition of what is coastal.


----------



## aeventyr60

ScottUK said:


> Having sailed and raced in NZ for years I can say emphatically Catalina and Bavaria are NOT dominant brands in that country. NZers typically have local productions such as Ravens, Youngs, Davidsons, Stewarts etc or one offs.
> 
> I agree the water around NZ is not for the faint hearted but I'm not sure I would qualify it as blue. I had a Raven 26' that my wife and I cruised extensively in NZ. I really do miss sailing there.


Yep, miss it too. My year around the South island was one of the best years cruising. Sure wouldn't want to have taken three knockdowns down by Stewart island in a modern production boat either...


----------



## Arcb

ScottUK said:


> Your quote is misleading as the RYA ocean passage standard is:
> 
> "During the passage a minimum non-stop distance of 600 miles must have been run by the log, the yacht must have been at sea continuously for at least 96 hours and the yacht must have been more than 50 miles from land or charted objects capable of being used for navigation/position fixing while sailing a distance of at least 200 miles"
> 
> So the qualifying passage could all occur within your definition of what is coastal.


Misleading is not the right term. I am not from UK, so I got that off the RYA website, did the best I could. I looked for an Australian definition too, bit couldn't find one that I was confident was correct. I stand corrected on the UK standard.

It's tricky working with other countries standards, as smack is figuring out.

Either way, its not a short jaunt down the coast 10-20 miles from shore, which was my point.


----------



## ScottUK

aeventyr60 said:


> Yep, miss it too. My year around the South island was one of the best years cruising. Sure wouldn't want to have taken three knockdowns down by Stewart island in a modern production boat either...


The South Island is tough sailing with few places to put in except for the north end. A few years ago a Raven 26' was lost down by Stewart if I remember correctly. The young guy didn't have all that much experience and took 2 young girls on a gap year with him. All were lost. My friend owned that Raven and had sold it to him.


----------



## ScottUK

Arcb said:


> Misleading is not the right term. I am not from UK, so I got that off the RYA website, did the best I could. I looked for an Australian definition too, bit couldn't find one that I was confident was correct. I stand corrected on the UK standard.
> 
> It's tricky working with other countries standards, as smack is figuring out.
> 
> Either way, its not a short jaunt down the coast 10-20 miles from shore, which was my point.


If you stand corrected then the post I cited gave a false impression thereby definition misleading. The term misleading was not intended to be taken personally.


----------



## Arcb

Scott. It was a copy and paste off the RYA website. I didn't alter it, but if you say there is a more complete definition somewhere else, I believe you. 

Just like my Canadian definition is extremely specific as to include St Pierre and Miquelon, but to disclude Hawaii. However, one can pretty safely say 200 miles or more from shore and not be misleading people.

I copied and pasted the UK and US definitions and hand copied the Canadian definition. I acknowledged all 3 were different but similar. I didn't say the UK limit included the 200 mile limit in the Canadian definition, nor did I say the Canadian definition included the 600 mile requirement in the UK definition.


----------



## ScottUK

Arcb - here is the link:

Yachtmaster Ocean Exam | Exams | Learning | Courses & Training | RYA

I have found information on the RYA website not that straight forward to ascertain at times.


----------



## Arcb

Thanks Scott, I see where my error was. That was the page I was working off, but only copied the last paragraph. What you say makes more complete sense, its both paragraphs 2 and 3 that I should have included.

As far as that goes, I also left out part of the definition of Coastal for the Canadian version too. We have two categories of coastal. Basically inshore coastal which is within 25 miles off shore (and technically its called Near Coastal Class II). Then the broader Coastal definition I gave above. 

There is no distinction in licensing requirements between the two for people, but there is a difference in required safety equipment for the boat.

I am taking a bit of a leap here, but I am guessing the 25 mile limit would more or less coincide with the Class C or Inshore CE category, but I might be assuming too much with that one.


----------



## outbound

I’ve tried to bring this and other Smack threads back to reality. As stated the title assumes premises that are not congruent to how most knowledgeable sailors think.
Production- other than novel one offs all are production. Just like an econo box and a Mercedes. Even the so called semi customs. The hull and deck molds and basic tooling is the same. They are built in series and priced by the pound.
Blue water- regardless of government agencies people think “can I get help?, What happens if someone gets sick or hurt?, where’s the nearest safe harbor? One thinks about cruising the coast of Washington county Maine or transiting the coast of NJ in late fall differently then a Bahamas to Miami jump in season. Going from the canal to the windwards is often difficult. Running vast distances with the pacific trades in season usually is not. In short when contemplating a trip you think about the “What if’s” if you have a brain you know being out of helicopter range is just one factor.
Cat A- the rating refers to the vessel at TIME of PURCHASE. Anyone who has ever crewed knows one of the determining factors in your decision to leave the dock on that boat is your walk through and careful examination of the state THAT BOAT, knowledge of expected weather and potential difficulties faced in that passage. A lifetime hull warranty from Cherubini may enter your thinking and what you look at during the walk through as might a one year warranty from a large series builder but Cat rating is of lesser importance. Personally rather be on a Cat B Scandinavian pilot house than a near flush deck small large series French Cat A if going south through the gulf of Maine in early spring. Or a well kept 30 year old Valiant ( no rating) than a neglected 10 y. o. Cat A boat if doing a transatlantic.
Yes some initially Cat A certified production boats are blue water ready. Some are not. Yes, for multiple reasons some designs bearing that certification are better suited to ocean service. Some are not. Yes in general cost at time of purchase does impact on quality, and durability of recreational sailboats. Yes labor and funds expended does impact on safe use during service life.
However I continue to believe the title of this thread is a disservice to a person buying a boat with intention of doing blue water passages. I continue to maintain this factor is only relevant when looking at insurance, financing, licensure or other factors government issues incur but not safe sailing. As regards that look at the specific boat your entertaining buying. Apply your and trusted others judgement with your sailing program in mind. Don’t assume a Cat A certificate allows you to not do your own due diligence.


----------



## Don L

outbound said:


> Don't assume a Cat A certificate allows you to not do your own due diligence.


Well if someone is just that stupid to assume that they don't have to do due diligence just because the boat is Cat A I say, go man just go! The world can always survive the loss of one more idiot!

But I don't think anywhere in the thread people were suggesting that a cat A cert allows people to be stupid.


----------



## aeventyr60

*But I don't think anywhere in the thread people were suggesting that a cat A cert allows people to be stupid.
*

No, it just gives a few select folks great comfort in knowing that a bunch of euro bureaucrats have given their blessings to a production process.,,at a minimal level.


----------



## outbound

“CE Category A Production Boats ARE Blue Water Boats”
Glad to hear you’re not stupid. Never thought you were. But isn’t that the whole premise of this thread? Cat A = blue water ready? I’m scared now you’re agreeing with me. The whole premise of this thread is absurd.


----------



## Don L

outbound said:


> "CE Category A Production Boats ARE Blue Water Boats"
> Glad to hear you're not stupid. Never thought you were. But isn't that the whole premise of this thread? Cat A = blue water ready? I'm scared now you're agreeing with me. The whole premise of this thread is absurd.


I don't feel anywhere that people said a Cat A = Blue water "ready" that were be stupid! I believe the agurement is that a Cat A boat is a blue water capable boat, but you still have to make it "ready".

So you can stop being scared of Cat A boggy boaters floating around.

Btw when I got my current boat, which is Cat A, I never even considered the rating and I'm not sure I even knew about it at time. I've had it 6 years and I don't think I would call it bw ready even now, but I definitely would call it be capable!


----------



## Arcb

Don0190 said:


> I believe the agurement is that a Cat A boat is a blue water capable boat, but you still have to make it "ready".


I think this is a reasonable statement, if we could just get something similar out of the OP, we'd be set.

Something along the lines of "Cat A boats are considered by the European Union to meet the minimum standards for Blue Water usage, however, for offshore usage, the European Union considers category B boats to meet adequate standards,which will suffice for the usage of the vast majority of recreational boaters".


----------



## outbound

Instead of this reduction to the absurd It would be informative to discuss 
Which cat A Boats are better suited for passage making?
Or
What features do you prefer in a passage making boat ? And why?
Or
What do you focus on prepping a boat before a passage? How do you make your boat ready? What are your no go things?
Anything but this perpetual drivel on a subject asked and answered


----------



## hellosailor

Yada, yada, yada.

"CE Category A Production Boats ARE Blue Water Boats
...If you are looking to purchase a "blue water" boat for cruising...you should look for the CE Category A rating to give you some guidance from professionals who actually know something."

OK, Smack, you expressed one opinion, and even if those professionals or the CE have never called, much less defined, "CatA" as being the mystical "Blue Water"...that's your opinion.

Everyone is entitled to have one, no matter how wrong, ergh, right? they may be.

That's got nothing to do with whether CE CatA and BW mean the same thing. A simple letter enquiring of the standards body could accomplish answering that in better fashion. I'm sure they'll tell you BW is a marketing term, or other similarly quixotic and mercurial term with no relevant definition.

Extra points if you can correctly fill in the blank.

Tempest : Teapot
__?__ : Bluewater boat.


----------



## smackdaddy

It seems that many still can't get past one single term in this entire discussion: "Blue Water". What exactly is it? No one seems to know, or at least are unable or unwilling to clearly define it in regards to sailing/cruising - yet are still seemingly upset that I'm using it in this thread. I find this very, very strange. I really do.

But, I've already defined it as it pertains to sailing/cruising. And it's not at all mysterious. So, let me again be as crystal clear as I can be by going back to my very first post&#8230;

*Blue Water = Extended ocean voyages where you might experience up to F11 conditions, but excluding abnormal conditions such as hurricanes.*

That's it. That's what Blue Water means. No mystery. No angst. No problem.

And you'll notice that this definition covers pretty much the entire ocean (with a couple of logical limitations such as sea ice probably fitting into the "abnormal conditions" for a sailing vessel in addition to the hurricanes - but that's "White Water" anyway, not Blue).

Now, for this Blue Water, you need a boat specifically designed and built for it and one that is largely self-sufficient while voyaging in and across it.

The CE Category A production boats we're trying to talk about here in this thread are just that. Again, there's no deep mystery or semantic gymnastics going on here at all. It's very simple.

So, unless someone can logically explain to me and the readers exactly how their idea of Blue Water is NOT included in the above definition, let's move on talk about the boats that meet this standard. That's the point of the thread.


----------



## smackdaddy

Jeff, I've been looking quite a bit more through the various calculations and specifications of the ISO 12217-2 doc, and have some thoughts on your last post. But before that, though I think I understand what you're getting at with this statement&#8230;



Jeff_H said:


> There is a reason that these two numbers are the same, because they are the same and come from the same place. This is a very good example of an area where the Categorization was watered down.


&#8230;I wanted to ask specifically what you mean when you say the "Categorization was watered down". Is it the number being less than 140? Or something else?

Again, my point with this comparison between the CE Cat A and OSR Cat 0 AVS standard was to show that they are the same standard (one for cruising boats and the other for trans-oceanic racing boats at the highest level). So we're in agreement there.

Beyond that I don't know what you mean by "watered down".

Thanks.


----------



## RegisteredUser

...circle jerk....

Each to their own


----------



## john61ct

Seems to me Cat A may be necessary (when choosing a modern Euro boat) but not sufficient.

Call it a "likely good starting point when new"?

But still needs proper fitting out, and the human side remains the most critical element.

Is there anything there someone could disagree with?


----------



## Jeff_H

smackdaddy said:


> Jeff, I've been looking quite a bit more through the various calculations and specifications of the ISO 12217-2 doc, and have some thoughts on your last post. But before that, though I think I understand what you're getting at with this statement&#8230;
> 
> &#8230;I wanted to ask specifically what you mean when you say the "Categorization was watered down". Is it the number being less than 140? Or something else?
> 
> Again, my point with this comparison between the CE Cat A and OSR Cat 0 AVS standard was to show that they are the same standard (one for cruising boats and the other for trans-oceanic racing boats at the highest level). So we're in agreement there.
> 
> Beyond that I don't know what you mean by "watered down".
> 
> Thanks.


The 120 degree number was chosen for race boats because it was calculated using a surrogate formula, a formula that was thought to be pretty conservative when applied to IMS boats of that era. AND with the mandatory crew experience being implemented race crews we're generally larger and more proficient in handling boats in heavy conditions.

The research of the day indicated that the CE open ocean category should require an actual AVS larger than140 degrees.

The AVS in the Category A is 120 degrees, but unlike the AVS calculated for a Cat 0 race, the cat A AVS allows the use of the actual AVS and that is typically 15 to 20 degrees less. So instead of Cat A requiring 140 degrees actual, it is only requiring 120 actual.

That 20 degrees difference is what I meant by watering down the Cat A requirements.

Jeff


----------



## smackdaddy

Jeff_H said:


> The 120 degree number was chosen for race boats because it was calculated using a surrogate formula, a formula that was thought to be pretty conservative when applied to IMS boats of that era. AND with the mandatory crew experience being implemented race crews we're generally larger and more proficient in handling boats in heavy conditions.
> 
> The research of the day indicated that the CE open ocean category should require an actual AVS larger than140 degrees.
> 
> The AVS in the Category A is 120 degrees, but unlike the AVS calculated for a Cat 0 race, the cat A AVS allows the use of the actual AVS and that is typically 15 to 20 degrees less. So instead of Cat A requiring 140 degrees actual, it is only requiring 120 actual.
> 
> That 20 degrees difference is what I meant by watering down the Cat A requirements.
> 
> Jeff


Thanks Jeff.

That's kind of what I thought you meant. So the 120 degrees is the same for both (i.e. - neither requires 140). As for the "actual AVS" for the Cat A, I couldn't find that specified in the ISO doc. However, I did find where the Cat 0 formula specifies the "Minimum Operating Condition" (empty tanks - worst case stability scenario I belive you said) where the Cat A, from what I can see thus far, uses the "Load Arrival Condition" with this table...










Is that what you mean as the "actual AVS"?

These Loaded Arrival numbers seem pretty minimal to me. They seem pretty close to that worst case - especially for a cruising boat. I don't know if that explains the "allowance" in the difference you point out, I'm not interested in running the math, but it seems to be one of the variables.

Also, it's pretty much a given that cruising boats will invariably be carrying far more mass overall than the race boat.

In any case, I just wanted to clear up the fact that the AVS standard between Cat A and Cat 0 - at least in terms of the number - is the same as shown in the formula. It's the slight difference between the measured conditions that make things a bit harder on the race boats. Correct?

Additionally, I wanted to point out a couple more equivalencies between the OSR Cat 0 and EC Cat A standards that I might not have made clear above&#8230;

As you can see in the Summary Requirements pages (64-66) of the ISO doc - just like the OSR Cat 0 regs, other stability factors such as STIX, AGZ, and many other components are also requirements for the CE Cat A rating. So again, they are pretty much identical in terms of what's required from the boats.










The bottom line is that these variables and calculations are extremely complex (loads in boats shifting around in a knockdown, number of crew on board, etc.) - but the point I'm making about the Cat A cruising boats having the same stability threshold as the highest level trans-oceanic racing boats is that this standard is certainly nothing to scoff at.

Finally, I encourage people to at least look at the ISO 12217-2 doc. They'll be impressed. For example, there are 18 pages of *just worksheets* at the end of the document to arrive at figures for just stability and buoyancy of these boats.










This is a high standard as George mentioned earlier.

I think it's very clear that these Cat A boats are very, very capable boats for oceanic/off-shore/blue-water/whatever-you-want-to-call-it voyages.


----------



## blt2ski

Personally, some of you need to get off the what is blue water, vs offshore vs coastal. 

LOOK AT the wind, sea state/wave size that the different category's that the design should handle. It really does not matter if I am sailing in the Straight of Juan de Fuca from say Port Angeles to Victoria on Vancouver Island, and am in 15-20' waves and steady 45-50 knot winds with gusts to 60, or the middle of a trip/race from Victoria to Maui, or a few miles going south/north off the coast of Wa state. ALL three areas, my/your boat will take the same basic stress's to it. It must be built to handle these stress's etc. 
If I have a Cat B boat, the design spec is not showing or saying said boat may or may not handle this stress. More than likely yes, if I handle drive the boat correctly per conditions. The cat A boat, if handled incorrectly, not maintained etc, may very well sink and loss of life may occur. IN ALL three places mind you! 
One of the scenario's mentioned is in the BW or Offshore usage, the other two more than likely coastal by most of our standards. Yet, the condition mentioned, can happen in ALL three places. Reality is, ALL of us want a boat that has the potential to handle this, if PROPERLY designed, built by manufacture, outfitted as needed later by us, ie installing appropriate safety gear for personal use, Jack lines, etc to keep us on the boat. Verifying that the hatches etc are water tight, Batteries secured so they do not fly out of the boxes stored in in case of a roll. These are a few things many of us need and want is a boat that is in these wind, sea state weather conditions. 
Quite worrying about if you, someone else or I are in an Offshore or BWB situation, and use the actual weather condition differences. Coastal can be just as bad or hard on my boat as offshore/BWB!

Marty


----------



## smackdaddy

Exactly Bluto. You nailed it more than you realize. But it gets even worse...or even better depending on your viewpoint...

I found this in the ISO document and I'd not seen it before. The typical CE Category A definition we've been using herein appears to have been "watered down" a bit from the original directive for (likely) marketing/legal purposes.



















I think this ISO definition might make the Blue Water Howlers (that's my new band by the way) shed a new tear&#8230;

The Cat A Blue Water bar has just been raised. Again.


----------



## Arcb

Come on Smack. I agree it's a decent standard.

I also agree with your definition of Blue Water to mean all oceans.

But force 11 on the open ocean is defined as a violent storm. 60 knot winds and 50 foot seas.

I'm not a Hunter basher, at all, I have spent considerable time on a legend 375 on Lake Ontario. Hundreds of hours. I liked the boat, I liked it a lot actually, but it certainly wasn't as weatherly as my Grampian 30, and a damn far sight from my Fantasia 35 (it was certainly faster than either though).

You can't take a boat like that into 50 foot seas and 60 knot winds. You just can't.

Not one guy with his wife or a couple of teenagers any way, maybe a highly experienced race crew, I am not sure, because, I am not one of those people. But I certainly couldn't manage a boat like that in those conditions.


----------



## smackdaddy

Arcb said:


> You can't take a boat like that into 50 foot seas and 60 knot winds. You just can't.


Absolutely agreed. And I would further submit that you can't take ANY brand of cruising boat *into* that and expect a perfectly good outcome. Or at least you shouldn't.

You'll see that this ISO definition says that after F10, you're in survival mode (no longer "operating"). And I think that this is exactly right. At the same time, Hal Roth also mentions how rare that is anyway if you're thoughtful - so it's definitely an edge-case. Even so, the Cat A boats are built to survive the storm. And that's what matters. If any boat keeps you alive but suffers some structural damage is that a bad thing? Hell no.

But you'll also remember that a poster above seems to think that there are brands/models of cruising boats out there that are built for "several days of F12+". So I encourage you, with your level of experience, to talk to *him* - not me. I don't plan on ever taking my Hunter anywhere NEAR those kinds of conditions. I've seen the Sydney-Hobart documentary - and read the book. I don't want the t-shirt.


----------



## Arcb

In the late 90's I was in an F11 in the Northern Atlantic, December. She was Lloyd's +100A1 Ice class. 427 feet and Seriously well built. 

It was scary, even the skipper was nervous. All we could do was heave too (power driven, so we basically station kept at no speed).

I agree, no normal pleasure craft is built to take that kind of weather.

I know it's possible, because I've read the God Foresaken Sea (a few times), but I don't know how regular folks, with regular boats can do it.

Maybe a highly experienced skipper could, but I think for regular folks at that latitude, it's bad news, even with a Category A boat.

I could be wrong though.

Here there ARE dragons.


----------



## smackdaddy

Well, that's why, regardless of what anyone EVER says about Hunters on forums, I'll never ceased to be amazed at the Hunter 49, _Sequitur_ in the F10/F11 near Cape Horn. Not only did it bring them through that storm without any damage whatsoever, they seemed to be downright comfortable.












> "I set-up a plot on the iPad to track our drift, and we laid down on the main salon couches to relax and watch the storm happen.
> 
> The port sidelight in the salon was looking bottom-ward a few times as breakers hit our starboard beam. Overhead, through the skylights and hatches we watched as great depths of green water sluiced over the decks. We remained dressed, with boots on and covered ourselves with duvets and napped."


Granted, Michael was 18 years in the Royal Canadian Navy (commissioned officer if I recall), so he was unquestionably the real deal. But so was that Cat A Hunter. It's pretty amazing really.










Here was his announcement on SN: http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...-related/83500-sequitur-rounds-cape-horn.html


----------



## Don L

Smack you need to collect a new example, that one is getting worn and since it is the only one you fall back to all the time it only suggests “that Hunter” could do it.


----------



## Arcb

blt2ski said:


> Personally, some of you need to get off the what is blue water, vs offshore vs coastal.


Why, pretty well every regulatory body on the planet makes the distinction, including the Conformité Européenne . The categories are listed as D: Inland or Sheltered Coastal, C: Inshore, B: Offshore, A: Ocean.

In Canada it goes; Sheltered Waters, Near Coastal Class II, Near Coastal Class I, and Unlimited Voyage.

RYA lists; Coastal, Offshore and Ocean.

SOLAS makes the distinction and has for a very long time. Look at the Load Lines on pretty well every Merchant Ship on the planet, this is probably the best indicator, since it applies to everyone, by the international body that regulates global shipping.

In order of severity it goes: Tropical Fresh Water, Fresh Water, Tropical Water, Summer Waters, Winter Waters, Winter North Atlantic Waters.

The distinction isn't made because the waves are smaller when they hit the coast or because the rocks are softer in tropical waters. The distinction is made, because it takes time for weather systems to build and forecasting allows you to run and hide more effectively (or stay in port) if you are close to shore, which decreases your lilkelihood of exposure to extreme conditions and decreases the time that you are exposed to extreme conditions should you be unable to out run it. In the case of load lines, the geographical distinction is made because of the likelihood the crew is going to freeze to death if the vessel swamps and because of the fatigue induced by cold weather on the crew.

These categories all make the assumption the skipper is bright enough to run and hide from extreme weather or is confident in their ability their boats ability to handle it.

Oddly, the Conformité Européenne remains silent sea and air temperature, which is a pretty stark contrast to SOLAS, but then again, France only has two coasts, Atlantic and Mediterranean..


----------



## Jeff_H

smackdaddy said:


> Is that what you mean as the "actual AVS"?
> 
> These Loaded Arrival numbers seem pretty minimal to me. They seem pretty close to that worst case - especially for a cruising boat. I don't know if that explains the "allowance" in the difference you point out, I'm not interested in running the math, but it seems to be one of the variables.
> 
> Also, it's pretty much a given that cruising boats will invariably be carrying far more mass overall than the race boat.
> 
> In any case, I just wanted to clear up the fact that the AVS standard between Cat A and Cat 0 - at least in terms of the number - is the same as shown in the formula. It's the slight difference between the measured conditions that make things a bit harder on the race boats. Correct?


That is not correct. The IMS and Cat 0 formula do not include the volume of the topsides, cabin structure, and cockpit (the first two generally increase the AVS and the second decreases it a little in a cruising boat) and with empty tanks. In actual practice, if you calculate the IMS/Cat 0 formula for most cruising boats and compare it to the 'actual AVS' (by which I mean a detailed calculation including all volumes and a the minimum operating amount of fluids in the tank, the IMS/Cat 0 calculation will typically produce an AVS that is 15 to 20 degrees less than actual AVS for the same boat. (i.e. My boat has an IMS AVS of 108 degrees and when it was calculated in detail came out well up the 120's)

In the development of the CE module, it was therefore thought that using the IMS/Cat 0 calc with a 120 degree AVS limit was roughly the equivalent to using the actual detailed calculation AVS with the 140 degree minimum which the research suggested was appropriate.

But in the process of enacting the standards, a modification was made that allowed designers to use the actual AVS instead of the IMS/Cat 0 simplified formula but with the min 120 degree AVS limit from the IMS surrogate formula. As computer software has improved, it has become much easier to calculate the actual AVS. Because of that, it is my understanding that pretty much all new applications use the actual AVS rather than the surrogate formula. In part that has caused designers to increase the volume of the topsides and cabin structures (rather than improve the ballast ratios etc.) to push the AVS up to the minimum 120 degrees rather than the 140 degree minimum AVS that should be used with a detailed actual AVS calculation.

Jeff


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

OK, this is the third strike. You have brought up this argument now for the third time in your new reincarnation. It looks like you count on people having too short a memory to remember that this was discussed in great detail (really, ad nauseam) before. You are doing way too much rehashing here so I will be very brief. Because it's that simple.

There is one little detail that you have left out here:

Michael and his bride set out 'for a slow careful circumnavigation' (this was his signature line for years). *After they experienced this storm in their Hunter, they limped to the Falklands and immediately aborted their planned circumnavigation.* They made a bee-line to the US, put up "that Cat A Hunter" for sale and bought a canal boat in Holland. To my knowledge, they are still enjoying the serenity of inland waterways in the Old World. More power to them!

It is nice that you"'ll never cease[d] to be amazed at the Hunter 49" but the fact is that a very experienced formal naval officer (with a thousand times more experience than you will ever have) completely changed what he had planned with the rest of his and his wife's life after experiencing a serious storm in their 'Cat A Hunter.' These are the facts.

And don't warm up old insinuations maligning Michael's or others' characters. He did not say bad things about his boat because he loves boats, and also because he intended to sell it. Nothing unethical about that, and don't insinuate that anyone stating the facts is implying nefarious motives. Period.



smackdaddy said:


> Well, that's why, regardless of what anyone EVER says about Hunters on forums, I'll never ceased to be amazed at the Hunter 49, _Sequitur_ in the F10/F11 near Cape Horn. Not only did it bring them through that storm without any damage whatsoever, they seemed to be downright comfortable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Granted, Michael was 18 years in the Royal Canadian Navy (commissioned officer if I recall), so he was unquestionably the real deal. But so was that Cat A Hunter. It's pretty amazing really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here was his announcement on SN: http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...-related/83500-sequitur-rounds-cape-horn.html


----------



## gonecrusin

Jeff_H said:


> That is not correct. The IMS and Cat 0 formula do not include the volume of the topsides, cabin structure, and cockpit (the first two generally increase the AVS and the second decreases it a little in a cruising boat) and with empty tanks. In actual practice, if you calculate the IMS/Cat 0 formula for most cruising boats and compare it to the 'actual AVS' (by which I mean a detailed calculation including all volumes and a the minimum operating amount of fluids in the tank, the IMS/Cat 0 calculation will typically produce an AVS that is 15 to 20 degrees less than actual AVS for the same boat. (i.e. My boat has an IMS AVS of 108 degrees and when it was calculated in detail came out well up the 120's)
> 
> In the development of the CE module, it was therefore thought that using the IMS/Cat 0 calc with a 120 degree AVS limit was roughly the equivalent to using the actual detailed calculation AVS with the 140 degree minimum which the research suggested was appropriate.
> 
> But in the process of enacting the standards, a modification was made that allowed designers to use the actual AVS instead of the IMS/Cat 0 simplified formula but with the min 120 degree AVS limit from the IMS surrogate formula. As computer software has improved, it has become much easier to calculate the actual AVS. Because of that, it is my understanding that pretty much all new applications use the actual AVS rather than the surrogate formula. *In part that has caused designers to increase the volume of the topsides and cabin structures (rather than improve the ballast ratios etc.)* to push the AVS up to the minimum 120 degrees rather than the 140 degree minimum AVS that should be used with a detailed actual AVS calculation.
> 
> Jeff


Those changes are very apparent in today's designs especially when compared to older design rules such as CCA or IOR where ballast to displacement ratios are 40 or 50%.


----------



## smackdaddy

Don0190 said:


> Smack you need to collect a new example, that one is getting worn and since it is the only one you fall back to all the time it only suggests "that Hunter" could do it.


Don, you need to understand that I don't research and write this stuff for long-time forum members. I write it for newbs and people researching boat purchases. I really couldn't care less about convincing those who I've extensively discussed this with in the past. That's not the point.


----------



## smackdaddy

Jeff_H said:


> That is not correct. The IMS and Cat 0 formula do not include the volume of the topsides, cabin structure, and cockpit (the first two generally increase the AVS and the second decreases it a little in a cruising boat) and with empty tanks. In actual practice, if you calculate the IMS/Cat 0 formula for most cruising boats and compare it to the 'actual AVS' (by which I mean a detailed calculation including all volumes and a the minimum operating amount of fluids in the tank, the IMS/Cat 0 calculation will typically produce an AVS that is 15 to 20 degrees less than actual AVS for the same boat. (i.e. My boat has an IMS AVS of 108 degrees and when it was calculated in detail came out well up the 120's)


Okay, again, I'm trying to simplify all this in regards to the Cat A to Cat 0 standards, so bear with me a moment...

First, let's look again at the two standards side-by-side...

Cat A









Cat 0









I'm certainly not questioning your account of the history of the standard - but as I've said previously, that (just like the politics behind it) doesn't really effect what we're talking about now. 140 degrees could be compared to the bonded bronze thru-hulls. No argument that more is better in most areas, but that's not part of the standard.

So, comparing these two, "IMS" itself is not referenced in either these two sections (I think I understand your reference to mean the "Stability Index in ORC Rating System" and that number of 120, but I'm not sure). So, I think it clouds the discussion - also, because that "Stability Index in ORC Rating System" is essentially an "add-on" in the OSR - of which there are obviously TONS in many areas compared to Cat A.

To that end, we've already discussed the parenthetical of the "Minimum Operating Condition" requirement of the Cat 0 rating for AVS. But apart from that, this is the formula for both top-end trans-oceanic racing boats AND Cat A cruising boats...










Now, the main thing to notice here in this formula is the MINIMUM of 100 degrees. This is the floor for ANY boat in this standard. Should it be more? Could it be more? Again, more is usually better in this regard - but that's not the point of this discussion. AND as you've already pointed out, different Cat A boats will have different numbers so you can shop for the one you want based on this number if you'd like.

So nothing is watered down here.

Next, on this part...



Jeff_H said:


> In the development of the CE module, it was therefore thought that using the IMS/Cat 0 calc with a 120 degree AVS limit was roughly the equivalent to using the actual detailed calculation AVS with the 140 degree *minimum* which the research suggested was appropriate.
> 
> But in the process of enacting the standards, a modification was made that allowed designers to use the actual AVS instead of the IMS/Cat 0 simplified formula but with the min 120 degree AVS limit from the IMS surrogate formula.


First, did you mean to type "minimum" there? Second, on the 120 degrees mentioned only in the OSR Cat 0 reg, George showed his Catalina exceeded the 120 number.

So, again, we see that the *floor* is 100 degrees - but most boats will pretty easily surpass this. Personally, I DEFINITELY want a boat that has a higher number than 100. And if buying a Cat A boat, I will look for that information and try to ensure that the boat surpasses 120 and gets as close to 140 as possible.

BUT - I will also understand that my Cat A boat STILL has the exact same formula for determining the AVS that the Cat 0 boats have. AND I will understand that this number is VERY hard to definitively arrive at due to all the various things that go into that mass "m" number (all the crap I have on my boat, etc.). To be absolutely certain of my AVS, I'd need to weigh and measure my boat at the start of *every* big trip.



Jeff_H said:


> ...it is my understanding that pretty much all new applications use the actual AVS rather than the surrogate formula. In part that has caused designers to increase the volume of the topsides and cabin structures (rather than improve the ballast ratios etc.) to push the AVS up to the minimum 120 degrees rather than the 140 degree minimum AVS that should be used with a detailed actual AVS calculation.


Are you talking about racing boats here? Or cruising boats? Or both? This is where things get murky again. The solution to a problem on a race bot will ALWAYS be very different to the solution on a cruising boat - though the standard is the same.

(PS - Your note above about the cockpit on a cruising boat decreasing AVS...do you think that's a reason many are going with the open transom?)


----------



## Don L

smackdaddy said:


> Don, you need to understand that I don't research and write this stuff for long-time forum members. I write it for newbs and people researching boat purchases. I really couldn't care less about convincing those who I've extensively discussed this with in the past. That's not the point.


z

Are there new points? I've been supportive of the thread concept, but beating the same old same old is poor debating. Now you have same old same old "they sold their Hunter to go canal cruising" comments that mean nothing to the thread subject. There has been no new posters really and any "newbie" that reads this thread from the start and makes it this far is showing a sign of insanity. The only reason most are still reading is the car wreck effect.

CE Cat A "production" boats are blue water capable, with proper fit out. This applies to even the the $1m fancier "production" boats like say an Oyster.

Is there any thing beyond this needing debate as a group beyond individual poster desire to make lame "but" agurements for something to do? (The answer is NO)


----------



## smackdaddy

Don0190 said:


> Are there new points?


I can't answer that question for you Don. If you already know about all these details behind the Cat A standard, then I suppose there are no new points for you.

As for myself in researching it - and, I think many, many others - even though I've been discussing the subject for years, the answer is ABSOLUTELY. I'm finding all kinds of new things I'd never known before that underscore the incredible value of Cat A boats.

For example, had you known about that ISO specification/meaning of the Categories? I hadn't. That's new.

So, I think if one is interested in* learning* - there are LOTS of new points being discussed thus far - and likely LOTS more to come.

If one is not interested in learning, then the answer is no. There are no new points.


----------



## smackdaddy

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> OK, this is the third strike. You have brought up this argument now for the third time in your new reincarnation. It looks like you count on people having too short a memory to remember that this was discussed in great detail (really, ad nauseam) before. You are doing way too much rehashing here so I will be very brief. Because it's that simple.
> 
> There is one little detail that you have left out here:
> 
> Michael and his bride set out 'for a slow careful circumnavigation' (this was his signature line for years). *After they experienced this storm in their Hunter, they limped to the Falklands and immediately aborted their planned circumnavigation.* They made a bee-line to the US, put up "that Cat A Hunter" for sale and bought a canal boat in Holland. To my knowledge, they are still enjoying the serenity of inland waterways in the Old World. More power to them!
> 
> It is nice that you"'ll never cease[d] to be amazed at the Hunter 49" but the fact is that a very experienced formal naval officer (with a thousand times more experience than you will ever have) completely changed what he had planned with the rest of his and his wife's life after experiencing a serious storm in their 'Cat A Hunter.' These are the facts.
> 
> And don't warm up old insinuations maligning Michael's or others' characters. He did not say bad things about his boat because he loves boats, and also because he intended to sell it. Nothing unethical about that, and don't insinuate that anyone stating the facts is implying nefarious motives. Period.


Mast, I've dealt with this already. You and others have tried repeatedly to speak for Micheal and his motivations to bend this story to what YOU want it to be. All I can say is that people should read Micheal's own words, not those put in his mouth by others....



> After the referenced F10/F11 storm, they assessed the boat and themselves and decided to head north instead of east to Cape Town. Here are his words...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With our onward direction in mind, we assessed Sequitur's condition. We have nothing but high praise for the Hunter 49, finding it a wonderfully sea-kindly vessel, very comfortable and secure in all weather through Force 12. However; the poor quality of the installation work done during the fit-out by Specialty Yachts in Vancouver continues to jeopardize our safety and to impair our enjoyment of this wonderful boat.
> 
> The Raymarine chart-plotter continues to malfunction, losing the radar scanner input, rebooting, going back to factory default and erasing all data and settings. This happens randomly every few hours, seemingly the result of a particular, though as yet unidentified vibration. It began a few days south of Puerto Montt, after we had crossed the Buco de Guafo into the northern Patagonian channels. With this, we have lost the input from both of our AIS units, the Raymarine transceiver and the SeaCas receiver, so we can see no other vessels' AIS signatures. Fortunately though; our transceiver works, so we are visible to other vessels. I suspect some more of Specialty's poor connections are to blame, but so far through my troubleshooting up the mast and down below behind the system's components, I have not been able to track-down the cause.
> 
> The Icom 802 SSB radio, the antenna and the tuner installation that we had done by Specialty performed very poorly from the beginning, and for over a year now has ceased to work at all, so we have no access to weather information by voice nor through gribs by sailmail, so we need to rely on the satellite phone. While we were in Vancouver, I changed over from a Microsoft-based computer to a new MacBook Air, and I have not yet been able to get the Iridium satellite phone to work with it, although the program is designed to work with Macs. So while we have hundreds of minutes on our Global Marine Networks account, I cannot use the XGate email, web browser or weather applications.
> 
> The thought of venturing out on a three or four week, 3500-mile crossing to Cape Town without ongoing access to current weather information, without dependable radar and without being able to receive AIS data, did not sit well with us. Additionally, with our anchor windlass broken again, approaching a coast in unknown weather after a month's passage without convenient anchoring capability seemed imprudent if better options were available.
> 
> We thought of staying in Stanley and getting our electronics and windlass repaired; however, we were tired of many months in multiple layers of fleece, of wearing long underwear, of wearing double toques, of sleeping under two heavy duvets, all this with the Espar furnace turned up high. We were tired of the constant highly humid cold weather. We looked north, closer to the equator. Argentina was totally out of the question; we risked very heavy fines, even boat confiscation for having visiting the Malvinas without Argentine permission. We looked at heading to Piriapolis, Uruguay.
> 
> 
> 
> ...and they were still weighing their options as they made it to Brazil, with Cape Town still in the mix...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were still unsure of our onward route as we left. From Piriapolis it is about 3600 nautical miles to Cape Town, but we still needed repairs. Online I had found a Lewmar dealer listed in Rio de Janeiro, but my emails to them had bounced. It is a bit over 1000 miles to Rio, and we could put-in there without visas, claiming a need for repairs. From there it is 3300 miles to Cape Town. Alternatively from Rio, it is 2600 to the Cape Verde Islands. From there we could head via the Canaries or the Azores 1600 or 2400 miles to Europe. Another thought was that if we couldn't get repairs in Rio, it is 3600 miles around Brazil through the Windward Islands to Puerto Rico, where there is a Hunter dealer, and it is only another 1100 miles through the Bahamas to Saint Augustine, Florida and access to the Hunter factory.
> 
> We opened the hatches and portlights to allow the 15-knot breeze to blow through Sequitur and cool her interior. We variously napped and relaxed, had a celebratory bottle of Undurraga Brut Royale with dinner and reflected on where we were and where we had been. Since leaving Vancouver, we have covered 15,166 nautical miles, which is just over 70% of the distance around the earth. Almost a quarter of our travel, 3500 miles has been in the past seven weeks since we left the Falklands, and most of it through adverse and contrary conditions, both ashore and at sea. We needed a break.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I say, it's a great read. And as for judgement and seamanship, apart from these obvious successes, Micheal's CV speaks for itself...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Walsh was born in 1944 on Canada's east coast. After school, he joined the Royal Canadian Air Force, moved to the west coast and trained as a Pilot. During the next two decades, he made a name for himself as an exploratory mountaineer, with over six dozen first ascents on four continents. In the late 1960s, he transferred to the Navy and served as a Navigator and a ship's Captain among other duties. After eighteen years service, he resigned his commission to pursue his wine, writing and boating passions. From the early 1980s through to this century, he was a prominent wine and food educator, columnist and feature writer. He has published four nonfiction books on boating, and he is now venturing into fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

And this is him talking about the same reasoning here on SN:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/826912-post15.html

Finally, all of this is available for anyone to read in Micheal's blog linked above and/or his book:









https://www.amazon.com/SEQUITUR-Com...1508111142&sr=1-1&keywords=sequitur+cape+horn

Beyond that, I won't debate this anymore with you guys. It's simply a re-hashing of a very, very tired and misleading argument anyway - and that's putting it kindly.

Whether you like it or not, _Sequitur_ is an incredible example of what Cat A boats are capable of (especially in the hands of a competent skipper). And that is what this thread is about.

Therefore, in this thread we should stick with *only facts for which you can show evidence*. If you can PROVE what you're saying about Michael and his motivations, I'm all ears. If not, I'm very satisfied that *his own words are proof enough*.

Now let's move on and focus on the subject of the thread. I'll await Jeff's continuation of our AVS discussion.

_[PS - Yet again I'm stuck between addressing misrepresentations or allowing them to stand so that it doesn't appear that *I'm* the one causing trouble and rehashing old stuff with the same old members in order to get the thread locked. Because, yes, I am on probation here and can easily and quickly be perma-banned. I just hope that it's clear that I'm not "targeting" anyone, and that I'm *always* willing to provide the back-up for what I'm saying and simply ask that others do the same, so that newbs and people researching boat purchases can have facts instead of only opinion. I understand there are LOTS of people who don't like me as a poster. And that really doesn't bother me. But that shouldn't shut down a productive conversation between people who are willing to dig in and learn.]_


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

Don0190 said:


> z
> 
> Are there new points? I've been supportive of the thread concept, but beating the same old same old is poor debating. Now you have same old same old "they sold their Hunter to go canal cruising" comments that mean nothing to the thread subject. There has been no new posters really and any "newbie" that reads this thread from the start and makes it this far is showing a sign of insanity. The only reason most are still reading is the car wreck effect.)


You are absolutely right. As I said in my post, this has been discussed to death in that other infamous thread he started.

I bit my tongue when Smackdaddy brought this bogus argument up again, after it has been refuted thoroughly. And again. And yet again.

Then he did it again. I bit my tongue harder. Really, really hard.

By the third time I had enough of this misinformation.

I really wished we would not have to do that. But Smackdaddy sets the tone here, as usual.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

smackdaddy said:


> Mast, I've dealt with this already. You and others have tried repeatedly to speak for Micheal and his motivations to bend this story to what YOU want it to be. All I can say is that people should read Micheal's own words, not those put in his mouth by others....
> 
> *HERE ARE THOSE WORDS* at the time these decisions were being made.
> 
> Beyond that, I won't debate this anymore with you guys. It's simply a re-hashing of a very, very misleading argument anyway. Whether you like it or not, _Sequitur_ is an incredible example of what Cat A boats are capable of. And that is what this thread is about.
> 
> We should, in this thread, stick with only facts for which you can show evidence. If you can PROVE what you're saying about Michael and his motivations, I'm all ears. If not, I'm very satisfied that his own words are proof enough.


Really??? Are you really going to rehash this again?!!??

You claim that I have put words in Michael's mouth. Please tell me when and where that was. You better stick to the facts, not nebulous, slanderous accusations. You know, sticking just to the facts is really better. Simple as that.

Do I really have to repeat what I said a half hour ago in this thread? You mean, what actually happened, like the actual facts in this matter?

OK, here they are, just for your reading pleasure (and of course for the 'newbs' that you are so interested in lecturing to)


A highly experienced mariner (with a thousand times more experience at sea than you will get in your lifetime) and his wife get into the first serious storm with their boat, a Hunter 49

They seek shelter in the closest port. They had planned FOR YEARS to circumnavigate. After this experience, they abort this plan

Instead, they sail the Hunter to the US and immediately put it up for sale

They buy a canal boat in Europe.


These are the facts. I like facts. I only state facts.

You see, it is easy. You should try that yourself. Rather than assuming that others have bad intentions, or bending Michael and Edi's story to what YOU want it to be. This is a very misleading argument, just try to avoid that kind of stuff in the future. It is simple.


----------



## Jeff_H

smackdaddy said:


> Okay, again, I'm trying to simplify all this in regards to the Cat A to Cat 0 standards, so bear with me a moment...
> 
> BUT - I will also understand that my Cat A boat STILL has the exact same formula for determining the AVS that the Cat 0 boats have. AND I will understand that this number is VERY hard to definitively arrive at due to all the various things that go into that mass "m" number (all the crap I have on my boat, etc.). To be absolutely certain of my AVS, I'd need to weigh and measure my boat at the start of *every* big trip.
> 
> Are you talking about racing boats here? Or cruising boats? Or both? This is where things get murky again. The solution to a problem on a race bot will ALWAYS be very different to the solution on a cruising boat - though the standard is the same.
> 
> (PS - Your note above about the cockpit on a cruising boat decreasing AVS...do you think that's a reason many are going with the open transom?)


Let me simplify this for you. The research on AVS by the corresponding committees who made the recommendations concluded that a concluded for a boat intended for use in the open ocean, the minimum AVS should be 140 degrees. They had concluded this based on research and calculations of existing boats and full sized and scientific tank testing of model boats. George mentioned that earlier in the thread. The 140 degree minimum AVS was chosen because anything less than that would have a problem recovering from a knock down that was in excess of its AVS. There was pretty much universal agreement amongst the naval architectural scientists researching this. That 140 degree mininum was supposed to be based on the real AVS of the vessel calculated in detail.

The ORC has replaced the IMS as the racing measurement rule of choice, and they both use the same simplified formula that produces a less accurate AVS number that is actually 15-20 degrees lower. In the first politicization of the science, it was agreed that using the IMS/ now ORC formula and corresponding AVS limit of 120 degrees was close enough to a limit of 140 degrees when AVS was calculated in detail.

But that was watered down so that the actual AVS as calculated in detail does not have to exceed 120 degrees for Cat A boats where race boats or cruisers.

Based on your attached charts, it would appear that Cat A is watered down further taking it down to 100 degrees, although there is a modifier which may approximate the ORC 120 degrees.

Which gets to my point about the politicized changes to the CE Cat A standards. The science says that offshore cruisers should have a real AVS of 140 or greater. The CE standards appear to allow an AVS as low as 120 degrees and perhaps as low as 100 degrees (if modified by a percentage of m). In other words, the CE Cat A standard does not come within 20 degrees of meeting the AVS standard that marine science says it should be.

On the other matter, increasing the sealed volume of the boat above the waterline increases its AVS because it moves the center of buoyancy further from the center of gravity, thereby increasing the righting moment at extreme heel angles approaching the AVS. The cockpit of a boat reduces the volume and so lowers the AVS angle rather than increasing it. If you are going to have large cockpit the ability to drain quickly (i.e. open transom) is a good thing for seaworthiness, but the big cockpits lack of volume is a bad thing for AVS.

So here is the simple answer you are looking for....The science says that an actual AVS of 140 degrees is the minimum that is safe for open ocean use. The racing rules use a surrogate formula that does not include all volumes so that the AVS that the racing rules calculate is 15 to 20 degrees lower than it actually is and so use an AVS of 120 when calculated using that formula. For all boats the CE Cat A limits the AVS to 120 degrees (down to 100 degrees) using the actual AVS rather than the surrogate formula, which is 20 to 40 degrees less than the science concluded it should be. Therefore the CE Cat A does not produce a boat which meets the minimum standard that the science says it should be for an ocean going vessel. Ergo, CE Category A Production Boats *ARE NOT NECESSARILY* blue water boats. (Even if some are used offshore and have safely made passages offshore.)

Also, The published version of my conversation with Jin Bohart at Hunter was Hunter's official position. But Jim during our conversations made it clear that if Hunter knew a boat was going offshore, it was was beefed up during production. Can't speak to Sequestor and whether that boat was specifically constructed knowing that she was going to try to 'go the distance'.

Jeff


----------



## Arcb

I'm finding this thread entertaining, but not because of the ultimate stability conversation. Stability regs are what they are. I guess you have to set a standard some where.

I find two things interesting. First is what an effective marketing tool these regs turn out to have been. The commercialisation of recreational sailing has been an interest of mine for quite a while. Studying these regs and reading this post has filled in some blanks for me. 

The second part is, I didn't realise any body outside of Europe cared about European regulations, but I guess when most of the big yacht manufacturers are in Europe, they get to control the market.

Some of what I find interesting about the regulations, is they seem to be a little up side down. Here in North America, you get more rules associated with a boat as it increases in size. 6 flares for a 25 footer, but 12 for a 35, that sort of thing. But the Europeans work the other way around, they put increasing restrictions and limitations on boats as they decrease in size.

Somebody mentioned earlier that boats on average are more resistant to capsize as they increase in size. How long is a piece of string though. Surely a 50 footer will be more resistant than a 35 footer, but the standard isn't set at 50 feet. Its set some where in the low 30s. No doubt more resistant to capsize than a similar boat around 25, but certainly less than a similar boat of 40 feet. So how long is a piece of string. Is it just coincidence that this string is roughly the same length as an entry level crusier. That is one heck of a coincidence. Is this a marketing tool to encourage people to buy boats of a certain size. I don't know the answer to these questions, they are just questions.

Another thing that is interesting is the focus on ultimate stability, not just from the regs, but also in this discussion. A catastrophic loss of stability on a keel boat isn't really what keeps me up at night from a safety perspective. The things I worry about mostly have to do with stuff breaking and exposure to the elements.

A boat can be sitting perfectly up right, but if a wave comes down onto a hatch and blows the hatch out in heavy weather, you are in deep trouble whether you are upside down or not. Hatches are a big one, but other stuff I keep an close eye on is rigging damage, steering damage and especially through hull issues. I hate through hulls. My current boat doesn't have any, not even for a head.

This is another thing where things get weird, bigger boats have more through hulls, in some cases a lot more. I consider each of those to be a potential failure point, but back to the ultimate stability side of things- bigger is better under these regs, but not so big as to exclude the entry levels of Cruising Models, which need to be a certain minimum size, not for any safety reasons, but to accommodate a head, a galley, sufficient sleeping accommodations and standing head room.


----------



## Don L

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Really??? Are you really going to rehash this again?!!??
> 
> You claim that I have put words in Michael's mouth. Please tell me when and where that was. You better stick to the facts, not nebulous, slanderous accusations. You know, sticking just to the facts is really better. Simple as that.
> 
> Do I really have to repeat what I said a half hour ago in this thread? You mean, what actually happened, like the actual facts in this matter?
> 
> OK, here they are, just for your reading pleasure (and of course for the 'newbs' that you are so interested in lecturing to)
> 
> 
> A highly experienced mariner (with a thousand times more experience at sea than you will get in your lifetime) and his wife get into the first serious storm with their boat, a Hunter 49
> 
> They seek shelter in the closest port. They had planned FOR YEARS to circumnavigate. After this experience, they abort this plan
> 
> Instead, they sail the Hunter to the US and immediately put it up for sale
> 
> They buy a canal boat in Europe.
> 
> 
> These are the facts. I like facts. I only state facts.
> 
> You see, it is easy. You should try that yourself. Rather than assuming that others have bad intentions, or bending Michael and Edi's story to what YOU want it to be. This is a very misleading argument, just try to avoid that kind of stuff in the future. It is simple.


I feel you are being as bad as Smack. I see this as nothing to do Hunter or the Cat A argument. I see this as "It sucks being in sailboat during a storm. Let's change plans and go canal cruising instead."

I now return you to the car wreck thread!


----------



## blt2ski

Arc,
I look st this as, if I start on a biblically with a good weather forecast for the day, half way across this straight of Juan De Fuca, the storm that is predicted for tomorrow speeds up and gets here early, I'm in the conditions I described,. I'd better have a boat built and designed to handle said conditions. 
If that means I need to start with an A, vs CE B. So be it. 
To me this is no different than poster earlier describing a person sinking in the middle of Atlantic or equal with water at his feet, " but it's a CE A boat" oh well! 
As smackpointed out in post after mine, that you only copied part of, if you are coastal, but have a potential long fetch like the straight has, over 1000 miles thank you very much, conditions can be as bad or worst than BWB/offshore. One of the worst places for boats is Columbia river entry off the ocean. Add a 6-8 knot flood water current, with 29-30+ foot seas, boats can sink! Nomatter how built.
Maybe I should worry about the name of where I am, frankly, I'll worry about sea and wind state more than bwb/off shore type.naming.
At the end, I need a boat built for conditions it will be in!
Marty


----------



## colemj

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> A highly experienced mariner (with a thousand times more experience at sea than you will get in your lifetime) and his wife get into the first serious storm with their boat, a Hunter 49
> 
> They seek shelter in the closest port. They had planned FOR YEARS to circumnavigate. After this experience, they abort this plan
> 
> Instead, they sail the Hunter to the US and immediately put it up for sale
> 
> They buy a canal boat in Europe.


This is a very poor argument. I can replace "Hunter 49" with 4 brands of boats you would likely consider true BWB boats of personal friends whose experience and path in life fit this exact list (except for the canal boat thing - they chose other options).

Mark


----------



## hellosailor

smack-
You've defined "Blue Water". But that's your definition, your opinion, and tailored to your purposes. That's far from "what it means" on a larger planet.

There are more lines to be drawn on the sand. Doesn't "blue water" mean a mast like a tree trunk, no bendy masts or running backstays allowed? Because in blue water, there are rogue waves, which are very real and not mythical creatures. A real blue water boat needs to consider that capsizing, pitchpoling, stuffing the bow through the crest of a 40' wave, all are events that may happen, despite the best weathercasting. IIRC half the the Pacific went "blind" a couple of years ago when a weather satellite failed. This is why the Navy has long said "Sh|t happens." Simply because it does, no matter how capable the captain and master may be.

Do the CE CatA rules also require all lockers and floorboards to be secure against roll-over? Including the anchor well? That's a traditional cruisers requirement for a BW boat. But wait, now recently the offshore racing rules changed to require the mast be secured the keel. Not just stepped on it, but secured with a pin or similar, to prevent it from falling out during a capsize.

And has there EVER been a production boat that provides for meeting the longstanding offshore racing rule, that the hatchboards can be secured in place, from inside or out? Ah, shouldn't that be a BW boat criteria?

How about the engine mounts? Will they ignore a rollover?

How blue IS your personal bluewater? Because apparently, the term remains undefined by the larger body of users.

Something like "pornography". You may not know to to define it, but you'll have a pretty good idea if you're seeing it.


----------



## smackdaddy

As always, thanks again. It's become a bit more clear now. So a couple more nits and I think we can move on from this particular issue...



Jeff_H said:


> Let me simplify this for you. The research on AVS by the corresponding committees who made the recommendations concluded that a concluded for a boat intended for use in the open ocean, the minimum AVS should be 140 degrees. They had concluded this based on research and calculations of existing boats and full sized and scientific tank testing of model boats. George mentioned that earlier in the thread. The 140 degree minimum AVS was chosen because anything less than that would have a problem recovering from a knock down that was in excess of its AVS. There was pretty much universal agreement amongst the naval architectural scientists researching this. That 140 degree mininum was supposed to be based on the real AVS of the vessel calculated in detail.
> 
> The ORC has replaced the IMS as the racing measurement rule of choice, and they both use the same simplified formula that produces a less accurate AVS number that is actually 15-20 degrees lower. In the first politicization of the science, it was agreed that using the IMS/ now ORC formula and corresponding AVS limit of 120 degrees was close enough to a limit of 140 degrees when AVS was calculated in detail.
> 
> But that was watered down so that the actual AVS as calculated in detail does not have to exceed 120 degrees for Cat A boats where race boats or cruisers.
> 
> Based on your attached charts, it would appear that *Cat A is watered down further* taking it down to 100 degrees, although there is a modifier which may approximate the ORC 120 degrees.
> 
> Which gets to my point about the politicized changes to the CE Cat A standards. The science says that offshore cruisers should have a real AVS of 140 or greater. The CE standards appear to allow an AVS as low as 120 degrees and perhaps as low as 100 degrees (if modified by a percentage of m). In other words, the CE Cat A standard does not come within 20 degrees of meeting the AVS standard that marine science says it should be.


This progression makes more sense now. BUT, as regards the AVS formula itself that we're discussing, the minimum for BOTH is 100 degrees. So in that regard Cat A is not further "watered down".

Just like with the ORC addition of the 120 degree minimum, you'd need to look at how various Cat A production boat manufacturers/models deal with this minimum as well. If they insist on a 120 degree minimum, then you have equivalency. We don't have that info easily available, but it is an easy question for any dealer and/or manufacturer (I'll put in some emails to Beneteau/Jeanneau/etc. to find out how they approach this number.)

As George shows, his Catalina seems to exceed that ORC Cat 0 standard.

So, again, I'm focusing on this because I think you have to be very careful to dismiss something as "watered down" unless you have actual numbers in front of you.

On the other hand, I take your point that ALL of it is "watered down" from the science-backed 140 degrees. But it sounds like that was driven by racers, not cruisers. And that's why understanding the trends in cruising boats is very important.



Jeff_H said:


> On the other matter, increasing the sealed volume of the boat above the waterline increases its AVS because it moves the center of buoyancy further from the center of gravity, thereby increasing the righting moment at extreme heel angles approaching the AVS. The cockpit of a boat reduces the volume and so lowers the AVS angle rather than increasing it. If you are going to have large cockpit the ability to drain quickly (i.e. open transom) is a good thing for seaworthiness, but the big cockpits lack of volume is a bad thing for AVS.


Now THIS is another item that I think has been overlooked in the discussion. For example, if the research that was happening back then was based on the Fastnet disaster, how have the downflooding/buoyancy advancements in these new boats changed the calculus of AVS? You mentioned earlier that the 140 was driven by the understanding that you'd hit a vicious-circle of mass as the boat filled with water. Do the newer boats deal with this in a more effective way so that this angle could be safely reduced - all things considered?



Jeff_H said:


> So here is the simple answer you are looking for....The science says that an actual AVS of 140 degrees is the minimum that is safe for open ocean use. The racing rules use a surrogate formula that does not include all volumes so that the AVS that the racing rules calculate is 15 to 20 degrees lower than it actually is and so use an AVS of 120 when calculated using that formula. For all boats the CE Cat A limits the AVS to 120 degrees (down to 100 degrees) using the actual AVS rather than the surrogate formula, which is 20 to 40 degrees less than the science concluded it should be. Therefore the CE Cat A does not produce a boat which meets the minimum standard that the science says it should be for an ocean going vessel. Ergo, CE Category A Production Boats *ARE NOT NECESSARILY* blue water boats. (Even if some are used offshore and have safely made passages offshore.)


Fair enough. My main goal here is to discuss the boats suited for the language specified in the Cat A rating. How people want to define water beyond that is up to them.


----------



## RocketScience

smackdaddy said:


> ...http://www.sailnet.com/forums/826912-post15.html


I think there needs to be a bit of a distinction here on how they did this, especially since this thread is (I guess) for noobs?

I'm guessing many noobs, when they hear a "rounding" of Cape Horn, think of it as a 'passage making rounding' a' la the Pardey's, or RTW solo-er's such as Jeanne Socrates, etc., but there is a harbor-hopping, gunk-holing way to accomplish it also&#8230;

(Cliff's Notes version of Sequitur's Cape Horn rounding for those who haven't read the book, or their blog)

Sequitur took more of the cruise line expedition route down to the Horn, entering Chile's Pacific coast inland ICW at Puerto Montt (located at about 41°S). From there, they gunk-holed their way 1200NM South to the inland port at Puerto Williams, located just 70NM due North of Isla Hornos (Cape Horn).

In Puerto Williams, they awaited a favorable weather window to make a two-leg run to the Horn, with the first leg being a 40NM trip to an anchorage at Isla Lennox. From Isla Lennox, they made the 50NM jaunt out to the Horn, passed in front of it twice (twice, because they had to turn around), and returned back to Puerto Williams.

(also to be clear, Sequitur endured that F10 gale lying hove-to, waiting out a storm off the Falkin island coast. This experience was independent of their Cape Horn rounding)

Now, rounding the Horn is certainly an accomplishment regardless of how you do it, and I take nothing away from Sequitur and its crew. But doing it in this particular fashion is well within the grasp of many of the seasoned sailors that at least I know, and I would have no problem in doing it in this fashion myself.

As a side note, on one of Lin and Larry Pardey's later roundings of the Horn (East to West I might add), they did it in calm wind and seas with the chute up!


----------



## smackdaddy

Thanks Rocket - you are absolutely right. And just as I point to Michael's words on one side of things - I'll point to them on the other. As you say, he repeatedly talks about "rounding Cape Horn". And the way he did it does not fit with the way some may think about it, or want to define it. So I won't spend any time defending that language. This is specifically how he reported it here:



Sequitur said:


> At 1300 on Thursday the 2nd of February, Groundhog Day we rounded Cape Horn east-to-west, then turned and rounded it west-to-east, just to make sure. There was no shadow for the groundhog to see, so we assumed that means it is still summer down here.


Personally, I think his strategy was great. Very conservative - and got the job done.

BUT, just as you say, the STORM we're talking about as it relates to this discussion happened southeast thereafter between Cape Horn and the Falklands - exactly the same ocean you'd be in in a "purist rounding". So the technical definition of "rounding" one wants to apply has nothing to do with the point of this storm and this boat's performance.

So, again, I have no problem with your making this distinction. It's a good distinction...backed up by his own words.

So thanks for the added facts.


----------



## Jeff_H

Arcb said:


> I find two things interesting. First is what an effective marketing tool these regs turn out to have been. The commercialization of recreational sailing has been an interest of mine for quite a while. Studying these regs and reading this post has filled in some blanks for me.
> 
> The second part is, I didn't realize any body outside of Europe cared about European regulations, but I guess when most of the big yacht manufacturers are in Europe, they get to control the market.


These standards, pretty much like all of the EU standards, were created to reduce trade barriers between countries. At the time that the Recreational Watercraft Directive was created, there were an array of different standards being used across Europe including two versions of Lloyds and some countries using ABYC. Because Europe was one of the stronger markets for sailboats, most manufacturers with an eye on sales in Europe and chose to bring their boats into conformance with the Recreational Watercraft Directive. The 'corresponding committees' included U.S. manufacturers and designers and one of the major meetings of the corresponding committees took place at Sname's Chesapeake Sailing Yacht Symposium.

It should be noted that France was playing hardball in the negotiations and pretty much held the line to keep the bar low.



Arcb said:


> Some of what I find interesting about the regulations, is they seem to be a little up side down. Here in North America, you get more rules associated with a boat as it increases in size. 6 flares for a 25 footer, but 12 for a 35, that sort of thing. But the Europeans work the other way around, they put increasing restrictions and limitations on boats as they decrease in size.


That does not particularly accurately reflect the way it works. Equipage pretty much works the same way that it does in ABYC. There is a reason for that. Much of the equipage standards came from a metricized version of the ABYC standards. But also, equipage standards are intended to be realistic for the use of a boat and the assumption is that bigger boats have more passengers and are more likely to venture further offshore.



Arcb said:


> Somebody mentioned earlier that boats on average are more resistant to capsize as they increase in size. How long is a piece of string though. Surely a 50 footer will be more resistant than a 35 footer, but the standard isn't set at 50 feet. Its set some where in the low 30s. No doubt more resistant to capsize than a similar boat around 25, but certainly less than a similar boat of 40 feet. So how long is a piece of string. Is it just coincidence that this string is roughly the same length as an entry level cruiser. That is one heck of a coincidence. Is this a marketing tool to encourage people to buy boats of a certain size. I don't know the answer to these questions, they are just questions.


Again this does not accurately reflect the way that this works. Length does figure into some of the formulas predicting the seaworthiness of a boat under the CE directive, but there is not a cut off point or even a hump in the graph of values as boats get smaller. In that stability increases exponentially (which is why bigger boats are proportionately narrower and shallower) as a boat becomes longer. As a result, the formulas that look at righting moment take length into account. On the flip side, the greater inertia of a larger boats means that impact forces on the hull and appurtenances also go up and so the regs are more stringent in their standards for larger boats.



Arcb said:


> Another thing that is interesting is the focus on ultimate stability, not just from the regs, but also in this discussion. A catastrophic loss of stability on a keel boat isn't really what keeps me up at night from a safety perspective. The things I worry about mostly have to do with stuff breaking and exposure to the elements.


I think that the focus on AVS is somewhat unique to this particular thread and not to the standards themselves. That may be my fault. Those of us who followed the process of creating the RCD, have commented that the standards are often less than was the standard position within the maritime science community at the time or what was considered good practice even. The AVS issue is an extremely clear example of how the rules were watered down, and so I was using AVS since it is such a clear cut example of where the design and science community was, vs the standards as enacted.



Arcb said:


> A boat can be sitting perfectly up right, but if a wave comes down onto a hatch and blows the hatch out in heavy weather, you are in deep trouble whether you are upside down or not. Hatches are a big one, but other stuff I keep an close eye on is rigging damage, steering damage and especially through hull issues. I hate through hulls. My current boat doesn't have any, not even for a head.


Again, there are scantling and design load modules within the CE that are pretty close to ABS and Lloyds.



Arcb said:


> This is another thing where things get weird, bigger boats have more through hulls, in some cases a lot more. I consider each of those to be a potential failure point, but back to the ultimate stability side of things- bigger is better under these regs, but not so big as to exclude the entry levels of Cruising Models, which need to be a certain minimum size, not for any safety reasons, but to accommodate a head, a galley, sufficient sleeping accommodations and standing head room.


Again, different parts of the CE standards treats boat size differently. You can make the case that it is possible to build a small boat that is purposefully designed to reduce risk and that would be more seaworthy than some of the floating overgrown tanning beds that are out there. The CE rules actually allow for that in much the same way that Coast Guard developed small rescue boats that can go through huge breaking waves as safely and maybe more safely than some of their bigger cutters.

But that gets back to the premise of this whole thread. The CE standards do not try to say that a boat that meets Cat A is well suited for sailing offshore. What it does say is that one EU nation cannot set a higher standard for boats that are deemed to be safe offshore than those in Cat A and thereby restrict the import of other member nations boats.

What you or I, what a competent yacht designer, what any experienced cruiser might call an offshore capable boat will include a broad range of features, and design priorities that are not even discussed within the standards, or which is set so low, that they would be seen as bad practice.

But on the flip side, on this side of the Atlantic we get to chose what we think of as an offshore capable boat. So you find people trying to make a case that because a Magregor 26M made it to Nova Scotia or the Bahamas, these are offshore capable designs.

By the same token, I bought my boat in part because she was single-handed into the U.S. from South Africa and that many of her sisterships had made long distance passages all over the world. When I bought her my long term plans included equipping her to be safe offshore, retiring and single-or double handing her to Europe to spend some of my senior years poking around the continent on her. But, despite the admirable record of these boats doing all kinds of long distance passages (for example South Africa to Scotland non-stop, racing one design across the South Alantic or a Pacific crossing the wrong way) very few people would consider a boat like mine to be an offshore cruiser and I fully understand that and that figures into my thinking. But, I would still take my boat offshore and properly equipped still consider her a reasonable choice for me to make an offshore passage.

Within reason and done reasonably responsibly, the choice of a boat and where we sail it remains our prerogative. But in making a decision such as this, part of the discussion needs to be about laying a cold and jaundiced eye on the realities of the matter. In that regard, the CE standards are barely relevant to the discussion. To me there are a broad array of requirements that I personally would look for in a boat that I was going to buy to go offshore that aren't in the standards. You and I might not agree on these which is why I might buy a different boat than you or Smack. (For example, I would consider it critical to have a crush block at the forefoot, and would not consider a boat with full liners suitable for offshore passage making. but hey that's just me.)

And that is where these conversations fall short. Whatever the standard and how ever in adequate it may or may not be, we each get to chose how much risk we are willing to take when we select a boat to go offshore. And what ever decision we make, we each end up betting our lives and the lives of our crew on our decision.

Hopefully, we bet carefully and luck out with the spin of the wheel. If not, hopefully we will be remembered for our virtues.....

Jeff


----------



## smackdaddy

Jeff_H said:


> But that gets back to the premise of this whole thread. The CE standards do not try to say that a boat that meets Cat A is well suited for sailing offshore. What it does say is that one EU nation cannot set a higher standard for boats that are deemed to be safe offshore than those in Cat A and thereby restrict the import of other member nations boats.


Jeff, what makes this conversation difficult (for me at least) is that I respect your opinion AND you seem to have a great deal of "behind the scenes" information on the science and deliberations behind the development of the CE RCD.

However, when you say the above, it certainly goes against what the CE body states on the
CE Marking website (with my bolded part):



> Description:
> Directive 94/25/EC was published on the 16st of June 1994, and it came into force 20 days later..
> 
> *The Recreational Craft Directive (94/25/EC, as amended by Directive 2003/44/EC) is intended to ensure a high level of safety for users*, as well as regulate exhaust and noise emissions of certain types of engine-propelled recreational craft. The Directive aims to harmonise the rules governing the sale of recreational craft within the EU.


If you take this bold part above and couple it with the language in both the CE Cat A and ISO Cat A standards, I'm having a hard time seeing how your comment is accurate. It very well may be your opinion - and that's fine - but is it factual? Is the CE being misleading here?


----------



## Jeff_H

smackdaddy said:


> This progression makes more sense now. BUT, as regards the AVS formula itself that we're discussing, the minimum for BOTH is 100 degrees. So in that regard Cat A is not further "watered down".


What you keep skipping over is that while are both using are numerically using 100 degree (with modifications), but they are calculating that 100 degrees using different methods so that the ORC calc typically ends up with 15-20 degree larger AVS in reality than would be the case for the Cat A.



smackdaddy said:


> As George shows, his Catalina seems to exceed that ORC Cat 0 standard.


I am not sure that George actually did show that his Catalina exceeded the Cat 0. George said that his Catalina tested to 129 degrees. I assume by 'tested' he meant that an inclination test was performed on a sistership and that was extrapolated to produce an actual AVS. Per the above, that would suggest that he would not meet ORC Cat 0 since their formula typically produces a number that is 15-20 degrees less.



smackdaddy said:


> On the other hand, I take your point that ALL of it is "watered down" from the science-backed 140 degrees. But it sounds like that was driven by racers, not cruisers. And that's why understanding the trends in cruising boats is very important.


It is not even slightly true that it was 'driven by racers and not cruisers'. The science promoted a specific standard of 140 degrees and a detailed calculation method. At that point in time, before computerized design programs allowed a lot of this to be automated, a full blown calculation of AVS was a laborious process.

For that reason, the racing rules had purposely come up with a greatly simplified calculation that really did not even attempt to calculate the actual AVS.

As a part of the RCD research, there were tables showing the actual AVS vs IMS/ORC AVS and it was shown that using 120 degrees with the IMS(now ORC) formula was slightly lower but roughly the equivalent to the actual AVS using 140 degree limit.

That is why the original compromise was to use the IMS/ORC formula. But that went off the rails when the limit the actual AVS was allowed to be used against the 120 degree limit.



smackdaddy said:


> Now THIS is another item that I think has been overlooked in the discussion. For example, if the research that was happening back then was based on the Fastnet disaster, how have the downflooding/buoyancy advancements in these new boats changed the calculus of AVS? You mentioned earlier that the 140 was driven by the understanding that you'd hit a vicious-circle of mass as the boat filled with water. Do the newer boats deal with this in a more effective way so that this angle could be safely reduced - all things considered?


The STIX process is purposely designed to allow improvements in downflooding protections to be considered. It is part of the modifier that allows some reduction in AVS (and possibly where the 'not less than 100 degrees' comes from). But the reduction starting point is not the 140 degrees that was scientifically determined, it is a value that is 20 degrees below that thereby further watering down the impact of the improved downflooding measures.

Jeff


----------



## Arcb

Very interesting stuff.

I guess to clarify some of my thoughts, without getting in to quoteing. Your thoughts ad up to me with regards to trade barriers, and some folks keeping the bar a bit low, to ensure their products remain competitive.

In terms of my comments about length, I made a conclusion in my brain, without expressing it. When I read the formulas, and I admit my stability is rusty, I observed a reward that was directly proportionate to mass or displacement that maxed out at 15 tons or 100 degrees AVS for class A and at 95 degrees for Class B. So my conclusion was, a higher displacement boat was rewarded in these formulae. I drew my own conclusion that higher displacement, probably meant more water line length, but I agree, it doesn't necessarily mean that. 

Yes, I did see there were standards on hatches, but they weren't really standards that I would associate with really big weather. 

Also, no mention of collision bulkheads or water tight compartments. I know not every one would agree with me, but I like boats that can remain bouyant with a flooded compartment (like pretty well any catamaran).

When I was saying I felt there was an inverse relation with size and requirements, I was reffering specifically to the calculations for AVS and points of down flooding. I observed their was both a requirement for angle of downflooding and height of downflooding, both for cat a and cat b.

The height of downflooding very clearly rewarded larger boats as a small boat would have to have bizzarre proportions to achieve it.

So I'll stand by my theory that size is rewarded, but not necessarily in the terms I expressed as "length". That size appears to roughly coincide with the entry level cruisers sold by a few companies.


----------



## smackdaddy

Jeff_H said:


> What you keep skipping over is that while are both using are numerically using 100 degree (with modifications), but they are calculating that 100 degrees using different methods so that the ORC calc typically ends up with 15-20 degree larger AVS in reality than would be the case for the Cat A.
> 
> I am not sure that George actually did show that his Catalina exceeded the Cat 0. George said that his Catalina tested to 129 degrees. I assume by 'tested' he meant that an inclination test was performed on a sistership and that was extrapolated to produce an actual AVS. Per the above, that would suggest that he would not meet ORC Cat 0 since their formula typically produces a number that is 15-20 degrees less.
> 
> It is not even slightly true that it was 'driven by racers and not cruisers'. The science promoted a specific standard of 140 degrees and a detailed calculation method. At that point in time, before computerized design programs allowed a lot of this to be automated, a full blown calculation of AVS was a laborious process.
> 
> For that reason, the racing rules had purposely come up with a greatly simplified calculation that really did not even attempt to calculate the actual AVS.
> 
> As a part of the RCD research, there were tables showing the actual AVS vs IMS/ORC AVS and it was shown that using 120 degrees with the IMS(now ORC) formula was slightly lower but roughly the equivalent to the actual AVS using 140 degree limit.
> 
> That is why the original compromise was to use the IMS/ORC formula. But that went off the rails when the limit the actual AVS was allowed to be used against the 120 degree limit.
> 
> The STIX process is purposely designed to allow improvements in downflooding protections to be considered. It is part of the modifier that allows some reduction in AVS (and possibly where the 'not less than 100 degrees' comes from). But the reduction starting point is not the 140 degrees that was scientifically determined, it is a value that is 20 degrees below that thereby further watering down the impact of the improved downflooding measures.
> 
> Jeff


Okay, then let's start working back out of the weeds and get a bit more general...

As of now, the "accepted" minimum AVS number on the ORC side is 120 degrees. The question, then, for Cat A boats is where they fall in relation to this 100-140 range - i.e. the 140 which is covered by the initial science (at that time - I assume you're talking pre 1998?), and the current equation showing the bare minimum 100 for Cat A.

IF the Category A boat you are considering has a published AVS greater than 120 degrees, you are in the exact same realm as the Cat 0 boats...WITH THE CAVEAT that for these *precise "actual AVS" numbers* you'd need to do all kinds of specific weighing and measuring of your own cruising boat with all the actual stuff aboard to get to them. And, unlike trans-oceanic ORC racers have to do, cruisers are never going to do that.

So, we're back to the standards. The boats have to be measured against a set of criteria to be able to meet the AVS requirements of Cat A. Therefore, all one needs to do is look at that published number and determine what they are comfortable with regarding the number.

For exmple, what is the difference of this number between an Oyster/Hylas and a Beneteau/Bavaria? That's what this boils down to.

I've emailed Beneteau for a bit more detail on this particular issue. We'll see what I get back.


----------



## ianjoub

smackdaddy said:


> As of now, the "accepted" minimum AVS number on the ORC side is 120 degrees. The question, then, for Cat A boats is where they fall in relation to this 100-140 range - i.e. the 140 which is covered by the initial science (at that time - I assume you're talking pre 1998?), and the current equation showing the bare minimum 100 for Cat A.


I am a little confused as well. I think one would want a 'easy calculation' of 160 to meet the ideal 140 number, where a 120 'easy calculation' is now accepted. So that puts most of these boats way off the mark on this specific 'safety point'.


----------



## smackdaddy

Yeah, that's the danger here ian. The numbers can get so complex that they become meaningless to people. But they aren't meaningless.

The bottom line, I think, is that Jeff believes the AVS number should be 140 based on the science at that time. The accepted minimum standard in trans-oceanic racing (which is essentially "blue-water-cruising-to-the-nth-power") is 120 degrees.

So, the only thing we need to know now is the specific number for various Category A boats that one might be interested in. This number will be somewhere between 100 and 140 - and you now have a clear benchmark for what that particular number means in relation to serious ocean use that falls right in the middle of those two numbers.

Beyond that, in my opinion, it's quibbling over pretty minor details.

Remember, this is part of the RCD as well...










They're not just winging it.


----------



## smackdaddy

While I'm awaiting word back from Beneteau on general numbers, I did find the 238-page manual for the Oceanis 55 (2015 model I believe). A few interesting things. First, look at the footnote language of the CE Category explanations...












> The creation of different design categories results from the need to distinguish between different levels of risk according to the construction of the boats.


Again, this statement is a HUGE departure from simply "marketing", "politics", or "cross-market agreements" language and fits with the CE Marking language I posted above. This is about risk, safety reliance, and construction. No question. So hopefully we can dispense with those distractions and focus on what's actually here.

Now, I haven't read through the whole thing yet (I will) - but as I suspected, Beneteau very clearly and plainly tells you what the AVS and STIX ratings are for the boat...










So, there's no mystery here. The AVS for this boat is between 116 and 112 degrees (depending on mast and keel configurations) - which is 4 to 8 degrees less than the Cat 0 120 number, for what seems to be the same "Minimal Load Condition" as the Cat 0 boats. So here is your comparison number.

Then, for the "Boat Laden" Condition the numbers go down further (as you'd imagine) to the 110-112 range. Here are numbers used in that added load...










Again, pretty straightforward - and you have this info at your fingertips when considering a boat. I'll keep looking for other boats/docs and post anything else of interest I can find.

If someone with a "traditional blue water boat" can post the AVS outlined in their documentation, that would be helpful.


----------



## Lazerbrains

I'm starting to wonder if these dead horse threads are simply a cry for attention?


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

smackdaddy said:


> Mast, I've dealt with this already. You and others have tried repeatedly to speak for Micheal and his motivations to bend this story to what YOU want it to be. All I can say is that people should read Micheal's own words, not those put in his mouth by others....
> 
> And this is him talking about the same reasoning here on SN:
> 
> http://www.sailnet.com/forums/826912-post15.html
> 
> Finally, all of this is available for anyone to read in Micheal's blog linked above and/or his book:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/SEQUITUR-Com...1508111142&sr=1-1&keywords=sequitur+cape+horn
> 
> Beyond that, I won't debate this anymore with you guys. It's simply a re-hashing of a very, very tired and misleading argument anyway - and that's putting it kindly.
> 
> Whether you like it or not, _Sequitur_ is an incredible example of what Cat A boats are capable of (especially in the hands of a competent skipper). And that is what this thread is about.
> 
> Therefore, in this thread we should stick with *only facts for which you can show evidence*. If you can PROVE what you're saying about Michael and his motivations, I'm all ears. If not, I'm very satisfied that *his own words are proof enough*.
> 
> Now let's move on and focus on the subject of the thread. I'll await Jeff's continuation of our AVS discussion.
> 
> _[PS - Yet again I'm stuck between addressing misrepresentations or allowing them to stand so that it doesn't appear that *I'm* the one causing trouble and rehashing old stuff with the same old members in order to get the thread locked. Because, yes, I am on probation here and can easily and quickly be perma-banned. I just hope that it's clear that I'm not "targeting" anyone, and that I'm *always* willing to provide the back-up for what I'm saying and simply ask that others do the same, so that newbs and people researching boat purchases can have facts instead of only opinion. I understand there are LOTS of people who don't like me as a poster. And that really doesn't bother me. But that shouldn't shut down a productive conversation between people who are willing to dig in and learn.]_





Don0190 said:


> I feel you are being as bad as Smack. I see this as nothing to do Hunter or the Cat A argument. I see this as "It sucks being in sailboat during a storm. Let's change plans and go canal cruising instead."
> 
> I now return you to the car wreck thread!


You are right, that could have happened in other boats. Although there are surely differences in sea-worthiness and sea-kindliness in different boat types that would strongly influence how a serious storm is perceived by the crew.

My point is not "Hunter = bad" but that the argument "A Hunter rounded Cape Horn therefore all Hunters ARE Blue Water Boats" is a fallacy. I wanted to point out that this fallacious argument is being made over and over again by Smackdaddy. Leaving this important information out is misinformation, or as we say now, fake news.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

colemj said:


> This is a very poor argument. I can replace "Hunter 49" with 4 brands of boats you would likely consider true BWB boats of personal friends whose experience and path in life fit this exact list (except for the canal boat thing - they chose other options).
> 
> Mark


See my reply to Don. I completely agree with you!

But it is not me that is making broad-ranging claims about Hunters ("Hunters bad, BWBs good"). It is Smackdaddy who makes the specious argument that "A Hunter has rounded Cape Horn therefore all Hunters ARE Blue Water Boats". I summarized what happened in that specific instance, that he keeps bringing up again and again, to make clear that he deliberately left out important facts that he does not like. And that he does it again and again.

It gets really tiring.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

smackdaddy said:


> _[PS - Yet again I'm stuck between addressing misrepresentations or allowing them to stand so that it doesn't appear that *I'm* the one causing trouble and rehashing old stuff with the same old members in order to get the thread locked. Because, yes, I am on probation here and can easily and quickly be perma-banned. I just hope that it's clear that I'm not "targeting" anyone, and that I'm *always* willing to provide the back-up for what I'm saying and simply ask that others do the same, so that newbs and people researching boat purchases can have facts instead of only opinion. I understand there are LOTS of people who don't like me as a poster. And that really doesn't bother me. But that shouldn't shut down a productive conversation between people who are willing to dig in and learn.]_


I see you edited your post and are now painting yourself as a helpless victim. That is, in fact, expected behavior: kickbully.com...where your fight begins


----------



## Arcb

smackdaddy said:


> For exmple, what is the difference of this number between an Oyster/Hylas and a Beneteau/Bavaria? That's what this boils down to.


How about the big bad sister of your unsafe Contessa 26, the Contessa 32. Published AVS 152?

I think one of the factors they look at for the science behind the high AVS is how long you can hold your breath for before the boat rolls right way up again. Keep in mind, you may be tethered into the cockpit when this thing goes over.

I don't think the expectation is that you would calculate AVS every time you go out.

I think the way it works is the NA calculates a generally accepted worse case loaded condition known as the "arrival condition", that you can use for all situations.

However, I know that methodology has evolved on the commercial side, because modern stability books also include various conditions of damaged stability, meaning partial flooding. I don't know if yacht designers are doing this or not. Might be kind of pointless without watertight compartments.

I don't see anything unusual for the methodology to calculate stability in these forms. The bit that I don't like is how they appear to have been optimised for a very marketable size and type of boat, more than they have been optimised for extreme weather conditions.

The plus is, these standards don't claim to produce all weather boats, just open ocean capable, that all weather interpretation is limited to this thread.


----------



## outbound

Perhaps I was taught wrong and have a misperception of LPS/AVS. I was taught this number should NEVER be viewed in isolation as seems to be occurring in this thread. There is a vast difference in what crew experiences and behavior in weather depending on how this number is achieved by the design depending on how much of this number reflects form stability versus righting arm. Furthermore inertia provided by the rig and effects of the weight of the top hamper will effect motion. One is better served by a Gz curve when wondering about concern in extreme weather where not only avs but area under null reference line can seen when comparing boats. Being upside down is no fun. Waiting for recovery from a knockdown is no fun. 
Furthermore issues in the details of the boat haven’t been looked at. Look at the proverbial offshore boat. Are the floorboards secured by latches. How are the batteries secured? Will the locker doors open? Will the engine stay put and remain functional? How will fluids like fuel and water behave? Will accommodation doors distort and be unopenable? In short what kind of shape will the boat and crew be in after the experience. There are so many little but important details that make up a good offshore boat that are not included in the Cat A designation.
Furthermore what’s good offshore boat for mom and pop is very different than for a bunch of rockstar racers. As is for weathering North Atlantic gales versus typhoons. 
Smack speaks to newbies reading this thread. For that crowd think the take home message is learn a lot more about boats than is presented in his diatribes. Cat A maybe necessary but it isn’t sufficient in judging seaworthiness for the type of sailing you plan to do.


----------



## outbound

Lastly if one is to have any discussion about avs think it should be expanded and include the various analyses of modeling and judging actual small boats behavior in the various race catastrophes involving production and one off boats.
Salient thoughtful arguments can be made for ocean sailing in proper keel centerboards which won’t trip and invert falling off a wave.
Or only multihulls which won’t sink.
Or to never hove to but rather go to bare poles and deploy a jsd.
Or view full keels as more dangerous than high aspect fins.
Or risks of enclosures, expanses of glass and other common features in current boats in the event of significant pooping or being overwhelmed by green water.
Or so many things not included in this thread to date.
As said this bird is dead. Let’s expand the discussion.


----------



## smackdaddy

I agree Out and Arc. You should not look at one thing in isolation when considering a boat. But AVS is an important number so I wanted to evaluate and compare it, and also see if the boat manufacturer openly shares this information with the buyer. In the case of the Bene 55, they do. And that number is between 4-8 degrees less than Cat 0 trans-oceanic ORC racing boats for the closest apples/apples you can get. All that is very good for people to know.

Even so, the AVS number obviously isn't looked at in isolation in the CE Categorization. So you do have to be careful in the straight-up comparisons. For example, I don't intimately know the Contessa 32. It's a '70's era Sadler boat - and I seem to recall that it was the only boat in its class to finish the infamous Fastnet. All that is great. And if Arc is correct its comparative AVS is 152. That's 12 degrees more than even the 140 Jeff says the science calls for. Is that good? Sure seems to be. But then you consider the other things Jeff said about the Contessa 26 not being able to meet Cat A due to the other areas regarding volume, buoyancy, downflooding, etc. (other things the Cat A designation takes into account that Sadler obviously couldn't have at the time). If those are also drawbacks for the Contessa 32, then the 152 is not quite as impressive - and you understand why it's needed. You can't afford any less.

As is my entire premise of this thread, the bottom line in this "isolation" thing is that *you have to look at actual performance in addition to all the numbers*. If the Contessa was the only small boat to finish that Fastnet, its design obviously has qualities that are good. No question. But that was 40 years ago. Similarly, if we have thousands and thousands of modern production boats out doing extended ocean passages, and we're not seeing reports of lots of capsizes and sinkings, *then the combination of these numbers and factors in these Cat A boats are proving to be effective*...even if someone might not like one particular number, etc.

So, as always, it comes back to the reality of what's out there on the ocean. I see a lot of production boats.

PS - Out, what is your boat's AVS?


----------



## gonecrusin

outbound said:


> Lastly if one is to have any discussion about avs think it should be expanded and include the various analyses of modeling and judging actual small boats behavior in the various race catastrophes involving production and one off boats.
> Salient thoughtful arguments can be made for ocean sailing in proper keel centerboards which won't trip and invert falling off a wave.
> Or only multihulls which won't sink.
> Or to never hove to but rather go to bare poles and deploy a jsd.
> Or view full keels as more dangerous than high aspect fins.
> Or risks of enclosures, expanses of glass and other common features in current boats in the event of significant pooping or being overwhelmed by green water.
> Or so many things not included in this thread to date.
> As said this bird is dead. Let's expand the discussion.


Much of this discussion is in the weeds discussing AVS or STIX, which newbies won't follow. But there is no discussion regarding build quality, which I think is paramount especially when the sailor is inexperienced. Someone who knows how to sail, how to take care of the boat who sails in season and actively works to minimize damage can sail just about anything anywhere, they are competent seaman.

So?

What about brass through hulls? The experienced guys that know they don't last will change them out regularly. They keep an eye on their condition but newbies are busy trying to learn how to tie in a reef. What happens when the newbie buys a 7 year old boat with brass fittings and doesn't realize he is sitting on a time bomb?

Or what about the newbie that buys a used boat and doesn't realize the matrix is separated from skin and the keel is slowly working? Or maybe it's still attached but the newbie bumps a couple times and separates the skin from the matrix? How do they know what to look for?

Keel failure: the shocking facts - Yachting World

Or what about the Lagoon where the rig kept loosening, the owner couldn't understand why so he hired a surveyor to investigate. Turns out the hull and deck had separated. What would have happened if this was mid ocean with bad weather?

I'm more concerned about construction details then design.

This is a good source for what to look for if you plan on cruising afar.

Mahina Expeditions - Selecting A Boat for Offshore Cruising


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Being upside down is no fun. Waiting for recovery from a knockdown is no fun.
> Furthermore issues in the details of the boat haven't been looked at. Look at the proverbial offshore boat. Are the floorboards secured by latches. How are the batteries secured? Will the locker doors open? Will the engine stay put and remain functional? How will fluids like fuel and water behave? Will accommodation doors distort and be unopenable? In short what kind of shape will the boat and crew be in after the experience. There are so many little but important details that make up a good offshore boat that are not included in the Cat A designation.


Actually I agree that this is a good list of things to look at Out. I've never been upside down in a cruising boat, so I can't comment on that first-hand. But I do know that it does take a lot to get a modern cruising boat truly inverted. And you very, very rarely hear about it happening.

As the ISO definition of Cat A in that image I posted above shows, these boats are intended to "operate" in conditions up to F10. Beyond that, they are designed to "survive". Then you also have the ceiling of "abnormal conditions" of a hurricane where all bets are off. This, taken with Hal Roth's account of conditions he faced in 40 years and 200K miles of sailing, indicates that we're talking about a very, very rare instance anyway. One that can typically be avoided with care and planning.

So, yes, I'd love to see examples where "blue water" boats have fully capsized and all lockers remained closed, accommodation doors didn't distort (i.e. - no structural distortion), the rig stayed intact, etc.

I honestly don't have those expectations a boat. If she truly goes all the way over, you're either going to be insanely lucky and able to keep sailing, or much more likely you are going to be in survival mode until help can arrive.

As for your list, I can tell you at least about my own 1989 Hunter 40:

Are the floorboards secured by latches?
-They are screwed down

How are the batteries secured?
-They are under my aft berth and I've added latch-locks on each side to secure the hinged lid. I think it would hold upside down, but that's a lot of weight. So I don't know for sure.

Will the locker doors open?
-We've got locks on all our cabinet doors, and I've added latches to all our hinged lids (fridge, nav table, etc.). But in a true roll-over, I would expect that some of the them are going to open just due to weight of the stuff behind them.

Will the engine stay put and remain functional?
-I don't know how you determine that for sure, but the engine mounting in our Hunter certainly seems pretty robust. Whether it will run after a 360, I don't see why not, but I don't know for sure.

How will fluids like fuel and water behave?
-The water tank is pretty securely placed in the v-berth beneath a screwed down lid. But again, 100 gallons is a lot of weight. So I think it would hold, but I don't know for sure. The fuel tank is aft and it too is bolted down with a bracket.

Will accommodation doors distort and be unopenable?
-Again, if we're talking 360, I have no expectations that things will be undamaged. I don't care about the doors, I just want the boat to keep us alive at that point until help can arrive. Because if that's really happened, I've seriously screwed up by being there in the first place.

In short what kind of shape will the boat and crew be in after the experience?
-In the kind of conditions where a full 360 is likely, we'll be on a drogue and hunkered down below praying very fervently. As I said above, I certainly don't *expect* the boat to be in "good shape" after the roll. No sailboat is designed for that. But I DO hope she stays together enough to keep us alive. And I'm comfortable that, even if my particular 89 Hunter might not, a Cat A production boat gives you a pretty good shot.

Finally some of this stuff actually IS in the ISO doc (securable lockers, etc.). I'll have to keep scanning to find out more.

Again, in the spirit of this thread, please present examples of boats that have done 360s not having problems like in this list.


----------



## Jeff_H

smackdaddy said:


> Yeah, that's the danger here ian. The numbers can get so complex that they become meaningless to people. But they aren't meaningless.
> 
> The bottom line, I think, is that Jeff believes the AVS number should be 140 based on the science at that time. The accepted minimum standard in trans-oceanic racing (which is essentially "blue-water-cruising-to-the-nth-power") is 120 degrees.
> 
> So, the only thing we need to know now is the specific number for various Category A boats that one might be interested in. This number will be somewhere between 100 and 140 - and you now have a clear benchmark for what that particular number means in relation to serious ocean use that falls right in the middle of those two numbers.
> 
> Beyond that, in my opinion, it's quibbling over pretty minor details.
> 
> Remember, this is part of the RCD as well...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're not just winging it.


This does not accurately reflect what I have been trying to explain. If the AVS is calculated based on the section C3 which calculates the AVS by Rigorous Calculation, then the science says that the AVS should be 140 degrees or greater for use in the open ocean.

The minimum of 140 degrees has a pretty intuitive basis. If a boat is rolled by a wave, and is inverted, it needs to be heeled past its AVS to right itself. If a boat has an AVS of 140 degrees that means that it needs to be heeled more than 40 degrees to right itself. And it needs to be heeled that far without the help of the sails and overcoming the resistance of the remnants of the rig in the water.

Modeling of wave action showed that the threshold wave size that is large enough to overturn a boat will typically only rotate the boat around 40-45 degrees (the remainder being from heel due to the wind.)

You seem to be way better than I am at gaining access to things on the web, there were a series of papers that were available through SNAME that were part of the research process and at least one specifically documented this.

But the piece that you seem to not be getting is that there are two ways that the RCD allows AVS to be calculated. The first is the ORC(Formerly IMS) method and the second is what you posted as section C3 which calculates the AVS by Rigorous Calculation.

The ORC method does not include the volume of the topsides, cockpit or and cabin, and considers all of the tanks and lockers to be empty. The Rigorous Calculation does include the volumes above, plus a minimum amount of tankage and supplies.

Because of the difference in calculation methods, the AVS by Rigorous Calculation produces an AVS that is 15 to 20 degrees higher than the AVS from the ORC method for the exact same boat. The result being that an AVS of 120 under the ORC is roughly the equivalent to an AVS of 140 degrees calculated by a Rigorous Calculation.

Again, one of the research papers explains this difference in more detail. You might try to find that and post a link since it included an appendix that listed a pretty large number of popular boats and compared their actual AVS to the IMS/ORC AVS.



smackdaddy said:


> While I'm awaiting word back from Beneteau on general numbers, I did find the 238-page manual for the Oceanis 55 (2015 model I believe). A few interesting things. First, look at the footnote language of the CE Category explanations...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, this statement is a HUGE departure from simply "marketing", "politics", or "cross-market agreements" language and fits with the CE Marking language I posted above. This is about risk, safety reliance, and construction. No question. So hopefully we can dispense with those distractions and focus on what's actually here.


I would respectfully disagree that this is a huge departure. It simply states the nature of these various levels. It does not address whether they represent a 'minimum', 'reasonable' or 'scientifically' accepted standard or what they are the result of.



smackdaddy said:


> Now, I haven't read through the whole thing yet (I will) - but as I suspected, Beneteau very clearly and plainly tells you what the AVS and STIX ratings are for the boat...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, there's no mystery here. The AVS for this boat is between 116 and 112 degrees (depending on mast and keel configurations) - which is 4 to 8 degrees less than the Cat 0 120 number, for what seems to be the same "Minimal Load Condition" as the Cat 0 boats. So here is your comparison number.
> 
> Again, pretty straightforward - and you have this info at your fingertips when considering a boat. I'll keep looking for other boats/docs and post anything else of interest I can find.
> 
> If someone with a "traditional blue water boat" can post the AVS outlined in their documentation, that would be helpful.


Actually, there still remains a mystery here. That table does not say whether those AVS values were calculated using section C3 and so calculated the AVS by Rigorous Calculation, or whether they used the ORC method. If these values were calculated by Rigorous Calculation, then those are scarily low numbers. (Visualize that the boat would need to be heeled 70 degrees from inverted to re-right itself. That isn't happening in that crew's lifetime). If those are ORC numbers, the actual AVS is closer to 135 to 140 degrees and that crew stands a chance of being re-righted.

Jeff


----------



## ianjoub

smackdaddy said:


> How are the batteries secured?
> -They are under my aft berth and I've added latch-locks on each side to secure the hinged lid. I think it would hold upside down, but that's a lot of weight. So I don't know for sure.


It is important to keep the batteries from moving, not just keeping them inside a certain locker. If they bounce around, they can arc and start a fire.


----------



## smackdaddy

ianjoub said:


> It is important to keep the batteries from moving, not just keeping them inside a certain locker. If they bounce around, they can arc and start a fire.


Sorry, I left that part out - they are all in battery boxes secured with straps - and the vertical clearance is not going to let them move much. Even so, I'm sure I could strap them down more effectively still.


----------



## smackdaddy

For those readers uncomfortable with the weeds - skip to the conclusion below...



Jeff_H said:


> This does not accurately reflect what I have been trying to explain. If the AVS is calculated based on the section C3 which calculates the AVS by Rigorous Calculation, then the science says that the AVS should be 140 degrees or greater for use in the open ocean.
> 
> The minimum of 140 degrees has a pretty intuitive basis. If a boat is rolled by a wave, and is inverted, it needs to be heeled past its AVS to right itself. If a boat has an AVS of 140 degrees that means that it needs to be heeled more than 40 degrees to right itself. And it needs to be heeled that far without the help of the sails and overcoming the resistance of the remnants of the rig in the water.
> 
> Modeling of wave action showed that the threshold wave size that is large enough to overturn a boat will typically only rotate the boat around 40-45 degrees (the remainder being from heel due to the wind.)


When was that 140 degrees determined? Was it pre-1998? And, if so, does it take into account all the other factors in assisting righting moment and/or preventing inversion in the first place (buoyancy, form stability, etc.)?

I do understand what you're saying here. And on it's face you're right that thinking about an inverted boat needing to rotate 60-80 degrees before it will start to come back up is sobering - but again that's assuming the boat gets to that stable inverted position in the first place. And as certainly seems to be shown by lack of examples here - that likelihood seems to be exceedingly small...which, in turn, would drive those numbers in real life engineering.



Jeff_H said:


> But the piece that you seem to not be getting is that there are two ways that the RCD allows AVS to be calculated. The first is the ORC(Formerly IMS) method and the second is what you posted as section C3 which calculates the AVS by Rigorous Calculation.


That's not the way I read the RCD. Again, this is a very, very complex document that has TONS of references and cross-references for various things (e.g. - AVS and STIX) - but the only optional calculation method I see is STIX, not AVS. Here is the STIX section...










AVS doesn't seem to make this same exception. And you'll also notice that it says...



> The most advantageous categorization is obtained if these properties are calculated rigorously.


Then finally on the wind factors of stability it says that you can use either but for monohulls it has to be the Rigorous Calculation.










So, again, it is definitely weedy in there - but I'm not seeing lots of loopholes that would allow for dangerous workarounds.



Jeff_H said:


> The ORC method does not include the volume of the topsides, cockpit or and cabin, and considers all of the tanks and lockers to be empty. The Rigorous Calculation does include the volumes above, plus a minimum amount of tankage and supplies.
> 
> Because of the difference in calculation methods, the AVS by Rigorous Calculation produces an AVS that is 15 to 20 degrees higher than the AVS from the ORC method for the exact same boat. The result being that an AVS of 120 under the ORC is roughly the equivalent to an AVS of 140 degrees calculated by a Rigorous Calculation.


To keep things focused, I'm talking about the RCD here. I understand that the ORC methods beyond the AVS forumla are different. My point in bring up ORC in this thread was to highlight the fact that the base formula is the same - and the accepted minimum number there is 120. This gives people a reference point for evaluating Cat A cruising boats and their numbers in relation to the strictest trans-oceanic racing standards available.

The intent is not to weed through the ORC methodology. Just to provide a benchmark for evaluating the Cat A AVS numbers.

That said, it is interesting to me that the AVS/STIX/Capsize stuff in this RCD document is, for monohulls, driven far more by wind than waves. It seems the only wave-driven capsize stuff is for multis.



Jeff_H said:


> I would respectfully disagree that this is a huge departure. It simply states the nature of these various levels. It does not address whether they represent a 'minimum', 'reasonable' or 'scientifically' accepted standard or what they are the result of..


What I mean is that from a legal perspective the liability bar is substantially raised here. You and others have said that the RCD is primarily a trade/political/marketing-driven directive and does not certify safety, capability, or construction. If the CE Marking statement (and the Category definitions in the RCD) said just this...



> The Recreational Craft Directive (94/25/EC, as amended by Directive 2003/44/EC) is intended to harmonise the rules governing the sale of recreational craft within the EU.


You guys would be right. But is says this...



> The Recreational Craft Directive (94/25/EC, as amended by Directive 2003/44/EC) is intended to ensure a high level of safety for users...


And you couple that language with what's in the RCD itself, the actual language of what's there absolutely shoots those general contentions down.



Jeff_H said:


> Actually, there still remains a mystery here. That table does not say whether those AVS values were calculated using section C3 and so calculated the AVS by Rigorous Calculation, or whether they used the ORC method. If these values were calculated by Rigorous Calculation, then those are scarily low numbers. (Visualize that the boat would need to be heeled 70 degrees from inverted to re-right itself. That isn't happening in that crew's lifetime). If those are ORC numbers, the actual AVS is closer to 135 to 140 degrees and that crew stands a chance of being re-righted.


Again, I don't know how these numbers from Beneteau were derived. I'm just presenting what I find. But I do know that the stated number is within a few degrees of the ORC minimum.

This RCD is a very complex document - and all the math and calculation methodologies behind it even more complex - and I've not spent enough time with it to weave everything together. But I'll keep at it.

However, I *certainly* don't yet see where many of these negative assumptions by so many are backed up by the actual document. They seem like very misinformed arguments to me. If the bar is to ensure a level of safety, capability, and construction quality and that bar is as low as many are claiming it is, we should be seeing A LOT of failures. And we aren't. So either the standards are what they claim to be - or there is a lot of misunderstanding of the over-arching math and science in this directive - or, worse, there is obfuscation and lying by the industry as a whole and they've just gotten lucky for decades that boats haven't had the problems being theorized in this thread.

Both things can't be simultaneously true.


----------



## outbound

If I understand literature correctly 
127 by one measure and 142-147 by the other.

We haven’t rolled or even knocked down. However feel fairly confident we would do fine with just cushions and what’s been left out becoming projectiles. Have been in knockdowns in past. It’s totally amazing what goes flying. Also how unexpected and rapid the event was.
Surprisingly where the house met the deck on the dry(upwind) side broke not the side of impact with the water. Gelcoat was cracked through and lifted off so you could see the glass. Nowhere fully open to the air/water. Owner had it repaired and stated after repair looked like new and stated to be as strong. It was a Pearson 424. I thought it a very strong boat before the event.


----------



## outbound

Love that Mahina site. Much wisdom there. Especially as my boat is listed as a bwb. 😂. Shame there are so few lg. series production boats on it except a few Bob had a hand in.
Smackie you need to talk to them.


----------



## smackdaddy

I'm not interested. I've seen that site for years and it's the same old list (except he actually includes multis which is good). You see many of the same boats here: http://bluewaterboats.org/.

Nothing against them _per se_. But, the real question to me is how many of the boat makers on those lists are still around today turning out those boats? That's what matters to this discussion which is focused on the present and future. There are already hundreds of threads about these past boats.

Again, that's why I want this thread to be about newbs being able to learn about modern boats from facts not pure opinion. I've already had this conversation _ad infinitum_ with most of the 16 dudes on the members side in this image, and I'm not interested in continuing it unless something of value is brought up - it's the other 59+ that I'm interested in bringing some factual value to.


----------



## outbound

Jeff could you explain difference between limit of positive stability and avs and reference to how lps is calculated? When one pulls numbers off a Gz curve which avs are you looking at? I also don’t understand fully how loading impacts on these numbers. My tankage is entirely below the sole and virtually all of it below the waterline. I even have one holding tank below the waterline (and one holding tank above). In my simplistic thinking would think their being full would increase not decrease stability. But if one abstracts from above citations this may not be the case. Please explain. Tx.


----------



## smackdaddy

Jeff - on the OSR side, you should take a look at this thread on SA which was started by Evans S. questioning the ORR Stability Index - which he felt was WAY off for many of the boats. It' an older thread, but his statement there mirrors my questioning of the perceived deficiencies in these ISO AVS numbers...



> Does this number/measurement really mean anything useful for offshore safety when so many boats with good offshore records score so 'poorly'? As I understand the calculation, the LPS will usually be less than this stability index, which means the calculated LPS for many of these boats will be around 90 degrees . . . I find that hard to believe. I really don't believe these boats are going to continue to roll over upside down if you pull the mast to the water level. I also look at Emily (a 40' CCA/IOR centerboard era design) that has a 128 index and wonder how it is so much better than these other boats, just does not seem reasonable. As I understand it, ORR measures low angle (1 or 2 degree) righting moment with its incline test and then using hull shape tries to calculate high angle (120 degree) LPS - is there some extrapolation problem here?


If the Cat A numbers are as deficient as some suspect/claim, why aren't we seeing evidence of it?

Oops - just saw your post Outbound - you might be interested in this as well.


----------



## outbound

Passport, Oyster, Amel, Hylas, PSC, HR, Outbound etc. etc.


----------



## smackdaddy

Okay - so back out of the weeds for today. There is no question the stability ratings methodologies in the ORC race boats is *incredibly tortured*, to the point that racers and *very* knowledgeable people like Bob Perry and Evan S. themselves doubt them (as shown in that thread). Even so, at the end of that, you DO derive a pretty simple minimum number of 120 AVS for reference.

So, the question for THIS thread is -* is the CE Cat A standard, derived from the ISO document we've linked here as tortured and unreliable?* Thus far I haven't found evidence for that in the doc. It certainly seems pretty straightforward.


----------



## dinosdad

As a outlier on this site who mostly just absorbs posts for info, I think this thread has some pretty good information being dragged into it , I've learned a lot from jeff h and others in regards to the math ( and I've had to google a lot of terms I know I'll never use but it's made me learn a few things I didn't before , so in my opinion it's been worth it! I thought vanishing stability was something that happens when I've had one too many gin and tonics ...who knew . Overall I believe a ce rating system is good tool for buyers , and it seems it's the only such rating system with regards to a construction /design regimen with usage parameters. if we travel forward ten years or so I think arguments over wether or not the cat a boats are blue water capable will be somewhat moot, as the current boat owners age out those who take up sailing will be quicker to accept changing technology ,ideas, and the much vaunted classic boats that have made passages ( Albergs , allied, westsails,et al) will be long in the tooth and while beautiful with gorgeous lines most will probably gravitate to a ce rated new(er)construction for the comfort , interior space , and systems designed into the boat . They're will always be those who wish to undertake a refit of a older classic but those numbers are small( if there was such interest in restoring plastic classic boats there wouldn't be so many languishing in the back lots of boatyards) . like it or not the times they are a changing ...


----------



## Arcb

Not sure what you mean by tortured. But if you look at a modern boat that is truly designed from the keel up to operate in F11 conditions, like the American 47 MLB or the UK Arun, you see some major differences from the CE cat A boats near the bottom of the scale. Not sure why we are so focused on ultimate stability, but since we are, the 47 is a yacht sized power boat designed to right from full turtle inside 10 seconds, and they have been in production for as long as this standard. When ultimate stability is truly the goal, it's possible to make it happen.

They also have 4 water tight compartments and real hatches with proper seals and dogs. When some one says a boat is designed for F11 conditions, that's the standard that comes to my mind.

Outbound, I think I can answer your question with regards to loading. If arrival condition is often the least stable condition (slack tanks) departure condition (tanks pressed up) is a more stable condition.

The effect of any other unusual weights on board; if the objects centre of gravity is vertically above the vessels centre of gravity, it is disadvantageous, if the object is below, that's a good thing. The negative or positive effect is amplified by the distance above or below (lever). Basically the object changes the KG itself.

The big item I always see that makes me cringe is giant dinghies with giant outboards, slung high on davits on tiny cruising boats.


----------



## smackdaddy

Arcb said:


> he big item I always see that makes me cringe is giant dinghies with giant outboards, slung high on davits on tiny cruising boats.


Oh boy. Now you've done it. That's why the much derided dinghy garages make more sense than some think.

Even so - as has been said many times here and in that SA thread - this capsize thing is a very, very, very rare occurrence in ocean voyages unless you're in high latitudes or sailing in the WAY wrong season. Using it as some kind of global standard is a bit beyond the pale. I think most people understand that.

Even so, these Cat A boats take it into account in the calculations - just within the framework of reality, not simply theory. That's why these docs and equations are so incredibly dense.










See, you've got 5 whole minutes to write your goodbye note!


----------



## Jeff_H

smackdaddy said:


> When was that 140 degrees determined? Was it pre-1998? And, if so, does it take into account all the other factors in assisting righting moment and/or preventing inversion in the first place (buoyancy, form stability, etc.)?


This was previously asked and answered. The 140 degrees was initially determined in the 1990's and was further substantiated in studies that have taken place ever since. The allowable AVS is modified in STIX to account for design features which reduce the likelihood of down-flooding and in the modifications permitted on one of the linked sections of the RCD that you posted. But again, the reduction should be starting from 140 degrees and not 120 degrees when the calculation comes from a rigorous calculation and not from the ORC/IMS calculation.

Outbound's numbers show what I have been saying pretty clearly. When calculated using the IMS/ORC formula his boat has an AVS of 127. That compares well with the recommended 120 degree minimum AVS for offshore boats that corresponds to an AVS calculated using the IMS/ORC formula. Apparently there has also been a rigorous calculation for the Outbound that results in an AVS of 142-147 (the range of which I assume represents different levels of loading) and that corresponds quite well with the scientific studies which determined that an actual AVS of 140 was a minimum for safety in offshore sailing vessels. That also illustrates the 15 to 20 degree difference in results between the methods of calculations that was found to be typical of the range of boats that were studied at the time.



smackdaddy said:


> I do understand what you're saying here. And on it's face you're right that thinking about an inverted boat needing to rotate 60-80 degrees before it will start to come back up is sobering - but again that's assuming the boat gets to that stable inverted position in the first place. And as certainly seems to be shown by lack of examples here - that likelihood seems to be exceedingly small...which, in turn, would drive those numbers in real life engineering.


If you spend enough sailing offshore you will sooner or later end up with a mast in the water. Sometimes its a death roll or broach which typically does not get down much past 90 or 100 degrees and which with decent crew work does not last long. Maybe the knockdown is the result of a downdraft with similar results. I've done both on a number of occasions. Its not pretty but assuming nothing significant goes flying or breaks and everyone is able to stay on board or tethered to the boat, its not all that life threatening. Now add wave action, and maybe the sails in the water its amazing how quickly the boat picks up another 20-30 degrees, as in 110 to 130 degrees of heel angle. I have been there for that as well.

If you have not wildly exceeded the Limit of Positive Stability (LPS- a term which I personally think is a more accurately descriptive term than AVS even though both are synonymous) the saving grace usually is that as the wave passes under the boat is the boat is rolled back towards being righted and if not down-flooded has a good chance of coming back up. But when you talk about boat's whose actual AVS is less than 120 degrees, then your chances of re-righting go down very seriously. And that is happening with increasing frequency.



smackdaddy said:


> That's not the way I read the RCD. Again, this is a very, very complex document that has TONS of references and cross-references for various things (e.g. - AVS and STIX) - but the only optional calculation method I see is STIX, not AVS. Here is the STIX section...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVS doesn't seem to make this same exception. And you'll also notice that it says...
> 
> So, again, it is definitely weedy in there - but I'm not seeing lots of loopholes that would allow for dangerous workarounds.
> 
> To keep things focused, I'm talking about the RCD here. I understand that the ORC methods beyond the AVS forumla are different. My point in bring up ORC in this thread was to highlight the fact that the base formula is the same - and the accepted minimum number there is 120. This gives people a reference point for evaluating Cat A cruising boats and their numbers in relation to the strictest trans-oceanic racing standards available.


Borrowing from the screenshot that you posted yesterday, you will find the loophole that you don't seem to get.










That list of methods of calculating the AVS includes both the ORC formula and the Rigorous Calculation method. Both with the same 120 degree limit. But as shown above in Outbound's example, the ORC formula is 15 to 20 degrees more conservative than the rigorous calculation method.

It is totally mistaken to say "My point in bring up ORC in this thread was to highlight the fact that the base formula is the same". That is totally wrong on all counts. As explained above the ORC Formula only looks at the buoyancy of the hull and makes assumptions based on very simplified data that is easily calculated.

The Rigorous method is called that because it looks at every component on a boat and places it in three axis and then does the same thing with the all of the buoyancy components placing them in three axis. Then equalibrium is calculated at each heel angle, and the righting moment for each equilibrium calculated. The righting moments vs heel angle is plotted and the angle at which the righting moment passes from positive to negative (from trying to right itself to trying to overturn) is the AVS or LPS.

It would be a very strange boat looking something like the Monitor without its gun turret to get boat that had identical ORC and Rigorously calculated AVS's which is why it is a watering down of the safety to use the AVS from the ORC for the Rigorious calculation methods but that is precisely what the table in the image is showing.



smackdaddy said:


> That said, it is interesting to me that the AVS/STIX/Capsize stuff in this RCD document is, for monohulls, driven far more by wind than waves. It seems the only wave-driven capsize stuff is for multis.


That is not really true. While AVS is a major factor in the STIX rating for a monohull, and therefore it might appear to be driven but wind rather than wave, the research into capsizes of monohulls determined it is pretty much impossible for a properly ballasted monohull to overturn in the absence of significant wave action. The studies on that seem to suggest that a breaking wave equal in height to the beam of the boat is enough to capsize most monohulls.

There is still ongoing work on this area looking at a variety of factors and attempting to develop means of modeling them. But in any event, and stability study for any vessel except perhaps an un-ballasted boat would need to include wave action.



smackdaddy said:


> However, I *certainly* don't yet see where many of these negative assumptions by so many are backed up by the actual document. They seem like very misinformed arguments to me. If the bar is to ensure a level of safety, capability, and construction quality and that bar is as low as many are claiming it is, we should be seeing A LOT of failures. And we aren't.


You need to research that more carefully. The cost of rescues and the increased frequncy of rescues has become a serious issue world wide. Countries all over the world are debating charging for rescues or impounding boats that enter their waters without international rescue insurance. There was a period when New Zealand was impounding boats that did not meet New Zealand's more stringent safety standards because it could not continue to afford to rescue boats that were getting into trouble. (They may still be doing that).

But the point seems to be that if you really are saying _" I *certainly* don't yet see where many of these negative assumptions by so many are backed up by the actual document." _ then you are failing to grasp the significance of things that are being placed right in front of your face.

You are right that at some level these are pretty technical matters. But the are not so technical that they are not clear cut to those who have taken the time to research and understand them.

If you are not yet seeing the difference, then I suggest that use your internet search skills locate the primary research documents on this. Most have pretty clear sections explaining their hypothesis, research methods, and executive summaries that explain what they concluded.

I think if you read the actual documents you will better understand how the documents back up the realistic opinions held by people like me once you understand that a document isn't reflecting a "base formula is the same - and the accepted minimum number there is 120" when there document says it will accept either one of two ways of calculating AVS even though the two methods produce 15 to 20 degree different results.

Jeff


----------



## gonecrusin

For the lay people, maybe something a bit easier to read and understand....

Understand your boat and her statistics


----------



## aeventyr60

outbound said:


> Passport, Oyster, Amel, Hylas, PSC, HR, Outbound etc. etc.


Yes, but these boats actually cost some money..The ford taurus boats are what are in question here.


----------



## smackdaddy

Jeff_H said:


> This was previously asked and answered. The 140 degrees was initially determined in the 1990's and was further substantiated in studies that have taken place ever since.


My apologies. I first asked you about the dating on this stuff in post 238, and didn't see any dates in your responses until this. Maybe I missed it. But I did go back and double-check and, again, this is the first date I've seen. So thank you.

Let me try all this from another angle. I want to take IMS completely out of the conversation for now. The reason for this is that it's not explicitly referenced in any of the sample documentation we've put up here thus far (ISO or OSR). And if we're going to ever make any progress (i.e. - me understand this stuff), the terminology has to be clear.

My initial point in all of this was that CE Cat A cruising boats have/meet the same stability requirements as OSR Cat 0 race boats - which I think we'll all agree that OSR Cat 0 is a very high bar. And here is what I mean...

Let's start with the OSR Cat 0 stability requirement. Here it is in total (with some critical details *in red*)...



> *3.04 Stability - Monohulls*
> 
> Mo0,1,2
> 3.04.1
> Able to demonstrate compliance with ISO 12217-2* design category A or higher, either by EC Recreational Craft Directive certification having obtained the CE mark or the designer's declaration
> * The latest effective version of ISO 12217-2 should be used unless the boat was already designed to a previous version
> 
> Mo0,1,2,3
> 3.04.2
> *Where compliance in accordance with 3.04.1 cannot be demonstrated*, able to demonstrate either:
> Mo0,1,2
> 
> a) i, a STIX value not less than 32; *and*
> Mo0,1,2
> 
> ii AVS not less than 130 - 0.002*m, but always >= 100°, (where "m" is the mass of the boat in the minimum operating condition as defined by ISO 12217-2); *and*
> 
> Mo0,1,2
> iii a minimum righting energy m*AGZ>172000 (where AGZ is the positive area under the righting lever curve in the minimum operating condition, expressed in kg metre degrees from upright to AVS); *or*
> 
> Extract Mo0
> b) Stability Index in ORC Rating System of not less than 120; *or*
> 
> Extract Mo0,1
> c) IRC SSS Base value of not less than 35


Now, let's break this down. I understand your previous point that the ORC Rating System essentially *is* the old IMS standard. But as you can see by the language above - that system is *way down the list* from the ISO Cat A standard.

Before you get to that first *red conditional* that I've bolded above - here is the OSR Cat 0 standard language...



> *3.04 Stability - Monohulls*
> 
> Mo0,1,2
> 3.04.1
> Able to demonstrate compliance with ISO 12217-2* design category A or higher, either by EC Recreational Craft Directive certification having obtained the CE mark or the designer's declaration
> * The latest effective version of ISO 12217-2 should be used unless the boat was already designed to a previous version


So, according to the language at this point in the requirement, CE Cat A is the *primary stability standard for these Cat 0 boats*. If you meet it by having the CE Mark, you don't need to go any further into any of these other secondary calculation methods.

*Therefore, regardless of the methodologies or calculations within the CE ISO standard itself - if it meets Cat A, it meets Cat 0.*

This has been my point. And it certainly appears to stand from what I see in this language.

It's only if you DON'T have the CE Cat A designation/mark will you have to move down through the other conditionals. For example...



> *...Where compliance in accordance with 3.04.1 cannot be demonstrated...*


So, in other words if your boat is *not* CE Cat A certified, it then has to meet some combination of the following...



> a) i, a STIX value not less than 32; and
> Mo0,1,2
> 
> ii AVS not less than 130 - 0.002*m, but always >= 100°, (where "m" is the mass of the boat in the minimum operating condition as defined by ISO 12217-2); and
> 
> Mo0,1,2
> iii a minimum righting energy m*AGZ>172000 (where AGZ is the positive area under the righting lever curve in the minimum operating condition, expressed in kg metre degrees from upright to AVS)


Yet again, this AVS formula used here is the same formula used in the CE Cat A standard, and mass is defined here as the Minimum Operating Condition (and we've looked at the difference between this and the "Loaded Arrival Condition" in the ISO standard).

Now, I have not run down the AGZ numbers on the ISO side - but I want to leave that out for now since we've been focused on AVS. And this is where things start getting much more complex.

BUT it's only here that you finally see the *"or"* which leads you to the ORC-RS and then the IRC SSS. Yet none of these appear to be relevant anyway if you meet the Cat A standard. So by bringing them into the conversation against the Cat A standard, the waters get very muddy very quickly.

Where I think I screwed up and confused things was even referring to that ORC-RS 120 number at all. I just referred to it as a benchmark number that falls between the 100 degree minimum in the ISO formula and the 140 degree minimum that you cite from the scientific research.

I won't/can't argue the 140 degrees you're holding out. I certainly do not have that expertise nor do I really have the desire to research it. But back to this thread, rightly or wrongly, this number just does not exist in any of these standards that I can see. And whatever the reasoning for its omission/exclusion - that's just the reality of it.

Furthermore, I have absolutely ZERO desire to get into the IMS/ORC-RS torture chamber which many others (like on SA) are ripping for being too complex and error-prone. But, again, according to the OSR, it's tertiary anyway to this conversation.

*My focus right now is purely on the CE Cat A standard.* And the fact that the OSR Cat 0 has this as *its* "gold standard" is enough for me.

Now, in my research, I found this in another article talking about this subject, and it makes it easier (for me at least) to understand...



> Depending on how the calculations are made, it is possible to come up with significantly different numbers for the same boat. Unfortunately, the International Measurement System (IMS) and the International Standards Organization (ISO) have different methodologies, although both are based on a lightly loaded condition and both exclude the effect of any superstructure on the calculation, so the results are likely to be reasonably close. Much bigger differences are likely between either of these methodologies and any methodology that includes the superstructure (which significantly increases the LPS/AVS) and/or substantial payload. For this reason, it is important to use the same measurement methodology when comparing boats.
> 
> Given that the European community is requiring some sort of stability testing for all new boats, we can expect most boats (both European and American) to be tested to the ISO standard in the near future, which will provide a measure of consistency.
> 
> However, a couple of caveats need to be borne in mind. On one hand, this stability test is conducted in a lightly loaded condition (minimum sailing condition - factory installed equipment on board plus an estimated crew weight), which tends to understate the stability of a boat loaded down with voyaging stores.


So, unless there are still a lot of different measurement methodologies going on *within the CE/ISO standard itself* (which is counter to what the above writer is saying), it certainly seems like you can take the Cat A numbers shown and not worry about complex extrapolation against other "secondary" standards (e.g. - IMS, etc.). After all, again, it seems to be good enough for the OSR to override any other means of stability calculations or numbers.



Jeff_H said:


> But the point seems to be that if you really are saying _" I *certainly* don't yet see where many of these negative assumptions by so many are backed up by the actual document." _ then you are failing to grasp the significance of things that are being placed right in front of your face.
> 
> You are right that at some level these are pretty technical matters. But the are not so technical that they are not clear cut to those who have taken the time to research and understand them.
> 
> If you are not yet seeing the difference, then I suggest that use your internet search skills locate the primary research documents on this. Most have pretty clear sections explaining their hypothesis, research methods, and executive summaries that explain what they concluded.
> 
> I think if you read the actual documents you will better understand how the documents back up the realistic opinions held by people like me once you understand that a document isn't reflecting a "base formula is the same - and the accepted minimum number there is 120" when there document says it will accept either one of two ways of calculating AVS even though the two methods produce 15 to 20 degree different results.


Well, as you can see, I'm doing a lot of research and reading a lot of different documents. And I'll be the first to admit that I might be guilty of "failing to grasp the significance of things that are being placed right in front of [my] face". The problem is some of the stuff being put in front of my face doesn't match the documents I'm reading.

So, in conclusion, if the language of the OSR above is saying what it certainly appears to be saying regarding CE Cat A certification - I think everything just got *much* simpler.

CE Cat A is a very high standard indeed.


----------



## outbound

Smack says he wanted this thread aimed at newbies. If that’s truly the case think he needs to back off on this lps/avs stuff. There are experienced racers, cruisers and professionals here. I ask them to validate the below.
There is a huge difference between a simple knock down when the boat is overburdened by too much sail induced lateral force in moderate seas due to failure of coordination between crew and helm. Knockdown then is remedied by just throwing off a sheet then you may have lost the race but not your life.
This is very different then running under bare poles or far reaching fully reefed and wave action alone puts the stick down.
Similarly there’s a huge difference not disclosed by a avs number when inverted. You now see a monohull manufacturer advertising their boat is like a catamaran. You see huge advances in performance with modern hull shapes. Wetted surface dramatically decreases once any heel is induced. These boats have a great avs. Properly handed they have no trouble in the Southern Ocean or other extreme conditions. They are light, strong and oh so fast. However the derivatives marketed are very different creatures. Multis where the hulls are fat or the bridge deck extends way forward beyond the mast. Monos where chines are a styling feature, no fine entry or no rocker. But what’s different is they need to be actively and correctly sailed. No more “you take care of a multi but a mono takes care of you”. 
These boats once lps is exceeded can invert in a seaway. Once inverted they may like to stay that way. This is a huge deal and to date Smack looks at staying upright but not risk once upside down. As with any compromise ( all boats are compromises) there’s a penalty for too much dependence on form stability. Furthermore weight is the enemy of speed. However for the cruiser weight means comfort, spares, water makers, gensets, AC and the like. But weight destroys the physics that allows a truly safe boat that’s too dependent on form stability. 
Speed is wonderful on passage. But at some point speed makes life on the boat lousy. I hear my multi and fast mono friends bitching about needing to slow the boat now.
So how does this relate to the newbie? It just shows how the above discussion in this thread is only a very,very small part of the equation. Once again-be honest with yourself-how are going to use the boat? Who is the crew? How fit are you? What’s your skill set? How much stuff are you going to put on the boat?(remember the avs discussed above is calculated before you add your stuff). So using Cat A as the criterion is nonsense. Sure it’s a floor but it’s just a floor.


----------



## colemj

outbound said:


> I hear my multi and fast mono friends bitching about needing to slow the boat now.


It is an awful problem to live with for sure :wink , but I wouldn't call it "bitching" - we just have to remove sail area to get down to the speeds others are at for comfort in those conditions.

Mark


----------



## Arcb

Outbound beat me to it. Don't see how this helps a new sailor. So many acronyms, numbers and jargon, I don't even know what we're talking about any more. 

If a new sailor wants to learn about angle of vanishing stability, recommend a CL 16 on a cold windy day.

Also, if this is for new sailors, recommend a few years sailing close to shore before you even consider multi day offshore passages as a skipper.

For example, RYA recommends a minimum of 50 sea days and 2500 miles before they will give you a certificate. 

I think most recreational sailors sail in the neighborhood of 500 miles a year or less.

By the time you have some experience, you'll have a better idea of what kind of sailing you like and what kind of boat you want.

I don't think any of us posting here are on their first boats, and I'm sure most of us started fairly small. My first boat was a Fireball, which I sailed for years, including coastal camp cruising. It didn't take long to figure out how to sail the boat without dumping it, even in what would be considered the upper range of Category C and probably into Category B.


----------



## RichH

smackdaddy said:


> CE Cat A is a very high standard indeed.


I really preferred not to 'get into this' but here goes. :chainsaw

The Elan 36 is a CE Cat-A rated boat. Imagine a newbie sailor purchasing one principally because its "A" (open ocean) rating ..........

The Elan36 is indeed a very nicely designed boat, dual rudders, end-boom sheeting, LOTs of cockpit space, etc. Good ergonomics in the cockpit, especially for single handing, etc. 
Elan Yachts Croatia - Elan 360

• The 'life lines' (by approx. graphic ratio from the Elan 36 brochure) can be assumed to be just above mid-thigh length for the male at the helm resulting in an estimated 30" high 'top' life line - just enough height to insure that if one is thrown against a life line while standing on deck results in - a high probability of one going overboard. Is the Cat-A design target crew size for folks who average 5'-0" tall in height?

*Stern 'life' lines ... you've got to be kidding. Unsupported 'life' lines spanning the entire void of that stern? Perhaps one should consider to drag a tuna net from the stern in case one of those long span unsupported ("A" - ocean rated) stern safety life lines happens to 'go' when the helmsman slips and falls because he/she has essentially NOTHING to hold onto except a wheel.

• NO bridgedeck whatsoever to protect the companion way from downflooding (with lexan boards set with aluminum frames, and no backup storm boards listed nor apparent).

• an open stern cockpit whose volumetric dimensions (see Elan36 deck plan @ a guesstimated (12'L X 10'w X 2.5' deep X 62.5#/cu. ft. equate to approximately 9 tons of water) when totally filled and not 'drained' .... causing the stern to sink by about 30" (the helmsman now standing at least close to almost butt deep in frothy 'moving' green stuff) until that cockpit loses its water. Dont you think the CE 'open ocean' rating should be concerned about the sometimes stern boarding waves; have they prohibited stern boarding waves in the EU CE regs? 
... and then hope to hell that the bridgedeck-less lexan 'companionway board' (without storm shutters) 'doesnt break loose' during hydro-impact.

• Apparently to save weight and cost ... an approximate 30" (~THIRTY INCH) long polished grab rail is conveniently installed at near the midsection of the coach roof. Doesn't Cat-A consider that sometimes the crew must go forward of the mast during stink conditions ??? What does one hold onto fore or aft of that ~30" long midship grab rail, and after a major weather front/center has passed and the crew is now sailing in 'ultra-confused' seas? 
In all probability Cat-A specifications requires coachroof grab rails - Yup! check, we have one on each side to be in total compliance to the 'regs'.

• Just exactly WHERE does one 'teather-in to a hard point' when one is at the helm of a Cat-A rated Elan36? Maybe the CE rating for this boat recommends an 18" long, or less, tether to the gunnel mounted 'seat-pushpit corner combination' , as sure as hell if the helmsman slips due to a boarding wave reflecting back from the end of the coachroof ... the butt+ deep exiting now 'white' water is surely going to 'upset' him/her from their feet (will the helmsman need 'ankle tethers' too, to prevent playing 'crack the whip' with a single side-attached tether?). He/she is going to be surely vulnerable to be treading water 'just aft' of the stern ... with or without teather attached.

• I guess that CE Cat-A prohibits any semblance of ventilation on this boat. Can anyone find an opening port light, dorado, or any possible 'hole' for air to exchange ... other than an approximate 4 X 10 cm _slot_ along that side 'window' assembly ... but apparently NOT in the aft 'head' station which has a 'top hatch'; peee-uuuuu when this boat is buttoned up tight !!!!. 
Northern europeans really like saunas; with virtually NO ventilation one can also have their sauna along while in the tropics.

• I see primarily 'finger holds' inside the cabin along the walls/ceiling. How many can reach over a 24+" deep 'settee' and hold on solely with their finger tips (!) when a boat is heeled over to 45+ degrees, or when this boat 'falls off of a steep wave' that sometimes happens in 'the open ocean'. Are spring loaded finger/hand grip strength training devices supplied free of charge as per CE Cat-A regs? 
Exactly why is not ONE overhead grab rail along near the centerline supplied on a boat rated for 'open ocean'?

• NOT even a 'spray rail' on the coach roof for when the bow is submerged under & green water come a few foot deep across the 'cabin top'. Of course, the companionway WILL be open because there aren't ANY ventilators on this Cat-A rated boat!!!!

• Where exactly does one store anything on this certified open ocean 'voyager', all I see is approx 10" deep 'cabinets', and probably shallow 'lockers' under the appointed and customary bull-nosed settees. Nothing for stowage between the salon and the vee berth? Do you think the bulk of all the normal cruising stowage goes under the king size 'bed' in the aft cabin ... in one of the boat's 'ends'? Its not uncommon for long distance cruising for a crew of 2-3 to have a few tons of 'stuff' (food/fuel/water, etc.) onboard while open ocean voyaging; do Elan 36 owners simply ship their stores to their next port of call before casting off their lines?

• How does one attach davits to such a boat ... or should one just plan to always hail a water taxi in the remote desert out-islands in the Caribbean basin, etc. or other remote and out of the way places?

• Is 75 liters, (20 gallons or about ~30 hours worth) of fuel sufficient on an 'ocean voyager'? ... less than 175 liters (<50 gallons) of fresh water on a boat that probably has insufficient stowage space for a water maker?

The Elan36 is actually a very nicely set up sailing boat ... but I wouldn't want to 'voyage in one' unless I shipped ahead all my belongings and toys to each and every port that I intended to call ..... At least this boat has boom-end sheeting - VERY nice as the single handing helmsman doesnt have even 'move' from behind the wheel!; but, I can't imaging working the traveller by bending over and reaching under a damn wheel every time to adjust it.

........ Calm down now, everything will be Okey-Dokey because this certified 'ocean voyager' has an CE Cat-A (open ocean) rating, so we absolutely KNOW it will be bombproof/foolproof even when the crew is too physically exhausted from the days-on flat bottomed pounding to do 'anything' and the boat now has to take care of itself all by itself during 'that' storm. Just imagine running off 'bare poles' in such an open stern-ed boat in the open ocean.

Rx: just because a boat has a CE Cat-A rating apparently does not make it an effective and sea-kindly long distance / 'ocean voyager'

*<:-o

Elan Yachts Croatia - Elan 360


----------



## Jeff_H

Responding to ArcB and Outbound's points, I understand that Smackdaddy has said that this thread is meant for new sailors. But problem is that it includes refutable statements such as _"So, in conclusion, if the language of the OSR above is saying what it certainly appears to be saying regarding CE Cat A certification - I think everything just got much simpler. CE Cat A is a very high standard indeed." _

The reason that the AVS discussion is relevant is because it is one of the more easily demonstrated examples of why CE Cat A does not live up to what others in this thread have claimed it means- i.e. a classification system intended to set a high standard for boats making long distance offshore voyages.

In my mind part of the problem with discussions such as these is that terms are thrown around without a full understanding of their implications. A good example of that is the references to the IMS and ORC rating rules. I will admit that is a bit of a divergence from the general discussion of the implication of a CE Cat A rating on a boat's suitability to going offshore, but I think that it is useful to understand this distinction and why it is relevant to the discussion. (If this was a magazine this would be the sidebar so I will make this post in two parts, the first explaining the significance of why the implication of these terms is important. I will use the distinction between IMS and ORC as it pertains to understanding these issues. If you only want to continue reading the discussion that is the title of this thread, I suggest that you skip this post and move on to my next post in thread.)

I will start by saying that from a semantics standpoint, I have no problem using the term 'ORC' since that is the reference within the EU standards and in the current Offshore Special Racing (ORS) standards. But there is a reason that I keep mentioning the IMS in this discussion.

For those who are new to sailing, I'll start by explaining what ORC and IMS is. ORC (Offshore Racing Conference) is a way of scoring race boats of differing designs against each other. The IMS was an earlier science based method of scoring race boats against each other, but it was also a system of measurement and performance prediction. The ORC actually still uses the IMS system of measurement and and performance prediction, but uses a simplified scoring mechanism. IMS scoring system also included a series of standards that were supplemental to the performance prediction component.

The ORC and the IMS are relevant to this discussion because the IMS includes a simplified formula for calculating a number which the IMS refers to as 'AVS' but which is not the actual angle at which a boat switches from have forces trying to to right itself to the angle at which the forces are trying to overturn as the name would imply. The ORC still uses that same formula and the CE Cat A certification allows that AVS derived from the ORC/IMS formula to be used as a determinant of stability. And it also has used the 120 degree heel angle associated with this formula to be used as a determinant of whether a vessel qualifies to obtain CE Cat A certification. (More on that later in the next post.)

A further reason that the mention of the IMS is relevant to any discussion on this is because of the way that the 120 degree AVS was chosen and the differences between the IMS and the ORC systems. At the time that the 120 degree angle was chosen there had been a comparatively large amount of research into seaworthiness and motion. These came out of a variety of impetuses, but one of them was the IMS itself. Unlike prior racing rules, at its origin, the IMS was supposed to allow disparate offshore capable cruising boats to race against each other by predicting the likely speeds of a boat in various conditions. It was arguably the first science based system rating system, but that part is not relevant to the discussion.

The relevant part was the goal of making sure that the boats racing under the IMS were in fact offshore capable cruising boats. To do this the IMS had an set of additional standards that boats had to meet to race under IMS. These included minimum safety standards which deal with both equipment and items like the AVS mentioned earlier and accommodations such as having enough bunks of an adequate size for the permitted crew number, having a fixed galley table, and defining adequate headroom and requiring it over a specific percentage of the area of the boat. (These were later changed in ways that were counter to those goals but again that is not relevant to the discussion at hand)

In developing the required minimum IMS AVS formula, the decision was made to use a formula that only included measurements taken in calculating IMS performance prediction, and since there were insufficient measurement detail on the boat above the waterline, the formula only used the data from below the waterline. It was fully understood that at heel angles approaching the angle at which a boat wants to turn turtle, that very little, if any of the normal hull bottom is even in the water, and that the volume of the shape in the water is one of the primary determinants of the ultimate stability (as measured by AVS) of the boat.

Because the IMS included a minimum amount of headroom over a percentage of the boat, there were pretty consistent ratio of the volume of the boat above the waterline, relative to the volume below. This is important to remember because it impacts the much of the later discussion. It was fully understood (and still is) from the science that a boat with less than 140 degrees of positive righting (the angle at which the forces change from trying to right the boat to trying to over turn the boat) has a very poor chance of re-righting itself if it exceeds the angle at which the forces change from trying to right the boat to trying to over turn the boat.

It was also understood that by creating a formula that only used the measured values of the IMS system to determine the AVS, measurements which did not include the volume of the boat above the waterline, that the AVS that would result would be substantially less than the actual AVS of the boat. But due to the headroom requirements of the IMS, it was also understood that the contribution of the volume of the boat above the water line that is required to meet the IMS accommodations requirements would contribute enough to result in a boat which had an actual stability that was 15 to 20 degrees higher than than the formula would predict. As a result, the minimum AVS calculated under the IMS formula was set at 120 degrees.

And this is where the distinction between IMS and ORC becomes significant. ORC does not include the same accommodations requirements that were embedded in the original IMS system, consequently the ratio of volume below the waterline to the volume above has shifted such that the actual AVS of the boat is likely to be less than predicted by using the same formula. In other words, using the same formula and the same 120 degree on ORC boats does not achieve the same ultimate stability(AVS-LPS) in real life. But like I said at the start, that part is a side issue. (End of sidebar see next post for the the actual discussion on the issue which is the title of this thread.)

Jeff


----------



## jeremiahbltz2

I don't know if I count as a newbie sailor or not, I have a few years and a few thousand miles, but no offshore and only a few hundred costal miles.

But I'll say this: this thread helps nobody but the blowhards. The idea that any newbie sailor is going to be safe in *any* boat in force 11 is ludicrous. That newbie sailor will be lying ahull, cowering the the saloon with improperly secured sails and improperly secured gear belowdecks. Maybe there are more rescues these days, but the vast majority of these seem to be people who can't get their engine started and don't actually know how to use their sails. The idea that any prudent sailor would go out in a small boat where there is a real chance of encountering sustained force 11 is, to my mind, simply incorrect. If you would willingly head into a tropical storm, you are not prudent. 

If your definition of a "blue water boat" is one you can do a west-to east non-stop circumnavigation in without a ton of risk, then fine. But I think that's not what most people mean when they talk about blue water sailing. I think the vast majority of people who want an ocean going boat plan to do a few well-planned trade-wind ocean crossings and some island hopping. Would those people, given proper experience, be safe an any boat with a Cat A rating? I have no idea, but this thread sure isn't helping.


----------



## Jeff_H

Steve,

With all due respect, you posting things, but you don't seem to understand what they are saying and so are coming to dubious conclusions. You quoted this section of the RCD on stability.

_3.04 Stability - Monohulls

Mo0,1,2
3.04.1
Able to demonstrate compliance with ISO 12217-2* design category A or higher, either by EC Recreational Craft Directive certification having obtained the CE mark or the designer's declaration
* The latest effective version of ISO 12217-2 should be used unless the boat was already designed to a previous version

Mo0,1,2,3
3.04.2
Where compliance in accordance with 3.04.1 cannot be demonstrated, able to demonstrate either:
Mo0,1,2

a) i, a STIX value not less than 32; and
Mo0,1,2

ii AVS not less than 130 - 0.002*m, but always >= 100°, (where "m" is the mass of the boat in the minimum operating condition as defined by ISO 12217-2); and

Mo0,1,2
iii a minimum righting energy m*AGZ>172000 (where AGZ is the positive area under the righting lever curve in the minimum operating condition, expressed in kg metre degrees from upright to AVS); or

Extract Mo0
b) Stability Index in ORC Rating System of not less than 120; or

Extract Mo0,1
c) IRC SSS Base value of not less than 35_

As I read paragraph 3.04.1, to obtain an CE category A or higher certification, a boat must meet the standards of the CE category A or higher certification.

But 3.04.2 says that if a boat can't meet the requirement to obtain a CE category A or higher certification, it may still obtain a CE category A or higher certification if it meets one of two standards.

The first set include a rigorously calculated AVS with permitted modification that is not less than 100°, and a STIX value not less than 32, and a minimum righting energy. But there are two other options that the manufacturer and designer may choose to obtain a CE category A or higher certification. One of this is b) that there is a Stability Index in ORC Rating System of not less than 120.

It is an equal option with the other choices and as I have explained in my earlier posts, because of the changes between ORC and IMS this does not assure that the boat ends up meeting the stiffer standards that would be required of the boat in ISO 12217-2 or even in 3.04.2 a.

My point is that if in reading this section, and you cannot see how this is a watering down of the standard, then you are not understanding implication of the the science behind the standards.

Jeff


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Smack says he wanted this thread aimed at newbies. If that's truly the case think he needs to back off on this lps/avs stuff. There are experienced racers, cruisers and professionals here. I ask them to validate the below.
> 
> *Sure it's a floor but it's just a floor.*


There is a very specific reason this is important for newbies. They have to decide whether the CE Cat A standard has meaning and relevance. Can they trust it?

Many here (and on many other forums) are deriding the CE Cat A standard as dangerous, misleading, insufficient, insignificant, etc. You yourself call it a "floor".

Yet, the most experienced and demanding sailors in the world - via the OSR - call it the "gold standard" in regards to stability as you can clearly see in the Cat 0 designation.

So, who does the newbie believe?

All of the acronyms and weeds don't matter in the face of this. They are only relevant if you want to critique what's in the CE Cat A standard and say that it's deficient, etc. Then when you do that you have to bring in a truckload of math and history and other definitions to try to prove that point.

Of course newbies don't want to dig through that. They just want a sailboat they can trust...which is what this thread is about...and what the CE Cat A rating is about.

So what I'm saying is that, based on the trans-oceanic usage at the highest levels, if the OSR can trust CE Cat A boats in blue water, a newbie can trust the CE Cat A boats. OSR Cat 0 is the ceiling - not the floor.


----------



## smackdaddy

Jeff_H said:


> Steve,
> 
> With all due respect, you posting things, but you don't seem to understand what they are saying and so are coming to dubious conclusions. You quoted this section of the RCD on stability.
> 
> _3.04 Stability - Monohulls
> 
> Mo0,1,2
> 3.04.1
> Able to demonstrate compliance with ISO 12217-2* design category A or higher, either by EC Recreational Craft Directive certification having obtained the CE mark or the designer's declaration
> * The latest effective version of ISO 12217-2 should be used unless the boat was already designed to a previous version
> 
> Mo0,1,2,3
> 3.04.2
> Where compliance in accordance with 3.04.1 cannot be demonstrated, able to demonstrate either:
> Mo0,1,2
> 
> a) i, a STIX value not less than 32; and
> Mo0,1,2
> 
> ii AVS not less than 130 - 0.002*m, but always >= 100°, (where "m" is the mass of the boat in the minimum operating condition as defined by ISO 12217-2); and
> 
> Mo0,1,2
> iii a minimum righting energy m*AGZ>172000 (where AGZ is the positive area under the righting lever curve in the minimum operating condition, expressed in kg metre degrees from upright to AVS); or
> 
> Extract Mo0
> b) Stability Index in ORC Rating System of not less than 120; or
> 
> Extract Mo0,1
> c) IRC SSS Base value of not less than 35_
> 
> As I read paragraph 3.04.1, to obtain an CE category A or higher certification, a boat must meet the standards of the CE category A or higher certification.
> 
> But 3.04.2 says that if a boat can't meet the requirement to obtain a CE category A or higher certification, it may still obtain a CE category A or higher certification if it meets one of two standards.
> 
> The first set include a rigorously calculated AVS with permitted modification that is not less than 100°, and a STIX value not less than 32, and a minimum righting energy. But there are two other options that the manufacturer and designer may choose to obtain a CE category A or higher certification. One of this is b) that there is a Stability Index in ORC Rating System of not less than 120.
> 
> It is an equal option with the other choices and as I have explained in my earlier posts, because of the changes between ORC and IMS this does not assure that the boat ends up meeting the stiffer standards that would be required of the boat in ISO 12217-2 or even in 3.04.2 a.
> 
> My point is that if in reading this section, and you cannot see how this is a watering down of the standard, then you are not understanding implication of the the science behind the standards.
> 
> Jeff


Jeff - first, that language above is not from the RCD it's from the OSR Cat 0 regulations as I stated in that post.

Second, I'm no longer going to talk about "watering down of the standard". That is your view and where things get deep into the weeds. I'm only going to stick with the language of the standard and what it means for the boats so-rated. If you guys want to technically dissect the ISO document, that's fine but I don't think it's relevant here. It's very much akin to the definition of blue water. The standard has already been set and we just need to talk about what that means for these particular boats - hopefully in a factual, objective way.

So, I think it is you who is misreading what's in the OSR and perhaps reaching some dubious conclusions. This is now not about technical engineering and math, but "legal" language. That primary 3.04.1 paragraph starts with "Able to demonstrate compliance with..." Remember this is a set of regulations/requirements that have to be met to participate in a Cat 0 race. You have to demonstrate that you meet them. And CE Cat A is the primary requirement regarding stability here.

*Therefore, 3.04.2 ONLY comes into affect IF you have not met the CE Cat A requirement* - with the statement "Where compliance in accordance with 3.04.1 *cannot be demonstrated*..."

So, what you're saying..



> As I read paragraph 3.04.1, to obtain an CE category A or higher certification, a boat must meet the standards of the CE category A or higher certification.


...is a bit of a non-sequitur. This document is not telling Cat 0 racers how one meets the CE Category A standard - it is telling them that if they meet that standard, they meet the very stringent OSR Cat 0 standard.

Beyond this, down through 3.04.2, is where all your additional math starts coming into play with the various combinations of tertiary standards you can, alternatively, demonstrate compliance with (I assume for older boats, one-offs, whatever). But again, it's all moot if the CE Cat A standard is already met.

So no, I see absolutely no watering down here. Either the language in this OSR document is wrong - or it is right.

And my point is, and has been, that if the highest standard in trans-oceanic racing uses CE Cat A as *its* "gold standard" here, people might want to re-think their position on its efficacy.


----------



## Jeff_H

smackdaddy said:


> Jeff - I'm no longer talking about "watering down of the standard". That is your view and where things get deep into the weeds. I'm only going to stick with the language of the standard and what it means for the boats so-rated. If you guys want to technically dissect the ISO document, that's fine but I don't think it's relevant here. It's very much akin to the definition of blue water. The standard has already been set and we just need to talk about what that means for those particular boats - hopefully in a factual, objective way.
> 
> Also, I think it is you who is misreading what's in the OSR. This is now not about technical engineering and math, but "legal" language. That primary 3.04.1 paragraph starts with "Able to demonstrate compliance with..." Remember this is a set of regulations/requirements that have to be met to participate. You have to demonstrate that you meet them. And CE Cat A is the primary requirement regarding stability here.
> 
> *Therefore, 3.04.2 ONLY comes into affect IF you have not met the CE Cat A requirement* - with the statement "Where compliance in accordance with 3.04.1 *cannot be demonstrated*..."
> 
> So, what you're saying..
> 
> ...is a bit of non-sequitur. This document is not telling Cat 0 racers how one meets the CE Category A standard - it is telling them that if they meet that standard, they meet the very stringent OSR Cat 0 standard.
> 
> Beyond this, down through 3.04.2, is where all your additional math starts coming into play with the various combinations of tertiary standards you can, alternatively, demonstrate compliance with (I assume for older boats, one-offs, whatever). But again, it's all moot if the CE Cat A standard is already met.
> 
> So no, I see absolutely no watering down here. Either the language in this document is wrong - or it is right.
> 
> And my point is, and has been, that if the highest standard in trans-oceanic racing uses CE Cat A as *its* "gold standard" here, people might want to re-think their position on its efficacy.


The non-sequiturs are 1) if a boat can't meet the actual standards, then there are three ways to still get a certification and one of them is ORC. If you pass ORC's AVS they boat is still given a CE Cat A certification. That is not a 'gold standard' that is a way to certify boats that do not meet the actual standards.

2) There is a long list of requirements that are associated with the OSR Cat 0 certification beyond the ORC AVS calc. (Anyone who has been through a Cat 0 inspection will tell you about the amazing level of detail and repetitive re-certifications that are required to meet that standard) The Cat A certification only requires that the boat meet the ORC AVS as a way to end run STIX and the other standards in that section. If the CE CAt A certification actually required the Cat 0 which is the "highest standard in trans-oceanic racing uses", that would be one thing, and perhaps could be seen as meeting a 'gold standard' of sorts. But it doesn't.

But the main point is that the CE Cat A is not a 'gold standard', and its doing it a disservice to pretend it is. At best it is the lowest price of admission, and if you understood the alternative items in this section that have been provided allow a sub-standard boat to slip through and still obtain a Cat A certification, you would probably agree.

At this point, I think we have beaten this topic to death.

Jeff


----------



## gonecrusin

CE Cat A the gold standard? The folks that brought brass mis-matched through hulls to thousands of boats.

CE Cat A gold standard brings us; lightly ballasted, extreme beam and extreme freeboard boats. I have to wonder how long it might float upside down? Anyone remember Wingnuts?


----------



## ScottUK

jeremiahbltz2 said:


> The idea that any prudent sailor would go out in a small boat where there is a real chance of encountering sustained force 11 is, to my mind, simply incorrect.


I don't think anybody really looks for it but it can find you. The first time I went sailing I found myself at the helm in 55kts sustained off of Tarifa Point. The storm was not forecasted from our weather sources. Things like that can happen so it best to have an idea what can take place and what is needed. Boat design and construction should be a major consideration for a prudent sailor when there is a chance of being caught out in those conditions and if you cruise there is always going to be that chance.


----------



## blt2ski

RichH said:


> I really preferred not to 'get into this' but here goes. :chainsaw
> 
> The Elan 36 is a CE Cat-A rated boat. Imagine a newbie sailor purchasing one principally because its "A" (open ocean) rating ..........
> 
> The Elan36 is indeed a very nicely designed boat, dual rudders, end-boom sheeting, LOTs of cockpit space, etc. Good ergonomics in the cockpit, especially for single handing, etc.
> Elan Yachts Croatia - Elan 360
> 
> • The 'life lines' (by approx. graphic ratio from the Elan 36 brochure) can be assumed to be just above mid-thigh length for the male at the helm resulting in an estimated 30" high 'top' life line - just enough height to insure that if one is thrown against a life line while standing on deck results in - a high probability of one going overboard. Is the Cat-A design target crew size for folks who average 5'-0" tall in height?
> 
> *Stern 'life' lines ... you've got to be kidding. Unsupported 'life' lines spanning the entire void of that stern? Perhaps one should consider to drag a tuna net from the stern in case one of those long span unsupported ("A" - ocean rated) stern safety life lines happens to 'go' when the helmsman slips and falls because he/she has essentially NOTHING to hold onto except a wheel.
> 
> • NO bridgedeck whatsoever to protect the companion way from downflooding (with lexan boards set with aluminum frames, and no backup storm boards listed nor apparent).
> 
> • an open stern cockpit whose volumetric dimensions (see Elan36 deck plan @ a guesstimated (12'L X 10'w X 2.5' deep X 62.5#/cu. ft. equate to approximately 9 tons of water) when totally filled and not 'drained' .... causing the stern to sink by about 30" (the helmsman now standing at least close to almost butt deep in frothy 'moving' green stuff) until that cockpit loses its water. Dont you think the CE 'open ocean' rating should be concerned about the sometimes stern boarding waves; have they prohibited stern boarding waves in the EU CE regs?
> ... and then hope to hell that the bridgedeck-less lexan 'companionway board' (without storm shutters) 'doesnt break loose' during hydro-impact.
> 
> • Apparently to save weight and cost ... an approximate 30" (~THIRTY INCH) long polished grab rail is conveniently installed at near the midsection of the coach roof. Doesn't Cat-A consider that sometimes the crew must go forward of the mast during stink conditions ??? What does one hold onto fore or aft of that ~30" long midship grab rail, and after a major weather front/center has passed and the crew is now sailing in 'ultra-confused' seas?
> In all probability Cat-A specifications requires coachroof grab rails - Yup! check, we have one on each side to be in total compliance to the 'regs'.
> 
> • Just exactly WHERE does one 'teather-in to a hard point' when one is at the helm of a Cat-A rated Elan36? Maybe the CE rating for this boat recommends an 18" long, or less, tether to the gunnel mounted 'seat-pushpit corner combination' , as sure as hell if the helmsman slips due to a boarding wave reflecting back from the end of the coachroof ... the butt+ deep exiting now 'white' water is surely going to 'upset' him/her from their feet (will the helmsman need 'ankle tethers' too, to prevent playing 'crack the whip' with a single side-attached tether?). He/she is going to be surely vulnerable to be treading water 'just aft' of the stern ... with or without teather attached.
> 
> • I guess that CE Cat-A prohibits any semblance of ventilation on this boat. Can anyone find an opening port light, dorado, or any possible 'hole' for air to exchange ... other than an approximate 4 X 10 cm _slot_ along that side 'window' assembly ... but apparently NOT in the aft 'head' station which has a 'top hatch'; peee-uuuuu when this boat is buttoned up tight !!!!.
> Northern europeans really like saunas; with virtually NO ventilation one can also have their sauna along while in the tropics.
> 
> • I see primarily 'finger holds' inside the cabin along the walls/ceiling. How many can reach over a 24+" deep 'settee' and hold on solely with their finger tips (!) when a boat is heeled over to 45+ degrees, or when this boat 'falls off of a steep wave' that sometimes happens in 'the open ocean'. Are spring loaded finger/hand grip strength training devices supplied free of charge as per CE Cat-A regs?
> Exactly why is not ONE overhead grab rail along near the centerline supplied on a boat rated for 'open ocean'?
> 
> • NOT even a 'spray rail' on the coach roof for when the bow is submerged under & green water come a few foot deep across the 'cabin top'. Of course, the companionway WILL be open because there aren't ANY ventilators on this Cat-A rated boat!!!!
> 
> • Where exactly does one store anything on this certified open ocean 'voyager', all I see is approx 10" deep 'cabinets', and probably shallow 'lockers' under the appointed and customary bull-nosed settees. Nothing for stowage between the salon and the vee berth? Do you think the bulk of all the normal cruising stowage goes under the king size 'bed' in the aft cabin ... in one of the boat's 'ends'? Its not uncommon for long distance cruising for a crew of 2-3 to have a few tons of 'stuff' (food/fuel/water, etc.) onboard while open ocean voyaging; do Elan 36 owners simply ship their stores to their next port of call before casting off their lines?
> 
> • How does one attach davits to such a boat ... or should one just plan to always hail a water taxi in the remote desert out-islands in the Caribbean basin, etc. or other remote and out of the way places?
> 
> • Is 75 liters, (20 gallons or about ~30 hours worth) of fuel sufficient on an 'ocean voyager'? ... less than 175 liters (<50 gallons) of fresh water on a boat that probably has insufficient stowage space for a water maker?
> 
> The Elan36 is actually a very nicely set up sailing boat ... but I wouldn't want to 'voyage in one' unless I shipped ahead all my belongings and toys to each and every port that I intended to call ..... At least this boat has boom-end sheeting - VERY nice as the single handing helmsman doesnt have even 'move' from behind the wheel!; but, I can't imaging working the traveller by bending over and reaching under a damn wheel every time to adjust it.
> 
> ........ Calm down now, everything will be Okey-Dokey because this certified 'ocean voyager' has an CE Cat-A (open ocean) rating, so we absolutely KNOW it will be bombproof/foolproof even when the crew is too physically exhausted from the days-on flat bottomed pounding to do 'anything' and the boat now has to take care of itself all by itself during 'that' storm. Just imagine running off 'bare poles' in such an open stern-ed boat in the open ocean.
> 
> Rx: just because a boat has a CE Cat-A rating apparently does not make it an effective and sea-kindly long distance / 'ocean voyager'
> 
> *<:-o
> 
> Elan Yachts Croatia - Elan 360


As you point out, Cat A leaves a few things open as to how good it is, but, it is a minimum std for off shore. One will need to add some things to the basic minimum standards. I do NOT believe it to be a GOLD standard as smack is touting.

Cat A also covers race boats, so while this boat may appear to be a boat a single hander would like, it also shows that it really needs a crew of 3-4 to sail this off shore, with the way the lines etc are designed. OR that one will be using "OTTO" while tending the lines in SH mode. This boat in reality, might be better setup with a tiller than a wheel. BUT, like a lot of things debatable, that is certainly up to debate too!

I see this boat, ie Elan 360 as a boat that should not as fitted out, being used in an offshore race or equal being single handed. Altho, it might be like the Jeanneau SF3600, that has three deck fitting setups, depending upon if 1 or 2 person crew is wanted vs a full 4-6 person race crew.

I also agree on the door setup. That is not a design I would want off shore, or at least where waves could come over the back, fill the cabin with water etc. My boat is better designed than that one in many ways.

Marty


----------



## outbound

Steve every once in awhile you have to admit you were wrong. Learn from it and move on. Have you wondered why you’re getting so much blow back on this now the second time around. Why people much more knowledgeable in naval architecture you or I or with big water experience just refuse to drink your cool-aid.
You and I know the storm comes up when you have had a week in the head after some one gave you a bad reef fish. Or you find that run to the jib furler isn’t really fair or that weld in the fitting that holds the vang to the boom falls or that hatch begins a magical leak you can’t find or some pop rivets go walk about or whatever. But you know you can’t beat Murphy’s law all the time.
I know every time I’ve done >1000 m transit something has gone wrong. Maybe it’s crew, Maybe it’s the boat and it doesn’t matter brand of the boat nor even the age. 
But any one who ever sails big water even occasionally knows there are good ocean boats and others not so much. There are boats that take a licking and come back ticking and others worn out after a year or two. Some have a lot of stuff break. Some don’t. Some give a nice ride in weather and are easy to keep safe some don’t. There boat components that will safely function for the life of the boat and others needing a replacement schedule. Bronze or brass. Rod or wire. Titanium or 308. What do you want to worry about?
So yes when builder seeks a cat classification and gets an A great he achieved the floor designation for the boat which is applicable when the vessel is brand spanking new. But when a buyer is looking at boats or crew getting on a boat accepting your statement “CE Cat A boats ARE blue water boats” is just ludicrous.
When looking at specific boats some are some aren’t. It depends....get over it.


----------



## smackdaddy

I agree that this hamster has been fully flattened. But we still need to be accurate...



Jeff_H said:


> The non-sequiturs are 1) if a boat can't meet the actual standards, then there are three ways to still get a certification and one of them is ORC. *If you pass ORC's AVS they boat is still given a CE Cat A certification*. That is not a 'gold standard' that is a way to certify boats that do not meet the actual standards.


This part is still not quite correct. In the OSR Cat 0 requirement language, you *EITHER* meet the CE Cat A certification to qualify for OSR Cat 0 - *OR* - you meet these others in the combinations described. Meeting those others does not qualify you for CE Cat A certification (which is not the job or the intent of the OSR) - it's just an alternative way to qualify for the OSR Cat 0 designation. That is how the language reads.



Jeff_H said:


> But the main point is that the CE Cat A is not a 'gold standard', and its doing it a disservice to pretend it is. At best it is the lowest price of admission, and if you understood the alternative items in this section that have been provided allow a sub-standard boat to slip through and still obtain a Cat A certification, you would probably agree.


Again, that is your opinion. And I respect your opinion. But it is *not* the OSR's opinion as shown in that language. And that's what is most relevant to this thread. According to the OSR, if you have CE Cat A certification, that's all you need regarding your boat's stability to qualify for it's most stringent category. Now, whether you want to call that a "gold standard" in this example is up to you. But it certainly appears to be just that to me.

As I said above and will keep saying, newbies have a couple of options when considering this CE Cat A standard and what it means to their own ocean cruising aspirations:

1. *They can trust it* - because a) it has come from very knowledgeable/capable people doing years of work to arrive at a standard that the entire industry now supports; b) it is adopted as the first and highest standard for stability by yet another group of extremely knowledgeable/capable people in the ISAF/OSR who make blue water cruising look like child's play; and, c) since fully enacted in the 1990's there is currently no convincing body of evidence that we've seen showing these boats commonly failing - either racing or cruising - which would confirm that the standards are, in fact, too low as some claim.

OR

2. *They can't trust it *- and will need to just trust and try to figure out what makes sense from others who have wildly differing opinions on these matters - or they will need to start working through the details and math of all the different measurement systems and non-ISO certification standards themselves, become proficient enough to make their own empirical judgements based on sound science they have a full grasp of - then choose the boat they like based on their own idea of a standard.

This thread is about option 1. And, personally, I'm very comfortable that highly experienced and knowledgeable people have endorsed its efficacy. I trust it.

At the same time, Jeff, as I've said, I respect your opinion and know that you are also a very experienced and knowledgeable person. No question. And I understand you disagree with aspects of the ISO doc and RD - and I also know full well that it's not "perfect". But as I said above, if you are right and they are wrong - we will see it as these boats fail. Until then, critiquing the imperfections in the standard as you see them is a completely different hamster to pound.

For now, CE Cat A is THE standard. And hopefully we can move on to what it means to production boat buyers.


----------



## Arcb

smackdaddy said:


> This thread is about option 1. And, personally, I'm very comfortable that highly experienced and knowledgeable people have endorsed its efficacy. I trust it.
> 
> For now, CE Cat A is THE standard. And hopefully we can move on to what it means to production boat buyers.


What highly knowledgeable and experienced people have endorsed it in the context that you present. Can you name one, preferably one that doesn't have something to gain financially from it?


----------



## smackdaddy

Arcb said:


> What highly knowledgeable and experienced people have endorsed it in the context that you present. Can you name one, preferably one that doesn't have something to gain financially from it?


Well, that's a pretty loaded question. But as I mentioned earlier, when the mark claims this...



> The Recreational Craft Directive (94/25/EC, as amended by Directive 2003/44/EC) *is intended to ensure a high level of safety for users*...


...as well as the other similar stuff I posted above...This now becomes a broad legal liability issue. If it's all purely about nefarious financial or political motivations, you *definitely* would *never* say this...even outside the very litigious US.

So, it's obviously about a balance. And the proof is in the pudding.

Further, I don't know first-hand what financial incentive ISAF/OSR would have in adopting this standard for its most stringent ocean racing category - so that's one as far as I'm concerned.

Beyond that I don't feel the need to defend the directive myself. It's doing fine on its own.

Now, I'm putting together what I think is an interesting post on this 2015 Beneteau 55 that I've found the manual for. Hopefully we can discuss what the Cat A means for this boat in terms of its usage. I'd love it if someone could find a similar manual for, say, an Oyster or Hylas in the same year and length to compare language.


----------



## Arcb

I'll read that back to you "ensure a high level of safety". 

Compared to what? No standard what so ever? Agreed, it provides a higher standard than no standard at all.

It doesn't say gold standard and it doesn't say all Cat A boats are blue water boats. I am wondering if you can reference any experts that have said that.

I am not sure how most regulations in architecture work, but in the marine world, most of the ones I have encountered mean exactly what they say. Nothing more and nothing less.


----------



## Arcb

Since we are quoting exactly from the regulations, what they mean, I thought we would look at some more details.

_DIRECTIVE 2013/53/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
of 20 November 2013
on recreational craft and personal watercraft and repealing Directive 94/25/EC

(33)	In order to provide clear information about the acceptable operating environment of watercraft, the titles of the watercraft design categories *should only *be based on the essential environmental conditions for navigation, namely wind force and significant wave height. Four design categories, A, B, C and D, specify ranges of wind force and of significant wave height for the purpose of design with explanatory notes.
_

So When somebody says something like *CE Category A Production Boats ARE Blue Water Boats*, they are ignoring the spirit of the regulations, as defined by the regulations. You are doing exactly what they say not to do. So the question is, do you respect what the regulations say, or do you not? If you don't then why are we having this discussion?

And

_(52)	Since the objective of this Directive, namely to ensure a high level of protection of human health and safety and protection of environment whilst guaranteeing the functioning of the internal market _

It seems the regulations themselves identify that they are compromise between safety and "functioning of the internal market".


----------



## smackdaddy

Arcb said:


> Since we are quoting exactly from the regulations, what they mean, I thought we would look at some more details.
> 
> _DIRECTIVE 2013/53/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
> of 20 November 2013
> on recreational craft and personal watercraft and repealing Directive 94/25/EC
> 
> (33)	In order to provide clear information about the acceptable operating environment of watercraft, the titles of the watercraft design categories *should only *be based on the essential environmental conditions for navigation, namely wind force and significant wave height. Four design categories, A, B, C and D, specify ranges of wind force and of significant wave height for the purpose of design with explanatory notes.
> _
> 
> So When somebody says something like *CE Category A Production Boats ARE Blue Water Boats*, they are ignoring the spirit of the regulations, as defined by the regulations. You are doing exactly what they say not to do. So the question is, do you respect what the regulations say, or do you not? If you don't then why are we having this discussion?


Arc - c'mon. Please. This is getting silly.

Yes, I respect what the regulations say and what they do not. As I've already pointed out _ad nauseum_ (at least _I'm_ feeling nauseous at this point) the Cat A standard *says* that these production boats are designed for extended ocean voyages where you might experience F9-F11 conditions (just not abnormal conditions such as hurricanes, etc.). This clearly covers pretty much ANY stretch of ocean in the world that I know of. I don't know how to make that any clearer.

Ergo, the above definition includes "blue water" in whatever way you want to define it as regards sailing/racing/cruising/etc. If it does not, you need to explain why exactly that is. Not me.

So, I'm done with the semantics game. The standards speak for themselves. I feel absolutely no need to defend them. They are the standards.

I'll post the Beneteau study in the next day or two and we can go from there. That exercise should be much more fun and productive than this.

Later.


----------



## Arcb

smackdaddy said:


> This clearly covers pretty much ANY stretch of ocean in the world that I know of. I don't know how to make that any clearer.
> 
> Ergo, the above definition includes "blue water" in whatever way you want to define it as regards sailing/racing/cruising/etc. If it does not, you need to explain why exactly that is. Not me.


I thought I did just explain it. Here it is again.

(33)	In order to provide clear information about the acceptable operating environment of watercraft, the titles of the watercraft design categories* should only *be based on the essential environmental conditions for navigation, namely wind force and significant wave height. Four design categories, A, B, C and D, specify ranges of wind force and of significant wave height for the purpose of design with explanatory notes.


----------



## GeorgeB

Man, go away for a few days and there close to two hundred new postings. Whew. I’ve got a new theory, hear me out. Years ago, Smack was in the center (cause of?) all those Hunter bashing threads. Hunter is now on the “ropes”. He then expands his horizon to “production” boats and we now read that the recreational boat industry is now in contraction. Spot a trend? Ye gads, if this trend continues and Smack starts posting to the political threads, could the fall of western civilization be far behind? Smack, for the sake of humanity, stop before it is too late!

I see that the thread has devolved into a lot of technical minutia in an attempt to validate Smack’s premise that the EC’s Recreational Craft Directive (It is currently updated through 2016) Cat A is synonymous with the (undefined) term “Bluewater”. So, I took some time and did some digging. The “Blue water crowd has taken some Umbridge that the EC would have the hutzpah to quantify the ratings and that they were set up manly to be a barrier to trade and somehow our own AYBC was a superior set of standards. Well, the AYBC is an industry trade group and I thought that Catalina’s own Gerry Douglas was on the technical committee. He is currently not, but David Marlow is on both it and is also on the board of directors. If the name sounds familiar, is could be that you’ve heard of his company, Marlow – Hunter. Yes, it ain’t a AYBC standard until Hunter says it’s one. Scary, isn’t it?

The AYBC website says they follow the ANS standards so there is hope for us yet. ANSI is our commercial standards (Not to be confused with MILSTD, MILSPEC, FS and FAR which I worked with during my career.) But wait – our own ANSI is the American representative on ISO, the world-wide standards organization headquartered in Geneva. We, Canada and 163 other nations accept ISO and that includes ISO 12217-2. So, the Categories aren’t just a Euro thing, they are a world-wide thing. Reading ISO 12217-2, I see that the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers (SNAME) are the authors of much of the standard. Hmm, universities like MIT and Clarkston are contributors to SNAME (Even Bob Perry’s NA is a member). These engineers have sought to quantify the requirements for recreational boats to operate in various sea states using the scientific method and sound engineering principals. “High” and “low” are value judgements as to the efficacy of ISO 12217-2, but I can say, the standard is quite detailed and comprehensive. 

Where AYBC, ANS, and ISO are voluntary for us in the USA, the Europeans (can we still use the term “Eurpies”?) have codified them into law through the Recreational Craft Directive. I’m pretty comfortable with this. I also know that there is a whole lot more to “Blue water”

ISAF/OSR is a whole another kettle of fish. If ISO 12217-2 was the “gold standard” for all things then there would be no need for the OSR. But there is, and that is why they go beyond 12217-2. If I were to define “blue water” now, I’d say the term should be reserved for the boats that pass an ISAF Cat1 inspection. And for Arcb, I’d coin the term “green water” for boats that are inspected to Cat 0 standards. That should cover all you guys whose boat’s sail in mid-winter gales in the North Atlantic, or ply the Southern Ocean during ice berg season.

I have enjoyed this discussion and I learned a lot of things. I was first skeptical of the RCD but, in researching (thanks for the doc’s Smack!) I have gained a lot of insight. But, I do think that a lot of you are playing with sharp crayons and arguing minutia when the precision of things like the STIX numbers go to one or two digits. As I said earlier, I’m going to “play” with ISO 12217-2 this winter and come up with the numbers for my boat and I hope you “blue water” boys do the same so we can compare and learn how great of a difference there is between ISO’s “Cat A” and “blue water”. And In the for what it’s worth department, the physical testing was done on hull “0”, my boat is hull 1473. Gerry Douglas said that even though I have the “Mk II” sugar scoop hull modification, the modifications had no material impact on the numbers. For those of you who say that going mast in in the open ocean isn’t a big deal, let me assure you it is a very big deal. I was racing on an Aerodyne 38 that went in. Not only is it really hard to hang on when the deck does past vertical, the righting moment is very sluggish at that angle and a swamped A1 will keep you down. No amount of wave action will bring you back without blowing the halyard and sheets. And yes, you can rip a Kevlar mainsail mid panel.

But what I would really like to get is the I, P, E, and J dimensions for the Outbound 46 (and sail square footage too). Sailboat Data doesn’t have them listed and I like to add the boat to my little database of ratios. Also, Arcb, can you confirm the displacement of the Fantasia 35?


----------



## john61ct

smackdaddy said:


> That exercise should be much more fun and productive than this.


I'm not sure that it will, but I completely agree that it should


----------



## colemj

GeorgeB said:


> But what I would really like to get is the I, P, E, and J dimensions for the Outbound 46 (and sail square footage too). Sailboat Data doesn't have them listed and I like to add the boat to my little database of ratios. Also, Arcb, can you confirm the displacement of the Fantasia 35?


Dimensions of Outbound 44/46 (phrf)

Sail area 1080sf as per Outbound website.

Mark


----------



## blt2ski

Arcb said:


> I thought I did just explain it. Here it is again.
> 
> (33)	In order to provide clear information about the acceptable operating environment of watercraft, the titles of the watercraft design categories* should only *be based on the essential environmental conditions for navigation, namely wind force and significant wave height. Four design categories, A, B, C and D, specify ranges of wind force and of significant wave height for the purpose of design with explanatory notes.


Arc,
Is this not way I mentioned a few pages back, IE don't worry about blue vs off shore vs whatever........get a boat designed to handle the sea/wind conditions one will be in.
That wind wave condition I mentioned for the straight of Juan de fuca occured Monday afternoon. Steady winds low 50's, gusts into 60's waves at or over 12-15', or about 4+ meters. Oh, this would be inshore sailing I believe, it is 30-40 miles across generally speaking.
I'd still prefer a cat a boat over a b. Reality is, some of us need more. It would be nice if the specs had sub categories if you will. Like
Cat A as is.
A.1 has the cabin entry door Rich mentioned and more interior hand holds.
A2 above plus higher lifelines, higher ave, tighter bulkhead specs....
A3 might add positive flotation
A4, highest rating, includes floating steady upside down if keel or lead torpedo is lost.......
This list is an example, debatable to Hell freezing over etc. Very few boats would make A4 out the door frankly! As it should IMHO! The highest % would be A, with fewer per rating, the higher the spec.

Marty


----------



## Arcb

Um. Yes Marty, absolutely you did. I'm not the one that went against the guidelines in section 33. I think you and I are in agreement. I quoted the regulations, beside the thread title, and smack again gave his definition of blue water as being every where, all oceans. The regs say not to do that. If he can do that, that means I can ignore AVS and height of down flooding rules and glue Cat A on my coleman canoe. If we can ignore one directive, we can ignore them all.

George, some of us just live in cold places, the northern Atlantic is just normal sailing for some of folks, in the same way as a sail to Catalina Island might be for you. It certainly falls under the definition of blue water and all oceans given by smack. I know in some Navies, green water is defined as that over the continental shelf, but if you want to call the trade route between Europe, Canada and the North East US green water, that's cool with me, as long as we're all on the same page.

My old Fantasia 35, that I bought as a live aboard and stout coastal cruiser? Sure, she was 24000 lbs, close enough any way. I no longer own the boat, another forum member bought her from me.


----------



## Don L

In my best William Shatner over acting imitation it say

I can’t read all this, Scotty beam me up!


----------



## outbound

Believe the boat used had a NE phrf of 90. There are a lot of faster boats now a days. Thank you for the doing the grunt work. Please pm me when done I’d like to see your complete analysis. 
I should mention most consider my boat to be a good mom and pop offshore cruiser but not anywhere near the pinnacle of hardcore voyagers. Perhaps looking at boats like Seal or the K&M 53 st or some of the more modern and current stuff coming out from NEB or NZ built for a steady diet of high latitude gales as their sailing program would demonstrate why Cat A is the floor. 
Phil has been building Outbounds for 15 years and still builds a couple a year. Still naval architecture has advanced since then. It’s niche is for a couple to cruise and live aboard safely. She’s good in weather, easy to run and none of the 60+ made to date aren’t still floating to my knowledge. Most turn big miles so it’s designed for durability and easy service but if I was going to chase storms and hurricanes I’d want a one off built for that purpose. Phil continues to refine the boat and is responsive to owners requests so each one is a bit different. When he sees a modification he likes he may include it as base in subsequent boats. Think he’ll be building Outbounds for years to come. Compared to comparable boats it has a favorable price point and meets the needs of its target market better than most everything out there.
Yes I love my boat but I’m not foolish enough to think it’s the best bwb, or is the pinnacle of modern design or is without its faults. Nor do I think there aren’t great bwbs in diverse sizes, styles, ages, prices. I do think Cat A is not the sole measure to use.


----------



## Arcb

George, if you are doing up a data base, I no longer have access to the GZ curve, because I sold a complete set of Bruce Bingham drawings with the boat, without making a copy (pretty dumb, I know).

However, these data points may or may not be useful for the data base. She had a capsize ratio of 1.53 and a motion comfort ratio of 50.99. unfortunately, I have no idea how to translate those figures, or even if they have a direct translation, I know hull form and weight distribution of non ballast items played a role in stability, not sure if these formulae can translate that sort of detail without detailed drawings or an inclining experiment. Kind of doubt it, for such an unique (by modern standards) boat. The best way I can describe the hull was more like a trawler hull than a sailboat.

Closest resemblance that I know of was to his smaller design- the Flicka, but still kind of different.


----------



## SV Siren

As a not so newbie, I just find it interesting that everyone assumes that a new to be sailor will be looking into ratings for boats, in part due to the fact that they are not aware these ratings exist, or their sailing grounds don't require it. My poor wife tried to read part of this thread, and she just could not go more than one page. Not to be negative, but it was hard for her to understand anything that was written on this thread..and I am sure she is not alone. Just my wife's $.02.

To pick every ones brain for just a moment, is there any database that contains maker/design ratings for boats, that is actually searchable, and current, even for older designs?? I am aware of the Sailboat Reviews of Offshore Cruising Yachts : Bluewaterboats.org page..etc, but I am referring to a global database for boats...


----------



## smackdaddy

Actually, the first post is all that's necessary to understand the gist of the thread (which has not changed)...along with the examples shown here and there. I totally understand how much of the tech speak might be a bit dry. But it's helpful. I'll always try to keep bringing things back out of the weeds to more practical applications. I think the Beneteau example will be good with some real-life meaning. I've gotten messages from some lurkers letting me know this is helpful - and even some very experienced sailors are saying they are learning a thing or two. And that's the point.


----------



## Arcb

Siren, sailboatdata.com has most of the key metrics that most real recreational sailors are interested in and very nearly every production sailboat out there.

If you observe the ballast/displacement ratio, beam, depth of keel, ballast type and sail area displacement ratio, that will tell you far more than an alpha numeric designation.

Your surveyor will be able to give you a realistic assessment of the boats current condition, which is far more relevant than what the boats condition was when it was sitting on the factory floor.


----------



## outbound

Seems this thread is aimed at folks who are newbies to long range ocean cruising. In talking with friends seems common scenario is male comes up with a short list and significant other picks one from that list. Seems it?s very rare folks looking to do this are buying their first boat. So they maybe they?re newbies to ocean sailing but not to sail boats. 

To save some coin when our boat was built allowed it to be in the east coast boat shows. It was very interesting and quite obvious who were the serious people. They would first spend considerable time on deck. Looking at the spaghetti . Sitting and standing in various spots in the cockpit. Walking around and checking it all out. Then down below peaking all around. The casual looker went straight below. Thei ones looking to buy questions were very specific. Details of components. How to go through sailing evolutions. Was she faster flat or rail down. Servicing. Most before looking at the boat seemed to have done a lot of research and were well familiar with the statistics. Of note I wasn?t asked once if she was cat A. 
So respectfully suggest you don?t give the buying public enough credit. Any boat. Be it a Bene or bounty from legendary yachts is a big purchase. People do do their due diligence.


----------



## Jeff_H

outbound said:


> Seems this thread is aimed at folks who are newbies to long range ocean cruising. In talking with friends seems common scenario is male comes up with a short list and significant other picks one from that list. Seems it?s very rare folks looking to do this are buying their first boat. So they maybe they?re newbies to ocean sailing but not to sail boats.
> 
> To save some coin when our boat was built allowed it to be in the east coast boat shows. It was very interesting and quite obvious who were the serious people. They would first spend considerable time on deck. Looking at the spaghetti . Sitting and standing in various spots in the cockpit. Walking around and checking it all out. Then down below peaking all around. The casual looker went straight below. Thei ones looking to buy questions were very specific. Details of components. How to go through sailing evolutions. Was she faster flat or rail down. Servicing. Most before looking at the boat seemed to have done a lot of research and were well familiar with the statistics. Of note I wasn?t asked once if she was cat A.
> So respectfully suggest you don?t give the buying public enough credit. Any boat. Be it a Bene or bounty from legendary yachts is a big purchase. People do do their due diligence.


I would add one caveat to that. There was an approximately 10-15 year period when every few weeks I would get a message saying words to the effect of "I am (we are) new to sailing and have decided to buy a boat that I(we) can live on and sail to (pick a choice: around the world, to the Caribbean, to Central Ameria, to Europe, everywhere). I (we) want to buy an 'X' footer and have 'Y' to spend. Please help me (us) pick a boat."

I probably helped something like 10-15 people through that process who actually made it out there, and exchanged emails with at least twice that many who either didn't or at least stopped asking my opinion.

Pretty much every one of those people wanted to buy a well used boat. Many had some list of options that they decided might work for them and so were asking about those specific boats. My standard advice was buy a smaller, cheap, production boat and sail the living daylights out of it. You will learn much of what you need a lot faster and cheaper. I would also recommend and organized process of defining then learning the skills that they needed to do this.

Most who actually made it 'out there' followed just that process. A few of those who bought smaller boats to learn on, kept those smaller boats and enjoyed sailing them where they lived or moved. Most graduated to their serious cruising boat after a few years, and would write again for my assistance.

When it came time to go seriously cruising, I don't think that any of these people bought new boats, and most did not buy boats that I would think of as 'purpose built cruising boats'. The exceptions to that were the people who bought a Norseman 447 (loved that boat), a Kelly Peterson 44/46, or a Whitby 42. Most bought boats that otherwise were pretty mid-volume production boats; Pearsons. Bristols, Ericson, J-boat, and the like.

Most went through some kind of a major refit including new standing and running rigging, steering systems, electronics, sails, engine refresh and so on. A few dropped their keels and checked keel bolts, or pulled and replaced their chain plates. Some of the smaller boats added windvanes and most added solar panels. And then just went sailing.

I don't recall any who took one of the extremely high volume production number boats, but that might in part reflect that they were looking to me for advice and so may reflect my advice which was to look for something more robust and which does not have hull liners.

And so, while you may be right that a lot of people gravitate to boats like the Outbound for serious cruising, From my small sampling, that seems to be a different crowd than I saw.

Jeff


----------



## smackdaddy

Again to provide some concrete evidence of why this thread is necessary in terms of a newb looking for a boat...

We've seen this question thousands and thousands of times...

*What's the best boat for sailing around the world?*

They don't ask about "blue water" or "coastal" (they don't even know what that means yet). Now, usually one of two things happens - either they are lectured on how little they know and how unprepared they are to leave the dock - or they insist they are actually going to do it regardless of naysayers and begin to get advice. And, as we know, that advice is all over the map and EXTREMELY confusing...precisely because it is so subjective - and often very outdated or just wrong.

Let's look at a couple of examples that have been brought up in this thread already. When the boat searching newb learns the term "blue water" she is often given the following links:

Sailboat Reviews of Offshore Cruising Yachts : Bluewaterboats.org

Mahina Expeditions - Selecting A Boat for Offshore Cruising

Now, if you have a look at the bluewaterboats.org site you'll see that the majority of the boats on that list are 40+ years old - and most are no longer made, and most have features that are definitely NEVER seen today on ANY boat. You'll also see the vaunted "blue water" Catalina 27, one of which I've owned...










I can categorically say that the Catalina 27 is a great boat, but I would NEVER recommend it for extended ocean passages where you might face up to F11 conditions.

Never. Ever. Ever.

But it's on this bluewaterboats.org list - along with freakin' Lord Nelsons, Roberts Tom Thumbs, etc.

Now, think about this for a moment - what does a newb do with this list? Apart from the Catalina 27 and the Jeanneau Gin Fizz 37 (neither of which, obviously, are Category A rated), there is not one single "modern" production boat manufacturer on this list. This is simply a list of past-era boats, a couple of which are still being made if you really wanted to buy one, the rest of which are seriously aging and outdated (and possibly dangerous). So this is one of the worst lists out there as far as I'm concerned (apart from Bob's boats of course which will always be on ANY list of great ocean boats out there).

The Mahina list is better and a bit more current. But again, there is not one single modern production boat on the list (apart from the multis, which I find hilarious)...










Now, many here will say that's because they don't qualify to BE on the "blue water" list. But the bottom line is that that is PURELY their opinion. And only represents a tiny, tiny cabal of people in the world of cruising. How do I know?

As I've already said, these lists simply do not reflect the reality of what's ACTUALLY going on out there in the ACTUAL ocean. They are seriously "head in the sand" lists...and therefore a disservice to newbs looking for good boats.

A MUCH better indicator of capable "blue water" boats is something like the ARC Rally entry lists (last year and this year)...

https://worldcruising.com/arc/arc_2017_evententries.aspx
https://worldcruising.com/arc/arc_2018_evententries.aspx










See how many of the boats from the bluewaterboats.org list you can find. If these are such great bluewater boats - where are they? Also, look how many modern production boats are sailing the exact same waters in the same conditions as the boats on the Mahina list, and ask yourself how that's possible with the typical advice you see on forums (and with the Mahina list itself)...

Bavaria
Beneteau
Jeanneau
Lagoon
Hanse
Hunter
etc.

They are *ALL* on *this* "blue water boats" list...even side by side with the Garcia 45 Exploration yacht (i.e. - a REAL "blue water" boat for sure).

Follow these boats as they do the ARC. See how many of them sink, or capsize, or leave their crews starving and without water/fuel, or how many are totaled from the stresses, etc. This is the proof in the pudding I was talking about earlier.

That's precisely why this thread is necessary. NONE of these boats are on those extremely myopic "blue water boats" lists that newbs are always pointed to. Why not? They are out there doing it. And they are certified to be doing it by a very solid and widely accepted *global* standard for boats in the ISO doc on which the Category A rating is based.

Back to the tiny cabal of naysayers...what do these purveyors of these lists know that the rest of the world doesn't? I think you know the answer to that.

So, are you as a newb ONLY going to listen to subjective opinion and buy a 40+ year old boat built by a long-defunct company (or a Catalina 27) because it's on some list you're given? Or are you going to look at facts and the reality of what's REALLY going on out there?

CE Cat A boats are unquestionably on this REAL blue water boat list.


----------



## gonecrusin

People sail everything everywhere, case in point......






But, you also have to watch for this.....






So it's kind of nice to have a boat that is a little more rugged and sea kindly. Most volume production boats are more lightly built with flatter bottoms and not as comfortable in sportier conditions. That is all that is being said here. YMMV


----------



## SV Siren

Arcb said:


> Siren, sailboatdata.com has most of the key metrics that most real recreational sailors are interested in and very nearly every production sailboat out there.
> 
> If you observe the ballast/displacement ratio, beam, depth of keel, ballast type and sail area displacement ratio, that will tell you far more than an alpha numeric designation.
> 
> Your surveyor will be able to give you a realistic assessment of the boats current condition, which is far more relevant than what the boats condition was when it was sitting on the factory floor.


Arcb, I totally agree with what you said here. I said somewhat newby, in referring to myself, but I started sailing at age 7...been around the Great Lakes on and off for 45 years, but have no where near the experience that many here seem to have.

My point, and with respect to those discussing on this post, is that newbies to sailing are not going to be asking about, or doing computations for formulas to determine righting moment, LPS/AVS, or STIX values....etc. If I were a total greenhorn, this thread, and others like it would turn me off, as it is so technical and subjective to opinions as it reads to me. I would look elsewhere that was less confusing, and do my research that way, which is what friends and myself did. Reading books, doing the legwork on sailboatdata, and the like. Everyone's discussion is impressive, and I will not begin to argue with you over mathematical formulas and how they are applied and interpreted. I will leave that to those who wish to discuss it... I will say there are definitely some posts that a total new to sailing greenhorn would understand, and those are the posts that are of more help to newbies in my eyes.

A comprehensive list of characteristics, or features that a BWB should, or might incorporate would be of better help in my mind than reading a brochure for XYZ boat company or trying to use very complicated formulas.

I have a heavy old crab crusher that is not that much of a dog, but it has chewed on more than its fair share of docks, and it has a righting moment of 139 degrees..LOL. It will never get to that point if I can help it.


----------



## GeorgeB

Arcb, Outbound, thanks for the data. I started my little database some fifteen years ago so I could “put some numbers to” the various boats I had been sailing or racing on. The numbers seemed to collaborate what I was experiencing so over the years I’ve added boats that interested me so now the Fantasia and Outbound are part of that august list. I pull my data points primarily from Sailboatdata.com. The formulas I think came from a SNAME paper but they do contain a fair number of constants and that is why I asked Jeff to work with me on a couple of the formulas. I have a lot of data from Catalina so using those check figures, I was able to “proof” my formulas. Right now, I am tracking the dimensional data and calculate the following formulas: Displacement to Length, Sail Area to Displacement, Hull Speed, Velocity Ratio, Ballast to Displacement Ratio, Capsize Risk and Comfort Factor. I’m trying to get the moment of inertia, Roll Period and stability Index to work. I also do the PHRF regression formula and the (old) Pacific Cup Rating as our Local OYRA is keeping portions of the new "downwind rating" secret and I have to factor in a “secret sauce” into it in order to match my check figures. 

As you know, the internet can be highly unreliable when researching numbers. For example, Outbound, the sail area you gave me is smaller than what I calculate from your rig dimensions (I get 1,143). So, the data from L36’s website is a little off. My calculated PHRF for you is 87 which is a little lower than your NE PHRF. I know that the C34’s over there gets a proportionally bigger allowance, but I don’t know exactly where in the formula they “tweak’ in order to compensate for the “light airs” in that region.

Arcb, I am trying to get my head around your displacement number. It results in a Disp/LWL ratio almost two times what the average ratio is. Needless to say, your “performance” ratios aren’t the greatest, but the capsize risk and comfort factor are some of the best in my database. Sailboatdata has your displacement at 22,000 which corresponds very well to your capsize risk number, and when I plug in your displacement, my calcs tie to your comfort factor so there is something else here. What is your ballast and draft?

I sought to make a “green water” exception because the vast, vast, number of “blue water sailors” sail in much lower latitudes. In addition to Catalina, I’ve also made landfall on a number of other islands such as Oahu, Taioha’e, Gran Canaria, and Grenada. So, I believe that my experience is much more typical of the “blue water” cruisers (or racers) reading this thread. If I can figure out how to post a table to the thread I’d be happy to share my numbers with you guys.


----------



## colemj

GeorgeB said:


> For example, Outbound, the sail area you gave me is smaller than what I calculate from your rig dimensions (I get 1,143). So, the data from L36's website is a little off.


Outbound's website lists the SA at 1080. Perhaps that is with a 100% jib and no roach main?

Mark


----------



## Lazerbrains

Bluewater boats on the Catalina 27: 

"We’ve included this boat here more for its popularity than its inherent seaworthiness......From the outset she was designed to be affordable (some have even said cheap) for weekend excursions, club racing and coastal cruising – offshore work was always outside of the design scope."


----------



## Jeff_H

GeorgeB said:


> The formulas I think came from a SNAME paper but they do contain a fair number of constants and that is why I asked Jeff to work with me on a couple of the formulas. I have a lot of data from Catalina so using those check figures, I was able to "proof" my formulas. Right now, I am tracking the dimensional data and calculate the following formulas: Displacement to Length, Sail Area to Displacement, Hull Speed, Velocity Ratio, Ballast to Displacement Ratio, Capsize Risk and Comfort Factor. I'm trying to get the moment of inertia, Roll Period and stability Index to work.


I am not sure what formulas you need assistance with but I would be glad to help any way that I can. If you are not familiar with the webpage Carl Adlers's Sail Calculator, it will calculate all of those items for you. and has a data base for a lot of boats. Sail Calculator Pro v3.54 - 3200+ boats

I will note that the Capsize Screen Ratio and Comfort Comfort Index, have been pretty much been discredited since they contain almost none of the factors that impact the likelihood of a capsize or or controls the motion comfort of the boat. Like most of these formulas developed before computers allowed accurate measurement, these were 'order of magnitude' formulas which only work when comparing very similar boats.

Items like moment of inertia, Roll Period and to a lesser extent the stability Index (STIX) are very complex to calculate. Moment of Inertia and Roll period required accurate documentation of all weights and buoyancy distributions in three axis and then crunching the numbers. Modern software can make those calculations if all of the data is has been included within the design process. These are not the kind of items that you can generate without have 3 dimensional drawings and complete weight tables for the boat in question.

And even if you had the data to calculate these items, it would not tell you much. These would be static calculations and what the research has been concluding is that dynamic factors (such as damping and the shifting of the roll axis with roll angle) can have an enormous impact on these types of calculations. At this point, we are just getting to a point where some of these dynamic factors can be computer modeled.



GeorgeB said:


> I also do the PHRF regression formula and the (old) Pacific Cup Rating as our Local OYRA is keeping portions of the new "downwind rating" secret and I have to factor in a "secret sauce" into it in order to match my check figures.


Schnell's PHRF Regression formula [610-8.36*(SA/disp^0.333)+0.000051*(SA^2)-55*(P/(J+E)-30.8*(LWL^0.5)-602*(Draft^2/SA)] only provides a very loose starting point for generating a PHRF rating. There are a whole bunch of up 3 seconds and down 3 seconds that happen between the formula and the final rating. Some of the factors are also adjusted for region such that sail area relative to displacement and keel types get more attention in light air regions.



GeorgeB said:


> As you know, the internet can be highly unreliable when researching numbers. For example, Outbound, the sail area you gave me is smaller than what I calculate from your rig dimensions (I get 1,143). So, the data from L36's website is a little off.


Sailboat Data shows the Outbound 44 as:
LOA: 44.75' / 13.64m	
LWL: 40.25' / 12.27m
Beam: 13.50' / 4.11m
Listed SA: 1083 ft2 / 100.61 m2
Displacement: 28000 lbs./ 12701 kgs.	
Ballast: 10000 lbs. / 4536 kgs.
Sail Area/Disp.1: 18.87	
Bal./Disp.: 35.71%	
Disp./Len.: 191.70

That seems right about what I would have expected. I am surprised that the NE regional PHRF is only 90. Given the long water line, moderate displacement, and decent SA/D that seems like a gift.



GeorgeB said:


> Arcb, I am trying to get my head around your displacement number. It results in a Disp/LWL ratio almost two times what the average ratio is. Needless to say, your "performance" ratios aren't the greatest, but the capsize risk and comfort factor are some of the best in my database. Sailboatdata has your displacement at 22,000 which corresponds very well to your capsize risk number, and when I plug in your displacement, my calcs tie to your comfort factor so there is something else here. What is your ballast and draft?


The numbers on the Fantasia 35 would suggest extremely low performance across the entire wind range. At least by the numbers it would make the Westsail 32 seem positively spritely. The thing that jumps out at me is the low Ballast to Displacement number and small SA/D. The low ballast number combined with very little initial stability, is that it would be hard to carry much sail in a stiff breeze, and that the small SA/d would suggest that it would be very difficult to carry enough sail to perform in light air.

LOA 34.50' / 10.52m	
LWL:  27.50' / 8.38m
Beam: 11.00' / 3.35m	
Listed SA: 610 ft2 / 56.67 m2
Draft (max.) 4.67' / 1.42m	Draft (min.) 
Displacement: 22000 lbs./ 9979 kgs.	
Ballast: 6500 lbs. / 2948 kgs.
Sail Area/Disp.1: 12.48	
Bal./Disp.: 29.54%	
Disp./Len.: 472.26

Boats like these do have their virtues even if performance isn't one of them.

Jeff


----------



## GeorgeB

Jeff, do you know of anyway to get behind the Sail Calculator forms and see the composition of his formulas? To make them work, both Carl and I have a series of constants buried within them. I want to see his (and where he got them from) so I can better model them and gain a better understanding of the physics behind them. I know that certain aspects of the moment of inertia calculation are pretty complex but it appears that in the formula I have there is a constant plugged in for the buoyancy calculation. I'm O.K. with using a templated version of the curve as for my purposes I'm looking predominately at fin keeled production boats and I'm O.K. with using a "Catalina" template (the verified data I have). 

I use the straight regression analysis to compute PHRF which matches the numbers in NorCal YRA's database for production boats very, very closely. NorCal YRA uses the straight formula without adjustments as their stated average wind speed for our area is 15 Kts (yeah, right). NE PHRF puts in a much larger adjustment for C34's (something like 154 v. the 147 here.) As committees move the numbers in 3 second increments, I suspect that are are also making a regression adjustment. Yes, there is a lot of politics involved, but it wouldn't be sailboat racing without them.

If you have a document or book that runs through the formulas, please send me the title. I'd like study this further. Too bad this controversy didn't spin up a couple of years ago. Work used to send me to Annapolis Junction all the time and we could have had some interesting discussions over a pint at AYC.


----------



## smackdaddy

GeorgeB said:


> Jeff, do you know of anyway to get behind the Sail Calculator forms and see the composition of his formulas? To make them work, both Carl and I have a series of constants buried within them. I want to see his (and where he got them from) so I can better model them and gain a better understanding of the physics behind them. I know that certain aspects of the moment of inertia calculation are pretty complex but it appears that in the formula I have there is a constant plugged in for the buoyancy calculation. I'm O.K. with using a templated version of the curve as for my purposes I'm looking predominately at fin keeled production boats and I'm O.K. with using a "Catalina" template (the verified data I have).
> 
> I use the straight regression analysis to compute PHRF which matches the numbers in NorCal YRA's database for production boats very, very closely. NorCal YRA uses the straight formula without adjustments as their stated average wind speed for our area is 15 Kts (yeah, right). NE PHRF puts in a much larger adjustment for C34's (something like 154 v. the 147 here.) As committees move the numbers in 3 second increments, I suspect that are are also making a regression adjustment. Yes, there is a lot of politics involved, but it wouldn't be sailboat racing without them.
> 
> If you have a document or book that runs through the formulas, please send me the title. I'd like study this further. Too bad this controversy didn't spin up a couple of years ago. Work used to send me to Annapolis Junction all the time and we could have had some interesting discussions over a pint at AYC.


George, just open that webpage in Chrome, etc. right-click on the page and select "View Source". The math (at least some of it) is there in this section:

// This is the function that computes the values


----------



## smackdaddy

Here are a couple of great videos from Sailing Zatara who sail a 2013 Beneteau Oceanis 55. Here is their first episode talking about their decision and the boat...






They left Florida a bit over a year ago (judging by the videos) and they are now in Samoa I believe.

Now, you'll remember that I found the manual for the 2015 Oceanis 55. So, we'll be able to evaluate some of the Cat A parameters of this boat via the manual, while you can also follow along on Zatara's adventures to see what this boat is actually doing out there. For example, in the above video you'll see that this appears to be the very shallow draft boat. And you can see the AVS numbers for that in the image from the manual that I posted earlier. So it will be interesting.

The other video is Renee from Zatara interviewing a few different women on different boats who are also out sailing blue water. Those women (and their others) have the following boats...

1973 Swan 44 (has been in the family since the '80s)
2013 Beneteau Oceanis 52 (plan to sell and get a catamaran)
1993 Beneteau Oceanis 400






Remember, these women are out there doing it. Listen to them.


----------



## Arcb

I was able to sit through the first few minutes of introductions.

All of those women said they had absolutely no previous sailing experience. 

However, with the possible exception of the lady on the swan, they all seemed to have pretty deep pockets. 

In this context, out there doing it seems to be; inexperienced, unemployed, wealthy, on a boat, in a tropical place.

I feel like the interview is incomplete without the two ladies who were rescued by the Navy after drifting around the Pacific for 6 months or whatever it was. They were out there doing it to.


----------



## gonecrusin

Arcb said:


> with the possible exception of the lady on the swan, they all seemed to have pretty deep pockets.
> 
> In this context, out there doing it seems to be; inexperienced, unemployed, wealthy, on a boat, in a tropical place.


I'm ok with the rich and inexperienced sailing tropical locations, they all seem to be having fun.

But here is the other end of the spectrum and I'm ok with this program too, they seem to be having fun too.






I think it's fine we discuss the merits of boats, all the plusses and minuses of design and construction, isn't that why we're here?

I'm uncomfortable discussing the sailors, regardless of their means or experience. Something about my upbringing, stones and glass houses... I wish all these sailors well.


----------



## Arcb

We'll agree to disagree, this thread, like all BWB threads has been the price of admission into an elite cruising club.

If you can't afford X boat, and you can't afford to not work, you're not really "out there doing it". This attitude is exactly why I don't post on that other forum.

So somebody posts a video saying listen to these people, they know and you don't because they meet X criteria (out there doing it) and you dont. 

My only interest in posting to these forums is promoting sailing to regular working folks, so when ever I see elitist non sense like this, I'll call it out, folks don't need to like me for it.


----------



## john61ct

Being automatically prejudiced against the wealthy seems to me pretty ironic in a boating context.

The vast majority of even the wealthiest countries' citizens could not even consider taking up any sort of recreational sailing.

And worldwide would even apply to a car, Clean drinking water, enough food and proper sanitation is out of reach for most.

From that perspective, even thinking about blue water, every one of us here is very privileged indeed.


----------



## Arcb

john61ct said:


> Being automatically prejudiced against the wealthy seems to me pretty ironic in a boating context.
> 
> The vast majority of even the wealthiest countries' citizens could not even consider taking up any sort of recreational sailing.
> 
> And worldwide would even apply to a car, Clean drinking water, enough food and proper sanitation is out of reach for most.
> 
> From that perspective, even thinking about blue water, every one of us here is very privileged indeed.


You missed the point entirely, there is no prejudice against wealth, I am just saying it's a poor substitute for knowledge and experience.

These people each admitted to being completely inexperienced.


----------



## gonecrusin

My point is and was; they are enjoying themselves on a white production boat, sailing, traveling and learning on blue water. Lack of experience isn't that big a deal anymore for two reasons, GPS and ATM's. Will people make mistakes? Yep. Will people lose their investment and possible life? Yep. But even the US Navy makes mistakes. Honestly, I admire the people who sell off, pack up the wife and kids and take off. I can't be critical of someone who wants a richer life experience for themselves and their family.

And before you get on me, I have a lot of miles, going back to when swinging an arc was how you found your position. I have very strong opinions about what a blue water boat should be able to withstand and have posted it in this thread. But what these folks are doing is fine, what they sail is fine, where they sail is fine, if they screw up and loose the boat, that's fine, if they want to post a vlog, that's fine. Some of these folks have money, some don't, that's fine. I honestly have a hard time with some of the negativism shown to new sailors on the forums, "buy a dinghy, take classes, spend years learning..." blah blah blah. 

Anyway, as Rodney once said, "can't we all get along".


----------



## Arcb

I don't think you are following what I am saying gonecruisin.

I don't have a problem with people sailing around in what ever they chose with whatever experience they have. That wasn't at all the point.

These ladies were interviewed, each one of them said something along the lines of, I have no previous sailing experience. I'm cool with that.

What I disagree with is somebody saying, listen to these people, they are out there doing it. There is a huge a blind leap of faith saying that because somebody is somewhere doing something, that they are expert voices on a topic, especially when they say they aren't.

This isn't me against the wealthy, I have a friend sailing around on a Saga 43, another on a Gozzard 41, and another on a very nice 110 foot wood schooner. It's the connection in logic, that because somebody is able to purchase a boat, and take years off work, that they are automatically experts on a given topic.

Some people engaged in this activity are experts, regardless of how many zeroes are in their bank account, some are intermediate, and some are beginner's. I refuse to accept that every person that is attempting a given activity is in a position to give expert advice.

And no, you've got the wrong guy if you think I'm going to harp on about sextants.


----------



## john61ct

Arcb said:


> I was able to sit through the first few minutes of introductions.
> 
> All of those women said they had absolutely no previous sailing experience.
> 
> However, with the possible exception of the lady on the swan, they all seemed to have pretty deep pockets.
> 
> In this context, out there doing it seems to be; inexperienced, unemployed, wealthy, on a boat, in a tropical place.
> 
> I feel like the interview is incomplete without the two ladies who were rescued by the Navy after drifting around the Pacific for 6 months or whatever it was. They were out there doing it to.





Arcb said:


> My only interest in posting to these forums is promoting sailing to regular working folks, so when ever I see elitist non sense like this, I'll call it out, folks don't need to like me for it.


Sorry that just doesn't jibe with the extreme judgmentalism and negativity both stated and implied in your posts.

Yes I agree that it would be a mistake to view the video as valuable for the topic of this thread.


----------



## guitarguy56

gonecrusin said:


> I honestly have a hard time with some of the negativism shown to new sailors on the forums, "buy a dinghy, take classes, spend years learning..." blah blah blah.
> 
> Anyway, as Rodney once said, "can't we all get along".





> So yeah, after spending a few weeks on board, it was only then I realised how very little Riley actually knew about sailing. I laughed when he told me he had bought the yacht initially having no clue of 'how to sail'. Turns out this was in fact very true! But I was happy to learn with him, make the mistakes and work with him in trying to figure things out.
> 
> Little did I know, after a year and a half later we would end up sailing thousands of miles together, across an entire ocean, and be on an adventure I for one never thought even in my wildest dreams would come my way. It hasn't been easy, it isn't ALL beautiful sunsets and perfect sails. We have had some pretty wild times out at sea and had a lot to deal with in making a relationship work whilst learning to sail AND trying to get La Vaga around the world&#8230; I would imagine having a yacht would be similar to having a pet, or maybe a child. It requires a lot of our attention, time and money.


A Not So Brief Bio ? Elay | Sailing La Vagabonde

Their boat a 2007 Beneteau Cyclades with 1400 hours on the engine

How I Bought The Yacht and Afford to Sail | Sailing La Vagabonde

It is amazing that these two newbies bought this vessel and no modifications to strenghten the boat or any real upgrades and YET made the passages in BW like no other having sailed the MED, Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, South America, through the Panama Canal, the Pacific Ocean, and then to the South Seas of New Zealand and on. Now they get to redo the voyage on their CE Cat A Rated Outremer Catamaran... oh by the way their Benetau was a CE Rated Cat A8/B9 boat as well.

http://www.beneteau.com/sites/default/files/public/Produit/PDF/Gamme_cyclades_2007_en_0.pdf


----------



## gonecrusin

Arcb said:


> I don't think you are following what I am saying gonecruisin.
> 
> I don't have a problem with people sailing around in what ever they chose with whatever experience they have. That wasn't at all the point.
> 
> These ladies were interviewed, each one of them said something along the lines of, I have no previous sailing experience. I'm cool with that.
> 
> What I disagree with is somebody saying, listen to these people, they are out there doing it. There is a huge a blind leap of faith saying that because somebody is somewhere doing something, that they are expert voices on a topic, especially when they say they aren't.
> 
> This isn't me against the wealthy, I have a friend sailing around on a Saga 43, another on a Gozzard 41, and another on a very nice 110 foot wood schooner. It's the connection in logic, that because somebody is able to purchase a boat, and take years off work, that they are automatically experts on a given topic.
> 
> Some people engaged in this activity are experts, regardless of how many zeroes are in their bank account, some are intermediate, and some are beginner's. I refuse to accept that every person that is attempting a given activity is in a position to give expert advice.
> 
> And no, you've got the wrong guy if you think I'm going to harp on about sextants.


These vlogs aren't, IMO, anything more than entertainment. I don't see them proclaiming to be an expert on anything relating to sailing, they're just folks who took a chance and went sailing. Unless maybe I missed the vlog where they broke out the Bowditch and preached expert navigation?


----------



## Arcb

No gonecruisin, the people in the blog didn't say that they were experts a poster here said that.

Any way, I'm done, I'll wait for the replay of this thread on YouTube.

Bet I can guess who the "chuckle head will be this time".


----------



## smackdaddy

Arcb said:


> These ladies were interviewed, each one of them said something along the lines of, I have no previous sailing experience. I'm cool with that.


This goes back to why these videos fit this thread. This is precisely what the Cat A standard is for. You don't have to be a Naval Architect or Master Mariner to understand what a particular boat can and can't do. These people are using these boats exactly as certified by the Cat A standard, and they are doing great...despite what the blue water crowd usually has to say.

So, these videos make it crystal clear that not only are these boats fit for blue water - they are robust and capable enough to cover the typical sins of the newbie in that very blue water. In other words, THEY ARE the experts at being a newbie with a Cat A blue water boat. And you should listen to them.

We talked earlier about scary AVS numbers. That may or may not be true on paper - but these Cat A production boats with these newbs are doing great sailing around the world in the conditions mot anyone will face in doing so - and they are doing it safely.

Regardless of what is said in any forum - THAT should be the takeaway of these videos and this thread.


----------



## Lazerbrains

This guy Rimas is "out there doing it" too.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...rift-in-sailboat-and-its-not-his-first-rescue


----------



## gonecrusin

smackdaddy said:


> This goes back to why these videos fit this thread. This is precisely what the Cat A standard is for. You don't have to be a Naval Architect or Master Mariner to understand what a particular boat can and can't do. These people are using these boats exactly as certified by the Cat A standard, and they are doing great...despite what the blue water crowd usually has to say.
> 
> So, these videos make it crystal clear that not only are these boats fit for blue water - they are robust and capable enough to cover the typical sins of the newbie in that very blue water. In other words, THEY ARE the experts at being a newbie with a Cat A blue water boat. *And you should listen to them*.
> 
> We talked earlier about scary AVS numbers. That may or may not be true on paper - but these Cat A production boats with these newbs are doing great sailing around the world in the conditions mot anyone will face in doing so - and they are doing it safely.
> 
> Regardless of what is said in any forum - THAT should be the takeaway of these videos and this thread.


The red highlighted part is a no go. I'm happy they are having fun and I hope they have a safe voyage but they lack the experience to lecture me or other highly experienced sailors. So while I enjoy some of the vlogs for entertainment, I don't "listen to them".


----------



## smackdaddy

I stated that very carefully gc. As newbs - what do they know and not know? What are they afraid of and not afraid of? And how does the reality of all that fit with the "blue water debate" we've had in this and other threads regarding newbs picking boats to go sailing?

Their expertise lies in *actually* taking these Cat A production boats (both new and used) deep into blue water and a good way around the world - something almost no one criticizing these production boats on forums has EVER done. And you can clearly see how those boats (and their owners) are holding up as they do it. Plenty of evidence for each step of the way.

So, again, it comes back to the boats. Do these production boats live up to their Cat A designation in true blue water sailing? I think the answer to that is crystal clear. From there - it's just down to nitpicking.

PS - I actually think what these videos show more than anything is that mutlihulls are becoming more and more attractive to experienced sailors. Monos could be on the tipping point here.


----------



## Jeff_H

GeorgeB said:


> Jeff, do you know of anyway to get behind the Sail Calculator forms and see the composition of his formulas? To make them work, both Carl and I have a series of constants buried within them. I want to see his (and where he got them from) so I can better model them and gain a better understanding of the physics behind them. I know that certain aspects of the moment of inertia calculation are pretty complex but it appears that in the formula I have there is a constant plugged in for the buoyancy calculation.


Carl used to publish all his formulas on the page. There is a box that pops up when you scroll across the boxes with the calculated values that explained what those values mean and used to include the formulas. The explanations are still there but not the formulas. Most of the formulas are standard in the yacht design industry and can be found in almost any decent quality yacht design text. Some are uniquely Carl's. Most of these formulas are intended to be 'non-dimensional', and so have compensators to allow boats of different sizes to be compared. The constants are mostly unit conversions. 
Displacement to LWL L = DLT ÷ (0.01 x LWL)³ (where DLT is the Displacement in raceboat 'lightship' measurement with no extraneous gear or fluids in the tanks, and LWL is the waterline length at that displacement. The displacement used is in long tons (2,240 pounds) ) 
Hull Speed= 1.34 x the square root of the LWL
Sail Area to Displacement= SA ÷ DCF↑.667 (Sail-area in square feet (SA) divided by displacement in cubic feet taken to the two-thirds power (SA/D ratio = SA ÷ DCF↑.667) (To calculate the displacement in cubic feet the displacement of the boat in pounds is divided by the weight of a cubic foot of seawater (64.2 lbs./cu.ft), which is generally rounded to 64 lbs.)	
LWL to Beam- LWL/B (The waterline length from above divided by the maximum beam measured at the deck line. This does not tell you a whole lot since it does not describe the percentage of the length boat that is at that or near that beam or the waterline beam, the combination of which is provides a lot more useful information.)
Motion Comfort Ratio= D ÷ (.65 x (.7 LWL + .3 LOA) x Beam to the 1.33 power) (Displacement is expressed in pounds, and length is expressed in feet. This is a totally debunked formula which contains almost none of the major factors controlling motion comfort and so provides no useful information about motion comfort) 
Capsize Screen Formula= Beam / (Displacement/64.2) (Again this is a largely discredited formula in that it also does not contain any of the major factors controlling the likelihood of a capsize. It was generated in the wake of the Fastnet based on IOR typeform boats where maximum beam occurred over a small percentage of the boat, where there was a lot of flare to the topsides, and comparatively low ballast numbers. Later studies have shown that beam can reduce the likelihood of a capsize (even waves) when coupled with minimal flare, which is counter to this formula. The issue of beam is complex one because in large breaking waves, the side of the wave that can capsize a boat is proportional to the beam with more beam requiring a larger wave to overturn the vessel, but a boat of equal freeboard to a narrower boat but wider beam, will dip the deck edge at a flatter heel angle. It is thought that as a boats hits a high heel angle in steep waves the boat is sliding on its topsides and can build comparatively high velocities to leeward. Dipping a deck in the water can slow that velocity and cause the boat to 'trip', adding to the heel angle and likelihood of a capsize. Flare comes into play because a boat with more flare will float with more of its deck in the water (since there is less displacement between the deck and the waterline when heeled steeply) and so is more prone to capsize.)

Sailing Category= This is made up by Carl and is pretty useless. I think its a combination of the D/L and the SA/D but I don't really know where it comes from. 
Pounds/Inch Immersion= (2/3 x LWL x Beam x 64)/ 12 (I think that this is another of Carl's formulas. It really is only an extremely crude estimate and has no real utility. 
Ballast ratio= (Weight of ballast/ displacement)x100 (This typically uses the light boat displacement but many cruising boat designers prefer to use a partial load number which is what was historically done)



GeorgeB said:


> If you have a document or book that runs through the formulas, please send me the title. I'd like study this further. Too bad this controversy didn't spin up a couple of years ago. Work used to send me to Annapolis Junction all the time and we could have had some interesting discussions over a pint at AYC.


If you get anywhere near Maryland, please let me know. I would enjoy meeting you. (Annapolis Junction as in the NSA, Anti-cyber-warfare group, or Fort Meade?)

Jeff


----------



## smackdaddy

Jeff & George - that's what I was saying earlier about the "view source" on that page. If you look at the source of the page on line 78, here is the first section of the math that is driving those calculations...



> // This is the function that computes the values
> 
> function computeValues(i) **
> 
> displacementToLWL_ = (displacement/2240.)/Math.pow((LWL*.01),3)
> 
> speed = Math.sqrt(LWL)*1.34
> 
> sailAreaToDisplacement = sailArea/Math.pow((displacement/64.),(2./3.))
> 
> LWLToBeam = LWL/beam
> 
> motionComfort = displacement/((.7*LWL+.3*LOA)*.65*Math.pow(beam,(4./3.)))
> 
> capsizeRatio = beam/Math.pow((displacement/64.),(1./3.))
> 
> PPI = 3.57311*LWL*beam
> 
> if(sailAreaToDisplacement<18.) **
> 
> if(displacementToLWL<235.) {category="cruiser/racer"}
> 
> else {category = "cruiser"}
> 
> }
> 
> else **
> 
> if(displacementToLWL<235.) {category="racer"}
> 
> else {category="racer/cruiser"}
> 
> }
> 
> }
> _


_

Jeff, you can see how that code lines up with your formulae above. There are also lots of If/then functions in Sections 3 and 4 (starting at line 29873), that drive the results._


----------



## smackdaddy

Okay - to illustrate why the premise of this thread is exactly right, we have a couple of very detailed examples of pretty "clueless newbs" unquestionably taking Cat A rated production boats into very "blue water". In other words, if the skipper is not the qualifying factor in "blue water" safety (as we all know is the most critical factor) - *then the boat certainly needs to be able to take up that slack*.

So, have the boats in these examples proven safe and durable in actual "blue water" cruising as we've discussed? Let's see...

First, there is the well-known SV La Vagabond example of newbs taking a mid-2000s Beneteau Cyclades 43 from the Med to Australia. You can see some of the work done prior to crossing the Atlantic (e.g. - beefing up the rudder support structure that was also a contributing factor to another Beneteau rudder system failure - though there was a lot more going on with that particular boat). In any case, you can easily follow how La Vagabonde performed in all kinds of conditions as that production boat crossed two oceans and sailed most of the way around the world.

Another great example is this YouTube channel: Sailing Zatara. As you can see in the early videos, these guys knew nothing about sailing when they bought this Beneteau Oceanis 55 in Florida and started their circumnavigation. You can see by their channel that they are now in the South Pacific - and you can follow along in the videos to see everything they've experienced all along the way - as well as how the boat has performed.

Now, since I have the Oceanis 55 manual, I'm going to put together a video running through the various criticisms of the Cat A standards and production boats we've seen in this thread and elsewhere - and analyze them using this BO55 as the real-world example. I'll also compare the BO55 in these areas with a couple of other traditional "blue water" boats such as Oyster and HR.

I think what you'll see is that, as you probably already know, much of the forum blowback against "CE Category A Production Boats BEING Blue Water Boats" is seriously misguided when compared to what's really going on out there. There really is just no argument on this stuff anymore.

In the mean time, a couple of things for you to look into...

First, I invite you to look at two instances where lots of different boats cruise the same stretch of "blue water". First, there is the *ARC Rally Entry List*. This is one is a true ocean crossing. So it's the real deal without question. Then there is the *SDR Participant List* which some might qualify as "coastal" - but they themselves qualify it as a "blue water passage".

Now, compare all these boats on these lists that are ACTUALLY OUT THERE DOING IT - with what you see on these well-worn lists that always come up in "blue water boat" discussions:

*[URL="http://bluewaterboats.org/about/index/]bluewaterboats.org[/URL]*
(Do you see any Albergs, Aldens, Contessas, Cabo Ricos, Contessas, Hans Christians, Hudson Forces, Island Packets, Pearsons, Westsails...in these rallies?) If this particular list is such a great "blue water boat" list - why aren't any of these boats out there in blue water with all these others?

-or this very popular list...

*Mahina Expeditions - Selecting A Boat for Offshore Cruising*
(Same with the above on the old antiques - but looking at the rest of the boats listed this is obviously a very, very myopic view of boats when you look at the entries for the ARC, etc.)

So, take the time to compare these lists. You'll see that the blue water mindset, criticism, and advice does not at all match the reality of what's going on out there in the REAL ocean. I'm certainly not saying those lists are without value (though the bluewaterboats.org list is really nothing more than an antique boats list at this point). But both are undeniably very outdated and significantly limited. Ask yourself why that is?

Finally, on the question of "dangerous" brass valves discussed earlier - Beneteau clearly addresses this in their manual.










Sure, Yard Guys and Surveyors may insist that 100-year valves is the ONLY way it should be done - but that certainly doesn't mean that mindset makes any sense whatsoever in the real world when looking at the *whole value package *of a boat.

So, stay tuned. I'll get to it soon....ish.


----------



## aeventyr60

Five years ain't squat..on an underwater fitting, geez how much lower do the standards get?


----------



## aeventyr60

For those future newbie blue water sailors, take a look at the New Zealand Cat 1 offshore requirements for pleasure vessels here:

https://www.yachtingnz.org.nz/sites/yachtingnz/files/YNZ Safety Regulations 1316 FINAL Revised.pdf

I'd bet my hatottle of single malt that not a single one of the current sailors's boats here would pass. Most would not have the requisite experience either. So forget about all that CE standard ****e. This is the real deal, for real bluewater.


----------



## john61ct

Again, when choosing a new Euro boat, Cat A may be well be a good starting point when new. 

But still needs proper fitting out before heading for the blue, and the human side remains the most critical element.

You can't just hand-wave away significant mods to the rudder! 

Call the standards necessary but not sufficient.


----------



## smackdaddy

aeventyr60 said:


> For those future newbie blue water sailors, take a look at the New Zealand Cat 1 offshore requirements for pleasure vessels here:
> 
> https://www.yachtingnz.org.nz/sites/yachtingnz/files/YNZ Safety Regulations 1316 FINAL Revised.pdf
> 
> I'd bet my hatottle of single malt that not a single one of the current sailors's boats here would pass. Most would not have the requisite experience either. So forget about all that CE standard ****e. This is the real deal, for real bluewater.


Aev, this doc looks like it's essentially the same as the ISAF OSR regulations we were talking about earlier.










And we've already shown that regarding stability, the CE Cat A standard *is the first and highest standard to be met* to qualify for Cat 0 trans-oceanic racing (again, the *highest* standard in the OSR *and* this NZ doc).










The Beneteau Oceanis 55 easily surpasses this STIX value shown in your doc.










So, with this and its Cat A rating, the Oceanis 55 would easily qualify for these NZ standards (just as with the OSR's) in terms of stability for the highest *Cat 0 rating*, much less Cat 1.

Now, just like the OSR there are LOTS of other things that would need to checked for full compliance with these Cat 0 or Cat 1 ratings in the NZ docs (e.g. - lifelines, safety equipment, sail inventory, liferaft, SOLAS stuff, drogues, drysuits, etc.). But most of this is stuff outside the critical design and build features of the boat which is what we're evaluating here.

Again, remember, you're talking the top-level trans-oceanic racing regulations here. The most rigorous regulations there are for being offshore. And you obviously have a lot of respect for them. So read them and you'll see that CE Cat A is definitely no joke.

It's cool that NZ uses these ultra-high standards. It's even cooler that these Cat A production boats STILL measure up in the most critical areas even at this level. Do you really think that a Cabo Rico, or Hans Christian, or Moody, or Island Packet, or Westsail is going to meet these NZ/OSR standards?

Let's be real - those "blue water boats" are FAR more suited to this from your document...










So, yeah, like I've been saying - these modern production boats are the real deal for real blue water - and those old lists just really need to fade away. It certainly appears that most of the world already knows this.


----------



## hellosailor

I expect that NZ sets high standards because they don't care to spend a lot of money on a "Coast Guard" SAR program, and there's lots of empty and not necessarily beneficent ocean around the islands. There is something to be said about that approach, making sailors pay for their own safety.

On Beneteau and others with cheapass thruhulls...What's the up front cost difference between ten proper bronze ones, and ten disposable brass ones? (Which probably still cost more than genuine Marelon ones would.) Now, what's the cost of removing the brass crap and replacing it with all new brass, or bronze, or Marelon, five years down the line? And repeating that every five years, conveniently or not?

That would really put a bad taste in my mouth. Like a Midas muffler, or brakes, with free replacements for life. Free, that is, as long as you come back in and pay for all their labor, which ain't really cheap. (And like a brass thruhull, arguably not a good product to begin with.)

A half dozen, a dozen, a hundred newbs cross the oceans and their "rated" boats have been all they needed, sure. And now, someone please remind me whether the Titanic was blue-water rated, among the most highly rated ships of her time. Anyone think LUCK may have more to do with passages than skill sometimes?


----------



## smackdaddy

It can't be luck with this many production boats out there in blue water. That's the whole point of this thread. Those arguments just don't work any more. Did you count the production boats in the ARC and SDR lists? And this is just two rallies.

As for New Zealand, I already posted an article above that showed, even 10 years ago, that Bavaria was the leading production boat brand in NZ.

Now another is talking about the value of these production boats for that not necessarily beneficent ocean around the islands.



> Trade Me this week had 1090 yachts for sale. The nation's keeler fleet is about 6000 boats, many 20 to 30 years old.
> 
> Another sailor said his yacht "sucks money" but no one wanted to buy it so he was trapped with it.
> 
> Menzies said anyone thinking the time was right for a bargain might be right but warned that fixing an old boat isn't cheap. "They are full of osmosis, stuffed engines, original wiring and when you add it all up I just say to people, '[the seller] should just give you the boat'. They get to the stage where they are worth nothing."
> 
> Bird doesn't solely blame pox for the ebbing market, with the high kiwi dollar also playing a role.
> 
> She says a new imported 12-metre Bavaria 41 keeler can be purchased for $325,000 with extras. Similar-sized New Zealand second-hand boats are going for $270,000, and "they're old boats with old issues", she said.


Brass valves are easy to replace if it bothers you that much. And you can use whatever you'd like and STILL come out WAY ahead of many of these "traditional" boats.


----------



## aeventyr60

Those boats won't be leaving NZ for the Islands dude..the inspectors are not stupid.....might be the most popular for coastal cruising and sitting in the marina for most of their lives, with owners that can't afford to keep them up to offshore bluewater standards..

You kinda forgot about the part of the "Trysail sail on an independent track"...just a small offshore detail...

Hey, how about the experience part? Would you qualify? The inspectors don't like dick wads either...


----------



## smackdaddy

Aev...I'm not really interested in dissecting this NZ document in detail. As I said, it's very similar to the ISAF OSR regs we've already discussed...and draws a somewhat confusing line between racing and cruising. But I do know that when it comes to the lofty stability and construction standards that boats need to meet for these NZ regulations, the doc is pretty damn clear...










...and that's all I'm saying.

Stay tuned for the vid.


----------



## Lazerbrains

I like tools. 

It has been my experience that there are two types of people who purchase tools: those who consider carefully different tool brands, durability, longevity, safety, and features of said tool - and then buy the "best tool for the job". Then there is another type, whose primary concern is price - they will rate all the competing tools on price, buy the cheapest one, and then congratulate themselves on how they got a "better deal". The former prides himself on his fine tools; the latter tries to get others to reaffirm his belief that his tools are "just as good", when in reality they may break easier, not be made as well, nor have the right features to get the job done. I frankly don't believe many people looking for a "bluewater boat" specifically seek out a used 1980s Hunter to go offshore cruising. I do, however, believe some people find a used 1980s Hunter, and then try to convince themselves it is a "bluewater boat".


----------



## ScottUK

smackdaddy said:


> As for New Zealand, I already posted an article above that showed, even 10 years ago, that Bavaria was the leading production boat brand in NZ.


This could only be true if using a skewed definition of leading, production boat and NZ. I have sailed extensively in NZ including racing on average 3 days a week and cruising on my on boat for up to 5 months at a time. I do not remember once seeing a Bavaria out on the water not that I was looking for them and I am sure there are a few knocking about. I have seen many Bavarias in the Med and have even sailed one in Croatia so I think I could recognize one if I saw it. The "article" you have linked to is an advertisement.

The other link in your post referring to the old boats on Trademe seems to also have an agenda. I auctioned my boat on Trademe the same year it was published. I got about 85% of my purchase price despite not making it available for viewing since I was out cruising until the day before I turned the boat over to the new owner. I would have likely got a better price would I have done so. I do not recall a depressed market at the time as alluded to in the publication. A friend also bought and sold a boat during this period as I recall they were both close to the asking price.

A friend of mine sailed a Bavaria across the Atlantic and told me a bulkhead had shifted dramatically during the crossing.


----------



## outbound

So we’re down to case reports. In my prior profession case reports were viewed as of interest and suggested need for further study but not proof of anything. Smackie resorting to this tactic shows the weakness of his argument and lack of understanding of the bell shaped curve. 
Posters here can give innumerable examples of the other end of this curve, that too proves nothing. If you want to tit for tat here are a few more.
Recent Hunter that due to nature of engine installation and anti siphon valve needed total replacement of the engine due to hydro locking.
BO55 which after passage from SF to Road Town was so tired that owner tried to sell it. Boat was brand new and this was its first passage. No extreme weather seen although that particular passage is admittedly trying on a boat. Boat didn’t sell so was put on a ship and brought to the med in attempt to sell it there.
Posters have spoken to the actual service life of various components of “production boats “ but not of the vessel it self. Friends own a mid 50s Jeanneau. It’s done more than 10 passages from Hampton to BVI and more than 10 back to Bristol. She has served them well. But I’ve been on 20+Year old HRs, Hinckleys, Valiants Cherubinis and other stick built boats which do have dings in the sole ( not laminate so sandable) and evidence of wear but other than sails,running gear and plotters are still elegant in appearance with their original OEM parts and doing strenuous passages.
With laminates v. solid wood or thick sandable Corian v. thin no name coverings or bronze v. brass or proper tinned heavy gage wire in protected accessible runs with proper shrink wrapped marine connectors v. inaccessible wiring just meeting a low standard or so many other things that differentiate a proper yacht from a generic white boat the whole premise of this and Smacks prior thread is ridiculous.
Again it all depends on how you define bwb. If you mean a boat regardless of age if given standard maintenance (oil changes, replace lines, renew rigging etc.) you can step on and do a passage or do you mean a vessel that when bought can do a passage? Do you mean a boat that will forgive your mistakes ( groundings, unintentional gybes incorrectly tuned rigs etc.) or a boat where errors are immediately with significant consequences. A boat that can be repetitively brought back to boatshow condition or will show its wrinkles and age. 
There have been huge advances in material science. Adhensives, plastics and metallurgy. Current boats are as safe if not safer than the designs meant for wood construction and transferred to grp which some still hold as the “true “ Bwb”. Just like current smart phones are better than flip phones or computerized cars better than naturally aspirated carborated cars there is a price to pay. As complexities increase ease of service decreases. As dependence on one and done engineering ( liners, adhensives etc.) economically reasonable service life decreases. You don’t fix your smartphone you get another one. Even early hulls if properly done had a service life of 100 yrs. in some navy funded studies so don’t believe current hulls will fail. Rather it’s how much you want to worry about. Is this an heirloom boat or a consumable. I get on my boat I worry about the things I screwed up. I don’t worry about the boat.


----------



## Jeff_H

It is once again time to allow this poor dead horse to be buried once and for all and allowed to rest in peace. This thread is now clsoed.

There was a reason that the original dead horse Production Boat thread was closed and this had wandered into that same infertile manure filled pasture. 

Again, a new thread on this topic may only be started if there is new information (and that means information which has just become available) on this issue. Rehashing the same old stuff with yet another anecdote or cut and paste, does not constitute anything new. 

Jeff_H
SailNet Moderator


----------

